AGENDA - Special Council - 20070523SPECIAL COUNCIL
PUBLIC PLANNING
AGENDA
N0.07-14
MAY 23, 2007
7:00 P.M.
COUNCIL CNAMBERS
AURORA TOWN NALL
PUBLIC RELEASE
18/05/07
AuR.oRA
TOWN OF AURORA
SPECIAL COUNCIL - PUBLIC PLANNING MEETING
AGENDA
NO. 07-14
Wednesday, May 23, 2007
7:00 p.m.
Council Chambers
I DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
II APPROVAL OF AGENDA
RECOMMENDED:
THAT the agenda as circulated by the Corporate Services Department be
approved.
III PLANNING APPLICATIONS
IV READING OFBYLAWS
RECOMMENDED:
THAT the following listed by-law be given 1st, 2nd and 3rd readings, and
enacted:
4916-07.0 BEING A BY-LAW to confirm actions B-1
by Council resulting from meeting 07-
14 on Wednesday, May 23, 2007
V ADJOURNMENT
Special Council — Public Planning Meeting No. 07-14 Page 2
Wednesday, May 23, 2007
AGENDA ITEMS
1. PL07-059 - Zoning By-law Amendment and Draft Plan pg. 1
of Condominium Applications
Stirling Cook Aurora Inc.
13777, 13795, 13815 Yonge Street and 74 Old
Bloomington Road, Lots 17, 18, 19, 20, Plan 166
Northeast corner of Yonge Street and Bloomington Road
Files D14-13-06 and D07-02-06
RECOMMENDED:
THAT report PL07-059 be received as information and that Council
determine their position with respect to the application, subject to public
comments received.
2. PL07-060 — Applications to Amend Zoning By-law and pg. 27
Draft Plan Approval of Proposed Plan of Subdivision
Victor Priestly / Claretree Developments 105 Inc.
Part of Lot 25, Concession 2, E.Y.S
Files D14-17-06 & D12-03-06
RECOMMENDED:
THAT Council determine its position respecting applications to amend the
Zoning By-law and Draft Plan of Subdivision Applications submitted by
Victor Priestly / Claretree Developments 105 Inc., Files D12-03-06 and
D14-17-06, subject to public comments received.
3. PL07-065 — Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law pg. 44
Amendment
Drive -Through Policies & By-law Provision Additions
Files D09-01-07 & D14-06-07
RECOMMENDED:
THAT report PL07-065 be received as information and that Council
determine their position with respect to the application, subject to public
comments received.
Special Council — Public Planning Meeting No. 07-14 Page 3
Wednesday, May 23, 2007
4. PL07-063 — Applications to Amend the Zoning By-law and pg. 54
Draft Plan of Subdivision
Stefano and Rose Polsinelli
14575 Bayview Avenue, Aurora
Part of Lot 16, Concession 2, E.Y.S.
Files D14-04-01 & D12-01-1A
RECOMMENDED:
THAT Council determine its position respecting applications to amend the
Zoning By-law and Draft Plan of Subdivision (Files D14-04-01 and D12-
01-01A) subject to public comments received.
PUBLIC PLANNING - MAY 23, 2007
f
AGENDA ITEM # �.
TOWN OF AURORA
PUBLIC PLANNING REPORT No. PL07-059
SUBJECT: Zoning By-law Amendment and Draft Plan of Condominium
Applications
Stirling Cook Aurora Inc.
13777, 13795, 13815 Yonge Street and 74 Old Bloomington Road
Lots 17, 18, 19, 20 Plan 166
Northeast comer of Yonge Street and Bloomington Road
File Numbers D14-13-06 and D07-02-06
FROM: Sue Seibert, Director of Planning and Development Services
DATE: May 23, 2007
RECOMMENDATION
THAT report PL07-059 be received as information and that Council determine their
position with respect to the application, subject to public comments received.
BACKGROUND
Location
The subject lands are located north of Old Bloomington Road and east of Yonge Street
(see Figure 1). The lands comprise of four (4) individual lots with a total area of 16.83
acres (6.8 hectares) having a frontage of 271.40 m (890 ft.) on Old Bloomington Road and
165.04 m (541.5 ft.) on Yonge Street. There are currently three houses located on the
subject lands.
Surrounding Uses
North: Institutional, Retirement Home;
South: Old Bloomington Road and Bloomington Road, Town of Richmond Hill lands
designated Residential;
East: Residential; and
West: Yonge Street and Provincial offices.
Official Plan
The subject lands are located in the Yonge Street South Secondary Plan (OPA 34). The
subject site is designated as "Cluster Residential' as shown Schedule "AA" -Land Use.
Policy 3.8.2 of OPA 34 also permits the subject lands to be used for minor institutional
uses. Schedule "BB" of OPA 34 identifies that the subject lands have "High/Moderate
Infiltration Potential'. Schedule "CC" -Block Plans and Entrances of OPA 34 identifies that
the subject lands are located within Block Plan C. Schedule "DW-Trails and Vistas of OPA
—1—
PUBLIC PLANNING — MAY 23, 2007
May 23, 2007 -2- Report No. PL07-059
34 identifies that the property shall have a trail located along the Yonge Street frontage.
The lands are located within the "Settlement Area" of the Oak Ridges Moraine
Conservation Plan (ORMCP) as implemented through OPA 48.
Zonina By-law
The subject lands are zoned "Estate Residential (ER) Zone", which does not permit the
proposed use on the lands. The Zoning By-law also indicated that the lands contain Key
Natural Heritage Features (KNHF) and Minimum Vegetation Protection Zone (MVPZ). (see
Figure 4)
Application Background
The applicant, Stirling Cook Aurora Inc, submitted in May 2006, a zoning by-law
amendment application and vacant land condominium application accompanied by
supporting documentation for a 33 unit single detached dwelling development on the
subject lands. (see Figure 7) This information was circulated to departments, agencies,
including the Region of York and the Toronto Region Conservation Authority (TRCA). As
required by Official Plan Amendment (OPA 34), a peer review of supporting documentation
was required, and the Town retained North -South Environmental Inc (North -South).
On November 101h, 2006, North -South provided detailed comments regarding the first
submission. In summary, the report stated that:
"there are a number of significant issues with the report (supporting
documentation), North South find it is unsatisfactory with.respect to meeting the
requirements of the Natural Heritage Evaluation, Hydrological Evaluation, or
Landform Conservation Plan, as required per the Oak Ridges Moraine
Conservation Plan. Further, the requirements of the Town's OPA 34 have not
been addressed."
As a result of the comments, prior to the second submission of supporting documentation,
Planning Staff, North -South and the applicant's consultants met on February 15t, 2007, to
discuss the major issues which were raised through the peer -review. At this meeting, it
was confirmed by the applicant's representatives, Gartner Lee Limited, that part of the
supporting documentations was in draft form, and such supporting documents, like the
Environmental Impact Study (EIS), were not final and not intended to form part of the
applicants submission requirements for this application. It was acknowledged by the
applicant's representatives at this meeting, that the new submission would address the
issues raised by North South and all departments and agencies.
On February 9th 2007, the applicant submitted a new plan consisting of a 24 unit
development with supporting documentation reflecting a 22 unit development (see Figure
8). The plan included two (2) additional units located in a Key Natural Heritage Feature
(woodlot), which did not conform to the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan (ORMCP).
Staff requested the applicant submit supporting documentation which reflected the new
proposal.
—2—
PUBLIC PLANNING — MAY 23, 2007
May 23, 2007 - 3 - Report No. PL07-059
On April 25th 2007, a third submission (addendum to the second submission) was
submitted which included a revised plan and supporting documentation reflecting the 24
unit proposal (see Figure 9).
On May 3rd, 2007, further information (addendum) including planning justification and block
plans were submitted and form part of this submission. They were circulated.
On May 9th 2007, North -South submitted a letter and detailed comments in regards to the
second and addendum submissions. This letter continued to express concerns with the
development proposal. (see appendix 1)
On May 11th, 2007, Planning Staff, North -South, TRCA and the applicant and his
consultants met to discuss the 24 unit proposal. The major issues identified by North -
South were discussed as per their letter dated May 9th, 2007. The TRCA also expressed
concerns. (see appendix 1)
On the afternoon of May 15th, 2007, the Town received a revised concept plan (see Figure
2). The Town did not receive a formal submission; therefore, this plan was not circulated
to Departments, TRCA, Region and agencies. It was however, circulated to North -South
for their preliminary review and comment. Town staff anticipate the applicant will submit a
formal submission in the near future.
Proposal
The most recent concept plan was submitted on May 151h, 2007 (see Figure 2). The
applicant has applied to the Town to develop the subject site for twenty two (22) single
detached dwelling units under condominium tenure. According to the 3.3 people per unit
(PPLI) count this development will provide for an estimated population projection of 73
persons. The applicant has proposed 3.36 units per hectare (1.36 units per acre). Twenty-
one (21) dwelling units are proposed to be located on the northerly part of the site and one
(1) is proposed to be located on the southerly part of the site. As shown on the recent
concept plan, twenty-one (21) residential dwellings are to be situated along an internal
privately owned and maintained ring road accessed from Yonge Street. A 30 m (98 ft.)
Vegetation Protection Zone buffer has been provided to the rear of Lots 12 to 21 to ensure
that the natural features of this area are preserved and maintained. This area shall be
identified as a common element block. At the centre of the residential area, the applicant
proposes to provide a 0.97 acre (0.39 hectares) open space/park area and a stormwater
management pond is proposed along the Yonge Street frontage. Both the park and the
SWM pond will be a common element block. The one (1) southerly lot is proposed to be
accessed from a cul-de-sac to be constructed in the future by the Region off of Old
Bloomington Road.
—3—
PUBLIC PLANNING — MAY 23, 2007
May 23, 2007 - 4 - Report No. PL07-059
As per the most recent concept plan, the following is a breakdown of the proposal.
Single Detached DwellingUnits
Avera a Lot Area
Avera a Lot Fronta e
22
0.12 ha (0.3 ac.)
24.73 m (26.2 ft.)
Other
Lot Area
Stormwater Management Pond
0.23 he
0.58 ac.
Road internal road only)
0.45 he
1.12 ac.
Park
0.39 he
0.97 ac.
Open Space north-west corner of site
0.13 he
0.33 ac.
30 m buffer and wood lot common element block
Z59 ha
6.39 ac.
Swale in between entrance and exit
0.02 ha
0.05 ac.
The applicant has proposed to rezone the lands from "Estate Residential (ER) Zone" to a
site specific "Detached Dwelling First Density Residential (R1-X) Exception Zone", "Open
Space (0-14) Exception Zone", "Open Space (0-9) Exception Zone" and "Open Space (0-
x) Exception Zone" (see Figure 3). The recently submitted By-law has not been reviewed
in detail by Staff. The following is a general description of the proposed zones for the site.
The "Detached Dwelling First Density Residential (R1-X) Exception Zone", permits single
detached units. The zone has site specific requirements for minimum lot frontage, lot area,
setbacks, building specifications for minimum floor areas, maximum lot coverage and
maximum height. The zone also includes minimum landscape and buffering requirements
from Yonge Street (as per OPA 34 policies), adjacent institutional lands and environmental
features. The By-law also includes requirements in regards to individual lots preserving a
minimum of 40% of the lot area (as per policies of OPA 34) in an open, landscaped or
natural condition and shall not include an area devoted to a swimming pool, accessory
buildings, paved driveway, patio or other area covered with impervious material.
The "Open Space (0-14) Exception Zone" permits private open space and conservation
(see Figure 3). There shall be no buildings or structures erected in this zone. The
permitted activities in this area shall only be for the purpose of preserving, maintaining and
or enhancing the natural environment, including conservation management practices and
approved trails.
The "Open Space (0-9) Exception Zone" permits buildings orstructures intended forfloor
or erosion control. The Stormwater Management Pond is located on these lands (see
Figure 3).
The "Open Space (0-X) Exception Zone" permits conservation and private park, including
structures accessory to a private park. This zone is located in the centre of the residential
development and will function as a private park. Lands located in the north-west corner of
—4—
PUBLIC PLANNING — MAY 23, 2007
May 23, 2007 - 5 - Report No. PL07-059
the site also are proposed to be included in this zone.
COMMENTS
Peer Review
It is a requirement within OPA 34, that a peer review of any supporting documentation be
completed. The peer -review was undertaken by North -South, who completed the
background work on OPA 34. The studies have been evaluated to ensure compliance with
the requirements of OPA 34 and OPA 48.
Oak Ridges Moraine (ORM)
The lands are located with the "Settlement Designation" of the Oak Ridges Moriane
Conservation Plan (ORMCP) implemented through OPA 48. In addition, Schedule "K' of
the OPA 48 indicates that the lands contain "Significant Woodlands - Key Natural Heritage
Features" and related "Minimum Vegetation Protection Zones". Schedule "M" indicates that
the lands have both "High Aquifer Vulnerability" and "Low Aquifer Vulnerability" areas and
Schedule "L" indicates that the lands are a "Category 1 (Complex) Landform" area.
This settlement designation permits all uses approved within the Official Plan for the
subject lands being OPA 34 (see below). However, the ORMCP policies must also be
addressed along with the policies of OPA 34 in the review of the application.
In order to address these policies, the applicant has submitted an Oak Ridges Moraine
Conservation Plan Evaluation and Environmental Impact Assessment. As noted above,
several iterations of these reports have been peer reviewed by North South who have
indicated that there are still several issues that must be addressed in order to demonstrate
compliance the ORMCP as implemented through OPA 48. Several of the major issues
pertain to the exclusive use areas of the plan extending into the Key Natural Heritage
Feature and Minimum Vegetation Protection Zones. The ORMCP as implemented by
Official Plan Amendment No. 48 indicates that "All development and site alteration is
prohibited within a key natural heritage feature or hydrologically sensitive feature and their
related minimum vegetation protection zones". The limits of the key natural features may
be refined by site specific studies as submitted by the applicant; however the peer review
consultants and Town will have to approve such refinements.
Also as noted above, the applicant has submitted a revised concept plan to include the key
natural heritage features and related minimum vegetation protection zones within a
separate block. Staff received this revised concept plan during the completion of this report
and such plan will be reviewed subsequent to the approval of the block plan.
Another significant issue related to the location of the houses on Lot 22 and 23 which were
to be located entirely within the significant woodland area. The Environmental Impact
Assessment report completed by the applicant indicates that the location of these lots is
"not in compliance with the ORMCP". The Town agrees with this assessment and is not
—5—
PUBLIC PLANNING — MAY 23, 2007
May 23 2007 - 6 - Report No. PL07-059
able to support the development of these lots. As noted above the concept plan has been
revised and the two additional lots have been removed from the plan.
There is also a natural heritage feature located to the northeast of the subject lands. It
becomes a Natural Heritage Feature since it contains butternut trees which are an
endangered species. The applicant will have to provide further details pertaining to the
endangered species (including relationship with the woodland), landform conservation,
wildlife survey and other ORMCP requirements outlined within the peer review in order for
the Town determination on compliance with the ORMCP.
Yonge Street South Secondary Plan (OPA 34)
The subject lands are within the Yonge Street South Secondary Plan (OPA 34). The
following are key sections of OPA 34 that are applicable to the subject development. The
applicant must demonstrate that they have conformed to all applicable policies of OPA 34.
The following lists the various sections of OPA 34 and how the application relates to the
policies. The actual policies are indicated in bold italics. .
Section 11 A Block Plan
The subject lands are identified in OPA 34 by Schedule "CC' as Block C (see Figure 7).
Prior to the approval of any development within a Block Plan on Schedule "CC", a Block
Plan is required as well as supporting studies. The plan is to be approved by the Town in
accordance with section 11.1. "The Town may consider the preparation of more than
one block plan for this area, provided that it is satisfied that the applicant has
demonstrated that they have met site specific requirements identified in section
11.1.4." The applicant has submitted a block plan in accordance with section 11.1 and a
scoped block plan in accordance with section 11.1.4. Staff are currently working with the
applicant to finalize the plans. At this time, they do not meet the Block Plan requirement of
OPA 34.
Section 3.6.Cluster Residential
The lands are identified on Schedule "AA" and designated "Cluster Residential" (see Figure
5). "The gross residential density average over the constrained and unconstrained
lands is less than 5 units per hectare (2 units per acre)"as required by OPA 34. The
applicant has proposed 3.36 units per hectare (1.36 units per acre) which meets the policy.
Within the Cluster Residential designation, "buildings shall not covermore than 12% of
all the lands with a Cluster Residential designation. To the greatest extentpossible,
lands with a Cluster Residential designation shall be retained in an open or natural
condition.... and shall not form part of individual lots, or similar area devoted to
exclusive use in a condominium". The applicant has submitted documentation that the
lots have been sited so that the woodlot and vegetation cover has been retained in their
PUBLIC PLANNING — MAY 23, 2007
May 23, 2007 - 7 - Report No. PL07-059
natural condition and connectively to the existing forest to the east of the site has been
preserved. A 30 m (98 ft.) vegetation protection buffer has been provided to the rear of
Lots 12 to 21 to ensure that the area is preserved (see Figure 2). The applicant has
indicated that buildings shall not cover more than 12% of the subject lands. Staff support
the creation of a common element block for these lands and the lands being rezoned to an
"Open Space (0-14) Exception Zone". Staff also suggest that a Restrictive Covenant be
placed on title. All these measures are intended to be put in place to protect the natural
area.
Within the Cluster Residential designation, "the proposal shall conform to policies that
apply to the Cluster Residential designation including the preservation of minimum
of 40% of the lot area in a landscaped and or natural condition and shall not include
any area devoted to a swimming pool, accessory buildings, paved driveway, patio or
other area covered with impervious material'. The applicant has provided supporting
documentation, which states that all lots will have a minimum of 40% of the lot area in a
landscaped or natural condition. The proposed By-law includes zone requirements which
ensure the preservation of a minimum of 40% of the lot area in a landscaped and or
natural condition. Provisions will also be included to ensure that the 40% area does not
permit swimming pools, accessory buildings, paved driveway patio or other area covered
with imperious material.
Appendix A Urban Design Guidelines
In order to preserve and enhance the existing rural character of the Yonge Street corridor
as it passes through the Plan Area, "a natural border to Yonge Street shall be
preserved and new development shall be setback a minimum of 60 m (200 ft.) from
the centreline of Yonge Street and include extensively landscaped areas which
preserve existing landscape components and where necessary include additional
areas planted with native species trees and shrubs on both municipal and private
property and respect the existing topography of the sites, to the maximum extend
possible". The proposal provides that the new development is setback 60 m (200 ft) from
the centreline of Yonge Street. As shown on the concept plan, part of the lands fronting
Yonge Street are to remain as open space and the proposed stormwater management
facility also fronts Yonge Street. These lands are required to be landscaped as approved
by the Town's Leisure Services Department.
Section 6.0 Environmental Land Use Policies
6.2.7 Ecological buffers shall be provided around each Environmental Protection
Area. The intent of ecological buffers is to provide adequate separation
between environmental areas and adjacent areas used or intended for
development. The physical extent of an ecological buffer will be based on the
environmental feature that is being protected and shall be determined during
the preparation of an Environmental Impact Study in accordance with the
provisions of s.11.2.2. Within Block F, as shown on Schedule CC Ecological
Buffers shall be a minimum of 10.0 metres in width measured from the dripline
of trees on the boundary of the Environmental Protection Area to the rear lot
—7—
PUBLIC PLANNING — MAY 23, 2007
May 23, 2007 - 8 - Report No. PL07-059
line or equivalent of the development. [OPA 38]
Two common impacts from development are the introduction of non-native
horticultural plants to native woodlands and loss of small mammals and
ground -nesting birds from predation by domestic animals. In such cases,
buffers should be wide enough to provide edge habitat for the non-native
plants and hunting territory for domestic animals. This will not eliminate the
impacts to the environmental feature, but may mitigate them to acceptable
levels.
6.2.8 Ecological Buffers will form part of the EnvironmentalArea designation which
they abut. Buffers will not form part of the development area. In accordance
with s. 3.2.3.b) of this Plan, residential densities may be transferred from the
buffer areas to other lands in the Secondary Plan area. Ecological Buffer
ownership will not be fragmented, wherever possible.
6.2.9 Ecological Buffers shall be left in a natural state and, where possible and
appropriate, augmented with native species. No development with the
exception of defined and appropriate trails and stormwater management
outlets is permitted within Ecological Buffers. Boundaries will be delineated
by a structural boundary or "living fence" of natural plant materials, to the
satisfaction of the Town.
The Environmental Impact Assessment indicates that in accordance with OPA 34 mapping
there are no Environmental Protection Areas and related ecological buffers on the subject
lands. However, the report indicates that there are Key Natural Heritage Features and
Minimum Vegetation Protection Zones on the lands which are identified through OPA 48.
One of the main purposes of the block plan and EIS, however is to identify these features
that may have not been identified within the secondary plan. The identification of the Key
Natural Heritage Features and Minimum Vegetation Protection Zones within the EIS
indicates that there are Environmental Protection Areas and related ecological buffers on
the subject lands and these must be protected in accordance with the policies of OPA 34
and 48. In addition, Environmental Protection Areas are to include areas supporting
regionally, Provincially or nationally significant plant and animal species in York Region as
designated by the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources such as the Butternut trees.
Conclusion of Peer -Review
On May 15th, 2007 North South received a revised concept plan for the Bloomington
Heights application and a Schedule "A" to the By-law 2213-78, as amended. These
documents were reviewed from the perspective of natural heritage, landform and
hydrogeology by the peer review team (Mirek Sharp, Daryl Cowell and Norbert Woerns
respectively).
The following are North -South comments presented to the Town on May 17, 2007:
"From a natural heritage perspective, the concept is greatly improved as it has eliminated
lots 23 and 24 from the significant woodland, and has removed all the proposed lots from
CLIC
PUBLIC PLANNING — MAY 23, 2007
May 23, 2007 -9- Report No. PL07-059
the Minimum Vegetation Protection Zone associated with the significant woodland. We
have the following comments on the revised Plan:
1. We assume that the Vegetation Protection Zone is a minimum of 30 m from the
Significant woodland.
2. As we noted in our comments, we accept the re -development of the house in Lot
22, but would like to see it situated such that it strikes a better balance between
protecting the kettle feature and significant woodland, and staying out of the
floodline. We recognize this cannot be addressed until TRCA respond with the
floodline information and assume it will be addressed later.
3. We note that rear of lots 9, 10 and 11 still extend into the MVPZ associated with the
Butternut, thus these three lots still do not conform to policy 22(2) of the ORMCP.
The revised plan does not address comments pertaining to landform.
With respect to hydrogeology, we note that the supporting analyses, including the water
balance and the stormwater concept, will need to be updated to reflect the revised concept.
Although this revised concept resolves some major concerns with this application, there
are still comments which need to be addressed, as outlined in our response to the third
revision dated May 9, 2007." (see appendix 1) North -South and our consultants are
prepared to work with the Town and the applicant to ensure deficiencies can be resolved
and a suitable proposal is developed.
Departmental and Agency Comments
The applications were circulated internally and externally and to date the following
comments were obtained:
Buildino Administration Department
The Building Administration Department has stated that the By-law shall include specific
definitions and elements that will protect the intent of maintaining specific percentages of
landscaped and natural areas. Furthermore, the recently submitted By-law has not been
reviewed in detail; therefore further comments will be forthcoming in this regard. The
Department also suggests that warning clauses should be included in all offers of purchase
and sale detailing site specific restrictions, which may be necessary to ensure landscaped
areas and open space remain intact. Setback restrictions are required. Other technical
issues such as drainage and building code related items will be addressed at the time of
building design.
Leisure Services Department
The Department has provided comments offering standard draft plan conditions including
the need to provide a Vegetation Preservation and Restoration plan and landscape design
plans which detail the installation of street tree planting, landscape structures, subdivision
entry features, buffer planting or any other landscape features required by Urban Design
PUBLIC PLANNING — MAY 23, 2007
May 23, 2007 - 10 - Report No. PL07-059
Guidelines of OPA 34. Also, the owner's required to provide landscape design plans and
implement landscape works on -site for the stormwater management facility in accordance
with the MOEE Stormwater Management Practices Planning and Design manual and in
accordance with Town standards.
Public Works Department
The Public Works Department has received comments from the Region of York
Transportation Department. The comments states "that the draft plan of condominium
does not conform to the requirements for the Detailed Design of the Bloomington Road
Reconstruction Project. As Part of the Bloomington Road Reconstruction scheduled for
2007, the Region requires additional property to be dedicated to the Town of Aurora for the
permanent closing of the intersection of Bloomington Road (Y.R. 40) and Old Bloomington
Road (Town of Aurora). To facilitate this closure, a cul de sac will have to be constructed at
the west termination of the realigned Old Bloomington Road. The Region has prepared
and deposited reference plans in May 2006 6513-29051 (Parts 3 and 4) to this effect. The
Plan of Condominium 19CDM-06A02 does not reflect this requirement. Please note,
should the applicant propose an alternative design and provide other lands along the
frontage of Old Bloomington Road to the satisfaction of the Region and the Town of
Aurora (for the termination of Old Bloomington Road and construction of cul de sac), only
then will the above noted lands will no longer be required. This Plan of Condominium
should not move forward until this outstanding issue is resolved." Public Works
Department will work with the applicant and the Region regarding the location of the
proposed cul-de-sac.
The Regional Municipality of York
Planning staff has not received a formal comment from the Region of York Planning
Department. Please see above, which is the most recent Transportation and Works
Department comment provided to the Public Works Department.
The Toronto and Region Conservation Authority
In their most recent comment dated May 14, 2007 (see appendix 2), the TRCA provides
the following recommendations:
1. The development proposal, as submitted, not be approved by the Town because, in
our opinion, it does not conform to the ORMCP.
2. The development proposal be modified to remove the lots/property lines within the
Key Natural Heritage Features (KNHF) and buffers in order to protect the KNHF (the
woodlot).
3. Should the municipality consider the approval of the applications, the TRCA would
request that a holding symbol be enacted with the site -specific zoning by-law
requiring the proponent to address our concerns, as identified in item 2 above.
It is noted that TRCA does not have the recently submitted concept plan
—10—
PUBLIC PLANNING — MAY 23, 2007
May 23, 2007 - 11 - Report No. PL07-059
Other
The Central York Fire Services Department, The Town of Richmond Hill, York Region
District School Board, Bell Canada and Ministry of Transportation have indicated that they
have no objection to the proposed applications.
OPTIONS
At the Public Planning Meeting, taking into consideration comments from staff and
residents, Council has the options of:
■ Approving the applications in principle, subject to the resolution of outstanding
issues;
• Resolving that these applications be brought back to a further Committee or Public
Meeting upon resolution of the major outstanding issues; or,
■ Denying the applications outright.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS
Not applicable.
LINK TO STRATEGIC PLAN
The Strategic Plan contains objectives to ensure high quality, comprehensive community
planning to protect the overall investment of citizens in the community. Critical review of
the subject application through the Zoning By-law Amendment and Draft Plan of
Condominium process will facilitate this objective.
SERVICING ALLOCATION
The subject application is ranked 4th by the Matrix for the Allocation of Servicing Capacity.
The application is for 22 units, and therefore allocation is available. If/when Council
considers approval of the draft plan; Council will have the option of allocating these units.
PROVINCIAL POLICY STATEMENT
The Provincial Policy Statement does not permit development within or adjacent to
significant woodlands unless it has been demonstrated that there will be no negative
impacts on the natural features or their ecological functions. As noted within the ORM
section of this report the concept plan has been recently revised and will have to be
reviewed before the Town can be satisfied that there will be no negative impacts on the
natural features or their ecological functions.
CONCLUSIONS
An application has been submitted for a Zoning By-law Amendment and Vacant Land
Condominium. The application has been reviewed in relationship to OPA 34 the
—11—
PUBLIC PLANNING — MAY 23, 2007
May 23, 2007 - 12 - Report No. PL07-059
Secondary Plan for the area, and OPA 48 the Town's Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation
Plan conformity Official Plan Amendment. The original application was for33 units. Itwas
amended to include 24 units, although the Environmental reports related to 22 units. Very
recently a 22 unit proposal was submitted. The reconfigured plan is intended to address
issues raised through the review of the Environmental Impact Studies, the comments of the
TRCA and staff. Staff are awaiting further supporting material in relation to the revised
concept plan to provide further comments which were unable to be presented to Council in
this report. As expressed by North -South, from a natural heritage perspective, the new
concept is greatly improved as it has eliminated lots 23 and 24 from the significant
woodland, and has removed all the proposed lots (with the exception of the lots adjacent to
the butternut trees) from the Minimum Vegetation Protection Zone associated with the
significant woodland. Notwithstanding that, there is further work in regards to the landform
conservation and hydrogeology. Staff feel that the proposal is on course to achieving the
type of residential development anticipated in Yonge Street South,
If Council are generally in support of the proposal, it is recommended that Staff report back
with the resolution of outstanding issues, as identified in this report, and those raised by
the community and others at the Public Planning Meeting.
ATTACHMENTS
Figure 1 - Location Plan
Figure 2 - Concept Plan dated May 15, 2007
Figure 3 - Proposed Zoning Map
Figure 4 - Key Natural Heritage Feature & Hydrologically Sensitive Features Map #7
Figure 5 - OPA 34-Land Use Schedule
Figure 6 = OPA 34-Block Plan Schedule
Figure 7 - Concept Plan May 3, 2006
Figure 8 - Concept Plan February 9, 2007
Figure 9 - Concept Plan April 25, 2007
Appendix 1 - North -South Environmental Inc. letter dated May 9, 2007
Appendix 2 - Toronto and Region Conservation Authority letter dated May 14, 2007
PRE -SUBMISSION REVIEW
Management Team Meeting — May 16, 2007
Prepared by: Cristina Celebre, Planner
Extension 4343
"d- L L��
S ert, M.C.I.P., R.P.P. ohn S. Rogers,
Director of Planning and Development C.A.O.
Services
-12-
I UU" I I MM I�m MAY 28, 288i
uj
T
./}
LL
�~
/
fw� �
.
0
C\l
\
/
�-
�\
2
&
5
�
)
$
/
{
-tE:
LLJ
� '� \��
\�
\
\
OA
LU
0 w
a.
4 0
OOW
10
(D
'co
3L.
i >
0 cm UJ
090
(D
-
(D
- -
P�
rk (D b od
ba. z a 0
-J D� -Z 0
Z
Z Cq
0 �-92 -
to CO
N
§ 4 Ej >-
16 o W"
(L -J D
< E: -ct
0) �q
cory
".Arm
CD
co^
a
la
s
CC
N
LN,
—ZCD E N�
N�
� -
-5 A
a
S�SONOA - --------------
...............
--------------
- ---------- ----- — A
A
ME
M
�l
W
E
LL
c
`V
cn z
z w
w r' .
w
!F
� W
09 g „
:
a`
�
ry
O
qq }lK
CS O d
N
\
, 1
N
4
C
..
�!I �
l .\ill• 1 \ t\1\.l1 \\, �., O+,
�
i
,
0.
\
Z N
w
„\\ ;Ix
a.
a.
o
Z
o0 LU
o
0 o uw
°D
zoCD
_..
W
JatjZO
0
� N
O
z4a¢
tL W
IL
a. J�Q
Qll. Q�