BYLAW - Amend 1863 - 19800922 - 237480. ·.;
BY-LAW NUMBER 2374-80
OF THE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF THE TOWN OF AURORA.
A BY-LAW TO AMEND BY-LAW NUMBER 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 the lands shown in dark outline on Schedule "A"
attached hereto and forming part of this By-law are
hereby added to Schedule "A" to By-law 1863 insofar as
the lands are not now subject to that by-law.
2. That the subject lands are hereby zoned "D" development,
"0" open space and S.1.26.39 -single-family residential
as shown on Schedule "A".
3. 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.
READ A FIRST TIME THIS .... ~D.t):l .. DAY
~· 017
..... !'~AYaR·~······
OF ... ..i'P~Y?'J: ........ , 19 8 0
·······~1/r:······
READ A SECOND TIME THIS ... 4QtJl ... DAY OF .. )J.U:GJ.l~T ........ , 1980.
/ 0 7) ······~'~YaR··~······ ...... 7-(~~···
READ A THIRD TIME AND FINALLY PASSED THIS .. ;?~. DAY OF
.... ~ ....... , 1980.
/ 0? ....... ~~oR·=··~·······
Schedule 2
By-law 2J1~~ohas the following purpose and effect:
To amend By-law 1863 the zoning by-law governing the former
Town of Aurora, as it applies to a proposed plan of subdivision
consisting of single family dwellings surrounded by a golf
course. This amendment also has the effect of extending the
provisions of By-law 1863 in to that part of the former '
Township of King as is shown on Schedule "A". Approvals
have been received to proceed with the development of 149
residential lots and the accompanying roads as shown on the
schedule. The lands which are shown as "D" will be developed
for similar residential uses at a later date at which time
the by-law in force will be amended. Those lands shown as
"0" will be developed for an 18 hole golf course. The
applicant also owns a small parcel to the south marked
additional holdings on the attached plan. These lands will
be developed as part of the golf course residential complex.
The standards proposed for the residential area designated
S.l.26.39 are as follows:
Permitted Uses:
S. Single family dwelling detached.
Density:
1. One single family detached dwelling per lot as
shown on Registered Plan.
Side Yard;
26. Minimum each side four (4) feet for a one (1)
storey building and an additional two (2) feet for
each additional storey or part thereof. If corner
lot minimum nineteen (19) feet side yard abutting
side street.
Floor Area:
39. Minimum ground floor area for a one storey dwelling
1400 square feet, more than one storey 850 square
feet.
·i
.J . l
l
I
"1
. I
l I
I
l
I
I
I
I
I ' l
1
-' ..
·~' .-
TOWN OF
•• NEWMARKET
84)
I
I
I
I
"' ...
~ ~ ~[i~t:!f~J=:i_ ______ fS~--~l_ __________________________ J-----------~~~
--Tr-+-ff=J*=t::J
l'!
~ il"JI.."'--4-';J ~ 17
t ~ ~ 16 ..... .. ?.d ..
/3
_/) I
CON. CON III
~~ .. -----..-~---.~------~~--,-.. ~~-~ ~ I T
TOWN OF RICHMOND HILL
TOWN OF
AURORA SCHEDULE 2
X .. _ ... _.:.__)
;:,.
~ ~
ij
~
~ I
I ~ ~ ~ ~ i i
J
I • • ~ .-• '
' '
'
· . · PART OF LOT 78 THIS IS SCHEDULE 'A'
. CONCESSI ON I W. Y. S.
TOWN OF AURORA
TO BY-LAW No. 2 374-80
PASSED THIS 2 2 DAY OF
September
THE REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF YORK
SCHEDULE • A' TO BY-LAW No. 2374-so
THE REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF YORK-PLANNING DEPARTMENT SEPT. 29, 1980
I .···I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
. . I
I
I
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-law2374-80
COUNSEL:
R 81246
R.S. Thomson, Q.C. -for The Corporation of the Town of
Aurora
Roger Elliott -for Granada Investments Limited
DECISION OF THE BOARD delivered by W.E. DYER
The Town of Aurora applies for approval of its Restricted Area By-
law 2374-80. The by-law implements an Official Plan Amendment No. 2
recently approved and is also in response to a condition of draft plan approval
given February 4th 1980 for an integrated residential and golf course use of
lands of Granada Investments Limited. Aurora Highlands Golf Course as now ·
reconstructed and newly designed will envelop some 149 Jots in this stage with
the exception of a small four acre parcel extending from the course northerly
to Kennedy Street which is included in the development as a result of the
extension of Murray Drive.
With the Official Plan Amendment the conformity of the by-Jaw is
not in question and the Region has confirmed this. The subdivision plan
Exhibit 6 is draft approved and none of the various agencies circulated by the
Region including the Public School and Separate School Boards have expressed
objection to the residential component in the scheme. The golf course has
existed in the area for many years and has been owned by the developer since
about 1966. Its recent reconstruction has extended the course to Bathurst
Street on the west and narrowed the fairways to provide the open space
surrounding the single family residential lots laid out all as shown on Exhibit 7.
···,_,
-2-R 81246
Full services are to be provided to the subdivision and a seven acre
school site has been set aside in the area for future use if required. The
westerly portion of the subdivision is to be developed through to Bathurst
Street some time in the future.
Murray Street will clearly be the local residential collector for this
quadrant of the Town once the extension across the golf course is completed
connecting it to Kennedy Street and further north to Wellington Street by way
of McDonald Drive. That plan though perhaps not in the exact alignment as
herein defined has been shown in the Official Plan for many years and the
Town has promoted the link in its support of the plan of subdivision. Sidewalks
will be provided for pedestrian safety and the road when completed will serve
the major residential collector function as set out in clause 3(c) on page 49 of
the Official Plan (Exhibit 2).
Eight objectors gave evidence in opposition to the by-law. The Board
has as well petitions signed by a large number of area residents. The heading
of one of such petitions refers specifically to the extension of Murray Drive
and the others are more particularly related to the density of development at
the Kennedy Street four acre section of the subdivision being the only area not
enveloped by the golf course.
It was clear throughout the presentations made by the objectors that
two major issues were giving them concern. The change in the status of
Murray Drive by the eJ(tension thereof to Kennedy Street and the development
of the 14 lots in what became known as the "sore thumb" of the subdivision
extending to that street, threeof such lots having frontage on Kennedy.
One other couple, Mr. and Mrs. Robert Sanderson, did differ in their
concern and they resided on Brookland Avenue bordering what is now
redesigned as the 18th fairway of the golf course. frheir evidence and detailed
letter of objection and brief filed as Exhibit 8 relate solely to the confined
width of the fairway at their lot line and the perceived danger from stray golf
balls landing in and around their premises. The Board cannot however change
-3-R 81246
the layout of the course as such realignment of various holes and fairways has
already been achieved and does not in any way form a part of the by-law or
fall within the control of the Town thereunder. Though the Board is in
sympathy with the Sandersons and recognizes their fears the matter is purely
civil in nature as far as damages or injury is concerned. Much evidence was
adduced but I am power less to apply controls in this instance and cannot refuse
the approval of the by-law on such a ground.
Dealing with the Murray Drive extension, the Board must be cogni-
zant of the fact that the Town through its elected council has decided on the
connection of the road through this subdivision. Such configuration has shown
in the Official Plan schedules for many years and the residents of the Town
certainly can be deemed to be aware of this street alignment. How then does
the Board treat the objection when in effect this whole residential quadrant is
affected by the provision of this collector, not merely the subdivision itself? I
am of the opinion that the street must remain as extended and under this
application (zoning for the use proposed) could not, on the basis of the
objection, refuse approval of the by-law.
The Board recognizes the concerns of the residents as to Murray
Drive forming a ring road or bypass for those persons proceeding north through
the Town intending to go west on Wellington Street. However, as stated in the
Official Plan, such collector streets are specifically designated "to connect
and carry local traffic to the arterial roads" and this is surely the prime
function of Murray Drive. Really, the impact if any of the residential zoning
for the new subdivision was never addressed as such related to adjoining lands
(except in the case of the "sore thumb" as hereinafter discussed). The
suggestion of a bypass through the Town became the main issue. At this stage
of draft plan approval with the amendment to the Official Plan in place there
is no sufficient evidence of alternative collector street treatment notwith-
standing those set out in Exhibit 12 to allow me to consider rejection of the
by-law on this account. The Town will have control of the street pattern and
its use through possible future signing "Not a through route", "No trucks",
parking regulations, a varying street width and so forth.
-4-R 81246
With respect to the Kennedy Street frontage of the subdivision and
the four acre parcel now beihg developed as a result of the Murray Drive
connection I can see no compromise here satisfactory to those opposed. The
14 lots are created as a result of a design meant to conform to the remainder
of the plan. The cul-de-sac entry for the lots certainly provides an inward
focus for these future one family houses and leaves adjoining lands in a
position that they may develop in the. future. Only three lots of 80 foot, 80
foot, and 60 foot frontages face Kennedy Street, admittedly an open pic-
turesque neighbourhood with superior type housing on large Jots(unserviced by
sanitary sewers at this time). The development here will be serviced at
considerable expense.
The Board has been invited by the Town's counsel and that of the
owner to red line or redevelop the three Kennedy Street lots into two at a
frontage of 100 feet each. This could be done, prior to the issuance of the
Board's order but as pointed out by one objector there was not a great rush
towards such a compromise by the witnesses in opposition to accept such a
proposal. It is obviously the overall density of these 14 lots over perhaps six
which could be developed under the existing zoning which is of concern.
Considering the orientation of this section of the plan and recognizing that
future development on full services will eventually come on stream on the
abutting lands I cannot see how the reduction .to nine or six or leaving the
property undeveloped will ultimately better serve the interest of the public or
for that matter the immediate neighbourhood. I accept the evidence of Mr.
Willis the developer's planning consultant that control remains in the Town
through site plan approval perhaps limiting access on Kennedy Street for the
three Jots there. The weight of the evidence supports in my view the present
plan.
Accordingly By-law 2374-80 of the Town of Aurora in approved is
submitted.
DATED at TORONTO this 7th day of April, 1981.
W.E. DYER
MEMBER
. ,;.r
--
w.a. -., Q.c. ......
Ontario Municipal Board
JA'IUB 8' hiillldoal II of
.........
(ll.,l.,e,. l.PYCI,
J
I
~t .. \7t;h411J'
of APHl, 1111
Gil UJLIG'IlOll ·'*"'-..-oa IN'· ,_lk h.H#lllf ud aftft * ~ •• ._. Qflift.tJ.o,a ._. aoua .. .._ n•IIJI'\I'IIi lt•
........ Udtl t:b1e .. ,.,
ENTERED
Q_ B. No ... R.ll.::-..1. ........ ..
Folio No ........ ~ J J ............ .
/~t-'11 6 0 1981
~~-
SECRETARY, ONTARIO MUNICIPAL BOARDe u