On 9/17 Council agenda there is a Staff report recommending what feedback the Township should give to the Province in response to the amendments proposed for the 3 conservation plans and the growth plan.  You can see here my initial assessment of the Province’s amendments. The subject matter is significant both in breadth and complexity and reading the Township’s comments has triggered me to look at some of the provisions again.  I encourage you to review the Staff report; I am very interested to hear what you think.  At time of writing there are several areas I would like to hi-light for you.

Intensification & Density section             The Staff report identifies that as the proposed amended plans are written it would be required to develop the area around the King City GO station to a density of 150 residents/jobs per hectare.  As a layperson I have a hard time picturing what this would look like; but I do know that 7-8 residents/hectare seemed like a big change when we approved the amendment for the NE landowners development.  Clearly, I need more information on this; and as the Staff report indicates it needs to be defined what area would be considered in the target area for such a development. And for the moment, if ignoring the actual number, I also wonder about the fact that in the GO station area there are water courses and wetlands…areas one does not build on.

I do believe we need to intensify in the GO Station area; and indeed it has been identified as a target area for intensification.  And I can imagine that it should  probably be more than we have been thinking of. Having said that, that is based on the assumption that there is going to be effective linkages with York Region Transit as we cannot provide adequate parking.

Employment section             As I have consistently expressed I do not agree with asking for conditional approval of lands at 400/King Road, currently in the Greenbelt, to be designated employment lands; the condition being that they can be converted to employment lands if it should transpire that King can’t met its employment targets for 2041.  The latter has not even been identified/approved yet.  (York Region has such but the specifics for each lower tier has not been deployed.)  We have employment lands sitting empty now.   The pressure to use them properly will be alleviated when we say there is another way, so to speak.

Protecting Natural Heritage & Water          Staff rightfully acknowledges that the amended plans do include improved policies to reduce risk of contaminated soils being dumped in our rural lands.  But, I think we should be asking for much stronger support from the Province on this matter.

Integrating Infrastructure section          I am happy to see Staff explicitly identifying the need for the  Province to make changes on the various processes  used when determining where infrastructure should be placed.  And I am pleased to see the inclusion of questions about waste management systems as the latter are now being considered as infrastructure in the Oak Ridges Moraine definition.  Given that the fundamental rationale for the ORM  is protection of  the water (the acquifers, the headwaters etc.) which provides drinking water for 250,000,  any consideration of waste sites in ORM seems wrong.   (This could be an example of how the goal of harmonizing definitions amongst the plans is dangerous.)

Implementing and Engagement section           Throughout the report a couple times Staff has identified the need for the Province to provide more specific guidance on “how to.”  As Staff points out it is essential that the Province provide the promised “technical guidelines” promptly given that there is no transition period i.e. Planning decisions need to conform immediately once Plans come into effect.

Here is the Staff Report.  Many ways to provide feedback

• make a comment on my blog
• email me at dschaefer@king.ca 
• send comments to Sarah Allin, the Planner, at sallin@king.ca and copy me 
•  come to September 12 Council and make a deputation on your ideas