DOCSLIB.ORG

Ontario Municipal Board Commission Des Affaires Municipales De L'ontario

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Ontario Municipal Board Commission Des Affaires Municipales De L'ontario Ontario Municipal Board Commission des affaires municipales de l’Ontario ISSUE DATE: May 25, 2017 CASE NO(S).: PL140743 PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 17(36) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended Appellant (jointly): Angus Glen Holdings Inc., Angus Glen North West Inc. & North Markham Landowners Group Appellant (jointly): Beechgrove Estates Inc., Minotar Holdings Inc., Cor-Lots Developments, Cherokee Holdings & Halvan 5.5 Investments Ltd. Appellant (jointly): Brentwood Estates Inc., Colebay Investments Inc., Highcove Investments Inc., Firewood Holdings Inc., Major McCowan Developments Ltd. & Summerlane Realty Corp. Appellant: And others (See Attachment “1”) Subject: Proposed New Official Plan – Part 1 (December 2013) - for the City of Markham Municipality: City of Markham OMB Case No.: PL140743 OMB File No.: PL140743 OMB Case Name: Angus Glen Holdings Inc. v. Markham (City) Heard: April 21, 2017 in Markham, Ontario APPEARANCES: Parties Counsel*/Representative See Attachment 2 MEMORANDUM OF ORAL DECISION DELIVERED BY GERALD S. SWINKIN ON APRIL 17, 2017 AND ORDER OF THE BOARD INTRODUCTION 2 PL140743 [1] This was the sixth Pre-hearing Conference (“PHC”) with respect to the appeals against the City of Markham New Official Plan – Part 1 (“the New OP”). [2] Counsel for the City of Markham (“the City”) had prepared an agenda for the PHC, which had been circulated to all other counsel and representatives in advance of the session. The PHC followed the agenda. [3] As at the prior, fifth, PHC, the City had served and filed a Notice of Motion seeking partial approval of various portions of the New OP based upon modifications agreed upon by various Appellants and endorsed by City Council and relating to appeals which have now been scoped to be site specific rather than City-wide. [4] As the City Council meeting to endorse the proposed modifications occurred on the evening of April 11, 2017, counsel for the City was only able to serve the Notice of Motion on April 12, 2017, returnable for April 21, 2017. This service would fall one day short of the Board’s Rules of Practice and Procedure regarding the minimum ten days for service of a motion. The Notice of Motion included a request for an abridgment of time, if necessary, regarding service of the Notice. Chris Barnett, counsel for the City, did advise that the motion material had been circulated to the parties and representatives in draft in advance of the Council meeting. [5] On canvassing counsel and representatives present and hearing no objection, and not having received any Notice of Response from any party in advance of the hearing session with respect to the Notice of Motion, the Ontario Municipal Board (“the Board”) exercised its authority under Rule 11 of the Board’s Rules of Practice and Procedure and abridged the time for service of the Notice of Motion to nine days. [6] In support of the Notice of Motion was filed the affidavit (“the Affidavit”) of Murray Boyce, Senior Policy Coordinator in the Planning and Urban Design Department of the City. [7] The Affidavit provided a status report on the City’s ongoing dealings with the 3 PL140743 Appellants, which have taken the form of independent discussions and Board-led mediation. The Affidavit advised of resultant modifications from these exercises, the reporting to City Council and the endorsement of numerous proposed modifications. [8] The Affidavit detailed the ongoing processing and approval of a zoning amendment application initiated by Markham Woodmills Development Inc. and the resultant modification of text and figures concerning a possible road connection from the Highway 404 interchange at Elgin Mills Road. [9] A number of modifications were being proposed to address various issues in the Group E – Residential and Mixed Use Land Use category of appeals as well as the Group G – Implementation category of appeals. [10] Related to ongoing processing of development applications and the filing of expert environmental reports, the properties of two Appellants, Flato Developments Inc. and Romandale Farms Ltd, are susceptible of identifying with greater precision the boundary of the Greenway System relating to those properties. [11] All of these proposed modifications were set out in a draft Order intended to be used by the Board in connection with this motion and was circulated to counsel in advance of the PHC. Counsel for the City advised that he had received no objection to the draft. Incorporating the matters identified in the Notice of Motion as allowed and approved by the Board from this PHC, the final form of Order is attached hereto as Attachment 3. [12] The Affidavit also detailed the various specific appeals where Appellants had scoped their appeal or withdrew it or withdrew issues from the appeal. This will be reflected in the continuously updated In-Force chart and the Issues List which has been accompanying the Board’s dispositions, as will be the case with this disposition. [13] As at the previous PHC, counsel for the City delineated next steps regarding the various Groups of appeals. As in the last disposition of the Board, that update is simply 4 PL140743 transcribed herein as follows: a. Group A - Appeals that require resolution of ROPA 3 - Remaining issues - likely to be subject of site specific hearings b. Group B - Mid Block Crossings/404 Ramp Extensions and Surrounding Land uses: EA underway for Cathedral mid-block crossing c. Group C - Environmental System: Hearings dates set: Jan. 29, 2018 - Procedural Order - draft circulated - to be discussed d. Group D - Housing/Community Infrastructure/Cultural Heritage: Places of Worship Hearing dates set - Oct. 11- Oct. 13, 2017 - Procedural Order draft circulated - to be discussed e. Group E - Intensification/Retail and specific land use designation policies: Hearings dates set: Jan. 29, 2018 - Procedural Order - draft circulated - to be discussed f. Group F - Urban Design/Sustainable Development: Mediation resulted in modifications and scoping of issues. No further steps proposed at this time. g. Group G - Implementation/Comprehensive Block Plan/Rights of Way: Mediation resulted in modifications and scoping of issues. No further steps proposed at this time h. Group H - Countryside - no steps proposed i. Group I - Parkland Dedication: await outcome of Richmond Hill court decision - leave to appeal granted, appeal to be heard in 2017 j. Group J - Area and Site Specific: Meeting with affected parties to determine matters to be resolved or scoped. No hearings currently proposed for scheduling. Future hearings and scheduling to be addressed at future pre- hearings [14] With respect to Groups C and E above, in the interest of consolidating the hearing of the issues, counsel for the City has included a request in a draft Procedural Order (“PO”) which has been circulated and he asked that the Board reflect that request in this disposition. It is that the Appellants shall reframe and further scope their issues on or before September 15, 2017. In reframing and scoping their issues, the Appellants shall annotate their list with reference to the numbering of the Master Issues List which has been appended to the Board’s order in this matter, dated April 21, 2017. [15] It is intended that a formal PO for the Group C and E appeals will issue out of the 5 PL140743 next PHC. This PHC will deal with procedural matters relating to the appeals/issues to be addressed in the hearing block reserved for January 29, 2018 through March 9, 2018, as well as any further partial approval requests which may be brought at that time. In accordance with the request of Mr. Barnett that the next PHC not be set down until after November 13, 2017, the Board has fixed a further PHC for Friday, November 24, 2017, at 10 a.m. at: Markham Civic Centre Canada Room One Town Centre Boulevard Markham, Ontario L3B 9W3 [16] Based upon the disposition from the last PHC, the Group D appeals (Place of Worship issues – Berczy Glen Landowners Group appeal) were set down for hearing commencing on October 11, 2017 through October 13, 2017. A form of PO for that hearing session has been settled between the City and the Appellant. It is approved by the Board for issuance and it is attached hereto as Attachment 4. [17] As directed out of the previous PHC, the Board requests counsel for the City to prepare and circulate to counsel and representatives of record in this matter, in advance of the PHC set for November 24, 2017, an agenda for that session and provide the case coordinator at the Board with a copy. [18] No further notice is required with respect to the next PHC or the Group D hearing event. [19] This Member is not seized. 6 PL140743 “Gerald S. Swinkin” GERALD S. SWINKIN MEMBER If there is an attachment referred to in this document, please visit www.elto.gov.on.ca to view the attachment in PDF format. Ontario Municipal Board A constituent tribunal of Environment and Land Tribunals Ontario Website: www.elto.gov.on.ca Telephone: 416-212-6349 Toll Free: 1-866-448-2248 ATTACHMENT 2 Sign in Sheet Appearances April 21, 2017 prehearing Appellants Counsel/Representatives Present 1. North Markham Landowners Group, Angus Glen Northwest Inc., and Angus Patricia Foran*, Andrea Skinner* Patricia Foran Glen Holdings 2 Berczy Glen Landowners Group Inc. Jennifer Meader* Jennifer Meader 3 First Elgin Mills Developments Ltd. Ira Kagan* Alexandra DeGasperis Chris Tyrrell 4 Romandale Farms Ltd. Michael Melling*, Meaghan McDermid* Susan Rosenthal 5 Minotar Holdings Inc., Cor-lots Developments, Cherokee Holdings, Halvan Catherine Lyons* Joe Hoffman 5.5 Investments Ltd., and Beechgrove Estates Inc. 6 4716 Elgin Mills Markham Ltd., Kennedy MM Markham Ltd., Markham MMM Jason Park* North Development Corp.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Ontario Municipal Board Commission Des Affaires Municipales De L’Ontario
    Ontario Municipal Board Commission des affaires municipales de l’Ontario ISSUE DATE: May 26, 2016 CASE NO(S).: PL140743 PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 17(36) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended Appellant (jointly): Angus Glen Holdings Inc., Angus Glen North West Inc. & North Markham Landowners Group Appellant (jointly): Beechgrove Estates Inc., Minotar Holdings Inc., Cor- Lots Developments, Cherokee Holdings & Halvan 5.5 Investments Ltd. Appellant (jointly): Brentwood Estates Inc., Colebay Investments Inc., Highcove Investments Inc., Firewood Holdings Inc., Major McCowan Developments Ltd. & Summerlane Realty Corp. Appellant: And others (See Attachment 1) Subject: Proposed New Official Plan – Part 1 (December 2013) - for the City of Markham Municipality: City of Markham OMB Case No.: PL140743 OMB File No.: PL140743 OMB Case Name: Angus Glen Holdings Inc. v. Markham (City) Heard: April 29, 2016 in Markham, Ontario APPEARANCES: Parties Counsel City of Markham C. Barnett L. Bisset B. Ketcheson For others see Attachment 2 2 PL140743 MEMORANDUM OF ORAL DECISION DELIVERED BY M. CARTER-WHITNEY ON APRIL 29, 2016 AND ORDER OF THE BOARD [1] This was the fourth prehearing conference (“PHC”) in relation to numerous appeals of the new Official Plan (“OP”) of the City of Markham (“City”). [2] Chris Barnett, counsel for the City, provided an update on the status of a number of matters in relation to these appeals. The City has been engaged in discussions with different groups of appellants, divided in relation to common thematic issues, in an attempt to narrow and resolve those issues. As a result, a number of issues have been resolved and some appeals have been resolved and withdrawn.
    [Show full text]
  • 2019 Integrated Leisure Master Plan Update
    Presented to General Committee – October 7, 2019 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS We would like to thank all of those who contributed their effort and expertise to the development of the 2019 Integrated Leisure Master Plan Update. We are confident that the leadership and passion of City of Markham officials and staff, with guidance from this Master Plan Update, will enable the City to continue to provide responsive and leading-edge parks, recreation, arts & culture and library services and facilities well into the future. City of Markham Council (2014-2018) Project Team Frank Scarpitti, Mayor Project Sponsor: Brenda Librecz, Commissioner of Community and Fire Services Jack Heath, Deputy Mayor & Regional Councillor Project Advisors: Catherine Biss, Chief Executive Officer of Markham Public Library Jim Jones, Regional Councillor Ronji Borooah, City Architect, Planning & Urban Design Joe Li, Regional Councillor Stephen Chait, Director of Economic Growth, Culture & Entrepreneurship Nirmala Armstrong, Regional Councillor Mary Creighton, Director of Recreation Services Valerie Burke, Ward 1 Councillor Morgan Jones, Director of Operations Alan Ho, Ward 2 Councillor Project Manager: Deborah Walker, Director of Library Strategy and Innovation Don Hamilton, Ward 3 Councillor Karen Rea, Ward 4 Councillor Martin Barrow, Community Facility Coordinator, Recreation Services Colin Campbell, Ward 5 Councillor Janice Carroll, Community Manager - West, Recreation Services Amanda Collucci, Ward 6 Councillor Carrie Colangelo, Coordinator, Economic Growth, Culture & Entrepreneurship
    [Show full text]
  • Appendix a (Approved by Council on March 5, 2014) Recommended Park Names by Ward
    ( i ) Appendix A (Approved by Council on March 5, 2014) Recommended Park Names by Ward The following recommended Park names meet the park naming criteria established by Council. Please refer to Appendix D for maps of their location. Parks with asterisks * are generically named and can potentially be renamed in the future to recognize the accomplishments of residents who have shaped Markham. Ward 1 – Four (4) parks that require naming: Sl. # Location Park Size (Ha) Name Recommended 1. 70 Elgin Street 1.21 Honsberger Field 2. 7177 Yonge Street 0.13 Benjamin Thorne Park 3. 7177 Yonge Street (central) 0.22 Arthur Lismer Park 4. 20 Meadowview Avenue 0.29 Sir Robert Watson Watt Park Honsberger Field – named after Mr. John Honsberger, a longtime resident, lawyer and author of the history of Osgoode Hall, and former owner of the property. Benjamin Thorne Park – named after the namesake of Thornhill, a prominent mill owner and entrepreneur who played a key role in the development of Thornhill Village starting in 1820. He petitioned for a post office in 1829. Arthur Lismer Park – named after Arthur Lismer who was one of the Group of Seven artists and who lived at 22 John Street in Thornhill circa 1916. Sir Robert Watson Watt Park – named after Sir Robertson Watson –Watt renowned Scottish scientist credited as the inventor of radar and knighted in 1942. He undertook top secret trials from 1935-1939 using reflected radio signals to locate aircraft which became known as radar and provided Britain with an effective early warning system against German air attacks in 1940.
    [Show full text]
  • Official-Plan-Chapter-9-20180409.Pdf
    9-2 Area and Site Specific Policies 9.0 AREA AND SITE SPECIFIC POLICIES CONTENTS 9.1. Angus Glen/York Downs 9.2 Armadale 9.3 Berczy Village/Wismer Commons/Greensborough/ Swan Lake 9.4 Buttonville 9.5 Cathedral 9.6 Commerce Valley/Leitchcroft 9.7 Cornell 9.8 Countryside/Hamlet/Greenbelt 9.9 Future Urban Area 9.10 Highway 404 North (Employment) 9.11 Langstaff Gateway 9.12 Markham Centre 9.13 Markham Village 9.14 Markville 9.15 Milliken 9.16 Rouge North/Legacy/Box Grove 9.17 South Don Mills (Employment) 9.18 Thornhill 9.19 Unionville 9.20 Woodbine/404 REGION APPROVED June 2014 LPAT File Number PL140743 – April 9, 2018 Office Consolidation Markham Official Plan Area and Site Specific Policies 9-3 9.0 AREA AND SITE SPECIFIC POLICIES Throughout Markham there are areas and sites that require special policies that vary from one or more provisions of this Plan. These policies generally reflect unique historic conditions for approval that must be recognized for specific development sites, or provide a further layer of local policy direction for an area. In most cases, the area and site specific policies provide direction on land use. The Plan policies apply to these lands except where the area and site specific policies vary from the Plan. The area and site specific policies contained in this Chapter are generally categorized into districts containing policies that may apply to a specific area or group of properties or a specific site. These districts are shown on Map 15 – Area and Site Specific Policies.
    [Show full text]
  • Staff Awarded Contracts for September
    Report to: General Committee Report Date: November 3, 2014 SUBJECT: Staff Awarded Contracts for the Months of September and October 2014 PREPARED BY: Alex Moore, Ext. 4711 RECOMMENDATION: 1. THAT the report entitled “Staff Awarded Contracts for the Months of September and October 2014” be received; 2. And that Staff be authorized and directed to do all things necessary to give effect to this resolution PURPOSE: To inform Council of Staff Awarded Contracts >$50,000 for the months of September and October 2014 as per Purchasing By-law 2004-341. BACKGROUND: Council at its meeting of May 26th, 2009 amended By-Law 2004-341, A By-Law Establishing Procurement, Service and Disposal Regulations and Policies. The Purchasing By-Law delegates authority to staff to award contracts without limits if the award meets the following criteria: The award is to the lowest priced bidder The expenses relating to the goods / services being procured is included in the approved budget (Operating/Capital) The award of the contract is within the approved budget The award results from the normal tendering process of the City (i.e. open bidding through advertisements that meet transparency and enables open participation) The award is to the lowest priced bidder The term of the contract is for a maximum of 4 years There is no litigation between the successful bidder and the City at the time of award There are no bidder protests at the time of contract award If one (1) of the above noted criteria is not met then any contract award >$350,000 requires Council approval.
    [Show full text]
  • 2013, January 22 PMC Public Agenda
    YORK REGION DISTRICT SCHOOL BOARD PROPERTY MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE PUBLIC SESSION Meeting #1 Tuesday, January 22, 2013 Room 200 – Education Centre Aurora To follow private session AGENDA 1. Call to Order 2. Approval of Agenda 3. Declaration of Conflict of Interest 4. Minutes of Meeting #7 – November 20, 2012 Enclosed 5. Draft Official Plan – Part 1 Enclosed City of Markham 6. Development Application – D01-12012 / D02-12041 Enclosed Town of Richmond Hill 7. Development Application – D01-12013 / D02-12042 / Enclosed Town of Richmond Hill D06-12122 8. Development Application – D02-12034 / D03-12008 Enclosed Town of Richmond Hill 9. Development Application – OP 12 117316 / ZA 12 117316 Enclosed City of Markham 10. Development Application – D12-03-12 / D14-16-12 Enclosed Town of Aurora 11. Schedules for 2013-2014 Enclosed New Elementary and Secondary Schools and Additions to Schools 12. Next Meeting Date – TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 19, 2013 13. Adjournment 4. 4. YORK REGION DISTRICT SCHOOL BOARD PROPERTY MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE MINUTES OF MEETING #7 (PUBLIC) NOVEMBER 20, 2012 The public session of the Property Management Committee meeting was held at 4:30 p.m. in Room 200 at the Aurora Education Centre on Tuesday, November 20, 2012 with Committee Chair D. Giangrande presiding and the following trustees present: P. Adams-Luchowski, L. Carruthers, C. Chan (via audio conference), N. Elgie, S. Geller, J. Hertz, M. Van Beek and A. Yeung. The following staff was present: D. Adams, D Belchetz, K. Brady, D. Hawkins, G. Luk, C. McAdam, I. McNeil, S. Meehan, L. Johnstone, C. LaTouche, W. Muirhead-Toporek, J. Nathan, J. Peake, M.
    [Show full text]
  • Selling the Suburbs: Exploring Representations of Social Diversity in Marketing Media in Markham, Ontario
    Selling the Suburbs: Exploring Representations of Social Diversity in Marketing Media in Markham, Ontario Independent Project By: Katherine Perrott PLAN 6000 For Instructor: Michael Poulton & Advisor: Jill Grant December 2007 Acknowledgements Generous funding support for this project was provided by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada, through a Canada Graduate Scholarship - Master’s. This project stems from a larger research project called “Theory and practice in planning the suburbs”. The principal investigator is Dr. Jill Grant, Dalhousie University. The Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada also provides funding for this project. I thank my advisor, Jill Grant, for providing guidance on this project and feedback on earlier drafts. Thank you also to Michael Poulton and my fellow graduate students for offering useful comments following my presentations throughout the semester. Finally, heartfelt thanks to Justin, my supportive husband, and my family who have always believed in me. Executive Summary The southern Ontario landscape is dotted with outdoor billboards and sales centres promoting new residential developments. As farms are converted to suburbia, developers and builders prepare the infrastructure, create detailed plans and begin to shape the look and feel of a future community through marketing material. Advertisements for a new residential development function as a prologue in the story of what a future community will be like: they offer pictures of who will live there, what they will own, what their houses will look like and what the quality of their amenity space will be. Planners on the other hand, also produce visions of what a future community will be like in policy documents such as Official and Secondary Plans.
    [Show full text]
  • Cultural Heritage Assessment Report
    APPENDIX C Cultural Heritage Assessment Report EXISTING CONDITION REPORT CULTURAL HERITAGE LANDSCAPES & BUILT HERITAGE RESOURCES CLASS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT ROAD CROSSING OF HIGHWAY 404 BETWEEN MAJOR MACKENZIE DRIVE AND ELGIN MILLS ROAD TOWN OF RICHMOND HILL & CITY OF MARKHAM YORK REGION, ONTARIO October 2016 Revised December 2016 Prepared for: MMM Group Limited Prepared by: EXISTING CONDITION REPORT CULTURAL HERITAGE LANDSCAPES & BUILT HERITAGE RESOURCES CLASS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT ROAD CROSSING OF HIGHWAY 404 BETWEEN MAJOR MACKENZIE DRIVE AND ELGIN MILLS ROAD TOWN OF RICHMOND HILL & CITY OF MARKHAM YORK REGION, ONTARIO October 2016 Revised December 2016 Prepared for: MMM Group Limited 2655 North Sheridan Way Mississauga, Ontario L5K 2P8 Prepared by: Unterman McPhail Associates Heritage Resource Management Consultants 540 Runnymede Road Toronto, ON, M6S 2Z7 Tel: 416-766-7333 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1 1.1 Project Description 1 2.0 HISTORICAL SUMMARY 3 2.1 Introduction 3 2.2 Markham Township and City of Markham 3 2.2.1 Victoria Square 5 2.3 Town of Richmond Hill 6 2.3.1 Hamlet of Headford 7 3.0 DESCRIPTION OF STUDY AREA 8 3.1 Introduction 8 3.2 Description of the Existing Environment 8 4.0 SURVEY RESULTS 11 4.1 Description of Identified Cultural Heritage Resources 11 4.2 Heritage Recognition 12 SOURCES LIST OF TABLES Page Table 1. Identified Cultural Heritage Landscapes (CHL) and Built Heritage Resources (BHR) located within or adjacent to the Study Area for the Road Crossing of Highway 404 between Major Mackenzie Drive East and Elgin Mills Road East. 15 LIST OF FIGURES Page Figure 1.
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter 9 Area and Site Specific Policies
    9-2 Area and Site Specific Policies 9.0 AREA AND SITE SPECIFIC POLICIES CONTENTS 9.1. Angus Glen/York Downs 9.2 Armadale 9.3 Berczy Village/Wismer Commons/Greensborough/ Swan Lake 9.4 Buttonville 9.5 Cathedral 9.6 Commerce Valley/Galleria 9.7 Cornell 9.8 Countryside/Hamlet/Greenbelt 9.9 Future Urban Area 9.10 Highway 404 North (Employment) 9.11 Langstaff Gateway 9.12 Markham Centre 9.13 Markham Village 9.14 Markville 9.15 Milliken 9.16 Rouge North/Legacy/Box Grove 9.17 South Don Mills (Employment) 9.18 Thornhill 9.19 Unionville 9.20 Woodbine/404 REVISED DRAFT November 2013 Markham Official Plan Area and Site Specific Policies 9-3 9.0 AREA AND SITE SPECIFIC POLICIES Throughout Markham there are areas and sites that require special policies that vary from one or more provisions of this Plan. These policies generally reflect unique historic conditions for approval that must be recognized for specific development sites, or provide a further layer of local policy direction for an area. In most cases, the area and site specific policies provide direction on land use. The Plan policies apply to these lands except where the area and site specific policies vary from the Plan. The area and site specific policies contained in this Chapter are generally categorized into districts containing policies that may apply to a specific area or group of properties or a specific site. These districts are shown on Map 15 – Area and Site Specific Policies. The area and site specific policies include interim policy provisions for the secondary plan areas shown in Appendix F – Secondary Plan Areas where the provisions of the Official Plan (Revised 1987) and relevant secondary plans shall continue to apply until an update of the existing secondary plan or a new secondary plan is completed and approved to conform with the provisions of this Plan.
    [Show full text]
  • 2013 City of Markham Official Plan, Part 1
    Clause No. 1 in Report No. 1 of the Commissioner of Transportation and Community Planning was adopted by the Council of The Regional Municipality of York at its special meeting held on June 12, 2014 to consider the 2013 Markham Official Plan, Part 1, with the following amendments: 1. Council received the presentation from Karen Whitney, Director, Community Planning. 2. Council received the following deputations: • Catherine Lyons, Goodmans LLP, on behalf of Kennedy McCowan Landowner Group (Minotar) regarding lands north of Major Mackenzie Drive, west of McCowan Road, City of Markham • Dagmar Teubner, on behalf of Wemat One Limited regarding lands on the southwest corner of Highway 404 and Highway 7, City of Markham • Dagmar Teubner, on behalf of Jolis Investments (Ontario) Limited regarding lands on the northeast side of Markland Street, City of Markham • Manny Sousa, on behalf of Enbridge Gas Distribution Inc. regarding 101 Honda Boulevard, City of Markham • Tom Farrar on behalf of Box Grove Community Association regarding lands on the north side of Copper Creek Drive between the Box Grove By-Pass and Donald Cousens Parkway • Ben Quan, QX4 Investments Limited, on behalf of HS Nouvel Developments Inc. regarding 235 and 265 Hood Road, City of Markham • Ben Quan, QX4 Investments Limited, on behalf of Power Education Corporation regarding 365 Hood Road, City of Markham • John Alati, Davies Howe Partners LLP, on behalf of Condor Acquisitions Inc. regarding 360 John Street, City of Markham. Clause No. 1 2 Report No. 1 of the Commissioner of Transportation and Community Planning Special Meeting of Regional Council held on June 12, 2014 3.
    [Show full text]
  • Cultural Heritage Assessment
    Victoria Square Boulevard Class Environmental Assessment Woodbine Avenue (north connection) to Woodbine Avenue (south connection) Environmental Study Report Appendix K Cultural Heritage Assessment Accessible formats are available upon request. June 1 2018 HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT Victoria Square Boulevard Class Environmental Assessment, Between North & South Connections to Woodbine By-Pass City of Markham, Ontario Submitted to: HDR 100 York Boulevard, Suite 300 Richmond Hill, ON L4B 1J8 REPORT Report Number: 1544413-R01 Distribution: FINAL 1 e-copy - HDR 1 e-copy - Golder Associates Ltd HIA-VICTORIA SQUARE, MARKHAM Executive Summary This Executive Summary highlights only the key points of the assessment; for a complete account of the findings and results, the reader should refer to the full text of the report. In 2016, HDR Inc., on behalf of the City of Markham, retained Golder Associates Ltd. (Golder) to conduct a Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA) as part of a Schedule C Municipal Class Environmental Assessment (MCEA) for road and infrastructure improvements to Victoria Square Boulevard (formerly Woodbine Avenue), between the north and south connections to Woodbine By-Pass, in the City of Markham, Regional Municipality of York, Ontario. The scale and design of the proposed project varies according to the location in the Study Area, but in general involves: Minor road widening and curb construction; Creating roadside parking, treed boulevards, and multi-use paths; Installing new lighting and drainage infrastructure; Accessibility enhancement; and, Utility upgrades. This HIA identified two (2) protected heritage properties and twenty-four (24) properties of potential cultural heritage value or interest in the study area. Of these, seventeen (17) are predicted to be at risk of impact during construction and operation.
    [Show full text]
  • Achieving Equity in Public Transit Planning: a Critical Assessment of Markham, Ontario's Highway 7 Rapid Transit Corridor
    Achieving equity in public transit planning: A critical assessment of Markham, Ontario’s Highway 7 rapid transit corridor A Major Paper submitted to the Faculty of Environmental Studies in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master in Environmental Studies (Planning) York University, Toronto, Ontario, Canada December 7, 2015 MES (Planning) Candidate, Anthony J. Dionigi: Major Paper Supervisor, Douglas Young: i Abstract Contrary to other research that critically assesses transit projects using an equity imperative, the primary intent of this research is not only an empirical assessment of physical barriers which contribute to diminished transit access, but also a critical assessment of the policies used to guide the Highway 7 vivaNext Rapidway and land use development across York Region and Markham. A review of broad policy frameworks, I argue, is necessary to begin addressing issues that transit equity experts continuously raise. My research reviews transit equity and social exclusion literature to provide readers with an understanding of how equity can be defined and why appropriate terminology is important when planning transit infrastructure projects. In forming a critical assessment of the Highway 7 rapid transit corridor, I use a political economy framework to examine the growth imperative used in justifying greater density on Highway 7, and the continually changing nature of governing regimes involving both public and private sector actors. With social vulnerability growing in both Markham and York Region, it becomes increasingly relevant to assess policy in order to determine how planning processes could produce more equitable outcomes. Equity should be a key component in planning public transit however, equitable outcomes will become more difficult to achieve if transit continues to be less of a “public” infrastructure, and more of a “private” responsibility.
    [Show full text]