Toys For Tickets

On Sept. 23 Council agenda there is a report proposing an innovative way for responding to the inevitable parking violations when the winter parking restrictions begin.  I must admit that my first response was a very judgmental dismissive one, that it was a crazy idea.  But when I read more and learned that other municipalities are implementing already I began to look at it in another way.  I encourage you to let our Staff know what you think about it.

Community Halls

On September 23 Council agenda there is a staff report about our community halls:  how much they are being used, current state i.e. physical and a review of any plans to modify/renovate.  As indicated significant work at the Schomberg Community Hall is budgeted and underway.  Other facilities need work but it is going to need to be assessed at budget; and as noted not all of them have usage levels that make it certain that monies should be spent.

King Rd/King Blvd Development Public Meeting

At Council on September 23 there is a public meeting for a development at northeast of King Road/King Blvd intersection.  As is typical at this stage of a development application, the Staff report reviews the essence of the application and identifies issues yet to be answered. This is the opportunity for the public to identify their concerns and to ask questions.  If you can’t attend the meeting send in your comments to the Clerk at [email protected]; if you can attend there is no need to sign in.

This application is  for 12 town houses. As reviewed there are many aspects of this proposal which are very positive:  namely that it is for a different format of housing; and the location is very appropriate for a more dense development given proximity to shopping, schools, public transit.  From reading the report I have the impression that there is “too much” being squeezed into the site:  density is far beyond our current official plan (King City Community Plan); many of the zoning bylaw requirements (e.g. setbacks) are not being met.  I am also concerned about the issues identified about storm water management; I want to understand how the apparent conflicting opinions of consultants will be addressed.  And I will be questioning why the tree compensation plan is less than what we have in the current draft tree bylaw covering private properties in our 3 villages. Finally…I must comment that it is satisfying to read about a development on a site without environmental features to consider!

Nobleton Zoning Bylaw re: lot coverage

On Council agenda September 23 there is a report which is relatively unusual:  it is a Staff report about intent to have a public meeting in the future re: a zoning bylaw amendment for the Nobleton Urban Area. Purpose of the the 9/23 report is to hear any comments from public.  As explained in the report the focus of the proposed amendments is on defined properties in the Urban Area and the issue to be amended is the amount of pervious surface on the whole lot and on the front yard. The issue is important as too much coverage (by buildings etc.) can create a situation where rainfall is not able to be absorbed quickly enough and hence there could be water damage (i.e. flooding) to the subject property or to neighbours. I have questions for Staff as it is a complex situation; given that Staff is not asking for Council to make a decision immediately I am comfortable that I will have time to understand the issues before making my own decision.

215 Main Street Schomberg Development

On Council September 23 agenda there is a report for a site plan development application in Schomberg at 215 Main St.  From my reading there are some very positive aspects to this application:  4 purpose built apartments of which 2 are intended to meet the York Region threshold of being affordable; and the report indicates that there will be adequate parking for both the residential and the commercial.  In addition it sounds like this application will set the stage for resolving the ambiguity of the Lions Park boundaries which will then allow for the park to be properly developed.  The proposed architecture indicates that this project will be a valuable addition to the historic Main Street but I do wonder about the height; I think it could be improved if something was done creatively with the glazing e.g.  transom windows to break up the wall of glass at street level.  I will be asking questions about the process that this application has gone through to date; for example I don’t understand how the development has already been granted a couple minor variances.

NE Landowners Draft Plan of Subdivision

At the September 23  Council meeting there is a large report from Staff recommending approval of the draft plans of subdivision be approved subject to identified detailed conditions.  This development in the north east quadrant of King City is complex given its size and the participation of 7 landowners. I have several questions including how to incorporate a higher level of “sensitivity” to our recent recognition of the urgency to respond to carbon induced climate change.

For each of the 7 there is a plan with conditions; and all 7 plans are integrated through the FSDAS (functional servicing/development area study). The FSDAS plan includes 3 parks (2 neighbourhood/1 community), 1 school block, trails, multi-use path and residential units (910 single detached/84 towns/77 lifestyle). Population in this total development is estimated at 1,029.   I have made posts on this development for the past 3 years at various stages. To read the report and to reach all the appendices click here and scroll to 9.2