[0:12] Scorpity, we're now streaming. Thank you very much, Madam Clerk,
[0:16] and good afternoon, everyone. Welcome to the city of Markham's
[0:18] Council meeting, members of Council and staff are meeting either
[0:23] in person here in the Council Chamber or remotely. For
[0:27] those that are watching the live stream of the Council
[0:29] meeting, we do offer closed caption for the live stream
[0:33] and anyone that wants to have that feature. Just click
[0:38] the icon in the right bottom corner of the screen.
[0:42] The two capital C's. And if you click that, that
[0:45] will engage the closed caption. Again, that's just for those
[0:47] that are watching the live stream. If a member of
[0:52] the public wishes to participate in today's meeting and wishes
[0:56] to make a deputation, you can let us know in
[0:58] a number of ways. If you're watching remotely, you can
[1:02] email clerkspublic at markham. ca, all one word clerks public
[1:08] at Markham. ca. Or if it's easier to call, you
[1:11] can call 905 - 479 - 7760. Again, 905 -
[1:19] 479 - 7760. And those that are here in the
[1:23] council chambers, if you wish to make a deputation, there
[1:27] are blue forms on the presentation desk. Just fill that
[1:30] out and hand it to one of our clerks, and
[1:33] that will get you on the speaking list. We do
[1:36] have three, actually four now registered deputants, and also on
[1:44] today's agenda. We do have confidential items, although they're pretty
[1:48] recent, so we may not, I don't think the new
[1:51] item on there there is one. Okay, there is a
[1:54] new item. That we do have to maybe go into
[1:58] camera, but we'll deal with those at that time. We'll
[2:03] report out after the closed session. With that. Call the
[2:12] meeting to order, and we begin today by acknowledging the
[2:15] traditional territories of indigenous peoples and their commitment to the
[2:19] stewardship of the land. We acknowledge the community's encircle, the
[2:23] northwest, south, and eastern direction, the hut and is shonen
[2:27] here in Wendat, Anishnaabe, Seneca, Chipoa, and the Mississaugas of
[2:32] the Credit People. We share the responsibility with the caretakers
[2:35] of this land to ensure that the dish is never
[2:39] empty. And to restore relationships that are based on peace,
[2:42] friendship, and trust. And we here at the city of
[2:45] Markham, our committed to reconciliation, partnership and enhanced understanding. With
[2:51] that, is there any disclosure of pecuniary interest. If not,
[2:57] and you recognise that you have it at some point,
[3:00] you can certainly indicate it at that time. The Council
[3:03] minutes of June 23rd, moved by Councillor Lee, seconded by
[3:07] Councillor Irish. Any comments or questions on the minutes. Not
[3:15] all those in favor oppose that is carried. Presentations. We
[3:23] don't have a presentation, but we do have one affiliated
[3:27] with one of the reports, but we'll wait till we
[3:29] get to the report itself. And it's up to
[3:39] the individuals, but the people that are here on the
[3:44] agenda to speak to Langstaff East. Do you want to
[3:49] speak now? Uh, we do have a staff presentation, which
[3:53] I think might be helpful. But if anyone has a
[3:57] time issue. Lewis, are you here. Yes, Mr. Mayor, I'm
[4:07] here. Uh, I don't have a problem waiting after the
[4:11] presentation. I just thought it might be helpful and maybe
[4:15] potentially answer or deal with some of the issues that
[4:18] you want to highlight. Renata, I see you're there. Do
[4:22] you want to wait? Or wait? Fine, fine to wait.
[4:25] Okay, and Dwight. Yes. Can you hear me. Okay?
[4:37] You're very low, but we can hear you. Yes, I
[4:42] can. Okay. Thank you. And Evelyn, I'm not sure that
[4:46] you're speaking on this. I think you're speaking on another
[4:49] item, I believe. No, it is on the... Oh, this
[4:53] one as well. Okay. And do you want to, do
[4:56] you mind waiting or. Yeah, I can wait. I don't
[4:59] mind. Okay, thank you. Uh, so the next item is
[5:04] memorandum. That deals with the request of the revised conditions
[5:12] for the city's support of a minister zoning order in
[5:17] East Langstaff. And, um, we have a memorandum, but I
[5:21] think it will be helpful if both staff and the
[5:24] applicant made a presentation so that we're clear. This was
[5:29] before development services committee a few months ago, uh, and
[5:35] since that time, um, we've had various meetings with the
[5:40] applicant in an effort to, um, I'll say improve some
[5:45] of the transportation, um, requirements for the, uh, for the
[5:50] development. In the original report, there was certainly references to
[5:54] some of these things, but I think as you see
[5:56] in this presentation and report, it's become, um, pretty, uh,
[6:02] pretty clear as to what is going to be required
[6:05] in terms of the infrastructure improvements as the, as the
[6:09] development proceeds. So with that, I'll hand it over to
[6:14] Director Julio Sascato to start off. And then I believe
[6:18] the applicant also wants to speak. Or representative of the
[6:22] applicant. Yeah. Through you, Mr. Chair, I'm going to ask,
[6:25] um, Daniel Bruto, who's senior planner, uh, who's been working
[6:28] on this file to come up and make a brief
[6:30] presentation. Um, well, mostly the intensive presentation to walk through
[6:35] a couple of changes to the MZO. So committee may
[6:39] recall that they voted in favor of supporting the MZO,
[6:44] the province, uh, subsequent to that meeting. There was a
[6:46] desire, uh, by development services committee to see and improved.
[6:51] Um, I'll call it stage gating of transportation improvements so
[6:55] that as the units are coming along, coming online, rather,
[7:00] the commensurate, um, build out of the transportation infrastructure. Um,
[7:09] staff had initially, uh, was initially relying on plan of
[7:13] subdivision to ensure that those improvements would happen. But this
[7:15] is another, uh, tool that we can use as conditions
[7:19] within the MZO that I think provided some greater comfort
[7:24] to address the committee's desires on that matter. There was
[7:28] another, um, addition where just to ensure that and make
[7:33] it abundantly clear that this area will be serviced through
[7:36] mark and district energy and that the land, uh, provided
[7:40] for new facility will be provided to the municipality and
[7:43] no cost of the municipality. So that was added in
[7:45] as a condition of the M's at all as well.
[7:47] Just to kind of refresh committee's memory on the broader
[7:50] MZO. There was, as you know, there was anemosito passed
[7:55] by the province on lands west of Cedar, um, which
[8:00] significantly increased the heights and densities. Um, the landowners on
[8:05] the east side of Cedar approached the city primarily. Through
[8:10] Kyle Moore as their primary spokesperson. But in a consensus
[8:13] basis with those landowners, uh, to increase the density on
[8:17] their lands. But with the proposition to the city that
[8:20] it would largely keep intact the original secondary plan, the
[8:24] California plan, um, and so what the, all that to
[8:28] say, the benefits that accrue to the city here in
[8:31] exchange for acknowledging, uh, that some increase in density might
[8:35] be warranted is to ensure that we receive the original
[8:38] amount of parkland that was greater than what we would
[8:40] have received through Bill 23 ensure that the area is
[8:44] comprehensively planned. Uh, the, you know, working together to create
[8:48] a new large community centre, ensure the roads come in
[8:52] and the MDE facility. This is being done through MZO
[8:55] primarily because in our, at least that way, we have
[8:59] the city avoids the problem in the future of having
[9:01] subsequent site specific amendments erode the permissions counsel, but in
[9:07] place in the conditions they put in place. So we
[9:08] felt this gave security to the city and to the
[9:11] applicants of the increased heightened density would come with the
[9:13] benefits accrued to the city. Um, so that is, you
[9:17] know, in short, the rationale for the city supporting the
[9:20] semito or the city staff rather supporting the M so.
[9:23] Don't. And what I'm going to do is just ask
[9:25] Daniel to give presentation here an outline what the changes
[9:29] were from the MZO that the committee has already seen.
[12:41] Okay. Thanks. Thank you, Julio. As Juliel mentioned, this
[12:51] presentation focuses on the changes made to the LAN staff
[12:55] East MZO requests since it was endorsed by development services
[12:58] committee on October 14th, 2025. I'll begin with a recap
[13:04] of how we arrived at this point. It's taken about
[13:09] two and a half years to get to this point
[13:11] from the initial submission in December 2023. During this time,
[13:17] a lot's been accomplished in June, 2024, the province repealed
[13:23] the legislation, guiding the initial community infrastructure and housing accelerator
[13:29] application that was submitted. That's referred to as CIA for
[13:32] short. At the same time, they introduced the MZO framework.
[13:37] After the MZO framework was released, the application was transitioned
[13:41] to an MZO request. And public engagement commenced, including indigenous
[13:46] consultation. Public engagement included one public meeting that was held
[13:52] here. And three engagement sessions, which took place at the
[13:57] Thornhill community centre. During the first engagement session in June
[14:02] of last year, the revised MZO was shared with the
[14:06] broader group and feedback was garnered. During the second engagement
[14:11] session in July of last year. The city presented its
[14:14] perspective on the Q matters that were raised and sought
[14:18] public feedback. This all culminated in the MZO being presented
[14:24] to DSC in October. As was mentioned before. At the
[14:29] DSC meeting, Council, sorry, DSC endorsed the MZ request, but
[14:34] directed staff to consider conditions in the MZO related to
[14:38] the plan transportation infrastructure improvements. And the phasing of development
[14:43] before Council ratification. After DSC in October, a third engagement
[14:49] session was held. In June of this year last month.
[14:54] With the landowners to present the revised conditions. This leads
[14:59] me into the purpose of the presentation today, which I'll
[15:02] go through on the next slide. So the purpose of
[15:05] the presentation today is twofold. The primary purpose is to
[15:11] explain why the city requested changes to the M's at
[15:15] O and what they mean. Focusing on two changes. One
[15:19] being a revision made to the district energy condition. And
[15:22] the second being the introduction of five new transportation conditions.
[15:28] Second to that staff can confirm that besides the two
[15:31] changes, we're going to discuss here today. No other changes
[15:34] have been made to the MZO since it was endorsed
[15:37] by development services committee. To be clear, this means that
[15:41] many of the key matters included in the MZO presented
[15:45] to DSC in October have not changed. And so that
[15:48] includes matters such as costs sharing obligations. The parkland structure
[15:53] remains unchanged. Land use permissions remain unchanged. And the preferred
[15:59] school locations and sizes remain unchanged. Let's, I'll begin with,
[16:05] uh, overview of the change made to the district energy
[16:08] condition. So on the screen is the October
[16:18] version of the district energy condition and the current version
[16:21] of the condition. This condition has been expanded to clarify
[16:24] what the city's expectations are with respect to district heating
[16:28] and cooling. Throughout the process, there's been discussion about a
[16:33] district heating and energy system. If this were to occur,
[16:37] the condition makes a clear now that any space required
[16:40] to implement. Such a system shall be provided by the
[16:44] landowners. To the system operator at no cost. And that
[16:49] the district heating and cooling operator is responsible for supplying
[16:52] and installing and ongoing equipment maintenance. The next couple of
[16:58] slides will provide an overview of the five new transportation
[17:02] conditions.
[17:22] Okay, beginning with condition one nine. What you'll notice for
[17:25] each of the new transportation conditions. Is that improvements are
[17:28] required at different stages of the build out? This is
[17:31] what staff referred to as stage gating. We're by specific
[17:34] improvements are tied to unit counts. This approach has been
[17:38] implemented by the city and other large planning areas such
[17:40] as York Downs and Markville. Focusing on one nine. The
[17:46] intent of this condition is to secure the improvements described
[17:50] in A through E on the screen there. Before the
[17:53] issuance of an above grade building permit for the first
[17:56] unit anywhere on the plan. So this includes A, which
[18:01] is improvements, which is improvements to the existing LAN staff
[18:05] road from Cedared Avenue to South Boulevard. That's the area
[18:09] shaded in pink on the figure. B, which are improvements
[18:13] to the existing LAN staff road from South Boulevard to
[18:16] Bayview Avenue. Again, that's the pink area you see shaded.
[18:23] C improvements to the intersection of Langstaff Road. And bathe
[18:27] you avenue. So that's the pink area you see at
[18:29] the southeast corner, the bottom right hand. Corner of the
[18:33] figure. And. D is the construction
[18:43] of the new self Boulevard from Essex Avenue, the existing
[18:48] SX Avenue. To length staff road. So the pink area
[18:52] shaded at the figure. And E are improvements to the
[18:57] existing Essex Avenue, which is shaded in pink. Moving on
[19:03] to the next condition, 110 and sticking with the same
[19:06] structure. Um, this condition would have to be met prior
[19:11] to the issuance of an above grade permit for the
[19:15] 401st dwelling unit. For the blocks adjacent to North Boulevard.
[19:21] Which are the blocks shown in blue on the screen
[19:23] or described an 8 to G in the condition itself.
[19:27] The intent of this condition is to require the ultimate
[19:31] realign to require the construction of the ultimate realign North
[19:35] Boulevard from Cedar Avenue on the left - hand side.
[19:40] To South Boulevard. Again, this is a section shaded in
[19:43] pink. Including any works necessary west of Cedar Avenue to
[19:48] align with North Boulevard if determined necessary and feasible by
[19:53] the city. The next condition, 111, will shift our focus
[19:57] from the blocks adjacent to North Avenue, north boulevard, to
[20:02] those adjacent to self - boulevard. Like condition, like the
[20:08] previous condition, this condition would have to be met prior
[20:11] to the issuance of an above grade permit for the
[20:14] 4, 001st dwelling unit. However, this one applies to the
[20:19] blocks adjacent to south boulevard. Which are the blocks shown
[20:22] in blue on the figure. Or described in AI through
[20:28] IV in the condition itself. The intent of this condition
[20:33] is to have constructed the three pieces of work described
[20:37] in B. If determined necessary and feasible by the city.
[20:44] So this work includes. Constructing self - boulevard from Cedar
[20:49] Avenue to Essex, which is the area sheated in pink.
[20:53] And the figure. Improving the existing cedar avenue, which is
[20:59] shaded in pink on the left - hand side there.
[21:03] And constructing as sixth avenue to its ultimate right -
[21:06] of - way, which is you see part of it
[21:10] shaded in pink, but the condition speaks to the entire
[21:13] road itself. Next, let's look at condition 112, which will
[21:20] revisit the ultimate construction of North Boulevard contemplated by 110,
[21:26] but at a different period in time. For different blocks.
[21:38] So where is 110 applies to the blocks adjacent to
[21:42] north Boulevard. This condition applies to any property and must
[21:48] be met prior to the issuance of grade permit. For
[21:51] the 601st dwelling unit. And this condition speaks to the
[21:58] ultimate construction of North Boulevard. And lastly, the fifth new
[22:07] transportation condition. 113 shown here. It differs from the other
[22:13] conditions. In that it doesn't specifically single out improvements. Instead,
[22:19] what it requires. Is a transportation addendum with each development
[22:24] application to confirm and or update. The recommendations of the
[22:29] study submitted in support of this application. And to confirm
[22:34] the road in transit improvements required for each particular development.
[22:38] The addendum takes into consideration several factors at the time
[22:42] of its submission. Including but not limited to internal and
[22:47] external improvements. The unit count thresholds described in the other
[22:51] conditions. Active transportation needs and transportation demand management needs. This
[22:59] condition applies to all the properties and must be met
[23:02] when a development application is submitted. With that, it marks
[23:07] the end of the five new transportation conditions. This concludes
[23:10] my presentation and myself and other staff members are available
[23:14] to answer any questions. Thank you. So maybe you could
[23:22] just for a second go back to the first map
[23:27] and first set of conditions. And, um, again, I want
[23:32] to thank the applicant. This has taken. A little bit
[23:37] longer than I thought it would, but, um, I think
[23:40] it's an indication of us trying to really get the
[23:45] necessary improvements in place. Um, so if we step through,
[23:53] um, each of these steps right now in condition number
[23:57] one. And I want to reiterate because I want to
[24:01] make sure everyone heard it before there's any unit that
[24:06] is built above ground. So there may be site preparation.
[24:11] There may be underground parking lots infrastructure being built. That
[24:15] doesn't generate people. Uh, but before the permit is issued
[24:20] for an above ground, unit, um, and I want to
[24:24] reiterate, basically, you will have, uh, a very improved condition
[24:30] of the roads that exist there today. And I'll maybe
[24:33] take you east. I'll take you from sort of east
[24:36] to west starting at that intersection. If you can use
[24:40] to use your, your mouse. So that intersection is going
[24:45] to be improved with proper right hand turn lanes proper
[24:48] left hand turn lanes. The right signalization. Day one before
[24:54] anybody moves in. And so, uh, I'll just say, uh,
[25:02] and I know this was already approved. The report at
[25:06] development services committee. But revisiting some of the conditions. Uh,
[25:13] I wanted to make sure that, uh, the, uh, landowners
[25:17] group were obligated to make these improvements not just for
[25:21] the new development, but honestly when the subway begins operation,
[25:26] uh, I personally believe it's going to change dramatically the
[25:31] traffic flow of how this whole community, not just the
[25:34] new community and langstaff, but how the whole community will,
[25:38] will operate. So that intersection will be fully designed and
[25:43] completed with all of the right turning movements. Then North
[25:50] Boulevard, which I think everybody knows what kind of condition.
[25:54] That road is in. This will be modernized. Uh, with
[25:58] proper curbs and everything and improved, uh, right up to
[26:03] South Boulevard. And then the reason that the distinction is
[26:07] made, uh, north of South Boulevard. While it won't be
[26:10] the ultimate, uh, configuration of North Boulevard, again, a significant
[26:16] improvement of conditions, uh, going from North Boulevard all the
[26:21] way over to Cedar, uh, avenue, which, um, just to
[26:26] give members of council the full picture. On the west
[26:30] side, uh, construction, I'm not sure when it will start,
[26:33] but the new elevated langstaff road, uh, west of Cedar
[26:38] Avenue. That new condition and ultimate condition will be constructed.
[26:44] We'll begin construction in order to accommodate the subway coming
[26:49] up. So, but rather than having this, uh, ultimate condition,
[26:54] west of cedar. And the current condition of North Boulevard,
[26:57] which is obviously below standard, even in today's environment, that
[27:04] will be improved. And then with over time, as you
[27:07] saw in the presentation east of Cedar Avenue, will ultimately
[27:11] be built to match really the configuration west of Cedar
[27:15] Avenue. And then for the purposes of getting around in
[27:19] this community, before one unit is built above ground, the
[27:26] South Boulevard, uh, from west of the north Boulevard, if
[27:31] you could use your cursor, that section in there, again,
[27:36] will be improved as will, um, Essex, sorry, street B
[27:42] or SSX. So it really gives people a way to
[27:47] flow through the community. If they're just going to the
[27:49] other side, would it improve intersection at Bayview and North
[27:55] Boulevard and improved North Boulevard all the way matching to
[28:01] Langstaff, uh, west of, of, uh, of Cedar Avenue. So
[28:06] a direct route. And then for those that might be
[28:10] living in the first phases of this development, there will
[28:13] be a connection. You don't have to go out to
[28:15] the North Boulevard. You can go out to South Boulevard,
[28:19] go up Essex. And again, get to North Boulevard and
[28:22] get to, uh, the other side on Langstaff Road. And
[28:26] then those other, those other iterations really speak to as
[28:30] the development continues to happen. So, but again, very clear
[28:34] in terms of the obligation of the landowners group to
[28:37] provide, uh, this important infrastructure. So I think it is
[28:42] an incredible improvement, um, in terms of what needs to
[28:47] be built and when it needs to be built, not
[28:50] only for the new development, but for the, uh, the
[28:52] existing community today, because as I said, when that subway
[28:56] becomes operational, uh, think of now with the GO station,
[29:03] multiply that, uh, by several other trips when the young
[29:06] subway becomes operational and you have, uh, you have, uh,
[29:12] the, uh, the station open there as well. So I
[29:15] just wanted to reiterate. I know it was clearly said,
[29:18] but I just wanted to underscore, uh, the timing of
[29:21] this before any condos go up. These improvements are going
[29:26] to be made. And all of the subsequent improvements are
[29:29] not going to wait till all the development is finished.
[29:32] It'll be phased in as the, as the development progresses.
[29:38] Okay. Uh, with that, I don't know if there's any
[29:42] questions at this point from members of Council. And you're
[29:46] done all year all of your presentation. So Mr. Chair,
[29:50] yes, word. Don, I don't know if Miss Gatsio wanted
[29:53] to make some brief comments. And then, um, I don't
[29:55] know. I'll leave it in your hands as to whether
[29:57] what order you want to do the deputation. Thank you.
[30:09] Thank you, Mr. Mayor members of Council members of staff.
[30:12] My name is Maria Gaticio. So if Gatio's planning, I'm
[30:15] here representing the applicant. I do have a series of
[30:19] slides. I don't, I don't propose to make a presentation
[30:21] unless I, there are any questions that I'm happy to
[30:24] refer the slides. I just wanted to make a couple
[30:26] of, a couple of comments. Um, first of all, I
[30:30] do want to thank Council and staff for working with
[30:33] us on what has been a very detailed and long
[30:37] process. But I will admit when we left DSC, we
[30:44] were thinking we were done in honour way. And what
[30:48] we heard from Council and staff was that, um, there
[30:52] wasn't a comfort level to leave the transportation improvements to
[30:56] site by site applications in site by site reports. And
[31:00] the city wanted them enshrined up front in the MZO.
[31:03] Um, and so, uh, my client agreed we worked through
[31:07] this with city staff. And I do commend them for
[31:10] a lot of time and effort to get us to
[31:12] this point. Um, we are comfortable with what is in
[31:16] the MZO. It is, um, in some ways belts and
[31:20] suspenders, but we're not objecting to that. The improvements were
[31:24] described, were required. So, so we are here saying we
[31:28] are supportive of what's in front of you. Um, the
[31:32] triggers are needed. They're described. And so they are very,
[31:36] very clearly spelled out for anyone coming forward, not left
[31:39] to sites by site specificity later on. Um, the second
[31:43] thing I wanted to point out, uh, second of four
[31:46] points I wanted to make is I just want to,
[31:49] to once again, refocus in the larger picture. And I
[31:53] wanted to reiterate sort of where I started with this,
[31:56] you know, two years ago. Um, we had the Lang
[31:59] staff secondary plan west of Cedar was approximately 10, 000
[32:04] units. Part of that was that there was a subway
[32:07] stop planned at that point over on Young Street as
[32:10] well. East of Cedar, which is our area, which we
[32:13] call East Langstaff was about 5, 000 units. As we
[32:17] know, the province's bridge MZO took the west side density
[32:22] up to about 20, 000 units. And what this MZO
[32:27] does is brings the east side up to just under
[32:30] 10, 000. So I just want to ensure that this,
[32:34] this MZO, hopefully with this Council's support is still half
[32:39] the density of that West MZO. It is not a
[32:42] similar density. It is a different plan. It has a
[32:45] lot of other features as well as continuing a staff
[32:48] said to maintain the structure and the linear park process
[32:53] and park system that was contemplated originally. A third point
[32:58] I want to make is that as part of this
[33:00] process, our benefits and a series of now up front
[33:07] agreed upon items that are a benefit for the city
[33:10] and the community. And a couple of them, um, and
[33:13] I think we're referenced is number one, the increased total
[33:16] parkland is more than each application coming forward would be
[33:21] owing under the planning act. There is an overall parkland
[33:24] package. Um, that provides Parkland beyond the planning act and
[33:29] beyond the environmental feature at the east end. Um, there
[33:33] is a minimum committed amount of commercial retail GFA written
[33:38] into the MZO. There is a maximum total residential GFA
[33:42] for the entire area. And there is a block by
[33:45] block maximum height. Those are some of the things that
[33:48] are in this overall package that would not be there
[33:52] or would have to be negotiated application by application going
[33:55] forward. Um, my final point is that, um, this latest,
[34:03] uh, transportation beefed up M0 was presented by a city
[34:08] staff to the other owners in the East Lang staff
[34:11] area in a session in June. That session without speaking
[34:16] for the other owners went well. There is a very
[34:18] good understanding and a good sense of support from the
[34:22] other owners in the area who understand the benefits and
[34:26] the opportunities for them to be able to move forward
[34:30] with a sale or with whatever they may want to
[34:32] do with their properties in the context of the MZO.
[34:36] And this enhanced way. So I did want to be
[34:40] available to answer any questions. I do hope Council supports
[34:43] this. I think it's the culmination of a lot of
[34:46] very detailed and hard work by the other owners in
[34:49] the area by the city and by my client and
[34:52] consultant team. And my hope is that this will now
[34:56] finally catapult us into seeing this area developed. So thank
[34:59] you very much for the opportunity to speak. And I'm
[35:01] happy to answer any questions. And thank you very much.
[35:05] Any questions of the deputy. Okay. Uh, if not, we'll
[35:13] move on to the, thank you very much. We'll move
[35:15] on to the, um.
[35:27] Let's sound your hearing is me logging back into Eastcrime
[35:30] for some reason. Um, who was first up. There.
[35:40] Lewis, uh, your first up because I'm having a challenge
[35:42] getting back in. So go ahead and, uh, start your
[35:45] deputation. If you can. Allow me to. Start a video.
[36:00] We'll bring you down into the. Main form. Can you
[36:07] turn on your camera? Disabled by the host? Okay. Can
[36:10] you turn on your camera? There you go. I'm trying.
[36:16] Okay. Good. If you just wait one second, cause I
[36:19] just want to make sure. You're brought down into the
[36:22] main area. There you go. Go ahead. Okay. Good afternoon,
[36:31] Mr. Mayor. Council members and staff. Thank you for the
[36:34] opportunity to address you today. My name is Risa Oliveira.
[36:37] I'm the president of Ai Link. Willow progressing association. Also
[36:41] known as ORA. Or as support secretion of complete communities,
[36:46] we have been closely monitoring the LAN staff east and
[36:49] bridge transit oriented community URAM planning. Because as currently proposed,
[36:54] it would create an ultra - dense commuter community of
[36:57] more than 60, 000 people. We've profound impacts on surrounding
[37:01] neighbourhoods. When this time and appreciate the work that has
[37:06] been done in the draft MCO, but the liningstap is
[37:11] with bridge TOC already ultra high density, low employment levels
[37:16] are limited services. We'll just access that creation of poorly
[37:20] planned community. To illustrate the practical impacts, consider a typical
[37:25] feature family, living near the centre of LA stuff is.
[37:30] Such as block five. Their daily experience will depend not
[37:35] only on the number of genuine approof, but on whether
[37:38] adequate transit school childcare parks health care retail and community
[37:42] facilities are delivered. First point is they have breakfast. And
[37:49] they have to walk to the higher order transit. The
[37:54] subway. So it's not working distance. It's 20 minutes. The
[37:59] closest to a subway high tech savour station is 1000
[38:04] metres. You are in cedar avenue. The farthest is 2,
[38:09] 200 metres. So on lock 5, the average is 1600
[38:16] metres. 20 minutes. If you are closer to baby, you're
[38:20] going to be almost half an hour. So it's a
[38:24] long distance to walk every day. Uh, if you go
[38:28] to, uh, the bus rabbit transit on highway 7, it
[38:32] will take approximately 1200 metres. So it's a 15 minute
[38:37] walk crossing the bridge on highway 7 is not for
[38:40] the faint of heart, probably why they're protected sides will
[38:43] be needed there. But that's your region. And is they
[38:47] going to take the go, then it's in walking distance,
[38:55] 700 to 1000 metres. But unfortunately, there is only rush
[39:00] hour service on that line. And there is no plans
[39:02] to increment the capacity. Actually, that will be a problem
[39:07] for the rest of the communities that live around. Uh,
[39:11] when you look at the mitigations, uh, setting shuttle passes,
[39:16] using active transportation approaches are far from enough to address
[39:20] probably between 5, 000 to 10, 000 Russia or commuters.
[39:25] Uh, I did a calculation with so many buses. But
[39:29] at the end, a small resident of the high density
[39:32] downtown Toronto had found. Transit takes the same time as
[39:36] walking. Sometimes more for short distances. We have been services
[39:45] doubled the population density with cell correspondent services increases. This
[39:49] will create a poor quality of life and overflow nearby
[39:52] and nearby communities. There is only a three percent increase.
[40:01] On park space. I'm talking about from the original Lancet
[40:06] plan. So the day - to - day needs grocery
[40:10] shopping, doctor office. Drugstores, uh, wilderness efficient, not a complete
[40:16] community clearing. Consider they care and schools. They care will
[40:21] be as sparse at best. It is already an issue
[40:25] everywhere. Currently there are six elementary schools and one high
[40:30] schools in war one with 44, 000 mature population. Let's
[40:35] assume two additional limiter schools will be enough. For that
[40:39] level. But there is no secondary school last and east,
[40:43] 20, 000 population increase. Uh, not sure how that has
[40:48] been considered. If we fast forward 10 years, so we
[40:54] are now in 2036. They are impacts on the neighbouring
[41:00] communities. We're one, existing mature neighbourhoods has been redeveloped. I'm
[41:05] talking about old classes, thousands of units and people have
[41:08] been added to the current population. And we are not
[41:12] including young north subway stations, nothing of that. Just what
[41:19] is happening in the existing communities. Uh, one of the
[41:23] things that we are much concerned is that facing has
[41:27] not been addressed. But one of the points that was
[41:31] supposed to be addressed by, uh, and this console, then
[41:35] they're in the report of staff. When you look at
[41:38] phase one, this will come around 15, 000 new residents.
[41:43] We're talking combined land statists and bridge DOC. Maybe some
[41:48] amenities like parts will be available, but facilities as a
[41:51] community centres and schools will only arrive in subsequent phases.
[41:57] Possibly after another three to seven years. Residents will inevitably
[42:03] look to adjacent areas to essential services. Accessories. On the
[42:09] second school, don't become in the centre, behaviour traffic, transit.
[42:14] Lanterg, go station has added one additional train during rush
[42:18] hour. Nervig communities cannot use the service at least two
[42:22] crowded because everybody uses the train in bridge and landscapists.
[42:29] In conclusion. Government residential density only without corresponding level service
[42:34] is not sound planning. Endors in this MCO is accepting
[42:39] bridge to your C framework without the subway cost contribution
[42:43] and will limit council's ability in the future. And MCO
[42:48] risk establishing excessive development rights without sufficient obligations. Now the
[42:52] change to adjust them. It will give away Marham Urban
[42:56] Planning Control of Last of East Rural Development. Or as
[43:01] council, do not support this MCO proposal and look for
[43:05] other options to deliver a more reasonable and flexible approach
[43:09] for land statists. Thank you and unavailable for questions. Great.
[43:15] Thank you very much. Um, are there any questions of
[43:18] the deputy. Okay. Thank you. Um, we'll circle back to
[43:24] this, but I do want staff just to touch on
[43:27] a point that you're raising about distance, uh, and walking
[43:30] distance to the subway. Um, I know, so today we,
[43:34] because this had already come to development services, there's a
[43:39] report there. Um, and, uh, some discussion, uh, it dealt
[43:45] with all aspects. And so, you know, that, that some
[43:48] of these things did get discussed there in relation to
[43:53] the distance to the subway. Staff, we'll come back to
[43:56] you after all the deputations, but there is a reference
[44:00] that was actually a comment, uh, that was incorporated from
[44:04] York region on, on a, having a higher frequency of
[44:09] transit internally within the whole Lang staff area to your
[44:14] point because of the density and the people that are
[44:16] there to be able to, to utilise that. And I'll
[44:20] let staff kind of look that up. And then we
[44:22] can reference it later. I don't see any other questions.
[44:27] And Lewis, thank you very much for, uh, for your
[44:28] comments. Um, next is Renato Richardson. And if you could
[44:38] just wait, go ahead. Thank you. So good afternoon, Mr.
[44:43] Chair, Mayor Scarpetti, members of Council staff. Fellow deputants and
[44:47] fellow residents. Thank you for letting me, um, speak briefly
[44:50] on this important matter. What I am going to be
[44:53] reading today is not my words. These are from Rod
[44:55] Fitzpatrick, a fellow royal orchard community neighbour, uh, who wasn't
[45:00] able to be here today. And so she asked me
[45:02] to read this on her behalf. Um, I live in
[45:05] Sornhill, Markham, since 1998. My husband and I raised our
[45:09] family here and over the past 27 years I have
[45:12] come to deeply value the sense of balance that makes
[45:14] our community so special. The combination of neighbourhood character, accessible
[45:18] green spaces and the careful planning that has allowed families
[45:21] to thrive. Let me just break for one moment that
[45:23] every word that she writes here comes from me as
[45:26] well because I agree with everything she's writing. Today I'm
[45:30] writing to express my strong opposition to the proposed ministers
[45:33] zoning order for the Langstaff East Lands. I write with
[45:36] disbelief and concern that our community is even in this
[45:38] position, having to oppose a proposal so out of step
[45:42] with thoughtful planning and balance. I want to be very
[45:45] clear, this is not about saying no to growth. It's
[45:47] about saying yes to the right kind of growth. This
[45:51] proposal seeks to double the density approved by the secondary
[45:53] plan and to increase maximum building heights. Combined with the
[45:57] already approved enhanced MZOs for Langstaff West. This would bring
[46:01] nearly 100, 000 new residents into a relatively small pocket
[46:04] of Markham. That figure is staggering. And frankly, deeply concerning.
[46:09] Too often when residents raise legitimate concerns about scale infrastructure
[46:13] or livability, we're dismissed as NIMBYs. But our message is
[46:16] not in my backyard. It's not with a balanced planning
[46:20] and accountability. While I fully support thoughtful urban intensification and
[46:24] the need for housing, this proposal represents over intensification without
[46:28] proper infrastructure consultation or long - term sustainability. I support
[46:32] new housing. I support mixed use. Walkable neighbourhood. I support
[46:36] welcoming new residents and building a vibrant future. But development
[46:39] must respect the existing community. Our infrastructure capacity and the
[46:43] environment. Density without infrastructure is not good planning. It is
[46:47] simply overbuilding. When density is pushed too high, too fast
[46:51] without adequate transit, schools, parks and services. It doesn't create
[46:54] livable communities. It creates pressure points, congestion, stress, and a
[46:58] lot, a lot, sorry, of connection. That's not smart growth.
[47:02] That's simply just growth on paper. At present, our community
[47:05] lacks the transit capacity. Schools, medical facilities, parks, and road
[47:09] network to responsibly absorb such an enormous increase in population.
[47:13] Baby Avenue and Highway 7 and Young Street are already
[47:16] congested. Local schools are at capacity and access to healthcare
[47:20] is increasingly strained. Adding tens of thousands more residents without
[47:23] a clearly defined infrastructure plan would significantly erode quality of
[47:28] life for existing and future residents alike. Moreover, the lack
[47:31] of proper community consultation is deeply disappointing. MZO bypass the
[47:36] normal planning process and silence the voices of the very
[47:38] people who live here. Local residents, community associations, and even
[47:42] council itself are left reacting to decisions made elsewhere. Rather
[47:46] than participating in meaningful dialogue about our city's future, many
[47:50] in our community have begun to lose hope. They feel
[47:53] that their voices, their deputations, and even their years of
[47:55] civic engagement no longer make a difference. But democracy only
[47:59] weakens when citizens fall silent. Even when the final decision
[48:03] rests elsewhere, it is vital that council and residents together
[48:06] continue to speak up for responsible, sustainable planning. Silence would
[48:10] only signal acceptance of a process that disregard local input.
[48:14] Good planning is collaborative. It takes into account infrastructure, environment
[48:17] livability and community character. It ensures that growth enhances not
[48:21] overwhelms what is already in place. The proposed MZO for
[48:25] Langsta fails that test on every count. I respectively urge
[48:30] counsel to withhold its endorsement of this request. Markham must
[48:34] stand firm and advocating for responsible, sustainable developments, a kind
[48:38] that provides adequate transit, schools, park, and services before the
[48:42] concrete is poured. This isn't NIMBIASM. It's community stewardship. It's
[48:46] caring about the long - term livability of markham and
[48:49] ensuring that future generations inherit neighbourhoods at work, not just
[48:53] buildings that sit a quota. Markham deserves a future built
[48:56] on thoughtful design, not ministerial shortcuts. I ask counsel to
[49:00] send a clear message that we value balance. Visibility, and
[49:05] long - term vision over numbers and expediency. Thank you
[49:07] for your attention and for your continued service to our
[49:10] community. Thank you very much, Renata. And I don't know
[49:18] if there's any questions to the deputy for members of
[49:22] Council. And I'll just say thank you for your comments.
[49:27] Um, a little different in terms of the process with
[49:31] this MZO. I'll just say that, yes, it is being
[49:36] facilitated under an MZO process. Um, don't remember the date
[49:41] again, maybe staff on a circle back to you. We
[49:44] did have a public meeting in relation to this. And,
[49:49] uh, I know there were subsequent meetings. So, um, I'll
[49:53] say, uh, this one. And I appreciate all the comments
[49:56] you made. But on the public process side, it wasn't,
[50:01] um, I'll say a unilateral action. Like some other MZOs
[50:07] where we, you know, kind of get handed the decision.
[50:10] We may make some comments, but I'll say in this,
[50:13] this one, uh, and I hope it's evident today, even
[50:16] with the improvements that we made on the delivery of
[50:19] infrastructure, that it was something that, that we, uh, participated
[50:24] in. And I think the parks, and I'll get staff
[50:28] to comment on that, uh, we're getting, uh, I'd much,
[50:32] I'd like a bigger park, but I can tell you
[50:34] that we are getting a larger park than what provincial
[50:39] legislation actually limits us to. So I do appreciate all
[50:45] of those comments. I just want to let you know
[50:47] that the park, the school site may be, might be
[50:51] inside baseball, but even the district energy system, all of
[50:55] those things are things that we've entrenched in this, uh,
[50:58] in this process, unlike some other things where we didn't
[51:02] have the ability to entrench some of these things, uh,
[51:05] so I just wanted to make the slight distinction with
[51:08] this one. I agree with a lot of the comments
[51:11] that you've made, uh, but I think the other one
[51:14] that I want to highlight is that this applicant wall
[51:17] did go through an MZO process, uh, we have at
[51:20] least been able to, uh, jointly insert what we consider
[51:25] benefits not only for the future community, but hopefully you
[51:29] see today for some of the existing community as well.
[51:33] And so may not be much of a difference for
[51:35] you. And I appreciate that. But it is different from,
[51:39] uh, at least some of the other MZO decisions. Okay.
[51:44] With that, um, we'll move to. Dwight Richardson.
[52:00] Can you. Hear me okay. Yes. Yes. Excuse. Me. Um.
[52:08] Good afternoon, Mr. Chair, members of Council, staff, fellow deputants
[52:13] and fellow residents. Thank you for allowing me to again,
[52:17] speak briefly to this important matter. My name is Dwight
[52:20] Richardson. I am here representing the Royal Orchard Residence Association.
[52:26] We don't support this memorandum. Simply put this endorsement, the
[52:31] little supportive design process. Which is the spawn of the
[52:33] horrific development planned on the Western part of Langstaff. Further,
[52:39] we would view the acceptance of this memorandum by the
[52:42] city. As a total capitulation by the city in this
[52:46] matter. We want the California plan back. We reject the
[52:51] foundational principle used by MZOs. The freedom is a privilege
[52:55] to be respected only if it's convenience. We expect the
[53:00] provincial government to be held to account. And this instance,
[53:03] government central plan in hubris. Made the public round private.
[53:09] Secret unseen. Government has granted itself. Power and authority to
[53:14] do things. Would you undertaken by private citizens? Would be
[53:18] illegal, if not criminal. The government has often stated that
[53:23] humans are innately self - interested and that progressive impossible
[53:28] unless government intervenes. But it's a natural tendencies of citizens
[53:32] are so bad. That it is not safe to permit
[53:35] people to freely and fully participate in deciding what is
[53:39] best for their communities. How was it the tendencies of
[53:42] government or any better. Do not the legislatures and their
[53:46] appointed agenda agents also belong to the human race. Or
[53:51] do they believe that they themselves are made or made
[53:54] a finer incorruptible clay. They are not so made. And
[54:00] their silence here speaks of volumes as the quality of
[54:04] their character. A local example, the Council may be familiar
[54:08] with. In the 2024 annual report by the Artist or
[54:13] General for Ontario reviewed Ontario rigs 17221 with a city
[54:19] of Markham requested an MZO that included several conditions. The
[54:23] CD wanted the proponent to complete all studies that are
[54:26] normally required before a zoning decision are made. The audit
[54:32] found at the end zone was made without any studies
[54:35] having been completed. An absent any conditions being met. In
[54:40] that report, the auditor general found that generally the ministry
[54:43] did not consistently assess whether rezoning by Amazon O, as
[54:48] opposed to the municipal planning process was needed. For the
[54:53] vast majority of EMSOTO requests, the ministry did not provide
[54:57] zoning alternatives or any recommendations on whether to make the
[55:01] MZO or not. Based on its experience in land use
[55:06] planning. The other found that on occasions when the ministry
[55:11] did make recommendations such as two assets risks or perform
[55:16] risk mitigation, the minister's office did not accept them. It
[55:22] should further be noted that the auditor general is currently
[55:25] conducting an audit on subway route and station selection, whereby
[55:30] plans to examine metro Lynx's processes and procedures. For selecting
[55:35] subway stations with a focus on the Ontario line and
[55:38] the young North subway extension. God are the days when
[55:45] a leader in seeking to establish a common ground with
[55:47] an adversary would reach out. And appeal to the best
[55:51] elements of our character, not the worst. As it was
[55:57] written in June of 1963. For the final analysis, our
[56:02] most common link is, do we all inhabit the small
[56:05] planet? We all breed the same air. We all cherish
[56:10] our children's future. And we are all mortal. With no
[56:15] attempt by this government to establish a common ground, why
[56:18] would council think any negotiation would be positive for the
[56:23] citizens of Markham. We have said it before and we
[56:28] will say it again. This entire development on Langstaff from
[56:32] Young Street to bathe you avenue has gone from the
[56:35] brilliant collaborative result of a Califorp secondary plan and the
[56:41] Langstaff master plan project to an unmitigated disaster. Camouflaged by
[56:47] the promise of a subway and to say and two
[56:50] subway stations. To those on council who either won't or
[56:55] reluctant to support us in this matter, we simply say,
[57:00] if not now, when. Thank you. Thank you very much,
[57:07] Dwight. Any questions of the deput. Not seeing any. Thank
[57:14] you very much for your deputation. Um, next is Evelyn
[57:19] Ellison.
[57:30] Sorry, good afternoon. Ladies and gentlemen. I am Evelyn Ellison.
[57:36] I'm the president of the World One South on Hill
[57:39] Residents. We have just south of the Roy Orchard. And
[57:45] we are neighbours to the alien Willowbrook. We fully support
[57:51] the deputations from Louisa Oliveira from Aura. Renat Richardson and
[57:58] weight region. So I don't think we need to repeat.
[58:02] What they already said that we were going to speak
[58:04] so. There is no need to be fully support what
[58:07] they say. Just a clarification. The seventh of June 3rd
[58:12] Community Engagement Meeting. It was for the land owners. Only.
[58:17] We were not invited to that meeting. So I think
[58:21] we have to clarify. It was not public meeting with
[58:26] arrestments. There are things we like that there is a
[58:31] Markham energistric system. But I think Marco is losing a
[58:36] very big opportunity to do something more than to do
[58:39] something new. What about the garbage? How can we do
[58:43] something different with a garbage. Five station. You know, I
[58:48] can see the office in the screen. What about the
[58:54] price station? Are they going to have a fire station?
[58:57] I'm going to have an ambulance for so many people.
[58:59] So we oppose this MSI dot. We think that city
[59:02] of Marcom should stand up. For the residents. And I'm
[59:08] glad there was negotiations with the land owners. But I
[59:12] think we have to really review this MZOT, the way
[59:16] that's done. We can do a lot better to do
[59:19] really something more than something new. Yes. Something that will
[59:24] be environmentally friend would be sustainable. Would be really something
[59:28] to show the word. Look what we can do. And
[59:31] reduce the density. Because the density on the west side
[59:35] is over the board. And the density on the east
[59:39] is out. So it's too many people in a very
[59:41] short space. Thank you so much. And I thank you
[59:44] for my colleagues at the other residential for speaking so
[59:48] eloquently. Thank you. Hey, thank you. Any questions of the
[59:53] deputy. If not, if by regional council Jones, seconded by
[59:59] regional Councillor Lee that we receive, uh, is there anyone
[1:00:05] else wishing to speak to this item. So all those
[1:00:13] in favor of that motion then to receive the deputations
[1:00:16] opposed that is carried. And if I could just get
[1:00:20] staff to comment on the two or three of those
[1:00:23] issues, uh, one, um, related to the, I'll say enhanced
[1:00:32] transit services, I think in the past, we may have
[1:00:34] even referred to it as people movers, but, you know,
[1:00:37] whatever the technology will be, certainly, transit will be enhanced
[1:00:41] within the length staff area providing that connection, uh, between
[1:00:47] the two sides and also to the other, uh, high
[1:00:52] order transit beam, the goal, the subway. And the rapid
[1:00:56] transit bus wrapper transit line. And then the, uh, issue
[1:01:01] of the park and how much, uh, it's enhanced over
[1:01:05] the provincial legislation, which were limited in terms of how
[1:01:09] much park we can get. And maybe also speak to
[1:01:13] a bit of the public process because I don't have
[1:01:16] the dates. We've been at this for two years. So
[1:01:19] I think two years has it been longer. Thank you,
[1:01:24] Mr. Chair. Just about two years now. Okay. I thought
[1:01:26] it was two years. So, I mean, the opportunity for,
[1:01:31] I appreciate maybe this last meeting. Yes, it was with
[1:01:34] the landowners in the area because it's the landowner's group
[1:01:38] that will ultimately be responsible for the infrastructure. And so
[1:01:43] the meeting was held with them to go over what
[1:01:46] the city was asking for and to have their, their
[1:01:50] buy - in, which they, uh, agreed to all of
[1:01:52] these enhancements. So do you want to deal with the
[1:01:56] transit? What will the condition is within this plan going
[1:02:01] down the road in relation to providing that connectivity within
[1:02:05] the length staff community itself? So through you, Mr. Mayor,
[1:02:09] to the deputant's comments with respect to the walkability as
[1:02:12] well as the first and last mile solutions to the
[1:02:15] transit station, uh, just reaffirm your comments. Yes. Why are
[1:02:22] your region transit is looking at improved transit frequency and
[1:02:27] transit service in this area to support the movement of,
[1:02:31] uh, commuters or people to the transit station or east
[1:02:35] and west. Also there is going to be a proposed
[1:02:39] active transportation network as well as more robust TDM measures
[1:02:45] that will be part of development proposals that will address
[1:02:48] first and last mile solutions and promote that those kind
[1:02:50] of connections. As well as with each, uh, development phase
[1:02:55] will be looking at considering more direct connections to the
[1:02:59] bridge stations through the developments. So it will not be
[1:03:02] just along the roadways, but also through the developments themselves
[1:03:06] and pathways that we could look at or underground systems,
[1:03:10] whatever the case may be to help move up people
[1:03:13] more efficiently and effectively to the transit stations. And through
[1:03:23] you, Mr. Chair. Just talk a little bit about the
[1:03:25] process. So appreciating that this is, uh, bit of an
[1:03:30] unusual way to put zoning in place through an MZO
[1:03:34] and through, uh, what is an MZO that's been initiated
[1:03:37] by an applicant with the participation of the city in
[1:03:40] developing it. But the process was not substantially different from
[1:03:46] that of what a zoning biome would be. On June
[1:03:49] 25th, there was. A. So what I would say Mr.
[1:03:56] Mayor is I was saying is that I don't think
[1:03:58] this, uh, process was substantially different than what it would
[1:04:00] have been had it been a privately initiated zoning bill
[1:04:04] amendment. On June 25th, we had a statutory public, well,
[1:04:08] not a statutory public meeting, but a public meeting, uh,
[1:04:11] through development services committee. We then undertook, and I think
[1:04:15] this is where, you know, in many ways, but we
[1:04:18] went above and beyond what would have been a standard
[1:04:21] ZBA. But considering the scope of it, I think it
[1:04:23] was warranted and appropriate. We had a facilitated discussions through
[1:04:28] a third party facilitation expert on June 26. And July
[1:04:33] 26. There was a third one and a correctly noted
[1:04:37] for the landowners only because it was just discussing the
[1:04:40] transportation improvements in the stagecating, uh, and it was really
[1:04:43] for their benefit so that they would understand what they
[1:04:46] were sort of getting into at that point, uh, which
[1:04:48] did, uh, leave with a consensus on that group. So,
[1:04:53] uh, there were many opportunities to engage in the process.
[1:04:57] Um, we took the comments we heard seriously. I think
[1:05:00] when we're talking about net benefits to the city. And
[1:05:05] why the city chose to take this approach is, were
[1:05:09] we, to simply wait for development applications to come in
[1:05:14] this area, the densities may have been higher. They may
[1:05:18] have been more close to what had been, uh, approved
[1:05:21] on the, uh, other side of cedar. And certainly I
[1:05:24] don't believe we would have got the same level of
[1:05:26] parkland. So the park land we were getting here, um,
[1:05:30] is about 2. 95 hectares. And although it's difficult to
[1:05:33] do an apples to apples comparison, um, under the Plani
[1:05:38] Act, we'd probably only get between one max two, depending
[1:05:41] on how the applications came in. So we're doing quite
[1:05:44] a bit better on the overall parkland. And more importantly,
[1:05:47] we're getting it as a continuous block. In the vision
[1:05:51] of the California plan as opposed to a site -
[1:05:54] by - site, you know, perhaps a string of confetti
[1:05:58] parks or something along those lines as development applications came
[1:06:01] in. On top of that, we are also getting the
[1:06:03] wood lot, which appreciating can't be programmed as like a
[1:06:07] playing field or something like that, but has positive recreational
[1:06:10] value. And that's an additional, um, I believe two, let
[1:06:17] me see here. In additional 1. 76
[1:06:26] hectares of woodlot as well as part of the overall
[1:06:30] development. So, you know, we've circulated this MZO as we
[1:06:36] would any other development application. School boards have commented. We've
[1:06:40] located new school sites. We will have a new community
[1:06:43] centre. The amenities will be there. The transplantation infrastructure will
[1:06:47] be there to support this new development. And I don't
[1:06:49] think we can ignore the approvals as much as we
[1:06:53] might like to ignore them. And I don't think that
[1:06:55] the plan that, frankly, was approved. Uh, West of Cedar
[1:06:59] was a good one. Um, but that's a reality on
[1:07:02] the ground now. And it's a reality on the ground
[1:07:04] that would be leveraged at any tribunal hearing as part
[1:07:06] of an individual application. In this instance, the city has
[1:07:10] the opportunity to secure important benefits while ensuring its vision.
[1:07:15] Is implemented, notwithstanding that it is a vision that is
[1:07:18] different. It is more density. No one disputes that. But
[1:07:21] we've taken the, I think, the appropriate steps and efforts
[1:07:24] to ensure that the infrastructures and amenities will be there
[1:07:26] to support it. Thank you for reiterating the process and
[1:07:34] also highlighting both the elements on the park and the,
[1:07:38] uh, internal circulation of enhanced transit down the road. Okay.
[1:07:45] With that, uh, Councillor Irish. Thank you, uh, Mr. Mayor.
[1:07:53] So we're on to 6. 1 now? Yes. Formerly. Okay.
[1:07:57] Um, I'd like to begin by reminding Council that we
[1:08:01] last discussed this on October 14th, 2025. That was exactly
[1:08:07] nine months ago. I'll also remind you that at that
[1:08:11] meeting there were only nine of us. Present when it
[1:08:15] came to a vote. Which is rather unusual. And I'll
[1:08:20] remind you about that vote. It was lost. That is.
[1:08:27] Supported. By five. And opposed by four. We lost by
[1:08:36] one vote to defeat this. Deputy Mayor Chen was absent.
[1:08:41] As was regional councillor Lee and councillors Keys and Lee.
[1:08:46] So this council has not yet decided despite the positioning
[1:08:50] earlier today by so many that we've heard from minus
[1:08:54] the deputance, that this was passed at DSC as if
[1:08:59] it's in a fatal comp ple then for council. I'll
[1:09:03] admit, a win is a win. If I had been
[1:09:06] on the winning side of that and we had prevailed
[1:09:08] five four, then I'd be quite happy. So I'm hoping
[1:09:12] that today with all that's been talked about and discussed
[1:09:17] in the deputations that Council will make an informed decision.
[1:09:22] Because rest assured that decision is with us today. Whether
[1:09:27] or not to endorse Kyle Moore's request for an MZO.
[1:09:33] Now I appreciate that the memorandum before us strengthens the
[1:09:36] city's position. Particularly with respect to transportation infrastructure and the
[1:09:42] phasing of development. Those are meaningful improvements. And I want
[1:09:46] to acknowledge the work that staff have undertaken in negotiating
[1:09:49] those additional conditions. However, that does not answer. The broader
[1:09:54] question before council. Should we endorse this MZO. It is
[1:10:01] worth remembering how we arrived here. In 2010, after extensive
[1:10:06] consultation with residents landowners and stakeholders, council at the time
[1:10:11] adopted the Langstaff gateway secondary plan. It represented years of
[1:10:16] careful planning and established a comprehensive vision for the entire
[1:10:21] community. That vision changed dramatically in 2022. When the province
[1:10:27] issued enhanced minister zoning orders for the lands west of
[1:10:30] the railway corridor. Council opposed that approach because it bypassed
[1:10:36] the city's planning process. And imposed a plan that will
[1:10:40] not achieve the balanced, complete community originally envisioned. Today we're
[1:10:46] being asked to endorse a minister zoning order. This time
[1:10:50] for the eastern portion of the Langstaff Gateway. Among other
[1:10:54] things, this proposal would nearly double. Double. The residential density
[1:11:00] contemplated in that secondary plan. Increasing it from a proximately
[1:11:04] 10, 000 residents to almost 20, 000. While also increasing
[1:11:09] maximum building heights. I understand the argument that similar densities
[1:11:14] have already been imposed by the province west of the
[1:11:17] rail corridor. I do not believe that is by itself.
[1:11:22] A planning justification. Arguing that the E should receive the
[1:11:27] same treatment simply because the West did, or we're getting
[1:11:30] marginally more in Parkland. Especially by overriding the city secondary
[1:11:35] plan does not make for good planning. Two wrongs do
[1:11:39] not make a right. And before I move on to
[1:11:42] the memo, I'll leave you with this final anecdote. In
[1:11:47] May 2023, I attended the Federation of Canadian municipalities conference
[1:11:53] in Toronto. One of the studied tours I participated in
[1:11:57] was led by a senior planner with the city of
[1:12:00] Toronto. And as the tour got underway, he asked us
[1:12:03] who we were and where we were from. When I
[1:12:07] told him is immediate reply referring specifically to Langstaff. I
[1:12:10] didn't tell him. That Langstaff was in my ward. He
[1:12:13] knew. I'd like to offer you, sir, my condolences. And
[1:12:18] that was before this proposed MZO. I wonder what he'd
[1:12:24] be saying today. So I also have another concern that
[1:12:28] I believe counsel should consider before making a final decision.
[1:12:33] The revised MZO now contains a condition with respect to
[1:12:36] district heating and cooling. And as chair of Markham District
[1:12:40] Energy, I have concerns about the legal and commercial implications
[1:12:44] of that language in the MZO. So before proceeding any
[1:12:49] further, I believe Council should satisfy itself that it does
[1:12:52] not inadvertently constrain the city's future interest or negotiating position.
[1:12:58] And specifically MDE's commercial interests in the future. And I
[1:13:03] believe those Mr. Chair, Mr. Mayor, our grounds for us
[1:13:07] to move into private sessions so we can discuss my
[1:13:09] concerns. Thank you. Okay. I'll deal with that. Um, in
[1:13:16] a minute. Um, any other speakers. So a couple of
[1:13:26] things I don't want a perception left with anybody. Um,
[1:13:30] it wouldn't matter what the vote was at development services
[1:13:34] in terms of the number of members of council. We
[1:13:37] could have had a full roster of members of council.
[1:13:41] And whatever the vote would have been, uh, that is
[1:13:44] always a recommendation to counsel. And the final vote always
[1:13:49] comes to counsel. So I don't want a perception here
[1:13:53] that somehow the decision at development services was somehow an
[1:13:57] anomaly. And we're treating the process any differently. Had we
[1:14:01] had a full roster and even it had been a
[1:14:04] close vote, even with the full roster. The final decision
[1:14:08] gets made here at, um, at the city of Markham
[1:14:12] at the Council meeting. And I just want to say,
[1:14:17] and I think you know this already, um, as much
[1:14:20] as I supported the plan that day, recognising that it
[1:14:25] was just a recommendation to counsel. It was in fact,
[1:14:30] um, not a final vote. Um, I undertook to personally
[1:14:36] meet on several occasions with the applicant to ensure that
[1:14:40] these enhancements were incorporated in the plan. And, um, yeah,
[1:14:46] it was a few months ago because they were not
[1:14:48] easy negotiations. Uh, but I felt very, very, uh, strongly
[1:14:55] that these enhancement had to be in. And I, and
[1:14:59] I also want to, cause I think, you know, and
[1:15:01] we all kind of, the English language, um, dilemmas. I
[1:15:07] want to make it very clear that as I think
[1:15:10] the applicants representative did this change in density, uh, does
[1:15:17] not match the other side of LAN staff by a
[1:15:21] country mile. And not that we would, but I'm just
[1:15:25] saying though that it doesn't. And, uh, I think to
[1:15:31] use the notion, the other side got something. So we
[1:15:36] need to get something ignores a really big, fundamental change
[1:15:41] in the plan. And that was that the young subway
[1:15:45] got shifted to the middle of Langstaff, not at the
[1:15:49] edge of Langstaff on Young Street. Now, I don't think
[1:15:54] you have to be a rocket scientist, but you know,
[1:15:57] when you have that kind of infrastructure, that's brought closer
[1:16:01] to an area. Other planning considerations have to be taken
[1:16:06] into consideration because of the proximity of a major, massive,
[1:16:12] uh, rapid transit project. So yeah, when we started off
[1:16:16] length stuff, how many years is it now? Uh, you
[1:16:20] know, young subway was 2008. And here we are 2026.
[1:16:27] The young subway was going along the young street corridor
[1:16:31] at the, uh, western parameter of Langstaff. Subway got brought
[1:16:38] in to the middle. Uh, I wish we had been
[1:16:42] in charge of rethinking how we distributed the density. But
[1:16:49] naturally you would say, wait a minute, we had in
[1:16:51] our original plan more of the density on the west
[1:16:54] side of Langstaff because that's where the subway was. Had
[1:16:59] we been given the opportunity with the shift of the
[1:17:02] young subway now coming up through the middle of that
[1:17:05] plan. I think naturally we would have rethought, how do
[1:17:09] we redistribute at a minimum? How do we redistribute this
[1:17:13] density? But certainly, how do we change the plan now
[1:17:17] that you've got this, uh, mass transit project coming right
[1:17:22] through the middle of that community. And, um, and I
[1:17:27] agree that the, the Caltor plan was, was a good
[1:17:30] plan. And while the density, admittedly, has increased significantly with
[1:17:36] what's in front of us, uh, two things. I think
[1:17:39] this applicant chose to engage with us and work with
[1:17:45] us. But quite honestly, as we all know, they could
[1:17:49] just have easily gone down to Bay Street, walked into
[1:17:52] the minister's office down there. And probably got a similar
[1:17:56] approach to what the owners did west of the subway.
[1:18:01] And actually, you know, probably had some merit to do
[1:18:04] that again, because the subway shifted from Yong Street to
[1:18:07] the middle of the plan. They chose to at least
[1:18:12] be engaged with us. And I really did appreciate the
[1:18:16] comment that it's a good plan. And I think that's
[1:18:19] what's key to me is that the fundamentals of this
[1:18:22] plan are intact. You know, the parks didn't disappear. Uh,
[1:18:27] the school sites didn't disappear. It's not a struggle to
[1:18:31] negotiate, uh, getting a community centre. Like these things are
[1:18:35] incorporated in the plan. And I'll say the spine has
[1:18:40] relatively, uh, remained unchanged. And I think that's a very
[1:18:44] important factor for all of us to consider. And also
[1:18:50] this latest, uh, recommendations with the improvements on the transportation
[1:18:56] is again, not only important to the future of the
[1:19:00] lying staff development, but it's also important to the existing
[1:19:04] community, uh, because once that subway is open, long before
[1:19:08] anybody moves into the first unit, uh, in length stuff
[1:19:12] east, I think things are going to change quite dramatically
[1:19:15] in terms of some of the transportation, uh, corridors and
[1:19:19] how people will move around in the community. So I'll
[1:19:24] leave it at that in terms of clarification of process,
[1:19:27] uh, the final vote is always taken here, no matter
[1:19:30] how many P, you know, we have quorum. We have
[1:19:33] a meeting. If it's, uh, quorum or a full roster
[1:19:37] close vote, not close vote could be a majority one
[1:19:40] way or the other. The fact is that these things
[1:19:43] are always determined at the, at the council meeting. And
[1:19:47] all I can say is that, um, I am glad
[1:19:52] that we've taken. I wish it was not a nine
[1:19:55] months, but I'm glad we've taken the time to improve
[1:19:58] this plan and improve the delivery of infrastructure. And again,
[1:20:03] I want to reiterate the spine, the very foundational aspects
[1:20:08] of the, of the Kelthort plan have remained intact. And
[1:20:13] that's a pretty positive thing. Uh, whether we like it
[1:20:17] or not, that's the environment we in, but we're in.
[1:20:20] But that's a pretty positive thing. If you can go
[1:20:22] through an MZO and get many of the things that
[1:20:25] the municipality wanted to get right from the get -
[1:20:28] go. So I don't know if the other comments at
[1:20:31] this point. I think Councillor Irish has raised an issue
[1:20:34] that, um, if I understand it correctly, we probably should
[1:20:37] go, uh, in camera, uh, as it relates to wording
[1:20:44] and not diminishing our opportunity to fully implement district energy.
[1:20:53] And is that your concern that this wording may not
[1:20:55] allow us to do that. Okay. So I think just
[1:21:01] given where we are, I think we'll do this now,
[1:21:04] uh, because we have a lot more on the agenda.
[1:21:07] And I think it's better to get this, uh, dealt
[1:21:10] with and us come back into public session after we
[1:21:13] get a chance to do that. So, uh, Council Irish,
[1:21:16] can you move that we resolve in a private session
[1:21:19] moved by you? Second and by Councillor Patel. All those
[1:21:23] in favor of polls that is carried. So members of
[1:21:26] the public, I don't know how long we're going to
[1:21:28] be. Uh, I think we understand an issue, but we're
[1:21:32] not an understanding necessarily. The crux of that issue and
[1:21:36] depending on what answers we get, uh, tough to say
[1:21:39] how long we'll be, but we'll, we'll, if you wait
[1:21:41] outside, we'll call everybody in when we're, uh, when we're
[1:21:44] finished with that. Please take all of your materials with
[1:21:49] you.
[1:22:48] Mayor Scrippiti, we're now streaming. So. We'll go back to
[1:22:55] 6. 1 the memorandum, and this deals with the east
[1:23:00] - lang staff. Again, members of committee, council, rather. You've
[1:23:05] been advised of the improvements. I think just for the
[1:23:09] sake of clarity as well. If you want to just
[1:23:12] put up that clause. The slight amendment to the condition
[1:23:18] on district energy. Whoever, yeah, whoever's got the magic button.
[1:24:01] So just for the purpose of this clause related to
[1:24:06] district energy, we are inserting, we're at the second line
[1:24:12] where it says for clarity, any space. We're adding the
[1:24:15] words and land. Required. Because, you know, and we understand
[1:24:22] this is the whole area of Langstaff is an intensification
[1:24:26] area. And obviously try to accommodate infrastructure so it doesn't
[1:24:32] stand out. It still has to function, and there may
[1:24:35] be circumstances where it may be space and part of
[1:24:38] it sticking out. And so just to give some flexibility,
[1:24:42] we're not looking for sites, big sites to accommodate it,
[1:24:47] but understanding that once we get down to final design,
[1:24:50] it could be partially in a building partially out, whatever
[1:24:53] the case may be. But so we didn't want to
[1:24:58] show that land and space are there. And then we're
[1:25:01] just eliminating. It's an obvious statement, but we're just eliminating
[1:25:05] the last clause. The district heating and cooling supplier operator
[1:25:10] shall be responsible for supplying, installing an ongoing maintenance of
[1:25:15] equipment. And I, without getting, because it wasn't in -
[1:25:19] camera discussion, really relates to any business model that may
[1:25:23] exist in the future. So that's why that lay, it's
[1:25:27] being deleted. Okay? So that's on that. And then we
[1:25:34] have the memorandum, which is that the July 14th, and
[1:25:39] a random titled Revised Conditions to the request for the
[1:25:43] city to support a minister zoning order in Langstaff East
[1:25:48] Langstaff, Holmes Limited. The applicant and the file number be
[1:25:52] received. The Council Ford its endorsement of the revised draft
[1:25:56] minister zoning order attachment, independent X to the minister and
[1:26:01] the ministry of municipal affairs and housing. And further that
[1:26:04] staff be authorized and directed to do all things necessary
[1:26:08] to give effect to this resolution. I'm going to ask
[1:26:12] regional councillor Jones to move it, and Regional Councillor Lee
[1:26:17] to suck in it. As vice chair of development services.
[1:26:25] So all those in favor then of that resolution. And
[1:26:28] if you could, I just want to, I need to
[1:26:30] count here. So 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7.
[1:26:39] Opposed. 1, 2, 3.
[1:26:51] Just hold them up so regional councillor Jones can see
[1:26:53] them. He doesn't believe I can count. So 1, 2,
[1:26:57] 3, okay? So that motion is carried. Appreciate the community's
[1:27:05] comments today. Um, and, um, I think a lot of
[1:27:10] what we've tried to do is, uh, sort of the
[1:27:13] reality of the context of getting approvals and potentially MZOs.
[1:27:20] And I think that we tried to undertake a process
[1:27:22] here where at least we were, uh, working with the
[1:27:26] applicant. It's not perfect. Um, but I think it's a
[1:27:30] whole lot better had we not undertaken the process that,
[1:27:34] uh, we've been, uh, doing for the last two years.
[1:27:37] So appreciate thanks to the applicant for working with us.
[1:27:42] Telgotions, thanks to the other landowners and an appreciation, it's
[1:27:47] been a journey since that January 25th public meeting. And
[1:27:52] of course, to all of this staff involved and engaged
[1:27:55] to get all of the conditions incorporated, it's been very,
[1:28:00] very critical. So thank you to everyone. Mr. Mayor, what
[1:28:05] was the final count for and against? Can I test
[1:28:07] the clerk. For that? We had two members of Council
[1:28:11] that are absent. Yeah. I think it was seven. What
[1:28:15] was the final seven to four. Seven to eight to
[1:28:19] three. We didn't do a recorded vote. I believe it
[1:28:23] was seven to four. That's what I thought. Okay. Thank
[1:28:27] you. Two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine, 10,
[1:28:35] 11. Sorry. It probably. I apologise. It might have been
[1:28:43] eight to three actually. Cause I only saw, did you
[1:28:46] see four hands in opposition? Okay. Let's do it again.
[1:28:50] It's fine. No, we don't need a roll call. Uh,
[1:28:55] we've got that vote undertaken. And thanks to Councillor Irish
[1:28:59] for asking what the, uh, the vote was. Okay. With
[1:29:03] that, I'm going to move on to the next item.
[1:29:05] Thank you very much, everyone. Next is the liquor license
[1:29:09] application for 26 boulevard bar and lounge moved by Councillor
[1:29:15] Lee, secondary by Councillor Patel. Any questions or comments. All
[1:29:21] those in favor of polls that is carried. Sorry. You
[1:29:24] should have included this in the, um, in the motion.
[1:29:28] But could we get a motion to receive all of
[1:29:30] the communication 6. 3 for the LAN stuff east moved
[1:29:36] by Councillor Irish. Second it by Councillor Lau. All those
[1:29:41] in favor opposed that's carried. Report number 19 of Development
[1:29:46] Services moved by regional Council Jones. Second it by regional
[1:29:51] Councillor Lee. Any report to be removed or discussed. If
[1:30:00] not, all those in favor oppose that is carried motions.
[1:30:07] Notice of motions. Newer other business. Announcements. From.
[1:30:17] The forge number 20. Oh, sorry. Uh, report number 20
[1:30:24] of Development Services Committee. Moved by regional councillor Jones. Second
[1:30:29] by Regional Councillor Lee. Any questions or comments on those
[1:30:33] reports. I'll just dealt with them this morning. All those
[1:30:41] in favor oppose that is carried. Near other business. Believe
[1:30:46] Council Ray, you want to add a personnel item to,
[1:30:50] uh, the confidential agenda. Our bylaws moved by regional councillor.
[1:30:56] Second hit by Councillor McAlpine. Any of the bylaws to
[1:31:01] be removed. All those in favor oppose that is carried.
[1:31:07] I believe I need a motion to go back into
[1:31:10] private session to deal with a new item. Do we
[1:31:14] have to get two thirds to add that to the
[1:31:16] agenda. Okay. So Councillor Ray is moving that we waive,
[1:31:22] uh, procedure. And it requires to introduce a new item
[1:31:26] and requires two thirds vote, uh, moved by Councillor Colucci.
[1:31:32] All those in favor opposed that's carried. Okay. So now
[1:31:36] I need a motion to move into private session, move
[1:31:39] by Councillor McAlpine, seconded by Councillor Patel. All those in
[1:31:45] favor opposed that is carried. And I would ask, uh,
[1:31:50] our CAO and solicitor and anyone else. Our commissioners.
[1:32:02] So CAO and commissioners. Okay. Thank you very much, everyone.
[1:32:20] To report out, bylaw moved by Councillor Lee, second advocate
[1:32:28] councillor Patel, all those in favor, pose that is carried.
[1:32:34] Mayor Screpitti, we didn't report out the other items. Oh,
[1:32:38] we didn't. I just want to see if you're awake.
[1:32:47] Here we go.
[1:32:56] So we're going to deal with the other in -
[1:32:58] camera items that we dealt with. First of all, is
[1:33:01] the confidential council minutes of June 23rd, moved by Council
[1:33:06] Lee, seconded by Councillor Irish, all those in favor, opposed
[1:33:10] that is carried. Next is proposed or pending acquisition. Of
[1:33:16] land by the city or local board, moved by Councillor
[1:33:19] Lau, seconded by Regional Councillor Lee, all those in favor
[1:33:24] opposes carried. Next is Development Services Committee, 3. 2. 1.
[1:33:31] Report recommendation draft plan of subdivision, 11, sorry, 1120 Highway
[1:33:38] 48, Treasury Hill, and ELN Realty Limited at 10982
[1:33:47] 1120 and 11274 Highway 48. Moved by regional councillor
[1:33:57] Jones, second of by Councillor Colucci, all those in favor
[1:34:01] opposed that is carried.
[1:34:13] I think my page is off centre here, but next
[1:34:15] is. The applied.
[1:34:27] But we had another one, oh, is it here, Mount
[1:34:30] Joy? Yeah. So next is.
[1:34:41] That. Yeah. So next is the update for direction. On
[1:34:48] Ontario Land Tribunal Appeal. Markham Road Montjoy, secondary plan. Moved
[1:34:55] by regional Councillor Jones. Seconded by Councillor Ray. All those
[1:35:01] in favor. The polls that is carried.
[1:35:12] Yeah, it's not on here. So whatever that number is,
[1:35:15] is deals with the licensed renewal. 3. 2. Actually I
[1:35:23] can go. Okay, that'll be moved by Councillor Irish,
[1:35:33] seconded by Councillor Patel. All those in favor oppose that
[1:35:38] is carry. I can go into.
[1:35:59] This one at double check. We did the minutes. We
[1:36:04] did the conveyance. We did Highway 48. We did the
[1:36:11] license agreement, and we did the appeal. All right. The
[1:36:19] confirmatory bylaw. Was moved by Councillor Patel, seconded by Councillor
[1:36:26] McAlpine. All those in favor, a foes that is carried.
[1:36:32] Motion to adjourn, moved by Councillor Lee, Secreted by Councillor
[1:36:37] Irish. All those in favor opposed that is carried. Members
[1:36:41] of Council, thank you very much. Thanks to staff. And
[1:36:46] appreciate everyone's efforts. To get through today's agenda.