The recommended policy direction for the King Township Official Plan (OP) is available here. The public meeting is Thursday September 24 at the Township Office (2075 King Road) from 6:30-8PM with a formal presentation beginning at 7.
Most of the policy points presented for residential land use flow from a conclusion that current plans for intensification and the greenfield sites in our villages (i.e. those lands planned to be developed and assigned certain densities but not yet approved not built) are not adequate to achieve the population target of 34,900 by 2031.
Given this the following are key policy directions proposed:
- no additional intensification than currently planned across Township i.e. no more than 920 in total
- shift some of the intensification to King City away from Nobleton because of servicing constraints in the latter
- achieve intensification on regional roads and close to core and not in the established neighbourhoods
- maintain character of established neighbourhoods with policies prohibiting new lot creation and regulating development on the established lots.
- higher densities in the greenfield sites
The really tough question on intensification is still to be addressed i.e. where specifically. I totally agree that the general concept of close to the core and on regional roads is right; and I also agree that King City is the village where much of the intensification should occur.
As we have been working on the Nobleton draft zoning bylaw, the topic of preserving character in estabished neighbourhoods has been a hot one for me. I am pleased to see that complimentary policies will be in the Official Plan.
The proposed higher densities in the greenfield sites is very difficult for me. I have learned that the subdivisions envisioned at the time the King City Community Plan was created (2003) are not sustainable as the densities are too low. But, I do not know if the proposed 7 units/hectare is right. And the latter very much concerns me as we do not have the transportation infrastructure (roads, transit, parking lots) to support what we currently have. I have many questions on this.
This OP process has been significantly simplified given the conclusion of the consultants that no additional employment lands are required. This conclusion is based on the application by Magna International to develop its corporate HQ at King Road/Jane St.
Its good to see that a number of sustainable planning tools will be included in the Official Plan. Too many times citizens have complained that our design guidelines lack “teeth” i.e. that there is no requirement to follow them. The revised OP will incorporate some; I look forward to influencing what is included. Very recently a developer active in one of our greenfield sites asked me if we had a green development checklist; to date it is just a “wish list” but now we can include it in the OP and give it some weight. See page 49 of the report to see others.
I urge you to review this report; if you cannot attend the 9/26 meeting but have comments please forward them to officialplanreview@king.ca. In October there will be report to Council recommending policy directions; the latter will be built from this report incorporating feedback to it.
Debbie, thank you again for keeping so many of us well-informed and for sharing your thoughts, opinions and position on several aspects of the King Township Official Plan and proposed amendments.
Is the 34,900 figure by 2031 something King is required to achieve by either York region or the Province of Ontario?
Having participated actively in the King City Community Plan process, I’m very aware of the relatively low densities designated for several of the greenfield developments. These were intended to maintain a clear element of the green, open-space character of King City along the regional roads and in the existing subdivisions.
If additional intensification is directed to King City and density on greenfields is increased, the green, open-space character will very likely be further eroded. Already, I’m finding the large scale of the new homes and the small side yard setbacks have removed most of the sense of open space and we’re essentially left with typical suburban streetscapes filled by large, relatively expensive homes. This is quite far from the vision and input of the majority of residents who chose King City as their home prior to the plan.
My main intention in writing this is to ensure that you and others understand where we were, what was originally intended in the plan and where we appear to be going is clear. It is challenging for many who invested countless hours in participating in the planning process to see the plans keep changing, densities increase and the rural-village character of King City gradually disappear.
On a positive note, I’d like to strongly encourage the Township to adopt policies in our official plans that will contribute to architectural designs which are attractive, compliment King City’s rural heritage character and lead to achieving sustainable building standards.
Thank you for your consideration of comments and thoughts shared.
Bruce C.
Hello Bruce,
Very sincerely I thank you for submitting your comments. I do hope you can attend Thursday’s meeting to present your comments/ideas. I understand why you are dissatisfied with what has been occurring in the established communities as a result of relatively large homes being built in place of the original homes. In addition to what we can put into the OP, I know that the zoning bylaw review will be critical for putting in place stronger regulations on setbacks etc. etc. The increased density is a tough problem. You have articulated clearly the impact. But, it is only increased densities in the settlement areas which is going to keep the natural open spaces beyond the settlement areas.