On May 15 Council agenda there is a staff report recommending approval of an application to develop one single detached residential unit with access to Winter Road whereas current address for the property is 270 Burns. As reviewed in the staff report development of this property was envisioned as a possibility in the Official Plan “Our King” with a special policy number which says that if you can figure out how to develop the table land without intruding into the environmental protection area or environmental buffers you can do so; from questioning Staff I have learned that this special policy was one carried over from the King City Community Plan of 2000. The property owner has been creative: the “original” entrance off Burns will be abandoned and a new driveway will be created off Winter by conveying a strip off 31 Winter Road (owned by proponent) to create a driveway. Although I can appreciate the neighbours’ disagreement and shock that such is feasible I cannot see a legitimate, sound basis for not supporting the application which has been substantially modified since the first version.
Staff are recommending a Development Agreement. Prior to Bill 23 this application would have been managed using Site Plan Control; as it is for only 1 residential unit (i.e. <10) that tool cannot be used. In February Staff proposed implementation of the “ Zoning Review” process for applications in the ORM to compensate, to some degree, the absence of site plan control. The recommended Development Agreement for this project on Winter Road includes that.
Given the ecological features of the property there are several details of particular interest in the report. i) When I read the report I was initially concerned about the conveyance of 1.24 ha buffer and natural heritage features to the Township as I did not understand that such would be an extension of a much larger environmental protection zone and not an isolated remote protected area. ii) There are appropriate buffers protecting the natural heritage features including a 30 meter buffer from the provincially significant wetland. iii) There is a substantial landscaping plan for restoration following clearance of invasive species.
If you wish to make a deputation and/or provide your comments in an email you need to register (or send that email) by noon May 15 to clerks@king.ca. To clarify, to make a deputation you need to register whether you will do in person at the Municipal Centre or by phone. I am also interested to hear comments directly by making a comment on my blog or contacting me directly.
Debbie, great to know you support a free-for-all and an “anything goes” attitude to planning in King. I’ll let all my builder friends know that you have their support to put up a house any old place irrespective of the concerns of neighbours and conservationists.
Hello Karen, I need to respond to your accusation that I have an attitude of “anything goes.” My track record is quite to the contrary. The proposed development is not a “conservation” land. There is 30 m buffer from the wetlands.
A Burns Blvd address should NOT be allowed to become a Winter Road address. The financial interests of 1 person should not override the interests of dozens of others.
He did not buy this piece of land with the intention to build. He bought it for recreation purposes for his kids – and created trails for their ATVs. He tried to sell it to other people in the area for recreation purposes, but no one wanted it. Just because his kids are grown up now and don’t live at home and don’t need the trails, he should not be allowed to build here.
You should NOT support this, otherwise you’re going against the people you are supposed to represent.
With all due respect, I cannot believe that the Application to develop one single, detached residential unit with access to Winter Road (on conservation land)’ is seriously being considered for approval. Back in 1990, when we were building our current home (Collard Drive, 2 acres), we were “denied” permission to build a “circular drive” by Township officials! But now it’s okay to sever 29 feet from existing driveway on 31 Winter, to provide access to development on wetlands? Approval of said “application” will establish a precedent and everyone will follow suit. I am AGAINST proposal.
Hello Catherine, As you would anticipate i cannot comment on a situation in 1990 as I have no facts about it. The application is not to build on conservation lands. I understand that you have perceived it as such as there are provincially significant wetlands south and east of it. This lot, with a special policy number appears in the current Official Plan (Our King) and it was included in the 2020 King City Community Plan, has permission for a single house with the condition that an environmentally acceptable way of reaching it is found. As I said on the phone I understand that you are frustrated that you didn’t understand.
I am glad that you are planning to attend Council. I do want to hear your objections as to why this application should not be approved. I welcome hearing how we could defend our refusal at the Ontario Lands Tribunal.
Hi Debbie
You are our community’s representative. It is ironic that other councilor’s are not prepared to support the application but you…who is supposed to be our representative are not alive to the serious concerns. Extensive written submissions were filed in June 2021 that set out the concerns and you now say “I welcome hearing how we could defend our refusal at the Ontario Lands Tribunal”. Did you even read the submissions of the residents and the “powerful” deputations that you said were made in your email to one of the residents. Now in your blog you say “I cannot see a legitimate, sound basis for not supporting the application”. Other councilors can see a legitimate basis and will opoose. Are they seeing something different or are they just listening to what the residents are saying?. I will be making submissions this evening. However, for the benefit of others reading this blog and for you, I will set them just some of the reasons to defend your refusal before the Land Appeals Tribunal.
1. The proposal to sever 26′ from 31 Winter Road to create a frontage from Winter to access the property is not congruent with the form and character of the neighborhood. What other lots in this neighborhood have a 26′ frontage. Not even a single one! You characterize the severing of a 26′ frontage as “creative”. I would use a different term and that is radical.
In fact it is radical to the point of being ridiculous. Specifically, the severing of 26′ frontage for a lot to access a house, from the middle of a subdivision that has only 189′ plus frontage, is outrageous. You can call it creative but lets call it what it actually is…completely ridiculous. Why can’t you see this? There are countless decisions of the Land Appeals Tribunal and the Ontario Municipal Boards, which you are no doubt aware of, that affirm the authority to reject applications where they don’t respect the form and character of the neighborhood. The form and character of a community is a legitimate protectable interest, if you are looking for a legitimate basis to refuse. In fact, this requirement is expressly stipulated in the Official Plan. Zoning-by-laws are enacted for this reason…to protect neighborhoods and to prevent people for doing things that are inconsistent with the form and character of the neighborhood. It prescribes, among other things, the frontage, setbacks, building size, height and use. It speaks to matters such as spacing, privacy, density, light and air and gives the neighborhood its built form and character. Even if someone wanted a minor variance, they would have to satisfy this requirement that their proposal be congruent with the neighborhood. What is being proposed is not minor. It is radical to ridiculous. Why can’t you see this? Everyone in the community sees this along with other councilors and the community is outraged.
Second reason, while there is a public policy to intensify housing, keep in mind that this is a single monstrosity of a house. It does not appreciable advance the provincial policy when weighed against the interest of the broader community. You have discretion and discretion is exercised broadly with reference to a weighing of interests and not just what a report says and ignoring the concerns of residents that have collectively invested 100’s of millions of dollars to be in this exclusive neighborhood.
Third reason, would you want to live beside a house in an estate subdivision that has two driveways (like a two lane highway) running the entire depth of the property? Why should someone else have to?
You appear to suggest that all is good with the proposal. If you read it, it is not. The house is being built on a cultural mineral thicket that abuts significant woodland. Section 22 of the ORCMP prohibits development and site alteration within KNHF, which includes significant woodlands. There is encroachment into Environmental protected areas. Page 20 states “Shifting the development southwards presents a 517 square meter intrustion in the staked dripline in this area, which is represented by the CUT1 community…Part of this encroachment is represented by the driveway which is required to access the land-locked area. Page 21 states “A 15m buffer will be maintained from the staked limit of contiguous vegetation, WITH THE EXCEPTION OF A MINOR ENCROACHMENT (517 SQUARE METRES) TO ALLOW ACCESS TO THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT WITHIN THE THICKET COMMUNITY TO THE SOUTH. It is laughable that they regard 517 square meters (5564 square feet) as a minor encroachment. The report itself concedes encroachments, which you are not permitted under the special policy below.
You state “this lot, with a special policy number appears in the current Official Plan (Our King) and it was included in the 2020 King City Community Plan, has permission for a single house with the condition that an environmentally acceptable way of reaching it is found.” You are misreading the policy. That is not what it says. What it actually says is that should access become available to the site WITHOUT ENTRUSION INTO ANY ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AREA OR ENVIRONMENTAL BUFFERS within this Community Plan, CONSIDERATION WILL BE GIVEN TO PERMIT A RESIDENTIAL DESIGNATION. The provision you refer to requires first (1) NO ENTRUSION AT ALL. This is not met. There is entrusion. (2) even in there are is no entrustion, the policy does does not mandate approval as you contend. It only requires the council to consider it. Consideration involves discretion and a weighing of interests which you are not doing.
I hope that you will do the right thing and vote no against this radical proposal to shoehorn a 26′ frontage lot into an exclusive subdivision.
How are we supposed to trust in a councillor who spits in the name of environmental conservation? This is absolutely disgusting. King City is one of the last areas with any actual meaningful green space in the GTA and approvals like this erode what’s left. Hope you’ll be happy with your moneybags when climate change takes us all.
I have pondered your comment. I don’t understand where you are coming from.
Thank you, Debbie, for listening to the various passionate viewpoints that were presented by residents in the Winter Rd/ Collard Dr / Burns Blvd / Scott Cres area at last night’s council meeting.
After reading your blog entry and listening to you and the planner speak, we all thought that the deal was already done, but the residents weren’t going to give up without a fight. We spoke and you listened.
I’m ecstatic that we had a unanimous vote from council against the proposed severance. THAT’S democracy at work. Well done!
Debbie
I am writing to my further post yesterday. I wanted to thank-you and all your council members for the tremendous service you do for our community. Most importantly, I wanted to express my personal appreciation and on behalf of the residents of Scott/Collard/Winter for keeping an open mind and listening to your constituents concerns. While it is normal to form preliminary impressions on a subject matter, it takes a special person who, whilst having formed a preliminary view, to keep an open mind and is open to hearing view points and being persuaded otherwise. You are that special person. Your integrity shone through like a beacon of light when you openly expressed that your original views on the topic had changed after hearing the points raised by your constituents. It takes an open and fair minded person to do that. I hold the greatest of respect for you. Once again thank-you.
“Thank you”, Debbie, for keeping an open mind and reconsidering your decision for development behind 31 Winter Drive. We, along with our local residents applaud your dedication and efforts. Warm regards,
Catherine
Hi Debbie. I understand that Mr Paric has appealed Council’s unanimous decision to oppose his request for a severance and to develop his Burns Blvd lot.
We hope that we will continue to have your support as we go through the next stage. We are in touch with all of the other Collard, Scott and Winter residents and everyone is standing united together against Mr Paric.
We have also been in touch with some residents in other similar neighborhoods in King (e.g. Kings Cross, Fairfields Estate…) and they have expressed that they will also support us at the Appeal and gather their neighbours against this proposed development. Because allowing one such development will open the flood gates for a slew of requests that will inevitably lower the prestige and desirability of King.
Keep up the good work Debbie.