Okay. Well, good afternoon everyone. Uh we do have a quorum and we'll we'll call this official plan update committee meeting to order. The uh first item is the adoption of the agenda. You have an agenda before you. Do I have a mover for that? Thank you, Castro Leu. Councelor Ward three and any discussion there? All in favor? Any opposed? That carries. Uh we have the adoption of previous minutes. Uh minutes from October 7th, 2025, our last meeting. Yeah, missed one there. Are there any disclosures of precinerary interest in today's items? I see none. So, if I could get a motion to adopt the minutes from October 7th, 2025, our last meeting. Thank you, Councelor Silvitz. Any discussion? All in favor? Any opposed? That carries? Okay, we go uh into our before our scheduled business. We we do have one delegation here uh today. Okay. It's it's Jane Pang is the one and only delegation from Clear View Education Holdings and uh Peter Lie and Jacquellyn Lee on behalf of 9835 Lesie Street. So um if you want to come forward, you've got up to five minutes to address committee on your concerns regarding the official plan update, project status, and an overview of proposed changes. Okay, go ahead. >> Good afternoon, chair and members of council. Thank you very much for the opportunity to speak today. My name is Jane Pan, an Ontario certified teacher with 25 years of experience in education. I'm the founder and principal of Cleo School of Arts and Culture. For the past 15 years, we have operated a mandaring English bilingual daycare and private school in North York. And we are proud to be the only school in the GTA offering a continuous bilingual program from daycare through to grade 8. Uh many families currently travel from Richmond Hill and across the city to attend our program, demonstrating a clear need for this service locally. We purchased 90 9835 List Street in December 2025 with the intention of establishing a Richmond Hill campus to expand our existing school through our presubmission consultation with city staff. We understand that the property is currently designated as employment area and that any change will be considered through this official plan update. We also note the subject property is directly adjacent to the lessly street institutional area which supports uses such as private schools and day nurseries. Our site shares similar characteristics with lands within this destination. In particular, it includes the Monroe House, a heritage building with over 150 years of history, which aligns with the policy intent to respect cultural heritage resources within the area. Currently, 15% of out of the 150 families we serve in North York commute daily from Richmond Hill to attend our program. Many of these families have expressed strong support for our plan by writing letters to the city. Our vision is to establish a long-term educational facility that will serve local families and contribute positively to the community. We believe this use is appropriate, compatible, and align with the intent of the Lesley Street institutional area. We respectfully request that the committee consider including this property within the Lesley Street Institutional Area. Thank you for your time and consideration. And this is our planner, Jacqueline Lee. >> Hey, thank you. >> Sorry. Hello members of the official plan update committee. My name is Jaclyn Lee and I'm a senior planner at Ptori Planning and Management here to represent Clear View Education Holdings, the owner of 9835 Leslie Street on planning matters as they relate to the official plan update and associated employment land assessment. The subject site, as Jane mentioned, is designated as employment area in the city of Richmond Hill official plan. And it's understood that the city of Richmond Hill has interpreted uh the provincial changes enacted on October 20th, 2024 affecting the planning act and PPS as it relates to a revised definition of areas of employment to limit uses permitted within the employment area designation to traditional employment uses such as manufacturing, warehousing, goods movements, and incilerator uses with existing uh precluded uses authorized to continue. At a presubmission meeting held on January 16th, our client was advised by planning staff that they can either prepare an official plan update uh sorry amendment or participate in the city initiated official plan update to facilitate a redesation of the subject site to permit the proposed institutional use being an art school daycare and private school use. We've since uh requested to arrange meetings with staff from development planning and policy planning which was preceded by our letter um being sent on April 24th noting sorry okay noting two key points. First, a concern applying generally to the implementation of the official of the employment areas change, which we feel removes and restricts opportunities for economic development and employment growth in sectors that deviate from this traditional employment use uh definition captured by the provincial definition for areas of employment. And the second applies more specifically to the proposed art school daycare and private school use as a conversion of the existing standalone office use and vacant heritage designated building that exists on the subject property which does not conform with the employment area designation. Um I'll just skip but if you have any questions I'll have be happy to answer but it is intended that the overall employment function and job creation potential be maintained and enhanced by the proposed development um by permitting this proposed land use change. Further, the proposed development will be contributing to a muchneeded community use to serve the nearby residential context where shortage of child care providers, particularly daycarees participating in the subsidy program are available for affordable daycarees. >> Thank you. >> Okay. Well, thank you. Thank you um for being respectful of the time limits and we got it in just in time. We do have uh as part of our our agenda adopted your your correspondence and and your letters that you've made and submissions. Um I I I do um I do I do think it's it's really unfortunate the situation you find yourselves in. Um it you know it's it's as far as I know a provincial change that's that that's put you in this position. It's the school's considered a sensitive use and the province has made a recent change to to exclude sens what they call sensitive uses from employment areas. So, we'll get more explanation from our staff. Um, I'm sure the question will be asked. I'm going to proceed to our our presentation and our discussion of the overall official plan. Uh, but during that process, I'll be asking questions. I'm sure committee will be um discussing your particular concerns. Okay. Okay, thanks for your time here. >> Now, we'll move forward to the to our scheduled business and uh it's primarily one agenda item, which is the uh which is the project status and overview of proposed changes for the official plan. And we have Phoebe Chow, our manager of policy, and Michael Skelly, our senior pol senior planner policy with a an up to 25 minute presentation. >> Go ahead. >> Thank you, Mr. Chair, and good afternoon everyone. Um the purpose of today's presentation is to update the committee on the status of the official plan update project and to provide a summary of the proposed policy changes to infor and to inform the committee of next steps of the project. Next slide please. Actually, sorry I forgot I have the I forgot I have the clicker. Um you may recall this slide from our last meeting back in October 2025. So I won't go through it in detail. Just a quick reminder that this official plan update project is required under the planning act to review the city's in effect official plan and this update process has been done in batches of amendments. This current official plan amendment is the last amendment to complete our city's um 10-year official plan review. This slide here summarizes all the work that's been done under the different batches. Um the last key remaining policy areas uh for this current official plan update are the employment area, protected major transit station areas, regional mixuse corridor and as well as housekeeping matters. In today's presentation, we will also highlight the new local center policies that we're proposing. I'm using it. Okay, there we go. Whoops. Now it goes so fast. Okay. Since our last meeting, we have completed a draft of all the proposed policies and have circulated the draft to all the prescribed agencies including the municipal Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing, which the approval authority for this official plan update. We did receive some feedback from MMAH and uh we are we have addressed their comments in the forthcoming draft official plan which we will be uh we will make it available for public review in May. We also have a statutory public meeting and a statutory openhouse schedule in June, followed by a special council meeting in July and then a recommendation and a final official plan amendment to council for consideration for adoption in September 2026. After the adoption, we will be forwarding the adopted official plan to the ministry for approval. I will now turn it over to Michael Skellyy, our senior policy planner, to go over some of the proposed changes in the following states, uh, which includes all the topics that you see on the slide here. Good afternoon, Mr. Chair, members of committee. I'll just hope this works for me. Great. So, the first policy area that I'd like to discuss this afternoon is employment lands. Uh, the planning act and the provincial planning statement narrowed the permitted uses in employment areas to largely industrial type uses. The main permitted uses now are manufacturing warehousing as well as research and development in connection with manufacturing as well as associated office and retail uses as well as ancillary facilities serving the permitted employment uses. Proposed official plan 18.9 will revise all relevant policies and definitions to conform to the new provincial definition. So the table that you see on the slide, the left side of the table shows uses permitted in employment areas under the new provincial definition with excluded uses on the right and those uses previously permitted but now excluded are highlighted with an asterisk on the right hand side of the table. The city's objective with respect to employment lens in our view is to really best position ourselves to remain economically competitive as well as to maintain our employment lens for the long term while conforming to the new provincial legislative and policy requirements. So, as a first step towards conformity with the new provincial planning context, you may recall OPA 61, which was adopted by council last spring, and that allowed for uh lawfully established uses located in our employment areas before October 20th, 2024 to continue. Uh late last year, we retained the consulting firm of Watson and Associates to undertake an employment area review to help us uh conform to the new provincial policies. The overall objective of that study is to determine which areas of the city should be designated as employment area under the new provincial definition and which areas no longer meet that definition. The key considerations used in Watson's analysis are listed on the slide and consist of addressing the provincial definition, maximizing the designated employment area in the city, protecting employment areas in proximity to major transportation corridors such as Highway 404, preventing the fragmentation of contiguous employment areas, and priority advertising highquality, viable and market attractive employment lands with appropriate size, access and servicing. And finally, to protect large and strategic parcels and to maintain sufficient supply to meet our long-term employment needs. Building on the results of the Watson work, this slide compares the land use schedule of the existing official plan on the left with the proposed version on the right. The proposed version of schedule A2 on the right incorporates a number of uh proposed changes that are highlighted by the red circles. It reflects employment land conversions approved as part of the region's municipal comprehensive review from a few years ago. Uh this consists of areas an area fronting onto Young Street adjacent to the Newkerk Business Park and the lands east of Lesly removed and east Beaver Creek uh near Highway 7. Also included in the changes are the minister's zoning orders south of Major McKenzie Drive adjacent to Highway 404, which are currently being developed for residential uses and have permission for a range of residential and community uses. Another adjustment uh you can see in the kind of swamp green color is recognizing the full extent of the cemetery lands south of Elgen Mills Road East and the full East Beaver Creek secondary plan studier including the lands on the west side of Lesley. So taking into account these employment land removals, the the Watson study is recommending to propose to designate the majority of the remaining uh Richmond Hill employment lands as employment area under the provincial definition. The small exceptions being the areas shown in blue on the map on the right, which consists of the lands along Highway 7 immediately west of Lesley, currently occupied by retail and office uses, as well as the lands on the north side of Elgen Mills Road East, which have been developed for big box retail, office, and other retail uses. Both of these areas are being proposed to be designated as business commercial, a new designation which I will discuss on the next slide. In addition, the York Region official plan from a few years ago designated two small areas in the North Lesley secondary plan area as employment area. You can see the small pink areas in the top right portion of the right uh map. Because of the relative isolated location of these areas and their current office land use designation in the secondary plan, these two areas are proposed not to be part of the employment area lands in the city of Richmond Hill official plan and will maintain an office designation. To conform to the new area of employment definition in the planning act in the PBS, we're proposing a new designation called business commercial to accommodate areas focused on office and retail uses that were previously part of the employment corridor and employment area designations. The employment corridor designation is proposed to be removed for the majority of the city. This the new business commercial designation is proposed for two areas of the city which are highlighted in the black dash lines along Highway 7 and the west side of Lesley near the East Beaver Creek secondary plan area as well as the north side of Elgen Mills Road East and Highway 404. The key objectives of these of this new designation is to provide for a range of higher density employment supportive uses such as office and retail and also to serve as a transitional land use between employment area and sensitive land uses. The next uh policy area deals with major transit station areas and boundaries and minimum density targets shown on the map on the right and they've all been approved by the province and uh came through the York Region official plan a number of years ago. Our municipal official plan must contain policies addressing land use permissions, minimum and maximum heights and densities for each PMTSA. So PMTSA refers to protected MTSAs which are protected from appeals regarding minimum and maximum building heights and density and also allow for the city to implement inclusionary zoning at a future date if desired. Policies for seven of the 17 PMTSAs have been addressed through recent official plan amendments and with the exception of East Beaver Creek and Bathst Highway 7 local centers, mixeduse land use permissions for the city's PMTSAs are established within the land use policies for the city's centers and corridors. Accordingly, the proposed OP update that we're coming forward with sets out minimum densities for the remainder of the PMTSAs and provides for increased heights and densities within the regional mixeduse corridors. The map on the left is uh meant to illustrate that although each uh each PMTSA does consist of different land use designations. It should be noted that not all lands within a PMTSA necessarily are planned for intensification. For example, the map we've shown is for the major McKenzie PMTSA. There are lands designated for mixeduse intensification such as a regional mixeduse corridor, but they're also relatively stable areas such as a neighborhood designation, which is not expected to accommodate significant growth. Now, I'm going to turn to proposed policy changes under the regional mixeduse corridor land use designation, which is located along parts of Highway 7 and Young Street. To provide a consistent framework for height and density and to better reflect recent development trends, we're proposing to increase height and density permissions within the RMUC designation along certain sections of Young Street and Highway 7. In addition, new RMUC areas have been added in the following locations. the south side of Hi-Tech Road from Silver Maple to Bay View for more consistency of permitted land uses and densities in this corridor which is located in close proximity to Richmond Hill Center as well as the east side of Young Street north of the village local center as this area was one of the areas removed that I've referred to earlier from employment lens as part of the York Region MCR. We're also proposing a number of minor boundary adjustments to the RMU designation to improve implementation of the policies. The table on this slide summarizes the proposed changes to heights and densities for the various sections of the RMU along with existing permissions in the uh in the current official plan. The map on the right shows the different segments of the RC and Young Street and Highway 7 corridors to which maximum heights and densities apply along with the PMTSA boundaries are also shown on this map. Generally, the permitted heights are higher in the southern part of the city and we have not changed uh the northern RC area. the areas where we have increased height and density generally correspond to the location of the PMTSA boundaries. Finally, uh OPA 18.9 is also proposing policies for the two recently added local centers. The East Beaver Creek and Highway 7 local center is currently subject to a secondary planning process with forthcoming reports to council. The proposed densities and heights shown in this slide are preliminary and the secondary plan is anticipated to be completed in Q by Q2 of 2027. The Baths and Highway 7 local center has been identified for a future planning process as well. that the minimum and maximum density and building height permissions shown on the slide are preliminary at this point and they will be proposed as part of the official plan update. And then there are a number of conformity and housekeeping updates to the official plan policies that are being proposed. Some of the key focus areas are listed on this slide. Most of the area of change listed on the table are required to address provincial conformity and to improve implementation of the official plan. Many of these changes are technical in nature and they do not change the overall growth and development pattern in the city. So while we're refining existing policies or in some cases adding new ones to address these topic areas, the overall structure and objectives of the official plan generally remain the same. Finally, in terms of next steps, we will continue to refine and finalize the draft proposed policies in the coming weeks. We are planning for a statutory open house and council public meeting in June and a special meeting of council in July followed by bringing forward the proposed OPA 18.9 for council consideration uh in September and this would be followed by provincial uh review and approval. And that concludes our presentation and staff would be happy to respond to any questions or comments. Thank you. >> Okay. Thank Thank you very much. Well, this is u nearing the end of a very long process of the official plan update. Um you know this we're about to embark on a on a public process on this last piece and uh we thank you for the delegation. And I know there's a lot of work that goes into this and um you know particularly I I I have to note Sally's been with the town for a long city for a long time put a lot put a lot of work into into this and um you know so we're looking forward to the public process upcoming. I'm going to turn over to members of committee. Is there any questions on the presentation? Uh councelor Shu. >> Thank you Mr. chair and thank you for the staff for the uh presentation and a great effort um on this report. Uh the first question is uh is this official plan update basically a response to the latest provincial bill 98 >> through Mr. Chair? >> Uh through you Mr. Chair. No, this is a official plan amendment uh that corresponds with the 10-year review. Um the uh bill 98 will only kick into effect in the following update to the official plan or a new official plan. But once this document is approved, it is the document that moves forward until such time as council decides to undertake another official plan review. >> Okay. So that means we have to update the official plan consistently. Depends on the new bill in the provincial government, right? Well, the uh plan act requires a consistent review of the official plan generally every 10 years uh which is what this document 18.9 is doing. It's a review of the 2010 document. So, you will continue to update it. Uh but in uh after this document is approved, you have a approximately a 5-year grace period upon which you will decide whether or not you wish to update the official plan or modernize it in accordance with the new bill. If it gets approved, they will set a new structure >> for how official plan amendments will be undertaken in the future. If that happens then any modification in the future we'll have to conform to with that document. >> Got it. Got it. Now uh so let's talk about the presentation. Uh referring to the slide number nine uh we can see there's a new category called new business commercial destination. There's no part of city's employment land. Right. uh since the staff just mentioned in the presentation that the residential is not allowed in the employment lands. So does does that mean that the residential would be allowed under this new destination? >> Uh to you Mr. With respect to the business commercial, no we are maintaining office and commercial uses within it uh to support the business parks with the respect to the highway 7 Leslie business commercial that would specifically offer some retail commercial type uses which are there now may continue. We will be adding major offices as a component to that. the one on Elgen Mills and Leslie on the northeast quadrant. That one will retain historical permissions uh which are generally speaking retail commercial. They obviously have major retail because of the big box uses. Those will continue to be authorized in that location um moving forward. But residential is not being proposed to within those two designations. >> Okay, good to know. So there's only a business in nature there. Okay. So, uh the next two lines are slides referring to slide number 11 as a regional mixuse corridors. Uh it has been expanded to include a soft side of high-tech row uh between Richmond Hill Center and Bayville. So, I noticed there's a line of hydro towers just south of this corridor. So just wondering is there any minimum setback between uh the hydro towers and the future development with maximum height 25 stories there >> because along Highway 7 between Bayville uh between Bayville and Yan there's a hydro line >> just north of Highway 7. Yeah >> through you Mr. Chair. Yes that's the primary hydro corridor currently designated as PU. uh it is protected. Any development uh within that area will be circulated to the appropriate ministry and hydro to ensure that distance separations are appropriate at that point in time. Um but there is sufficient room given the uh south side of high-tech road where the big boxes are >> to accommodate potentially residential. um being mindful that on the north side it's high-tech road there's neighborhood that will also be protected based on the angular plane policies. >> Yep. Okay. Got it. Uh so referring to the slide 13 the new local center um by this new local center definition for the uh EBC and highway 7 area I see the maximum height is 40 stories but the maximum FSI is only 3.1 am I right to understand that even though 40 stories is allowed the FSI would actually limit how many buildings like that could be built practical there which is the uh the standard >> through you Mr. Chair the numbers that you see reflected in this uh in this document are reflecting the overall density for the entire lands highlighted in red. >> So when the secondary plan is uh brought forward you will see a a distribution of that some prop blocks will have less density others will have higher densities. Uh there will also be policies within the EBC secondary plan that will address where the 40story buildings would be located and the additional land uses. So that document will articulate specifically where the higher buildings uh will be located in relation to the overall density permitted. This is an overall density requirement and it's in this document to address the um uh PMTSA requirements of the planning act. We do need to articulate land uses. We have to articulate minimum and maximum densities and heights within this area to have the protection under the plan for PMTSAs in the first place. >> I see. So this is uh the maximum FSI 3.1 is only an average for the entire area. Th that's correct to you Mr. Ch. >> Okay. Uh because I understand uh the secondary plan just have a presentation in the open house last Thursday. Uh along house 7 the density will be nine with nine. So I'm just wondering how can you come up with the average 3.1 >> uh through you Mr. that is uh part of the detailed work that's being undertaken by the planning staff plus the Glacia and Associates and articulating exactly what the potential GFA is and that has to do with the as far as the density numbers you'll see that based on the blocks that actually created within which a building can be placed. So along Highway 7, that's the area where uh the staff and and the consultants are looking to provide the higher densities because of Highway 7 specifically and the uniqueness of access and presence as opposed to lands further north towards east uh east Pierce for example. >> Okay. Uh my last question is uh does the city have any rough idea or estimate of how many 40story buildings could fit within the area with a maximum FSI 3.1. This a mathematic question just want to talk about the logic. If the FSI in average is 3.1 but the buildings go to 40 stories how many buildings could be built there? >> Uh through you Mr. chair th those densities were demonstrated as part of the information that was presented the other night. My recollection now I'm not directly involved in that project but my recollection there was uh five five approximately five um towards Leslie Street on the north side of Highway 7. And as you transition eastward, uh, they start collapsing down in height, uh, towards East Beaver Creek and Les and and Highway 7 and f further down as you go on the east side of high uh, East Beaver Creek. >> Okay, those are my comments. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you. >> Thank you. And and councelor Shu, would you be willing to move for a motion by >> I would like to move on Michael. >> Thank you. >> Okay, so we have a motion on the floor. So, the next speaker I have is Mayor West. >> Okay. Thank you so much. Um, this has been a long time coming, but I it sounds like we're almost there. So, thank you very much. Uh, I think the value of this uh OP will be that it will update us to uh current provincial obligations, but it'll also create uh a more upto-date expectation of what can be built and where. Um, and I think that's a a good thing. Um, I took a couple of questions in the the regional mis mixeduse corridor. What kinds of employment are we likely going to see in that area? Like can you give me some examples of the types of activities that would be allowed there? >> Uh, currently under the official plan as designated along the Young Street corridor and highway 7 is the full range of commercial, retail and office uses are currently permitted. In addition to that, community uses uh such as places of worship, obviously anything that the city would uh require, fire stations, libraries, those were also permitted, but it's a full range of retail uses. The only limitation is any uh auto related uses with respect to fixing of vehicles versus selling. selling car dealerships are appropriate, but any auto bodies uh type things. So, those are typically located in the New Cirk Business Park. Currently, um when we were in Germany, we visited a couple of places that were in office buildings that were doing research and development. I mean, it wasn't like using toxic chemicals or anything anything fancy, but it was high-tech type um R&D. Would that be I I presume that would be allowed in an office type environment uh in in those spaces? >> Yes. uh that would be uh permitted in the subtlety between the Young Street Court Highway 7 and say the employment lines is that there's a very specific um interpretation to allow R&D because of the built form offices by themselves are not permitted in an employment area but if they're for R&D you would have that. So the answer to both would be yes uh through the commercial permission. So, some of the uses in the employment land uh area could also exist in the regional mixeduse corridor. So, what I'm getting at is that I get that we're really short of employment land and I'm very sensitive to that, but we are creating opportunities that do not exist at the moment in the regional mixeduse corridor under the current or under this proposed official plan actually and under the existing official plan too. Is that correct? >> No. Within the Young Street corridor, the uh currently under the designation, you have the full range of uses uh currently permitted. Uh so there is really no limitation other than the ones specifically mentioned in the official plan specifically dealing with auto body and uh major retail in some locations. >> Okay. >> Uh are there restrictions? >> Okay. So if somebody wanted to set up a a a company doing research on microchips in an incubator style environment, they would be able to do that by building out a space that doesn't exist right now in the in the regional mixeduse corridor. >> Yes. >> Okay. All right. Um so I'm generally good with all of this. I I think this has been done in a really careful, thoughtful way and it certainly included a lot of consultation with the community. Um, and you know, it's interesting because, you know, here today we don't have a ton of of delegates and I think that probably speaks to the point where most of the issues that we've had or we could have had uh today have been dealt with uh through the consultations that with the public and stakeholders and so on. So, I have to applaud staff for that and and thank you because we don't have to deal with it here on the floor of council. Um, I will say that there are two areas uh two little pieces of land that do cause me some concern and I'm not ready to make uh any sort of emotion or anything at this point in time, but I I I do want to put this on the record and and I will do a bit more research into it. One of them is the delegate that came. Um, you know, I I get that we don't want to be putting in jeopardy contiguous pieces of employment land. That is a very bad idea where you have this big piece of land and right smack dab in the middle, somebody wants to do something different because it just wrecks everything. Um, but in this particular case, it's right at the very edge of the institutional area. And as a matter of fact, if I'm not mistaken, the area just the piece of land just to the south of it is being used in an institutional use. it's just not it designated institutional uh and I I presume it's grandfathered. Um so I would like staff to take a look at that. I think that there are um the other thing that we would uh I think needs to be looked at and it's not necessarily in the purview of the official plan analysis that you've done and I get all of that. the historic building that's on that property if that if the deal was that it could be integrated and used as a part of any additional use. I think there would be value considering the fact that we're losing so many of our uh historic buildings over the years and this new provincial legislation means that a lot more of them are going to go away in the next little while. So I think that I I'd like to take a look at that and I and I having said that and and I want the applicant to hear this too. I get the reasons why we shouldn't do that too, but I'm gonna look into that. And with the time I have remaining, the the other one that I have, and I know that staff's been dealing with this, too, is Lamont School. They own uh one or two lots north of where they are on Elgen Mills, and they want to do a um a sports field on one of them. The second lot is a non-starter for me. There's no way that they should be getting that as as institutional use. But the the sports field with a small compromise on that, uh, I think we could get some significant value in having a a field that they that we could permit out that they would be willing to permit out to the rest of the community and that would help in that regard as well. But both of those uses, the only reason I'm bringing this up is that they're right on the edge of what is uh like they're right on the edge of a of a business park. They're not in the middle of it. So, I'm going to delve into that a little bit more. I'll keep my comments to that for now, but um those are the only two very very very small uh pieces that I I'd like to look into a little bit more carefully. And just if I may, uh did I hear correctly that this won't be a this will come to approval at council on the in September or is it at the special counsel meeting in July? >> Okay. Okay. So, we have some time. Okay. Thank you. >> Good. Okay. Uh, next speaker is councelor Leu. >> Thank you, Mr. Chair. And, um, thank you for your presentation. And, uh, now I understand why they don't let you go. So, >> you're that good. Thank you. Um, and I will also like to, uh, thank the delegates uh, for for coming here today. Um, and I have to agree with the mayor's comment on on on this application. Um, I I empathize empathize that um, you know, the the owner bought the land and and and now they find out that, you know, they cannot do a private school anymore, which as the mayor mentioned, um, there's um, another private school just in the proximity of a few meters. Um so um but as this is a a very good first step I think you know we still have the open house we still have the council public public meeting and also the special council meeting and I'm sure that um you know you're in the good hands of staff and and then staff is is is aware of your concern and I'm sure they got to go back and take a look at it and uh you know it's in the hands the good hands of Phoebe and and her staff. So I have full confidence on that and uh I have a few question though. So when I look at the first chart um one of the um um allowed usage is a warehousing. So what's the definition of warehousing through you Mr. Chair through you Mr. chair. Um the planning act uh and provincial planning statement don't specify, they're not very detailed in terms of a a definition of warehousing, but in our view it probably has quite a wide range of potential uses, anything related to logistics. Um it could also potentially include data centers if you take that interpretation as well. I think it's it's quite a wide wide range of uses. But >> thank you. Well, that's what I thought too. So, but you know, >> that's what I thought too. So, thank you. Um because warehouse to me is, you know, is is storage of goods or data center, but you know, it seems like it has more goods than human um in there. And we call it employment land. I found it a little bit uh uh disconnect. Um and the other thing um I have is also yeah the the mayor mentioned about the the heritage house. Um I don't I'm not sure if the Monroe house is is is designated but you know if you if we want something industrial there I don't think having you know a heritage house there uh will help um if we cannot tear it down. So yeah, so that's all my comments and uh I I I concur with the mayor's comment and uh and hopefully you know when we proceed uh we can see some changes and uh and some improvement on on this update. Thank you. >> Okay, thank you uh councelor Thompson. >> Uh thank you very much through the chair. Thank you uh to to staff for bringing this forward and presentation. Uh couple of quick questions. Um, and this one's more general just for my own knowledge when it comes to an active application versus, you know, what we've heard about say someone had always intended to use a particular property but they didn't have an active application. Uh if there was an application in the queue already before uh any of these changes took place, would if that application finally comes through, would they have been able to continue with say an institution because it started if the application started under the the previous uh u uh use that was uh identified? Mr. depends on the >> is for if it's for an official plan amendment or zoning relief that the >> well if I'm not mistaken sorry through through the chair if I'm not mistaken uh institution now um before it was excluded uh you know would have been uh something that was uh okay under the employment lens as a use but if I'm understanding now it's going it will be excluded. So anybody that had an active application in I'm just trying to sort out what the impact would have been to them active application you are proceeding through the rules of the day uh typically so things are clergyed if you will. The issue that comes up in situations like this is the planning act changes. Some of them are mandated as a production. So we will have to consider uh consider those subtleties. If it was a straight out uh site plan uh application, then they could proceed. But where where they need any relief from zoning or in this in this situation, the mandate from the uh PPS saying that they're not allowed to continue. That is why the city had to entertain OPA 61 in the first place to protect the ex actually physically existing uh uses but throughout the business parks is not that the policies would have allowed those to to be uh uh established. It's only protect what has been established physically. So that's the that's the uh catch in the legislation change and why council had to take the unusual step of uh dealing with OPA61. >> Okay. No, that's very helpful. Thank Thank you. Um in uh in the presentation when we were talking about slide 10 and the PMTSA uh specifically the the heights and densities uh the comment was made that um uh they're not necessarily uh carved in stone like when we get to slide 12 where where we've broken it down we have like young north and uh south and and so forth. Um, and as councelor Shu had pointed out, we have different heights and densities that are are established, but the local core, I don't really see it identified. Maybe that's just me here, so I can't really tell. When I look at slide 12, um, the the Young North one appears to start north of Levendale and then the the Young South number two. I'm not sure what all that encompasses. Um because when I see 15 stories and I don't believe that that's what we have established for the local core. Um I'm trying to sort out where we have you know because I think that the comment was made that uh they're not necessarily >> uh carved in stone the heights and densities. Regional mixtures corridor is in densities you see on this table do not deal with the local centers at all like the village local center has already been adjudicated through uh last year through one of the batch two documents those heights and densities were established through those OPAs this is dealing with the lands to the north in this case that you're mentioning and proposing increases in height within the regional corridor specifically and within the local centers. >> So even as a PMTSA in the local center. Um okay, I think I follow. So let me let me just say let me just ask you about parking then because I know parking is not something that uh with the PMTSAs is on our radar anymore. Uh so that would be the same even for the local center or did did that get addressed as well? to the point any does not require a minimum standard for parking uh across the board. So that does include uh the local centers as identified as PMTSA on these maps. Um the comprehensive zoning bylaw does have standards now standing uh where a developer wishes to put in uh parking there are permissions and and restrictions as to size of parking spaces. So if they wish to provide there are rules on how they do that but if they choose not to provide a parking space we cannot mandate it under the >> got it that that's what I wanted to know. Okay those are all my questions. Thank you so much. >> Okay thank you and councelor tree. >> Okay thank you Mr. Chair. Thank you so much for stop to prepare this uh OP uh documents. I know there are a lot of works. I appreciate all the efforts. So uh my question is a little bit simple. So I would like to know what is the target of population increasing in the future for our city based on your region's uh objective >> for now based on 2021 our city's population is 230,000 residents here. I want to see in the future how many population will be projected. The reason I'm asking here is because we approved a lot of opas and now we are intensifying along the young street and other corridors. I want to see the projections. If our target is more than what we targeted or the collision targeted then this is too much right. So we bas basically I just want to see what exactly our future five or 10 years or 20 years objective. >> The region did their work as far as the projections across the region specifically for Richmond Hill. They did project a a 201 number of approximately 320,000 for the city. Watson was retained through the uh recent uh work that the policy section has been undertaking in connection to this official plan to check those numbers and they concluded that the region's numbers were uh uh the same as far as the 51 number. uh the starting in 2026 and moving at a 5-year increment, the population increases by approximately 20,000 people for each success of five years up to that total. So they do start in 2026 at approximately 220,000 and as you go to 2031 it will go to approximately 240 45,000. uh and those were built in as part of the projections. >> Perfect. >> It does occur in a in a sequential uh uh uh manner if you will. >> Perfect. So so if I understand correctly, so in next 25 years our city's population will increase in like 100,000 people. Is that correct? 25 years later on the projection will be uh 30 30 320,000 people. So they're going to be increasing like a 100,000 peoples, right? >> Richmond Hill is a a very high uh growth area in in the GTA as you all know over the last 30 years. Population has exploded quite a bit and it's continued to be projected to 201 for that. >> Okay, perfect. And my next one will be ask we already proved for OPA. If you count on the number of the highway 7 KDA that's around 50,000 people 16 around 20,000 people KDA for uh uh Bernard is around 1800 18,000 also for the golden station K Newkerk around 1500 15,000 plus only five ops our city's population projection around 80,000 people let's So only those five ops 80,000 people our target 25 years later on will be 100. So we have 20k available. Look at highway 7. We have two local con local center here for the highway 7 the projection is around 12,000. So now we have 8k left. Look at the buses and the highway 7. I don't know that might be a 10k as well. So only for those areas based on my simple calculation it fit for 25 years but or intensification just for now only those seven locations. I look at Young Street now. Young Street North one, two, three, four. Those areas. Can I know how many projections for population increase in those four plus? Yeah. Four. Plus also the young south. How many people are we projecting? Just based on the pictures here. If this number is beyond the 20 no 100,000 people are we projecting more I don't have calculation here but maybe next meeting or next report you can just give us a high level number of population just based on what we discussed what we already approved so we know for current situation are we projecting more the target than your collision or we are fitting that target. >> We certainly will collect that data for the uh next report and and articulate that. As a general comment, the population projections for each uh each block is a maximum that's not generally occurs in one location over time. So this the official plan has spread the permissions along the corridor from a provincial policy and regional policies at the time is where the concentration of development should occur the highest densities. So over time uh the the projections have been spread. That does not mean that everything happens overnight in specific areas uh as we've seen over the last few years. So it uh may very well exceed the 201 number in total, but that's uh because we don't expect it to occur all in one location specifically. So we are anticipating growth spread out, but you're quite correct. The number is going to be higher than the 25 the 300,000 ultimately based on on what we're looking at. But part of the densities that you see reflected in these uh in the chart is not just the projection of what can happen. It's also dealing with development pressures along the corridor specific to development applications andor uh council decisions andor uh the decisions in specific areas that identify what is appropriate densities in specific areas of the city. >> Perfect. >> Okay. Perfect. Thank you so much. So that's my first question. So because we're projecting everything based on your region's target, we are projecting because we need the buffers otherwise you know when we design master plan should be have buffer just in case if inside the number change I'm already talking about one factor this increasement and also I'm talking about next one will be declamation of the population. So we talk about projections also we'll talk about the current situation based on the VR DSP vice DSB projections not projection actually in fact uh this year's 2026 the number of students enrollment is shrinking and I already talked few of uh teachers and union members so by CDSB start to lay off resources and also teacher will be gone as well so consider decline line on the other side the number of students is shrinking uh I'm assuming the number of families and residents in our city may be impacted but I just see from inter York region maybe from Markham from other cities they think oh man is good collection we're trying to move to monu but the fact is uh that not only impact other cities but also our own cities as well I talk with parents from different school look at the number of students in our city also shrinking so this decline part I'm just wondering one side is increasing for uh projection another factor is number population is shrinking that might be a leading 10 years 20 years going to be a big gap in between I'm going to go to my second round thank you so much >> okay thank you uh next speaker is deputy mayor chan Thank you, Mr. Chair. Uh to begin with, I'd like to say thank you to staff. It's a long time coming to get to this stage. It just on my social media post, it pops up yesterday. It was we were already on this five years ago. Um uh and and and and so I'm glad they're waiting to coming to this stage. Um is a few things I want to to raise in here. one is an employment lens and before I come to this meeting I go back to the staff report that actually talks about employment lens study back in January of this year and I'm trying to compare notes about uh what was stand and what was here uh I'm glad to say this very much align which is great but also on the slide number six and thank you for uh both in the star report back in January was excluded and on that question um On slide six, I do understand hotel, convention centers, banquet facilities are excluded. Uh although uh from my end, I I want I for one I would uh like to see that we would have in Richmond Hill banquet facilities and consent centers. So my question through Mr. Mr. chair is that through um looking at slide number 11 that regional mixuse corridor um would there be opportunity for those excluded aspects I just mentioned about in size six under employment lands potentially potentially could be allowed or permitted under the regional mixeduse corridors along the corridor is shown on slide 11 through Mr. Okay, >> I indicated earlier the commercial designation permissions and the regional mix corridor are the full range of commercial, retail and office type uses. So to answer your question, hotels, convention centers, banquet facilities would could potentially be located within the regional mixtures corridor designation. So it is just to be uh clear is permitted. >> It would be yes it would be permitted. >> Excellent. And that would be along the regional corridor for the reason for that. And getting back to um the um the delegate and I did read the uh six pages very carefully. Um then I echo um I have the same um view as mayor articulated and also the local councelor. I think it is seems to me um unfortunate this point is just outside the boundary. However, when you look at and I think the letter uh mentioned it as well I'm sure in the dedicate uh earlier today is that it's not really out of character if you because just a bit north there was also uh school being used in that corridor and it's already comment make on the heritage. So I just want since today is not making decision I also echo my view that I hope staff will look at that again uh because it's also and I'm looking the employment lens report perhaps there's opportunity to look at to what extent uh flexibility maximize to maintain in some way although it's not a business business and but it will be a comparative advantage to for the city of Richmond Hill because it does create um I would say profession professional uh jobs uh for teachers and I understand this school has been around for 15 years so they established themselves already. Uh so that's the point there and and moving on on uh I have the same question um that council council Michael Shield raised on slide 12 in terms of how do you get you know like seems to be not that tall building um but also maximum FSI so it been touched on so I'm not going going to repeat it but I also have some question about how aligning in terms of the height and the maximum FSI now Um the one I want to focus on now is on slide number 13 and maybe is touch on maybe um I just have his scout don't quite get it. Um the OP as of now is going to be brought back to um the council of approval in Q3. Um so when the secondary plan of the be spiritical highway 7 is still ongoing would that be the timing would be aligned before council approve everything um perhaps I'll come back second round but I'd like to get an answer for now through Mr. chair. It's a timing issue. Yeah. >> Uh the the current official plan before you is dealing with a very specific uh subset of the Spaver Creek secondary plan and that is the land use permissions globally, the minimum maximum densities that are reflected in the document plus the maximum heights. Those are in line with the information that you've already seen through the previous presentations and those will be uh articulated in detail through the secondary plan. But generally speaking, the OP will set the protections for the overall and then the secondary plan will only articulate exactly where will the tallest buildings be, what is the distribution of the densities in accord with that policy and also uh specific land uses such as commercial. >> Thank you. I'm specifically draw out because I was being held uh back because I was engaging with residents in that area. Obviously they are very uh much want to have a clear picture in terms of how those timelines be aligned. So uh thank you. Um then within the 27 seconds so to speak uh I don't think I can say too much other than um we are closer to the finishing line. So we look forward to the public session because we have a statutory public meeting on this. So I hope that with thousands of people coming in to share their views if they have anything different from what being recommended by staff at this time. Thank you very much uh Mr. Chair and thank you for the answers from staff. >> Okay. Thank you. And last speaker I have this first round is councelor Davidson. >> Thank you Mr. Chair. Thank you staff. I know this is like the 800th time we're pulling us along and there's so much here. Um, I just have two quick questions. One is I empathize with the delegate. Um, what happens if we don't follow provincial guidelines and we just say, you know what, we'll carve this part off or that. Is there any repercussions from the province when we're when we're just starting this new plan and then we start making changes to it? the the way the planning act and the PPS is structured, this is the time to make the decision as to what lands will be retained as employment lands and what lands will be removed. So, as we've indicated at the moment, there are several uh lands um the east Beaver Creek, the lands on Young Street, the cemetery lands, etc. Those are coming out for specific reasons. We're also recommending the lands on uh west of Leslie Street north of Highway 7 and the real trend site coming out from the employment area. So the opportunity would be now to consider that. The issue that crops up is as you're uh indicated already is the protection of the contiguous employment lanes and what that may mean moving forward as you remove lands from the edges as it were. But we've heard uh the comments from council and we will take that back and review it with respect to those uh two properties that were identified. >> Thank you to you Mr. Chair. So if we did make amendments can they be dated that once for example once this school is no longer functional or the property is no longer being used for a school it will become part of employment lands. Can you do anything like that? I have to take that uh back, but I believe my the way I read the the act is if it's employment lands, you cannot have sensitive languages within it. It would have to come out of the employment lands into a different designation. >> Okay. Thank you. Um my other question is um can we ever sort of set a minimum employment for a piece of land that so I'm thinking of you know storage. Storage employs nobody. Storage employs a couple of security guards and a few people, but they're probably not even on site. Is there a way to make a minimum on an employment land application that says you have to have at least 20 employees? I'm thinking the same thing for data centers. They don't employ anybody, but they eat up extremely valuable and precious small bits of what we have as as employment lands. Is there ever a way to bake in so that we don't end up with a bunch of of u storage that doesn't employ anybody? >> No, don't believe that the planning act or the PPS would allow that to occur where you restrict uh for forms of development like data centers for example uh or other similar uses. uh it's it's captured as part of the main permissions of warehousing, manufacturing etc. uh globally. So they don't dictate how much uh jobs you have to create that generally speaking. That's why the jobs and people is such a broad number and can be uh dealt with in both conditions and jobs are typically include commercial retail jobs that may exist in an area >> right um through Mr. Chair looking down the road I'm assuming we can't limit the number of warehouses and we can't limit the number of like per hectare you can only have one big warehouse uh storage area. I'm just thinking of how easy it would be to end up with very little employment in our precious employment lands. There's just no way to limit it, right? It's whatever the market or whoever owns land what they apply for. >> The the restriction uh is uh is in accordance with what the PPS and plan act would require. So it does not say that you can limit the type of industrial uses. Uh the beast is the beast as as it were on that. Uh so if it complies with those documents then the implementing documents our official plan and the zoning would just say manufacturing warehousing. We appreciate that data centers are a clear issue on that but they are a require permission that uh that is allowed under the provincial documents. >> Thank you. My last question you I think you said this but why did the province feel the need to get everybody to conform? What was wrong with the way it was running before? What how is this going to increase in fishes? How does this help us? >> That is frankly a difficult question to answer because I don't know what the uh province thought thoughts were on that. Um because historically all municipalities within business parks have allowed a wide range of manufacturing, industrial plus support of uh non-industrial uses such as office, retail, restaurants, etc. uh the determination is uh is that such uses if that's the primary use of a business part then it's not a business part is basically what they're telling us to deal with. So part of the review that we looked at and one of the reasons why we're looking at the business uh commercial is when you look at those practically they're not industrial never have been from day one. Uh so those are those areas will be excluded. But when you look at the broader uh existing uses within the Beaver Creek Business Park for example, there is a mix of uh non non-employment uses, but there's a substantial amount of employment uh supportive uses within the park that uh authorizes us to protect it in addition to what council already allowed to protect the existing commercial uses in the first place. But if it's not no not industrial then you take it out is basically what the comment is. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Okay. Thank you. So I think that's it for the first round. Uh we are we do have a request for second round. Councelor tree. Yeah. >> Okay. Thank you so much. So I want to go to more details on this slide. I think it's 12. is 12 for the uh the the PSI and also the details for Yang North number one here. My question here is only number one Yang on this east side which is really the flooding zone. So only the available land for development is very restrict to the either southbound or northbound in in between we have a contaminated land and also flooding zone. What is the reason we put here at 25 stories here the young north number one I believe this is page let me see it's page 12 uh miss clerk would you mind bring the slide for for slide 12 Yeah. in that area. Those are into the process already that they have to be mitigated by uh by the applicants before they can actually achieve the cyclon approvals. Okay. >> So, it's already baked into the the review. Okay, I just want to bring this attention because this flood just want to bring attention. Next question is the KDA which is red color on this map. That's the boundary is the bench. I think it's Benson Street Benson for now we only build up 15 storage tall buildings and also we prove the one last year that's red color as the boundary. So that's Benson just cross street we're allowed to build up 25. So I'm just wondering why this huge gaps here. One side of street is 15, another one is 25. That's a big gap because I do have a Yeah, you can see the red color at the bottom. The boundary is Benson Street. One side is 15, the other side is 25. So I have a few builders their properties on the Benson sauce. And now just crossed the one street like a two or three meters away. We are allowed 25. Now the uh the lands to the south are part of the village which is a unique area that's being protected because of the uniqueness of the area. So that also deals with the restrictions uh that were recently approved late last year as part of batch two for that area. But for the lands to the north, that is where you'd want to allow more more concentration of development um beyond that limit. So it does not negate what the protections are within the village. Uh the policies of the village are very specific to deal with the characteristics of that area specifically. So those are articulated already in the official plan uh south of Benson and why that that's the case. >> Okay. Uh next question regarding to on my side because for the zone one north one and that is the commercial area we have a lot of the commercials on the on there on the west side. So so far there is only one proposal approved by OLT. This is 28 storage in that commercial build commercial area. Um, have you teams receiving any other applicants looking to renovate the commercial area building up more high densities buildings here >> that uh that situation council so I can't uh answer that at the point I'll take it back >> and uh and get some uh some information and and email you. >> Sure. So because we are doing a master plan so far on that zone one only see one applicant looking for 28 is been approved except that on the east side I heard someone talk about 25 storage only two proposal here in front of us and the entire area we are planning for 25. I just wondering is that going to be solid reason only two applicants looking for 25 then entire block will be 25 >> may very well be uh as you indicate one or two applicants currently that does not mean that in the future we won't get other applicants uh that come forward these are setting the rules that are either in defense of the policies that get ultimately get approved uh with respect to sight specific applications or to encourage what the built form that the city wants to achieve in these various areas along Young Street. >> Okay, thank you so much. Now I have another question regarding Young L too. As we all know last street at boundary which is Brookside we have many applicants from a word four close to the Starbucks areas uh the OT and also city approved 20 storage on the Westbrook side on my side. So 20 my concern here we if we allow 25 those at least two or three proposal city already approved already proved maybe come back because we grant them 25 and this proposal they might change their mind coming back with 25 storage again that is really bothering me. So city staff the others the residents and also us spending tons of time discussing the pul plan on the white side of Brookside and if we give the open the door see 25 I'm concerned might be more builders coming back again looking for high densities >> uh always have the right to modify their applications uh at any point in time. What staff has done with respect to these uh heightened densities is a very detailed review in accordance with the permissions development standards under the comprehensive zoning bylaw the council approved uh earlier this year uh sorry late last year. uh and u the angular plane policies that are uh uh placed in the u in the official plan um that limit the heights. So we're looking in detail as to what is potentially based on the metrics in those areas. So when we're recommending these heights, we are looking at what is the potential in accordance with the documents that council's already endorsed angular plane and the comp bylaw specifically as the metrics to see what can be achieved. So these are reflecting uh and also taking into consideration uh development applications that we seen up and down the corridor in specific areas. So these are the uh upper limits of what is potential going beyond these uh limits uh would mean that the there would be negative impacts on the angular plane policies for example uh that would be contradicted. So this is a uh a a clear review of what is potential under the uh current metrics to be realistic as to what the development pressures were seeing in these areas. But you are correct, counselor. A developer can tomorrow change their mind and submit another application. Uh we've seen that countless time that councils approve an application only to have the landlord the following year try and get more densities as it were. >> Okay. So Miss Cleo I we don't want residents feel all those master plans driven by builder instead by city's objective. Right. So and yeah. So builder proposal is one of the reference for the meantime city itself should have an objective based on jo region's target we meet the target will not be only driven by our builders uh plan that that is my uh my thoughts of the official plan articulating what the city wishes to have uh built ultimately in these specific areas. Developers always have the right to make an application and go through the process either to seek approvals through this council or ultimately through another process if they so wish. That is always been the case in Ontario and is not being reduced because of the because of this document. uh developers always have their own uh rights embedded in the planning act, but we are trying to plan for an appropriate uh uh development along Young Street because of the provincial mandate as to where we required development to occur and specifically in the PMTSAs. uh historically was in the Young Street corridor with the regional official plan as opposed to trying to spread it onto other arterial roads uh systems or within the neighborhoods. >> Okay. >> So, we're concentrating it specifically in the corridor in this in Richmond Hill's case, Highway 7, Young Street, and a portion of Major McKenzie Drive. >> Okay. Great. Uh my last question regarding to the north four. I know there are the small pieces of land there of the south of uh this the uh Jefferson side road is that going to be the word four uh north four or or north three a small very pieces land there is a four or it belong four or three >> Mr. to the area Jefferson and Stovville are part of north four and there are no no proposed changes to those areas because of the uh isolation of them. >> Okay. Okay. Thank you so much. I don't have further questions. >> Okay. Thank you and councelor Silvitz. >> Thank you Mr. Chair. Just just one uh quick question for clarification from uh from staff and and also thank you to everybody who um who work who has worked so hard for so long on this matter and thank you to staff for having um uh online uh calls with us as well about this before we come to this meeting. It's greatly appreciated and thank you to the delegates. I I support what has been stated here by uh by other counselors. Uh just for clarification uh through you Mr. chair that what is that hatched line going through the middle of the map which just caught my eye as uh council tree was uh was discussing this map on 12 it's on the others as well that there's a black hatched line they're kind of going through the middle of the map I can't I can't for the life of me recall what it is >> an ending north of 19th. Is that the line you're trying? >> Yes. >> North of that line is the Oakidge's marine. >> Oh, it's Oakidge and Marine. I thought so. Okay. Thank you so much. >> Okay. Thank you. So, oh, Deputy Mayor Chan, second round. >> Thank you. Um, yes. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. Um, I'm referring back to uh slide number 13. I asked about the new local center east highway 7 local center secondary plan in progress uh but on the bas and highway 7. So subject to the future planning process. So I I um I just want to to the extent that staff could provide a little bit of insight or elaboration what might be forthcoming for you Mr. Chair. >> Mr. Sure. >> Uh the official plan currently identifies this area as a local center which requires us to actually deal with the designation. So, so can you um so it's uh what this proposal uh is dealing with is designating it as a local center including uh uh allowances for mixed use which is typically what a local center would allow for including minimum maximum densities and heights within this unique area. the majority of which is um is captured by the golf course and um and otherwise vacant uh saving except for a recent approval by Tridell at the top end that the council endorsed a 15 and 20 story building. Uh so we will articulate yet again because of the PMTASA requirements of the planning act that we need to have those policies embedded into this document to preserve the productions of the uh PMTSA uh densities. Thank you. U because interesting you mentioned about the golf course is also um I would consider environmentally sensitive area along that that area. Um now 20s story maximum I I'm quoting on the slide number 13. I believe that um the u the one building um I not going to name the uh who's going to build it but uh it's already approved at 20 stories. Is it not? Uh just to confirm through uh you Mr. Chair. >> There's actually two buildings. One is 15 and one is 20. >> That's my recollection. There's already >> already approved. >> Yeah. building a proof there. Um not this year even before this year was 20 stories. So that's kind of set the maximum. Um but that's why another day I always find it interesting and I alluded to before between the FSI 2 and 20 story but we would leave here another day but thank you. Thank you Mr. Chair. uh I just want to make sure that on the local center one is uh secondary in progress uh east be highway 7 and what's forthcoming on buffers and highway 7 because those are important um particular buffins 7 uh like a regional corridor down the road thank you so thank you um I think that's it for the speakers list uh just a couple comments before I call the vote uh I you know want want to thank every everyone involved and as we move forward with this this long process is certainly not something we we want to rush. We want to get it right. I think we've had a very wholesome a wholesome uh public process to this point and I'm looking forward to the next next round of of public input uh that that we have. But uh I think it's it's there's something to be said for the fact we are, you know, putting looking to conclude this in in this term of council and um you know that we're we're going to be back here that ratification um is intended to happen in in this year um in in this term and um there's a couple of things that that are noteworthy and the the the the manner in which we've protected our employment lands is is significant. There's there's been constant pressure for the past 20 years uh to to try to make changes and there there was some some change in the you know the province uh you know the the ministry came in and and reszoned some lands but we've protected those employment lands for for the most part um adhering to what the province allows. We we've set those designations and it's it's not just for u purposes of employment. Ideally, we want a place where people can live where they work where they live. Um, there's a larger effort to do that in York Region as a whole, and that's happening. But it's not about solving the country or the provinces unemployment issues. It's it's it's really about about our tax base. And we can see the activity that we we have uh east of Lesley in our business parks is is is significant. And what's happened in the last few years uh the businesses that we brought in and the expansion of that uh tax property tax base in that different class and you know the more we draw from that property class the the the lower the burden on the residential property class. So um th those efforts have been extensive and it's it's it's noteworthy that um you know we never never sa succumb to the um constant pressures and efforts to change our employment lands into anything other than employment. And I know we we have some work to do and there's some maybe specific exemptions that can be looked at and I I confident our staff will be doing that. But I I think um you know overall through this process we've done a great job even though those those corridors are really intensified to allow for the population growth that's mandated. Um we're we're protecting neighborhoods by putting it on on the transit corridors. We're we're protecting all the communities throughout Richmond Hill. So we always have to keep that in mind as we are forced into into these higher densities. So that just my comments. Uh I don't see any other speakers. So I'll call the vote. All in favor? Any opposed? That carries unanimously. Thank thank you very much. And I just need a motion to adjurnn from Mayor West. All in favor? Any opposed? that carries his