Expansion or Intensification? Can we/should we have both?

[posting]

http://www.kingstonelectors.ca/article.php?id=306

At the link above you will find the discussion on whether the city should allow development beyond the original recommendation of the Consultant's report on the Urban Growth Strategy. Pictures, maps and comments will be posted as they are received.

[posting]

When flying over Mile Square recently, bulldozers were spotted. The attached photos are taken from the ground, but they show an area greater than the size of a football field that has been cleared and filled.

City of Kingston - Kingston West, "Mile Square" boundaries:

Mile Square
Taylor Kidd Blvd. - north boundary
Collins Bay (water) - south boundary
Collins Bay Rd. - east boundary
Coronation Blvd. - west boundary

This cleared area is off Coronation Blvd and it is at the end of the dirt road where there used to be a strawberry farm many years ago, directly across from Golf Course Road. There isn't a fire post number on the entrance any longer. It is between 439 and 447 fire post.

It is disheartening that there is no development application posted on Coronation Blvd at the entrance nor is a permit posted for the removal of all those trees. On an older map, the map shows that the particular section of Mile Square is owned by Stuart McCullough. However, that may not be the current owner.

Looking at another map from 1989 of the Mile Square Concept Plan that included a golf course residential neighbourhood, the continuation of Golf Course Road to the east of Coronation Blvd is shown on that concept plan and this is exactly the road that has been extended and a cul de sac has been cleared and created. The concept plan shows that the cul de sac should next be branched off to a road to the north and a road to the east and both those roads wrap around the outer golf course. It appears that Mile Square has just started development although no development application is posted.

Based on the response from City Hall, we think we now understand the loophole in the tree conservation bylaw that opens the door to clear cutting and development in Mile Square and likely, many more developments.

The tree conservation bylaw applies to development lands; not private residences. There are cities whose tree bylaws applies to private residences, but Kingston's bylaw in its first written form does not. Mile Square, in this example, is divided into plots and each plot is owned by individual citizens. Collectively, they are called the Mile Square Landowners Group. Since they have not applied for development as of yet, e landowners still own their plot as a private residence.

As such, private residences are allowed to clear their property any way they wish; they just can't construct a structure without applying to City Hall. The tree bylaw also does not apply to them since they have not applied for development.

Therefore, the landowner of this one plot east of Coronation and across from Golf Course Road can clear his land of trees and make the roads according to the Concept Plan for the subdivision as long as he does not start building structures. This loophole in the tree bylaw and development process will allow the landowner to prep his land exactly to the Concept Plan without "contravention of any City By-laws".

Reference:

The City of Kingston has started to define "neighbourhoods" within the city as described below. Mile Square is neighbourhood 44 on the attached PDF file (880KB).

City of Kingston Neighbourhood Profiles Project

In an effort to understand the needs of Kingston communities, improve planning and deliver services as effectively as possible, the City is proposing the definition of 42 distinct "neighbourhoods" based on areas of common social, physical and political attributes.

Unlike the City's 12 electoral districts, these neighbourhoods are fundamentally based on "census dissemination areas," which are the smallest units (one or more neighbouring blocks with populations of 400 to 700 persons) defined by Statistics Canada. The City has grouped five to seven of these "dissemination areas" in most proposed neighbourhoods using a number of criteria, of which current electoral boundaries are just one.

Where possible, the names proposed for the neighbourhoods were based on commonly used names for areas of the City. Planners realize that there may be differences of opinion on these names and the boundaries, so have recommended that these issues be subject to public review and comment.

>> See proposed neighbourhoods in PDF map below

[Valley]

It appears that the Mile Square incremental development work points to some significant flaws in both the current Official Plan and the Tree Protection by-law for the City of Kingston

[andrewpmk]

Since we have no shortage of brownfields, industrial areas, vacant buildings and parking lots, we should develop them before we even start think of allowing developers to have their way. Even downtown, we still have several vacant lots and empty buildings which we could redevelop: the old TD Bank at King & Brock, the old Royal Bank on Princess Street, the parking lot beside city hall, the empty lot behind the old Whig building, the "North Block", and the parking lot by the Wolfe Island ferry dock. There are likely several sites which I have omitted. There are even more in north, west and east Kingston. When the development of new land is required, the currently underdeveloped east end should be developed first as it is closer to downtown; the city should meanwhile prohibit any additional expansion of the city to the west.

[SLN]

I object to this type of postal code classification. It's so bourgeois - I mean I'm in district 13. The area they've got marked has every type of person in it... very low income, very high income. Lots of rental properties, lots of high end single family homes, condos and your average bungalows. The people on my street work in very different areas: Healthcare, law enforcement, one runs an alternative school, one is a trainer on the base, some are retired, we've got a plumber, students, secretaries, marrieds, singles, college profs, city of Kingston employees, you name it. Conservative, Liberal, Green, NDP... athiests, Jews, Christians, Muslims... straight and gay, dog owners and cat owners.

What purpose is this hoping to serve, anyway? I know my car insurance apparently is higher based on the "poor credit scores" of people in my postal code. Is that what this is all about? Grouping people into risk categories or categories of deservedness for emergency services, garbage pick-up, street repair?

Seems like a bogus waste of time, to me. Councilors are supposed to be in City Hall to represent the DIVERSE needs of their constituents. I'm sure they do it far better than any map could.