Richmond Hill Council Meeting Recap

Council Public Meeting - Tuesday, May 13, 2025 - 7:00 p.m. - City of Richmond Hill

Estimated read time: 1:20

Summary

The City of Richmond Hill held a council public meeting on May 13, 2025, at 7:00 PM. The meeting focused on initial discussions regarding two planning applications. The first application involved zoning changes to permit a medium-density residential development on 19th Avenue, while the second aimed at developing a high-density mixed-use building on Harris Avenue. Key issues discussed included traffic congestion, community impact, and compliance with planning frameworks. Public input was collected for further analysis, marking the meeting as an early step in the approval process.

Highlights

The meeting started with a clarification that no final decisions were being made on the applications 🌟
The 19th Avenue proposal includes 13 three-story townhomes 🌇
The Harris Avenue proposal suggests a 10-story mixed-use building 📏
Residents voiced concerns over increased traffic and loss of privacy 🚗
Council emphasized the importance of considering public feedback before proceeding 🌐

Key Takeaways

Public engagement is crucial in the planning process 🏗️
Both applications are in their early stages with many more steps to follow 🗂️
Traffic and community impact are major concerns 🚦
Council encourages developers to consider community feedback 🤝
Zoning and density regulations play a critical role in urban development 🏢

Overview

During the Richmond Hill council meeting held on May 13, 2025, council members and the public discussed two critical development applications. The meeting served as a platform for initial public input, highlighting the council’s commitment to involving community feedback in the planning process.

The 19th Avenue development proposal seeks amendments to the current zoning to allow for 13 three-story townhomes. This development aims to transform a 1.13-hectare site into a medium-density residential area. Concerns were raised regarding potential traffic increases and loss of designated employment lands.

On Harris Avenue, the proposal for a 10-story mixed-use building sparked considerable debate. Residents expressed anxiety about the building’s height and its implications on privacy and traffic. The discussion underscored the planning challenges faced by rapidly growing communities and highlighted the council's role in balancing development with community interests.

Chapters

00:00 - 00:30: Introduction The chapter titled 'Introduction' begins with a welcoming message to those present at the council public meeting as well as those watching online. The meeting is scheduled for Tuesday, May 13th, at 7:00 PM. It is emphasized that this is a council public meeting, which is distinct from a regular council meeting.
00:30 - 05:00: Purpose of the Meeting The chapter titled 'Purpose of the Meeting' covers a council meeting where new applications are introduced following the planning act. It is clarified that no final decisions are made at this stage; rather, it marks the commencement of a comprehensive analysis process. Two applications are scheduled for discussion during the meeting.
05:00 - 27:00: Application 1: 1501 19th Avenue The chapter discusses a public meeting where input from the community is being gathered regarding an application for a property located at 1501 19th Avenue. The purpose of the meeting is to ensure public comments are received and considered before any eventual approval is granted. The process explained involves a motion by one of the councilors to receive all community comments which will then be referred back to the planning staff for additional analysis.
27:00 - 80:30: Application 2: 11 Harris Avenue The chapter titled 'Application 2: 11 Harris Avenue' discusses one of the two applications being considered in the meeting. It mentions the availability of a preliminary staff report on the website that outlines the details of the application. The speaker encourages readers to access and review this report for more information.
80:30 - 80:30: Conclusion and Adjournment The chapter 'Conclusion and Adjournment' humorously suggests that the transcript may not be a thrilling read, likening it to a bedtime story for sleep aid. It touches on procedural details, emphasizing the importance of participation in public hearings. Anyone seeking to challenge the proposed official plan or zoning bylaw amendments in Richmond Hill must make submissions at public meetings or in writing to retain the right to appeal.

Council Public Meeting - Tuesday, May 13, 2025 - 7:00 p.m. - City of Richmond Hill Transcription

00:00 - 00:30 Okay. Uh good evening everybody and welcome to the council public meeting for Tuesday, May the 13th, uh at 7:00. Um couple of things before we get started. Uh so just to uh let everybody know that's here in council chambers but also watching online. Um this is a council public meeting, not a regular
00:30 - 01:00 council meeting, which means that um this is a a a step that we take under the planning act to introduce a new application once the application is complete. Uh so we have two applications tonight which we'll hear, but no final decisions on this application are being made. So we the council will not make a decision on whether to approve or not approve this. This is the very beginning of the process. There's a lot more analysis and
01:00 - 01:30 input, which is why we're here tonight to get input from the public uh that needs to be done before we get to some sort of eventual approval of uh a given um application. So, uh that's the approval take. You'll hear in a minute that the council when it it's turn uh council's turn to speak uh one of the counselors will make uh a motion to receive all comments and refer them back to our planning staff for further uh analysis. So that will be the only motion that we'll pass for each of these
01:30 - 02:00 two applications tonight. Um the other thing I I just wanted to make clear is on the website uh there is available um a staff report for each one of these uh applications. It's not a it's a preliminary staff port report that kind of um you know outlines some of the the details of what uh the application is all about. Uh but you're certainly welcome and I would encourage you to read the staff report um which is
02:00 - 02:30 available on the website. Um, I will warn you, it's probably not as interesting as a great novel, but you know, if you if you're find it not interesting, you can read it before bedtime and it'll help you to sleep. So, with that being said, um the public hearing statement if a person or 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
02:30 - 03:00 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 that being said, I'll call the meeting to order. The uh first item is adoption of the agenda. Councelor uh Tree, Councelor Thompson. All those in favor? Opposed? That carries. Uh anybody have a disclosure of pecunary interest or the general nature
03:00 - 03:30 thereof? Seeing none. Okay. So, as I said, we have two items tonight. Um, and the way that this will work is the um staff will outline uh the out the uh application and after that the applicant will uh have five minutes to outline the application and then following that we'll open it up to the um public to uh speak about uh what they would like to. So if there's any members of the public here that would like to speak to any of
03:30 - 04:00 the applications tonight, you're you're free to do so. you'll have five minutes to uh to speak to council. Okay. So, the first person to speak then is our uh one of our planning staff uh Elaine Leang. So, Elaine, come on up and uh tell us what we're we've got in front of us today tonight. Thank you. Good evening, Mayor West, members of council, and the public. The first
04:00 - 04:30 item tonight involves official plan amendment and zoning bylaw amendment applications to permit a medium density residential development on lands municipally known as 1501 19th Avenue. The subject lands are located on the southeast corner of 19th Avenue and Leslie Street. The lands have a total lot area of approximately 1.13 hectares or 333 acres in area and lot frontage of
04:30 - 05:00 approximately 38 meters along Leslie Street and 25 m along 19th Avenue. The lands currently support a 1 and a half story single detached dwelling and detached garage which are proposed to be demolished to facilitate the proposed development. Surrounding uses include 19th Avenue to the north beyond which are rural and agricultural lands including lands within the Oakidge's marine to the immediate north and south uh west excuse me and medium density residential development in the form of
05:00 - 05:30 town houses to the east and the south which are currently under construction as part of registered plan subdivision uh 65mm-762 also known as the Leslie Richmond developments. The lands are currently designated employment corridor in accordance with the North Leslie secondary plan area which is intended to accommodate a range of industrial and office use developments. However, notwithstanding
05:30 - 06:00 the above, the North Leslie secondary plan provides for medium density residential development. The applicable policies regarding medium-density residential development include permissions for a full range of residential types including single detached, semi-detached, duplex, triplex, quadruplex, block townhouse, and back-to-back town houses. Further policies within the secondary plan permits live, work, build form, however, within the mixeduse
06:00 - 06:30 commercial/residential designation. With respect to the current zoning, the subject lands are zoned agriculture A1 as uh under zoning bylaw 2523-86 as amended. Through these applications, the applicant is seeking approval to permit a medium density residential development consisting of 13 three-story townhouse units on a private common element
06:30 - 07:00 condominium road. Vehicular access to the subject lands is to be provided via a connecting driveway from the abuing land Leslie Richmond Developments subdivision. The applicant's official plan amendment application seeks to amend the policies of the North Leslie secondary plan area to redesate the lands to medium density to permit medium density residential
07:00 - 07:30 uses in the form of stacked townhouse dwellings that include live work permissions and also to increase the maximum excuse me and to increase the maximum permitted density within the medium density residential designation from 60 units per hectare to 95 units per hectare. The applicant's zoning bylaw amendment application seeks approval to reszone the subject lands to multiple residential four RM4 as amended with sight specific provisions to implement
07:30 - 08:00 the development proposal. It is noted that related draft plan of subdivision and draft plan of condominium applications have also been submitted in conjunction with the OPA and ZBLA applications. The proposed draft plan of subdivision, if approved, would result in the establishment of two separate parcels, one condominium, townhouse block, and one regional road widening block. The proposed draft plan of condominium, if
08:00 - 08:30 approved, would serve to establish common element condominium tenure. Staff have circulated the applications to internal departments and external agencies for review and comment. The purpose of the report is to provide council and the public with an overview of the applicant's development proposal and has been structured for information purposes only with a recommendation that all comments be referred back to staff for consideration. Thank you. Okay. Thank you very much. Uh so for the
08:30 - 09:00 applicant we have Jonathan Sassos from Humphrey's planning group who I don't think is here but is going to be joining us virtually. Uh so Mr. So, I can see you on the screen. You need to turn your camera on and you've got 5 minutes to address council. Um, good afternoon. Uh, I'm just having some difficulties establishing my connection to my camera. I apologize for that. Uh, I do not have a presentation uh for uh the committee this evening. uh
09:00 - 09:30 my counterpart uh at the city had done an excellent job at at describing the development proposal and giving a high level overview of the policy framework um as well as uh the implementation of the various um amendments that we are asking for. I'm simply here to answer any questions that members of the public or committee may have. Okay. Thanks a lot. So, uh we don't have anybody else signed up then from the public to speak for this. Is there anybody in the audience that would
09:30 - 10:00 like to speak to this particular application? Okay, come on up, sir. Yeah. Yep. Come on up. Uh, speaking of the microphone, if you could just state your name and address for the record and Oh, actually this one over here and just bring it up a little bit. You're you're pretty tall. There you go. Just name and address for the record and you've got five minutes to address council. Uh, Azad Gulam, 37 Sim Hill Crescent. Um, I'm just here just to basically u
10:00 - 10:30 just to see what's happening with the application. Um, I have a family that lives in the area and um I just I just basically came to see how this meeting goes. Their concerns about the land was just that they were expecting a commercial plaza to go there and they just wanted me to come here and just take a look at that. That was basically it. and they were worried about um pretty much just that because in the secondary I think in the I think she mentioned it in the secondary zoning plan it was originally planned for a plaza and then now it's going to be residential but it's saying residential
10:30 - 11:00 mixeduse with commercial underneath and there's already a townhouse down the street that has similar issues with no parking and stuff like that. So I just came to just get a idea of what's going on. That's pretty much it. No, that's excellent comments and that's exactly why we're here. So I'm glad you came. Yeah. Uh what I would suggest as I mentioned before is take a look at the on the website. The staff report will have a lot of the information that actually you you know about already, but uh that would be something you might want to talk to them about as well. Yeah. Is that on the like on the website
11:00 - 11:30 where Yeah. If you go under the uh uh under the council um meeting section and look for today's meeting, it'll be there. It'll be there. Okay. Pick that up. So that was it. Okay. Below the five minutes. Okay. No problem. you can donate the five minutes to somebody else. Thanks a lot. Okay. Um, so we don't have anybody else then from the audience. Is that correct? Okay. No. Bring this back to councelor Leu who's the ward counselor for this area. And councelor, you'll be willing to move a
11:30 - 12:00 motion to refer all comments back to staff. Absolutely. Okay. Thank you very much uh Mr. Mayor and uh thank you Elaine for your presentation. Thanks for the applicant for uh for coming here tonight and also Assad for uh for expressing your views. Um first thing first um through you Mr. Mayor to staff. So was was there a contemplation that there will be a plaza um on this piece of land through you Mr. Mayor through the chair to councelor uh
12:00 - 12:30 Leu. Uh the lands were actually designated employment. So they weren't actually commercial lands. They were employment lands. There was a little bit of employment lands at the north end of the North Lesley secondary plant. Some of them have been removed and these are one of the smaller parcels that are being uh considered for removal as part of the city's larger employment land review. Um the province has also done uh provided the opportunity for employment land conversions which this would be
12:30 - 13:00 considered uh to be reviewed as part of an application. So it was actually employment lands which did not permit commercial uses. Okay. So thank you. So um okay. Well thank you clerk for uh getting the information and showing the restit in I think the uh the agenda. All right. So thank you very much uh Deborah. Um, so it it still has to conform with the PPS 2024 through the chair to get councelor Leu. That is correct. Thank you very much.
13:00 - 13:30 All right. So, um, but you know, I I with this application, I don't have a big issue on this one because it's already surrounded by town houses. Um, I think you know, as stated in staff report, um, there's a few um, I think issues that needs to be um, addressed. Um, first of all is the relocation of the visitor parking um, on page eight of the report. And I think um the applicant should uh take note on that and also staff stated that you know it's better to divide into two separate blocks instead of one 13 um block and also
13:30 - 14:00 there's problem with waste collection and uh I assume also snow removal too um at the same time um through you Mr. Mayor I just have one question um because was the applicants proposing is 95.8 8 units per hectares and which our standard is 60 units per hectares. So in order to conform with the 60 units per hectares um does that mean that they
14:00 - 14:30 have to reduce the number of u town houses through Mr. Mayor through the chair the applicant has submitted actually an OPA application which will also speak to the increase in density. Uh we're also taking a look at the type of uh stacked townhouse uh that they are proposing which is not our typical. Um the parcel is quite small so the density is quite high for that size of parcel. Uh so we'll be evaluating it in uh context of what's been approved in
14:30 - 15:00 the surrounding area which may necessitate a higher density than what the North Lesley secondary plan calls for but we will determine the appropriateness of that density and they do have an OPA to uh facilitate that increase in density should we determine it's appropriate. All right. Thank you very much. and uh and uh also there's u an issue with the vehicular access through the adjacent sub subdivision. So there's still a lots of uh issues that need to be u um addressed and uh and
15:00 - 15:30 other than that I don't have any comments on that. Um this is just the beginning of the whole process. So uh for that you know asat. So if you have any issues you have one any thing you need let me know. I'm your w counselor or I'm this the counselor for this uh application. Um you can reach me anytime. So um unfortunately it's up to the chair. Okay. So Okay. Thank you very much.
15:30 - 16:00 Councelor is you're done. Okay. Okay. Talk later. Yeah. Is there any anybody else or sorry uh next person on the list was councelor Davidson. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you for everyone who came and thank you to staff and the applicant. Um, my question is about employment land. Does that mean that someone could put a daycare there? Is that employment land or like I'm I'm all for walkable communities, but you're
16:00 - 16:30 saying that employment land doesn't fit anything like a corner store, a hairdresser, a dentist, or a daycare. That wouldn't be permitted on this land even if we didn't change anything about it. Through the chair to councelor Davidson, that's correct. the employment corridor uh designation that applies to the lands are primarily uh dealing with industrial and office uses um and manufacturing, assembling and processing type of uses. So daycare uses are not permit currently permitted in our employment area designations. Thank you,
16:30 - 17:00 Mr. Chair. My last question is not not really knowing the history of that area and it is all built up and it is an area that's growing with housing. Was the whole area at one point sort of employment or it just seems such a small little corner? If you don't know offhand, we can talk offline, but it feels like maybe this is what's left of employment lands. Is that about right? Through the chair to councelor Davidson. Yes. This is one of the remnant parcels. Uh there were it was a very small area at the north end of the North Lesley secondary plan area. Uh one was across
17:00 - 17:30 the street that we're looking at doing a community center for the community for and that was also considered. Um there's this piece, one piece on 19th Avenue and a portion close to the 404 that still remains in employment lands. So uh we are doing an employment, as you know, we're doing an employment land review uh in the context of the legislation that came down at the end of last year to determine which pieces are still appropriate, does it make sense? But further to that, they all the the
17:30 - 18:00 province also allowed for conversions that um outside of a municipal comprehensive review process, which is why they're able to provide this application to us. Thank you. Okay. Um regional councelor Chan. Oh, thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you staff uh for presentation and we have the agent on the line there. Um actually it might echo some of the things that local council is asking. Um specifically
18:00 - 18:30 I noticed on the slide number six on the presentation so it's a block of 13 units. So if it were to be separated uh for every six would that be in some way lead to or result in lesser number of units because only so much land. Yeah, through you, Mr. Chair.
18:30 - 19:00 Through the chair to councelor uh Chan possibly. Um our our citywide guidelines actually typically uh recommend uh six to um recommend eight unit the maximum being eight units given the size of the site. Uh six and six may be appropriate and they may lose a unit in the in the process. Um again and that would just contribute to um ensuring there's adequate separation between the two blocks uh paracity on the site just an overall better uh development rather
19:00 - 19:30 than a long wall of uh homes uh which is typically not found in this configuration across the city. Thank you because I noted that it's meant to be a gateway. I mean uh visually I don't see that block as a gateway. Well, whatever how you interpret that. So, I know that that slide number six and that's I'm reacting to and ask a question. Um, the other thing is that help me understand from Mr. Chair is that it's still not clear
19:30 - 20:00 to me that uh this particular development 13 or whatever number of units would have direct access to a public road through the chair to councelor Chen. It does not have direct access uh to e either of the arterial roads and it would be solely dependent on access through the neighboring development the Lesley Elgen uh developments. Uh so it they will need to facilitate uh cross
20:00 - 20:30 easements with the neighboring uh development in order to facilitate access. Okay. Thank you. um while we looking at this development on its own but if I understand it correctly that means would have to collaborate cooperate whatever uh with the well or actually the other way the adjacent uh owner might have to make allowances and so that's interesting but we're still early um but I I just wonder you know this seems to
20:30 - 21:00 be uh pose some challenges in my view so thank you m Mr. chair. Those are my comments. Okay. Anybody else on council? Uh, councelor Thompson. Thank you very much. And through you, the chair. Um, I I believe the local counselor certainly uh itemized a number of the the things that uh certainly have popped up through the uh preliminary. Um but uh I guess I'm trying to sort out
21:00 - 21:30 a little bit here and I and I'm sure it's all has to do with legislation that um you know we get this application and it's deemed complete but we end up reading a report that has more questions than answers and I think it makes it very difficult for us or even the the public to be able to you know formulate comments to feed back when there's not a lot of uh meat I guess to to it and you
21:30 - 22:00 know if you could you know just say or or say that yes legislation kind of hinders us a little bit and timing and things like that and when the timing of the report actually has to be written that type of stuff uh if staff could actually just speak to that it would be appreciated through the chair to councelor Thompson. So, uh, the purpose of the council the council public meeting really is to facilitate comments. So, we try to schedule them as early as possible, um,
22:00 - 22:30 to a make sure that we meet our legislative timelines, but really to get it out in front of the public as early as possible and solicit comments. So, while the process is ongoing to make sure we are in a position to meet our legislative timelines, we try to get them out early and they typically, as you'll see, tend to be just fact-based at this point, leaving all of the nuts and bolts to staff and the ability to go back and forth back and forth with the applicant. So, it's really, you know, early consultation to get feedback on,
22:30 - 23:00 hey, what is the coun what is council, what does the public think about the process? it's make sure we try to meet our t legislative timelines. So that's why the council public meeting um reports tend to be quite uh short, straight to the point and not a lot of analysis at this point. And thank you. I appreciate that. Um so if I was Joe public and uh I I wanted to stay on top of this because we know that
23:00 - 23:30 there's a number of departments that haven't even reported yet, that type of thing. um they could reach out to and I believe you've got names at the bottom of the report there. Is that correct? Through the chair to councelor Thompson. Absolutely. That is that is the nature of kind of what we intents who have concerns or want to remain uh notified of what's going on with the application will reach out to staff formally. If they want to be notified, they reach out to the clerk's department so they can be not notified
23:30 - 24:00 of the when the report comes back to council for consideration. so that any of their concerns that they may have had, they can identify whether they've been addressed or not. Yeah, much appreciated. I thank you for that. Um, when we're talking about the uh the the units and and the recommendation to split it uh by six, I was looking at the uh the rendering that was shown and I noticed that it appears that there's a firewall um and it's only separating,
24:00 - 24:30 you know, I guess uh eight. So, is that the code? Um, you know, when you look at the rendering, uh, it looked like you have that that firewall that separates the units. Is that code? So that that appears to be the inclusion of a standard requirement from our fire uh services department. Um, but again, that is um that will be incorporated whether it is six units or eight units that that firewall requirement will be
24:30 - 25:00 incorporated as per the code. Okay. Thank you. So, um I guess what I was trying to drive at is if if they did go with the recommended six unit that you're talking about, would there be that requirement when you get to six through the chair to councelor Thompson? They may not need it. I'd have to we'd have to determine that through the code. Got it. Okay. Um uh th those are all my questions at this point. I appreciate the time. Thank you. Okay. Thank you. Anybody else?
25:00 - 25:30 Okay, seeing none. Um I'm just I am a little concerned about the the employment land uh issue, but can you just clarify for me? So in order for them to convert this from employment land to uh residential, they they don't need to go through the region obviously anymore because that that's out of the question. So it's completely up to us then. Is that correct? That is correct. Okay. Um, so the the
25:30 - 26:00 the land across the street with the P on it, I assume that's something we're contemplating at some point in time, but it's it's actually designated as employment as well. Uh to um to the chair, uh the P that you're on the uh west side of Lesie, that's where the uh community center is going to be. So that one's been considered uh not going to be employment lands. So the only remaining parcel is
26:00 - 26:30 there there's one on the south side of 19th just a little further east. Yeah. And and that's not viable as as a Okay. All right. That's fine. All right. Well, I appreciate the uh the comments. I I appreciate the input from you, sir. Thank you so much. And uh we'll have this all referred back to staff and uh staff will continue working with the applicant to uh to try to come up with something that we can uh we can take a look at it in the future. So, we have a motion in front of us then. All those in favor opposed. That carries unanimously.
26:30 - 27:00 Thank you very much. The next item tonight and the last item. Yeah, we got a seconder. That was I think it was Carol. Yeah. Okay. So the next item is uh uh request for uh comments official plan amendment zoning bylaw amendment inspired estate inc 11 Harris Avenue and the uh before the city is our planner Jeppi Russo. So Mr. Russo if you want to
27:00 - 27:30 give us enlighten us on the the application. Thank you. Good evening Mayor West, members of council and the public. The second public meeting tonight involves official plan amendment and zoning bylaw amendment applications to permit a highdensity mixeduse development on the lands municipally known as 11 Harris Avenue. The subject lands are located at the southwest corner of Young Street and Harris Avenue. The lands have a total land a lot area of approximately 8
27:30 - 28:00 acres, lot frontage of approximately 50 meters on Young Street and 52 m along Harris Avenue. The land support an existing single detached dwelling which is proposed to be demolished to facilitate the development. The surrounding land uses include an existing used car dealership to the north which is subject to development approval for an eight-story mixeduse development. Summit golf and country club to the east, existing town houses to the south and medium density residential which is currently under construction to the west. The lands are designated regional
28:00 - 28:30 mixeduse corridor in accordance with the city's official plan. The pick applicable policies allow for a medium and high density residential land uses as well as a full range of commercial, retail, and office uses. Development within this portion of the Rita Jal mixuse corridor allows for a medium maximum building height of six stories with a maximum density of 2 FSI. With respect to the current zoning, the subject lands are zoned urban zone under zoning bylaw 1284. Additionally, the lands are subject to the the the subject
28:30 - 29:00 lands are within the centers and corridor and are identified as regional mixeduse corridor 2 zone under bylaw 3025. Through these applications, the applicant is seeking approval to permit a highdensity mixed-use development to be comprised of 10 story of a 10-story apartment buildings with 119 dwelling units, approximately 269 square meters of commercial space at grade, indoor and outdoor amenity spaces, including a rooftop amenity area, and three levels
29:00 - 29:30 of underground parking. The applicant's official plan amendment application seems seeks approval of sight specific exemptions to the regional mixeduse corridor designation to increase the permitted building height from six stories to 10 stories and increase the permitted density from 2 to 3.3 FSI. The applicant zoning bylaw amendment seeks approval to reszone the subject lands through multiple residential one zone under bylaw 23597 as amended with sight specific
29:30 - 30:00 provisions to a implement the development proposal. Staff has circulated the develations to internal departments and external agencies for review and comment. The purpose of the report is to provide council and the public with an overview of the applicant's development proposal and it 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. U so for the applicant is Daphne uh Gson. Did I say that right? You did. Yeah. All right. Uh
30:00 - 30:30 from Innovative Planning Solutions. So you've got five minutes to address council. Okay. Great. Uh, good evening. My name is Daffany Gson from Innovative Planning Solutions. As just mentioned, I'm here tonight representing the proposed development at 11 Harris Avenue, which is just south of the intersection of Jefferson Side Road and Young Street. We are requesting an official plan amendment and zoning bylaw amendment. There we go. Uh, as staff already mentioned, it's about.3 hectares and a corner lot fronting Young and
30:30 - 31:00 Harris, uh, which currently has a vacant single detached dwelling. Uh, so I wanted to give you a sense of the surrounding area. I know this is a busy slide, so I just want to highlight a few aspects. First of all, right across Harris Avenue to the north is 12030 Young Street, which council approved for an eight-story mixeduse development last year. There also a number of new townhouse developments down Harris Avenue, which are also under construction. Uh, and to the south of the site is an existing townhouse development, which is really the only real neighbors right now that the site has. Uh there's also commercial plazas
31:00 - 31:30 to the north and south, both of which have important amenities like grocery stores, restaurants, banks, and they're both about a 15inute walk from the site. There is a Viva bus stop at Young and Jefferson, which is less than 300 meters from the site. Uh and this is in the Oak Ridges Marine, and there are number number of natural heritage areas which cannot be developed, including directly across the street on Young Street. Uh I think the Jeppi had a great slide that showed how the whole other side of Young Street is is Oakridge is Marine. Uh so the development concept as
31:30 - 32:00 mentioned is a 10-story mixeduse condominium building with 119 residential units and 269 square meters of ground flooror commercial space. Uh this rendering shows the view if you were looking from the middle of Young and Harris intersection. There's also 162 parking spaces proposed in three levels of underground parking. Uh so this slide shows the site plan with the proposed landscaping. Uh the building is designed to be loaded onto the corner with larger setbacks and
32:00 - 32:30 landscape buffers as you get closer to the town houses to the south and west. The site access is from Harris Avenue and opens into a large driveway to allow for loading and unloading as well as fire and waste truck turnaround. Uh we are proposing to have the commercial uh area fronting onto Young Street to activate the street. Uh there is an existing sidewalk with a landscape strip on Young Street. So, we would be enhancing and improving that area. And we also have a required road widening dedication on Young Street along Harris Avenue. The we're proposing an amenity
32:30 - 33:00 space as well as residential units with terraces at ground level. And there is not an existing sidewalk on Harris Avenue. So, we would be adding one. Uh so, this slide shows the elevations from different viewpoints and again this just emphasizes that the massing is concentrated at the street corner and that that building is designed to frame both streets. Uh there are stepbacks to the south to meet angular plane requirements for the existing town houses. Uh and the building is L-shaped to ensure appropriate setbacks and angular plane uh from the under construction town
33:00 - 33:30 houses to the west. Uh so this elevation shows the view from the town houses to the south and the angular plane towards the under construction town houses to the west. because the building is set back so far from the western property line. Uh that side does meet angular plane despite not having the stepbacks that you see to the south. Um and although it appears that there's a corner that's encroaching, that's actually just a a noise wind barrier on on the roof deck and not an actual floor. Uh so as was mentioned, the site is designated regional mixeduse corridor
33:30 - 34:00 which permits the use but not the proposed height density. So that's uh why we're requesting an official plan amendment. Um, also just briefly on zoning, at the time of the application submission, the lands were zoned UR under bylaw 128-04, which did not allow the proposed use. I understand the lands were recently reszoned, but that decision was appealed. Uh, Jeppe and I had a conversation. We'll need to work out the technical details of what zone it will be in the future. Uh, but we'll work with planning staff on that. Really just
34:00 - 34:30 want to get into the details of the sight specific request so we can figure out the actual zone uh later. Uh so since the zoning is in flux what I did is create a comparison table with our request and what was approved at 12030 Young Street which is that project direct directly across Harris Street to the north. So both projects propose an apartment building with ground flooror commercial space. The setbacks are similar. I think the differences are mainly due to sight specific considerations what your neighboring uh properties are. Uh but I do want to
34:30 - 35:00 highlight that our project actually has 25% less units and a higher proportion of familysized units than what was approved across the street. Uh on this slide, what I really want to highlight is the height. Uh although we are requesting 10 stories and it was eight stories approved across the street, the actual height of the building is essentially the same. Uh we are requesting 37.5 m which includes the mechanical penthouse and the project was approved for 30 m plus up to 7 m of projections. So, it's essentially the same height of building just uh
35:00 - 35:30 different different way of wording it. I also want to highlight that our requested density is lower. Uh we have more parking and we're proposing more outdoor amenity space, but overall the projects are very similar. Uh so, uh you know, it's appropriate for this area. Uh so, just in summary, the lands are, as mentioned, designated for a regional mixeduse corridor. Young Street is a regional transit corridor. The site is very close to a Viva bus stop. I know the city is looking to provide those transit supportive densities near Viva bus stops. Uh however, as I mentioned,
35:30 - 36:00 development in the area can only happen on the west side of Young due to the Oak Ridg's marine on the other side. Uh and really in order to provide those densities, there just has to be more density on this side of Young. And I think that's why you're seeing uh proposals coming in for a higher uh height than what is allowed by the official plan. So uh we feel that the the development is in line with what was approved and is also compatible with the area. Thank you so much. Thank you. Uh the next person registered to speak is Jim Katsopoulos from JK KO Planning
36:00 - 36:30 Services. Uh Mr. Katsopoulos, you've got five minutes to address council. Welcome. Good evening, Mr. Mayor, members of council and staff and the public. Um Jim Kopoulos, 27 Field Flower Crescent in Richmond Hill. And Mr. Mayor, tonight I'm here on behalf of Metropole Developments Inc. and 9089802 Canada Corp. And Mr. Mayor,
36:30 - 37:00 those are the developers for the adjacent medium density residential uh developments that I have been shown by both staff and the applicant and they're more commonly referred to as uh Harris North and Harris South, Mr. Chair, and they've been very active over the last 5 to seven years um within this vicinity. Mr. Mr. Chair, I'm I'm before you tonight to address the issue that involved um Metropole's recent
37:00 - 37:30 construction and completion of the full urbanization of Harris Avenue. And that would be, Mr. Chair, the first 200 meters of Harris Avenue originating from Young Street and moving westerly to roughly where Graange Drive is. And Mr. share that not only included the urbanization but also the extension and full construction of the services
37:30 - 38:00 being sanitary sewer and water mane and on that basis Mr. chair and as you saw from the site plan, there are obviously some benefiting land owners as a result of that urbanization. One of them being 12030 Young Street, which is also being referred and also the subject development currently before you tonight. So, in this regard, Mr. Chair, we would uh ask that council and staff
38:00 - 38:30 uh be um sensitive to the issue of this construction so there could be the appropriate provisions made at the appropriate stage of this development in order to facilitate the cost recoveries that would be applicable on a PR-rated basis from the uh abuing land owners that would benefit. benefit from the of course recently completed urbanization. So, Mr. Chair, we realize
38:30 - 39:00 before you tonight are the official plan and zoning bylaw amendments for 11 Harris and obviously they would not be appropriate for that type of uh condition to be imposed. However, Mr. Chair Metropole would like to go on the record throughout these stages and we would be seeking the same request for this application when the applications for plan a subdivision and draft plan of condominium would be before you. So, uh
39:00 - 39:30 we would start right now with the OP and the zoning, Mr. Chair, and we would appreciate council's consideration of this request. And those are my comments uh this time, Mr. Chair. Thank you. Okay. Thank you very much, Mr. Consopoulos. And uh now we'll turn it over to the public. So uh is there anybody in the audience that would like to speak to council about this uh particular application? Don't be don't be shy. We're very very
39:30 - 40:00 friendly up here. All right. Just if you could just state your name and address before you speak and you got five minutes to address council. All right. Uh my name is Rya. It's 95 Crescent. um which so um the so we we more concern in this amendment from this from this apartment for this condo because it's raising the height from 8 to 10 floor and we concerned is it's getting more
40:00 - 40:30 congestion on the traffic on the area and we have a relatively small area for or park for neighborhoods right now we're introducing another maybe 100 something uh unit in. So it's a pretty big number. Sorry about English second language. So that's okay. I hope I understand stuff. So you're doing fine. Yeah. Right. So um so the the neighborhoods this this neighborhoods is more concerning that it's getting more
40:30 - 41:00 congestion. And the other thing is this when they're raising the height of this building, it's uh apparently going to uh hurt the privacy of the neighborhoods because a whole bunch of low rice. Originally, I heard it's six floors. So, it's pretty reasonable and and now it's like 10 almost double the the original plan. So, I'm pretty sure the neighborhood uh is pretty concerned their privacies. It's not as the same as previous before. Um and the other thing
41:00 - 41:30 is uh the traffic. So there's a right right pretty much like uh 100 meters away is a place for a school bus picking up people and we have one traffic traffic light. It's not a traffic light just stop sign. So getting more people there is making making the neighborhood the kids feel unsafe. So all these things. So we we would like um asking um the the panel to consider this situation. Maybe we we should stick with
41:30 - 42:00 the original plan instead of raising the height and approve this amendment. Um that's help myself. No, thank you very much sir. That that was very well said and um so we'll as I said at the beginning of the meeting the purpose of tonight's meeting is to take all the input from uh the public and from council and send it back to staff. This is the very beginning of the process. So so it'll we'll we'll be going from there. So thank you very much. And uh is there anybody else that
42:00 - 42:30 would like to speak at this time? Come on up ma'am. And just again just state your name and address for the record and uh you've got five minutes to address council. Yeah, this is Mingi my address in N Grand Drive, Richmond Hill. Um, so I heard this plan actually last year as well and uh unfortunately didn't get chance to join that meeting and uh we collect some feedback from our neighborhood. I think uh uh the main
42:30 - 43:00 concerns there are several things. The first thing talk about the heads and the density is a 60% increase you know based on the limit is a six story and for the density 65% increase and another thing this area is not a primary public transit station area. Therefore this type of the high density development should not be approved. Uh the second thing is uh uh because our neighborhood is mainly is a townhouse or the uh uh
43:00 - 43:30 detached house. So this is the height the this height of the building will impact our you know privacy and shadowing and all those we feel that uh oppressive impact. Uh another thing is that uh all those people pay really the a lot of money to buy the house because the community is so quiet. Now you have
43:30 - 44:00 this building that will decrease our property values as well. The third thing is if we go to the source there's 19 avenue. So we know the Elgen Muse and the major MAC that part is very cloud usually if we go to work now we are trying to go to the stop view to make our traffic better. Now if that coder is only location we can go a little bit faster it will stuck there 100%. Uh um so if they have some visitor
44:00 - 44:30 or some commercial vehicle maybe make it worse. Uh the number four is for the green space. I know the lady mentioned that uh you know uh the east is a conservation you know that areas but it's not just bypass that young it's it doesn't need to be considered. So I think this one is our concern as well. Another thing is that higher population
44:30 - 45:00 demands will impact you know uh the park you know in our area when you have very very small you know the community park. Now if this this 10story building will make the situation worse and also others uh resources for the schools for the health care and the green space I already discussed and uh yeah I think that's my my main
45:00 - 45:30 concern about this. Okay. Thank you so much for coming tonight. Uh is there anybody else that would like to speak to council? We're, as I said, we're very friendly. We really are. Going once, going twice, nobody. All right. Uh, I gave you my best sales job, but you know, not good enough. All right. So, I'll I'll bring this back to council. Uh, this is a W four location. So, we'll bring this back to councelor Tree. Uh, and if you'll move a motion to
45:30 - 46:00 uh refer all comments back to staff. Sure. I'll move a motion. Go ahead. Okay, thank you so much. Oh, thank you so much for for our address. Come to here to city hall. I know you driving a little bit far because that's uh Jeffson said area is really need 20 minutes come down here. So appreciate all the effort you come here to listen to this part meeting. Uh basically I do have a few m uh questions. So the first one is this location have been
46:00 - 46:30 discussed before I remember. So it was 2024, it was 2023 was the time we discussed that original plan for eight stories through the chair to councilor tree was in 2024. Yeah. So I remember that time being I I don't like that original plan even is eight floor. So and now it's bumping to 10th floor just within less than one year. So um I just want to echo
46:30 - 47:00 a few things right. So for me it's really wasting the staff's efforts. It's really wasting uh the the resident's time as well. Beginning of this proposal it was only six floor and now it become almost 10 almost doubled. So from the design perspective or the KD areas perspective is there any specific KDAS or uh PSMI related with this specific
47:00 - 47:30 question? Sorry through the chair. Can you repeat your question? PMP PM protected uh public transit area. Is there any uh regional locations there through the chair council tree? there's uh this uh particular site is not in proximity to a PMTSA nor is it within a PMTSA. Okay. For the neighborhood because I I know just right behind this proposal uh there will be 88 town houses nearby just that
47:30 - 48:00 hasn't been constructed yet. So uh is there any enough buffers or privacy distance from this proposal land to the the one behind it? So the only through the chair to councilor tree the only uh policies that uh require transition is the angular plane uh policies which the applicant does meet on both the uh west and the south side of the de of the building uh
48:00 - 48:30 as it relates to the existing lowrise uh to the south and the ones to be constructed to the west. Okay. As I know we did have a infield um research for the highest and the beach the areas. So is this piece of land being considered in the previous uh infield research report uh through the chair to council tree this site is considered to be a site for
48:30 - 49:00 mixeduse development in the Harrison Phil study. Okay perfect thank you so much. Also I want to add comments here. If you look at around Young Street from uh A Mills or 19th Street until war one which is old colony we don't have such high building at all. The maximum is either two or three stories buildings for entire community. It's not only a small portion it's really big portion on east side that's a temple and also church. We know this reserve area
49:00 - 49:30 there's nothing right just one one or two storage and this one if we prove even for eight storage is the highest building across two big blocks we have nothing here and now this might become a 10 going to be a symbol for entire world one world war two plus war. So in the north side we are knowing there might be certain of the habian close community like you know work one there might be along young street old colony areas but
49:30 - 50:00 this area lot of pond here lot reserve area forest here we are not expecting to high buildings around down here so uh I I don't like this plan as last time when the port was only eight storage the traffic problem we talk about a lot. Even today, Ryzen did not come here. But I give you maybe more information here. This is the 110 dwellings right behind that going to
50:00 - 50:30 be another 88 town houses which is not constructed yet on the south side which is behind that uh uh car dealers. I believe that going to be 100 uh townhouse which will be finished very soon. Just behind the settlement there's another part of higher street last week city passed I believe 33 town houses plus others and now just beside source
50:30 - 51:00 of Jeff side we have big project there delivered by the countrywide so there are two townhouse houses as well so in this piece of land we are seeing lot of constructions also the new propose here it will be a very high densities in the past two years. I believe everyone driving along Jeff side right the car trucks park par park parked on the street we we receive tons complaint I receive tons complaint for constructions imagine this one will be build up in the
51:00 - 51:30 inside our own community whenever you're coming from town woods or coming from Harris or coming from settlements we can expect around maybe 300 family there many cars will be there there's only one entry And you have to make a right turn. You cannot make a left turn. I remember that one last time our deputy mayor got mentioned that one. There going to be no traffic light again for left turn. So
51:30 - 52:00 the only thing is available is right turn. So traffic really is my concern as well. Safety is also my concern too. Okay. Thank you. Okay. Uh next speaker I have is councelor Davidson. You'll second the motion. Okay, thank you. Thank you through you, Mr. Chair, and thank you to everybody who came and thank you for the presentations. Um, I have to agree with my colleague. I do think that this is too much for this corner. This corner,
52:00 - 52:30 um, there's it is on Young Street, but there is no express bus. There's no bus to any of the GO stations. There's, uh, like the GO train, there's no transit way. This is not a high transit area and I would encourage anyone to go up to Oak Bridges and try to go north or south in this area on any of the um busy times of day. And I agree that this area is up
52:30 - 53:00 for development, but we can't look at it in isolation. We have to look at it with the other town houses, the other buildings that have been approved, and we're just going to load up the roads without a long-term plan for transit. So, we're basically saying if we build these 10 stories, we're going to put that many more cars on the road because honestly, there's not a viable transit alternative unless you can walk to work. Um, it's just not a place for more and more traffic. It's extremely frustrating for the people that already live there.
53:00 - 53:30 And as uh counselor tree said, good luck coming and going because Stoville ends there. It's a T intersection and Jefferson Side Road is a T intersection and the absolute nightmare of the of the congestion there um is already a frustration with people who live there and will continue to grow as we add the density. So I do think 10 stories is too high. I'm also looking at the site plan. Um my question I don't see area here for green space. It feels like so much of this spot is either building or
53:30 - 54:00 driveway. So, I don't see a lot of recreational area for the people that are living there. I don't see where you're going to store your snow. I mean, maybe it's here somewhere and I've missed it. Um, three, Mr. Chair, uh, to staff, is there only one in and out? Is that what I'm seeing? There's only one entrance and one exit on on Harris through the chair to councelor Davidson. It's only one access uh, from Harris Avenue. So, through you, Mr. Mr. Chair,
54:00 - 54:30 knowing the areas I do, that is so close to the light at Jefferson and Young. That's going to be a nightmare for people trying to get in and out of this. It's going to be a nightmare for the people trying to travel along uh Jefferson side road. I don't see one entrance with this many people, 10 stories, this many units, that many cars. It doesn't work. So, I think the applicant needs to rethink this. Um I I don't Those are my comments for now. Thank you. Okay. Thank you.
54:30 - 55:00 uh regional council ch Thank you very much Mr. Chair and thank you staff for for the presentation and the delegates and thank you sir for uh saying what you want to share with us. Thank you and I think some of you I noticed who may not have been spoken to us but your mere presence uh I think I got the message uh uh also by by virtue of your clapping. I'm not looking for clapping but having said that uh for you
55:00 - 55:30 Mr. Chair I do want to seek some facts because the applicants agent make reference to I believe 12030 Young Street as a comparison. Now this particular site is 0.8 acres which is relatively small for this size of building. The question is what would be the size relatively speaking just roughly for the reference that was made from such chair 12 I think
55:30 - 56:00 1230 I think that's on ya are we comparing or are we actually being um uh presented with compare apples to apples in terms of the size of the lot that's why I'm getting it through the chair to council chen I don't have the exact lot configuration of 1230 uh Young Street. I'd have to get that to you. The site configuration is more of a square on this site versus more of a rectangular uh site
56:00 - 56:30 configuration. The site uh just visually appears to be larger on the 1230 uh 1230 Young Street, but um I could have I'd have to report back on terms of the precise lot size in comparison. Yeah. Well, thank you for the response. I mean as I was saying the reason I asked that because council or the public is being shown that as compared to this one. So I just want to make sure that in
56:30 - 57:00 some way they are really appropriate comparison. So putting that aside um I think the local counselor and council Davidson already raised all those issues concern about the access the traffic and of course the focus been talk about height and if you look at the star report I know it's not the uh uh reading most people like to read but consistently is not exceed is all sung
57:00 - 57:30 in a negative uh way. So if we were making a decision today, uh I will eventually say chances are he's not going to approve it. But we are not there yet. However, I do see that and I hope the applicants agent will bring it back, go back to the drawing board, have something more appropriate for a site of this size. Um and uh like the height people I mentioned to me it's just one of the measure you look at but to me
57:30 - 58:00 height is not the issue the the whole issue is the appropriateness uh of the development for this particular site and it's also interesting and telling is that um the four scenarios I make reference in report of the particular infield study for this neighborhood highrise of this nature is not in any of the four scenarios. So I think that's very telling. So I very much encourage the applicant uh through
58:00 - 58:30 the agent or if you're listening go back to the drawing board. you know look at again what I understand you're going to maximize the uh the return for this land but to me it's a long way to go what's it present to us doesn't doesn't seem to go at least at this point in time uh even with the any particular positive check off from the star report so go back and restart the process please thank you those are my comments
58:30 - 59:00 okay uh thank you is there anybody else councelor Thompson. Thank you very much. And uh through you the chair um I believe I understand we're uh it's about making comparisons that uh you know really the applications really have to stand on their own based on the merits of the particular subject land that they're trying to work with. Um so but we can't help but compare. You know that's what we do.
59:00 - 59:30 Um the the building to the north uh I understand it's uh eight stories. Is it considered high-rise or is that considered mid-rise? Through the chair to councelor Thompson. Uh five to eight stories is considered mid-rise. Anything above nine stories is considered high-rise. Right. Thank you. Thank you so much. And so the moment we step into hiderise, there's a whole host of other different considerations that have to to come into
59:30 - 60:00 play on something like that. Um I noticed in the uh I think it was on page 8 in the uh the report that um at the time of the report the uh bylaw 3025 was still uh under appeal. Um, has that changed at at this point through the chair to councelor Thompson? No. Uh, bylaw 30-25 is under appeal and
60:00 - 60:30 no um OOLT proceedings have been scheduled to date. Okay. And would this have so let's say at some future point uh that gets resolved will that have an impact on what uh what is being contemplated for these subject lands through the chair to councelor Thompson. So the bylaw 30-25 actually implements uh the official plan as it's currently
60:30 - 61:00 constituted. So it would implement you as of right the six stories that's permitted as in the OP and the design uh the density of 2.0 I believe. Um so that's what the bylaw uh 30-25 would uh permit as of right and then anything beyond that would be subject to planning act applications. So um the applicant would so a lot of these applications that are in kind of in the midst of the bylaw
61:00 - 61:30 coming into force in effect would have to reconcile sight specific zoning to facilitate uh their proposal if it's beyond the parameters of 30-25 subject to council approval. Right. Thank you through the chair. So I'm assuming that the building that on the uh northwest corner that's exactly what they had to do as well then uh at that time through the chair to councelor Thompson. No. So they had an approval in um a zoning bylaw passed prior to the passing
61:30 - 62:00 of 30-25. So, if you if you had that uh scenario, you either were carved out of the um the current zoning bylaw 30-25 um or you were determined to be legal, you'd be determined to be legal non-conforming or you would be transitioned if you had a site plan application and you complied with the zoning ball. So, there's a couple of scenarios that apply. Uh likely, um this particular proposal doesn't have a site plan application, I believe. Uh so they
62:00 - 62:30 w they would have to request to be carved out of the 30-25 to maintain their sight specific standards that were applicable to this site. Uh thank you through the chair. That's very educational. I think you were a teacher in a previous life here. Um those are all my comments. Thank you. Okay. Thank you. Uh next is councelor Silvitz. Thank you Mr. chair and thank you to
62:30 - 63:00 everybody for um uh for uh speaking here this evening and for the staff report. I just have a couple of questions through you uh to staff. Um does this piece of land is this piece of land included in the Harris Beach? Um I don't I can't remember if it's secondary plan or tertiary plan, but I know there's another plan in place here. Is this piece of land a part of that or is it outside of its boundaries?
63:00 - 63:30 Through the chair to councelor Silhouette, it's part of the Harris Beach neighborhood infill study. Thank you. Neighborhood infill study. That's what I my brain was trying to remember. Um and with regard to that infill study um through you, Mr. chair, how does this particular proposal um gel with what is proposed for the info study which was approved by council
63:30 - 64:00 through the chair to councelor Silvid. So the infil study did contemplate mixeduse development uh in a six-story format with a 2.0 FSI. So there this is a site that was contemplated for mixed use development. So from that pers from a land use perspective, this was always contemplated on this site. However, in terms of the height and density, it was not contemplated at this height or this density as proposed.
64:00 - 64:30 Thank you. That's I I believe that's a very important um very important factor here and um I I would urge the applicant to continue discussions with our staff and with the local counselor and with our regionals as well because this is Young Street. um to attempt to uh build something here that is in keeping with that infill study because that infill study um took a very long time to come through
64:30 - 65:00 council. It had a lot of public consultation. I was involved in it and um during that term and I I believe that it would be prudent for this for the applicant to um to be aware of and have regard for that infil study. I believe that's a very important um as I said before very important factor um to this particular um application and um uh
65:00 - 65:30 attempt for for construction at this particular site. Um, thank you very much. That's it. Okay. Thank you. And councelor Leu. Thank you, very much. Uh, Mr. Mayor, um, I too agree with, uh, council tree and other colleagues that, uh, this is too high and it's too dense. Um, just out of curiosity, so um, in the staff report, it says it required a stage two archaeological assessment. um what is
65:30 - 66:00 that and how the result of this affect this application through you Mr. there uh through the chair to councelor Leo. So I don't have the details of this. I used to know this uh back in uh the day when I was doing a lot more green field development. So I apologize but a stage one is typically the first stage of archaeological assessment and one that is undertaken if there is something found that may warrant further investigation it is recommended that a
66:00 - 66:30 stage two is done. It doesn't necessarily mean that there's anything there. There may just be something that uh triggers a stage two investigation which is in this case um has the fa the stage one that was undertaken suggests that a stage two is appropriate to do for this site. Um and that may determine um you know a number of uh things if there is a historical findings underground if there are other things worthy of conservation and preservation.
66:30 - 67:00 So we will uh look to getting the stage two archaeological assessment done and registered with the ministry to determine if the site is safe for development. Thank you very much. And uh one last comment is about the design. I I think you know no matter it's eight stories, six stories or 10 stories um the design needs a lots of improvement. U my my personal opinion. So thank you very much. Okay. Thank you very much councelor Shu.
67:00 - 67:30 Thank you Mr. chair and thank you for the presentation. Um, based on my understanding, the applicant is now applying for an exception to designate the subject land as regional mixed use corridor in order to accommodate the proposed height of 10 stories and FSI 3.3. So I my first question is usually in what kind of situations can the city make an exception for an applicant like this case? Is there any reference we can get
67:30 - 68:00 in in the past experience the city can make an exception for for applicant. So through the chair to counselor Shu. So the the the lands are actually designated regional mixeduse corridor. Um depending on the context along the regional mixeduse corridor across the city um there are different heights and densities permitted. So in the regional mixeduse corridor further south for example higher heights and densities are
68:00 - 68:30 allowed. Um as uh the regional mixeduse corridor goes through the city where the context warranted a lower height and density uh that's what was applied in this instance. Uh this stretch of the regional m mixeduse corridor was limited to six stories and 2.0 FSI. So the applicant um as you know the applica applicants can come in and request anything from the city. They can request to redesate. They can request a sight specific exception. Um which is why they
68:30 - 69:00 have an official plan amendment application before council and then we determine uh staff will evaluate and make recommendations and council has the right to approve or refuse. But there is nothing to um prohibit the applicant from making the application. They can make whatever request they they would like and then it is up to council to make the determination if they agree or disagree. Okay, got it. Uh my next question is can
69:00 - 69:30 the applicant now appeal to OT from Mr. Chad? through the chair. I believe um the application was deemed complete on January 20th. Um they are past the 120 days for a zoning bylaw amendment. So they may be in a position to appeal. I
69:30 - 70:00 think it's a little bit longer. It's 180 days for uh official plan amendment, which they're not quite there yet. Okay, that's interesting. Um, so according to the staff report, this application does not include any affordable housing units and the thing the applicant could work further on this exp. And if the applicant appeals to OOLT and wins just in case, would they still be required to meet the minimum affordable housing requirements and
70:00 - 70:30 revise the application accordingly or be allowed to proceed without in without including any affordable units through Miss Jen through the chair? The T can do whatever they want. Yeah. So they they could impose that requirement. they could not impose that requirement. The city's official plan really isn't what they are looking to necessarily uh consider. They may consider it as part of their uh
70:30 - 71:00 evaluation of the proposal, but they can impose whatever conditions they want, which may or may not include uh the provision for affordable housing. That's too bad because what I'm concerned is because this application does not include any affordable housing units. That's what I'm concerned about. and I hope the applicant could work further on this aspect. That's all my comment. Thank you. Okay, thank you. Anybody else? Okay, I'll just make a few comments.
71:00 - 71:30 Um, just to actually before I just want to confirm the infill study that this area has is 10 is is it 10 years old now? If it's getting very close, if it's not, right? Okay. Through the chair, it's 11 years old. Oh my goodness. Time flies when you're having fun. Um, so I I want to just I want to add like I I I think that this is uh too much density for this particular area. I there's there's no question I think that and that's not uncommon when applicants
71:30 - 72:00 come in for the first time. Uh there usually there's some negotiations, some trimming, some cutting, some modifications that need to happen. That's exactly why we're in this process. Um, so, so I mean I've been on council now for quite some time and that that's usually the way things play out. Uh, I really am glad that councelor Shu though brought it up. The Ontario Land Tribunal is a is a way for applicants that don't agree with the decision that's made on a council to appeal and
72:00 - 72:30 once it gets appealed to the Ontario Land Tribunal, it's completely out of council's hands. The Ontario Land Tribunal makes the decision. And so the the thing is with the Ontario Land Tribunal is that it does keep both the applicants and the council and our staff and the residents at the table talking because it's always better in my opinion for us to be making uh decisions collaboratively and and when you're making a decision collaboratively in a
72:30 - 73:00 case like this oftentimes there are compromises that are need to be made on all parts. Um, so I just want to I I I guess as mayor sometimes I have to deliver um maybe a a perspective the way I see it and while I agree with a lot of what's being said on council today and and as I said I I think that probably uh as as the way it's being proposed at the moment it's probably a bit bigger than it needs to be. But I think it's important for residents to understand
73:00 - 73:30 that something is going to get built there, right? And it's it's going to be uh like as of right the builder could build a six-story building, you know, and you know, it's never exactly six. It may be a little more, maybe a little bit less. But I think what we're trying to do throughout this process is make sure that all of the concerns that you have about infrastructure in your neighborhood, uh traffic in your neighborhood, because that came up a few times, uh sight lines, shadows, impacts,
73:30 - 74:00 all that other stuff. All of those things need to be considered as the staff goes through this process. So there will be some negotiations. Um I believe that what the I would encourage the applicant to continue with those negotiations and see where we can find um compromises to make this application the very best it can be. The fact that there are other applications going on in that area right now does have to be considered. But that has been considered
74:00 - 74:30 when the uh the infill study happened. You know, we knew that this was going to happen. And I must admit, I I was brand new on council when this uh when this infill study happened. And so far, most of the applications that have come forward in that area have been pretty much what the infill study has asked for. I mean it might be a little bit more, it might be a little bit less, but generally speaking, that neighborhood is
74:30 - 75:00 um developing exactly the way we expected that it it would based on the infill study. And that's good news. But the thing that we need to understand is that 10 years ago, we didn't have a housing crisis. And the the provincial legislation that guides what we can and can't do on council was very different. So there by my colleagues here, I thank you very much everybody for my colleagues here. I thank you very much everybody for coming to this tonight and especially coming in person. So um I
75:00 - 75:30 think we've got our uh some comments that we need to be bringing forward um to our staff to for them to do some analysis and homework and the applicant I think they have heard what uh needs, you know, to be done in order for us to come to a a good conclusion on this. So with that being said, okay. Okay. Go ahead. Okay. Thank you so much, Miss Mayor. So, I do have a few comments here as well. The first one you up my time. So, I just want to comment for the feedback around 120
75:30 - 76:00 Young Street, which is currently the auto store that was approved 2024 with FSI 3 let me get the detail number 3.56 SFP. The height of that uh north side is eight stories. If you want to compare the density is a little bit higher because it's 3.56. The units is 156. You can imagine right if you drive out from the highest on your south side
76:00 - 76:30 156 no on your north side on the south side you maybe have 100 bill just at that entry. You can imagine two high buildings really along a young street and a single lane in and out. that that is one of the things I want up to you. My second require concern here is the entertainment. End of the day we build up our communities build up buildings for what? For better life. If you look this uh this area we say is
76:30 - 77:00 hillside block G or block H right there's only one tiny park very very tiny. You can imagine end of the day we have tons of town houses built up. We have a townhouse uh houses built up. There's only one tiny um playground. If you imagine um I I drove there a few times because the noise issues at night time 11 p.m. a lot of kids play basketball there. Lights is so bright as
77:00 - 77:30 well. Very very tiny. Imagine 10 years later if you set up and build up everything this community become mature. It's only tiny playground for all the resident come here by walking distance. Not going to be a problem for our community. Right. The second one is traffic. I worked with Philip many many times also bellow officers as well. So along the Harris street and also the German and Ryan and river street because
77:30 - 78:00 when the case or drivers driving through from Jefferson side, they did not go to Young Street directly. They using this path from settlement going to the young street. They're driving very crazy. So we're looking for stop signs there as well. But unfortunately you know check team side no this is not good condition for now. Yes. If in future we have more and more traffic is in us inside our community. The traffic will be a big concern for our community. Right. So if
78:00 - 78:30 someone sitting in the young street they cannot find a parking lot. They might drive a little bit just 20 meters from Young Street come to our community especially around the park area. Not going to be disaster for the people who live in there. I already got tons of complaint for noises, for lights, for cartridges. I I believe if there's more and more buildings, there might be more problems. So the purpose here is we design our proposals buildings for our community a better way people living
78:30 - 79:00 there and give them a more comfortable and more safe environment. So they have time to enjoy the beauty of nature. That is my comment. Thank you so much. Okay. Thank you very much. Uh okay. Uh thank you through the chair. The um uh cost recoveries were brought up earlier by Mr. Kopoulos and I just wanted to find out uh is this the the proper forum for that or is there something that should be a little more
79:00 - 79:30 formal when it comes to cost recoveries through the chair to councelor Thompson? So the city does have a best efforts uh approach to cost recoveries. Um it is uh appropriate that uh typically it's a subdivision to subdivision scenario where we can uh request a uh condition of approval that uh ensures that cost recoveries for um works that were upfronted by one landowner is uh prrated
79:30 - 80:00 so that the other benefiting land owners pay their proportionate share. Um, in this instance, because it's not a plan of subdivision, it's appropriate that they bring it up now and we will determine uh staff will determine at what stage it's appropriate to impose uh where applicable and appropriate the cost recovery clauses. Okay, much appreciated. Those are all my comments. Thank you. Okay, thank you. Anybody else? Okay, so we have a motion in front of us then to refer all comments back to staff. All those in favor? Opposed? That
80:00 - 80:30 carries unanimously. Thank you very much. And finally, a motion to adjurnn.