Okay, yeah, good mor- good morning. Good evening everybody and welcome to the council public meeting for Tuesday, June the 23rd at at 6:00 and I'll call this meeting to order. I need a motion to adopt the agenda. Uh Councillor Liu, Councillor Shaw, all those in favor, opposed, that carries. Thank you. Uh disclosure of a pecuniary interest from anybody? Seeing none. Uh so we have two items of scheduled business uh which will start in a second. I just want to um explain to everybody this is a council public meeting, which means that we will not be making any final decisions on anything tonight. I think that's important for the public to understand. Uh the purpose of this meeting tonight under the Planning Act is to collect uh information and and uh thoughts from the public and and that's exactly what we're going to be doing tonight. The motion that we will pass uh at the end of each of these items will be to refer all comments back to staff uh for staff to go back, do their analysis, and then ultimately it'll come back to to uh council uh at some later date uh for uh some action. So uh tonight really is just about having a dialogue and I think we have a fair number of people in the audience tonight and may have some other people online that are going to be having an opportunity to speak. Each delegate will get 5 minutes to speak and it is going to be a pretty packed agenda tonight. So, I would ask that all delegates stick to 5 minutes. After 5 minutes a trapdoor by the podium opens and I'm just kidding. We don't do that. That's that's mean. Anyway, so we'll start with the first item of scheduled business and it's a presentation by Phoebe Chow, Catherine Feria, and Michael Skelly from about the official plan update for proposed official plan amendment 18.9. So, Ms. Chow, you can get us kicked off. >> Thank you, Mr. Mayor and good evening, everyone. The purpose of today's presentation is to provide an overview of the some of the key proposed policy changes to the city's official plan update and to outline the next steps for this project. So, as a reminder, this official plan update or we may refer to as OPA 18.9 in this presentation is required under the Planning Act to review the city's official plan and bring the city's official plan into conformity with provincial legislations and plans. You may recall that staff presented some of these proposed changes at the May 5th official plan update committee. Since that meeting, a copy of the official plan containing all the proposed changes have been circulated to all commenting agencies, departments, as well as made available for public review. We also held an in-person statutory open house on June 11th. After tonight's public meeting, there will also be a special council meeting on July 7th to receive additional feedback and comments from council, public, and stakeholders. Following the special council meeting, staff will finalize the official plan amendment and present to council for consideration and adoption of the OPA 18.9 in September. Following council's adoption, we will be forwarding the adopted OPA 18.9 to the province for approval. Before we dive into the proposed changes, here's a high-level summary of the provincial legislative and policy context. And I won't go through them in detail, but the bottom line is that since the adoption of the city's official plan in 2010, there have been a series of amendments to the planning act as well as provincial plans, particularly in recent years, which directly impact a lot of the proposed changes in this official plan amendment. OPA 18.9 is being undertaken under section 26 of the planning act, which includes addressing provincial conformity requirements, incorporating uh appropriate policies from the York Region official plan to the city's official plan, and updating various housekeeping and technical amendments to help with implementation. I'll now turn it over to Michael Scally, our senior policy planner, to go over some of the proposed changes in the following slides under the topic areas shown on the screen, starting with employment lands. >> Thank you. Good evening, uh Mayor West, members of council. The first policy area that I'd like to talk about this evening is employment lands, as shown on the screen. The Planning Act and the Provincial Planning Statement 2024 narrowed the permitted uses in employment areas to industrial-type uses, and the primary permitted uses are now manufacturing, warehousing, as well as research and development in connection with manufacturing. Also permitted are associated office and retail uses, as well as ancillary facilities serving the permitted employment uses. The official plan update revises all relevant policies and definitions to conform to the new provincial definition. The consulting firm of Watson and Associates undertook an employment area review whose overall objective was to determine which areas of the city should be designated as employment area under the new provincial definition. The key principles used by Watson in their analysis are listed on the slide and include consideration of maintaining contiguous employment clusters, preventing fragmentation, as well as proximity to goods movement corridors and land use compatibility among other factors. The Watson report is attached to our staff report as appendix B. The map on this slide shows the proposed employment area designation as indicated by the dark purple areas on the map. And based on the Watson study, approximately 94% of the city's employment land supply is recommended to be designated as employment area that meets the provincial definition. The exceptions being the circled areas shown in the light pink on the map, which are the lands along Highway 7 immediately west of Leslie, as well as along part of the west side of Leslie just north of Highway 7, which are currently occupied by retail and office uses. And secondly, the lands on the north side of Elgin Mills Road East just east of Leslie Street, which have been developed for big box retail and other retail and office uses. Both of these areas are proposed to be designated as business commercial, which is a new land use designation proposed to accommodate areas focused on office and retail uses, as well as limited community uses that were previously part of the employment corridor and employment area designations. The main two objectives of the business commercial designation are to provide for a range of higher density employment supportive uses, such as office and retail, and to also serve as a transitional land use between the employment area and more sensitive land uses. In terms of growth management, Richmond Hill's official plan forecast is proposed to be updated to 2051, and this is based on the York Region Municipal Comprehensive Review work done a few years ago. Based on this forecast, the city is projected to grow to a population of 320,100 and employment of 122,500 by 2051, as shown in the table. The settlement area of Richmond Hill, which are the pink areas outlined in red on the map, will be the focus of growth and development in the city based on the availability of existing and planned services. With population growth being largely accommodated through intensification in the city's urban structure, including Richmond Hill Center, key development areas, the regional mixed-use corridors, local centers, and other areas. The policies of the proposed official plan update support an intensification target of 78% of residential unit growth between 2021 and 2051 to occur within the city's built-up area. This is shown in the darker pink areas on the map. Areas outside of this built-up area, but within the settlement area, are considered to be developing greenfield areas, which consists of the North Leslie Secondary Plan area and most of the West Gormley Secondary Plan area. The next policy area deals with protected major transit station areas. Boundaries and minimum density targets are shown on the map on the right and have all been approved by the province through the York Region Official Plan. Richmond Hill's Official Plan is required to contain policies addressing land use permissions, minimum and maximum heights and densities for each PMTSA. So, protected PMTSAs are protected from appeals regarding minimum and maximum building heights and density, and it also allows for the city to implement inclusionary zoning at a future date uh if desired. Policies for seven of the city's 17 PMTSAs have been addressed through previous official plan amendments. With the exception of East Beaver Creek and Bathurst Highway 7 Local Centers, mixed-use land use permissions for the city's PMTSAs are established within the land use policies for the city's centers and corridors. Accordingly, the OP update sets out minimum densities for the remainder of the PMTSAs and provides for increased heights and densities within the regional mixed-use corridors. Now, turning to uh proposed policy changes under the regional mixed-use corridor land use designation. And this designation is located along parts of Yonge Street and Highway 7 shown in the salmon colored areas on the map. Just to clarify, RMUC areas are not part of key development areas or local centers. In order to provide a consistent framework for height and density and to better reflect recent development trends, we are proposing to increase height and density permissions within the RMUC designation along certain sections of Young Street and Highway 7. Generally, permitted heights are higher in the southern part of the city and we have not changed the northern RMUC area. The areas where we have increased height and density generally correspond to location of PMTSA boundaries. In addition, we have added two new RMUC areas in the following locations. The south side of High Tech Road from Red Cedar Avenue to Bayview Avenue for more consistency of permitted land uses in this area and densities in this corridor which is located adjacent to the Richmond Hill center. And the second area that we've added to the east side of Young Street north of the Village Local Center as this area was removed as employment lands as part of the York Region Municipal Comprehensive Review. In addition, we are proposing a number of minor boundary adjustments to the RMUC designation to improve implementation of the policies. The official plan is also proposing policies for two recently added local centers uh shown on the the slide. East Beaver Creek and Highway 7 Local Center is currently subject to a secondary planning process with a forthcoming report uh actually in a couple of weeks. Until the secondary plan is approved by council the OP policies will be used the review and evaluation of development applications. The Bathurst and Highway 7 local center has been identified for the potential preparation of a tertiary plan by the city. And preliminary minimum and maximum density and building height permissions are being proposed as part of the official plan update. As well as policies and mixed-use development, phasing, and other related policies. The city's greenway system includes lands both within and outside of the Oak Ridges Moraine, Greenbelt Plan, and Parkway Belt West Plan areas, as well as other environmental and open space lands located within the city's settlement area. The greenway system is to be protected, enhanced, and actively managed over the long term. The proposed policy revisions will ensure that features continue to be maintained and enhanced. Since the official plan was adopted back in 2010, both the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan and the Greenbelt Plan have been updated, and the provincial planning statement has been brought into effect in 2024. Therefore, key modifications include permissions for agricultural and agriculture-related uses, and updates to key natural heritage feature policies. With respect to natural hazards, the OP update proposes refinements to the existing policies to provide clearer direction and restrictions for development and site alteration adjacent to natural hazards. Additionally, there are various other technical revisions uh being proposed to align with provincial policy direction, best practices, and to assist in policy implementation. The city's water resource system comprises a network of aquifers, headwaters, rivers, streams, ponds, wetlands, kettle lakes, and stormwater management facilities. The policies of the official plan focus on management of the city's surface and subsurface features and functions both on and off the moraine, including the quantity and quality of water resources as well as watershed planning. The provincial planning statement states that planning authorities shall protect, improve, or restore the quality and quantity of water by undertaking watershed planning, identifying water resource systems, and implementing necessary restrictions on development and site alteration, among other requirements. So, we're proposing technical modifications to align with the PPS with respect to watershed planning, key hydrologic features, and key hydrologic areas. In addition to the restrictions limiting limiting contamination risks as set out within the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan, more broadly, the source protection plan sets out policies for the protection of existing and future drinking water sources. The OP update expands on existing policies applicable to the ORM by incorporating protective policies for the development and or site alteration involving specific activities within vulnerable areas identified within the city. I will now pass it over to Catherine Frias, senior planner, to present the remainder of the slides. >> Good evening, Mayor West and members of council. I will now summarize a few additional key focus areas of the OP update. The first is the agricultural system. The PPS directs planning authorities to apply an agricultural systems approach to maintain and enhance a geographically continuous agricultural land base and to support agri-food networks including urban agriculture. The PPS introduces prime agricultural areas which form part of the agricultural land base as well as establishing protective a a protective framework for these areas. Prime agricultural areas shall be designated and protected over the long term within which permitted uses include agricultural uses, agriculture-related uses, and on-farm diversified uses. Both agriculture-related uses and on-farm diversified uses shall be compatible with and must not hinder surrounding agricultural operations. The region's official plan approved in 2022 established a prime agricultural area at the northeast quadrant of the city which coincides with both the ORM natural core and ORM natural linkage designations. The OP update modifies agricultural permissions within the ORM natural land use designations and the countryside designation outside of the ORM um as well as establishing policies that address compatibility and mitigation of impacts from non-agricultural uses. The OP update also proposes a definition for urban agriculture as well as refinements to the existing urban agriculture permissions within the settlement area. Uh moving on to the next policy area, mineral aggregate and petroleum resources. The PPS directs that mineral aggregate resources shall be protected for long-term use and where provincial information is available, deposits of mineral aggregate resources shall be identified. For known resources, development and activities which would preclude or hinder the establishment of new operations or access to the resources shall only be permitted subject to specific criteria. Accordingly, the OP update proposes protection policies for mineral aggregate resources and identifies the locations of secondary aggregate resources on the schedule to the official plan. The PPS also requires that aggregate operations be protected and existing operations are permitted to continue without the need for an official plan amendment or rezoning under the Planning Act in accordance with the PPS. Within the city, mineral aggregate operations are permitted within the ORM natural linkage and ORM countryside land use designations. And within identified prime agricultural areas, extraction of resources is permitted as an interim use subject to specific criteria. In addition to the mineral aggregate resources, the PPS sets out protections for minerals and petroleum resources. The OP update recognizes petroleum resource operations as a human-made hazard and establishes restrictions for development on abutting and on adjacent and adjacent to such lands. Within the city, limited locations for such petroleum resources have been identified and are shown on an appendix to the official plan. Um and now turning to climate change and sustainable development as the next policy area. The PPS directs planning authorities to plan for the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions and prepare for the impacts of climate change through various approaches such as A, compact, transit-supportive, and complete communities. B, climate change considerations in planning for and the development of infrastructure. C, energy conservation and efficiency. D, green infrastructure, low impact development, and active transportation, as well as protecting the environment and improving air quality. The plan contains existing policies that promote leadership in sustainable development and support a number of objectives related to air quality, climate change mitigation, and energy and water efficiency, among others. The OP update re-emphasizes support for the development of sustainable, low low carbon, compact, mixed use, and transit-oriented communities that reduce greenhouse gas emissions, encourage active transportation, and protect the environment. Additional policy modifications focus on these and other themes, including low carbon energy alternatives with a target of net zero emissions by 2050, reduction of vehicle emissions, energy conservation and efficiency, including renewable energy, water and soil conservation, mitigation of vulnerabilities and risks, and stormwater management, among other initiatives. Policies governing the preparation of specific technical documents have also been updated to require assessments of climate change impacts where appropriate. Now, turning to placemaking and urban design as the next policy focus. The official plan provides policy direction to support compact, pedestrian-oriented development, and encourages design excellence across the city. Updates to Updates to the city's current urban design and placemaking policies focus on a few key main themes. The first is transition. With respect to transition, development within centers and corridors is required to conform with an angular plane measured with respect to the neighborhood designation. The OP update proposes to amend the angular plane prep policies such as the angular plane may be measured from a point 15 m above grade in a side or back lot condition. The proposed revisions continue to ensure an appropriate transition to adjacent neighborhoods while balancing intensification goals within the centers and corridors. Next is building height. The official plan currently recognizes three main built forms for development including low-rise, mid-rise, and high-rise buildings. In recognition of the city's evolving character and built form, the height range for mid-rise buildings is proposed to be increased from a maximum of eight stories to a maximum of 10 stories to appropriately reflect the typical built form type. Additionally, similar to the existing requirements for a separation distance between proposed and existing towers of a high-rise building, the OP update proposes a minimum separation distance of approximately 15 m between existing and proposed mid-rise buildings in order to maintain access to daylight and sky views and provide appropriate privacy conditions. Modifications have also been made to the official plan with respect to minimum and maximum podium height requirements for high-rise and mid-rise buildings. Next is the expansion of existing commercial developments. The official plan includes general policies recognizing limited expansions to existing buildings that do not meet the minimum height and density provisions set out in the Land Use policies for the centers and corridors. Such policies have been revised to provide greater flexibility in the interim and to maintain the viability of established commercial commercial developments until such time as they are redeveloped in accordance with the policies of the official plan. Next, automotive service commercial facilities. The current official plan specific locational criteria associated with with the permissions for such facilities. The OP update proposes to incorporate such facilities under the definition of commercial and to remove the locational criteria whereby the permissions for commercial uses will now apply. Finally, updates are contemplated to the policy criteria applicable to the location and design of above grade parking structures in order to provide clarity and to mitigate or limit the impacts of these structures. Lastly, I'll summarize some other official plan updates. Finally, there are a number of other conformity or in housekeeping modifications that are proposed as part of the section 26 OP update related to key focus areas including cultural heritage resources, indigenous engagement, community uses, archaeological resources, transportation, monitoring targets, and various other uh technical and housekeeping updates. Most of the changes to these focus areas are required to address both provincial conformity and to improve implementation of the official plan. Additionally, some of the proposed updates are technical in nature and do not result in modifications to the overall growth and development pattern of the city. While refinements to the existing policies are proposed or in some cases additional policies within these topic areas, the overall structure and objectives of the official plan generally remain the same. In terms of next steps, we look forward to receiving comments and feedback and working to produce a final proposed official plan update. As Phoebe mentioned in the earlier part of this presentation, the upcoming special council meeting scheduled on July 7th provides an additional opportunity for council and the public to provide feedback. We are planning to bring forward the proposed official plan amendment 18.9 for consideration and council adoption in September. This will be followed by provincial review and approval of the official plan amendment. This concludes our presentation and staff would be happy to respond to any questions or comments. Thank you. >> Okay, thank you very much to all staff. Uh at the beginning of this meeting I forgot to read this um very important and elegant piece of prose. So, I'll do that now. If a person, public body, or specified person does not make oral submissions at a public meeting or make written submissions to the city of Richmond Hill in respect of a proposed official plan amendment or zoning bylaw amendment, the person, public body, or specified person is not entitled to appeal the decision of the city council to the Ontario Land Tribunal and may not be added as a party to the hearing of an appeal before the the Ontario Land Tribunal unless in the opinion of the tribunal there are reasonable grounds to do so. That's almost like Shakespeare. So good. Okay. Um so, at this point in time we will uh go to delegations. We have five delegations that have signed up. And then anybody else in the audience that would like to speak to council is more than welcome to do so once we're finished with those five uh delegations. So, these delegates as I said earlier have 5 minutes to address council. And the first person that we have uh signed up is Andrew Cross from Lorne Park School. So, Andrew, come on up and um you've got 5 minutes. >> Good evening, Mayor West, Deputy Mayor Chan. Good evening, counselors. Thank you for providing me with the opportunity to share some thoughts in relation to our lands at 500 Elgin Mills Road East and 93 Edward Avenue and their treatment in the city's official plan. Our legal counsel, Megan McDermott, will speak to the technical and regulatory aspects of our request for redesignation of the properties. In the next few minutes, I would like to explain why full recognition of the existing school and the ability to use the adjacent property for supportive uses, specifically the construction of a turf soccer field, is so critically important to our financial model as a school and viability. Before I do so, however, I want to emphasize how much our school leadership, Board of Trustees, and community value the partnership we have established with the City of Richmond Hill. As Head of School, I am immensely proud of the fact that our high school musicians are invited to perform O Canada at the Board of Trade Awards evening. I am even more proud that we host the Coldest Night of the Year Homelessness Initiative every February, that our students donate food items for 360 Kids and holiday toys for the Salvation Army, and that we provide our Upper School Dining Hall to the York Region Alliance of African Canadian Communities for their AGM every year. My goal as Head of School is to do everything I can to ensure Lorne Park School is making a tangible and positive impact on the communities in which our two campuses operate. I would like now to take a moment to note that we have been operating our Upper School campus at 500 Elgin Mills Road East since 2009, and we have grown from approximately 20 employees and 60 students on this site to 75 employees and 355 students today. Prior to our purchase of this property, it was used by Enbridge Gas with approximately 10 to 15 employees on site. We are currently providing employment to almost five times that number. This makes us a significant employer in the area. The School Board purchased the 93 Edward Avenue property in 2017 with the specific intention of using it to support the school program and ensure that we could remain competitive with other independent schools in the York region. During the COVID pandemic, we needed the property to increase classroom space due to social distancing, and we were grateful for the city's support in approving the construction of a small building to house four classrooms. And this brings me to our request for redesignation to enable the unrestricted continuent continuation of the existing school and to allow for the placement of a turf soccer field on our property at 93 Edward Avenue adjacent to our current upper school campus. Like so many of our other facilities, we will make this field available to neighborhood sports groups to help address the significant shortage of such spaces in the area around our upper school. Beyond these neighborhood partnerships, the reality is that Lower Mount School operates in a highly competitive environment. Prospective families have five other well-established independent schools in the York region to choose from, as well as a large number of independent schools elsewhere in the GTA. The majority of these already have one or more full-size playing fields and exponentially larger campuses than ours. We have interested families touring our upper school campus who have told us that the lack of a playing field is problematic for them and for their sports-minded children, and many of these families choose to go to another school where the grass is literally greener. As our upper school student population has grown from 202 10 years ago to 350 today, our athletic spaces are increasingly inadequate. I will also note that 95% of our operating revenue comes from our tuition fees. As an independent school, we receive no government funding, and yet our clients continue to have increasing expectations of our programs and facilities. They are very well aware of what other schools are offering. The viability of our upper school will continue to be deeply impacted if we are not able to construct this playing field. In conclusion, if the 93 Edward Avenue is approved for the more restrictive manufacturing and warehousing permissions in the proposed official plan amendment, the property will be unusable by the school and by the city, who will otherwise benefit through community access to the field. This is a lose-lose scenario and one that I believe we would all very much want to avoid. Thank you, council members, for your consideration and for providing me with the time to share my input with you this evening. Thank you. >> Okay, thank you very much, Mr. Cross. The next uh delegate is Megan McDermott from Davies Howe LLP representing Lorne Park School. Welcome, Ms. McDermott. >> Good evening. My name is Megan McDermott. I'm a lawyer with Davies Howe LLP and I'm counsel to Lorne Park School and 1355314 Ontario Inc., the owners of 500 Elgin Mills Road East and 93 Edward Avenue. In addition to the comments from my client, Mr. Cross, who you just heard from, I also direct you to the April 10th letter by Humphreys Planning Group, which sets out a detailed planning analysis that supports the request I'll be making tonight to have my client's lands redesignated to the business commercial designation. Now, you've heard from my client about the history of the school uses on the two properties, uh the employment and community benefits that they generate, and the proposed draft OPA 18.9 does not properly recognize the school's history and context, and instead proposes to maintain an employment area designation on these properties, restricting any new uses to manufacturing and warehousing. As you know, Bill 97 and the new PPS changed the definition of employment area to now limit those areas to only manufacturing, warehousing, and associated or ancillary uses. And what the province intended through these changes was for municipalities to take a critical look at their employment lands and determine which of those lands are truly industrial lands and which of those lands can support other types of employment and potentially a more a greater mix of uses. What they did not intend was that municipalities would take a broad brush approach and simply maintain all of the old employment areas as new employment areas, but now with a limited list of uses. The city of Toronto is a good example. It took the broad brush approach and had its first attempt at OPAs sent back by the minister and its second attempt sitting at the province for over a year now waiting for approval. I encourage you not to make the same mistake that the city of Toronto made. The staff report for tonight identifies only three locations representing 6% of the total employment areas to be redesignated. All of your other employment areas, which previously were permitted a range of uses including office, hotels, convention centers, auto service and repair, and certain community uses, all of those lands are now to be only manufacturing and warehousing uses. My client's lands are within the Newkirk Business Park. The Watson employment area review identified that industrial uses make up 71% of the uses in this area, while institutional uses represent 13%, which in the words of the report forms a modest secondary component. Office and non-retail commercial comprise 9% of the uses and retail 7%. Notwithstanding that 29%, almost a third of this employment area is made up of what is now classified as non-employment uses. This whole area is proposed to remain employment area where only industrial uses and existing uses in their present form will be permitted. In my view, this isn't simply not what the province intended. So, here's what this means for my client sites. For the 500 Elgin Mills site, the existing school will be permitted to continue as an existing use, but in accordance with a proposed new policy 4.8.1.2, it would be prohibited from expanding, thereby removing any potential for the school to change and grow to meet its future needs. For the 93 Edward Avenue site, only manufacturing and warehousing uses would be permitted. As discussed in detail in the Humphrey's Planning Group letter, the 93 Edward Avenue site is not viable for industrial employment on its own. The site is too small for many of these uses, and it is already constrained by the residential subdivision directly to the east, which would limit the type of uses that could locate there. As you heard from Mr. Cross, the need to use the 93 Edward site for a new playing field is very important to the school. The need for the site to be protected for a type of use which most likely will not locate there is not. Redesignating the lands will not impact the overall viability of this employment area. The lands are located at the edge of the employment area adjacent to the existing residential subdivision, and in that respect, they provide a good transition to the employment uses on the west side of Edward Avenue. Further, the school has existed for 17 years now, and there has been no impact on the surrounding businesses. And I think this is really evidenced by the fact that none of the surrounding businesses provided any comments or objections to the current official plan amendment and zoning bylaw amendment applications for 93 Edward at the public meeting last February. I'll just conclude with our specific request, which is to have the sites redesignated to the business commercial designation. Thank you very much. >> Okay, thank you very much. Uh the next uh speaker is Ian Anders uh representing a number of different uh organizations, which I won't bother listing cuz he he probably will. Mr. Anders, welcome. >> Thank you. Good evening, Mayor West, members of council. Um I am here on behalf of a number of landowners. I'm not going to list them, they are listed in the agenda already, and I filed a letter this afternoon, um which I hope made it to your attention, and if not, I'd ask that you read it before this comes back for the special council meeting in a few weeks. Um I'm going to pick up on some of the submissions that Ms. McDermott just made about the employment lands, and you may recall that I was here last September when the city brought forward its comprehensive zoning bylaw for enactment to discuss the employment land issue. And at the time, we had both procedural and substantive concerns. The procedural issues have essentially been resolved, but we still have uh very significant substantive concerns. So, we understand that what the city's trying to do is bring its uh policies in line with provincial policies, and we acknowledge that the changes at the provincial level have made this somewhat difficult and are somewhat of a departure from past employment land uh land use planning. But, what was certainly not intended at the provincial level was to remove permissions such as office and non-retail commercial from employment lands. There's no requirement for the city to remove those permissions from any of these employment lands, and the province did not narrow the list of permitted uses, as was stated on the slide earlier. It simply narrowed the list of uses that would be subject to a certain appeal restriction in the Planning Act. The province wasn't trying to dictate how the city uh permits uses on its lands. It was just carve It was narrowing the category of uses that would be immune from appeals should a site-specific application come forward in the future. So, I just want to make sure that Council is aware of exactly what we're talking about here. There's really only two reasons that the city might remove office or commercial permissions from its employment lands. One would be the uses are not appropriate, which is clearly not the case if you read the Watson report. It outlines uh the mix of uses that currently exist in each of the city's business parks. The other reason, which I think is what's really going on here, is that there's a concern that someone might seek to bring forward a conversion application or an inappropriate non-employment use application in the future. And there's a worry that the city will lose control over that and that the OLT will step in and approve a use that the city doesn't want. And so, because of that fear, what the city's now proposing is to strip away office and commercial uses in an effort to insulate um itself against any future OLT appeal. But, if someone were to come forward in the future with an amendment that the city deems inappropriate, it would have every ability to oppose that on its merits. And it could go to the OLT and state its case. And the city should have confidence that in its employment land planning and confidence that it could defeat an inappropriate application. It doesn't need to go to the disproportionate response of stripping away all these permissions now just to try to address some hypothetical future risk. As Ms. McDermott just said, if you look at the Watson report, it summarizes the existing composition of employment lands. And in the Beaver Creek, Barker, and Headford Business Parks, which were the three that she didn't mention, the largest category of employment uses in each currently is office and non-retail commercial. And if you look at the Headford Business Park, where one of my clients, Bayview, owns a number of properties and has developed properties, the office and non-res commercial is 55% of the current employment base. So, if these lands are down-designated and down-zoned now, it's going to significantly undermine my clients' ability to re-tenant those spaces or redevelop those spaces or expand existing buildings. And that in turn is going to affect the city's ability to attract the type of new employment users that it wants, and to compete in the marketplace. So, this means reduced flexibility, less job creation, inhibited economic development, and less tax revenue. Traditional employ- industrial uses may still be permitted, but those are low-density employers, and they only comprise a small percentage of what exists today. So, if a new company wished to build a head office in one of the business parks, it would not be entitled to do so. And the only reason it would not be entitled is because there's concern that someone might propose an inappropriate application in the future. Staples has a head office in the head for business park. If it wanted to expand that head office, it could not do that if the city takes away these permissions. And if an existing building were to have its tenants vacate, the landlord could not replace those tenants with new office or non-rate retail commercial tenants, because the policies would not permit it. So, this will have a major chilling effect, and it will cause landlords and potential tenants from not wanting to make significant capital investments in this space, because they won't have the certainty that their uses will actually be welcome or permitted. So, with respect, we don't feel the implications are being carefully thought through here, and the city should have confidence in its planning vision, and it should have the fortitude to defend that vision in the future if some inappropriate application arises. The fear of what the OLT might do is not a good reason to take away land use permissions that allowed these employment lands to develop into the business parks that are thriving today. The market is challenging enough, so my clients are pleading with the city to not make it more challenging by taking away these permissions. Thank you. >> Okay, thank you very much. And actually, you are on the agenda for the next two items as well, so you get a a three-for-one uh blue light special today. So, just go ahead. >> I don't know about a blue light special, but I'll introduce myself again for the record, Ian Andres from Goodmans. Actually, I'm not sure I did that the first time. Um now, I'm going to speak, totally switching gears, on behalf of a different client, Major Mac Maple Inc. Um which is the owner of an assembled site on the south side of Major Mackenzie Drive East and at the corner of Maple Avenue. And it is within the protected major transit station area uh as currently designated in the York Region Official Plan. It is just outside the city's designated local center. Um and it also is the subject of existing development applications for official plan and zoning amendment that were recently appealed to the Ontario Land Tribunal on the basis of a non-decision. So, this is a property that's two blocks east of the GO station. And our client has proposed buildings that are significantly taller than what the city's current uh policy structure would allow. Right now, the site is designated local mixed-use corridor, which only would allow a four-story building and 1.5 times FSI. So, the proposal, as it currently stands, is for 20 stories and 12 stories. And like I said, that's been appealed to the Ontario Land Tribunal So, I think what's one of the issues here is that the site, despite being within the PMTSA, was not included in the Newkirk Local Center um secondary planning exercise, which led to, I think it was OPA 18.6 um a little while ago. And as a result of that, despite being just a couple of blocks from the GO station, a very short walk, and and very close to other sites that have permissions of 15 and 20 stories, this site was left out. And although it's within the PMTSA and on the rapid transit corridor as designated in the York Plan currently, it was only uh left with these four-story permissions and 1.5 FSI. So, what's interesting about OPA 18.9 that's now before you and being recommended by staff is that the angular plane policies that have played a large role in how this how city planning staff want to shape built form are proposed to be amended quite significantly and I would say favorably in the case of this property um in terms of how the angular plane at the rear neighborhood lot line gets measured. And just looking strictly at that angular plane on this property uh you could comfortably fit a 12-story building underneath it and and still satisfy that angular plane policy as it's now proposed to be amended. So in that context while we understand the city may not um want a 20-story building here four stories does seem woefully low. So because there's existing appeals and our client has signaled uh both to staff and I believe to some of the counselors a desire to to keep talking about this project and to see if a satisfactory resolution can be achieved we very much would like to do that um but because this is a conformity exercise OPA and the intent of it is to bring the city's official plan fully in line with the new provincial planning statement the ask here is to reconsider the designation because a local mixed-use corridor designation probably is inappropriate for this property. There's no reason it can't be in the local center designation. It shares the same PMTSA boundaries and that would at least put it into a higher order in the hierarchy um where a more appropriate form of intensification could be considered. So we're looking forward to working with staff um through both the OLT appeal process and through this OPA 18.9 uh conformity exercise over the next several weeks or months and hopefully we can my client can achieve a a form of development that everyone is happy with. Um so we see this as a step in the right direction but it doesn't quite go far enough yet and the ask would be to reconsider the property for a local center designation. That's all I have on that one. >> And now you're going to be talking to us about 625684 Ontario Limited. >> Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Yes. 625-684 Ontario Limited owns the Richmond Hill Golf Club site at the northeast corner of Bathurst and Highway 7. And this is a large site as I'm sure you know. And it is the site is entirely within I'm sorry, the developable area of the site is entirely within the PMTSA designation number 42 that's currently in the York Region plan. And until OPA 18.9 came along, the site has had a very historic I'll call it archaic designation from the old Parkway Belt West plan. And clearly that old designation is not in line with current and modern provincial policy. So we're pleased to see that OPA 18.9 is now proposing to as part of repealing the ROB to bring the PMTSA designation forward into the city's plan. But on top of that to actually change the land use designation to a local center designation which is appropriate for the site and my client is pleased to see that. We've also reviewed the land use policy framework for the new Bathurst and Highway 7 local center designation. And at a high level generally, my client is content with what he sees in there in terms of the planning policies at least to set the stage for an initial exploration of a development concept for this site. So it may be that as we work through a more detailed design exercise and come up with conceptual plans, some modifications to those policies are warranted. But as it stands today, it seems like a a reasonable baseline set of permissions and so we're pleased to see that and and we support those changes in OPA 18.9. Um I realize that the next item on the agenda is the zoning bylaw. The only thing I really have to say about the zoning bylaw for this property is that this site at Bathurst and 7 is is proposed to be excluded from the comprehensive zoning bylaw still and I believe the intent there is for the city and my client to work through a more detailed design exercise. Whether that takes the form of a tertiary plan that the city initiates or a development application or some combination of those. Um we agree that it would be appropriate to basically reserve the zoning amendment until that happens. So, a consequence of that is that the site will still have its old zoning, agricultural zoning, under [snorts] the bylaw 2523, I think it is. And you know, that's not going to conform with the new OPA as amended by 18.9, but I think we have some time to work through what appropriate zoning would be. And so, whether that again, that comes through on a development application or through a tertiary plan exercise, our ask is that we be consulted every step of the way and that if the city does wish to initiate a tertiary plan itself, that uh staff reach out to us or at least that we can, you know, start that discussion from ground zero. Um so, that's it. Thank you for your attention. >> Okay, thank you so much. Um so, at this point in time, I'll open it up to the floor if there's anybody else we don't have anybody signed up virtually, right? So, is there is there anybody in the audience that would like to speak to this particular issue? Don't all jump at once. Okay, I'm seeing smiles, but I'm not seeing anybody put their hand up. So, if that's the case, I will bring this back to council. Um so, we'll need uh a motion to receive all the comments and refer back to staff. Regional local counselor DePalo. >> Uh thank you, Mr. Mayor, and uh I'm happy to move the motion that we receive all the comments, refer it back to staff. I um oh, overall, I'm really happy that we're at this stage and that we've this is the the last piece of the puzzle, really, for our overall official plan and update. And um I I'm I'm encouraged by the timeline. Uh you know, subsequent to all the the public feedback that we're going to have now tonight and and and before we come back in September, I'm glad we're we're at this stage. I'm happy to move it forward. I I'll admit I'm I'm a little biased toward this applicant. They're they're doing a great job. They've done a lot of work to get to this point. So Mr. Mayor, I just have a couple questions and it relates to what the delegations have brought up today. And as we're like we're we're bringing forward the main purpose of the exercise is to bring bring our official plan in up to date and in accordance with provincial policy and others. And when we're doing so how is it that we're um effectively downgrading some of the some of these properties? If you could explain again you know, by the contention of the the delegation it appears that way. I'm I'm not sure if that's the case or not and how does how does a school get uh you know, prejudicially seemingly prejudicially affected? >> Mr. Aiello. You're good. Go ahead. >> Uh through you, Mr. Mayor. The changes to the plan adopted the PPS remodified the designation of employment lands to be very specific to manufacturing, warehousing and I and D specifically. It also allows accessory retail and office spaces for those uses associated. It also allows ancillary uses connected to those. But it specifically also prohibits institutional and commercial uses within the employment lands. With respect to the school property that was mentioned earlier, the school itself is protected under OPA 461. The council were endorsed uh about a year or so ago and it legalizes because it was a legal use prior to October 20th November 20th of 2024. The issue is specific to uh 93 at work that's where the playing field is being proposed. That is uh a sensitive land use and I'm not one of the primary uses permitted under the act. So, as part of the employment land review, it wouldn't be a permitted use under the the changes. Um similarly, even the city could not uh put a playing field if they so wished in the employment areas because of the further restrictions that the PPS has even on [clears throat] the public authority with respect to that. So, it's uh the uh study that was done by Watson looked at comprehensively on all of our employment lands to understand what areas could be protected and what should be redesignated to another land use. So, as you heard from the presentations, we're actually removing two specific areas to business commercial, the one on Highway 7 and Leslie and the one at Algoma Mills and Leslie in the northeast corner, the Real Trend property. Because they're basically commercial properties in operation uh from the early '80s to the present on those ones. Um when Watson looked at the in addition to to those areas, there were a number of other lands taken out of the employment area. As you heard earlier in in the Newkirk area along Yonge Street, there were redesignations by the rock to take lands out of the employment area and put them into the corridor. Uh on the south side of Major Mackenzie, uh just west of the 404, the province did a minister's zoning order that reach change the land use permissions under zoning to residential. Some of which are being built currently. We're actually to redesignating those lands to reflect the minister's approval from employment to residential both on on that two property. One is owned by Mr. Andre's client, I believe. Uh the other area is a cemetery on Elgin Mills. The eastern portion of that has always been designated as employment lands, but for obvious reasons, so what we chose to remove it from those lands. So, significant amount of land has been taken out of the employment lands because of these various uh matters to the point that we're in a deficit of approximately 50 55 to 57 hectares of land out of the employment lands because of what was happened either by the minister or by the rob or by the study that we undertook to look at what lands can come out. Um we're otherwise recommending that the employment lands be cohesively maintained and the permissions for existing non-employment uses are retained and new commercial uses can replace an lawfully established commercial use. Right? So, they're not just truncated to whatever is there today as a as a commercial use but if another office uh wanted to operate operate in an an an existing authorized uh office they space they could continue that. Or if another retail use wants to operate in an established retail use, they can also do that. So, it's not that we're only truncating to what's physically there. The commercial use of the >> grandfathered legal status not just for the existing user, but for that category. >> For the category, it's not just the user, the category of commercial that's protected because they predated November 2024, the commercial use or a commercial use can operate through the same space. >> Okay. Um, but it would limit their ability to expand. >> The expansion is somewhat of a gray limitation. You're correct, sir. >> And it's a it's uh What what's the term? Special use? It's a um Well, it no longer qualifies to the provincial definition of employment. >> Sorry, are you Sorry, sir. >> Um, the the the school use, for example, doesn't qualify for an employment >> The the the school itself, because it pre it was authorized as a lawful use prior to uh November, it's a lawful use under OPA 61. The issue is the expansion, the redesignation of the lands to the north to a non-employment use. That is what what staff reviewed, and we're recommending that the uh employment lands be maintained as a cohesive body. >> Okay. Well, thank you. Thank you for that uh clarification, and you know, Um, you know, I should I should support going forward as proposed, and I don't I don't think there's any alternative. Thanks, Mr. Mayor. >> Okay. Thank you. Uh so, Councillor Liu, would you like to second this motion? >> Yes, please. Thank you. >> Thank you, Mr. Mayor, and thank you uh for the staff report and uh and all the delegates. I just have two quick questions. Um, the first one is I see the owner of 9835 Leslie Street is here. Um, I just wanted to confirm, you know, from uh from staff that it has been included within the Leslie Street Institution area. Am I correct? >> Uh through you, Mr. Mayor. Uh yes, that's correct. Staff undertook a review from the last uh OP Act meeting and determined that um historically, the definition of the Leslie Street would have incorporated historical and a small-scale commercial. So, those two properties, it's not just the the property you mentioned, but the property to the south, were better suited into the institutional because of the uh justification when that was originally established in first place. >> Thank you very much. And my next question is regarding uh one of the correspondence uh from Smart Centre regarding 1070 Major Mackenzie Drive East. Um, I think them their main concern, what I'm seeing from the correspondence, is uh um is now exclude major retail because that's the Walmart Plaza. Through you, Mr. Mayor, to staff that. Can you clarify that, please? >> Yeah, through you, Mr. Mayor. There is a very specific policy in the official plan that allows the major retail on that property. And and has been recognized for quite a while. So, it's uh typically, you don't have major retail in in that designation, but because of historical use of it, there was an exception uh previously in the OP that allowed the major retail to be recognized. Um uh uh we will clarify with the owner and specifically address the the policy, but it is in the in the plan that recognizes it. >> Sounds good. Thank you very much. >> Uh Councillor Silvitz, I see your hand up. >> Thank you, Mr. Chair. Uh everybody can hear me? >> Yes. >> Thank you. Um, I just have two questions to you, Mr. Chair, Uh uh to um Mr. Aiello. Um does the province in in in its any of its land use policies or legislation allow for an exemption for instance with regards to the Laura Mount School to allow an exemption for that soccer field to be built or installed? >> Uh through through you, Mr. Mayor, our understanding is that to permit the uh non-employment use, the manufacturing, etc. on those lands, the lands would have to be uh outside of the employment area. >> Okay, thank you. So, to this >> for something else. >> Okay. So, so there there's nothing in provincial policy or legislation that specifically states that um a a landowner can can apply for an exemption of a specific site-specific area. >> Oh, sorry sorry, Counselor, I misunderstood you. No, there's always the ability for landowners to submit OPAs >> Right. >> in in the future with respect to that up and my understanding is that there is an active application >> Yes. >> I believe uh to deal with the the uh additional building and the playing fields. So, uh it would follow that kind of uh protocol. So, yes, there's no restriction to OPAs being brought forward at any point in time by any landowner, but uh but that's the typical planning act requirement. >> Okay, thank you. I I just wanted to I just wanted to make sure that because that is that's certainly uh the in in in my opinion, that's that's the way the landowner should be moving and and I believe they are through that application. So, the my second question through you, Mr. Mayor, to Mr. Aiello is with regards to the Maple property on Major Mackenzie East, which is in Ward 5. I don't know if I if I misunderstood Mr. Andres or or or he said something different, but can you please um can you please qualify for me the PMTSA that exists at Essex and Major Mackenzie that does not include the Maple property. Is that correct? >> Uh through you, Mr. Mayor, I would have to review that specifically. I was not aware uh of the exact property uh at >> Okay, can can I to be can I check in with you offline tomorrow on that? >> Uh yes, by all means. The the other comment I would have on that application, as Mr. Andres indicated, there had been an appeal to the OPA that's submitted on that on that property. That obviously will go through a process to seek direction from council and subsequently to attend the OLT and whatever resolution occurs there would dictate what happens with that property also. Mr. Andres is is indicating the willingness to discuss with staff, which I think is appropriate, and we will certainly continue. But, I will get back to you, counselor, with respect to the limits of the PMTSA and whether or not it includes those lands. >> Thank you, and and I I appreciate that. And I I just wanted to say here, as the Ward 5 counselor, um, and I'm sure our regional counselors and the mayor would agree, um, that I welcome, um, continued conversation where this, uh, application is concerned, um, despite it being in front of the OLT now. Um, I do believe that, uh, that we can have collaborative discussions which could bring us closer to perhaps a middle, a middle place where everybody could have greater satisfaction. So, those are my comments. Thank you. >> Okay, thank you, Councillor Davidson. >> Thank you, and thank you, staff, and thank you to the delegates. Um, mine's more broad question. Uh, my understanding is that the province has now said that there are four uses for employment lands, and I think they're industrial, manufacturing, logistics, warehousing, research and development, and ancillary uses like retail. Is that correct? >> Uh, uh, yes, those are primary uses, but the act also allows the municipality to recognize non-employment uses with employment lands. So, that's what OPA 61 did. So, the lawfully established, uh, non-employment uses are recognized in this OPA. >> So, I guess my question is, I mean, I do have some understanding of our OPA, but the delegates, more than one delegate, seem to claim that the province wasn't trying to restrict land use, and that the city staff in the city OPA, the our plan has completely misunderstood the legislation. Can you just touch on the interpretation and how much wiggle room there is when we say this is not allowed under the province, and yet delegates say that we're not interpreting it properly properly. I feel like myself and maybe some residents would like a clarification on how the city interpreted the legislation. >> Uh, through you, Mr. Mayor, the one we reviewed the planning act requirements, he specifically identifies what the core uses are, being manufacturing, where warehousing and R&D etc. And associated retail and office with those permitted uses. It also allows ancillary uses to those uses. Uh, but it any standalone office or commercial use that's not employment was not constituted an employment land at that point in time. Unless the city had policies in the official plan that would permit the continuation and recognition of those uses within employment areas. Hence the OPA 61 was uh, brought forward to council and protects those uses to continue. The um, difference of opinion seems to be what is lawfully established. Like we're in accordance with OPA 61, lawfully establishes the physical manifestation of the use. Physically there are not just because it's a permitted use under our zoning bylaw. Because if that were the case, um, uh, uh, you're going to appreciate that for the Beaver Creek Business Park for example, that's a 1980 bylaw that allowed various types of commercial uses throughout the business park depending on the zone category. So, based on that interpretation, we would have significantly less employment lands. If we just took it from the use permission as opposed to the physical manifestation. So, there is a difference of opinion as to what that means and we believe that we're we're protecting what the non-employment uses are within the employment area and those can continue under the broad category of commercial and office uses. >> And thank you. Um regarding the school wanting the sports facility, why can you explain again why the school is okay where it is under cuz I'm assuming that that frontage to Elgin Mills and Edward is would would normally be called industrial, right? Because all of Edward is pretty much industrial employment. Um so if the school's protected, why wouldn't any property it owns in the area go along with that? >> Uh the reason the reason is that the act is very specific that the use had to be lawfully established prop prior to November 20th, 2024. The school clearly uh uh conforms with that. So, 500 Elgin Mills is clearly uh permitted. The exception is 93 Edward. That was not a lawful use at that point in time. So, it doesn't meet the uh requirement for under the legislation. >> Thank you. Um and forgive me, but if they established classes on that property during COVID, which was prior to 2024, why would that not be considered school functioning school property? >> At uh at that point in time, council considered a temporary use bylaw, which uh the through uh uh 20 I think it was done in 2020 uh and uh died in 2023. So, that uh uh permission is no longer in effect uh at this point in time. So, they were allowed because council authorized temporary use bylaw that gave them the ability to uh uh operate the additional classrooms. >> Okay, thank you. >> Okay, uh Regional Councillor D'Amico Chan. >> Thank you uh very much, Mr. Chair, and thank you, staff, for very long process. Uh we are getting to 18.9. Uh, so and I appreciate that and uh and thank you for all the delegates and the correspondence come uh forward. I just make some general comments and I like to raise some question through uh Mr. Mayor. Uh, I actually happy to see this comprehensive that did touch on number areas. Uh, seem to be not as hot as employment lands and other things. Uh, but water resource management in particular protection of the source water. And we all know which one here we have lots of water but they got on the surface. And uh also the area on the agriculture. Um, I might have a question there because I'm wondering why uh actually I may ask the question now. Um, try to limit that what people generally call vertical agriculture. Um, generally speaking there's a lot of a lot of agriculture activity that's going on. But vertical agriculture could potentially not necessary uh be carried out or be done in uh lands that perhaps is still considered agriculture. It actually could be potentially in a warehouse. Um, so through Mr. Chair maybe I will ask the question uh where under the agriculture system on page 14 limiting and 15 limiting the vertical um agriculture is it only limiting within those lands which may be limited to uh agriculture purposes through you Mr. Chair. >> Uh, through you Mr. Mayor. The urban agricultural uh topic is specifically in the built-up area. So in the settlement area specifically. And there are limitations as to where that uh is a is appropriate in in style. So in the neighborhood you could have the community gardens type things that are appropriate. Along Young Street, you could potentially have vertical agricultural in those locations. So, it's the question of where you wouldn't we wouldn't want to vertical agriculture in the middle of a subdivision, for example, in the neighborhood. But, it's appropriate in the centers and corridors, for example. >> Okay, thank you. It's as worth noting is common and as noted in the report. Um generally speaking, when I first look at a title mineral, aggregate, and petroleum resources, I would tend to think, "Oh, it doesn't apply to Richmond Hill." Surprise, surprise, I think we all know there's one uh operation on that, which is also said in the report, which is important. Now, I'm coming back to um the delegates have been um touching on the point on employment lands. If I understand it correctly, any application for official plan amendment, meaning converting the employment land, uh now does not have to tie to when the minutes party is doing the comprehensive review. So, in some way, I would have thought that might mean, as a layperson, that we actually liberalize, meaning that any party of land plan could come in an application. Whether it's successful or not is a different story. So, I'm just wondering through Mr. Chair, Mr. Mayor, to our staff, am I really going thinking all whack, or is it really not really trying to um striking a path towards that way? >> Uh through you, Mr. Mayor, historically, conversions would have had to wait for a municipal comprehensive review. That provision has been removed. So, uh so uh applicants can oppose official plan amendments at any point in time to redesignate lands uh potentially. So, it has been slightly There are obviously criteria that still have to be met. Uh but it's not as rigorous to wait for an MCR to occur. Thank you. Um I just want to be absolutely clear uh through Mr. Mayor to our staff. Is it not the case that any party could go directly, for example, to the minister, meaning Ontario minister, and try to obtain a ministerial zoning order, um whether it's for an employment land or for anything else? Uh does that um assuming we have eventually passed in September, the OP update, uh would it limit in any way, form, or shape any party um could contemplate that route? Not the route to I guess we prefer, but uh I just want to be absolutely clear through Mr. Mayor from staff that route is still open to any party. Is it true or not true? Um through you, Mr. Mayor, that's an atypical scenario, but it is open to anyone uh to speak to the minister, and as uh council's aware, we have had a number of MZOs uh in the city already that bypassed council, if you will, and and dealt with that that we have to respect, and ultimately implement through uh our documents, which is what you see in this uh in this OPA. We have implemented changes that were initiated by the minister themselves. Okay, thank you. Um maybe this question may be asked before. Should council, in the end, um allowing that uh what uh Delegate 1 and 2 were seeking, would that be creating particular exemption or could it be potentially open a floodgate, so to speak, for Mr. Chair Mr. Mayor to staff? >> Um through you, Mr. Mayor. Kane Road Industrial on Applewood. Now, we staff did look at the question of fragmentation of business parks. That's why when we reviewed the parks as a whole in concert with Watson, we looked at what are the implications. There have been recent pre-decision that deal with isolated pockets, such as Real Trend, for example, that's not contiguous, and that would make sense to not be employment lands, depending on the physical use of those lands. And in that case, it's not an employment use. So, that was easy enough to deal with. The problem is as soon as you start removing the lands from the core, you start fragmenting, which proposes additional changes in the future. So, it can weaken the protection of the employment lands to the future. Specifically, one of the concerns is that we already have a significant deficit, and the city doesn't have any more land because of the Oak Ridges Marine to expand commercial uses employment uses, sorry, into other locations. >> Thank you very much for answer, and thank you, Mr. Mayor, for me to make my comments as what is meant to be, and seek clarification. Thank you very much. >> Okay, thank you, Councillor Thompson. >> Uh thank you very much. Thank you for the report. Thank you for the delegates speaking. Um I do want to follow up. Uh I had similar thoughts as Councillor Davidson in regards to how they were able to utilize 93 Edward, and I'm going to the Lairmont one here. How they were able to utilize it during the pandemic. Um and then now this has come up. So, it sounds like it's all about timing uh for the most part from the way I'm I'm hearing this, but what was the actual process that they had to go through back uh during COVID? So, they It sounds like they did not have to go to an official plan amendment. It was something less rigid. Would that be correct? >> Um my understanding is that they submitted a request for temporary use bylaw that was reviewed by the city and the region at the time. Um and it was recognized as a temporary use that it was appropriate given the situations of the time. But, that was The region was not something that was supported by the region. This was allowed to be entered for a limited period. In late 2020 2023 is what the bylaw uh was was enacted under. Because the planning act allowed that. But, at the same time the region uh on a request to convert it is that it was not appropriate at that point in time. So, the uh at this point in time the plan the PPS and the planning act have changed to make it more rigorous on that. So, if the the only the option available to to this is to continue with the OPA application and council can consider that that option at this point in time. But, because of the change in the planning act the 93 specifically restricted cuz it's not a prior authorized use cuz of the from 2023 to now, it's not recognized by in the zoning. >> It and I think I understand all that. Um I guess the question and I don't know exactly when they bought the property, but uh it sounds to me that uh uh conversion would not have been applicable even when they bought the property or do we know that? >> Uh as I said, my understanding is at the time that the temporary use bylaw was considered, there was also a consideration whether or not to convert it from employment lands to institutional lands of the day. And the decision that the and comments from the region at the point was that they were not supportive of the change. >> Sorry, they just said okay. Sorry, through so through the chair it was just a matter they weren't supportive of the change is basically >> they basically said no, we they not support the conversion of employment lands to institutional at that point in time. >> Okay, at that particular point in time again, but I don't know when they actually bought the property and I would think that anybody that's going to buy an abutting property is because they're under the impression they're going to be able to utilize it in some way, shape, or form. That's why I keep coming back to the timing thing here. It sounds like, you know, had they maybe put an application in way back then, we wouldn't be having this conversation today. >> Well, my again, my understanding is that they attempted to convert the lands from employment back in 2020 and the answer from the region was that they did not support the change from industrial to institutional. So, it was considered, it was just not accepted. >> Okay. So, uh Ms. Jeanette wants to weigh in here. Sorry, Deb. I wasn't looking your way. >> I think it was because I was tucked too far in the corner. >> It might be. You're kind of hidden there. >> Um through the chair to Counselor Thompson. So, at the time that the I actually did the temporary use bylaw to facilitate the school use during COVID. At the time, institutional uses were not permitted in the employment area under the designation that is currently applicable. Temporary use bylaws are an opportunity for short temporary uses that don't necessarily have to comply with the official plan. So, that's how it was established for the temporary period that it was previously. The employment the employment designation for some time has not allowed institutional uses as a result of previous legislative changes. So, it's been established for a number of years that this property was not able to be used for the institutional use. Notwithstanding 500 Elgin Mills Road has has had grandfathered legal zoning in place for that property only. This property was a newer property that was never part of that property initially, so it has a different zoning. At the time of the previous regional official plan review, when they were reviewing employment lands, my recollection is that Lorne Mont School did come forward at the time and request conversion. They were denied by the region at that time. >> I see. Thank you. So, through the chair, um so, temporary use. Is there an actual definition of uh what temporary means? Uh I mean, I think about uh all those people living on the island temporarily for 99-year leases. Um Uh so, there's an actual parameter for temporary, then. >> uses. >> And so, it'll say what those >> To be clear, the planning act doesn't specify what the temporary uses are. It allows for temporary uses to be established established subject to certain parameters. So, it's not that it defines what temporary uses are per se. It's what uh what parameters around establishing uh temporary uses on the property. For example, they expire the temporary use bylaw expires Um and my I didn't look it up exactly. It used to be 2 years how that you have a four temporary use bylaw, but I think it might have been increased to 3 years. >> I see. Yeah, I guess I was trying to get what temporary is in terms of a timeline, but uh okay. Um I'll I'll leave it there. Thank you uh for allowing me to speak. Thank you. >> Okay. Uh Counselor Shu. >> Thank you, Mr. Chair, and uh thank you for the staff for your presentation. Uh this OPA is really comprehensive. So, uh first of all, just wondering um since the comprehensive zoning bylaw was under appeal at the OLT, and there was a decision after the second CMC on June 10th. So, I just wondering, would that decision affect this OPA 18.9 if the council approves in the next 2 weeks? Is there any relation to that? >> Through you, Mr. Chair, the comprehensive zoning bylaw uh initiated and implemented the in effect policies of the 2010 official plan as amended and legally in full force and effect. So, the that document stands on its own. Uh currently, that's why you have a second presentation that's proposing to modify the comprehensive zoning bylaw to bring it into effect with 18.9. And any changes that for that, too. So, it is an amendment to it, but only to bring it in force if council approves the changes to the the plan in accordance with 18.9. But, the process under before the OLT is a separate matter under the 2010 of OP as as approved and in in full force and effect. >> I think I've got it. Um would it be possible and legally allowed to appeal this OPA 18.9 to the OLT? >> Yes, the this document is under the approval of the Minister of Municipal Affairs with no appeals subject to the way the Minister approves it. >> Okay, so if so, uh would that mean if this case may be upcoming potential appeal for this OPA, that means the comprehensive zoning bylaw will also be put on hold until the decision has been made by the OLT. Is that right? And all the upcoming potential development may be delayed. Am I Am I correct? >> Not so, Mr. Mr. Mayor. The OPA 18.9 is is not appealable under section 26. >> Okay. >> It's approved by the Minister in its form. So, whatever decision the Minister makes, that's the final disposition of it. >> Okay. clear enough. >> as far as I got you. >> Clear enough. Okay. Uh my next question is it's just to clarify this OPA applies on a specific site, which is a EBC secondary plan. Uh it shows that the maximum building height is 40 stories and the FSI is 3.5. So, the the state applied for the entire secondary plan area from 404 to west of Leslie. Is it an average for the entire area, but not only the block between Leslie and East Beaver Creek? >> Uh so, you Mr. Mayor, the uh local center is specifically the lands east of Leslie Street to north of Highway 7 to the 404, south of East Pearce, West Pearce, East Pearce, and northern northern Bethune, I think it's called. >> East Pearce of the >> So, all of that area is captured by the local center. >> It's my understanding this the entire area, but not only the block between East Beaver Creek and Leslie. It's the entire area, too. Uh east to 404. >> That's yes. >> Okay, and is that FSI FSI 3.5 also include everything on the site, including the hotel, convention center, and also shopping mall? >> Um for you, Mr. Mayor, the yes, it's the 3.5 is the average over the entire local center designation. >> But the point is there's a hotel. How do you calculate the FSI there? >> Well, it was calculated based on the entire and not just the hotel, but the potential distribution as council seen previous iterations by Gladki as part of the EBC secondary process that they show various site densities and built forms throughout the local center. When you calculate the average of that, it comes out to 3.5. So, some are taller and some are shorter in density. Hence, the average is 3.5 over that. Okay. That was calculated in detail by as part of the review by Black Key. >> Okay, let me put it this way because you this include the hotel as well. And the visitor of the hotel is fluctuate always. How how do you manage the FSI with the 3.5 always consistently? I'm I'm just wondering. Because it's not a pure residential >> is just a GFA calculation. So, the hotel is taken as it is because one of the recommendations, I believe, in the in the policy is to maintain the hotel and the convention center as it is with the development off of the hotel proper itself, but in the parking lot all around it plus the obviously lands to the north of this building. And the lands east of East Beaver Creek. >> Okay. Maybe we have another talk with the planning team offline. I'm just digesting this, okay? Okay, my last question is referring to the original mixed-use corridor. Within the presentation, it it showed that it is expanded to include the area north of Highway 7 between the Richmond Hill Centre and Bayview Avenue. And I remember there's a line of hydro towers. So, I'm just wondering is is there any minimum setback between the hydro towers and the future potential developments? Is there any setback requirement stated in the OPA? >> I spoke to you, Mr. Mayor, the lands subject to the local regional mixture corridor and that are beyond the limits of the corridor that corridor. That's in the PUC corridor. It's already designated. Obviously any any development applications would also be circulated to Hydro One for any parameters to the placement of the of towers from that distance. So would be played into it. So but I'm not aware of a specific setback measurement. That will be articulated through the review, but the lands are not within the PUC. This is where exactly where the actual big box commercial building uses are. Not within the parking lot. They actually extend to the south into the corridor hydro corridor. Okay. It's beyond that. I think I got it. Okay, that's all my comments and questions. Thank you Mr. Chair. Thank you. Okay, thank you. Um all right, so I I have a few things to say as well. Um two two things specifically. So the first question is this angular plane change. Um I got to be honest I'm happy to discuss this and I I suspect maybe we'll discuss it a bit more after this meeting, but why are we changing that? I'll throw you Mr. Mayor when we were reviewing the corridor specifically, there there ended up being a number of angular plane policies depending on where you were on Yonge Street specifically. They range from being measured at grade to be measured above grade at various points. There was also the original policies in the 2010 OP as amended that changed the designation to an intrusion of 10 m. As council may recall, the half 4 by 4 review specifically asked uh staff to review uh a four-story permissions. Uh and through that exercise, the angular plane was modified slightly to say that a 15 m intrusion into the angular plane uh was permitted uh in that location. So, to avoid confusion on the multiple ways of calculating it, the uh uh proposition before you is at the intersection of a property line to a property line between a corridor in the neighborhood, the measurement will be taken 15 m up, which would allow the four stories, and then you strike the angular plane, and that's a consistent measurement uh uh across the the the city, save and except in corridors, save and except for the regional center, that has very specific policies related to that area that are covered by the MZO, and the village, which has two additional uh protections, one uh specific to Yonge Street at a 45 angular plane to maintain the vistas to the uh spires of the various churches, and also along Church Street, there's a separate requirement for a 30° angle along uh Birch Street as a as a rule, again to protect the uniqueness of that area. Uh but to make sure that we have one consistent uh um creation, especially along Yonge Street, given its uh uniqueness and consistency of the under the regional corridor and the KDA and local center designations, that it's a consistent measurement. >> Okay. I um I understand what you're saying, and and I it it makes sense on a number of levels. I guess the only concern I have is that I would be my concern is that that that is kind of the last bastion of being able to protect existing neighborhoods from an undue amount of development outside of that. So, I would like us to take a look at that angular plane and see if there are places that we need to make exceptions like we have on Church Street, for example, and that makes perfect sense to me. You know, due to elevation changes and I remember going through that exercise, but that would be one comment. The other comment and and you know, again, we're not making any decisions here tonight. This we're here for discussion and we've had some good discussion already. Um So, the Lorne Avenue School issue. Um so, they are providing employment and they're providing probably as much or more employment than what was there when Enbridge was there. And and certainly if if there was a warehouse there, they're providing a whole lot more employment than if they they were a warehouse. Um they've also, you know, good, bad, or otherwise, they've been allowed to locate in that location over the years and they have made very significant investments in that property. They've owned the piece of that small piece of property to the north for quite some time. And I did I do appreciate the extra commentary about you know, that they were denied the the change and all that kind of stuff. But the reality is they are on the edge of an employment area and if I mean, I am very protective of our employment lands and I will always be very protective of our employment lands, but in this particular case, I really think that the there I don't think there's really much concern about opening up any floodgates because it it right it's right on the very edge of of of an employment area. It's right on an arterial road on Elgin Mills. It's actually very appropriate place for a school in and of itself. So, I I would like us to take a very close look at whether it is reasonable to allow a very small piece of land to be added to their land and and put to what they were they are asking for because I think right now the the um I don't think it's going to make that much of a difference. I I get that we're short of employment land. I think about that every single day, but this is a not a very big piece of land. And I also think that the benefit of that of having an additional sports field that could be used at times when the school is not going to be using it would play very well to our recreation community. So, that would be my thoughts. I know staff and I have you we've talked about this a couple of times, but um I I'm getting to the point now where I I do and I want to be very clear. I do understand the rationale for for suggesting what staff is suggesting. I respect that, but I I mean I agree with almost everything that we're are talking about here today. In fact, I I really agree with a lot of the stuff around you know, protections of the environment and protections of the you know, ground water and there are ability to use the OP to move our official plan forward and all that stuff, but respectfully this is one very very very small piece of this larger pie that I I'm not sure I really agree with. So, I'd like us to look at that. I know we've got some time between now and the time that this comes back to council. So, I think that's worthy of a another closer look. So, having said that, I think we've exhausted the speaker list unless anybody wants to go on a second round, which I don't see. I will ask to call the vote. So, we have a motion on the floor to refer all comments back to staff. All those in favor, opposed, that carries. Thank you very much. All right. So, the next and final piece that we have here tonight is the comprehensive zoning bylaw request for comments and we are going to get a presentation by Caitlin Graham. And So, over to you, Caitlin. >> Thank you very much. Good evening, Mayor West, members of council and the public. Tonight's second public meeting involves a proposed city-initiated zoning bylaw amendment to the city's comprehensive zoning bylaw 9325. >> Oh, thanks. >> Comprehensive zoning bylaw 9325 sets out rules that regulate how land and buildings can be used and developed in the city of Richmond Hill. This bylaw currently applies to the majority of the city, save and except the city's employment areas, the Bathurst and East Beaver Creek local centers, and various sites that are generally subject to active development applications within the city. Bylaw 9325 was passed by council on September 24th, 2025 and subsequently appealed to the Ontario Land Tribunal. At this time, two case management conferences have been held and it is anticipated that the bylaw will come into force and effect once the appeals have been scoped or resolved. At this time, the city is proposing an update to the comprehensive zoning bylaw in order to implement the proposed official plan amendment 18.9 to address matters related to provincial conformity and updates to major policy areas, as well as to address housekeeping items related to the implementation of the bylaw. With respect to implementing OPA 18.9, staff are proposing several zoning bylaw amendments that are generally related to protected major transit station areas, including introducing new minimum density requirements for these areas. Regional mixed-use corridors, including updated height and density permissions. The employment lands, through the introduction of new employment area and business commercial zones, and associated development standards to bring these areas into the area of bylaw 9325 consistent with the PPS, whereby employment area uses will focus on manufacturing and warehousing, and business commercial uses will focus on employment supportive uses, such as office and retail. With respect to placemaking and urban design, updates are proposed to podium requirements in the centers and corridors, interim development permissions, and angular plane provisions. In addition, new and updated parking structure requirements, parking locational requirements for additional residential units, active at grade frontage requirements in the Yonge and Carlton KDA, and updated mid-rise built form standards. With respect to the greenway system and the Oak Ridges Moraine, we're updating references to highly vulnerable aquifers and features, and introducing new home occupation, agricultural, agricultural-related, and on-farm diversified use definitions and permissions. Additional amendments include an updated list of public authority uses, updated locational criteria for community uses, updated use permissions and development standards within the utility corridor zone, updated commercial development standards, including with respect to automobile service stations and outdoor storage and display and sales, as well as general updates that are proposed to definitions, schedules, and overlays to reflect the addition of lands and revisions to zone boundaries. In terms of housekeeping matters, staff are proposing further amendments that are really intended to improve the readability and usability of the zoning bylaw. These are generally related to permitted encroachments, including updated and consolidated standards for architectural elements and building features that are permitted to encroach into yards and separation distances, as well as height exemptions. So, this includes updated and consolidated standards for architectural elements and building components that are not subject to a maximum building height. With respect to accessory uses, buildings, and structures, we're clarifying permissions in relation to home occupations and primary uses on a lot, as well as standardizing height measurements for accessory buildings and structures. With respect to soft landscaping, clarifying calculations in relation to walkways and porches, and introducing new requirements for small lots. For block residential development, we've introduced revised and new development standards where multiple buildings on a lot are proposed as part of a low-rise condominium development. And further, we have the addition of the city special policy area to bring these lands into the area of bylaw 9325 and related standards in accordance with the approved OPA 22 and zoning bylaw 6421. Additional amendments are proposed with respect to refining access path requirements for safety purposes for additional residential units, updated lot coverage provisions related to legislative changes, and general updates to definitions, schedules, and overlays to again reflect the addition of lands and some revisions to zone boundaries. Staff have circulated the proposed zoning by-law amendments to internal departments and external agencies for review and comment, and a public open house was held on June 11th to provide the public with information and material to understand the purpose and effect of the proposed amendments. The purpose of tonight's report is to provide members of council and the public with an overview of the proposed amendments, and has been structured for information purposes with the recommendation that all comments be referred back to staff for consideration. Thank you. >> Okay, thank you very much for that. So, we have Ian Anders back for an encore performance. >> [clears throat] >> Ian, I think I've got you for the next three as well. So, go ahead when you're ready. >> Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I'm actually not sure there's anything else I need to say. I think it was covered in the first deputations I made as it relates to the zoning by-law. The The main area of concern is the employment land use permissions which flow out of the OPA 18.9 discussion we had earlier. So, I won't bore you with repeating myself in the same submissions I already made, and would welcome further discussion in the upcoming weeks. >> Okay, thanks so much. You're not boring, by the way. It's okay. Okay, is there anybody else in the audience that would like to speak to the comprehensive zoning by-law proposal? Okay, seeing none. Uh we'll bring this back to council then for We need a motion to for all comments back to staff. Councillor Davidson, did you want to make any comments? >> Thank you. Um thank you for that um quick presentation. Um can you tell me the height exemption thing? Cuz when you were saying that, I was envisioning some ornate huge thing that towers over the neighboring houses, and it's an objet d'art, so that's okay. What do you What What do you mean by that? >> Through you, Mayor West, we do have certain components of buildings that are not included in maximum building height. So, um there's quite a list. These are already in the bylaw. Um we're consolidating some of them as they've been in multiple places, but things such as uh church spires not subject to a maximum building height. Um we've also updated things like agricultural buildings. Those are actually not subject to a maximum building height. Uh and then there's certain other uh building components to a certain extent. So, it would say, you know, to a 2-m height limit or something would be exempt from the maximum building height. >> Thank you. Um through Mr. Chair, one of the things that I find odd is when we see an application for say a a 10-story building, and the whole top of the building or half at the top of the building is called um maintenance, and it's not counted as a story, which to me, if you ask the neighbors, that's a story. Um is that included in this? >> So, through you, Mayor West, it is uh it is typical to exempt mechanical penthouses. So, provided that they're they're not used for uh residential purposes or uh habitable space, then we do typically exempt those, particularly on on the high-rise buildings. >> Mhm. Okay. Um Thank you. I I do feel like we've had a opportunity to talk a lot over the last little while for about these things. So, remarkably, I think I understand it cuz it's quite complicated. Um but I guess this makes it more standard for buildings across Richmond Hill, right? Cuz I know we've had a million bylaws, and there's some that were still called the Township of King and Oak Ridges. Is that one of the great Is that one of the positive things about all this work is that it's just going to be standard, doesn't matter where you are. When somebody wants to do something, they will have a pretty clear set of rules of how they're they can move forward. >> Through you, Mayor West. Yes, that is the the overall intent. Obviously, there are certain areas of the city that do have very specific provisions that are intended to, you know, protect the character, but generally speaking, yes, we're looking to standardize to the greatest extent possible. >> Thank you. And the only other thing I hadn't seen is uh the one of the first um diagrams you had showed near I think it was near Bloomington and Young, it said wellhead protector or something. Can you just briefly explain to me what that is and what's different about that? >> So, we do have the wellhead protection area that is identified on an overlay. So, that's something that's been recently updated also through uh the official plan, so that's part of OPA 18.9 that we're carrying forward into the bylaw. And it's just the area has always been identified in the city. It's been refined somewhat. >> But, does that mean it's like a a main source for drinking water or it's a there's a good aquifer under there? What does that actually mean at that spot? >> Yes, it's for the protection of drinking water. >> So, even though that area is being developed, that particular those important water areas have a specific spot that will be protected or at least treated with kid gloves, so to speak. >> Yes, there are certain policies and things that do apply specifically to those areas that have to be reviewed through a development application. >> Thank you. >> Okay, thank you very much, Councillor Sullivan. Do you want to second this? >> Yes, I I'm sure I'll second it. Um I I just have one question for you, uh Mr. Mayor. Again, also thank you to everybody uh for your presentations and um and your deputations tonight. Um just just one question with regard to the building separation reduction. So, in our previous um in our previous agenda item, we've spoken of building separation being reduced to 15 m from 25, I believe it is. So, I I just I just need to be sure in my head, are we talking about um commercial buildings uh with separation like this or are we are we talking about um townhouse like a sort of townhouse blocks? Through you, Mr. Mayor. >> Through you, Mayor West. Uh the tower separation provisions and generally speaking the uh mid-rise building separation distances have all stayed the same. Uh the part that we've introduced that's new is with respect to what we're calling the BRD or the block residential development. >> Yes, please. >> So, when multiple buildings are proposed on a lot as part of a condominium development, if it's a development that's part of a standard condominium, you don't have the same lot lines that you would where you could uh suggest that setbacks could control the location of buildings on a given site where there's multiple buildings proposed. So, we're introducing new separation distances only for those low-rise buildings. So, things like townhouses and uh semis where they're proposed in combination as part of a larger condominium development where we can't rely on lot lines to control the location of those buildings. That's the only change to the separation distances. >> Okay. Um thank you. So, just just one more clarification. So, does that mean if somebody comes in with an application for a townhouse complex, um how are we going to make sure we're defining the separate blocks and they're not just going to be building one continuous loop of townhouses if if you know what I mean? >> Yes, through you, Mayor West. It will depend on the specifics of the application. So, for example, street townhouses uh a block of street townhouses will still be regulated by way of setbacks. Um if you have a uh a development though where you've got a private road within and it's not necessarily going to be divided up into smaller blocks, uh we will still be regulating it through the site plan process as well, but it will be subject to minimum uh separation distances that uh are defined in relation to the main walls of a of one building to another to account for essentially uh yards. >> Okay, thank you. I I I trust you and I understand everything that you're saying here, but given the problems that we have between houses separation in in residential um areas uh and how much uh we and residents are under so much um so much pressure about continuously making smaller that distance between say a fence and a build and and a building wall. Um I I hope this won't become um more challenging for us. That's just a comment. Thank you. >> Okay, thank you. Anybody else? Okay, I'll just um I'll make some final comments. I So first of all, I want to thank staff for all the work. This is a just an enormous enormous amount of detail and work and synthesis into putting all of this together. It's uh I I look at all of this and think it's just very just a little bit short of a miracle that we're able to get to this point and it's been a long time coming and uh you know, one of the things that I think is really important here that maybe we haven't talked about as much is that when we're finished doing all of this work, we're going to have a very up-to-date uh version of and vision of what is allowed in our community, what's not allowed in our community, and all of this will be brought up to the standard uh both, you know, in some cases imposed on us by legislation from other levels of government, but also in, you know, the vision that we all have as to how our community is going to grow in the future. And you know, I think about things like on the ground, like Committee of Adjustment, and all of the times that we've had to have an applicant go to Committee of Adjustment because, you know, bylaw 66-71 was, you know, that was passed in, is it 66 or 71? I'm not even sure which. Okay. So, 1971 is, you know, seen as the standard, but yet 1971 it was a long, long time ago, and it, you know, the standards that were baked into bylaw 66-71 are not the standards that we are expecting today, and then and it wouldn't stand up at the OLT if it was appealed. So, I think that this will give clarity to applicants, and I know when when I first started on council, um it was pretty close to the time when the 2010 official plan was, uh you know, came into force and effect, and there was a a period there where when things came to council, there wasn't this excuse that, oh well, the OP is kind of outdated. No, this is the fresh version of what's expected and what's not expected, and uh I really look forward to that because I think it's it it will uh serve our community and the applicants that are trying to invest in in their land and invest in properties and build the housing that we need to have that clarity so that they can move forward very quickly. So, I I want to thank staff for this. I want to thank council for their input tonight and and it over over the last few years as we've gotten to this point because I think, um you know, this is uh maybe not the day that uh you know, is going to be seen immediately as an important day in Richmond Hill, but I think when applica- applications come up and they're able to uh utilize the new standards that are in place. I think it will make a significant difference. So, thank you very much and we have a motion to refer all comments back to staff. All those in favor opposed that carries. Thank you very much and now we need a motion to adjourn. Councillor Liu, Councillor Shu, all those in favor opposed that carries. Thank you very much. We'll see everybody tomorrow bright and early for