Currently Browsing: The Issues

Developments in NW Nobleton

On Council March 29 agenda there is a report about two development applications in the northwest quadrant of Nobleton village. To read it and access all the appendices click here and scroll down to item 7.3.    As indicated in the report that there is a serious constraint in these developments being built as the servicing capacity (i.e. sewage and water) is not currently available but that does not preclude the planning to be done.  I have 3 questions/areas of concern.  i)  I am somewhat surprised that the application qualifies for the density being proposed as I don’t believe they are offering a mix of housing types; they are all singled detached albeit on different sized lots. ii) I need to know more about the proposed “pilot project” of the parkland and storm water management facility being on the same lands; when I hear “pilot project” I wonder about the the back up. iii) I want to understand what the consequences are of designing a modified collector road.  I understand the motivation but are we going to regret not insisting on the standard in 10 years when every household has multiple cars and there is no place for guests to park (more…)

Tribute (Nobleton)

On Council March 29 agenda there is a report about an development application in Nobleton village. To read it and access all the appendices click here and scroll down to item 7.4.  It is for the land parcel originally held by the school board when the subdivision was built.  Similar to what I said in another post about other developments in Nobleton  there is a serious constraint in these 22 lots  being developed as the servicing capacity (i.e. sewage and water) is not currently available but that does not preclude the planning to be done. As construction is not going to happen as soon as the builder likely wants I hope Tribute will take the time lag as an opportunity to plan for building houses that are truly sustainable i.e. built to net zero.  These new homes are going to be less than 10 years old in 2030 and less than 30 years old by 2050, dates when provincial and federal governments are targeting to have achieved significant greenhouse gas emissions; we need to stop building houses with built in obsolescence.

 

Firm “No” to MZO’s NOT Meeting PPS

On March 29 Council agenda there is a staff report with a recommendation on the Township response to the proposed changes to the Planning Act regarding MZO’s.  I am totally in support of the recommendation.  In December 2020 Council dealt with two requests from proponents for MZO’s.  In both cases we, i.e. Council, firmly said we are not interested in our planning decisions being made by the Minister of Municipal Affairs & Housing by issuing MZO’s.  This recommendation does not deal with the same aspect of MZO’s but it is very consistent.  This recommendation deals with the effort within Bill 257 which proposes that MZO’s do not need to be consistent with the PPS (Provincial Policy Statement) and that such latitude should be retroactive.  The report reviews very clearly why this liberty should not be given to MZO’s.

413 Resolution on Hwy 413

On March 29 Council agenda there is my proposed resolution regarding King Township’s position on the GTA West Corridor, i.e. the 413.  I am proposing that King Township i) withdraw its previously expressed support for a corridor,  ii) oppose any and all advance construction for it and iii) support the request for a Federal Environmental Assessment.  Since its first emergence as a solution to congestion I have challenged it as not solving the stated problem.  I have also believed that there were alternatives and most importantly the true societal costs were too great:  destruction of natural heritage features and farmland.  In the last couple years I have realized one other important issue: not only will natural heritage features and farmland be destroyed land will be opened for sprawl development.  Some of my Council colleagues have not shared my perspectives in past; I am hopeful that the recent attention to the serious negative impact on 413 has given my colleagues new information and that they will endorse my resolution. Many residents throughout the Township have written letters and participated in protests during the last couple years to raise awareness.  It looks like these efforts are paying off:  in last couple months numerous municipalities have either renewed (more…)

Janeking and King Hill

On March 1 there is the statutory public meeting for applications for 3 parcels in the area south east of King Road  and Jane; except for those who are very cognizant of planning processes this can be confusing.  I think the staff report does a pretty good job in explaining what is being considered.  1.  As reviewed the parcel, called King Hill,  (which was once owned by Magna) is still zoned for a variety of low-rise, low density offices or industrial buidlings with some limited commercial uses.  And its indicated that a previous request to convert some of these lands to residential has been withdrawn.  2.  South of King Hill there is a development proposal to build a variety of residential uses including single detached, townhouses and lifestyle units geared towards Seniors.  No decisions are made at a statutory public meeting; rather, its an opportunity for the public to identify concerns concerns, ask questions.  As the meeting is being conducted virtually it is necessary to register to make a deputation; alternatively you can send (more…)