At Council on May 8th there is Staff report on policy direction for our Official Plan. I have not had opportunity to read it yet so I cannot meaningfully comment except to say that I know its important for anyone who is interested in the Official Plan update project. This report is dealing specifically with greenfield densities and a couple other policy issues. It includes a report entitled “Understanding Greenfield Density and Intensification Densities in King Township.”
These policy issues were the ones which Council did not approve when a report was presented to Council in November. The term “greenfield densities” is sometimes misunderstood; it means density in a new subdivision on lands that are already zoned for development but are still undisturbed. It does not mean densities for building on land outside the defined urban areas.
While I am sure lands for development/intensification were designated many moons ago, the time for the re-birth for lack of a better word appears to be now. Aside from lot descriptions, I am concerned about the structures being recommended to house 1,200 fellows. Street after street of 2 storey dwellings on postage size lots and obnoxious roof lines. Where are the assisted living facilities or chronic care facilities that can take care of those who can’t live independently? Who is to say of the current population that there isn’t basement apartment facilities available or can be available to meet the so called shortfall in housing? Why are we talking about 20 years from now when at the moment there are NO community services in place to deal with the residents we have now. Still waiting for a grocery store, still waiting for a fitness centre, still going to Vaughan or Oak Ridges for everything else! Still paying more property taxes and getting less while this paper discussess more people without a peep about the services these residents would expect having to pay top market value prices for their “forever” home. Our so called “downtown” littered with sold signs and re-zoning signage certainly tells me King City’s former days are over and what’s coming likely isn’t anything remotely associated with “small town” or “rural attributes”.
Hello Sheila, You have touched on a number of important issues; will try to address. i) I believe that we need to enable legal secondary suites (e.g. basement apartments, inlaw suites etc). I am vigilant in ensuring that our revised Official Plan includes this; and then subsequently that the zoning by-laws do so. ii) I too am unhappy with the plan showing mostly single detached; I expressed such at public meeting. I have heard that developers heard me; so I hope to see something different. iii) Grocery store (Coppa’s) and adjacent LCBO are well underway. I am sure Coppa’s will beat their target timing of early fall 2016. iv) Mayor and Council are working hard to deliver a recreational facility in partnership with Seneca. v) Property taxes are high in King because of property values. Our tax rate is in mid range. vi) King City has changed and will continue to change. The decision to install municipal services was the “fork in the road.”