MINUTES
MILLIKEN MILLS SUBCOMMITTEE
Meeting No. 1
Canada Room
Members of the Milliken Mills Subcommittee Regional Councillor G. Landon Councillor A. Chiu Councillor L. Kanapathi Members of Council Deputy Mayor J. Heath Regional Councillor J. Jones Regional Councillor J. Virgilio Councillor D. Hamilton |
Staff B. Karumanchery, Senior Development Manager M. Wouters, Manager, East District E. Mak, Planner A. Tari, Committee Clerk |
The Milliken Mills Subcommittee meeting convened
at
DISCLOSURE OF PECUNIARY INTEREST
Councillor Logan Kanapathi disclosed an interest, as this is his wife’s medical clinic, and left the meeting room.
1. PETITION
Moved by Regional Councillor G. Landon
Seconded by Councillor A. Chiu
That the
petition from residents on
CARRIED
2. OFFICIAL PLAN, ZONING AMENDMENT AND SITE PLAN APPLICATIONS FOR
Staff delivered
a PowerPoint presentation providing a recap of the proposal presented at the
The Committee
inquired whether the masonry wall along
The Committee discussed the width of the driveway east of the building and whether it is sufficient. Staff confirmed that 6 metres is the required width.
Mr. Mezgebu
Girmay, area resident, addressed the Committee and inquired why an application
that is not proposing single family residential development is being considered
by the Town of
Staff advised that three applications (Official Plan and Zoning Amendments and Site Plan) have been submitted to the Town. Staff explained the development review process (as legislated under the Planning Act and Municipal Act) and specific milestones that apply to development applications that are received by the Municipalities. Staff indicated that some residents have raised concerns with Councillor Logan Kanapathi not following all required procedures and rules and staff assured that this application has and will continue to follow all required procedures and rules.
Mr. Garg, area resident, addressed the Committee inquiring if Councillor Kanapathi has a conflict with this application and stated concern with the proposed driveway to the east of the building.
Staff pointed out that the drawings being presented by Mr. Ben Quan have not been reviewed by staff.
Mr. Ben Quan, on
behalf of the applicant presented the Committee with a revised conceptual site
plan. He also indicated that the
architect, transportation engineer and civil engineer working on this project
are available to respond to any question.
He pointed out that the proposal only requires 25 parking spots to meet
the parking By-law standards and that they have maximized the parking to
include a total of 43 parking spots. Mr.
Quan advised that 6 of those parking spots will be tandem and intended to be
used as employee parking. He confirmed
that there is no access from
There was brief discussion regarding the handi-cap parking spots proposed at the back of the building.
The Committee inquired about garbage bins and where the snow will be stored. Mr. Quan advised that garbage and recycling will be internal to the building therefore not dumpsters in the parking lot. With respect to snow storage it will likely be placed to one corner of the property and if it becomes a problem the owner will make arrangements to have it removed. The Committee inquired if language can be added to the site plan conditions that if the snow occupies more than two parking spots the owner must have it removed. Mr. Quan advised that they can amend their site plan to illustrate snow storage.
There was
discussion regarding the traffic concerns and potential street parking on
The Committee inquired if there will be any chemical release from the building. The architect advised that they do not anticipate any chemical submissions from the building and that if there will be a dental x-ray the walls would be properly lined.
The Committee inquired if the applicant would be amendable to transfer some of the property to the adjacent homeowner. Mr. Quan advised that he would take that request back to his client and report back.
The Committee
suggested deleting the pedestrian walkway to discourage individuals from
parking on
Ms. Rashmi, area resident, addressed the Committee and asked the following questions: can you guarantee that the representatives that are in support of this application live in the area; will the proposed development also include someone living in it; what are the hours of operation; how will you guarantee that overflow parking will not end up on Walford Road; and can you ensure that the property values for the existing residential homes will not decrease in value?
A representative from the Armadale
Community addressed the Committee regarding the application for
Mr. Adam Sighn,
Mr. Vigna
Thanikaslam, area resident, addressed the Committee and stated concern with the
potential increase in traffic on
Mr. Balagouri,
area resident, addressed the Committee and stated some concerns. He does not believe that the arrangement for
overflow parking with the plaza across the road is a realistic option. Mr. Balagouri is concerned with the potential
increase in traffic and that the proposed
Mr. Girmay, area resident, addressed the Committee and stated that Committee should only listen to the concerns of the area residents because they are the ones that will be impacted by this proposal. He believes that the proposed parking is not sufficient and that the entire building is too large for the subject site. Mr. Girmay would only like to see the pedestrian walkway remain if this site is developed for residential purposes.
Mr. Devinder, Scarborough resident, addressed the Committee to clarify that at the February 2, 2010 Public Meeting he spoke on behalf of his brother-in-law who had to leave due to medical reasons.
Mr. Manjeet
Singh, area resident, addressed the Committee stating that there are many pros
and cons related to the applications for
Ms. Vicky Lian, area resident, addressed
the Committee with respect to the application for
Mr. Jayapalan, area resident, addressed the
Committee regarding the application for
Ms. Stella, area resident, addressed the
Committee with respect to the application for
Mr. Garg, area resident, addressed the Committee and stated that this property should only be developed for residential purposes. He is also concerned with the potential noise from the snow removal equipment and bio-hazard waste.
Mr. Pushparajah, addressed the Committee
regarding the application for
The Committee spoke of the advantages of this applicant owning their own location versus leasing one, primarily that the owner will ensure it is well maintained.
There was discussion regarding the proposed number of medical practitioners proposed for this development and whether there is a need for an elevator in the building.
There was discussion with respect to the condition of the current house on the subject property.
The Committee discussed whether it would be advantageous to hold another meeting with a smaller group to try and achieve some agreement between the area residents and the applicant.
Staff advised that the issues and concerns raised tonight and previously would all be addressed in the recommendation report. Staff also advised the Committee that their professional planning recommendation must be a defendable one, if, in fact this application is appealed to the Ontario Municipal Board. Staff indicated that they would not be supporting the elimination of the pedestrian walkway.
The Milliken
Mills Sub-committee adjourned at
Q:\Clerks\Secretariat\Council-Committee\MINUTES\SUBCOMM\MILLIKEN\2010\10-03-03.doc