King City

Development Applications

Sewer servicing for the village is now more than 50% complete and development proposals for the east side of King City were draft approved in June by King Township Council. At present there are five applications: King North, King Dufferin, Kingshire Estates, Hickory Hills and Osmington. These subdivisions will eventually add around 651 housing units or 1950 more people to the village plus some mixed-use commercial in King North. (For locations, see Map at right). Additional development applications are expected to be submitted in the near future. As required by the King City Community Plan, the developers have submitted detailed studies integrating the subdivisions - these are known as The Functional Servicing Study for King City East. (See Map 2 at right, study can be viewed in King City Library)

CCKT have made several deputations to Council highlighting the following key issues which we wish to see included in the development plans:

Trees need to be retained
A variety of housing types is important
Wetland buffer areas are critically important
Village-wide walking trails are key to good community planning
King Township has excellent opportunity to mandate 'green development'
Importance of parkland

A particular issue with the Osmington application (southernmost subdivision on Keele) is the proposal to develop lands for housing which had been included in a Special Study Area in the King City Community Plan. Even though the Ministry of Natural Resources had stated in studies in the late 90s that "these wetlands and associated upland forests be protected from any development or terrain alteration and that no fill permits be given for any of the wetlands and their associated streams", the Council voted to re-zone this area for housing development through Official Plan Amendment 65 (June 2, 2008). CCKT has protested this major re-zoning, so far unsuccessfully.

Further details on development proposals are available on the Township's website, www.township.king.on.ca

Brutto Proposed Development – Culotta Mary Lake Estates Property

(south of 15^th Sideroad and west of Keele Street in Kingscross Estates, King City)

Background

Ontario Municipal Board decision # 0324 of March 6, 2000 states that; “Claudio Brutto, a qualified land-use planner retained by Culotta, testified in support of the new LDR-6 designation”.

LDR-6 clearly states; “permits future development of low density residential or estate residential uses at maximum gross density (2.0 units per acre).

LDR-6 also states in section 7.8.3 Land Use Policies; ii) In addition, residential development at the southerly boundary between the two stream corridors shall consist of larger lots to provide a transition and a greater degree of compatibility with abutting estate residential development.

Issue #1: The proposed Brutto plan for the Culotta property presented on JUN 17, 2009 does NOT comply with KC Community Plan, specifically i) and iii) noted below.

The King City Community Plan clearly defines twice the requirements for LDR-6 to include compatibility with the existing character of residential development, which to any reasonable person, means that lot size is the overriding requirement for future development.

One of the purposes of the LDR-6 designation is to ensure new development:

i) along the Keele Street frontage and the Keele Street/15th Sideroad node is generally compatible with the existing character of residential development north of the East Humber river;

ii) is designed to protect environmental features; and

iii) at the southerly boundary, provides a transition to the abutting estate residential development.

The proposed small lots with 6 lots per are in inconsistent with the character of the community, which are minimum 2 lots per acre and specifically in this case, the Kingscross Estates, which is 1 lot per two acres.

Issue #2: The proposed Brutto plan for the Culotta property presented on June 17, 2009 shows 24 very small lots abutting the Kingscross Estate lots as compared to 8 lots in the same space in the 1999 appeal to Official Plan Amendment 54 (OPA 54) . (see below for details)

Mr.Brutto’s 1999 appeal to OPA 54 stated in 3.4 “the number of units west of Environmental Corridor 1 being limited to a density of 3.0 units per hectare (1.2 units per acre). This would permit a lower density lotting pattern compatible with the Kingscross Estates subdivision to the south while maintaining an appropriate density in recognition of the availability of municipal servicing. The plan illustrates 8 potential lots abutting the existing 8 lots in the Kingscross Estates subdivision…”

The proposal is NOT defendable as it is inconsistent with the King City Community Plan. A much more modest transition is required between existing lots and homes and the newly proposed Brutto development.

The character of the Kingscross Estates area has defined the overall character and the wonderful atmosphere of King City for many years and must not be allowed to be destroyed by such a high degree of poorly planned over-intensification.

In addition, if approved, the value of the existing homes in this general area of the Kingscross Estates would be significantly diminished.

The requirements of Low Density Residential 6 Area as stated in the King City Community Plan must be followed to comply with King City’s own stated Official Plan.

Recommendations

CCKT requests that the Mayor and all Council members promote compatibility with existing development in this area of Kingscross Estates by;

1) Following the spirit, purpose and intent of the King City Community Plan

2) Not approving the currently proposed Brutto development without significant changes to lot densities as mandated in the King City Community Plan

3) Ensuring that the character of this important and vital part of King City is maintained

4) Ensuring that the character of this important and vital part of King City is not destroyed and devalued by allowing over-intensification

Shoppers Drug Mart

Recently, plans have been made public for the building of a Shoppers Drug Mart on the north side of the King Road on the site of the old GM dealership. Generally welcomed as a boost to local commerce, this very large retail building (over 22,000 SF on 2 floors) needs careful designing to fit into the context of the older heritage buildings on the south side of the King Road. Initial submissions were disappointing, with false windows facing King Rd but there is hope that design changes encouraged by the Planning Dept., the Heritage Committee, CCKT, and King City residents, will produce a pleasing architectural design.

DWINCs (Homes Designed WIthout Neighbours' Consideration)

During the last couple years, small original homes on the streets of King City have been replaced with large, out-of-place homes. Initially, we applied the sobriquet of "monster home" to them and hoped that there would not be many more. With time we realized that indeed there would be more and that it would not be restricted to King City-with time all our villages will have them.

We also recognized that labelling them as "monsters" did not really address the issue. The problem with the new homes is not the size. The problem is that they are not consistent with a street's, or a neighbourhood's historical aesthetic. Furthermore, the rights of individual homeowners, the neighbours, are being disregarded.

We are now calling these new houses "DWINCS"-homes designed without neighbours consideration. >>more



			Join Us News & Alerts Newsletters Poll
Home About Us King Today News & Alerts Natural Heritage & Agriculture Transportation Communities: King City Nobleton Schomberg Hamlets King Speaks Poll Results King Tomorrow Sustainability Vision Resource Links Contact Us	King City Development Applications Sewer servicing for the village is now more than 50% complete and development proposals for the east side of King City were draft approved in June by King Township Council. At present there are five applications: King North, King Dufferin, Kingshire Estates, Hickory Hills and Osmington. These subdivisions will eventually add around 651 housing units or 1950 more people to the village plus some mixed-use commercial in King North. (For locations, see Map at right). Additional development applications are expected to be submitted in the near future. As required by the King City Community Plan, the developers have submitted detailed studies integrating the subdivisions - these are known as The Functional Servicing Study for King City East. (See Map 2 at right, study can be viewed in King City Library) CCKT have made several deputations to Council highlighting the following key issues which we wish to see included in the development plans: Trees need to be retained A variety of housing types is important Wetland buffer areas are critically important Village-wide walking trails are key to good community planning King Township has excellent opportunity to mandate 'green development' Importance of parkland A particular issue with the Osmington application (southernmost subdivision on Keele) is the proposal to develop lands for housing which had been included in a Special Study Area in the King City Community Plan. Even though the Ministry of Natural Resources had stated in studies in the late 90s that "*these wetlands and associated upland forests be protected from any development or terrain alteration and that no fill permits be given for any of the wetlands and their associated streams", the Council voted to re-zone this area for housing development through Official Plan Amendment 65 (June 2, 2008). CCKT has protested this major re-zoning, so far unsuccessfully. Further details on development proposals are available on the Township's website, www.township.king.on.ca Brutto Proposed Development – Culotta Mary Lake Estates Property* (south of 15^th Sideroad and west of Keele Street in Kingscross Estates, King City) Background Ontario Municipal Board decision # 0324 of March 6, 2000 states that; “Claudio Brutto, a qualified land-use planner retained by Culotta, testified in support of the new LDR-6 designation”. LDR-6 clearly states; “permits future development of low density residential or estate residential uses at maximum gross density (2.0 units per acre). LDR-6 also states in section 7.8.3 Land Use Policies; ii) In addition, residential development at the southerly boundary between the two stream corridors shall consist of larger lots to provide a transition and a greater degree of compatibility with abutting estate residential development. Issue #1: The proposed Brutto plan for the Culotta property presented on JUN 17, 2009 does NOT comply with KC Community Plan, specifically i) and iii) noted below. The King City Community Plan clearly defines twice the requirements for LDR-6 to include compatibility with the existing character of residential development, which to any reasonable person, means that lot size is the overriding requirement for future development. One of the purposes of the LDR-6 designation is to ensure new development: i) along the Keele Street frontage and the Keele Street/15th Sideroad node is generally compatible with the existing character of residential development north of the East Humber river; ii) is designed to protect environmental features; and iii) at the southerly boundary, provides a transition to the abutting estate residential development. The proposed small lots with 6 lots per are in inconsistent with the character of the community, which are minimum 2 lots per acre and specifically in this case, the Kingscross Estates, which is 1 lot per two acres. Issue #2: The proposed Brutto plan for the Culotta property presented on June 17, 2009 shows 24 very small lots abutting the Kingscross Estate lots as compared to 8 lots in the same space in the 1999 appeal to Official Plan Amendment 54 (OPA 54) . (see below for details) Mr.Brutto’s 1999 appeal to OPA 54 stated in 3.4 “the number of units west of Environmental Corridor 1 being limited to a density of 3.0 units per hectare (1.2 units per acre). This would permit a lower density lotting pattern compatible with the Kingscross Estates subdivision to the south while maintaining an appropriate density in recognition of the availability of municipal servicing. The plan illustrates 8 potential lots abutting the existing 8 lots in the Kingscross Estates subdivision…” The proposal is NOT defendable as it is inconsistent with the King City Community Plan. A much more modest transition is required between existing lots and homes and the newly proposed Brutto development. The character of the Kingscross Estates area has defined the overall character and the wonderful atmosphere of King City for many years and must not be allowed to be destroyed by such a high degree of poorly planned over-intensification. In addition, if approved, the value of the existing homes in this general area of the Kingscross Estates would be significantly diminished. The requirements of Low Density Residential 6 Area as stated in the King City Community Plan must be followed to comply with King City’s own stated Official Plan. Recommendations CCKT requests that the Mayor and all Council members promote compatibility with existing development in this area of Kingscross Estates by; 1) Following the spirit, purpose and intent of the King City Community Plan 2) Not approving the currently proposed Brutto development without significant changes to lot densities as mandated in the King City Community Plan 3) Ensuring that the character of this important and vital part of King City is maintained 4) Ensuring that the character of this important and vital part of King City is not destroyed and devalued by allowing over-intensification Shoppers Drug Mart Recently, plans have been made public for the building of a Shoppers Drug Mart on the north side of the King Road on the site of the old GM dealership. Generally welcomed as a boost to local commerce, this very large retail building (over 22,000 SF on 2 floors) needs careful designing to fit into the context of the older heritage buildings on the south side of the King Road. Initial submissions were disappointing, with false windows facing King Rd but there is hope that design changes encouraged by the Planning Dept., the Heritage Committee, CCKT, and King City residents, will produce a pleasing architectural design. DWINCs (Homes Designed WIthout Neighbours' Consideration) During the last couple years, small original homes on the streets of King City have been replaced with large, out-of-place homes. Initially, we applied the sobriquet of "monster home" to them and hoped that there would not be many more. With time we realized that indeed there would be more and that it would not be restricted to King City-with time all our villages will have them. We also recognized that labelling them as "monsters" did not really address the issue. The problem with the new homes is not the size. The problem is that they are not consistent with a street's, or a neighbourhood's historical aesthetic. Furthermore, the rights of individual homeowners, the neighbours, are being disregarded. We are now calling these new houses "DWINCS"-homes designed without neighbours consideration. >>more Home Contact Us back to top design partnership cm@filamentgraphics.ca and www.webertise.ca Contact Webmaster In order to view all site content, a recent version of the Flash player and Adobe Reader are required	Page Resources: 1. King City East Applications Map View full-size 2. King City East Preliminary Development Plan Map View full-size