The 1/21 Council meeting dedicated to the Marys Lake Development application was well attended and very worthwhile.  I think it was rich in content in terms of understanding points of view about the application’s consistency or lack thereof with the King City Community Plan (KCCP).

It also was a good opportunity to review relevant history for this application.

• Mr. Lehman (Planner for Kingscross Estates Resident Association (KERA)) reviewed the decision of the OMB in 1999 to assign a maximum gross density of 5 units/hectare (2/acre); he also said that the OMB indicated at that time that such density would allow for 80-100 lots once the environmental features were appropriately protected.  He expressed the opinion that the amount of developable land is less than what would have been assumed by the OMB in 1999 as current mapping has  buffers and/or protection zones themselves which are greater than originally understood.    He also expressed his opinion that it was unfortunate that the Planning Act does not require such decisions to be made in public forum but that indeed is not a requirement.

• In response to questions from Councillor Eek, Mr. Kitchen explained that under the Municipal Capital Facilities Agreement the proponent has been assigned 100 servicing allotments because of contributions to the installation of sewers in King City.  Specifically the proponent laid the pipes on Keele to service his development. Having said that Mr. Kitchen said very clearly that the Township is not “beholding” to the developer.

• In response to my question Mr. Kitchen explained that at the early stage this application and another one (the one now called Genview) participated in a FS/DAS (Functional Services Development Agreement Strategy) but it was not carried through to conclusion as the two properties are disconnected.  The assessment of each property was completed independently; and in this manner all the same work of assessing & identifying natural heritage features etc was completed.

The Staff report identifies that it is Staff’s judgment that the application does conform to the policies of the KCCP regarding to number and layout of lots.  To understand their rationale you can read the report here.  Note: in the last pages of that report you can read what is essentially a peer review by Mr. Sorensen of the Staff report which was commissioned by the proponent.

As clearly demonstrated at the meeting many residents, both those living in the neighbouring development of Kingscross and those living elsewhere, do not believe the draft application is consistent with the KCCP.  Arguments were presented by both the professional planner hired by KERA and by residents. (KERA’s Planner’s report is included in the Staff report referenced above.)  Most of the arguments were of two themes.  1^st, at the south of the development the transition to Kingscross was inadequate.  2^nd, in the north, and particularly in the northeast corner,  the lots are too small given that it is the edge of King City and that it is across from lands which are destined to remain open and green with the exception of the buildings of the private school.

Clearly there is no debate on one thing: the draft plan shows a development very different from Kingscross.  The latter is a well established estate subdivision comprised of lots 2 acres and greater.  Its few roads curve; the houses are varied and are one of a kind.  The large lots allow for significant landscaping.  The new development, which,  unlike Kingscross will have both municipal water and sewers, has relatively small lots with one exception.  Most are between .11 and .17 acre; at the south they are .3 acre.  Given the likely size of the homes lot coverage will be much greater than in Kingscross; hence, trees and vegetation (i.e. landscaping) will be far less.  The one exception is located on the far west and is 1 ha (2.5 acre); as discussed below I don’t believe this lot should be allowed.

It’s too easy to identify all the differences between the two subdivisions; but like Kingscross this new subdivision will have significant open spaces of which much will be natural.  Like all the new subdivisions in King City there are environmental protection zones, buffers and restoration areas in the new subdivision where there will be no development.  In this particular development there will be a lot of natural green and open space:  9.3ha. (22.9 acres).  About 1/3 of the latter is located between the two blocks where the residential lots will be.  The KCCP policy demands that this land should not be touched; it is this feature which makes our community plan (the KCCP) so very special.   If one is inclined to curse the KCCP that it left open the possibility of an application such as the draft Mary Lake Estates plan, it is appropriate to remember this policy protecting the natural features and buffers.  It was truly bold at the time as it preceded the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan which in fact reapplied this policy.   I should note that in addition to the 9.3 ha of natural open space (38% of the total site) there is more open space designed for a park and storm water management ponds.

The debate about the Mary Lake application is on the interpretation of the KCCP policies. What do the words “transition and a greater degree of compatibility ” mean?  What does it mean to “provide a transition to this more purely rural environment”?   In addition to the obvious alternative option to the current draft plan of reducing the number of lots to enable increasing the size of the remaining ones  is to include lot coverage in the zoning bylaw.  I asked Staff to consider this.

Finally, as I touched on above I have serious concern with the most westerly lot which is the large lot of 1 ha. (2.5 acre).  Current information is that the road to access it crosses the environmental restoration area (ERA) and that the rest of the lot itself may be in the ERA.  This is not acceptable.  I believe this is still under consideration as TRCA is still assessing.

Finally, deputations from a couple residents reminded me that discomfort about this plan is more than whether 75 or 80 or 96 is the right number of lots. There is the fact that we lack public transit; hence everyone will be using their cars for food, work or to reach the GO train station.  We need to keep pushing to ensure that promises of public transit come to fruition.   Again, we have a subdivision being built which does not offer alternate housing stock.  Some alternatives have been built on King Road but we need more.

This is a tough, very tough decision.  The engagement of citizens is very welcomed.