On 9/27 Council agenda there is Staff report asking for Council endorsement to proposed feedback to Province on its draft amendments of changes to the 4 Plans i.e. Growth Plan, Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan and Greenbelt Plan. The provincial review also includes (Niagara Escarpment Plan which is not commenting on as it is not of direct relevance to King.)
The area of policy about which I have voiced disagreement, specifically, the ability to remove lands from the Protected Countryside along the 400 series highways to serve as employment lands has not been eliminated. But, I am very supportive of numerous other changes which I have commented on in earlier posts.
I think the report is much improved in terms of King providing firm feedback where the Province needs to provide support and/or more definition of standards. Given the challenges we have had with applications to install energy infrastructure or recreational facilities which we do not interpret as being consistent with the intent of the conservation plans I think we have valid experience for providing strong feedback to the Province on these matters.
A major challenge for us is the density requirements under the new Growth Plan. Indeed its a challenge for most municipalities as few have plans to meet the current requirements, let alone the increased ones in the amended Growth Plan. Its very tough for most people to envision what our villages could look like 40 years from now. Human nature restricts that vision to being essentially what it is today with some modest change. If we allow that to happen (i.e. we do not plan and act for something else) it will not be possible to protect and preserve our green spaces, our open spaces i.e. where we grow food. Hence when there are plans showing intensification, there is little enthusiasm from those living today in the community. I agree with a point made in the proposed feedback to Province that meaningful increased in density without the public transit infrastructure in place is inappropriate.
I would like to hear what you think about these issues.
Hi Debbie,
I agree with you that it is wrong to remove the land from the 400 series highway and the King Rd. from Protected Countryside. In fact, this land should really be designated as ORM. It was a political decision to remove that land from the ORM. The mapping done by the Geological Survey of Canada shows clearly that this land should be ORM.
If King Township wants to known as being “Green”, then how can they support removing this land?
Debbie, thank you again for providing helpful information and your thoughts on several relevant issues facing King Township.
I agree with you that Protected Countryside in the Greenbelt Plan should be just that –– protected countryside. Including policies that would allow municipalities to remove lands along 400 series highways from the Protected Countryside designation is not appropriate. Each municipality needs to hold a much broader view and support the provincial interest of protecting greenbelt lands for agriculture and sustaining healthy eco-systems for the long-term future.
The focus on intensification in the Greenbelt Plan is very relevant if we are to truly protect prime agricultural lands and other valuable green space in southern Ontario. However, intensification must be tailored to each community and municipality. For example the growing downtown corridor of Vaughan along Highway 7 near Jane Street is being designed with high density and mixed uses where there is infrastructure to support this level of intensification – new subway connection, highways, roadways, extensive retail areas, etc. In contrast, intensification needs to be much more limited in communities such as Nobleton and Schomberg where there are few transit links and limited employment opportunities.
Overall I am encouraged by the provincial review process and the affirmed importance of maintaining and expanding the Greenbelt. Future generations stand to benefit from the vision expressed in the four plans.