On Council agenda for Monday April 3rd there is a staff report reviewing an application for a severance on Martin St. (see here for the meeting agenda and links to Staff report and the presentations by Staff and the proponent.) Severances within King City urban boundary have been rare as such were viewed as negatively impacting neighborhood character in the established area and were expressly restricted in the King City Community Plan. Our new official plan “Our King” continues to be concerned about protecting character but it does provide direction for considering such by looking at certain criteria. From my review of the information presented I think that this may be one of the cases where a severance should be permitted. With exception of the new additional driveway there will be little evidence visible from the street that there is a new second lot with a new house. Furthermore, with exception of lot frontage and lot size all other provisions of zoning bylaw are respected. Its very positive to read that per Appendix B in the staff report there is a plan to restore an area within the natural heritage systems with natural self sustaining vegetation.
We do need to intensify, to have more people living within the urban boundary. This is an extremely modest contribution to doing that but it is directionally right.
As approved at the March 20 Council meeting the council chambers are open to the public once again. To make a deputation (either in person or virtually) register with the Clerk by noon Monday, April 3 at clerks@king.ca. You can also email your questions or comments on same timing to clerks@king.ca and they will be circulated to Council and appropriate Staff.
Hi Debbie,
Upon looking through the staff report and understanding what is proposed in this severance, I agree with you that this is clearly one of those cases where there will be virtually no impact on the character of the established neighbourhhod. And it is very important to move forward with appropriate intensification within the urban boundary where it fits well. My preference in this instance would be to see a cluster of two or three small scale dwellings on the proposed new lot. It’s great to see the restoration of the back part of the lot with self-sustaining native vegetation (trees, shrubs, etc.).
Hello,
This is a response to the comment posted by Mr. Bruce Craig. As being one of the residents that live on Melrose Ave and for years we were enjoying our backyards with the trees and forest behind us, the comment posted by Mr. Craig it is very upsetting . A ” cluster of small dwellings ” ? Really? Like row townhouses? How can someone even think of something like that. This is definitely not something we want to see at the back of our backyards. How about preserving the nature we have right now? Why not keep this as a single lot and no problem to build a new house on same location as the existent one.
And the part with ” restoration of the back of the lot” ? This is just something for this severance to look good for the approval.
I really hope that this will not get approved
Valentin