On Dec. 2nd Council agenda there is a report regarding requests for conversion of designated employment lands in King City, Nobleton and Schomberg. In an earlier post I reviewed why such requests are very important and I summarized the process. In this report there are updates on how the applications have evolved: the King Hill one (former Magna lands) and the Boynton lands (current sod farm) both offer benefits and have been modified significantly to address earlier feedback.
The conversion of designated employment lands merits extremely careful consideration due to the long term economic consequences; but, with the right alternative I think making conversions is appropriate. The “profile” of what employment is, how much land it requires has dramatically changed since the 1990’s when the King City Community Plan was developed. The recent proposal for King Hill increases the amount of land to continue being employment (21.5 ha vs original proposal of 13.8), increases mixed use (9.95 ha from 7.1) and eliminates the idea of 10.61 ha being designated for low density residential development. I am very happy to see the elimination of the low density area; King and particularly King City does not need more single detached homes. There are exciting possibilities for the mixed use land: apartments, traditional townhouses, long term care/retirement living apartments.) Criteria for evaluating proposals for these lands is not solely the economic impact on the Township; very importantly there is consideration for what this gateway to King City will look like and how this will look across from the prestigious residential development on north side of King Road. The report covers all of this very thoroughly.
The proposal to convert lands in Nobleton is also evolving in response to York Region and King Staff feedback. At this stage the request for the Schomberg lands is not supported by Staff.
These conversion requests are being managed through the regional Municipal Comprehensive Review (MCR). Next stage is a report in first quarter 2020.
Sorry Debbie I have read the report and the devil is in the detail. This is a joke. 4 areas for employment the two major ones include surface parking and storm ponds. And only single story employment buildings 1 is a park so not really employment lands and other also has very little employment.
The focus of this “new “ plan is town houses and three story condos with commercial on ground floor Town planners actually need to look at the actual amount of land used for employment. My read this is a town house community with a low density single story office building.
Terrible terrible terrible.
Property taxes in king are outrageous solely because we only have homes and very little commercial and industrial. This makes it worse
I would like to see sq m calculation of floor space employment vs residential. I bet residential is larger by no less than 3 to 1
This is an absolute no
Hi Mike, I think we have the same desire: good employment in King. Magna was ideal; but they decided not to build and sold. King Hill is taking advantage of opportunity created by new provincial government to convert lands designated for employment: their first proposal was 13.6 ha left for employment and 10.6 ha for single detached; new proposal is 21 for employment and 7.1 for mixed use including residential (i.e. apartments and townhouses.) As noted in the report YR did not support the 1st proposal; since then developer has been working with King to modify it to reflect our needs. Yes we need employment and the 2nd proposal could support 1640 jobs. And we also need different housing formats which the second proposal offers. In summary: I do not agree that this proposal is terrible. (Reality check: before Magna the property owner was considering warehousing which would take up alot of space but deliver few jobs; We were save from that by Magna and they changed their minds; we now have a government willing to convert employment lands and are anxious to see more housing.)
Noted and thanks for the comment but you missed my point. The detail would suggest way more sq m usage for residential then employment. What are the numbers on the buildings? Most of the employment land is seemingly low density with surface parking and storm water ponds. This plan seems to be nothing more than row houses with a little bit of employment which my guess at this point would be commercial. Until I see sq m numbers it seems this remains a terrible plan. As for you comment on residential. I get it However, this is at the extreme of the King city core. There is no transit and density there with king road and a pathetic 2 lane Jane st is not justified nor supportable with current infrastructure Again,This is a terrible plan