Zoning By-Law Amendment Application Z95032

Aspen Ridge Homes (Markham Gardens) Incorporated

South of Sheppard Avenue, East of Markham Road

Ward 18 - Scarborough Malvern

The Scarborough Community Council, after considering the deputations and based on the finding of fact, conclusions and recommendations contained in the report, dated June 22, 1998, from the former Commissioner of Planning and Buildings, Scarborough, recommends that the report of the former Commissioner of Planning and Buildings, Scarborough, be adopted, subject to the following amendments:

(1)Recommendation (A) Block 2:

(1)Permitted Uses:

(a)insert the words "which shall not permit the preparation of food for consumption off the premises" following the words "retail stores"; and

(b)add the words "and parking for the Scarborough Community Complex";

so that such recommendation shall now read as follows:

"(A)Block 2:

(1)Permitted Uses: Apartment Residential (A) Zone and Neighbourhood Commercial (NC) including retail stores which shall not permit the preparation of food for consumption off the premises, personal service shops, financial institutions, business and professional offices and parking for the Scarborough Community Complex;"

(2)Recommendation (A) Block 2:

(2)Development Standards:

strike out the words "may be provided" in (2.7) and insert in lieu thereof the words "shall be provided on Block 2, to a minimum of sixty (60) spaces";

so that such recommendation shall now read as follows:

"(A)Block 2:

(2)Development Standards:

(2.7)parking for the Scarborough Community Complex shall be provided on Block 2, to a minimum of sixty (60) spaces;".

The Scarborough Community Council also reports, for the information of City Council, having requested that the City Solicitor report directly to City Council, at its meeting to be held on October 28, 1998, providing a legal opinion as to whether the City may be attracting liability with respect to the density transfer inherent in this application.

Recorded votes:

Upon the question of the adoption of the aforementioned amendment (1) (a), which was moved by Councillor Balkissoon:

Yeas:Councillors Altobello, Ashton, Balkissoon, Berardinetti, Cho, Duguid, Mahood, Shaw - 8

Nays:Councillor Kelly - 1

Upon the question of the adoption of the aforementioned amendment (1) (b), which was moved by Councillor Balkissoon:

Yeas:Councillors Altobello, Ashton, Balkissoon, Berardinetti, Cho, Duguid, Kelly, Mahood, Shaw- 9

Nays:Nil

Upon the question of the adoption of the aforementioned amendment (2), which was moved by Councillor Balkissoon:

Yeas:Councillors Altobello, Ashton, Balkissoon, Berardinetti, Cho, Duguid, Kelly, Mahood, Shaw-9

Nays:Nil

Upon the question of the adoption of the aforementioned request that the City Solicitor report directly to Council, which was moved by Councillor Altobello:

Yeas:Councillors Altobello, Ashton, Balkissoon, Berardinetti, Cho, Duguid, Kelly, Mahood, Shaw-9

Nays:Nil

Upon the question of the adoption of the report, as amended:

Yeas:Councillors Altobello, Ashton, Berardinetti, Duguid, Kelly, Shaw -6

Nays:Councillors Balkissoon, Cho, Mahood -3

In addition to the aforementioned amendments, Councillor Balkissoon moved the following:

(1)that the City and the Landowner approach the Ontario Municipal Board for clarification on the density transfer issue; and

(2)that the Bills enacting this application not be presented to City Council pending resolution of this matter.

Upon the question of the adoption of part (1) of Councillor Balkissoon's motion:

Yeas:Councillors Balkissoon, Cho, Mahood, Shaw -4

Nays:Councillors Altobello, Ashton, Berardinetti, Duguid, Kelly -5

The Chair ruled part (2) of Councillor Balkissoon's motion redundant as part (1) lost.

The Scarborough Community Council reports having held a statutory public meeting on October 14, 1998, in accordance with Section 17 and Section 34 of the Planning Act, and that appropriate notice of this meeting was given in accordance with the Planning Act and the regulations thereunder.

The Scarborough Community Council submits the following report (June 22, 1998) from the former Commissioner of Planning and Buildings, Scarborough:

Purpose:

This report presents recommendations to amend the Malvern Community Zoning

By-law and the Malvern East Agricultural Holding Zoning By-law as they pertain to two blocks of land located within the south-east quadrant of Markham Road and Sheppard Avenue, as shown on the adjacent map. The proposed rezoning would permit 326 apartment units and

2,323 square metres (25,000 square feet) of commercial uses on Block 2 and 417 apartment units on Block 3, in accordance with the Official Plan policies for these lands.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that City Council repeal the Malvern East Agricultural Holding Zoning By-law No. 13219, as amended, and incorporate Blocks 2 and 3, Registered Plan 66M-2300, in the Malvern Community Zoning By-law No. 14402, as amended, and zone them as follows:

(A)Block 2:

(1)Permitted uses: Apartment Residential (A) Zone and Neighbourhood Commercial (NC) including retail stores, personal service shops, financial institutions, business and professional offices;

(2)Development Standards:

(2.1)maximum 326 dwelling units;

(2.2)minimum 3 metre (10 foot) building setback from the streetlines; canopies and supporting columns may be erected to the street line;

(2.3)maximum 2,323 square metres (25,000 square feet) of gross floor area for commercial uses;

(2.4)parking to be provided on the following basis:

(a)prior to the operation of the SRT to Sheppard Avenue:

(i)minimum 1.4 parking spaces per dwelling unit to be provided on the basis of 1.2 spaces per unit for residents and 0.2 spaces per unit for visitors;

(ii)minimum 3 parking spaces per 100 square metres (1,076square feet) of gross floor area for other uses;

(b)when the SRT is in operation to Sheppard Avenue:

(i)minimum 1.2 parking spaces per dwelling unit on the basis of 1space for residents and 0.2 for visitors;

(ii)minimum 1 parking space per 100 square metres (1,076square feet) of gross floor area for other uses;

(2.5)maximum height 16 storeys (excluding mechanical penthouses);

(2.6)minimum of 1 square metre (10.76 square feet) enclosed recreation space to be provided for each dwelling unit;

(2.7)parking for the Scarborough Community Complex may be provided;

(2.8)general zoning by-law provisions with respect to coverage and building height shall not apply;

(2.9)all provisions of this By-law shall apply collectively to the site notwithstanding its future division into two or more parcels;

(B)Block 3:

(1)Permitted uses: Apartment Residential (A) Zone;

(2)Development Standards:

(2.1)maximum 417 dwelling units;

(2.2)minimum 3 metre (10 foot) building setback from the streetlines;

(2.3)parking to be provided on the following basis:

(a)prior to the operation of the SRT to Sheppard Avenue:

(i)minimum 1.4 parking spaces per dwelling unit to be provided on the basis of 1.2 spaces per unit for residents and 0.2 spaces per unit for visitors;

(b)when the SRT is in operation to Sheppard Avenue:

(i)minimum 1.2 parking spaces per dwelling unit on the basis of 1 space for residents and 0.2 for visitors;

(2.4)maximum height 12 storeys (excluding mechanical penthouses) within 30metres (100 feet) of the streetline of Markham Road and 16 storeys (excluding mechanical penthouses) on the balance of the block;

(2.5)minimum of 1 square metre (10.76 square feet) enclosed recreation space to be provided for each dwelling unit;

(2.6)general zoning by-law provisions with respect to coverage and building height shall not apply;

(2.7)all provisions of this By-law shall apply collectively to the site notwithstanding its future division into two or more parcels; and

(C)Miscellaneous:

authorize such unsubstantive technical, stylistic or format changes to the Zoning By-law amendment as may be required to properly carry out the intent of this resolution.

Background:

The subject lands are the two remaining blocks within the Aspen Ridge subdivision that have not been rezoned to implement the Official Plan Amendment approved by the Ontario Municipal Board in 1994. These lands are designated High Density Residential, at a net density of 150 apartment and townhouse units per hectare (60 units per acre) to a maximum of 1600 zoned residential units. Limited commercial uses are also permitted in this designation.

To date, Blocks 1, 4, 5 and 6 have been rezoned permitting 857 residential units. With the addition of the proposed 743 apartments on Blocks 2 and 3, the number of zoned residential units in the subdivision will total 1600.

Aspen Ridge Homes Inc. started development of the subdivision with the construction of a 154 unit townhouse condominium at the north-west corner of Progress and Milner Avenues. These units are now occupied. Also, an additional 146 townhouses are now under construction on the west side of Progress Avenue, between Rosebank Drive and Orchid Place Drive. In addition, a site plan control application to permit 154 townhouses on the east side of Markham Road, north of Milner Avenue, is under review by City staff. Lands along the east side of Progress Avenue have been developed for a public park and for the Scarborough Community Complex which is nearing completion. Lands along the west side of Markham Road and the north side of Sheppard Avenue have been developed with apartment buildings ranging from 4 to 13 storeys, with the north-west corner of Sheppard Avenue and Malvern Street occupied by a commercial plaza. Two service stations occupy the south-east corner of Markham Road and Sheppard Avenue, and the north-east corner of Markham Road and Milner Avenue.

In support of the rezoning request, the owner has submitted a Site Plan Control application to illustrate how the proposed development is to be accommodated on these two sites.

The recommendations in the Preliminary Evaluation Report, adopted by Council on June 6, 1995, requested the applicant to submit sun/shadow and wind impact studies, detailed site and landscape plans with special attention to be given to the provision of facilities and the landscape treatment on Block 2. Council also directed staff to process the submitted applications in the normal manner and convene a community information meeting in June, 1995.

Over 3000 households and businesses as well as the local community associations, were notified of the community meeting which was held on June 27, 1995. The meeting was attended by approximately 18 residents, the Ward Councillor, the applicant, the project architect and planning staff. Building heights and traffic impact were the two main issues voiced by the speakers. At the Councillor's suggestion, another community information meeting was hosted by staff on November8, 1995 to specifically consider transportation issues related to the proposal. Seven residents and business representatives attended the meeting. Both the traffic consultant and the project architect made presentations. At the request of the attendees, all present at the meeting were subsequently forwarded an updated traffic study addendum.

Comments:

(1)The 326 apartments on Block 2 (Figures 3 and 6) are to be accommodated in three buildings, of 10 storeys, 14 storeys and 16 storeys, with 2,323 m² (25,000 square feet) of retail commercial occupying the ground level. The one storey podium structure will link the residential towers to form an integrated development. All parking, servicing and loading facilities will be accommodated internally within the development, either underground or within the podium structure. The proposed landscape treatment focuses on an outdoor public court at the corner of Progress and Sheppard Avenues, a design which mirrors the landscape approach on the opposite corner, at the Scarborough Community Complex. In addition, a roof garden on top of the commercial space will provide an outdoor amenity area for the enjoyment of the residents.

Block 3 (Figures 4 and 7) will be developed with three buildings, two of which will be 12storeys high with the third one being 16 storeys high. A one storey recreation centre connecting two of the three residential towers, will provide for a continuous building edge along the Markham Road frontage of the property.

The proposed building heights are the result of careful design consideration taking into account the existing community fabric, the residents' concerns, the applicant's development program for both sites and the Official Plan site specific policies permitting a 12 storey height limit within 30 metres (100 feet) of Markham Road and 18 storeys on the balance of the land.

Staff are continuing discussions with the project architect with respect to the site plan details and building elevations, including the design of the roof top equipment screening, to achieve an attractive streetscape consistent with the evolving character of the area.

(2)The application was circulated to various agencies, none which expressed opposition to the proposed amendment. A number of improvements related to transportation, servicing, the provision of parkland, schools and other amenities, were addressed through the subdivision approval process covering the subject lands. Statutory Public Notice has been provided to all assessed persons within 120 metres (400 feet) of the subject properties, as well as all individuals who requested in writing to be notified of further meetings to consider the application.

(3)The transportation impact study prepared in 1992 for the Ontario Municipal Board hearing supported the provision of 1950 residential units and 7,432 m² (80,000 square feet) of retail uses. The Official Plan, modified in 1995, provides for a maximum of 1,600 residential units and 4,642 m² (50,000 square feet) of commercial uses. Of this total, 357 apartments and 2,322.5 m² (25,000 square feet) of retail, as well as offices, will be located on Block 1 which is owned by the City. This zoning permission is subject to the holding provision requiring further studies to review, among other matters, the transportation needs required for the development of this block. The updated traffic impact study prepared in 1995 for the current applications, took into account the revised development scenario and incorporated traffic projections for the Scarborough Community Complex. The study concludes that the new subdivision street network and other road improvements in the area that have already been implemented, are sufficient to accommodate traffic based on the proposed total development within the subdivision. It should be pointed out that the recently completed Progress Avenue extension and overpass across Highway 401 as well as the widening of Highway 401, have substantially increased traffic capacity in the area.

Pursuant to an agreement signed by the City, the Chinese Cultural Centre of Greater Toronto and Aspen Ridge Homes, Aspen Ridge is proposing to provide approximately 60 parking spaces on Block 2 for the use of the patrons of the Scarborough Community Complex.

(4)In response to Council's direction, the applicant has submitted an Environmental Studies report prepared by F.H. Theakson Environmental Control Inc., which analysed the impact of sun and wind on the development.

The sun study concludes that in view of existing conditions, with a relatively large portion of the surrounding land occupied by retail buildings and the related parking areas, and given the width of the abutting arterial roads, the shadows cast by the proposed buildings will not detrimentally impact on the present quality of the residential areas in the vicinity. In March and September, when shadows are of average length, the new buildings will cast a shadow in the morning on the lower floors of the apartment buildings to the west of Markham Road and to the north of Sheppard Avenue. By mid morning, the shadow line will clear the residential area, and in the afternoon, it will reach the Scarborough Community Complex and the westerly portion of the townhouses on Block 5. During summer months when the use of the outdoor space is the greatest, the shadow casts are reduced and practically do not affect residential areas outside the subdivision. In December, morning shadows cast by the Block 2 development will affect the area to the north of Sheppard Avenue. Staff have reviewed the study and have agreed with the consultant's assessment that the future buildings will not unreasonably affect the existing neighbouring community.

The thrust of the wind study was to analyse the wind velocities and paths that will be created by the new buildings and propose any necessary mitigation measures necessary to achieve a comfortable pedestrian environment within the private and public pedestrian areas adjacent to the proposed development. As long as Block 1 remains vacant, the prevailing westerly and the north-westerly winds will create negative conditions in the vicinity of the buildings. To achieve desirable comfort levels, the architect has introduced a number of design changes such as the continuous canopy along the north and east building walls on Sheppard and Progress Avenues, large canopies over the entrances to all buildings. In addition, large coniferous planting is proposed on Block 1 which requires the City's approval. The proposal is currently under consideration by the Real Estate Division. From a planning perspective, the proposed landscape solution is acceptable. In view of the financial constraints, it is unlikely that the City will proceed with the SRT extension and the complementary mixed use development on Block 1 in the near future. Any substantial development on this land would change the wind impact on the subject land, and further wind studies would have to be undertaken with respect to the potential development on the City block.

(5)The Toronto District School Board, Scarborough Division, has expressed a concern that pupils emanating from this development cannot be accommodated without additional portable classrooms at Burrows Hall Junior Public School, Lucy Maud Montgomery Public School and Lester B. Pearson. This concern reflects the Board's uncertainty with respect to its ability to finance future improvements to the existing school infrastructure. With gradual residential development over a longer period of time than it had been originally anticipated, it is possible that the new students may be accommodated in the local school without additional portables. It should also be pointed out that the proposed apartments are generally smaller than traditional low scale subdivision housing, which could be attractive to adult life style accommodation.

The local school, Burrows Hall J.P. School, is conveniently located within walking distance of the development. As requested by the Board, a pedestrian walkway has been installed through the recently developed park to allow direct and safe access from the subdivision.

Although no comments have been received from the Toronto Catholic District School Board, the Board acquired a 1 hectare (2.5 acre) block of land on the east side of Progress Avenue within the Aspen Ridge subdivision to accommodate the needs of future pupils. At the present time, the Board has no plans for the construction of this new facility, therefore students will be accommodated in the existing local catholic schools.

Conclusion:

The requested zoning by-law amendment would permit these lands to develop in accordance with the applicable Official Plan policies and support the City's objective for intensification in the vicinity of the proposed Scarborough Rapid Transit Extension station. The adjacent park with the Scarborough Community Complex will provide recreational amenities for the future residents. In addition, enclosed recreation space will be provided on the basis of 1 m² (10.76 square feet) per apartment unit. The recommended development standards are consistent with the zoning provisions approved for other residential blocks within the subdivision.

Contact Name:

Anna Czajkowski, Senior Planner

Phone: (416) 396-7022

Fax: (416) 396-4265

E-mail: czajkows@city.scarborough.on.ca

The Scarborough Community Council submits, for the information of Council, the following communication (July 8, 1998) received from Mr. David Yeung, area resident:

I refer to the Notice of Public Meeting in relation to the captioned premises and I would like to submit hereby my written comments:

I hereby strongly oppose the intended conversion and rezoning of the subject lands from Agricultural uses to Apartments and Neighbourhood Commercial by the owner (developer of Markham Garden). The following are some of the reasons for my opposition, namely:

1.The density of townhouses and apartments now erected and to be erected by the owner in the Markham Garden project is too high and over crowded and it is, therefore, not appropriate to increase a total 743 apartments in this area which may cause a lot of unforseen social problems; and

2.Save and except the existing small park/playground next to Markham Garden, there was no other park/garden/playground nearby. On each and every holiday, you can see a lot of residents, not only from Markham Garden, but also from the neighbouring lots crowded together in the existing small park/playground to share the limited facilities.

The Scarborough Community Council submits, for the information of Council, the following communication (July 8, 1998) received from Ms. Jennifer Chan, area resident:

I hereby strongly oppose the rezoning of the subject lands from "Agricultural Uses" to "Apartment" and "Neighbourhood Commercial".

The reasons of my objection to increase a total of 743 apartments in this area are as follows:

1.There are already 300 units of townhouses (both Phase one and Phase two of Markham Garden) on 29 Rosebank Drive and Progress Avenue. The density of these townhouses is already too high. There is no reason the owner should increase the total 743 apartments in the adjacent area.

2.The area is already crowded with high raised condominiums and townhouses at Markham Road and Sheppard Avenue and at Burrows Hall Boulevard. A high density neighbourhood already exists.

3.A huge capacity of educational facilities or schools to be considered for such high population.

4.This may cause social problems in such high density housing.

5.There is no other agriculture area next to Markham Garden.

6.Remember when I put my offer of purchasing my property, the owner only mentioned that phase 2 of Markham Garden to be built in the area. It is, therefore, not suitable for the Council to grant approval to the application for conversion of neighbourhood commercial to help directly or indirectly the owner deceiving consumers.

The Scarborough Community Council submits, for the information of Council, the following communication (July 8, 1998) received from Mr. Wilmot Procope, area resident:

I am in agreement with the owner of these two blocks of land to have them rezoned; however, I am not in agreement with the proposed uses. The land is too small to fit six apartment buildings. It would be far better to build townhouses. More apartments would create a wall around this newly developed community. Townhouses would give this new neighbourhood a harmonious appearance. With townhouses, there would be less traffic, people, crime and a greater community spirit because each family owns or is responsible for the land their home is on.

The Scarborough Community Council submits, for the information of Council, the following communication (July 8, 1998) received from Kwok. C. Chan, area resident:

This is an objection to the request to amend the Malvern Community and the Malvern East Agricultural Holding Zoning By-law. This will block off the sunlight coming into my unit at 39 Kimbercroft Court which is facing Markham Road and increase the traffic flow. A 417 apartments is too big and should be reduced.

The Scarborough Community Council submits, for the information of Council, the following communication (July 8, 1998) received from Mr. Lorne Ross, Lorne Ross Planning and Development Services:

Please be advised that I have been retained by Aspen Ridge Homes to provide planning services with respect to the above-referenced rezoning applications.

I have been advised by Planning Staff that a concern has arisen with respect to the interpretation of the 'High Density Residential' policies of the Official Plan, more particularly the policy which requires that an owner consent to the transfer or consolidation of density.

The pertinent paragraph of Policy 3.3 reads as follows:

This policy provides for a maximum net residential density of 150 apartment and townhouse units per hectare over the lands so used to a maximum of 1600 units. In order to achieve a variety of building heights and to respond to adjacent uses, this density may be consolidated or transferred within the designated lands, provided that the owner of the lands that the density is transferred from consents to such transfer and provided that the height restrictions set out below are maintained. (Italics are mine)

To interpret this clause in today's context, it is essential to understand the public policy objectives which underlie the densities policy.

When the Board inserted these words into the densities policy, the Aspen Ridge lands were entirely vacant: no streets, no development blocks, no part, no library, no recreation centre. The entire area was zoned for agricultural uses. The City's Plan provided for the consolidation or transfer of densities in order to achieve several very desirable public objectives:

to allow for a variety of building forms and densities across the six proposed development Blocks;

to allow for a variety of building heights across these same Blocks, subject to the specific height policies set out in the Plan;

to achieve a better 'fit', both functionally and aesthetically, with adjacent development, being higher density apartments west of Markham Road and north of Sheppard Avenue, and lower densities of development generally to the East across what is now Rosebank Park.

The Policy, as passed by Scarborough Council, provided flexibility and latitude to subsequent Councils through the passage of zoning By-laws, to achieve both urban design and socio-economic diversity within this emerging neighbourhood, avoiding the possibility of monotonous built forms and a "project" feel for the area.

Everyone knew that the development would proceed through a plan of subdivision. Indeed the Official Plan before the Board required development to proceed through a plan of subdivision. The Board was considering a Draft Plan of Subdivision which proposed a number of development Blocks. It was conceivable that the owner would proceed to sell some or all of these Blocks prior to zoning to different builders/developers. In that circumstance, the City could have been approached by several developers seeking simultaneous rezonings with a very strong possibility of competition for the "available" overall density of 1600 units. The Board, in an abundance of caution, inserted the consent to transfer density policy in all likelihood to deal with such a situation should it have occurred.

It has not.

The Blocks created by the subdivision were not sold to separate builders/developers. No competition has erupted among competing zoning applications from different builders/developers. Aspen Ridge as successor in title to CMS Investments Inc., has proceeded in an orderly fashion to create the Blocks, apply for zoning, secure Site Plan Control approval and construct the housing on Blocks 4, 5 and 6. Block 1, the former Metro now City Block, and Block 7 the Park were zoned at the same time as the first three development Blocks. Aspen Ridge has constructed and is in the process of constructing very high quality townhousing on Blocks 4, 5 and 6 at densities below those provided in the Official Plan. The residual density is therefore available to be consolidated on Aspen Ridge's two remaining Blocks through the rezoning applications, which are before Community Council on October 14th, 1998.

No "consent" is required from the parties who have purchased homes within Block 6 after it was zoned, Site Plan approved and built by Aspen Ridge.

Neither could Aspen Ridge have granted any such "consent" to itself in 1994-95 when these first three Blocks were zoned.

I urge Community Council to adopt the latitude and breadth of interpretation, which is so often urged on municipal Councils in Ontario. It is indeed incumbent on Council to do so when Council recollects the important public policy objectives of variety and diversity which are so clearly the objective of Policy 3.2.

Lastly I would urge Community Council to interpret Policy 3.2 in the context of the important public policy objectives which underlie the entire planning initiative for this emerging neighbourhood: the creation of a lively, intense, diverse and attractive mix of residential plus office, commercial and cultural activities at the intersection of two major arterial roads and a planned terminus for the Scarborough RT.

Blocks 2 and 3 are the last two Blocks within the subdivision still zoned Agricultural. The number of units requested in our application will complete the residential development of the subdivision at 1600 units, which is exactly the total provided in the Official Plan for this neighbourhood.

In conclusion I recommend that Community Council adopt the view that the "consent" portion of Policy 3.2 was adopted by the OMB out of an excess of caution for a situation which has not occurred and is not occurring in the applications made by Aspen Ridge before you on October 14th, 1998.

The Scarborough Community Council submits, for the information of Council, the following communication (July 8, 1998) received from A. Kulenthiran, area resident:

Please find enclosed a copy of your letter. As a resident at the above address, we would like to object to the proposed developments in block 2 and block 3. We have resided at the above address for nearly 12 years.

Over the last 12 years, a vast amount of construction has taken place in and around our neighbourhood. This has resulted in a high density of population in the area. There is a vast number of cars passing through our street at high speeds making it unsafe for our children. There is traffic congestion at the intersection of Sheppard and Malvern during rush hours. Malvern Street and Ormerod Street were never meant to handle such high volume of traffic. People who purchased homes in this area never expected this high density of population.

Further high density developments in block 2 and 3 will only result in more problems. The donut shop at the corner of Sheppard and Malvern attracts a high volume of traffic. During summer, some of the patrons to the donut shop hang around in the parking lot even late at night.

The Scarborough Community Council submits, for the information of Council, the following additional communication (July 8, 1998) received from Ms. Jennifer Chan, area resident:

Upon receipt of your second notice about the same matter as the letter dated July 22, 1998 issued by the City Clerk of Scarborough Community Council, I hereby assert my same status and opinion as the letter wrote to Ms. Margaret O'Neil on July 8, 1998.

I hereby fax the letter to you again in case you did not receive it or you and Ms. O'Neil are from different departments.

In addition to the six reasons stated on my previous letter regarding my opposition to the amendments, there are some more facts I would like the Council to realize:

1.There are more than 450 units of townhouses instead of 300 units on 29 Rosebank Drive and Progress Avenue (as Phase three of Markham Garden is now under construction). The density of these townhouses is really too high.

2.The traffic condition is already busy at Markham Road and Sheppard Avenue. When the proposed subway station to be built on the same location, there will be a severe traffic burden in this area.

3.I really recognize the builder paid a lot of money to buy the land as a representative from Aspen Ridge phoned me to withdraw my opposition. I understand that business is business; however, I assure that everyone should have the sense of social responsibility and also keep the society a harmonious status.

I understand there is a meeting to be held on October 14, 1998. I hope this letter will not be too late for your preparation. If so, I apologize for any inconvenience caused and I appreciate every effort will be made to forward my letter to the meeting.

The Scarborough Community Council submits, for the information of Council, the following additional communication (July 30, 1998) received from Mr. Iain Singer, area resident:

On July 15th I purchased the above condominium on the north east corner of Markham Road and Sheppard Avenue after noticing the townhouses being built on the south side of Sheppard Avenue, and being advised by the real estate agent that the vacant lot there was going to be more of the same, and after seeing that they were advertising the final phase at $169,000. The prime reasons for the purchase were price, location and the view of the City and the lake. At no time was I ever advised that the lots were to be occupied by high rises. I was therefore very dismayed to see last week a rezoning notice application sign on the south side of Sheppard Avenue talking about 742 apartments, and your fax of the proposed site plan for Block 2 file Z95032, S95026 from Aspen Ridge homes proposing 4, 16, 14 and 10 story buildings that will block my view. And this does not even count the other block for which you did not send a site plan. Yesterday I checked with the sales office for the townhouses and they are not disclosing the proposed high rises with any of their prospective purchasers, and have no information at all publicly posted. When I showed them your fax they said too bad, you missed the public meeting and so can not complain. I also checked last night with the Superintendent of my condo building and they were not aware of the application, and said as far as they know other people are not either (the building is over 50% sold and many of the occupants may not be the registered owners).

Please put me on the mailing list for all matters pertaining to these two lots on the south east corner of Markham Road and Sheppard Avenue so that I can provide my input and/or protests at public meetings and file this letter as a notice of objection. Also please provide, or advise where I can obtain a profile plan of the two lots with the proposed buildings, that would also include 5580 Sheppard Avenue East, and the townhouses, so that I can verify what sightlines are being blocked, what the visual pollution will be, and how sunlight will be affected.

The following persons appeared before the Community Council in connection with the foregoing matter:

-Mr. Lorne Ross, Lorne Ross Planning and Development Services, on behalf of the applicant, and with respect to the concerns contained in his aforementioned communication; and

-Mr. Ben Loughlin, area resident, who requested clarification on the type of commercial usage that might be anticipated in this development.