Loading...
MINUTES - Special Council - 19861217( c· MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL COUNCIL MEETING HELD IN THE BOARDROOM AT THE YORK REGION BOARD OF EDUCATION, WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 17, 1986 AT 7:32P.M. Present Were: Mayor West; Councillors Barker, Jones, McKenzie, Paivio, Pedersen and Weller. Absent Were: Councillor Buck due to vacation and Councillor Timpson due to illness. Also in attendance were K.B. (9:51 p.m.); C.E. Gowan, Clerk; L. Allison, Deputy Clerk. Rodger, Chief Administrative Officer S. Seibert, Director of Planning; and Mayor West advised those present that this meeting had been called as a Public Meeting with respect to applications for amendment to the Zoning By-law for 678192 Ontario Limited, Chatterly Corporation, 578331 Ontario Inc., and Corridor Enterprises and app 1 i cations for amendment to the Official Plan for the Chatterly Corporation and Corridor Enterprises - Avery-Boland. The Deputy Clerk advised that the required notices of meeting were mailed on November 11, 1986 by First Class mail, to addresses within 120 metres of the areas, as shown on the last revised assessment roll of the Town of Aurora to which the By-laws would apply. The necessary signs were posted on the various. properties in accordance with the rules of procedure under the Planning Act (1983). Mayor West advised that any persons who wished further notice of the passage of the By-laws under consideration should sign the forms available before they leave the meeting. A. PLANNING APPLICATIONS The public meeting to consider Application No. Z-41-86 began and Mayor, West requested that S. Seibert outline her report. Proposal-Application No. Z-41-86 (678192 Ontario Limited) Location The subject lands are located on the north side of Bloomington Sideroad between Yonge and Bathurst Streets. (Map 1) The proposed plan is an extension of the Hunter Hills/Elderberry Trail development, Registered Plan M-42, to the west. The surrounding lands are primarily rural with some estate residential and institutional development to the east. Lands to the south in Richmond Hill have been designated for Urban Residential development. The lands were formerly agricultural and now remain vacant. The site has a rolling topography which is characterized by a height of 1 and forming a spine westward from the center of the site and a series of moderate and gentle slopes extending to the north and south. Proposal The app 1 i cants propose to amend the zoning by-1 aw applying to the subject lands from ''RU -Rural General'' to ''ER-Estate Residential'' and "RU-Rural General" to allow part of the area to be developed for a plan of subdivision containing thirty estate type lots, approximately .8 hectare (2 acres) in size and one large block of land fronting on Bathurst Street which is to remain Rural in land use. (Map 2) Official Plan The subject lands are currently designated ''Estate Residential" and ''Rural'' by Official Plan Amendment No. 20. "The predominant use of land in the Estate Residential area shall be dwellings on lots sufficient in size so as to essentially retain the rural character of the area. The physical scale and nature of the residential development shall be such that the rural character of the area is not replaced by a predominant, built-up, urban appearance." Estate Residential development shall be designed and located in such a manner so as to preserve the natural and visual characteristics of the surrounding lands. Dwellings are to be situated so as to minimize the impact of development on the landscape and shall be serviced with a private well, septic tank and tile field system. COUNCIL MEETING ••. WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 17, 1986 - 2 - "The predominant use of 1 and in the Rura 1 area sha 11 be for agriculture, forestry and activities connected with the conservation of soil and wildlife." The proposed use would conform to the Official Plan. Zoning By-law The lands are currently zoned "RU-Rural General". Agency Concerns Canadian National Railways (by letter dated December 4, 1986) No objection provided standards for noise, vibration and impact mitigation are complied with. We specifically request the requirement of a "setback of dwe 11 ings from the railway right-of-way to be be a minimum 30 metres" be incorporated in the proposed by-law. All other concerns regarding the proposed development were addressed during the draft approva 1 process. The fo 11 owing 1 oca 1 and pro vi nci a 1 agencies were consulted and had no objections: -Regional Planning -Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority -Regional Engineering -Ministry of Natural Resources -Ministry of Agriculture and Food -Ministry of Transportation and Communication -Regional Medical Officer of Health Planning Considerations The purpose of the proposed By-law is to rezone the subject lands from "RU - Rural General" to "ER -Estate Residential" and "RU -Rural General", thereby implementing draft approved plan of subdivision 19T-84079. The proposal would conform to the Official Plan provided that the relevant Estate Residential development policies can be satisfied. As a condition of draft approval the applicants have been requested to prepare a master landscape plan which is satisfactory to the Town of Aurora, the Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority and the Regional Medical Officer of Health which will detail planting, grading, ponding and house, tile field, well and driveway locations. The C.N.R. setback requirement of 30 metres can be incorporated in the proposed by-law as an exception to the ER-Estate Residential provisions. All other concerns of the local and provincial agencies consulted have been satisfied through the conditions of draft approval. Concerns: none the proponent indicated concurrence with the matters contained in the letter from Blue Hills Academy appended to the Report The Public Meeting concerning the application closed and Council's consideration began. Jones: Barker: Resolved that the By-law be prepared subject to the conditions outlined in the Report being satisfied. CARRIED The Public Meeting then reopened with the consideration of Application Nos. OP-42-86 and Z-43-86. COUNCIL MEETING •.. WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 17, 1986 - 3 - Mayor West requested Mrs. Seibert to outline her report respecting these applications. Proposal -Application Nos. OP-42-86 and Z-43-86 (Chatterly Corporation) Location The subject lands are a 24.96 ha (61.6 acre) parcel located at the southeast corner of Bathurst Street and St. John's Sideroad. Proposa 1 The applicants propose to amend the land use designation applying to the subject lands from ''Rural" to ''Urban Separator" and "Suburban Residential'' in the Official Plan of the Aurora Planning Area and the Zoning Category from "RU -Rural General" to "ER -Estate Residential", "R1 -Detached Dwelling First Density Residential" and " 0-Major Open Space" to allow the area to be developed for a plan of subdivision containing 77 large urban lots, 4 estate type lots and 2 open space blocks. The estate type lots, approximately .8 hectares (2 acres) in size, would be located in the "Urban Separator" area which is located along the northerly edge of the property, fronting on St. John's Sideroad. The remaining large urban lots, approximately .2 hectares (.5 acres) in size, and the open space block would be located in the "Suburban Residential" area immediately to the south of the Urban Separator. OFFICIAL PLAN The subject lands are currently designated "Rural" by the Aurora Official Plan. To implement the proposed plan of subdivision, the 1 ands would have to be redesignated to "Suburban Residential" and "Urban Separator". The policies for each are as follows: 3.11 Urban Separator 3.11.1 General Principles It is the intent of this Plan to maintain an identifiable and distinct community by providing an area of no urban-scale development which will separate the urban areas of Aurora from the adjacent municipalities. Those areas designated Urban Separator shall be used for the purpose of retaining the rural character of the lands adjacent to the major transportation arterials as well as Aurora's neighbouring municipalities. 3.11.2 Permitted Uses The Urban Separator classification of land means that the permitted uses of lands so designated are limited to those which have a large open space component. Uses permitted inc 1 ude very 1 arge residential lots, institutional uses on large lots which are compatible with a rural setting, very limited commercial uses on large lots, such as country inns, horse riding establishments, hobby farms and such other uses as are considered compatible with the goal of ensuring an urban separator and maintaining the rural appearance of the area. Uses accessory to any of the above uses are also permitted. 3.11.3 Policies (a) All proposals for development in the area designated Urban Separator shall be subject to a site plan agreement which will include a detailed landscaping plan. (b) All lots created in the Urban sufficiently large as to achieve rural appearance within the area. Separator area shall be the goal of maintaining a "~'' COUNCIL MEETING .•. WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 17, 1986 - 4 - (c) It is intended that in the Urban Separator, natural vegetation, and in particular existing woodlots, shall be maintained. Buildings, where permitted, shall be located so as to cause as 1 ittle disturbance to the natural vegetation and landscape as possible. Regard shall be had to the policies of Section 5.3.3, Forest Resources, of this Plan. (d) Parking areas shall be screened from the streets by planting and landscaping. Parking areas will be located as far from major streets as practical and, where possible, behind buildings. (e) Signs will be kept as unobtrusive as possible and will be limited to locations specified in the site plan agreement. (f) The average depth of the Urban Separator adjacent to arterial tracts is 100 metres except where otherwise shown on Schedule "A", attached to and forming part of this Plan. Residential lots may extend into the Urban Separator provided that no buildings are erected within 100 metres of the abutting arterial road. (g) It shall be the policy of this Plan that all Urban Separator uses shall be zoned in a separate zoning category in the implementing zoning by-law. Suburban Residential Policies i) That Suburban Residential shall include single family units only with a minimum lot area of 0.2 hectares (one-half acres). ii) That all Suburban Residential lots shall be of sufficient size, type and adequate physical characteristics to meet the requirements of the Regional Medical Officer of Health in regard to the proper functioning of a Class IV type individual sewage disposal system. iii)That the municipality will exercise discretion in the review of proposed development in "Suburban Residential" areas so as to ensure that lot sizes or densities relate satisfactorily to the physical characteristics, such as topography and soils, of the particular site. iv) That in order to assist Council in determining suitable lot design, applicants for deve 1 opment proposa 1 s in areas designated for Suburban Residential land use will be required to produce detailed reports and mapping at a minimum scale of 1:1,200 (1" -100') showing existing grades, vegetation cover, soil characteristics and groundwater levels. The report should also provide detailed proposals concerning the following: a) b) c) d) methods of erosion control and slope stabilization the locations of and methods of ensuring proper functioning of the septic tank systems and title fields approximate building driveway locations proposed alterations to grades and vegetation cover The Ministry of Natural Resources, the South Lake Simcoe Conservation Authority and the Medical Officer of Health will be consulted to assist Council in evaluating proposed development. v) Where the existing topography and vegetation pro vi des inadequate screening adjacent to Regional roads, tree planting and landscaping shall be provided in order to screen dwellings from vehicular traffic and to provide as much privacy and enclosure as possible. vi) No dwelling shall be erected where there is danger of flooding, subsidence or erosion. COUNCIL MEETING ... WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 17, 1986 - 5 - Agency Comments Building Department I think the proposal would be compatible with the existing residential development abutting to the south, and in keeping with the Urban Separator in the Official Plan. Ministry of Agriculture and Food We have given consideration to the proposal for a subdivision of approximately 77 lots on the subject 61 acres. Consideration by the staff of this Ministry was given to proposal in light of the goals and objectives of the Ministry and in terms of the criteria and policies outlined in the Food Land Guidelines which support those goals and objectives. The subject site is mostly cleared, save for woodland Under the Canada Land Inventory for agri cultura 1 soils, are rated as 80 percent class 1 and 20 percent class 4. are affected by adverse topography. to the southeast. the subject 1 ands The class 4 soils While the subject lands may be "the last parcel of land in the developed quadrant" to the south and east, the lands are part of an agricultural continuum that extends westerly into King Township. There are two parts in particular, but not only two, in the Food Land Guidelines which relate to the proposed development. Firstly, the Guidelines speak to estate residential development in Section 3.12. Estate residential development is understood to mean subdivision development with large lots and no or limited services (e.g.,. only municipal water). The Guidelines state that such development may be . permitted by a municipality only on lands of low agricultural capability (i.e., classes 5, 6 or 7 soils) which are well removed from agricultural activities. Secondly, if the proposal is intended as urban residential development with full services, Section 3.12, 3.14 and 3.15 apply. That is to say, when agricultural lands are to be considered for the development of nonfarm uses, such use of the lands is to be documented. The documentation is to include justification of the use (i.e.,. need for additional residential land), of the area required, and of the proposed and alternative locations •• From the above, you will be able to conclude that the development does not comply with Section 3.12. Alternatively, if a full-services development is proposed, we require documentation which satisfies the requirements of the Guidelines. Based on present knowledge, we would be opposed to any residential development of the subject lands. Finally we note that the Town of Aurora is in the process of updating its Official Plan. We recommend that if any development of the subject land is to be considered, such development be evaluated only in the context of that review. Ministry of Natural Resources The site of the proposed amendments 1 i es in headwater areas of the Holland River. Further downstream, the river has been identified as supporting warmwater fisheries. It is the objective of this ministry to protect such watercourses from the negative impact resulting from development so as to pro vi de opportunities for recreation a 1 and economic benefits, consistent with the maintenance of healthy fish communities. The Ministry is confident, however, that our concerns can be addressed at the subdivision approval stage. Based on the above, we would have no objection to the approval of the official plan and zoning by-law amendments. COUNCIL MEETING ... WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 17, 1986 - 6 - Agenci~s indicating no objection Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority Municipal Engineer Fire Department Leisure Services Regional Medical Officer of Health Planning Considerations The applicant proposed to redesignate the subject lands from "Rural" to "Suburban Residential" and "Urban Separator" to enable the development of 77 half acre and 4 two acre residential lots. The subject lands are gently rolling and contain little vegetation save for a woodlot which covers the southeast corner of the property. A small swale which contains a seasonal watercourse runs through the center of the property. No serious constraints to development exist. To the north of the property across St. John's Sideroad are agricultural lands as are the lands to the west in King Township. To the east are the Willow Farms lands which are designated "Special Urban Residential" and "Urban Separator". To the south is existing residential development. It has been a pol icy of Council to provide for a gradual transition from rural to urban in the peripheral areas of the Town. The proposed redesignation to "Urban Separator" and "Suburban Residential" would enable this through the policies of the respective designations. The "Urban Separator" designation is intended to have a large open space component and permit such uses which are compatible with a rural setting. This would include very large residential lots. The "Suburban Residential" designation permits residential lots of not less than 0.2 ha (1/2 acre) in area. The proposed redesignation would appear to be compatible with the surrounding land uses, both existing and proposed. The applicant has already submitted a woodland study, a buffer planting scheme for the Bathurst Street and St. John's Sideroad frontage and a plan of subdivision. Before any lands are redesignated the applicant should be required to submit the fo 11 owing: 1) Documentation justifying the need for residential land to the Ministry of Agriculture and Food. 2) A detailed landscape analysis of the site, undertaken by a qualified Landscape Architect which shall include slope analysis and soil suitability investigations as well as a detailed tree preservation schedule. Concerns: preservation of a buffer of trees in the southeast quadrant to provide screening from the lots on Tribbling Crescent proposed improvements to the St. John's Sideroad increased traffic on the St. John's Sideroad between Bathurst Street and Dufferin Street as a result of this development removal of large apple tree from the lands proposed to be developed exclusion of Urban Separator designation along the west side of the proposed plan possible future severance of the four estate lots fronting on St. John's Sideroad lack of parkland lack of road connection to lands to the south proposed development premature the lot sizes proposed not compatible with lands on the north side of St. John's Sideroad rural appearance will not be maintained berm and landscaping on Bathurst Street will not provide satisfactory screen proposed road to Willow Farm lands should be eliminated lack of schools in area to serve future residents poor soil conditions in certain areas will make development difficult effect of development on wells in the vicinity ( COUNCIL MEETING ... WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 17, 1986 - 7 - The Public Meeting closed and Council began deliberation on the matter. Barker: McKenzie: Resolved that further consideration of these applications be deferred until the concerns set out in the Report of the Planner are addressed. Be It Further Resolved that these applications be referred to the ongoing review of the draft Official Plan. CARRIED The Public Meeting then reopened with consideration of Application No. Z-44-86. Proposal -Application No. Z-44-86 (578331 Ontario Inc. -Greenham) Mr. M. Medelow, an architect representing the owners of the subject lands, requested that consideration of the application be deferred as he was in the process of examining new information. It was requested that the application be heard by Council at the next public meeting. The Public Meeting concerning this application closed and the Council meeting reopened. Jones: Pedersen: Resolved that this matter be deferred and that same be included on the agenda of the first available Public Meeting for consideration. CARRIED The Pub 1 i c Meeting then reopened with consideration of Application Nos. OP-45-86 and Z-39-85. The Director of Planning was requested to detail her report on this subject. Proposal -Application Nos. OP-45-86 and Z-39-85 (Corridor Enterprises) Location The subject lands comprise two properties, the Avery & Boland and Corridor Enterprises properties, 1 ocated at the northeast corner of Henderson Drive and Bathurst Street (Map 1). The surrounding lands to the north and east are urban residential with a large woodlot to the south and some rural residential development to the west bordering Bathurst Street in King Township. With the exception of a few existing dwellings and part of Phase I of the Corridor Registered Plan No. 65M-2281 the subject lands are vacant (Map 2). The topography of the site is highly variable and in the areas shown as Blocks 'A' and 'B' on the Corridor Plan and the Avery & Boland lands it is heavily treed. The woodlots are fairly rna ture and contain some severe slopes. An intermittent stream runs through Block 'B' and in the northerly part of Block 'A'. The area abutting the Henderson Drive and Bathurst Street intersection is quite open as is the area to the south of Block 'B'. Proposal The applicants propose to amend the 1 and use designation applying to the subject lands owned by Corridor Enterprises and Avery & Boland, from Suburban Residential to Urban Residential in the Official Plan of the Aurora Planning Area (Map 3) and the zoning category applying to the Corridor property from "H -Holding" to "R1 -Detached Dwelling First Density Res i denti a 1", "R2 -Detached Owe ll i ng Second Density Res i denti a 1" and "H - Holding" to allow the Corridor property to be developed for a plan of subdivision containing 101 urban lots, approximately 460 square metres (4,951 square feet) in size, 6 large urban lots, approximately 0.2 hectares (0.5 acres) in size and 2 future residential blocks (Map 4). Background Information This application is the latest in a series of proposals put forth by the applicants, Corridor Enterprises, to pro vi de for the deve 1 opment of a new plan of subdivision (Phase II) on the subject property. COUNCIL MEETING ••. WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 17, 1986 - 8 - A plan of subdivision was originally submitted on this property in 1974 but was rejected as it did not conform to the Official Plan. In 1979, the lands were redesignated for Suburban Res i denti a 1 and some Urban Res i denti a 1 and Major Open Space development through the Aurora West Secondary Plan. That same year a plan of subdivision (Phase I) was submitted but considered premature at the time due to water servicing problems. By 1981, a plan for part of the subdivision (68 lots) which could be serviced was approved on the basis that a second access in the form of McClenny Drive was provided. Subsequently, 34 additional lots were approved a 1 ong McClenny Drive once a supp 1 ementary agreement, that saw a hookup to the Bathurst Street waterma in, was approved. Four of these 1 ots remain unregistered at this point in time pending fulfillment of conditions of road access for Phase II. In May of 1985 a new plan of subdivision (Phase II) was submitted for 114 1 ots on the remaining Corridor 1 ands. A number of concerns were brought forward on several issues which included; road access, lot size and configuration, site grading, parkland dedication and the treatment of the Major Open Space component. The major concerns, however, were the continuity between the Corridor 1 ands and the Avery & Boland 1 ands to the north and west and the treatment of the Major Open Space Component. Concerns over the northerly cul-de-sac of the Avery & Boland property and the western cul-de-sac of the Corridor proposa 1 expressed the need for a continuous road. The Town presented a series of alternatives which included investigating the possibility of: 1. joining the two culs-de-sac to form a crescent 2. extending the Corridor cul-de-sac into the Avery & Boland proposal 3. widening Street A of the Corridor Plan so a divided entrance could be provided. Concerns were also expressed that the Town would not accept the two proposed Major Open Space blocks as the 5% parkland obligation for the plan of subdivision due to the fact that the lands were heavily treed and sloping. In response to these concerns the Town received additional information and a number of new propos a 1 s. The p 1 anni ng consultants for the Avery & Bo 1 and property advised the Town that based on preliminary engineering reports the joining of the two culs-de-sac or the extension of the Corridor cul-de-sac was not feasible due to the need for extensive grading and tree removal on the property at that particular site. Corridor's response came in the form of a revised plan based on an alternative Willis Drive extension into the Avery & Boland Plan. This proposal drew opposition from the Leisure Services Committee. A public meeting to consider the latest revisions was scheduled than rescheduled pending the receipt of this new application. Therefore, the rezoning application for the Corridor lands has not yet been resolved and the new application now before Council is the applicant's final revised submission for both an Official Plan Amendment on the Corridor and Avery & Boland properties and a rezoning of the Corridor property. Official Plan The subject lands were designated Suburban Residential and Major Open Space through the Aurora West Secondary Plan. The major objectives of this Plan were to provide for the logical extension of urban development in the Town of Aurora in a manner which would complement the existing low density residential character and to protect the present character of existing housing and adjacent rural lands through the establishment of Suburban Residential areas along Bathurst Street. Suburban Res i denti a 1 Deve 1 opment permits single family dwe 11 ings on 1 ots with a minimum area of 0.2 hectares (0.5 acres) on municipal water and private sewage disposal units. Lands designated for Major Open Space are intended primarily for the preservation and conservation of the natural landscape and/or environment. ''··~ COUNCIL MEETING ... WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 17, 1986 - 9 - Official Plan Amendment No. 27 redesignated a portion of the subject lands to Urban Residential to allow for limited low density Urban development to proceed with a municipal water supply and sanitary sewers. The proposed amendment redesignates an additional portion of the Suburban Residential lands to Urban Residential to allow for a plan of subdivision on municipal services. Urban Residential Development permits single family, semidetached, on-street townhouse units, and other similar low density housing types at a maximum density of 16.0 units per net hectare (6.5 units per acre). Urban Residential uses shall be permitted only on the basis of the availability of municipal water supply and sanitary sewers. The proposed development is based on single family units at a density of approximately 10.9 units per net hectare (4.4 units per net acre). Full municipal services are proposed. Zoning By-law The subject lands are currently zoned "H -Holding". This zone is applied to lands which are intended for future development the plans for which are uncertain. Agency Comments Building Department (by letter dated November 18, 1986) Express concern with the lack of consistency of the size of frontages of flankage lots. Fire Department (by letter dated December 5, 1986) Be advised that this department has no objection to the aforementioned zoning by-law amendment provided on implementation of the plan of subdivision, an adequate water supply for firefighting is provided via watermains and fire hydrants. Refer to Ontario Building Code, Ontario Regulation 419/86, Subsection 3.25.3 (1). Leisure Services (by letter dated December 9, 1986) Our committee approved of Block A and B as open space to maintain an urban forest. This was after many presentations and discussions with Corridor Enterprises, namely Mi chae 1 Welch. Our committee are not reversing their decision and want both Blocks designated as Major Open Space. In addition the Director of Leisure Services has pointed out that the walkway connections to Block A has been eliminated in this plan and request that they be restored. Public Works(by verbal statement December 15, 1986) The Director of Public Works has verbally indicated that the widening and boulevard of Street 'A' does not resolve his previous access concerns. culs-de-sac (i.e., Street 'C' and cul-de-sac in Avery Boland plan) can be joined with a grade which is acceptable. more properties can be served with culs-de-sac being joined therefore less clearing of trees would be necessary in cul-de-sac situation minimizing grades are more important because there is no table land to get car to operating speed making it extremely difficult to get vehicles out of the cul-de-sac area under freezing rain or wet snow conditions. Municipal Engineer (by letter dated November 20, 1986) No objection, however, the following concerns will have to be dealt with prior to draft approval. (a) As on earlier submissions for this same property the road pattern beyond the north limit of Street 'B' is unresolved. With the fairly limited area of the Avery & Boland land, we believe that the road pattern should be considered on the area covered by this Draft Plan and the Avery & Boland land combined. COUNCIL MEETING ... WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 17, 1986 -10 - (b) In light of previous submissions for these lands, we interpret the configuration for Street 'A' to be the proposed solution to having a single street access for perhaps sixty (60) lots. Consistent with our earlier comments, we much prefer a street pattern that provides two (2) accesses somewhat remote from one another and reasonable traffic circulation. Other Agencies Ministry of Natural Resources (by letter dated November 24, 1986) We have no objection to the Official Plan amendment provided the Open Space designation remains to adequately recognize and protect this tributary of the Holland River. While fishery resources have not been identified in this tributary, it drains into the Holland River which has been identified as a warm water fishery resource and should be protected from pressures of development upstream. The following agencies were also consulted and had no objections: -Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority -Regional Engineering -York Region Board of Education -Ministry of Transportation and Communications Planning Considerations The applicants wish to redesignate part of the Suburban Residential lands to Urban Residential to allow for a new plan of subdivision (Phase II) containing 101 urban lots and 6 large urban lots. In determining the need for the proposed amendment consideration should be given to the following criteria outlined in Section 4 (3) of the Official Plan. (a) (b) (c) (d) (e) (f) the need for the proposed use the compatibility of such proposed use with uses in the surrounding area the extent to which existing areas in the proposed categories are developed the physical suitability of the land for such proposed use the location of the area under consideration with respect to convenience and access i bi 1 ity of the site for vehicular traffic and traffic safety in relation thereto the adequacy of municipal services Staff feel there is a justifiable need for the proposed use, however, not at the risk of compromising some of the other criteria in the process. Two major issues remain unresolved with this application. The proposed deve 1 opment on part of Block 'A' in a manner which is not considered compatible to the surrounding environment nor physically suitable and the lack of a second accessway into the Avery & Boland lands which jeopardizes the vehicular access into the subdivision and traffic safety. Staff's position remains unchanged with respect to additional development on the 1 ands shown as Block 'A'. These 1 ands were to be retained for the preservation of the existing woodlot and steep slopes. Council has expressed willingness to accept the parce 1 s as a 5% parkland dedication, ·· however, Corridor has requested redesignation of part of the lands for future development and we understand will only reconsider this decision upon resolution of the accessway problem. The road access for the proposed plan is not adequate as outlined in earlier comments. Staff have presented several alternatives to the access problem and to this date have not been fully convinced that either of the alternatives are not feasible. Corridor has offered two alternatives; the widening of Street 'A' which compromises traffic circulation and the extension of Willis Drive which has drawn a negative reaction from Council and the local residents as it cuts through Block 'A'. The applicants have chosen to resubmit with this app 1 i cation the ori gina 1 road configuration, only widened at Street 'A', with no additional access road. '·"·'' COUNCIL MEETING ... WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 17, 1986 -11 - In summary, the applicants are proposing only to amend the Official Plan categories from Suburban Residential to Urban Residential and have taken the position that no amendment to the Open Space category is necessary. While this argument may have some validity, the applicants have over many years represented the Open Space area in the Official Plan as encompassing Block 'A' and parts of the p 1 an have been registered and so 1 d with this as the joint interpretation made by both the Town and the applicant. Staff would therefore have concerns with the removal of the open space areas as they have been or basic component of the overall subdivision concept even though it was not all part of the draft approved plan. Similarly we would have concerns with the proposed redesignation from Suburban Residential to Urban Residential in the area of the second proposed cul-de-sac on the Avery Boland lands. If this part of the amendment is agreed to a full landscape and slope analysis should be submitted in support of that aspect of the amendment prior to any Official Plan Amendment being enacted. In respect to the other major issue in this application, ie. the road design, the staff position remains unaltered. The alternative of joining the cul-de-sac at the end of Street 'C' with the cul-de-sac in the Avery Boland plan of subdivision remains the most viable alternative. Generally the proposed draft plan which accompanies the zoning by-law amendment application does resolve our concerns with lot sizes, although the comments of the Chief Building Official respecting the inconsistent sizes of flank lots may need further investigation through the draft approval process. Other Considerations A copy of a petition filed by the neighbouring residents is attached for Council's information. Concerns: culs-de-sac should not be joined Town should require erosion problems in open space blocks to be solved prior to their acquisition possible height of rear yard fences proposed recreational uses of open space lands lack of boulevard trees in existing subdivision overall performance of Corridor to date use of open space blocks as bargaining tool for the cul-de-sac issue The Public Meeting closed and Council began consideration of the application. Jones: Pedersen: Resolved that this matter be referred to staff so that the Town and the developers can address the outstanding issues as enumerated in the report of the Director of Planning. Two or three concerned residents to be included in the discussions. CARRIED B. DELEGATIONS 1. Letter 1-7 -Jamie Thompson re: Downtown Aurora -BIA -Main Street Survey Results Mr. J. Thompson addressed Council and presented a brief history of the organization and its efforts to date. Concern was expressed for the situation which had evolved over the course of the BIA's tenure which resulted in the difficulties before Council at the present time. A request for a resolution strongly supporting the BIA was made. Proposed changes to the Board of Management to address the difficulties were explained. '-.,·' COUNCIL MEETING ... WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 17, 1986 -12 - 2. Letter 1-8 -BIA Dissidents re: Disbanding BIA Jones: Pedersen: Jones: McKenzie: Mr. R. Stoeklin, on behalf of the BIA dissidents, addressed Council and outlined the concerns of the members who wished the BIA dissolved. General support for the BIA concept was stated but difficulties with the composition of the membership, boundaries imposed and matters beyond the scope and control of the BIA Board were cited as major difficulties. Resolved that the hour be extended and the Agenda completed. CARRIED Whereas the Town of Aurora established a Business Improvement Area by By-law No. 2534-82 on February 7, 1983, And Whereas the Aurora Business Improvement Area has, to the dedicated efforts of an ambitious executive implemented several projects involving cooperation, beautification and improvements in the downtown core, And Whereas the Town of Aurora has completed an organizational review of the B.I.A. as a result of having received petitions against participation by several individual merchants in the B.I.A., And Whereas, the organizational review has identified that approximately 25% of the B.I.A. members are in favour of retaining the B.I.A., 25% are opposed to the B.I.A. and 50% appear non-caring, And Whereas it does not appear that the human resources among the existing B.I.A. membership are sufficient or available to significantly address the concerns identified in the organizational review towards effecting a positive change in strengthening support for and participation in the B.I.A., Therefore Be It Reso 1 ved that the Town of Aurora repea 1 the B.I.A. establishing By-law 2534-82, And Further that a time and place be established for downtown merchants at large to express an interest in the potential for creating a Downtown Merchants Association, And Further that the Town of Aurora make the services of the Main Street Canada Coordinator available as a resource to the merchants in the downtown core, individually and collectively, towards furthering the goals and objectives of the Main Street Canada Program. Recorded Vote -Municipal Council of the Town of Aurora -Resolution to Repeal B.I.A. Establishing By-law No. 2534-82 Mayor West Councillor Barker Councillor Jones Councillor McKenzie Councillor Paivio Councillor Pedersen Councillor Weller TOTAL CARRIED 6 - 1 Yea X X X X X X 6 Nay X 1 COUNCIL MEETING .•. WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 17, 1986 -13 - C. RESOLUTIONS 1. Payment of Various Invoices -Reid and Associates Limited Barker: Resolved that the following invoices of Reid and Associates McKenzie: Limited: Project Invoice Number Retainer (October, 1986) 11545 Yonge St./Murray Dr. Intersect.11552 Piebrook Subdivision 11556 Wells St. Reconstruction 11557 (Metcalfe-Cousins) Harrison Ave. Reconstruction (Edward -Victoria) Town Industrial Park (Old Park Holdings) Shaw Condominiums Vandorf S.R. (1984} Parking Lot Improvements (Temperance & Wellington) Town Industrial Park (Alliance-Cousins) Bathurst St. Trunk Watermain Vandorf/Bayview Water Supply Kennedy St. W. Design Senator Homes Metric Servicing Plan Knole Farms Subd. TOTAL 11559 11561 11564 11569 11570 11571 11578 11579 11585 11587 11606 11635 Amount Account 2,699.13 3100-38 2,971.73 3405-40 222.86 Eng.Res. 4,745.18 3100-34 789.46 3100-34 1,094.36 Ind. Park 818.40 Eng.Res. 251.08 3360-40 943.51 C.A.I.P. 650.32 Ind. Park 1,312.20 Waterworks 105.35 9140-38 772.84 3100-34 186.00 Eng.Res. 1,381.48 Serv.Res. 163.30 Eng. Res. $19,107.20 in the total amount of $19,908.43 be paid and the Seal of the Corporation be attached hereto. CARRIED D. NOTICE OF MOTION Councillor Tim Jones gave Notice of Motion concerning the continuance of the Commercial Development Advisory Committee as an Ad Hoc Committee of Council for the duration of the Main Street Program and proposed alterations to the Committee's membership as established by By-law 2581-83. E. BY-LAWS McKenzie: Barker: Jones: McKenzie: Be It Hereby Resolved That: Bill Number 2885-86 -Being a by-law for governing the proceedings of the Council, the conduct of its members and the calling of meetings ••. be read a Third Time. CARRIED Be It Hereby Resolved That: Bill Number 2887-86 -Being a by-law to repeal By-law No. 2534-82, a By-law to designate a certain area as an improvement area and to establish a Board of Management therefore ... be read a First Time. CARRIED ''o,•'' COUNCIL MEETING •.. WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 17, 1986 -14 - Jones: McKenzie: Jones: McKenzie: Bill Number 2887-86 -Being a by-law to repeal By-law No. 2534-82, a By-law to designate a certain area as an improvement area and to establish a Board of Management therefore ... be read a Second Time. CARRIED Be It Hereby Resolved that Section 21 of By-law Number 2554-83 be suspended and Bill Number 2887-86, now before Council, be read a Third Time and enacted and the Third Reading be taken as read. CARRIED F. ADJOURNMENT Jones: Resolved that the meeting be adjourned at 11:25 p.m. CARRIED Moyoc \f\ _. G,: J ~-Jg erk~ "~ _,. <:...---~