I am writing to as one of…

I am writing to as one of the ratepayer co-presidents of my community. This community is north-west of this proposal. Our organization represents 1876 homes.

Using an MZO for this application is a misuse of the Provincial tool to benefit a specific applicant without a genuine planning justification.

We are concerned that a MZO is being misused for this application for the following reasons:
1. This proposal will create an isolated residential island surrounded by employment uses and a 400 series highway. It is not compatible with the surrounding employment use and has the potential to create compatibility issues for both the proposed residential community and the current employment uses. It will result in noise complaints and could cause operational restrictions on businesses in this vibrant employment zone. The potential conflicts that may result between residential and employment uses may undermine the viability of this valuable employment area that provides many career jobs for our residents.
2. This proposal is not in a planned intensification corridor.
3. This proposal is not in proximity to residential infrastructure such as schools, community centres etc.
4. This proposal will force elementary and middle school children to cross two major Regional Roads to attend school and risk their lives crossing roads that are used by transport trucks that constantly serve the current businesses in this employment area.
5. The proposal does not include adequate parks and not enough retail to be considered a vibrant, healthy community.
6. This proposal is not compatible with the abutting entrance to the Hwy 400 south onramp.
7. The Region of York planning strongly opposes the use of a provincial acceleration tool for this land citing that the CIHA tool (now replaced by the MZO) should not be used to by-pass good planning principles and the development of desirable, complete neighbourhoods.
8. This proposal will destabilize this valuable and necessary employment area, as other land owners will also seek MZO applications. This is evidenced by the intent of a neighbouring land owner in a letter to the City of Vaughan.
9. The Region of York Planning has concerns about the lack of servicing allocation for this proposal and whether this will take away allocation from proposals that are in planned intensification areas.
10. The Region of York Planning has concerns about the Urban Water Plan not having taken this proposal into account and the impact on both new and existing residents.
11. This proposal will add to the existing traffic congestion on Langstaff and the entrance to the Highway 400 onramp. With an MZO, there will not be a transportation study which is necessary for this proposal considering it proximity to the Hwy 400 onramp.
12. The Region of York has identified Geotechnical issues with this site due to current high water table conditions and confined artesian aquifer conditions. In their planning report regarding this proposal, they indicated that these geotechnical issues could affect the foundation and building stability.

Location and Application Details
The 1.64-hectare subject area is located on the south side of Langstaff Road between Weston Road and Highway 400 (see Appendix 1), abutting the entrance to the Hwy 400 south onramp. This proposal consists of four towers, two of 32 storeys and two of 35 storeys, for a total of 1,488 apartment units. The overall built density is 6.34 FSI. The proposal includes only 304 m2 of ground floor commercial uses and includes 1,514 parking spaces in an eight-level parking garage (four-levels aboveground and four-levels underground). The land is currently occupied by a gas station and a variety of commercial and retail uses, including a corner store, a café, office spaces, and the Reinhard College of Music & School of Worship. The uses in the vicinity of this property include Durock, York Metal Recycling, Canamould Extrusions, Decor Rest Furniture, Commdoor Aluminum, Eddystone Auto Collision, Extrulex Aluminum, Magnotta Wines, and TACC Developments, just to name a few. None of these great employment uses are compatible with residential uses. In fact, this development will jeopardize the operation of these great job providers since many of these employment uses have transport trucks or large trucks that frequent their operations. It is clear that there will be compatibility and noise issues between the new residential buildings and the current employment uses.

Our Concerns
York Region Planning's report dated November 14, 2023 articulates many of our concerns. York Region report clearly indicates:

A CIHA Order (now a MZO) should not be used to by-pass a comprehensive planning process and policies that consider the surrounding context, good planning principles, and create desirable, complete neighborhoods.

York Region Development Planning staff do not support the use of a CIHA Order (now a MZO) on the subject lands to permit the proposed development. A comprehensive planning exercise of the larger non-employment lands should determine the appropriate amount and type of development commensurate with required hard and soft infrastructure and services. Complete communities are not created with an isolated island of high density residential, surrounded by an employment area and adjacent to a 400-series Highway.

An example of an appropriate use of the Community Infrastructure and Housing Accelerator Order would be to advance a mixed-use project in one of Vaughan’s planned intensification areas. The Official Plan Amendments proposes to add a new residential use on lands surrounded by an employment area, isolated from existing residential neighbourhoods. The subject lands are not currently within a residential community area, making it difficult to contribute to and create a healthy and complete community.

This application will disrupt and destabilize valuable employment lands and uses, not to mention the transportation infrastructure, namely the onramp to Hwy 400 south. There are many planned intensification corridors in Vaughan where the use of a CIHA (now an MZO)could be justified, but this land is not in an approved intensification corridor. York Region Planning stresses in their report that there are approved intensification corridors where the use of a CIHA (now an MZO) would be appropriate to advance a mixed-use project, but this is not one of them.

Approved intensification areas
VMC with 67,000 planned residential units
Weston and Hwy7 with 27,000 planned residential units
Yonge Steeles corridor with 23,500 planned residential units
Steeles West with 5,500 planned residential units
Promenade Centre with 8,800 planned residential unit
 

Conclusion
In conclusion, three ratepayer groups (including ours), representing over 15,000 homes and over 40,000 residents, have objected to the CIHA (now MZO) being used for this application. Our Mayor and one of the Regional Councillors, who were the strong voices pushing the CIHA forward, keep insisting that there was no public opposition to this application, however this is obviously not true. Three ratepayer groups objected in writing to the use of the CIHA (now MZO) in this application.

Our ratepayers group is not in opposition to the use of the MZO where justified and supported by proper planning. It is however, absolutely imperative to ensure due diligence nce and transparency in the decision-making process. The use of the MZO tool (previously the CIHA) in the Battcorp application is not transparent and it appears to not be justifiable from a planning perspective.

So why is the MZO tool being used for the Battcorp application? The subject lands are not in a residential community, and it will be difficult for the Battcorp apartment towers to become a healthy and vibrant residential community without proper schools, parks, community centres, public transportation etc. This residential development will destabilize a valuable and necessary employment area. Communities are not built on isolated islands surrounded by established employment uses. Do not create problems for tomorrow, instead use the MZO to continue complementing and building healthy, vibrant residential communities. We kindly ask that you provide assistance to bring transparency to the use of the MZO for the Battcorp application, and to decline the use of the MZO tool for this application which lacks the planning justification to use the MZO tool.

Thank you for your time and consideration.