The first agenda item on the February 24 council meeting is a report presenting strategies for growth management and employment lands. Most of these  strategies address the growth in King Township through to 2051; In addition there is consideration of planning beyond 2051 for areas of employment. As explained in the report this kind of planning is required by provincial legislation; but given the growth, over which we do not have control, I think it is imperative that such planning is done.  Note:  There will be presentation at beginning; and to access all appendices go to Council agenda and scroll down to 8.1.

To understand where the numbers for both population growth and employment land needs I refer you to the Watson report. The population growth of 21,000 versus 28,400 in 2021 represents a 2% increase each year;  seems somewhat daunting but last two decades it has been 1.9%%.  As indicated in the report number of persons in a household is decreasing because type of housing unit is changing and the changing/declining birth rate; hence the increase in new households will be greater.  Previous two decades saw 172 new ones/year; through to 2051 it is forecasted to be 280/yr.

As I have thought about the endorsements I am being asked to give I am keeping the following in mind

• Balance is required.
• Across the Township and particularly in and around King City there are two very important pieces of legislation which have been in place for over 20 years to protect our farmland and our natural heritage systems, namely the Greenbelt Plan and the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan.  I do not want to challenge these protections.  This is particularly true for King City as it’s north and west urban boundary butts with ORM and east butts with GB.
• There is not enough land to continue building residential in the same manner done historically i.e.  single detached homes. We must build up.
• Lands appropriate for employment and commercial uses are required per the Provincial Policy Statement (2024).  In addition it is development of those lands which is the mechanism for providing some relief to property taxes. Currently our ratio of residential:employment is 96%.
• King Township is a community of communities with 3 villages and numerous hamlets.  In 2051 this should continue to be true.  To achieve this our growth must be primarily in the villages.

Most of the requested endorsements are somewhat mechanical in that they are a result of the forecasts done by Watson: population growth, the number of households,the amount of commercial space required for the target population, the amount of employment space required for the future users.  I have spent time reviewing the Watson report and understand how the numbers were derived. I have no basis for challenging them and accordingly I am comfortable with endorsing the relevant requested endorsements..

There are several requested endorsements which are not “mechanical” as they are for urban expansions.  In Schomberg an urban boundary expansion is proposed to enable designation of lands for employment. (#18)  In King City an urban boundary expansion is proposed to enable designation of lands for commercial. (#19) Both cases are being proposed as each village has inadequate land within its urban boundary to provide the required acreage.  In both cases the proposed land to be added to the urban area is in protected countryside of the Greenbelt. Given the latter and my earlier comment about commitment to respecting the GB Plan I can only consider the possibility of these two  concepts because of policies within the GB Plan which permit very modest expansions provided that natural heritage systems are not compromised. (As reviewed in the report magnitude of “modest” is very clearly defined.)

• The proposed King City expansion is problematic in that it is not connected to King City as it’s well west of Jane St. On lands southeast of 400/King Rd. My question is how will it serve King City residents?
• If designated as land for commercial uses warehouses would be precluded as the warehouses of today e.g  Blackwood are considered uses for employment areas.  We would have the opportunity to  define what uses we want to see there e.g.  big box stores, grocery stores, facilities offering recreational activities to name a few.  And we can identify conditions for site plan in terms of landscaping. The latter is wanted to differentiate what we are offering on the 400 corridor versus what is offered further south.
• At this point I am willing to endorse further analysis of this site (#19).  I understand that there is a watercourse and the implications of that needs to be better understood.
• I am going to ask planning staff to confirm other options other than forcing it into the current urban boundaries.  I don’t believe that latter is acceptable as it would necessitate more intensification of residential and building higher in order to create the space.

As indicated in #20 I think it appropriate to further analyse whether in this OP Review we designate the Whitebelt lands; at this point there is not enough information. I say “this” OP Review as in 5 years it will be reviewed again and we could do so then.

In Nobleton there are several big choices to be made about land designations. I think the criteria being used to evaluate each of the choices is useful.  I’m very interested to hear more about this on Monday evening.  At this point I cannot comment on the recommendation that Council should direct Staff to resolve the deferral of a decision about lands in Laskay.

And as always deputations can be made; To do so please register at clerks@king.ca by noon on February 24. If you prefer you can e-mail your comments to clerks@king.ca and they will be distributed to Council members and appropriate staff.