Townhouses replace mid-rise: DOWNZONING IN MARKHAM

NRU
Dec. 3, 2014
Edward LaRusic

A revised application to turn what was to have been mid-rise buildings into townhouses in Markham has staff concerned and Unionville residents elated.

Ward 2 councillor Don Hamilton in an email to NRU said that he, along with residents, is in favour of a proposed change by Times Group Inc. to develop a portion of its lands in townhomes rather than the mid-rise buildings for which it had been approved. Hamilton said residents didn’t want the mid-rise buildings approved in the first place, as they were concerned with traffic impacts.

“The residents just ask [people] to stand on the corner and see the traffic congestion already there, without adding an eight-storey condo with ensuing vehicles. The townhomes will be more palatable.”

In 2013, the City of Markham and Times Group had reached a settlement at the Ontario Municipal Board regarding appeals by Times Group of council’s failure to make a decision on official plan and zoning by-law amendments.

As part of the settlement, Times Group was allowed to develop three eight-storey condominium apartment buildings with 393 units, plus up-to-12 townhouse units on the southern block of its site.

Subsequently, Times Group changed its direction over what to do with its southern block. Staff noted in a preliminary report to the November 18 development services committee that instead of building eight-storey condominiums, Times Group is seeking official plan and zoning by-law amendments to allow 55 townhome units. This represents about one quarter of the number of units the OMB approved.

Hamilton said this is simply Times Group responding to market demand, which has been strong for single-family homes and not so strong for condominium units.

Resident Ken Wightman, a former member of the now disbanded Village Parkway Residents Association that had opposed the settlement approved by the OMB, said residents prefer the townhouse proposal. He said that townhouses are a better fi t for the neighbourhood.

“[The Unionville area is] mainly single-unit homes. Condos themselves just do not fi t into our area. There is no continuity with surrounding neighbourhoods. We opposed the higher density, because the traffic here is already terrible in Unionville and Markham generally, and by pouring all these additional cars onto the constrained streets, it would only intensify the problem.”

Staff notes that a 2009 study envisioned Highway 7 as a future “mid-rise urban boulevard,” and has guided development on the south side of Highway 7 to be six-to-eight-storey buildings that are transit supportive. The staff report says that townhouses would be out of character with this vision.

York Region development planning manager Duncan MacAskill said that there is a policy in the York Region Official Plan regarding downzoning, but it is current under appeal. The policy states that official plan and zoning by-law amendments that would reduce the density of a site approved for medium- or high-density development are prohibited outside of a municipal comprehensive review.

MacAskill said this is a location where the region would generally expect intensification and requests for downzoning are not common in York Region.

“If you look at the regional transit network map, you’ll see that segment is identified as a regional transit priority network, which is a six-lane cross-section with a HOV lane… Certainly, when we look at Highway 7, where we’re putting infrastructure investment, we look for development that supports that. We have not made specific comments on [the Times Group application] yet…we’ll get back to Markham in terms of those comments and see what they do with them.”

The staff report notes that it has received enquiries from other landowners in the vicinity about potentially downzone other sites in the area. Staff notes that while the market may have soft demand for mid-rise condominiums, allowing downzoning could set a negative precedent for other “transit accessible properties.”

“Once a property is developed at a lower, less transit supportive density, the opportunity to develop the property at a higher, more transit supportive density is lost,” staff note in the report.

Hamilton is not concerned about setting a precedent for “downzoning” in Markham.

“Staff is of course worried about downzoning as that is [its] responsibility: to present possible negative consequences. I think we also need to be responsive to existing residents’ concerns. At the end of the day 13 people decide on what’s best for the community … the council. It’s up to staff to present [its] arguments, the developer to present his argument and the council to make its decision.”

A public meeting on the Times Group application is expected in the new year. MacAskill believes the region will submit its comments within the next few weeks.