Currently Browsing: Developments

Keele & Clearview Heights

At May 10 Council there is a report regarding the development proposal at Keele/Clearview Heights.  If anyone wonders why the public is often hostile to development proposals this one illustrates why. From the 1st application which dates back to March 2017  the feedback from community and Staff has generally been that it lacks respect and consideration of the residential neighbourhood abutting it.  Since then there have several amendments and no substantive response to the feedback.  The report provides a very comprehensive technical review of all the problems with this proposal.  As a lay person I simply say: it is far too long along Keele, the total absence of softscaping makes me wonder if the architect thinks the location is in an established very dense urban community; the total absence of visitor parking is unacceptable.  Its evident that the goal is maximum profit and not creating a place which contributes to the character of King City and leverages its unique location of proximity to the GO train station. Unfortunately approval of this is out of our hands as it is at LPAT.  To see the report and all appendices see the agenda and scroll down.  To make deputations, either orally or by email email [email protected] by noon May 10.

Rimrock Development (east of Kingview Manors)

Monday, May 3rd is a Council Public Planning meeting.  One of the applications is to create 5 lots, each with a single detached house.   As the report indicates 4 of the 5 lots are generally consistent with Kingview Manors which is west of the development site. The 5th lot is very different.  Accessing it will be from King Road on a narrow long driveway which is reported to be an extant driveway through an Environmental Protection Area (EPA); to my mind the identified driveway is better described as a trail likely popular with skidoos in winters past.  And as a driveway, it is unusal in that it will be parallel to the backyards and amenity areas of the existing homes on Peter Glass.  Although generally consistent in format to Kingview Manors, Lots 1 through 4 are not perfect as proposed lots as I don’t believe the buffers  to the EPA east of them is 30 meters as required.  As the meeting is being held virtually it is necessary to register by noon on May 3 with [email protected] to make a virtual deputation.  On same timing email comments can be sent to [email protected] so that they are forwarded to Council before the meeting. To access report and all appendices see the agenda and scroll down.

 

52 James Stokes Court

Monday, May 3rd is a Council Public Planning meeting.  One of the applications is for 52 James Stokes Court to create 5 lots, each with a single detached house.   As the report indicates the proposal is generally consistent with Kingview Manors which is on 3 sides of the property to be developed.  To my mind there are two issues which require more consideration as is indiated in the report.  First, two of the lots’ northern boundaries are not respecting our policy requirement for 30 meter buffers for natural heritage features.  Secondly it is proposed that  lot 1 should incorporate the natural buffer for the northern boundary of all 5 lots.  The latter is must unusual and is in contravention of the normal practise of buffers being transferred to either the Township or to the Conservation Authority i.e. TRCA.  (The motivation for this practice is to ensure perpetual protection as private ownership might enable abuse and/or fragmentation.)  As the meeting is being held virtually it is necessary to register by noon on May 3 with [email protected] to make a virtual deputation.  On same timing email comments can be sent to [email protected] so that they are forwarded to Council before the meeting. To access report and all appendices see the agenda and scroll down.

There is an interesting angle to this application which is not relevant to the decision about this application.  The property included in this application and the Kingview Manors subdivision are lands which were part of the James Burns Farm.   James Burns figures prominently in the history of King Township, specifically in the development of Kinghorn.   The most northern “existing house” showing on Appendix B is the Burns home built in 1849.  A Heritage Impact Assessment was done in 2008 as part of the Kingview Manors development.  As Township did not opt to either preserve the house in its current site or to move it to the Museum there will be an interpretive plaque.  One of the interesting facts about Mr. Burns:  he donated the lands for the Kinghorn school which is our Museum today.

Development on King Road: open house

Thursday April 22 at 6pm there is a virtual open house, hosted by the developer to learn about a proposal to develop a small subdivision with 5 detached homes east of the Kingview subdivision on north side of King Road.  (The latter is located north and east of the heritage & Cultural Centre.)  This is the opportunity to ask questions directly to the developer and/or the agent. Due to COVID restrictions it is necessary to register ahead of time to receive the zoom link.  You can do so at [email protected] or 416 968 3511. Here is notice published in paper.  The statutory public meeting for this development is already announced as being at May 3 Council Planning Meeting.

 

 

 

Development on James Stokes: virtual open house

Tuesday, April 20 at 6pm there is a virtual open house, hosted by the developer to learn about a proposal to develop lands north of James Stokes Court in the Kingview subdivision.  (The latter is located north and east of the Heritage & Cultural Centre.)  This is the opportunity to ask questions directly to the developer and/or the agent.  Here is the invitation which was sent to homeowners in proximity to the site; it includes details on how to participate.   (The Planning Act defines the circle of persons to be contacted ).  The statutory public meeting for this development is already announced as being at the May 3 Council Planning Meeting.