I have concerns with the MZO…

I have concerns with the MZO under ERO 019-9394 requested by Mon Sheong Foundation located at 162-176 Sandiford Drive. Listed below are my reasons why this MZO should be refused
Stouffville is in desperate need of employment land and the taxes and jobs that it creates. This property is one of the last serviced Business Employment land Stouffville has and should not be converted to residential.
In accordance with the growth forecasts prepared by York Region, Whitchurch-Stouffville’s employment base is forecast to reach 28,400 jobs by 2051. This represents an increase of approximately 11,400 jobs between 2021 and 2051. Employment Areas in Stouffville are anticipated to accommodate an additional 4,340 jobs from 2021 to 2051. Based on the Town’s anticipated long-term growth, it is forecast that the Town will have a deficit of about 95 net hectares (234.75 acres) of Employment Area lands by 2051. Asking for these lands to be converted from employment to residential is not good planning for the future of Stouffville. Stouffville needs the province to assist in preserving what little serviced employment lands we have left.
Height permission of up to 23 stories will be across from existing low density residential and not compatible with the character of the community.
I am elected by the residents of Stouffville, and the existing residents of Stouffville is my number one priority. This proposal should go through the regular planning approval process in order to include community consultation.
In Markham this proposal would cause little impact along major transit corridors, however, this part of Stouffville does not have the infrastructure in place to accommodate this scale of development. This would be better suited near one of our MTSA’s (Major Transit Station Area’s).
An independent study indicated 75%+ residents of Stouffville own’s 2 cars. With 900 apartments proposed, roughly 1350 parking spots would be needed at rate of 1.5 spots per unit (our current zoning requirement). This proposal is only requiring approximately 337 parking spaces. Without a traffic impact study, it is not justified to have such a low parking standard. Furthermore, there are approximately 200 surface parking spaces being used for Phase 1 that is located were the proposed building is to be constructed. Where will these existing 200 parking spaces be relocated to?
It should also be noted that previously, employment area lands could only be converted to non-employment uses through the Region’s Municipal Comprehensive Review. With the York Region losing its planning responsibilities, the Town is now responsible for its employment land area. This is more reasoning to not permit an MZO and require this project to go through normal planning approvals in order to get Town staff and residents to comment.

Here are excerpts from the new Provincial Planning Statement:
2.8.2 Employment Areas
1. Planning authorities shall plan for, protect and preserve employment areas for current and future uses, and ensure that the necessary infrastructure is provided to support current and projected needs.
3. Planning authorities shall designate, protect and plan for all employment areas in the settlement areas by:
a) planning for employment area uses over the long-term that require those locations including manufacturing, research and development in connection with manufacturing, warehousing and goods movement, and associated retail and office uses and ancillary facilities;
b) prohibiting residential uses, commercial uses, public service facilities and other institutional uses;
c) prohibiting retail and office uses that are not associated with the primary employment use;
d) prohibiting other sensitive land uses that are not ancillary to uses permitted in the employment area; and
e) including an appropriate transition to adjacent non-employment areas to ensure land use compatibility and economic viability.
5. Planning authorities may remove lands from employment areas only where it has been demonstrated that:
a) there is an identified need for the removal and the land is not required for employment area use over the long term;
b) the proposed uses would not negatively impact the overall viability of the employment area by:
1. avoiding, or where avoidance is not possible, minimizing and mitigating potential impacts to existing or planned employment area uses in accordance with policy 3.5;
2. maintaining access to major goods movement facilities and corridors;
c) existing or planned infrastructure and public service facilities are available to accommodate the proposed uses; and
d) the municipality has sufficient employment lands to accommodate projected employment growth to the horizon of the approved official plan.

Definition
Employment Area: means those areas designated in an official plan for clusters of business and economic activities including manufacturing, research and development in connection with manufacturing, warehousing, goods movement, associated retail and office, and ancillary facilities. An employment area also includes areas of land described by subsection 1(1.1) of the Planning Act. Uses that are excluded from employment areas are institutional and commercial, including retail and office not associated with the primary employment use listed above.

From the Ministries own website, the minister’s consideration of a request, the following information should be provided:
1.A description of consultation with the public and engagement with Indigenous communities. This to my knowledge has not happened and would be better addressed via a normal planning application process.
2. Evidence of municipal support for the proposed project. This support should have been discussed at Town Council.
3. Rationale on why the project requires ministerial zoning relief rather than following municipal planning processes. No consultation with the community has occurred. No opportunity for council to address negative impacts on the community or Town.
4.Justification for the exemption of the application of provincial and local land use policies to downstream approvals, where requested. No justification for these exceptions has been provided to support this.
As best practice, proponents should consider whether there is a demonstrable need for urgency of zoning relief such as timelines relating to funding or grants, or an emergency public health and safety concern. Where has there been any urgency for this project been justified? Please consider refusing this MZO request and allow the applicant to proceed via town planning application approval process.