There is a statutory public meeting February 26 for the development in north east quadrant of King City. This application which dates back several years is now at the stage of completing the the Functional Servicing/Development Area (FSDAS) study. This is a critical stage as it includes plans for connectivity (pedestrian and vehicles), quantity and type of residential units to be built, identification of environmental protections lands. Given the magnitude of the project (239 hectares, ~1000 residential units) this development is particularly important. Members of public have opportunity to voice support or opposition and to ask questions. Here is the report.
Over the last couple years there have been a couple very critical issues about this development.
- As reviewed in the report the concerns expressed by residents on East Humber Crescent about construction traffic have not been ignored; resolution has not been finalized yet but an acceptable routing of that traffic has been identified.
- The mapping in the report shows the bridge crossing the Eaton Hall Creek. Determining the location of this bridge was the topic of several public information sessions throughout 2017 as options were considered and assessed.
As indicated in the report the plan includes a range of housing: single residential with frontages varying from 12.8 m to 21.3 m (42′-70′); in addition 12% units are proposed to be townhouses (124 units) and there is also a plan for “lifestyle condominiums. ” I support our Staff’s asking for a higher number of townhouses.
- I will be asking about use of LIDs (low impact development) features. Given that there are wetlands and water courses through this area it is particularly important that we are using every technique possible to minimize the impact of the inevitable reduction in permeable surfaces.
- I question the proposal in the Staff report that if it is determined that there has been inadequate land identified for parkland that the solution will be to consider cash-in-lieu; why not increase parkland is the question.
I agree with the planning staffs’ comments on pages 6&8 re: the number of units proposed by Acorn Development.The residents of East Humber Dr.(Kingswood Dev.) joined the Township at the OMB hearing in 1990 and fought the same issues on the same lands.The OMB sided with the residents and Township and recommended on pg 17 that because of “environmental constraints” and “limitation of one access” it would accept a revised draft of 39 lots.
As well, Steve Kitchen, the former Chief Planner, has repeatedly stated at previous council meetings that the Township would not accept more than 40 lots because of the access limitation.
The residents of East Humber also support the staff recommendation that Acorn obtain construction access from Dufferin St.as did the OMB report.
I commend the Township Staff for the positions they have taken on the above issues in support for the residents and the environment.