GOLF COURSE HOUSING REDEVELOPMENT DENSITY CONCERNS

NRU
March 22, 2017
Andrew Cohrs

A developer’s plan to redevelop a golf course in Markham is drawing concern from a residents association and a councillor over the project’s potential impact on local traffic and housing density.

Kylemore Communities has proposed to redevelop York Downs Golf Course at 4134 16th Avenue in Markham and create two new residential areas separated by Bruce Creek on the 168.6 ha site. The proposal comprises 2,421 dwelling units, including 1,087 detached dwellings, 824 townhomes (including some stacked and back-to-back style townhouses) and 510 apartment units in mid-rise or mixed-use buildings. The project has an estimated population of 7,422 once fully built. The development is proposed to be constructed in phases, with the first phase occurring in vacant land adjacent to Kennedy Road and the remainder of the development occurring after the closure of the golf course in 2020.

Ward 5 councillor Don  Hamilton, whose ward is located across the street from the proposal, told NRU that local traffic volume already is an issue. He says that adding approximately 5,000 cars over time will create further strain for residents.

“This is not 50 units or a little infill on a street. ... I am very concerned about the traffic already. ... The plan shows three exits on to 16th Avenue and only one going up in to Angus Glen and frankly I am tired of everyone dumping their traffic on to Unionville. Take some that traffic and move it up north to Major [Mackenzie] which isn’t as congested.”

However, Ward 6 councillor Amanda Yeung Collucci told NRU that she is reserving her judgement until more public feedback is received. So far, she said she has heard positive comments from nearby residents who welcome the proposal’s designation of land for a new school and the addition of green space that, as a golf course, was previously inaccessible to the public. While acknowledging that traffic is an issue throughout Markham, Collucci was hesitant to oppose the proposal because of a potential increase in vehicular traffic.

Only 126 ha of the 168.6 ha site are developable, but in the preliminary report staff stated that the amount of parkland currently proposed by the developer does not meet Markham’s parkland requirements. Staff also identified issues related to tree preservation, given that many mature trees in the area would have to be removed for the project, and also questioned if the built form of the proposal makes an adequate transition to adjacent neighbourhoods.

Hamilton also took issue with the location of the proposal’s mixed-use and mid-rise blocks on 16th Avenue that would overlook the low-rise neighbourhood south of the street. Such positioning, he said, does not provide an appropriate transition to homes across 16th Avenue, noting that homeowners purchased their homes based on the presence of a golf course across the street – not a mid-rise building overlooking their backyards. Finally, he noted that the proposal’s inclusion of stacked townhouses is at odds with the character of the adjacent neighbourhood.

Unionville Residents Association board member and past president Peter Miasek also expressed concerns. He told NRU that, while the association has not taken a position, the proposal creates more questions than answers. He cited nine association concerns: traffic, density, the local collector road network, transit accessibility, provision of affordable housing, the limited number of trails proposed, tree preservation, stormwater management capacity and the imposition of possible area specific development charges. However, Miasek said he was reassured when the development services committee voted on Monday to assign further review to the Unionville Sub-committee after the public meeting.

A public meeting is scheduled for April 5.