To my mind the 12/12 public meeting for the application for Official Plan Amendment (OPA) and zoning amendment sets a standard as to how this particular aspect of the Planning Act should be executed: the initial proposal/thinking by proponent is exposed and all parties (public, proponent and Council) had opportunity to express their views. Mayor Pellegrini as Chair for the meeting deserves kudos for all well he ran the meeting; and all participants deserve kudos for enduring crowded seating and standing conditions for a couple hours.
The public, primarily neighbours to the proposed development, but also others from the greater King City community, clearly expressed their disapproval to the plan. A couple members of Council indicated that they didn’t find the proposed plan to be right; different ideas/alternatives were expressed. Hopefully the proponent and its agents were really listening and heard not only the disapproval but also the comprehensive background and rationale for that disapproval. If they were truly listening, we should see a dramatic change in their next proposal.
I admit that prior to this public meeting I was not as sensitive to the fact that we had not completed our Intensification Study. I considered it regrettable; and I realized that it would have been easier if it were done. But, I had not appreciated that its lack of completion means that whatever is ultimately implemented at 13400 and 13424 Keele it will be done in isolation in terms of modifying the Official Plans throughout the Township to incorporate intensification. And even more specifically we will lack the benefit of the “big picture” as to how we will implement greater density in King City. Having said this, I do not agree that this is a good rationale for rejecting outright the total plan so that only two residences are built on the 1.9 hectare (4.9acre) site which is status quo. And, I am not prepared at this point to accept 8-10 which would be consistent with the density of the immediate adjacent community i.e. King Heights.
Clearly not an insight but the public meeting also served to confirm why people choose to live in King City. Those reasons are entirely consistent with what we have heard throughout the sustainability exercise when we have asked people to identify what they love about King—its about nature, the greenness and the life style which goes with that. As we intensify we need to respect that. Clearly, the proposal with a close- to-the- street street facade towering above all other current residents, and density 5 times greater than the neighbouring established community is not consistent.
From the residents I heard demands that the King City Community Plan be honoured. If we follow it literally, this site will have 2 houses. Given i) that it is well within the settlement boundary although it is clearly not a short walk to the core and ii) that it is on an arterial road (Keele Street) on which there will be transit service one day I don’t believe that 2 houses is right. I do not believe that 49 units (45 town houses and 4 detached houses) is appropriate; it is far over the right number. Furthermore, to achieve 49 the site would be an island of built form.
I don’t know the right number; but I want the proponent, with the support of a good architect to explore what could be created. I want to know if something in the range of 20 houses/units could be created which would be be compatible with the current community with an appropriate transition.
Although not ideal I think there is the opportunity to be working through the intensification study in parallel with this specific application. As was voiced by the Mayor during the public meeting there is no panic re: intensification in terms of achieving the mandated number. But, I do believe we cannot just ignore the concept when considering this parcel of land. Every site proposed is likely going to trigger similar concerns by neighbouring established communities.
Hi Debbie: Thank you for your views on the proposed Keele Street Development.
I believe that development should be consistent with King Heights and with the all the other neighbourhoods in the area….25 homes is too many, especially since it was originally zoned for 2 homes.
I think that you will probably alienate much of King City since the residents are trying desperately to cling to what remains of our rural setting.
I shudder to think what will happen to the land directly behind our home…30 some acres where estate homes on two acre lots were in the works…I say. were, because The Pipe has changed everything. That 30 acre property is environmentally sensitive land and I have always wished that someone would donate it to a Land Trust Fund.
Thanks, Nina G.
Debbie – thanks for your thoughts on the December 12 Public Meeting and the issues surrounding the Keele Street development proposal. I agree with everything except your comment about the Official Plan.
Why can’t we honour the Official Plan and approve only two houses to be built on that land? The surrounding neighbours (at least those arriving after the Official Plan was set in place) relied upon the protection provided by the Plan when they bought and paid for their homes there. They liked the layout of the neighbourhood and they hoped to maintain or increase the value of their properties. I’m pretty sure that none of those people (OK, maybe one) moved into the neighbourhood with the intention of increasing the density on their land and diluting the intrinsic value of the existing homes.
Intensification:
In my mind there is a huge difference between amending/weakening the zoning By-laws within an established residential neighbourhood as compared to allowing the development of vacant land that is not abbutted by existing homes. In the latter case, the value and enjoyment of the existing homes is not directly assaulted by the new development. Of course, the development of a field in ‘the middle of nowhere’ may not be as profitable because the developer cannot exploit the value of the neighbouring homes.
There is plenty of empty land outside of King’s established neighbourhoods where Council may allow a bit of flexibility with the By-laws and developers lay asphalt to their hearts’ content.
But this ‘game’ of lobbying for exagerated densities within established neighbourhoods at the expense of existing residents is offensive.
This Council has done a great job, so far, in restoring trust and representing the needs of its constituents. Residents are relying upon Council to uphold the spirit of the Official Plan and JUST SAY NO to developers seeking to draw us into the game.
Hi…You have asked a good question. Personally I do not think saying “no” to any change (i.e. demanding only 2 houses) is a good negotiation strategy with the developer or ultimately with the OMB. Given the Province’s demands for intensification I can’t see that being effective for a site on an arterial road in a settlement area. In an ideal world we would have worked out the right answer first (i.e. through the intensification study, new densities for all possible intensification sites would have been determined and incorporated into official plans.)
The developer has been told quite clearly by residents and Council that their initial proposal is not acceptable. They have been told very clearly, particularly by the residents, the problems with the initial proposal. You are right: I, as do other Council members, need to represent the needs of my constituents and we all need to be considering the well being of the whole Township. I don’t know the right answer; I am much more attuned now to what my constituents are saying and will keep questioning.
To address your point about development at expense of existing residents. Clearly the goal is to achieve a transition which is not at the expense. That is where there needs to be some creative thinking.
I appreciate your comments. thanks. Debbie
Debbie – this is just my uninformed opinion, but the ‘negotiation’ process took place at the time the Official Plan was created and ultimately approved. It already forms the basis of the rules under which development in King is allowed to proceed.
The only ‘negotiation’ that can take place now is to determine whether a developer can convince the majority of the residents of King that there is a sound basis to warrant a change to the Official Plan.
Sadly, the ‘game’ is often to by-pass negotiation, sidestep Council and the Planning Department and hope to win the OMB lottery.
I realise that the Province’s alleged demand for intensification is providing a fabulous excuse for those who want to profit from their neighbours’ labours, but we need to follow the rules as they have set out. Perhaps we should be ‘negotiating’ with the OMB and the Province to find a more equitable way to satisfy their intensification goals?
Mark Twain said “Everybody is for ‘progress’. It’s ‘change’ that they aren’t happy about”.
‘Progress’ to me means enhancing the quality of life for everyone in the community and building long-term value. Not degrading the quality of other’s lives for one’s own financial benefit.
Debbie – thanks again for the hard work. We really appreciate the difficult position that you are in but we will support you in any way that we can.
John–There is much that we agree on. And for sure I agree with your definition of ‘progress.’ Having said that I struggle with the inevitable “blinders” of the priority we each put on our own comfort and well being. Your Twain quotation is very very appropriate. Surely another quote of relevance is “the devil is in the details” as there are probably few who would argue against the wisdom of intensification; but, its when you get down to looking at a settlement area in the Oak Ridges Moraine which has an Official Plan that the issues emerge. I really appreciate your comments; and for sure I value your trust.