The URL can be used to link to this page

AGENDA - General Committee - 20070123GENERAL COMMITTEE AGENDA N0.O7-08 TUESDAY, MNUARY 23, 2007 7:00 P.M. COUNCIL CHAMBERS AURORA TOWN HALL PUBLIC RELEASE 17/01 /07 AuRozA TOWN OF AURORA GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA NO. 07-08 Tuesday, January 23, 2007 7:00 p.m. Councillor Gaertner in the Chair I DECLARATIONS OF PECUNIARY INTEREST 11 APPROVAL OF AGENDA RECOMMENDED: THAT the agenda as circulated by the Corporate Services Department be approved. III ADOPTION OF PREVIOUS MINUTES Special General Committee Meeting Minutes, No. 07-01 pg. 1 January 2, 2007 Special General Committee Meeting Minutes, No. 07-02 pg. 3 January 4, 2007 General Committee Meeting Minutes, No. 07-03 pg. 5 January 9, 2007 Special General Committee Meeting Minutes, No. 07-04 pg. 10 January 9, 2007 IV DETERMINATION OF ITEMS REQUIRING SEPARATE DISCUSSION V ADOPTION OF ITEMS NOT REQUIRING SEPARATE DISCUSSION General Committee Meeting No. 07-08 Page 2 of 5 Tuesday, January 23 2007 VI NEW BUSINESS/GENERAL INFORMATION —COUNCILLORS VII DELEGATIONS (a) Mr. Robert Cook, President, Ontario Waste Management pg. D-1 Association Re: Northern Six RFP No. CRFP-06-01 — Collection and Haulage of Collectable Waste (b) Ms Carla Adams, Executive Director pg. D-9 Aurora Chamber of Commerce Re: Item 9 - CS07-003 — New Sign By-laws Vlll CONSIDERATION OF ITEMS REQUIRING SEPARATE DISCUSSION IX CLOSED SESSION None X ADJOURNMENT General Committee Meeting No. 07-08 Page 3 of 5 Tuesday, January 23 2007 AGENDA ITEMS 1. LS07-002 — Pro -Shop Request for Proposal — New Recreation pg. 13 Complex RECOMMENDED: THAT Council authorize the Mayor and Clerk to enter into an agreement with Rec Cycle and Sports for the pro shop services at the Aurora Recreation Complex, based on the results from RFP LS2006-95, effective February 1, 2007 for a five year term. 2. PL06-127 — Request for Street Names pg. 16 Mattamy (Aurora) Limited (formerly Quaker Lundy Farms) Part of Lot 25, Concession 2 Files D12-00-8A & D14-23-00 RECOMMENDED: THAT the following street name be allocated to the proposed internal street within the proposed Draft Plan of Subdivision, D12-00-8A, Mattamy (Aurora) Limited. Street "A" KIDD 3. PL07-001 - Zoning By-law Amendment Application pg. 21 Smart Centres (formerly Whitwell Developments Limited)/ Wal-Mart Part Block 2, Plan 65M-3819 File D14-09-06 RECOMMENDED: THAT Council receive as information the following overview of Zoning By- law Amendment Application D14-09-06, scheduled for the February 28, 2007 Public Planning Meeting. General Committee Meeting No. 07-08 Tuesday, January 23 2007 Page 4 of 5 3 R, PL07-002 — 313-321 Ridge Road — Aurora Cable Internet Property By-law Compliance RECOMMENDED: THAT Report PL07-002, be received as information; and pg. 27 THAT Council formally request that ACI, as soon as possible, satisfy the conditions of the OMB order in order to complete the project. PL07-003 — Planning Applications Status List RECOMMENDED: pg. 34 THAT the Planning Applications Status List be received as information. 6. PL07-004 - Zoning By-law Amendment Application pg. 66 Farland Properties 130 Industrial Parkway North Part of Lot 103, Registered Plan 246 File D14-01-07 RECOMMENDED: THAT Council receive as information the following overview of Zoning By- law Amendment Application D14-01-07, scheduled for the February 28, 2007 Public Planning Meeting. 7. CS07-001 — Animal Control Services Contract Renewal pg. 72 RECOMMENDED: THAT report CS07-001 be received; and THAT preliminary budget approval be granted for the animal control services contract with Kennel Inn Inc. for a one year contract, at a cost of $164,500. General Committee Meeting No. 07-08 Tuesday, January 23 2007 Page 5 of 5 E 10. 11 CS07-002 — 2007 Pet Licensing Fees RECOMMENDED: pg. 104 THAT report CS07-002 entitled 2007 Pet Licensing Fees be received for information; and THAT appropriate notice be advertised in the Town's Notice Board and Website regarding the proposed fee increases for 2007 pet licensing; and THAT the proposed amending by-law be presented at the Council meeting of February 13, 2007. CS07-003 — New Sign By-laws RECOMMENDED: pg. 114 THAT report CS07-003 on the proposed new Sign By-laws be received; and THAT the proposed draft Sign By-laws be presented to Council at its next meeting for enactment. CS07-007 — Amendment to the Dog Licensing and Control By-law RECOMMENDED: THAT the Town's Dog Licensing and Control By-law 4747-05.P be amended to prohibit dogs in certain Town parks and other Town property where posted. CS07-006 — Council Pending List RECOMMENDED: THAT the Council Pending List be received for information. G ERAL CV TTEE — JAN ARY 23, 2007 Ontario Waste Management Association ,N December 21 st, 2006 Ms. Phyllis Morris Mayor k %F. It mFt S iJt FT4 T3 TOWN OF AURORA r'A.o. 1 Municipal Drive, Box 1000 uir. nt Aurora, Ontario M. Of C:o, p. ;<,M IAG 6J1 'd'r+�:ut+xares Mc nibers W Council Dear Mayor Morris, Delegation (a) UOPY I am writing on behalf of the Ontario Waste Management Association (OWMA) to request an opportunity to appear before Council in respect to the Northern Six RFP No. CRFP-06- 01 for the "Collection and Haulage of Collectable Waste." Attached for your information is correspondence recently sent to all Councilors in the Northern six municipalities and previous correspondence to Northern Six Mayors and Mr. Rogers at the Town of Aurora. OWMA views the apparent deficiencies in the RFP evaluation process as a serious and important issue from a waste management industry and public perspective. We request that your municipality not act further on this matter until our association has been provided the opportunity to fully address concerns expressed by our industry. I would appreciate receiving confirmation from the Clerk of our request and an indication of a date to appear before council. Thank you in advance. Yours truly, Robert Cook President Cc: CAO Clerk & Members of Council John Fisher — OWMA Chairman of the Board Mayor Tony Van Bynen Mayor Margaret Black Mayor Robert Grossi Mayor James R. Young Mayor Wayne Emmerson D-1 GENERAL COMMITTEE — JANUARY 23, 2007 0~ C" Ontario Waste Management Association , December 21", 2006 (Original Mailed 1212112006) (All Councilors — Northern Six Municipalities) Dear Councilor, Congratulations on your recent election success and assuming your duties as an elected municipal councilor. As you assume those duties and responsibilities the Ontario Waste Management Association (OWMA) wishes to draw your attention to the outstanding and serious issues surrounding the assessment and awarding of the Northern Six Municipal RFP #CRFP-06-01-Collection and Haulage of Collectible Waste. OWMA has previously provided correspondence documenting waste industry concerns with the transparency and fairness of the RFP process (attached) and met with Mr. John S. Rogers, Chief Administration Officer, Town of Aurora to discuss our concerns. Three RFP bidders have also provided OWMA with information originating from communications with the Northern Six staff and bidder de -briefing meetings. Despite the attempt by Northern Six CAOs to address RFP process issues and concerns the OWMA remains convinced that political representatives in the Northern Six municipalities must critically review the RFP assessment process to ensure that the process was conducted fairly and openly and that the RFP assessment process yielded value to the taxpayer as was intended in the design of the RFP. We wish to reiterate our concerns as follows: RFP Design — Price versus Non -price Criteria The RFP was designed to recognize the equal importance of non -price criteria and low cost relative to the selection of a proposal and service provider. The non -price criteria were intended to provide a review and ranking of the ability, reputation and capacity of all RFP bidders to provide the service as outlined in the RFP over a contract term of 10 years. The non -price criteria of necessity must be evaluated in advance and independent of opening and assessing the cost portion of proposals. This is the standard approach when designing and assessing a proposal submitted under an RFP process commonly referred to as a `two -envelope' system. RFP proposals under such a system should always be assessed and ranked on non -price criteria first and then the price component revealed and ranked. In the case of RFP #CRFP-06-01 it has been acknowledged that the non -price assessment and ranking of proposals was conducted with the price information `opened' and `known' to the individuals involved in the assessment. 2005 Clark Blvd., Unit 3, Brampton Ontario L6T 5P8 Tol: (905) 791-9500 Toll (866) 266-9166 Fax: (905) 791-9514 www. owma.org Z, GENERAL COMMITTEE — JANUARY 23, 2007 Page 2 December 21, 2006 This creates a scenario where knowledge of the price component of proposals can consciously or sub- consciously influence the assessment and ranking of the non - price components of proposals. This represents a fundamental flaw in the RFP assessment process that in the view of OWMA invalidates the non -price assessment and ranking of proposals. RFP Proposal Assessment & Due Dilleence OWMA is convinced that the evaluation of RFP proposals has not been undertaken with the necessary rigor and due diligence to ensure that Northern Six taxpayers receive a high quality service for a reasonable cost. It would appear that the RFP assessment was superficial and relied solely on the information submitted by respondents with no due diligence employed to confirm or substantiate such information. In a proper and rigorous assessment of non -price criteria, all proposals would be assessed, information verified and references checked. OWMA was informed that only one proposal reference was checked - after a recommendation for awarding a contract was made. OWMA questions how all proposals could be ranked without verifying references or other information such as MTO CVOR documents that are publicly available as part of a valid assessment process and prior to an award recommendation. Northern Six staff has also shown a lack of understanding of Ministry of Transportation CVOR information which is the operating authority for truck fleets in Ontario. The CVOR system tests and ranks the compliance of fleet owners with the Highway Traffic Act and distinguishes `good' operating companies from those that have a `conditional' or `suspended' operating authority. At the time of assessment of the RFP proposals, a bidder had a `conditional' CVOR rating meaning that the authority to operate a vehicle fleet. could be suspended yet this did not impact the ranking of the company in the non -price assessment. RFP Process Fairness & Transparency The RFP was designed to provide equal weight to service -based factors related to the capacity and capability of bidders to provide the service levels requested in the RFP. Despite repeated requests, the Northern Six continue to refuse to release the non -price rankings and scores of RFP bidders. OWMA contends that this ranking and scoring or bidders is as much a part of the public record as the pricing and pricing ranking which has been released publicly. OWMA does not agree with Northern Six staff contentions that release of information would compromise proprietary information. The information that. should be released is only scores and rankings. D-3 GENERAL COMMITTEE — JANUARY 23, 2007 Page 3 December 21, 2006 We reiterate the position from our initial correspondence that the intent of the Northern Six Municipal RFP was not simply to acquire the lowest priced service. It is critical in the interest of fairness and transparency that the RFP non -price scoring and weighting for all respondents be released for public review with the specific criteria (if any) that were the basis of the assessment and due diligence investigation. OWMA does not accept the subjective assessment and references by staff that all bidders scored `essentially the same' on non -price criteria. All of the RFP bidders are not `essentially the same' and if the Northern Six assessment process came to that conclusion then it reinforces that the process was flawed. In conclusion, OWMA maintains that the RFP assessment process was flawed and that non -price factors for all RFP respondents were superficially or inadequately assessed. OWMA believes that corrective action by the Northern Six Municipalities is necessary and the Municipal Assessment Team and Consultant must be re-engaged to undertake a proper and complete assessment of the bid proposals as they relate to non -price service - based factors. A level of rigor and due diligence significantly greater than claimed must be applied to both meet the objectives of the RFP as designed and to provide tax payers with the best service at the best price. OWMA also contends that in the absence of a proper assessment of the current RFP proposals by the Municipal Assessment Team and Consultant that the current Northern Six Municipal RFP and contract process should be terminated and the RFP reissued for proposals under a more rigorous, fair and transparent assessment process. OWMA is also corresponding directly with the Mayor of your municipality to request an opportunity for OWMA to appear before Council to directly express the concerns and corrective actions that have been documented in this correspondence. Yours truly, Robert P. Cook President RPC/mlg Mr GE RAL C 23, 2007 Ontario aste Management Association November 8, 2006 Mr. John S. Rogers Chief Administration Officer TOWN OF AURORA 1 Municipal Drive, Box 1000 Aurora, Ontario L4G 6J1 Dear Mr. Rogers, Thank you for your e-mail and attached correspondence dated October 25th, 2006 in response to our inquiries regarding the Northern Six Municipal RFP #CRFP-06-01-Collection and Haulage of Collectible Waste. We have awaited the outcome of the meetings scheduled by your office with RFP respondents to discuss the bid assessment process and as a result we are now in a more informed position to respond. While the OWMA has approached this issue from the perspective of engaging in a cooperative and open discussion it is regrettable that the Northern Six Municipalities, with one exception, have declined to meet with OWMA representatives to discuss this issue. It is also disappointing that your correspondence of October 25tt', 2006 has questioned our Association's status in this matter and questioned OW MA's representation of the private sector and relevance to the issue at hand. Clearly OWMA has approached this issue from a cooperative, non -legal perspective with the issue of "standing" not considered to be a factor in requesting an opportunity to engage in constructive dialogue. Furthermore, a more rigorous investigation of the Ontario Waste Management Association would have revealed to you the fact that OWMA represents over 80% of private sector service providers with interests in municipal waste and recycling contracting and is selective regarding the private sector companies that the Association chooses to represent. The OWMA has a rigorous membership acceptance procedure and removes member companies that are deemed not to be reputable or responsible in relation to the standards of the industry. From this perspective, we represent responsible and reputable companies and are satisfied not to represent the entire private sector waste service industry. Perhaps, in forming your assessment of OWMA, it would be more enlightening to consider which private sector companies are not members or have had their membership forfeited. I also find your comments regarding the Recycling Council of Ontario interesting from the perspective that the issue of contention in this matter does not relate to SSO or recycling but rather to competitive process and contractual issues. In this respect, the Recycling Council of Ontario does not represent the private sector waste industry nor engage in competitive and contractual issues. I am also sure that your efforts to identify the relevancy of the OWMA have revealed that the association has a long history as a strong public policy advocate for waste diversion and recycling; has been an active member of the Board of Directors of Waste Diversion Ontario (WDO) from it's inception and is currently working with Stewardship Ontario (SO) to develop Best Practices Guidelines for the municipal delivery of Blue Box services. Contrary to your„comments of October 25th, 2006, OWMA is well positioned and qualified to bring these issues forward to the Northern Six Municipalities from both a competitive process and contractual perspective as well as from that of a recognized industry leader in the area of SSO and recycling policy and program implementation. 2005 Clark Blvd., Unit 3, Brampton Ontario L6T 5P8 Tel: (905) 791-9500 Toll (866) 266-9166 Fax: (905) 791-9514 www, owma.org D-5 GENERAL COMMITTEE - JANUARY 23, 2007 ^" Page 2 November 8, 2006 We have had an opportunity to review and assess the "debriefing" meetings that have been held with respondents to your RFP. We are aware of the correspondence that has been forwarded to your attention from Miller Waste Systems and Waste Services Inc. and as a result, our concerns with the Northern Six Municipal RFP process have intensified. It would appear that, contrary to your correspondence of October 25th, 2006, the RFP evaluation of submissions has not been undertaken with substantial rigor nor with the utmost of due diligence. It would appear that the RFP assessment was superficial and relied solely on the information submitted by respondents with no due diligence employed to confirm or substantiate such information. Given the term and value of the Northern Six Municipal RFP and contract, this lack of due diligence and rigorous assessment is troubling. We reiterate the position from our initial correspondence that the intent of the Northern Six Municipal RFP was not simply to acq&e the lowest priced service. The RFP was designed to provide equal weight to service -based factors related to the capacity and capability of bidders to provide the service levels requested in the RFP. It is critical in the interest of fairness and transparency that the RFP non -price scoring and weighting for all respondents be released for public review with the specific criteria (if any) that were the basis of the assessment and due diligence investigation. We do not understand the refusal by the Northern Six Municipalities to release this information as it is as much a part of the RFP assessment results as the price information from respondents which has been released publicly. Based on information and statements provided to respondents by Northern Six municipal officials and the consultant at recent debriefing meetings, OWMA maintains that the service -based factors for all RFP respondents were superficially assessed necessitating corrective action by the Northern Six Municipalities. OWMA believes that the Northern Six Municipalities must re-engage the Municipal Assessment Team and Consultant to undertake a proper and complete assessment of the bid proposals as they relate to non -price service -based factors. A level of rigor and due diligence significantly greater than claimed must be applied to both meet the objectives of the RFP as designed and to provide tax payers with the best service at the best price. OWMA also contends that in the absence of a proper assessment of the current RFP proposals by the Municipal Assessment Team and Consultant that the current Northern Six Municipal RFP and contract process should be terminated and the RFP reissued for proposals under a more rigorous, fair and transparent assessment process. It is unfortunate that the Northern Six Municipalities have chosen not to meet or have dialogue with the OWMA in respect to this very important issue. The implications of the RFP process will be felt beyond York Region and, as such, it is of utmost importance and interest to the waste management industry. I look forward to engagement and dialogue with OWMA by the Northern Six Municipalities on a constructive basis as was originally proposed and the re -assessment of existing RFP bids or the development of a new RFP process to ensure that the objectives of the RFP are met. Yours truly, Robert P. Cook President RPC/mlg M. G ERAL COMMITTEE - JANU RY 23, 2007 rir Ontario Waste Management Association October 20, 2006 Mr. Tim M. Jones Mayor TOWN OF AURORA 1 Municipal Drive, Box 1000 Aurora, Ontario L4G 6J1 Dear Mayor Jones, 1 am writing on behalf of the Ontario Waste Management Association (OWMA) to express concerns about a recent RFP process undertaken by the Town of Aurora, together with five other municipalities in the Region of York. The OWMA supports open, transparent and fair competitive processes for waste management services contracted to municipalities and private sector waste generators. We have actively engaged in helping municipalities establish competitive processes and in monitoring such processes to ensure they are conducted fairly, openly and in the best interests of taxpayers and customers. RFPs are the preferred competitive process for municipalities when the objective is to secure a contracted service provider that is evaluated and selected on the basis of criteria more than simply 'low price.' Tenders are the competitive process selected when the objective is to secure contracted services based on `low price' criteria only. The OWMA has reviewed the recent York Region `Northern 6 Municipalities Joint Waste Collection Contract' released as RFP No. CRFP-06-01 for the "Collection and Haulage of Collectable Waste." Based on our review, the Northern 6 staff and consultant's assessment, and other information, we are challenging the RFP evaluation process and the awarding of the contract. We do not believe that the process and outcome have been fair, transparent or reflective of the intent of the RFP in differentiating bidders and their proposals — particularly in the area of service provision. The RFP and evaluation process was structured to assess and weigh criteria from contract bidders relating to customer service, reliability, financial, management and experience. These criteria when valued and weighted represented 50% of the evaluation score. While the other 50% of the RFP scoring - the `cost' aspect of the evaluation for each bidder - has been released publicly, the balance of the evaluation results has not, OWMA contends that transparency and fairness demands that the evaluation scoring for all criteria be available for review in the public domain. Further, we would expect that the Northern 6 municipal staff, and the third party consultant assisting in the evaluations, be accountable to all bidders - and ultimately area municipality councils and taxpayers - for the evaluation process and results. 2005 Clark Blvd., Unit 3, Brampton Ontario L6T 5P8 Tel: (905) 791-9500 Toll (866) 266-9166 Fax: (905) 791-9514 www.owma.org D- 7 GENERAL COMMITTEE - JANUARY 23, 2007 Page 2 October 20, 2006 The staff reports from area municipalities have included subjective references to the non -cost evaluations, indicating that "the scorings within each of the evaluation categories were close..." OWMA challenges the effectiveness of the criteria assessment and the degree of due diligence undertaken by the evaluation team and consultant if the four bidders were scored `closely' and could not be differentiated except on the basis of price. OWMA believes there is ample information readily available that would have differentiated the bidders on non -price criteria. This underscores concerns about the methodology by which staff and the consultant undertook the criteria evaluation. OWMA views the apparent deficiencies in the RFP evaluation process as a serious and important issue from a waste management industry and public perspective. We respectfully request an opportunity to meet with you, your CAO and any municipal official you wish to invite to discuss our concerns. We request that your municipality not act further on this matter until our association has been provided the opportunity to fully address concerns expressed by our industry. I will contact you within the next few days to arrange a meeting. The OWMA Board of Directors appreciates the significance of our request and you have our association's commitment that we will deal with this matter in an expeditious and professional manner. 1 look forward to meeting with you very soon. Yours truly, Robert Cook President Cc: CAO Clerk & Members of Council John Fisher — OWMA Chairman of the Board Mayor Tom Taylor Mayor Margaret Black Mayor Robert Grossi Mayor James R. Young Mayor Sue Sherban M GENERAL COMMITTEE — JANUARY 23, 2007 Delegation (b) Panizza, Bob From: Carla Adams [c.adams@aurorachamber.on.ca] Sent: Wednesday, January 17, 2007 3:06 PM To: Panizza, Bob Subject: General Committee mtg on Jan 23rd - Chamber appearance As discussed, the Aurora Chamber of Commerce would like to appear as a delegation at the Town's General Committee meeting on Jan. 23rd. I understand that the proposed sign by-law changes will be considered at this meeting. Please provide confirmation that the Chamber will be on the agenda, and the final details concerning this meeting at your earliest convenience. Regards, Carla Adams Executive Director Aurora Chamber of Commerce E-mail: c adams(a)aurorachamber.on.ca Aurora Chamber of Commerce 6-14845 Yonge Street, Suite 321 Aurora ON L4G 6N8 Tel: (905) 727-7262 Fax: (905) 841-6217 Website: www.aurorachamber.on.ca 1/17/2007 D - 9 GENERAL COMMITTEE - JANUARY 23, 2007 Av>�-oxA TOWN OFAURORA SPECIAL GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES NO. 07-01 Council Chambers Aurora Town Hall Tuesday, January 2, 2007 ATTENDANCE COMMITTEE MEMBERS Mayor Morris in the Chair; Councillors Buck, Collins- Mrakas, Gaertner, Granger, Marsh, MacEachern McRoberts, and Wilson MEMBERS ABSENT None OTHER ATTENDEES Chief Administrative Officer, Director of Corporate Services/Town Clerk Mayor Morris called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. I DECLARATIONS OF PECUNIARY INTEREST There were no declarations of pecuniary interest under the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act. If APPROVAL OFAGENDA General Committee recommends: THAT the agenda as circulated by the Corporate Services Department be approved as presented. CARRIED Councillor Wilson arrived at 7:10 p.m. III DELEGATIONS General Committee recommends: THAT Ms Rebecca Beaton be permitted to address General Committee as a delegate. CARRIED -1- GENERAL COMMITTEE - JANUARY 23, 2007 General Committee Report No. 07-01 Page 2 of 2 Tuesday, January 2, 2007 (a) Ms Rebecca Beaton Re: Item 1 — Orientation/Review of the Town of Aurora Procedural By-law 4835-06.0 Ms Rebecca Beaton indicated that the notice that was posted in the newspaper did not provide sufficient detail regarding tonight's meeting and that the Procedural By-law was not posted on the website in order to provide her with sufficient time to submit her comments on any proposed changes. General Committee recommends: THAT the delegation be received. CARRIED IV CONSIDERATION OF ITEM REQUIRING SEPARATE DISCUSSION Orientation/Review of the Town of Aurora Procedural By-law 4835-06.0 Members of the General Committee reviewed, in detail, the Procedural By-law and made a number of inquiries regarding the interpretation of various sections. Members also presented a number of suggestions for possible amendments. Councillor Gaertner left the meeting at 9:40 p.m. General Committee recommends: THAT the suggestions presented by the members of the General Committee be referred to staff for further review and a report back to General Committee. CARRIED V ADJOURNMENT General Committee recommends: THAT the meeting be adjourned at 10:25 p.m. CARRIED THE REPORT OF THE GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING 07-01 IS SUBJECT TO FINAL APPROVAL AT COUNCIL ON TUESDAY, JANUARY 16, 2007. -2- GENERAL COMMITTEE - JANUARY 23, 2007 Aup,-ouA TOWN OF AURORA SPECIAL GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES NO, 07-02 Council Chambers Aurora Town Hall Thursday, January 4, 2007 ATTENDANCE COMMITTEE MEMBERS Mayor Morris the Chair; Councillors Buck, Granger, Marsh, MacEachern McRoberts, and Wilson MEMBERS ABSENT Councillors Collins-Mrakas and Gaertner were absent. OTHER ATTENDEES Chief Administrative Officer, Chief Executive Officer of the Aurora Public Library, Director of Corporate . Services/Town Clerk, Director of Leisure Services, Director of Planning, Director of Public Works, Director of Financial Services/Treasurer, and Administrative Co-ordinator/Deputy Clerk Mayor Morris called the meeting to order at 7:10 p.m. I DECLARATIONS OF PECUNIARY INTEREST There were no declarations of pecuniary interest under the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act. 11 APPROVAL OFAGENDA General Committee recommends: THAT the agenda as circulated by the Corporate Services Department, with the following additional Items, be approved: 2007 Building Administration Business Plan Revised 2007 Legal Services Business Plan ➢ Memorandum from Councillor Collins-Mrakas — Business Plans Commentary CARRIED 111 DELEGATIONS Mr. John Rogers, CAD, provided the General Committee with an overview of the Draft 2007 Department Business Plans and advised that the newly adopted Strategic Plan was the basis for the business plans. Each Director and the CEO of the Aurora Public Library made a presentation to the General Committee with a brief overview of their respective draft business plan and addressed questions of the committee. -3- GENERAL COMMITTEE - JANUARY 23, 2007 Special General Committee Report No. 07-02 Page 2 of 2 Thursday, January 4, 2007 General Committee recommends: THAT the hour of the meeting be extended to consider the remainder of the delegations. CARRIED General Committee recommends; THAT the Draft 2007 Department Business Plans be received for information purposes, CARRIED W ADJOURNMENT General Committee recommends: THAT the meeting adjourn at 10:40 pm CARRIED THE REPORT OF THE SPECIAL GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING 07-02 IS SUBJECT TO FINAL APPROVAL AT COUNCIL ON TUESDAY, JANUARY 16, 2007. P. MORRIS, MAYOR B. PANIZZA, TOWN CLERK -4- GENERAL COMMITTEE - JANUARY 23, 2007 AURORA TOWN OFAURORA GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES NO. 07-03 Council Chambers Aurora Town Hall Tuesday, January 9, 2007 ATTENDANCE COMMITTEE MEMBERS Councillor MacEachern in the Chair; Mayor Morris Councillors Buck, Collins-Mrakas, Gaertner, Granger, Marsh, McRoberts, and Wilson MEMBERS ABSENT None OTHER ATTENDEES Chief Administrative Officer, Director of Corporate Services/Town Clerk, Director of Leisure Services, Director of Planning, Director of Public Works, Director of Financial Services/ Treasurer, Town Solicitor, and Council/Committee Secretary. Councillor MacEachern called the meeting to order at 7:14 p.m. I DECLARATIONS OF PECUNIARY INTEREST There were no declarations of pecuniary interest under the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act. II APPROVAL OFAGENDA General Committee recommends: THAT the agenda as circulated by the Corporate Services Department, with the following additional items, be approved: Delegation b) — Mr. Frank Shaw, Chair of Planning & Partnerships Oak Ridges Moraine Land Trust Re: Item 4 — Correspondence from Oak Ridges Moraine Land Trust Closed Session — Legal Matter CARRIED III ADOPTION OF THE MINUTES General Committee Report of December 12, 2006, Meeting Number 06-18 General Committee recommends: THAT the General Committee Report of Meeting Number 06-18, dated December 12, 2006, be adopted as printed and circulated. CARRIED -5- GENERAL COMMITTEE - JANUARY 23, 2007 General Committee Report No. 07-03 Page 2 of 5 Tuesday, January 9, 2007 IV DETERMINATION OF ITEMS REQUIRING SEPARATE DISCUSSION Items 1, 2, 3 and 4 were identified for discussion. V ADOPTION OF ITEMS NOT REQUIRING SEPARATE DISCUSSION General Committee recommends: THAT the following recommendations respecting the matters listed as "Items not Requiring Separate Discussion" be adopted as submitted to the General Committee and staff be authorized to take all necessary action .required to give effect to same: 5. F307-001 — Temporary Borrowing By-law THAT the Mayor and the Director of Finance/Treasurer be authorized to borrow from time to time until the property taxes are collected, such sums as the Council considers necessary to meet the current expenditures of the Corporation for the year in accordance with the Section 407 of the Municipal Act, 2001, S.O. 2001 G. 25 as amended; and THAT except with the approval of the Ontario Municipal Board (OMB) the total amount borrowed at any one time plus outstanding amounts of principal borrowed and accrued interest shall not exceed: a) From January 1 to September 30 in the year, 50 per cent of the total estimated revenues of the municipality as set out In the budget adopted for the year; and b) From October 1 to December 31 in the year, 25 per cent of the total estimated revenues for the municipality as set out in the budget adopted for the year; and THAT By-law Number 4770-06,F be repealed; and THAT Council enact By-law number 4880-07.F authorizing temporary borrowing by the Corporation pending the receipt of Municipal revenues pursuant to Section 407 of the Municipal Act, 2001, S.O. 2001 c. 25 as amended. 6. FS07-002 - 2007 Interim Property Tax Rates THAT Council for the Corporation of the Town of Aurora authorize a 2007 Interim Property Tax Levy on all rateable real property which has been assessed according to the assessment roll returned December 12, 2006 by the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC) for the taxation year 2007; and THAT the 2007 Interim Property Tax Levy be set as legislated at 50% of the total 2006 property taxes levied on each property; and THAT the 2007 Interim Property Tax Rates will be equivalent to 50% of the 2006 Final Property Tax Rates as listed in Appendix "A" of this report and levied on the Current Value Assessment (CVA) as returned by MPAC for the taxation year 2007; and THAT the 2007 Interim Property Tax Levy be due in two relatively equal installments on Thursday, February 22, 2007 and Tuesday, April 24, 2007; and Q GENERAL COMMITTEE - JANUARY 23, 2007 General Committee Report No. 07-03 Page 3 of 5 Tuesday, January 9, 2007 THAT the Director of Finance/Treasurer be authorized to amend in whole or in part any billing in order to comply with any Provincial Legislation which may be Introduced or passed by the Province of Ontario prior to or after the issuance of the 2007 Interim Property Tax Bills; and THAT By-law No. 4879-075 be enacted at the Council meeting scheduled for January 16, 2007, CARRIED VI NEW BUSINESS/GENERAL INFORMATION- COUNCILLORS Mayor Morris requested that the Director of Corporate Services ensure that all Councillors receive a copy of the comments recently made by Mr. Klaus Wehrenberg during Open Forum. Mayor Morris requested that staff provide an update as to how items are listed for the budget discussion and how they are brought forward. Mayor Morris advised that she will be attending the Regional Council meeting on Wednesday, January 10, 2007 at 1:30 p.m. to address the 2C Lands issue, Councillor Wilson advised that the December 19, 2006 Council minutes did not reflect the fact that he took part in the York Region Police Services Ride Program. Further, Councillor Wilson congratulated York Region Police Services for the successful Ride Program this year. Mayor Morris advised that she attended the opening of HERSS Wellness & Beauty Spa on Saturday, January 6, 2007, accompanied by Councillors Buck, Marsh and Wilson. VIl DELEGATIONS General Committee recommends: THAT Mr. Frank Shaw, be permitted to delegate first. CARRIED (b) Mr. Frank Shaw, Chair of Planning & Partnerships Oak Ridges Moraine Land Trust Re: Item 4 — Correspondence from Oak Ridges Moraine Land Trust Mr. Frank Shaw addressed General Committee to request $5,000 from the Town of Aurora for permit fees that were required to be paid for the McLeod Wood land securement. General Committee recommends. THAT the comments of the delegate be received for information and that Item 4 be brought forward for discussion. CARRIED -7- GENERAL COMMITTEE - JANUARY 23, 2007 General Committee Report No. 07-03 Page 4 of 5 Tuesday, January 9, 2007 4. Correspondence from Oak Ridges Moraine Land Trust General Committee recommends: THAT the correspondence from Oak Ridges Moraine Land Trust be received and that staff provide comments for the discussion during budget deliberations regarding the request for a grant. CARRIED (a) Mr. John Gutteridge, Director of Financial Servicestrreasurer Re: Item 1- 2007 Operating Budget Mr. John Gutteridge addressed General Committee to give an overview of Draft #1 of the 2007 Operating Budget. Mr. Gutteridge indicated that detailed discussion will take place at the Budget meeting on January 20, 2007 and that this presentation is a high level overview. Councillor Wilson requested that the 2006 actual figures be available for review at the January 20, 2007 Budget meeting. General Committee recommends: THAT the comments of the delegate be received for information. CARRIED Vill CONSIDERATION OFITEMS REQUIRING SEPARATE DISCUSSION 2007 Operating Budget General Committee recommends:, THAT the 2007 Operating Budget be received for information. CARRIED General Committee recommends: THAT the General Committee recess for five minutes at 8:50 p.m. CARRIED The meeting reconvened at 8:55 p.m. 2. LS07-001 — Foresters Big Swim for Arthritis General Committee recommends: THAT Council approve the Foresters Big Swim for Arthritis 2007 at the Aurora Recreation Complex on April 21, 2007; and THAT all municipal permit fees be waived in support of the event. �ri GENERAL COMMITTEE - JANUARY 23, 2007 General Committee Report No. 07.03 Page 5 of 5 Tuesday, January 9, 2007 General Committee considered the following amendment to the recommendation: THAT Council provide preliminary approval of a grant for $471.23 in lieu of waiving the permit fees. The main recommendation was CARRIED AS AMENDED. 3. Correspondence from Leksand, Sweden General Committee recommends: THAT the correspondence from Leksand, Sweden be received for information and that a letter of congratulations be forwarded regarding the recent junior hockey tournament. CARRIED IX CLOSED SESSION General Committee recommends: THAT the General Committee proceed into Closed Session to address a legal matter. CARRIED X ADJOURNMENT General Committee recommends: THAT the meeting be adjourned at 9:10 p.m. CARRIED THE REPORT OF THE GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING 07-03 IS SUBJECT. TO FINAL APPROVAL AT COUNCIL ON TUESDAY, JANUARY 16, 2007. -9- GENERAL COMMITTEE - JANUARY 23, 2007 /-;M� AvwoxA TOWN OF AURORA SPECIAL GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES NO. 07-04 Council Chambers Aurora Town Hall Tuesday, January 9, 2007 ATTENDANCE COMMITTEE MEMBERS Mayor Morris in the Chair; Councillors Buck, Collins- Mrakas, Gaertner, Granger, Marsh, MacEachern McRoberts, and Wilson MEMBERS ABSENT None OTHER ATTENDEES Chief Administrative Officer, Director of Corporate Services/Town Clerk, Director of Leisure Services, Director of Public Works, Town Solicitor, and Council/Committee Secretary. Mayor Morris called the meeting to order at 6:04 p.m. I DECLARATIONS OF PECUNIARY INTEREST There were no declarations of pecuniary interest under the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act. 11 APPROVAL OFAGENDA General Committee recommends: THAT the agenda as circulated by the Corporate Services Department, with the following additional items, be approved: Sample Meeting Calendar ➢ Joint Council Committee — Central York Fire Services Terms of Reference III DELEGATIONS None Councillor Buck arrived at 6:06 p.m. CARRIED -10- GENERAL COMMITTEE - JANUARY 23, 2007 Special General Committee Report No. 07-04 Page 2 of 3 Tuesday, January 9, 2007 IV CONSIDERATION OF ITEM REQUIRING SEPARATE DISCUSSION Review, Comment and Consideration of any Amendments to the Terms of Reference for the Traffic Safety Advisory Committee, Leisure Services Advisory Committee and the Economic Development Advisory Committee ALL ADVISORY COMMITTEES General Committee recommends: THAT the citizen members on all advisory committees be appointed for a two year term, with the option of a further two year term. CARRIED General Committee recommends: THAT the Council members on all advisory committees be appointed for a two year term, with the option of a further two year term. DEFEATED TRAFFIC SAFETY ADVISORY COMMITTEE General Committee recommends: THAT the Terms of Reference Membership for the Traffic Safety Advisory Committee be changed to reflect that two (2) Councillors sit on the committee. CARRIED General Committee recommends: THAT the Terms of Reference for the Traffic Safety Advisory Committee be approved, as amended. CARRIED LEISURE SERVICES ADVISORY COMMITTEE General Committee recommends: THAT the day of the meeting for the Leisure Services Advisory Committee be changed to the third Thursday of the month, pending staffs comments regarding logistics. CARRIED General Committee recommends: THAT the Terms of Reference Membership for the Leisure Services Advisory Committee be changed to: three (3) Council Members, 5 (five) citizen members, one (1) citizen member from the Sports Council and up to two (2) youth members. CARRIED -11- GENERAL COMMITTEE - JANUARY 23, 2007 Special General Committee Report No. 07-04 Page 3 of 3 Tuesday, January 9, 2007 General Committee recommends: THAT the Terms of Reference for the Leisure Services Advisory Committee, with the deletion of the following duplicate bullet point: 'Review and comment on the annual capital program for the department within the context of both the Master Plan and the Strategic Plan to ensure the approach is consistent with their objectives and priorities' be approved, as amended. - CARRIED V ADJOURNMENT General Committee recommends: THAT the meeting be adjourned at 7:10 p.m. CARRIED THE REPORT OF THE GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING 07-04 IS SUBJECT TO FINAL APPROVAL AT COUNCIL ON TUESDAY, JANUARY 16, 2007. -12- GENERAL COMMITTEE — JANUARY 23, 2007 { 1 AITEggM i TOWN OF AURORA AURORA GENERAL COMMITTEE REPORT No. LS07-002 SUBJECT: Pro -Shop Request for Proposal— New Recreation Complex FROM: Allan D. Downey, Director of Leisure Services DATE: January 23, 2007 RECOMMENDATIONS THAT Council authorize the Mayor and Clerk to enter into an agreement with Rec Cycle and Sports for the Pro Shop services at the new Recreation Complex based on the results from RFP LS2006-95, effective February 9, 2007, for a 5 year term. BACKGROUND The first phase of construction at the new Recreation Complex was completed in September 2005. In an effort to provide pro -shop services for patrons of the new Recreation Complex in the first phase of occupancy Request for Proposal LS2005-65 was released on July 29, 2005. Two firms collected RFP documents at this time. RFP LS2005- 65 closed on August 16, 2005. One firm Rec Cycle and Sport had submitted a proposal. Based on reference checks and the lack of response to RFP LS2005-65 Leisure Services released RFP LS2006-32 on February 8, 2006 and no firms responded to RFP 2006-32 which closed on March 21, 2006. On November 30, 2006 Leisure Services released LS 2006-95 with revised RFP rental terms of reference approved by Council and listed below. RFP 2006-95 closed on December 18, 2006. One firm, Rec Cycle and Sports responded to RFP 2006-95. COMMENTS Request for Proposal LS2006-95 contained the following terms of reference: 1) A five (5) year term on Pro -Shop services from February 1, 2007 to January 31, 2012. Contract to include a 90 day notification of termination clause. 2) A flat rental amount of $2,400 annually, $200 paid via post-dated cheque monthly, including all utilities. Contract to include a 10% escalation of the rental amount per year for the duration of the 5 year term. 3) Liability Insurance of $2 million with the Town listed as co-insured. 4) Tenant will be responsible for all equipment and any upgrades or leasehold improvements. 5) Products and services provided including swimming equipment. ..../2 -13- GENERAL COMMITTEE — JANUARY 23, 2007 January 23, 2007 - 2 - Report No. LS07-002 Submissions for LS2006 — 95 were evaluated based on the following criteria and weighting: 1) Proven Municipal experience including large scale multi -use facilities is essential 20% 2) Full listing product selection 10% 3) Full listing of services 10% 4) Pricing structure 20% 5) Hours of operation 20% 6) References 20% The submission for LS2006-95 was reviewed and approved by Purchasing and Leisure Services for compliance and assessed based on the above evaluation criteria. OPTIONS Option #1 Re-release Tender for Pro -shop services at the new Recreation Complex, however this is the third time for the release of a Request for Proposal for this Pro -Shop and staff recommend that the Pro -Shop be occupied to meet user needs. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS The Pro -Shop Services Agreement with Rec Cycle and Sports will account for the following revenue in the Leisure Services Budget: Year 2007 = $2,200 (Based on 11 months in 2007) Year 2008 = $2,640 Year 2009 = $2,904 Year 2010 = $3,194 Year 2011 = $3,514 Year 2012 = $322.00 (Based on 1 month for the year) CONCLUSIONS Staff recommends proceeding with an agreement with Rec Cycle and Sports for the provision of Pro -Shop services at the New Recreation Complex. LINK TO STRATEGIC PLAN Objective A2: Support the growth of a variety of businesses to encourage a sustainable business environment ..../3 —14— GENERAL COMMITTEE — JANUARY 23, 2007 January 23, 2007 - 3 - Report No. LS07-002 ATTACHMENTS RIM PRE -SUBMISSION REVIEW Management Team Meeting, Wednesday, January 3, 2007. Prepared by. Aaron Karmazyn, Manager of Facilities & Property - Ext. 4323 Allan D. Downey S. Rogers Director of Leis ervices Chief Administrative Officer -15- GENERAL COMMITTEE - JANUARY 23, 2007 Ar',EHDA ITEM It J h TOWN OF AURORA AURORA GENERAL COMMITTEE REPORT No. PL06-127 SUBJECT: Request for Street Names Mattamy (Aurora) Limited (Formerly— Quaker Lundy Farms) Part of Lot 25, Concession 2 File Numbers: D12-00-8A & D14-23-00 FROM: Sue Seibert, Director of Planning DATE: January 23, 2007 RECOMMENDATIONS THAT, the following street name be allocated to the proposed internal street within the proposed Draft Plan of Subdivision, D12-00-8A, Mattamy (Aurora) Limited. Street "A" KIDD BACKGROUND In accordance with the Town of Aurora's Street Naming Policy, developers -have the option of requesting specific street names for proposed new developments, pending obtaining clearance by the Region of York Planning Department and acceptance by the Town's Fire Department, and subsequently Council's approval. Mattamy (Aurora) Ltd. have indicated their desire to proceed with the clearance of conditions of draft approval, working towards the Subdivision Agreement. It is appropriate that the street names be approved for the site at this time. COMMENTS The proposed name was brought forward by David Madeira, Mattamy (Aurora) Ltd., and first had the opportunity of reviewing the Approved Bank of Street Names for possible consideration. The street name Kidd has been selected from the Council approved Name Bank. The proposed name Kidd is named after Thos A. Kidd who served in World War I. His name is on the Town of Aurora War Memorial Cenotaph. All of the submitted names have been approved by Central York Fire Services and Region of York for use in Aurora. Unfortunately, at this time we were unable to locate any —16— GENERAL COMMITTEE — JANUARY 23, 2007 January 23, 2007 -2- Report No. PL06-127 members of the Kidd family. However, we will try to notify the family in the near future. There are two main access points to this subdivision. The first is through Mavrinac Boulevard from St. John's Sideroad.. The second is through Hartwell Way from Bayview Avenue. Please see Figure 1 (Key Map) and Figure 2 (Location Map) for the complete street configuration. The street name Mavrinac Boulevard was approved by Council on May 14, 2002. This road is one of the main north/south collector roads that will eventually connect from St. John's Sideroad down to Wellington Street East. The street name Lewis Honey Drive was approved by Council on March 2gth, 2005. Both Mavrinac Boulevard and Lewis Honey Drive were assigned to the draft plan of subdivision D12-00-1A (St. John's Road Development Corp.). Council has the option to refuse the allocation and assignment of all or any of these proposed names, atwhich point the developerwould have to re -submit alternate requests to the applicable agencies as per the Town's Street Naming Policy. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS Not Applicable. CONCLUSIONS In keeping with Council's resolution respecting the naming of public roads, staff recommends that this name be considered for use on the internal road servicing this site. LINK TO STRATEGIC PLAN Promote a sustainable community that respects its historic culture and character and embraces diverse cultural development and renewal in harmony with sound environmental management and business development activity. FIGURES Figure 1 — Key Map Figure 2 — Location Map —17— GENERAL COMMITTEE — JANUARY 23, 2007 January 23, 2007 - 3 - Report No. PL06-127 PRE -SUBMISSION REVIEW Management Team Meeting — December 5th, 2006 Prepared by. Cory Fagan, GIS Database Analyst Extension 4348 ;44� Su a Se rt, M.C.LP., R.P.P. Director of Planning and Development Services . �"�--•''`tea n"S. Rogers, C.A.O. RKE•T\\ ST. JOHN'S SIDEROAD SUBJECT LANDS ___ `Lewis�Honey Dr Pedersen Dr Q I Hartwell Way W at i I o I >1 L 1 Co Z W v I Ol / I =1---• I �I Hollandview Spring Farm Rd I Trl �LLu ca � r r Hollidge Blvd Borealis Ave m ----r C L C O River Ridge Blvd I m 17 — — ICJ..w)'-- --� — W 1 CL LONGTON (STREET EAST KEYN o 250 500 AuR MAP A Metres FIGURE 1 Key Map created by the Town of Aurora P"i,1qpepartment, December ist, 2006. tease map data prowoea oy me rregion or rorrc. N LU Peen 6, 0 LL � 0 n a m F h m 0 N y ante OVNIHndw Horsley �' 0 ° W., O E OLO aai� W 0 <rO O W L e LLJQ _ a (we Q fn 3 c L w = J = 2 O W 01 g E— F z I J N Z J W WO1 W1-% w� < Cl W O W W U j 0 Conover Ave a.2 Uppm U)I a)LOF-M �'� Z r�JOMi "QI O O1 "� O IL I awgAb M31AA,— T Q a � Q -zo- GENERAL COMMITTEE - JANUARY 23, 2007�IMA ITEM I# w' 3 i' TOWN OF AURORA AURORA GENERAL COMMITTEE REPORT No. PL07-001 SUBJECT: Zoning By-law Amendment Application Smart Centres (formerly Whitwell Developments Limited)/ -Wal-Mart Part Block 2, Plan 65M-3819 File NumberD14-09-06 FROM: Sue Seibert, Director of Planning and Development Services DATE: January 23, 2007 RECOMMENDATION THAT Council receive as information the following overview of Zoning By-law Amendment Application D14-09-06, scheduled for the February 28, 2007 Public Planning Meeting. BACKGROUND Council previously considered the subject Zoning Bylaw amendment application at the Public Planning meeting of April 26, 2006. At that meeting Council passed the following resolution: "THAT Council resolve that the application be brought back for further consideration by Council at a future Public Planning meeting, to be scheduled once staff have resolved all outstanding issues, received and reviewed all necessary information, including the revised site plan, for conformity to the Official Plan and associated urban design guideline issues and taking into account the comments from the public and Council." On December 19, 2006 the applicant resubmitted a revised Site Plan application to address the urban design issues. The Site Plan application is currently under review. Location/Land Use The subject lands, as shown on Figure 1 to this staff report, are located at the northeast corner of First Commerce Dr. and Wellington Street being part of Block 2 Plan 65M-3819. The subject block has an area of approximately 19ha (49 acres) and will gain access onto First Commerce Drive by two three driveways. The lands are currently vacant. Surrounding Uses North: State Farm Canadian head office site South: (across Wellington St.) vacant- future Business Park lands East: vacant — future Business Park lands also owned by Smart Centres West: (across First Commerce Dr), vacant- future Business Park lands owned by Smart Centres. —21— GENERAL COMMITTEE — JANUARY 23, 2007 January 23, 2007 - 2 - Report No. PL07-001 Official Plan On May 24, 2005 Council approved OPA 58 which designated the subject lands to "Business Park- Regional Commercial Centre". The OPA is approved and in effect. OPA 58 was approved as an amendment to OPA30 to add regional shopping centre uses to the Business Park as complimentary land uses to the area. The land use polices of the Business Park -Regional Commercial Centre permits regional serving retail and service commercial uses up to a total aggregate floor area of 50,200m2 (540, 000 sq. ft.) The development is to be designed and developed in a manner compatible with the business park function. In addition to Business Park uses large floor plate retail uses are permitted which includes a department store anchor. A full range of complimentary retail and service commercial uses are also permitted including a supermarket and specialty food store retail. Development within the entire Business Park area will be implemented through the application of detailed guidelines as outlined in the Council approved 'Aurora Gateway Business Park Urban Design Guidelines' (Turner Fleischer Architects, Terraplan Landscape Architects, May 2, 2005). Zoning By-law The subject lands are zoned "Business Park (BP-4i) Exception Zone" by Zoning Bylaw 2213-78 as amended by Bylaw 4669-05.D. The bylaw implements the policies of the OPA 58 and supporting documents related to urban design and marketing/phasing. The bylaw was approved by the OMB and is in full force. Bylaw4669-05.D allows up to 50,166 m2 (540,000 sq. ft.) of gross leasable floorarea (gla) for retail and service commercial uses within the BP4 zone. The specifics of the bylaw permits a department store up to 12,319m2 (132,600 sq. ft) of gla and a supermarket of up to 10,519m2 (114,000 sq. ft). gla. The bylaw also provides site specific definitions for a number of the commercial uses including 'department store' and'supermarket'. The owner has applied for a site specific bylaw amendment as noted below. PROPOSAL The applicant proposes to develop the lands for a large format Wal-Mart store in keeping with its new prototype department stores that are being launched in Canada. The larger store would, in addition to selling department store items, sell an expanded range of foods not currently allowed under the department store bylaw definition. As such, the owner has submitted an application to amend the site specific provisions of Bylaw4669-05.D to allow: a) a department store use (Wal-Mart) of up to 20,392 m (219,500 sq.ft.) gla, which exceeds the limit of 12,319 m2 (132,605 sq.ft.)gla as currently allowed by the bylaw, b) a department store to sell a full range of food products beyond the 'limited range' of foods as currently defined in the bylaw. The full range of food product sales within the department store would not exceed 5,110 m2 (55,000 sq.ft.) gla, and —22— GENERAL COMMITTEE — JANUARY 23, 2007 January 23, 2007 - 3 - Report No. PL07-001 c) either a department store or a supermarket, but not both, in the BP4i zone. It is noted that a Site Plan application has also been submitted to allow the development of the Wal-Mart and nine (9) separate commercial pads comprising of 8452m2 (90,975 sq. ft.) for the lands on the east side of First Commerce Drive and north of Wellington Street as Phase I of the Business Park. Site Plan File: D11-01-06. The site plan will be considered by Council under a separate staff report after the public meeting. OPTIONS Not applicable. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS Not applicable. LINK TO STRATEGIC PLAN The Strategic Plan contains objectives to ensure high quality, comprehensive community planning with sound environmental management and business development activity to protect the overall investment of citizens in the community. The review of the subject application through the Zoning By-law Amendment process will facilitate this objective. PROVINCIAL POLICY STATEMENT There are no conflicts with the policies of the Provincial Policy Statement as a result of this application CONCLUSIONS Staff recommend that Council receive as information the overview of Zoning By-law Amendment Application D14-09-06 scheduled for the February 28, 2007 Public Planning Meeting. ATTACHMENTS Figure 1 - Location Plan Figure 2 —Applicant's Site Plan showing proposed development plan for lands east of First Commerce Drive and north of Wellington Street. PRE -SUBMISSION REVIEW Management Team Meeting — January 10, 2007 —23— GENERAL COMMITTEE - JANUARY 23, 2007 January 23, 2007 - 4 - Report No. PL07-001 Prepared by. Glen Letman, Manager of Development Planning Extension 4346 S s n Se' ert, M.C.I.P., R.P.P. ector of Planning and Development Services n S. Rogers, C.A.O. -24- ERAL an NI! Ur Z p p w J fq O O i a a Z 0 it f— a az J O w w I-- � Z W W w m� w N Z as w J o Q m 10 W U F IX Jr W a F J Z a w a (n o J WLLI 0. Z W Q W c o U N Z F C7 a ZN o aioZ¢ �g Q z9 z ® ILW 0 H J a-'�a au.ap L ........... :i X.7 . . .. . ............. . ........... ......... .. . ............ . . ............ ............. ............... I tpOt' A bMHJIH Z a L o I: Li ,:. L D (L IL Ij GENERAL COMMITTEE - JANUARY 23, 2007 TOWN OF AURORA AURORA GENERAL COMMITTEE REPORT No. PL07-002 SUBJECT: 313-321 Ridge Road -Aurora Cable Internet property By-law Compliance FROM: Susan Seibert, Director of Planning and Development Services DATE: January 23, 2007 RECOMMENDATION THAT Report PL07-002, be received as information; and THAT, Council formally request thatAC1, as soon as possible, satisfy the conditions of the OMB order in order to complete the project. BACKGROUND The owner of the lands located at 313-321 Ridge Road, in 2005 submitted an application to the Committee of Adjustment for a minor variance to by-law 4469-03.D to permit 3 wind turbines and a storage trailer to be erected on the site to supply the existing Aurora Cable Internet (ACI) uses on the site with a backup power supply. The wind turbines are approximately 22.5 metres (74 feet) in height. The existing ACI uses consist of a telecommunications tower, satellite dishes and storage building housing the associated electronics. There are also two existing dwellings on the property. The Committee of Adjustment provided conditional approval to the Minor Variance application on September 8, 2005. Jim Beesley, Charles Gilbert and other ratepayers appealed the Committee of Adjustment Decision to the Ontario Municipal Board. The Ontario Municipal Board, by decision dated April 13, 2006, dismissed the appeal and authorized the variance subject to several conditions as follows: That the undertaking proceed substantially in accordance with the application for321 Ridge Road approved by the Town of Aurora Committee of Adjustment on September 8, 2005; That the MOE determines that the undertaking, substantially as approved by the Committee on September 8, 2005, complies with the relevant MOE noise guidelines; That the wind turbines and the shipping container must be set back a minimum of 50 metres (164.04 feet) from any property line; 4. That written confirmation be submitted to the Secretary -Treasurer of the Committee from the Town's Director of Planning or designate that the applicant has satisfied all -27- GENERAL COMMITTEE - JANUARY 23, 2007 January 23, 2007 - 2 - Report No. PL07-002 concerns regarding the Minor Site Plan Agreement or Exemption from Site Plan Approval as noted in the August 31, 2005 memo from Jim Kyle, Manager of Policy Planning, including a noise impact study; and 5. That written confirmation is submitted to the Secretary -Treasurer of the Committee from the Town's Director of Leisure Services or designate that a Tree Preservation Agreement has been entered into. Subsequent to the OMB decision, it was brought to the attention of the Town by Mr. Beesley and Mr. Mestrinaro that ACI had located a shipping container on the subject lands prior to execution or exemption of the site plan. On December 19, 2006, Council passed the following resolution: Moved by Councillor MacEachern Seconded by Councillor Granger THAT staff take the necessary steps to ensure that 321 Ridge Road is brought into compliance with the Town of Aurora's By-law 4469-03.D, being the zoning by-law amendment regarding the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan, specifically section 34.1 permitted uses, and the addition of the shipping container; and THAT the Director of Planning bring back a report advising as to whether the shipping container located at 321 Ridge Road is in compliance with section 34.1 of Zoning By-law 4469-03.D. COMMENTS The purpose of this report is to determine compliance with Section 34.1 of by-law 4469- 03.D (The Oak Ridges Moraine Conformity By-law). 34.1 Except as otherwise provided in Section 35 and 36 herein and notwithstanding any other provisions of the By-law to the contrary, where a Zone symbol is followed by the letters "ORM; no person shall use the land, including expanding, enlarging or otherwise altering an existing use, building or structure, for any use other than a use legally existing as of November 15, 2001, or a use for which a building permit has been issued in accordance with Section 6.6 of the By-law, without an amendment to this By-law or relief from this By-law in accordance with the policies of the Official Plan and the Planning Act. The By-law does not permit expanding, enlarging or otherwise altering an existing use, building or structure, for any use otherthan a use legally existing as of November 15, 2001 without relief from the By-law in accordance with the OPA policies. Aurora Cable Internet (ACI) had two meetings with Planning Staff priorto the submission of la;Z GENERAL COMMITTEE — JANUARY 23, 2007 January 23, 2007 - 3 - Report No. PL07-002 the minor variance application. At these meetings it was staff's understanding that the shipping containerwould be placed permanently on concrete pads adjacent to the existing building and such container would store batteries and other equipment required for the storage and conversion of wind energy (see Figure 2). Planning staff subsequently met with a representative of the Building Department who determined that placing the shipping container on the concrete base would meet the by-law definition of a "structure": 3.125 Structure: (3183-90) means anything that is constructed or erected on the ground or attached to something located on the ground excluding, however, a fence of less than one decimal eight three (1.83) metres in height. Therefore it was determined that in accordance with the provisions of Section 34.1, a variance would be required forthe placing of the shipping container as it was considered a structure (The proposed wind turbines were also subject to the variance). As previously noted it was brought to the attention of the Town by Mr. Beesley and Mr. Mestrinaro that ACI had located a shipping container on the subject lands prior to execution or exemption of the site plan or satisfying the other conditions of the variance/OMB. In accordance with standard by-law enforcement procedures the Building Department and By-law Services completed an inspection of the property to determine by-law compliance. The inspections of the property determined that the shipping container did not meet the definition of a "structure" as it was still on a trailer. The Town of Aurora Zoning Bylaw, section 6.28, speaks to the parking and storage of vehicles. Specifically section 6.28.1 prohibits the parking or storage of certain types of vehicles in a residential zone. The property at 313-321 Ridge Road is zoned Rural and the zoning bylaw does not prohibit the parking or storage of a trailer in a rural zone. Therefore the determination of compliance is based on the provisions of section 34.1 and whether the shipping container is defined as a trailer or a structure. If it is a trailer, it is in compliance with the Section 34.1 of the by-law and if it is a structure, it is not in compliance until the conditions of the variance are fulfilled. The definition of structure has been outlined above. The "Highway Traffic Act" defines trailer and vehicle as follows: "Trailer" means a vehicle that is at any time drawn upon a highway by a motor vehicle, except an implement of husbandry, a mobile home, another motor vehicle or any device or apparatus not designed to transport persons or property, temporarily drawn, propelled or moved upon such highway and except a side car attached to a motorcycle, and shall be considered a separate vehicle by which it is drawn; —29— GENERAL COMMITTEE — JANUARY 23, 2007 January 23, 2007 - 4 - Report No. PL07-002 "Vehicle " includes a motor vehicle, trailer, traction engine, farm tractor, road building machine, bicycle and any vehicle drawn, propelled or driven by any kind of power, including muscular power, but does not include a motorized snow vehicle ore street car; As previously noted the Building Department and By-law services have completed an inspection of the shipping container and have determined that it is a trailer and not a structure under the relevant definitions. The Planning Department has also completed a site inspection and the shipping container is currently still on the trailer which is also on jacks. Therefore the storage of the trailer on the site is in compliance with section 34.1 of zoning by-law 4469-03.D. However, the Planning Department would suggest that a meeting should occur with ACI as soon as possible in order to expedite the completion of the site plan/site plan exemption and to move on with the completion of the project. OPTIONS Council may formally request that ACI, as soon as possible, satisfy the conditions of the OMB order in order to complete the project. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS N/A LINK TO STRATEGIC PLAN The Strategic Plan contains goals to promote a sustainable community that respects its historic culture and character and embraces diverse cultural development and renewal in harmony with sound environmental management and business development activity. The use of alternative energy sources will help promote a sustainable community. CONCLUSION The compliance with by-law 4469-03.D is dependent on the whether the shipping container, as it currently exists on site, is defined as a structure or as a trailer. The By-law does not permit expanding, enlarging or otherwise altering an existing use, building or structure however does not prohibit the storage of a trailer. The Building Department and By-law Services have inspected the shipping container and by definition have concluded that at this time it is a "trailer" and does not meetthe definition of a "structure". The Planning Department has also completed a site inspection and concur that the shipping container is currently on a trailer. Therefore at this time the storage of the trailer is in compliance with section 34.1 of by-law 4469-03.D. —30— GENERAL COMMITTEE — JANUARY 23, 2007 January 23, 2007 - 5 - Report No. PL07-002 However, it is suggested that a meeting should occur with ACI in order to expedite the completion of the site plan/site plan exemption and to move on with the completion of the project. It is noted that this report is in response to Council's request that there be a review of the storage unit with respect to by-law compliance, not the matter of compliance with Federal requirements. ATTACHMENTS Figures Figure 1 — Location Plan Figure 2 — Interior design of shipping container (Taken from minor variance application). PRE -SUBMISSION REVIEW: Management Team Meeting - September 27, 2006 Prepared by: Jim Kyle, Manager of Policy Planning Extension 4345 S s SeLdert, M.C.I.P., R.P.P. o n S. Rogers, D ector of Planning and Development C.A.O. Services —31— Lu oil OA LL o Td- 2 Ej LLI C) 0 Q LLI CO cn LU LLJ F- w IL w W P, wz> 'z Stemmle r 2 m -0 0 a C4 0 -10 c 0 U N 5 W Dm U O0� � T LL U p PG O n v l�{ c �y GJ Z a 00 M S F 3 w p N a � m � F�41 0�1q 67 Q is � �Q 00 M d O 7 U R m G Q Q y a O cn W O w J > U LL U) Jod 1r�1 '•1 Z C Z n. 0 w W �r Z w h ❑ o w O N a U QO N • by y5f Z / V Za (7JQ FL �aa y� A M Q ❑ GENERAL COMMITTEE - JANUARY 23, 2007 TOWN OF AURORA AURORA GENERAL COMMITTEE REPORT No. PL07-003 SUBJECT: Planning Applications Status List FROM: Susan Seibert, Director of Planning and Development Services DATE: January 23, 2007 RECOMMENDATIONS THAT the Planning Applications Status List be received as information; BACKGROUND Attached is a list updating the status of applications being processed by the Planning and Development Services Department. The list supersedes the December 12, 2006 Planning Applications Status List and is intended for information purposes. The text in bold and italics represents changes in status since the last distribution of the Planning Applications Status List. COMMENTS Since the preparation of the last status list two (2) new Planning applications have been filed with the Planning and Development Services Department; • Application for Zoning By-law Amendment to permit a professional office as a use within an M2 General Industrial zone at 130 Industrial Parkway North. (File: D14-01- 07). Application for Plan of Subdivision and Zoning Bylaw Amendment to allow a commercial block, an institutional block (retirement home), residential apartment block and 22 street townhouse lots. The lands are located at the south-east corner of Bayview Ave. and St. John's Sideroad (Files: D12-03-06, D14-17-06). OPTIONS No action is required with respect to the planning status list. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS Not applicable. -34- GENERAL COMMITTEE — JANUARY 23, 2007 January 23, 2007 Report No. PL07-003 CONCLUSIONS Staff will continue to provide this monthly update so Council is aware of application status and the servicing allocation that is available within the Core. LINK TO STRATEGIC PLAN The Strategic Plan contains goals that promote a sustainable community that respects its historic culture and character and embraces diverse cultural development and renewal in harmony with sound environmental management and business development activity. Information documents such as this are intended to further that goal. ATTACHMENTS Figure 1 — Planning Applications Map Figure 2 — Secondary Plan Map Figure 3 — Planning Applications Status List — January 23, 2007 Figure 4 — Town of Aurora Core Area Infill Map Figure 5 — Core Area Infill List PRE -SUBMISSION REVIEW Management Team meeting January 17, 2007. Prepared by. Leigh Ann Wiseman, Acting Planner, Extension 4350 Glen Letman, Manager of Development Planning, Extension 4346 I -dj Vu an ibert, MCIP RPP �fl S. Rogers ect of Planning and Development SeWal C.A.O. —35— 11 • J GENERAL COMMITTEE — JA UARY 23, 2007 MJ -FIGURE 2 v w nl Q 7aa aS aid 81 pCj O Z V z a m m a 77 CD_ N S Z — O v .... rl �,......... .........i......... ....... m bnaa�n e za O0 Z cn o T Z z a —Z C O =g xm O Wa W E o c O U �� fN rFF OZ o U W<O 0Z2 �' c W p G mW a �� a o �° 0 3 0z z0 K M W O Z Z O Q i 0 00a. O o fn Q F, M W (7 ro c 2 U �j W `j ? = Z 7aaa og 6ui�/ Jo diysuNtol �S;san4aa8 Za c n ro ci aa -1n m 4,)) o a o G Z Z 0 ID o m'o 'm o o O z in Om 0= U W o a�oI GENERAL COMMITTEE - JANUARY 23, 2007 FIGURE 771 00 I^j�y �r Vl p Z o o U .0 o °�' o 00 d N R, ° dl O O O N O rq -,1 0 p o qq , �' W "o 90 Vl U ++ o O q W W °i O P. N ' too 'R � N � •C1 ro � °' �° `� 4-y 0 � ° �.+ U O N oo bA tYd b 2 �p a�iP;bC7 o ,j td o o 9 o P, do o ° -�o o O 9n , d N o o b b b °J rn p, 3 o ou a°i th `y tt ti y ti w � rn p O bn N ` o °' o°'n 3 d v on ai o rn i° o w 4, N CC, (° p o o ems- rn o Q� a U a V q o E U a o N o a' A 0 0O10 Cl o a b o N L o a, o a Hb� o F„ o z � O ° 4 O o P O p N C4 o o; Ln h N :ap oo UU ovCC a vPaaoF o o'Ita kn'w h J P� ow(�� V) �(�� A N 3 aaffl GENERAL COMMITTEE - JANUARY 23, 2007 N U M H � m U U k W • en D Do •� Do N m 3 o � o.s H o n 0 N i 3n c o O w� A O U� 00 9 pp N Yn CO OU ti O It opt, U U � 'PIP O w 0 O "d �• O '_G ctl ,YHA .� ti � p ti bA bA O � � � c� •d H N � � �Nv.S 3 gp �4� 0 ��^'�5�030'� Ho P O O O b O ti I eU � CD CD cq N� O•�. ,� rn O �,,, M U w O y�,`� 0 5 p � O cm N N •� N �+N p N pN y c dd N H M ~CD O m Y O N '� N b+� ` N gip" W In m0.�)). •� q ++ ' ,�• �n N R N N O O 'C N k7 H O O .--� ,� x .� W 'U" Y O H l� V') R •'d," •+ d' O� O N 'Oro) N 00 7 7 00 U �• M �D Vl N O U O M V1 — l�- w �o ti (x., NU•OQ 0CD CH ti <d F7 oa +- pa N �n V) N a O l�4 M -39- GENERAL COMMITTEE - JANUARY 23, 2007 M P � �`�w � N a- C `� O� a�� O o x cc�d+dbA M O (1� Q U f7 � W ti� W ✓ti O OR m 40.1"d 0O+ cz N cad N Q 7J Q � O U U I:,VO tcgd' � N O U � 'gip O U O '�" � N Nsn� 'O � O N O bA N Vi a Q N '0 N N +U+ N tUi n cd � N o a E! U UU -cl �++ C, UO 0lizi Ocd "✓ AiN 00 Cn o bcdq '. bU bb r, ,yam NU CZy0 N W u C y� oAO •, o NO' 3' y� O 45 rOG p O O `xy tNd (d O1 � ao)GoN O 7 D1 o a o ,AO �O • 0 yb� l •"� 0 h �j ��" p II•� .b • O N O W ° O F-�Urd ° ov�U so,-c7-C Y O O V o C 'o P, N q 'O 'o ,8 �"' �; CDO O t� Vl � o � cd cl WU7 aUi o a � O o o #ono _ � aa-c zZ H�C�)Q -40- GENERAL COMMITTEE - JANUARY 23, 2007 G O o V C7aW www cq 0 o W p0 P-i O O a; d P" N U" � titiN N G Of. .� ti O N cd o, o b I P, 10cd �" Q Or, o k•pU b ppoO r, .° N . NOA M. O o W �o N U O .+ O f O N N H ro as-rJ I� -.5 U O1 C2 4 N �' y°, bb UO 2 H N N ,� bA yY� 4� ap"i �' �y� O z 0b by Q+ N U f� ccl c N O p ..O c! ti ti is by0 O� Y O F. Id,P, 00 71 pp � ��" a�iate, .� croi bu �+ o "cq o o� �-lw° woo aki �,-•� (� ° O o 0b N �� o rn a rn rn U � cqLH O N U 71 o i ro > �O b UNyI '� rNi� N N N ' � � � �O • N° O y0 yp a U V] O N UU O b 'd O y � de C) > h N N p N Si V50, h M 00 N O.� o .D Lr) ' Ub ° O OQN rd rn � j oo O N 0,4, 10 h ° N 'o d' N �3�1 Cknr�nrA °woa ti��1C�ao -41- GENERAL COMMITTEE - JANUARY 23, 2007 n w bbb+ M b 'C F" O Qi ' S bA p� d��+ � o T O N d 0� �d F� ' " y0 �M+ 2 Ln O :d p Fj > 0 0 'i3 o S: ti y P,7$ 0"0 a 2 N a� 413 'N O VAS] t+ 0 N 71 cd ' p O P 'a),00' �� 0 H -'S y 00 0 'y� '2 O L% 71 �+ 'i7 ;5 o N - '� c. O t0i y0 -i O N 0 ++ .�..� O Rj H Q 0 22.E O ao W 51 10 Cl Ca oOq W f� v O F� ati CO°.w°cn rn W U O� 4 O 0 0 N O V O tn N N b0 o 0 Ln p q ate' N ° 0 w o q i P 0 G v O 0 a>i � b _ L OoN o 0 o > V in° q ' 0 00 -' v � N x O O q O O 0 0 O p31 i i 01 N ,-• Cp y a+ i i i O M �� p .-r O M � q .-. y�a,N_� ° cn q�l adoo � rn -42- GENERAL COMMITTEE - JANUARY 23, 2007 ME w w ", o ° -wd 0 ai a°i 1� o d bO N . � a) P A N M cd ° �y "� ° 'd O •� O . 'f", bA O bp �✓ �--, UJ O ,b N O `u H O i U GJ y •� U R p U N U cad bA p •chi N cn U p .� rrU bA ..� N O G O M cUi O ~0. � P, N cUd P, N P. a°i �' o .O .-, 'O" .5 CDro 0.. O W O ° O cd a�i gbr, ; a N -0 0 CD a, O °o O °�cp� ° w°ul � ."Jd C, ° o No � • 5 U O N O 0 0 G4 i d c0 0 rn U f7 N Id O 19 OO Id a�b .p rq p .�d. CDU UOV N U O -E5 q • `� ' O p A O O IU IPA�Q °ODO��a U O M M CD O ti CD CD � O N O N O N o O O ° ) m O v l\ r. 40 vi O .9 O PU�F� N b . O ro O p C ° ti y U � U CO O �pyo 0 0 F� o U N n + a Q O �' p� S. N .ti U U a)�,y +l N O M O 0 0 a 'd Oi V1 N V GQ p r-- N V1 Fi Cj O .may (V '-y v1 ��aQop wf d a(10 ca, Cl CLIKIll GENERAL COMMITTEE - JANUARY 23, 2007 m 0 -a b N U �+ N tC 4. w v ° N t0 U N F. O� U N� O +1' q O N P N .� ti .d � •� � � 00 � O ~O N. P vyo UpN P-i oo O�p41N O N p cd aNi U cd 0 bq N�CDi Up bA y..i 10 Q p ++ ip., 't N C °�g° N pS w w NUbN O bO fd ° 'm N bU �'' w ."° 0 'd cd .b • U b0 O sb. ' m , +•' O N N NN O •9 cd r: y .t f .� p p 1A M • ,-. •• '� .� O P, N d U by U by Y, > i d p 5 Uo p. N " O CIO w P. p� N bA ' W O -d U y p O o ° �j s.C:, �� H P-i P-i Q N rn td kn O h O O O p N �{ �+ O '(5 N O U �o I O O O Nkn �o �0 O u cUd d' O ccdd O N O ' G' Y 71 o O pC', o p o o OknU o r O O N Yy hj�. h to •, E--� � a (� Q OR jnQ � Qi a i� Q O, N M -44- GENERAL COMMITTEE - JANUARY 23, 2007 m oaW `�aW O ba o0 NO y v d N Orq bo N o y •tl O 'dCC m.H Fq N cd •.._, q 'b N c ce N O ti O cn Av o N o U b d 'Y U � ti •? NN i U W U ••'�" N O.bp � •H C � 00 '� � -cj ti � O O z M o d ` o O CD O N N 10, ^O bq �C S7 r' U ub cn49 O 0 aU o �N 0 WCA -spa• 3 0�,no 4 o x o Cq •-� O O O U N Ub 0 i O Okn Oul d'M �� sr O ctl l� � �va,P,0,� rn t� 0 0 W Pa � Q Pf -45- GENERAL COMMITTEE - JANUARY 23, 2007 r.02 ti O U •--� q O U Pr �, o to O� cd �o cad P b O .� N O Cy' G �0 W U U bA N 'd •� N Y id bA N N °-0 M (a o O pq rn bq cC �•Q es U• or- pN.5 q o b ag d o cd N o n C w ti v p a oV) H N N U PQ M o N o N '.'�' .S"Ui z�` UNONU PA n CD CIS i UN o NN P 0. w p � p O �D O `� N pop kn vNj N i� W O M w U M Ch 00 ' � ' fi n P d o 0 CD N V] � � v) W M 't7O �'cj. 4p .:J y N .��' ^. o .' ,-� O bA •� y `�3ny 10 cV bq •� N N �ON N N pN r! F� U 'd cd iYi U1 �O �+ Chi N Q U1 <h °� C4 '• Ci�. P-i N Oi .. N O F' 4)0 p b r' 'n 0 3 Ca N 0 Ca o�+ ccd Ln ti M N O d" 7 4 O Sy rq N� N-i <t 0 p U Z Q A p 4. >� N (� CIO Ln � a;awz�r�wp� PL 0 -46- GENERAL COMMITTEE - JANUARY 23, 2007 o � N � � Vi O p 'O id N cd O 73 y NN �""" N •,��' 'rn Phi 4,bAo �jp o W o o 0�° N � � VUi .� .O O � N �'' " •fn N on P a to q � � W o 0 Pi p a5;.'5'">v ti O V dU d O p n U i U N In V o •� o U o � o N N b- O bD P1 0 o00 N • N au H `J 5 o s7 w p .'- o q O{., U OJ d iL ±y Y , V] . o rnb 5 0 �' 3 0'� Do U DO N w N O 'rJ ,1:1 2 t O cu �vQo p P p p O o In o, - v 00 -47- GENERAL COMMITTEE - JANUARY 23, 2007 dm' ,3 D1 N UU W �xW u'w W U `O i•� 'D 0 w a CCi i-i CC Q ° � A O tC N 'rn O ON r� U •� �°� k H r�i�1 •y U ou O Fes-} • bA on a w 0'S3 U cZ o ° b 3 a ° .5 o o a�i NN 'O C'i '� 'a 'U O r+ ,,;,� C) .a 5 N V] Qi O Qi c1 O �� V] p N cOU' cn m O n r+ b N O V1 N O CD �O l= •� O � O N O V O O Cam" N " O� '9 N c-i ON O O N O N 0 N '^ ow w a x b w a on 0 N 0 ° °q 0 ° ov o b P o F o'o v a y•v cn �j O CIO o M ..� 0 CSti ro Go O 00 .O. O a N ZIa Ca aCDLa N 0w oin Ewa >a °w v ° �� o ° d o a Q o c000 _ N ti �o 4 °o,f� xa.wcrz<Coo.Gl r. N N GENERAL COMMITTEE - JANUARY 23, 2007 N ti 4 N U M N U M ti d' 45 b d' NNW �xw �xw f8 o. t� p� j^ •� � O -� c� i� � U O b •� N vi ++ it O O ,° � •� O ,.-� 0' w U p bq .Ly bA by cd to N N R O c� U •d ° u t IS° o v3 o � o Oa •U p U �" •U bq d N .U. O N 'y U .ti a o [� 0. ¢' O -+q 3� 0 UO Gn O N I(1 O ti O � O b O M N N N ti "d cd •�' ti i u m "zt° °N p ,•O N y � •"' •,�" Ti � 'C •'si N N�"' � by .b 'b Q v v rY a aQ o r\ It a y" c� U °. U o a U ° I Pi q w •� b M O' U M Cl fZl O I O fn '» cd a, cd I CD O 1p N O z VD N N N -49- GENERAL COMMITTEE - JANUARY 23, 2007 m to W q o M ti O c a i O O a0 + P� O q Y o bn a b � 0 ° a a: CD n o 0 P� O > N q ti C.' O 4i L."'O O N de P� Y N d8 04 ONO I� w q as 4 N 0 W U U O VJ M �O V 0 .d P4 W Py�HOOiaP�,�-�q W �QOi�Ngq k N N -50- GENERAL COMMITTEE - JANUARY 23, 2007 u 0� UUW UUW UUW Q o n o a } Oti .ti ' N cd ..`�. O N �' N .`�., O q ti Ad N CD O O. m a ai 00 � O Lx• o 'd (D N "' �W 0 GO o O Doo� ¢� 3 o i O N ai N c7 O p ++ O .N. to .y r1 ti Tl 'J H t N N '� N C N N y N v7 N cd N N 4j bA ~ m CD p o b o r ¢N ON �N bA 30 Z O N O N Y 0 O `� o 0 ,U o 0o p a� aai R G4 N R ° tl cGav +� ao d c'n CIO N c� N+ 'o "v, �' U 4 p b bA p �"• O • v�y� O r-i O -r ,..-i P1 O00o4+Frc�dW4; i cO�o N pp U` N O O co 0.i�rnw O i v Za1Q t� nd�p),aN�l N 00 N N -51- GENERAL COMMITTEE - JANUARY 23, 2007 Ln N N O 0 d" w � x w w 0 0 N 00 U 0 .'1'. a ,D sa`�yi N Cq 0 U o � 3 O D N H ' p N ~ 0 •a O p O U U bq N N gN +�y" N H 0 O 'p -0 b •� N.ti J H <C LL u o �c w p d on o cd N .." 0 O N ,n U Q U 0 N cdc -'�-� 0� O O bA y "a 0 s 0 � O C-0 rn A 0 2 � N �u b N.� 0 0 0 97 N a ro CI v M 6" O L � U b �a H O ' � o OCq (7k Oi A � 0 M -52- GENERAL COMMITTEE - JANUARY 23, 2007 UUW ��W UUW ON R Ln CD N N O .p O cd N frl y� M q � y OD 0 bA �� o bb C ccdd P• P p �y a•q Q a73 M a .0., 5 o0 •N o U �o 1< r� P, z, FG P, O o N N O 0rq NO _ CD A O O N Y O N O N ° W ° b cd 'O -0OO'NG'' +-' O' q�Nv N 9' N N pN F7 ° ¢ g o E° °° F� o °a a °N' a O a g .� 0 0 PU O �A o "' o on 1 c> o o oa�� ' U ' i' O O nvO C❑ Q`' O oa C." a �JA4 o CD O O <r U fy in o ' v� M �' ° P w xd�P W cd �� H�rnrf1L1�'cWaW0. M M M -53- GENERAL COMMITTEE - JANUARY 23, 2007 o v a r 5 °' v O VI �I .'"�+ Qr i� •V iV O' N �p a) +cC' .� cYd bq ti O O to N oq v O N ti 7F N N O �O O H I4J.1 O O\ N V FOi ••in P Y �" o d ° x o P a�i n o p o cn kn O k O O N N ON N ro v ti ° as o �b a� � �. a w won cd r 7:1 to O Uo pO � a+ b1J O Ua+. C � rn d p ° N o a N d P a d N a ON � O + N O�i V .�-ni O 1 N U p O p01 U Q > .O+ a N U N •• �" U w ,,=,UY o 0 00 Q N ,n O ,o I;10 o t\Oa��aON- Y 500 1 1 W O O OI OI O n N OO �� N a Q >, p •-. ,� >1 T"' CD� � � O d' �U�rnfaUa .w�lQ Ca 0. N�(��1 M M M GENERAL COMMITTEE - JANUARY 23, 2007 19 O p<d M o -d y d Ly t2 ° oA o cd > ° y d -s 0 sa� P t�, v 'd pq o to O bq r. U ' O O N ogtN O N H to o ti eq to cd o i Cl U h _ N O N 0 U CDO Ln P O O N ti �N O 3 0 u o 'd� p c bp �..�'cj i op N U T1 bA � + U • � N `� �0 o 9dP, °w� °. 0 cli A � _ tj CD Cq A • U � w � A ° n w °� A p� ^ U O ° " ^� N rn paw p0'p�O,A OJT U O•��-' td uW �ZO m U 'yd O i O Oti O F. u� p .a p �°7A UU V rZm aa�vC A�rA m 00 m a m -55- GENERAL COMMITTEE - JANUARY 23, 2007 •+U+ cd a�i to o • O a o O s-, cd O O � of cd v m '^kn M Cl U Q cd ti ti vi N N o o cd F-cI A cod O p m U '•W-i O y "V N v 8� U Vlp O .d 0.2 ou U N d ti U° <r bb 50) > � C. � � Q d °U may ^ M ] Cl O C Ur(. ' y a U M O ox"�xooao� 0 6n N o �o ° o a aaal xo QQ v�UZ�HN�� Ca o r, 1.7sfl GENERAL COMMITTEE - JANUARY 23, 2007 0 N y ti .d d U U D 0 h D w ci O O o m 4C A O •� N U tl Iri 0 ItC N oO -15 '9ol cd N •.I -d � P, rn � T3 (fir QI O d 2 .� unbO P� p � bA 0 ,N, 41 N o v V P": O �o • N I IQ w �i Cl O �o ' Pi N Obi P-i0 r, .1 0 o �� w .i o aoa �aao PRO. rlb b N V]� �� NC,,) 0 d o N N M P� � N P-I 3 p or 0 3 p o bC +-I Q 0 V-lt M•1 .a ~ y Yy N 111 di Y-+•6yr Q 17l Cv�6! •;cy�gy V �[pl� .'i W N y • rUi 'ice + o U I cU (b�A N cC y0y d (� N C tY s0. 'c7 ai w Py O Y Q 0 W Q y�y ti cn O � O U C,L ILn 4� C) ��QQ GENERAL COMMITTEE - JANUARY 23, 2007 N O N bo y O O w o U U CI 'O � '(:I aoi N U bA ci 'ct � ;� � v d N b�A Cl. Y Ntz vi ai ro R .v- z Y �y UQ. o° Pi N N a°i 3 H d b N ou b et ti J P Ac �� N � V? P U 2 7' 0.s N V) U N N O r, b N W 3 o N� 3°!�bl) Ncd o^° �v rob G w s v, cd U to ..-:s O O O P-, P. oo g�g aCi 0. a�i d v a�i Q o ° o. a R, c2c, N o Q a�q �Q � ��, aawA�Q x`nx�Mo �3xp �oQ� 3Naio �° od o�� o0 0 °C4 n� d� v GENERAL COMMITTEE - JANUARY 23, 2007 N 3 �c� 3 �a\ V U p a O �� N 0 0 0 3 0 U a> .cs OO v i+ O ti N 0 O "Z2 • �bA p oo0PU 0 a N pj G bD cd P O o cd ;no, N � 44 G o b � .-. 0 P-i c p ^'.r O itj� rn l� > U •F2 N p cC ..r N 'O 0.0 w a�w•� O W cd • y .� U o y U Y Y Yv°' 0 b o� _N Jot b N bq OU ti U .ti ti .Ui o GA �� o �ci+NN �� c�v r�' U O U p� N 'd UUN + w O N pq O cad N�{ N b • U ++ .d N N .° A cd N 0y�0 r- N � O N N OC bb j7 d' .i U �' 0 d' o U O 0 p` o ^o M U�apq P,'0� V oo ca oo Pa ON<F .-+ l U � CD A CD O c C) U'n��d'ia 0 knLn�d'Q n v 00 d' -bU- GENERAL COMMITTEE - JANUARY 23, 2007 N C) ' � dM• y � dM' ,� �+ dM' iu s0. cd o p u Q � v •b 40. N F' c y N N N �o IdN �o �o � N � N 'd O y 0 ro Vi ccd M Rom, va N cd .. o � a o N o oa) o oU O Qa3 o qv' ��U O Vl id�O' O U� by ^� OUZO GQ M CQ Id CD f.7 d' W Q� w IdA ° p ¢OOP. �p �b �r CDv °� �aa �ooLa i �v�i0 C v°M rn dt o n n GENERAL COMMITTEE - JANUARY 23, 2007 3 .] 2 ■ 4 2 ( \ � s j ) ) § § \ / $ $ � t ; � f \ ( % § . \ \ } ) . \ 7 j ./ � rq / \©0 \ 2 0j : \ q\ƒ\��§\/\,gm saw)/\ƒ»!=•f5 &=•///kj eS«.n�% c= �.:: z4�54&.S� ) ® \ /ƒ 0 \ Z/2 § \ , /\/ cl )9=R A jEnm 9§\g o/0$o �29 0 °n\oCD \\ ]\)e99 {�,.e..\\G j]\/// 2aj..G« \\/\j}ja)\j 2 2 7 GENERAL COMMITTEE - JANUARY 23, 2007 kn N H� N O C RR�ii cd 0M O 1� o � � b m •b � H Al 0 0 d •U � '� U b H H z o ! 'r^o .o o C 45 'C� 'q� M� bQ �' '(�6 a U !'1 �y �U .d U O (�j •� � Ln 110 o 0 b M U U W i °J a j . p �co U � Mks^ N O 7J °� CD a'' t'- WD w 0 CIO O> N O Qo-I' � p O ',mod `p '•Z� � \O A. ONi c7 `r �wa��1 r. as � rn Ca L � Z._ GENERAL COMMITTEE - JANUARY 23, 2007 ■ !�§ § (9 )�\ 2) \� §\ \ � \} $ \\) �x# )]# /}] k« ] f¥� \� )� q ) �\ { )( \ \] QR {] (\§ �2})\$ a -63- ZOU ' a/l./n�norS-yoan ,� FIGURE 4 N n c 4 l/NiYi �� u,�al v v, r m N I I r Z Q- O W I d agar S aids � I o v 0 o I rIlrl 71 2 . s y V) 0 G w o m w - � lz a Q) an b Mair' O B U 0 3 ( 0 O � G i i 3 ❑_ w a 0 Z 0 V • • m e- • 7 ara U) C I � 00 n � O aaaraS;srnyaa I �' r- w r �n 6u/J/do diysuA o1 9 r r_ Qi a U U N d C ,O .O erg p"r m N a J v c L -6 U 00 l a s q Q w d.= co Cl) E O N o c q o (�J O� Z a omrr=0 Qo�°`m`-1� IH Z W 11J Z a)0 O U� M o W ax c9 I i 1 w7 ¢o¢i Qoo v�qe J F0 j � °� LL t- N M d'N(0 0 o gm 11 GENERAL COMMITTEE - JANUARY 23, 2007 FIGURE 5 Lo w o: D C9 LL Z' c 0 L d � � x r� O 3 r N Lo d O Zco (O NN rlf)�N C O O +' W O c (u N (6 N r TO C cm C y 7 E C _C IL IL E N C N C C w ccnU IcLa coN<nn.a C f6 N I,- r- MMNP(Om O 0) m 0 0 0 0 0 O W M(O M6c MA ZO Or--s-00�- c- Oc-r re-c- r ILL ❑ 0 ❑ R O 0 U a c J c C 0 O O .` ao ` C C C E_ EU 00 ° c w Z co co �I (n o o o `m cu LL QOQ I—Q N O O — 4k �— N co d' Lo H Q -65- GENERAL COMMITTEE - JANUARY 23, 2007 � ��,] HI'llUA jo /- TOWN OF AURORA AU1ZoRA GENERAL COMMITTEE/COUNCIL REPORT No. PL07-004 SUBJECT: Zoning By-law Amendment Application Farland Properties 1301ndustrial Parkway North Part of Lot 103, Registered Plan 246 File NumberD14-01-07 FROM: Sue Seibert, Director of Planning and Development Services DATE: January 23, 2007 RECOMMENDATION THAT Council receive as information the following overview of Zoning By-law Amendment Application D14-01-07, scheduled for the February 28fh, 2007 Public Planning Meeting. BACKGROUND Location/Land Use As illustrated on Figure 1, the subject property is located on the west side of Industrial Parkway North, directly across of the Town of Aurora Leisure Complex, and is municipally described as 130 Industrial Parkway North. The subject lands comprise of an area of 0.78 hectares (1.93 acres) and have approximately 67m (220ft.) of frontage on Industrial Parkway North. Surrounding Uses To the North: Industrial South: Industrial East: Leisure Complex West: Train tracks with residential further to the west Official Plan The subject lands are designated "General Industrial' by Official Plan Amendment (OPA) #66, which was approved by Council on August 22, 2006, and is currently under consideration by the Regional Municipality of York. Permitted uses in the General Industrial designation includes uses such as manufacturing, assembly, warehousing, automotive repair, public garages, and printing establishments. Business and professional offices, excluding medical offices, are also permitted. GENERAL COMMITTEE — JANUARY 23, 2007 January 23, 2007 - 2 - Report No. PL07-004 Zoning By-law The subject lands are currently zoned "General Industrial (M2) Zone" by the Town of Aurora Zoning By-law 2213-78, as amended. Uses permitted in the M2 zone include, but are not limited to, warehouse and industrial uses including contract yards, food processing establishments, light metal products plants, lumberyards, machine orwelding shops, sheet metal shops, motor vehicle body shops, repair shops, trade schools, research labs, and accessory office uses. PROPOSAL The applicant proposes to include business and professional offices as an additional independent (not accessory) permitted use on the subject lands. PROVINCIAL POLICY STATEMENT (PPS) The subject application conforms to the policies set forth in the PPS. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS Not applicable. LINK TO STRATEGIC PLAN The Strategic Plan contains goals to ensure transparent, accountable and open governance in concert with informed and involved citizens. Review of ,the subject application through the Zoning By-law Amendment processes will contribute in the facilitation of these goals. OPTIONS Not applicable. CONCLUSIONS Staff recommend that Council receive as information the overview of Zoning By-law Amendment Application D14-01-07, scheduled forthe February281h, 2007 Public Planning Meeting. ATTACHMENTS Figure 1 — Location Plan Figure 2 — Survey Figure 3 — Conceptual site plan —67— GENERAL COMMITTEE - JANUARY 23, 2007 January 23, 2007 - 3 - Report No. PL07-004 PRE -SUBMISSION REVIEW Management Team Meeting — January 10, 2007 Prepared by: Andrew Harper, Planner Extension 4349 .. u S e ►be M.C.I.P., R.P.P. ohn S. Rogers Dr ctor o Planning and Development Servic C.A.O 7 SUBJECT LANDS Mark St C WELLINGTON STREET EAST LOCATION PLAN APPLICANT: FARRELLIBOLAND FILE: D14-01-07 AURORA PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DATE: JANUARY 23, 2007 0 50 100 Metres n AuR_oRA yowYa iw goad v"'P^"Y FIGURE 1 Location Plan Map created by the Town of Aurora Planning & January 9th, 2007, Base data York Region. GENERAL COMMITTEE - JANUARY 23, 2007 i RgR �g `��®C� s �- 3 will Ii swig � �•wy F a N g� i3 1 §e gii� p g iyqeCRg gIII g G� Ilk i p w , a U yyg9 ® ii �8 i gy9 ■ tlg ii gggtltl y 2CYY dgg app g`eppgqii gggqsg2g�gZga3a�a q$ F N w 9 is e� 9�ii�lR6 N T i �� mg o I— � O z ZZ o d pq we�( (} e 3gg L PAS KM I 3600 MoN a •^ • A5 PARr , Ko i I 9 65 I i m I a 19bZ NV7,1 £0 .107 I 4 N � I I w A Y1_SL 00fa'—W9 F JWd .9YZ NV7d 0321=0321 zoi 107 N W G' 7 il. Q NERAL COMMITTEE — JANUARY 23, 2007 s r s„ co 0.- Yd' M n4y1g F WAY "�" O Q N li O tl3S O � U o a a 3x mm E —I 2 � a r- LL n om ro �y a y ~�1a a��amw mw .�i ¢ 4t ` 1 O 0 f O U w?a ooaC�i¢ a�❑o ��(LCIC�-UraJaon'Z Q' �LLIa�+- n 9F,n Yrr gMn Yrr nY¢. Fui OQ Uvl a 4"I �I a0¢= I-00- �— rmau a WZ¢® ]O W 0 Z9Ucw U— � zZ . 40 CLU'O O O Q W U cy �i. •tli ��) is ��i� �- � O t h N t S I I L_ a I i I!., s� Imo.._ �' 9hl i NV7d t \ 032/3�SJ3?J'"'"--_�.. F•OL \ 107 � I �6Zff-US9S1NVd _ ��=- uuuv`weow". euxnnapmwF--- .� )NMIMA -IVNOIIVN NVI4VNV0 OZO£Z-1/s9 £ I~ 96Z NV7d 03d31S103Y ZOl 107 GENERAL COMMITTEE — JANUARY 23, 2007 �s''i5ft ITEM / TOWN OF AURORA AURORA GENERAL COMMITTEE REPORT No. CS07-001 SUBJECT: Animal Control Services Contract Renewal FROM: Bob Panizza, Director of Corporate Services DATE: January 23, 2007 RECOMMENDATIONS THAT report CS07-001 be received; and THAT preliminary budget approval be granted for the animal control services contract with Kennel Inn Inc. for one year for a one year contract, at a cost of $164,500. BACKGROUND Over the past 2 years Town staff has conducted numerous meetings with staff from other municipalities in York Region concerning the provision of animal control services. An extensive report was submitted in December 2005 to the former Council that outlines the background on the whole issue of animal control services in the Town of Aurora and surrounding municipalities. A copy of this report is attached as Appendix #1. In 2006 the Town issued an RFP in order to invite bids for the animal control services contract. Two companies submitted quotes namely Kennel Inn Inc. and joint proposal from Wayne Jones Animal Control Services and the Town of Georgina. The Town's current service provider Kennel Inn Inc. is located in the Town of Aurora at 14378 Yonge St. just south of the railway bridge and has been providing this service to the Town for over 25 years. The other proposal that was submitted as part of the RFP process last year was from Wayne Jones Animal Control Services. This submission was a joint proposal where Mr. Jones's company would provide animal control enforcement and any dogs or cats picked up would be transported to the Town of Georgina (Keswick) where they would be housed in the Town pound. This company currently provides animal control services to Georgina, East Gwillimbury, Whitchurch-Stouffville and Newmarket. The two proposals that were submitted were comparable and Council subsequently approved the renewal with Kennel Inn. A copy of this report is attached as Appendix #2. —72— GENERAL COMMITTEE - JANUARY 23, 2007 Januarv23. 2007 -2 - Report No. CS07-001 COMMENTS Recently the Town has received notice from Kennel Inn Inc. on the proposed costs for the 2007 contract for animal control services. A copy is attached as Appendix #3 to this report. Rather that conducting another RFP process, staff is suggesting that Council dispense with the process and renew the contract for one year with Kennel Inn. A further review can once again be undertaken later in 2007, when a decision has been rendered by the Town on the future use of the old Hydro Building. OPTIONS Council has the discretionary authority to either approve the proposal to renew its existing contract or to proceed through a tender process. CONCLUSIONS Until such time as a long term solution to a new permanent animal control facility is determined, the Town of Aurora and other municipalities serviced by Kennel Inn namely, Richmond Hill, Vaughan and King have been renewing their contracts on a yearly basis. One of the proposals that was considered is the conversion of the old Aurora Hydro building to an animal control centre which would be run by a consortium composed of the aforementioned municipalities. It is envisioned that the group of municipalities would compensate the Town of Aurora for the use of the facility and the group would contract out the enforcement and animal care components of the operation. However until such time as Council has made a determination on the future use of the old Hydro Building, this proposal is being deferred. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS The contract cost for 2006 was $153,000. The proposed cost for 2007 is $164,500 which represents an increase of 7% over last year. According to the Kennel Inn representative, one of the major drivers for this increase is the upgrades that have been implemented. Funding for animal control services has been included in the 2007 operating budget of the Town. LINK TO STRATEGIC PLAN Goal D1 Continue the commitment of fiscal responsibility and accountability -73- GENERAL COMMITTEE - JANUARY 23, 2007 January 23, 2007 - 3 - Report No. CS07-001 ATTACHMENTS Appendix #1 — Report CS05-36 Appendix #2 — Report CS06-005 Appendix #3 — Submission from Kennel Inn Inc. PRE -SUBMISSION REVIEW Management Team — January 10, 2007 Prepared by: B. Panizza, ext. 4221 Bob Pan1zza Director of Corporate Services John S. Rogers C. A. O. -74- GENERAL COMMITTEE - JANUARY 23, 2007 APPENDIX #1 6 -TOWN OF AURORA GENERAL COMMITTEE REPORT No. CS05-036 SUBJECT: Provision of Future Animal Control Services FROM: Bob Panizza, Director Corporate Services DATE: December 6, 2005 RECOMMENDATIONS THAT the report Provision of Future Animal Control Services CS05-036 be received, and THAT the Town ofAurora enterinto service agreements with the Town of Georgina for the provision of animal shelter services at a cost of $60,490 and with Wayne Jones Animal Control Services for the provision of animal control enforcement at a cost of $93,000, for a total contract of $153,490; and THAT staff bring back a report recommending amendments to the Animal Control By-law for an adjustment in the licensing fees for cats and dogs; and THAT staff continue to review options with municipalities in York Region or Kennel Inn on a new animal shelter to service the Town of Aurora. BACKGROUND Over the past two years a Joint Municipal Ad -Hoc Committee composed predominantly of By-law Enforcement staff representatives of the municipalities of Aurora, King, Markham, Richmond Hill, and Vaughan have been examining animal control services that are provided by Kennel Inn within the combined group of municipalities. During this time the Committee also examined the operations of several animal control operations both within the GTA and other jurisdictions. This review was undertaken for a number of reasons namely: • concerns from pet owners and other animal protection groups within York Region • municipal staff concerns regarding facility standards provided by Kennel Inn • overall operating costs and level of service provided by Kennel Inn History For the past 25 years, animal control services has been provided to the Town of Aurora and surrounding municipalities in southern York Region by Kennel Inn, a private contractor which has operated a shelter from a rural location located on the west side of Yonge St. south of Industrial Pkwy in Aurora ( See photos in Appendix #1 attached). -75- GENERAL COMMITTEE - JANUARY 23, 2007 December 6, 2005 - 2 - Report No. CS05-036 In recent years, the Town has received numerous letters from residents both within the Town of Aurora and surrounding communities expressing their concerns regarding the Kennel Inn facilities and the level of service provided (Appendix #2). In addition groups of residents have also attended the Town Council meetings as well as those of the subject municipalities to express their concerns. In all circumstances residents indicated their desire to see a new animal control shelter constructed either as a Town owned operation or as part of a joint effort with the other municipalities previously mentioned. It should be noted that the Ministry of Agriculture and Food inspects all animal shelters and pounds on a regular basis pursuant to the Pound Keepers Act and has given the Kennel Inn facility a passing grade over the entire time that they have provided the service to municipalities. Research Analysis The committee has overthe past two years performed an extensive search into all possible options for the provision of animal control services. The following is a summary of the work carried out by the committee since starting the process in December of 2003. Committee members visited a number of animal shelters including those in Durham Region, the cities of Brampton, Kingston, London, Mississauga and Toronto and the Towns of Caledon and Georgina. In addition to visiting these facilities, the Committee has metwith various animal service -related organizations including The Toronto Wildlife Centre, Earth Rangers, the O.S.P.C.A., the Aurora Residents Pet Care Association and the Manager of Animal Services for the City of Calgary. As a result of the research and discussions, the committee made a recommendation to their respective Councils that a joint Expression of Interest (EOI) be released to solicit innovative proposals for animal control services. The EOI was released on December 9, 2004 by the City of Vaughan on behalf of the 5 municipalities. A total of 3 submissions were received from the EOI process. The submissions were from Kennel Inn, Earth Rangers and The Toronto Wildlife Centre. The responses were reviewed by the committee and with all of the affected municipal Councils and a Request for Proposal was released to the three respondents on May 8, 2005 by the Town of Aurora on behalf of all of the municipalities. All three respondents submitted proposals, and the committee subsequently reviewed the submissions and determined that all 3 submissions were unacceptable and were deemed informal as each of the submissions failed to meet one or more of the requirements of the R.F.P. The Committee also investigated the feasibility of building a joint facility, including the costs of land, construction, furnishings, as well as the operational costs associated with providing the animal control services forthe five municipalities. Priorto this, the Committee also met with the Director of the O.S.P.C.A. at their location on Woodbine Ave. to explore the possibility of joint venturing. However this was not a viable option due to the limited size of their facilities. -76- GENERAL COMMITTEE - JANUARY 23, 2007 December 6, 2005 - 3 - Report No. CS05-036 In conducting this research the committee'used three existing shelters as models. A small shelter (Caledon) to service a population of approximately 60,000 residents, a medium shelter (Brampton) to service a population of approximately 300,000 residents and a large shelter (Calgary) to service a population of approximately 950,000 residents. The costs of the construction for each of these facilities are actual costs based on the year of construction. These costs naturally would require further adjustments tofactortheminto current day actuals. Details of these respective operations are included as Appendix #3 to this report. The following is a summary that has been compiled by the Ad -Hoc Committee on the services currently being provided by Kennel Inn to the combined municipal group in York Region: Number of municipalities participating in the ad -hoc group 5 Combined population of the municipalities in the ad -hoc group 731,000 Total number of vehicles on patrol provided by Kennel Inn 5 Total Kennel Inn staff on duty daily 15 Total capacity within facilities to house animals 38 dogs & 68 cats Average combined number of dogs handled annually 695 Average combined number of cats handled annually 982 Number of wildlife calls handled annually 418 Number of emergency calls handled annually 454 Total combined contract costs from York Region municipalities $1,050,200 The following is a summary of service activities provided to the Town of Aurora by Kennel Inn: Total number of vehicles on patrol provided by Kennel Inn 1 Service hours Mon to Fri 8:30 to 4:30 Number of Dogs handled annually: Se t 30 2005 62 2004 92 2003 113 2002 92 Number of cats handled annual) (Sept 30 2005 77 2004 147 2003 130 2002 131 Average number of wildlife calls handled annually 25 Average number of emergency calls handled annually 54 -77- GENERAL COMMITTEE — JANUARY 23, 2007 December 6, 2005 .4. Report No. CS05-036 COMMENTS As a result of the research work conducted, a number of proposals are being presented to Council for consideration. In addition, proposals are concurrently being presented to each of the other municipalities in the group for consideration. Proposals Proposal #9 Joint Municipal Facility In order to address the facility shortcomings of the current service provider as well as respond to the concerns expressed by the resident groups, staff has considered the possibility of building and operating a joint facility to service each of the member municipalities in the group. This model is not unique and currently is in operation in the Town of Georgina which owns and operates an animal shelter near Keswick. Although Georgina initially built the facility for their own use, the shelter services are now contracted out to other member municipalities namely East Gwillimbury, Newmarket, and Whitch urch-Stouffville. Another similar example is the combined effort of the Towns of Ajax, Whitby and Pickering who jointly operate a municipally owned shelter as well as animal patrol services. The construction and operation of a joint municipal facility would be more beneficial from an economies of scale perspective, rather than each municipality having their own separate shelter. However given the economic and political dynamics that would need to be overcome, an agreement between all parties involved would require a considerable amount of time and effort. In addition to this a number of other factors need to be considered such as location, land availability, construction and an operating funding formula just to name a few issues that need to be hurdled before an agreement may be reached. A breakdown of the proposed costs for a joint facility is enclosed as Appendix#4. The following is a list of positive and negative aspects of proposal 41: Pros: ➢ Municipally owned and not reliant on service contractor ➢ Direct control over staff and resources Fundraising and volunteer opportunities not available with a private contactor ➢ Direct control over operational costs ➢ Improved public image ➢ Stream line customer service — readily available to address customer complaints ➢ Improved pet adoption programs Cons: ➢ Substantial capital costs to construct and maintain ➢ Agreement on a funding formula for operational costs & revenue sharing ➢ Continued future funding ➢ Cost of land awn GENERAL COMMITTEE — JANUARY 23, 2007 December 6, 2005 - 5 - Report No. CS05-036 ➢ Municipalities agreeing on location'of the shelter ➢ Municipalities agreeing on the operating procedures of the facility ➢ Direct assumption of the liability of animal control for the municipality Proposal #2 Continue With Contracted Service Provided by Kennel Inn Recently Kennel Inn has submitted letters (Appendix#3) expressing their desire to expand their operations to a new facility, subject to the concurrence by the present member municipalities agreeing to a longterm contract (i.e. 5 to 10 yrs). This would provide Kennel Inn with financial stability in order to move ahead to absorb the costs associated with funding the land acquisition and construction costs of a new facility. The following is a list of positive and negative factors with proposal#2: Pros: ➢ Continuity of service ➢ Power to negotiate is increased in a group ➢ Ability to demand value-added services ➢ No direct capital costs to municipalities ➢ No direct maintenance costs to municipalities ➢ Public familiar with company name ➢ Arms length public liability ➢ Ability to upgrade services levels Cons: ➢ Current poor public image of the service provider from resident groups ➢ Increased contract costs for enhanced facilities ➢ Uncertainty of future costs for services and ability to negotiate with single source provider ➢ Unknown future location ➢ No firm commitment or date for construction Proposal #3 Construct and Operate a Town of Aurora Animal Shelter. A Town of Aurora shelter could be a viable solution that would address the Town's current and long term requirements. Furthermore it would not require the extensive land and building costs that are associated with a joint municipal facility. The Town currently owns a number of parcels of land and facilities that could possibly be used for animal control services, however these sites would be subject to rezoning as the current land use regulations do not permit kennel or animal shelter operations. 1. The Jack Woods property located at the intersection of Allaura Blvd./Edward St. would provide sufficient land to accommodate this service, although an addition would be required to the structure presently situated on the land, in orderto provide adequate kennel space for animals. —79— GENERAL COMMITTEE — JANUARY 23, 2007 December 6, 2005 .6. Report No. CS05-036 2. The Aurora Hydro operation centre I'ocated on Industrial Pkwy will in all likelihood become vacant in the future when the current tenant Powerstream, relinquishes its occupation. This facility would be an ideal location providing ample space as an animal control facility which could accommodate additional contracted services to nearby municipalities such as Newmarket, Whitchurch-Stouffville or King. This in turn would assist in generating revenues to offset the operational costs of the service to the Town. 3. Vacant lot at Industrial Pkwy and Vandorf Rd. This parcel of land would also provide sufficient space to accommodate a shelter. Although each of the sites highlighted may provide a desired solution, funding for this undertaking becomes a paramount issue. The Town has not identified any funding sources in capital reserves or in the Development Charges levy to accommodate such an expenditure, The following is a list of positive and negative factors with proposal #3: Pro: ➢ Municipally owned and not reliant on service contractor ➢ Direct control over staff ➢ Fundraising and volunteer opportunities not available with a private contactor ➢ Direct control over operational costs ➢ Improved public image ➢ The Town could be the sole user of the shelter, subject to any otherjoint ventures ➢ Town not dependent on negotiations and decision of the larger municipal group ➢ Improved pet adoption program Cons: ➢ Increased costs for the operation of the shelter ➢ Possible loss of the ability to share cost ➢ Direct assumption of the liability of animal control for the municipality ➢ Capital costs to construct and maintain facility and vehicles Proposal #4 Pursue a Contracted Service With the Town of Georgina As previously outlined, the Town of Georgina provides animal shelter services for a number of other municipalities in York Region, specifically itself, Newmarket, East Gwillimbury, and W hitch u rch-Stouffville. It should be noted that only the shelter/pound services are provide in this arrangement. Animal patrol and enforcement is contracted out to an independent company that conducts patrols for each municipality in the group. Town staff has recently been in contact with both Georgina and Wayne Jones Animal Control Services in order to obtain a quote for the service. :m GENERAL COMMITTEE — JANUARY 23, 2007 December 6. 2005 -7- The following is a list of positive and negative factors with proposal #4: No. CS05-036 Pros: ➢ Maintains animal control and associated liability at arms -length from the Town ➢ Improves public image by shifting to a municipally owned shelter and new animal control service ➢ Established service with proven track record for three other municipalities ➢ Sharing of operating costs ➢ No capital cost for construction of the shelter to the Town of Aurora ➢ Improved pet adoption program Cons: ➢ Lack of direct control ➢ Distance to the shelter for the public to pick up lost pet ➢ Dependent on existing shelter accommodations ➢ Availability of patrols and enforcement ➢ Potential exposure to costs for the upgrading and expanding the existing facility Proposal #5 Enter Into a Partnership With One or Two. Other Municipalities to Construct a New Shelter As previously outlined, Newmarket, Aurora, Wh itch urch-Stouffville and King have an option to utilize the shelter services provided by the Town of Georgina, conversely one of the drawbacks to this service is the distance to the shelter which is located near Keswick. In lieu of entering into a joint venture with the southern three municipalities, whose needs are far greater than Aurora, it may be advantageous to explore discussions with neighbouring Towns such as Newmarket, King or Whitch urch-Stouffville to determine if there is an interest in sharing the costs of building and operating a shelter in Aurora. The size of the shelter would depend on the number of participating municipalities. It is estimated that a building of 6,000 sq. ft will be required to accommodate the scope of operation. The following is a list of positive and negative factors with proposal #5: Pros: ➢ Sharing of the capital and operational costs with the other municipalities and the service partner ➢ Increased level of service ➢ Upgraded facility designed to accommodate future needs ➢ Fund raising and volunteer opportunities ➢ Improved public image ➢ Improved control over capital and operational costs ➢ Effective pooling of resources and expertise ➢ Stream line customer service — readily available to address customer complaints ➢ Improved pet adoption program —81— GENERAL COMMITTEE — JANUARY 23, 2007 December 6, 2005 - 8 - Report No. CS05-036 Cons: ➢ Increased costs over single proprietorship ➢ Start up costs for new shelter and equipment ➢ Agreement on shared costs associated with future growth and public demands ➢ Cost of land ➢ Agreement on the operation and procedures of the facility ➢ Agreement on the costs and revenues of the operation of the shelter ➢ Direct assumption of the liability of animal control for the municipality Proposal #6 Enter into a public -private partnership An option that has not been explored to date is the possibility of a private/public partnership. This concept would be different from the existing service contract provided through an independent service provider such as Kennel Inn. A partnership of this nature would involve negotiating with a private corporation to construct a shelter on either their own privately lands or Town owned lands. In return the Town would enter into along term lease or alternatively lease to purchase arrangement forthe land and building i.e. 20 years. This solution would alleviate the up front capital costs of the land or building and provide the Town with facilities based on its immediate needs. Operational costs associated with the shelter and animal patrols would still be the responsibility of the Town. Pros: ➢ Shifts the capital costs to the private partner ➢ Increased level of service Upgraded facility designed to accommodate future needs ➢ Fund raising and volunteer opportunities ➢ Improved public image ➢ Improved control over capital and operational costs ➢ Effective pooling of resources and expertise ➢ Stream line customer service — readily available to address customer complaints ➢ Improved pet adoption programs Cons: ➢ Increased long term costs for lease ➢ Costs associated with future growth and public demands ➢ Location and provision of land subject to availability of private partner ➢ Direct assumption of the liability of animal control for the municipality CE-M GENERAL COMMITTEE — JANUARY 23, 2007 December 6, 2005 - 9 - Report No. CS05-036 FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS The financial implications for future animal control services and shelter operation are many and varied depending on the desired proposal presented. Presently the Town is on a month to month basis with Kennel Inn since the former contract expired on December 31, 2004. The following highlights the costs that the Town of Aurora has paid over the past five years for its animal control services: YEAR COSTS 2005 ___ _ — 135,500 _ 2004 104,050 2003 i-- 96,200 — 2002 991900 ______ �— 2001� 89,300 Expenses A considerable amount of time and effort has been expended by the members of the Joint Municipal Ad -hoc Committee in compiling statistical information on the operational costs of the various facilities inspected. The costs for animal control services in other municipalities are attached as Appendix #6. The following are financial estimates for each proposal presented. Proposal #1 Joint Municipal Facility A facility to service the 5 joint municipalities would undoubtedly be the largest and most expensive option given the scale of operation and the size to accommodate the number of animals that may be housed within the building at any one time. In addition, the level of enforcement would similarly have a bearing on the size of the building to address vehicle and staffing requirements. There is also a direct correlation between the combined population of the joint municipalities and the building square footage required to properly conduct this operation. Based on 2005 statistics, the combined population of the subject 5 municipalities is approximately 731,200 and growing. It is therefore important to ensure that a new facility will accommodate the current and future population growth of the combined municipal group. It is therefore envisioned that a building of approximately 25,000 sq. feet. and 2 to 3 acres of land may be required. Other Comparator Municipalities Municipality Population Size of Facility Calgary ' [_ 957,000 21,000 sq. ft. F Brampton F_380,000 F 18,000 sq. ft. 640,000 1 10,500 (tb exp.) EWE GENERAL COMMITTEE — JANUARY 23, 2007 December 6, 2005 - 10 - Report No. CS05-036 F— Kingston ` 104,800 _F4,800 sq. ft.— F-London F 323,600 _ — ,200 sq. ft. rPickering/AGjax/Whitby 252,050 —F1 600 sq. ft eorgina et al �r 138,550--F 3,000 sq. ft F— OSPCA —F 31,200 sq. ft. Consequently, it is estimated that the costs associated with building a newfacility, including the costs for serviced land would be $2,642,500. Furthermore, it is also estimated that the annual operating cost of this facility will be approximately $3,024,500. This naturally will be subject to further examination and refinement prior to any final decisions. A detailed estimate summary associated with this proposal is included as Appendix #4 to this report. The financial impact of this proposal on each municipality has been calculated and outlined in Appendix #7 attached to this report. It proposed that the costs to the Town of Aurora would be approximately $168,000 for the construction costs and a further $192,300 for annual operating costs. It should be noted that staff resources for this operation may be contracted out to various service providers, for example the OSPCA has indicated an interest in operating the shelter and looking after the welfare of the animals placed in the facility. Correspondingly, the animal patrol and enforcement can be contracted out to a current service provider such as Kennel Inn or other interested parties. Proposal #2 Continue With Contracted Service Provided by Kennel Inn Through discussions as well as written correspondence, Kennel Inn has indicated that it is prepared to construct and operate a new shelter in York Region (location to be determined) provided that the existing municipal group commits to a long term contract (5 yrs to 10 yrs). This commitment would ensure a funding source for the company to offset the capital expenditure of a new facility. At this time it is uncertain what the future contract price per municipality will be. It can be speculated that the costs will be calculated at a rate that is conservatively estimated to be of approximately $5 per capita based on the population of the municipality. This would then translate to a cost of approximately $232,500 per year for the Town of Aurora. The Town contract and service with Kennel Inn is proceeding on a month to month basis of $11,290 per month, ($135,500 annually for 2005). The proposed cost for 2006 is $150,000. Proposal #3 Construct and operate a Town of Aurora animal shelter. In lieu of partnering with the larger municipal group, the Town may wish to proceed with constructing its own shelter and operating animal control independently. GENERAL COMMITTEE — JANUARY 23, 2007 December 6, 2005 - 11 - Report No. CS05-036 As previously outlined, the Town has an opportunity to utilize its own lands for the facility thereby limiting costs to the construction of the building only. Depending on the location selected, a facility could be constructed at a cost of approximately $350,000 to $400,000. Due to the specialized nature related to the care of animals within the shelter as well as the animal patrol and enforcement, the Town would consider contracting out the services for animal care to OSPCA staff which would workwithin the shelter. Similarly the enforcement component could be contracted out to another service provider. It is estimated that the operating costs of animal control services would be approximately $3.50 per capita or an annual cost of $162,750. The financial implication of this option would require further detailed examination before a decision could be made. Proposal #4 Pursue a Contracted Service With the Town of Georgina A further option that has been reviewed is shifting the animal control services from the Town's current service provider, Kennel Inn, to another contracted service. Accordingly, Town staff have also contacted the Town of Georgina, who operates a shelter and Wayne Jones Animal Control Services who provides the enforcement on behalf of Newmarket, Georgina, East Gwillimbury and Whitchurch-Stouffville. The quotation provided by Georgina is $60,490 for shelter services. The animal patrols and enforcement quoted by Wayne Jones Animal Control Services is $93,000 for the same service level currently available in Town. The total costs for this service would be $153,490 for 2006. There is a caveat to Georgina's proposal that indicates a commitment by all municipalities to participate in a 5 year program to help offset any additional costs they may encounter for the expansion of the shelter to accommodate a large volume of animals. Proposal #5 Enter Into a Partnership With One or Two Other Municipalities to Construct a New Shelter An additional consideration to proposal #3 could be a joint venturing with a neighbouring municipality such as Newmarket, King or Whitch urch-Stouffville in the sharing of costs for the construction and operation of a shelter. The population of the three southern municipalities would require a substantially larger facility in order to handle the volume of animals that would be maintained. Correspondingly a larger property would also be required to handle the vehicle fleet and staffing resources. Alternatively the Town could venture with smaller population municipalities as mentioned above that would require a smallerfacility and sharing in the financial burden. Then again, the Town could proceed in constructing the shelter on its own and charge back an annual fee in a similar fashion conducted by the Town of Georgina. GENERAL COMMITTEE — JANUARY 23, 2007 December 6, 2005 -12 - Report No. CS05-036 This would provide an annual revenue source to offset the initial construction costs and future maintenance costs for the facility. Services for the care of the animals and enforcement/patrol could be contracted out to other service providers for the Town of Aurora and other member municipalities. The Town of Georgina currently charges back $161,295 annually for shelter services to the Towns of Newmarket, East Gwillimbury and Whitchurch-Stouffville. The municipalities also pay an additional fee of $228,000 collectively for animal patrol & enforcement. In the event this option is considered, additional financial evaluation would be required to narrow the scope of the costs and to determine if any other municipality would be interested in partnering with the Town. Proposal #6 Enter into a public -private partnership This last proposal has been presented only as an option and the financial implications cannot be provided at this time since it is unknown whether a partner is available. If this option is considered, staff would seek out a partnership following proper procurement policy practices. The following chart summarizes each of the proposals and associated costs as presented in this report. PROPOSAL b�TION.; :CA$T OF'OPT,,' 1. Build & Operate a Joint Facility Joint Group Const. Costs $2,642,500 Ann. Oper. Costs $3,024,500 Aurora Costs Const. $168,000 O er. $192,300 2. Continue with Kennel Inn Proposed 2006 Costs $150,000 Future Ann. Costs $232,500 3. Build & Operate Town Owned Shelter Const. Costs $350,000 to $400,000 Ann. O er. Costs $162,750 4. New Contracted Service with Town of Proposed 2006 Costs Georgina $153,490 5. Partnership with Nearby Municipality Const. Costs $5 to$600,000 Ann. O er. unknown *** 6. Enter into a Public -Private Partnership Construction Costs Annual Operating Costs unkown *** *** Note: These items costs can not be accurately projected and are dependent on an agreement with a partner. :. GENERAL COMMITTEE — JANUARY 23, 2007 December 6, 2005 -13 - Report No. CS05-036 Revenue Regardless which proposal may be considered by Council, the costs of animal control enforcement has a significant on the impact on the Town's budget and correspondingly the property taxes that supports this service. This service is provided solely for the benefit of pet owners who either through their own negligence or by accident let their pets run at large and then are eventually picked up by the animal patrol enforcement staff. Therefore a factor that requires more scrutiny should be the user pay philosophy that would take the burden from the general property taxpayer and shift more of the cost to the pet owner. For years, the licensing fee for dogs and cats has been a nominal fee of $20 (dogs) $10 (cats). In addition the Town's licensing by-law granted an exemption to the fee to pets belonging to seniors, or if the pet was micro chipped with an identification. The combination of this together with delinquent pet owners failing to acquire a license for their pet has resulted in a gradual decline in the revenue generated through licensing. The following is a summary of licenses issued over the past few years and revenue generation. Licenses 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 Dog Licenses Issued 2508 2495 2195 2393 1776 Cat Licenses Issued 1714 1611 1443 1595 742 Dog Lic. Revenue $43,954 $36,596 $33,025 $15,832 $13,293 Cat Lic. Revenue $12,135 $12,222 $10,176 $3,280 $2,563 Total Revenue $56,089 $48,818 $43,201 $19,112 $15,856 With the increases in operating costs that are forecast, it is recommended that the fees and charges for pet licensing and fines be re-evaluated to increase revenue that would be applied towards the costs of the operation.. The Joint Municipal Ad -Hoc Committee reviewed in detail a new operational format of the City of Calgary which was implemented several years ago, that instituted a more aggressive campaign with pet owners in order to curb the number of pets running at large thus reducing animal care costs and proactively generating more revenue through their licensing program. The net result has been an annual profit of +$300,000 and no cost to the property taxes, as compared to an operational deficit that is generally experienced in all municipalities in Ontario. (See Appendix #3) In the case of the Town of Aurora, the operating costs for 2005 are $135,500 while the revenue generated is $15,856, for an operating deficit of $119,635. In order to offset future escalating operational costs for animal control services, it is recommended that fees and fines charged be analysed with a view to significantly increasing this amount on an incremental basis over the next few years. GENERAL COMMITTEE — JANUARY 23, 2007 December 6, 2005 -14 - Report No. CS05-036 CONCLUSIONS The information gathered by the ad -hoc committee through its research of other municipalities' animal control services and visitations to otherfacilities has been a valuable asset in the preparation of this report. The proposals presented provide Council with a variety of options that can be considered. One of the main concerns that has been expressed in the letters from the residents and previous presentations to Council by the Aurora Residents Pet Care Association has been the condition of the Kennel Inn facilities. Depending on the direction that is provided by Council on the various proposals, it may require a considerable amount of time to establish a new animal shelter to address these needs, either through a municipally owned and operated facility or through the development of a new site by Kennel Inn. In order to respond to the immediate concerns of the residents and pet owners, staff is recommending that the Town pursue a new service agreement with the Town of Georgina and Wayne Jones Animal Control Services until a final decision is made on a future shelter. In the interim, staff would continue to cooperatively work the ad -hoc committee or explore other joint ventures opportunities depending on Council's direction. Alternatively Council may wish to remain with Kennel Inn, in which case it is proposed that the Town enter a new 1 year agreement with Kennel Inn subjectto the following conditions: 1. reach an agreement on a location for a new modern facility that can accommodate the municipalities present and future needs; 2. to agree on a date that the new facility will open for operation; 3, in the interim, Kennel Inn will make the necessary improvements to the existing facility that will provide a better environment for the animals and the residents that visit the facility; and 4. Kennel Inn will workwith the committee to ensure the proper and adequate training of staff on the handling of the animals and for the enforcement of the animal control by-laws is provided. LINK TO STRATEGIC PLAN Goal A Speaks to reviewing areas where the provision of services might be shared amongst service providers, both within the Town and in neighbouring communities; and Formally confirming and maintaining a user pay philosophy and examining processes whereby consumers of service pay for a portion of the cost of operating it. GENERAL COMMITTEE — JANUARY 23, 2007 December 6. 2005 - 15 - Report No. CS05-036 ATTACHMENTS Appendix#1 Kennel Inn Facilities Photos Appendix #2 Letters from Residents Appendix #3 Comparator Municipalities Construction Costs Survey Appendix #4 Proposed Joint Facility Costs Appendix #5 Correspondence from Kennel Inn Appendix #6 Animal Control Costs Comparison Appendix #7 Joint Operation Cost Split by Municipality PRE -SUBMISSION REVIEW Management Team — November 30, 2005 Prepared by. Bob Panizza, ext. 4221 Chris Alexander, ext. 4241 Bob Panizza, Director Corporate Services GENERAL COMMITTEE — JANUARY 23, 2007 December 6, 2005 - 16 - Report No. CS05-036 FACILITY CONSTRUCTION and START-UP COSTS SURVEY FOR THE MUNICIPALITIES OF BRAMPTON, CALEDON, CALGARY, ITEM PARTICULARS D•N CALGARY BRAMPTON Population 57,000 957,000 380,000 Property Size 2 acres 2 acres 3 acres Year of Construction 2002 1999 1998 1 Land Acquisition Cost Donation Municipal Municipal 2 Soft costs — Architect, $30,000 Consultant, legal, etc. $21,000 Moving Costs 22,000 3 Facility Size 3200 sq ft 21,000 sq ft 18,000 sq ft 4 Cost of Construction $538,209 $3,500,000 $1,200,000 5 Cost to Equip & Decor.- Admin Furniture $30,000 Computers & Office $30,000 Equipment 6 Cost to Equip — Pound area Cat Cages $10,000 $58,500 +/- 7 Exterior Facilities $40,000 $100,000 +/- 8 Cost of Driveway & Parkin lot $24,440 Included above 9 Cost of Landscaping $26,659 10 Vehicle Costs $15,000 $90,000 to 1 yr Lease $95,000 per Leased 2 Vehicles Unit capital value. We lease from our own fleet department to optimize the cost. 11 Miscellaneous Costs Permits $4,300 Included Included Printing $2,000 Construction Costs $538,209 $1,200,000 Other Char es $105,744 $ 150,000 Initial O eratin Charges $ 70,000 $ 100,000 • � ® .m GENERAL COMMITTEE - JANUARY 23, 2007 December 6, 2005 - 17 - Report No. CS05-036 COST OF PROGRAM SURVEY FOR THE MUNICIPALITIES OF CALEDON, CALGARY, BRAMPTON From 2004 Actual Costs and 2005 Estimated Costs - - ••7�7nn - •1 Number of Full Time Staff 4 16 Number of Part Time Staff 3 7 2 Salaries- $176,000 $400,118 Overtime $ 25,000 ,$ 5969 Benefits $ 42,000 $510,000 Included 3 Uniforms/Safety Equip. $2,000 $21,600 $5,350 4 Training/Education $2,000 $10,000 $6,200 5 Memberships $300 $4596 $400 6 Cell phones Radio - Dispatch Service $4,000 $17,000 $6,400 7 Vehicle Maintenance Lease Lease $49,242 $15,000 $137,000 Mileage 3 Vehicles Maint. $250 $200 $23,000 8 Pound Supplies Maintenance $6,000 $14,000 $37,600 Dog Food $2,500 $34,800 $Included Cat Food Incl Other Expense $2,000 Incl. in dog Included Medical Supplies $6,000 $9,000 9 Office and Pound Stationary $2,000 $29,000 $37,600 And other office materials $34,000 postage 10 Administration Expenses Included in Phones $4,000 $38,500 office exp. Hydro $6,000 $27,500 $24,000 Gas/Oil $12,000 $16,000 $39,006 Water/Sewers $1,500 $3,450 $3,100 Computer $1,000 $120,000 Service 11 Veterinary Services $3,000 $33,000 In House 12 Burial/Cremation $6,500 In House 13 Wildlife Services Not our In House Jurisdiction 14 Other Expenses Contract Services $700 $7,200 $16,000 Live Stock Control $3,000 Nil Spay/Neuter $1,200 $66,500 Printing/advertising $1,500 $100,000 $10,000 Insurance $7,900 Self • � ii Lei will, ME, r-Ij -91- GENERAL COMMITTEE — JANUARY 23, 2007 December 6, 2005 - 18 - Report No. CS05-036 COST OF PROGRAM SURVEY FOR THE MUNICIPALITIES OF CALEDON, CALGARY, BRAMPTON From 2004 Actual Costs and 2005 Estimated Costs Revenues License Sales $42,000 $3,084'000 $110,000 Boarding Fees $14,000 $226,000 $ 10,000 Adoptions $10,000 Incl in $117,800 Kennel $2,000 License Sales Licenses $13,510 $600,000 $ 57,000 Additional fines a o§@o 000 E, o :oo Yearly Operating Budget Expenses $329,000 $3,590,000 $1,604,149 Revenues [$81,500] [$3,910,000] [$ 304,800] W -,rt._. �� ", ', , w 9 lwo sS —92— GENERAL COMMITTEE — JANUARY 23, 2007 December 6, 2005 -19 - JOINT FACILITY CONSTRUCTION & EQUIPMENT COSTS Cost to purchase land in the area of the lower 6 municipalities; - Serviced lands, no 404 exposure. - Serviced lands with 404 exposure. No. CS05-036 Construction costs for Industrial/Commercial structures (min. 25,000 sq. ft.) Size based on providing service for 5 to 7 municipalities plus growth for 10 years. - Cost per square foot. (2005 rate) $ 58.00 p/s/f - Hard Costs — Actual Construction (25,000 sf X $58) $ 475.000 $ 500,000 TOTAL CONSTRUCTION OF STRUCTURE $ 1,450,000 HVAC Systems + Air Exchange System for Shelter & Office areas $ 100,000 Cost per square foot. Soft Costs —Architect, Consultant, etc. $ 60,000 (4% of Construction Cost) Costs for equipment — cages, counters, tables, office equipment, etc. Cost per work station (Desk, phone, computer, etc.) ($ 8,000 per station X 10 stations) $ 80,000 ($ 1,000 per Cage 100 Cats) $ 100,000 ($ 1,000 Custom Made doors) $ 85,000 Decorations — paintings, etc. Landscaping Costs — (Depends on site plan requirements) Fencing — Runs & Exercise Areas Outdoor Kennels & Runs (75) Outdoor Cat Area (25 x 25) Enclosed Driveway and walkways Cost - (Depends on site plan requirements) Signs - Business & Directional = TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COSTS $ 15,000 $ 30,000 $ 15,000 $ 150,000 $ 25.000 $ 65,000 $ 2,500 $2,642,500+/- -93— GENERAL COMMITTEE — JANUARY 23, 2007 December 6, 2005 - 20 - Report No. CS05-036 Cont'd SHELTER OPERATION COSTS OPERATING COSTS (per year @ today's costs Richmond Hill salaries & benefits) Salaries — 38 Full Time Staff + 5 Part Time Staff $2,035,000 Benefits - (23%) $ 468,000 Over time $ 10,000 TOTAL SALARIES AND BENEFITS $2,728,000 Cell Phones Contract costs vary 12 phones $ 11,000 Radio System Purchase $ 7,000 Vehicle Costs Full size van style - Lease Rate per year cost $ 52,800 Aurora - 1 van ($450 p/m X 12 = $ 5400) King - 1 van Markham - 2 vans ($5400 X 9 = $48,600) Richmond Hill- 2 vans " " Vaughan - 2 vans Spare - 1 van Supervisor Patrol Vehicle — Station Wagon or SLIV -1 ($ 350 p/m X 12= $ 4200) Regular costs associated with daily use — gas (10 vehicles) $ 60,000 - misc. other $ 10,000 Maintenance Cost — Regular maintenance, $ 17,500 Equipment replacement (Brakes, tires, etc.) $ 5,000 OTHER COSTS FOR SHELTER OPERATION Costs include all utility usage costs, office expenses, training & staff development costs, contract services, insurance, printing, advertising and other miscellaneous expenses per survey. (based on information received from the other municipally owned and operated shelters. The estimates are calculated at 2005 Richmond Hill rates) $ 133,200 TOTAL OPERATION COST per year based on present salary and equipment costs . $3,024,500 TOTAL CONSTRUCTION + 1ST YEAR COSTS CAPITAL + OPERATING $5,607,000 NOTE: Costs of construction are estimated on present market values and information received from Economic Development statistics based on a facility of 25,000 square feet. Costs for operation are estimated on the salaries and operating costs for the Town of Richmond Hill based on a facility of 25,000 square feet. —94— GENERAL COMMITTEE — JANUARY 23, 2007 December 6, 2005 - 21 - Report No. CS05-036 ANIMAL CONTROL COST COMPARISON 2004 Statistics a UNICIp L TY W. tr, � s P®' I�ATfO ' /ANIMA N TR 5�P A BARRIE OSPCA 125,000 $291,000.00 $2.33 BRAMPTON 370,000 $1,600,000.00 $4.32 CALEDON 53,000 $325,000.00 $6.13 GEORGINA 32,000 $220,000.00 $6.88 UXBRIDGE 45,000 $174,000.00 $3.87 MISSISSAUGA 640,000 $1,200,000.00 $1.88 OAKVILLE 130,000 $550,000.00 $4.23 PAWS PICKERING/AJAXNVHITBY 152,000 $753,000.00 $3.00 TOTAL GTA 1,647,000 $5,133,000.00 $3.86 Wa " d • F"ri nt ,Lv i � '�} f . 5' n �} ry,; : '<�€ x ,% ;, �� .�9 y.�-� t Y�k't� r AURORA 46,500 $134,000 $2.88 KING 19,500 $ 87,000 $4.46 MARKHAM 263,200 $250,000 $0.95 RICHMOND HILL 162,000 $194,200 $1.20 VAUGHAN 240,000 $385,000 $1.60 TOTAL KENNEL INN 731,200 $1,050,200 $1.43 —95— GENERAL COMMITTEE - JANUARY 23, 2007 December 6; 2005 - 22 - Report No. CS05-036 COST SPLIT BY MUNICIPALITY Based on Per Capita 2005 Statistics AURORA 46,500 $168,042 $192,342 $360,384 KING 19,500 70,469 80,660 151,129 MARKHAM 263,200 951,152 1,088,700 2,039,852 RICHMOND HILL 162,000 585,435 670,097 1,255,532 VAUGHAN 240,000 867,312 992,736 1,860,048 TOTAL 731,200 $2,642,410 $3,Q24,535. $5,666,945, Costs of construction are estimated on present market values and information received from Economic Development statistics based on a facility of 25,000 square feet. Costs for operation are estimated on the salaries and operating costs for the Town of Richmond Hill based on a facility of 25,000 square feet. TOTAL POPULATION 731,200 TOTAL COST $5,666,945 (cost divided by population = cost per capita) COST PER CAPITA FOR CONSTRUCTION OF JOINT FACILITY = $ 3.6138 COST PER CAPITA FOR 1ST YEAR OPERATIONG COSTS = $ 4.1364 Im GENERAL COMMITTEE - JANUARY 23, 2007 APPENDIX #2 -TOWN OF AURORA GENERAL COMMITTEE REPORT No. CS06-005 SUBJECT: Provision of Future Animal Control Services FROM: Bob Panizza, Director Corporate Services DATE: January 24, 2006 RECOMMENDATIONS THAT the report Provision of Future Animal Control Services CS06-005 be received; and THAT the Town ofAurora enter into service agreements with the Town of Georgina for the provision of animal shelter services at a cost of $60,490 and with Wayne Jones Animal Control Services for the provision of animal control enforcement at a cost of $93,000, for a total contract of $153,490; and THAT staff bring back a report recommending amendments to the Animal Control By-law for an adjustment in the licensing fees for cats and dogs; and THAT staff continue to review long term options with municipalities in York Region or Kennel inn or any other interested parties on a new animal shelter and animal control enforcement to service the Town of Aurora. BACKGROUND At the General Committee meeting of December 6, 2005 a comprehensive report (attached as Appendix #1) was presented to Committee which outlined in detail operational issues with the Town's animal control services and recommended that the Town move it's operations to the Town of Georgina animal shelter and shift its animal control enforcement to Wayne Jones Animal Control Services. This report was received with a further recommendation: "That a notice be placed in the newspaper to advise residents that the Town will be considering the temporary relocation of Aurora's animal shelter to Georgina." -97- GENERAL COMMITTEE — JANUARY 23, 2007 January 24, 2006 - 2 - Report No. CS06-005 COMMENTS As requested by Council, staff arranged to have notices placed in the Era -Banner Town Notice Board Page on December 20, January 10, 17 & 24, the Auroran newspaper on January 17, and on the Town's web site. To date 2 letters have been submitted, copies enclosed as Appendix#2 against the proposed change in service provider. Consequently, staff continues to support the proposal to move its animal control operations to the animal shelter in Georgina and arrange to have Wayne Jones Animal Control services provide the necessary enforcement. Wildlife Services In June and December General Committee received delegations from the Earth Rangers and Toronto Wildlife Centre both of whom outlined the services that their respective organizations provide to the residents of Aurora and requested consideration for the provision of wildlife rescue services as part of the Towns animal control program. At the present time the Town does not provide any support services with respect to calls from residents that are encountering wildlife problems on their properties. Normally these calls are channelled directly to agencies like the aforementioned or to pest control companies. In the event of injured wildlife, the Town's animal control contractor arranges to pick up and deliver the injured animal to one of the wildlife rescue agencies. Accordingly staff recommends that the Town maintains its current arrangements when dealing with wildlife rescue inquiries and that no new level of service be introduced with either Earth Rangers or Toronto Wildlife Centre. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS The financial implications for future animal control services and shelter operation are many and varied depending on the desired proposal previously presented. The Town is currently on a month to month contract arrangement with Kennel Inn since the former contract expired on December 31, 2004. The current rate is $11,250 per month. Should Council wish to remain with Kennel Inn, the proposed new annual contract price is $150,000. The 2006 Corporate Services budget provides the necessary funding forthe proposed contract of $153,490 with the new animal control services providers. OPTIONS The selection of service providers for animal control services are entirely at the discretion of Council. Council may proceed with the recommended proposal or remain with the current contractor. GENERAL COMMITTEE — JANUARY 23, 2007 January 24, 2006 - 3 - Report No. CS06-005 CONCLUSIONS Staff recommends that the contract for animal control services be changed to the proposal from the Town of Georgina animal shelter and Wayne Jones Animal Control Services for a one year contract, and that in the interim the Town continues to discuss the future of animal control services with the nearby municipalities and any other interested parties for the long a long range solution for this service. LINK TO STRATEGIC PLAN Speaks to reviewing areas where the provision of services might be shared amongst service providers, both within the Town and in neighbouring communities; and Formally confirming and maintaining a user pay philosophy and examining processes whereby consumers of service pay for a portion of the cost of operating it. ATTACHMENTS Appendix #1-Staff Report GS05-035 Appendix #2 - Letters Received PRE -SUBMISSION REVIEW Management Team — January 18, 2006 Prepared by. Bob Panizza, ext. 4221 Bob Panizza, Director Corporate Services GENERAL COMMITTEE - JANUARY 23, 2007 APPENDIX #3 Animal Control Centre 14378 Yonge 3t, RR#2, Aurora, Ontaro L4G 3GS December S, 2006 Mr. R. Panizza Director of Corporate Services Town of Aurora 1 Municipal Dr„ Aurora, Ontario Dear Bob : Re : Cost of Services for 2007 This is to confirm that kennel Inn Inc will provide Animal Control Services to the Town of Aurora for the year 2007 at an annual rate of $1640500.00. Have a Merry Christmas, a Happy New Year and a successful 2007 III p.s.: I am faxing you a copy of the changes made so for at our shelter (and were not finished yet). I gave Chris a copy already. —100— GENERAL COMMITTEE - JANUARY 23, 2007 Anlrnal Control Centre 14378 Yonge SI", RR#21 Aurora, Ontario L4G 3G8 What's new at Kennel Inn Below /s a compilation of upgrodes to our facility and services since October 2005: OFFIG"E moved into stone house increased office staff by one full time person computer tracking program moving ahead eliminated (removed) office trailer from property -101- GENERAL COMMITTEE — JANUARY 23, 2007 SHEL TER currently re -lining the dog cages (floors/walls) with impenetrable materials (our winter project) relocated dog isolation unit to separate, locked room away from public accessibility enclosed cat isolation area to eliminate public accessibility customers are now accompanied by staff at all times in the main shelter area - implemented a vaccine program with vet clinic - adoptable pets now available on web site petfinders.com - all dogs and cats are now cremated - restructured shelter staff positions to include a customer service person to deal with adoptions - e-mail service has been successful with rescue clubs acrocc North America ; public correspondence increasing brand new roof and shingles on main shelter - increased shelter staff by one part time Mon -Fri and one more for Saturdays - dogs and cats now completely separated - provided extra large confinement area for extra large dog (or mother with pups) - restructured heat/air conditioning flow throughout main shelter There are other areas within the business that are targeted for next spring that will depend on budget limitation. I will keep you informed of these should they come to fruition. Dan Lawrence, Director —102— GENERAL COMMITTEE — JANUARY 23, 2007 - new signage throughout the property (including a two sided 8'X4' aluminum sign on Yonge St) - Resurfaced driveway - (continued upgrades scheduled for spring) - widened driveway on the flats - safety markers along driveway expanded parking : o took down old garage o resurfaced area for employee parking o increased/designated parking area for public provided wheelchair accessibility new hydra pole lighting cleaned up grounds : o removed old truck backs o removed junk from property around stone house o cut down some dead trees c entrance and area approaching shelter have been cleared for flower/plant garden in spring the move into the stone house has provided the opportunity to maintain the entire premises ie: grass cutting, gardens etc. ACO's new and redesigned uniforms - all new vehicles equipped with air conditioning —103— GENERAL COMMITTEE - JANUARY 23, 2007E�� 8 __.m...._.._--_ .-.,.,, 4 /3 TOWN OF AURORA AURORA GENERAL COMMITTEE REPORT No.CS07-002 SUBJECT: 2007 Pet Licensing Fees FROM: Bob Panizza, Director Corporate Services DATE: January 23, 2007 RECOMMENDATIONS THAT report CS07- 002 entitled 2007 Pet Licensing Fees be received for information, - and THAT appropriate notice be advertised in the Town's Notice Board and Website regarding the proposed fee increases for 2007 pet licensing; and THAT the proposed amending by-law be presented at the Council meeting of February 13, 2007. BACKGROUND The Town of Aurora currently licenses both dogs and cats through by-laws which were re- enacted in 2005. The license fee for dogs is $20.00 and for cats $10.00. Although a license is required, pets that are owned by seniors or microchipped do not pay a license fee. Pet licenses are available at the Town Hall during regular business hours as well as from the Town's Animal Control contractor operating as Kennel Inn located at 13379 Yonge Street. In addition to these two locations, licenses can also be obtained from the two Petvalu stores located on Henderson Drive and Bayview Avenue in Town. Over the past 6 years the number of pets licensed and associated revenue has been decreasing as highlighted in the following table: r6censes_ 2001 �Fid_ 2003 2004 2005 [ 2006 Dog licenses 2508 2495 2195 2393 1776 1736 issues Cat licenses 1714 1611 1443 1595 742 778 issues ________.___$_.__.__43954 Dog license , $36,596 $33,025 ; $15,832 $13,293 $13,314 revenue Cat license _ $12,135 $12,222 $10,176 (i$3,280 $2,563 $3,208 revenue _ Total Revenue __ _ $56,089 $48,818 $43,201 ! $19,112 $15,856 $16,522 —104— GENERAL COMMITTEE — JANUARY 23, 2007 January 23 2007 - 2 - Report No. CS07-002 This downward trend has been a result of two factors namely; the increase in the number of microchipped pets which no longer pay a license fee, and the discontinuance of the door to door license canvassers that the Town utilized from 2001 to 2004. Correspondingly the operating costs for animal control services contract has increased significantly over the past 7 years as outlined in the following table: Animal Control Services Contract YEAR I COSTS 2007 1 $164,500 2006 2005 $135 2004 1 $104,050 2003 1 $96,200 2002 1 $99,900 2001 1 $89,300 COMMENTS Staff has been consulting with a number of the other municipalities in the Region to investigate the various options/models for the provision of animal control services. One significant outcome of this dialogue was the realization that the Town as well as the other municipalities in the Region, are paying substantially less than our counterparts in the rest of the G.T.A., and that the pet licensing fees charged by each municipality varied significantly. As evident in the foregoing tables, the amount of revenue generated through pet licensing fees has decreased dramatically, while at the same time the costs for animal control services has been increasing. To address this deficit, staff is recommending a number of changes to pet licensing and enforcement in Town. Pet License Fees Increases Staff have canvassed the other municipalities in the Region and determined that many of the other municipalities have the same or higher pet license fees than the Town of Aurora. Appendix " 1" attached to the report outlines the fees currently being charged in the other municipalities. —105— GENERAL COMMITTEE — JANUARY 23, 2007 January 23, 2007 - 3 - Report No. CS07-002 Staff therefore is proposing the following changes to the Town's pet license.fees: Non -Senior 1 $20.00 1 $30.00 $10.00 $20.00 Senior I No Charge $15.00 No Charge $10.00 Micro -chipped No Charge $30.00 No Charge $20.00 Service Doq No Charge I No Charae In 2006, of the 1,736 dogs licenses sold, 625 were microchipped and 367 were sold to seniors. This resulted in a total of $18,050.00 in un-captured revenue. Of the 778 cats licensed in 2006, 207 were microchipped and 228 sold to seniors. The un-captured revenue for cats was $4,830.00 for a combined total of $22,855.00 in un-captured revenue. In addition to this, the effectiveness of the microchipping as a form of identification for pets has now been brought into question because of the number of companies providing the service. This has resulted in a constantly changing need for different microchip readers by our animal control service provider. This in turn increases the operating costs to the animal control company which passes these costs on to the municipality. Staff are aware from both there own investigations as well as anecdotal evidence from residents that not all the dogs and cats are licensed in Town. The current community profile indicates that there are 14,864 households in Town. Staff conservatively estimates that there are approximately 3,000 dogs and 2,000 cats in Town. By removing the exemption for microchipped pets and charging seniors that have pets a proportionate fee, it is envisioned that the total pet license revenue can be significantly increased to help offset the escalating costs of the animal control services. To achieve this, the Town will require an aggressive licensing and enforcement campaign. Door to Door Canvassers In 2001, the Town hired canvassers to go door to door selling pet licenses. This program was successful as it provided a value added service to the residents and eliminated their requirement to attend the Town Hall to purchase a pet license. The introduction of the program also saw a dramatic jump in the number of pet licenses sold and revenue generated. The door to door program was discontinued in 2004, due to the escalating costs of the program. The canvassers were paid for a proportion of the revenue for each pet license that they sold. It became evident however that the program was not economically viable because the Town still had to pay the canvasser for licenses they sold to seniors and pet owners with microchipped animals. In these cases the Town did not receive any revenue. —106— GENERAL COMMITTEE — JANUARY 23, 2007 January 23, 2007 - 4 - Report No. CS07-002 In order to increase the number of licenses sold, it is proposed that the door to door canvassing program be re -introduced in 2007 with a modified approach that would include a special surcharge of $10 on the purchase of a pet license from a canvasser. The surcharge will address the revenue shortfall experienced in past years when the canvassers were employed as well as offsetting the costs to the Town for the canvasser's compensation. In the event a resident refuses to license their pet(s) through the canvasser, the file would be forwarded to Animal Control Services for follow-up action, which may include laying charges for having an unlicensed pet. Set Fines The third component of the proposed modifications to the pet licensing by-law addresses the issue of fines for unlicensed dogs or cats. The current set fines for unlicensed dogs and cats was approved several years ago. In order to further encourage pet owners to purchase a license, it is proposed that the fines for "Failing to Obtain a Dog or Cat License" be increased from $105.00 to $200.00. OPTIONS The decision whether to adjust the pet licensing fees and set fines is a discretionary decision of Council. Council may implement in whole or in part the proposed recommendations, or alternatively recommend modifications to the proposed suggestions presented including a reduced price for microchipped pets to encourage the pet owners. A further option that Council may wish to consider is the discontinuance of animal control services altogether. According to the Municipal Act, the provision of animal control services such as prohibiting animals from running at large, impounding animals, and licensing animals is not a mandatory requirement and therefore the service is at the discretion of the municipality. Given that the Town as well as surrounding municipalities have been providing these services for decades, it may not necessarily be a popular notion to discontinue this service. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS When the Town introduced door to door canvassers to sell pet licenses in 2001, the revenue generated was $56,089, and during same period, the animal control contract for this service was $89,300. The revenue generation represented 63% of the contract cost. Conversely in 2006, without the use of canvassers, the revenue generated was $16,522 while the animal control contract was $153,000. During the past year, the revenue generation represented only 11 % of the contract cost. —107— GENERAL COMMITTEE — JANUARY 23, 2007 January 23, 2007 .5. Report No. CS07-002 This dramatic decrease in licensing revenue is not related to a decrease in the animal population of the Town, on the contrary, it is staff's opinion that the animal population has increased proportionately with that of the Town's residential population. In order to address service fees and long term financial planning as identified in the Town's strategic plan, it is recommended that adjustments be made in the fees currently charged for pet licensing and initiate a proactive campaign to achieve a higher user fee ratio for animal control services in the Town. Based on the previously mention pet population estimate (3,000 dogs & 2,000 cats) it is estimated that the revenue generation could be dramatically increase though a proactive licensing program. It is foreseeable that approximately $100,000 could be generated which would represent 61% of the 2007 contract costs. As an alternative more drastic measure, as identified in the options, the Town may wish to discontinue animal control services altogether. This in turn would achieve a savings of at least $165,000 in 2007 and more, over the forthcoming years. CONCLUSIONS The Town has seen the costs associated with the provision of animal control services rise substantially over the past few years. Staff's recommendations in the report are designed to address the costs associated with the provision of animal control services as well as to address the current deficit in the operating budget. Staff is cognizant that they may not license every dog and cat in the Town, but through an aggressive licensing and enforcement program, the program should operate closer to a cost recovery basis and not as much of a loss. This is the goal of the program. LINK TO STRATEGIC PLAN Goal 131: Continue the commitment of fiscal responsibility and accountability ATTACHMENTS Appendix #1- Pet Licenses Fees in the Region Appendix #2 - Draft By-law Amendment MEM GENERAL COMMITTEE - JANUARY 23, 2007 January 23, 2007 - 6 - Report No. CS07-002 PRE -SUBMISSION REVIEW Senior Management Meeting — January 10, 2007 Prepared by: Chris Alexander, ext. 4241 & Bob Panizza, ext. 4221 Bob Panizza Director Corporate Services John S. Rogers C.A.O. —109— GENERAL COMMITTEE - JANUARY 23, 2007 a AF 3�_ -- s Q 0 o ¢ ¢ O - c E E O O cn m m O p 'UU E E o D N N N E E �{Qp m b S VI 3cr_ = 0 0 of 3 3 3 3 p p y M O Y N N N Z Z N N UO N C C U co 0-- U N N Q N O 9 00000 -- __ __ 0000 O LO 106 000 00 0000 0 _ u�e»e»e3 ur e»sv e» E� F»v>e»Fa � N a U - L O > E - m ma m m w O O O O U > O N T N N O O m as 0. 0. Q m N'W m a Q �pc0 aL3 `m 3 3�odow O O a c o rn o ym O O N 'C a > m a _ - m-oLooQ -gyp _�ami3 3 3�momw a'N �nm >0 0 0 00 3o0E m mNLUmN op wp aoo� m O O O 00 c c Op0 a O o O m G a '0 O -O O - ¢QQ `p D G U O 7 N a N d N 2 N i N a 00 N U N a N Q Qm V-. �... O��(n N QL ¢L k N4=. vJ Q� >w N.L. Q 'O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O-O U O U O O O O O O O O O O O O'er m W MOJ N OO �tJ �00�1J 10 �00�0 U O V O �OOOOOONO0000� O Lp } 'PENDIX 1 -110- GENERAL COMMITTEE — JANUARY 23, 2007 APPENDIX 2 gown ofq, THE CORPORATION OF THE TOWN OF AURORA By-law Number XXXXXXX BEING A BY-LAW to amend the Pet Licensing Fees in the Town's Dog and Cat By-laws NOW THEREFORE THE COUNCIL OF THE CORPORATION OF THE TOWN OF AURORA ENACTS AS FOLLOWS: THAT Schedule "A" of By-law 4749-05. P be repealed and that the attached Schedule "A" be attached. 2. THAT Schedule "A" of Bylaw 4747-05.P be repealed and that the attached Schedule "A" be attached. READ A FIRST AND SECOND TIME THIS DAY OF 2007. READ A THIRD TIME AND FINALLY PASSED THIS DAY OF 2007. P. MORRIS, MAYOR B. PANIZZA, MUNICIPAL CLERK —111— GENERAL COMMITTEE - JANUARY 23, 2007 BY-LAW XXXX-XX.P SCHEDULE"A" License Fees 1. Cats $20.00 If owned by a resident who is sixty five years old $10.00 2. ImDOund Fees First impound $20.00 Second impound $30.00 Third impound $50.00 Daily maintenance fee $15.00 3. Lost Cat Tao Replacement Fee $ 3.00 4. Licensing Canvasser Fee $10.00 per household -112- GENERAL COMMITTEE - JANUARY 23, 2007 BY-LAW XXXX-XX.P SCHEDULE"A" License Fees 1. Dogs $30.00 If owned by a resident who is sixty five years old $15.00 If for use as a seeing -eye dog owned by a resident with visual impairment Nil 2. Kennel or Dog Breeding Establishment $100.00 3. Daily Maintenance Fee $15.00 4. moound Fee First Impound $20.00 Second Impound $30.00 Third Impound $50.00 5. Lost Dog Tag Replacement Fee $3.00 6. Licensing Canvasser Fee $10 per household -113- GENERAL COMMITTEE — JANUARY 23, 2007 AGEN 9 1-- - _. . TOWN OF AURORA AURORA GENERAL COMMITTEE REPORT No.CS07-003 SUBJECT: New Sign By-laws FROM: Bob Panizza, Director, Corporate Services Techa van Leeuween, Director of Building Administration DATE: January 23, 2007 RECOMMENDATIONS THAT report CS07-003 on the proposed new Sign By-laws be received; and THAT the proposed draft Sign By-laws be presented to Council at its next meeting for enactment. BACKGROUND The proposed draft by-laws attached as Appendix #2 and #3 to this report were initially presented to Council in an earlier report on September 5, 2006, a copy of which is attached as Appendix #1. The report and accompanying by-laws were received for information, and notices were placed in the Notice Board section of the newspaper inviting all stakeholders to attend a public meeting on November 21, 2006 to solicit their input on the new by-laws. Notices were also sent to sign companies in Town as well as those mobile sign installers licensed under the Town's Business Licensing By-law. In addition to the foregoing, copies of the draft by-law were also circulated to the Aurora Chamber of Commerce for input from their members. At the public meeting held on November21, 2006, approximately 25 stakeholders attended the meeting. Staff presented a Power Point presentation ( Appendix #4) that focused on the proposed changes to be included in the new by-laws. Those in attendance were given the opportunity to ask questions and make comments on the proposed changes. In addition, staff made it clear that they would be willing to receive any additional comments from those present after the meeting for consideration in the preparation of this report and the by-laws. The following are the comments from those in attendance and staffs response to their recommendations. Written comments were also submitted by the Chamber of Commerce and is included as Appendix #5 COMMENTS Permanent Sign Bylaw Most of the proposed changes to the permanent sign bylaw are required to eliminate editorial errors and erroneous references. For ease of understanding and administration sections of the bylaw were also reorganized to produce a logical flowing user friendly —114— GENERAL COMMITTEE — JANUARY 23, 2007 January 23 2007 - 2 - Report No. CS07-003 document. Other notable changes and respective comments are highlighted below. Heritage Review Building Administration is recommending the permanent sign bylaw include a heritage review for any sign that is proposed within the special heritage sign district shown on schedule B of the bylaw. Comments were received from residents endorsing a heritage review and enquiries were made as to the criteria for acceptance. Building Administration has been working with the community planner to identify some guidelines that will be considered when reviewing proposed signs within the heritage district. General guidelines for a sign within the special district may include compatibility with the architectural features of the buildings in terms of the location, size, shape, material method of illumination typography and overall design. Limit on Number of Signs Building Administration is recommending a change in this section of the bylaw. Previously all buildings were restricted to one wall sign, canopy, awning or projecting sign. For multi -tenant buildings with limited wall fagade, it is appropriate to limit the number of signs in order provide equitable advertising for all tenants. However single tenant buildings are currently subject to the same limits and are in affect being penalized by this restriction to one sign for the entire building. Staff has made changes to this section to allow for more than one sign on a single tenant building by imposing a restriction that wall signs, awning signs and canopy signs only be permitted on one elevation with a maximum wall coverage provision. This approach is consistent with Councils approval of sign variances processed in the past. An additional wall sign will be permitted on a corner lot through lot or where there is a second public entrance. The Chamber of Commerce provided comments on the proposed changes to this section and revisions to the proposed bylaw have been made to reflect their comments. Temporary Sign By-law — Mobile Signs This section regulates the placement of mobile signs commonly known as trailer signs and used by retail businesses to advertise special sales, grand openings etc. A copy this type of sign is included in the photo collage attached as Appendix #4. Staff is not proposing any significant changes to this section of the by-law. —115— GENERAL COMMITTEE — JANUARY 23, 2007 January 23, 2007 - 3 - Report No. CS07-003 One of the stakeholders, a mobile sign installer, speaking on behalf of a number of their clients and other businesses in Town presented a proposal that included a number of suggested changes to the proposed by-law. The following provides a summary of the stakeholder's suggestion and staff response to each point. Mobile Sign Permits and Number of Signs Stakeholders Suggestion: The recommendation is to increase the number of the length of time businesses can have mobile sign permits and/or the number of signs permitted on a property at one time. Staff Response: Currently in both the existing and proposed by-law, a business is permitted to have a mobile sign for up to eight weeks per calendar year. Only one sign is permitted per property at any time. The by-law does not differentiate between where a single business is on a property, or where there is a large retail plaza and there are multiple businesses. In both cases, only one sign is permitted on the property at onetime and the time must therefore be shared by all the businesses. To remedy this, the stakeholder recommended increasing the number of weeks a business could have a mobile sign or increase the number of signs permitted on a property. Of all the different types of mobile signs that staff regulate, the most calls or complaints are on mobile signs. A great deal of residents find them to be "eye sores" and their presence on retail properties take away from the look of the Town's streetscape. In many cases concerns are expressed regarding the visual impediments they cause motorists attempting to egress from a plaza. Based on the number of mobile sign permits issued to businesses in Town, they are obviously an effective advertising tool for businesses. The issue becomes balancing the needs of local businesses to advertise against the residents' concerns over what many see as sign pollution. Staff suggests that the time frame and increasing the number not be changed. In addition staff further suggests that the business owners approach the plaza or property owner to have a permanent read-o-graph sign installed on the property thereby achieving the goal of a permanent sign. Prohibition on the Use of Neon Lettering Stakeholders Suggestion: Prohibit the use of neon lettering on mobile signs thus only allowing white lettering on the black background on the sign. Staff Response: The use of neon lettering is currently permitted in the by-law. Staff has not received complaints concerning the use of neon lettering from residents and therefore does not suggest any changes to the by-law to prohibit their use provided the sign is not illuminated. —116— GENERAL COMMITTEE - JANUARY 23, 2007 January 23, 2007 - 4 - Report No. CS07-003 Intermittent Sign Permits Stakeholders Suggestion: That businesses be permitted to obtain permits for shorter periods of time to advertise special sales or events. Staff Suggestion: Under the proposed by-law, permits can be issued for any period of time up to a maximum of 8 weeks. Mobile Sign on Town .of Aurora Property for Special Occasions Stakeholders Suggestion: Allow the placement of mobile signs on Town property for special occasions by not for profit organizations. Staff Suggestion: The proposed by-law does permit the placement of mobile sign by not for profit organizations or groups in the Town provided a permit is obtained. There is no charge for the permit to these organizations. Each organization would still require a permit so that staff are aware which group is involved and a contact person. New Business Owners Stakeholders Suggestion Allow where new business owners take over an existing business their eight weeks of permit time and not penalize them for time that the previous owner may have booked and used. Staff Suggestion: The proposed by-law recognizes a new owner of a business thus permitting additional time for up to 8 weeks. Permits for Multiple Business at the same Address Stakeholders Suggestion: Recognize more than one business at the same address and allow each business to have a permit thus allowing for multiple signs at the same time on a property. Staff Suggestion: Staff is opposed to this and suggests that the current provisions in the by-law to allow only one sign at a time per property be maintained. -117- GENERAL COMMITTEE — JANUARY 23, 2007 January 23, 2007 - 5 - Report No CS07-003 All Mobile Sign Installers to be Licensed Stakeholders Suggestion That all mobile sign installers be licensed by the Town before they are allowed to place signs on properties in the Town. Staff Suggestion: Under the Town's Business Licensing By-law, all Mobile Sign Installers are required to obtain a license to place signs on properties in Town no change is required to the by-law. Temporary Sign By-law - Other signs Banner Signs The current Sign By-law does not defined or address banner signs. Under the proposed by-law, banner signs are defined as "a sign constructed of a non -rigid material attached to a building or structure, but shall not include a flag." The newest trend that has emerged in the business advertising realm is the use of banner signs which are temporarily affixed to the lamp posts, fencing or exterior walls on the property. There is a concern that the proliferation of these signs will detract from the effectiveness of the site development process in controlling the size and quantity of exterior signage as well as impact negatively on the streetscape. Inflatable/Balloon Signs The current sign by-law does not address the use of inflatable/balloon signs. It is proposed that this form of advertising not be allowed in the new sign by-law. Wrap Around Pole Signs Another new trend that has emerged in the business advertising realm is the use of wrap around signage which is temporarily affixed to the lamp posts or existing pylon signs on the business property. There is a concern that the proliferation of these signs will detract from the effectiveness of the site development process in controlling the size and quantity of exterior signage as well as impact negatively on the streetscape. The existing and proposed sign by-law currently prohibits this form of advertising. Sandwich Board orA Frame Signs The current and proposed by-law allows the use of Sandwich Board -A Frame signs. Staff however suggests that the requirement to have the business owner remove the sign at the end of the business day as currently required, be strictly enforced. —118— GENERAL COMMITTEE — JANUARY 23, 2007 January 23 2007 - 6 - Report No. CS07-003 OPTIONS Staff supports the segregation of the current sign by-law into two distinct by-laws; however Council may choose to maintain sign regulations within one by-law. Temporary Sign By-law a) Council has the option to maintain the current community standards and limit the amount of temporary signage permitted in the business community as outlined in this report and accompanying draft temporary sign by-law. b) Alternatively Council may wish to expand on the variety of temporary signs that may be permitted and direct staff to amend the by-law to incorporate an expanded format of signs. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS Temporary Sign By-law The implementation of the proposed temporary sign by-law would not have any financial implications on the Town as it is a direct replacement of current legislation that is enforced by Town staff. Permanent Sign By-law Building Administration is proposing an increase to the fee for processing a sign variance as a cost recovery measure. Minimal concern from stakeholders has been raised regarding the increase given that the proposed fee is $450.00 per application and the current fee is $150.00 per application. Staff is recommending the increase to adequately cover the cost of processing the application which includes a complete review of the proposal, consultation meetings with the applicant, a site assessment visit, a written report to Council and review by Senior Management Team. Staff have researched other municipalities and found sign variance fees ranging from $350.00 to $650.00. CONCLUSIONS Regulations affecting signs sometimes can be a difficult balancing act between the benefits the additional signage may provide to the business community versus the visual impact it may have on the streetscape of the Town. As outlined in this report, some temporary signs are presently prohibited and subject to Council's direction, staff will continue to enforce the provisions of the by-law. The proposed segregation of the current sign by-law into two distinct by-laws is a logical —119— GENERAL COMMITTEE — JANUARY 23, 2007 January 23, 2007 - 7 - . Report No. CS07-003 step given that the two departments currently share responsibility for its administration and enforcement. In addition, the two documents would become more user-friendly for residents, businesses and sign companies. Staff in the two departments will be better equipped to provide information on the by-law that governs their own sphere of jurisdiction. LINK TO STRATEGIC PLAN Objective 131: Plan for the future to continue controlled and well -planned growth. This objective suggests that the Town continue to ensure policies and by-laws for developments, are sensitive to the environment which the proposed by-laws are attempting to address. ATTACHMENTS Appendix #1 — Previous Report CS06-030 Appendix #2 — Proposed New Permanent Sign By-law Appendix #3 — Proposed New Temporary Sign By-law Appendix #4 — Chamber of Commerce Comments Appendix #5 — Power Point Presentation Appendix #6 — Temporary Sign By-law Chart Appendix #7 — Photo collage of Temporary Signs PRE -SUBMISSION REVIEW Management Team Meeting — January 10, 2007 Prepared by. - Bob Panizza Ext. 4221 Techa van Leeuwen Ext. 4748 Chris Alexander Ext. 4241 Bob Panizza Techa van Leeuwen Director of Corporate Services Director of Building Administration n S. Rogers C.A.O. —120— GENERAL COMMITTEE — JANUARY_23, 2007_ APPENDIX #1 -TOWN OF AURORA GENERAL COMMITTEE REPORT No. CS06-030 SUBJECT: New Sign By-laws FROM: Bob Panizza, Director Corporate Services Techa van Leeuwen, Director of Building Administration DATE: September 5, 2006 RECOMMENDATIONS: THAT the proposed draft sign by-laws attached as Appendix #1 & #2 be received; and THAT an Open House meeting be convened to receive public input on the proposed by-laws; and THAT notices be circulated in the Town's Notice Board section of the newspaper advertising the Open House; and THAT copies of the new draft by-laws be circulated to the Economic Development Advisory Committee and the Chamber of Commerce,for input; and THAT the proposed by-laws including any amendments be presented to the new Council in January 2007. BACKGROUND Presently signage in the Town is governed by By-law 4622-04.P which regulates both temporary and permanent signs. The responsibility for the administration of the sign bylaw however is shared between the Building Administration Dept. and the Corporate Services Dept. (By-law Services). The Building Administration Dept. is responsible forthe regulation and enforcement of permanent signs such as wall signs, development signs and pylon or ground signs, while the Corporate Services Dept. (By-law Services) is responsible for temporary signs such as mobile/trailer signs, A -frame signs, special event signs. COMMENTS Separation of the Sign By-law into Two New By-laws Staff from the Building Administration Dept. and By-law Services have met on a number of occasions to discuss the overlap in jurisdiction that presently exists as well as the confusion that sometimes occurs communicating the responsibility levels to the public. —121— GENERAL COMMITTEE — JANUARY 23, 2007 September 5, 2006 - 2 - Report No. CS00-030 As a result, both departments have concluded that it would be more prudent to segregate the existing by-law into two distinct by-laws, one sign bylaw regulating permanent signs administered by the Building Administration Dept. and one bylaw regulating temporary signs administered by Corporate Services Dept. (Bylaw Services Section). Generally, staff is not proposing any majoramendments to the existing by-laws, norwere changes made to the zone designation requirements, maximum permitted size or allotted time for advertising. Some modifications however have been made to the regulations to ensure consistency in the application of the standards and to address some of the ongoing issues that required minor variances in the past. Permanent Sign By-law The following summarizes some of the proposed changes to the regulations thatthat have been incorporated. The first change is the inclusion of a required Heritage Review for any proposed sign within the Heritage. District. The second change is the number of signs permitted. The existing bylaw permits only one wall, canopy or awning sign. Staff is proposing to eliminate this requirement for a building occupied by a singe tenant. The proposed change is based on a review of requested variances that have been approved by Council in the past. The maximum wall coverage and total aggregate area of the wall signs remain the same. The other significant change to the bylaw is the proposed increase in the sign variance fee. Staff is proposing an increase in fee from $150.00 to $450.00 as cost recovery measure. Processing a sign variance includes a complete review of the proposal, a site visit, consultation meetings with the applicant, preparation of a report to Council and a review by the Senior Management Team. Staff have researched other municipalities and found sign variance fees ranging from $350.00 to $650.00. A copy of the draft permanent sign by law which includes any proposed changes is included with this report as Appendix #1. Temporary Sign By-law In October 2005 a report was presented to General Committee that outlined issues related to temporary and portable signs, a copy of this report is attached as Appendix #3. As Council members may recall, the subject report detailed concerns regarding the proliferation of poster wrap around signs on lamp posts and flag poles at several business locations in Town as well as other forms of temporary signage. The report was subsequently received and Committee requested staff to review the possibility of providing an exemption for certain types of businesses such as auto dealerships. A copy of that extract is also attached as Appendix #4. As part of the redrafting of the new temporary sign by-law, staff examined the aforementioned directive, and determined that providing an exemption for certain types or classes of businesses would not be prudent as it may lead to a legal challenge. —122— GENERAL COMMITTEE — JANUARY 23, 2007_ September 5, 2006 - 3 - Report No. CSOO-030 From a staff perspective, there is a concern that providing an exemption based on the size of the property orthe type of business may create an unfair advantage for competitors in a similar business, especially if one business operation has a larger property than their counterpart. Furthermore, if the Town provided automobile dealerships with an exemption based on their frontage, it could be envisioned that before long, large retail plazas would request similar consideration with additional signage to permit their tenants greater exposure. As an example, the automobile dealership at Wellington and Mary St. has a frontage of 412 ft. while the plaza at the corner of Yonge St. and Aurora Heights has a frontage of 813 ft., similarly the plaza at Yonge St. and Murray Dr. has a frontage of 677 ft. Once the opportunity for additional signage is provided for large plazas then a domino effect occurs as smaller strip and retail plazas would want the same consideration and so on. Should Council wish to entertain this notion, then staff would suggest that the prohibition be removed from the by-law and that this form of temporary signage be permitted, bearing in mind however the impact it may have on the streetscapes of the Town. It should also be pointed out that as part of the background review, staff researched various sign by-laws from other municipalities in the G.T.A. to, determine if special considerations or exemptions were contained within their respective by-laws. Based on the research that was conducted by staff, no other municipal sign by-law provided exemptions for additional temporary signage based either on the frontage of the property orthe type of business being conducted on the property. Since the report was presented last October staff has continued to receive complaints about various types of temporary signage particularly around new retail properties where a proliferation of A -frame signs has been evident. Underthe current by-law, one A -frame sign is permitted for each business provided the sign is located on private property, and is removed at the close of business each day. These signs have remained on the blvds. continuously, however staff have not enforced this provision of the by-law pending the direction by Council on this and other issues related to temporary signs. With respect to the new temporary sign by-law, enclosed as Appendix #1, it continues to recognize and permit certain types of temporary signs such as trailer signs and A -frame signs as shown on Appendix #5. However other types of temporary signs such as inflatable signs, banner signs and poster signs which are depicted on Appendix #6 will continue to be prohibited. As outlined in the report that was presented in October 2005, sign companies are constantly developing new approaches to provide greater exposure for businesses to advertise their products, however consideration should be made on the impact new additional signage has on the urban streetscape as well as the entire site plan process that the Town has developed in order to provide for well planned and designed communities. —123— GENERAL COMMITTEE — JANUARY 23, 2007 September 5, 2006 .4. Report No. CS00-030 OPTIONS Segregated Sion By-law Staff supports the segregation of the current sign by-law into two distinct by-laws, however Council may choose to maintain sign regulations within one by-law. Temporary Sign By-law a) Council has the option to maintain the current community standards and limit the amount of temporary signage permitted in the business community as outlined in this report and accompanying draft temporary sign by-law. b) Alternatively Council may wish to expand on the variety of temporary signs that may be permitted and direct staff to amend the by-law to incorporate an expanded format of signs. CONCLUSIONS The proposed segregation of the current sign by-law into two distinct by-laws is a logical step given that the two departments currently share responsibility forits administration and enforcement. In addition, the two documents would become more user-friendly for residents, businesses and sign companies. Staff in the two departments will be better equipped to provide information on the by-lawthat governs their own sphere of jurisdiction. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS New application fees for minor variances to the permanent sign by-law will generate additional revenue to better reflect the costs for resources to process applications. The proposed amendments to the permanent sign by-law however should reduce the number of applications for minorvariances as the by-lawwill provide greater flexibility in overall sign coverage. There is no anticipated financial impact to the temporary sign by-law as the current application fees will be maintained. LINK TO STRATEGIC PLAN Objective 131: Plan for the future to continue controlled and well -planned growth. This objective suggests that the Town continue to ensure policies and by-laws for developments are sensitive to the environment which the proposed by-laws are attempting to address. —124— GENERAL COMMITTEE - JANUARY 23, 2007 September 5 2006 - 5 - Report No. CSOO-030 ATTACHMENTS 1. New Permanent Sign By-law 2. New Temporary Sign By-law 3. Staff Report on Temp Signage, 2005 4. Council Resolution, 2005 5.. Examples of permitted signage 6. Examples of signage not permitted PRE -SUBMISSION REVIEW Management Team Meeting — August 30, 2006 Prepared by. Bob Panizza ext. 4221 Techa van Leeuwen ext- 4748 Chris Alexander ext. 4241 Bob Panizza Techa van Leeuwen Director of Corporate Services Director of Building Administration John S. Rogers C.A.O. -125- GENERAL COMMITTEE - JANUARY 23, 2007 APPENDIX #2 THE CORPORATION OF THE TOWN OFAURORA BY-LAW NUMBER XXXX-XX.P BEING A BY-LAW respecting permanent signs within the Town of Aurora. WHEREAS the provisions of Section 99 of the Municipal Act 2001, as amended, permits Council to pass by-laws respecting advertising devices, including signs; AND WHEREAS the Town of Aurora enacted By-law law, under the provisions of the former Municipal Act; AND WHEREAS the Town of Aurora enacted vE 04.P under the provisions of the former Municipal AND WHEREAS it is deemed necessary devices, including signs to incorporate tt amended, under the provisions of the ne Aurora. NOW THEREFORE THE MUN TOWN OF AURORA ENACTS a by-law re nests to B, ala:9ct 2001 being the Sign By - to By-law 4622- advertising 2-04.P, as b Town of CORPORATION OF THE -126- GENERAL COMMITTEE - JANUARY 23, 2007 TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION TITLE PAGE 1 TITLE......................................................................................... 3 2 DEFINITIONS............................................................................ 3 3 ADMINISTRATION.................................................................... 6 4 SIGNS FOR WHICH A PERMIT IS NOT REQUIRED ............... 10 5 PROHIBITED SIGNS................................................................. 11 6 GENERAL PROVISIONS.......................................................... 12 7 SIGNS PERMITTED IN RESIDENTIAL ZONES.;. ..................... 16 8 SIGNS PERMITTED IN COMMERCIAL ZONES;—. ................... 16 ti r ri}i� 9 SIGNS PERMITTED IN SHOPPING CENTRES �1................... 17 10 SIGNS PERMITTED IN INDUSTRfPJ'ZONES .... Ii 1.......... 18 1 3 11.1 11 SIGNS PERMITTED IN A BU'I) ESS PARK ZONE .......I.i;l.: 19 isA 12 SIGNS PERMITTED IN INSTIT'FI;A}=ZONES.................... 19 ' t��9 i�j3v af`e 9a.3a 13 SIGNS PERMITTE d>NrRIII. L, OPENjSPACE OR ENVIRONMENTAL P0 ZONE- .� ...................... 19 B [ # Sqq �I 14 REPEALEQ:LAWS.31a I I £'i iS£3 i= let ....................... 20 I iI 2 3 i f ii' J 1�1 iil3f�� i.•� H YI 'ri x i SCHEDULE AEi ERMII 1' ES.... { ;:.................................................. 21 13 �, Iir, SCHEDULE B" 1PRORdstall RECIALis IGN DISTRICT ..................... 22 -127- GENERAL COMMITTEE - JANUARY 23, 2007 By-law 4825-06.P Page 3 of 22 SECTION 1 —TITLE 1.1 SHORT TITLE: This By-law shall be known and cited as the "Sign By-law". 1.2 INTENT AND SCOPE: This By-law shall apply to the whole of the Town. The intent of this By-law is to regulate permanent signs in relation to community appearance, safety and the impact on areas, properties or buildings identified for their historical significance SECTION 2 — DEFINITIONS In this By-law, the terms herein shall have corresponding 2.1 ALTER, ALTERED or ALTERATION: Means any change to the sign structure or (a) a change in the message di (b) the re -arrangement of nurr face of a sign specifically rearranged. i- (c) Repair and maintenapge'of 2.2 COMMUNITY PLANNER Means the ComMun y;Plo Department ogf;ttja, ow'+rt�'4 r f, "i1 2.3 DEVELOP NTARE -111 2.4 2.5 for the -use be(na;advefti the a sign, as )00(ings as follows Ill" h, ice With the exception of: Y py applie8deectly to the ended to be periodically by this By-law. 3 evelopment Services rpent and which is appropriately zoned hich a valid application to permit such the Municipality. Administration of the Town or their authorized Means thb,aWement, installation or relocation of any sign or part thereof. 2.6 HEIGHT: Means the vertical distance measured from the average grade immediately below the sign to the highest point of the sign or sign structure, whichever is greatest. 2.7 HERITAGE ADVISORY COMMITTEE OF AURORA: Means the Municipal Heritage Advisory Committee of Aurora as established under the Ontario Heritage Act. 2.8 LOT: Means a parcel of land, whether or not occupied by a building or a structure, with frontage on a street. 2.9 LOT, CORNER: Means a lot situated at the intersection of and abutting two (2) or more streets or two (2) parts of the same street provided that the angle of intersection of such streets or parts there.# � got more than one hundred and thirty-five (135) GENERAL COMMITTEE — JANUARY 23, 2007 degrees. 2.10 LOT, FRONTAGE: Means the cumulative street. By-law 4625.66.P Page 4 of 22 length of all boundaries separating the lot from any 2.11 LOT, THROUGH: Means a lot bounded on two (2) opposite sides by streets. 2.12 MENU BOARD: Means'a sign erected as part of a drive-thru facility and used to display and provide pricing for products and/or services available at the drive-thru business. 2.13 OWNER: Means a person who owns or is in control of the p uses, building or other structure or part thereof, and includes a lessee ors�l gagee in possession. 2.14 PERSON: i3 i''' Nifilt, Means an individual, association, firm; partnershlogt-porporation, trust, incorporated company, corporation creatbT under 'The-%ndominium Act", organization, trustee or agent, and,lie .heirs, executorsigl other legal representatives of a person to whomi 6 context cpp apply acc&MU to law. fiff;, i 2.15 PREMISES: t! ! IM 9 Means the area of a bulldinq�s) or part tl rpof and/or land(s) or part thereof occupied by a user or pr �NIdjto be oc6t g'erd by a user. In a multiple occupancy building, each sr�tgle aC&�pancy 9'Allibe considered a separate premise. fill 2.16 PRE -MENU BQ-A -- -A i h inIililt, 'Ip Means a siIFected ail art of Nidrlve-thru facility and used only to display products andIse i s �ya fable at thedrive-thru business. °tll{l r' IiI£li;� ;tt 'fill, 2.17 REGi �_ , a lli#;,h -t[tflili ' M stlerj egrgna]3 Municipality of York as described in the Regional tlMwnicipality o,tyork c#r;R.S.0., 1990, c. R.18, as amended 2.18 " ISHtOPPING CENE: ,itl3 Means a group o rc�'Immercial uses, which has been designed, developed and mai gad as a uniFIby a single owner or tenant, or a group of owners or tenants„With off.street parking provided on the property, as distinguished from a businesslgrefii, mprised of unrelated individual uses. 'till 2.19 SIGN: Means any device, fixture or structure or any part thereof, or any device attached thereto, or painted or represented thereon that uses form, graphic, illumination, symbol or writing to advertise, identify, announce the purpose of or identify the purpose of a person or entity or to communicate information of any kind to the public but does not include temporary signs such as sandwich board signs, inflatable signs, portable signs or banner signs or signs displayed inside a building. 2.20 SIGN AREA: Means: (a) The area of the display surface including the boarder or the frame; or (b) The aggregate area of the display surfaces lying within the extremities of and wholly enclosing the individual components of the sign, if the sign does not have a border or frame or is located on a canopy or awning; or (c) Where a sign has twg display surfaces with the thickness of the sign not GENERAL COMMITTEE - JANUARY 23, 2007 By-law 4825-06.P Page 5 of 22 greater than to accommodate the structure and not used as a display surface, the area of one display surface. 2.21 SIGN, AWNING: Means a sign affixed to a roof -like cover.comprised of cloth, plastic or other non -rigid material mounted on a frame attached to the wall of a building but does not include a canopy sign or freestanding canopy sign. 2.22 SIGN, CANOPY: Means a sign affixed to a permanent rigid structure with or without supporting columns attached to and projecting from the exterior face of a building but does not include an awning sign or freestanding canopy sign. 2.23 SIGN, BILLBOARD: Means a sign erected and maintained to advertise, market or promote a business, product, service or activity not conducted or,produced, sold, stored or assembled within the building or upon the premise'-,�on which the sign is erected. 41jj't3, 2.24 SIGN, DEVELOPMENT: 401P` _"li$jr_ Means a sign erected upon any landsi,l ,u dings bi l structures within a development -area which displays a ru'essage or inforrtislion regarding a development in progress or a propo( evelopment but daeslnot include a Residential Development Sign. 41 2.25 SIGN, DIRECTIONAL: Means a sign for the publio=safety or convenrence which provides direction to a place, regulates traffic or t esghates the locs=on of a parking or loading area and bearing no commercial ftertisirtgftA Direc[�on@I Sign may take the form of a ground sign, wall sign car.). slgrt fregfstan l g canopy sign, or awning sign. 1t A1,411111 tt3jd t'-1� 3'-`'t _j 2.26 SIGN, DIR�3TORY ,1, till, Means a si devoted exclusively to, the listing of all occupants or tenants of a building or p �J rty. •'j j'' _ ` Z' 8 e1 i 313a , x 3zj� 3 er 3 91-I t3tj ; 1 33ti� s ty i 227 SIG1'rFAbE� I$114 3 t, Means the Ggque transparent or translucent surface of a sign, upon, against -i. n or through whfchttoe message of the sign is displayed, and is the area defined �:i, =iVq%a geometric}gphpe within a perimeter bounded by the inside of the sign Owe or sign structure. ."i 2.28 SIGN,'FREE STANDING CANOPY: Means a Sl njaf Red to a permanent rigid structure providing protection from the weathet ",-'ported on columns and unenclosed on all sides. 2.29 SIGN, GROUND: Means a sign, erected in a fixed location and supported by one or more uprights, poles, braces, or on a structural base placed in or upon the ground, but does not include a billboard sign. 2.30 SIGN, NUMBER OF: Means for the purpose of determining number of signs, a sign shall be considered to be a single display surface or display device where individual elements are organized, related, and composed to form a unit. Where individual sign components are displayed in a random manner without organized relationship or where the components are not interdependent, each component shall be considered to be a single sign. 2.31 SIGN, PROJECTING: Means a sign other than a wall sign which is affixed to a building, wall or structure and which projeegtS dpproximately perpendicular from same for a GENERAL COMMITTEE - JANUARY 23, 2007 By-law 4825-06.P Page 6 of 22 distance greater than 500mm but does not include a canopy or awning sign. 2.32 SIGN, READOGRAPH: Means a permanent sign on which copy is changed manually with letters or pictorial panels. 2.33 SIGN, RESIDENTIAL DEVLOPMENT: Means a sign erected upon on any lands, buildings or structures which displays a message or information regarding a proposed or in progress residential development. 2.34 SIGN, ROOF: Means a sign erected entirely on or above the Roof of a building but does not include an inflatable sign. 2.35 SIGN, STRUCTURE: aif Means the support, uprights, bracing and framewgg11f'the sign. 2.36 SIGN, UNSAFE:ttj3,- Means a sign or sign structure whichtjrts structur'lttttunsafe, or which constitutes a fire, traffic, or pedestrian harg rd, or which if`,' des a means of egress from any building, premises oj(Perty, or otherwisd�etdstitutes a risk to the safety of persons or property 4i,pr adjacentjo, a premisEsi£j 2.37 SIGN, WALL: 4tt(;9t. iiyls Means a sign affixed to ndst}ucturally sriipported on the wall of a building which is parallel to and proleefstn ttmore NEIU3 �00 mm from the face of the f t`It gill building and a structure. tji I; t° It 3t it IM 2.38 STREET: .:MIlj jslt a= # 3 iR Means a publi#cl�irgltw s defined y 'The Mucipal Act" and "The Highway Traffic Act; l t'shall ale de a lar l or any private right-of-way or unopened tisi It road all owan3 e or an trest w I is shown on a Registered Plan of Subdivision ,;ch haemedt g¢;t to be a registered plan of subdivision under„Section 2jgf,{The' Rllanr2tnlgj c4'', or which has not been assumed by "Y ens the 2.40 UNl?EFINI For d6fihi conformim 2213-78, e Town of Aurora. rms requiring clarification such as apartment, non - definitions outlined in the Town of Aurora Zoning By-law I, shall be utilized where applicable. 2.41 ZONE: Means a designated area of land use shown on Schedule "A" of the Town of Aurora Zoning By-law Number 2213-78, as amended. SECTION 3 —ADMINISTRATION This By-law shall be administered and enforced by the Director of Building Administration. 3.1 RESPONSIBILITY: Neither the granting of a permit nor the review of the plans and specifications nor inspections made by the Town shall in any way relieve the owner or any other person from full responsibility for carrying out the work or having the work carried out in complete accordance with the requirements of this By-law or any other By-law or Law flnticable to the sign GENERAL COMMITTEE — JANUARY 23, 2007 By-law 4825-06.P Page 7 of 22 3.2 RESPONSIBILITY RE: APPLICATION FOR PERMIT: No person shall make an application for a sign permit who is not the owner of the property or the owners authorized agent. Nor shall any person submit false or misleading information or documents or make omissions that may mislead in connection with any application for a sign permit, detail of construction or revision thereto. 3.3 RESPONSIBILITY RE: PERMITS: No person shall work or authorize work to proceed on any sign for which a permit is required and which has not been obtained. Where a sign is found to be in contravention of this By-law the Town, its servants or agents, may issue a Notice of Violation as per Section 3.19 of this Bylaw or may impose a penalty under Section 3.20 of this By-law. t(i131 3.4 SIGN PERMIT REQUIRED: A 1 3 ; n (a) Except as permitted in Section 4, 'ip'�rs$"(�pall erect or alter a .. permanent sign unless a permit for the ign has' 6n obtained from the Director. .19 11 HI (b) A sign permit shall not be df" libd to erect or alter a 110 _unless an application for the sign haNibeen sub matted in accclMance with subsection 3.5 and has been a( agov6_F6y the Director as being in conformity with this y law and ali l§ffir applicable By-laws and laws regulating signage (�)�tr;,r Ir f tt � s �; t k � ' 3. (c) A permit shall become)i(t l and v01c w on r--- � val of the sign other than the temporatyy_r.,gmova] as)agreed'to#iiy;)the Director in writing for the purposerof �epaifia, :;r"t W �ll�' iltsjs 3.5 APPLICAS FOR PERMITS, INQRMATION REQUIRED: Every appllc e for fg34tshalFHII include: (a) t t=, comp(e libafi n qk as prescribed by the Director including the i(I [rf"ll#tftame contact Information of the owner, the applicant, the deslgrterann f jhe person responsible for the installation of the the land on which the proposed sign is to be erected or :t address or equivalent that will readily identify and e the sign. (c) A fullyidiinensioned site plan drawn to scale showing all property lines of the lot on which the sign is to be erected or altered and the location of the sign in relation to the lot lines, buildings and other structures. (d) Plans and specifications drawn to scale showing sufficient detail to determine compliance with this By-law and the Ontario Building Code including location, size and graphics of proposed sign, construction materials and specifications respecting structural support and framework of the sign. Plans and specifications are to be submitted in duplicate, unless otherwise stated. (a) Full payment of the required fee in accordance with Schedule "A" appended hereto. 3.6 ABANDONED PERMIT APPLICATIONS: An application for sign permit will be deemed to have been abandoned six (6) months after the date of filing unless the permit has been issued. In the case of abandonment, the applicTlg2 may be cancelled without notice and all plans GENERAL COMMITTEE — JANUARY 23, 2007 By-law 4825-06.13 Page 8 of 22 and specifications will be returned to the applicant at the address shown on the application. 3.7 HERITAGE REVIEW: (a) In keeping with the intent and scope of the By-law, signs which are proposed to be erected on a building or property that Is currently on the Town of Aurora's List of Heritage Properties or within the area delineated on Schedule "B" of this By-law, as amended and for which permits are required, are subject to review and approval by the Community Planner on behalf of the Heritage Advisory Committee of Aurora prior to the issuance of the permit. (b) In addition to Section 3.5 every application in clause (a) above submitted to the Community Planner for review shall be accompanied by plans drawn to scale clearly showing; (i) The type, character, dimensions and sign of the proposed sign Including historically approprigAe colours of the sign and lettering in fonts such as Roma 11W]btendon, Egyptian or sans a.p-n' serif styles. {Fla;a))lu (ii) The proposed means of illu (tafion. )j33y (ill) Any other information the munity Planin" imay prescribe or s3(-z require. .a€ir!)j' 3.8 REGIONAL APPROVAL: Approval from the Region must be obtained(nbr to the issuance of a sign permit for any sign t)I fronting do a Regional Ro`a�d.- ,, rl' 3.9 MINISTRY OF TRANSPORtTIOT'P2MIT: a� A permit from the Ministry ofFranspg)tatfpn- mape required for any sign within 400 metresloffany PrdVInci,,11' ghcy2l,)tight of Way prior to the issuance of a sign rt lI, nder the # � law trr �;(ljli r 1 (,I, 3.10 REVISIONIYTl0 APPLIaCf I ION OIL 14a PROVED DOCUMENTS: Revisions m'a) be ) ac)11 tFwtl�out '¢prge to the applicant for approved documep,ts pro6ed<33tRey ffo ;ijokt)g` quire in the opinion of the Director #fqJdi9ona� ofk bj) fli�,Town ¢ �((i�igf, , 3.1111 IGN VARIA 0 -S: 3 '? fiQ Council of lieaTown ay, upon the application of any person, authorize sfjrn ;variances fro provisions of this By-law, provided that in the opinion of tF eiC.ouncil, th ; eneral intent and purpose of the By-law are maintained -, and prUU1(ied that; a appropriate variance application fee in accordance with Schedule Qp�pI"�fSasbeen paid. Council shall have regard to and may impose as terms of sucrt variance, limitations on the total amount of signs and the types of signs that are situated on the premises and on the property containing the premises. 3.12 EXPIRATION OF PERMIT: Every permit issued by the Town shall expire six (6) months from the date of issuance unless the sign applied for has been erected in conformity with the application and this By-law within that time. 3.13 RENEWAL OF PERMIT: Where, before the expiry date of a permit, an application is made to extend the permit for a further six (6) months, the Town may renew the permit upon payment of the fee in accordance with Schedule "A" of this By-law where the sign continues to conform to all applicable By-laws and/or governmental regulations in effect at the time of renewal. 3.14 REVOCATION OF PERMIT: A permit may be revoked bu hTown under the following circumstances: GENERAL COMMITTEE - JANUARY 23, 2007 By-law 4825-06.P Page 9 of 22 (a) Where the sign does not conform to this By-law and amendments thereto. (b) Where the sign does not conform to any regulation, law or requirement of any governmental authority having jurisdiction over the area where the sign is situated. (c) Where the permit has been issued based on false or misleading information. (d) Where the permit has been issued in error by the Town. (e) Where the sign erected does not conform with the plans or specifications approved by the Town on which the permit was issued. 3.15 FEES: (a) Fees payable under this By-law are as set out,itjSchedule "A". .- (b) Fees set out in Schedule "A" are for;t.el)gost of the application, �' including review for compliance to the-law;lpcacessing and issuance and are non-refundable. 'J tllil" 3.16 UNSAFE SIGNS: Il iff" 'tii11, (a) Where in the opinion of the i elctor of the,Town a sign0 unsafe, the IF Director shall by Notice of Vi ation issy;` A accordance'With Section 3.19 require the owner of the lot °oijj h the sign is located to remove peei or repair the sign wil(iin-the time si ; in the Notice. Hill) �:_ tt== iHH4 (b) Upon receipt of a Notre 6 1V 1atlon sen3@dlin accordance with Section 3.19, the owners all tallthe nece'sss steplo comply with the Notice, failing wh clt:t e;Town m ,cause the rA111-11sIghtto be removed at expense of the owneriinn it[ e Town rria (cover the --costs incurred by action or in likelmWer as mlTr l I I takes 3.17 MAINTENATE The owner of therlan)orjpYerr �ertypbn which any sign or advertising device istltocated shall Im(ntain or caus such sign or advertising device to be i3amtamed'n}ta pro(ie�gstate of repair so that such sign or advertising device g{l,;oes not becdm;;uns'attunsightly, dangerous or a nuisance. All signs shall 3.18 UNL MFUL SIGNS - (a) `-"-e,Dire tq�r may issue a Notice of Violation to any person: (ii`t's=t�ving erected or altered or caused to be erected or altered a ,;,sign without first having obtained a sign permit from the Town; or (ii) Having obtained a permit, has caused to be erected or altered a sign not in accordance with the approved plans in respect of which a permit was issued; or (Ili) Having erected or altered or caused to be erected or altered a sign in contravention with this By-law or any part thereof. (b) Upon receipt of the Notice of Violation served in accordance with Section 3.19, the person shall proceed within the specified time on the Notice to remove the sign or make it comply with this By-law. If the person fails to comply with the Notice, the Town may order the sign to be removed at the expense of the owner and the Town may recover the costs incurred by action or in like manner as municipal taxes. 3.19 NOTICE OF VIOLATION: (a) Where contravention of this By-law is apparent, a Notice of Violation may be issued by tt�e3T,pwn to the person who is responsible for the GENERAL COMMITTEE - JANUARY 23, 2007 By-law 4825-06.P Page 10 of 22 work or to the owner of the lands. The Notice shall; (i) Outline the nature of the contravention and the Section of the By-law so contravened; and (ii) Direct that the contravention be abated within a specified time. (b) The Notice is deemed to have been received by the person upon; (1) Personal service of the Notice to the party being served; or (it) Posting a copy of the Notice on the land on which the sign is located; or (ill) Sending by registered mail a copy of the Notice to the last known address of the owner. 3.20 PENALTY: Any person who contravenes any provisions of this By-law is guilty of an offence and shall, upon conviction, pay a fine not exceeding the sum of Two Thousand Dollars ($2,000.00) for each offence committed pursuant to the Municipal Act and the Provincial Offences Act. t) f), In addition, where a security deposit has beenl)pgg`ted for a sign permit, in accordance with Schedule "A", said security shaill`belilifflgeited upon expiration of the time frame for which a permit was q�d 'notwit Qatiding Section 3.12 herein and said sign shall be conside ej10 1be unlawful'as'Iper Section 3.18 herein. AU t,1t;: 3.21 INDEMNIFICATION: 'qlh,, t1111VO `'fr' The applicant for a permit for a sign, an4thegwner and occupant of the lands 1 _�,�; and premises on which pfiy(fsign is erecjed{ shall be jointly and severally responsible to indemnify y e )Town its offs is employees, servants and agents, from all loss, dama es, 'cb €s t expens ,! rclaims1 demands, actions, suits or other proceedings of};�every;fiAliauce, an`d,#md arising from and in consequence of tN.W.nstructlBrtt e�gctl'o ;=r t�#tenance, display, alteration, repair or remoyfi)iof sueh)slgn #i?;i3441 to i� '.jt 3q 3.22 VALIDITY:1Ii€g�} ) °trl iiaa In the event dfgspart or3sravls#on of tFlsjBy-law is held to be illegal or void, this shall-,�o Shave € € e Feci of r is 11 - legal or void any of the other parts or pr,,ojstltf)t tj7ereoi? vliich may or sh l be determined to be legal. YY here there is a' riflict'ldJ3the provisions between this By-law and any other By law of the Tov�,$$t 4regulating signage, the provisions of the By-law deemed by tfiiD)rector to b the most restrictive shall prevail, t te�);3A pp,�3j, SECTION 4—SIGNS FOR WHICH A PERMIT IS NOT REQUIRED 4.1 The following types of signs are permitted in all areas of the Town and are exempt from the requirement to obtain a permit: (a) One sign containing the name, address and profession of a resident or occupant which may incorporate hours of work, operation or availability. The aforementioned sign shall not be more than 0.2 m2 in sign area and shall not include any commercial advertising. (b) One identification and vacancy information sign for a duplex dwelling, triplex dwelling, double duplex dwelling or converted dwelling not exceeding 0.2m2 in sign area and shall not include any commercial advertising. (c) No Trespassing signs or other signs regulating the use of property provided such signs are no more than 0.2 m2 in sign area. -135- GENERAL COMMITTEE - JANUARY 23, 2007 5.1 By-law 4825-06.P Page 11 of 22 (d) Directional Sign not exceeding 0.5 m' in sign area in a Residential Zone and 1 m2 in sign area in other zones. (a) Signs erected by a governmental body, or under the direction of such a body, bearing no commercial advertising such as but not limited to traffic signs, rail road crossing signs, safety signs, signs identifying public schools or public buildings, public information signs and other signs of a similar nature. (f) Memorial signs and plaques identifying a building or structure and its architectural or historical significance not exceeding 0.5 m2 in sign area. (g) Flags bearing the crest or insignia of any corporation, government, agency or religious, charitable or fraternal organization. (h) Planning application, development and information signs erected at the request of the Town. (1) Construction signs not exceeding 4.6 �ffiiiiffi,sign area incidental to building construction erected within e(tl e' area:; designated for such lt purposes provided there is an active'€building pe'rgiit to construct on file f'-} with the Director. Such sign shgll,3iot be erected Rre, than thirty (30) days prior to the commencem,, �lA'.t of construction and`sf all be removed as soon as the construction 11d ompleted,Qr discontinu'dolfor a period exceeding sixty (60) days. �},_t} sl�i�?P ')€' Q) Signs affixed to a a residential or of a Planning Develc (k) Public transi%she and fixtu�ds al5'rir Signs the name and address of Leisure Services through on street furniture byf}@r,Wnor vifh==tY eiOrovisions of this By-law and specifically are prohibited in all areas within the Town. Any comply with all other parts of this By-law; date any flashing or moving illumination and signs moving parts or mechanical movement of any kind ing the time or temperature. (b) A grow d"sign within a 7.5 metre radius of a traffic light and any other sign w)fch by reason of size, location, content, colouring, or manner of illumination obstruct the visions of drivers, either when leaving a roadway or when entering a roadway from another roadway or driveway, or obstruct or detract from the visibility or effectiveness of any traffic sign or control device on public streets and roads. (c) Signs advertising a business no longer conducted, or a product no longer sold within the premises or building upon which the sign is located. Such obsolete signs shall be removed within 30 days of closing of the business. (d) Signs painted on, attached to, or supported by a fence, utility pole, tree, stone, or other natural object. (a) Roof signs. (f) Signs erected, maintained or displayed on Municipal property except public election signs?Asigns for which the owner has entered into an GENERAL COMMITTEE - JANUARY 23, 2007 By-law 4825.66.P Page 12 of 22 encroachment agreement with the Town. (g) Signs or murals painted on the exterior walls of any building excluding a mural which has been approved by Council. (h) Signs displayed on or in a premise, building or structure which identify or advertise a use not permitted under the Zoning By-law. (i) Signs which obstruct a required parking space or utilize such parking space for purposes of locating a sign. Q) Any sign other than a development sign posted in a Holding Zone. (k) Billboard signs except for those signs displayed by service groups and organizations such as the Chamber of Commerce, Optimists, Lions Club, etc., which are recognized as being sucF l&The Town. SECTION 6 — GENERAL PROVISIONS l . The following provisions shall apply in all zones£a0to all use categories. j 6.1 EXISTING SIGNS: g#'')) (')" £aJ, 'rli Any sign erected before the day thi %'y-law ca ry into force may( (emain and continue to be used and maintained `riotgyIthst it g that it does not conform z it with the provisions of this By, law, providet4ill V' (a) No such sign shall tiefia eyed or re I ed whatsoever, unless the .r,r M-1. a }p alteration or relocation lf'onfortrl ror, is mad E €r conform with the all the " E1 applicable provisions of ��i;s By- 11,i11f,°lta, tilt :tq€43° 'ai)lttr (b) Notwithg[ ndin tig foregot :nothIng shall prevent the maintenance of a ngyt'.bonformingif n it} ft 6.2 DEVELOPME} ?Sl0t ,��mill (i3, ,i3 i;31 Exceptaasi outlmedi[in, Section 6 t development Signs are permitted in all t d%t�eldp'rner(t areasr�.Lbject to the following regulations: f mWi 111 . 3u t't((� Shall beta wal is or ground sign only and shall comply with the ' Itl)s provisions`re,�pecti3a y with other parts of this By-law; (b) I(Shall face a! ublic highway or road; and iiii# #ilit t (c) Shalli,.0i rmitted for a maximum period of 3 years An application for a Development Sign shall be accompanied by a refundable security in accordance with Schedule "A" in addition to the permit fee. The security shall be refunded when such signs have been removed to the satisfaction of the Town. Development Signs which are not removed within 14 days of the 3 year expiry date or notification thereof and for which no written extension of time shall have the security posted for same cashed by the Town. Such security may be used for the costs associated with the administration and removal of the sign. 6.3 RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT SIGNS: Notwithstanding Section 6.2, Residential Development Signs shall comply with the following provisions: (a) On -Site Signs: (1) Shall be located within the residential development.. (i1) Shall advertise only the residential development in which the sign is locate a l-vot the sale of lots elsewhere or the realtors, GENERAL COMMITTEE - JANUARY 23, 2007 By-law 4625-06.P Page 13 of 22 developers or landowner's business in general. (iii) A maximum of two -signs shall be permitted per builder and the total combined sign area for each builder shall not exceed 20 m'. (iv) Shall be illuminated only from an external source. (b) Off -site Signs: (i) Notwithstanding the number of builders the maximum number of off -site signs permitted shall be limited to 2 ground signs with any one ground sign having a maximum sign area of 20 m'. (ii) Shall not be erected in a location which may obstruct the view of traffic. (iii) Shall advertise only the residential development concerned and not the realtors, landowners or developers business in general. (iv) Shall not advertise for residential developments which are not located within the Town. Residential Development Signs shall be removed upon: substantial completion of the residential development to which the sign relq(&e or to a maximum of three years. tf9y, An application for a Residential Develo refundable security in accordance with fee. The security shall be refunded wt the satisfaction of the Town. Residrej removed within 14 days of the 3 ye =3e which no written extension of time 9" cashed by the Town. Such security ma the administration and remoVal.of the si 6.4 COMPLIANCE WITH ZOI No person shall erect or accessory to a useit�lat is 6.5 LIMIT ON tip- R OF'GNS P'I Except as 1erwise permitted in limited to: (j3jl,, .afffflwl,•s._._ per jh shbll=pe accompanied by a "A" ra'ddition to the permit u,n, signs havet,�een removed to lopment Sigh'sliwhich are not r notification` thereof and for e'security postedieW for same or the costs associated with or building unless it is ch land. tEMISES: By-law the number of signs shall be For multilrtenantl4bildings one (1) of any of the following per business premise:'ft)g '�='= }yt wall signyajvning sign or canopy sign exct pt,th-6VWhere a business premise is located on a corner or through lot o�las entrances on two (2) or more public highways, or has both a front and a rear public entrance one (1) additional wall sign is permitted; (c) For single -tenant buildings walls signs, awning signs and canopy signs are only permitted on one wall face or elevation in accordance with the maximum sign area provisions for the zone in which they are located except that where a business premise is located on a corner or through lot or has entrances on two (2) or more public highways, or has both a front and a rear public entrance one (1) additional wall sign is permitted; and (d) One (1) projecting sign. 6.6 ILLUMINATION: Signs shall not be illuminated iyt such a way that either the sign or the method GENERAL COMMITTEE - JANUARY 23, 2007 6.7 By-law 4825-06.P Page 14 of 22 of illumination creates a -hazard or a nuisance. Illuminated signs shall be designed and erected so that light from such signs is deflected away from any adjacent residential premises. WALL SIGNS: The following regulations shall apply to wall signs: (a) No wall sign, or part thereof, shall extend above the top extremity of the wall upon which it is placed. (b) No wall sign, or part thereof, shall extend laterally beyond the extremities of the wall upon which it is placed. (c) No wall sign, or part thereof, that projects more than 50 mm from the wall upon which it is placed shall be located less than 2.4 metres above the grade below such sign. 4B?3}lt (d) No wall sign, or part thereof, shall projegtl ijte than 500 mm from the wall upon which it is placed. d I;, 'f; i?3. (e) Wall signs shall only be locatec exterior public way except that,, multi-storey building the waitT having direct access to an exte'r, (f) Wall signs permitte 1m, any institutional building' aflt;we horizontal linear metre if th' wt (g) Notwithstanqlg. ite=p 1 aaov; metres, Xd tesldentlale= j No€i t singletirectoryI Sign wi2lj,e (h) Wall sr. j1,Wall I i� i) The To. exceec 11- Itf?i. 6.8 GR-PUND SIC The ,fd,Ilo lowing ?jtjr (a) Thli%a; the pre Id level havinditf ect access to an a premise occup,4g� {all levels in a may _b located a`t�4 P the level WAIN gf a commercial, industrial or _. , a mazlh)ttm sign area of 0.75 m2 per n'y"walllf9cing, and within twenty (20) hall have no wall signs other than a maximum sign area of 0.5 m2. 20% in total aggregate area of the yed or placed. single wall sign per business premise shall not shall apply to all ground signs: jiUm number and area of all ground signs shall comply with ions contained within this By-law for the zone designation in ground sign is erected. (b) Ground signs shall only be erected on lots having a minimum frontage of 12.2 metres. (c) Ground signs shall be located between the street line and the minimum setback lines defined for the applicable zone in By-law 2213-78 as amended. (d) Ground signs shall not be located within a 7.5 metre radius of a traffic light. (a) Ground signs shall be setback from common lot boundaries with adjacent lots a minimum of 1.5 metres or the height of the sign, whichever is greater. (f) Ground signs erected ( qon-residential zones shall be setback from the GENERAL COMMITTEE - JANUARY 23, 2007 By-law 4825.06.P Page 15 of 22 boundaries of any adjacent Residential Zone a minimum of 9.0 metres. (g) A ground sign including any part of its structure shall be setback a minimum of 1.0 metre from any driveway, unless located on a traffic island separating the lanes of a two-way driveway. (h) The minimum distance between ground signs on any one lot shall be not less than 15.0 metres. (i) Except as provided in Section 9 for Shopping Centres, no ground sign shall exceed 7.5 metres in height and 3.6 metres in any one dimension of sign face. Q) On a corner lot, ground signs shall be not be erected within the triangular area enclosed by the intersecting street lines for a distance of six (6) metres from their point of intersection. 3{'i3 3, (k) Ground signs maybe illuminated internally pf? - al )ernally. g((g(EEf_iE*i _ J_i,a y3jt. 6.9 READOGRAPH SIGNS: (a) Readograph signs are permit$tg',4?Sily as an Integrar-part of a ground sign. (b) The readograph portion of a gro 1r1;�J) ig�il'shall be located a minimum of 2.4 metres above arade,or in a securelehclosure. 6.10 AWNINGSIGNS: (a) No portion of an above finished_au 6.1 (b) An �W�(ng sign shah be (c) No aqi Iqg sig be 1 less than 2.4 metres as an integral part of the awning. nd the limits of the awning. externally only. shall be located less than 2.4 metres above below such sign. shall be designed as an integral part of the attached or :anopy fascia. (c) No canopy sign shall extend beyond the limits of the canopy fascia. (d) Canopy signs may be illuminated internally or externally. 6.12 PROJECTING SIGNS: (a) No portion of a projecting sign shall be less than 2.4 metres above the finished grade or floor level immediately below such sign. (b) No projecting sign shall have more than two sign faces. (c) Except as permitted in Section 8 "Signs permitted in Commercial Zones" projecting signs shall be non -illuminated. 6.13 SIGNS FOR AUTOMOBILE SERVICE STATIONS OR GAS BARS, INCLUDING A CAR WASH: The following regulations sh4lb2pply to all signs erected for the use of an GENERAL COMMITTEE — JANUARY 23, 2007 By-law 4825.06.P Page 16 of 22 automobile service station or gas bar: (a) One wall sign is permitted on each wall except if the wall abuts a Residential Zone. Wall signs shall not exceed 20% (twenty percent) of the area of the wall to which the sign is attached. (b) One ground sign per lot only is permitted with a maximum sign area of 10.0 m' and a maximum height of 7.5 metres, indicating the use(s) of the lot or building. Where the property is a corner lot a second ground sign with a maximum sign area of 10.0 m' and maximum height of 7.5 metres shall be permitted. (c) The ground sign(s) permitted in subsection (b) may include an additional sign face with an area not exceeding 2.5 m2 for posting the price of gas and/or accessories that are associated with a service station, public garage or gas bar. (d) Signs customarily displayed on gasoline pAr which are an integral part of the pump or pump island design. ,;jgjijs;; (e) Except for canopy fascias facing Free -Standing Canopy Sign is p having a maximum area of 50°,�g(iai 6.14 MENU BOARD SIGNS: (a) One menu board shall be p facility in a commere;al,_one, height of 2.5 metres j",y7`Itliilcne 3�33tt# (b) One pre -menu board si)fill be facility in„EI (p.gT erciali, or 7.1 .gsidentiaH§ne, one illuminated ted on eacFinfcia of a canopy canopy fascia."' s!jt;, sociation with a drive-thru menu board is a maximum ea of 4 m'. 3_� e�d in'' .1 ociation with a drive-thru bL86�d)rthre pre -menu board is a a maximum sign area of 2 m'. the following signs are permitted in a One IclR ttgatiof, I sign not exceeding 9.0 m2 in sign area for an (b) '"bne identi! ation and vacancy information ground sign for an ftmet�tt`Ip ilding not exceeding 4.0 metres in height and 2.4 m2 in 7.2 In addition to other parts of this By-law, the following signs are permitted in an R5 Exception Zone where a building contains commercial uses: (a) Ground signs for single tenant buildings shall not exceed 1.5m' in area per single sign face or 3.Om' for all faces combined and shall not exceed 2.0 metres in height. (b) Ground signs for multi -tenant buildings shall not exceed 2.0m' in area per single sign face or 4.Om' for all faces combined and shall not exceed 2.4 metres in height. (c) The area of a wall sign or canopy sign shall not exceed 0.25m' of sign area per horizontal linear metre of wall face upon which such sign is located with a maximum 1.25m' in sign area. (d) Projecting signs shall not exceed 0.75m' in sign area per sign face. —141— GENERAL COMMITTEE - JANUARY 23, 2007 By-law 4825.06.P Page 17 of 22 (e) A maximum of two -signs shall be permitted. (f) Internally illuminated signs are not permitted. SECTION 8 — SIGNS PERMITTED IN COMMERCIAL ZONES 8.1 The following signs shall be permitted in a Commercial Zone. (a) Signs erected in a Commercial Zone shall comply with the provision contained within Table 8.1. MI ' iriercial Zones Table 8.1 —Signs Permitted in Com,".fdr, ' Sign Type Maximum Number MaxlmumaSgri Area`P'e�3i . Maximum Height #_, �ii Wall, See Section 1ij3'_iFace {ie iir - 0:y5in'2 per linear metre 3g 11;t9z, N/A Awning or 6.5 (b) or (c) gbFlwall face to Canopy M511mum Of,?14vall 3.i3, tia>' coveralie ieti�al, l, _r-.85— maxim: - (I j =m2 in total ')j)31,, sign area; r i. 't.2fl 4 i:;ilS11.2.0 Projecting See Section 6.5 (Ili:. m�� '11i, N/A s� 91t ;: ,1, tv S ai z. Ground Mmi UgiilgIII frontag I ({i�#; largip, 7.5m n,I]22 m{s trly 75 m,'ii1j1;' jftaximum 1 si(jn: =i:=, ppray £1101 Ground fronjapetlf greater,. •„s 10 m2 7.5 m thap�h5 axlmumt sgf ,1=f, One add tjonal'&6.utnd sign may be permitted for commercial properties on a cornerlot. 'ja, signs aW vian office building three or more storey in height shall only cat, pn the first storey, the top storey, the parapet or the (d) No grdland sign shall be permitted on a lot having a street frontage of less than 12.2 metres. (e) No ground sign shall be permitted in any C1 Local Commercial Zone or C2 Central Commercial Zone. (f) Projecting signs are permitted to be illuminated externally. SECTION 9—SIGNS PERMITTED IN SHOPPING CENTRES The following signs shall be permitted for Shopping Centres other than Shopping Centres located in a Local Commercial C1 Zone and a Central Commercial C2 Zone: (a) Signs erected for a Shopping Centre on a lot having a lot area of 1.0 he to 4.0 he shall comply with the provisions contained within Table 9.1, -142- GENERAL COMMITTEE - JANUARY 23, 2007 By-law 4825-06.13 Page 18 of 22 Table 9.1 — Regulations for Shopping Centre Signs on a Lot of 1.0 he to 4.0 he in Area Sign Type Maximum Number Maximum Sign Area Maximum Height Per Face Ground 1 sign for each 100 m 10 m2 9.0 m of lot frontage to a maximum of 2 signs Wall, See Section - 0.75 m2 per linear metre N/A Awning or 6.5 (b) or (c) of wall face to maximum Canopy 20 % wall coverage - maximum 35 m2 in total sin area Ig, dy€iT' (b) Signs erected for a Shopping Centre on a to€t� ving a lot area over 4.0 ha shall comply with the provisions contalood` ?f£thin Table 9.2. HIPUlk Table 9.2— Regulations for St, ping Cent e,Sjclns on a Lot Over4thb' in Area �1jjli,. h' ; 1)p Sign Type Maximum Number `xylaximum Siyareal 6311„Per Max mum Height FAK4?f `t1t1)3ij)fI; Ground - 1 sign for each 1�00 m i i", 'tt1tp(n2 9.0 m of lot frontage l�' Iq maximum of 2 si6rls ;t f;jt 1111111t111:. - Minimum 45 m i t]ttt11 = z ;sir en.3 g¢gg� tte gYdui 319j(tlt{`7)e Wall, :j IMP, 'tat llf' See Seigb (j, -'( l75 m2 per linear metre N/A Awning or 1(j , 6.5 (b, o'pRo 'tt)la l.r=lifit oh II face to maximum Canopy rt9111 1; 1, 1 f tOxj,3�� 4 t�6wall coverage 91£' aximum 35 m2 in -total sign area t_ In addtic'njo th 1:gTpund signs permitted in Table 9.1 and Table 9.2, one additii yI groGr(d sign may be permitted for Shopping Centres located on ,,orner lot. (d) 'N`,olwithstabding Section 6.8(i) no ground sign shall exceed 4.9 metres indttlt`i,i' Ftl;jji (e) Projecting Signs are not permitted in Shopping Centres. SECTION 10 — SIGNS PERMITTED IN INDUSTRIAL ZONES 10.1 The following signs shall be permitted in an Industrial Zone. (a) Signs erected in an Industrial Zone shall comply with the provision contained within Table 10.1. Table 10.1 — Signs Permitted in Industrial Zones Sign Type Maximum Number Maximum Sign Area Per Face Maximum Height -143- GENERAL COMMITTEE - JANUARY 23, 2007 By-law 4625.06.P Page 19 of 22 Wall, See Section - 0.75 m' per linear metre N/A Awning or 6.5 (b) or (c) of wall face to maximum Canopy 20% wall coverage - maximum 20 m' in total sign area Projecting See Section 6.5 (d) 0.5 m2 N/A Ground Minimum lot frontage 0.09 m2 for every 0.3 m of 7.5 m of 12.2 m to 75 m, street frontage to a maximum 1 sign maximum of 10 m2 Ground Lot frontage greater 0.09 m' for every 0.3 m of 7.5 m than 75 m, maximum 2 street frontage to a signs maximum of 10m' each sign (b) No ground sign shall be permitted on a i, lot wh(ch"has a street frontage of less than 12.2 metres. Alien' =tj=i;;3iji. (c) One additional ground sign is per mi#d on=,cgrner lots with a lot frontage greater than 300m providerdf sign area1I�'tnot more 20m2. ;self' 9if5i �=iil`e SECTION 11 - SIGNS PERMITTED IN Afof3INESS PARK ZONE 11.1 (a) Signs for commercial uses in-Ii a B)lSr{ss Park one are permitted in accordance with the covisions of Section 6 "General Provisions" and ice. l 3_3 Section 8 "Signs per ' e`d ln:a Commr`,elal Zone". (b) Signs for Industrial us s fin a pusij)ess Pfi ii Zone are permitted in accordancelfith.the prove lon�i Sedt(on,6 "General Provisions' and Sectionl19f"Siq'nsgermittedliuf an In us l Zone". 12.1 Tf} fdll'ow(ngsig 15 S 7a11 be permitted in an Institutional Zone: ii°el 5 _Fiafi;Sa 'ejeij9i. f II i) all sigrfNil nihg,s;gns, canopy signs and projecting signs identifying the use *and/or occupancy of the lot/building are permitted in ii:ji accordancelwith the provisions contained within Table 12.1 fill- b G ; nd signs t, , gns identifying the name of the institution, dates and times of the=- gvt UiCs, etc are permitted in accordance with the provisions contaN' 6 within Table 12.1. Table 12.1 - Signs Permitted in Institutional Zones Sign Type Maximum Number Maximum Sign Area Maximum Height Per Face Wall, See Section - 0.75 m' per linear N/A Awning or 6.5 (b) or (c) metre of wall face to Canopy maximum 20% wall coverage - maximum 35 V in total sign area Projecting See Section 6.5 (d) 0.5 m2 N/A Ground Maximum 1 sign 4 m2 4.0 m -144- GENERAL COMMITTEE - JANUARY 23, 2007 By-law 4825-06.P Page 20 of 22 SECTION 13 — SIGNS PERMITTED IN RURAL, OPEN SPACE OR EVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION ZONES 13.1 No person shall erect a sign in a Rural, Open Space and Environmental Protection Zone except in accordance with the following: (a) Maximum of one ground sign with a maximum sign area of 2.2 m2 indicating the Residential, Commercial, or Institutional use of the building or lot. (b) In a Rural Zone only, maximum of two ground signs with a maximum sign area of 1.0 m2 each advertising the sale of edible farm produce grown on the premises. (c) Ground signs indicating public trail systems, educational areas, natural areas of environmental interest, types of floral )fauna, natural habitat areas and educational information with respect to the environment where the sign is placed. (d) Signage which may be placed by c)� at the regggst of the Town or Region shall not be restricted in si t} =t, LhIl I i i))- tt 3,k,ltj�ti SECTION 14 - REPEALED BY-LAWS.)t-(', tt ,f 1- ',III li)f' ,t )at,_ 14.1 By-law 4622-04 P 3s hereby r peaPedt''ti� ail ? tieiLM I !! ill } Oil' q' a it READ A FIRST ANQoll /ME THE3J, DAY OFt2006. READ A THIRD THIS DAY OF , 2006. B. PANIZZA, TOWN CLERK -145- GENERAL COMMITTEE - JANUARY 23, 2007 SCHEDULE"A" PERMIT FEES: By-law 4825.06.P Page 21 of 22 The scale of fees to be paid to the Town of Aurora for sign permits shall be as follows: (a) $5.00 per square metre of sign face area. (b) Basic Minimum Fee: $75.00 or the amount as calculated in (a), whichever is greater. (c) Renewal of a sign permit $30.00 (d) Refunds: Permit fees are for the cost of the application, including review for compliance to the By-law, processing and tis'uance and are non- refundable. tl(�t'� F t-3, (e) Securities for Development /Residential D'eloo 'ant Signs (refundable)• $500.00 per sign txtjt tl(t�# ai j= t3iti, (f) Application for Sign Variance: $4,50 Q0 — non-refundable(3 t,_ -146- GENERAL COMMITTEE - JANUARY 23, 2007 By-law 4825-06.P Page 22 of 22 SCHEDULE"B" -147- GENERAL COMMITTEE - JANUARY 23, 2007 THE CORPORATION OF THE TOWN OF AURORA APPENDIX #3 BY-LAW NUMBER XXXX-XX.P BEING A BY-LAW to regulate Temporary Signs, within the Town of Aurora. WHEREAS the provisions of Sections 11 and 99 of the Municipal Act 2001, as amended, authorizes Council to pass by-laws to regule Signs; S a:. d AND WHEREAS it is deemed necessary to enact a y law t prof bit and regulate Signs within the Town of Aurora. r Y NOW THEREFORE THE MUNICIPAL C t lL OF 7HF CORPORATIQN OF THE TOWN OF AURORA ENACTS AS FOLL 1.0 DEFINITIONS DIRECTOR: Means the Director of Corporate Services of the Town or th,jr agjjVd ized designate. HEIGHT: Means the vertical distance measured ffg fheaverc�age grade immediately below the agmtSign'to the highest point of the Sg"h.or�ign structure, wTtiehever is greatest. LOT: Means a parcel of land, whgther�rnot occupied by a ftul)dmg or a structure, with frontage on a Street - ,egg PERSON: KARPK Means an individ i assdciation, firm, AftfiersiiipT corporation, trust, incorporated company corpora on created under "The Condo r i num Act", organization, trustee or agent, and the h r, i for,_s or other legal representatives of a Person to whom the context can apply affi ffarfo law. Mean``s=fLie area of a buildings} Q past thereof and/or land(s) or part thereof occupied Cry a user of, fop sed to be occdpjdWby a user. In a multiple occupancy building, each single occupancy -be cons&red a separate premise. SIGN: Means any device, fiitEuf or structure or any part thereof, or any device attached thereto, or painted or represented thereon that uses form, graphic, illumination, syfnbol or writing 3o advertise, identify, announce the purpose of or identify the purpose of a Pers, or ehtity or to communicate information of any kind to the public. display surface including the boarder or the frame. SIGN, BANNER: Means a Sign constructed of a non -rigid material attached to a building or structure, but shall not include a flag. SIGN, ELECTION: Means a Sign intended to advertise or promote a candidate in a municipal, provincial or federal political election. SIGN, INFLATABLE: Means a Sign whose structural integrity is maintained through air pressure. -a GENERAL COMMITTEE — JANUARY 23, 2007 By-law XXXX-XX.P Page 2 of 10 SIGN, MOBILE Means any Sign mounted on a trailer or other supporting device which is designed to be transported from one site to another but shall not include a licensed vehicle. SIGN, POLE Means a Sign mounted on a pole, lamp standard, or hydro pole located on private or public property. SIGN, REAL ESTATE:' Means a Sign advertising the sale, rental or lease oiness, but shall not include development signs. w SIGN, SANDWICH BOARD: Means a Sign constructed in the shape,,, Mru L of dangle and Intended o be; relocated daily by one Person. " SIGN, SPECIAL EVENT: Means a Sign other than a Mobile Sign intend'9d`io advertl e hpromote non-profit, charitable or community events and includes public ,service graaps � , SIGN, TEMPORARY: Means any sign that is not attacheddi atfiXed to any land building r premises with some degree of permanence. , SIGN, UNSAFE: Means a Sign or Sign structur is sirexcturaIII Unsafe or which constitutes a fire, traffic, or pedestrian hazard or whffitmpedes aneans of egress from any building, Premises or prfft,or othervl axrstitutes a'risk to the safety of Persons or property in, or adlaEeht —1 a Premises STREET Means a public hig6bi� defined by "The Municipal Act" and 'The Highway Traffic Act 4ut„shall exclude aTane &fany private right-of-way or unopened road allowance, Qr and street which is s2fi�FF Registered Plan of Subdivision which has been cf�111, k14ffAJ a registered141 bdivision under Section 29 of 'The Planning Eat arr�vhiolihas*noi been ahe Town. TOWN: Means the Comdration iif=the Town of Aurora. GENERAL The h�rarrs 'of this By-law shall not be construed as relieving or limited the responsibility or liability of any Person who erects or displays, or causes or permits or allows to be, erected or displayed, any Sign, for Personal injury including injury resulting in death, or property damage resulting from such Sign of from the acts or omissions of such Person, or his agents, servants, employees, contractors or sub- contractors, in the construction, erection, maintenance, display, alteration, repair or removal of any Sign erected in accordance with a permit which is issued hereunder. Likewise, the provisions of this By-law shall not be construed as imposing on the Town, its officers, employees, servants and agents, any responsibility or liability whatsoever by reason of the approval of or issuance of a permit for any Sign of removal of any Sign. 2.2 INDEMNIFICATION: The applicant for a permit for a Sign, and the owner and occupant of the lands and Premises on which any Sign is gWWd, shall be jointly and severally responsible to GENERAL COMMITTEE - JANUARY 23, 2007 By-law xxxx-xx.P Page 2 of 10 indemnify the Town, its officers, employees, servants and agents, from all loss, damages, costs, expenses, claims, demands, actions, suits or other proceedings of every nature and kind arising from and in consequence of the construction, erection, maintenance, display, alteration, repair or removal of such Sign. 3.0 MOBILE SIGNS: No Person shall; (a) locate or permit the location of a Mobile Sign o any Lot except in accordance with the provisions of this By-law; (b) locate or permit the location of a M itWia Mgn on ny Lot wlthoUt rst obtaining a permit pursuant to this By -laud nd paying such fee as I5 set forth to Schedule "A" to this By-law; (c) locate or permit the location of a Mob lergta oft any Lot except on a Loton where commercial, industrial or ins4tut1 aflvlties are carried on; (d) locate or permit the location of a Portable Sign on and LoI which is not owned or leased by that Person wdhoytyfjcst obtaining a curr6rt anti ,,`aIid licence to carry an the business of lea �4io111e S gas, pursuant to By-Iqw 4258-04.P, as amended or successor lagrslionherefp where the owner of a Lot can show that they are the a�e of a Portable Sign, the requirement to be licensed is not required; _ (a) locate or permit the locatai n of moref£}an one Mobil@Sign on any Lot at any one in time; 3 (f) locate or permithellcation of on any single Lot for more than eight week orLEFe single calendar, (g) locate or Permt, a Ma�ile It to be Illuminated or employ any flashing or sequential lighf or a ralechanicaI or electronic device to provide or simulate [notion, _ (hJdcicate or permit a Mobrle Sgh-fo be erected on a property so as not to inte fete witF pedestrian and/ocvehicular traffic; (i) locate or hermitJ Mobile Sign having a maximum Height measured from grade greater than 2.7 metres; locate or perrnit &'Mobile Sign to be located closer than 1.0 metres to a „property line or wiif in &day -light triangle referred to in Zoning By-law 2213-78, focafe_ar, perriit the location of a Mobile Sign on any Lot without first having Prouiied security in a form satisfactory to the Director and in the amount as set forth in Schedule "A" to this By-law. Such security shall be for the purpose of ensuring the applicant's compliance with the terms of this By-law and the application for permit; (1) locate or permit the location of any Mobile Sign except entirely on the Lot specified in a permit issued pursuant to this by-law; 3.1 FEE EXEMPT MOBILE SIGNS Mobile Signs for the purpose of promoting non-profit, charitable and community events shall be permitted and exempt from the prescribed fees provided: (a) there is no commercial advertising included in the message; -150- GENERAL COMMITTEE — JANUARY 23, 2007 By-law XXXX-XX.P Page 2 of 10 (b) the Signs are located for a period not to exceed 14 days prior to the event; (c) a plan outlining the proposed location and nature of the message is provided and reviewed by the Director; (d) the maximum number of Signs is restricted to four per event; (e) where required approval from other affected agencies is obtained; (f) the property owner gives permission for the placetnenUaf tfiesign(s). 4.0 REAL ESTATE SIGNS: No Person shall; (a) locate or permit the location of a area in a residential zone; (b) locate or permit the location of a zones which advertises the sale; which said Signs are located A be permitted on a Lot having ovc rental, or lease of the Lot or (c) locate or permit the Iocatr4rt of (die (d) locate or permit the (ocatlon of a I (30) days aftere Premises o leased; (e) locate or gelte location of a for sale, lease o1 nAl t _ 1 e Sgh - deti ft 2.0 m2 in other lease of the`Lot oe: remises, on Sign not excel Etg3.0 m2 shall tame, which advertises the sale, i 7said Signs are located; ReI Fe, Sign per Lot; t S r" n a Lot for more than thirty has been sold, rented or Sign on a Lot other than the Lot 1. No Pefsn ealb a locate or location of an Election Sign larger than 2 m2 in sign area; (b), locate or pelf i t the location of an Election Sign in contravention of The Elections Aaffi 6icipal Elections Act or any other relevant legislation. (a) remove alk`Election Signs within seven days (7) after the election for which such SlOdi have been erected. 6.0 SPECIAL EVENT SIGNS: 1. No Person shall: (a) locate or permit the location of a Special Event Sign larger than 2 m2 in Sign area. 2. Every Person shall: (a) notify the Director in writing of the purpose, content and locations of Signs seven days prior to their pllarS ent; GENERAL COMMITTEE - JANUARY 23, 2007 Bylaw XXXX•XX.P Page 2 of 10 -152- GENERAL COMMITTEE - JANUARY 23, 2007 By-law XXXX-XX.P Page 2 of 10 (b) remove all Special Event Signs within forty-eight (48) hours after the event for which such Signs have been erected. 7.0 SANDWICH BOARD SIGNS: 1. No Person shall: (a) where permitted, locate or permit the Board Sign per Premises; (b) where permitted, locate or permit the la than 1 m2 in Sign area per side; (c) where permitted, locate or permit the& Town Property or a property other conducted; (d) where permitted, fail to remove a S business each night; (e) locate or permit a Mobile_-5 1W, lid property line or within a da01 tr1ang7 as amended. 8.0 PROHIBITED No person shy (a) Sigrr�_= iIIumfns which f (f) Fence Signs; (g) Banner Signs. 9.0 EXEMPTED SIGNS: a Sandwich re the bus one Sandwich the close of r than `1':0 metres to a Zoning By-law 2213-78, any prerftes th. 6mi rig types of signs: F �- )rporate in ahy 'Manner any flashing or moving varies in intensity or which varies in colour, and signs isible moving parts, or visible mechanical movement iaFe s.�SP.the words "STOP", "LOOK", "ONE WAY", IELDr-0 y similar words, phrases, symbols, lights or uch a manner as to interfere with, mislead, or confuse )n, attached to, or supported by a utility pole, tree, stone, object; maintained or displayed on Municipal property except lists and public election signs, and those signs for which entered into an encroachment agreement with the Town; Temporary Signs erected by any level of government or government agency for any function or authorized by the Town of Aurora shall be exempt from the requirements of the by-law. -153- GENERAL COMMITTEE — JANUARY 23, 2007 By-law XXXX-XX.P Page 2 of 10 9.0 REVOCATION OF PERMIT: A permit may be revoked by the Town under the following circumstances: (a) where the Sign does not conform to this By-law and amendments thereto; (b) where the Sign does not conform to any regula(en, law of requirement of any governmental authority having jurisdiction ovejKthe area.Where the Sign is situated; (c) where the permit has been issued ba! falsnformation; (d) where the permit has been issued (e) where the Sign erected does not approved by the Town on which the 10.0 UNSAFE SIGNS: (a) Where in the opinion of t Notice of Violation issued located to remove or reoai: (b) Upon receipt of a take the necessar may cause the Sia may recover thge 11.0 a cei may known bft personal ser- In the event direct Town 12.0 VALIDITY: plans gn is unsafe;=t��l�ector may by iero>_the Lot on*filch the Sign is ifre hate specified in the Notice; red--16 ccord nce the owner shall the K4tice failing which the Town dense cif the owner, and the Town in ,01manner as municipal taxes. ekifitn^pf this By-law is apparent, an order to comply with !ugd-Cckthe Person who is responsible for the work; said tFe rature -of the contravention. In the event that the camaot=6eTfaf nd to receive the order, the order may be propetgi mailed to the responsible Person to the last that Person and shall be deemed to be the equivalent of order to comply is not complied with, the Director may an independent contractor to enter onto the land and erected or displayed in contravention of this By-law, such oved and the owner would be required to pay retrieval fee as ule "A" of this by-law. In the event any part or provision of this By-law is held to be illegal or void, this shall not have the effect of making illegal or void any of the other parts or provisions thereof, which may or shall be determined to be legal. 13.0 SHORT TITLE: This By-law shall be known and cited as the "Temporary Sign By-law". —154— GENERAL COMMITTEE — JANUARY 23, 2007 By-law XXXX-XX.P Page 2 of 10 14.0 REPEAL OF BY-LAW By-law 4622-04.P is hereby repealed. 15.0 PENALTY: Any Person who contravenes any provisions of this By 1WW is uitty`af an offence and upon conviction liable to a fine pursuant to the f'rorvincial Z)Act, READ A FIRST AND SECOND TIME READ A THIRD TIME AND FINALLY PASSED T,--H OF 2007. P. MORRIS, MAYOR —155— GENERAL COMMITTEE - JANUARY 23, 2007 SCHEDULE"A" PERMIT FEES: By-law XXXX-XX.P - Page 2 of 10 The fees to be paid to the Town of Aurora for Temporary Sign permits shall be as follows: 1. Mobile Signs Permits 2. Securities for Mobile Sign 3. Sign retrieval fee -156- Message APPENDIX #4 GENERAL COMMITTEE — JANUARY 23, 2007 January 4, 2007 To: Members of the Aurora Chamber Re: Proposed Changes to Temporary & Permanent Sign By -Laws Happy New Year! As many of you may be aware, the Town of Aurora has recently undertaken a review of its temporary and permanent sign by-laws. Town documents indicate that the reasons for this review are as follows: (i) to update and clean-up the language of the existing by-laws; (ii) to facilitate the administration of temporary and permanent signs by separate departments; and (iii) to better clarify roles and responsibilities, and make the by-laws more user-friendly. A summary of the proposed changes to the temporary and permanent sign by-laws is attached. By -Law Review Process The by-law staff at the Town of Aurora is preparing a report and recommendations to go forward to a General Committee meeting scheduled for January 23, 2007. Interested parties are entitled submit their concerns to the Town and/or appear before the General Committee to outline their concerns with the proposed by-laws. Recommended Strategy for Aurora Chamber We recommend that the Aurora Chamber advise the Town of the following concerns with the proposed by-laws as soon as possible: The proposed prohibition of banner signs in the temporary sign by-law is not justified and it is bad for business. Signage is critical to the survival of small businesses, and an effective means of promoting special events for a business, or the opening of a new business where permanent signage is not yet available. We strongly encourage the Town to permit banner signs for a reasonable period of time and particularly, for new business openings. - While the current two day period for removing election signs may be onerous, the proposed seven day period seems excessive. We would recommend four days to remove election signs to balance the interests of local businesses and residents, with the realities experienced by election candidates. 1/9/2007 —15 7 — Message GENERAL COMMITTEE — JANUARY 23, 2007 - Clarify that the permanent sign by-law will permit a wall sign, awning sign or canopy sign, and a projecting sign, in addition to a ground sign, for single tenant premises; and - The proposed fee increase for sign variances is excessive. Given the size of Aurora, the Chamber recommends that the fee be increased to $300.00, consistent with the low end of the sign variance fees charged by other jurisdictions. We also recommend that a delegation representing the Aurora Chamber appear before the General Committee on January 23, 2007 to more fully communicate our concerns with the proposed changes to the sign by-laws. Please let me know if you have any comments, concerns or questions regarding this information, or any other comments on the proposed changes to the by-laws by Friday, January 12/07. Please forward your feedback to me at c.adams@aurorachamber.on.ca or 905-727-7262. I look forward to receiving your input. Kind Regards, Carla Adams Executive Director Aurora Chamber of Commerce 1/9/2007 —15 8— GENERAL COMMITTEE — JANUARY 23, 2007 Aurora Chamber 6-14845 Yonge Street, Suite 321 Aurora, Ontario L4G 6H8 of Commerce (905)727-7262 Fax(905)841-6217 www. aurorachamber. on.ca SUMMARY OF CHANGES TO AURORA SIGN BY-LAWS PART l: Proposed Changes to the Temporary Sign By -Law The following key changes to the temporary sign by-law have been proposed: - Adding definitions of a banner sign, an election sign, a mobile sign, a special event sign and a temporary sign; - There wilt be a prohibition on placing mobile signs in a parking space due to sight line concerns; - Mobile signs will now be permitted in institutional zones (Le., schools); - The definition of a real estate sign will be changed to exclude development signs. The other provisions concerning real estate signs have not changed; - Election signs are to be removed within 7 days of the election instead of the current 2 days; - A prohibition of banner signs was added. Town officials advise that there is a concern that banner signs are old and unattractive, and that businesses have been using banner signs as a form of permanent signage, often exceeding the maximum signage provisions; - A provision will be added to deal with the removal of unlawful signs. Where there is a contravention of the by-law, an order to comply will be made. if there is a failure to comply with the order, the Town has the authority to remove the offending sign at the expense of the owner; and - A new section will be added to the by-law concerning special event signs as follows: (1) A/o person shalt, locate or permit the location of a Special Event Sign larger than 2 m2 in Sign area. —159— GENERAL COMMITTEE — JANUARY 23, 2007 �s Aurora Chamber of Commerce 6-14845 Yonge Street, Suite 321 Aurora, Ontario L4G 61-18 (2) Every Person shall: (905)727-7262 Fax(905)841-6217 www.aurorachamber. on.ca (a) notify the Director in writing of the purpose, content and locations of Signs seven days prior to their placement (b) remove all Special Event Signs within forty-eight (48) hours after the event for which such Signs have been erected. The current by-law does not have any provisions regarding Special Event Signs, PART ll: Proposed Changes to the Permanent Sign By -Law For clarification, permanent signs include signs affixed to the ground and signs affixed to a building. Permanent signs are regulated by the Ontario Building Code. The following changes to the permanent sign by-law are proposed: - All temporary signs will be removed from this by-law with the exception of Development Signs; - There will be some changes to the organization of the by-law, some definitions will be reworded and simplified, and individual zone designations will be revamped for consistency and alignment with the tables; - The Administration section of the by-law will include provisions for other approvals such as Heritage Review, Regional Approval, Ministry of Transportation Permits and Sign Variances; - For single tenant premises, the limit on the number of signs will be one ground sign per lot. It appears that the intention of the proposed by-law is to also permit a wall sign, awning sign or canopy sign, and one projecting sign, although the proposed language in the by-law should be clarified in this area. This will effectively increase signage for single tenant premises; - For multi -tenant premises, the limit on the number of signs will be one ground sign for the lot, and one wall sign, awning sign or canopy sign per premise, and one projecting sign per premise. As before, an additional wall sign is permitted for business premises located on a corner. This will effectively increase signage for multi -tenant premises; and - The fees for sign permits remain unchanged. However, a fee increase for sign variances Is recommended from $150.00 to $450.00 as a cost recovery measure. Sign variance applications involve a review of plans, a site inspection, a consultation meeting and a report to Council that is reviewed by Senior Management. —160— GENERAL COMMITTEE - JANUARY 23, 2007 W MJ W D n cn 4- 0 Q. E Q) U 0 APPENDIX 5 -161- GENERAL COMMITTEE - JANUARY 23, 2007 � N : O m �O U > o C O O ?� (� o _ to u) E ca a) -- > : �- � .� ® o coa� a- 0 4-a � (n m�� N O L. O U cn L c6 �—' }' M s � Q o E L. -a o v � a) U) :D I— O O c N ._ 0 M M w o cn 0_ U O U -162- GENERAL COMMITTEE - JANUARY 23, 2007 -163- GENERAL COMMITTEE - JANUARY 23, 2007 W ry L. O 4-- U) O U) ry LA CC5 4-a .U) X Mv � . m co Q E N O :.a CIS U) .c: w -1-a a) E L Q. 4-a 4-a - a) E U it 0 O -164- GENERAL COMMITTEE — JANUARY 23, 2007 0 � O c0 O 0 C W � cu m 0 o z :3 V� W(/)EL `*' Q(oOU_ O 0. W zZ U) -o � cu O e Q Q M N s' 00 -0 D v W J M N N> m N 70 L. ® m ��.= W 2 0.c- Q Z H N W -� O U) Z a 0 � c Z c Q W Z o U a) U mz wo -165- GENERAL COMMITTEE - JANUARY 23, 2007 0 CL E a� 0 4-1 v / z 0 z 1 w 0 r) LLI v n0 1..1.. 0 n UO O L fn O O_ © O y O .- E Q� O O W �_ F /Z� F" vJ (6 N .1 (6 L (A i ci a U) c cn m �o o� _I LL L) O O 0 m -O .. _1E cn ��° LLj z _J 00 ° c ,J LLI O ~ J E Z m . ) .� �z o 70WW -166- GENERAL COMMITTEE - JANUARY 23, 2007 O (� Z o O O Q O Q O Ill o a W O�ON� f� ~ co � ., W �oS- .�_ a O c o,-o Ma . o w J cu O n cn � N U mI N a CO W � a) U o w a�=� � a cn a�o�0>� ��c�aocn ® E Z LL o 0) W.. 0 A-0 z O C) `� o -+--+ ® co o cv Z U J H o uj F_ 0)a W o � W Fn 0 6 J a C� co L O a — C 4- (� W CU a c U) a cn 0 z -167- GENERAL COMMITTEE - JANUARY 23, 2007 N c O >, 0 c �� w/0 U i�i ) O a) � OU) (D u) c Lm E o � i N Q v, L � L 4- O CD -0 o sue. d c= (6 O O z `° " -0 W o �. � L. F-- m -0 -0 Ez I- H N W ® .. O 4-4 U) p c � o (� O c U Wo F- Z C] GENERAL COMMITTEE - JANUARY 23, 2007 O =3 O O O -�--+ c O c:— 0.0 �FON .O to ' U m Cn ca ._ m o L O m 0.0 CL a� += M .S (3) m .� CL -169- GENERAL COMMITTEE - JANUARY 23, 2007 r- Q) O � U c a) U) U C6 o < 4-0U Q�o� O 0- d' cn zoo O - M c: o o cn W o U o ry -170- GENERAL COMMITTEE - JANUARY 23, 2007 c- O O N U) U) Q� N cn U) c: •— ® to (� Q ® M Z3 U O � L6 I Z o O_ L +J � o O O W O O 0 W��.�N -171- GENERAL COMMITTEE — JANUARY 23, 2007 it m O ^� U >00 �N O a)� d W+�O OONO a) i tea) —Q—OWm C) Oat- (00 Ncncn i CCU N —172— GENERAL COMMITTEE - JANUARY 23, 2007 Poo 0 -1-a 4- 0 c 0 0 • L 0 0 _0 0 Z 0 L. 0 U An -F-j 0 c 0 Q� -173- GENERAL COMMITTEE - JANUARY 23, 2007 4-j m a) 00 E O -,, O O a) n a O c:co >, E 4— O N m o O cn n o 0 0 �_, -o cn 3: co � Q, i< _ ._ .� O 04— Q. U N m O E 0 O O Jc: c,-0 E> U I— �•Fn m 0.0 Q�0 -174- GENERAL COMMITTEE - JANUARY 23, 2007 C L O 4— (3) U �r = O O 00 � (j) O F a� 4-0 N .� v '— U -0O c: � C 0° � O� O � m cn O 4— N C 4= O 'C O -- 00 C) -S) CL E X w m U) c� (D -c- O 4-1 a) c Q c � O U o � O c c O o acr z z U) 4 0- U) o°- MO c�° U .- U ] U O O �n N � c 0 o�-c� w cn(DmU) a -175- GENERAL COMMITTEE - JANUARY 23, 2007 f <2 */ � §/ 3% d D / % 7 0) §f 7 / / � \ \ .7 />f f2 _._ o �} = you /\ / 04- E % > °% U) m '\ y a0 0 � -0. \ § a) a) k c 0 � E o a)2� 2/ § ma)\ / y£a q/ 3 a) 0) O § ƒ ƒ _ =.2 £2 E 0 � . \ / 3 Im §f m ° \ }�� M� f /) f) ± �2 R / 2'/ .@ / ƒ cm /ƒ \ ko/ a) 5c— > p 7 3 =.o * a)— m.ƒ / £oƒ £3 D 22 / m0-3 m2 co § § 2 ) n/ /> /)\ O 7/ m teoyw-ta) o * D <')02oa) '3mE7Ee w LUmnLLs£.E2LI/ -176- GENERAL COMMITTEE - JANUARY 23, 2007 O > U O � cl ® O (C5 C� ---1 • - O ^l E 0 = ■ c - • O O v / CL [^'` W ) 0� ^ , Z3 i U 1 O •> CL W 0. r E •� •O0. V/ W = E N a. Q Rp -177- GENERAL COMMITTEE - JANUARY 23, 2007 O mo >� Q� O' U— - 0 �O L Q 0 7 c: 0 0 c: .� C6 C 0 4-0 (D Q a) 0 cN �5o O O N c0 ��C�6O O � N N O) c: 0�2.0) N (D > N o)�0-o c 0 UcoN � O) O ,-, N � C 0 +� -0 c: � O U L +-� O N N U0. i0 C6Q 0 LZ �CL L 0 4-0 Q'o O C m .� a) O Q E00 c cn � U N O% i N O -00) C O �0 0ca u O X 0c N WLLMa.C(- O -178- GENERAL COMMITTEE - JANUARY 23, 2007 W N co • E 4-a a) cn ia .® 4-1 O .p V U) 0) O (a ® :3 ,c: E vJ u) E C -179- GENERAL COMMITTEE - JANUARY 23, 2007 m O a--� M i _O - . > g c �� a) N U) CD m m -f-j � � m E � v vi o 0 L7 c: c: M M N E O L N O .cn Lo N N m Q O V O a).� � m � U E O .M .0 �2 o O — > N m -Y O c: L � Q M N — O � N LL a U) ._ • � s m GENERAL COMMITTEE - JANUARY 23, 2007 0) c: c: . s — '� U o :3 U O v . o 0 0- U) o >, - U) x 0 z z . . . -181- GENERAL COMMITTEE - JANUARY 23, 2007 APPENDIX #6 Temporary Sign By-law Chart Type ofri gwi(lirits :Appendix' No; Mobile Sign ❑ Must be located on private property (Trailer) ❑ Can be in a parking space ❑ Permit must be obtained Section 2.0 ❑ Maximum 8 weeks per calendar year 7 ❑ Mobile Sign Installer must have a license to do business in Town Real Estate ❑ .One real estate sign per property Signs ❑ Erect a sign on a property other than the property for sale Section 4.0 ❑ Erect a sign on a property other than the 7 property for sale ❑ Signs must be removed 30 days after the property has been sold Election Signs ❑ Maximum size 2 m2 ❑ Must comply with the Elections Act or the Section 5.0 Municipal Elections Act ❑ Remove the signs within 7 days of the elections Special Event ❑ Example Polo for Heart _ Signs ❑ Maximum size 2 m2 ❑ Notify staff of the purpose, content and Section 6.0 location(s) of the sign(s) o Remove all sign(s) within 48 hrs. of the event A Frame Signs ❑ One permitted per premises/business (Sandwich Board)y ❑ Maximum size 1 m2 ❑ Must be on private property 1 metre from Section 7.0 Town property and on the property where 7 the business is being conducted ❑ Brought in each night at the close of business Banner Signs ❑ Not Permitted 7 Inflatable/Balloon Signs ❑ Not Permitted 7 Pole/wrap around Signs a Not Permitted 7 -182- - �, -�� _ � - _ _ 3-y -'_�=__ _ __ �r -_' ._=' i t W ON EMS, R` Q 1} L o + Y Hs t r x j � f r - ��' �C a r 1 — _ 3 S Lf i d 1 tt do �° IN -. - J c N c 0 0 �a m vole sign