Kaitlyn Graham of the Planning and Regulatory Services Department provided an overview of the proposed Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment application to permit the construction of a high density, mixed-use residential/commercial development on the subject lands.
Lincoln Lo, Malone Given Parsons Ltd, agent for the applicant, provided an overview of the development proposal, noting that the development concept across the entire land holdings proposed lower density units to the west and higher density frontage along Yonge Street. He advised that a density amendment would not be required, as the Floor Space Index across the entire land holdings met the minimum requirement for a Key Development Area (KDA). Mr. Lo provided an illustration of Richmond Hill’s intensification hierarchy, and identified similar approved developments within the KDA designation. He shared his belief that the height limit permitted within the Yonge and Bernard KDA did not differentiate the KDA from other growth areas, as it should. He also noted that the Official Plan was dated, and that many changes have occurred to provincial policy and investment.
Mike, 157 Canyon Hill Avenue, advised of concerns pertaining to the lack of compatibility of the proposed development with the existing neighbourhood. He shared concerns regarding the lack of transition in height and the absence of the required 45 degree angular view plane. He also noted concerns with the BRT system, overshadowing, noise, traffic, and the lack of infrastructure to support the intensification in the area.
Matthew Piazza, 107 Leyburn Avenue, shared concerns regarding the proposed density and pace of development, and the lack of infrastructure to support the intensification.
Sherry Zhang, 234 Rothbury Road, advised of concerns with the precedent that would be set if increased heights and density were permitted. She shared her belief that intensification had to be realistic and in an appropriate location, and asked that Council not use the Province’s intensification targets as justification to approve ambiguous development proposals.
John Li, 206 Brookside Road, shared what he believed were misconceptions used to justify overdevelopment. He provided data to illustrate that Richmond Hill was on track to meet intensification targets, and that the City had significant land to support future development. Mr. Li shared his belief that a future subway station in the City should not be used to justify development as studies indicated public transit usage was on the decline.
Lisa Bastianan, 320 Canyon Hill Avenue, shared her opinion that development within the Yonge and Bernard KDA was not equally comparable to the development within the Yonge and 16th KDA, as the proposed development was nearly double the permitted density. She shared concerns regarding traffic, safety, snow removal and lack of services to support the intensification.
Jing Sung, 10 Stancroft Drive, shared his opposition to the project and questioned the BRT system’s ability to relieve traffic congestion, noting his belief that traffic would become worse as construction continues on Yonge Street.
Wei Hua, 14 Tentone Court, shared concerns regarding the lack of infrastructure to accommodate the proposed density and asked that measured steps be taken to develop. He expressed concerns regarding traffic, and shared his belief that people will still rely on their vehicles regardless of their proximity to the BRT.
Debbie Mida, 198 Canyon Hill Avenue, shared her belief that development within the Yonge and Bernard KDA alone may assist Richmond Hill in meeting its intensification targets. She shared concerns regarding the lack of parkland within the KDA, and noted that recent statistics showed that collisions within the KDA were considerably higher than the Richmond Hill average. Ms. Mida also advised of concerns regarding pedestrian and cyclist safety.
Jeffrey Marder, 6 Desert View Crescent, inquired whether there were plans to develop a property located on the east side of Yonge Street, north of Levendale Road and suggested that it could be developed with little impact to neighboring residents.
Scott Thompson, 104 Baker Avenue, shared concerns with the proposed density, pace of development, and the ability of the City to provide services to accommodate the growth. He also shared his belief that the City needed to take measured steps to grow, as it had been under the Yonge and Bernard Secondary Plan before it was appealed.
Bruce Rhodes, 3 Tollbar Court, questioned if there was any significance of high aquifer vulnerability to the construction of the proposed development. He also shared concerns regarding flooding, density, and the design of the proposed development.
Nadia Popovici, 20 Royal Chapin Crescent, shared what she believed were misconceptions used to the justify intensification within the Yonge and Bernard KDA, as further detailed in her submission distributed as Correspondence Item 3.3.2. She advised of concerns with the proposed density, traffic, safety and lack of employment.
Layna Donatelli, 159 Canyon Hill Avenue, expressed concerns regarding safety, traffic, noise, proposed building heights and the affect that overdevelopment could have on property values. She also compared the amenities that will be provided at the Observatory Hill development to the proposed development.
Marisa Granieri, 129 Cooperage Crescent, advised of concerns regarding the volume and density of the proposed development and shared her opinion that other areas are better suited for development. She also urged the developer and City to build something that they can be proud of.