BYLAW - Amend 2213 78 - 19850521 - 275185-'
BY-LAW NUMBER :1.7 ~~-JJ'""
OF THE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF THE TOWN OF AURORA
BEING A ZONING BY-LAW
l WHEREAS it is deemed advisable to amend By-law Number 2213-78.
\:_:
)' ..
NOW THEREFORE the Council of the Corporation of the Town of Aurora
enacts as follows:
I. That Section 6.26 is hereby deleted and the following added in its
place:
The parking space requirements of this by-law shall apply in all cases
wherever a lot or building is used or is converted for any use and
unless stipulated elsewhere in this by-law, one (1) space having
dimensions of 2.7 metres by 5.3 metres together with adequate
provisions for maneouvering space or driveway purposes as follows:
90 degree spaces 7.4 metres
,, .. ; .. ~ 60 degree spaces 5.2 metres
45 degree spaces 4.2 metres
2. That map number 3 to Schedule 'A' is hereby amended by changing the
zoning category applying to the lands shown in dark outline from "M2-
General Industrial" and "0-Major Open Space" to "!-Institutional".
3. No part of this By-law will come into force until the provisions of the
Planning Act have been complied with but subject to such provisions
the by-law will take effect from the day of passing thereof.
READ A FIRST AND SECOND TIME THIS __ _b_~--DAY OF
(«i' -------~/_7_ -----' 1985. \h: : -,I'"J'i:.:
'·J ;; ~ ; .
-.....;.·
READ A THIRD TIME AND FINALLY PASSED THIS -«~-DAY OF
'r/1 f'J • I • 1985. --rr--~-------·
_j{+-i&_;
CLERK
····-~
·-····--~--~·-·--·---------···---~·-~-~---
THIS IS SCHEDULE 'A'
TO BY-LAW No. cK,/;5"/-if~
PASSED THIS ,.. 4/ DAY OF
-~t;ll-...._,,___ 19 ~
SCHEDULE 'A' TO BY-LAW No.---
rH£ R£6/0NAL MlJN!CIPALITY OF YORK -PLANNING O£PARTM£NT
AFFADAVIT UNDER SECTION 34(20) OF THE PLANNING ACT (1983)
I, K.B. Rodger, hereby certify that the notice for By-Law 2751-85
of The Corporation of the Town of Aurora, passed by the Council of
the Corporation on the 21st day of May ,1985
was given in the manner and form and to the persons prescribed by
Ontario Regulation 404/83, made by the Lieutenant
Governor-in-Council under subsection 17 of section 34 of The
Planning Act (1983). I also certify that the 35 day objection
period expired on June 25th, 1985 and to this date no notice
of objection to the by-law has been filed by any person in the
office of the clerk.
Dated this 27th ------~~---------------
day of -~""""----J_· un'"'' -'-e_,,--_____ , 1 9 85 •
~ R 850312
""-" Ontario TOWN OJ=' AURORA
Ontario Municipal Boaralc n F r·;:: i v F iJ
'86 i'IAR -4 ;~, 9 :4 7
IN THE MATTER OF Section 34 of The Planning
~· 1983
AND IN THE MATTER OF appeals by Warren
Campbell, B. Ka P. Douglas Marsh>·
Julius rgaret Degen e in respect
of 1ng By-law 2750-85 of the orporation
of I D-70
C 0 U N S E L :
Wenda Venson and
B. Stratten
(student-at-law)
John A. Geisler, Q.C.
-for
-for
Town of Aurora
Warren Campbell,
Margaret Degen et al.
ORAL DECISION delivered by A.J.L. CHAPMAN
on October 25, 1985
The matter that has concerned the Board over the last two days h&:; :,cen
the appeals by several citizens of the Town of Aurora concerning By-law 2750
for 1985.
At the opening of the hearing, Mr. J.A. Geisler, Q.C., who represented
all of the appellants in the matter, made a motion that the Board quash
By-law 2750 for 1985 or, in·the alternative, refer the matter back to Town
Council to permit more input from the public on the ground that no
meaningful general meeting of the public on this by-law had been held.
After hearing argument, the Board denied that motion, firstly because there
is no power in the Ontario Municipal Board to quash by-1 aws, that's the
function of the courts, not administrative tribunals such as this Board.
,,,... Our powers in matters such as this are found under Section 34(27) of the
Planning Act and secondly, we dismiss the motion on the grounds that a
public meeting had been held on the 31st of October, 1984 and there was no
suggestion from anyone that any person entitled to notice of that meeting
had not been served with that notice. There was no suggestion from anyone
that provisions of the Planning Act had not been complied with. The only
allegation that was made was that persons who now own land in the area had
- 2 -
R 850312
at the time of the public meeting not been aware of it, probably because
they had not been landowners at the particular time, but the point is that
there was no allegation that the Town had done anything wrong in holding its
public meeting or in proceeding the way that it had. That will probably
always be the case where people move into an area and buy land in an area
after the event, I don't know of any way around it. The Board was satisfied
at the time that some representations on this by-1 aw had been made to
council, both before and after the passing of the by-1 aw and certainly it
was obvious that the Board was going to hear the concerns of the citizens at
this particular hearing. On the authority of the Brampton case which holds
that as long as the concerns are eventually determined by a body having
<tecision-making powers, that no harm was done if you missed out on one or
two of the meetings. Accordingly, the Board denied the motion and proceeded
to hear the matter on its merits.
Now I want to say just a word or two, mainly to the people who are
here, who may not be familiar with the way we make our decisions. We don't
make our decisions like Kit.g Solomon did ii1 the Bible, so-called wise
decisions because to do that you would need the wisdom of Solomon and we
don't go about the Province making decisions with our hearts, what we try to
do is to get the facts from the evidence and to base our decision on the
evidence and any reasonable inference that can be drawn from that evidence
and on nothing else. Now having said that, this by-law as we all know
changes the zoning on a pa-rce 1 of 1 and from Ho 1 ding to loca 1 Commercia 1 •
The size of the parcel affected is about one-half acre and it is located at
the south-east corner of Mcleod Drive and Aurora Heights Drive in the Town
of Aurora and both those roads, Aurora Heights and Mcleod are described in
the Offici a 1 Plan as being co 11 ector roads. The Board understands that
Mcleod Drive is in the process of being built, you can drive on it
apparently but it is not yet finished and Aurora Heights Drive which is an
east-west road wi 11 be constructed in the near future. It is partially
constructed but not in the immediate area.
Now the Official Plan which, of course, is a very important document in
a planning sense, has been approved by the appropriate authorities, has in
it on page 19 of Exhibit· No. 7, two sections which I wish to.read at this
- 3 -
R 850312
time and they are found under the heading "Local Commercial Uses Within
Urban Resi denti a 1 Areas" and that's exactly what this one-half acre is, it's
a one-half acre within an urban residential area and what is being asked is
to zone it Local Commercial. Subsection 1 of Section c. on page 19 reads as
follows and I'm quoting:
"Local commercial uses permitted shall be limited to retail
or service stores of a convenience type only which provides
for the daily shopping needs of the. immediate residential
area."
and Subsection 2 of Section c. on the same page:
"The location of local commercial uses shall be restricted,
where possible, to arterial or collector roads and not local
roads with the indiscriminate scattering of these uses being
d1scouraged. Local commercial uses shall be encouraged to
locate in groups and preferably where access to a major road
is assured."
Now this site 1s, as we have mentioned, located at the south-east corner of
the intersection of two collector roads with easy access to arterials and in
the Board's view, the site complies completely with the two sections which I
have just read into the record.
Now 1t was the opinion of Mrs. Seibert, the planner with the Region of
York who provides services to the local municipality of Aurora and who has
been connected with this municipality for a good many years, certainly
predating the existing Official Plan and the author of this zoning by-law,
advised the Board that in her considered professional opinion, the site
minimizes its affect on adjacent residential uses. She pointed out that to
the north was Aurora Heights, to the west Mcleod Drive, to the south Lot 1,
a residential lot which had not yet been sold and was still in the ownership
of the land developer, or the builder, it's Lot 1 on Plan 65M2247, a copy of
which was filed as Exhibit No. 10 and to the east of the site was a public
park on which, of course, nobody would be living. Mrs. Seibert also pointed
out that the site was subject to site plan control, Section 40 of the
Planning Act and I wish to read into the record because we both think that
all these sect1ons are important. Subsections 3, 4, 5 and 6 of the Official
Plan. Section 3 reads as follows:
"Local commercial uses shall be so sited so as to minimize
their effect on adjacent residential uses. Provisions shall
be made to preserve land for buffer planting or screening
between commercial uses and adjacent residential areas.
Adequate off-street parking and off-street loading
facilities shall be provided." ·
)
- 4 -
R 850312
and of course the reason for mentioning that the site was subject to site
control was that under the provisions of site control all those matters of
buffering, screening, parking, loading, are all looked after, as indeed are
a great number of other matters including the character of the building and
its roof line and ability to make it blend in with the neighbourhood.
Subsection 4 "Local commercial uses may be located on the same lot as a
residential use. The buildings containing the local commercial uses shall
be designed and lighting and signs arranged so as to blend in with the
character of the adjacent residential uses.
Subsection 5 "The floor area of any local commercial use shall not
exceed 185 square metres. Preferably, two or three local commercial uses
should be grouped with a maximum of 550 square metres of commercial floor
space permitted in any one group." Given the parking requirements in the
by-law and the size of the site, there is no way you will approach those
maximums with this particular development. Local commercial uses shall be
included in a separate zoning categor_y• in the implementing zoning by-law.
Now that is exactly what is being proposed here.
It was the Board's view, having reviewed its notes, that the evidence
of Mrs. Seibert that we have referred to and discussed was not shaken in
cross-examination in spite of a long and skillful cross-examination and it
was certainly not contradicted because she was the only qualified planner to
give evidence at this hearing. It was also her considered opinion that this
proposed by-law conformed to the Official Plan and Mrs. Seibert referred us
to the Secondary Plan for Aurora West which covers this area and which has a
section in it under the heading of Commercial, again, I wish to read it into
the record because it is important. It's found at pages 8 and 9 of Appendix
'A' to the Official Plan, it's part of the Official Plan and was approved by
the Municipal Board in 1979 and part of Exhibit No. 7. Section 2
"Commercial" and I am quoting:
"It is proposed:
(a) That a local commercial centre of approximately 1
hectare (2.5 acres) be located north of Wellington
Street at the intersection of Aurora Heights Drive and
the north-south residential collector road."
, .....
- 5 -R 850312
Now, the north-south collector road is Mcleod and that's exactly where this
by-law puts it. It goes on to say "Although Schedule A indicates the
south-west corner" and that is an obvious error because when you look at
Schedule A, you find its at the south-east corner, not the south-west, but
it makes no difference. It does say "Although Schedule A indicates the
south-west corner, the centre may be located elsewhere in the vicinity
without an amendment to this Plan" and that means to the Board that back in
1979 after a Municipal Board hearing, it was decided and confirmed that at
sometime in the future there was going to be a neighbourhood, commercial or
convenience commercial located at the intersection of what is now Mcleod
Drive and Aurora Heights Drive for the convenience of the people in the
neighbourhood. Subsection (b) reads "That the local commercial centre may
include such uses as a food store, a variety store, personal service shops
and other similar uses which cater to the day-to-day needs of the residents
of the adjacent area. Subsection (c) which we will d~al with later says
"That if it is determined that the local commercial centre is not required,
it may be used for the adjacent Urban Residential land use without amendment
to this Plan" and subsacti :;n (d) "Th.at regulations regarding buffering,
landscaping, setbacks, parking and other similar matters be established in
the Restricted Area (Zoning) By-law", that is, at the site plan control
stage.
Now it was as I have said, Mrs. Seibert's opinion that this by-law
complies, as it must, with xhe Official Plan and the Secondary Plan and the
Board does not find that that opinion was shaken or contradicted, indeed, we
don't know how it could be because it has been a long time since we can
recall anything that fitted in an official plan as closely as this does,
even if you looked at Schedule A, talking about the south-east corner of the
intersection.
The evidence was that the present site started out, not as 2.5 acres as
would have been permitted by the Official Plan but something of about 1 acre
but it was cut down from .4 hectares which is the term we use now, I guess,
to .2 hectares which is about one-half a'n acre. It was done so at the
request of the plannning department because in their judgment they felt one
acre perhaps was too large. Mrs. Seibert also gave it as h~r considered
- 6 -
R 850312
professional opinion that what was before the Board represented good
planning. She pointed out that when Section A of the Aurora West Secondary
Plan, which is roughly the land north of Wellington Street West and shown on
Exhibit 8 filed in these proceedings was completed and it was expected that
it would be completed within the next two or three years, that there would
be some 1,300 homes in that area. The Board does not accept the persons per
household figure of 4.3 but whatever it is, even if it is down as low as 2
persons per household, you have something like 2,600 people in that area and
the evidence was, both from Mrs. Seibert, based on knowledge which she had
received as a planner and on the evidence of Mr. McGoran who is the real
estate manager for Beckers Milk Stores, that 500 homes was all that was
needed to support a local convenience store located in the midst of 500
homes. It made sense to Mrs. Seibert to pro vi de a 1 oca 1 service of this
nature to service these people who would be living in the 1,300 odd homes.
She pointed out that the road patterns and the walkways which had been
designed all tied in very nicely with allowing people to proceed by foot or
motor car to this particular site. When pressed by counse 1 for the
appellants, she was only atla to th~nk of one other place in the whole of
Section A of the Aurora West Plan ·which would do as a site for local
commercial and that was in the vicinity of Orchard Heights and the
north-south road up in the north but that was not quite as central and more
importantly, homes had already been built up around it so to insert
commercial at that time might not be as desirable as it is where only one
lot and that lot unsold abuts the commercial at the present site. Again, as
far as we were able to find out, this opinion, that it was good planning was
not shaken and it was certainly not contradicted for reasons which I've
already indicated.
The project manager for the development, Mr. Paul Austin, and Mr.
McGoran, the man from Beckers, both gave it as their opinion, based on their
expertise and their discipline, that this project was viable and most
importantly Mr. McGoran whose work takes him all about the Province
supported the view of the planner that this situation was not something that
was unique to Aurora where you have a local convenience store in the middle
of a residential community, this was something that was found in numerous
places throughout Ontario in today's modern planning where you ~ave, not as
···-~
- 7 -
R B50312
it used to be, 1 ittle small areas that come on-stream and the owner puts a
plan of subdivision on and then sells off twenty-four lots or something like
that but where you plan a whole area and put the school site and the church
site and the neighbourhood shopping centre and this, that and the other
thing, and its made possible today because of the provisions of Section 40
of the Planning Act which allow for site plan control which can make places
blend in with the character of the area and its not unique to Aurora on the
evidence before the Board and a 1 so on the Board • s experience in matters of
this nature throughout the Province.
Now three neighbours gave evidence in opposition and the location of
their homes can be seen on Exhibit No. 13. They reside on Lot 12, Lot 111
and Lot 144 and if you look at Exhibit 13, the Board or the witnesses marked
on their lots those numbers 12, 111 and 144. None of them are particularly
close or, in our view, when the site is fully developed, within view of the
proposed commercial area. The nearest one would be Lot 144 which is on the
south side of Mcleod Drive.
Their concerns were firstly, and they felt this as strongly as I think
they felt anything, that they had been mislead by either the builder or the
rea 1 estate agent acting for the 1 an downer or the deve 1 oper, someone had
mislead them in a number of respects in that they were of the view that
there was going to be no access from Aurora Heights Drive and the 1 ands to
the north down into their area and that certainly there was going to be no
commercial south of Aurora Heights Drive. They honestly believed that. The
Board does not know if they have any legal complaint against the persons
that sold them the land or built them their houses or anything like that,
the point is this, its not a matter that concerns the Board. The Board is
here on planning matters, not on settling disputes between homeowners and
the people they bought the property from. We must point out in fairness
that this site as a site for possibly commercial development has been known
and no one has made a secret of it, it has been in the Official Plan since
1979. There is no suggestion that we could find from our notes that anybody
had bothered to inquire from the Town and we feel reasonably certain, had
they inquired of the Town what was planned for areas that they didn't know
about to the north or east or wherever it might be, they wouJ d have been
- 8 -
R 850312
cheerfully told. I also note that Mr. Levine who is the salesman was on the
witness stand, didn't stay too long but was cross-examined and no questions
were asked of him in cross-examination that would explore that area· any
further but that was probably done because the Board had indicated that
really it wasn't terribly concerned and while the Board can understand
people being upset, that either they were mislead or misunderstood or
whatever happened,
Board or the Town.
it is not a matter that concerns the Ontario Municipal
That was a big concern of the citizens and I hope I
don't have to say it again, that it is simply not a matter that the Board
has any jurisdiction to deal with. Now their second concern was based on
past experience of strip commercia 1 development or neighbourhood shopping
c;;entres or neighbourhood convenience stores in other areas and that, for
them, at least, had not been a pleasant experience. They spoke about litter
and about noise and about the sites having been turned into hangouts by
perhaps undesi rab 1 e characters and one 1 ady referred to them as sort of
looking disgraceful or being disgusting looking or something of that nature.
The Board notes that all of those sites were much larger sites than the one
pr'llposed here. None of them could be considered as a neighbourhood
convenience store located in a nice residential neighbourhood, they were all
on arterial streets in different types of neighbourhoods than this one and
it would seem a fair inference to be drawn from the evidence that all of
them were perhaps developed in the days before site plan control was applied
or if it was applied, applied well. The Board is not prepared to make the
assumption that a neighbourhood convenience store need attract undesi rab 1 e
people, particularly when it would seem to us that the people that would be
going to the store would be people from the area that surrounded it. It is
not 1 ike a store that is on a busy thoroughfare 1 ike Yonge Street where
perhaps young peop 1 e from a 11 over town and a 11 kinds of peop 1 e from a 11
over town go to. It's a 1 ittl e store in the centre of a resi denti a 1
neighbourhood used by the people in the neighbourhood. There is no reason
for someone who lives over in the east or in the Yonge Street area where
Exhibit No. 23 clearly indicates there are all kinds of convenience stores,
there is no need for them to drive all the way out to the west to go to this
one. Even if, in the Board's view, it is not like the reasons which I have
just touched on, there becomes a problem with litter or a problem with
noise, there are by-laws to attend to those things and people whose duty it
···-~
(-:
- 9 -
R 850312
is to look after it. The third concern of the people that gave evidence in
opposition was that there would be a loss of value to their properties by
the location of this neighbourhood commercial. There wasn't a bit of
evidence from anyone qualified to give that kind of opinion, credible
evidence, that that would be so. No studies of any nature had been done.
Mr. Briskin who resides on Lot 111, that's on the south side of Murdoch, he
gave evidence, he is a banker from the west, from Calgary, who quite frankly
the Board felt that he was rather inclined to the view that the Town of
Aurora ought to be grateful for his expertise .but he's a banker and an
economist and there was no suggestion that he has ever appraised properties
or has any qua 1 ifi cations for appraising property and the Board does not
accept his evidence •••• there was just no evidence before us at all, from any
qualified source, that would lead the Board to accept the fact that that
eonvenience store will lower property values. I know, it's a strange thing,
I'm not far from Newmarket and I would have bet all the tea in China that to
live under a water tower that had something like, I forget, a million
gallons of water in it, would have put a lot of people off •••• ! certainly
wm:.ldn't have bought a house under a water tower and yet t~e evidence was,
up there on a land expropriation case that I had, that there were just as
many people who would buy lots right underneath the water tower as wouldn't
so for every fellow like myself and the water tower, like Mr. Campbell and
the convenience store, there are all kinds of people out there that it
wouldn't bother at all. Now those are the kind of hard facts that you have
got to get before you can make a ruling of that nature, you just can't do it
because some fellow comes in and says "well, I feel it's going to lower my
property value". Those are perceived fears. Anybody can stand up and say
I'm worried, but often those fears don't amount to anything. There was, and
again, it's not strong evidence by any stretch of the imagination but for
what it's worth, Lot 147 which is located in Phase 1 just about as close as
any 1 ot can get to this convenience store was so 1 d in August of this year
for $139,000.00 and it had previously, or houses and lots like it, had been
sold, I gather, the year before, for $135,000.00. I don't regard that as
great earth shattering evidence but it is there to indicate that for every
opinion honestly held by the objectors that their property's going to be
lowered, it really can't find favour with the Board unless there is
something like a little harder facts than just as the lawyer for the Town
-10 -R 850312
put it "gut reaction" and in the same field we put the ·petition which was
filed as an exhibit which Mr. Campbell collected, it has a number of names
on it and saying that they didn't want commercial. Now as we mentioned
during the course of the hearing when we accepted it and marked it, it was a
question of what weight you put to it because very often people sign
petitions for all kinds of reasons, sometimes just to get rid of the man at
the door and I'm sorry to have to say but having watched Mr. Campbell on the
witness stand and. observed what he said and the way he said it, very
carefully, I'm convinced that he feels ~o strongly about having been, I use
the word figuratively, conned into buying his lot ••••• he feels he was
mislead, he feels so strongly about that that we cannot help but feel that
some of that fighting spirit of the Campbell's must have been generated to
people he was canvassing and as a result we do not give the petition a great
deal of weight. We realize that some people have taken the time away from
work to come here and to give evidence and others just to come here and sit
and that's a lot more than just signing your name on a petition at the door.
Finally, there was the ,argument of Mr. Geisler who is obviously a
competent counsel and I would judge an old war-horse in court room battles
somewhere along the line, by the way he conducted himself and he will know
what I mean when I say that sometimes when you haven't got too many bullets
to fire, you tend to make a technical argument and that's exactly what he
did. Technical arguments, I suppose, are important in murder cases but we
are not in a murder tria 1 ,. not even in a court room, we are here on a
planning matter which shouldn't be decided on an argument based on Section
2c of the amendment to the Official Plan and an interpretation of Section
l(h) of the Planning Act, amongst other things. We simply read into that
section, that if it is determined that the local commercial centre is not
required, it may be used for adjacent urban residential land uses without an
amendment to this Plan to mean this: This land is designated by the
Secondary Plan for commercial purposes but should it be determined by the
landowner who has a say in these matters, you know, or by the municipality
that it is not needed perhaps because there is another site just down the
street that is already serving the purpose or as we often find in school
sites, you have land designated for a public school and it turns out-that
a 11 9f the peop 1 e in the area are separate schoo 1 supporters so the schoo 1
···-~
-11 -R 850312
becomes redundant •••••• it's not necessary to go to the expense and time and
trouble of an official plan amendment ••• all you have to do is to make it
conform with the adjacent land uses, in this case, since it was clearly
residential, some kind of residential use would have been satisfactory. Now
that's all that section means, it's quite common to official plans and
official plans are defined in Section l(h) and we agree with the counsel for
the municipality that when the official plan was considered they took into
account the relevant social, economic and environmental matters in
constructing their official plan.
Mr. Geisler also made an argument that if you were in a situation where
land was registered and there was land abutting it that had not yet been
zoned, then that zoning ought not to take place until all plans in the area
had been registered and everybody had a chance to have their say about it.
His argument was really twofold. Firstly, that if you hadn't registered any
plan, then the zonings were there for everybody to see, that was alright but
if you had registered a plan and there was land to the north of it and the
Z0"1ing had not been determinecl, then that ought not to be ctealt with until
all the land to the north had been developed so as to give as many people as
possible input into what the use of the land should be and I suppose that's
one way of looking at it but the way that the Planning Act and the Board
usually looks at it is simply this that you must choose the 1 and use before
you register the plan and that is so today because no registered plan is on
the commercial area. That .doesn't mean that once you choose the land use,
it can never be changed, nor does it mean that if there is no land use on
the land to the north which is not registered it can never be changed for
land use assigned to it. What is required is that a man can do with his
property as he jolly well likes providing what he does with it does not have
any unacceptable adverse impacts on his neighbours. Now that means that
that land zoned Holding which everyone knew or could have found out meant a
possibility for commercial development which everybody knew or could have
found out from looking at the Official Plan which tells what the
municipality perceives for that area during the life of the Plan. That land
could be zoned Commercial but before it's done, the neighbours have to have
input, have to be able to express their concerns and if they can demonstrate
adverse unacceptab 1 e impacts, then the zoning doesn't take p 1 ace ••••••• if
' --· --------~---~=-~~~~'-"'""'-'~'-'-'-"~ ·•~> -,• .'-· ·.:~ .. ""''"~o>>'-~·--~"-~~---~':'OA ___ , __ ~;--•~--•-••--·~''"" o<,~,, ••. ~ ... ,.,"!'?~""""'""'k~--·"·"''> ''"~"-'>'•~··~-----0 ... , ,•
-12 -R 850312
they can't, then the zoning change goes. Now the Board has found in this
particular case that the concerns expressed by the citizens fell into those
three groups, one, just doesn't like the way the matter had been sold to
them, two, the perceived fears of what might happen based on their
experience in the past and three, their gut feeling about the value in
property and the Board has found that none of those represent unacceptable
adverse impacts because they are perceived, they can be prevented and even
if they took place up in that area they are not going to affect, say Mr.
Briskin who admittedly was down here on, south of Murdoch; Mrs. Degen might
well have more problems with people using the park than she ever would being
the distance that she is •••• I have a note of it but I can't put my finger on
it ••• from the commercial area. The point is that the people that might be
impacted, the owner of Lot No. 1, will know that there is going to be
commercial on that property, if he doesn't want to live next door to it, he
doesn't have to buy it and if there is someone out there that isn't worried
about it, they have been warned, they have been red-flagged and they don't
have to buy it. In short what I have been trying to say is that we think
the better view is to zone it now so that the people who wil1 abut it or who
will live across the street from it will know about it. If they don't like
it, they don't have to buy there. The people down to the south who have
bought thinking there was going to be no co11111ercial in the area, for the
1 ife of us, we are unable to find any unacceptable adverse impact on them.
Mr. Campbell had concern about his daughter. If the children, and they do
want to congregate somewhere, they're going to congregate, whether it be at
the corner of Finch and Pharmacy or in Aurora or Timbuctoo. With great
respect, we have reviewed everything carefully and we can find no merit,
while we appreciate the concerns, we can find no merit in the appeals and
accordingly we are going to dismiss them all but we are also going under the
authority of the Board's power to amend the by-law, we are not going to ask
council to do it because under the new Act, I think that sends you all
around the merry-go-round again of circulation, etc., but the Board can
amend it of its own volition and the Board does so only those cases where
they amount to housekeeping items, not where it's a material change, that
will have to be circulated but thanks to the work of the counsel for the
appellants, it was discovered that there was an error in the by-law and that
-13 -R 850312
is in paragraph 1, the word "four" should be "two" and it should read that
Map two of Schedule A is hereby amended, etc., so that the Board is making
that amendment of its own vo 1 i ti on.
The second amendment that the Board is making of its own volition is to
amend Schedule A of the By-1 aw by inserting in the 1 ands to be, in the
little square, demarking the lands to be rezoned under the letter and number
c.l, .2 hectares or whatever the short form is for hectares, plus or minus,
more or less, because this by-law, in our view, is deficient in that it
doesn't limit the size of the area to be rezoned to what is intended, ie •• 2
hectares. Bearing in mind, Section 5 of the General Zoning By-law, the
elasticity clause, you might be able to stretch a hectare out of this and we
don't want that, so that amendment is also made.
counsel.
Is there anything else
a.t!..~.~ r . / ~ -
A\ J. L. CHAPMAN
MEMBER
JJ;;,;-
MEMBER