BYLAW - Amend 1863 - 19710531 - 192071rJ-:c~~ :,:,!> ·,'! ,; }_c,~~}HIP ~,.---
I
I
I
I . ':
., __ ,
:~
AMENDMENT,, 02
·-. . . . L
.May 3J,J9Z
.,
.,. 'Y
.. '-~
ij ----.. :
<,.__ """"" ·--~"' ,{'
r~
I j "-/
l]
-~
l 1 ., )
t___,""....,....
BY-LAW NUMBER 1920-71
OF 1l:IE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF THE TOWN OF AURORA
A BY-LAW TO AMEND BY-LAW NUMBER 1863
WHEREAS it is deemed expedient to amend By-Law Number 1863 to change
the designation from Development to Single Family Residential,
Institutional, and Open Space on a parcel of land comprising some
35.336 acres being Lot 101 and Part of Lots 91 and 110 as shown on
Registered Plan 246 of the Town of Aurora.
NOW THEREFORE THE COUNCIL OF THE CORPORATION OF THE TOWN OF AURORA
ENACTS AS FOLLOWS:
1. THAT Schedule "A" to By-law No. 1863 be and the same is
hereby amended for the lands as set out in Red in the map
annexed to this By-law and marked Schedule "A" to show the
Single Family Residential, Institutional, and Open Space for
the aforesaid lands, as set out in Schedule "A" and for the
implementation of performance standards as designated in Schedule
"B" to By-law Number 1863.
2. THAT no part of this By-law shall come into force without Ontario
Municipal Board approval.
AJIY.La:>T AND SECOND TIME lrlS ;Jfi/af DAY OF ~ l'Hl.~ r--,(/?'4· ... ,. /lD-~· ~,~. _.-. ,~ ..
CLERK
3~AY OF ~· 1971.
~/~_
CLERK j!
,··. :-:
' ,
··--~
L.
COUNSEL:
ONTARIO
ONTARIO MUNICIPAL BOARO
IN THE MATTER OF Section 35 of
The Planning Act, (R.s.o. 1970,
c. 349)
-and -
IN THE MATTER OF an application
by The Corporation of the Town
of Aurora for approval of its
Restricted Area By-law 1920-71
passed the 31st day of May, 1971
R.7121
c. c. Johnston -for the Town of Aurora
R. K. Webb -for George Wimpey Canada
Limited
DECISION OF THE BOARD delivered by A.L, McCRAE
Db :3D l~fl . '-.
This is an application by The Corporation of the Town
of Aurora for approval of its Restricted Area By-law 1920-71
passed on the 31st day of May, 1971,
. The application is opposed by certain ratepayers living
in single family homes in close proximity to the subject
land. Their objections may be briefly summed up as follows:
dissatisfaction with the road pattern proposed for this sub-
division, inadequate width of streets outside the subdivision
which will carry the traffic from it, increased traffic,
removal of trees on the subdividers property, certain areas
within the subdivision being too low lying, too steep grades
where subdivision streets meet existing streets, and a desire
to have some of the lands designated as greenbelt, While
certain of those in opposition, made their position known
during the questioning of the various witnesses called by the
municipality, no individual ratepayer came forward to give
evidence to support the position being advocated by himself
or the others. The Board pointed out to those pr·esent that
Exhibit No. 5 was the plan of subdivision for which the single
• ~ \
.. ·· .·.
r
'~·--'
'~.
2. R. 712'1
family land use designation is sought and that this sub-
division had received the draft approval of the Honourable
the Minister of Municipal Affairs. In granting such approval,
most of the matters raised by the ratepayers except as to the
actual land use imposed were not within the jurisdiction of
the Board to adjudicate upon since it must deal only with
the application under Section 35 of The Planning Act.
Evidence however, was adduced by the municipality through
its planner, engineering consultant, and traffic engineer
which satisfies this Board that the proposal is in keeping
with the Official Plan of the municipality, streets which
will receive the traffic from the subdivision are to be
widened, and that no unusual traffic generation will ensue from
this single family development.
One of the ratepayers at 94 Catherine Avenue expressed
some concern as to a drainage problem that might accrue to
his property since the new road to be constructed by the
developer would be 3t feet higher than his lands. Counsel
for the developer stated his desire to co-operate in this
regard and expressed his willingness to meet with the owner
to arrive at a mutually satisfactory solution to the problem.
In this connection it should be pointed out that the engineer-
ing evidence adduced before the Board makes it quite clear
that if a drainage problem should occur, the installation of a
catch-basin on the road allowance would remedy the situation.
In all of the circumstances, and bearing in mind that
this is a single family subdivision and does not represent an
intrusion into an existing area of single family homes, the
Board sees no reason as to why the application granting the
single family land use should not be concurred in. The ;I
··-~
----------~..:.;_~,---~~--o----~.~~:_-'~·--'~.;...,.;_._~_..~,==""''<':<~"-'<'"'""'~'-·~-~·~-·'-.;.,....~~,~, -·--=~-•~==-=•o>KT>~~·---'o--~-•---~:" ·------·--·•----·•~·---~~::l~L-·-•~•-·•-•.
·.c
3. R. 7121
application is therefore approved.
Dated at Toronto this 15th day of March, 1972.
A.L. McCRAE
MEMBER
H.H. LANCASTER
MEMBER
:-: