MINUTES - Special Council - 19960229TOWN OF AURORA
SPECIAL COUNCIL -PUBLIC PLANNING
MEETING NO. 06-96
Council Chambers
Aurora Town Hall
Thursday, February 29, 199Q
7:30p.m.
II MINUTES II
ATTENDANCE
COUNCIL MEMBERS Mayor Jones in the Chair; Councillors Griffith, Healy,
Ochalski, Sorley, and Weller.
Councillors Morris and Wallace were absent on·
vacation. Councillor McKenzie was absent for
medical reasons.
·STAFF MEMBERS Municipal Clerk, Director of Planning, Planner,
Planning Technician, and Recording Secretary.
DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
Councillor Sorley declared a potential interest in Report PL96-018-054 due to
correspondence submitted by his partner on firm letterhead regarding the application
and did not take part in or vote on any questions in this regard, or attempt in any way
to influence the voting on such questions.
Councillor Griffith declared an interest in Report PL96~018-054 due to a long-standing
relationship with the applicants and did not take part in or vote on any questions in this
regard, or attempt in any way to influence the voting on such questions.
APPROVAL OF AGENDA
#137. Moved by Councillor Weller Seconded by Councillor Ochalski
THAT the content of the Agenda be approved as outlined herein with the
addition of correspondence received from Rosemary and Edward Addison
and Brenda Skerrat and Chris McGaffey for consideration with Report
PL96-018-054.
CARRIED
Mayor Jones advised that this meeting had been called as a Public Meeting with
respect to both the proposed Zoning By-law Amendment Application and Draft Plan
of Subdivision for J.R. Overzet, Part of Lot 33, Registered Plan 246, application
numbers D 14-01-96 and D 12-95112; and the proposed Zoning By-law Amendment
Application for 332500 Ontario Limited, Part of Lot 77, Concession 1 EYS, application
number D14-02-96.
The Public Meeting procedures and the opportunities available for persons to ask
questions related to the items tabled for consideration were explained and Mayor
Jones advised that any person who wished further notice of the passage of the
proposed By-laws under consideration could sign the information forms available. In
Aurora Public Planning Minutes No. 06-96
Thursday, February 29, 1996
Page 2
addition, Mayor Jones advised that any concerns with either proposal must be
expressed during the public meeting or in writing prior to the adoption by Council of
any amendment in order to protect the right to appeal to either the Region or the
Ontario Municipal Board. Names and addresses of speakers are required as a part of
the record of the proceedings.
The Municipal Clerk advised that the required Notices of Meeting for applications D14-
01-96/D12-95112 and D14-02-96 were mailed on January 26, 1996. These notices
were circulated in compliance with the Planning Act, by prepaid First Class Mail, to
every person shown on the last revised assessment roll of the Town of Aurora within
1 20 metres of the areas to which the pr9posed Zoning amendment By-laws would
apply and to every person within 1 20 metres who provided the Clerk with written
notice of change of ownership or occupancy and to every person and public body who
provided the Clerk with a written request for such notice. In addition, the necessary
signs were posted on the subject properties in accordance with the rules of procedure
under the Planning Act.
PLANNING APPLICATIONS
PL96-018-054 re: Proposed Zonjng By-law Amendment
and Draft Plan of Subdivision J. R. Overzet. 135 Kennedy
Street West. Part of Lot 33 .. Registered Plan No. 246
South side of Kennedy Road West. west of George Street
D14-01-96. D12-95112
The Director of Planning advised that the subject application proposed amendments
to the Zoning By-law and consideration of a draft plan of subdivision, in accordance
with the provisions of the Planning Act. The 3.3 acre site is located on the south side
of Kennedy Street West, west of George and Dodie Streets and contains a single
detached dwelling. The lands have been designated "Suburban Residential" and
identified as being within the Heritage Resource Area defined in the Official Plan. It
was noted that earlier decisions by Council had recognized the unique character of this
particular area as had a relatively recent decision of the Ontario Municipal Board on an
unrelated issue. The applicant proposes to amend the Zoning By-law from "Residential
First Density (R1) Zone" to "Residential First Density (R1) Exception Zone" in order to
permit the development of six individual lots. A previous Official Plan Amendment and
Rezoning application for nine lots was considered and rejected by Council in June
1995. The applicant has since revised the draft plan reducing the total number of lots
requested from nine to six. With this reduction, the proposed development would
comply with the minimum lot area requirements established within the Official Plan.
The current proposal requires exceptions to the frontage requirements on three of the
lots and reductions to the interior sideyard setbacks on two lots. The applicant
proposes to retain the existing dwelling, thereby necessitating the required reductions.
With the retention of the existing dwelling, the creation of five additional lots that
conform would be virtually impossible. The Director of Planning pointed out ti:lat very
few lots in the area fail to meet the requirements of both the Official Plan and Zoning
By-law. No lot on Dodie Street is less than 1 00 feet and only one contains an area of
less than 0.5 acres.
A number of concerns with the requested amendments were identified in the Staff
review, particularly the impact of the requested reductions in frontage and setbacks
in relation to the area's character, compatibility, the disturbance as well as loss of
existing mature vegetation, the accommodation of onsite drainage, and the danger of
an undesirable precedent being set. In order to address the some of the concerns
raised, it was suggested that the draft plan of subdivision be revised to combine Lots
4 and 5 and shift the proposed lot line for Lot 3. The requirements of the R1 zone for
both frontage and setbacks could then be accommodated. It was also suggested that
-··---~~.·~~·----·o~ .. -,.:_,,,_· '-· ------'--~-~--• •-~-•:....:.."-:..:..:...:.::.:..:._~..:,.~·--'~--------~--~-·"·~--"~'v~\<=<c.=,>''"<'r;•,~~..,~~=-•~--~---· --'-'-'··--'-'·-·-·--"'••-•---
Aurora Public Planning Minutes No. 06-96
. Thursday, February 29, 1996
~--·-·--···'"·--
Page 3
the applicants relocate the existing dwelling's garage to the other side of the house .in
order to provide sufficient space between the dwelling and the new lot line to access
the garage. The Works Department comments indicated they will require more
detailed information regarding the channelling of storm water, onsite drainage, and
proposed fill and grading prior to any consideration of the engineering aspects relating
to the draft plan of subdivision.
In closing, Mrs. Seibert stated that since Council has previously recognized the
significance of the area it was suggested that the proposed reductions to the frontage
requirements and interior sideyard setbacks be rejected and that the draft plan of
subdivision be further revised to reduce the total number of lots to five, including the
existing dwelling.
Applicant's Comments
Daphne Wagner, solicitor for the applicant, advised Council that the current proposal
requested minor modifications for. three of the six lots to the Zoning By-law only and
sideyard relief between Lots 4 and 5 only. The requested modifications were
common when dealing with the creation of pie-shaped lots to reflect house sitings.
She advised that a landscape report had been submitted for review and pointed out
that, although attempts would be made to relocate or preserve some of the existing
vegetation, trees would be lost regardless of the number of lots developed. A
storm water management report could be prepared which would deal with not only the
onsite drainage but. also perhaps enhance the drainage in the surrounding area. Ms.
Wagner stated that establishing finished floor heights at this time was premature.
However, she provided assurances that house sitings would be sensitive to the
surrounding area. It was stated that the applicant intends to remove the swimming
pool from the existing dwelling and, accordingly, no variance would be sought for a
frontyard pool. Council was advised that the consulting engineers are currently
addressing the comments provided by the Town's engineering staff. Ms. Wagner
requested that Council approve the proposal in principle and allow her client to meet
with Staff to resolve and finalize the technical concerns as well as a recent legal issue
related to the adjoining property.
Mr. Tom Plamondon, of Weston Larkin Planning Consultants on behalf of the applicant,
commended the Director of Planning for a complete presentation outlining the issues.
He advised Council that the requests for relief were predicated by the applicants desire
to retain the existing structure and the limitations this would impose on the site
configuration. Mr. Plamondon advised that Vincent and Associates Engineering had
taken Staff concerns into consideration and have prepared revised plans to address the
drainage and servicing issues raised. The arborist's report had attempted to ensure
protection of the existing vegetation and the relocation of certain ornamental trees.
He advised Council that he was available to address any concerns raised by members
of the public present.
Public Comments
A solicitor representing the property owners immediately west of the subject lands
advised of a number of technical, development, and legal related concerns with the
proposal. Council was advised, it was his position· that the ·previous direction to
improve . compatibility and address servicing concerns had not been adequately
resolved with the revised proposal. In addition, Council was advised of the lack of
correlation between the arborist's and engineering report. Numerous area residents
were present and expressed continued concern and frustration with the woposed
development. The general consensus expressed by the neighbours was that c'ontinued
adherence to the minimum requirements of the existing Zoning By-law be a condition
of any development proceeding. Additional concerns expressed included compatibility,
the ecological and aesthetic impact of the proposed grading and filling, the destruction
;-'-<
Aurora Public Planning Minutes No. 06-96
Thursday, February 29, 1996
Page 4
of mature vegetation, the impact on property values, proximity of future dwellings and
the resultant impact on existing homes west of the subject lands, increased traffic
volumes and the potential for safety issues, the aggravation of existing drainage
problems, and the necessity to extend Dodie Street. It was also suggested that a
committee of area residents be established to work with the proponents and staff on
the site details to mitigate the impact of the development on the neighbourhood.
The public portion of the meeting closed at 9:54 p.m. and Council's deliberations
began.
#138. Moved by Councillor Healy Seconded by Councillor Weller
THAT, given the unique character of the area, the incompatibility of the
proposed frontages, the impact of the reduced side yard setbacks, and
the potentially precedent setting nature of this proposal, the application
be denied; and
THAT the proponents be encouraged to revise the draft plan of
subdivision to a total of five lots in accordance with the provisions of the
"Residential First Density (R1 }Zone".
CARRIED
Councillor Sorley, having previously declared a potential interest in this Report, did not
take part in the vote called for in this regard.
Councillor Griffith, having previously declared an interest in this Report, did not take
part in the vote called for in this regard.
PL96-019-055 re: Proposed Zoning By-law Amendment
332500 Ontario Limited. Part of Lot 77. Concession I EYS
· 265 Edward Street !Edward Street Plaza). D14-02-96
The Director of Planning briefly outlined the . background of this proposal and
highlighted a few issues identified during the review. She explained that the applicant
proposes to expand the range of uses as well as restrict some currently permitted uses
within the "Service Commercial (C3} Zone". However, staff felt it was appropriate to
evaluate the subject application as "Shopping Centre Commercial (C4} Exception
Zone", in keeping with the 1991 Official Plan policies. Mrs. Seibert pointed out that
some of the requested uses were not necessary as these uses would be permitted
within the retail definition. Based on current standards, the available on-site parking
was also deficient and, accordingly, it was felt that some of the requested uses were
inappropriate given the limitations of the site. and available parking. Following.review
of the proposal in the context of its planned function and recent Council directives,
staff would generally support the addition of the requested uses subject to maximum
total commercial floor area restrictions and suggested that additional uses be permitted
for consistency sake.
Applicant's Comments
Mr. Koccoris, the proponent, acknowledged the assistance provided by staff
throughout the review process. Mr. Koccoris advised Council that he concurred with
the recommendations of the Director of Planning in general. However, he. urged
Council to not impose restrictions limiting the combined floor area of restaurants and
medical clinics to 20% of the total commercial floor area.
Auro~a Public Planning Minutes No. 06-96
Thursday, February 29, 1996
Page 5
Public Comments
No members of the public were present to address this application. The public portion
of the meeting closed at 10:19 p.m. and Council's deliberations began.
#139. Mov~d by Councillor Griffith Seconded by Councillor Sorley
THAT an implementing by-law be prepared;
THAT animal hospitals, banks or financial institutions, business and
professional offices, drug stores, dry cleaner's distribution depots,
medical and dental laboratories, personal service shops, and retail stores
be permitted;
THAT antique shop, printing shop, office supply, and travel agency uses
not be specifically identified as they are permitted under the broader
category of retail store and business and professional office;
THAT a caretaker's apartment, commercial clubs, commercial schools
(max. 186m2 ), day care centres, gymnasiums, health centres, laundries,
libraries, post offices and government administrative offices, light service
shops, places of entertainment, and religious institutions also be included
as permitted uses;
THAT data processing centres, dry cleaning establishments, and
supermarkets .be exCluded from the list of permitted uses;
THAT automotive sales and rental uses and automotive service stations
be removed;
THAT the combined floor area of all restaurants and clinics not exceed
twenty (20%) percent of the total combined commercial floor area;
THAT the current percentage of combined floor area of restaurant and
clinic uses be continued as legal non-conforming.
CARRIED
QUESTIONS BY MEMBERS •
Councillor Griffith -Requested that Staff investigate the provisions of the Sign
By-law with respect to the mobile and A-type signs utilized
in relation to the Yonge and Edward Streets plaza.
ADJOURNMENT
#140. Moved by Councillor Griffith
THAT the meeting be adjourned at 10:26 p.m.
9 .
~
. T. JO~S,_~YOR
CARRIED