On Council January 12 agenda there is a staff report recommending approval of applications for Official Plan and Zoning Bylaw amendments to enable a severance at 117 Humber Valley Crescent. As reviewed in the report the property is designated as established neighborhood and accordingly the proponent was required to apply for a zoning by law amendment to ensure that new lots are in general conformity with the neighborhood. I am not happy how the severance in the established neighbourhood is being justified as I review further below. Having said that I do recognize that the proponent, as of right, has option to develop the property to have two additional houses. I am interested to hear the opinion of my colleagues. I am also dismayed at the amount of tree removal. Having said that I commend the proponent to not have clear cut in advance of the application given lack of a tree bylaw; consequently proponent will need to compensate for tree removal.
Its troubling that the policies in the Official Plan regarding severances for corner lots Is being ignored as both the retained and severed lot are significantly smaller than existing corner lots in the area and depth is also smaller. (Retained is 52-60% of current existing corner lots and severed is 47-54%; depth is 55-82% of current existing corner lots.) The planning report indicates that the new lots (i.e. retained and severed) have lot areas in depth comparable to the new Acorn subdivision being built further east on east Humber Drive. As the Acorn subdivision is not part of the established neighborhood of 117 Humber valley Crescent I am uncomfortable with approving the severance with this justification. I had similar reservation with the severance application on Charles St. in 2025.
The report indicates that proposed dwellings will be compliant with zoning bylaw. I wonder whether there is opportunity to have a site specific policy identifying that compliance with the current zoning by law is required i.e. that variances in future will not be permitted.
To see all the appendices go to Council agenda and scroll down to 12.2.
As always deputations can be made. To do so please register at clerks@king.ca by noon on January 10 or If you prefer you can e-mail your comments to clerks@king.ca and they will be distributed to Council members and appropriate staff.
In my humble opinion, it is a little late to be complaining about this application. The entire town is in the process of being dismembered and our once beautiful neighborhoods being knocked down as we speak. I do not know how a mega mansion even qualifies as densification. Where was Council when approval for a side by side driveway in our small estate community was given approval so the applicant could gain access to a land locked lot? The first sign that our homes are worth less than our lots is the recent “the for sale sign of a lot” that was formerly a notable builder’s home. That is the death knell to all older neighbourhoods. So much for having an Official Plan. It is only fair that all residents of King City be given the opportunity to develop their lots now that the Acorn standard is being flaunted.
I’m sorry to see the large number of trees recommended for removal in the arborist’s report. Of the 230+ existing trees only 4 are intended for preservation and 2 of these are in the road allowance. We well know that existing trees, especially mature trees do the heavy-lifting when it comes to carbon sequestration, retaining water in the ground, mitigating heavy rain, improving air quality and providing food and habitat for countless animal species. I believe it is unlikely that the compensation plan will even come close to replacing all these important community services that the existing trees provide. It clearly appears again that large new development in King Township and beyond is highly prioritized over trees and the natural environment. I hope we can achieve a far more healthy balance in the future. Studies have confirmed over and over the vital importance of maintaining extensive healthy ecosystems, natural features and bio-diversity for a more secure and sustainable earth going forward. This vision needs to take root and be applied in all of our local community and rural plans, and in all proposed development. Everyone benefits.
As I said at Council at least the lot was not clear cut in advance of making the application. I cannot disagree with any of your comments about the benefit of trees. And I agree that it is unlikely that the compensation plan will truly match the loss given that there are mature trees being cut down.