The 2nd OMB pre-hearing on the development at Mary Lake Estates (or the Culotta property) was held February 24 as a revised draft subdivision plan had been submitted by the proponent. It is against this draft the appeal to the OMB will proceed.
From my perspective the significant changes made are the interface with the current Kings Cross residents to the south and the size of the lots facing onto Keele. The interface at the south is not perfect but much improved as there are now only 2 current residents with multiple lots backing onto their estate properties; and there are only 2 lots backing onto the one estate lot as opposed to 4 or 5. The lots on Keele have been increased in size.
What has not changed is the proponent’s plan to build about 93 detached houses with lot sizes varying from 50-80 feet and 7 detached houses with a common driveway. The proposed density is significantly greater than the density of the estate community abutting it to the south; specifically, the new one will be about 5 units/ha (2/acre) whereas the current community (Kings Cross) is 1/ha (.5/acre). This higher density is consistent with the density assigned to it per the King City Community Plan.
How a density designation in an Official Plan gets translated into a subdivision plan has proven to be very surprising in this particular subdivision which has rich natural features. The total site measures 24.9 hectares (61.5 acres). Because the King City Community Plan is an environment first plan nearly 1/3 of the site, specifically 9 hectares (22 acres), is protected from any development (i.e. no houses, roads or storm water management ponds). The near 1/3 is protected because of environmental protection features and the environmental buffers.
A key plank of this King City Community Plan is one of 30 meter buffers for environmental protection areas. This high level of protection was later adapted into the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan. This principle is wonderful. But, what is clearly very unsatisfactory is that the proponent is able to “make up” the loss of land, so to speak, by pushing the houses closer together. Think about an extreme: if the water courses and wetlands and their buffers occupied 23 of the 24.9 hectares, could the proponent build a high rise!
At the 2/24 pre-hearing two parties confirmed their registration as parties to the appeal: Villa Nova College and Augustinian Brothers who operate the Monastery; and Toronto Regional Conservation Authority. York Region registered as party also.
Next critical date: Council to consider Planning Staff recommendation on June 4. Then there is 3rd pre-hearing on June 18; actual hearing scheduled to start November 5.
Debbie, thank you for keeping us updated on this plan of subdivision. You raise a good point about a developer increasing density when part of the land has environmental protection. Your example of a high rise brings the issue into focus. Doesn’t the King City Plan set our clear maximum densities for each area to be developed?
Hi Bruce, Yes, the King City Community Plan identifies density for each new subdivision. And for Mary Lake Estates it is 5 hectares/acre. I believe this is called “gross density.” Reality is that one only develops on a portion of the land; specifically you don’t build on the environmental protection areas, the buffers, the roads. I am not 100% sure but I also think the area taken up by the storm water management ponds is excluded. Thanks for the question as it is a critical thing to understand. Debbie
Hello Debbie,
I read your reply to Bruce and there is a slip-up with the density statement. The density for new subdivisions is 5 units/hectare or 2 units/acre. 1 hectare equals 2.47 acres.
The term “gross density” allows a developer to divide the total area of a building site by the total number of housing units, including lands that cannot be built on due to environmental or other restictions. That is why the “true” density of the Mary-Lake proposal far exceeds the 2 units/acre. In fact, the “true” density of this development in the NE corner bordering on Keele St. and 15th Ave. is in excess of 5 units per acre! This is more than eleven times the density of Kingscross Estates! To call this a “transition” to the open space to the north is unacceptable and that is what the residents of Kingscross object to.
Permitting the use of the term “gross density” is extremely dangerous. As you state in your article, if a larger proportion of the Mary-Lake site were to fall under environmental protection, the builder could indeed propose townhouses or apartment blocks to arrive at the permissible “gross density”.
I would urge Council to seriously ponder this point as you are liable to lose control over what gets built in King Township.
Regards,
Uli Rentsch
22 McKellar Lane