The agenda for the March 21 Council meeting includes a staff report recommending comments to be submitted to York Region (YR) regarding the draft York Region Official Plan (ROP). The ROP will guide the growth throughout YR to 2051 in conformity with the Growth Plan (2020); the magnitude of the growth (population and jobs) to be managed is dictated by the Province.  I have questions for staff to understand a couple details but in general I am supportive of the proposed feedback to YR.  As always members of the public can provide feedback and/or register to make deputations; to do so contact clerks@king.ca.

Here are specific comments.

• Contrary to an earlier draft of the ROP there is no proposal to develop the 80 hectares of white belt in King City; rather the growth will be directed to the 3 villages as currently defined by their boundaries. This is consistent with the firm direction Council provided when we reviewed that draft in July 2021.

• The draft confirms that King City has a major transit station area (MTSA) GO station with a minimum density target of 80 people and jobs per hectare. Although that density seems very high given development to date in King, it is far less then what is being planned for others on the GO transit rail network where there is a minimum density of 150.  Our lower target is entirely appropriate given environmental constraints and the existing development form in the area. High density at MTSAs is critical as a means of leveraging the significant expenditures on the GO network which is a key enabler to to reduce commuter vehicle traffic with its road congestion and greenhouse gas emissions.

• I agree with the Staff recommendation to ask for modification of the policies for the employment lands so that we have the opportunity to define what kind of employment occurs in our employment lands.  As the King City ones are either in proximity or adjacent to recently built residential area (i.e. Kingview) and lands designated for residential it is important.  E.g. Our current policies do not permit warehousing as a primary use.
• I like very much the comments that staff are proposing to make about the sustainability section of the draft. I fully agree that the ROP needs to be talking about developing healthy communities and ones with environmental protection. I think a layperson would say that we want to develop communities where persons really want to live because it will be a great place to live. Having said that I think that there needs to be great attention to financial sustainability as there is opinion from a reputable expert that there is significant risk associated with the draft 2051 ROP as it is proposing to plan for a magnitude of growth that is too aggressive. This translates to financial risk as the region may be building infrastructure for which the persons who the pay property taxes, both residential and commercial industrial, don’t materialize. One can’t discount this opinion as YR’s growth has not met targets to date.

As reviewed in the report, following approval of the new ROP King will need to go through a conformity exercise to bring our Official Plan (OP) into conformity; as indicated this process will not be as onerous as it could have been as our OP is new and our staff was also engaged with the ROP process as they developed the King OP.