City of Richmond Hill

Council Public Meeting - Tuesday, April 8, 2025 - 7 p.m. - City of Richmond Hill

Estimated read time: 1:20

Summary

The City of Richmond Hill held a Council Public Meeting on April 8, 2025, to discuss two major development proposals. The meeting, attended by local residents and council members, was an opportunity for public engagement and feedback on proposed housing developments along Young Street. The key issues discussed included traffic congestion, density, environmental concerns, and the need for affordable housing. The meeting highlighted community concerns about the scale of development in the area, emphasizing the importance of balancing growth with local infrastructure and lifestyle impacts.

Highlights

Residents expressed unease about the increased traffic and density of new developments. 🚦
The importance of maintaining community character while accommodating growth was stressed. 🏘️
Council highlighted the challenge of meeting provincial housing mandates. 📈
Discussions included the potential for affordable housing in new developments. 💬
Concerns about the environmental impact of developments were prominent in discussions. 🌳

Key Takeaways

Community voices heard: Residents shared their concerns about development impacts. 🗣️
Traffic Troubles: Concerns about the impact of increased traffic due to new developments. 🚗
Balancing Act: Discussions revolved around balancing growth with existing infrastructure. ⚖️
Affordable Housing Focus: Emphasis on the need for affordable housing amidst new developments. 🏡
Environmental Awareness: Addressing environmental impacts of proposed developments. 🌍

Overview

In the midst of a bustling city council meeting, Richmond Hill community members gathered to discuss the future of their neighborhoods. Proposed high-rise developments were the hot topic, with residents concerned about the potential strain on local infrastructure, particularly traffic.

The council meeting served as a vital platform for public discourse, allowing residents to voice their concerns directly to elected officials. Key issues included the need for a balance between meeting growth targets and maintaining the character and livability of Richmond Hill's neighborhoods.

Affordable housing emerged as a central theme, with the community advocating for developments that address both the housing crisis and the overall quality of life in the city. As plans continue to evolve, managing environmental impacts and ensuring sustainable development remain top priorities for all involved.

Chapters

00:00 - 02:00: Introduction and Welcome The chapter opens with a warm welcome to the council public meeting taking place on a Tuesday, April 8th. The speaker begins with an introductory remark, reading a poem, which sets a formal yet engaging tone for the meeting. The introduction signals the start of discussions, while also showcasing a bit of the speaker's personality through the reading of the poem.
02:00 - 05:00: Explanation of the Meeting's Purpose The chapter titled 'Explanation of the Meeting's Purpose' discusses the conditions under which individuals or entities (such as a public body or specified person) can participate in the appeals process concerning official plan amendments or zoning bylaw amendments in Richmond Hill. It explains that if these parties do not provide oral or written submissions during the public meetings, they are generally not entitled to appeal the city council's decisions to the Ontario Land Tribunal. Furthermore, they may not be permitted to join in on an appeal unless the tribunal identifies reasonable grounds for their involvement. Thus, the chapter underscores the importance of participating in public meetings to retain the right to appeal council decisions.
05:00 - 08:00: Application Review - 24 Brookside Drive The chapter begins with an explanation of the purpose of the meeting, which is a council public meeting required under the planning act. This meeting is held whenever a new application is submitted to initiate the review process. The beginning of the meeting is aimed at clarifying what the meeting will address and what it will not.
08:00 - 12:00: Technical Details of 24 Brookside Drive The chapter discusses a council meeting where the public and council are invited to share their views on two applications related to technical details of 24 Brookside Drive. The meeting is an opportunity for public input, but no final decisions will be made during this session. A motion is expected at the end of the discussion on both applications.
12:00 - 19:00: Public Comments and Concerns on 24 Brookside Drive The chapter discusses a public hearing regarding 24 Brookside Drive, where comments from both the public and council members will be referred back to planning staff. The planning staff will integrate this feedback as they continue working with the applicant to finalize the application. Once this process is complete, a staff report will be presented at a future council meeting to explain the staff's recommendation.
19:00 - 36:00: Council Deliberation on 24 Brookside Drive The council meeting was called to order, with a unanimous decision to adopt the agenda. There were no disclosures of interest from any members of the council. The main focus of the meeting was to deliberate on the application for 24 Brookside Drive, starting with two public hearings.
36:00 - 40:00: Application Review - Young MCD, Inc. The chapter details the process of reviewing an official plan and zoning bylaw amendment application for 24 Brookside Drive. It begins with Leanne Penner speaking on behalf of the staff, followed by the applicant's presentation. After their presentations, the discussion is opened for public comments.
40:00 - 44:00: Technical Details of Young MCD, Inc. The chapter discusses a public meeting that addresses official plan amendment and zoning bylaw amendment applications to allow for a high-density residential development. The development is proposed on lands primarily recognized as 24 Brookside Road, situated on the north side of Brookside Road and west of Young Street, encompassing a total area of approximately 0.59 hectares or 1.46 acres.
44:00 - 55:00: Public Comments and Concerns on Young MCD, Inc. The chapter focuses on the public comments and concerns related to Young MCD, Inc., specifically regarding a piece of land consisting of 46 acres with a frontage of approximately 58 meters (190 feet) along Brookside Road. The property is currently vacant and features a tributary of the Rouge River along its western boundary. The land is bordered by commercial areas to the north and east, Brookside Road to the south, and a creek with associated valley lands.
55:00 - 79:00: Council Deliberation on Young MCD, Inc. The council deliberation centered on land use designations and development policies for a portion of the city referred to as 'Council Deliberation on Young MCD, Inc.'. The discussed area is situated in a regional mixed-use corridor and natural core as specified in the city's official plan. The policies applicable to this area permit medium to high-density residential buildings and a diverse array of commercial, retail, and office facilities. Within this designated mixed-use corridor, development is capped at a maximum building height of eight stories, with a four-story maximum for base buildings, and a maximum density of 2.
79:00 - 82:00: Conclusion and Motion to Adjourn The western lands are part of the Rouge River tributary within the natural core and greenway system per official plans, comprising significant woods and valleylands. Allowed uses include conservation, essential infrastructure, and low-impact recreation and parks.

Council Public Meeting - Tuesday, April 8, 2025 - 7 p.m. - City of Richmond Hill Transcription

00:00 - 00:30 Okay. Uh, good evening everybody and uh, welcome to the uh, council public meeting for Tuesday, April the 8th. Um, before we get started, I have to read this um, little poem here. If a person,
00:30 - 01:00 public body, or specified person does not make oral submissions at a public meeting or make written submissions to the city of Richmond Hill in respect of a proposed official plan amendment or zoning bylaw amendment, the person, public body, or specified person is not entitled to appeal the decision of the 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, so with
01:00 - 01:30 that being said, I just wanted to start tonight uh just by kind of explaining to people in the audience and those that might be listening online uh what tonight is and what tonight isn't. Uh tonight is a council public meeting which is a legislated um uh thing under the uh planning act which means that whenever a new application comes in, we need to have a uh meeting to kind of get the process uh started. the application at that point in time would be complete.
01:30 - 02:00 Um, and now this is the first opportunity for the public uh and council to be uh making its views known uh to our staff. And so tonight we will not be making any final decisions on any of of the two applications. Uh but we will be um listening to the public on listening to what their views on on this will be. Okay. So, there will be a motion that will be passed in at the culmination of both of the the two
02:00 - 02:30 hearings tonight. Uh that will be uh the motion will be to refer all comments heard from both the public and from uh council uh back to planning staff as they continue to uh work with the applicant and and do the final analysis on the uh application. Uh generally speaking, uh once that process is complete, uh the uh the uh a staff report will come forward at a future uh council meeting that will um explain whether uh the recommendation from staff
02:30 - 03:00 is to either approve or not approve the application. Okay. So with that being said, I'll call the meeting to order. I need an um motion to adopt the agenda. Councelor Silvitz, Councelor Shu, all those in favor opposed. That carries uh unanimously, I believe. So long as council tree has his hand up. Um and uh disclosures of peerunary interest or the general nature thereof for any members of council. Seeing none. Okay. So we have two items as I mentioned tonight. Uh two public hearings. The first one is
03:00 - 03:30 the official plan and zoning bylaw amendment application for uh 24 Brookside Drive. Uh and so we have uh Leanne Penner I believe is the uh person that's going to be speaking on behalf of staff and then we'll follow that up with a with the uh applicant and then sorry then after that we'll open it up for comments from the public. So Miss Penner,
03:30 - 04:00 good evening Mayor West, members of council and the public. The first public meeting tonight involves official plan amendment and zoning bylaw amendment applications to permit a highdensity residential development on lands mostly known as 24 Brookside Road. The subject lands are located on the north side of Brookside Road west of Young Street and have a total lot area of approximately 0.59 hectares or 1.46
04:00 - 04:30 46 acres and a total lot frontage of approximately 58 m or 190 ft along Brookside Road. The lands are presently vacant. A tributary of the Rouge River and associated valley lands traverse the lands in a north south direction along the westerly limit of the property. The lands but existing commercial uses to the north and east, Brookside Road to the south, and a creek with associated valley lands to the
04:30 - 05:00 west. The lands are designated regional mixeduse corridor and natural core in accordance with the city's official plan. The applicable policies allow for medium and highdensity residential uses as well as a full range of commercial, retail, and office uses. Development within this portion of the regional mixeduse corridor allows for a maximum building height of eight stories and a maximum base building height of four stories with a maximum density of 2
05:00 - 05:30 FSI. The western portion of the lands contain the Rouge River tributary and are designated natural core and within the greenway system in accordance with the official plan. The western portion of the property also contains valleylands and a significant woodland that is contiguous to the Rouge River Tributary. Permitted uses within the natural core designation are to be used for conservation purposes, essential infrastructure, and lowintensity recreational uses and parks. With
05:30 - 06:00 respect to the current zoning, the subject lands are zoned general commercial 1GC1 zone and flood F zone under zoning bylaw 19087 as amended by bylaw 2721. Through these applications, the applicant is seeking approval to permit a highdensity residential development to be comprised of a 23-story apartment building with a six-story podium and 207
06:00 - 06:30 dwelling units on their landolding. The proposal is to incorporate indoor and outdoor amenity space, a green roof, one level of underground vehicular parking, and three levels of structured vehicular parking within the podium. Access to the site is to be provided from Brookside Road and connect to a proposed pickup drop off area and ramp to the underground and above ground parking garage. The applicant's official plan
06:30 - 07:00 amendment application seeks approval of a sightsp specific exception to the regional mixeduse corridor designation policies applicable to the lands in order to permit an increase in the permitted building height from eight stories to 23 stories. an increase in the permitted density from 2 FSI to 7.33 FSI based on net developable area and a total floor plate size of 750 square meters for any portion of the building above the podium. The applicant zoning
07:00 - 07:30 bylaw amendment application seeks approval to reszone the subject lands to multiple residential 10 RM10 zone and open space OS zone under zoning bylaw 19087 as amended with sight specific provisions to implement the development proposal. The subject lands are located within the boundaries of the Bernard BRT station protected major transit station area referred to as PMTSA 44 in accordance
07:30 - 08:00 with the regional official plan. Staff have circulated the applications to internal departments and external agencies for review and comment. The purpose of this report is to provide council and the public with an overview of the applicant's development proposal and has been structured for information purposes only with a recommendation that all comments be referred back to staff for consideration. Thank you. Okay. Thank you very much uh Miss Penner. And for the applicant
08:00 - 08:30 uh do we have is it Oh, actually who's who are we? Oh, come on. Oh, sorry, Andrew. Andrew Baronic. Close enough. Fantic. Thank you, Mr. May. How do you say it? Fantic. Oh, see, I was just doing it all phonetically. Okay, go ahead. That's fine. You know how to do that better than I do. Good evening, Mr. Mayor, and members of council, thank you for uh your time this evening. Um, my name is Andrew Franchic. I'm principal of W&D Associates. We're the planning firm
08:30 - 09:00 retained by the owners of the site to assist with the resoning uh application. I do have a short presentation. Uh Leanne actually did a great job of going through some of the background planning context and and uh my slides are somewhat duplicative, but I'm going to try to skip over some of those ones um pretty quick. There's our team. Um Arcadus is the architect. Um and then some um engineering firms that are associated with the project as well, including our firm. So the site is um on the north side of Brookside, very very
09:00 - 09:30 close to Young Street um less than 50 meters away. Um the site is currently vacant as was said and a portion of it has um tributary of the Rouge River running through it. Uh to the west there's some low-res residential beyond um the ravine and to the south there's a vacant site which of course is subject of a public meeting um that will come after this one tonight for um a fairly large plan of subdivision development. Um so just again looking at the broader context of course a lot of parks in the area, schools um and very close to uh
09:30 - 10:00 the bus stops along um the YRT line but also to the south the Bernard um YRT station the Viva station u is close by as well within 500 less than 500 meters of a walking distance and of course other amenities. Um one thing I'll note um and this this map has a lot of information on it but I think it's helpful to to just take a look at it for a moment. The context is rapidly evolving in this part of Richmond Hill. Uh this is an area of the city that will experience significant growth in response to the policy change within the
10:00 - 10:30 pink area being um as you heard the Bernard transit station area. Um this is of course the area where the province has mandated growth to occur throughout Ontario in fact um and has confirmed that with its recent changes to it its uh PPS. Uh and you look to the north, there was a recent um approval for uh three towers of up to 22 stories, the tallest being on Young and then transitioning down from there. Um and then immediately to the uh east is a
10:30 - 11:00 proposal that's currently at 15, but my understanding is in speaking with um the applicants who I believe are going to speak tonight, uh there's a proposal as well for a 25story building that's in discussions with city staff on that site directly adjacent. And then to the south, of course, up to 49 stories is now being proposed in a series of about five or six towers. Uh and then other development that's occurred over time with some mid-rise development. Clearly, a lot of development happening in this part of Richmond Hill. Um so again, in the York Regional Official Plan, this is an area for
11:00 - 11:30 growth. That's of course a downloaded plan now, if I can call it that, to the municipality in Richmond Hill. It's also considered a growth area. Um and just a bit of history on the zoning on the site here. This was actually reszoned quite recently for a five-story commercial building which uh was never uh advanced. Uh that was a previous owner who had advanced that reszoning proposal. Um and so that did establish a certain level of zoning on the site. But um with all the changes to the uh the direction in provincial intensification, housing
11:30 - 12:00 crisis, etc., this is seen as a very good site for intensification to allow for growth in this part of Richmond Hill. Um so again, the site is within the major transit station area. um with the western side of it being just outside of it given that it's subject to the valley land. Um and we've seen the proposal already. I'll just reiterate 23 stories. Uh densities at just over 7 FSI when measured just on the development portion, but when taken to the broader site, it's just over two. So it's
12:00 - 12:30 actually when spread over the entirety of the site, relatively low amount of density, fairly consistent with the city's official plan. Um, and there's um 207 units proposed with about 186 parking spaces in a four-level underground and above grade component. Uh, and just looking at the site layout. Um, so the driveway comes in off of Brookside Drive. Oh, you have you have a minute. Thank you. Thank you very much. Um, just to show you all the line work on the left hand side of the
12:30 - 13:00 drawing is the Valley Land. There's an opportunity for um improvements to the creek. Of course, that land will be dedicated to the municipality. Um, currently it's privately owned. Um, and as you heard some of the facts about um the plan again uh above grade parking and below grade parking. I'll just skip through these fairly quickly in the time with a lot of amenity on the top of the podium. Um and then appropriate tower setbacks consistent with the tall building um rules. And I'll skip through these quite
13:00 - 13:30 quickly. Um, I will say as well that we have had discussions with city staff that we think are quite productive and also had discussions with the Abuing owner who I understand will be making a presentation later tonight quite positive and we look forward to working with them to resolve any of their um their issues that they brought up in their correspondence. So, I'm welcome to answer any questions. I did rush through this a little bit given the time, but I'm here if uh you'd like me to speak to anything. Okay. Thank you very much. We appreciate that. And um so at this point in time, we'll be uh opening this up to
13:30 - 14:00 comments and questions from the public. So uh we do have a couple of people that have signed up, I believe, uh to do this virtually. Um we've got Tim Quan from uh Rothbury Road is Oh, is Tim here in person? Oh, Mr. Quan, come on [Music] in. It's nice to see you live and in person. So, uh, you've got five minutes to address council. So, if you would like to, uh, to get started, that would
14:00 - 14:30 be great. Oh, thanks. Um, this kind of applies to both, uh, developments, uh, the one that's probably be presented afterwards. Um, so, good evening, uh, mayor and members of council and city staff and public here. Um, my name is Tim Quan, and I've been a proud resident of Richmond Hill for over 30 years. Um, I'm going to be residing on Rothbury Road, uh, which is very close to this development and also the one to the south. Um, and tonight I do want to
14:30 - 15:00 voice my concerns about the proposed highrises in this area uh, for the the the ones that's north of Brookside and to the south. Firstly, I do want to say that um, to be clear that I'm not against the growth being proposed on this corridor. Um I understand that growth pays for growth been heard many times and um through development charges and whatnot and also under the current city uh official plan the plan growth I
15:00 - 15:30 think it's very resp responsible um also uh very thoughtful and communitydriven however these developments um these high rights of own are um looking at violate the official plans policies um so what I would like to understand here further is that um what's being proposed uh to for these official plans and zoning amendments um are they still considered responsible and thoughtful uh and uh communitydriven growth planning
15:30 - 16:00 as originally envisioned uh here uh from uh the region sorry the the city. Um so tonight I just want to go through three concerns I want to bring up. So, first of all, um I do really value my uh privacy um which uh I would hope um honor members and uh city staff would also appreciate and understand um because these developments are proposed to be well above the eightstory height limit of the city's OP um with
16:00 - 16:30 the buildings here uh set to the range of 23 to 33 stories including the south development. Um, and really just kind of ask like could you imagine, you know, your your your backyard neighbor, uh, one of them just constantly staring into your bedroom or your bathroom or your your breakfast area. Um, so now imagine hundreds of towering neighbors staring into your house. That's where we're at. So these buildings heights are just way
16:30 - 17:00 too high, especially budding the neighborhood land use zones. Um and I don't know if there's kind of proper transitioning being thought out here uh between this to the zones and also this will also exceed the city's angler plane policy I understand to have this these heights. So really why are these developers kind of allowed to violate the city's official plan policies? Um and again is this kind of considering it to be reasonable, thoughtful and
17:00 - 17:30 communitydriven growth planning. Uh another concern I have is uh sorry what time I have two minutes um is uh is is towards um the traffic impacts uh that uh it's going to increase demands on the roads. Um, and I think there's the transportation impact study that was done for the south development, uh, which identified the northbound left turn movement onto Brookside Road, uh, will function
17:30 - 18:00 unacceptably by 2034. Um, we just built a $350 million uh, rapid way here to help alleviate um, traffic on Young. But I'm just trying to understand is it correct for me to rationalize that allowing these developments will cause the level of service at this intersection to fail within 10 years. So again is that considered responsible and thoughtful and communitydriven growth planning here? Um
18:00 - 18:30 lastly because these developments will ultimately cause congestions um similar to 16th um I do fear that you know there's going to be a lot of aggressive driving and uh there is a high school here Richmond go to the east uh which students do cross the road um I am concerned there of their safety and my children will soon be attending that school um as a father that's kind of one of my fears is the safety my children
18:30 - 19:00 here uh with kind of these over intensifications. So um just wanted to say lastly uh I do urge to uh council and city staff have to really consider the responsible and thoughtful community uh driven growth here um and please carefully plan so that we uh do not become a case of short-term gain for long-term loss leaving the residents with the baggage from over ambitious profit-driven decisions. Um, I'm having trouble seeing how these types of developments benefit the existing
19:00 - 19:30 residents. I do fear that the reality of allowing these amendments will lead to [Laughter] uh facilities, schools, communities, and the resources. So again, if I can finish, I hope um that developers go above and beyond to help subsidize the city and the communities here to do ensure that we can sustain our current standard of living well after they're done selling off all their units. Thank you. Thank you very much, Mr.
19:30 - 20:00 Okay, the next uh delegate is um Michael Manette, who is virtual. So Mr. Manette, you go ahead. You've got five minutes to address council. Thank you, Mayor Bell, or sorry, Mayor Bell. Mayor West and the members of council. Um, you're uh you need to get in your time machine, Mr. Manette. You're two mayors behind. Okay. There's too many mayors. Uh I'm here on behalf of the owners of the property immediately to the east of the subject site at 11103 Young Street. As
20:00 - 20:30 uh Mr. Foranchic indicated, we do have uh an application pending and we've had discussions with staff in a presubmission meeting. Uh, I want to say that we do support high density development for this location and for the Young Street corridor and the intersection of Brookside and Young Street as indicated in my written submission which was uh filed uh yesterday. Uh we do have a few issues um that we feel can be resolved through design. Those issues relate to setbacks,
20:30 - 21:00 vehicular access and other design matters. Uh I've had the opportunity to discuss these uh with Mr. foric and we believe that we uh will be having a meeting of our our consulting teams together to sit down and go through these. Um with respect to the height being proposed uh we did point out that under the official plan policies the highest heights and densities are intended to be at the corner. Our site is the corner site and of course as
21:00 - 21:30 indicated this site is immediately to the west of us but very close to the corner. Uh we also see there's a major development proposed to the south of us. So obviously this whole area is being uh planned and the expectation we have is through our own discussions with staff and through the consultants for the developers we can con do this in a comprehensive manner and create good planning for the entire area and for this NTSA. So uh I just wanted to put that on
21:30 - 22:00 the record that we are in support of the application in principle with respect to the highdensity residential development. The issues that we have are design issues and we feel we should be able to work those out and we're in the process of preparing our application for submission in the next couple of months. And now we will take the opportunity to uh if we there's any redesign to our own plan required as a result of this application moving forward. We hope to do that uh in a cooperative and cohesive manner uh for the benefit of the town and for all the developments going
22:00 - 22:30 forward. Thank you. Okay. Thank you very much, Mr. Manette. So, we'll open it up to folks that are here in person at this point. Is there anybody in the audience that would like to speak to uh this application? Come on up, sir. So, uh we'll just invite people up one at a time. if you can just uh state your name and address for the record and then you've got five minutes to address council. Thank you. Hello everyone. Uh my name is
22:30 - 23:00 Mahmud. I'm living at 54 Brookside Road. So two uh units next to this development and also the other big development in front of my house. So, I submitted a twopage letter to the committee uh around a couple of months ago. It it is signed by all the uh people in my neighborhood, but they didn't include the signatures because
23:00 - 23:30 they said everybody everybody should send this letter themselves, which is not possible. So I just want you to know that everybody signed this letter and we raised our concern about these developments uh shortly because of the traffic congestion. One of the things is so I live there and every right now there's no development there around uh from 8 to 9 you see big line of cars trying to get
23:30 - 24:00 out of Brookside road and these line of cars extend beyond the first stop sign going close to the second stop sign which is I I think a couple of hundred meters there is no development there right now same thing in the afternoon during the day that uh from the stop sign to the traffic light turns into a runway with the cars going so fast to get to the green light that I always
24:00 - 24:30 think there's there's going to be a major accident someday. Uh so traffic congestion, safety concerns that my friend talked about, impact on crime rates and neighborhood safety as he talked about. So we have children there and I'm quite sure it's just like uh the things happening right now uh downtown. Uh it's going to be the same
24:30 - 25:00 issue here. I don't know. uh the owners found maybe gold here. I don't know what's happening that uh suddenly 8 10 highrises are being built just in this small uh area. Uh another issue is strain on local services and infrastructures. So if you take, god forbidden, if you have to go to one of the hospitals in our city,
25:00 - 25:30 you'll see if you go to the emergency room, the wait time is a couple of hours. Now consider you're bringing in I don't know 5,000 new residents, 10,000 new residents and what will happen to that? My child goes to the primary school there, Trillium Woods. There are currently 750 students in that school. There are five um classrooms out of the main building,
25:30 - 26:00 the portable classrooms. That's like in my country, we only use it in villages. But here it's it's astonishing to me that with houses each $2 million, then we have a school with five portable six portable classrooms and uh 750 students there. What happens to that? Are you going to build schools and uh uh hospitals for
26:00 - 26:30 our uh neighborhood? I don't think so. The other issue is uh the aesthetic impact and property devaluation which I honestly not care so much about because when I bought this uh building I I wasn't thinking about the value of the house. I was thinking about the privacy I'm buying for my family specifically because
26:30 - 27:00 uh our uh buildings the ravine and we were thinking uh we are having complete privacy here but uh in a couple of years we will have 10,000 eyes looking at us down there what they're what we're doing in our backyards and uh finally I think it's the right of the people in this neighborhood to decide how the
27:00 - 27:30 neighborhood is going to look like in the future. And we don't see many of people here. Of course, they signed all of them signed this this letter. But each door that we knocked, they told us uh it's it's not going to work. So what I understand is they have lost their faith in the city and I don't know why is that but I don't think it should be like that. The city should be side by side with the people
27:30 - 28:00 who are living there. [Music] You're out of time, but if you just wrap up. Yeah. So, I just want to ask you one last question. Uh my father always tells me, put yourself in the shoe of the person. What? So, each one of you please think about it. If the same development, seven, eight highrises are going to be built next to your house,
28:00 - 28:30 will you allow it? How do you think about it? How do you feel about it? Please think about this. Thank you. Okay. Thank you very much. Okay. Uh is there anybody else from the audience? This is your opportunity. That's why we're here tonight. So, if anybody come on up, man, just state your name and address and you might want to just bring the microphone down just a bit. My name is Rebecca. I'm the owner of the 50 Brook Side Road, the first house close to the
28:30 - 29:00 24. It's a 24, right? Brookside Road. So, I invite the mayor, my deputy mayor and all those counselors. You stay in my house every morning at about 8:30. It takes me at least five minutes to drive from my my driveway to the young street. Consider they around from Edgy Mills to Brookside Road. I hear that there's about 10 highrise buildings that
29:00 - 29:30 can accommodate more than 50 5,000 or 10,000 residents. How can we our school such a small area can accommodate so many new residents? My child study at Richmond high school skills. That's the biggest high skills nearby. How can we accommodate those new resident their kicks? Think about the traffic. Think about the safety. Think
29:30 - 30:00 about those kicks. Think about our residents. I invite you all to stay in my house for 30 minutes every morning. Think about that commercial is not so you guys made the decisions but you are the responsibilities to protect our community not a crowded community. We are not downtown Toronto. Are you guys going to make a downtown Richmond Hill
30:00 - 30:30 just in Brookside Road? I don't know what's the benefit of there. Do we have the lots of job opportunities there? No. All those 10 high buildings just lose to be in nearby Brookside Road. That's just all I want to share. I invite you all to stay there. Just think about Are you happy to live in such area?
30:30 - 31:00 Thank you. Thank you very much. Okay, come on up, sir. Uh, just name name and address and just bring the microphone up. Oh, sorry. Uh, my name is Esan. I have a two trick question, not more than that. The thing is that we are living in Brookside. The building is not in Young Street. It's in Brookside. I am a owner of the business. Okay. The thing is that I'm driving all over GTA.
31:00 - 31:30 The thing is that from 407 Young Street to the Brookside Road, it takes me 20 minutes. When I want to leave my home in the morning, if I if I'm not going by 7:00, if I go by 710, I have to wait for almost 25 minutes just to take off my my driveway. Another thing is that we are we are um I mean uh by the Brookside next to
31:30 - 32:00 the building we are almost uh seven houses by 50 ft frontage. If you give give them the permit, you have to give us permit as well because we are agree to build I mean to join I mean all the neighbors is going to be almost 400 frontage to 200 depth. Okay. You're going to going to give give us the permit as as well or not. And then another thing is by is
32:00 - 32:30 about the people. We are the size of our lands is almost six times bigger than than them. And this this country we came to this country because uh because the people the the real people run it not the businesses not not the people just coming here. No the thing is that the funny thing is that my wife is real estate and apparent and the thing is that we search a lot. research a lot because in this uh let's say in in last
32:30 - 33:00 20 years there's a lots of economic problem in this country. We want to go somewhere peace. We came all over to the north to buy the house and we search a lot. this this I mean uh land should be by four four I mean when I um I mean five years ago when when I search it is five uh buildings five five story building not not that I mean right now
33:00 - 33:30 is 28 I mean I don't know research a lot to find it I mean somewhere and I spend lots of I mean all all my carrier I earn money to buy that that house and you want to I mean destroy it about everything about privacy, about the economy, about the price of the land and everything. And finally, if we are six or seven neighbors by the brook side, we are four times I mean our land is four
33:30 - 34:00 times five times bigger than than this guy. You going to you going to give us the permit as well or not? after they they're going to build it build us and and all about everything security too many people's too many cars if let's say in in winter if one accident happened in Brookside or Young Street 2,000 people in the road what about what about the I mean emergency what about the the fire has if
34:00 - 34:30 one house is on fire still 2,000 people be behind the traffic. Do you think about the about the children? The children over there. Hey, where can to play? It's just a small house, a small house, a small house. you you you're building I mean uh cross I mean the the city and you know we are we we have a long long long winter and everybody is is is going to the small small houses
34:30 - 35:00 with the too many I mean uh let's say sorry my English bit problem and you know with mental problem you know we are not living in California we're living in Canada the small small houses the people and the young children and everybody should stay in front of each other. [Music] Thank you. Oh, thank you very much, sir. Okay. Uh, anybody else from the audience? Uh, nope. But there's another
35:00 - 35:30 there's another application coming up, so you can go then. Uh, no. One, one per customer. Uh, any other customers? Okay. Yeah. Come on up, sir. Don't don't be shy. This is your opportunity to speak. So, uh, this is a good time to do it. Just name name and address, please. Uh, my name is, uh, Wayne and I live in 219 Rosbury Road. Uh, it's just across
35:30 - 36:00 West Brookside Road. And I moved to Canada two years ago from Shanghai, China. Um, Shanghai is a big city. It's very crowded city. And in my imagination before I came, Canada is very quiet, a very beautiful, clean city. And now I work in downtown. It's pretty much the same as Shanghai. Uh, but why I choose Richmond Hill, why I choose Westbrook? Because it's a quiet, clean,
36:00 - 36:30 and safe place. And I want to um address the talk more about the traffic. So everybody know there's a Starbucks at the Brookside Road and Young Street at the corner and the other side there's a gas station the Shell. So there's already a lot of traffic coming uh through Brookside Road and Young Street. People just turn um left or turn right
36:30 - 37:00 to Starbucks. So they block the traffic um uh on Brookside Road to Young Street. That's that already caused a lot of traffic jam. um at that cross. So like all the friends said, we can't imagine how busy the road will become with that those two projects, 49 stories and 23 stories. It's it's it's it's chaos and also like everybody mentioned
37:00 - 37:30 the safety um children's education. I have two young kids. One is three and the other is um 10 months. So, we bought this house because we have a very good school, Trilling Woods and Richmond Hill High School. And I even today I I'm not going to let my child played on on the on my driveway because there's already a lot of traffic on Rosbury Road and a lot
37:30 - 38:00 of drivers actually drive very fast. I don't think they drive below 40 kilometers. So it's already not safe for kids. Um and again with more people here and and also the de developer said um when they brought they when they bring this these high in density uh high uh high-rise um the benefit to the residents is more convenient public
38:00 - 38:30 transportation. But those two those 200 unit people are they going to take public transportation? No. They will still own their own car and they will still drive. I don't think that that it's a it's a reasonable reason to bring those um high-rise. Um so I think everyone um is very clear all the residents is asking what's the
38:30 - 39:00 benefit to our residents everyone sit here what's the benefit to us so I don't know if the developers can answer that but we can think any benefit to us thank you okay thank you very much okay anybody Okay, I think we have exhausted our speakers list then for this uh particular application. So at this
39:00 - 39:30 point, I'll bring it back to council. Uh and being that this is a ward four issue, uh we'll deal with uh councelor tree. And so councelor, you'll move the motion to refer all comments heard tonight back to staff for for further analysis. Go ahead, counselor. You got five minutes. Thank you so much, uh Mr. Mayor. So yeah, I'm going to move the motion on the floor. Let's discuss. So uh my uh if my time you stop I might go to the second round. So the first question regarding to this uh piece of the uh proposal here is can can our
39:30 - 40:00 planner team can tell me what is history about this piece of land? I heard currently there are 22 23 floors. Before that there is a six floors uh buildings and before that do you have any history about this land through the chair to councelor tree. So the subject lands have been uh subject to a couple of applications. Uh back in 2014 there was a four-story building
40:00 - 40:30 that was approved on the site but was never developed. Then in 2021, council approved a five-story medical office building and that wasn't developed. So this is the third application that has come forward for the for these lands and it's the only application that was a residential in nature. Okay. Thank you so much. So just like every know everyone knows from public so this is not the first time we see the piece of land be resell resiled for different purpose. Uh that's history. The second question regarding to the angular
40:30 - 41:00 blinds. I saw the I searched the uh the the report I did not see that one. So what is angular plans and is there any uh measurement 22 23 really high top buildings beside that one we have a lot of residential areas only one or two dwellings or stories are there from angular pl perspective what is the current design are they violating any 45 angular uh degrees so the angular plane
41:00 - 41:30 is met um in in so far as the uh proposal um or is within corridor lands and um the angular plane applies to the nearest neighborhood designation. Given that there's an environmental feature along the rear of this property, uh it meets the angular plane. There's no conflict with the angular plane. Okay. Thank you so much. Uh my next one regarding the environment protections. I know this piece of land really close to the uh river areas. Is the buffer enough
41:30 - 42:00 based on the requirement and what is the protection lines here in case of floodings and other animal protections tree protection etc. So as indicated through the chair to councelor tree as indicated in the staff report the western portion of the site contains a tributary and is designated natural core. The limits of development were established as part of the previous applications and the applicant is
42:00 - 42:30 respecting those previously staked development limits. Save and accepted. There might be some uh minor tweaks to those development limits because of the time uh from when those development limits were previously staked. So in terms um there's no development that is being proposed on the western portion of the site. the the development that is being currently proposed is entirely outside of the uh natural features on the site. Okay, thank you so much. Next
42:30 - 43:00 one for the affordabilities. So any specific uh designs to uh present percentage affordability of this entire uh project? So through the chair to council tree at this time uh the applicant will have to demonstrate how they meet the city's affordable housing um target. Uh they've
43:00 - 43:30 currently provided a minimum of uh 12.6% six% of the units as threebedroom, so family units, but we will continue to work with them on any additional affordability strategies that they can implement as part of this proposal. Okay, thank you so much. My next question regarding to the uh the densities is here as well. I think that's key. I know last year we approved three buildings just east side of this
43:30 - 44:00 part. So is along the Young Street which is let me see the the highest or the height of that proposal which uh was uh 22 facing to Young Street 15 in the middle and 12 storage just very close to the site from distance perspective that 121 is a height or east side of this building what is the distance from this new plan to that tell stories nearby
44:00 - 44:30 through the chair. Uh I don't have that uh measurement but we can provide that to you. Um I can tell you that the uh approval on the lands to the north uh maintained a 12 1/2 m setback to the towers which provides for uh separation appropriate separate separation distances between highdensity buildings.
44:30 - 45:00 Okay, thank you so much. I want I can hear so there was a OT related project just right east side of this 24 Brookside on Young Street. So the proved uh units was 610 units. Uh if you calcate number of the ris might be 1,800 more. So this plan propose another 200. So I will say from the FI FI perspective
45:00 - 45:30 because this line close to Young Street and understand that if you plus that three buildings and plot this new buildings what will be the overall FSI just on the north side corner of this piece of line through the chair you're asking me to do math tonight. Hold on. Because as I know FSI along Young Street
45:30 - 46:00 because is a regional corridor entire FSI should be 2.0 that houses we proved last year it was three buildings. Yeah I believe that one is either four or five already. This one is plus six seven something. If you sum up together as small piece of land I believe that I might be eight or nine I'm assuming right now our requirement is only 2.0 zero. So we have consider as
46:00 - 46:30 over row because they're really a jung together right here the chair to counselor tree. So, I'm not going to provide you an aggregate amount of the FSI only because it actually is not reflective of what's currently uh proposed versus um what's
46:30 - 47:00 currently approved. So, I will advise that the property to the north um which was recently approved was 4.1 um 4.15 FSI. Um so this proposal um still needs to adjust the FSI because it was calculated on a gross um area versus a net area which is prescribed by the OP. So I don't have a particular an accurate number for the net uh for these lands. So that's why I'm not giving you um a full uh math uh calculation. The lands
47:00 - 47:30 to the immediate east the previous proposal that has been inactive was uh 3.59 FSI. So uh we have vern as the uh delegate advised a new application will be coming forward. So right now the only concrete FSI that we have approved for this um site is the one to the north which is 4.15 FSI you're looking you know in combination if everything was kind of today you're looking at you know
47:30 - 48:00 in and around over 10 FSI for this these three properties. Okay thank you so much. You can imagine right if you ever ever visiting that location that small corner uh book side and young it's really tiny one so the FSI will be 10.0 zero. If you consider on the cross side on the south side which is behind Starbucks, you're going to see that one later on is amazing numbers. So we are really not in downtown Toronto and uh
48:00 - 48:30 really really bother me. So if you sum up all the uh approved proposal plus new proposal wa this area is not KDA, right? But this is normal normal traffic along the Young Street. Why we need to intensify like this high numbers? I want echo if you sum up just those only two project we around have around 800 units. Imagine currently because every day I driving my kids to Richmond High. So sometimes I
48:30 - 49:00 choose the uh the silver silver star road which is Craft Young Street on the other side of Brookside. from Yorkland. Okay, I'll try the next one. Okay, if you want to just wrap up. Sure. Every morning I drive from the Yorkland just turn to that SE road. It took me long time to get into Young Street. So packed with lot of cars
49:00 - 49:30 because citizens need to go to school. So I'm leaving this here. I know how bad the car and the traffic already been. If you add another 800 units just at that corner, I assuming you're gonna got trouble even now is challenge. If you get another 800 uh dwellings just at that corner, don't consider the sauce of the Starbucks going to be a challenge. Okay. So, yeah, I'll go toward the second round. Thank you. Thank you. Uh so, regional local
49:30 - 50:00 counselor to Paulo, I see you've got your hand up. Do you want to second the the uh motion to refer all comments back to staff? Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I I'd be certainly happy to second uh the motion to refer the comments back to staff. And I I want to thank the members of the public for for coming out and uh making their views known and and uh participating in this process. We're we're we're merely at the beginning of a process. uh the the city uh this council and our
50:00 - 50:30 staff are are hearing your comments. We're going to uh take them into consideration as as we go forward. And um you know, we're also going to hear from the Toronto Region Conservation Authority with regards to uh um the the wetlands, environmentally sensitive land in uh in this area. uh from the school boards. Uh they're they're going to comment as to how they can accommodate the the additional growth and um you
50:30 - 51:00 know and they have to plan for that. Um the city plans you know our fire services that was a concern uh to make sure that we can accommodate any additional growth and uh keep our response times low. But I I'll tell you that's one of the reasons our our density is is planned along the Young Corridor uh where we have a provision for emergency services to traverse the the public
51:00 - 51:30 transit publicly owned right ofway. Um so the the response times anywhere close to Young Street uh will be um will will be will be very good uh be because of that publicly owned right ofway uh that currently is used by Viva Transit. So um these these are the things that that we can consider. Uh but you know our our powers are limited here. I think it's important Mr. mayor to to uh let let
51:30 - 52:00 people know what uh what's within our our uh ability to to to decide. I mean, the the province has mandated um uh grow growth projections for 300,000 people uh in by 2050 in Richmond Hill. Now, uh we we've gone through an extensive exercise to decide where where we're going to accommodate that growth. And uh Young Street being the major transportation corridor is where
52:00 - 52:30 um is where we we plan for that growth to be. But um you know, the the numbers are too large. I mean there was a um the the lady who suggested we go to um her breakfast table in the morning for 30 minutes to to observe the impact that that uh the growth has had on on her property and and the concerns that she has. legitimate concerns, but you you have to
52:30 - 53:00 invite uh the prime minister or the immigration minister to to your to your table and explain to them that uh the growth we're experiencing Canada is too much and and and and and to the provincial ministers that are that are imposing this this growth on on Richmond Hill and and not elsewhere. So those levels of government makes decisions and and we have to try to accommodate um that that mandated growth as best we can and um I agree
53:00 - 53:30 that uh north of our KDA is you know should be lower density toward the marine and and we have uh we have that as our plan but uh I I just want to ask through you Mr. Mayor to our staff. So the exercise that we're about to undertake at our official plan update committee with regard to MTSAs, will that will that be changing um the
53:30 - 54:00 current zoning when you're quoting the zoning as eight story maximum? That's the 2010 official plan. So staff through the chair to councelor Japala. So it's actually not through the zoning. It'll actually be through the city's official plan update. So, uh the city as part of the update, uh there is the reconciliation of the MTSA, the PMTSA, uh targets that were provided as part of the regional official plan. Uh
54:00 - 54:30 those will be reconciled in the city's official plan, which may impact um from a policy perspective the densities uh within the PMTSAs. Um, so I believe later this month there's a public information session on the MTSAs and so that will trigger uh a reconciliation of the city's policy framework for the PMTSAs and the heights and density densities contained therein. Right. Thank you. So um next month at
54:30 - 55:00 our official plan update committee meeting we we have no choice but to accommodate the York Region official plan designated MTSA. So, we'll be altering our official plans through that process, right? Correct. Through the chair, that is correct. Okay. Thank you. And I imagine the applicants, you know, aware of that process and and and that's what we're going to be up against as we deliberate
55:00 - 55:30 on this application. So um I sympathize you know for those who said you know we need to uh walk in the shoes of the people who live here. I I do do sympathize with the transformation that you're you you wouldn't would not have expected maybe 10 years ago or or you know even less uh when you know Brookside Young is pretty quiet neighborhood and this is a really significant change. So I I I'm
55:30 - 56:00 sympathetic of of of what's happened here. I mean, anywhere in Richmond Hill, if you're 100 meters from Young Street, you're going to be possibly impacted by by the density. And um the the the the one comfort, if there's any uh is property values um next to high density does does rise, not not uh not the opposite. So um that's it for me, Mr. Mayor, I'm over time. Excuse
56:00 - 56:30 me for 17 seconds there. Thank you. Okay. Thanks. Thanks very much, councelor. Uh the next person is councelor Silivitz and then councelor Davidson. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um thank you to the applicant and our city staff for their presentations and thank you to the our staff for this very uh comprehensive um staff report and to all our residents who stepped forward here tonight uh to speak. Thank you. Um your voice is very
56:30 - 57:00 important. It always shall be without any question and we do represent you without any question. The problem in front of us is that as regional loginal local council de Paulo was saying as the municipality we are under a mandate to grow our corridors how the province directs us
57:00 - 57:30 to. So, this this particular location is is on Young Street. It's a little bit off Young Street, but it's still on Young Street. I believe it was the applicant who showed a map with all those concentric circles that shows you where not only the walking times, but it also shows you 500 to 800 meters from any any specific
57:30 - 58:00 MTSA that can be built out. And as a municipality, we have to conform with what the province tells us to and the region as as the regional counselor referred to as well. We have to conform with their official plan which is what I'm our our manager our director said as well. So I I don't support what's in front of us that right now. There's a word here
58:00 - 58:30 in the TRCA document that I think is very uh very important and that's the TRCA letter is contained on page 45, consecutive page 45 of 153 in our staff report and that is in the paragraph which they state their recommendations based on the comments above relating to the delineation of the regulatory flood plane where this is going to be built. The TRCA staff consider the proposed
58:30 - 59:00 zoning bylaw and official plan amendment application premature. That's the word. The detailed comments found in appendix B can be addressed at the detailed design stage. So there are many many many phases and stages we have to go through and this is the beginning. We are very far away from being anywhere near something that has to be so-called approved or denied.
59:00 - 59:30 Because this building meets the 45 degree angular plane as stated by our staff. It's a very important metric. That means that should this application go to the province for approval, the OOLT, which is the Ontario Land Tribunal, that meeting of the angular plane at 45 degrees is a critical metric and it would most likely be approved by the province.
59:30 - 60:00 One of the residents said, I believe it was you. So, what are the benefits to the residents? Right? What are the benefits to the res? Sorry. Um, of having this type of um uh this this type of development there as opposed to all of you living in the neighbor in the local neighborhood. There aren't any. The benefits are only for the people who are going to be moving in there and of
60:00 - 60:30 course for the privately owned land land as they develop it. They have a return of investment. They are legally allowed to apply for and that's what they they're doing here. We can only build highrises now. We have no we have no more developable land available in Richmond Hill. So we can only go up. We can only build in the sky. That's why you see highrises. As for the schools, a number of you mentioned the schools. We don't decide that. The school boards decide
60:30 - 61:00 that. Uh we collect taxes for the school boards, but we have no jurisdiction over what they may decide whether or not new schools are are allowed. So for that discussion, you need to go to the trustees and the school boards. um the at the the 10 above 10 FSI floor space index which was referred to earlier on through councelor tre's discussions that is very disturbing there's there's no question it is very
61:00 - 61:30 very disturbing and right now as I said right at the beginning I don't support this there needs to be much more conversation much more discussion had between the applicants, our staff and our local counselor and because this is on the Young Street corridor, our regional uh regional counselors as well as well as the mayor. So, I look forward to hearing what staff will bring back to us from
61:30 - 62:00 comments comments received tonight. Remember, no decisions are made here. Um, but I am completely empathetic and sympathetic to everybody who spoke here and um I would feel the same way as you. However, on the other side of the scale, I also know what we're up against and what we have to conform to which the province dictates. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Thank you, Councelor. Uh, Councelor
62:00 - 62:30 Davidson. Thank you and through you, Mr. Chair, and thank you to everybody who came. I completely understand how much you don't want these highrises in your neighborhood. And I answered the lady that asked, "Would I want it in my backyard?" And of course, I wouldn't. I want to clarify that to the gentleman who said that we shouldn't put profit. We shouldn't be driven by profit. The city doesn't own this property. The applicant owns the property. And because there is a housing a housing shortage, the province has not
62:30 - 63:00 only encouraged every municipality in at least up Young Street to build more, they're penalizing us when we don't. So there's a lot to take into consideration here. But I think this is too much for that spot. And through you, Mr. Chair, I asked staff, is this property within the the uh boundary of the um key development area which the KDA which is supposed to encourage more development,
63:00 - 63:30 but is this particular area in the KDA through the chair, councelor Davidson. So, this property is outside of the Young Bernard KDA, but it is within the PMTSA for this area. Right. Thank you. Um, so it's not part of the of the really big this is how it was sold to me. KDAs are going to be places where we have massive development and because they're going to be hubs for trans transit, it's going to work out. Well,
63:30 - 64:00 now we're starting to see applicants come and well, they're not quite in the KDA, but they kind of want to go bigger. And I feel like what's the point of any of our boundaries or any of our rules if we don't stick by them? I also feel like this application and the one we're going to talk about after this can't be looked at in isolation. This area is already congested. So I think we are well aware of what the effects are going to be on traffic and movement and as my colleague said there's a lot of steps to to jump through first and stay with us. Keep
64:00 - 64:30 coming and I hear you. we hear you and um this is just the very first step and I encourage the applicant to hear what I hear and work with the city to propose something that I think we all would much prefer. Thank you. Okay. Thank you uh regional councelor Chan. Thank you Mr. Chair. Um first of all thank you staff for the presentation and the staff report and the applicants agent. uh but in particular I want to
64:30 - 65:00 thank everyone who is sitting here today uh relating to this file um person who have spoken as well as the written comments um I am not going to repeat what my colleagues already said in terms of um what the municipalities not just Richmond which many are mandated to do 1.5 million housing units have been mentioned many times by our premier. Um,
65:00 - 65:30 I want to focus more on the things that we do have control of and I think repeatedly I hear traffic, traffic, traffic and even the local counselor at his own insights into that. So is no denial that must be looked at seriously by the applicant in consultation with staff how to address that as well is also mentioned by the second delegate um
65:30 - 66:00 yeah second delegate uh who is the planner for I guess next door of post development um he raised concern both in his verbal delegate as well as in a written letter about what about this potential driveway they might have to share with them because today as the chair mentioned in the beginning we're not making decision but to the extent that municipality we enrich control of how are traffic moving in and out we
66:00 - 66:30 want all the 27 units people go to take the uh public transit of course we do but as someone mentioned the reality is some people will be driving so I think that need to be readed And I want to um have my comment uh to be here to be really uh seriously looked at by the applicant in consultation to our staff and um the delegate of represent in the
66:30 - 67:00 latter says there's no discussion with them but I hope there will be some discussion among the surrounding areas really addressing the ingress m coming out going out a delegate mention about emergency care or emergency access. Good question. That have to be taken care of in addition to residents might be stuck in so to speak uh turning onto Young
67:00 - 67:30 Street. So that need to be addressed. Very important. Many lives are sick. 200 odd units plus people live there. The second one is that the SIAK I believe the local council also raised that there was zero if I understand correctly minimum SCAK setback to the west or to the east where there will be going to be another proposed development of through Mr. care to staff. Is that common
67:30 - 68:00 practice or is it acceptable to have zero minimum SC setback for this type of property through you Mr. Chair to staff through the chair to uh councelor Chancell my staff just indicated to me that there actually is contrary to what I said previously there is a zero meter setback proposed on this prop particular site. So we would be looking to ensure that uh there is a setback to the uh
68:00 - 68:30 property boundary to the north uh again to make sure that there's appropriate separation for the buildings to the north as well. Thank you. These are the things that we have control of. So to ensuring that all the rules are being uh complied with uh as we go further down the road. Um the other one is I also um want to mention about that the potential impact on the
68:30 - 69:00 um significant woodland and this is very important and I don't need to repeat what's been the report on the number of pages the environmental uh situation that so close that need to correct me I'm wrong from staff I believe at least a 10 meters which is surgery buffer that need to be required. So I want that to be really looked at by the applicant and last question I want
69:00 - 69:30 to get clarification for the chair to the staff. Are we talking about really 23 stories which is already 50% higher than um what's in the plan allow up to 15 but is it really 24 is it 23 or 24 story we're talking about through Mr. chair through the chair to councelor Chancel there's a mezzanine story um which we've kind of cited in the uh report. So in
69:30 - 70:00 essence it would almost appear as a 20 it may be considered from a zoning perspective for 24 stories and we've cited that as part of a concern um with the application on the ground floor being so high. Thank you very much. So um I would just say that uh the applicant is here and the agent is here. I very much would like to have uh you to really hearing the concern of the residents who live there. Uh questions or concern may be raised by my
70:00 - 70:30 colleagues at this bench here as well as working staff local counselor and I'm wondering whether in fact there was any particular contact might have done with the community previously. If not, I encourage you to try to work out some perhaps more win-win solution with the committee as well. So, um those are my comments. Uh again, traffic that um the u environmental concern and uh at the end of the day, um we do what we have control of. Thank you very much. Thank
70:30 - 71:00 you, Councelor Thompson. Uh thank you very much uh through you the chair. Um, we've already established that uh this property is not within the KDA boundaries. Um, so I' I'd like to talk a little bit about what um uh what we've established for the the KDA. So could staff tell me what is the
71:00 - 71:30 uh uh FSI uh maximum that we're looking at with inside a KDA.
71:30 - 72:00 you win the hardest question of the night award so far. I mean you get nothing for that just to be clear but okay to the chair to councelor Topson. So uh
72:00 - 72:30 we're looking at five FSI in KDA. So, so what we've established for inside of KDA is five FSI and this property is outside of the KDA and they're proposing 7.33. Okay, that I find that very interesting. Um, and I believe that earlier you mentioned that there was for the properties just north the the uh FSI
72:30 - 73:00 was approved at 4.15. Is that correct? Still quite interesting. Um, just out of curiosity, the properties that were approved to the north, did they have uh natural core considerations that they had to work around as well [Music] through the chair uh to councelor Thompson? Yes, there was a a the rear portion of that site also had some uh environmental protection lands as well.
73:00 - 73:30 Okay. Um, one of the things that I noticed with the applicant's presentation is that he's talking about a number of different building heights uh north of the property. Um, and I'm assuming that we're talking about what was approved. How many uh towers are on approved uh that have been approved and and what are the heights of those?
73:30 - 74:00 Through the chair to councelor Thompson. So the lands to the immediate north had three towers approved. Uh 22 stories were was the one that is uh closest to Young Street. 15 stories was the middle tower and 12 stories was the tower um at the far farthest west site. But the FSI was still at only at 4.15 out of all this. Okay. Um, thank you. Uh, the So, there are no other approved applications
74:00 - 74:30 uh for buildings in that height neighborhood uh going north from here through the chair to councelor Thompson. No, that is correct. Okay. Um, one of the things that so we we were here just last week and we approved an application that was in the PMTSA just north of here on the east side uh
74:30 - 75:00 between Monong and Lars. And uh that was one it they ended up with 10 stories uh that had they also had the natural core consideration in there and they managed to come in there with some I think stacked town houses as well. Um, and it my my fear here is that one of the reasons why we don't get anything
75:00 - 75:30 built in Richmond Hill is because if this application starts going forward, the one that we're looking at here tonight is that what's going to happen with that property owner there, they're going to go, why did we settle for 10 stories? I mean, but that let's let's go back to the drawing board. And this is why nothing gets built because every time we turn around, somebody else has gone for a little bit more and then all of a sudden everybody else goes,
75:30 - 76:00 "Whoa, well, let's not build what we already got approved for. Let's uh let's go back to the drawing board." Quite frankly, what I see happening all the time is we're just wasting all of our staff's time. We go through all this, we end up at the OOLT and even then you get decisions at the OOLT and the applicant still doesn't want to build. I have a lot of difficulty with this because yes, we have a serious
76:00 - 76:30 housing crisis, but if nobody's going to build, it's always going to be there. Those are my comments. Thank you. Okay. Thank you. Uh so councelor Shu thank you Mr. Chair uh thank you for the staff for the uh staff report. Um my question is a fundamental one since this subject line is not located near any future subway stations unlike young 16
76:30 - 77:00 and cfield unlike there. So what's the rationale for designating this area as KDA through Mr. Chair? Why choose this area as KDA? So through the chair to councelor Shu. So it's this area is actually not part of the KDA. So it's part north of the uh this particular properties located north of the KDA, but it is within the PMTSA and the region identified the
77:00 - 77:30 PMTSA areas and boundaries and where those PMTAT TSAs are located. and they're primarily located in close proximity not necessarily to a subway station but to a transit station i.e a bus rapid transit station and the closest one being at Young and Bernard in this particular area. So um it's not within the KDA it's within a PMTSA and the PMTSAs generally speaking are close to some sort of transit facility. That's
77:30 - 78:00 good to know. That's good to know this not within the KDA area. So is no reasonable ground to build so tall and since some of the um um delegates mentioned about uh traffic today. So my question is also traffic is any plan to have a road widening of Brookside even as well at the south side of the Brookside north and south because tonight we are talking about the north and south side of Brookside development. So if if the self-report can include any road network for the entire area to
78:00 - 78:30 address the concern by the delegates that would be great because they are al always this is a difficult questions for the traffic for any high-rise development. So if there's any road network for the entire area that would be great to to to save our time to talk about traffic every time. That's my comments. There's another question that that's my comment. Thank you Mr. Chair. Okay. Thank you, uh, councelor Leu.
78:30 - 79:00 Thank you, Mr. Mayor. And, uh, thank you to all the delegates who, uh, who came up tonight, um, I totally agree with all the comments and also I agree with all my, uh, colleagues comments. So, I'm not going to repeat. Um, I just have one quick question. Um when I look at the report page 11 the last bullet point it says that you know I think the big difference between those we were mentioned and this one is this has this doesn't have
79:00 - 79:30 frontage on Young Street. This is on Brook side. So through you Mr. mayor to uh staff. What should be the difference between a building that's facing Young Street as opposed to one like this is not is on the side street on on on Brook side. You're to chair to uh councelor Leo. So the policies actually do state that the highest and tallest buildings should be located along the front uh the Young
79:30 - 80:00 Street frontage. So in this instance that would not include this property and it would actually include the lands to the immediate east. So you know following that rationale the the eight stories as prescribed within uh the city's current OP would apply would apply and that would be governing the height on this property. Exactly. So thank you for that answer. So uh to me I I I'm I'm I I I urge the applicant to go back to the drawing board and talk to
80:00 - 80:30 staff. This is too dense and too high. That's it for me. Thank you. Okay. Thank you. Okay. Um I I haven't spoken yet on the first and I understand there's a couple on the second round. Um so first of all, thank you to the residents that came out tonight. Uh especially the ones that came in person. That's uh that's great for you to be able to do that. Uh and and as I said at the beginning that that's exactly what this meeting is all about is to hear uh some some of the input from the uh the community that's surrounding this
80:30 - 81:00 application. Um you know I remember when I was the ward counselor for that area uh I believe it was a few years ago we uh we got a a medical building five stories I believe it was um approved for that particular site. So it kind of bugs me a little bit that we're kind of doing this all over again. Um, however, uh, when we did that medical building, there were a number of residents that came out and they weren't happy about that either. Um, and you know, some of the same comments that were made, uh, by the, um, residents tonight were also
81:00 - 81:30 made with the five-story building. Um, and I I think, you know, I I do agree with what a lot of what my colleagues have said today. I I do agree with some of much of what the u the residents have said. Um, but I just want to just stress a couple of things there. There this area is along an area that's designated for some growth. I mean, how much growth is remains to be seen and that's part of what the process is here tonight, but I think um we can uh deny this application
81:30 - 82:00 at any point in time. We could even specifically deny it tonight, I suppose, theoretically. But the result of that means that this will be appealed to the Ontario Land Tribunal and at that point in time the council is completely removed from the decision. So um that's not a good strategy as far as I'm concerned and as mayor I think that would be very irresponsible. So that's why we're working with the applicant. We're working with the community to try to get the the sweet spot what what is appropriate for that particular piece of
82:00 - 82:30 land. And that's really what we're uh we're trying to do all throughout this process. Will something be approved there that's bigger than five stories? I'll be honest, yes, probably that'll happen. So, I I just want to be clear about that. Um, but will we uh, you know, get a recommendation from staff to approve something that's that's so big that it's going to cause a detriment to the community? No, we want to avoid that. So, that's that's the goal here. So, we're all kind of pulling on the same rope in the same direction. Um the provincial legislation, and this
82:30 - 83:00 was touched upon by one of my colleagues, does dictate that um you know, we are in a housing crisis. We need to be building housing. We need to be providing homes for people to live in. And in Richmond Hill, most of those homes that we're going to see in the next little while are going to be, as Councelor Silivet said, in the sky as opposed to the tip typical subdivisions that a lot of us currently live in. Um, and that's how we will be, you know, we're being asked to meet our the housing targets by the province. That's
83:00 - 83:30 that's what we're going to be having to do. And our official plan generally gives some specific and some general guidance as to where that that growth is going to happen. And the Young Street corridor is one of the places where that is going to happen. Um, is this building too big for that particular piece of land? Uh, yeah, I think probably it is. And um you know it it it the FSI which I I really don't like that term because FSI stands for floor space index and nobody ever drives down the road and
83:30 - 84:00 says oh that's a 5 FSI that's a 4 FSI. It means nothing. It's how big the building is in relation to where the spot it it is is sitting on. But at the end of the day, um, we need to be balancing the need for growth that we've been given by the province and frankly the need that we have in our community for growth. Um, one of the things that I would would say and I'm disappointed a little bit in at this point in the
84:00 - 84:30 process, it is early, is we have not talked about affordable housing really. And and honestly, one of the delegates mentioned, you know, what's the benefit to the community? And I don't think the applicant has done a very good job honestly uh saying what some of the benefits are. So I'm going to do some of your job for you. One of the job one of the benefits is to provide more housing variety for people for our kids and you know when we get a little older we want to downsize. We don't have that variety and that that amount of housing in
84:30 - 85:00 Richmond Hill. So one of the benefits to any development right now is some of those things. And I think whatever you guys do going forward, I want you to really concentrate on how can you create housing that's more affordable for more people. Whatever size it ends up being, I'm going to be looking for that in the in the final uh plan. But I think um you know to to sum up um continue working with staff. Um our staff is is here to
85:00 - 85:30 help to make sure that we're we're finding that correct balance. uh what you're proposing right now is probably bigger than what that site can handle. We do absolutely need to make sure and this is part of the analysis that the traffic situation in that area is going to be acceptable. There will likely be more cars on the road as a result of this or any other development that is approved in that area, but we need to make it work. So, um those would be my comments. There's I've got two counselors here for a second round. Uh
85:30 - 86:00 councelor Tree, you can get us kicked off on the second round. Okay, thank you so much. So, uh my next question regarding to the uh entries, I remember the east side of that proposal, the entries coming from Young Street. So, uh that time being we concerned about emergency exit because if there is any problem young street the fire truck get only get in and out from one single entry. So for this project here 23 24 you name it is still same concern. So
86:00 - 86:30 how many entries there? One, two through the chair to councelor tree. There is only one uh access proposed off of Brookside. Yeah. Okay. Thank you so much. So that put my another concerns here for high uh buildings is only one and uh in and out is very on a very small busy street just in case of any fires emergency buildings etc. So we had to consider the traffic just in case if
86:30 - 87:00 this rush hour or after working hours it might be different. So consider that in the future design as well. Uh my next questions also regarding to the the safeties of community. I think the lot rises already mentioned Brookside really a tiny small street but in the rush shar tons of tribe coming through. I don't I don't know if in the future there's a plan to widen the book side might be there but so far I haven't seen I I
87:00 - 87:30 mentioned uh before this proposal uh is 2423 bill high storage which is almost triple uh than the approved buffer and let me ask another question regarding to the designing uh we know uh young street will be intensify from Highway 7 until Bloomington across the entire York uh Richmond Hill. My question is from
87:30 - 88:00 design perspective. Have you ever seen this type of design along Young Street Fight and buildings gradually there should be a degree down a little bit until gradually smooth moving to the community in this plan. So uh on the east side we have high buildings and gradually 20 from 22 to 17 to 12 and in a sudden another 22 or 23 raised up is that meet our design perspective just
88:00 - 88:30 from design if you driving along Young Street have you ever seen any type of design like that? Okay so that's a so through the chair to council tree. That's a little bit of a um loaded question. So, uh generally speaking, um the design um you know is kind of unique to each building, I would say. And so, you know, I wouldn't necessarily speak to that. We've never seen this this proposed design before.
88:30 - 89:00 In terms of heights and densities, if you will, along the uh corridors, generally speaking, the city of Richmond Hills official plan tends to uh look at the KDAs as the intensification nodes and heights go up into those no into those nodes of intensification. On the periphery of the nodes, they tend to uh grad in heights in terms of densities. Um so you'll take if you take a look if you will um in this particular area the
89:00 - 89:30 heights go quite high in the KDA and then they go downward outside of the KDA to the north. Um, a lot of the buildings contextually in this in this strip of uh, Young Street northward generally have been in the range of 10 stories, 8 to 10 stories and kind of on both sides of uh, Young Street and that kind of um is dictated by the city's uh, urban structure where we try to go higher in the intensification nodes kind of a bit lower. So you get pulses throughout the
89:30 - 90:00 city and in particular along Young Street. So heights and densities in the intensification and they move downward across Young Street. Does that happen uniformly and consistently? Um not necessarily but that's kind of the uh overall planning approach that the city has taken to uh build the corridors. Okay. Thank you so much. Um uh I believe uh our applicants already heard a lot of stories from not only council member but
90:00 - 90:30 also from horizon. So uh you design a a a house a building not only on behalf of you also our community as well. So we're going to live there for many many years. So when they design or you design some things I would expect maybe more benefits for people who live in nearby already and also from the design and from development perspective and there might be more targeted meet from city perspective as well. So uh for now I cannot support your proposal. So this proposal definitely not benefits um lot
90:30 - 91:00 of the horizons but from my observations maybe benefits you and also maybe other stakeholders but not for the res. So uh if you don't mind come back with your new proposals let's work with our res planning team and then also council members together. So we want to build something for permanent for more benefits of all the res cities as you as well. So that's my uh maybe my
91:00 - 91:30 conclusions. Thank you so much. Okay. Thank you uh councelor Silvitz. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I I just wanted to add uh uh just a couple of things. Um thank you to the resident who invited us to come and spend the mornings with her and have a cup of tea. I'd gladly do that. However, I know how busy Brookside is. My brother lives in that area. So I travel Brookside quite a bit and I know about the traffic on Brookside. And
91:30 - 92:00 unfortunately even though uh we have discussed here that there will be a widening of Brookside at some point. A widening doesn't help us with amount of traffic. It may help us move the traffic, but if you widen something will most likely bring more traffic. So, it's a it's a real catch 22. Um, the other thing I wanted to say was I I live at Harding and Young. So, there's a building being built right next to us on
92:00 - 92:30 the north side of Harding. We fought very hard both as residents and as myself as the counselor representing that conominium. We fought very hard to make sure that what will be built next to us would be consistent, but it wasn't. went to the OM, which is what's now known as the OOLT, and the OM gave them everything they wanted, and that included a 21story building. My building is 14
92:30 - 93:00 stories. These new buildings are also built with higher ceilings. So, they're now on the fifth floor. I'm almost at the same level as them, and I'm on the ninth floor. So which means that that 21story building is actually going to be much higher because of the height of the ceilings. But that's the way things are built now. And that was before the approval for for that building on the on the north
93:00 - 93:30 northeast side of Harding and Young including approvals from the OM uh for the buildings to come on the west side. There's a very large area that's just um just land between the uh library and and Harding Boulevard. That's a privately owned land and they have uh they also through the OM got approvals for 21 sto three 21 story buildings and a 15 story on Major McKenzie. And what I can see from my
93:30 - 94:00 perspective because I have a north view on through on Young Street. It's beautiful, but it's going to be gone as this building goes higher and higher. I my husband and I begin to understand exactly how our north facing view is going to be completely erased. And not only that, but the sky as well and the light. So, I know that doesn't make you feel any better. But
94:00 - 94:30 what I just what I what I wanted to try and say here is that even myself as a counselor, that's what we face too. We're all residents and um I live in that building and we're all facing that as residents and um everything is going to change as it is is beginning to change on the Young Street corridor which is a mandated intensification corridor by the
94:30 - 95:00 province and it's a regional corridor too. So the region has a lot of stay there. So, um, again, I I just wanted to put that little personal detail in there because, um, it just it to try and help explain to you that we're all in the same boat. Yes, we represent you, but we also have responsibilities where we have to uh we have to abide by provincial uh legislation that is before us. So, um,
95:00 - 95:30 uh, those those are my those are my final comments. Um, again, thank you all for coming in and for everybody who's probably watching online as well. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Okay, councelor. [Laughter] [Music] Uh, thank you. And and through the mayor, um, there was something that the mayor actually brought up and that was about affordable housing. And so, I just wanted to get some clarification. We are in a PMTSA. So are there not specific
95:30 - 96:00 requirements that uh are already embedded into the into that? Could staff respond, please? So through the chair to councelor Thompson. So the policies right now um as it stands are that we have to have 200 people per jobs per hectare. That's that's it right now uh for PMTSAs. And as part of the official plan update, um other policies kind of will um manage to get their way into the PMTSA PMTSA. So
96:00 - 96:30 they will specifically address larger objectives. Um the city's OP already has a standard uh policy that requires that the a minimum of 25% of all new development be affordable. So that applies here. So anything beyond that is uh would that comes out of the OP update uh for specifically for PMTSAs might be different. So currently it's the 25% across the city for all new development should be affordable.
96:30 - 97:00 Thank you. Uh through the chair when you say all new development I thought that was based on specific uh uh heights. through the chair, not uh for not for uh specific heights. So if somebody was trying to just build an infill home, I I don't follow then through the chair to councelor Thompson, that's actually a gap in the policies. So we've generally applied the 25%
97:00 - 97:30 affordable housing to highdensity development and generally not to uh ground related development. Right. That's where I was going. Thank you. Um so there was something that was uh mentioned by one of the delegates earlier uh and that's in regards to their proximity to Young Street. And I get it. I've already lived through it. And and for me it was uh over 30 years
97:30 - 98:00 ago. I lived just south of uh Young and Finch. And uh all of a sudden, you know, I was, you know, literally I was only about 75 uh yards off of uh off of Young Street. And then all of a sudden, I had a sixstory building staring me right in the face. uh which is why I moved to Richmond Hill over 25 years ago. Um but I do have to admit that and this
98:00 - 98:30 was something that uh the regional local counselor Depala had mentioned is that return on investment uh yeah selling that property uh you know we thought we won the lottery to be quite honest. Not that we wanted to leave there. It was it what we had was beautiful but it wasn't going to stay and it was already changing and I had to accept that and that was uh that was really unfortunate. So I do empathize. I understand exactly
98:30 - 99:00 you know how you feel and why you feel that way because I've I've been through it already. But as councelor Silivitz and also councelor Depala mentioned this is mandated. It's going to happen up and down the corridor. So, anybody that's uh within that, you know, 300 meters of that corridor, you're you're going to feel it. I I get it. The one thing that I I and I mentioned earlier that I find
99:00 - 99:30 frustrating is that um we do have uh an approved application that we approved just uh uh last week. uh that's just north of here on the east side. And like I said, it's only a 10story. They they've got some town houses as part of that. The property is quite similar. It's a combination between neighborhood and uh natural core. And what I what I just want to say
99:30 - 100:00 to the applicant is that they some that application they somehow made the numbers work. So, as far as I'm concerned, you should be able to make the numbers work as well. Those are my comments. Thank you. Okay. Thank you very much. I think that exhausts our speaker list. 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. Okay. So, we're moving right along here. We've got uh our next application
100:00 - 100:30 is uh is uh official plan and zoning bylaw amendment uh for uh young MCD for the lands that are at let me see here what the municipal addresses are 1134104410 111076 047 and 59 Brookside and 12 and 24 not drive. So, uh, we have for the
100:30 - 101:00 staff, Caitlyn Graham is going to be our planner to present the item. So, Caitlyn, thank you very much for your waiting and and go ahead. Thank you. Good evening, Mayor West, members of council, and the public. Tonight's public meeting involves proposed official plan and zoning bylaw amendment applications for the lands municipally known as 0 111014 111034 111044 and 11076 Young Street 047
101:00 - 101:30 and 59 Brookside Road and 12 and 24 Nton Drive. The subject lands are located on the west side of Young Street south of Brookside Road with a total sight area of 4.6 6 hectares. The lands are presently vacant and are surrounded by lowdensity residential development to the immediate north and west as well as lands owned by the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority and Young Street to the east and medium density residential development and the Young
101:30 - 102:00 and Bernard Key Development Area to the south. The lands are designated key development area, regional mixeduse corridor, neighborhood, and natural core in the city's official plan. Lands designated neighborhood provide for a range of low and medium density residential uses while lands within the key development area and regional mixeduse corridor are intended to provide for a range and mix of uses to support transit oriented development at various higher levels of
102:00 - 102:30 intensification. Lands designated natural core are to be used for conservation purposes, essential infrastructure and low inensity recreational uses and parks. With respect to zoning, the lands are currently zoned residential, semi- detached or duplex 2 zone, residential multiple family 2 zone, open space zone and park zone under zoning bylaw 190-87 as amended and key development area mixeduse holding zone and key development area mixeduse 2 holding zone
102:30 - 103:00 under zoning bylaw 111-7 as amended. It is noted that portions of the lands are subject to sight specific exceptions in the city's official plan and zoning bylaw associated with a previous development proposal. The applicant is seeking to amend the official plan and the zoning bylaw to permit a medium and highdensity mixeduse development comprised of five high-rise residential buildings of 29, 31, 33, 38, and 49 stories in height, as
103:00 - 103:30 well as 45 townhouse dwelling units. and two community centers on the subject lands. Staff have circulated the applications to internal departments and external agencies for review and comment. The purpose of tonight's report is to provide members of council and the public with an overview of the applicant's development proposal and has been structured for information purposes only with the recommendation that all comments be referred back to staff for consideration. Thank you. Thanks very much. Um actually I'm I'm just seeing
103:30 - 104:00 the some people in the audience uh photographing the screen that's fine. Go ahead. But um I just wanted to let you know that the staff report uh for this application and also the application before that is available on our website. So if you go to the richmondhill.ca that that diagram uh you can access that through the staff report just so you know. Okay. So, uh, for the applicant then, um, I think we have Sabrina Scato from Weston Consulting. Uh, welcome Sabrina,
104:00 - 104:30 and you've got five minutes to address council. Thank you, Mayor West, and members of council. Um, and thank you, Caitlyn, for that presentation. Um, my name is Bernescato. I'm a partner with Weston Consulting here on behalf of the landowners. um really just to supplement Caitlyn's um presentation and provide some additional background information for you on the lands and the applications. How do I There we go. Um so these are uh the lands we're looking
104:30 - 105:00 at approximately 11 and a half um acres of land frontage along um Young Street and then a tributary of the Rouge River which runs north south along the eastern property boundary. The proposed official plan amendment um is intended to maintain the key development area which is located um along the southern portion of the site to expand the regional mixed juice corridor uh that currently exists along the Young Street boundary um west of the
105:00 - 105:30 Rouge River Tributary. um and then also maintain the neighborhood designation all subject to additional sight specific um modifications uh to suit the proposed development. The zoning applications before you propose to again um maintain the key development area designation subject to sight specific uh requirements as well as um slightly modify the um previous boundaries that
105:30 - 106:00 were approved as it relates to um the RM2 zone uh as well as add an additional institutional zone um for the proposed community uses that I'll speak to in a moment. So, the reason why the application is before you uh tonight, obviously the focus of our discussion is to receive comments um not only from council but from the public um and really to identify why this application is before you. Again, um as Caitlyn alluded, the
106:00 - 106:30 these lands were subject to a historical approval. Um, and since that time, um, there has been a significant shift in the needs of the community of Richmond Hill. And what this application before you is intended to provide is a response to those changing needs, specifically as it relates to affordable housing, which we've heard spoken about several times this evening. So, yes, there is density and height proposed in this application.
106:30 - 107:00 um the majority of which is intended to be allocated for affordable housing. So there are 18 um hundred uh sorry 1,850 units proposed within the the development um just over a thousand of which are intended to be uh affordable units um ranging in size within the buildings that are being proposed um primarily within the center of the site on the site plan that you see. Um in addition to those affordable units um
107:00 - 107:30 where we're looking at approximately 55% of the total number of units being affordable, we're also providing a number of grade related units as a transition to the existing residential um development that um is west of the site. Um along with a 1 acre public park that's intended to be a linear park uh that runs north south throughout the site. a significant amount of key natural heritage feature land um which we spent a quite a long time actually
107:30 - 108:00 negotiating with um Richmond Hill staff and with TRCA through prior applications to ensure that those lands would be um protected and dedicated and placed into public ownership um along with two public streets to address issues uh that we've heard spoken about tonight as it relates to traffic and accessibility to Young Street. um removing some of that congestion off of Brookside and bringing it into the development and further south off of Young Street, implementing additional traffic demand management
108:00 - 108:30 strategies um so that people can access the transit that um the the region and the municipality has invested so much money in um and really bring forward a comprehensive and holistic community for these lands. When we're looking at the massing of of um the site, we really try to create a very porous site that allows for a lot of sunshine and light, minimizes shadow impacts, and provides for appropriate
108:30 - 109:00 separation distance between each of the buildings. Um again, we're looking at a um just over 1 acre park, which is actually a larger park than what was previously proposed through the prior applications. um and something that we're looking to work with the municipality through future applications to program in terms of providing trails and um access for the public. And then the community um uses which I I mentioned as well. Um there's approximately 22,000 square ft of
109:00 - 109:30 community uses um proposed within this building uh within this sorry larger development area again to create a really comprehensive and cohesive community um for the overall development. Um this is just an outline of next steps. Uh we are very early in the process. Um we look forward to receiving comments this evening from the public and from council um incorporating those into a future application and working closely with staff. Thank you. Okay. Thanks very much. Appreciate your
109:30 - 110:00 uh your time. So the next uh applicant that we have or sorry the next uh speaker that we have is Kathleen Mcnaki uh who is here with us live and in person. So, Kathleen, if you want to come up and uh you've got five minutes to address council. Good evening, Mr. Mayor and members of council. Can you hear me? Go ahead. Yep, no
110:00 - 110:30 problem. My name is Kathleen Mcnaki and I'm the chair of the Richmond Hill Supportive Housing Collaboration, a group of experienced providers committed to delivering supportive housing solutions for vulnerable populations in our community. Tonight, I wish to address the proposed official plan and zoning bylaw amendment application submitted by Young MCD, Inc., The members of our Richmond Hill
110:30 - 111:00 Supportive Housing Collaboration are home in the hill support of housing serving individuals with psychotic illnesses an especially urgent need as approximately 20% of our homeless population live with untreated psychosis. Sanate Woman's Shelter and Yellow Brick House. Supporting those fleeing domestic violence, a crisis with lasting impacts. Memory Lane Home Living,
111:00 - 111:30 addressing early onset dementia and the pressing need to support aging residents. Reena, a longstanding established organization founded by families of children with developmental disabilities. Blue Door focused on preventing homelessness through innovative housing, health, and employment solutions. We formed this collaboration out of a shared commitment and the
111:30 - 112:00 synergy we recognized among our missions. Together, we can more effectively advocate for and build housing that meets the needs of the diverse communities we serve in Richmond Hill. According to a survey conducted by the affordable housing strategy of Richmond Hill, 21% of families in Richmond Hill are supporting somebody with a disability. These families live, work,
112:00 - 112:30 and pay taxes in Richmond Hill in our community and need to have their family member with a disability live in supportive housing close by. I represent one of those families and when my family member lived in a residence in another community because there was nothing available in Richmond Hill, I had to drive up the highway to visit him. The goal of the collaboration is
112:30 - 113:00 simple, to secure supportive housing for those who need it. We appreciate Armor Heights Development for reaching out and bringing our collaboration to this public meeting. We are especially encouraged by the developers willingness to consider supportive housing within their affordable housing proposal. We're also grateful for the communication we have received from Kevin Townsand at Sussex
113:00 - 113:30 Strategy Group who addressed several of our initial concerns. That said, we have a few outstanding questions for this council. First of all, if the application to add 10 extra floors is denied, we are told that the numbers won't work and therefore the development is not feasible and cannot go ahead. But is there room for discussion about why the
113:30 - 114:00 numbers don't work? What is the timeline for completing a site plan given the property's location south of the oak ridges marine and the presence of waterways? Could this be finalized within two years? How many of the affordable units will be will meet the 2025 CMHC standards for assisted living? Will the buildings comply with
114:00 - 114:30 B3 code standards? Of the 1,850 units, half are proposed as onebedrooms and half are bachelor suites. Would the developer consider including a twobedroom, two-bedroom units to better support families escaping domestic abuse as well as other lowincome families. Many of our clients receive ODSP, which provides
114:30 - 115:00 $1,300 per month, making deeply affordable housing essential. Has the developer consulted York Region about potential rent subsidies? While we await the answers to these questions from council, the Richmond Hill Supportive Housing Collaboration endorses the concept of providing supportive housing and looks forward to future meaningful discussions about providing supportive housing in our community. Thank you for your time and attention. We look forward to working
115:00 - 115:30 with all stakeholders to create supportive affordable housing in Richmond Hill. Thank you so much. Okay. Um, encore performance from Tim Quan. Come on up, Mr. Quan. No, thank you for being here and we appreciate your input on both of these because I know there there's some similarities. So, go ahead. Oh, no. Thank you. Thank you all for being here
115:30 - 116:00 after hours after work. So, appreciate with the city staff as well and council. Um, so thank you again, uh, mayor. uh members of council and city staff. Um I guess the the commonality here um favorite word is is traffic impacts um of these developments. So I guess um maybe more of the technical side of things uh to help me understand um is kind of what are the metrics what are the engineering design criterias here
116:00 - 116:30 that we need to look at are non-negotiable. Are there anything that's non-negotiable here that we can really um gravitate to and focus on to help us kind of get to the common ground of of what the residents want and balance with what the developments uh and I guess the the policies that are being pressed down from above onto us. Um so that's kind of what I I would like to understand here is I don't know if
116:30 - 117:00 they're already at the stage to have completed all the uh the thorough traffic uh impact reports um specifically any queueing designs like I don't know terming it right micro simulations um to really show that uh how how much queuing would be on these local roads uh based on the traffic and the vehicles that they are proposing uh on these sites um and not only looking them like as somebody said in
117:00 - 117:30 isolation there's all these developments here coming um how does all compound uh to you know to to all compound to the traffic on right here to specifically it's Brookside road is where I think we have a lot of concerns here um so that's kind of where uh I would like to understand that um and also just kind maybe back to the the the angular plane. Um, sorry, I'm backtracking to the other property.
117:30 - 118:00 I'm trying to understand. I thought the calculation of the angular plane is from the property line. So, if it's Brookside, uh, which is the building 50 Brookside Road is right next to 24 Brookside development. I think I trying to do some math here to tonight. Um, it's about 50 mters away. So, from their property line to the building is 50 meters away. And if you're doing a 45 degree, it's one to one. So that building needs to be within
118:00 - 118:30 50 meters uh below that height to hit your 45. With a 23tory building, which I think we all kind of agree is too high, I do think that is above 50 m high because you do you divide 50 m by 23 stories, that's a little over 2 m. that is a very low ceiling for each floor. Uh so I'm just trying to understand how the calculation works because it did say that uh it meets the planer the angular
118:30 - 119:00 plane. Um so I don't know if that's also a hard metric that is non-negotiable here that we can kind of help us and the residents justify some of the heights uh on this. So that's kind of what I have. Thank you. Great. No, thank you very much Mr. Quan. And you must have done very well in geometry in school. So that's good. Better than better than me. Thank you. Okay. Um Michael Claire is next. Good to see you, Mr.
119:00 - 119:30 Claire. You've got five minutes to address council. Thank you. Mr. Mr. Mayor, council, staff, and ladies and gentlemen. Good evening. My name is Mike Claire and I have the privilege of being the president of the Markham Interchurch Committee for affordable housing commonly known as Micah. Over our history, Mike, in Markham, we have constructed 330 plus units of affordable rental housing and
119:30 - 120:00 we estimate over the time we have housed over 6,000 individuals and families. Micah is a not-for-profit allv volunteer organization and we are currently working on a new 161 unit project. I also have the honor of sitting on the Richmond Hill affordable housing strategy implementation committee. In principle, the concept of inclusionary zoning embedded in this proposal I would highly endorse.
120:00 - 120:30 However, before I give my full endorsement, I have a few questions. The number of affordable units is extremely commendable, but the mix concerns me. In fact, I would be happy to see the number of units reduced to increase the variety of unit types. In my opinion, the the project is falling into the condo investment trap built in building an excessive amount of
120:30 - 121:00 one-bedroom units for singles. But as singles become couples and start families, what family you units are going to be available for rent? Would the developer and the city be willing to reconsider the number of affordable units if it resulted in a number a more balanced mix of one, two, and threebedroom units? Would the redesigned mix of rental units fall into line with the city's strategic housing plan and
121:00 - 121:30 provide greater options for families, especially families whose income is dependent on breadwinners earning minimum wage? Could some of the units be combined for say two or threebedroom units for a not-for-profit service provider to operate supervised group homes within the complex? If that is not feasible, could a couple of town houses be redesigned as group homes? The affordable count adjusted from strictly
121:30 - 122:00 apartment units to a combination of townhouse and apartment units. There is an undeniable need for these units. In order to receive half funding, I believe there are some stipulations that a not for-p profofit affordable housing partner must be found. Has the developer given any thoughts as to whom they wish to partner with in a meaningful way? A partnership now may
122:00 - 122:30 assist the developer with the CHC funding making those numbers work for the changes in unit mix. I am suggesting I am curious to see how this development dovetales with the city strategic housing plan. Would it make sense to bring the proposal before the affordable housing housing committee if only to see how the goals of the strategic plan are being met and addressed within this project? In principle, I like the concept of
122:30 - 123:00 inclusionary zoning applied to this application. To obtain my complete endorsement of this development, I would like to see the developer have a more comprehensive and vigorous consultation with local housing providers to ensure the project meets the needs of the community. Not to add more time to the process, but there is room for a more comprehensive discussion about affordability than just a supply of X number of one-bedroom
123:00 - 123:30 units. Thank you for your time. Thank you very much, Mr. Clair. Um, and last on the list at the at least is Ivon Kelly from the Affordable Housing Coalition of York Region. Good to see you, Miss Kelly. You've got five minutes to address council. Thank you. Good evening, uh, Mayor West and members of council. On behalf of the Affordable Housing Coalition of York Region, I'm pleased to provide a deputation this evening on the proposed Young MCD housing development. My name
123:30 - 124:00 is Ivon Kelly and I'm one of the co-chairs of the Affordable Housing Coalition. The coalition promotes housing as a human right, shares information, and promotes understanding about the steps and resources necessary to increase safe, affordable housing options for all residents. and we are here tonight to speak directly to the enormous need for more affordable options across Richmond Hill. In October 2020, the chief planner for planning and economic development of York Region invited our coalition to make recommendations on housing policies as
124:00 - 124:30 part of the municipal comprehensive review. At that time, we proposed that the housing system should be balanced through setting housing targets for all types of housing developments so that there is an adequate supply, new supply in a range of forms and tenurs. adopting a rightsbased affordable housing definition, measuring affordability in relation to household income, not just average market rent, and leveraging maximum value from municipal and regional lands, resources, and zoning changes to create perpetually affordable
124:30 - 125:00 housing owned and operated by public and nonprofits. The coalition supports increasing density and constructing muchneeded affordable housing across Richmond Hill. Purpose-built rental housing, which has been cited as one of the critical levers, is ensuring new and muchneeded housing options for residents in any community. Housing ownership is simply not available to everyone. Purpose-built rental is a vital part of the housing supply chain, providing stable, long-term options for middle-income families that are not as susceptible to the speculation we see in
125:00 - 125:30 the condo market. The need for new and affordable housing for Ontarians is also clearly laid out in the findings from a recently published report called municipal municipalities under pressure the human and financial crisis of Ontario's homelessness crisis. This report found that in 2024 approximately 81,000 Ontarians experienced homelessness about 25% more than in 2022. Without significant intervention, homelessness could be more than triple by 2035, leaving up to 294,000
125:30 - 126:00 individuals without any housing at all. Because of Ontario's lack of real rent control, which is a real issue in this situation, rental units can be rerented at whatever cost the market will bear when tenants change. And we lose more affordable units than we can ever build. By one estimate, we lose 11 affordable market units every for every one affordable rental unit created. So that's also part of the solution, but I know that's not under your purview. But these new rental units are often only affordable with the help of government
126:00 - 126:30 subsidies. This reinforces the need for more purpose-built rental that is geared to be affordable. About this project being proposed in the last decade, York Region has had the lowest proportion of homes that were rental units despite rental being the most affordable market-based option. This project with 1,800 units is poised to make a contribution to relieving the rental gap in York in York Region, especially if the if there are enough units that are affordable and work for families that live here. We believe this project also meets the goals of intensification,
126:30 - 127:00 maybe exceeds them, but definitely meets them. Um, and also the promise of a significant number of affordable units. We'd like to emphasize that a significant number of aun affordable units that are being proposed need to be truly affordable. There are different definitions of affordable. Unfortunately, the regional official plan enrichment hills affordable strategy uses a market-based metric that declares rental to be affordable if it is 125% of the average market rent. This inflationary measure means that in 2025 a household would need an income of
127:00 - 127:30 96,000 in order to barely afford a two-bedroom quote unquote affordable unit that costs 2400. These prices are geared towards those in the 60th percentile shutting out the bottom half of the population from renting those units. With respect to this project, we will be looking for affordability that is delivered early in the project, not at the last phase. Um that will maintain affordability into per perpetuity and that will be truly affordable for the majority of Richmond Hill renters. These are the promises we want to see
127:30 - 128:00 delivered on. In conclusion, the affordable housing coalition supports the project that any projects that meaningful add to the housing stock and that will add general genuine affordability to our local housing markets. We urge you to work with this developer to ensure that this project can re fulfill these goals. Thank you. Thanks very much. Okay. Anybody else from the audience that would like to speak to this? This is your chance. Yep. Come on up, sir.
128:00 - 128:30 Excuse me. The thing is that uh sorry but just lift the microphone up a bit. Yeah. Uh the thing is that we are living in Canada. Canada is second biggest country in the world and we are living in Ontario. It's tons of land with a flat flat land. And if the let's say if you want to bring the people to live in Canada same as me there's a lots of land and you
128:30 - 129:00 know the thing is that uh if if I mean the let's say the governor force you to bring the people here the thing is that the people of the Richmond Hill the pre the prestige of the Richmond Hill is the people on in the Richmond Hill and you are the mayor of the people of the Richmond Hill first then the than the guest you want to bring it here. Okay. And then uh another thing is that let's say Mr. Mayor you have a party in your house. Okay sir.
129:00 - 129:30 We're this is not about me. This is about the application. No the thing is that no I I have a question from you. No no we're okay. So just a second. I I'm not sure what I'm trying to say is that you can make your comments. You can ask your questions. This is a a forum for us to do that. You don't need to be example myself if I if I have a if I have a party in my birthday the party in my home I have a capacity for let's say 50 people if I bring 150 people in my room
129:30 - 130:00 in my in my house what's going to happen what's going to happen so if for for example let's say uh let's say in Brookside road you want to you want to build another another I mean building over there and this building over there and both of them coming to the to the brook side it's a narrow street what's going to happen for them and let's say this unit is almost
130:00 - 130:30 250 I mean this building is 250 I mean uh unit on it if half of them goes with the uh let's say with the with the transport half of them has a car they come in the in the morning by 7:00 like between 7 to 9 uh I mean in in the morning in the brook side what's going to happen on top of that that this huge land this is this is a question of me and uh I'm going to I'm going to uh I'm
130:30 - 131:00 going to I'm going to I mean u ask you to research there is a a couple of accident happened in Young and Elgen Mills and Young and Brookside okay one of them is 24 hours they close they close the road 24 hours the I mean Uh the smallest time they close the road is two two two hours they closed they close the whole I mean Young Street over there and then uh another thing there is no right now there is no
131:00 - 131:30 building there is uh the land is empty here the land is empty over there there is no building there is nothing I'm going to ask you come in the morning in Sunday morning okay there is a team on the cross cross I mean cross the street if you go to t-orton with this traffic we have right now is going to be 15 to 20 minutes to get the coffee to come back your home. It's just cross the street is what's what's going to happen. I mean
131:30 - 132:00 uh these huge people coming over there I don't know in just Brooks I don't that's it. Thank you very much. Okay. Thank you. Okay. Anybody else? Come on up. Okay. So, as I already explained, I'm the first the house owner of the first buildings just clo on my east is the 24 Brookside road on the opposite rope of
132:00 - 132:30 the myro is the another five high buildings. Okay, for me is overdevelopment, overpopulation, overcrowded. Think about the planning of the city. On the other side of the Young Street, their school, Richmond High School, their private sanctuary school, they are gasoline station, their senior homes, they are plazas, all are just maybe two
132:30 - 133:00 or three floors. On the other side of the Young Street, all the high buildings, there are eight highrise around my house. Three on 24 Brookside. The other one on 59 Brookside. This side of the young street looks like giant. The other side looks like little man. The do. Think about the design of the city looks so ugly. Just to just along the young
133:00 - 133:30 street, the other one side so high, the other side so tall buildings. Everybody will laugh at how ugly our Richmond Hill City looks like this. Think about it. We are even downtown. If the downtown Toronto is understandable because everywhere you see those high buildings, how can our Brookside row look so ugly? That's all I want. Doesn't matter
133:30 - 134:00 the applicants, the designers, the all mayors and city councilors. Think about how our cities looks like. Do you want all of us live in the Richmond Hill in the ugly city? Everybody visitors come here. Laugh at all of us. Thank you. Okay. Thank you very much. Is there anybody else? Yeah. Come on up, sir.
134:00 - 134:30 Thank you again for the time. Uh from the previous uh discussion that we had uh I see that many people focus on traffic but it's not just a matter of traffic. I told you it's the matter of uh schools, hospitals, green spaces like I talk about schools and you you tell me
134:30 - 135:00 we have no authority over that you have to talk about talk about this issue with such and such organization but I'm asking as residents can we do something about it to like make it logical so that uh like we don't have to think about all these issues that I mentioned like school and hospital. I mean bring it down to a logical level uh so that we it doesn't
135:00 - 135:30 look like something that we have downtown. The other issue is like okay the prices of our houses may go up but after nine highrises are built and we have to go through all that process like each side that I look it's going to be constructions noise and all that and then maybe we win some sort of lottery.
135:30 - 136:00 I don't see any like like the logic behind that. Uh and finally again it it was not like these incentives like a vicinity to young that I bought my specific property. I bought it here in Richmond Hill. I I was living in a apartment uh for a long time. I bought here in
136:00 - 136:30 Richmond Hill because I was my family. We were looking for peace, quiet, and privacy. And we are losing all of that. And it's not just one building and it's just it's not just one side of uh uh our eyesight that is going to be ruined. like if I look from uh east to the west and even to the north I'll see highrises you know
136:30 - 137:00 uh yeah surrounding my house and my friend here mentioned a good thing like my house and those two it's over 35,000 square feet so same size of the building that they're a building next to our house. So, we're going to maybe we're going to help with the a housing shortage uh in near future. Just three houses. We
137:00 - 137:30 if we merge the seven houses, it's about 70,000 square foot. So, we can even better help with the housing shortage. I don't understand why this uh area has to accommodate all this housing shortage. I really don't understand that. So again, I'm just asking uh for the council members to think about uh and put themselves in my position in
137:30 - 138:00 our position and then decide. Thank you so much. Okay. Thank you very much. Anybody else? Come on. Come on up, sir. Okay, good evening everyone, the mayor and my uh local council assignment. So my name is Harry. Right now I live uh in 179 Canyon Hill avenues. I first bought
138:00 - 138:30 my first house in Westbrook uh community at Sweetwater Cresant. I lived that for 10 years. Then my wife and me, we really love this uh communities because it's quiet, it's peace, we really love it. So we change another house uh to print uh location 179 Kill. So I have a question for seven. Do you have any idea about right now the West Bro community? How many
138:30 - 139:00 house we have in this community? I have no idea. Do you have any idea? Okay. Like like roughly I I don't like exactly number. This is not really a question and answer session but maybe you could ask him offline but okay for example right now if we have 500 house in Westbrook I just make an example five 500 houses okay now we have two proposal today total around 2,000 unions and uh around 1,500 vehicles like like parking
139:00 - 139:30 parking spot so maybe these two proposals going to be doubled the Westbrook's uh population. So I think that is not fair for us. I I understand like like the government said we need more people like we need more people to develop to grows. The construction company they want make money. Okay. The town we got more house
139:30 - 140:00 you guys got more tax. So make the city growth but I think it should be um uh not to develop just in one particular space. You can build a house, you can build a uh like a high-rise building and that's fine. But these two proposal for me it's kind of crazy. It's it's it's over over my thought like six building in that
140:00 - 140:30 particular space and make this whole uh community like double population double vehicles. You guys can think about the traffic the people every day in the morning. When I live at Sweet Water Cresant I use Brookside Road a lot. So I really understand during the traffic time how how busy it's going to be. So right now I got mention about right now there's three building
140:30 - 141:00 uh are in processing at Kenyon Hill and Young Street. So after Kenyon Hill and Young Street the three buildings built up and then these two proposal like six buildings bro up there that's huge population there. I understand we need more people but but for just one community I think we don't need that much people to come into [Music]
141:00 - 141:30 um to make uh say the traffic the education uh like bad I mean okay that's what I want to say thank you no thank you sir thank you very much okay anybody else okay uh come on up sir Okay. So, um in the first first project
141:30 - 142:00 I heard um some of our counselor say um the scene is changing. We um this it's it's like a a momentum or a trend that the city is developing. Um what I want to ask is more for the whole city is not just for Westbrook. So when the population increased what is the plan for hospital for library for schools is there a like
142:00 - 142:30 I'm new here is there a place that we can look the overall plan in the next maybe five years eight or 10 years is going to be is there going to be a new hospital several new uh primary school high school um and what those um affordable housing committee folks also mentioned if there's um like um more affordable house for senior people um
142:30 - 143:00 what's what about the the elder care um we definitely need to know these plans if you are you're asking us to accept that because you got to bring some benefit to the locals because the develop They apparently they need profit but um I know the country or the province has mandatory asked them to uh provide more affordable uh housing
143:00 - 143:30 provide more community service like West Brook we only have LG Mills west community center um on the east side we don't have a community center so every time you just need to drive there so it would be Great. If we have a new community center serve for the whole Westbrook and if there's a new hospital like the McKenzie House hospital in Richmond Hill is very old. It's
143:30 - 144:00 outdated, very crowded. So when you adding so much populations, is there going to be better medical service? And also our friends mentioned the school they use containers to hold our students. So we definitely need more schools. This this is something that school bot need to consider with the incre incremental populations. Thank you. Great. No, thank you very much. Okay, anybody
144:00 - 144:30 else? Okay, I think we've exhausted the speakers list. So we'll bring it back to councelor and councelor tree. This is in your ward as well. So we'll go to you first and you'll move a motion to receive all comments and put them back to staff. Okay. Thank you so much Mr. Chair and thank you so much for the public come here to give your own ideas suggestions regarding to this proposal. Let me answer the questions from that gentleman. So in word four we have three blocks. uh for the entire city we have
144:30 - 145:00 around 20 210,000 people based on the 2021 um uh statistics if I'm not wrong. So if you divide by six words so in my word four we have around 35,000 peoples we have three blocks westbrook and also Jefferson also meond so from population perspective westbrook maybe around 10,000 or 12,000 people and this unit is
145:00 - 145:30 1,500 units so I'm projecting in be 5,000 people's coming here if some of them 5,000s imagine so 5,000 uh compared with population 12,000 maybe around the 50% increasement just from population perspective in that small part of the entire world for we're expecting 50% of population increasement. So let me go back to this question for our uh
145:30 - 146:00 planning team. So from the projecting perspective, how many population we are expecting to grow compared with five or 10 years? Do you have that number to the chair to council tree? No, I don't have that number and we'd have to uh bring that back to you at a later date. Okay. So for the entire KDA of Bernard, how many population we are expecting just for the KD area?
146:00 - 146:30 uh through the chair council tree. I don't have that information at my fingertips but we can provide that information to you. Okay. uh if I remember correctly so for the next 10 20 years uh no 20 years for York region projected uh for now we have around 21 22,000 people no 220,000 peoples in next 20 year 20 years uh or 30 years the projection for entire uh city Richmond hill grows will be around 300,000 people
146:30 - 147:00 so we are expecting 100,000 people coming to our population in next 20 or 30 That's how long that going to be. For the KDA of Bernard, we are projecting around one uh 12,000 populations. The KDA is for Bernard including not only my word two which is young and a mill. So not only for word two also for word four as well. On my part I'm expecting half of
147:00 - 147:30 populations coming to my world. So if you divide by two because world two is on other side just from population perspective I'm expecting six,000 people in my world okay and this line just right in front us around 5,000 peoples only one project almost use up all the population projected for next 20 years. So uh this is a little bit concern for
147:30 - 148:00 me. Uh just from population perspective, we are not expecting all the KD for Bernard just landed on this piece of land. We have tons of another builders and proposals and land available for future development. I don't want using one vendor make affordability as its to use up all the 20 years projection for entire community development. This is my
148:00 - 148:30 first comment. Uh I want to go back to more details for this place. I know there are five buildings. So which building actually in land or KDA development through the chair to councelor tree. Uh so the two southerntherly uh buildings which are 49 and 38 stories are actually in the KDA which is south of street A and it is three buildings that are north
148:30 - 149:00 of uh street A which are 29, 33 and 31 stories in height. those are not within the KDA. Okay. Uh based on current KDA development proposal that building 49 and also another 30 whatever 368. So what is the FI FI? So what is height uh regulations for that KDA development? So through the chair to counselor tree. So there's no height restrictions in the young uh Bernard KDA. It's uh managed by
149:00 - 149:30 angular plane and uh FSI. So the FSI for the KDA in this location is 5 FSI. So five so just for that two billions what exactly the FSI over there uh through the chair to councelor tree. We asked the applicant for clarification because they did their calculations on an aggregate basis. We anticipate that the FSI for those two buildings are in
149:30 - 150:00 and around 12 FSI approximately. Okay, 12 right almost double the FSI. Okay, let me go back to another three buildings here. So there are another three buildings uh center or uh east west side of this area. So I know this area your speed residential area should be a medium or medium low densities for this new proposal. What exactly this III or
150:00 - 150:30 densities for that three building through the chair to councelor tree. So the applicant is proposing to redesate the lands from the neighborhood designation to a regional mixeduse corridor designation. uh we don't have clarification on what that uh FSI is for those three buildings. We've asked for clarification in the report. Okay. Next question regarding to the angular glam perspective. So for all the buildings is there any specific variations or they
150:30 - 151:00 are complying with all those 45 degrees angular requirements uh through the chair to counselor tree. So the applicant has provided an angular plane analysis for the three towers that are in the center of the uh proposal uh to the neighboring uh design neighborhood designation and they appear to comply. Um because the applicant is proposing to redesate uh the lands that are in the center of
151:00 - 151:30 the proposal uh there is no angular plane restriction on the two southerntherly buildings. Okay, perfect. It's not neighborhood designation. Thank you so much. I just want to go back to history of this proposal. This piece of land uh as I remember at least in the past 10 years they always in OT or OB for negotiations. How many proposals has been submitted to LT on this land or this property big
151:30 - 152:00 giant through the chair to councilor tree. So there's actually been there was the original proposal uh that came in uh back in was approved in 2020 and it went uh went forward as part of the young Bernard secondary plan. So to be to there wasn't multiple proposals. Um there was an initial proposal uh we settled as part of the uh approvals of the young Bernard secondary plan. There were some modifications if you will to
152:00 - 152:30 that proposal from the original proposal proposal. So this if you will would be the second um most official proposal for these lands. Okay. I think my time is up. I'll switch to the second round. Okay. All right. Uh, Councelor Davidson, would you like to second the motion? Yes. Okay. Go ahead. Thank you and through you, Mr. Chair. So, um, so the 49 story and the 38 story are within the
152:30 - 153:00 KDA and may that type of high density may be allowed for that part. But the other three buildings which are even more stories if you add them all up 90 stories uh in total 33 31 29 they're they're in neighborhood designation right now. Is that not lowrise and medium density? What's the what's the actual zoning for buildings in a neighborhood designation through the chair to councelor Davidson?
153:00 - 153:30 So typically um the so the lands you are correct the three towers that are proposed in the central part are within the neighborhood designation and therefore a maximum of four stories are permitted for uh neighborhood um the neighborhood uh for buildings that front on terial roads and three stories uh for any other lo um ground related residential. Notwithstanding that there was permission as part of the uh
153:30 - 154:00 tertiary plan for this area that allowed for a six-story building uh to be within the low and medium density residential area for this particular area. So there was an overlay if you refer to there's an appendicy on um as part of the staff report that kind of shows the south um Brookside Tertiary Plan. So there was a little bit of intensification allowed for in this particular area of the uh tertiary plan up to six stories. Thank you, Mr. Chair. So I I completely hear
154:00 - 154:30 what folks are saying about affordable. I agree with you. There's no one here on this council who does not want more affordable housing, more more options for housing. But the way I'm reading this application is the trade-off is for uh to get the affordable units, we have to change a designation from town houses up to maybe six stories all the way up to 33 stories. That is a huge leap. That's too much density for
154:30 - 155:00 that designation. If we can work on the 49 and 38 in the KDA designation, great. But these other three are completely out of line with what they're what the that area is zoned for. And again, we can't look at these buildings in isolation. We look again at the one that was the other applicant tonight. That's 24. We look at all the other applicants in the KDA. And unfortunately, this KDA, the key development area, and major transit uh major transit route, they
155:00 - 155:30 have a bus down the middle of the road. It's not like the the alleged um you know that we're going to get the subway at Highway 7. The subway is never coming this high. So this amount of of density is for a major transit hub that has a subway. Drive down the 400 at Highway 7 and you see this kind of density in Vaughn because there's a subway there and there'll never be a subway up here. At least not while I'm alive, I don't think. I have never seen a plan for it.
155:30 - 156:00 So, I think we have to split this up and say, "Great, we want the affordable housing. Fantastic idea. We'll talk about the 49 and the 38, but the 33, 31, and 29, that is just too much for an area that is designated as neighborhood." Um, and I also wanted to to say and we've already talked about traffic and we've already sort of talked about why this area is going to be really congested, but I want to say that um to all stakeholders that the way
156:00 - 156:30 these things should work are with between the applicant um stakeholders, the council is to be open and honest and negotiate in good faith. Um, I think I I'm I'm not sure about other counselors, but I got 68 emails today and yesterday in total from Richmond Hill residents who said that they were wholly supportive, strongly support affordability, um, inclusivity, accessibility, and
156:30 - 157:00 strongly urge this council to approve these buildings. So, I emailed them all back. of 68 emails, 68 bounced back because they weren't real emails. So, I took the names of real residents and I called two of them and I talked to the people and I said, "I want to talk to you about the email you sent in support of this application." And both of them said, "I never sent you an email." So, I checked their email addresses that I received their name, their signature, their
157:00 - 157:30 postal code. And I asked them, "Is this your email?" "No." "Is this your postal code?" "Yes." Is there anyone in your postal code with your exact same name, with your exact same spelling that I could be getting it wrong? And the answer was no. So, I don't see I'm saying to all stakeholders, respect the people at staff, respect this council and deal with us honestly and openly. Whoever sent those emails, that's not honest and open. And I want the public to know what we're getting on our end. Anyway, that's it for me. Thank you.
157:30 - 158:00 Okay. Thank you very very much. Uh we've got councelor Silivitz is next. Thank you, Mr. Chair. And again, thank you to to the applicants and for staff for your presentations and of course to staff for this um this this uh staff report before us. My comments are very similar to councelor Davidson's. So I'm not going to uh repeat much of what she said. Most importantly, I don't support this
158:00 - 158:30 either. same as I didn't support the other one. It's too much. It's too big and it does not belong in this particular area, KDA or not. So that that that's my comment about this and I hope that the the applicant will continue to work with our staff, continue to work with your local counselor, continue to work with our regional counselors to try and find that sweet spot, try and find a way that we can actually have something in this area
158:30 - 159:00 actually built in this area that that would that would suffice. And I want to thank our three individuals who stepped forward to speak on um affordable and assisted housing and all of that. Your voices are very very important and um I want to thank you for for stepping forward. You spoke beautifully and um I heard every word and I know that I'm quite sure all my colleagues did too.
159:00 - 159:30 We are as concerned about affordable housing, assisted housing as you are, maybe even more. But we are. I can promise you that. And we we are working on it as this municipal council and our three regional counselors are working on it from the regional perspective as well. But again we are faced with um having to um having to side with mandates that are
159:30 - 160:00 given to us from the from the province about intensification about development and the landscape of Richmond Hill is going to completely change completely. It's not going in 2050 or60. It's not going to be the same city that you know now. There will be buildings along Young Street because that is what is mandated by the province. Just to go back to what
160:00 - 160:30 councelor Davidson was saying, I I would like to I never answered any of the emails, so I'm so glad you did. That's a stunning relevation revelation. Stunning. Even more so that the people didn't write them. Two of at least two of them. Stunning revelation. So, I wonder who wrote this. I think that's a fair enough question to ask here at this public forum. Who wrote this email? Because I
160:30 - 161:00 received 70 of them. If there was indeed no true public participation here, then I find this offensive because if I look at one sentence here, it says, "This project has been thoughtfully planned to integrate key community benefits." And I go to the
161:00 - 161:30 next one. With housing affordability remaining a major challenge in our community, this project presents a critical opportunity to bring nearly 500 much needed affordable housing units to Richmond Hill. I urge you to support this important initiative. Who wrote this? Because I can tell you unequivocally, this is my third term. I can tell you all unequivocally
161:30 - 162:00 that that is exactly what we work on. And what is in front of us here in this staff report is not in line with our policies is not in line with our land use planning documents and our policing planning land use planning documents and policies all receive massive public consultation. Then come back to council for council's deliberation and
162:00 - 162:30 discussion and final approvals or denies. So, whoever wrote this email and and and filled our inboxes with exactly the same email from everybody, um, I'd really like to know who you are and where what how you actually wrote this and why and what you used in order to move this
162:30 - 163:00 on to p the public to in any they kind of I don't know influence what is being said here. It's very serious serious seriously serious and I'm very upset about it as I as I know my other the colleagues that I've spoken to as well. We all feel the same way. Okay. Um so just to wrap up, thank you Mr. Mayor. Just to wrap up um this is where the public consultation takes place. This is where we discuss
163:00 - 163:30 everything with our residents according to policy and according to um according to everything that we have to do um in line with the provincial government. That email does not Thank you. Okay. Thank you. Um regional local counselor depala thank you Mr. Mayor and uh thanks once again to the members of the public who stepped forward today. Uh it it's very important that we that we hear from
163:30 - 164:00 you and um I I think there's a consistent theme from the from the residents that have come forward uh tonight. Uh they're they're concerned that there's they're they're overburdened and sharing uh the the burden of growth in Richmond Hill more than more than other areas and more show more than they should. And there's a there's a lot of concerns that have been expressed. I just want I want to ask through you, Mr. Mayor, when was
164:00 - 164:30 the Bernard KDA first established and and first uh uh discussed? When did that public process begin uh to planning? I'm going to guess it was 2018. Am I right? In and about. Yes. Yeah. And this this application falls squarely within the young Bernard KDA
164:30 - 165:00 through the chair to councelor depala a portion of it uh is uh within the young Bernard KDA and the remainder is outside of the young Bernard KDA so the southern corner where the two highdensity proposals are that is within the KDA the remainder of the site is outside of the young Bernard KDA okay where yeah okay so uh It's been determined for quite some time that this that Young and Bernard is going to bear um a significant amount of of of density and
165:00 - 165:30 and house u a number of the the new residents that were required to have in Richmond Hill. Um, now that's not not um not not comforting to those who are concerned and and this council and we will be vigilant to make sure that that the applications adhere to um the restrictions that are that are imposed. Um I I want to ask Mr. Mayor, also is
165:30 - 166:00 there any way that as a council we can compel maybe as a condition of uh draft plan of subdivision that um sellers of lowrise like when they go to sell a low-rise building that they inform u the potential purchasers or they it's somewhere in their marketing materials they make it clear what uh what density it can be expected in the vicinity. Is
166:00 - 166:30 there any is there any way we we can require or compel uh people selling houses near Young Street um to to to give proper information to purchasers? That's an interesting question, Miss Janetta. So through the chair to council depala you could um council can impose uh conditions of draft plan approval uh
166:30 - 167:00 that speak to providing purchasers um information regarding the uh surrounding area. The problem with that is that can change. Yeah. Yeah. So there is a danger in proposing the information at that time. Right. So, but but we can So, I I' I'd like us to look into that. You know, perhaps uh some way that we that we can tell people selling homes from from from
167:00 - 167:30 now on ground related housing along u within 100 or 200 meters from Young Street. Um just what the current status is the zoning in in the immediate vicinity. You know, um I'm hope hopeful maybe we can do that. I mean, we can't solve that tonight, but maybe um offline I I can I can work with staff. I think, you know, this this problem rears its head time and time again, and I'm just a little surprised with with respect to
167:30 - 168:00 the Bernard KDA when uh this public process has been underway for quite some time. So, anyone who's bought in this area, anyone who's who lives in this area um should be or or would likely be well aware of of the intentions to uh to have this order of density. And it's it's a lot, but I want to uh give some encouragement. Um you know, we talk about what you get with uh or what does the community get. I mean um this area
168:00 - 168:30 north of Elgen Mills is going to be significantly altered. there will be uh much more options for for retail, restaurants, and and and things like that. And I'm going to push very hard to make sure we get proper public transit. Uh you ultimately I'd like to see that subway get to Elgen Mills and Newkerk. Um you know, it's going to be a lot easier to travel above ground and continue traveling. wouldn't want it to go beyond Elgen Mills, but I'm hoping
168:30 - 169:00 this area could could uh easily be serviced with a shuttle service to today to Major Mack and and New Kirk to the GO station. Um, you know, we have the higher order transit on on Young Street, but uh we we've got to figure out a way to to in the interim get get transit uh working because uh the intention of this density that's been slated here is that these are people that don't necessarily have to have vehicles, that they can
169:00 - 169:30 rely on public transit, and we're going to work hard to make sure that that's the case. Going to try to make a pedestrian friendly area, but it's but it's a change and it's coming. And I understand the resistance and the reluctance to change, but um there's there's there's a plan and we've got young and seven, young and 16th and young and Bernard that are going to be significantly developed and uh we we'll fight to make sure they adhere to our our uh restrictions, but uh that it it
169:30 - 170:00 it is coming. Thank you. Okay. Thank you very much uh region local counselor deputy mayor Chan. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. Um, I'm only going to make a few general comments before I get specific. First of all, u I want to thank Mr. Claire, Miss Kelly, can I call you Katherine? We know each other well, I believe, uh, for coming to speak to us. No doubt we need more forpurpose rental, affordable housing.
170:00 - 170:30 No doubt about it. And I think we I would probably venture to say all nine of us would be in support of it in Richmond Hill. Um in fact um my colleague make reference to uh regional u council uh the mayor and myself and also councel Pauler we were at regional council just last Thursday on special council meeting while the subject is on development charge. However, there was
170:30 - 171:00 time spent very um intensive uh discussion is on how to help to really stimulate incentive to promote more uh for rent housing. I know that's not what we're talking about. I just want to affirm the commitment. I can honestly say for myself and frankly say for all of us who have the privilege to serve whether it's here or the region. No doubt about it. The second comment I
171:00 - 171:30 want to make is it looks great and when the uh agent for the applicant presents holistic community all for it and with all the community needs and center all these other things that meet like daycare and so on so on. I'm all for it. However, I honestly don't think there's a right location. move it to Yang Highway 7.
171:30 - 172:00 Some of my colleague may have said, Leah, where the Mars transit, where the subway is, where the gold train is now, that's where it is. Mr. Cla also make comment about the one bedroom. Maybe it's appropriate location for the uh rental units for that size for people take advantage of Mar transit to move around to the jobs to do something else and to mingle and so on. So good concept goodlooking concept of
172:00 - 172:30 wrong place and one dedicator mentioned um that I know is a different application comp but if you add the two we talked about tonight the exact number is 2,12 more units and when I looking at that where would people coming in and out for this particular project I don't need to see the map but I only see that one major road is going
172:30 - 173:00 out on Brookside there probably one on Young Street but if I understand correctly is right in right out is that correct Mr. chair intersection of the planning through the chair to councelor Chan the Brookside and Young is a intersection and it's not in not it's a fully uh signalized intersection right but in terms of getting into this five
173:00 - 173:30 building complex I would call it is through Brookside and I can only see one more on Young Street but really more restricted movement. Am I lock correct? Through Mr. Chair. Uh through the chair to councelor Chan. So as part of the proposal, there is the new street A that will be a full moves. Uh sorry, no it's not a full moves. Um it will be a uh street A will be um uh into the development and I believe it is right in right out because of the uh
173:30 - 174:00 uh transit way uh system uh on Young Street. And then there is an opportunity to have uh an an entrance off of Brookside as well. So if you take a look at the plan, there is a uh entrance off of Brookside and that connects to street A which is out to Young. Thank you. It's kind of confirming what I I'm seeing in the concept. I call it a concept for a reason. I think it's well meaning to have a committee center in the midst of
174:00 - 174:30 the five towers. However, in the restart report, we have a chance to look at it. Star raised quite a number of questions. Fantastic concept. What do you mean? What are you talking about? Now, I know those are really detailed technical things. Um so I really really wonder um is that this particular five tower concept is in the right
174:30 - 175:00 place and those will be my comment which concern about traffic and I won't touch on the other one raised my staff on waste management 2,000 units moving around the other thing is not just waste snow. We just have our taste of winter today. Um snow, I mean for five towers, if you think 23 or 24 stories high in the other project, it's only
175:00 - 175:30 49. So lots of work to be done. Uh I really encourage the applicant uh be realistic, be practical and work with the local committee counselor as well as our planning staff to come up with maybe more realistic in terms of traffic flow in terms of management as for the fourpurpose rental. If you really truly believe in it, make it happen. Thank you. Okay, councelor Thompson.
175:30 - 176:00 Uh thank you very much. Uh through you uh uh Mr. Mayor like to ask staff um what was uh previously uh approved on these subject lands. Um I understand it took a number of years to finally get this uh you know whatever the previous proposal was through the OOLT. Um, how
176:00 - 176:30 what what exactly was approved by the OOLT. So through the chair to councelor Thompson, the most recent approval uh was done in 2022 2023 with some modifications, but there was uh two six-story rental apartment buildings, uh
176:30 - 177:00 stacked town houses, semi- detached uh and the highrises on the south side of the development um within the KDA. And thank you uh through the chair. So those highrise developments within the KDA, do we know what they were established by OOLT at? So through the chair to council Thompson. Um my recollection um is be they they met the FS the five FSI um that was uh supported
177:00 - 177:30 through the young Bernard KDA and I believe they were in and around 38 stories. Yeah. Okay. Thank you very much. So, so we heard earlier uh from one of the uh the delegates that um in order to provide the type of affordable housing that may or may not incorporate supportive housing in there. I think there's a question about that.
177:30 - 178:00 um that the uh applicant indicated that you know anything less than what they've proposed here uh there's just no way they can make those numbers work. So it sounds to me that they're going after those other three buildings to in their words make those numbers work. Um, having said that, do you know how long this particular applicant has owned
178:00 - 178:30 these lands through the chair to councelor Thompson um based on um based on the applications that were submitted in uh 2016 uh the original applications that we had the current the current owner was the owner uh at that time. I don't know how long prior to that the ownership um was with this current owner. Interesting. And that's all the subject land. So they didn't start to add more like through
178:30 - 179:00 assembly uh since 2016 through the chair to councelor Thompson. That is correct. So I think it would be safe to say that they would have bought these lands at a time when the price was nowhere near what the value of these lands are today. So, if I have to make the comment that when somebody tells me they can't make the numbers work when they would have paid far less than what they're going to receive today, I have a problem with that.
179:00 - 179:30 Um, a couple of other things. um delegates had talked about, you know, development and and I know that, you know, we've we've tried to indicate that development is coming and and I recognize the same things happened to me. Like I said, I lived in North York and all this uh came up around me. And of course, I I didn't know what all the
179:30 - 180:00 official plans were or anything like that until I got that little notice in, you know, my mailbox that said, "Oh, by the way, you know, here's what's coming out." Because let's face it, nobody's logging on to the, you know, making the Richmond Hill website their homepage to actually know, you know, what official plans are happening and when. It's only when you get that thing that's affecting your home directly, that's when you find out about, you know, these official
180:00 - 180:30 plans, not only, you know, the ones that the city has, but the regional official plans and the provincial policy statements and so forth and and so I get it. This is a shock to everybody that's, you know, has those homes close to where they are. Um I you know but the reality is and and councelor Silivitz has certainly explained it as well that up and down Young Street you know this is what you're going to see. I know people are saying do we want to to look like
180:30 - 181:00 downtown? Well it's going to look like downtown. I don't like it as much as you do but that's exactly what's going to happen. Um the but the comment that somebody made was how to make it logical and this is what we're trying to do. Our staff have worked really hard on all the things that have been thrown at them to try and and make this as logical as possible. Um, so in the in my remaining
181:00 - 181:30 time, I just want to say like you, I lost the quiet, the peaceful, the privacy. You know, I've been there. I know exactly what you're talking about. I feel for you. Um, I won't be able to support the application as it stands. And one one final question for staff though and that is what is our ability to impose say something in regards to affordable housing and and
181:30 - 182:00 supportive housing and can we make it enforceable through the chair to councelor Thompson. So it's really uh quite difficult to enforce um rent tenure um on development unless it's through specific programs that the city is part of and agreements are entered into with the developer and registered on title quite like the program that the region um proposed with
182:00 - 182:30 respect to DC deferrals for purpose-built rental uh where agreements were entered into with the developers um they're registered on title And um you know it they can be enforced um and there's not a notice on title that you know anytime they try and change that tenure um you know there's a cause and effect to that. Um so it's very challenging. Um this is kind of what's faced across the province with respect to securing you know rental housing and it remaining as rental
182:30 - 183:00 housing. Um, so I know that as part of our uh affordable housing strategy, we're looking at tools on uh to use to kind of help secure uh purpose-built rental where we can, you know, and the these agreements uh register and title generally seem to be the only way. Uh they are still a challenge as well. Um but uh those are kind of some of the ways that we can. There are limited options though. And thank you. and through through the chair. Would that be something that
183:00 - 183:30 uh we would actually see as part of the application and not something that would come up through site plan when we've already had to make a decision through the chair to councelor Thompson. think that that would be something that we want would want to secure um a commitment at least at the OP and zoning stage. Um the agre and you know the mechanisms by which we would have to explore what's feasible. Much appreciated. Those are all my questions. Thank you so much. Okay, councelor Shu.
183:30 - 184:00 Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um my first question is about I just recall there is a building there's a mid-rise building just located at the opposite side the east side of Young Street and the name is uh Silverwood Condos which has only six to seven stories only right and uh I recall there was a delegates mentioned about the unbalanced height of the east side and west side of the Young Street and I
184:00 - 184:30 think this statement is justified And so my first question is about um from from a city planning perspective would would it be possible let me put in this way would it be possible to increase the height to the existing building at the east side of Yang to make it balance for the future development for the both sides of Yang Street through the Mr.
184:30 - 185:00 here chair to counselor uh show. So the the east side of uh Young Street um in the general proximity um if you take a look at the uh map three of the official land plan land use designation map, it actually shows um the regional mixeduse corridor on the east side of um east side of Young and the I believe the parameters of the uh regional mixeduse
185:00 - 185:30 corridor are eight stories um in height and the corresponding um F FSI I of two. So um again that's just on the lands that are outside of the KDA, right? So then if you move uh southward to the lands within the KDA um though the the the FSI is around 5 FSI and it's the height is dictated by angular plane. So there is an opportunity to balance development. We can't prescribe to developers what heights they propose. We
185:30 - 186:00 provide the uh parameters through the official plan and the applications come in on the basis of the parameters of the official plan through the chair. But there's now existing condor condo already there. This is uh this a civil condo and this is untouchable now because it's it seems that it's possible it's not possible to to in to increase the height of that conominiums or and that's definitely make the both sides of Young Street unbalanced in the future.
186:00 - 186:30 If we build the 49 towers, 49 stories towers at the east at the west side of the uh of the young street that will make the cities look as a language said ugly but I would say unbalanced. Okay. So if it's if if it is not possible to make the balance of the young street as a balance visible appealing I think it's not appropriate to make this uh exceptional tall buildings at the west side of the young street because it's is
186:30 - 187:00 very bad city planning as dedicate said that's my comment about the u city planning from the city planning perspective and it it looks not visually appealing That's my comment and also um because the KDA area is extends will be extending the south side. So is there any future development or any application the city received for future development at the south side of the KDA
187:00 - 187:30 uh through the chair councelor Shu. The only uh active development application we have is uh a site just to the south uh the Douglola or Golden Ambra Heights development that is closer to the Young and Elgen Mills uh intersection and they are um 5 FSI as well. So this is the uh
187:30 - 188:00 the first application within this area within this KDA area. No, the as I just mentioned the the dogola um application just to the south there is one active application they're nearing site plan approval uh this is if you will the second active application uh for the young Bernard KDA okay I understand so uh but for this um subject land uh the 38 and 49 stories is it the two tallest building within this area so
188:00 - 188:30 uh through the chair to councilor shoe the Douglola buildings are about 30 stories so this would be higher the ones that are proposed as part of this application are quite a bit higher so my so my concern is if it's set to be a preceding in the future this 38 and 49 stories building will be the will will will be the example or precedent for the future development and if there is a All
188:30 - 189:00 buildings is over 40 stories that will be very bad example and this is a very bad resilient to to the future development. If there's all building around is over 40 it's not this not possible to accommodate such a population size sharp increasing. That's my comment. So this is very dangerous precedent if we approve this uh big project and let the two tall buildings within the KDA because the KDA is not only these two buildings but this is the whole whole
189:00 - 189:30 entire area and we said this as a preceding that will be overcrowded. That's in that's my opinion. So just go back to my uh basic question this this time is straightforward and no track anymore. Why make this area KDA? because it's not close to any mass transportation and not close to future subway station. Why make this area KDA through the chair? Through the chair to councelor tree uh shoe. So the
189:30 - 190:00 applicant is proposing to redesate the lands the city isn't. Um right so from neighborhood to regional mixeduse corridor but kind of with with respect to the KDA. So it's part of the urban structure of the city. So we had three intensification nodes and the three intensification nodes generally um intensify towards the subway. So the young Bernard being the most most northern uh intensification node uh young young 16th and then the rich uh
190:00 - 190:30 the Richmond Hill Center being the highest. So the highest then kind of the second highest and this is kind of the third highest but highest in the sense that young young and highway 7 is the highest of the intensification nodes which which is where the subway is anticipated. So we have three intensification nodes and and the city has been planned on the basis of allowing growth um at these intensification nodes to kind of balance growth without throughout the city. Um as I mentioned before um the kind of
190:30 - 191:00 impetus kind of generally speaking send tends to focus on a transit facility uh not necessarily subway and in this case the it was the young young and alga mills uh train station um bus station that's kind of uh the impetus for kind of looking at this as a node for development. Thank you. I would say my last comment is I would say it's it's all about timing. I think it's not appropriate timing to set it as a KVA at this moment because there's no timeline for the
191:00 - 191:30 subway even even to the high-tech role. So, it's all about timing. That's my comment. It's not appropriate timing for set it to to KDA. Oh, my last question is can I have a last question? I was for a procedure uh uh issue. Is it possible to redefine or redesinate this area as a non KDA area? Is it possible to do that? So through through the chair to council
191:30 - 192:00 shu um are you asking if the city could do that? Yeah. Can the city do that to revoke the decision to set this area as KDA? Can and we revoke this decision. This a procedure this a procedure issue. So the city has actually done that before in so far as um sending the staff back to re uh look at um an area. Uh the downtown local center uh was was was an example of that. Council can um direct staff to uh review an area and
192:00 - 192:30 reconsider that designation. Um that is within council's uh perview to do so. Thank you so much. Uh that's all my comments. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Okay. Thank you. Um so I I'll make a few comments. So the this is actually quite similar in a lot of respects to the application that we were talking about at the very beginning. But um I just wanted to ask a question before I started. So this unit this application is slightly different than stuff that we
192:30 - 193:00 normally deal with because it's a mixture of land that's already designated as a KDA and land that is not and and the two designations in this case are quite different. But to be clear, there are approvals existing from the Ontario Municipal Board uh for this these lands. So if these lands were to develop today, under the approvals that are already given, how many units are we looking at within the total application area right now? I I don't need the exact
193:00 - 193:30 number, but a ballpark. Do I win the hardest question award? No. No, you just you just win the I don't have that information handy. What I can tell you is like as I mentioned before is that there were two six-story buildings approved and a combination of semi- detached and stacked town houses and the latest approval that's currently applicable to these lands. Were there not all within the approvals that are
193:30 - 194:00 given so far right now? Are there not two buildings uh within the KDA part that were also part of that approval there? Uh yes, the there were two uh towers on the south portion of the site uh that are within the KDA. So this is important for council to remember, right? I mean, I'm not suggesting that, you know, this is all roses and sunshine, but the thing is that today the builder could go out, he has permission from the Ontario Municipal Board to build a bunch of
194:00 - 194:30 stuff in that area, and that would not require any further council approval. what we're what is before us today is additional and I don't know the numbers we don't have those unit count numbers but there's certainly additional units that he is seeking for approval and in fairness he's seeking approval for units in area that's not designated for high-rise development. So that's really the issue that we're dealing with today. It's in my mind it's actually kind of that simple. um you know we I do
194:30 - 195:00 appreciate and I said this in the first uh part as well uh the the uh part about this that uh has affordability uh built into this plan or is being proposed in this plan is really important and it's very appealing. Now, having said that and and I I thank the the members that came and spoke today about affordability because I you know, we've had other conversations in the past and you know I agree we we really need this but at the same time as much as we are in a housing crisis and we are it's very very
195:00 - 195:30 important. Um we also need to make sure that whatever buildings that get approved get approved in a way that works. I mean we need the traffic to flow. We need the infrastructure that we have both today and in the future to work. Um, you know, uh, things were mentioned about community centers and all that kind of stuff. There's plans to increase all of those types of things as we grow. So, rest assured, I mean, it's in many places. It's not just in one place on the website, but there's lots
195:30 - 196:00 of information out there, so you can get that. But the point is we need to be building a built form in our city that is efficient and uh from both a social point of view and from a financial point of view. And again, that's really what we try to do uh on council each and every day. Is this um application uh too big for the area that it's being proposed in? And uh the question that's the question that we're going to be dealing with from this time going
196:00 - 196:30 forward as we refer all these comments back to staff and staff does their fullome analysis on all of the issues that need to be dealt with. So it needs to be good planning or we won't be approving it. But again I'll say the same thing I said earlier. Um, council can't unilaterally, well, they can unilaterally deny an application if it represents good planning because the consequence of that is that it will be appealed to the Ontario Land Tribunal
196:30 - 197:00 and the Ontario Land Tribunal, if it's good planning, will approve it and the city will not be the approval authority then. And a good example of that is the and we were all on council when this happened. There was a 25story building that was came up for approval. Staff recommended approval at at Oxford and and Young. Um we I think most of us on council made it very clear that that was something that we would we it would be best if we approved. It got
197:00 - 197:30 appealed by the community and we now have a 28tory building there instead. So this is the consequence of um you know not working with the applicant and not working well. Now, will this particular application, if that scenario happened, end up being approved bigger than it was or or the same as it's being proposed? I don't know. And we're not at that point yet. But the point is from here on in, we need to be looking at all of the details that are made here today. And I
197:30 - 198:00 just want to make one final comment, and that is where the subway ends, the densities are way higher than what's being proposed here. This is not subway density. If you look at Vaughn right now that's being built out that the towers in there are a whole lot bigger than what's dense. Anyway, that's just kind of um I'm just trying to balance the conversation here, but we obviously do have a lot of work to do and I know that the applicant and our staff and the
198:00 - 198:30 public I think is ready to do that work. Um and that all starts from kind of here on. So, uh, councelor tree, you had asked for a second round. What? No, I think, uh, councelor depollo, that's a hand from last time, right? Yes, it is. It's a legacy as as the chair. I recognize I recognize even virtual hands. So, so thanks anyway, though. Yeah, that that's that's that's that I learned that in mayor school. So,
198:30 - 199:00 yeah, that and cutting ribbons. I'm good at that, too. Okay, health tree. Go ahead. Okay. Thank you so much, Mr. Mayor. Uh, so through you, Mr. Mayor, I want to give you some numbers which is already being pulled by city council along the east the west side of the young street which is in the word for only word for only. So, uh either approved by city or approved by OT Ontario Tabuno. So as Barry mentioned uh on the south side of Adam Mills along
199:00 - 199:30 Young Street 28 storage with 248 units. So we are projecting around 700 unit uh 700 horizons. Also on the north side of Young Street which is Grand Park you might see the sun. So that's 31 storage and also another 20 storage plus another two coming as well. So that going to be four building two of them already sold
199:30 - 200:00 out. Last week city pass motion to allow them to connect the waterman. So the two building will be starting. I don't have the timeline yet. So city p waterman. So four buildings. So around 4,000 horizons. This the second plan. And third one I mentioned north of Westbrook along Young Street that had three buildings and the projection for the
200:00 - 200:30 horizons was 700 as well. And also on the pipeline we have another project which is on the uh north of Amuse right that corner seven stories. The park will be end of April. So everyone welcome join here as well. So April will end of April will be another hot parting for seven storage around 200 units. So that one is around 300 right as well. So if you sum up the
200:30 - 201:00 numbers just city approved right. We look at overrule as KD as overrule on my side on east white side of word for only we have around the 6,000 or 7,000 rise being approved. So as a city councelor I acknowledge so we do need a lot of affordable houses. Are we really need only single one to be affordable and
201:00 - 201:30 leave other areas cross street on other side of young street with vacancies. So we have to consider balance development right. So I understand affordable critical city already put tons of the uh or tribunal already put tons of affordables houses here as well. We're trying to development but we are trying to develop in a really uh balanced mode not in favor only one builders leave
201:30 - 202:00 other builders has almost no opportunity to development also I want acknowledge the traffic issues on that young street and also the uh a muse so a uh a little bit far that's Yorkland street which is our railway crossing there you know there's if you drive every there's There's no underground path at all. So if you drive in early morning or afternoon, the lineup is already there.
202:00 - 202:30 On the uh Agam's west side, we now only have a single line there. So every day whenever you're coming from Young Street uh Bayville or highway to uh Basel Street cross this Amir's west east was uh really a lot of crowd areas. Imagine if we only designated only one portion of that street or spot as a really high
202:30 - 203:00 density affordable uh that going to be a challenge to leading a lot of traffic. If you can distribute cars, traffic, pollution across the entire area, it might be a balance. So I'm not expecting everything specifically for one project use up all our resources. So let's give any other opportunities to other builders as well. I also want echo 2024 for city of Richmond uh city of Toronto. You know there are tons of high buildings, right?
203:00 - 203:30 Only 5% approved condominiums are start under construction. Only 5%. They approve tunnels only 5% under construction. So city of Richmond or other area maybe have better situation but I'm not expecting that for five stories high project might be last for four years five years I don't know I'm not a builder but you lot of people are really expert and if that project last
203:30 - 204:00 for three four five years they're high risk especially the relationship between Canada and US is very challenging so I don't want see a bankruptcy situation in my world. I want maybe the the builders or applicant to consider the problem for unemployment and also the tense between our government and al US and future inflations and also the hydris. If you
204:00 - 204:30 really want build up five years project for that high density maybe consider the low or medium density will be a better solution in the current situation. That is my suggestion. Thank you so much. Okay. Thank you, counselor. Okay. So, it looks like we've exhausted Oh, you're Are you serious? Are you Are you kidding or are you serious? All right. Go ahead. You're going to You're going to owe me a coffee tomorrow, though.
204:30 - 205:00 Uh thank you through the chair. I do want to make a couple of more comments, but uh I do have one quick question. Is this area not um a high aquafer area as well? These particular lands through the chair to councelor Thompson a small portion of the site is I see um okay something that certainly may come
205:00 - 205:30 up and be difficult come site plan approval. Anyhow, then um I do want to go back to something that was uh talked about and that is with the uh influx of emails that we all received and uh I recognize that they all come from voxadvocacy.com. So, it would seem to me that uh somebody would have, you know, paid to have that company
205:30 - 206:00 uh go out and uh start soliciting uh you know, cuz I do believe that some some people uh certainly I know Kathleen that somebody must have reached out and physically spoke to you if I'm not mistaken. Um but but uh you know I do have uh concerns when I see these uh same email coming in with names that perhaps I don't know and then when I do
206:00 - 206:30 see a name that I do know and I say to myself that seems odd that that person would actually you know do that without asking a few questions. So, um it's not a practice that I certainly uh like to see and it certainly uh you know makes me very leery. So, um those are my comments. Thank you. Okay. Thank you. Anybody else? Okay. All right. So, uh we have a motion on the floor to refer all
206:30 - 207:00 comments tonight uh for this application back to staff. All those in favor? Opposed? That carries unanimously. Thank you. And last but not least, a motion to adjourn and go to bed and wake up righte at 9:00. Okay. Uh moved by councelor uh Thompson, seconded