Official Plans, Community Plans etc. tend not to be popular reading materials (except for planning professionals perhaps!) until something occurs which challenges ones perception and understanding of what is in the plans. Well that ‘something’ has occurred and I am now refreshing my understanding of the King City Community Plan. And, given the turn out at the 10/17 public meeting, it is evident that others are doing same. The application for a severance at 38 Clearview, King City has triggered the question of when is a severance permitted in King City.
Our King City Community Plan dates back to 2000. Its stated purpose is to provide for i) the conservation and enhancement of existing natural systems and features, ii) the enhancement of the existing community, iii) new development to occur in a manner in keeping with general character of existing development and which minimizes any negative impact on natural systems and features. It identifies densities for new subdivisions; it defines the conditions under which a consent/severance can executed in an existing community.
The “backstory” to this application is interesting. Briefly: the house dates to 1880; itself once was a significant house in the community and up until the last perhaps 5-10 years it was a brilliant candidate for heritage designation and restoration. But, that window of opportunity has closed as deterioration has gone too far. Secondly, it is a nonconforming triplex beset with the problems which often occur in such an arrangement much to the grief of neighbours for many years. The proposal capitalizes on the fact that restoration is not feasible; and it offers a solution to the triplex. Specifically, the house (i.e. the triplex) will be knocked down. But…to achieve this the application is to create two lots and to build large houses on each which require amendments to the zoning bylaw, specifically reduced front yard setback and reduced lot size.
The Community Plan is not black & white. E.g. The Community plan speaks to maintaining character. But what is the character? 9.2.5.1 says “new development in existing neighbourhoods must be designed to be integrated with the character of the particular area in which it is located.” The proposal asks for two new lots; it is true that they are smaller than the zoning bylaw identifies but many of the lots in the community are smaller than the zoning bylaw as they were created decades before the bylaw. The architecture of the proposed new houses is very dissimilar to the original houses of the community but there is similarity to a couple replacement houses built in the last few years within a couple blocks.
The ideal character of the community definitely does not include a rundown triplex but it is there today. So, what is the character of the community to be maintained?
The notion of maintaining/preserving character of an existing community is not unique by any means; but what is very unique is that the KC Community Plan includes the condition that severances are prohibited when there is not conformity to the zoning bylaw. This amendment was made to the Community Plan in order to restrict severances in the registered subdivisions i.e. the existing communities.
For the record: My in-going attitude/belief is that the existing communities of King City are characterized by graciously sized lots with a lot of green space and landscaping and that this is to be treasured. I envision our new subdivisions integrating with the older communities but this does not mean that the older communities should evolve to the same look as the new subdivisions in terms of architecture and streetscape. Personally I like heritage/old architecture; but I personally would only live in such if it was upgraded/renovated to today’s standards. Finally, I am very concerned about the sustainability of the very large homes which have become typical of new construction; electricity pricing will escalate considerably as will fossil fuels. And, being very practical I wonder how to keep clean 4800 sq. feet of living space.
This is a very important application. I will be writing more on it; and I hope people will make their comments.
Here are the reports on this application tabled at the Oct. 17 Public Meeting: the staff report; and the application and more information.
Hi Debbie,
Your perspective is excellent on what I think is a good example of a “symptom” of the montage of planning and development issues that exist across King.
The fact that you are carefully considering the totality of history and available authorities that affect this application, is exactly what we need for effective leadership.
I used the word “montage” above as I think it’s a word that gives a good visual to my view that King needs to undertake a systemic approach in looking at the various tools that affect planning and development, in light of the goals and desires of our various communities. The Sustainability Plan will provide some good guidance here, but it will only provide a framework: the devil will be in the details (and it is, in the end, only a document: it takes leadership and drive to realize its benefits).
A view to the “montage”:
– Our zoning bylaws, for example, date from the 1970’s. They possesses many inconsistencies that have not kept up with current planning principles, and as another “symptom”, we are witnessing the conflicts in Snowball (Brock aggregates).
– Our Township Official Plan has had tweaks, mostly to make it in conformance with the Region’s plan (e.g., Morraine and Green Belt conformance). But in essence, it’s a product of its era and in many ways it is holding us back until it is thoughtfully updated.
– Our primary villages have excellent Design Guidelines, produced for the Township in 2006. Yet they sit on a shelf gathering dust, with developers only giving them cursory attention. They need to be made bylaws themselves so that they can be required and enforced by our planners.
I fear that unless, or until, out Township staff can be directed to embrace these long-term challenges, we will face more “symptoms” like this severance application in King City, across King. Councillors and Staff will bear the burden in the meantime of prescribing various band-aid medicines.
Do please keep up the good work! You are doing an excellent job of demonstrating transparency in office and educating your constituents!
Sincerely,
Greg Locke
Hi Greg…you had made a lot of very good points. And yes to make a real change the Township Staff has a role; but also the Council needs to set direction and to hang “tough; and the public needs to demand accountability from their elected representatives.
The public was quite clear about the severance issue. The Council appeared to be listening. There are clear directions as to how to handle this issue ( avoid making exceptions to the rules) but do we have the political will to “hang tough”? In my humble opinion, the climate at Council is changing maybe not soon enough for some but all the same it is happening!
Hi Sheila,
We agree with everything in your letter, especially the last paragraph. We, too, believe that the owner/developer has purposely let the place deteriorate even more so than when he purchased it. One might also wonder why he hasn’t explained King City by-laws to his tenants prior to renting. One can’t help but wonder if it was in the hope that the residents in the immediate area would welcome his plans for the property which, so far, has not turned out to his advantage.
It appears that nobody, other than residents in the immediate area of 38 Clearview, is concerned with the dangerous corner the road takes in front of 38 Clearview. We, personally, have been involved in two accidents over the years due to the illegal parking of tenants vehicles across from our lane and the blind 90 degree corner in proximity to our laneway. We see it as absolutely ludicrous to add another laneway so close to the corner, but this isn’t an issue to anyone in authority as far as we can tell. The owner/developer, said at the October 17th meeting, that he often has gatherings of 40-50 people at his home, so where would these people park their cars, other than on the street? Has anyone thought of that? The bigger the houses, the more vehicles they attract. Just take a look around town at large houses with 3-car garages, with no room in them to park a vehicle.
My final point: If 4500+ sq. ft. houses are allowed on 65′ lots in the Clearview Heights subdivision, what monstrosities will be allowed on 100′, 90′ & 80′ frontages when the next house goes up for sale in the Clearview subdivision? (The developer’s plans which were available in the Planning Deptartment showed the total sq. ft. as 4,850, by the way, not 4500).
Kay Brooks
Our older communities shouldn’t evolve into the same look as our new subdivisions in terms of architecture and streetscapes. The community surrounding 38 Clearview is distinctly low density with an ample supply of bungalows and 2 storeys of modest square footage. Communities such as these will always remain attractive to seniors who don’t want to live in condos, one- person homeowners and homeowners who want backyards with space not necessarily monster homes crammed on small lots.
This application for severance is nothing less than an entrepreneurial effort by a person or persons to over turn our specific zoning by-laws which have worked extremely well in preventing the systematic destruction of low- density neighborhoods like in North York. I resented the applicant’s perception that King City is in transition. While on the fringes of the village we have several large housing developments under construction that reflect today’s interpretation of housing, the 200 or so people at Monday night’s Public Meeting were clearly not in agreement that their community was in need of re-design.
Using excuses like intensification and the availability of water and sewer hook-ups appears even more damning. The consequences of a decision like this will force long term residents to move away because their homes will be deprived of light and their personal privacy compromised. There is an ample supply of this type of housing being built on the perimeter of the village.
The original house at 38 Clearview, in my humble opinion, was clearly permitted to deteriorate for the specific purpose of challenging our Community Plan after the water and sewer hook-ups were done. This is the first of many to come as there appears no shortage of builders who are salivating at the thought of the profit that can be made from our 1950’s frontages. Sheila Comisso
I would echo all the comments made by Sheila and Greg. The residents of this 1950s/60s subdivision in the south-east quadrant of King City enjoy spacious lots and a quality of life which should not be jeopardised by unwise division of lots. The dimensions of the proposed two replacement houses are quite out of proportion to the single-storey houses of the area. As many mentioned on Monday evening, if the old farmhouse is demolished then it should be replaced by a single dwelling unit. An interesting point was made by Councillor Mortelliti concerning some heritage zoning restrictions in the village of Kleinburg which prevent the reduction in lot size where the heritage zoning is applied. This is not the same as a heritage conservation district. I believe Council directed planning staff to follow up on this. When we finally have a heritage co-ordinator/planner on the King planning team this is one of the interesting possibilities which could be very helpful in trying to retain some of King’s character and sense of place.
Question of Intensification
The principle of intensification through redevelopment and infill is raised in this application. It is indeed a good principle to apply in the right location. An existing plan of subdivision within King City is not the right location when significantly smaller lots are created and the Zoning By-law is not complied with in a proposal for intensification.
Keele Street from King Road south to Station Road offers numerous, appropriate opportunities for redevelopment and intensification within King City. King Road from Keele Street west to the high school also provides for many opportunities for intensification through redevelopment and infill. Would the Township provide incentives to property owners on King Road and Keele Street to redevelop with additional units that are well-designed and integrate well with the general heritage character of these two roads?
King City Community Plan
The King City Secondary Plan contains several policies that seek to protect the character of existing neighbourhoods and existing plans of subdivision. Specifically, 12.5.9 states, “In no case should any parcel be created which does not conform with the provisions of the Zoning By-law of the Township.” Clearly, this application does not conform with the provisions of the Zoning By-law. As the Planning Department report states, “Two previous consent applications have been refused on the basis of conformity matters.”
To allow this application will set a precedent that was strongly refused in a previous consent application on Warren Road. To look more closely at what is proposed, this application seeks to create two lots with frontages of approximately 20 metres. In the block of Clearview Heights where I live, most of the properties have a frontage of approximately 30 metres. On the basis of the proposal for 38 Clearview, my immediate neighbour and myself could seek to take our two properties and create three equally-sized lots, each with a frontage of 20 metres, the same frontage being proposed in the application. Further the area of each of the three new lots would be approximately equal to the areas of the two lots proposed in the application for 38 Clearview Heights.
Character of Existing Neighbourhood
The existing neighbourhood is marked by relatively wide frontages and open spaces between homes. The topography at the present lot at 38 Clearview Heights is relatively high with steep slopes. The proposed application to create two lots with frontages of 20 metres and build a two-storey home of approximately 4300+ square feet on each lot would stand in stark contrast to the neighbouring homes and to the character of Clearview Heights, Elizabeth Grove, McBride and Patricia.
Conclusion
It is important to maintain the intent of the King City Community Plan and to protect the character of each neighbourhood within the existing plans of subdivision. There are ample opportunities on Keele Street and King Road to “intensify” and create new residential units within the existing community.
A single, well-designed new home that integrates elements of the architecture in the original McBride farmhouse could well enhance the historical property found at 38 Clearview Heights and the character of the existing neighbourhood, plus preserve much of the present grading and trees found on this significant property.
Property severences will without a doubt change the nature of King. Once one severence is approved the “flood gates” will be open for appeals to severe properties to allow denser housing.
I would like council to work on reviewing and establishing new codes that retain the nature of original King neighbourhood.
Hi Nancy, As I said in earlier message, the investigation to determine whether we can strengthen further is well worth it. Having said that I do want to comment that the current KC Community Plan is pretty strong in that severances require meeting the zoning bylaws; so on a case by case basis a severance application has a pretty tough standard compared to others.