Ward 4 Development Applications – Update

There are a number of development applications active in Ward 4 that continue to generate significant interest from residents.  This newsletter section is intended to keep everyone informed and updated about the status of these applications. It is not intended to be an exhaustive list of all active development applications in the ward, but a brief synopsis of select applications. Information that is new since the last newsletter is marked as “**NEW**” Please feel free to contact me at david.west@richmondhill.ca if you have questions about applications described below or questions about an application that is not included here. 
 
1. 44, 48,54 and 60 Arnold Cres.
This development application was appealed to the Ontario Municipal Board (OMB) by the applicant. The hearing wrapped up in March 2017 and a decision from the OMB will be expected soon. 
 
2. 129, 133, 141 Arnold Cres and 230 Major Mackenzie Dr. W. 
This property is owned by The Acorn Development Corporation.  At this time the developer is in the later stages of completing an application for redevelopment of this site.  I will host a meeting for the neighbourhood residents as soon as any plans by the developer have been finalized and an application has been submitted to our Planning Staff. Please stay tuned to this e newsletter for more information as it becomes available.
 
3. South Brookside Tertiary Plan
A plan that will guide any development on the lands to the north of the KDA, south of Brookside, known as the Tertiary Plan area, is currently being developed by our Planning Staff. It is also important to note that the owner of most of the lands in question has appealed the development application related to those these lands, to the OMB.
 
Recently a meeting was hosted for residents to hear about some potential concepts for the South Brookside Tertiary Plan that will guide future development of these lands. All comments and input from this meeting was received by our Planning Staff to help guide the formation of the final plan that is expected to come before Council in May. If you were not able to attend this meeting you are still welcome to send your input to myself by email.
 
**NEW** The Draft South Brookside Tertiary Plan is now posted on the Town’s website for the public to view. The plan is available for viewing. Please feel free to contact me if you have comments. The plan will be considered by Council at the May 22nd Committee of the Whole meeting. The plan is available at the following link:  www.richmondhill.ca/en/find-or-learn-about/south-brookside-tertiary-plan.aspx
 
4. 35 Wright St.
The proposed application at 35 Wright St. seeks to amend the Zoning By-Law to permit a 6 storey office building to be constructed on the subject lands. 
 
I hosted a Residents’ Meeting in February, where public input was gathered. The next step in this process was a Council Public Meeting held in March. Several residents expressed their views related to the proposal. I am particularly concerned about the lack of parking in the plan and the height of the proposed building. Our Planning staff will take away all of these comments and continue the planning process. In the future a staff report will come to Council with a recommendation regarding the application.
 
One of the notable features of this property is the listed heritage building that exists on the property. Before any development permissions that would include the removal of a heritage listed building would be granted, it is a requirement that the heritage listed property be assessed by our Heritage Planning Staff. This assessment would then include a recommendation by staff to either allow the building to be demolished, or a recommendation to designate the building under the Planning Act as a Heritage building. Designation under the Planning Act would negate any possibility of demolishing the building. 
 
On September 12th, 2017 the Heritage Richmond Hill Committee (HRH) considered a staff report, and endorsed a recommendation from our Heritage Planning staff that the house be designated and not allowed to be removed. This recommendation will need to be passed by Council at a future Council Meeting. This is a significant step, because if the existing Heritage building is designated, the original proposal submitted by the applicant will not be possible. However, a proposal that works to incorporate the existing building into a redevelopment may be possible. 
 
I will keep residents informed of next steps and the date for a future Council meeting related to this application when it becomes available. Click here for a link to the HRH staff report.   
 
 

5.  251, 253 and 259 Oxford Street

The applicant is seeking Council’s approval of its Zoning By-law Amendment and draft Plan of Subdivision applications to permit the construction of 14 single detached residential dwellings on its land holdings, with access from a new public road from Oxford Street. It is proposed that two lots would have frontage on Oxford Street, and twelve lots would front the proposed new public road. 
 
There was a statuatory Council Public meeting on March 28th to discuss this application and seek public feedback. If any residents have further feedback please feel free to write your thoughts down and send them to me at david.west@richmondhill.ca.
 
 
6. 11488 Yonge St and 49 Gamble Rd. (south west corner of Gamble and Yonge)
For the past several years there has been a live development application at this location. The applicant was originally facing some challenges reconciling the application with the existence of a floodplain in this area. They have been working with our Planning Staff and the TRCA to address these concerns, and others. It is my understanding that some progress in coming up with an acceptable proposal has been made, but unfortunately the applicant has chosen to appeal the application to the OMB. This represents a common occurrence lately as many applicants have chosen to appeal to the OMB before the OMB is replaced by the newly created LPAT (there is more information about this issue below). 
 
I am quite disappointed with this appeal. This move, in my opinion, does not allow our planning staff and the public an adequate opportunity to provide meaningful input on the revised application.  I will keep residents informed of any new issues related to this application as they become available.