On October 14 Council agenda there is my motion about the anticipated review of the Greenbelt.
My motion has been seconded by Councillor Anesty. I regret that the motion is so long but I felt the importance of the issue demands a summary as to why the issue is important. Its appropriate that King passes this motion as more than 98% of our land mass lies within the GB.
Collectively we are at a critical time. The Greenbelt Plan
- is water security and food sovereignty
- protects natural assets
- is a response to climate change
- enables an agricultural economy
As indicated in the motion a review of the Plan is mandated and the motion demands that the review is transparent and evidence based.
Our Official Plan identifies that our objectives are shaped by four pillars: environmental, economic, socio-cultural and financial. We need to find the balance of these pillars and still conform to Provincial policies including the Greenbelt Plan.
Deputations expressing your support or lack thereof of this motion can be made.as I provided notice of it. To do so please register at clerks@king.ca by noon on Oct. 14 or If you prefer you can e-mail your comments to clerks@king.ca and they will be distributed to Council members and appropriate staff.
Thank you so much.
In the review of the Official Plan, there are two spots where the proposal is to allow development on the Greenbelt outside of Schomberg and outside of King City. I would hope that King Council does not support these proposals. I believe that in hosting Open Houses, instead of meetings, people are being hoodwinked and do not realize what is happening. That the Greenbelt is being encroached.
I believe that this motion should not allow any of the .Greenbelt outside of the already designated town areas to be developed. I believe that your motion should not allow an expansion into the protected Greenbelt or else the protected Greenbelt is not protected. I have heard some people (Councillors / Mayor) say that they do not know the reason that the area around Hwy 400 and the King Rd should be part of the Greenbelt but they are not hydrological experts and do not understand what is happening below the surface of the land.
I would like your motion to be stronger and say that the area of the Greenbelt should not be changed, except to be enlarged. That no land already designated as Greenbelt should be removed.
Thank you for your comments Nancy. I believe my motion does protect the GB by calling for “lands of ecological,agricultural and hydrological significance are protected using best available science.” As for the proposals in the new OP and Council’s support or lack thereof there will be meetings at which Council members will voice their position on the matter.