BYLAW - Amend 1863 - 19790602 - 232179-. '~
Schedule l
BY-LAW NUMBER 2321-79
OF THE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF THE TOWN OF AURORA.
A BY-LAW TO AMEND BY-LAW 1863
BEING A RESTRICTED AREA (ZONING) BY-LAW
WHEREAS it is deemed advisable to amend By-law Number 1863.
NOW THEREFORE the Council of the Corporation of the Town of
Aurora enacts as follows:
1. That Schedule "A" forming part of By-law Number 1863,
as amended, is hereby further amended by changing the
land use category on the subject lands shown in dark
outline on Schedule "A" attached hereto and forming
part of this By-law from S.l.26.38 to S.1.26.45 and
T.4.26.41 as shown on Schedule "A".
2. No part of this By-law will come into force until the
provisions of The Planning Act have been satisfied but
subject to such provisions, the By-law will take effect
from the day of passing thereof.
_L;-_..L /)
READ A FIRST TIME THIS.!:>./. r:f. .. DAY
~ 0.? .... /~ ... : .. ~ .....
MAYOR
READ A SECOND TIME THIS .... c:?i!l.DAY
d' 9. 7 ·····~········~·····
MAYOR
CLERK
1979.
CLERK
PASSED THIS ... ..;)~ ... DAY OF
CLERK
;· . .,'
··-,_,
.. ~ART dF/ LOT 77 , CONCESSION I W.Y.S.
TOWN OF AURORA
THE REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF YORK .
FORMERLY TOWN OF AURORA
COUNTY OF YORK
METRES
100 50 0 100
Fit il 5.1.26.:38 to 5.1.26.45
5.1.26.:38 to T.4.26.41
200
DRIVE
THIS IS SCHEDULE 'A'
TO BY-LAW No\*' J~'/<t 79
PASSED THIS til;'f{f ,DAY OF .:::J'.,·-· ,~,.' ttl ..,,., a , :r;r ' 19...11.•
CLERK
" . (;INti« /). -fi!IIISIJII/
MAYOR
DRIVE
1: ""'------~ SPRINGBURN CRES.
0 .-----=--_; u
SCHEDULE 'A' TO BY-LAW No. 23~1-7,
THE REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF YORK -PLANNING DEPARTMENT OCT. 31, 1979
· · Ontario Municipal Board
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 2321-79
COUNSEL:
R. S. Thomson, Q.C. -for the Town of Aurora
R 802665
J. R. J. McNamee for the Ministry of Housing
DECISION OF THE BOARD delivered by W.H.J. THOMPSON
By-law 2321-79 affects a small parcel of land situate in the south-
western area of the Town of Aurora. This land is subject to a proposed plari of
subdivision. Lands lying to the south, the east, and the north-east of this
proposed plan are developed substantially with single-family detached
dwellings. Lands lying to the west and north thereof are undeveloped and
zoned for a hold category at this time.
The proposed plan is said to consist of some 56 residential Jots.
Should the subject by-law be approved then 38 of the lots would be zoned for
single-family, detached residential use and 18 lots zoned for semi-detached
dwelling use which would permit I semi-detached or duplexed dwelling per lot.
The by-law also reduced the minimum floor area required for the single-family
lots from 1300 square feet to 1110 square feet.
At the conclusion of .evidence adduced and argument heard, the Board
delivered its decision stating that reasons therefor would follow.
A number of persons who opposed this Board's approval of the by-law
stated that their objection was based on the extension westerly from Corbett
Drive of Cassar Drive. Counsel for the applicant advised the Board that the
council ~f his client had decided that Cassar Drive would not be so extended
westerly and in support of his contention a resolution of the Town Council to
-2-R 802665
that effect was filed as Exhibit 2. Upon hearing this, objectors to the
extension westerly of Cassar Drive then left the hearing. The Board's decision
herein is based on the non-extension of Cassar Drive.
Other persons objected to the semi-detached residential zoning and
to the reduction of the minimum floor area in the single-family residential
zones.
Apart from the existing approved single-family residential zone of
land immediately butting the south-westerly, easterly and north-easterly
portions of the proposed plan, the bulk of approved existing zoning is of a non-
residential nature. Most of the perimeter of the proposed plan is zoned, to the
south, for an open space and· institutional zoning and to the north and north-
west open space and a hold category. The proposed plan in effect has, in the
Board's opinion, sufficient buffering of a non-residential zoning as to provide
protection to the ·existing residential development in the vicinity of the
proposed plan. Indeed, a planner who testified on behalf of the objectors
stated that the subject by-law and the existing approved zoning of adjacent
lands to the proposed plan did a reasonably good job of buffering the proposed
development from the existing development save and except in regard to the
lot of Murray Schultz. This planner stated that if the three lots (53 to 55
inclusive) on the draft plan were rezoned from the proposed semi-residential
use to single-family residential use, that this should provide an adequate
buffer for Mr. Schultz. These three lots lie on the south-easterly side of the
proposed road in the draft plan and are situate a short distance north of Mr.
Schultz's hom~,
This planner also stated his concern for the impact that the semi-
residential lots would have on the single-family lots in the proposed plan. The
Board is of the opinion that persons who wish to purchase a lot for a single-
family dwelling will, or should have, knowledge of lots permitting semi-
residential use and if such persons proceed to purchase their single-family
residential lots then they do so in full knowledge of lots in the immediate
vicinity permitting a semi-residential building.
-3-R 802665
This planner also stated that it was his opinion that the reduction of
the minimum floor area from 1300 square feet to 1100 square feet was not a
serious problem and that it did not really concern him from a planning point of
view. He stated that the draft plan was compatible with the minimum floor
area requirements of adjacent development. For example, the existing
approved zoning of land lying to the south-west of the proposed plan although
developed with single-family homes does permit semi-residential use and has a
minimum floor area of 1000 square feet which latter requirement is lesser
than that in the proposed by-law.
The planner who testified on behalf of the objectors stated that, in
his opinion, a planning philosophy had developed historically in the town to the
effect that, in this general area of the municipality, single-family homes were
to be the only means of development. He . stated that higher density
residential use had developed in the past further to the east of the single-
family areas of the town and that this form of development should continue.
The Board is satisfied that in the particular circumstances of this application,
there is existing approved zones of a non-residential nature surrounding the
draft plan of subdivision to provide adequate buffer to the existing residential
development.
Murray Schultz testified that he owned a home having a minimum
floor area of 1300 square feet on property just south of the proposed plan and
not too far distant from the lots permitting semi-residential use. He also
stated that the existing approved zoning of his property permitted semi-
residential development and a minimum floor area of 1000 square feet. The
Board has already dealt with the planning.evidence relating to Mr. Schultz's
objection.
· Another objector testified that approval of semi-residential use in
the subject by-law would create more density resulting in more traffic and a
possibility that the latter might affect the safety of children. The planning
evidence indicated that the increase in traffic would be minimal.
•,
-;~
-4-R 802665
The planner for the applitant stated that the subject by-law conforms
to the official plan and did not contravene any planning principles.
In view of the. fact that Cossar Drive is not to be extended westerly
from Murray Drive, counsel for the applicant stated that what would have
been the extended street will now be used for residential purposes and that
this would require a realignment of lots at the westerly end of the proposed
plan of subdivision. This, in turn, may require an adjustment a few feet north
or south of the east-west axis between lands in the proposed plan of
subdivision and an existing approved plan lying immediately north thereof.
When an amending by-law has. been enacted restricting said Lots 53 to
55, inclusive, on the draft plan of subdivision to single-family detached
residential use only and to readjust the said east-west axis, then that by-law
and By-law 2321-79 will be approved without further notice or hearing.
DATEDatTORONTO,this 9th day of March, 1981.
W.H.J. THOMPSON
VICE-CHAIRMAN
Ontario Municipal Board
,
)
)
)
Hollky, the 4th 4aJ
of May, lJGl
Till .UI'WCA'I%0111 b.avlq OM 11m for p!.tt~Uo heUlllf
u4 afur the MU'ia9 of tile~ appU.oatJ.oa ~ oouoil
of t.M awttcut ••JO••tton havtq en oppo...--.t.tr
to ccmai4v eel't:ain -~~~~ u the AU by .. law and
the a..U oouotl bavtat oa the itm ar of April, un,
,.. .. a a:r-lw 2424•tt U~em.'U.tat .,..law 1321•19 u«
~at.ia9' owtab HOC'MIIIad&tioli8 Of \he lOUd
aad M'tint o.UM4 a ftl'tUUCl copy thenof liO be fi1e4
and t.M aoan 1sav1at 4u,....a With aetS.ae u.ct b .. riq
b n.,..t: of ay-law 2424-IOt
ftM ~· WU':)BU tu.t ay•law 2321-tt •• .....,_.by
a:r•lw 2414-10 te hanbJ' appnve4 ..
UH2:~SO -
0. B No .• B.i/J..-:l?. ......... .
Folio No ..... /. 3. ./.. ........... .
MAY' 151981
ii.
. ..
Ontario
LEGAL BRANCH Ministry
of
Housing
101 Bloor st. w. 4th Floor
Toronto, Ontario
Tel: 965-9849
DELIVER BY HAND
May 21, 1981:.
H.E. Stewart, Esq.,
Chairman,
Ontario Municipal Board,
180 Dundas Street West,
Toronto, Ontario.
Dear Sir:
Re: O.M.B. file R 802665
.....
In the Matter of an application
by The Corporation of The Town
of Aurora for approval of its
Restricted Area By-Law 2321-79
Works
Eng.
Solicitor
Bldg.
On the 9th day of March, 1981, Vice-Chairman
W.H.J. Thompson rendered a decision approving, with
slight changes, the application of Aurora for approval
of By-Law 2321-79 permitting the subdivision of certain
lands in Aurora into lots £or single and semi-detached
housing. In addition, the square footage building
requirements were reduced.
The Application of the Town was supported by the
Ministry. A copy of th~ Vice-Chairman's decision is
enclosed. \._ __
It appears that The South Aurora Homeowners'
.:2321-71.
Association has launched a quasi-appeal under Section 42
of the O.M.B. Act. Enclosed herewith is a copy of their
Notice dated April 20, 1981 to Mr. K.B. Rodger, Clerk-
Administrator, Town of Aurora, signifying an intention
to Appeal. In addition we were advised today by Mr. Hart
Defoe of the O.M.B. Information Department that this group
has contacted your office and that their request for a
further Hearing was denied.
We have discussed this matter with Richard S. Thomson, Q.C.
solicitor for the Town. He agrees that we should seek
your advice on the matter. The Ministry of Housing is
anxious to procee.d with the development of the Subdivision.
Any undue delay would add to the eventual cost of the lots
and the houses erected thereon.
/2
---~----~~~
•
- 2 -
Would you kindly advise at your early convenience
whether the matter has now been concluded and that no
further Hearings will be conducted. Mr. Richard S.
Thomson and the undersigned would be pleased to fu>'nish
any information that your office may require.
Yours truly,
J. R. McNamee
Solicitor.
Ertel.
JRM/cm
c.c. W.H.J. Thompson, Esq. Q.C.
Vice-Chairman
O.M.B.
c.c. Richards. Thomson, Esq. Q.C.~
Strathy, Archibald & Co.
Barristers & Solicitors,
Toronto.
c.c. Ken McGregor, Co-ordinator
Land Development, O.L.C.
c.c. K.B. Rodger, Esq.
Clerk Administrator
Town of Aurora
50 Wellington St. West,
Aurora, Ont.
P.S. Subsequent to the writing of this letter,
I contacted the O.M.B. office and obtained
a copy of the attached letter of May 6, 1981
from. Mr. Stewart to Miller & Harison denying
their appeal. This would appe).r to conclude
this matter and we may safely proceed.
•
~--··-····--· ~-~--~----· ---~-------------------
L
. ' ..
Mr. K.B. Rodger,
J:'o;·,n of Aurora
50 Wellinston St.
Aurora TAG 3L8
April 20, 1981
' . Clerk-Administrajor
West
~ Den.r !·.h·. Rodger:
'
C'MR f'He R 802665--annlication f'or annroval of proposed
Aurora by-law 23?1-?9~ (OEC nhase II)
!leaRe accept this document further to the t-elephone conversation
of th~s early evening between you and l.1r. Doug Miller.
The puroose of this document is to advise you, and thus tho Town
of Aurora, that the Boardt s decision on this matter is being annealed
undor Section {2 .of the Ontario Jiunicipal Board Act. · (RSO 1970)
Althoue,h we have been informed that 1 t is usual1y the I3oA.rd
that informs the t.'iunicipality of such an appeal, we feel, in fairness
to the 'l'own, as well as any developers or contractors ·.-;hich may be
involved, that we should also notify you directly.
Vie do this since we are anxious that no litigation ensues against
ei theY' ·tho Tovm or any developers or contractors because of any .
con;,truction undertaken whil.e thi.s R:oneal is in progress., We are aware
of thls nossibility, s~ncc we heve been told by officials of the
Ontnr.!.o C~?.binet And other· resnonsible authorities that the municipality
c-:;.:1 'he h~ld ler,Rlly accountable for allowing any construction during
this apneals l)roceOure.
So, in the S:lirit of the teloohona call, we A.T'e keening vou
info!"';'l~d, and ''·'e trast that you will, in -turn, notify anY and" all
others concerned.
Sincerely,
Richard Haris6n
Douglas Miller
in b~hRlf o.f the
South Aurora
Homeo,·.ners 1 :\ssoci8.t1ori
. !
..
Mr. r. ~ln. Douglas Hiller
96 '1urray r>rivl!ll
AURO~?I>., Ontario
lAG ua
Dear Mr. & Mrs. Millara
~ ···~ ... :)
R. 802665
~~ay 6, 1981
Ret Town of Aurora -Re~triotGd ~rea
----~B~y~-~law~2~1~--7~9~------------
Your affidavit: dnteu April 21, 19!11, has been
ro~erred tq ~G for co~~idaration uo to your roqJaat for
a review ll.Ilder Section 42 of the Ontario tiunicipal noard
i\ct of the decision in the above matter.
I have reviewed tho decision rendered by
Mr. w. H. J. Thompson dated March 9, 1981, and also
requested Mr. Thompson to review hio notes from the
hearing to deter111inea whether evidence was ~liven that
might hav$ been overlooked in his deoiaion.
I mn satisfied fro;u Hr. Thompson's colll!nents '.:
that the decision hae dealt with tho evidence as it was
presented. I am also satisfied ~~at the decision covers
tho ooints raised in evidence. The ~ecision deala at
some. length with the evidence of the planner who testified
on b~alf of the objector (pages 2 and 3 of the decision).
Baaed on your affidavit it is my decision ti1at
a motion .to consider reviewing this decision is not
justified.
Your roqua11t is therefore donied.
c.o. Mr. & r-trs. Richard f!ariaon
Yours t:ruly,
I lj/:>1
~N'
It. 't Stewart
Cha: rman