‘We aren’t NIMBYs’: Vaughan councillors feel heat after pleas to reject ‘inappropriate’ highrise bids

Residents make passionate pleas to reject condo proposals

Yorkregion.com
May 17, 2021
Dina Al-Shibeeb

Vaughan councillors felt the heat May 13 from residents’ “passionate” pleas to reject two separate development bids, which some flagged as “inappropriate.”

The residents were described as “passionate” by Coun. Rosanna DeFrancesca and shared a lot in common in terms of grievances, which were chiefly about traffic gridlock and changing the already-approved low-rise character of their areas.

Both groups made it clear during a virtual meeting that they aren’t NIMBYs -- an acronym for “Not In My Backyard,” a euphemism for people who are against new development in their area.

These residents also reiterated that they aren’t against intensification, but have urged council to reject bids that don’t meet the zoning or official plan requirements.

While the official plan allows a maximum four-storey development, some Weston Downs residents have long objected to an application by Velmar Centre Property Ltd. to redevelop a plaza on the southwest corner of Rutherford Road and Velmar Drive into a seven-storey condo building.

“This development would put added stress on an already tax-constrained infrastructure system in our community. Heavy traffic infiltration and dangerous intersections of Velmar Drive and Rutherford Road have seen numerous serious accidents over the last few years,” resident Giovanni Losiggio said.

“We are not NIMBYs,” Losiggio added. “We realize that we must all do our part to ensure that the provincial guidelines and legislation on density in urban sprawl be met.”

At the end of the deputations, council decided to go for mediation with the developer, which chose to circumvent the residents and take the proposal to the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal (LPAT).

DeFrancesca, meanwhile, promised that if this fails, she will continue to fight against the proposal.

It’s not only the Velmar residents who are concerned.

Residents from the designated low-rise and Hawman Avenue have already fought against a 12-storey condo at the intersection of Highway 7 and Kipling, in the vicinity of their homes, which they describe as tight.

This stretch of Highway 7, where it intersections with Kipling Avenue, is narrow and yet some residents have pointed out that it has one of the highest condos -- 12 storeys. There is also a Petro-Canada at the intersection.

“I’ve had an accident at the intersection; in the last six months, we've had two people hit at the entrance of Mckenzie and we had another one on the 22nd at the intersection, and the remnants are still on the lawn of the gas station,” said Rosina Alimonte, a resident who made an emotional plea to council to reject the bid, citing the importance of safety for children and seniors, alike.

Another resident, David Arkell, said, “I really do think we should rethink how many condominium developments you're planning on putting in (around) Highway 7 and Kipling.”

The area is getting more cars coming from Kleinburg, Nobleton and Nashville, which used to be “little places,” but not so anymore, he added.

With the area also in the vicinity of a railroad bridge, Arkell said, “As it turns out, we have the one condo that's proposed. We have the one on the southwest corner that's 12 storeys, and right across the street on the northeast side of Highway 7, we have three more (condos) with numerous townhomes. We also, on Coles (Avenue), we have 176 stacked townhouses, and you're planning on putting more on Mckenzie Street, which is about the size of a pen.”

The current proposal, at 12 storeys, is four storeys less than the original. The developer's representative, Adam Grossi, said the “length of the building stretching from Highway 7 has been substantially reduced to the point where the majority of the building is actually contained within the Highway 7.”

Grossi also added that the secondary access is no longer at Hawman Avenue.

Tony Carella, councillor of the ward, initially wanted to reject the application; however, he was advised to give the developer, First Avenue Properties, another month to continue engaging with the residents to avoid the LPAT.