Council Public Meeting - Tuesday, April 29, 2025 - 7:00 p.m. - City of Richmond Hill

Summary

The Council Public Meeting on April 29, 2025, was held by the City of Richmond Hill, focusing on three key zoning and development applications. Key discussions revolved around zoning bylaw amendments for 44 and 46 Bond Crescent, high-density residential development at various locations along Elgin Mills Road, and a contentious proposal for increased building height on Bay View Avenue. These applications prompted extensive feedback from city staff, council members, and residents, particularly concerning environmental impact, infrastructure strain, and community character preservation.

Highlights

• Residents expressed concerns about increased traffic and infrastructure strain due to proposed developments. 🚗
• The environmental impact of construction near wetlands was a major talking point. 🌿
• Council deliberated on the balance between housing needs and preserving community character. 🏘️
• Developers face challenges making projects economically viable amidst market changes. 💼
• The council urged for more public engagement and transparency in the planning process. 🗣️

Key Takeaways

• Community involvement is crucial in shaping local developments. 🏘️
• Preserving neighborhood character remains a top priority for many residents. 🏘️
• Environmental concerns dominate discussions on developments near wetlands. 🌿
• Traffic and infrastructure capacity are recurring concerns in high-density proposals. 🚦
• The economic viability of housing projects is increasingly challenging developers. 💼

Overview

The Council Public Meeting in Richmond Hill tackled several key development proposals, reflecting the city's growth challenges. The proposed zoning bylaw amendment for 44 and 46 Bond Crescent aimed at increasing residential lots. Residents and council discussed concerns about preserving neighborhood fabric and managing increased traffic.

The session also delved into the Elgin Mills Road project, where high-density residential plans sparked discussions on traffic congestion and neighborhood compatibility. Residents highlighted their worries about infrastructural load and environmental disruptions, especially considering existing local conditions.

A significant part of the meeting was dedicated to a proposal on Bay View Avenue that sought increased building height, raising environmental sustainability questions. The council and public deliberated on how to balance the pressing need for new housing with the obligation to protect Richmond Hill's natural landscapes.

Chapters

• 00:00 - 01:00: Opening and Procedural Items The chapter starts with the opening of the council public meeting held on Tuesday, April 29th. The speaker welcomes the attendees and reads a mandatory poem, emphasizing the need for public participation in oral or written form.
• 01:00 - 06:30: Zoning Bylaw Amendment for Bond Crescent The chapter discusses the procedures and implications related to a zoning bylaw amendment for Bond Crescent in Richmond Hill. It specifies that individuals or public bodies who have not formally registered their intent or provided input prior to a decision by the city council cannot appeal the decision to the Ontario Land Tribunal. They may only be added to the appeal process if the tribunal finds sufficient grounds. The meeting was called to order with a motion to adopt the agenda.
• 06:30 - 15:54: High Density Residential Proposal on Elgen Mills Road West The chapter discusses a high-density residential proposal on Elgen Mills Road West. During a council meeting, Councillor Tree and Councillor Davidson, among others, attend and vote on various matters. No conflicts of interest are reported. The meeting anticipates three agenda items, with the first being a request concerning a zoning bylaw amendment for 44 and 46 Bond Crescent.
• 15:54 - 24:05: Bay View Avenue Development Proposal The chapter titled 'Bay View Avenue Development Proposal' discusses a proposed zoning bylaw amendment application presented by Jeppi Russo, the staff planner. The proposal involves the development of five residential lots on the properties known municipally as 44 and 46 Bond. The details were presented at a council meeting attended by Mayor West, council members, and the public.

Council Public Meeting - Tuesday, April 29, 2025 - 7:00 p.m. - City of Richmond Hill Transcription

• 00:00 - 00:30 Okay. Uh, welcome everybody to the council public meeting for Tuesday, April the 29th. Uh, I've got to read this little poem before we begin. uh if a person, public body, or specified person does not make oral submissions at a public meeting or make written submissions to the city of
• 00:30 - 01:00 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 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. Okay. So, that being said, I'd like to call this meeting to order. Uh, and I need first of all um motion to adopt the
• 01:00 - 01:30 agenda. Councelor Tree, Councelor Davidson, all those in favor? That carries. Uh, disclosures of pecunary interest or the general nature thereof. Nobody's pecuniary interested. That's good. Uh, next is the the we have three items tonight. Uh so we'll deal deal with them in order. The first item is um request for comment zoning bylaw amendment for 44 and 46 bond crescent
• 01:30 - 02:00 and the uh our staff planner is Jeppi Russo. So Mr. Russo, if you can come and give us the the details. Thank you. Good evening, Mayor West, members of council, and the public. The first item tonight involves a submission of a proposed zoning bylaw amendment application to permit a residential development to be comprised of five residential lots on the lands municipally known as 44 and 46 Bond
• 02:00 - 02:30 Crescent. The subject lands are located on the north side of Bond Crest at the easterly limit of Wellspring Avenue and are comprised of two existing residential lots. The lands have a combined frontage of approximately 37.8 m along Bond Crescent, a lot depth of 12 29 meters, and a total lot area of approximately 1.2 acres. The two single detached dwellings fronting onto Bond
• 02:30 - 03:00 Crescent are proposed to be retained. The surrounding land uses include a mix of residential and commercial uses to the north, fronting onto King Road, and existing single detached dwellings to the east, south, and west. The subject lands are designated neighborhood in accordance with the city's official plan. The neighbor neighborhood designation permits low density residential uses, commercial uses, community uses among others subject to the policies of the official
• 03:00 - 03:30 plan. With respect to lowdensity residential uses, the official plan permits permits single detached dwellings. The lands are located within a priority infill area, specifically the approved bond crescent infill study which envisions the subject lands as low density residential. The subject lands are currently dual zoned. A portion of the subject lands known municipally as 44 bond crescent are zoned residential urban zone under bylaw
• 03:30 - 04:00 1,275 while 46 bond crescent is zoned single detached six zone under bylaw 7120 as amended with these applications the applicant is seeking approval to permit five additional residential lots at the rear portions of 44 and 46 bond crescent with frontages of 12.5 m and 14.9 m for the corner lot at the future intersection of Wellspring Avenue and
• 04:00 - 04:30 Little Side Street. The development also proposes to facilitate an extension of Wellspring Avenue and a portion of the Little Side Street at the eastern limit of the development. Planning staff have circulated the subject applications to internal departments and external agencies for review and comment. The purpose of this report is to provide council and the public an overview of the development proposal and has been structured for information purposes only with the recommendation that all comments be received and referred back
• 04:30 - 05:00 to staff for consideration. Thank you. Okay. Thank you very much. And I think for the uh applicant Edward Mack from Evans Planning, come on up. Mr. Mack, you've got uh five minutes to address council. Thank you. Good evening. Good evening, Mayor West and members of council. U my presentation in essence was a practically a duplication of GEP, so I won't even bring that up. Um and just uh wanted to note uh thank you for staff for working with us and we are working
• 05:00 - 05:30 through the standard process for this reasoning and subdivision application and we uh be happy to answer any questions you may have. Great. Thank you very much, Mr. Mack. you might win the uh award for the shortest presentation by an applicant so far this year. That's great. The it's a it's a small coffee, so it's not really a big prize. So, okay. Um that's great. So, we've got um is there anybody in the audience that would like to make a comment on the first application? Okay. Seeing none, uh and
• 05:30 - 06:00 we have no delegations signed up virtually. So, we'll bring that back to council. And, uh this is a ward one uh issue. So, we'll take uh go to councelor Davidson first. Thank you. And through you, Mr. Chair. Um I'd like to ask staff, does this design and the lot size fit pretty much what's already there? That's a a a neighborhood that's been being developed over the last few years.
• 06:00 - 06:30 Through the chair to councelor Davidson. Yes. The proposal is in general keeping with the fabric in the surrounding area. um in ter and is an extension of some infill development that has already started in the area through you Mr. Chair. Um and these lots similar in size they're not half sizes or semis there. Just to be clear they're similar in lot size to the homes that are already there. This is almost infill in a way because there's houses I believe on both sides of this development.
• 06:30 - 07:00 generally speaking that uh through the chair to councelor Davidson. Generally speaking, yes. And that's uh confirmed with the proposed zoning that they are uh proposing which is the R4 zone which is comparable to the zoning that's been established in this neighborhood. Thank you. Um you Mr. Chair, I I just want to remind residents that this is the very beginning process, but um I have no more questions. Thank you. I I'm I'm sensing that you want to move a motion to refer all comments back to
• 07:00 - 07:30 staff. Okay. And I'm sensing that you want to second it. Yes. Okay. Go ahead. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. So, I do have one question regarding to the extension of Wellsprint Avenue. So, I see the map both side has the has the part of the Wellspring Avenue. So, this one this proposal will connect everything together or just going to be another partials through the chair to council tree. So, it is a um a portion of a further uh
• 07:30 - 08:00 extension of Wellspring Avenue. Uh but there is uh two properties that's uh that is uh in in between the proposal and the extension of Wellspring uh to the east. Uh so uh until those two poor uh two properties develop, then the full extr will be complete will be completed. Right. Okay. Thank you so much. Another question is so I see there is a small I'm not sure small trio or is what
• 08:00 - 08:30 connected with King Street. So in the middle of this Wellspring Avenue to King Street is that a trio is something as a as a walkway. This just curiosity maybe in the future they're going to be a build up a new road cross here so the resident can take this one going to King Street. It might be a problem because this is really very quiet neighborhood through the chair to councelor tree. So
• 08:30 - 09:00 that may be an informal uh walkway and not a formal city-owned walkway where people have kind of used that property to kind of traverse into the to the neighborhood. It doesn't appear to be a a city-owned walkway. Perfect. Thank you. I don't have further questions. Okay. Okay. Thank you very much. Uh so councelor Silvitz I see your hand. Thank you Mr. Chair. Um good evening everybody. Um just one
• 09:00 - 09:30 question um through you to our our director Janetta. Um there's a large forested area there. How how do we work out what's the what's the metric that this that the proponent would have to um replace what is removed or or um repay in a way uh back to the city uh
• 09:30 - 10:00 what is being lost there. Miss Janetta uh through the chair to councelor Silvitz. Um I don't have um the tree bylaw in front of me um which sets out the tree compensation rate uh for the loss of trees that are removed from a property. Uh but it's all in what will be applied is the rate of compensation uh for all the lot uh all the trees lost
• 10:00 - 10:30 and or cash and loo um in the event that we cannot replace all of the trees um that are lost uh to development uh compensation is provided as cash and loo as well. So it's generally speaking tends to be a combination of both where appropriate. Okay. Thank you. I appreciate that. that I think it's also important uh for the local residents to know that specifically because this is located in Oakidges and it has such wonderful forested areas and um I would decry the
• 10:30 - 11:00 loss of something like that. But if there's some compensation then at least there's some compensation. Thank you. That's old. Okay. Thanks very much councelor. Uh is there anybody else at this time on council? Okay, seeing none. So, we have a motion before us to refer all comments back to staff. Uh, all those in favor? Opposed? That carries. Thank you. Carries unanimously. Thank you very much. Uh, the next item on the agenda is
• 11:00 - 11:30 request for comments official plan and zoning bylaw amendment application for uh 50 54 62 7278 and 86 Elgen Mills uh Road West. And for the staff, we have Elaine Le Young, uh, which who will come up and, uh, give us a rundown of what we're looking at here.
• 11:30 - 12:00 Welcome, Miss Young. Thank you. Thank you. Good evening, Mayor West, members of council, and the public. The second public meeting tonight involves official plan amendment and zoning bylaw amendment applications to permit a high density residential development on lands municipally known as 50, 54, 62, 72,78,
• 12:00 - 12:30 and 86 Elegant Mills Road West. The subject lands are located on the north side of Elgen Mills Road West, west of Young Street and are comprised of six contiguous residential lots. The lands have a total lot area of approximately 6 hectares or one and a half acres. Thank you. And a total outrontage of approximately 116.4 m or 382 ft along
• 12:30 - 13:00 Elgen Mills Road. The lands currently support five single detach dwellings which are intended to be demolished to facilitate the proposed development. The lands abut existing townhouse units to the north, a water course associated with the German Mills Creek to the northeast, elegant mills road west to the south and single detached dwellings to the west.
• 13:00 - 13:30 The lands are designated neighborhood in accordance with the city's official plan. The applicable policies provide for range of low and medium density residential uses. Development within the neighborhood designation permits maximum building heights of three stories except on arterial streets such as Elgen Mills Road West where the maximum height can be four stories and a maximum density of 50 units per hectare or 20 units per
• 13:30 - 14:00 acre. The subject lands are also identified within a priority infill area which provides for a broader mix of housing types while utilizing existing infrastructure. With respect to the zoning, the subject lands are zoned third density residential R3 with a small portion zone zoned flood zone under zoning bylaw 2523-86 as amended as well as residential semi- detached and duplex 2
• 14:00 - 14:30 RD2 zone under zoning bylaw 190-87 as amended. Through these applications, the applicant is seeking approval to permit a residential development of a sevenstory apartment building with 227 apartment dwelling units. The proposal is to include indoor and outdoor amenity
• 14:30 - 15:00 space with two levels of underground parking. Access to the site is to be provided from Melan Mills Road West. The applicant's official plan amendment application seeks approval of a sightspecific amendment to the neighborhood designation policies applicable to the lands in order to permit an increase in the permitted building height from four stories to seven stories and an increase in the
• 15:00 - 15:30 permitted density of 2.885 885 FSI which is equivalent to 378 units per hectare excuse me or 151 units per acre whereas a density of 50 units per hectare or 20 units per acre is is permitted. The applicant's zoning bylaw amendment application seeks approval to reszone the subject lands to multiple residential 2 RM2 zone under zoning bylaw 190-87 as amended with sight
• 15:30 - 16:00 specific provisions to implement the development proposal. The subject lands are located within the boundaries of the Elgen Mills BRT station protected major transit station area referred to as PMTSA46 in accordance with the regional official plan. Staff have circulated the applications to internal departments and external agencies for review and comment. The purpose of the report is to
• 16:00 - 16:30 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 all comments be referred back to staff for consideration. Thank you. Okay. Thank you very much. Uh and the uh next person to speak is um Mallalerie Neas. Is did I say that right? Close enough. Good. Thank you. Thank you for the applicant. So, uh, you've got five minutes to
• 16:30 - 17:00 address council. Okay. So, so good evening to the chair, the mayor, uh, members of council, and the public. My name is Mallalerie Nevas and I'm an associate at the Big Group and I'm here today to make a brief presentation on the proposed development uh for 50 to 86 Elgen Mills Road West which requires applications of official plan uh amendment and zoning bylaw amendment. The subject site is located
• 17:00 - 17:30 sorry next slide. The subject site is located on the north side of Elgen Mills Road West, approximately 150 meters uh to the west of Young Street and uh the lands are surrounded by a mix of townhouse and single detached dwelling units. Uh to the east of the site along Young Street are a series of commercial plazas and centers with significant amounts of surface parking. Uh as mentioned the lands are comprised of six municipally addressed properties and have collective area of 6,73 m uh
• 17:30 - 18:00 squared and have a net site area of 50 uh 5,948 m squared after the required road winding that has been uh required by the region. [Music] Sorry, it's being a little [Music] slow. There we go. Uh, the subject lands
• 18:00 - 18:30 uh are located within the urban area uh of the region of York uh and uh are located within proximity of an existing bus terminal and are in proximity of a site identified by the region as a potential GO rail station subject to further study. according to the York Region 2022 uh transportation master plan. So, as noted, uh the lands are located within the neighborhood designation of the Richmond Hill
• 18:30 - 19:00 official plan. Uh it should be noted that the um official plan has not yet been updated to reflect the policies of the York Region uh official plan and the designation of the MTSA um and I think also hasn't been updated um in to be in conformity with the updated provincial planning statement. So as mentioned uh the subject lands are located in the regionally designated Elgen Mills protected major transit station area which establishes a minimum density of 160 people and jobs per net
• 19:00 - 19:30 hectare per the York region official plan which is now deemed to be an official plan of the city of Richmond Hill. Uh major transit station areas shall be the focus uh for higher densities and intensification. Major transit station areas along regional corridors uh will be the prominent locations for the highest levels of intensification. The existing York Young Street BRT is only a two-minute walk from the subject lands. The proposal consists of a
• 19:30 - 20:00 seven-story residential building with 227 proposed units with a range of unit sizes. The proposed floor space index is 2.85 85 and the proposed number of units per net hectare is 382. Two levels of underground parking are proposed with a parking supply of 269 spaces. 234 spaces are dedicated for residential spaces while 35 are dedicated to visitor. Given the site's location within an PMTSA, no parking is required under the planning act.
• 20:00 - 20:30 Materiality for the building has been chosen to highlight the fourstory uh mass uh presenting a street wall that frames Elen Mills and the uh materiality of the upper stories has been chosen and the stepping has been done uh in an attempt to minimize the appearance of the upper stories. The site has been designed to have massing of the building directed towards Elgen Mills and the rear massing to be broken up and reduced to ensure compatibility with adjacent properties. Pickup and drop off areas are located
• 20:30 - 21:00 internal to the site with suitable access to loading uh garbage spaces and the underground parking ramp. Amenity spaces are located within the east and west landscaped U buffers and between the wings of the building at the rear. Internal amenity spaces are provided adjacent to the outdoor amenity space. In addition, a rear laneway is proposed to provide peer connection to the private road uh to the west as requested by staff comments.
• 21:00 - 21:30 The proposed development will achieve angular plane conformity in alignment with uh the open design principles of the city. Stepping at each level at the rear has been incorporated. Uh provides terracing for units and minimizes potential overlook uh onto adjacent yards. Stepping is also incorporated in the front facade uh with stepping at the fifth and seventh stories um to uh present a combatible condition along uh Elgen Mills. And as mentioned, the building has been designed to step in at the east and west sides of the building to achieve compatibility with adjacent
• 21:30 - 22:00 dwellings. As part of the application, a number of plans and reports were uh provided, including but not limited to a transportation impact study, a natural heritage valuation, a functional servicing and storm water report. Um at this point we have received all the comments from staff and um following this meeting we will be um uh looking at making a resubmission to the town um to address public and agency and department comments. Uh thank you. I'll close with that and happen happy to answer any
• 22:00 - 22:30 questions you might have. Okay. Thank you very much. Okay. So um we will there's nobody uh virtual tonight, right? Okay. So we'll open this up to the public. So, as I mentioned at the beginning of the meeting, um members of the public are are more than welcome to come up and speak uh about this application or the next one that that we have after this. Um you've got five minutes to address council. Actually, you can have a seat already. Thank you. Um the you've got five minutes to address council and if you just state
• 22:30 - 23:00 your name and address at the beginning of your delegation just so we have that for the public record. Um and again, just to reiterate, we're making no decisions or no final decisions here tonight. The uh motion that we will be putting forward like the last application will be to refer all comments back to staff. This is just a um a step in the development uh process under the planning act um that we use to kind of introduce a planning application once the application is complete. Okay. So, is there anybody that would like to kick us off? Come on up, sir. And you
• 23:00 - 23:30 also get a prize for being the first person to speak. And and again, it's a small coffee, so it's not it's not a big prize, but Yeah. So whatever you just go ahead and you got five minutes to address. Sure. Sounds good. Just name name and address. Sure. So good evening, Mayor West, members of council, city staff, and fellow residents of the Elgen Mills Road West community. My name is Kenneth Ho. I'm a resident of the 100 Elgen Mills Road West townhouse complex. Now, thank you for first of all, thank you for organizing this public meeting
• 23:30 - 24:00 to discuss the proposed zoning amendment of the sevenstory 227 units residential building. As Mayor West noted in his uh statement on his uh website, the housing crisis is a pressing issue that Richmond Hill and other municipalities are working to address. While we support efforts to tackle this challenge, we urge the council and developers to prioritize the long-term sustainability of Richmond Hill, ensuring that the development preserves our city's livability, infrastructure capacity, and
• 24:00 - 24:30 environmental integrity of Richmond Hill for future generations, a city we call home. This meeting provides a crucial platform for residents to voice concerns and ask questions. Many in our community couldn't attend due to personal commitments, but the voices are captured in an online petition with over 80 signatures highlighting concerns such as traffic congestions and infrastructure strain. We asked the council to imagine more than 80 people sitting in this room right now tonight, visually representing the significant number of concerned residents in our community. For those of
• 24:30 - 25:00 us here after a long workday, our presence underscore the importance of the issue. Now to start, I'm going to mention a couple of the key objections our community have. And the first objection is the incompatibility with the neighborhood character. The proposed sevenstory building with a density of 2.85 85 times of the loft area is incompatible with the existing low-rise residential character of the area which consists primarily of homes and buildings no taller than three stories
• 25:00 - 25:30 between Bath Street and all the way to Lesley. This development would uh drastically alter the streetscape and aesthetic cohesion of our community and we believe that it would also destroy the character of Elg West and that being point number one. Number two, increased traffic and congestions. The addition of 227 dwelling units will significantly increase traffic on Elg's Road West, a single lane road presently in each direction for much of its length between Ba Street and Test Road. The proposed
• 25:30 - 26:00 entrance and exit located in the merge lane where Elgill's Road narrow from two lanes to one poses safety risk and will exacerbate congestions particularly at the already busy intersection of Young Street and Elg Mills Road. This may also spill over into Dixon Street, the sole entry and exit for 100 Elgen Mills West residents, increasing the risk for both vehicular and pedestrian traffic. So, uh, so uh, I would like to to ask the the members of the council and also
• 26:00 - 26:30 Mayor West to also to think this for the long run, for the long term of the of the city so that we will maintain the attractiveness of the city of Richmond Hill for future generations. And I now invite also other residents who have attended this meeting to share their perspective. Now, thank you again uh Mayor West, counselors and city staff for listening and we look forward to our ongoing dialogue on this matter. Thank you so much. Thank you very much. And uh so on that note, is there anybody else that would like to speak to this? Okay, come on up, sir.
• 26:30 - 27:00 Uh name and address. Sure. Thank you, Mayor Counselors. Uh my name is Bernard Fernandees. Uh I too uh reside at 100 Elgen Mills Road West and I'm with a group of unit owners uh totaling 52 in our complex. Um I'm going to cover two points as we only have 5 minutes and uh another unit owner will pick up on several other points. Uh my concern has
• 27:00 - 27:30 and um my unit is in a line of 16 other units that face the boundary wall on the proposed building that's been suggested uh in the amendment. So 16 ft away from the boundary wall. And my concern is uh the loss of privacy. I would suggest that floors six, five, six, seven are probably going to have clear line of sight to our private uh private areas
• 27:30 - 28:00 and the common elements that we currently enjoy during the summertime and months either side of summer. Uh we do a lot of our recreational uh work there. Uh barbecues. uh our neighbors uh children um uh play in this area and the loss uh of privacy is a big big concern for us. Uh the other issue is um I would suggest too I I I'm not an uh architect but uh the amount of sunlight that we're
• 28:00 - 28:30 going to lose with uh with a sevenstory building will probably lead to a lot of us and a old guy like myself will probably land up suffering from seasonal effective disorder. Uh, I'm not saying I will, but I would suggest. So, there's a lack of sun and u a lot of us unit owners use the back of our units uh to power our solar devices, things like our CCTV cameras. Uh, so if we're going to
• 28:30 - 29:00 have this u building up, we're going to have the potential of losing sunlight. The second point I'd like to cover is uh the noise, dust, and disruption during the construction phase. And if this uh plan is allowed to go ahead or this amendment uh there's a construction phase sorry there's an excavation phase there's a construction phase there's um uh fitting and completion phase before uh unit owners
• 29:00 - 29:30 move into this new complex. During that period of time, there's going to be a lot of noise, uh, audible noise from construction vehicles, excavation uh, equipment, generators, um, concrete, uh, mixing machines, and a whole heap of other, uh, heavy duty vehicles that'll be in and out of that particular complex. The audible uh, noise is one thing and it'll be throughout the day.
• 29:30 - 30:00 The other point is uh the vibrations that will come out of these machines that travel. Uh I'm an engineer by training telecom engineer and one of the things I know is about uh low frequency noise. This is the noise that go through goes through the ground and you can actually feel it inside the buildings when traffic is moving. I would suggest to you that there's going to be a lot of that both noise that we're going to feel coming through the ground and audible noise. Uh those are my two big uh big
• 30:00 - 30:30 concerns. Um and I thank you for your time. Thank you very much, sir. Okay, who's next? Come on up, sir. Oh, no. Who's next? Come on up. So, welcome. Uh just name and address. Sure. Hello. My name is Patty Saratopoulos. I live on 8 Creek View
• 30:30 - 31:00 Avenue. Uh I didn't prepare anything today, so I'm going to speak to you from the heart. I live in the area. Creek View, we try to get on to Elgen Mills and currently uh traffic has been increased so much that it takes us like 5 to 10 minutes to get out of our street. I have friends that live on Elgen Mills just around the corner from me. They can't get in and out of their homes. They have to wait in their driveways for about 10 or 15 minutes just to, you know, get out safely so they don't have an accident. If there's more cars in that area and there's only two lanes from Young and Elgen Mills all the way down to Duffren, um it's going
• 31:00 - 31:30 to be crazy. Test's going to be opening up. Test at the end of Duffren eventually is going to be opening up and that's going to be additional traffic coming onto these streets. Let alone there's two condos being built around the corner from Young and Elgen Mills just north off of Longos there. That's going to be causing a lot of additional extra traffic and congestion in our area. Currently, uh we there was a proposal for Treasure Hill to build a condo just uh south of Young and Elgen Mills. We were concerned in our area that um the extra traffic because there
• 31:30 - 32:00 was an area that was open and we had a lot of foot traffic in our area. We had a lot of vandalism, cigarettes, garbage. Uh my son's basketball net was vandalized so many times, cars broken into. We have a garage door opener that was tampered with every night cuz people were walking by. Our safety's at risk. Now they've closed that off, thank goodness. And we've noticed a little bit of a decrease by putting another building over there with so many people and there's going to be a lot of foot traffic. And we don't even know is this building going to be resident? Is it
• 32:00 - 32:30 rent? Is it condos? We don't know. We haven't been advised. I don't know if anybody here can let us know that information. But more traffic, if parking, visitor parking over there, it's going to be spilling onto our streets. We don't have enough parking currently on our street for our visitors because it's been decreased. So it's just going to be a big mess. It's just a big mess. And us as taxpayers of Richmond Hill, I hope that, you know, people listen to the taxpayers for once because it seems like nobody listens to the taxpayers anymore. Oh, and the
• 32:30 - 33:00 people that live in the area, it's always the builders that get the approval stamped and we we are we are nobody anymore in our own reside residents. Like it's it's very sad that us as people, democracy, we come, we speak, we try to give you our our information and we speak from our hearts because we live there. We encounter these problems every day and nobody listens to us. So I really hope that you take constituents concerns at heart and listen to us for once because it's like rubber stump rubber stamp. builder gets everything done. And the people that
• 33:00 - 33:30 actually live there, live there for years, love the area, don't want to live downtown Toronto and have those huge buildings in our areas because we want the sunlight. We want the clean air. We want all this in our area. And yet you guys just keep rubber stamping everything and bringing so much congestion into our lives. When's it going to stop? When's you going to listen to the taxpayers, the people that live in the area that love the area and cherish where they live, their homes, their families, the livelihood? And that's what makes Rich Mayo so wonderful and that's why we all live there. Thank
• 33:30 - 34:00 you for listening to me. I appreciate it. Thank you. Thank you very much. Anybody else? Come on up. Welcome. Uh name and address, please. Hello. My name is Sheila Hamilton. I am another resident of 100 Elgen Mills. There's a lot of us here tonight. Um, thank you for having us to uh provide our feedback and ideas on the uh proposed very large, very dense
• 34:00 - 34:30 apartment building. And that's the thing, very large, very dense, three times the allowable density. You're talking about adding 300 cars, 300 people, and that is just a bit too much for that space. You're also looking at digging down two stories to allow for parking
• 34:30 - 35:00 for all those 300 people. And that's right beside a flood plane. a flood plane that uh would negatively affect a lot of the people behind the building. And that is my concern. When that twostory volume of land is removed, what happens to the water table? And I understand that the city is already looking at flood mitigation and
• 35:00 - 35:30 adding underground parking both at this location and at the location at uh Canyon Hill is going to have a negative effect on the water table. So, we'd like to avoid flooding as opposed to encourage it. The other thing that uh concerns me is the parking. Now, I've lived downtown. I've lived a lot of different places,
• 35:30 - 36:00 and there's never enough visitor parking. It doesn't matter how many places you assign. Most people have more than one car if there's more than one person in an apartment. So, a 36 visitor parking limit doesn't seem to be enough to me. Um, and that would mean additional parking in the neighborhood. And the closest neighborhood is right around the corner, 100 Elgen
• 36:00 - 36:30 Mills. Our streets are narrow. We have good parking for our own cars. We have visitor parking. But do we have enough space to get overflow parking? Do we have to manage that? Do we have to pay for having people towed when they park their cars in our private laneways? That's an expense. And we'll be complaining to the city. So, it's an expense for you guys as well. There's also our neighborhood has a lot of
• 36:30 - 37:00 children, a lot of families, and there's a lot of kids that play around there. An expanse of that many cars is concerning to me for health and safety reasons. I walk in the area. Uh there's a lot of dog walkers in our community and that number of cars is a very big concern. And that's it for me. Thank you. No, thank you very much. Okay, anybody else?
• 37:00 - 37:30 Yeah, come on up. Just a name and address for the record. Hi, my name is Aram Rajapur. I live on 49 Carrington Drive. Um, I wanted to say that I support this application. I uh well, I support aspects of this application. I support the density and the height. Um, I also like the limits on parking because I I walk everywhere and I don't like the car dependent nature of the city. uh all these people driving around uh especially um on these uh roads with
• 37:30 - 38:00 these arterial roads that have residential uh zoning. All these people are driving far away to uh uh the grocery store or like wherever they need to go. The bigger the distance between the place people live and the destination, the more uh stress that's going to put on the infrastructure. This is close by to a shopping uh place for shopping and um bus. So I think that the
• 38:00 - 38:30 the location would minimize the um stress on the infrastructure that this kind of development would have. I um I also want to say that uh my criticism of this well I will say that I think it should be mixed use. I think the first story uh I I don't know if it is or not, but I think the first story should be uh open for businesses.
• 38:30 - 39:00 Why? Because the people that live in the place should not hop in their car and go to the no frills or something that's uh nearby or um the shoppers like they should have an option that's close by. And I also think that would uh be really good for the other people that live on Elegant Mills if they would uh you know something within walkable distance. Um other than that I I like increases in density on
• 39:00 - 39:30 arterial roads. I think it is the right thing to do. Thank you. Great. No, thank you very much. Okay. Uh anybody else? Come on up, sir. Good evening. Um my name is Eric Oang is a I'm a resident of 100 anchor ms west. Um yeah I have a couple points I want to bring up here. Uh first of all uh about the traffic. Um
• 39:30 - 40:00 we all know that is a is a very uh serious issue and we I understand that we the the city is going is planned to widen the the is the the road in two lanes two ways but uh it will be um let more cars more more traffic to use that road to pass to go through from to the to the the buffers. So that won't be
• 40:00 - 40:30 more that will be attract more more traffic and and then the traffic congestion will be more serious and if additionally more two have 250 more cars from the complex from the from the new development to join the the the the traffic will be more um horrible. And then um I just learned that the the from from the architect um from the developer visitation uh the building is will be step in to step up the step in to uh to
• 40:30 - 41:00 to to the to the south. So it it seems help to to to to improve the sun angle the project to the to the um to the the townhouse from unit one to 17 of 100 bills road. But um I would like to ask the the architect or developer to have really need to take a look of that angle. Is this good enough for the people who live in that unit? Because um
• 41:00 - 41:30 if is is even though it's not a wall like a wall, but it's not like a uh it's the the mass and huge uh buildings. uh it's not like a big uh Lego block put it there in front of the the houses the unit the town houses. So uh the people live in the town houses lift those units especially for those units they will have the mental or uh psychologically
• 41:30 - 42:00 issue. Um they may need to face if they have no not enough sunlight or also the the fresh air from the south. um that would be let them to have the uh problem for their for their health. Uh they may have the some depression, they may have the u very low mooding or anxiety. Um that would affect their health seriously. So um uh when when I walk
• 42:00 - 42:30 around the in the neighborhood my my uh I met my there's my neighbor uh the only only neighbor and she's very anxious to talk to me about his wearing about the sunlight about the air about the everything u she's wearing about the because of the new structure so um to me I would like to suggest that um besides uh the requirement the Sun and shade uh um study need to be submitted to for the
• 42:30 - 43:00 council to approve. Also I would like to ask if they can do the um microclimate study assessment and also the traffic study that would be help to uh improve the the the development to in our community. Okay. Thank you. Thank you very much sir. Okay. Anybody else? Come on up, sir.
• 43:00 - 43:30 Welcome. Uh, just name name and address before. Uh, yeah, my name is Richard Saranopoulos. I live on Creek Avenue. Uh, good evening. Uh, David West and the counselors there and the audience public. Just got a question uh regarding um the owner of the the properties there. Is he is he under contract or is he the actual owner? Does anybody know? Does the Bellagio whatever they're called group know or I
• 43:30 - 44:00 don't I don't know that he's not the owner. It's not Just hold on a second. It This isn't really a question and answer session. It's just mostly for Okay. Yeah. Because Okay. I'm Well, I won't get an answer then because if he's not the owner, then he's just trying to get this approved and then flip it to a developer who may approve this or increase density or whatever. That's one of my concerns. I don't know if he's actually owns this and he's going to build or he's going to try and flip it and make some fast cash. The other uh question is the uh building down uh for
• 44:00 - 44:30 the uh parking and stuff. It's going to affect the water table. I live on Creek View. I got a sump pump 30 years, 25 years I that pump never turned on. Soon as they opened up R10 and connected Creek View, every spring that thing's working nonstop and if it dies my basement is going to flood. how we're going to dig two stories down there. So, I don't know how that's going to affect it. I don't think it's going to affect it in a positive way. And the other thing, um the sorry, I forgot the group
• 44:30 - 45:00 name. Whatever. She said there's going to be a temporary proposed temporary entrance or exit in the back. Do they own the property? Because there's two houses there. They don't even own it. So, how are they going to cut through the person's backyard so they can get their own exit? Yeah, I I don't Yeah, I know. It's not answered question period. And the gentleman back there, I don't know his name. He's saying that they should put like uh commercial stores. They got too much traffic now. You going to put commercial stores there and more traffic? It's it's kind of seems stupid.
• 45:00 - 45:30 He's saying, "Oh, people can walk to Loblaws and uh no frrills." And then he's saying, "Put the stores over there." So, he's contradicting himself. So, okay. Well, we're here to comment on other people like that. Yeah. So, that that's my concern. And the parking is horrific. There's only four parking spots on Creek View. And people from Elgen Mills right now, they park on there. So if they have a party or we have a party, it's like a mad dash. Who can get those four spots? And now we're adding more more cars and going in and
• 45:30 - 46:00 out is rush hour time is like good luck. You're going to need uh like somebody with a traffic to guide you in and out. So it's it's it needs a lot of work before uh it should get approved or whatever. And that's all I have to say. No, thank you, sir. I appreciate it. Okay. Uh, anybody else from the audience? Come on up. Uh, you've already had your turn, right? Only one per customer, sir. Sorry. Okay. Anybody else? Okay. Come on up, sir.
• 46:00 - 46:30 Um my name is John Sai and uh unit 25 100 Algam Mills Road West. Um first of all um thank you all for having this invitation and reminded us of the meeting. Very kind of you. First of all, uh I've lived um at this location for
• 46:30 - 47:00 more than 12 years or even more. My wife always remind me of it. So from the beginning uh our construction um that was there 100 Elgen Mills. I understand from the board president as well as from the builder that the council did not even let them build one foot higher because of the eyesight from Cooper first of all. Okay, please make note and remind what you did before.
• 47:00 - 47:30 Secondly is we have a private entrance coming into 100 Elgen Mills. That road is now ours assigned by the town uh because I used to be a board uh member. $700,000 reserve fund to maintain that road and then you're going to have lots of traffic as well as the other 15 townhouse to be built also are traffic
• 47:30 - 48:00 going to come in. So those are immediate attention needs to be planned out. Right? I'm not saying don't build anything. If they're building threetory, four story high, we probably will compromise, right? Nobody will make a big deal about it. But putting a sevenstory building, it's huge. The other thing is before you do more construction here, we're already going to have the green park one, which is nice. But then already people who are
• 48:00 - 48:30 more knowledgeable than I do understood the potential of uh the water coming through. Every spring if we have a large snow accumulation before it's already flooding. Our area is flooded. It gets to be about 10t away from our complex on the uh northeast side. Okay. So, first of all, every time my wife drove, we
• 48:30 - 49:00 stop at Algen Mills because if there's a train passing through both sides of block all the way to Bay View all the way beyond maybe Shaftsbury or whatever. So, if you are going to put a new bridge under pass everything, that's worth considering. open up two more lanes going west of Algamills because you're already bottlenecked every day. Okay, weekdays,
• 49:00 - 49:30 weekends. So, fundamentally, you have to reconsider this kind of application should not even come through to this hearing. It should be stopped before it comes to this hearing. Right? I never will come to this session. Right? If you're putting up a townhouse, the only thing I complain is they should not come into a private road. Dixon Row don't exist. Dixon Row is a private road paid by us, right? Unless they want to take
• 49:30 - 50:00 over and pass $700,000 worth of reserve fund that they should pay us back. That's all. Okay. Thank you. No, thank you, sir. Okay. Anybody else? Going once, going twice. Nobody else. Okay. So, we'll bring this back to council. Uh the ward counselor is councelor tree and uh you'll want to move a motion to refer all comments back to staff. Sure. Go ahead. Okay. Thank you so much. First one. Thank you so so
• 50:00 - 50:30 much for all the arizons come here to uh to express your your concerns and also your your uh your uh requests regarding to this new proposal. So I do have a few questions. If I use up the first round, I might go to the second round. So the first question I have here is regarding to this location. Is that belong to our KDA for this Bernard KDA area through the chair to councilor tree? No, it is not. So this is not the young
• 50:30 - 51:00 Bernard KDA. Okay. This is not Bernard KD. Okay. I want to confirm Mrs. Forest. So this is now city trying to intensify from our official plan. The second question I want to ask is for the transparency. Someone asked that. So do we have any park meetings host before this park meeting because this is why in city hall I want to see is there any park meeting for for uh license to join to have a free chat through the chair. This is the first
• 51:00 - 51:30 statutory public meeting that's been held on this particular application. Um sometimes local uh counselors do hold separate residence meetings um for an application in their ward. My under my understanding is that you haven't held one for this particular proposal. Okay. So obviously I apologize. I did not realize I should hold that one. So I apologize. There should be kind more transparencies. I saw this email uh this proposal. I think I send out newsletters around two months ago to the people who
• 51:30 - 52:00 can reach out but majority people leaving behind this 100 a reached out. Apologize for that. I should have maybe more outreach to more regions nearby here. I apologize for that. Uh my second question, my next question regarding to the distance from this side. So I heard the stories from this side the distance from here to Young Street is only two uh two minutes. How far that going to be?
• 52:00 - 52:30 is 100 m away or like 80 mters away through the chair. Um if you give us a couple minutes, we can measure it on a map. Okay. Apologize for that. Okay. We don't have that information off hand. Councelor, why don't you continue? I'll continue. Next one. I think a lot of res
• 52:30 - 53:00 concern about the traffic secure here as well. Last week we had oh no a few weeks ago we had another meeting discussing about around 17 18 town halls just very close back here the traffic concerns I want up again as I remember from the previous meeting there is no plan for widening the agon west based on York region's solution is that correct or confirm that 2025 I see young 19th street on that list for a
• 53:00 - 53:30 I at least 2025 there's no such plan right through the chair to councelor tree um for 2025 there is no planned uh road widening um of Elgen Mills road um if that changes based on demand York region will advise the city but at this time my understanding it is not planned for 2025 okay thank you so much look at the
• 53:30 - 54:00 current situation along the west and the remaining street there's always town houses and houses I don't see a major new uh construction come here at all so in that case even this plan put forward I doubt because a single plan York region maybe consider extension the entire road so the track traffic problem will be still there so this is my concern as well so I'm my home is very close back here buses and young bus and
• 54:00 - 54:30 Jefferson side. So I driving here along either Yang or Amuse. So this road really cost a lot of traffic. So especially on the east side of Amuse there is a railway passing by. So my both case study in Richmond High every day I just bypass Young Street and I try to use Yorkland. So I understand how busy this area is. Whenever rush hour or is after work hours it's always busy. So
• 54:30 - 55:00 I acknowledge this once I think within one or two years I don't think there is any plan to widen our street. So traffic problem will still be there. So my next question regarding to the heights if I remember correctly based on the new uh um bylaw or zonings along the artery street this one is we're allow only four storage as highest right through the chair to council tree. So, uh, the centers and corridors bylaw that was just passed by the city actually
• 55:00 - 55:30 doesn't cover this area. Um, so you're referring to the city's official plan. The city's official plan um allows for four stories um along arterial roads which Elgen Mills Road would be considered. Okay. So based on current bylaws, so what is I5 regulations here is going to be two or one or low densities? What exactly that number is? So because uh high um a mid-rise building was not contemplated um on this site um the neighborhood designation
• 55:30 - 56:00 allows for 50 units per hectare or or 20 units per acre. So that's the density. Uh we don't have an FSI because this type of built form wasn't contemplated on these lands. Okay. I want acknowledge this here as well because on the other side of street that's the creek wheel if I remember not right not wrong. that one and also art street in the past two and a half years I received tons of complaints regarding traffic so illegal
• 56:00 - 56:30 parking school bus parking there imagine if on the other side of street there are going to be another 200 units I don't know how big is it going to be so that might be more complaints for either illegal parkings or traffic issues as well uh next question regarding to the the height so and this the single line so far I can see along the Agon West that is seventh floor which is really
• 56:30 - 57:00 close to uh art door street. So my question here is uh Anglo plan. So is there any PL unpacked for the residents nearby because majority area only one or two stories? So this one is seven stories that going to be looks like I I don't have questions. I go back next round. Thank you. Okay. Thanks councelor. Um so uh councelor Thompson
• 57:00 - 57:30 you'll second it. the motion. Yes. Thank you very much uh through you the chair. I do have a couple of questions observations as well. So um I didn't realize uh initially when I saw this that this these properties were actually within a PMTSA. Um and I just want to c could we expand a little bit on that? So I understand that in a PMTSA
• 57:30 - 58:00 um we won't have any requirements on parking um uh in that situation. Um but how does that work with the height? So I understand that uh originally this sub these subject lands were never considered for the type of height and density that was being looked here but under a PMTSA is there certain uh things that we have to observe
• 58:00 - 58:30 because this came down from the province. It wasn't something that we thought about in terms of coding. Um, and I'm not sure if I'm phrasing my question well here, but if you could just expand a little bit and and tell me how that applies with heights. Actually, could you just just for the sake of the audience, PMTSA is protected major transit station area just so we're we're on the same page. Go ahead, Miss Janetta. Uh, through the chair to councelor Thompson. So um the the PMTSA 46 is the
• 58:30 - 59:00 EL is um the area that was defined um in proximity to the Elgen Mills BRT station. So uh the PMTSAs were uh radiuses um uh radiuses from the BRT station um that we that the province determined that uh these areas have to meet a minimum density requirement. The min minimum density requirement for this particular PMTSA is 160 residents and
• 59:00 - 59:30 jobs per hectare. So as you guys as council is aware uh the city is undergoing an OP update and as part of that OP update um these PMTSA targets for density are being incorporated um into the city's official plan. Uh they are applicable uh because the regional official plan is um now deemed to be part of the city's official plan. What that means though in terms of height is it doesn't actually translate into necessar um specific heights. It it
• 59:30 - 60:00 suggests that in this particular PMTSA that the city is required to meet the density minimum density requirement for this area and that can take the form of um ground related uh residential, high density residential um a mix there too. any which way the city determines um they are able to meet that uh minimum density requirement as prescribed by the province and as and downloaded to the
• 60:00 - 60:30 region and downloaded to the city. Um in some of the larger PMTSAs um like the KDAs uh we do have we have done um more detailed reviews and analysis for the area as a whole and again with the objective of a achieving these minimum density requirements as prescribed by the province and the region. Um and and and you will see that they are much higher more denser in the KDAs versus um other areas of the city. In this
• 60:30 - 61:00 particular area, there is um it is within a priority infill area. So there is an opportunity to look at the area a little bit more comprehensively um in terms of making sure that the city meets that minimum density target. Definitely appreciate that and I and I have to say this is exactly the type of information that is very difficult to get out there to the general public so that they understand. Um and I I know that one comment was
• 61:00 - 61:30 made in regards to uh when the pre the where one number 100 is that that uh they had to live within very specific requirements and that they couldn't deviate and go beyond that. Um but that was before these things were downloaded through the province through the region and basically forced us into a a no-choice situation. We have to uh
• 61:30 - 62:00 employ the u the provisions that they they put out here. So I certainly empa empathize. I get it. uh people aren't uh you know it's it's you know we're talking about change that uh is not necessarily what we want. I mean I've lived it myself. I lived young south of Young and and and Finch uh over 40 years ago and I saw how it changed at that time and I didn't like it. That's why I
• 62:00 - 62:30 moved here and now you know something else is happening and there's things that I don't like either. I get it, you know. Um just a couple of quick questions. So people are talking about the the uh traffic and a lot of this would actually come further down the road. So we're we're no pun intended um you know that uh in terms of the planning process. Correct.
• 62:30 - 63:00 Uh through the chair to councelor Thompson. So actually we do a lot of uh um work at the outset and really in determining whether there's uh feasibility for the proposal. So uh trans the city's transportation staff have provided some comments with respect to the traffic impact assessment that was done and submitted in support of the application. Uh the region has also provided some comments in that regard as well. uh they will provide comments with respect to the feasibility of this
• 63:00 - 63:30 proposal for this stage of development. More detailed uh analysis i.e. trends uh TDM measures that may help mitigate trans uh traffic uh situations will be done later at the uh site plan stage. Um circulation um appropriate circulation on site. Those are the types of details that are dealt with more at the site plan stage. But at this point, we're looking at is this proposal from a feasibility standpoint um appropriate
• 63:30 - 64:00 and uh both transportation city's transportation staff and York Region staff have provided comments that the applicant needs to address. Definitely appreciate that through the chair. Uh so I guess the type of mitigation things you're talking about for the site plan would be like a write in write out that type of thing. Uh through the chair to council Thompson. That's correct. All right. Okay. Thank you very much. And you know, finally, there there's been a lot of uh concern about what'll happen
• 64:00 - 64:30 during construction, uh vibrations, all that type of thing. If I'm not mistaken, there are some pretty rigid codes that uh would go into place for any development. Um that's safe to say. So, there's two parts to that question uh through the chair to councelor Thompson. So there's the construction management practices which are all regulated through the city site plan approval and secured as part of agreements uh with the city um as part of the uh building code review of the
• 64:30 - 65:00 application uh you know vibration kind of the stability of soils to withstand uh construction are all reviewed at that stage as well as part of the engineering review. Uh so those things are done prior to and covered off in accordance with city standards and Ontario uh code requirements. Thank you very much. Just one final thing. I had an observation. Um I was looking at, you know, one of the amendments here
• 65:00 - 65:30 and on on there it looks like there's something called a uh green belt uh plants protected countryside that seems to come through a portion of this property through the southeast corner. Could you speak a bit to that and what the impact is or what the impact potentially be to this development? Thank
• 65:30 - 66:00 you through the chair to councelor Thompson. So there is a portion of the flood plane um at the east eastern limit of the property. It is within the TRCA regulated area that continues to remain under their jurisdiction. Um there is a uh requirement uh the comments were provided that they would like to make sure that that meander belt is in in fact been measured correctly and any buffers there too be applied. So the applicant will have to uh do that work
• 66:00 - 66:30 to ensure that the TRCA is satisfied. So it's too through through the chair it's too early to really say where we're at at this particular point in time with that. That be safe through the chair to councelor Thompson. They've requested clarification to make sure that they meet it. So, uh they will um as part of the the remaining review, we will have to ensure that they meet those requirements. Got it. Thank you so much. Those are all my comments. Okay. Thank second. Okay. Thank you uh
• 66:30 - 67:00 councelor Silivitz and then C regional local councelor Dalo. Thank you Mr. chair and thank you to uh the applicant and our staff for your presentations and and to all everybody who stepped forward to speak here tonight. You were very well informed and you spoke very very well and I certainly appreciate all your comments as I'm sure my colleagues do as well. Um a number of the points that I've written down here have already been covered so I'm not
• 67:00 - 67:30 going to repeat them. Um I one thing I would like to be clear on is this are going to be a purpose-built rental building or is this a condominium corporation through you Mr. Mayor through the chair to councelor Silvitz. Uh my understanding is the proposal is currently proposed as a condo development. Okay. Thank you. and and um
• 67:30 - 68:00 has there been any discussion had with regards to affordable housing through the chair to councelor Silvitz. Um they have not provided information um in that regard. Um and we've requested information as to how the proposed development would meet the city's requirement for 25% affordability.
• 68:00 - 68:30 Okay, that's great. Thank you so much. Um so just to reiterate as as the mayor has said uh quite a few times through this meeting we're at the very beginning stage here and sometimes it does feel very premature to be in this particular position but we have to go through very specific stages that is that are mandated by the province and
• 68:30 - 69:00 the PL under the planning act. this is the first part of it. Um, so we've got a very far way to go. And and to the to the resident, um, she spoke so well uh, from her from her heart. I'm sorry I can't remember your name. You made one comment that we as a council just seem to rubber stamp everything. We don't. I can assure you we don't. And in fact, this particular meeting shows you that we don't because there has to be open transparent discussion between the um
• 69:00 - 69:30 applicant to our staff and then between the applicant and our staff and us to you the public. And there will be a number of public meetings such as this that will follow as you go as the process moves its way through committee and then to council. So um I I just wanted to assure you that this council definitely does not rub a stamp development uh development applications.
• 69:30 - 70:00 We look at them very carefully and we ensure that they they follow not only our official plan guidelines. If there is an official plan amendment that is asked for that it has to be asked for appropriately and also that that whatever is proposed is in keeping with very specific provincial bills like bill 23 and bill 109 and the the the provincial um used to be called
• 70:00 - 70:30 the provincial policy statement provincial planning statement. So there are there are levels of of um instruction so to speak that us as the city, our staff, our planning staff have to abide by uh by what is mandated by the province. And unfortunately sometimes especially now that doesn't gel with
• 70:30 - 71:00 what we want as a city or what you want as residents. But we have to fulfill the obligation uh to to the province. We're in a very difficult position and we try to do the very best that we can for our residents. Um with regards to Elgen Mills Road widening uh through you, Mr. mayor to um our director. Um it's my understanding that a few years ago an EA and environmental assessment was undertaken to uh eventually widen um
• 71:00 - 71:30 Elgen Mills Road as a uh as a priority east west uh regional corridor. Um is that could you just um is that correct in saying that through you Mr. Mayor? Uh through the chair to councelor Silvitz. Um, I can't confirm that, but I can provide that information uh back to uh council. Thank you. I I definitely do remember an environmental assessment that that that was done for this for uh
• 71:30 - 72:00 uh Alvin Mills. Um so, uh that's that's a part of it too. And then uh with regards to um one of the residents spoke about the um the railway line the York region and I'm sure that um local and regional counselor Depalo might be speaking to that but the York Region is looking into and there are there it's an ongoing situation uh that the Elgen Mills uh railway track will ultimately be bypassed either below or above as a
• 72:00 - 72:30 bridge and that will most definitely help a lot of traffic And then just lastly, um I would just like to say that I I I hope I trust and I hope that the applicant will continue constructive um discussions with our staff, with the local counselor as well as with our regional counselors because this is a regional road. And I would like you to please take a really good look at your urban design. I find that the building with
• 72:30 - 73:00 with apologies to the architect, the building is very institutional looking and I believe that we could get something just a little bit better. Uh if we are going to be putting um a a low-rise building here, I think that we can find something that's a little bit more attractive and that the the uh established residents might prefer. Thank you very much, Mr. Mayor. Okay. Thank you. Um before we go to regional local counselor to Paulo, your recollection is correct. There is an a a plan at the region to improve uh Elgen
• 73:00 - 73:30 Mills and the overpass not underpass uh over the uh the CN rail tracks is in process. I mean it'll be a a few years before that happens but uh it is progressing. Um they're they're working on the detail uh of the design and everything for the overpass. So regional local counselor to Paulo Oh, we can't we can't hear you,
• 73:30 - 74:00 counselor. No, no. Your your lips are moving, but there's no sound. Perhaps you could do it as an interpretive dance. I'm kidding. Don't do that. Okay. No, I can't I can't hear you. Um, is it possible to get uh troubleshoot
• 74:00 - 74:30 this and maybe give him a a phone number to call in? Hold on a second. Counselor. Thank you through the chair. Uh, councelor Depalo, in your Zoom invite, there will be a phone number. Uh, let me just give it to you now. It is
• 74:30 - 75:00 6473744685 and then the um webinar ID that you have to punch in is 870 3157 6611. Can can you you can hear all that counselor? I I will I will I'll send you an email. You know what? I'll make my comments
• 75:00 - 75:30 first while you're hopefully get that sorted out and then we'll come back to you if that's okay. Um Oh, sorry. Okay. Go ahead, Councelor Davidson. We'll come back to you, Councelor Depala. Thank you. Um through you, Mr. Mayor. I'll be the the time the time filler. Um I I don't want to echo what my colleagues have done. I do think this is huge and is going to have a massive impact on the existing neighborhood. My questions. I I I agree. One in and one entrance and exit from this specific spot where it
• 75:30 - 76:00 narrows into one lane. I don't even see how that's going to work. Is everyone coming out of that building going to have to turn right? Is there going to be another light? I I think the traffic implications, especially this close to the KDA, the key development areas and the other developments that we see in the hopper for this area, I I really I think we're all cognizant we don't want to create just massive gridlock. Um I'm also interested in in the plan like let's imagine through you, Mr. Chair. Um
• 76:00 - 76:30 I'm asking staff if we had a winter like we did this year, where where's all the snow going to go? Where is the extra land for things that come up when you live in a large apartment? Um where do the garbage the big garbage bins go with relation to the town houses behind through Mr. Chair? Is there is that been taken into consideration or is that something that comes in the future? Miss Janetta through the chair to councelor Davidson. So actually um one of the comments provided by uh park and
• 76:30 - 77:00 natural heritage staff was that uh snow storage hasn't been identified in the plan. Um those are typically details that we look at through the review um on the site plan application. Notwithstanding they are flagged. Um so for example for waste collection if it's required um clearances and what have you are are reviewed and advised at this stage. Uh so we have a little bit of work to do uh on this proposal at the current time. Do you Mr. Chair? So
• 77:00 - 77:30 there's really just one in and out right right down the middle. So I don't even understand how a big garb well I guess they do their own garbage. I don't know how all that even would work. Um but my main concern is the in and out onto Elgen Mills which is already a difficult street to maneuver. Um the other question I have through Mr. Chair and forgive me I know you planning knows MTSA KDA and all the acronyms but a major a major transit area. Does that mean that our official plan of four
• 77:30 - 78:00 stories has no teeth, doesn't matter, and because it's designated in MTSA, the city's four stories are irrelevant. Can you can you help me understand what what we have a right to say yes or no to? So through the chair to councelor Davidson, so the PMTSAs uh regulate density. Uh they don't regulate heights. So um through um and it the uh region uh has always delegated and has delegated
• 78:00 - 78:30 the appropriateness of development uh to the local municipalities. So in this instance um the four stories does continue to apply that's in our the city's OP as it relates to neighborhood lands. If the city so chooses to ch to achieve their minimum density target for this area in heights that are beyond four stories, we can do that. Um and we have not looked at this area wholesomely as to how we are achieving um the
• 78:30 - 79:00 minimum density target as required by the province. uh through the OP update. Uh this area among other areas are being reviewed to ensure that the city is in compliance with the regional official plan and the provincial direction with respect to the PMTSAs through Mr. Chair. So just to simplify that you're saying that we're looking at the Richmond Hill official plan to make sure that our our heights and densities or at least densities are in line with the region and the rules now dictated by the province in terms of
• 79:00 - 79:30 building homes faster. So, our actual official plans are all being reviewed to see if they now are in compliance with the province since the province has the final word through the chair to councelor Davidson. That is correct. Thank you. Okay. Um, we've got Have we got councelor Dpollo sorted out yet? No. Yes. Okay. Go ahead, counselor. Sorry. through through through the mayor. Councelor Jabal, I did send an
• 79:30 - 80:00 email and it's on your text on your phone. Okay. I think he's just calling in. Okay. I'll make my comments and and while we're waiting, um the So, thank you everybody for coming out. Um just so you know, there is a a staff report available. It's on the website and this staff report require um contains a lot of the information that we're talking about here tonight. It's not a final staff report because this is only a preliminary meeting, but it does actually talk about or answer a number
• 80:00 - 80:30 of the things that um that you have mentioned here tonight and some of the comments that you've made are also echoed in the staff report that there is no definitive answer at this point in time about those things. Um so I appreciated uh councelor uh Thompson's question about the protected major transit station area. The fact that it's in a PMTSA, we're in a housing crisis. the provincial uh legislation that we're operating under right now does not give us cart blanch to say yes or no to
• 80:30 - 81:00 different applications. We do have to analyze this clearly to make sure that we are balancing the need for housing which we really do uh have a need especially housing that's affordable. And I just on that note, I I would ask that before we go any further, I'd ask the applicant if if you're going to be building something like this or anything smaller like it, whatever, we really need to be talking about housing affordability. We need to be getting as much affordability uh as we possibly can. But having said that, um we don't
• 81:00 - 81:30 have all of the power to simply um deny an application because if we do that, what ends up happening is it goes to the Ontario Land Tribunal and then it's out of our hands. the OOLT will make a decision. So we you know it's it's a I mean I'm not wild about that system that we have with that we have to you know operate under but the one I suppose good thing about it is it does make the the um applicant and the city and the residents kind of sit down and and come
• 81:30 - 82:00 up with a compromise. So hopefully that's what we'll be able to do today because to be honest with you this this application I think is too big. I mean it's it's that simple. the um I I would go further. Councelor Silvitz was probably being more generous. I I I really don't find that building attractive at all. Um I I realize that there are um there are restrictions uh on how you can do a building and and how it can be um aligned and all that kind
• 82:00 - 82:30 of stuff, but I I don't think you're there yet. So I I really think that the the the building looks very massive. It looks very institutional. I don't like the color palette. it doesn't fit in with the neighborhood. But a lot of that I believe is due to the fact that you're we're you know the this application is putting something too big in an area that it doesn't really belong in. So um I would ask that you know the applicant go back work with staff. Um something will get built there. There's no question about it. And we need the
• 82:30 - 83:00 housing. But I, you know, while we're in a housing crisis, and I'm willing to to stretch a little bit where necessary and where it makes sense, but I think this is stretching too much. And this is designated, if you look on one of the pages in the staff report, the staff clearly says that this is designated as a neighborhood designation, which while the applicant is uh hoping to change that designation, at the current moment, it's designated neighborhood and and a sevenstory building would not be allowed
• 83:00 - 83:30 in that designation. So, um there's more work to do. So, I'd like the the applicant and and uh our staff and the public to continue working uh to get something that's going to fit better in that area and uh and hopefully we'll get something coming out the other end that uh that works for that area and helps us to fulfill our uh our housing uh needs and our housing targets um in Richmond Hill and in the greater province of Ontario as well. So, uh those would be
• 83:30 - 84:00 my comments. I see that regional local counselor looks like he's now connected. So, uh, regional local counselor, you've got, uh, your time to speak to council. Okay. Can you hear me now, Mr. Mayor? Perfect. Oh, very good. Okay. I'm I'm really sorry about that. I'm not sure what's going on with my audio tonight. But, uh, I definitely am hearing uh, everyone on council. I agree with what the co my colleagues are saying up here, but I I'm also very appreciative of the comments
• 84:00 - 84:30 that have come from uh the members of the public that have stepped forward tonight. Um I really really congratulate you for uh coming forward and being a part of this process. We really are just at the beginning. Um we we have an application. There's uh there's nothing we can do about um accepting applications. Once it comes in, we it triggers a process and this is virtually step one. Now, our staff will go back and they're going to examine uh the
• 84:30 - 85:00 studies that have been submitted by the applicant. Um specifically the shadowing studies. There's a lot of concern about uh that the the the blocking of the sunlight that this building will cause on the surrounding neighborhood. uh the the 45 degree angles, the the uh the the environmental impacts and we we are aware that this is a high water table and these young and elder mills uh there's a reason why we haven't uh permitted in our official plan very much
• 85:00 - 85:30 density here. In fact, we um we were forced to absorb a lot of density on Young Street, but that was pushed further north to Young and Bernard. So we are aware of the limitations in this area and uh you know if if this council is going to reject the application we have to find sound planning arguments to do so and that's the only way that our decision can hold up through Ontario
• 85:30 - 86:00 municipal board appeal. So the applicant has a right to to um appeal any decision of this council to to an Ontario body. So the province sets the sets rules and guidelines and you know it's these these MTSAs have been mandated virtually the entire length of Young Street. We're trying to protect this Yim Mills uh intersection and our historic downtown area u from from you know just just a
• 86:00 - 86:30 wall of density all the way down Young from Highway 7 up to 19th. Uh so we're going to be looking very critically at this application. our staff will be they'll be giving us information as a council. Um you know it's certainly never the case that that we we would rubber stamp anything and we um go through a lot of a lot of effort to to plan where the density is going to go in Richmond Hill because it's forced upon us. There's nothing we can do. We have
• 86:30 - 87:00 to absorb 100,000 residents in the next uh 15 to 20 years and uh that that population has to go somewhere and and we're we're looking at accommodating as much as possible on transportation corridors. So uh that the overpass at Elgen Mills is slated in the regional official uh regional capital plan uh to begin tender and construction in 2027. that that's that's where it
• 87:00 - 87:30 stands today and myself and the mayor and uh Dwin Chan the other regional counselor will be fighting hard to make sure that happens that we we get our infrastructure um that's that's so needed in this area for the traffic to flow better Elgen Mills will be widened and it's very likely that we'll either have a go station or a subway station even at Elgen Mills and newer So, uh, we are look doing our best to
• 87:30 - 88:00 safeguard the interest of the residents in the area. Thank you. Thank you for coming forward and please continue to come forward. Please continue to have your input as we go through this through this process and we'll make sure we get the uh the the the best results we can for the community. Thank you. Thanks very much, Councelor Depalo. Uh, so Council Tree, you want to do a second round? There's nobody else on the first round, I don't think. Okay, go ahead.
• 88:00 - 88:30 Sure. Thank you so much, Mr. Mayor. So, I just have two more questions. If I realize that's correctly. So, this proposal on the east side will be a single uh house on east side and also on the west side this building will be two separate houses nearby. Is that my understanding correct? Through the chair to counselor tree. So to the west of the property, there are two uh single detached dwellings between
• 88:30 - 89:00 this property and Dixon Street. Um to the east, um there is one single detached dwelling and a large uh property uh 19 uh Leonard I believe and that seems to be vacant. Okay. So yeah, if from just from a purist perspective on the street if you drive there from when you have a very low house connect together directly there going to be another two separate houses and yeah
• 89:00 - 89:30 going to be design just my understanding. So I'll leave that one there. My second question regarding two is the environmental protections here. If I read correctly I think um our counselor Scott Thompson also mentioned that one. If I look at the map correctly, the east north corner or northeast corner really just right inside of the green zone. I'm assuming that going to be the creek areas. So from the distance perspective, I know
• 89:30 - 90:00 there is a regulation maybe normally is 15 meters. Is this plan is this proposal meet that requirement for the flooding zones also river band etc. through the chair to council tree. Uh the TRCA has provided comments for clarification to ensure that they do meet those requirements. So at this time I can't comment whether they meet it because they have been requested to provide clarification and additional information in that regard. Okay. So so far there's no feedback yet, right?
• 90:00 - 90:30 There is feedback for clarification at this point. Sure. Go ahead. I I don't have further question. Thank you so much. Okay. Uh thank you. Uh councelor Sus. Is that a hand from last time or a new hand? Okay, go go go ahead. Oh, you're on mute. You're you're on mute, counselor. Thank you. Okay, go ahead. Brand new hand. Um, thank you. Um, I just wanted to make one further comment. um the young gentleman who stepped
• 90:30 - 91:00 forward. I commend you for your progressive uh your your progressive thinking as to how we need to be building our towns and cities into the future with regards to uh walkable uh sustainable cities. So um congratulations. I'm I was very impressed. You you very very very rarely hear that coming in as as a statement. So um um you've also done your homework. Thank you very much for that. And with
• 91:00 - 91:30 with regards to that um if I may just to perhaps help the residents understand a little bit further u through you Mr. Mayor to director Janetta, could you explain to us, could you give us a a further explanation as to what our parking standards parking standards are for this particular area which is identified as a PMTSA. Um parking standards are very specific uh policies and regulations
• 91:30 - 92:00 that we as a city as a municipality must follow and they are set by the province and also set by the region. So uh perhaps just a you know a low-level discussion on this could also help the residents understand why uh uh why the parking standard is the way it is here through you Mr. Mayor. So through the chair to counselor uh syllabus. So uh the province um as part of the PMT um as part of the uh
• 92:00 - 92:30 identifying areas as uh PMTSAs also uh mandated through legislation that no minimum parking requirements would be applied to these areas. Um as a result um there are no minimum parking requirements uh for any development within an M uh PMTSA. um parking standards are applied throughout the city. Uh outside of PMTSAs, we are not allowed to impose minimum parking requirements. In the event that a
• 92:30 - 93:00 developer wants to provide parking, they can do so. It is at their choice but we as the municipality cannot on the basis that um as part of being again within a PMTSA the thought is that you are in proximity uh close proximity to transit services and therefore um therefore residents should be taking uh advantage of using uh transit services. Right. Thank you uh Director Janet. I appreciate that. I just I just wanted to
• 93:00 - 93:30 add that to the public conversation and hopefully the residents can understand that it's not that we are passing the buck with anything but everything is downloaded to us and then we have to uh comply with what the province uh demands and it is a demand um what the what the region has decided upon and um what all all different legislations that apply to the planning act uh in conjunction with the planning act we must comply ly with
• 93:30 - 94:00 that. So, um while it may look like there's not enough parking underground for everybody and there's a concern, valid concern about cars then overflowing on into um neighboring streets. Um we do everything we possibly can to make sure that um if there is any kind of overflow then at site plan we discuss that as to how we can control uh parking on on other streets. With regards to uh the private roadway at 100 100 Elgen
• 94:00 - 94:30 Mills West um that is a private roadway. So there would have to be in my opinion you'd have to have some kind of discussion with your condo corporation as to how you can protect that road so that it doesn't become a public thoroughway. Thank you very much Mr. Mayor. Okay. Thank you. Uh seeing no other comments, we have a motion on the floor to refer all comments back to staff. All those in favor opposed. That carries unanimously.
• 94:30 - 95:00 Thank you very much. All right. So, the final uh public hearing tonight is uh number 4.3 on the agenda and it is a request for comments official plan and and revised zoning bylaw amendment application uh for 13572 and 13586 Bay View Avenue. So, um, if we can get, uh, Samantha Young from our staff to outline the application.
• 95:00 - 95:30 Okay. Hello. Okay. Go ahead, Samantha. Good evening, Mayor West, members of council, and uh, members of the public. who's attending in person as well as virtually. Tonight's public meeting involves an official plan amendment and revised zoning bylaw amendment of applications for the lands municipally
• 95:30 - 96:00 known as uh 13572 and uh 13578 Bay View Avenue. The subject lands are located on the west side of Bayiew Avenue north of Snively Street and have a total lot area of approximately 1 hector. The lands are presently vacant and but the Willox and St. George provinially significant wetland complex to the north, south, and
• 96:00 - 96:30 west of the property. and Bay View Avenue is to the east and there is a single detached dwelling to the immediate south of the property. The lands are designated neighborhood and natural core in the city's official plan and are subject to an approved official plan amendment. Um this is OPA 36 and 48 which was approved by council in July of 2022 and May of 2024.
• 96:30 - 97:00 The proposed development is within the neighborhood land use designation which permits medium density residential uses with a maximum building height of four stories and a site density of 50 units per hectare. Not with notwithstanding the neighborhood designation policies, the official plan amendment 36 and 48 permits the development of an eight-story residential building with a total density of 285 units per hectare.
• 97:00 - 97:30 The natural core designation is intended on maintaining and/or improving or restoring the ecological integrity of the natural features and functions. The applicants have submitted a natural heritage evaluation addendum letter as part of their submission which is currently being reviewed by city staff and the TRCA to ensure natural features conform with the policies of the natural core designation. Um the lands are presently
• 97:30 - 98:00 zoned uh agricultural zone under bylaw 1703 as amended. However, the associated uh zoning bylaw amendment application uh which is uh city file number D02-209 was approved in principle by council um at a meeting in May of 2024 to reszone the lands to multiple residential one zone and environmental protection area 2 zone under bylaw uh
• 98:00 - 98:30 313-96 as amended with site specific provisions to facilitate the development. At this time, the amending bylaw has not been brought forward. Um, in this regard, the applicant has now submitted a revised zoning bylaw amendment application to facilitate the proposed increased density and building height. So, this here is a slide of the
• 98:30 - 99:00 currently proposed site plan. With this, the applicant is seeking council's approval of its official plan amendment and revised uh zoning bylaw amendment applications to increase the maximum building height from eight stories to 10 stories and a site density increase from 285 units per hectare to 483.3 units per hectare. The proposed increased density would accommodate an additional 93 units, bringing the
• 99:00 - 99:30 permitted total number of units from 135 um as previously approved to 229 units. This is the proposed building elevations for the latest development, which supports 10 floors of residential use and three levels of underground parking. The previous proposal was to be comprised of five residential floors and three floors of above grade
• 99:30 - 100:00 parking and this is also another elevation from another perspective. Okay. and the subject applications and associated studies and reports have been circulated to city departments and external agencies for their review and comment. The purpose of this report brought forward tonight is to provide council and the public with an overview of the applications development proposal and has been
• 100:00 - 100:30 structured for information purposes only with a recommendation that all comments be referred back to staff for consideration. Thank you. Thanks so much. Okay. So, uh, for the applicant, Adam Leighton, uh, from the Goldberg Group. Good evening, Mr. Mayor, members of council. I find myself in an unenviable and unusual position. Um, I certainly have not ever had to come before council this often for a proposed development.
• 100:30 - 101:00 Um, but suffice it to say, it is a sign of the unusual times we find ourselves in. Uh in this regard, one of the main components uh behind the need for this amendment uh is not only additional technical study which have resulted in uh greater uh knowledge base formed for the groundwater and soil conditions but also the uh ongoing shall we say uncertainty regarding uh construction and market conditions which
• 101:00 - 101:30 in and of itself uh is not typically seen as a planning issue. Um but suffices to say in my own opinion it uh it it is an issue wherein a development cannot uh make a business case to be built. In that case it could not fulfill the intended housing targets or other good things that would be provided. So in this regard we are sorry this keeps uh falling. We still hear you. Okay. In this regard, we are here tonight to discuss uh the uh further OPA to
• 101:30 - 102:00 increase the height of the previously approved eight-story building to a 10-story building. Uh moving to the next slide, we have a comparison of uh we have the subject site uh which I think everyone is familiar with. The next slide shows the comparison of site stats and I will move a little quicker than normal uh through this presentation because we do have a a lot of technical detail that I understand or assume will likely be of concern. Um, one of the main changes through this, uh, as indicated, uh, by city staff is the
• 102:00 - 102:30 implementation of underground parking, um, which I will get to at a later slide. Uh, but moving on to the next slide, the site plan, which, uh, in terms of development limits and applicable buffers from the identified Snively wetland, has not changed. That will continue to be the case. No development is occurring in or within the buff in the wetland itself or within the buffer. All of that is being conveyed to the city uh which I believe is pretty close to about half of the overall property. Uh moving on to the
• 102:30 - 103:00 next slide, we see a change of the ground floor uh reconfiguring the parking and uh the uh lobby layout and amenity spaces. Um the next slide is where we get into the interesting things. Uh this shows the uh 3D massing of the building with the additional heights. On the left is the previous scheme. On the right is the current scheme. And what's shown here is the the portions of the building that project into the angular plane. Uh there are some pro uh projections uh
• 103:00 - 103:30 similar to the prior concept which was approved but primarily the building maintains the angular plane. The portions that are uh encroached upon are upper parapet areas or roofs uh roof structures. Moving on to the next level, you'll see the uh breakdown of uses by color. The ground floor is primarily uh still parking. Um but where we previously had three levels of above grade parking, we've moved them underground. Um and that was deemed to be appropriate through an continued
• 103:30 - 104:00 hydro geological study. Uh that has been provided to staff. Uh we are waiting on comments from the region and TRCA in that regard and uh we we will be certainly providing any other technical details that are needed. Aside from that, the pink portion of the building would be residential. uh the orange would be amenity space. So by and large the massing maintains largely the same. Uh the next slide provides some sections with uh also the red outline showing the prior massing. So you'll actually see in
• 104:00 - 104:30 some regards there is a reduction in building height along the southern wall. Um and then we also on the next slide have the comparable renderings which uh were shown by city staff. The next slide is of probably of most interest because the underground parking is really the new aspect to this development proposal. Uh so what's shown here is a plan of the bore holes that have been drilled as well as schematic cross-sections of the soil and groundwater conditions. We do have the
• 104:30 - 105:00 project hydrogeeologist here from SLR or Palmer who can certainly go into detail much greater than I. uh but what we find ourselves with is a condition where the the green arrow the green area on the cross-section is what is called an aquatard. It is soil conditions that are do not uh readily permit the the groundwater to move uh in any great manner and that is in fact why the wetland has formed. It sits on top of the aquatard rather than uh percolating and infiltrating into the soil. So the
• 105:00 - 105:30 red outline shows the limit of the underground parking garage which is intended to be fully waterproofed. Uh so there is no drainage from the ground what groundwater there is getting into the city system. It would be watertight and as you'll see the aquatard actually forms a pretty consistent and solid barrier between the underground parking area and the limit the the future limit of development and property line in the wetland. And so on that basis we provided our technical data to TRCA in the region and the city and we are waiting on those comments.
• 105:30 - 106:00 Aside from that, the next slide shows the uh landscape plans which are largely uh refined but but uh no major changes there from the prior development. Still a large plaza leading up to the building, a double row of trees along the Bay View rightway as well as the provision of a future multi-use pathway and a robust uh replanting plan within the boulevard within the buffer from Mr. Leon, you're overtime, so we just wrap it up. Sure. Um happy to answer any questions and again we do have the experts from SLR as well as our traffic
• 106:00 - 106:30 engineer in case there's any questions. Okay. Thanks. Thanks so much. Okay. The next um uh delegate is Ramine Jalapur from Artfield Developments. Welcome. Yeah. Hello everyone. Hello uh Mayor Rest and member of councils. Uh firstly I want to thank you all for giving me the opportunity to have a quick talk here. Um so I want to start
• 106:30 - 107:00 with that I want to admit that we're not happy back here after a few times and uh we plan to uh launch this project last year in September 2024. Uh we got everything ready. We prepare we spend a lot of uh amount uh we spend a lot of money and resources to get the project ready. We prepared everything all the marketing materials which I'm very happy to share with any of the counelors and uh considering of the market situation
• 107:00 - 107:30 we could not launch in September 2024 and now we're back here uh to make an amend to the application and make the project more feasible uh due to the current market and and situation we have to make this to to survive. So I I prepared a we prepared a quick presentation about uh this project in Arfield and which could answer some of your question. Uh the next slide will present that the artfield portfolio we have
• 107:30 - 108:00 currently 20 projects under management. uh they are in different stages uh either under construction, under development or entitlement and some of them sales and some of them is already completed. Uh 6 million square foot in the pipeline uh 7,000 units uh to be produced or to be built. If you go to the next slide. So this is a snapshot of our project that you can see some of the
• 108:00 - 108:30 project that we have not all of them this is across GTA uh and if you go to the next slide. So here are the five projects that we have actively in Richmond Hill. We started Richmond Hill. We call Richmond Hill home and we have a strong ties to Richmond Hill and our office was located in Richmond Hill for a long time as well. So the the top three projects, the first one is Duncan Hill Homes. Uh this is the one we have it under construction already and is uh expected
• 108:30 - 109:00 to be completed by the end of the year. And the other two project on the right side at the top level the top you is Maple Park Homes and Duchess of Oxford that they already completed and built. So together is around 100 uh houses that we have built in the last couple of years and at the bottom are the two project and one of them is uh uh the project that we're talking today about. Uh so the the two project that we are hoping to launch uh in 2026. One of them is a condo and the other one is a townhouse in Richmond Hill as well. So
• 109:00 - 109:30 this shows that we are not a land flipper. We're here to build. If we wanted to flip the property, we could have make money in 2022 when the market was good. But we didn't we kept we kept the project and we we we we are adamant to build this uh houses. And if you go to the uh next slide so uh the before before I talk about this slide and we also uh very active in North York and other across
• 109:30 - 110:00 the GTA. We are partner with reputable builders. We're partner with Tridel and we can bring a strategic partner in this this project as well. We're aiming to either build a condo or rental for this project. But considering the market situation which I'm going to explain in this slide, we had to put a pause and we had to come back. So the first table shows the this is uh to confirm that how much of the pre-sales of the condo has been dropped in 2024 and 2024. This will show you how the how bad is the market
• 110:00 - 110:30 is extremely difficult to make any project work in these days. And I'm sure you guys know about this but this table give you a lot of perspective as well. So to to to launch any project or make any project feasible these days is like is you have to go through a lot of hassles. And if you go to the next slides. So this slide is talking about the average prices about this product and compare it to the comparable products in the area. So the average of
• 110:30 - 111:00 house or homes in the area is around $1.3 million in the specific area on Richmond Hill and the product that we're introducing and this has been mentioned before is pretty attainable. So, we're talking about the as low and the units as low as as $450,000 and the average of the houses is around average of the homes is around condos is around $700,000 which is extremely lower than the average of homes in the area which would make it much more attainable for the people who
• 111:00 - 111:30 want to or the young generation that they want to get to the house and they want to buy first home. So this is another reason that we we we need I understand we made a commitment that we want to pursue with this project and we're here we still want to go ahead and we want to we want to build this trust me is is is is not very pleasant for a developer to sit on the property and and accur all the accure all the financing costes all the expenses and and wait and come back this is not pleasant for us as
• 111:30 - 112:00 well and I know there's a frustration for you but we need your help if we want to make this project feasible is a tough one is a difficult one but we have to put all the effort to make it possible. Okay. So remaine you're out of time so can we wrap it up? Yeah. So on the last conversation as Adam said we had several meeting with the York uh region we for the affordable units. So we are talking to them to see what kind of affordable units we can provide. It has been a live conversation and we will update back to you guys. Thank you. Have a good thanks very much. Okay. The next delegation is
• 112:00 - 112:30 Howard Dodie. Uh good to see you Howard. Good as always to be seen. I must say uh that was quite impressive. My comments will be considerably simpler. Serendipitously, this matter was brought in context for me by an email I received
• 112:30 - 113:00 this morning from Rebecca Cerich of the Environmental Defense. She reminded me that southern Ontario has experienced a staggering amount of wetland loss over the past 200 years of settlement. That 75% of our wetlands have been irretrievably destroyed. The losses are proceeding at an increasing pace. These richer rich natural systems perform crucial
• 113:00 - 113:30 geological functions. The oak ridges morane is especially important. It is the largest natural filtration system in the province. It continues to face severe irreversible threats. In the last six years, she said, the situation has become increasingly brutal. The Ontario government has systematically abandoned protections and eroded environment laws in favor of
• 113:30 - 114:00 destructive, sprawling development. The ripple effects are drained, filled, and damaged wetlands that jeopardize habitat, clean water, and flood prevention. With this in mind, I speak in unwavering support for Councelor Davidson's consistent opposition to this development and her promise to vote against the revised application. I too remain concerned about the height,
• 114:00 - 114:30 density, and proximity of the development to the snively wet wetland, as well as the environmental impact, potential flooding risks for older homes, worsening traffic, and parking in an area that lacks public transit. The ecological issues are to me irrefutable and determinative. So I want to just spend a moment speaking to those who might support the proposal. Some can call this a nimi
• 114:30 - 115:00 objection that is as false here as it has been in every other objection that I and others have raised to similar and often more damaging proposals, many of which this council has approved, however reluctantly. The land in question is not in my backyard, but it is at the peak of the morane and the natural features paid no attention whatsoever to property lines or personal or corporate
• 115:00 - 115:30 finances. The effect of this and other Oakidge's marine developments reverberates geologically through the whole of the system from its origins to Lake Ontario. This is not a matter of property value. it is a matter of environmental sustainability. Others can claim that standing in the way of developers demands is not only futile but a waste of the city's time, human resources, and taxpayers money. The appeals procedure, no longer
• 115:30 - 116:00 accessible to mere residents, costs many thousands of taxpayer dollars and I am told it is wasted because the Ontario Land Tribunal already has its priorities. The system is rigged. Then there's a matter of precedent. I think it's important to me mention that each developer's victory makes the next one easier. They gain momentum.
• 116:00 - 116:30 You've heard this before, but when I rec moved to Oak Bridges in 1984, the town planning department argued convincingly that the most uh that the most the land of Ward One could sustain was a population of approximately 6,000 people. Then one after another incremental increases were deemed exceptional and permitted and they became the precedent for the next. By 2016 we had over four
• 116:30 - 117:00 we had 40,000 people here. Soon it'll be 50 60 maybe 70,000. All I can ask is that in this last attempt at justification, it could be said that one last wetland destroyed is no big deal. Since all was lost, why not deliver the cudigrass? And I would say that pessimism and cynicism are cumulative
• 117:00 - 117:30 and no longer affordable options. Please defeat this proposal. It's going to be one of the last chances you get. Thank you very much, sir. So, the last uh person that we have signed up is uh Tam Fatahe. And I saw Tam a minute ago on screen. There she is. Welcome. You've got five minutes to address council. Yes. Thank you so much. Good evening, Mayor West and his team counselors.
• 117:30 - 118:00 Actually, oh, okay. No, sorry. We're good. We're good. You just turned the volume up a bit. We're fine. Awesome. Thank you. Uh my name is Tam Fatahi and I'm a member and I'm a resident of 153 Paradel Drive. I'm here speaking on behalf of my children's school community as well as our neighbors. Everything that my fellow delegation mentioned prior to me speaking, I do agree and so 100% everything what he said. Bayiew and Bloomington is one of the last remaining
• 118:00 - 118:30 green spaces in our area. A truly precious piece of land. to provide some context. Lake Wilcox is a vibrant, well-loved community that I take my kids to almost every day. It's a space that sees a high volume activity year round, especially the summertime. It's a frequently visited by families, children, dog walkers, and tons of visitors, making the area already quite congested. Introducing another building to this area would significantly
• 118:30 - 119:00 intensify the strain on our local infrastructure. It would mean more people, more cars, and and even less space to a community that safely comfortable and joy. And so with that said, I have two questions for to inquire to our fellow developers that has been conducted or provided a detailed impact access to our local comm community infrastructure. Given that our community schools in Oakidge is already experiencing enrollment pressures, has there been any
• 119:00 - 119:30 consultation with the school boards to determine whether the current capacity can absorb the expected increase in student populations? If no such assessment has been made available, I would respectfully request that council consider pausing any approvals until a full study is conducted. It is important that we ensure our community's educational resources um can adequately support both current and future residents. And my second question is that how is this development
• 119:30 - 120:00 promoting sustainable mobility when it's mainly autodependent with transit notwell service to this area? Thank you very much for your time. Thank you very much, Tam. Okay, so I I don't see anybody else in the audience that wants to speak to this. Is that correct? Okay. And uh we have nobody else signed up online. So I think we'll bring this back to council. Uh this is ward one. So we'll uh get uh councelor Davidson to start us off and move a
• 120:00 - 120:30 motion to refer all comments back to staff and then uh councelor uh Thompson will second it. Go ahead, councelor Davidson. Thank you. Um thank you staff and thank you for the delegates uh the residents. I actually uh I've seen at least 40 emails from residents in Oakidges who don't want to see this uh application approved and I don't think it's any secret that I agree. So in 2022 in July an eight this property was
• 120:30 - 121:00 approved by the previous council for eight stories 103 units and then last year the applicant came and asked to increase the density still eight stories 285 uh sorry 135 units and this council approved that last year. That's a year ago. I'm not sure what the difference is in terms of you called it the uh business case. That was less that was less than a year ago if I recall. So now we're here
• 121:00 - 121:30 wanting 10 stories and 229 units and three of these stories now are underwater or at least in a wetland. Um through you, Mr. Chair, I'd like to ask staff why now are we hearing about underwater or underground parking in a very sensitive wetland area and is that something that works from an engineering perspective or do we know Miss Janetta through the chair to
• 121:30 - 122:00 councelor Davidson? So um the previous proposal um uh staff were advised that uh going underground uh was not feasible um and that was part of the considerations for staff to consider uh the eightstory built form that was recommended for approval um initially. Um three stories of parking were above ground. there was no uh underground parking and so it included five stories of above grade residential floor area.
• 122:00 - 122:30 Um through the review of this application um the applicant is now proposing underground parking. Um though the technical feasibility of the underground parking is being reviewed by cities the city's in development engineering staff as well as the Toronto region and conservation authority due to the wetland um uh proximity uh nearby. So both of the technical feasibility of that and whether uh city staff and TRCA
• 122:30 - 123:00 agree with the underground structures will be determined as part of the review of this development application. Thank you. Um through you Mr. Chair. So now the diagram we've seen of I guess these big piledriven things that are going to s sustain this three stories through Mr. Chair to staff. Do we know what kind of what kind of shock what kind of damage will that do to wildlife in a wetland when you're driving these huge things down down down
• 123:00 - 123:30 into the ground? Do we will there be studies of that? And and also the effects of this kind of pile driving or whatever you want to call it in surrounding homes that are already there through the chair. So um some of the those matters will be reviewed as part of the technical feasibility of the application as and as part of the review of the current proposal in front of us. Uh with respect to um nearby homes um
• 123:30 - 124:00 nearby homes are um located in a decent proximity away from the proposed development. So again those considerations may not be of as concern as if it were uh much more closer. Again, all of these things will be reviewed as part of the technical feasibility of the proposal currently in front of us that is being reviewed today. Thank you to you, Mr. Chair. Although, uh, the surrounding homes back onto the wetlands, so noise, vibration,
• 124:00 - 124:30 all that carries across water much easier than across land if that was just a big piece of land and they were that far away in my opinion. Um it says that the uh the underground parking will be waterproof through you. Mr. Chair, do we have any ideas what kind of chemicals are needed to keep something waterproof and what that introduces into the wetland if anything at this point through the chair. I don't have that information. Um my I would appreciate that uh there
• 124:30 - 125:00 would be it would be typical construction standards and if there are any type of special requirements that would be determined as part of the TRCA's review uh there will be a TRCA permit that will be required for any development on this property uh to happen. Thank you through you Mr. Chair. I mean, it's hard not to think about the Florida condo that the BA the underground parking gave way because of water and the whole thing kind of
• 125:00 - 125:30 imploded. And I'm not saying that the technology hasn't changed or that it's even possible, but I don't want I I think this is too much, way too much for this piece of land. and to start now going three stories down. I would hate to think in 10 years or or or any period of time something that's not something people say why would the city ever approve that when they knew it's a wetland. They knew it's a wet spot. It's called a wetland. Um also the location the closest amenity is a grocery store 4
• 125:30 - 126:00 km away. I think it's um not feasible to think as we try to create walkable cities that someone's going to walk four kilometers to the store and four back and there's absolutely nothing else around there and there isn't um a bus service that would take someone from Bay View to Young where the shopping is. So, we're going to have to assume that every single unit is going to need a car. um that's not only going to increase traffic, it's the opposite of walkable cities, which is what the city is trying
• 126:00 - 126:30 to accomplish. Um and you know, the the applicant was approved for something in 2022. Three years ago, I'm assuming it was cheaper to build that 3 years ago than it's than it costs now to build a condo in 2025. the the applicant was um approved for something a year ago and argues that they can't make a business case from a year ago. And I just want to say my job as a counselor is not to create a workable project for you and
• 126:30 - 127:00 figure out if there's um you know a business case for it. Our job is for you come to us and tell us what you want and then you sit on it for three years and then you come back and say, "Well, I can't make enough money on that one. it won't pay off or I I can't make ends meet. And then you come back for another approval and we say yes, you still sit on it. Then you come back a third time. I I find this too much and unacceptable. And if the applicant is serious about building something, you have your approvals. Thank you.
• 127:00 - 127:30 Okay. Thank you. Uh Councelor Thompson, you'll second it. Uh yes, I'll second the the uh motion to receive all comments back to staff. um through the chair I I just want to stay say that uh like u uh Mr. uh Roine uh I too am not happy that this this is coming back here. I'm also not happy with the reasons that you just provided
• 127:30 - 128:00 because to me the the ability for you to make money on this means nothing to me. this building you when you bought this property, it was approved for four stories and at that time it was decided for whatever reason that you wanted that property and you could make things work. And so then you come back and and say, well, yeah, we we may have made a mistake buying that property, but that's not my problem and it shouldn't be our
• 128:00 - 128:30 problem either. But you came back and you came with a pitch for eight stories and you actually got that. So you increased the value of that property and you did nothing with it. So I I don't have any sympathy for that whole pitch that you just gave us. It means nothing to me. So I can't I can't change what happened in 2022 that that council decided to
• 128:30 - 129:00 approve that. Um and that was a building for 103 units. Uh and you didn't do anything with it. you didn't make any money on it. You're now going, "Woe is me. The whole industry has changed and I can't do that." Well, too bad. I'm sorry. One of the things that I got to ask to staff here is that uh this is now has to go back to TRCA because of what's what's going on. So, this is being circulated. Uh, you know, part of the
• 129:00 - 129:30 approval, why this happened back in 2022 from what I remember is that pretty much that the ones that approved it on council kept saying TRCA doesn't have a problem with this. So, I'm sure that's why it actually got through. Um, but this now may be a whole different thing. You have to go right back through the whole process again. Correct. Through the chair to councelor Thompson. um hydrog reports and water balance assessments uh were submitted. Um they
• 129:30 - 130:00 may not have been submitted initially because again they weren't doing underground parking structures. So there are there is more information being provided as part of the review of this application that TRCA uh will have to take into consideration. Um thank you uh through the chair. I just want to note further about that 22 application. you know, four of the five council members that supported that application, they uh didn't pass that
• 130:00 - 130:30 next election. It was only just a few months later. So, coincidence? I don't know. Um, but I just wanted to say that. Um, what I find really disturbing was that after getting approval, it really looked like you were going to get the shovels in the ground. In speaking with staff, I understand that you were very close to getting site plan approval across the finish line, albeit for some minor exterior design, glazing, and setback issues that shouldn't have been
• 130:30 - 131:00 too difficult to resolve. But instead of resolving those minor issues, you went away for a while. And then you chose to come back with another application seeking more density in a location where it's not wanted, not needed, or appropriate for meeting our housing needs. All you've done is tied up our staff's time once again on an application where shovels should have been in the ground long ago. So in 2024,
• 131:00 - 131:30 you revise the application. You come to the committee of the whole on April the 3. Much debate debate occurred. Uh April 10th, it was so it was it ended up being deferred to the April 10 council meeting. Uh again, you got it still at eight stories but now 135 units. And at that time, Council Depala stuck up for you as the applicant, saying how you've got a proven track record, something you were trying to demonstrate there,
• 131:30 - 132:00 showing with your uh Oxford uh development and uh Maple development, stuff like that. And, you know, kudos to to Councelor Depala for actually standing up and saying that, you know, this is somebody who's actually doing buildings. Although, you know, we you have that property at Old Colony and Bay View. That's I don't know. There's crickets seems to be happening at this point. You got an approval on that one and it's still sitting doing nothing. I
• 132:00 - 132:30 don't get it. So, you know, you know, you you you managed to sway people to be on your side back then, but I I come from the society where fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. So quite frankly, I I didn't support it back then. I didn't I'm not going to support it now. And I can only hope that those that were fooled back in 2022 and 24 will say the same thing. I'm not
• 132:30 - 133:00 going to be fooled again. Okay. Thank you, Regional Local Counselor Depalo. Oh, we got uh I think I need to unmute the telephone connection. No, we still can't hear you. Okay. Can you hear me now? Yeah, we're good. Thank you very much. Thank you very much, Mr. Mayor.
• 133:00 - 133:30 Um I this is we are dealing here with a very very unique situation. Um what we what we have to remember as a council that u we're making a decision to um to go forward with a a different type of building or uh or or a building that's already approved it. It's essentially the same size. All all all issues remain
• 133:30 - 134:00 the same. Uh what I'm going to be waiting for is to hear back from the TRCA and and from our staff about uh the the proposal to to go underground with with the building. So um I've been I've been told that essentially they're they're going to create a bathtub. They're going to protect um the wetland area and they're bu going to build this uh building inside of a watertight tub. And it's not it's not new technology that the that the applicant has
• 134:00 - 134:30 invented. It's a something that's tried and tested elsewhere. And we're going to hear back from those authorities from the the TRCA and and u our staff evaluating submissions by by the applicants. So um you know I not can't speak to those environmental issues until we hear back from from experts and and have those comments. that we are certainly not um doing anything untoward
• 134:30 - 135:00 enrichment hill. I I uh supported this from day one and I I'll continue to speak in support until professional opinion is otherwise. Um because Mr. Mayor, as you know, uh we have a requirement to meet uh provincial targets uh housing numbers and we have limited places to do that. We we have a thousand acres of protected land in the north end of Richmond Hill. Uh we we're
• 135:00 - 135:30 never venturing on that. I will be the loudest opponent of of an application that um attempts to change the zoning within the Oak British Marine, but there are some parcels and this is one of them that that have existing uh grandfathered reasons why um development is allowed. Uh there's very few of those pockets. Young and Stoville. Uh we're dealing with something Lesley and Lesley and Stoville. Um very limited settlement
• 135:30 - 136:00 area with limited restrictions. But uh we we have to achieve th those targets and um when when you know is said by council Thompson that this applicant's ability to make money or not is is not our problem and the market conditions are not our problem. Um, but they are uh the market conditions are such that all builders are choosing not to do anything with with approvals. And that's what we're sitting on thousands of units that
• 136:00 - 136:30 this council has approved and deemed appropriate that that are not being built. And it is the case that this applicant has a proven uh history of of building after they they've received approvals. Um it's it's not um you know it was said that how could everything change so much in one year. It is changing. It's changing rapidly. The the construction industry is is extremely difficult and um I think this
• 136:30 - 137:00 applicant's making every effort to adapt. And I do like the fact that they're working with York Region Housing on uh coming coming to an agreement to get some deeply affordable units here. But they're but this is extremely affordable. You know, they're they're they're at the stage of marketing this and talking about $430,000 unit. Uh that that's something Richmond Hill. It's a a product that we need. Uh I like the threebedroom uh that
• 137:00 - 137:30 that are being offered. This is, you know, this is a family opportunity for an affordable situation. There aren't a lot of options in Oak Bridges. you want to stay in Oak Bridges and you know and downsize or or you have you know young young people in in your family that want to stay in Oak Bridges this is this is an option because there's not going to be a lot and and uh you know most of most of Oakidges is is protected and there's
• 137:30 - 138:00 limited opportunities. So we we have to remember that the there's already been a conveyance to the TRCA in the city uh for for the wetlands. This is here's a determined buffer from from the wetland and a developable portion of this lot that's being used and contemplated here. We've we've already approved a building. I I I think we should work with the applicants to approve something that they can actually do. Thanks.
• 138:00 - 138:30 Okay. Thank you very much, uh, Councelor Silhouettes. Thank you, Mr. Mayor and thank you to everyone who spoke again and the applicant and our staff. Um I have a huge problem with this and the huge problem for me is this is this three-level underground. The previous one uh from last year was approved because it didn't have the underground parking and that was a ve that was a very critical point to this
• 138:30 - 139:00 particular u location in order to build it's um I agree with what councelor depalo is saying yes there are certain areas um in on the oakg morraine in oakg but I don't understand the necessity of this particular particular applicant with all respect to want to just continue to make this bigger and bigger and bigger. Yes, we need the we need the housing 100%. But we have the
• 139:00 - 139:30 housing if it's done if it's constructed according to what was approved last year. So I I can support the underground parking and should it remain that way, it will certainly would not get my my approval. Um the 24 approval is as far as I'm concerned should be the absolute extent that uh we should go uh to approve uh this particular this this particular application and while I
• 139:30 - 140:00 understand the developers and the applicants um right to their return of investment um I believe that the land and the residents also have a Right. And that is to protect their own land and for us to ensure that the Oakidgees marine and the snively wetlands in particular are protected here. So I'll also I'll wait to hear what the TRCA says. Um it is I agree
• 140:00 - 140:30 with Council Depalo. It is a very it's an important part of the entire process. But I right now there is absolutely no way I would I I I could agree to putting three levels of underground parking here. Um when it was one of the main things that was stated prior to this was the fact that they are not going underground to put in any parking. So now they want underground
• 140:30 - 141:00 parking so that anything above there can be um can be uh used as residences. I understand that. I understand that. But um uh it is our duty as as councilors uh to make sure that we protect the land as as as well as make important and decisions about whether or not uh land can be developed. And yes, we are very short of land. In
• 141:00 - 141:30 fact, we have no developable land left in Richmond Hill. But this particular relic re-relication is just a little bit too much for me. So, um I'll I'll wait to see what what comes back in in in following um in following meetings, but really I urge I urge this this applicant to please reook at what you are doing and um and and go back to what was approved in 24.
• 141:30 - 142:00 You have an application as councelor Thompson said that has been approved. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Okay. Thank you. Uh, anybody else? Okay, just hold on a sec. Uh, okay. Uh, I'll just make a couple of comments on the first round. Um, you know, this is frustrating because, you know, we we are in a housing crisis. We do need to build housing, but I I think um I I wasn't in favor of the initial
• 142:00 - 142:30 eightstory development when it first came in the last term of council. Um I I I really think that it will. On page 11 in the staff report, it said the revised development proposal represents significant intensification of the subject lands with 10 floors of residential floor area to be supported by three levels of underground parking. Whereas the previous proposal was comprised of only five floors of residential floor area and three uh floors of above grade parking. The
• 142:30 - 143:00 intensification significantly exceeds the height and density permissions of the neighborhood designation and sight specific provisions of OPAs 36 and 48 applicable to the lands. Um I think in its present form I I I really think that uh I I wouldn't be able to support this but um I do appreciate the fact that you know the developers coming to us because the market is changing but you know I guess the reality is is that you know while we do have a housing uh issue in
• 143:00 - 143:30 Richmond Hill we certainly do and we're working very hard at that but I think there's you know every uh area has a limit and I think there are areas where we can push the limit a little bit and it's probably fine. It's good planning and there are areas that I don't think we can push uh the limit and I think this is probably one of the areas um as was said the from a technical perspective I mean a lot of us make comments about groundwater and the
• 143:30 - 144:00 public makes comments too some of it may or may not be true but none of us on council here at least are geotechnical engineers um you know that's up to the engineering staff to create something that's going to work and it's up to TRCA to do that they do to make sure that the the um groundwater and and the environment are being protected. So it will be an important uh moment from a technical perspective when TRCA brings back their comments and we when we can
• 144:00 - 144:30 come up uh to with a review of the engineering to make sure that in fact it's something that we you know potentially could uh you know condone. But I think really the problem that I have with this at the end of the day is that because of the fact that the the floors that were going to be taken up with parking are now going to be residential, we have a lot more uh residential density that's being proposed here than even the original
• 144:30 - 145:00 application which I wasn't enthusiastic about. So, um I think there's work to do here that to, you know, bring this down to a level uh and and listen, the reality is that the the applicant does have an eight-story permission that uh he has in his hand. So, um something, you know, there is permissions to build something there. Uh whether or not it will be built in that form or not, uh remains to be seen. But I I'm not I
• 145:00 - 145:30 think this this uh application before us right now is not something that I'm you know I'm happy with at the moment. Uh hopefully that some uh work can be done on it to make it it fit in that area um in a in a much better way than it is right now. So uh all right, we have a second round request from Councelor Davidson. Uh councelor Depalo, you still have your hand up. Is that from last time? Okay, so councelor Davidson, go ahead.
• 145:30 - 146:00 Thank you. Three, Mr. Chair. Um, I just want to say I absolutely agree. We need more housing. Um, if this applicant had shovels in the ground, we'd be closer to housing on this unit of these units. Now, um, but this particular area, Oak Bridges in general, isn't just any piece of land. And we can't I don't think um being c being cautious about how we allow building on sensitive areas within
• 146:00 - 146:30 whatever the guidelines are eight stories that we're going to solve or break the the housing crisis by saying no to this this application. And also it's one of my colleagues said, you know, it's almost the same. Well, it's not. We're going from eight levels to 13, three underground and 10 above. That's a huge increase. And I also want to just my opinion to my fellow council members is that this is a slippery slope when other developers hear that we move the needle because we were told that the
• 146:30 - 147:00 business case would be better if we allowed higher and more density. How many other builders are going to be back here saying, "Hey, I'll go for that. I'd like some more. I was going to build at this. Now I want that." I I just don't see how this is going to end up well. and I appreciate my council members comments and and we do have a lot of work to do. Thank you. Okay. Uh councelor Thompson. Thank you very much.
• 147:00 - 147:30 Um through you the chair. I I went back and I I looked at the recordings uh from last year and it became very clear that the reasons why uh that was approved last year was because everybody was worried about the BFF, the building faster fund that we're all trying to meet those targets. And the applicant made it very clear that yes, they were ready to proceed. They
• 147:30 - 148:00 wanted to get the shovels in the ground as soon as they possibly could. Uh, and I think that was a a swaying uh remark for council at that time. I know that uh you know uh councelor depala you know I'm going to quote you exactly. He said, "My concern as budget chair is we are very hardressed over the next couple of years to get units built and this will
• 148:00 - 148:30 contribute to us hitting our targets mandated by the province." This is, you know, as a matter of fact, you went on for to say, I have more and more confidence that these units will be built in a timely manner if they're successful in meeting all our requirements and get through the approval stages. Well, you know, instead of going through the those approval stages, they've come back with another
• 148:30 - 149:00 application. How is that going to be timely? You know, it just I don't get this. This is what I call a neverendum. You know, it just keeps coming back and back and back. Those are my comments. Thank you. Okay. Thank you very much. Uh seeing no other comments, um we have a Oh, sorry. Councelor Depal, do you want a second round? Oh, go ahead then. Oh, no. You're you're you're
• 149:00 - 149:30 muted. I I mute the phone connection. Okay. Go ahead. Okay. I think I I'm on there now. Okay. Um so, Mr. Mayor, exactly what I said last time. It's the same thing I'm saying this time. Um we in order for us to get our building faster bonds, uh we have to hit targets. It's it's as much a reality last year as as it is now, even more so. Um because we're we're seeing the
• 149:30 - 150:00 evidence of the the crisis level in in the community. So the we're not it's we're not trying to solve Ontario's housing crisis. We're not trying to build enough homes to to put to even put a dent in that. We are trying to solve our financial crisis in Richmond Hill because we we have targets imposed on us that are nearly impossible under the constraints that we have. We have to work with everyone who is truly willing to build in this city. And I say the
• 150:00 - 150:30 same to him. we have an applicant who's truly willing to build. They're going to build at a loss. Ladies and gentlemen, you have to understand the conditions out there. Um there the builders are not choosing to stand on the sidelines because they're they're they're tired. They want to take a year off. Uh you know, they're they're just you know, let's uh let's let's not build because we're not making as much as we would like to. They can't do it because they cannot break even. There
• 150:30 - 151:00 the only people that are building are people like Treasure Hill who are are keeping their employees going and and at a loss to to to sur to to keep keep their company as large as it as it has become. um you know, they're just hoping that by continuing to employ that labor force that when they get through this and take the losses, they're going to be in a better position because there'll be some
• 151:00 - 151:30 loyalty in the um from from that labor force. The price of labor, the price of materials, the financing costs, the land costs, it it just does not compute to to build a building today. and we have someone in front of us who's willing to build the building provided that um um you know they continue to to meet the the other the other stages in the rest of this building process and
• 151:30 - 152:00 um you know I I'm TRCA says this can't be done it's harmful to the aquifer or the the surrounding area and it can't be done but uh I it's definitely It's definitely worth a try. We have an applicant who's who's who's putting all all efforts forward and in in all sincerity to to get to get these units, you know, bridges. Now, and any argument that this is that this building is too
• 152:00 - 152:30 dense is absolutely insane. This is the least densely populated area in the entire GTA. There's nothing this close to Young Street or this near um an urban envelope that is less developed. There there's no traffic problems. There's no issues whatsoever. There's Lake St. George across the street and Lake Wilcox on the other side. There's nothing else going to be built from from Lake Wilcox
• 152:30 - 153:00 to to Bloomington to this whole area to the 404. There is nothing. There is this is this is empty. There's two GO train stations that go to the middle of nowhere that will never be homes. There is no transportation issues. Um there is there is no uh no other no other argument. The fact that there's an approved building here and and and and this proposal is for the same size of building. Um there's just can we put
• 153:00 - 153:30 this garage understand underground without harming the environment? I don't know. We we'll see one its way in. But uh we we've got to build units and we are in a financial crisis if we don't somehow figure out a way to um to get what what we need what counts as a unit is a foundation poured. We need foundations poured in the next two to four years or else we are significantly
• 153:30 - 154:00 disadvantaged to the tune of hundreds of million dollars uh against all other municipalities that that are meeting meeting their targets. So unless the province changes um the current situation forces us to really make an honest effort with with everyone that comes forward. And I I I know I'm taking some criticism for being prodevelopment. I'm not. I'm just I'm just pro the finances of this of this
• 154:00 - 154:30 municipality and and the uh the lack of ability to have any more property tax increases. Thank you. Okay. Thank you very much. Okay. So, we have a motion on the floor to refer all comments back to staff. All those in favor? Opposed? That carries unanimously. Thank you very much. I need a motion to adjurnn. Councelor Thompson, Councelor Tree, all