Sybelle von Kursell of the Planning and Regulatory Services Department provided an overview of the proposed repeal of By-law 23-17 that adopted Official Plan Amendment (OPA) 6 (the Downtown Local Centre Secondary Plan) into the Official Plan. She advised of the effect of repealing the Secondary Plan and outlined the next steps of the new planning process. Ms. von Kursell advised that staff’s recommendation was that the staff report be received for information purposes only and all comments be referred back to staff.
Wilhelm Bleek, 136 Centre Street West, shared his belief that the term ‘reconsideration’ can be said as an alternative to ‘repeal’ of the Down Local Centre (DLC) Secondary Plan. Mr. Bleek outlined four principles he believed needed to be balanced in the vision of the Secondary Plan as further detailed in his submission distributed as Correspondence Item 3.3.8. They included respect for the historic foundations of the Town, help the growing population of the Town recognize a sense of identity, a public gathering place, and incentives for the landowners to develop their properties in an economically profitable way.
David Crowley, 48 Greenbelt Crescent, advised of his concerns related to transportation and recognized that Provincial policy mandates increases in density to accommodate population and employment. He also shared his belief that there are limitations to what can be accommodated in the village section of the Town, and that the current DLC Secondary Plan did not recognize that limitation. He concluded by noting that he will be following the review of the DLC Secondary Plan to ensure that the realities of the role of transit are recognized.
Mary Amato, 10070 Yonge Street, shared her belief that the DLC Secondary Plan's vision with respect to “linked system of courtyards and mews” was unrealistic. She outlined concerns with the courtyard and mews, which included safety, snow storage, parking, lighting, maintenance and liability as further detailed in her submission distributed as Correspondence Item 3.3.5.
Agnes Parr, 125 Hall Street, expressed her opposition to the repeal of the DLC Secondary Plan, noting that the purpose of the plan was to protect the historical nature of the downtown core. She advised of her disappointment that taxpayers’ dollars were spent, including many hours committed by residents and business owners to make the plan a reality. She expressed her belief that density and height are not needed to achieve revitalization, and that both factors could have an adverse effect on attracting people to the area. She advised that that the downtown core with its surrounding neighborhoods and historic features is warm and inviting, as well as the centre for much of Richmond Hill’s history. She also highlighted the contributions of families who have lived, owned businesses and attended churches in the downtown core.
Anna Dalla Rosa, 29 Cygnus Drive, shared her concern for the historic downtown core, noting that people live best and most productively when they have a sense of place, belonging, continuity, home, and when they can play an authentic part in the decisions that they have to live with. She advised that what was needed was good modern planning, with all stakeholders working together for the community. Ms. Rosa advised that the historical character of the core needs to be preserved and restored carefully, as other towns and cities have done, in order to attract people to the area. She shared her belief that there are other places to intensify, and that if we destroy, add height, build close to the road, and build predominately-new buildings, the area will resemble a strip mall.
Juliusz Zulauf, 125 Hall Street, advised that it was the look, feel, and character of Richmond Hill’s downtown core that was a factor in his decision to move to Richmond Hill. He advised that the DLC Secondary Plan needs to preserve what needs to be preserved while promoting balanced growth, and that an effort has to be made to satisfy the majority of citizens. He appealed to Council to consider consultations, public opinion and revising the existing plan to make the necessary improvements. He also shared his belief that repealing the plan would leave a void, and a lack of vision that could possibly lead to development that is inconsistent with the character of the existing neighbourhood.
Michael Gray, spoke on behalf of Malin Direct Corp. in support of the repeal of the DLC Secondary Plan, as further detailed in his submission distributed as Correspondence Item 3.3.3. He noted their support for a new Secondary Plan, including any amendments to Part 1 of the Official Plan, as well as any accompanying zoning by-law to permit an appropriate increase in height and density for its buildings within their property. Mr. Gray noted that development of their client's property would contribute to the economic revitalization of the area, and help achieve the intensification along Yonge Street as envisioned by Richmond Hill and York’s Region’s Official Plan.
George Teichman, President of Upper Yonge Properties Limited, 10441 to 10459 Yonge Street, shared his support for the repeal of the DLC Secondary Plan as outlined in correspondence from his consultant distributed as Correspondence Item 3.3.4. Mr. Teichman advised that he would participate fully in a new Secondary Plan process and requested that he be notified of all future staff reports and meetings.
A representative speaking on behalf of the owners of 10366 Yonge Street, advised that the DLC Secondary Plan envisioned a compact, mixed-use pedestrian-oriented area. He noted that in his opinion the cap on density and height in the plan does not represent intensification and not aligned with the vision and intent of the plan. He shared his belief that the downtown of a city is a representation of its prosperity, and that tall buildings and density are characteristics of what makes cities look prosperous. He advised that what was needed was an adequate number of residential units to accommodate the population and future growth, as well as business and commercial plazas. He shared his belief that the DLC Secondary Plan should be repealed, and that with proper planning, development and preservation of the historical characteristics of the Town can be accommodated.
Mahdi Foomani, property owner of 10027 Yonge Street, shared his belief that the DLC Secondary Plan failed to meet its objectives of protecting heritage buildings, and promoting the development and revitalization of the downtown core. He elaborated by stating that there has been no newly designated heritage buildings and no development within the last ten years. He advised that the same failure could occur if the failed policies and by-laws that have been in place are not corrected. Mr. Foomani recommended that Council consult with property owners, and applicants to obtain information that would improve the new DLC Secondary Plan.
Brian Chapnik, 110 Arnold Crescent, advised that he felt there was a lack of transparency, as the reasons for the repeal of the DLC Secondary Plan have not been communicated to the residents. He shared his belief that without a Secondary Plan in place, development that goes forward in the next few years will not have the benefit of a visionary document to provide guidance. Mr. Chapnik advised that he hopes the new Secondary Plan will also emphasize historical preservation, and that staff are given direction to consider the historical character of the area when considering applications received in the absence of a plan.