Scorpity, we're now streaming. Thank you very much, Madam Clerk,
and good afternoon, everyone. Welcome to the city of Markham's
Council meeting, members of Council and staff are meeting either
in person here in the Council Chamber or remotely. For
those that are watching the live stream of the Council
meeting, we do offer closed caption for the live stream
and anyone that wants to have that feature. Just click
the icon in the right bottom corner of the screen.
The two capital C's. And if you click that, that
will engage the closed caption. Again, that's just for those
that are watching the live stream. If a member of
the public wishes to participate in today's meeting and wishes
to make a deputation, you can let us know in
a number of ways. If you're watching remotely, you can
email clerkspublic at markham. ca, all one word clerks public
at Markham. ca. Or if it's easier to call, you
can call 905 - 479 - 7760. Again, 905 -
479 - 7760. And those that are here in the
council chambers, if you wish to make a deputation, there
are blue forms on the presentation desk. Just fill that
out and hand it to one of our clerks, and
that will get you on the speaking list. We do
have three, actually four now registered deputants, and also on
today's agenda. We do have confidential items, although they're pretty
recent, so we may not, I don't think the new
item on there there is one. Okay, there is a
new item. That we do have to maybe go into
camera, but we'll deal with those at that time. We'll
report out after the closed session. With that. Call the
meeting to order, and we begin today by acknowledging the
traditional territories of indigenous peoples and their commitment to the
stewardship of the land. We acknowledge the community's encircle, the
northwest, south, and eastern direction, the hut and is shonen
here in Wendat, Anishnaabe, Seneca, Chipoa, and the Mississaugas of
the Credit People. We share the responsibility with the caretakers
of this land to ensure that the dish is never
empty. And to restore relationships that are based on peace,
friendship, and trust. And we here at the city of
Markham, our committed to reconciliation, partnership and enhanced understanding. With
that, is there any disclosure of pecuniary interest. If not,
and you recognise that you have it at some point,
you can certainly indicate it at that time. The Council
minutes of June 23rd, moved by Councillor Lee, seconded by
Councillor Irish. Any comments or questions on the minutes. Not
all those in favor oppose that is carried. Presentations. We
don't have a presentation, but we do have one affiliated
with one of the reports, but we'll wait till we
get to the report itself. And it's up to
the individuals, but the people that are here on the
agenda to speak to Langstaff East. Do you want to
speak now? Uh, we do have a staff presentation, which
I think might be helpful. But if anyone has a
time issue. Lewis, are you here. Yes, Mr. Mayor, I'm
here. Uh, I don't have a problem waiting after the
presentation. I just thought it might be helpful and maybe
potentially answer or deal with some of the issues that
you want to highlight. Renata, I see you're there. Do
you want to wait? Or wait? Fine, fine to wait.
Okay, and Dwight. Yes. Can you hear me. Okay?
You're very low, but we can hear you. Yes, I
can. Okay. Thank you. And Evelyn, I'm not sure that
you're speaking on this. I think you're speaking on another
item, I believe. No, it is on the... Oh, this
one as well. Okay. And do you want to, do
you mind waiting or. Yeah, I can wait. I don't
mind. Okay, thank you. Uh, so the next item is
memorandum. That deals with the request of the revised conditions
for the city's support of a minister zoning order in
East Langstaff. And, um, we have a memorandum, but I
think it will be helpful if both staff and the
applicant made a presentation so that we're clear. This was
before development services committee a few months ago, uh, and
since that time, um, we've had various meetings with the
applicant in an effort to, um, I'll say improve some
of the transportation, um, requirements for the, uh, for the
development. In the original report, there was certainly references to
some of these things, but I think as you see
in this presentation and report, it's become, um, pretty, uh,
pretty clear as to what is going to be required
in terms of the infrastructure improvements as the, as the
development proceeds. So with that, I'll hand it over to
Director Julio Sascato to start off. And then I believe
the applicant also wants to speak. Or representative of the
applicant. Yeah. Through you, Mr. Chair, I'm going to ask,
um, Daniel Bruto, who's senior planner, uh, who's been working
on this file to come up and make a brief
presentation. Um, well, mostly the intensive presentation to walk through
a couple of changes to the MZO. So committee may
recall that they voted in favor of supporting the MZO,
the province, uh, subsequent to that meeting. There was a
desire, uh, by development services committee to see and improved.
Um, I'll call it stage gating of transportation improvements so
that as the units are coming along, coming online, rather,
the commensurate, um, build out of the transportation infrastructure. Um,
staff had initially, uh, was initially relying on plan of
subdivision to ensure that those improvements would happen. But this
is another, uh, tool that we can use as conditions
within the MZO that I think provided some greater comfort
to address the committee's desires on that matter. There was
another, um, addition where just to ensure that and make
it abundantly clear that this area will be serviced through
mark and district energy and that the land, uh, provided
for new facility will be provided to the municipality and
no cost of the municipality. So that was added in
as a condition of the M's at all as well.
Just to kind of refresh committee's memory on the broader
MZO. There was, as you know, there was anemosito passed
by the province on lands west of Cedar, um, which
significantly increased the heights and densities. Um, the landowners on
the east side of Cedar approached the city primarily. Through
Kyle Moore as their primary spokesperson. But in a consensus
basis with those landowners, uh, to increase the density on
their lands. But with the proposition to the city that
it would largely keep intact the original secondary plan, the
California plan, um, and so what the, all that to
say, the benefits that accrue to the city here in
exchange for acknowledging, uh, that some increase in density might
be warranted is to ensure that we receive the original
amount of parkland that was greater than what we would
have received through Bill 23 ensure that the area is
comprehensively planned. Uh, the, you know, working together to create
a new large community centre, ensure the roads come in
and the MDE facility. This is being done through MZO
primarily because in our, at least that way, we have
the city avoids the problem in the future of having
subsequent site specific amendments erode the permissions counsel, but in
place in the conditions they put in place. So we
felt this gave security to the city and to the
applicants of the increased heightened density would come with the
benefits accrued to the city. Um, so that is, you
know, in short, the rationale for the city supporting the
semito or the city staff rather supporting the M so.
Don't. And what I'm going to do is just ask
Daniel to give presentation here an outline what the changes
were from the MZO that the committee has already seen.
Okay. Thanks. Thank you, Julio. As Juliel mentioned, this
presentation focuses on the changes made to the LAN staff
East MZO requests since it was endorsed by development services
committee on October 14th, 2025. I'll begin with a recap
of how we arrived at this point. It's taken about
two and a half years to get to this point
from the initial submission in December 2023. During this time,
a lot's been accomplished in June, 2024, the province repealed
the legislation, guiding the initial community infrastructure and housing accelerator
application that was submitted. That's referred to as CIA for
short. At the same time, they introduced the MZO framework.
After the MZO framework was released, the application was transitioned
to an MZO request. And public engagement commenced, including indigenous
consultation. Public engagement included one public meeting that was held
here. And three engagement sessions, which took place at the
Thornhill community centre. During the first engagement session in June
of last year, the revised MZO was shared with the
broader group and feedback was garnered. During the second engagement
session in July of last year. The city presented its
perspective on the Q matters that were raised and sought
public feedback. This all culminated in the MZO being presented
to DSC in October. As was mentioned before. At the
DSC meeting, Council, sorry, DSC endorsed the MZ request, but
directed staff to consider conditions in the MZO related to
the plan transportation infrastructure improvements. And the phasing of development
before Council ratification. After DSC in October, a third engagement
session was held. In June of this year last month.
With the landowners to present the revised conditions. This leads
me into the purpose of the presentation today, which I'll
go through on the next slide. So the purpose of
the presentation today is twofold. The primary purpose is to
explain why the city requested changes to the M's at
O and what they mean. Focusing on two changes. One
being a revision made to the district energy condition. And
the second being the introduction of five new transportation conditions.
Second to that staff can confirm that besides the two
changes, we're going to discuss here today. No other changes
have been made to the MZO since it was endorsed
by development services committee. To be clear, this means that
many of the key matters included in the MZO presented
to DSC in October have not changed. And so that
includes matters such as costs sharing obligations. The parkland structure
remains unchanged. Land use permissions remain unchanged. And the preferred
school locations and sizes remain unchanged. Let's, I'll begin with,
uh, overview of the change made to the district energy
condition. So on the screen is the October
version of the district energy condition and the current version
of the condition. This condition has been expanded to clarify
what the city's expectations are with respect to district heating
and cooling. Throughout the process, there's been discussion about a
district heating and energy system. If this were to occur,
the condition makes a clear now that any space required
to implement. Such a system shall be provided by the
landowners. To the system operator at no cost. And that
the district heating and cooling operator is responsible for supplying
and installing and ongoing equipment maintenance. The next couple of
slides will provide an overview of the five new transportation
conditions.
Okay, beginning with condition one nine. What you'll notice for
each of the new transportation conditions. Is that improvements are
required at different stages of the build out? This is
what staff referred to as stage gating. We're by specific
improvements are tied to unit counts. This approach has been
implemented by the city and other large planning areas such
as York Downs and Markville. Focusing on one nine. The
intent of this condition is to secure the improvements described
in A through E on the screen there. Before the
issuance of an above grade building permit for the first
unit anywhere on the plan. So this includes A, which
is improvements, which is improvements to the existing LAN staff
road from Cedared Avenue to South Boulevard. That's the area
shaded in pink on the figure. B, which are improvements
to the existing LAN staff road from South Boulevard to
Bayview Avenue. Again, that's the pink area you see shaded.
C improvements to the intersection of Langstaff Road. And bathe
you avenue. So that's the pink area you see at
the southeast corner, the bottom right hand. Corner of the
figure. And. D is the construction
of the new self Boulevard from Essex Avenue, the existing
SX Avenue. To length staff road. So the pink area
shaded at the figure. And E are improvements to the
existing Essex Avenue, which is shaded in pink. Moving on
to the next condition, 110 and sticking with the same
structure. Um, this condition would have to be met prior
to the issuance of an above grade permit for the
401st dwelling unit. For the blocks adjacent to North Boulevard.
Which are the blocks shown in blue on the screen
or described an 8 to G in the condition itself.
The intent of this condition is to require the ultimate
realign to require the construction of the ultimate realign North
Boulevard from Cedar Avenue on the left - hand side.
To South Boulevard. Again, this is a section shaded in
pink. Including any works necessary west of Cedar Avenue to
align with North Boulevard if determined necessary and feasible by
the city. The next condition, 111, will shift our focus
from the blocks adjacent to North Avenue, north boulevard, to
those adjacent to self - boulevard. Like condition, like the
previous condition, this condition would have to be met prior
to the issuance of an above grade permit for the
4, 001st dwelling unit. However, this one applies to the
blocks adjacent to south boulevard. Which are the blocks shown
in blue on the figure. Or described in AI through
IV in the condition itself. The intent of this condition
is to have constructed the three pieces of work described
in B. If determined necessary and feasible by the city.
So this work includes. Constructing self - boulevard from Cedar
Avenue to Essex, which is the area sheated in pink.
And the figure. Improving the existing cedar avenue, which is
shaded in pink on the left - hand side there.
And constructing as sixth avenue to its ultimate right -
of - way, which is you see part of it
shaded in pink, but the condition speaks to the entire
road itself. Next, let's look at condition 112, which will
revisit the ultimate construction of North Boulevard contemplated by 110,
but at a different period in time. For different blocks.
So where is 110 applies to the blocks adjacent to
north Boulevard. This condition applies to any property and must
be met prior to the issuance of grade permit. For
the 601st dwelling unit. And this condition speaks to the
ultimate construction of North Boulevard. And lastly, the fifth new
transportation condition. 113 shown here. It differs from the other
conditions. In that it doesn't specifically single out improvements. Instead,
what it requires. Is a transportation addendum with each development
application to confirm and or update. The recommendations of the
study submitted in support of this application. And to confirm
the road in transit improvements required for each particular development.
The addendum takes into consideration several factors at the time
of its submission. Including but not limited to internal and
external improvements. The unit count thresholds described in the other
conditions. Active transportation needs and transportation demand management needs. This
condition applies to all the properties and must be met
when a development application is submitted. With that, it marks
the end of the five new transportation conditions. This concludes
my presentation and myself and other staff members are available
to answer any questions. Thank you. So maybe you could
just for a second go back to the first map
and first set of conditions. And, um, again, I want
to thank the applicant. This has taken. A little bit
longer than I thought it would, but, um, I think
it's an indication of us trying to really get the
necessary improvements in place. Um, so if we step through,
um, each of these steps right now in condition number
one. And I want to reiterate because I want to
make sure everyone heard it before there's any unit that
is built above ground. So there may be site preparation.
There may be underground parking lots infrastructure being built. That
doesn't generate people. Uh, but before the permit is issued
for an above ground, unit, um, and I want to
reiterate, basically, you will have, uh, a very improved condition
of the roads that exist there today. And I'll maybe
take you east. I'll take you from sort of east
to west starting at that intersection. If you can use
to use your, your mouse. So that intersection is going
to be improved with proper right hand turn lanes proper
left hand turn lanes. The right signalization. Day one before
anybody moves in. And so, uh, I'll just say, uh,
and I know this was already approved. The report at
development services committee. But revisiting some of the conditions. Uh,
I wanted to make sure that, uh, the, uh, landowners
group were obligated to make these improvements not just for
the new development, but honestly when the subway begins operation,
uh, I personally believe it's going to change dramatically the
traffic flow of how this whole community, not just the
new community and langstaff, but how the whole community will,
will operate. So that intersection will be fully designed and
completed with all of the right turning movements. Then North
Boulevard, which I think everybody knows what kind of condition.
That road is in. This will be modernized. Uh, with
proper curbs and everything and improved, uh, right up to
South Boulevard. And then the reason that the distinction is
made, uh, north of South Boulevard. While it won't be
the ultimate, uh, configuration of North Boulevard, again, a significant
improvement of conditions, uh, going from North Boulevard all the
way over to Cedar, uh, avenue, which, um, just to
give members of council the full picture. On the west
side, uh, construction, I'm not sure when it will start,
but the new elevated langstaff road, uh, west of Cedar
Avenue. That new condition and ultimate condition will be constructed.
We'll begin construction in order to accommodate the subway coming
up. So, but rather than having this, uh, ultimate condition,
west of cedar. And the current condition of North Boulevard,
which is obviously below standard, even in today's environment, that
will be improved. And then with over time, as you
saw in the presentation east of Cedar Avenue, will ultimately
be built to match really the configuration west of Cedar
Avenue. And then for the purposes of getting around in
this community, before one unit is built above ground, the
South Boulevard, uh, from west of the north Boulevard, if
you could use your cursor, that section in there, again,
will be improved as will, um, Essex, sorry, street B
or SSX. So it really gives people a way to
flow through the community. If they're just going to the
other side, would it improve intersection at Bayview and North
Boulevard and improved North Boulevard all the way matching to
Langstaff, uh, west of, of, uh, of Cedar Avenue. So
a direct route. And then for those that might be
living in the first phases of this development, there will
be a connection. You don't have to go out to
the North Boulevard. You can go out to South Boulevard,
go up Essex. And again, get to North Boulevard and
get to, uh, the other side on Langstaff Road. And
then those other, those other iterations really speak to as
the development continues to happen. So, but again, very clear
in terms of the obligation of the landowners group to
provide, uh, this important infrastructure. So I think it is
an incredible improvement, um, in terms of what needs to
be built and when it needs to be built, not
only for the new development, but for the, uh, the
existing community today, because as I said, when that subway
becomes operational, uh, think of now with the GO station,
multiply that, uh, by several other trips when the young
subway becomes operational and you have, uh, you have, uh,
the, uh, the station open there as well. So I
just wanted to reiterate. I know it was clearly said,
but I just wanted to underscore, uh, the timing of
this before any condos go up. These improvements are going
to be made. And all of the subsequent improvements are
not going to wait till all the development is finished.
It'll be phased in as the, as the development progresses.
Okay. Uh, with that, I don't know if there's any
questions at this point from members of Council. And you're
done all year all of your presentation. So Mr. Chair,
yes, word. Don, I don't know if Miss Gatsio wanted
to make some brief comments. And then, um, I don't
know. I'll leave it in your hands as to whether
what order you want to do the deputation. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Mayor members of Council members of staff.
My name is Maria Gaticio. So if Gatio's planning, I'm
here representing the applicant. I do have a series of
slides. I don't, I don't propose to make a presentation
unless I, there are any questions that I'm happy to
refer the slides. I just wanted to make a couple
of, a couple of comments. Um, first of all, I
do want to thank Council and staff for working with
us on what has been a very detailed and long
process. But I will admit when we left DSC, we
were thinking we were done in honour way. And what
we heard from Council and staff was that, um, there
wasn't a comfort level to leave the transportation improvements to
site by site applications in site by site reports. And
the city wanted them enshrined up front in the MZO.
Um, and so, uh, my client agreed we worked through
this with city staff. And I do commend them for
a lot of time and effort to get us to
this point. Um, we are comfortable with what is in
the MZO. It is, um, in some ways belts and
suspenders, but we're not objecting to that. The improvements were
described, were required. So, so we are here saying we
are supportive of what's in front of you. Um, the
triggers are needed. They're described. And so they are very,
very clearly spelled out for anyone coming forward, not left
to sites by site specificity later on. Um, the second
thing I wanted to point out, uh, second of four
points I wanted to make is I just want to,
to once again, refocus in the larger picture. And I
wanted to reiterate sort of where I started with this,
you know, two years ago. Um, we had the Lang
staff secondary plan west of Cedar was approximately 10, 000
units. Part of that was that there was a subway
stop planned at that point over on Young Street as
well. East of Cedar, which is our area, which we
call East Langstaff was about 5, 000 units. As we
know, the province's bridge MZO took the west side density
up to about 20, 000 units. And what this MZO
does is brings the east side up to just under
10, 000. So I just want to ensure that this,
this MZO, hopefully with this Council's support is still half
the density of that West MZO. It is not a
similar density. It is a different plan. It has a
lot of other features as well as continuing a staff
said to maintain the structure and the linear park process
and park system that was contemplated originally. A third point
I want to make is that as part of this
process, our benefits and a series of now up front
agreed upon items that are a benefit for the city
and the community. And a couple of them, um, and
I think we're referenced is number one, the increased total
parkland is more than each application coming forward would be
owing under the planning act. There is an overall parkland
package. Um, that provides Parkland beyond the planning act and
beyond the environmental feature at the east end. Um, there
is a minimum committed amount of commercial retail GFA written
into the MZO. There is a maximum total residential GFA
for the entire area. And there is a block by
block maximum height. Those are some of the things that
are in this overall package that would not be there
or would have to be negotiated application by application going
forward. Um, my final point is that, um, this latest,
uh, transportation beefed up M0 was presented by a city
staff to the other owners in the East Lang staff
area in a session in June. That session without speaking
for the other owners went well. There is a very
good understanding and a good sense of support from the
other owners in the area who understand the benefits and
the opportunities for them to be able to move forward
with a sale or with whatever they may want to
do with their properties in the context of the MZO.
And this enhanced way. So I did want to be
available to answer any questions. I do hope Council supports
this. I think it's the culmination of a lot of
very detailed and hard work by the other owners in
the area by the city and by my client and
consultant team. And my hope is that this will now
finally catapult us into seeing this area developed. So thank
you very much for the opportunity to speak. And I'm
happy to answer any questions. And thank you very much.
Any questions of the deputy. Okay. Uh, if not, we'll
move on to the, thank you very much. We'll move
on to the, um.
Let's sound your hearing is me logging back into Eastcrime
for some reason. Um, who was first up. There.
Lewis, uh, your first up because I'm having a challenge
getting back in. So go ahead and, uh, start your
deputation. If you can. Allow me to. Start a video.
We'll bring you down into the. Main form. Can you
turn on your camera? Disabled by the host? Okay. Can
you turn on your camera? There you go. I'm trying.
Okay. Good. If you just wait one second, cause I
just want to make sure. You're brought down into the
main area. There you go. Go ahead. Okay. Good afternoon,
Mr. Mayor. Council members and staff. Thank you for the
opportunity to address you today. My name is Risa Oliveira.
I'm the president of Ai Link. Willow progressing association. Also
known as ORA. Or as support secretion of complete communities,
we have been closely monitoring the LAN staff east and
bridge transit oriented community URAM planning. Because as currently proposed,
it would create an ultra - dense commuter community of
more than 60, 000 people. We've profound impacts on surrounding
neighbourhoods. When this time and appreciate the work that has
been done in the draft MCO, but the liningstap is
with bridge TOC already ultra high density, low employment levels
are limited services. We'll just access that creation of poorly
planned community. To illustrate the practical impacts, consider a typical
feature family, living near the centre of LA stuff is.
Such as block five. Their daily experience will depend not
only on the number of genuine approof, but on whether
adequate transit school childcare parks health care retail and community
facilities are delivered. First point is they have breakfast. And
they have to walk to the higher order transit. The
subway. So it's not working distance. It's 20 minutes. The
closest to a subway high tech savour station is 1000
metres. You are in cedar avenue. The farthest is 2,
200 metres. So on lock 5, the average is 1600
metres. 20 minutes. If you are closer to baby, you're
going to be almost half an hour. So it's a
long distance to walk every day. Uh, if you go
to, uh, the bus rabbit transit on highway 7, it
will take approximately 1200 metres. So it's a 15 minute
walk crossing the bridge on highway 7 is not for
the faint of heart, probably why they're protected sides will
be needed there. But that's your region. And is they
going to take the go, then it's in walking distance,
700 to 1000 metres. But unfortunately, there is only rush
hour service on that line. And there is no plans
to increment the capacity. Actually, that will be a problem
for the rest of the communities that live around. Uh,
when you look at the mitigations, uh, setting shuttle passes,
using active transportation approaches are far from enough to address
probably between 5, 000 to 10, 000 Russia or commuters.
Uh, I did a calculation with so many buses. But
at the end, a small resident of the high density
downtown Toronto had found. Transit takes the same time as
walking. Sometimes more for short distances. We have been services
doubled the population density with cell correspondent services increases. This
will create a poor quality of life and overflow nearby
and nearby communities. There is only a three percent increase.
On park space. I'm talking about from the original Lancet
plan. So the day - to - day needs grocery
shopping, doctor office. Drugstores, uh, wilderness efficient, not a complete
community clearing. Consider they care and schools. They care will
be as sparse at best. It is already an issue
everywhere. Currently there are six elementary schools and one high
schools in war one with 44, 000 mature population. Let's
assume two additional limiter schools will be enough. For that
level. But there is no secondary school last and east,
20, 000 population increase. Uh, not sure how that has
been considered. If we fast forward 10 years, so we
are now in 2036. They are impacts on the neighbouring
communities. We're one, existing mature neighbourhoods has been redeveloped. I'm
talking about old classes, thousands of units and people have
been added to the current population. And we are not
including young north subway stations, nothing of that. Just what
is happening in the existing communities. Uh, one of the
things that we are much concerned is that facing has
not been addressed. But one of the points that was
supposed to be addressed by, uh, and this console, then
they're in the report of staff. When you look at
phase one, this will come around 15, 000 new residents.
We're talking combined land statists and bridge DOC. Maybe some
amenities like parts will be available, but facilities as a
community centres and schools will only arrive in subsequent phases.
Possibly after another three to seven years. Residents will inevitably
look to adjacent areas to essential services. Accessories. On the
second school, don't become in the centre, behaviour traffic, transit.
Lanterg, go station has added one additional train during rush
hour. Nervig communities cannot use the service at least two
crowded because everybody uses the train in bridge and landscapists.
In conclusion. Government residential density only without corresponding level service
is not sound planning. Endors in this MCO is accepting
bridge to your C framework without the subway cost contribution
and will limit council's ability in the future. And MCO
risk establishing excessive development rights without sufficient obligations. Now the
change to adjust them. It will give away Marham Urban
Planning Control of Last of East Rural Development. Or as
council, do not support this MCO proposal and look for
other options to deliver a more reasonable and flexible approach
for land statists. Thank you and unavailable for questions. Great.
Thank you very much. Um, are there any questions of
the deputy. Okay. Thank you. Um, we'll circle back to
this, but I do want staff just to touch on
a point that you're raising about distance, uh, and walking
distance to the subway. Um, I know, so today we,
because this had already come to development services, there's a
report there. Um, and, uh, some discussion, uh, it dealt
with all aspects. And so, you know, that, that some
of these things did get discussed there in relation to
the distance to the subway. Staff, we'll come back to
you after all the deputations, but there is a reference
that was actually a comment, uh, that was incorporated from
York region on, on a, having a higher frequency of
transit internally within the whole Lang staff area to your
point because of the density and the people that are
there to be able to, to utilise that. And I'll
let staff kind of look that up. And then we
can reference it later. I don't see any other questions.
And Lewis, thank you very much for, uh, for your
comments. Um, next is Renato Richardson. And if you could
just wait, go ahead. Thank you. So good afternoon, Mr.
Chair, Mayor Scarpetti, members of Council staff. Fellow deputants and
fellow residents. Thank you for letting me, um, speak briefly
on this important matter. What I am going to be
reading today is not my words. These are from Rod
Fitzpatrick, a fellow royal orchard community neighbour, uh, who wasn't
able to be here today. And so she asked me
to read this on her behalf. Um, I live in
Sornhill, Markham, since 1998. My husband and I raised our
family here and over the past 27 years I have
come to deeply value the sense of balance that makes
our community so special. The combination of neighbourhood character, accessible
green spaces and the careful planning that has allowed families
to thrive. Let me just break for one moment that
every word that she writes here comes from me as
well because I agree with everything she's writing. Today I'm
writing to express my strong opposition to the proposed ministers
zoning order for the Langstaff East Lands. I write with
disbelief and concern that our community is even in this
position, having to oppose a proposal so out of step
with thoughtful planning and balance. I want to be very
clear, this is not about saying no to growth. It's
about saying yes to the right kind of growth. This
proposal seeks to double the density approved by the secondary
plan and to increase maximum building heights. Combined with the
already approved enhanced MZOs for Langstaff West. This would bring
nearly 100, 000 new residents into a relatively small pocket
of Markham. That figure is staggering. And frankly, deeply concerning.
Too often when residents raise legitimate concerns about scale infrastructure
or livability, we're dismissed as NIMBYs. But our message is
not in my backyard. It's not with a balanced planning
and accountability. While I fully support thoughtful urban intensification and
the need for housing, this proposal represents over intensification without
proper infrastructure consultation or long - term sustainability. I support
new housing. I support mixed use. Walkable neighbourhood. I support
welcoming new residents and building a vibrant future. But development
must respect the existing community. Our infrastructure capacity and the
environment. Density without infrastructure is not good planning. It is
simply overbuilding. When density is pushed too high, too fast
without adequate transit, schools, parks and services. It doesn't create
livable communities. It creates pressure points, congestion, stress, and a
lot, a lot, sorry, of connection. That's not smart growth.
That's simply just growth on paper. At present, our community
lacks the transit capacity. Schools, medical facilities, parks, and road
network to responsibly absorb such an enormous increase in population.
Baby Avenue and Highway 7 and Young Street are already
congested. Local schools are at capacity and access to healthcare
is increasingly strained. Adding tens of thousands more residents without
a clearly defined infrastructure plan would significantly erode quality of
life for existing and future residents alike. Moreover, the lack
of proper community consultation is deeply disappointing. MZO bypass the
normal planning process and silence the voices of the very
people who live here. Local residents, community associations, and even
council itself are left reacting to decisions made elsewhere. Rather
than participating in meaningful dialogue about our city's future, many
in our community have begun to lose hope. They feel
that their voices, their deputations, and even their years of
civic engagement no longer make a difference. But democracy only
weakens when citizens fall silent. Even when the final decision
rests elsewhere, it is vital that council and residents together
continue to speak up for responsible, sustainable planning. Silence would
only signal acceptance of a process that disregard local input.
Good planning is collaborative. It takes into account infrastructure, environment
livability and community character. It ensures that growth enhances not
overwhelms what is already in place. The proposed MZO for
Langsta fails that test on every count. I respectively urge
counsel to withhold its endorsement of this request. Markham must
stand firm and advocating for responsible, sustainable developments, a kind
that provides adequate transit, schools, park, and services before the
concrete is poured. This isn't NIMBIASM. It's community stewardship. It's
caring about the long - term livability of markham and
ensuring that future generations inherit neighbourhoods at work, not just
buildings that sit a quota. Markham deserves a future built
on thoughtful design, not ministerial shortcuts. I ask counsel to
send a clear message that we value balance. Visibility, and
long - term vision over numbers and expediency. Thank you
for your attention and for your continued service to our
community. Thank you very much, Renata. And I don't know
if there's any questions to the deputy for members of
Council. And I'll just say thank you for your comments.
Um, a little different in terms of the process with
this MZO. I'll just say that, yes, it is being
facilitated under an MZO process. Um, don't remember the date
again, maybe staff on a circle back to you. We
did have a public meeting in relation to this. And,
uh, I know there were subsequent meetings. So, um, I'll
say, uh, this one. And I appreciate all the comments
you made. But on the public process side, it wasn't,
um, I'll say a unilateral action. Like some other MZOs
where we, you know, kind of get handed the decision.
We may make some comments, but I'll say in this,
this one, uh, and I hope it's evident today, even
with the improvements that we made on the delivery of
infrastructure, that it was something that, that we, uh, participated
in. And I think the parks, and I'll get staff
to comment on that, uh, we're getting, uh, I'd much,
I'd like a bigger park, but I can tell you
that we are getting a larger park than what provincial
legislation actually limits us to. So I do appreciate all
of those comments. I just want to let you know
that the park, the school site may be, might be
inside baseball, but even the district energy system, all of
those things are things that we've entrenched in this, uh,
in this process, unlike some other things where we didn't
have the ability to entrench some of these things, uh,
so I just wanted to make the slight distinction with
this one. I agree with a lot of the comments
that you've made, uh, but I think the other one
that I want to highlight is that this applicant wall
did go through an MZO process, uh, we have at
least been able to, uh, jointly insert what we consider
benefits not only for the future community, but hopefully you
see today for some of the existing community as well.
And so may not be much of a difference for
you. And I appreciate that. But it is different from,
uh, at least some of the other MZO decisions. Okay.
With that, um, we'll move to. Dwight Richardson.
Can you. Hear me okay. Yes. Yes. Excuse. Me. Um.
Good afternoon, Mr. Chair, members of Council, staff, fellow deputants
and fellow residents. Thank you for allowing me to again,
speak briefly to this important matter. My name is Dwight
Richardson. I am here representing the Royal Orchard Residence Association.
We don't support this memorandum. Simply put this endorsement, the
little supportive design process. Which is the spawn of the
horrific development planned on the Western part of Langstaff. Further,
we would view the acceptance of this memorandum by the
city. As a total capitulation by the city in this
matter. We want the California plan back. We reject the
foundational principle used by MZOs. The freedom is a privilege
to be respected only if it's convenience. We expect the
provincial government to be held to account. And this instance,
government central plan in hubris. Made the public round private.
Secret unseen. Government has granted itself. Power and authority to
do things. Would you undertaken by private citizens? Would be
illegal, if not criminal. The government has often stated that
humans are innately self - interested and that progressive impossible
unless government intervenes. But it's a natural tendencies of citizens
are so bad. That it is not safe to permit
people to freely and fully participate in deciding what is
best for their communities. How was it the tendencies of
government or any better. Do not the legislatures and their
appointed agenda agents also belong to the human race. Or
do they believe that they themselves are made or made
a finer incorruptible clay. They are not so made. And
their silence here speaks of volumes as the quality of
their character. A local example, the Council may be familiar
with. In the 2024 annual report by the Artist or
General for Ontario reviewed Ontario rigs 17221 with a city
of Markham requested an MZO that included several conditions. The
CD wanted the proponent to complete all studies that are
normally required before a zoning decision are made. The audit
found at the end zone was made without any studies
having been completed. An absent any conditions being met. In
that report, the auditor general found that generally the ministry
did not consistently assess whether rezoning by Amazon O, as
opposed to the municipal planning process was needed. For the
vast majority of EMSOTO requests, the ministry did not provide
zoning alternatives or any recommendations on whether to make the
MZO or not. Based on its experience in land use
planning. The other found that on occasions when the ministry
did make recommendations such as two assets risks or perform
risk mitigation, the minister's office did not accept them. It
should further be noted that the auditor general is currently
conducting an audit on subway route and station selection, whereby
plans to examine metro Lynx's processes and procedures. For selecting
subway stations with a focus on the Ontario line and
the young North subway extension. God are the days when
a leader in seeking to establish a common ground with
an adversary would reach out. And appeal to the best
elements of our character, not the worst. As it was
written in June of 1963. For the final analysis, our
most common link is, do we all inhabit the small
planet? We all breed the same air. We all cherish
our children's future. And we are all mortal. With no
attempt by this government to establish a common ground, why
would council think any negotiation would be positive for the
citizens of Markham. We have said it before and we
will say it again. This entire development on Langstaff from
Young Street to bathe you avenue has gone from the
brilliant collaborative result of a Califorp secondary plan and the
Langstaff master plan project to an unmitigated disaster. Camouflaged by
the promise of a subway and to say and two
subway stations. To those on council who either won't or
reluctant to support us in this matter, we simply say,
if not now, when. Thank you. Thank you very much,
Dwight. Any questions of the deput. Not seeing any. Thank
you very much for your deputation. Um, next is Evelyn
Ellison.
Sorry, good afternoon. Ladies and gentlemen. I am Evelyn Ellison.
I'm the president of the World One South on Hill
Residents. We have just south of the Roy Orchard. And
we are neighbours to the alien Willowbrook. We fully support
the deputations from Louisa Oliveira from Aura. Renat Richardson and
weight region. So I don't think we need to repeat.
What they already said that we were going to speak
so. There is no need to be fully support what
they say. Just a clarification. The seventh of June 3rd
Community Engagement Meeting. It was for the land owners. Only.
We were not invited to that meeting. So I think
we have to clarify. It was not public meeting with
arrestments. There are things we like that there is a
Markham energistric system. But I think Marco is losing a
very big opportunity to do something more than to do
something new. What about the garbage? How can we do
something different with a garbage. Five station. You know, I
can see the office in the screen. What about the
price station? Are they going to have a fire station?
I'm going to have an ambulance for so many people.
So we oppose this MSI dot. We think that city
of Marcom should stand up. For the residents. And I'm
glad there was negotiations with the land owners. But I
think we have to really review this MZOT, the way
that's done. We can do a lot better to do
really something more than something new. Yes. Something that will
be environmentally friend would be sustainable. Would be really something
to show the word. Look what we can do. And
reduce the density. Because the density on the west side
is over the board. And the density on the east
is out. So it's too many people in a very
short space. Thank you so much. And I thank you
for my colleagues at the other residential for speaking so
eloquently. Thank you. Hey, thank you. Any questions of the
deputy. If not, if by regional council Jones, seconded by
regional Councillor Lee that we receive, uh, is there anyone
else wishing to speak to this item. So all those
in favor of that motion then to receive the deputations
opposed that is carried. And if I could just get
staff to comment on the two or three of those
issues, uh, one, um, related to the, I'll say enhanced
transit services, I think in the past, we may have
even referred to it as people movers, but, you know,
whatever the technology will be, certainly, transit will be enhanced
within the length staff area providing that connection, uh, between
the two sides and also to the other, uh, high
order transit beam, the goal, the subway. And the rapid
transit bus wrapper transit line. And then the, uh, issue
of the park and how much, uh, it's enhanced over
the provincial legislation, which were limited in terms of how
much park we can get. And maybe also speak to
a bit of the public process because I don't have
the dates. We've been at this for two years. So
I think two years has it been longer. Thank you,
Mr. Chair. Just about two years now. Okay. I thought
it was two years. So, I mean, the opportunity for,
I appreciate maybe this last meeting. Yes, it was with
the landowners in the area because it's the landowner's group
that will ultimately be responsible for the infrastructure. And so
the meeting was held with them to go over what
the city was asking for and to have their, their
buy - in, which they, uh, agreed to all of
these enhancements. So do you want to deal with the
transit? What will the condition is within this plan going
down the road in relation to providing that connectivity within
the length staff community itself? So through you, Mr. Mayor,
to the deputant's comments with respect to the walkability as
well as the first and last mile solutions to the
transit station, uh, just reaffirm your comments. Yes. Why are
your region transit is looking at improved transit frequency and
transit service in this area to support the movement of,
uh, commuters or people to the transit station or east
and west. Also there is going to be a proposed
active transportation network as well as more robust TDM measures
that will be part of development proposals that will address
first and last mile solutions and promote that those kind
of connections. As well as with each, uh, development phase
will be looking at considering more direct connections to the
bridge stations through the developments. So it will not be
just along the roadways, but also through the developments themselves
and pathways that we could look at or underground systems,
whatever the case may be to help move up people
more efficiently and effectively to the transit stations. And through
you, Mr. Chair. Just talk a little bit about the
process. So appreciating that this is, uh, bit of an
unusual way to put zoning in place through an MZO
and through, uh, what is an MZO that's been initiated
by an applicant with the participation of the city in
developing it. But the process was not substantially different from
that of what a zoning biome would be. On June
25th, there was. A. So what I would say Mr.
Mayor is I was saying is that I don't think
this, uh, process was substantially different than what it would
have been had it been a privately initiated zoning bill
amendment. On June 25th, we had a statutory public, well,
not a statutory public meeting, but a public meeting, uh,
through development services committee. We then undertook, and I think
this is where, you know, in many ways, but we
went above and beyond what would have been a standard
ZBA. But considering the scope of it, I think it
was warranted and appropriate. We had a facilitated discussions through
a third party facilitation expert on June 26. And July
26. There was a third one and a correctly noted
for the landowners only because it was just discussing the
transportation improvements in the stagecating, uh, and it was really
for their benefit so that they would understand what they
were sort of getting into at that point, uh, which
did, uh, leave with a consensus on that group. So,
uh, there were many opportunities to engage in the process.
Um, we took the comments we heard seriously. I think
when we're talking about net benefits to the city. And
why the city chose to take this approach is, were
we, to simply wait for development applications to come in
this area, the densities may have been higher. They may
have been more close to what had been, uh, approved
on the, uh, other side of cedar. And certainly I
don't believe we would have got the same level of
parkland. So the park land we were getting here, um,
is about 2. 95 hectares. And although it's difficult to
do an apples to apples comparison, um, under the Plani
Act, we'd probably only get between one max two, depending
on how the applications came in. So we're doing quite
a bit better on the overall parkland. And more importantly,
we're getting it as a continuous block. In the vision
of the California plan as opposed to a site -
by - site, you know, perhaps a string of confetti
parks or something along those lines as development applications came
in. On top of that, we are also getting the
wood lot, which appreciating can't be programmed as like a
playing field or something like that, but has positive recreational
value. And that's an additional, um, I believe two, let
me see here. In additional 1. 76
hectares of woodlot as well as part of the overall
development. So, you know, we've circulated this MZO as we
would any other development application. School boards have commented. We've
located new school sites. We will have a new community
centre. The amenities will be there. The transplantation infrastructure will
be there to support this new development. And I don't
think we can ignore the approvals as much as we
might like to ignore them. And I don't think that
the plan that, frankly, was approved. Uh, West of Cedar
was a good one. Um, but that's a reality on
the ground now. And it's a reality on the ground
that would be leveraged at any tribunal hearing as part
of an individual application. In this instance, the city has
the opportunity to secure important benefits while ensuring its vision.
Is implemented, notwithstanding that it is a vision that is
different. It is more density. No one disputes that. But
we've taken the, I think, the appropriate steps and efforts
to ensure that the infrastructures and amenities will be there
to support it. Thank you for reiterating the process and
also highlighting both the elements on the park and the,
uh, internal circulation of enhanced transit down the road. Okay.
With that, uh, Councillor Irish. Thank you, uh, Mr. Mayor.
So we're on to 6. 1 now? Yes. Formerly. Okay.
Um, I'd like to begin by reminding Council that we
last discussed this on October 14th, 2025. That was exactly
nine months ago. I'll also remind you that at that
meeting there were only nine of us. Present when it
came to a vote. Which is rather unusual. And I'll
remind you about that vote. It was lost. That is.
Supported. By five. And opposed by four. We lost by
one vote to defeat this. Deputy Mayor Chen was absent.
As was regional councillor Lee and councillors Keys and Lee.
So this council has not yet decided despite the positioning
earlier today by so many that we've heard from minus
the deputance, that this was passed at DSC as if
it's in a fatal comp ple then for council. I'll
admit, a win is a win. If I had been
on the winning side of that and we had prevailed
five four, then I'd be quite happy. So I'm hoping
that today with all that's been talked about and discussed
in the deputations that Council will make an informed decision.
Because rest assured that decision is with us today. Whether
or not to endorse Kyle Moore's request for an MZO.
Now I appreciate that the memorandum before us strengthens the
city's position. Particularly with respect to transportation infrastructure and the
phasing of development. Those are meaningful improvements. And I want
to acknowledge the work that staff have undertaken in negotiating
those additional conditions. However, that does not answer. The broader
question before council. Should we endorse this MZO. It is
worth remembering how we arrived here. In 2010, after extensive
consultation with residents landowners and stakeholders, council at the time
adopted the Langstaff gateway secondary plan. It represented years of
careful planning and established a comprehensive vision for the entire
community. That vision changed dramatically in 2022. When the province
issued enhanced minister zoning orders for the lands west of
the railway corridor. Council opposed that approach because it bypassed
the city's planning process. And imposed a plan that will
not achieve the balanced, complete community originally envisioned. Today we're
being asked to endorse a minister zoning order. This time
for the eastern portion of the Langstaff Gateway. Among other
things, this proposal would nearly double. Double. The residential density
contemplated in that secondary plan. Increasing it from a proximately
10, 000 residents to almost 20, 000. While also increasing
maximum building heights. I understand the argument that similar densities
have already been imposed by the province west of the
rail corridor. I do not believe that is by itself.
A planning justification. Arguing that the E should receive the
same treatment simply because the West did, or we're getting
marginally more in Parkland. Especially by overriding the city secondary
plan does not make for good planning. Two wrongs do
not make a right. And before I move on to
the memo, I'll leave you with this final anecdote. In
May 2023, I attended the Federation of Canadian municipalities conference
in Toronto. One of the studied tours I participated in
was led by a senior planner with the city of
Toronto. And as the tour got underway, he asked us
who we were and where we were from. When I
told him is immediate reply referring specifically to Langstaff. I
didn't tell him. That Langstaff was in my ward. He
knew. I'd like to offer you, sir, my condolences. And
that was before this proposed MZO. I wonder what he'd
be saying today. So I also have another concern that
I believe counsel should consider before making a final decision.
The revised MZO now contains a condition with respect to
district heating and cooling. And as chair of Markham District
Energy, I have concerns about the legal and commercial implications
of that language in the MZO. So before proceeding any
further, I believe Council should satisfy itself that it does
not inadvertently constrain the city's future interest or negotiating position.
And specifically MDE's commercial interests in the future. And I
believe those Mr. Chair, Mr. Mayor, our grounds for us
to move into private sessions so we can discuss my
concerns. Thank you. Okay. I'll deal with that. Um, in
a minute. Um, any other speakers. So a couple of
things I don't want a perception left with anybody. Um,
it wouldn't matter what the vote was at development services
in terms of the number of members of council. We
could have had a full roster of members of council.
And whatever the vote would have been, uh, that is
always a recommendation to counsel. And the final vote always
comes to counsel. So I don't want a perception here
that somehow the decision at development services was somehow an
anomaly. And we're treating the process any differently. Had we
had a full roster and even it had been a
close vote, even with the full roster. The final decision
gets made here at, um, at the city of Markham
at the Council meeting. And I just want to say,
and I think you know this already, um, as much
as I supported the plan that day, recognising that it
was just a recommendation to counsel. It was in fact,
um, not a final vote. Um, I undertook to personally
meet on several occasions with the applicant to ensure that
these enhancements were incorporated in the plan. And, um, yeah,
it was a few months ago because they were not
easy negotiations. Uh, but I felt very, very, uh, strongly
that these enhancement had to be in. And I, and
I also want to, cause I think, you know, and
we all kind of, the English language, um, dilemmas. I
want to make it very clear that as I think
the applicants representative did this change in density, uh, does
not match the other side of LAN staff by a
country mile. And not that we would, but I'm just
saying though that it doesn't. And, uh, I think to
use the notion, the other side got something. So we
need to get something ignores a really big, fundamental change
in the plan. And that was that the young subway
got shifted to the middle of Langstaff, not at the
edge of Langstaff on Young Street. Now, I don't think
you have to be a rocket scientist, but you know,
when you have that kind of infrastructure, that's brought closer
to an area. Other planning considerations have to be taken
into consideration because of the proximity of a major, massive,
uh, rapid transit project. So yeah, when we started off
length stuff, how many years is it now? Uh, you
know, young subway was 2008. And here we are 2026.
The young subway was going along the young street corridor
at the, uh, western parameter of Langstaff. Subway got brought
in to the middle. Uh, I wish we had been
in charge of rethinking how we distributed the density. But
naturally you would say, wait a minute, we had in
our original plan more of the density on the west
side of Langstaff because that's where the subway was. Had
we been given the opportunity with the shift of the
young subway now coming up through the middle of that
plan. I think naturally we would have rethought, how do
we redistribute at a minimum? How do we redistribute this
density? But certainly, how do we change the plan now
that you've got this, uh, mass transit project coming right
through the middle of that community. And, um, and I
agree that the, the Caltor plan was, was a good
plan. And while the density, admittedly, has increased significantly with
what's in front of us, uh, two things. I think
this applicant chose to engage with us and work with
us. But quite honestly, as we all know, they could
just have easily gone down to Bay Street, walked into
the minister's office down there. And probably got a similar
approach to what the owners did west of the subway.
And actually, you know, probably had some merit to do
that again, because the subway shifted from Yong Street to
the middle of the plan. They chose to at least
be engaged with us. And I really did appreciate the
comment that it's a good plan. And I think that's
what's key to me is that the fundamentals of this
plan are intact. You know, the parks didn't disappear. Uh,
the school sites didn't disappear. It's not a struggle to
negotiate, uh, getting a community centre. Like these things are
incorporated in the plan. And I'll say the spine has
relatively, uh, remained unchanged. And I think that's a very
important factor for all of us to consider. And also
this latest, uh, recommendations with the improvements on the transportation
is again, not only important to the future of the
lying staff development, but it's also important to the existing
community, uh, because once that subway is open, long before
anybody moves into the first unit, uh, in length stuff
east, I think things are going to change quite dramatically
in terms of some of the transportation, uh, corridors and
how people will move around in the community. So I'll
leave it at that in terms of clarification of process,
uh, the final vote is always taken here, no matter
how many P, you know, we have quorum. We have
a meeting. If it's, uh, quorum or a full roster
close vote, not close vote could be a majority one
way or the other. The fact is that these things
are always determined at the, at the council meeting. And
all I can say is that, um, I am glad
that we've taken. I wish it was not a nine
months, but I'm glad we've taken the time to improve
this plan and improve the delivery of infrastructure. And again,
I want to reiterate the spine, the very foundational aspects
of the, of the Kelthort plan have remained intact. And
that's a pretty positive thing. Uh, whether we like it
or not, that's the environment we in, but we're in.
But that's a pretty positive thing. If you can go
through an MZO and get many of the things that
the municipality wanted to get right from the get -
go. So I don't know if the other comments at
this point. I think Councillor Irish has raised an issue
that, um, if I understand it correctly, we probably should
go, uh, in camera, uh, as it relates to wording
and not diminishing our opportunity to fully implement district energy.
And is that your concern that this wording may not
allow us to do that. Okay. So I think just
given where we are, I think we'll do this now,
uh, because we have a lot more on the agenda.
And I think it's better to get this, uh, dealt
with and us come back into public session after we
get a chance to do that. So, uh, Council Irish,
can you move that we resolve in a private session
moved by you? Second and by Councillor Patel. All those
in favor of polls that is carried. So members of
the public, I don't know how long we're going to
be. Uh, I think we understand an issue, but we're
not an understanding necessarily. The crux of that issue and
depending on what answers we get, uh, tough to say
how long we'll be, but we'll, we'll, if you wait
outside, we'll call everybody in when we're, uh, when we're
finished with that. Please take all of your materials with
you.
Mayor Scrippiti, we're now streaming. So. We'll go back to
6. 1 the memorandum, and this deals with the east
- lang staff. Again, members of committee, council, rather. You've
been advised of the improvements. I think just for the
sake of clarity as well. If you want to just
put up that clause. The slight amendment to the condition
on district energy. Whoever, yeah, whoever's got the magic button.
So just for the purpose of this clause related to
district energy, we are inserting, we're at the second line
where it says for clarity, any space. We're adding the
words and land. Required. Because, you know, and we understand
this is the whole area of Langstaff is an intensification
area. And obviously try to accommodate infrastructure so it doesn't
stand out. It still has to function, and there may
be circumstances where it may be space and part of
it sticking out. And so just to give some flexibility,
we're not looking for sites, big sites to accommodate it,
but understanding that once we get down to final design,
it could be partially in a building partially out, whatever
the case may be. But so we didn't want to
show that land and space are there. And then we're
just eliminating. It's an obvious statement, but we're just eliminating
the last clause. The district heating and cooling supplier operator
shall be responsible for supplying, installing an ongoing maintenance of
equipment. And I, without getting, because it wasn't in -
camera discussion, really relates to any business model that may
exist in the future. So that's why that lay, it's
being deleted. Okay? So that's on that. And then we
have the memorandum, which is that the July 14th, and
a random titled Revised Conditions to the request for the
city to support a minister zoning order in Langstaff East
Langstaff, Holmes Limited. The applicant and the file number be
received. The Council Ford its endorsement of the revised draft
minister zoning order attachment, independent X to the minister and
the ministry of municipal affairs and housing. And further that
staff be authorized and directed to do all things necessary
to give effect to this resolution. I'm going to ask
regional councillor Jones to move it, and Regional Councillor Lee
to suck in it. As vice chair of development services.
So all those in favor then of that resolution. And
if you could, I just want to, I need to
count here. So 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7.
Opposed. 1, 2, 3.
Just hold them up so regional councillor Jones can see
them. He doesn't believe I can count. So 1, 2,
3, okay? So that motion is carried. Appreciate the community's
comments today. Um, and, um, I think a lot of
what we've tried to do is, uh, sort of the
reality of the context of getting approvals and potentially MZOs.
And I think that we tried to undertake a process
here where at least we were, uh, working with the
applicant. It's not perfect. Um, but I think it's a
whole lot better had we not undertaken the process that,
uh, we've been, uh, doing for the last two years.
So appreciate thanks to the applicant for working with us.
Telgotions, thanks to the other landowners and an appreciation, it's
been a journey since that January 25th public meeting. And
of course, to all of this staff involved and engaged
to get all of the conditions incorporated, it's been very,
very critical. So thank you to everyone. Mr. Mayor, what
was the final count for and against? Can I test
the clerk. For that? We had two members of Council
that are absent. Yeah. I think it was seven. What
was the final seven to four. Seven to eight to
three. We didn't do a recorded vote. I believe it
was seven to four. That's what I thought. Okay. Thank
you. Two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine, 10,
11. Sorry. It probably. I apologise. It might have been
eight to three actually. Cause I only saw, did you
see four hands in opposition? Okay. Let's do it again.
It's fine. No, we don't need a roll call. Uh,
we've got that vote undertaken. And thanks to Councillor Irish
for asking what the, uh, the vote was. Okay. With
that, I'm going to move on to the next item.
Thank you very much, everyone. Next is the liquor license
application for 26 boulevard bar and lounge moved by Councillor
Lee, secondary by Councillor Patel. Any questions or comments. All
those in favor of polls that is carried. Sorry. You
should have included this in the, um, in the motion.
But could we get a motion to receive all of
the communication 6. 3 for the LAN stuff east moved
by Councillor Irish. Second it by Councillor Lau. All those
in favor opposed that's carried. Report number 19 of Development
Services moved by regional Council Jones. Second it by regional
Councillor Lee. Any report to be removed or discussed. If
not, all those in favor oppose that is carried motions.
Notice of motions. Newer other business. Announcements. From.
The forge number 20. Oh, sorry. Uh, report number 20
of Development Services Committee. Moved by regional councillor Jones. Second
by Regional Councillor Lee. Any questions or comments on those
reports. I'll just dealt with them this morning. All those
in favor oppose that is carried. Near other business. Believe
Council Ray, you want to add a personnel item to,
uh, the confidential agenda. Our bylaws moved by regional councillor.
Second hit by Councillor McAlpine. Any of the bylaws to
be removed. All those in favor oppose that is carried.
I believe I need a motion to go back into
private session to deal with a new item. Do we
have to get two thirds to add that to the
agenda. Okay. So Councillor Ray is moving that we waive,
uh, procedure. And it requires to introduce a new item
and requires two thirds vote, uh, moved by Councillor Colucci.
All those in favor opposed that's carried. Okay. So now
I need a motion to move into private session, move
by Councillor McAlpine, seconded by Councillor Patel. All those in
favor opposed that is carried. And I would ask, uh,
our CAO and solicitor and anyone else. Our commissioners.
So CAO and commissioners. Okay. Thank you very much, everyone.
To report out, bylaw moved by Councillor Lee, second advocate
councillor Patel, all those in favor, pose that is carried.
Mayor Screpitti, we didn't report out the other items. Oh,
we didn't. I just want to see if you're awake.
Here we go.
So we're going to deal with the other in -
camera items that we dealt with. First of all, is
the confidential council minutes of June 23rd, moved by Council
Lee, seconded by Councillor Irish, all those in favor, opposed
that is carried. Next is proposed or pending acquisition. Of
land by the city or local board, moved by Councillor
Lau, seconded by Regional Councillor Lee, all those in favor
opposes carried. Next is Development Services Committee, 3. 2. 1.
Report recommendation draft plan of subdivision, 11, sorry, 1120 Highway
48, Treasury Hill, and ELN Realty Limited at 10982
1120 and 11274 Highway 48. Moved by regional councillor
Jones, second of by Councillor Colucci, all those in favor
opposed that is carried.
I think my page is off centre here, but next
is. The applied.
But we had another one, oh, is it here, Mount
Joy? Yeah. So next is.
That. Yeah. So next is the update for direction. On
Ontario Land Tribunal Appeal. Markham Road Montjoy, secondary plan. Moved
by regional Councillor Jones. Seconded by Councillor Ray. All those
in favor. The polls that is carried.
Yeah, it's not on here. So whatever that number is,
is deals with the licensed renewal. 3. 2. Actually I
can go. Okay, that'll be moved by Councillor Irish,
seconded by Councillor Patel. All those in favor oppose that
is carry. I can go into.
This one at double check. We did the minutes. We
did the conveyance. We did Highway 48. We did the
license agreement, and we did the appeal. All right. The
confirmatory bylaw. Was moved by Councillor Patel, seconded by Councillor
McAlpine. All those in favor, a foes that is carried.
Motion to adjourn, moved by Councillor Lee, Secreted by Councillor
Irish. All those in favor opposed that is carried. Members
of Council, thank you very much. Thanks to staff. And
appreciate everyone's efforts. To get through today's agenda.