On December 6 Council agenda is the draft zoning by law for the rural areas of King Township. The geographic area included in this bylaw is the whole Township except for the three villages. Here is the staff report which includes the draft bylaw and the schedules.  There is much that I am pleased about but there is one thing about which I am opposed. I am very pleased that the unique characteristics of the numerous hamlets is being respected and that our zoning bylaw will provide clarity on what on farm diversified use means. During the last four weeks I have submitted numerous comments and questions to the policy planner and have been impressed with the detailed responses. But I am very opposed to the effort to say that a long term care home, “as defined in the Long Term Care Homes Act, as amended” is in place today at the property referred to as the Marylake Monastery; see further below for explanation

Schedule A19 (page 26 of 350 in the report) shows that there are 2 site specific exception zones north side of 15th sideroad/west of Keele.  # 245 is in the area of the Villanova and #243 is in the area of Marylake Monastery. The definition of long term care homes which I mentioned earlier is on page 61 of 350. The explanations for these two site specific exception zones are on pages 296 & 297 of 350.

What is #245?   All provisions of the Oak Ridges Moraine natural core and linkage zone shall apply and that the following additional uses shall be permitted: private school, place of assembly, public parking lot. As Villanova existed before the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan it is reasonable to me to include these permissions which would then make it both legal and conforming.

What is #243?  All provisions in the area of the Oak Ridges Moraine zones (specifically feature protection, natural core and linkage and countryside) shall apply and that the following additional uses shall be permitted: places of assembly, worship, retreat; public parking lot; long term care home; accessory uses normal an incidental to a place of worship or place of retreat. Further explanation is given that a place of retreat shall mean premises used in conjunction with the place of worship and that may include temporary overnight accommodations, but shall not include a hotel or motel.

Like my comment above about number 245 I think it is reasonable to include the permissions indicated in number 243 except for long  term care home. I do not believe that anyone can argue that there has been a long term care home which meets the definition identified in this draft bylaw. As I have posted earlier I cannot accept the zoning decision made by our Planning staff as reported in February 8th 2021. At that time Planning staff did not suggest that there was a long term care home as defined by the Long Term Care Home Act; rather they argued that there were various activities which were part of providing support to aging or sick persons. (The latter are my words; you can read their report to see how they described it.) To date Planning Staff have not provided any evidence as what their decision is based on except to tell me and the public that the proponent has told them and shown them some paperwork.  As I do not believe there is or has been a long term care home, as defined by the Act, I don’t believe that this permission should be included in this site specific exception zone.

If you haven’t been engaged in this process and want to have more background I recommend you go to the speaking platform. The Monday meeting is the statutory public planning meeting; as we are not in person it is necessary that you register by Monday noon at clerks@ king.ca in order to make a deputation.  You can also send in a written deputation to clerks@king.ca.