Ontario Land Tribunal

Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire

ISSUE DATE: June 25, 2021

CASE NO(S).: PL190494

PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 22(7) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P. 13, as amended

Applicant and Appellant: Stateview Homes (High Crown Estate) Inc.

Subject: Request to amend the Official Plan – Failure of the Township of King to adopt the requested amendment

Existing Designation: “Existing Low Density Residential Area”

Proposed Designation: “Medium Density Residential Area”

Purpose: To permit the development of 56 freehold townhouse residential units with access from private common-element condominium roads

Property Address/Description: Part Lot 55 and 56, Registered Plan 85; Lots 1 and 2, Registered Plan 360, and Part Lot 7, Concession 3/ 13151, 13165, 13175, 13193 & 13211 Keele Street

Municipality: Township of King

Approval Authority File No.: OP-2018-03

OLT Case No.: PL190494

OLT File No.: PL190494

OLT Case Name: Stateview Homes (High Crown Estate) Inc. v. King (Township)

PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 34(11) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P. 13, as amended

Applicant and Appellant: Stateview Homes (High Crown Estate) Inc.

Subject: Application to amend Zoning By-law No. 2017-66, as amended – Neglect of application by the Township of King

Existing Zoning: “Residential Single Detached (R1)” and “Residential Single Detached ‘C’ (R1C)”

Proposed Zoning: “Residential Townhouse R3 – Exception Section”, with site-specific performance standards, and “EP Environmental Protection Zone”

Purpose: To permit the development of 56 freehold townhouse residential units with access from private common-element condominium roads

Property Address/Description: Part Lot 55 and 56, Registered Plan 85; Lots 1 and 2, Registered Plan 360, and Part Lot 7, Concession 3/ 13151, 13165, 13175, 13193 and 13211 Keele Street

Municipality: Township of King

Municipal File No.: Z-2018-07

OLT Case No.: PL190494

OLT File No.: PL190495

PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 51(34) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P. 13, as amended

Applicant and Appellant: Stateview Homes (High Crown Estate) Inc.

Subject: Proposed Plan of Subdivision - Failure of the Township of King to make a decision

Purpose: To permit the development of 56 freehold townhouse residential units with access from private common-element condominium roads

Property Address/Description: Part Lot 55 and 56, Registered Plan 85; Lots 1 and 2, Registered Plan 360, and Part Lot 7, Concession 3/ 13151, 13165, 13175, 13193 and 13211 Keele Street

Municipality: Township of King

Municipal File No.: 19T-18-K05

OLT Case No.: PL190494

OLT File No.: PL190496

Heard: June 16 and 17, 2021 by video hearing

APPEARANCES:

Parties

Counsel/Representative*

Stateview Homes (High Crown Estates) Inc.

C. Tanzola N. Ast

Township of King

T. Halinski

Regional Municipality of York (“Region”)

S. Foster

Toronto Regional Conservation Authority

B. Montgomery

St. Andrews Presbyterian Church

D. Mooney*/B. Patterson*/J. Agnew*

MEMORANDUM OF ORAL DECISION DELIVERED BY G.C.P. BISHOP ON JUNE 17, 2021 AND INTERIM ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL

1Stateview Homes (High Crown Estates) Inc. (the “Applicant”) filed an appeal of the Township of King’s (“Township”) failure to make a decision on its Official Plan Amendment (“OPA”) pursuant to s. 22(7) of the Planning Act (the “Act”). The Applicant filed complementary appeals for failure to make a decision on a Zoning By-law Application (“ZBA”), pursuant to s. 34(11) of the Act and a draft Plan of Subdivision (“PoS”) Application pursuant to s. 51(34) of the Act.

2The Applicant submitted the OPA, ZBA and PoS applications to permit the development of 56 freehold residential townhome units with access from private common element condominium roads. The subject lands are located on the northeast corner of Keele Street and Dennison Street in King City. The subject lands are municipally known as 13151, 13165, 13175, 13193 and 13211 Keele Street.

3The subject lands have 36 metres (“m”) of frontage on Dennison Street, being a local road, and 211.9 m of frontage along Keele Street, being a major arterial road. 13151 Keele Street is the corner lot at the south end of the subject property with the frontage of 36 m and a depth of 42 m whereas the remainder of the lots, to the north, along Keele Street, have depths of approximately 94 m and, therefore run behind and along the rear yards of 18, 24 and 30 Dennison Street. These three lots have shallow depths compared to 36 Dennison Street which, in this case, the rear portion of the side yard of this lot abuts the subject lands. Further east, along Dennison Street, is a cul-de-sac leading north and the rear yards of 14 and 20 Valleycrest Drive abut the east side of the subject lands. The northeast portion of the subject lands include a valley system that requires protection from the proposed development.

4The original submissions contained entrances in two locations. There was a right in/right out movement along Keele Street and a full movement entrance onto Dennison Street.

5All Parties, with the exception of St. Andrews Presbyterian Church (“St. Andrews”), have reached a settlement. But as a result of amendments to the draft conditions, St. Andrews also concurs with the settlement, as presented.

6The revised June 15, 2021 proposal, in front of the Tribunal, has a reduction in the number of units from 56 down to 48. A signalized intersection, on Keele Street is also proposed for access to the development in a location that includes the intersection with Norman Drive opposite the proposed development. The access from the proposed development onto Dennison Street will be blocked by bollards that will be removable for emergency services only. Due to change in access the three-block draft PoS has been massaged to include the need for an increased widened daylighting at the signalized intersection and a decrease in daylight widening at Dennison Road.

7The draft PoS consists of three blocks which include Block 1, for road widening purposes, Block 2, for Medium Density Residential uses and Block 3 containing the Natural Heritage System to be protected. The corresponding areas of the 3 Blocks is 0.173 hectares (“ha”), 1.205 ha and 0.375 ha respectively.

8The Tribunal heard from Murray Evans, who is qualified to give opinion evidence in the discipline of land use planning. Mr. Evans referred to his June 4, 2021 witness statement and the agreed statement of facts, from a meeting of the planners that took place on April 8, 2021. These two documents dealt with the previous plan referred to as the “April Plan”. Mr. Evan’s viva voce evidence supplemented these two documents and focused on the revised “June” proposal in front of the Tribunal.

9Mr. Evans stated that the subject property is within a settlement area of the Township within an existing suburban community, fronting on a Regional arterial road within 300 m of the central core of King City. At this central core, there is regional bus service available to connect to the GO station and ultimately to the subway station. There is an arena and community centre close by and the subject property is close to many amenities.

10Mr. Evans directed the Tribunal to the statement of agreed facts. All planners on this file are in agreement that the proposed development is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement 2020 (“PPS”), conforms to the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe 2020 (“Growth Plan”), the Oak Ridges Moraine Plan and the York Region Official Plan. The proposed development is transit supportive, lessoning the need for vehicles, promotes complete communities, services are efficiently utilized, the natural environment is protected and is contained within the built boundary of the settlement area where intensification is directed.

11Mr. Evans concentrated more effort on the King City Community Plan (“KCCP”) and the Township of King Official Plan. These were the planning documents where opinions from the planners originally diverged in their witness statements and the list of agreed facts. There is also an update to the Township of King Official Plan (referred to as the “our King” plan) that has been approved by Council but under appeals and although the Tribunal may have some regard to the policies, the plan is not in place and the Tribunal has not considered this plan in its determination.

12Mr. Evans reviewed various sections of the KCCP such as protection of the natural environment; distinctive community identity; promoting compact development; maintaining the residential character and development of a health community. Mr. Evans also detailed s. 9.2 of the KCCP that outlines the design principles to guide the physical changes of the land including things such as; existing natural features shall be maintained and enhanced; attractive streetscapes designed for pedestrian ease of access; infill housing should generally be of a scale, type and density to compliment existing housing stock, streetscape and neighbourhood patterns and; design principles of safety and security through the sighting of buildings, entrances, walk ways, roads, and amenity and parking areas to provide visibility opportunities for informal surveillance.

13Mr. Evans opined that the proposed OPA, to designate the subject lands Medium Density Residential, provides an opportunity to create additional infill housing at a location and in a manner which is supportive of the goals and objectives of the in-effect Township of King Official Plan. Mr. Evans stated that it is rare to find a site like this in a location on a major arterial road within 300 m of the core. The proposed development is a compatible form generally in scale and density that allows a transition to the existing low-density development to the south and east. The proposal is oriented with eyes on the street and the internal units are set back from the surrounding low-density development to the south and east. The internal condominium road, combined with the buffer to the low-density development, will allow the transition from the proposed three stories to the two-storey low-density development to become almost unnoticeable. The proposed development is designed in a way to not negatively affect the valley feature in the northeast corner of the subject property.

14The current proposal limits access to Keele Street only and therefore alleviates the concerns of the ratepayer’s association that participated in this hearing, as the use of Dennison Street was to be as a full movement access to the subject property.

15The main issue for St. Andrews, related to the potential for overfull parking on St. Andrews property, across the road from the proposed development. Mr. Evans stated that 96 parking spaces are required for the proposed development, but 120 parking spaces are being offered. Also, the parent By-law does not require visitor parking but in this instance 13 visitor parking spaces are available internal to the development.

16It is Mr. Evan’s opinion that the proposed instruments are consistent with and conform to all policy documents.

17William Maria was qualified to give expert opinion evidence in the discipline of both transportation planning and transportation engineering. Mr. Maria briefly reviewed the details of his traffic study and stated that, although the existing proposal has access to the subject property through a full signalized intersection on Keele Street, opposite Norman Drive, the signalized intersection is not required. Although it will assist with respect to pedestrian crossing, but from a traffic impact perspective the former proposal with access onto Dennison Street was also acceptable. Mr. Maria also reviewed the internal site and the amount of parking that is contemplated, and it is his opinion that there are no concerns with the potential for parking offsite, given the supply.

18Sevan Torus was qualified to deliver opinion evidence in the areas of arboriculture and ecology. Mr. Torus reviewed the tree evaluation and inventory and noted the biggest change in the revised plans was the increased buffer between the internal condo road and the rear of the lots to the south and east of the subject property. This adjustment allowed more trees to be left in their natural state close to the property line and that other plantings would take place through the site plan stage. Mr. Torus opined there will be adequate screening in these setback areas.

19Mr. Torus also commented on the proposed variable width buffer along the valley section in the northeast corner the subject lands. A 30 m setback is required but the proposed set back will vary from 20 m to 46 m, but there is no net loss in buffer area. There will also be opportunities to plant native trees within the buffer area which is a positive change within the buffer to the valley lands. Mr. Torus also opined that there is no major impact on wildlife due to the tree cover in the valley and surrounding area.

20Having heard the uncontested opinion evidence from Mr. Evans, Mr. Maria and Mr. Torus in the disciplines of Planning, Transportation, Arboriculture and Ecology the Tribunal finds that the proposed development is consistent with the PPS , conforms to the Growth Plan, the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan 2017, the York Region Official Plan and has regard for the in force Township of King Official Plan and the KCCP.

21The Tribunal allows the appeals in part in order to accept the revised versions of each of the instruments.

22The Tribunal hereby approves all of the instruments before it, more specifically being as follows:

1. The final version of the OPA, being exhibit 11, appended to this decision as Attachment 1.
2. The final version of the proposed ZBA, being exhibit 12, appended to this decision as Attachment 2.
3. The final version of the draft PoS, being exhibit 9, appended to this decision as Attachment 3.
4. A consolidated version of the proposed draft plan conditions, currently included in exhibits 13a and 13b, to be consolidated and assigned as exhibit 14, appended to this decision as Attachment 4.

23The Tribunal withholds its order with respect to the ZBA subject to the following conditions:

1. Confirmation from the Township that its Council has assigned water and sanitary servicing allocation to those uses that require allocation;
2. Confirmation from the Township that a site plan has been approved by the Municipality and a Site Plan Development Agreement respecting the development of the use of the lands has been executed between the owner(s) and encumbrance(s), if any, of the these lands and the Municipality, and that such Agreement is registered on the title of the lands;
3. Confirmation from the Township Director of Public Works and/or appointed representatives that adequate water supply is available in the existing system to service domestic and fire flow demands required for the proposed development (per hydrant flow tests or system improvements);
4. Confirmation from the Township Director of Public Works and/or appointed representatives that adequate sanitary servicing capacity is available to service the development, based upon the completion and assessment of the 2020 Township Wastewater Servicing Plan, related protocols and required system improvements (if required); and
5. Confirmation from the Township that an agreement prohibiting pre-sales has been entered into by the Appellant.

24The Tribunal withholds its order on the draft PoS and draft plan conditions pending the outcome of a council meeting for the Region, taking place on June 24, 2021, in which the recommendation of the committee of the whole, with respect to the approval of a signalized intersection located at Keele Street, Norman Drive and the subject lands, will be considered and may be ratified.

25From the evidence tendered by Mr. Maria, the transportation witness, a signalized intersection is not required in this location, but he took no issue with it in the course of reaching this settlement. The Tribunal is satisfied that there are no transportation issues with respect to this development and therefore delegates the authority to the Township with respect to satisfying all of the conditions of draft approval. This includes any amendments necessary arising from the Region’s final decision on June 24, 2021. If any amendments are required, and not on consent of the parties, the Tribunal may be spoken to.

26The Tribunal also recognizes, to properly ensure that the ZBA reflects the necessary requirements, based on the context site plans as presented at this hearing, that there may be minor amendments, especially given the pending approval of the signalized intersection.

ORDER

27With respect to the OPA the Tribunal allows the appeal in part and the KCCP is modified as set out in Attachment 1, and as modified is approved.

28The Tribunal may be spoken to for any other matters that may arise.

JUNE 25, 2021 UPDATE FROM THE PARTIES

29The Tribunal is in receipt of an email from the parties notifying the Tribunal that, at the York Regional Council meeting on June 24, 2021, Council ratified the recommendations of the Committee of the Whole regarding the signalized intersection at Norman Drive, Keele Street and the proposed entrance to the subject lands and on consent of the parties, a request is made to issue the final order on the draft PoS and draft plan conditions, with no required amendments. The draft PoS and draft plan conditions are appended to this decision as Attachments 3 and 4.

30THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS that pursuant to subsection 51(56.1) of the Planning Act, the Township of King shall have the authority to clear the conditions of draft plan approval and to administer final approval of the plan of subdivision for the purposes of subsection 51(58) of the Act. In the event that there are any difficulties implementing any of the conditions of draft plan approval, or if any changes are required to be made to the draft plan, the Tribunal may be spoken to.

31The Tribunal is now left with one final order to issue, being the proposed ZBA, which is subject to the conditions imposed in its oral decision noted above.

“G.C.P. Bishop”

G.C.P. BISHOP

VICE CHAIR

Ontario Land Tribunal

Website: olt.gov.on.ca Telephone: 416-212-6349 Toll Free: 1-866-448-2248

The Conservation Review Board, the Environmental Review Tribunal, the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal and the Mining and Lands Tribunal are amalgamated and continued as the Ontario Land Tribunal.

ATTACHMENT 1

Authority: Local Planning Appeal Tribunal Decision issued on June 25, 2021 in Case No. PL190494

AMENDMENT NO. XX

TO THE OFFICIAL PLAN

OF THE

TOWNSHIP OF KING PLANNING AREA

Amendment to Township of King Official Plan Amendment No. 54 (King City Community Plan), as Amended by Official Plan Amendment No. 540 (Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan Amendment)

Part of Lot 55 and 56, Registered Plan 85, Lots 1 and 2

Registered Plan 360 and Part of Lot 7, Concession 3

13151, 13165, 13175, 13193 and 13211 Keele Street

Owner: Stateview Homes

June 2021

AMENDMENT NUMBER XX

TO THE OFFICIAL PLAN

FOR THE TOWNSHIP OF KING

PLANNING AREA

CONTENTS OF THIS DOCUMENT

PART A

THE PREAMBLE

A summary of the background and basis of this document.

PART B

THE AMENDMENT

The changes to be affected in the original Official Plan.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

PART A - THE PREAMBLE

1. Amendment Structure
2. Purpose
3. Location
4. Basis

PART B - THE AMENDMENT

1. Introduction
2. Details of the Amendment
3. Implementation and Interpretation
4. Schedule ‘1’
5. Schedule ‘2’

PART A

THE PREAMBLE

1. Amendment Structure

PART A - THE PREAMBLE is included for information purposes and is not an operative part of this Official Plan Amendment.

PART B - THE OFFICIAL PLAN AMENDMENT, including Schedules ‘1’ and ‘2’ attached thereto, indicates specific amendments to the Official Plan being affected by Official Plan Amendment No. XX and is an operative part of this Official Plan Amendment.

The APPENDICES are included for information purposes only and are not an operative part of this Official Plan Amendment. They include background reports relating to the preparation of the Official Plan Amendment.

2. Purpose

The purpose of the subject Official Plan Amendment (“OPA”) application is to provide site-specific policy for lands municipally described as 13151, 13165, 13175, 13193, and 13211 Keele Street as shown on Schedules “1” and “2” attached hereto. Specifically, this Amendment will change the land use designation from “Existing Low Density Residential Area” to “Medium Density Residential Area”, to permit a residential development consisting of forty-eight (48) freehold townhouse dwellings, tied to a common element road, serviced by municipal water and sanitary services.

This amendment also provides the opportunity to implement alternative minimum vegetation protection zones in areas shown on Schedule 2, as supported by the Studies submitted for the development applications, is consistent with policy 2.2.26 of the York Region Official Plan and Sections 21(3) and 21(4) of the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan without requiring further amendment to the Official Plan.

3. Location

The lands subject to this Amendment are shown on Schedule “1” attached hereto as “Area Subject to Amendment XX”. The subject lands are located at the north-east corner of the intersection of Keele Street and Dennison Street and are described as Part of Lot 55 and Lot 56, Registered Plan 85, Lots 1 and 2, Registered Plan 360 and Part of Lot 7, Concession 3. The lands are known municipally as 13151, 13165, 13175, 13193 and 13211 Keele Street.

4. Basis

The proposed OPA is appropriate, and represents good planning, based on the following:

I. It has regard to matters of Provincial interest under s. 2 of the Planning Act, particularly: the protection of natural areas, the adequate provision of sewage and water services, the orderly development of safe and healthy communities, the adequate provision of a full range of housing, the appropriate location of growth, the promotion of development that is designed to be sustainable, to support public transit and to be oriented to pedestrians; and the promotion of a built form that is well designed, encourages a sense of place, and provides for public spaces that are of high quality, safe, accessible, attractive and vibrant.

II. It is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, 2020. In particular:

• The OPA promotes efficient development and land use patterns that avoid public health and environmental concerns, make appropriate use of infrastructure in the area, and are compatible with the surrounding land uses. The development and intensification for a medium density residential development respects the land use pattern of the area (Policies 1.1.1(a) and (e)).

• The Subject Lands are located in a “Settlement Area” and the Township’s “Built-up Area”, and specifically are within a low-density area that is appropriate for minor intensification and redevelopment (Policies 1.1.3.3, 1.1.3.4 and 1.1.3.5)

• The OPA contributes to meeting the Township’s minimum intensification targets.

• The OPA supports an appropriate range and mix of housing types and densities required to meet projected residential growth (Policies 1.4.1 and 1.4.3(b).2).

III. The proposal conforms with the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe, A Place to Grow, 2020. In particular:

• The Subject Lands are within a “Settlement Area” and is within the Township’s “Built Boundary”, signifying that the location is appropriate for accommodating minor intensification in order to meet growth targets (Policies 2.1 and 2.2.1.2.(c)(i)).

• The proposal contributes to the Township’s minimum intensification target and housing supply while providing a mix of unit sizes (Policies 2.2.2, 2.2.6 and 2.2.6.3).

• The development provides for housing types that will be developed with high quality, thus ensuring the protection and enhancement of the existing neighbourhood character and land use.

IV. The OPA conforms with the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation

Plan (“ORMCP”). In particular:

• The OPA promotes the efficient use of land through intensification and redevelopment within an existing urban area (Policy 18(1)(b)).

• The proposal consists of a permitted use pursuant to the Official Plan for the Township of King Planning Area, as amended (Policy 18(3)).

• The ORMCP provides minimum vegetation protection zones for key natural heritage features located within the Plan Area. Sections 21(3) and 21(4) of the ORMCP allow for alternative minimum vegetation protection zones to be used, where supported by the appropriate approved environmental study. An amendment to the King City Community Plan is required to provide latitude for the establishment of alternative minimum vegetation protection zones for key natural heritage features, in select areas identified in Schedule 2, consistent with the policies of the ORMCP.

V. The OPA conforms with the Regional Municipality of York Official Plan. Specifically:

• The OPA directs growth through infill and intensification at an appropriate scale and contributes to meeting the minimum residential development target of 40% within the Built-up Area (Policy 5.3.1).

• The proposal contributes to meeting the Township’s residential intensification targets of 920 units within the 2006 to 2031 timeframe (Policy 5.3.3).

• As reflected in Policy 2.2.26, alternative minimum vegetation protection zones are permitted to be utilized, where supported by the appropriate approved environmental study.

VI. The OPA furthers the goals and objectives of the King City Community Plan (OPA540).

Specifically:

• The Amendment will permit a residential development that makes efficient use of available land and infrastructure while ensuring compatibility with surrounding land uses.

• The development provides for appropriate transition to the established low-density areas surrounding the subject lands through the side design and the use of setbacks, building heights and landscaping.

• The townhouse dwelling built form with a maximum height of three storeys is a permitted use within the Medium Density Residential Area designation and is consistent with the provisions of the designation.

• The proposed development has been reviewed for consistency with the Community Design policies of Section 9 and the development review criteria as per Section 10.

PART B

THE AMENDMENT

1. Introduction

All of this part of the document entitled PART B: THE AMENDMENT, consisting of the following text and the attached maps entitled Schedules ‘1’ and ‘2’ attached hereto, constitutes Amendment No. XX to the Official Plan for the Township of King Planning Area, as amended by Official Plan Amendment No. 540, to the Official Plan of the Township of King.

2. Details of the Amendment

The Official Plan of the Township of King Planning Area is further amended as follows:

Item 1:

Schedule 4, the Land Use and Transportation Strategy for the King City Community Plan, as amended by Official Plan Amendment No. 540, is further amended by changing the land use designation from “Existing Low Density Residential Area” to “Medium Density Residential Area – Policy 7.10.X” and “Environmental Protection Area” as shown on Schedule “1” to this Amendment.

Item 2:

Section 7.10 of the King City Community Plan (OPA 540), as amended, is hereby amended by adding the following Section:

7.10.XX

Part of Lot 55 and Lot 56, Registered Plan 85, Lots 1 and 2, Registered Plan 360

and Part of Lot 7, Concession 3

Township of King

Official Plan Amendment Number XX

Policies

Notwithstanding the provisions of Sections 7.10.1, 7.10.2, and 7.10.3 of this Plan the subject lands shall be developed in accordance with the following:

i. That the maximum density shall be 40 units per net residential hectare and shall not exceed a total of 48 units;

ii. That the permitted uses shall be limited to:

a. townhouse dwelling units, with freehold or condominium tenure, accessed through a private road.

b. home occupations subject to the regulations of the Zoning By-law;

iii. That the maximum building height shall be three (3) storeys above the finished grade;

iv. That the maximum number units within an individual block of townhouse dwelling units shall be six (6);

v. All development shall conform with the applicable policies of this Plan, particularly the Community Design Policies of Section 9.”

Item 3:

Section 4.2 of the King City Community Plan (OPA 540), as amended, is hereby amended by adding the following Section:

4.2.3.XX

Part of Lot 55 and Lot 56, Registered Plan 85, Lots 1 and 2, Registered Plan 360

and Part of Lot 7, Concession 3

Township of King

Official Plan Amendment Number XX

Policies

Notwithstanding the provisions of Sections 4.2.2 and 4.2.3 of this Plan the subject lands shall be developed in accordance with the following:

i. By adding Section 4.2.3.XX as follows:

“In the specific areas identified on Schedule 2 only, the size and extent of the minimum vegetation protection zones shall be identified through a Functional Servicing Study and/or an Environmental Impact Study (EIS). The EIS will include a natural heritage evaluation and/or hydrological evaluation, as required. These studies shall demonstrate that: (1) all feasible options have been considered to avoid reductions in the minimum vegetation protection zones; (2) provide justification for the reductions; (3) outline measures to minimize the impacts; and (4) outline compensation measures including robust restoration plantings and/or increased minimum vegetation protection zones in other areas. The extent of the minimum vegetation protection zones recommended in the natural heritage evaluation and/or hydrological evaluation will be to the satisfaction of York Region, the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority and the Township of King. Further, where any reduction of the minimum vegetation protection zone is permitted, appropriate compensation, restoration and/or rehabilitation of equivalent or greater lands elsewhere shall be required to be provided to the satisfaction of York Region, the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority and the Township of King”.

3. Implementation and Interpretation

Amendment No. XX to the Official Plan will be implemented and interpreted in accordance with the provisions of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.P.13, as amended, and the respective policies of the Official Plan of the Township of King Planning Area, as amended, specifically by the King City Community Plan (OPA 54) and as further amended by Official Plan Amendment No. 540, being the King City Community Plan in conformity with the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan.

In accordance with Section 12.4 of the Official Plan, the policies of the Township of King Official Plan pertaining to the subject lands will be implemented by way of an amendment to the Township of King Zoning By-law, and through Draft Plan of Subdivision, Draft Plan of Condominium, and Site Plan approvals, pursuant to the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended.

The boundaries of the subject lands shown on Schedules ‘1’ and ‘2’ attached hereto are approximate. Minor adjustments shall be permitted by the Township of King and shall not require a further amendment to this Official Plan as long as the intent of its policies is maintained.

The provisions of the Official Plan as amended from time to time regarding the interpretation of the Official Plan apply in relation to this Official Plan Amendment No. XX. In the event of conflict with the Official Plan or any amendment thereto, the provisions of this Official Plan Amendment No. XX shall prevail unless otherwise specified.

PLAN SHOWING

Part of Lot 55 and Lot 56, Registered Plan 85, Lots 1 and 2, Registered Plan 360

And Part of Lot 7, Concession 3

TOWNSHIP OF KING

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF YORK

From “Existing Low Density Residential Area” to “Medium Density Residential Area – Policy 7.10.XX”

From “Existing Low Density Residential Area” to Environmental Protection Area”

THIS IS SCHEDULE “1” TO OFFICIAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. XX

LAND USE SCHEDULE

PLAN SHOWING

Part of Lot 55 and Lot 56, Registered Plan 85, Lots 1 and 2, Registered Plan 360

And Part of Lot 7, Concession 3

TOWNSHIP OF KING

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF YORK

Potential areas for reduced MVPZ’s

(To the satisfaction of York Region, TRCA and Township of King)

THIS IS SCHEDULE “2” TO OFFICIAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. XX

Potential Minimum Vegetation Protection Zone (MVPZ) Reductions

ATTACHMENT 2

THE CORPORATION OF THE TOWNSHIP OF KING

BY-LAW NUMBER – 2021-0XX

BEING A BY-LAW TO AMEND ZONING BY-LAW NUMBER 2017-66, AS AMENDED

WHEREAS Zoning By-law Number 2017-66, being a By-law to regulate the use of land and the character, location and use of buildings and structures in the Township of King, was passed on the 26^th day of June, 2017;

AND WHEREAS it is deemed necessary to further amend By-law Number 2017-66, as amended, to implement Official Plan Amendment No. XX to the King City Community Plan;

AND WHEREAS authority is granted pursuant to Section 34 of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, Chapter P. 13, to the Council of the Corporation of the Township of King to exercise such powers;

NOW THEREFORE the Council of the Corporation of the Township of King HEREBY ENACTS AS FOLLOWS:

That Zoning By-law Number 2017-66, be amended as follows:

1. THAT the lands subject to this By-law consist of the lands described as Part of Lot 55 and 56, Registered Plan 85, Lots 1 and 2, Registered Plan 360 and Part of Lot 7, Concession 3, Township of King, in the Regional Municipality of York, municipally known as 13151, 13165, 13175, 13193 and 13211 Keele Street, as more particularly shown on Schedules “1” and “2” attached hereto.

2. THAT Schedules “1” and “2” attached hereto form a part of this By-law.

3. THAT for the subject lands shown on Schedules “1” and “2” attached hereto, Zoning By-law 2017-66 be amended as follows:

i. Changing the zone symbol from “Residential – Single Detached (R1)” and “Residential – Single Detached “C” (R1C) to “Residential – Townhouse – Exception Section 6.5.10.XX (R3-XX)” and “Residential – Townhouse – Exception Section 6.5.10.YY (R3-YY)” and “Environmental Protection (EP)” for those lands shown on Schedules “1” and “2” attached hereto.

4. THAT Section 6.5 of By-law Number 2017-66, as amended be further amended by adding the following subsection: 6.5.10.XX. The lands delineated as “Residential – Townhouse – Exception Section 6.5.10.XX (R3-XX)” as shown on Schedules “1” and “2” attached hereto, may be used in accordance with the following provisions:

i. Permitted uses shall include cluster townhouse dwellings and street townhouse dwellings, accessory uses, and home occupation uses.

ii. Notwithstanding Section 2.204, “street” shall also include a private condominium road. For the purposes of this By-law, a private condominium road shall mean a street owned, operated and maintained as a common element and subject to a condominium agreement and/or condominium corporation under the Condominium Act, 1998.

iii. That notwithstanding Section 2.116 “Lot” and Section 2.121 “Lot Line” of this By-law, the lot lines for a townhouse dwelling to be established by way of Section 50(7) of the Planning Act (Part Lot Control Exemption) will be deemed to be in place in accordance with a Site Plan as approved under Section 41 of the Planning Act, for the purpose of all yards, measurements, dimensions and similar requirements under Section 41 of the Planning Act, for the purpose of all yards, measurements, dimensions and similar requirements.

iv. For the purpose of this subsection, the front lot line shall be deemed to be the shortest lot line abutting a private condominium road;

v. That Section 3.3 shall not apply.

vi. Notwithstanding Section 3.12, no person shall be permitted to erect, reconstruct or enlarge a building or structure on any lot unless the lot has frontage on a public street or private condominium road.

vii. Notwithstanding Section 3.34, on any corner lot, a sight triangle shall be provided as a minimum of 5.0 metres for any road and arterial road.

viii. Notwithstanding Table 3.42.1 – Permitted Yard and Setback Encroachments, Porches, Decks and Balconies with or without roofs and with or without foundations may project into the front, rear and exterior side yard to a maximum of 2.5 metres and stairs shall be 1.0 metres from the lot line.

ix. Structures associated with a porch and or deck (including sills, belt courses, cornices, gutters, pilasters, eaves, parapets, canopies, overhands, railings, steps and masonry walls associated with gas, hydro and/or any mechanical utilities required for the dwellings) may encroach into the rear and front yard setbacks provided the structure is located no closer than 1.0 m from any side lot line.

x. That notwithstanding Table 4.1, in addition to the minimum number of parking spaces per dwelling unit, 0.25 visitor parking spaces per dwelling unit shall be provided. Further, the total required visitor parking spaces shall be calculated and distributed throughout the site and can be contained in both zone categories.

xi. That Section 4.3(d) shall not apply and that parking spaces to be dedicated as accessible are to be calculated for the required visitor parking in accordance with Table 4.3.1.

xii. That notwithstanding Section 4.4.1(b) the minimum dimensions of an accessible parking space designated in accordance with Section 4.3 shall be 3.4 m by 5.8 m and that a minimum 1.5 m walkway will be provided adjacent to any accessible parking space.

xiii. That the maximum width of a private garage shall be 3.5 m, measured between the interior walls of the private garage.

xiv. That notwithstanding Table 4.7.1, a minimum of 0.25 bicycle parking spaces shall be provided per dwelling unit. Further, the total required bicycle parking spaces shall be calculated and distributed throughout the site and can be contained in both zone categories.

xv. That where the front face of an attached private garage faces the front lot line, the front face of a garage shall be located at least 1.5 m further from the front lot line than either the portion of the dwelling closest to the front lot line or the portion of the porch closest to the front lot line.

xvi. That the minimum lot area shall be 150 m².

xvii. That the minimum lot frontage shall be 6.0 m for an interior lot and 7.4 m for a corner lot.

xviii. That the minimum front yard shall be 5.0 m, or 2.5 m for a corner lot.

xix. That the minimum front yard shall be 6.0m to the attached private garage.

xx. That the minimum interior side yard shall be 0.0 m or 3.0 m between blocks.

xxi. That the minimum exterior side yard shall be 1.5 m.

xxii. That the minimum rear yard shall be 7.5 m.

xxiii. That the maximum lot coverage shall be 60%.

xxiv. That the maximum height shall be 12.5 m.

xxv. That the minimum pervious surface (as a percentage of the lot) shall be 20%.

xxvi. That the minimum pervious surface (as a percentage of the front yard) shall be 20%.

xxvii. That notwithstanding Section 2.149 of this By-law, pervious surfaces shall include interlock pavers and inground swimming pools, subject to the maintenance of a 0.6 metre setback along all lot lines.

5. That 6.5 of By-law Number 2017-66, as amended be further amended by adding the following subsection: 6.5.10.YY . The lands delineated as “Residential – Townhouse – Exception Section 6.5.10.YY (R3-YY)” as shown on Schedules “1” and “2” attached hereto, may be used in accordance with the following provisions:

i. Permitted uses shall include street townhouse dwellings, accessory uses and home occupations;

ii. Notwithstanding Section 2.204, “Street” shall also include a private and/or condominium road;

iii. That notwithstanding Section 2.116 “Lot” and Section 2.121 “Lot Line” of this By-law, the lot lines for a townhouse dwelling to be established by way of Section 50(7) of the Planning Act (Part Lot Control Exemption) will be deemed to be in place in accordance with a Site plan as approved under Section 41 of the Planning Act, for the purpose of all yards, measurements, dimensions and similar requirements under Section 41 of the Planning Act, for the purpose of all yards, measurements, dimensions and similar requirements.

iv. For the purpose of this subsection, the front lot line shall be the lot line abutting a public street.

v. That Section 3.3 shall not apply.

vi. Notwithstanding Section 3.34, on any corner lot, a sight triangle shall be provided as a minimum of 5.0 metres for any road and arterial road.

vii. Notwithstanding Table 3.42.1 – Permitted Yard and Setback Encroachments, Porches, Decks and Balconies may project into the rear and exterior side yard to a maximum of 2.8 metres and stairs shall be a minimum of 1.0 m from the lot line.

viii. Notwithstanding Table 3.42.1 – Permitted Yard and Setback Encroachments, Porches, with or without roofs and with or without foundations may project into the required front yard to a maximum of 2.0 m.

ix. Structures associated with a porch and or deck (including sills, belt courses, cornices, gutters, pilasters, eaves, parapets, canopies, overhands, railings, steps and masonry walls associated with gas, hydro and/or any mechanical utilities required for the dwellings) may encroach into the rear and front yard setbacks provided the structure is located no closer than 1.0 m from any side lot line.

x. That notwithstanding Table 4.1, in addition to the minimum number of parking spaces per dwelling unit, 0.25 visitor parking spaces per dwelling unit shall be provided. Further, the total required visitor parking spaces shall be calculated and distributed throughout the site and can be contained in both zone categories.

xi. That Section 4.3(d) shall not apply and that parking spaces to be dedicated as accessible are to be calculated for the required visitor parking in accordance with Table 4.3.1.

xii. That notwithstanding Section 4.4.1(b) the minimum dimensions of an accessible parking space designated in accordance with Section 4.3 shall be 3.4 m by 5.8 m and that a minimum 1.5 m walkway will be provided adjacent to any accessible parking space.

xiii. That the maximum width of a private garage shall be 5.8 m, measured between the interior walls of the private garage.

xiv. That notwithstanding Table 4.7.1, a minimum of 0.25 bicycle parking spaces shall be provided per dwelling unit. Further, the total required bicycle parking spaces shall be calculated and distributed throughout the site and can be contained in both zone categories.

xv. That notwithstanding Section 4.4.2, a driveway is permitted in the rear yard via access from a private and/or condominium road.

xvi. That no driveways, parking spaces and/or parking areas shall be permitted in the front yard.

xvii. That no accessory buildings or structures shall be permitted in the front yard.

xviii. That the minimum lot area shall be 120 m².

xix. That the minimum lot frontage shall be 6.0 m, or 7.4 m for a corner lot.

xx. That the minimum front yard shall be 3.0 m, or 1.0 m where the front yard abuts a sight triangle.

xxi. That the minimum interior side yard shall be 0.0 m or 3.5 m between blocks.

xxii. That the minimum exterior side yard shall be 1.5 m, or 1.0 m where the exterior side yard abuts a sight triangle.

xxiii. That the minimum rear yard shall be 6.0 m.

xxiv. That the maximum lot coverage shall be 60%.

xx5. That the maximum height shall be 12.5 m.

xxvi. That the minimum pervious surface (as a percentage of the lot) shall not apply.

xxvii. That the minimum pervious surface (as a percentage of the front yard) shall be 20%.

6. THAT Schedule “A4” of Zoning By-law 2017-66 is hereby further amended by changing the zone symbol on the lands described in Section 3 above from “Residential – Single Detached (R1)” and “Residential – Single Detached “C” (R1C) to “Residential – Townhouse – Exception Section 6.5.10.XX (R3-XX)” and “Residential – Townhouse – Exception Section YY (R3-YY)” and “Environmental Protection (EP)” as illustrated on Schedules “1” and “2” attached hereto.

7. THAT this By-law shall come into force on the day it was passed where no notice of appeal has been filed with the Township Clerk in accordance with the requirements and within the time prescribed under Section 34 (19) of the Planning Act.

READ a FIRST and SECOND time this XX day of XX, 2021.

READ a THIRD time and FINALLY PASSED this XX day of XX, 2021.

Steve Pellegrini Mayor

Kathryn Moyle Director of Corporate Services Township Clerk

THIS IS SCHEDULE “1” TO BY-LAW NO. 2021-XX

Part of Lot 55 and 56, Registered Plan 85, Lots 1 and 2, Registered Plan 360 and Part of Lot 7, Concession 3

13151, 13165, 13175, 13193 and 13211 Keele Street

TOWNSHIP OF KING

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF YORK

Steve Pellegrini Mayor

Kathryn Moyle Director of Corporate Services Township Clerk

THIS IS SCHEDULE “2 ” TO BY-LAW NO. 2021-XX

Part of Lot 55 and 56, Registered Plan 85, Lots 1 and 2, Registered Plan 360 and Part of Lot 7, Concession 3

13151, 13165, 13175, 13193 and 13211 Keele Street