At November 28th Council there is a public meeting on an application entitled Mansions of King. property best described as being south of Kingscross with some road frontage on King Road. I have several serious concerns about the application. Below I have elaborated further but in summary the issues are high risk of environmental degradation and degradation of current community (Kingscross) character. Its evident that our Staff is far from satisfied; furthermore, input from Toronto Regional Conservation Authority has not been received yet. If you are interested in this project,make a deputation at the Council on Monday; if you can’t attend or you prefer to not make a deputation send your input to Clerk, kmoyle@king.ca; your input will be given to Council and it will be part of the public record and accordingly you will also be contacted as to other meetings in future.
To elaborate on my perception that there is significant risk of environmental degradation.
i) Typical of most developers in King City this “opening” salvo does not respect our high standards for environmental protection; the applicant is proposing 10 meter buffers (vs our required 30 m) for the natural heritage features in numerous places.
ii) An important gateway to the community will be off King Road crossing over a main branch of the East Humber River. There are no details about the proposed crossing.
iii) The logical 2nd required entrance/egress is off Jane which will also then be utilized by those living in the development which will be built west of Mansions of King. For the latter development there is not yet a complete application and apparently the developer has not agreed to collaborate with Mansions of King. Hence I can understand why Mansions of King has not put forward this solution BUT that does not abrogate the fact that the logical place for a gateway is on Jane. But again, in the absence of an equally logical solution it needs to be assessed; and as there are natural heritage features including a tributary it may be risky in terms of environmental impact. The proponent has proposed that the 2nd required entrance would be via Manitou. See further below my thoughts on this.
iii) The site is in a landform conservation area category 2 of the Moraine. The Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan has some very clear regulations when there is development or site alteration within a landform conservation. As has been flagged by one of our consultants, the amount of impervious surface is very close to the maximum allowed; this definitely needs to be reviewed carefully.
Whenever a new subdivision is proposed and developed it is completely understandable that the established community “next door” is concerned. In this case there are two very significant issues.
i) There are large Kingscross lots which, per the current plan, will have multiple new lots backing onto them. If executed this is a significant negative impact on those property owners.
ii) Equally important is the proposal to have the 2nd required entrance/egress to be onto Manitou. This solution would increase flow through traffic on roads which curve, dip and rise, and were not designed for any more traffic than that generated by those who live in Kingscross. As evident from the report, there is not consensus between the experts as to how much the incremental traffic will be; but given that the development is for 318 residences (single detached and townhouses or apartments) we are not talking about a few extra cars winding through Kingscross. More traffic on roads without sidewalks nor significant illumination does not enhance the community.
Finally, as indicated in the Staff Report, the proposed medium density portion of the development is in excess of what was in our Community Plan. I am not at all sure about this.
Here is the report.
Debbie great comments and I agree with your concerns outlined. I was at the open house the developer had. It was a raucous event. The community was not pleased. The developer and his hired environmental team seem overly agressive and arrogant. Further to your points there is no parkland identified. The developer intend cash in lieu but as you know there is very few children’s parks in the north west quadrant of king city. Further when question d about the transition between kingscross and their development they seemed not to care. In one case it is 5 to 1. On the manitou road allowance they said it was the town to decide and not their problem. As you know that allowance was there envisioned to connect to other estate homes on large lots, nor more than 20 homes not the 300+ they are proposing. There were also concerns of how the land was to be graded in the transition to kingscross properties. As important there were significant concerns with the water table and the effects on the wells in kingscross.