On 7/11 Council agenda there is a staff report recommending approval of an Official Plan Amendment (OPA) covering the development south of 15th Sideroad west side of Dufferin.  This is very important to King City given its size (land size of 204  hectares,nearly 1000 residential units). Since the May 2nd public meeting there have been important modifications to the plan in response to public and Council feedback.  At time of writing my support for the proposal is much higher than before although I still have questions which I will be following up on.

I am very pleased to see that the diversity of the housing make up has been increased.  There is now “townhouse dwelling types.”  The report says that the revised OPA includes “townhouses, sem-detached, and other similar dwelling types including seniors-oriented housing as permitted uses.” I don’t understand this enough but it is in the right direction.   From the development concept map it looks like along the 15th SDRD there will continue to be only single detached; I question this.

Less diversion from the King City Community Plan and Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan is being requested; specifically the minimum vegetation protection zone (MVPZ) variances have been reduced.  I want to understand this further but again, its in the right direction.

At the May 2nd meeting Council gave direction that Tawes Trail is not to connect to Keele.  Although this direction is respected in the report I don’t understand how the issue of a east-west collector, as required by York Region is being resolved.  I also don’t understand YR’s request for phasing and having that correlated with Keele/King Road intersection improvements.

I heard loud and clear that many members of King City and the broader King Township community are not in favour of increasing the density to 7 units per hectare.  I believe it is the right thing to do.  Its 2016; we cannot use our land, a scarce resource, as we have done so in the past.  Developing these lands today, as was planned in early 2000’s, would be a kind of sprawl.  Public transit requires density far greater than what was considered acceptable fifteen years ago.  The public services will be funded by the developers but maintenance and ultimately replacement will be funded by future tax payors; there needs to be a bigger population base to fund such.   Building more densely, as is proposed, necessitates being vigilant in protecting the very valuable natural heritage features on this land.

Here is the report which includes the draft OPA