Loading...
AGENDA - General Committee - 20060221tiWS_ f GENERAL CO AGENDA N0.06-04 ITFEE TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 21, 2006 7:00 P.M. COUNCIL MANNERS AURORA TOWN NALL PUBLIC RELEASE 17/02/06 TOWN OF AURORA GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA NO. 06-04 Tuesday, February 21, 2006 7:00 p.m. Councillor Vrancic in the Chair. I DECLARATIONS OF PECUNIARY INTEREST H APPROVAL OF AGENDA RECOMMENDED: THAT the content of the Agenda as circulated by the Corporate Services Department be approved as presented. Ill DETERMINATION OF ITEMS REQUIRING SEPARATE DISCUSSION IV ADOPTION OF ITEMS NOT REQUIRING SEPARATE DISCUSSION V DELEGATIONS (a) Mr. Alan Dean and Ms Judy Salmon (pg. D-1) Re: Aurora Lawn Bowling Club — McMahon Park (b) North -South Environmental (pg. D-3) Re: Draft Natural Heritage Evaluation for 2C Lands (c) Mr. Allister Byrne and Ms Regina Baezner (pg. D-5) Grant Thornton Re: Item 1 — 2005 Audit Plan General Committee Meeting No. 06-04 Page 2 of 6 Tuesday, February 21, 2006 VI CONSIDERATION OF ITEMS REQUIRING SEPARATE DISCUSSION Vll OTHER BUSINESS, COUNCILLORS Vlll IN -CAMERA None IX ADJOURNMENT General Committee Meeting No. 06-04 Page 3 of 6 Tuesday, February 21, 2006 AGENDA ITEMS 1. FS06-006 — 2005 Audit Plan (pg. 1) RECOMMENDED: THAT Council accepts, as presented by Grant Thornton, the audit plan for the 2005 audit. 2. CS06-013 — 2006 Municipal Elections By-laws RECOMMENDED: (pg- 7) THAT the draft by-laws to provide for Advance Voting Days and Reduced Hours of Voting in Nursing/Retirement Homes in the forthcoming Municipal Election be approved. 3. CS06-015 — Council Pending List — Status Report (pg. 14) RECOMMENDED: THAT CS06-015 be received for information purposes. 4. PW06-005 — Approval for Supplementary Geotechnical (pg. 40) Investigation for the Proposed Retaining Walls on Bloomington Road RECOMMENDED: THAT additional funds in the amount of $13,460.00 (exclusive of GST) be allocated from the Development Charges Reserve for a supplementary geotechnical investigation for the proposed retaining walls along Bloomington Sideroad. 5. PW06-006 — Vehicle Replacement Program — Update to 2006 (pg. 50) Budget RECOMMENDED: THAT the approved 2006 Capital vehicle replacement budget be amended as described within Report PW06-006. General Committee Meeting No. 06-04 Tuesday, February 21, 2006 Page 4 of 6 6. PW06-007 — Tender Award No. PW2006-10 — Supply and (pg. 53) Operation of Street Sweepers RECOMMENDED: THAT Tender No. PW-2006-10, Supply and Operation of Four or More Contracted Street Sweepers, be awarded to A&G The Road Cleaners Ltd. at its tendered price of $32,600.00 (exclusive of GST) per year for two years with the option to renew for an additional one year period; and THAT Council authorize the Mayor and Municipal Clerk to execute the Agreement between the Town of Aurora and A&G The Road Cleaners Ltd. for the supply and operation of street sweepers. 7. PW06-010 —Waste Diversion Strategy (pg. 58) RECOMMENDED: THAT Report PW06-010 entitled "Waste Diversion Strategy" be received for information; and THAT Council authorize staff to participate with the Region of York and the other local municipalities in the Region in the development of a joint waste diversion strategy; and THAT Report PW06-010 be sent to the Environmental Advisory Committee for information and input as appropriate; and THAT the Region of York be informed of this decision. 8. PL06-020 —Application to Amend the Zoning By-law and Draft (pg. 61) Plan of Subdivision Chapman Court (Kylemore Homes) Part of Lot 80, Concession 1, E.Y.S Files D14-13-05A & D12-05-3A (Ref: D11-10-05) RECOMMENDED: THAT Report PL06-020 respecting files D14-13-05A and D12-05-03A (Kylemore Homes) be received as information and staff be instructed to prepare conditions of draft approval. General, Committee Meeting No. 06-04 Page 5 of 6 Tuesday, February 21, 2006 9. PL06-021 — Bill 51 —The Planning and Conservation Land (pg. 78) Statute Law Amendment Act RECOMMENDED: THAT the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing be advised that the Council of the Town of Aurora supports the proposals of Bill 51 and requests that consideration be given to the following: i) Additional wording be included in the legislation to ensure there is a common understanding of the phrase "sustainable development" ; and ii) Consideration for and acknowledgement that the initiatives surrounding Five Year Reviews of Official Plans to make them compliant with Provincial Policy and three year turn around to bring Zoning By-laws into conformity with the same could be an additional financial burden to municipalities; and iii) Introduction of new provisions to require that where a municipality has identified lands as part of a natural heritage system, such lands would be conveyed to the municipality at no cost. 10. PL06-022 — Request for Street Names (pg. 84) Hallgrove Estates Inc., Part of Lot 20, Concession 3 Files D12-00-2A & D14-06-00 RECOMMENDED: THAT the following list of street names be allocated to the proposed internal streets within the proposed Draft Plan of Subdivision, D12-00-2A, Hallgrove Estates Inc. ➢ Street "A" Major ➢ Street "B" Constable 11. PL06-024 — Proposed Official Plan Updates pertaining to (pg. 90) Industrial/Commercial Designations and Economic Development, File D09-03-06 RECOMMENDED: THAT Council receive as information the following overview pertaining to Official Plan Amendment D09-03-06, Industrial/Commercial policies and the addition of new Economic Development policies scheduled for the March 29th, 2006 Public Planning Meeting. General Committee Meeting No. 06-04 Page 6 of 6 Tuesday, February 21, 2006 12. PL06-025 — Planning Applications Status List (pg. 94) RECOMMENDED: THAT the Planning Applications Status List be received as information. 13. PL06-026 — Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendment (pg. 129) Applications, S&R Hardware Ltd. 289 Wellington Street East Files D09-01-05 & D14-03-05 RECOMMENDED: THAT Council approve By-law 4690-05.D, being a site specific Official Plan Amendment to the Town of Aurora Official Plan (File D09-01-05); and THAT Council approve By-law 4691-05.D, being a site specific rezoning By-law to amend the Town of Aurora Zoning By-law 2213-78, as amended (File D14-03-05). 14. CS06-002 — 2006 Corporate Staff Complement Adjustments (pg. 152) RECOMMENDED: THAT the full time staff complement adjustments for 2006 be received for information. GENERAL COMMITTEE — FEBRUARY 21, 2006 Delegation (a) AURORA LAWN BOWLING CLUB McMAHON PARK Presentation to Aurora Council February 21, 2006 FEB Sert+ices The Aurora Lawn Bowling club is the oldest sports club in Aurora. Lawn Bowling was played by Aurora residents in the late 1890's and early 1900's. Around 1900 a lawn bowling club was formed in Aurora and played on a large green to the east of the Anglican church. In 1912, a lawn bowling and tennis club was formed in connection with Trinity church. This is the earliest recorded reference the Aurora Lawn Bowling Club. In 1930, an application to use McMahon Park was made on behalf of the Aurora Lawn Bowling Club and a green was constructed at that location. A log building was moved from Pefferlaw and re assembled in McMahon Park in 1934 for the use of the lawn bowlers. In 1973 a new clubhouse for lawn bowling and tennis was constructed at McMahon Park by the Town of Aurora with a financial contribution from the Lions Club of Aurora. The original log building was moved to Sheppard.s Bush in 1974, where it remains to this day. Our Club has always been very competitive and successful as witnessed by the many banners and trophies on display at our clubhouse. However, in the past year a sad reality has introduced itself. We have always been self sufficient in that we maintain our own greens, surrounding gardens and clubhouse. The Town contributes to our upkeep with fertilization, weed control and "coring" in the Fall. The past few years of limited rainfall, water restrictions and a temperamental irrigation system has led to a serious deterioration of the green. This has been compounded by a loss of our green's experts who have moved out of the district, retired from the sport or joined other clubs. We now find ourselves at that awkward age, caught between an older membership who have provided excellent service for many years and a younger population who are working full time. Last year saw our members, Stan Farmer, Cyril Jackson, Bev White and Carl Cooper, all gentlemen in the 75 age range, labour 3 - 4 times a week to groom the grass for club activities and tournaments. We also employed a private individual to help with the grass cutting on a regular basis. D-1' GENERAL COMMITTEE — FEBRUARY 21, 2006 So we find ourselves looking at the coming new season and at a crossroads. Without the additional support of the parks and recreational services we may be forced to accept reality and ask the Newmarket Club to absorb our membership, currently at 53 members. However, before we raise the surrender flag, we did a little research. We contacted the 14 clubs which comprise our district as to the amount of support and maintenance they receive from their municipalities. The results varied widely and are as follows: - Five clubs, Aurora, Beeton, Midland, Stayner and Uxbridge maintain their own greens with the towns' providing the services which must be licensed. Four clubs, Collingwood, Georgina, Markham and Newmarket receive Cadillac service with the town accepting total responsibility. Barrie relocated their club to a dome, therefore no maintenance. Stouffville subsidizes their club at $5000 per year. Richmond Hill is privately owned. Midland is a large club with a 100 plus membership and pays greens experts $6000 per year for maintenance. Orillia could not be contacted and we can only assume that they have relocated to Florida for the winter. Our purpose here tonight is to make you aware of our situation. We realize that we are not a glamour club but today's seniors are enjoying a much more active lifestyle than previous generations. Lawn bowling provides gentle physical exercise. Although when You have spent 7 hours playing 3 fourteen end games in 30 degree plus temperatures, the gentle adjective is debatable. Lawn bowling also provides a wonderful social opportunity to meet like minded individuals in the spirit of competition and friendship. Please help us to continue to enjoy our time in the sun and on the green. Thank you for your attention. Respectfully, President Alan Dean Secretary Judy Salmon Elm GENERAL COMMITTEE — FEBRUARY 21, 2006 Delegation (b) Memo To: Bob Panizza Karen Ewart From:Jim Kyle, Manager of Policy Planning Date: February 15, 2006 Re: 2C Natural Heritage Evaluation Please add North - South Environmental as a delegation for the February 21, 2006 General Committee meeting. North - South Environmental will be presenting the draft Natural Heritage Evaluation for the 2C lands. In addition there will be a public open house prior to the meeting in the Leksand room from 6:00 to 7:00 pm. A copy of the notice for these meeting is attached. Would you please ensure that all Council members receive a copy of the attached notice. Please contact me if you have any questions or require further information. Yours truly, Jim Kyle, M.C.I.P, R.P.P. Manager of Policy Planning Attach: Open House Notice SAPIanning000 GeneraN=2c bob memo.doc • Page 1 D - 3 GENERAL COMMITTEE — FEBRUARY 21, 2006 uRo RILA NOTICE OF OPEN HOUSE NATURAL HERITAGE (ENVIRONMENTAL) STUDY NORTH-EAST AURORA PLANNING AREA 2C FEBRUARY 21, 2006 - 6:00 to 7:00 P.M. IN THE LEKSAND ROOM (TOWN HALL) FOLLOWED BY PRESENTATION TO GENERAL COMMITTEE AT 7:00 IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS RESIDENTS AND LANDOWNERS ARE ENCOURAGED TO ATTEND an Open House on February 21, 2006 from 6:00 to 7:00 p.m. in the Aurora Town Hall, Leksand Room at 1 Municipal Drive (off of John West Way) to review and provide comments on the Draft Natural Heritage Evaluation completed by a consulting team lead by North - South Environmental Inc, North - South Environmental will also make a formal presentation to the General Committee at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers. The Town of Aurora retained North - South Environmental to complete a Natural Heritage Study for lands known as the 2C Planning Area. The purpose of the study is as follows: • Identify, map and inventory the natural heritage (environmental) features of the area; • Analyze features and functions of the area and provide direction for maintaining the features and functions; • Provide policy direction to implement the findings of the study that could be incorporated into a Secondary Plan. The purpose of this Public Open House and presentation is to: 1. provide an overview and update of the project; 2. provide a summary of the draft Natural Heritage Evaluation; and 3. seek input from the public on the study (Comments are requested by March 3, 2006). ADDITIONAL INFORMATION relating to Natural Heritage Study will be available for Inspection between 8:30 a.m. and 4:30 p.m, on weekdays at the Town Hall located at 1 Municipal Drive. In addition copies of all the background and draft reports are available on the Town web site within the "What's New" section at www.e-aurora.ca. If you wish to be notified of further consideration of the Natural Heritage Study you can make a written request to Sue Seibert, Town of Aurora, 1 Municipal Drive, Aurora Ontario, L4G 6J1 or fill in a notice sheet at the Open House. Dated: January 23, 2006 Sue Seibert, Director of Planning Town of Aurora 1 Municipal Drive, Aurora, Ontario, L4G 6A Tel: 905-727-1375 Direct inquiries to Jim Kyle, Manager of Policy Planning at ext. 4345. • TOWN -OF NEWNAAKLI'T 40 N %;;,.isiy;•,r:,i::,.•:.;•::;q,::i;+r.::;•:.;;: ;; sy :,•l;".2(7;ir:ij'�:;! �G�•ri.fi:'•a�•Yti:::;.:;v::�.i. :j,'; ;i4:i1:;'':('>i�t^i::� I. /, •::>>.S,fi;;J,OFiN';5+. SIDEROAD:': LU LZ WELLINGTON•••STREET EAST u E+ 0 600 1,200 1 1 1 40 H Metres D-4 GENERAL COMMITTEE - FEBRUARY 21, 2006 Panizza, Bob From: Gutteridge, John Sent: Monday, January 23, 2006 9:14 PM To: Panizza, Bob; Ewart, Karen Cc: Rogers, John Subject: Audit Committee Delegation (c) Met with the auditor last week and they would like to meet with council in February to discuss audit issues and I would like to arrange and audit committee meeting for February 21, 2006. Please make a note of this and if it causes any problems please advise. Thanks 1/26/2006 D - 5 GENERAL COMMITTEE — FEBRUARY 21, 2006 TOWN OF AURORA GENERAL COMMITTEE REPORT SUBJECT: 2006 AUDIT PLAN FROM: L. John Gutteridge, Director of Finance/Treasurer DATE: February 21, 2006 RECOMMENDATIONS No. FS06-006 THAT Council accepts, as presented by Grant Thornton, the audit plan for the 2005 audit. BACKGROUND In accordance with the "Terms of Reference of the Town of Aurora Audit Committee", a copy of which is attached hereto, it states that the Audit Committee should "review the audit plan and audit fee schedule for the ensuing year end." To this end, we have invited Mr. Allister Byrne and Ms. Regina Baezner of Grant Thornton, our Auditing firm, to discuss the plan and fees for the ensuing audit. COMMENTS N/A OPTIONS N/A FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS The current budget for external auditor's for the Town portion for 2005 is $50,000 and for the Library's portion is $5,000. This estimate was based upon our fee estimate of the work done in 2004 for the 2003 audit, which, had an estimated fee for the Town of $34,000 and for the Library $4,000. These fees, factor in the problems we had in the past couple of years and the expectations that our audit will be more involved due to these problems. —1— GENERAL COMMITTEE - FEBRUARY 21, 2006 February 21st, 2006 - 2 - Report No. FS06-006 CONCLUSIONS N/A LINK TO STRATEGIC PLAN 1. Maintaining a well managed and fiscally responsible municipality. 5. Promoting open, accountable, transparent and accessible municipal government. ATTACHMENTS Schedule "A" Terms of Reference, Town of Aurora Audit Committee PRE -SUBMISSION REVIEW Management Team Meeting — Wednesday, February 15th, 2006. Prepared by. L. John Gutteridge, ext. 4111 of Finance/Treasurer -2- GENERAL COMMITTEE — FEBRUARY 21, 2006 Terms of Reference Town of Aurora Audit Committee SCHEDULE "A" Purpose: -To provide oversight responsibilities for the Town of Aurora's: * financial reporting processes; * overall guidance and direction to the CAO and Management related to the Town's system(s) of internal control; * internal and external audit processes; and, * processes for monitoring compliance with laws and regulations (applicable law), the Code of Conduct and the Conflict of Interest Policy Statement; Authority: - The Audit Committee is empowered to: * recommend the appointment, dismissal and compensation of the Town's external auditors; * oversee the work of the internal and external auditors of the Town; * resolve any disagreements between management and the auditor(s) regarding financial reporting; * retain independent counsel, accountants or others to advise the Committee or assist in the conduct of an investigation; * seek any information the Committee requires from Management, employees and/or agents of the Municipality; * meet with the Town's management team, external auditors, or outside legal counsel, as required, independently or together; * review and recommend for approval audit fee billings in excess of the approved budget for the completed audit of the period year; and * review the audit plan and audit fee schedule for the ensuing year end. —3— GENERAL COMMITTEE — FEBRUARY 21, 2006 Composition: * The Audit Committee is comprised of all Members of Council ( General Committee ) and reports directly to the Council of the Town of Aurora. Meetings: * the Audit Committee will shall meet at minimum two times per year with authority to convene additional meetings, as circumstances require; * meetings of the Audit Committee will be open to the public subject to exceptions pursuant to Sec.239 (2) of the Municipal Act,2001; * the Committee will invite members of management, auditors and/or others to attend meetings and provide pertinent information, as necessary; * meeting agendas will be prepared and provided in advance to members, along with appropriate briefing materials; and * minutes will be prepared. Financial Statements * review significant accounting and reporting issues, including complex or unusual transactions and highly judgemental areas, recent professional and regulatory pronouncements, and understand their impact on financial statements; * review with management and the external auditors the results of the audit, including any difficulties encountered; * review and receive the annual financial statements with management, and consider whether they are complete, consistent with information known to Committee members, and reflect appropriate accounting principles; * recommend to Town Council the approval of the annual financial statements; and * review with management and external auditors all matters required to be communicated to the Committee under Generally Accepted Auditing Standards. —4— GENERAL COMMITTEE — FEBRUARY 21, 2006, Internal Control * consider the effectiveness of the Town's internal control system(s), including information technology security and control; * understand the scope of internal and external auditor's review of internal control and obtain reports on significant findings and recommendations, together with Management's responses and the timing of the disposition of significant findings; and * review the external auditor's Management Letter (if any) together with Management's responses. External Audit * review the external auditor's proposed audit scope and approach; * subject to Sec,296 of the Municipal Act,2001 to review the performance of the external auditors, and recommend to Town Council the appointment or discharge of the auditors; * review and confirm the independence of the external auditors by obtaining statements from the auditors on relationships between the auditors and the Town of Aurora, including non -audit services, and discussing the relationship with the auditors; and * review the audit plan and audit fees for the ensuing year end. Internal Audit * review the Town's control processes and systems to ensure compliance with Town's policies, laws and regulations which impact operations and reports; * 5review policies used to safeguard corporate assets and verify the existence of these assets; and * review the efficiency and effectiveness of the utilization of the Town's resources on programs and projects. —5— GENERAL COMMITTEE — FEBRUARY 21, 2006 Compliance * review the effectiveness of the system(s) for monitoring compliance with laws and regulations and the results of Management's investigation and follow-up ( including disciplinary action) of any instances of non-compliance; * review the findings of any examinations by regulatory agencies, and any auditor observations; *review the process for the communication of the Code of Conduct and Conflict of Interest Policy Statement to Town personnel, and for monitoring compliance therewith; and *obtain regular updates from Management and the municipality's legal counsel regarding compliance matters. Reporting Responsibilities * report to the Town Council about Audit Committee activities, issues and related recommendations; *provide an open avenue of communication between the external auditors and Town Council; and * review any other reports the Municipality issues that relate to Audit Committee responsibilities. Other Responsibilities * perform other activities related to these Terms of Reference as requested by Town Council; * institute and oversee special investigations as required; and * review and asses the adequacy of the Audit Committee Terms of Reference annually, requesting Council approval for proposed changes and ensure appropriate disclosure as may be required by law or regulation. 0M. GENERAL COMMITTEE — FEBRUARY 21, 2006 AGENDA ITEM # 'TOWN OF AURORA GENERAL COMMITTEE REPORT SUBJECT: 2006 Municipal Elections By-laws FROM: Bob Panizza, Director of Corporate Services/Town Clerk DATE: February 21, 2006 RECOMMENDATIONS No. CS06-013 THAT the draft by-laws to provide for Advance Voting Days and Reduced Hours of Voting in Nursing/Retirement Homes in the forthcoming Municipal Election be approved. BACKGROUND Advance Voting Days The Municipal Elections Act provides for the enactment of by-laws governing specific components of the election. For example, the Town must enact a by-law in order to establish the dates, times, and locations of all Advance Voting Days. In 2003 the number of voting days was set at five; one compulsory date and four additional advance voting days. For the 2006 elections it is recommended that this schedule be modified in order to provide for two additional advance voting days thereby giving the maximum flexibility for people to vote that may not be able to attend on the regular election day of November 13. The two additional dates of October 28 & 29 will also provide an opportunity for those that are planning to head south for the winter thereby reducing the need for Proxy Voting applications. It is therefore proposed that the following dates and locations be established for the 2006 Municipal Elections Advance Voting. 13ATa TIME L�kCAI ION . Sat Oct 28, 2006 10 00 a.m. to 5 00 p.m. Seniors Centre Sun Oot 29;`2006 m, , Seniors Centre- Sat. Nov. 4, 2006 10 00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. xN Seniors Centre SUS„Nov ,5, Z006 I,'2 00 p to to 5 {00 p pS Senirs Cenfre, Mon. Nov. 6, 2006 4:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m. Seniors Centre Tiae's; 7„2006 00 p rru tQ B Ot)`p,m,., r Seniors Centre ,Nov. Wed. Nov. 8, 2008 4:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m. Seniors Centre —7— GENERAL COMMITTEE — FEBRUARY 21, 2006 February 21, 2006 - 2 - Report No. CS06-012 Reduced Voting Hours in Nursing Homes Although the normal voting hours on Election Day November 13, 2006 will remain at the traditional time of 10:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m., the Act permits reduced hours of voting for nursing homes and retirement homes. From a staff perspective, reduced hours of voting for the two nursing homes (Willow Estate, Aurora Resthaven) is recommended for the forthcoming elections as set out below. The proposed reduced hours of voting is based upon typical voting patterns and the number of persons voting at these locations, and is consistent with the hours that were provided in 2006. 1 Willows Estate Nursing Home 10 00 a.m. to 12 noon Aurora,Resth u.01;W4s[ng �irome 2 UO p `m to 90.p'm deks� n ._ P k 3 Sunrise Retirement Centre 200 p.m. to 5:00 p.m. _..... COMMENTS As indicated in this report, the recommended actions are designed to ensure consistency with the election process as well as compliance with the legislation. The above referenced election requirements are being presented for Council's action so that staff may proceed with the necessary election preparations and time frames during the upcoming summer months. OPTIONS The implementation of the proposed by-laws are required by legislation and will ultimately facilitate the efficiencies and effectiveness associated with municipal election process as it pertains to the advance voting and reduced hours of voting in nursing/retirement homes. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS Costs associated with the municipal elections have been budgeted as part of the 2006 Corporate Services budget. GENERAL COMMITTEE — FEBRUARY 21, 2006 February 21, 2006 - 3 - Report No. CS06-012 LINK TO STRATEGIC PLAN Goal A of the Strategic Plan addresses the provision of services in orderto maintain a well managed and fiscally responsible municipality. ATTACHMENTS Appendix #1 — Draft by-law for Advance Voting Appendix #2 — Draft by-law for Reduced Hours of Voting PRE -SUBMISSION REVIEW Reviewed by Management Team — February 15, 2006 Prepared by: Bob Panizza ext. 4221 Director of Corporate Services GENERAL COMMITTEE - FEBRUARY 21, 2006 THE CORPORATION OF THE TOWN OFAURORA APPENDIX #1 By-law Number XXXX-06.A BEING A BY-LAW to provide for advance voting prior to Voting Day in the Town of Aurora. WHEREAS Section 43 (1 ) of the Municipal Elections Act, S.O. 1996, as amended provides that the Council of a local municipality shall pass a by-law establishing one or more dates foran advance vote, and the hours during which voting places shall be open on that date or dates; NOW THEREFORE THE MUNICIPAL COUNCIL OF THE CORPORATION OF THE TOWN OF AURORA ENACTS AS FOLLOWS: 1. THAT advance votes shall be held on the dates and time and place as set out in Schedule "A" to this By-law. 2. THAT Schedule "A" attached hereto shall form part of this By-law. 3. THAT By-law 4442-03.A is hereby repealed READ A FIRST AND SECOND TIME THIS DAY OF 2006 READ A THIRD TIME AND FINALLY PASSED THIS DAY OF 2006 T. JONES, MAYOR B. PANIZZA, TOWN CLERK -10- GENERAL COMMITTEE - FEBRUARY 21, 2006 By-law No. XXXX•06.A Page 2 Schedule "A" to By-law XXXX-06.A Advance Voting Prior to Voting Day Town of Aurora Sat. Oct. 28, 2006 10:00 a.m. to 5:00 P.M. Seniors Centre Nov. 4, 2006 10:00 a.m. to 8:00 P.M. Seniors Centre Nov. 6, 2006 4:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m. Seniors Centre Noi% �i 1Q06; k t 4 0"0 m tts $�b0.p mt en1©4r1 Centrt Nov. 8, 2006 4:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m. Seniors Centre -11- GENERAL COMMITTEE - FEBRUARY 21, 2006 THE CORPORATION OF THE TOWN OF AURORA APPENDIX #2 By-law Number XXXX-06.A BEING A BY-LAW to provide for reduced hours of voting in nursing and retirement homes. WHEREAS Section 46 (3) of the Municipal Elections Act, S.O. 1996, as amended provides that the Council of a local municipality may pass a by-law with respect to reduced voting hours in voting places in retirement homes or those institutions as defined in Section 45 (7) of the said Act, where the voting place is only forthe use of the residents; NOW THEREFORE THE MUNICIPAL COUNCIL OF THE CORPORATION OF THE TOWN OF AURORA ENACTS AS FOLLOWS: 1. THAT those voting places as shown in Schedule "A" attached hereto, shall be open for those hours as detailed in the same schedule. 2. THAT Schedule "A" attached hereto shall form part of this By-law. 3. THAT By-law 4443-03.A is hereby repealed READ A FIRST AND SECOND TIME THIS DAY OF, 2006 READ A THIRD TIME AND FINALLY PASSED THIS DAY OF, 2006 T. JONES, MAYOR PANIZZA, TOWN CLERK -12- GENERAL COMMITTEE - FEBRUARY 21, 2006 By-law No. XXXX-06.A Schedule "A" to By-law XXXX-06.A Reduced Hours for Voting in Retirement/Nursing Homes in the Town of Aurora Page 2 Voting Place # Voting Location Time 1 Willow Estate Nursing Home 10:00 a.m. to 12 noon 2 Aurora Resthaven Nursing Home 2:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m. 3 Sunrise Retirement Centre 2:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m. -13- GENERAL COMMITTEE — FEBRUARY 21, 2006 ------ A ENDA ITEM # 3 TOWN OF AURORA GENERAL COMMITTEE REPORT No. CS06-015 SUBJECT: Council Pending List- Status Report FROM: Bob Panizza, Director of Corporate Services DATE: February 21, 2006 RECOMMENDATION THAT CS06-015 be received for information purposes. BACKGROUND Attached is a list of pending matters from Council. The list supersedes the January Pending List and is intended for information purposes. The text in bold and italics represents changes in status since the last distribution. COMMENTS All outstanding matters originating from or referred to an advisory committee are identified in a separate pending list. The advisory committee pending lists are circulated with the respective advisory committee agenda for consideration. OPTIONS None FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS None CONCLUSIONS None —14— GENERAL COMMITTEE - FEBRUARY 21, 2006 February 21, 2006 - 2 - Report No. CS06-015 LINK TO STRATEGIC PLAN Goal A: Maintaining a well managed and fiscally responsible municipality Goal E: To promote accessible municipal government ATTACHMENTS Attachment 1 - Council Pending List PRE -SUBMISSION REVIEW Director of Corporate Services - February 16, 2006 Prepared by. Karen Ewart, Administrative Co-ordinator/Deputy Clerk ext. 4222 hL Bob Panizza Director of Corporate Services -15- NERA t ITT E - FEBRUARY 62t U ` \\ ; )�\ �W \}/\ ca $Gtf LU \ \ U u ■ # u , \ 0 \ \ 0 ® a <_ , _ /) \} 2 �� § \ § u < \� - {jj z )( z /(G } a)0 a)Cc -- _ \t� - }/ g �0 k kƒ2 \u )C 2 \ /(}) �J }) _ ,.2 ) �]®\ / }\ \200 m5 c 0 \\ \ )tZk \j\ )\ $) / \]®_ £ ca \0 \\\c \\/E \\� )\ o- og ozi0 o=!B o=! 8 % § k \ §@ \%\ \ \ \ kw 3 - §j _LO \k ) a/ )) §/ .} ¥3 ATTACHMENT - 1 / SAROM 0 z z a ENERAL.Ko MMITTEE - FEBR Afc) 21, 2006 oz o a Ow. d v d a, Q a w LU cn z W m O as a W G D UL) _ N Y O d Q c C o N O Ci N n 3 U 0 � a z Q U O w O U Q J U z D 0 U C X T N N N N o c f6 '0 2� m N 3 m Z y m Co• L_ ` C N C N 3r= 4 o c C - c a),c ��t c Ntt] � � m c wz 3w a 3: m b '� o -N Cl) ��•w' 3 a) ID 0 0 6 3 o a m d o, c ' waO � cD 0i w E � m c N .0 N N .0 O '6 � v.- a.• v t m V 0 L 'U j .L.. C 0 0 0 �'' O W -O — N L❑ N• � rnm O `O 0 'oa �"` w= "' � w N U C� N •-mw a U Gq 00O) L N N E N M N wy w N G N U O 0 C N N N F- n'-dam68 C) -aom 3�kGp N �ooa �o m m v E =a) � 9 a"c o w 2 c0 No a U . o E � o E anD 'm ma c U � Q �-0 0rno_�mo O o o E g w c `0 4 T 00c 0 0)(D o > E a o Vaoi Uo> V OE 3oNUm o o0 o aC�jMG> O° y 3 , m a) L E c N 3 `So O N N �i (O C � L> 0 0- d) N c u O a m ° N G 0 o m y° m 0 .r O7 (0 0 O) (6 v O 'O O w U U LL L Q E U N a c r E S w U c w w O N CD N N N N w 0 w� m M m I m m O 2 O O O CD z W ,n o 0 LO 0 F F Q o cc o M co w wo m (D LL cG 7 Q a v 0 W 6 A ENERA § ITTEE - F BRUARY 2, 2006 % $ � / � !%) w CL / LU I a) §[ / \ � A <c = - - z �) § ) g \ `) ) )\ 7 )/{)}7]\\ /|I/ ({§/\/\ -�I] G ƒ�/f) )/; «\ \\)))\]\) )2\\ k\t/ $©_\)#¥ fa[®22 « ! !,¥ -»5 ka) )00 - 2 \ m m -a \\/27la u }A=) f ;�g ®e .\08) ± ( k`-J7f2 Bk\§\�)§§k (]\/ \;§\$ S&ea \ m ;://-2) \_;2G»7/p® $f/} \»§£« f Je{�®#* /2&E. »\/`\ ®{k\gym ) j/0)- ) _ m -°if) - k§/)7�7\\a \CO k)7\D )/)\ƒ\® (e,a dk|«§7f//{ GG§o/ G]#§E e�/ /e p:g \� / a)\(D }a) E\§ / *mo ]u §j \ \ \ 2 # A MUM- NERA kL L M$$TE E - FEBRURr 2, «oo§ �� \ \ \ ( / ƒ( A»a R w . M\-C § CO {/ \ w 2 ■ \w U / \f ) _ ; E/ _ ƒ /A z g \ ) CL 0 \� ) } § /( § -cu_0 0 §/)*®) \\)\j\� $ \)\�) ® -sE\°) /2(@ Z*§\7- ) /§$�/ /) _t)`ee¥ 2 \\4})2®f =a (DC § �- k§L) )oEm 2 = )^9\\ W, I w _ e miem&eye/. _ `a m _ g0kk{a) _ £i({2\ / t2QE \\ >\$$3/=\/ +§,@�Ra \ G2E ) )=2 /g7f/f2;- _ -¥f/ 0 ))k\k# ) \�2)-§\/�)]\§ §)\)/ )k \mcna)0 §® »%)Mm2 /%G3|@ Gk G23:22 §{ /)§.(E/@ /e F- . © Sk %k CL /k $k LO a)ƒ� , \) 2 \{ƒ Ae .§e / ane w w .e iw g \ \ /k \ > A 0 } } } \ § / ENERAo MMITT E- 21, 2006 mFEBRUARY ° e X u W Qo c W N Z W OF Lo c in o 0 VI N Z 7 Z o LLI a) 3 a) O m U C7 Z N O p Q `o J � U m Z o U Z) 0 U U m a m 0A O Lo m C C �. N a) a) ""' a) m O ° m N c C 0— N a)= la °' U o L 9 :S 'vomc d m o m(D w Y „L c c o° L( d ao=a docw t c @ oo E CO m� Q) c y o Z O � O� m N C O o m O_ B C D Ili) y '> M X V Z E �. O]�.m U W o c L L m a) o O OO' m a`) CO o M c m U) d0 c o ° oL,-O�Emc a)°°" �rnLom w m m U aU = a)•u m m= 3 o'c 6�F oa a° u a w OC W -� ° o 9U mtn w 3 � d f c a°) o- 3w-L n"C� 2 a `mc o v 0) o �.Lm.=v X. na= o_M 3 >mom3Em a) ° F- Qin my -° a) m wm c�.m°= � c"a r�Esvc m ci000 j mcZo O 4) m d O E E c O O � d m w C a) m E a) c) w m U m a O Z' N w N C7 L° c a L 0 mw o m m O� N a m C m 2 o M m '._. `o a 3 a) o o a O,r, � a) c m �U c `ow o 3� E ❑ o c o ca `w m c E '� ai u! ° `' ~ E N m '� rn•m •� '� m m °' o m m e C O N m'o C— a) N L a) m �mO33rcw.'3cca-°c C voi ry U om U�Q C—) LEw u m �(D U wd'-j n C) 0 a)E�oUdd C) :EE0o E E W IJ- F- F- W w w CD N N C� N U C n. in C C p C ._ LO Lij m m > m N L a) a)Z °_ 00 O _ O O 6 Z W F- o LO 0 o 0 W Q W N cM W > > > U Z Z Z a v 0 47 W C a iENERAO MMIT R E� 16A YM21, 2006 LUp Npa'tgm2c p O w ��a3w;�ci o y W N 0 co (L ^ M LU Z O CL = >° m I Up Q � > O >ow O. -iy 0co c o Z `O d O$ m } V b U � 12 j w a w of L Y y;, p U B vIm OQ�R �m aC c N O y= d v z ci a E °>¢V : �C4 GO). ro 3 O m m M w0. O O a 3 4d Bros a d d� i 3� > d"' rn c O O C J '= -,c Jz W Z Y mVtc S-C a�yiOO.O m'mOc c u a O A. t a d N m cOi w ,C w d a• > y a N ro >: O ,p a_ a� O N W m N 3 c a y N GVf 'mO a0.. tf , O O• to y C m .O co�sc°idu 3 E am p �N y �=�ayi►owmdCl) ic '� m V U'a 3W O'a>i �omm �� �'= 0 c�c uw � =..3' m." LYU r4 Utw� O ow''O UCE to „o fn UUU7 V F I— o a m P: c `O '� O c Y 0 yy y I—' x m N C a 2 2 y p D O v N U= O 0 2 U c0 ca m O Z U E N t N N U Z W o 0 o to c o W Q �N a^. n W 0 O i. 0 w W C FmVlG ENERAL MMITTEE - F oz wa w w it w zw a¢ we w w zF O� �= w Q� o U z � O 2 O Q d J U i w z z Z) O U w_ Z cOi C C G NC O a) (n z W N d N C G Ix ao=4E.`6G to L C R m U y w O of w a.E mL d i G W m O U) j CG1 C CyJ CL Utq u c 3 Qe W IJ- I- FU W �m y O D e W O C m L d L w O '^ V Zw o F S" M w C BRUARY 21, 2006 -22- GEN k k § k 0 S EUL (LM TEE - FEBRu RY 2, 2006 oz 0c u K K /2E - �£. 0 w \ V) > z ■ cm 3 [ ui A A \� - / o o o / / a)) ) ) \ a{ ) ) !2 CL 2 | G 2§ §2 \,\ ee3 \ j\_j§\ )\/_ _ \ CU \ \%p \\\k ) ( k ] )\ )C) \ -\)\G q 7 0 E ) / { \ / \ .j /0 a)CDC \ CL `LU - � \ \ CD 2 ,! / k 0 § [k a) § » }\ 0 \ \ -L {\\ °° U\# 7§t% ; _ 0 ) ) f J § ± ( # E E! /\em § \§e g= w \ / o§ §)k LO < < o d/ <i Cl) 0 § / } \§ \ / <.)\ a *_ *�E�o �o CD \ ( \ � ~ / ~ ~ / 0LU =cli o < ) ] \ S / z ■ ENERA ± ITTEE - FEBRUARY 2, 2006 oz 1 'a a. \�a /LU kJ(Lu . \ IL Lu � _ § §[ Lij \� . / 0 �A§ ) \ { § ® [ �\ NCO \ {t �)mk ) ])/ ■ �g k|\ \ E & x}£ol i Gm\;! 7 § 2 | % 3 z - CL w \ � { k < LLI 0ui S� ! 0 ( /\/ §a \ )°\ | u \/ 0 Cc ƒ ) )$ !A § co§ f 5 ° t\#k ee #§ !cz (§ \( \ -m j]\ k}22 % �0 72Io (�&� \(\[ ��jk� �� \£\\ 3§72 .]) \ eon= #G�a a �d\ƒ w # \j( to go \ \ § 0Lc 0 cz ; . GE ERAL C,QRPITTEE - 0z w0 a IL fA rW w zW 00Q wo w z 0 �- E- a UW Q0 z 0 r of c Q v m z z w U w a -w-, m D W t- �U W m CL wN J () UZW F OW U2 FEBRUARY 21, 2006 -25- N O 0 s pc P GP \ ERAL "MITTEE - FEB�ARY t 200§ o z 2 0-0 -0 a m \j]\= 2 2 (a k�k )()a f\ �U ) «32 !!ae )21)\ «Q, § ¥ zu m to (0 § 2 § ® { ) \ ■ ] k ] ] k ] \ (§ Ca a)2 m 2 m [\ §) CL E) J) GA /A dA 3/ 3A o 0 _ 2�E �� k, • { § /`\- - , o { ( \\ ) $2 7 \w< \} ))ca$ \0 \ a&50 «9 [!2< \\ J2 A co a)j ? §R A_ {/ ( ) \ \ } ) 0 a ± - - ° < § R \ - {2 t §) LL f) \ § « /9/ ) - § » . z )\} § (- ee e2 )222 ^e® a!) /)» ��®� e� ,K4/ 0 0 }j \u\\ \\ °6 \a) \o 0 ƒ~ % )) !ea §(}7 ). =!+o <z=o 3o :\ A2 2)9 - k coN w a a a w L6in 8 \LU \ j ~ ~ ~ ou= , > 0 \ z z 3 3 5 \ § / ■ ENERA M W ITTEE - FEBR AO0B � 221 Z \ 0 ±� )§e$ °;\]q\k§ \�(iz ( k§ek�§)® O -\[�)§,f, £«qa(Lmuk0 AskcxeQ« © CL ¥ \ w� §[ ( � [) %] GA G� oa aa� �\ ) k z / ��2 k�% )( n ■ a.. t% a)$�4 /§! @Aa £, \ CL z ■ \ Lu- ) \ / \ k § co k £ 0 ^\\ ( « &« ± jui § /� \) Q\ e V4 � ¥ \j( } ( 0LU ; 02 § § \ \ } \ \ ) / NERA - FEBRUA Y 21, 2006 o&MIIITTEE y ui zW CL wo w z 0a w m Qp o� U vi pU a o•- m:4, N N z 0 .0 F °"a 1p W� •�,Nr tp N \ Q w U O O N •C Q w\ N d 0 LL 2 V o_ C O U o 0 d N •y � z po a h W F =Q p Wto 00 Q d m N oU w o U c ° U w E � , c p, @ w w c Ul 5 y J _ h O F i U c V Lu �OQ U J (� U z W 10 z p Z) W ¢ M M OWE _ U2 LO GEC EU L §gM TT E - FEBRUA Y 2, 2006 j I (n (D § � a) w § L . L \ U . � § § ( E � ��- e 2 2 @ 2] {/y § ± 0 ©f 6 , §a« a\ \ �� k0 E 0 j�m k /( \ \� \// \ \\\ \\N\ »n 0 - \% wo -� - ] )& WR §)) j2 zg ))M \aAk \ �= y) _ (a m E2 eo j/ ) \/ < k p } \� \« 2 9 e LD22 -a \ Ea)- . �A) \§ // \ 7 / / 2ga ,a) c m IL0 2( z0 A0 §-00 § \J! ) .c IE- 'CL 2e § )W ,E 9\k C# § \\\ \j\ }\ \)< \\ §a) 0 xe§ e44 ..] §+o J«I £, § �f 5 P: q A /§ )k0 % / rc gL \ Eo{ , �/ E E 1 E E/ E 4G §3< / / Q a 2U- -0 �m /\ \ ( ® cq ' ' ~CD § \ } owe § G k § ƒ d 6 3 z ; ENERALLMOIVMITTEE - Oz a ow. w w w w zw a¢ wo w a w Q z O U Q m tZ w w p o a U F w I dam= `�a fq l y r NN m c a o. U L cx 0.N ro c Il. I- z w H v e w w Q 0 U � L d Ir 0 d w J N C.7 l O t I~--� I-� a"dam c w•'c R m N O :D w� o«a U m c o m J (� Uzw o zpl- =)wQ OwO U2 FEBRUARY 21, 2006 -30- G E, ER&L §OM TTEE - FE AR 2, Lu0 2 ;� \\/\ � 0 LU IL LU � 3 0 A d )) 2 [( < j) { �< LL § )\ \ } \ }0 m � CL ® . J( )}m / _ 0 "'= -- §/ _ - ( -(D 2 { E e ° 2 \ X\i0 0 j \\46 t (#>L) 0 3 &;ono< ] ca )£ j §\//§=) // /F$$)/{) ± CD 0 CL \\ \ \} )9 ]a) \] �e! I*iz §/ we LO \ �( § ~ LO ova > ee § 0 1 MI. d m ) \ 01 GENE O N O O N a U z 0 U O 94 M z FY A W a AL C tMITTEE UBRUARY 21, 200 o w0 .� rn o° a a !A a) w C o U , m w a vU �a W W Z W LO eo to O F- N as fA ❑ �' N W a) U U U U U Z � � I Z 2 0 d in w CO U) co C) (D m Q N v�i Z E N n N . a)Jf(DmU J J (D U 0 p a) m p a) 0 0 O E 3 c o Y N d Z m 3u� m Cc a E M E y m m E o E u m U) O N w at.07c p E Z' o o 3 0 o Z F- U o -o o a) .0 a) -0Cc 3 S�" �mo�Uoo_ Q a) a) O1m•°) ° c vd 5 m o- p (U n ro E— U) a) m tl1 OCL ` Q C_ N C N a) m m N N N C �� ._a w0L) acc _Co+r rno CL U N J a) a) C m O o ° (D>� E o c O m m 0 Q (7 O m .c U c > 0- O .0 3 •ya) Zm U xSa) oc�n W o ` o Za aC W Cm a) a) E V�Cw O)o CDQ `N O a) U a) Q 0 a)U 0 . C U W I- o C7 o LO m Z U U W U c - Z m o m is _ � 0 C ' p0N > CL U) N N O m" N U) p U =O7 > o .Op p 4a E ��� ° O o m° N d Q 3 C C p¢ av�.UN m a) WN 6 ( E m U W W lZYU cp crn o� £maoc O O 4? - cmNoU)W2 2 � Q ili Ua Q =U0 W N cc! Kv) W W N CD o m OF LL N aa)) E K I o�U F--Wi �_ �M m C:) U LO LO W �m S C) UO aQ W n CO a)r C � p Up LO C) U E N« Q> a) O LO CO O co O >� U U .N > O m J W ) O U d 10 Z J Q J d u) 1 J a) . — r n. 0) m J L6 o c- J z U Z LJ o n a 0 0 D W Q N C) N cM- Q n 7 Q O Z N p SERA § §OM ,TTEE - FEBR ARY S, 2006 aiL �§ ku 0. (n ■ §uj e .■ !m <0 j) ]A «e 3� 2�� { � k ) ) \ \ § °*\(\ 2 7 / �33E)\«@ %3 k% $ •%;E t\ )% £% /& k } \ � e ) q A ± w m § ] a R m \ G± Ix �a k/ ) k] $ to § u ee ©kB e® to 2 Ga« a , toA t °] a§»@>§�! 2 L7 = = f\f2§G£Ikk E2§;m.- uB� c■ t]&§�ik°a) k�■!# «co // fm \ ( \ § ouc r ee § § § 013 ENERALgO MITTEE - FEBRUAR oz CL IL �LU W co zW aQ wo W m z O� N °- UW Q ❑ 0 w m (� O H Q d d � a � � � u N N J Z W z r d Q w w °' m E d ❑ CO a o d .a N R ad dd Oui C�oT� c°'i Q a ro pC) v On _ N C Of ci ci °v,ga'S J (7 z H H m W ¢ M OW❑ c U� 21, 2006 -34- i G EI ERAL §g; TTEE- /g 21, 200 . ,FEED \C\o \\_\) /w \cco . af <=n. m,00. <ELE: w� ~ CN g S ( «E e e §(L cm < \ E / { cc 2 ƒ f 2 2 z ) g a ] t « ). ƒ ) ) ) ) ƒ -aAD �` 0 k\ § -az ) 7§ mLO [§ § =r§3 e ) - / §)»# fue } �� ]D b \\{) ®${m § ƒ§§ /\ )))> \ ))\/ >U) ( } CL mLu k\)§ �\ Ga§) - "29 §\7 ®c m)GE§ « ,a- \ ii§\ /\&3 ƒa/ a. ]±\3a 3 }¥w k\/ #( > \\"'k§ \)) ��z\ 727E »mz §3 0-a-§a= =«z W o_9 u !� -_ Ko f 2 @: f0 Qe �� °°° //! � \ �� 2) N o 7- /)\ �§ (7k \\/ �\ (D.- 0 § at () 'o#k§ 0) «s �k 0 ca �a2 k CL ) ,�k# m) 0 E E E=oE \\s-� {\fig ECD W 2£< a$\G .2\±4 a£\/ ±2$ «G3 uo \ui( ) ~ Cl)~ ~ 0) §§ ± \ ) j j < ENERAL-bM ITTEE — F BfiAR"Y 2 , -2t0� ° O zco m a a m d do o S o a �'� =c N m CO o ac c � a -a O 0 W � J �mm am a E acted Q a m U) mm�3 - Q' w a a(D Q iu O y ,0 3�+3w Q O !P W U U� O7 o (D zW (7 O O •c N m C) O O � UJ co N M �rOj U_ LLJ T CUCL 2� p a �a Oa F- W c 0) m Q c m c m c m a a a a LO rn o c LO C)0 Un O O U 0 N rn N rn N z o(a-.m a oc m c -E 0 NoE c c E rnC (� o bN o ° co a- m aoc' O o•nQ Oc 1' c L U C L U C O C a`)' L),C d' m$3amm cc `m�aa)) `m�am �a°�i I? a o m.2a. a2 a2 ar a K a.E cY N m H N E N 0) LL„ N c M W z J , c a „-. O m N o IL - LL N ° c EEaNn� Lm o� - c Q WU I- m .,.. c c c m°�U > C co a)U) U 'iU m o ¢ 0 aa)i -EnM aaov a_ LO LUM ur u! 3 c NaDrr L mc-N m .0 mr p °1i m > > a)�xfm cN 3a m mIL �v O N� 0 � ro a C<' N m m rn cNN O0 C Lo o CNO c 0O O m 0¢•C w 0 CO D)O V NO N0 0)N coO 04 dN M J a4O(D L) C) Co V J _j O � UN N o LCp L O in w c 0 L C, 4% O fl- .'�„ c a) d) M LO •C u m m.. m 0. al � o) m U)NIL 3 'C o m a LO Q 06 JQ. fna Mr 0E m oLL I-Od C6 _ (D m W m 0 E > c o N m.2 H uj U E U� .Q Lo r, N a) I-� w ,D¢ o a �o cao ^o Q 00 O dD m ( >.aa)i 0 c �aroE0 cao m E L6 E 2 a¢ g v W m 'mm ) E >. Q E T O -'d NQ odmQ a) O =NQ -oi0mQ a) O J (j Uzw o 0 0 0 0 W Q N Q N C) N N owo u .0 -0 m m Li LL 0u 2 ENERAL tOM IXTEE FFiBRUARY 21,° 20M ro'o ° ro o O Z O c 0 c= m c a s o O d 'vi +' N a Q W N d C p N O O. o N U O- cm ti O'�,m a Lo N of 'C W N a$c.n Qm N 0 0 N O N 'O N( w ❑ O ¢ 6 W 0 0_ N O_ U N LL1 CO Z w LO u) OF C) o p m Q (n ❑ W N N co c N U c W n c >� ro of in o Z° a a ZF O_a W c Q E c a Ln _O m o> EcYiroo EO Z O O ro c ro wro 00a. N tm O c °m m c U d w ro r o c O U � 9 O c ro O N E C m c Q Cc 21 E L LL dam .� O O 3 O N -0- �- N N � U .� 1)c N c N N 'NnU N �U)( N 2'O,. E ❑U O.. �G a N W Y c C ❑ al ro aco m ro IL c z U a CD }O ) Q v >— E}¢ W p M cU) O OWM -1O O) O N coN N O p 2 ° N d O c O "O c 4 O J a) r c °` , O N Nm lNq ❑ 'EO N U) ❑ In ❑ a) C O N LO J U� N cp �� j,Uot$ U) c ° r c ro o c E' o ro Y c o¢ r o0 LO �O .u'? 3 0— ooai Lh 0.a co r i LL O) 4 0 Va)J N JOVr o}c T0 o 0O LO O - m M'= 0 =c 2cu o aro— n M=o ❑CL LL ❑ u= JnLL N LL 0ILU- a) � m "O m c c 0 U) m C C N C O J O ro c U HV LO 0 N O O ro - CL 0)ma U W Q O _ OcO� ¢ O J l0 . COC o O� N °O Od aW CL N L (m D -aafw � LL 0 6 ri 3 a ro (D I�EL C6 r ° E� 9 a Olri [L ¢ rod¢ J 0 Z O O O O LO Z :D W¢ 0 N N LO ❑ 0� m ¢ N U) N U) U 0 N O O N 4 O O N a 0 U ENERAL OM ITTEE - F BRUARY 21, 2006 w a:0 Q Oo '00) yowac='�o..c }cai> �'� y ?o�odao W ~w N oo Qa „mawmm m �a�w'aE�a w CO Zw N ap M w ? 9 0 0 z OF a O 0 m O Qo of U a CL N a) Z N a)w 6 E a= 0 N m co N O N O N O = �- U O p C1 - '6 m p N Q N Lo C N 16 LO N tm E O -0 N >, d 0) a) a) N O =' S C C6 O Q �w ,C O O (0 co) w O.�m T o 0 m 40a� (6 CL U C C o C N.0 O E N r 00 ~ a) m (0 w Y rn V N - W 0 0) o a) p o� F- m m U cO M 0 to o > rn C'a¢ Cn0 p > `>ui p N Q 0. �- U p Co 0a C a) a)m0 3 `� J I � r`Q rIL M (a N O �-m m 06 E L r, CN = EcdI Cq -It �*tvL`...0OD and @ ram) aoi > ood 0 Ocarn ma) ,— a 3 >¢Un L6o°-od0 c0 m Ci— MC) o M m Cla3ir 9 o o c Z ao o °� c a) 0) now O o@ a) m o mm �� N a) -1LU O O� OD N a)a .,L.. O. >. O O p a) a N od'� N o oQ v)O amm¢ m_ aaaa i M (LLL ( T m N C 4 a a) w 3 rn N m U o• E > C 2 C ~W U OEoz Ncf6� Qom F-' Q_ tYl ( us n�U w_ o - ° �n U I oom O E = c U Na O CO m O� o c- �' E2mc) o a) N O<'Oc a o� c o ' �� c o�a� LaL > > � a) � � L6 a) 'y f0 CC-0 C .Of O !A Z zaOQ� a)c m� mIL o_ 3 a ° o Oa¢ 9 � ui o m¢a0 uir; o U U Z W LO u) o � 0 LO 0 ZI-F Z) W Q o ro N r O W O O N N on z z o 0 LK JO NERA L MM I TTEE FEBRUARY 21, 2006 Lu EL a W W U C Q w O W w oa UW Q� m e c o s Z quo d d m L O F o 2£ w£ 'oss Q to c do v�N �cN 4 mauC ;mo mcooeo yQl c wQ vm� m� C'a m f a'm V �N £ LLO, �. ui o O 0 j y W� d N to v. N 1- oU` LL a ° "= £ m e�oonI b w �' t �.o s� ao 5 c N 2 0] ®a c s c N N Q h- CD N cc ^ GCl) �- C 3 a 'ai = C s chi �tf w w o.o �� o o a� o O co 0U U* a ci o =� o� c to m �c�i�=0� m rn m u W =rN c LO °° m"o O .,,, � ro� � QQo) y O c �. mm = on v�r �mu3�A ¢ oos aw o oYm� o o �ti o m d v£ co `qn E-La vU2TJ �U2 w haJ L) °ice_ mm a F ) (L w e tx n F- +. o F� Va�w C9 o9) (D I to 0 I ao xn m adp0 Q( o�c oc = �E o a m ZZ W s QQ QJo) o° a) a cDa� aNQQ uivV -o= vi aniQ r: J Uz W oco I 0 0 0 jW ¢ M < P 1� n h s C C a)C 7 7 7 r 'o,7- GENERAL COMMITTEE - FEBRUARY 21, 2006 �E.LNDA ITEM # 4 TOWN OF AURORA GENERAL COMMITTEE REPORT No. PW06-005 SUBJECT: Approval for Supplementary Geotechnical Investigation for the Proposed Retaining Walls on Bloomington Road FROM: W. H. Jackson, Director of Public Works DATE: February 21, 2006 RECOMMENDATIONS THAT additional funds in the amount of $13,460.00 (exclusive of GST) be allocated from the Development Charges Reserve for a supplementary geotechnical investigation for the proposed retaining walls along Bloomington Sideroad. BACKGROUND Council at its meeting of June 14, 2005 considered Report No. PW05-014 and adopted the followings: `THAT the Council authorize the Director of Public Works to execute an Engineering Agreement with R.V. Anderson Associates Ltd. forthe design of sidewalks, bikeway and illumination along Bloomington Sideroad from Bathurst Street to BayviewAvenue at the quoted cost of $59,800, exclusive of G. S. T, and THAT funds forthis workbe approved to be expended from the Development Charges Reserve; and THAT the Town of Richmond Hill be approached to consider funding their proportionate share of the costs for the design of the bikeway, illumination and retaining wale' The detailed design forthe sidewalk, bikeway and illumination along Bloomington Sideroad from Bathurst Street to Bayview Avenue is underway. In addition, staff has communicated with a representative of the Town of Richmond Hill regarding cost sharing of the design work. 1.0 Sidewalk. Bikeway and Illumination Design As noted above, the detailed design for the pedestrian and cyclist facilities along the subject section of Bloomington Sideroad is underway. Based on this work, it has been 1 GENERAL COMMITTEE - FEBRUARY 21, 2006 February 21, 2006 - 2 - Report No. PW06-005 ascertained that the retaining walls that will be required along two sections of Bloomington Sideroad (to allow construction of the sidewalk/bikeway) will need to be longer and higher than originally anticipated. In consideration of this, the design consultant has indicated that the geotechnical information provided to date is insufficient to design the foundations for the larger retaining walls and a request for additional geotechnical work has been received (see Appendix "A"). It is noted that the number of existing boreholes are insufficient for the extent of the walls and the borehole locations are not considered representative of the conditions at the retaining wall locations. Inasmuch as the requested price increase is more than 10% of the original contract value, Council authorization is required for this increase. 2.0 Reouest to Town of Richmond Hill to Share Costs of the Bikewa As per Council's direction, staff requested that The Town of Richmond Hill consider sharing in the cost of designing the bikeway (see Appendix "B"). The Town of Richmond Hill is already paying for the design (and will pay for the construction) of the sidewalks and illumination on the south side of Bloomington Sideroad. A response has been received from the Town of Richmond Hill (see Appendix "C") in which they decline to participate in the funding for the design of the bikeway and retaining walls. Itwas also suggested in this response thatthere might be some funding consideration from the Region and staff will pursue this. OPTIONS Council may not wish to approve funds for the supplementary geotechnical investigation regarding the retaining walls on the north side of Bloomington Sideroad. However, should the additional geotechnical work not proceed, it would not be prudent to construct the required retaining walls based on the information that is presently available and accordingly, in that instance, staff are of the opinion the sidewalk/bikeway on Bloomington Sideroad between Yonge Street and Bayview Avenue should not be constructed. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS Funds are available in the Development Charges Reserve to fund the fee increase request from our consultant. CONCLUSIONS The consultant has asked for additional funds for a supplementary geotechnical investigation on the north side of Bloomington Sideroad to provide soil parameters for the design and construction of two retaining walls. —41— GENERAL COMMITTEE — FEBRUARY 21, 2006 February 21, 2006 .3. Report No. PW06-005 Staff have reviewed this request and are of the opinion the additional work is necessary to ensure the appropriate retaining wall design. LINK TO STRATEGIC PLAN Goal "A" - To maintain a well -managed and fiscally responsible municipality. ATTACHMENTS Appendix "A" — Fax from R.V. Anderson and letter from Geo-Canada Appendix "B" — Letter dated August 3, 2005 to Town of Richmond Hill Appendix "C" - Letter dated October 31, 2005 from Town of Richmond Hill PRE -SUBMISSION REVIEW Management Team Meeting — February 8, 2006 Prepared by: Anca Mihail, Municipal Engineer, Ext: 4383 W. H. Jackson'' Director of Public Works —42— GENERAL COMMITTEE — FEBRUARY 21, 2006APPENDIX"A" R.V. Anderson Associates Limited environment - Infrastruniwe TO: COMPANY: FROM: SUBJECT: Ms. Isabelle Dufresne Town of Aurora NO, 2913 P, 1 I CG -PSI 2001 Sheppard Avenue @ast SON 400 TQrento Ontario M2J 4Z0 Canada Tei 419 497 0000 KBX 410 497 0342 Wab www,rvan4ersnh.com FAX TRANSMISSION DATE: FAX NO.: John P. Does, P.Eng. OUR REF NO.: Bloomington Road —Bathurst Street to Highway 404 TOTAL NUMBER OF PAGES [ 5 ] (including this page) Original will not be sent unless requested Irl Original will be sent by courier ❑ original will be sent by mail Isabelle: December 23, 2005 905-841-7119 6370 Attached is Geo Canada's proposal for additional geotechnical investigations for the two retaining walls on Bloomington Road that lack soils information, as recommended by us in our email to you on November 10, 2005 attached. Sony for the delay in submitting this proposal, but Ivan had been on vacation during this time. The geotechnical work is necessary to provide the soil parameters for the design and construction of these walls and we recommend that this proceed as soon as possible. Please note there might be a potential for weekend work if the high school does not permit work during the week. if this issue arises, we will notify you. The fee summary is as follows: Geo-Canada, including drilling contractor $11,390.00 RVA coordination and review of draft report $1,500.00 5% Mark-up on subconsultant $570.00 Total (excluding GST) $13,460.00 We await your approval to proceed. We wish to perform this work in January if possible. Regards, ohJ n P. Does, P,Eng. IF NOT WELL RECEIVED PLEASE CALL (416) 497.8600 R;tOD00a163701ProJaot0elelConegppneeneeld370.20057223•haumra.dx —43— 0eptamber20o4 -0',GENERAL COMMITTEE — FEBRUARY 21, go 40 GEO-CAN/#DA December 20, 2005 Ref. No. G-05.0101 R.V. Anderson Associates Limited 2001 Sheppard Avenue East Suite 400 Toronto, Ontario N1214Z8 Att; John Does. I'.Bne. 'r�1a Rea Supplementary Geotechnical Investigation Proposed Retaining Walls Dloomington Rd. Reeion of'York Dear Sir: NO.2913 P. 301/00s This is in response to your request to provide a proposal and budget cost estimate'for carrying out a supplementary geotechnical investigation for two retaining walls to be located on the north side of Bloomington Road. As the existing boreholes provide inadequate coverage for these walls, additional information on the foundation conditions is required. Retainine Wall from Sta 11+530 to Sta 11494 This 260m long retaining wall is located immediately east of Academy Dr., where extending the out into the slope on the north side of Bloomington Road will require a 4 to 5m high retaining wall. We have visited 'the site and found that the he of the retaining wall,, to be located on the slope between the south property line of Cardinal Carter Catholic Mgh School and a high voltage overhead power line, is inaccessible with drilling equipment, We are therefore proposing to obtain permission from the Principal of the school to locate the boreholes along the south fence line of the school property. Our proposal is based on the assumption that this permission will be granted. It is possible, however, that in order to minimize disturbance to the school, the drilling will have to be carried out over a weekend. In this case, additional overtime charges will be made by the drilling company. w-Canada Ltd, tel: (905) 4744255 insulting Geotechnical Engineers fax; (905) 474.9267 Nolan Crt., Unit 36, Markham, ON L3R 41-9 a -mail: consult@gee-eanada.cam A nlvlsbn of Shaheen & Peakal Llmltad 1 —44— - GENERAL COMMITTEE — FEBRUARY 21, 2006 N0.2913 P. 402i003 40 Ref. No. G-05.0101 Page 2 For this wall, we propose to drill five (5) boreholes at 50M centre to centre intervals, Tentatively, the depth of the boreholes is assumed to range between 6 and 9m, Total estimated depth of the boreholes is 40m. Piezometers will be installed at three (3) locations. Prior to drilling the boreholes, their elevations will be surveyed from a local benchmark to be provided by RVA, Utility clearances will also be required, Retaining Wall at Sta 12+364 and 12+472 This 108m long retaining wall is located on the north side of Bloomington Road, between Old Bloomington Road and the present road. This wail will retain about 2 to 3m high fill. We propose to drill two (2) 6m deep boreholes on the south edge of Old Bloomington Road, Piezometers will be installed in both boreholes. The borehole locations will be cleared for underground utilities and their elevations will be surveyed from a local benchmark provided by RVA. Our services will include the following; • Borehole layout; • Obtain permission from school Principal and road occupancy permit from the Region; • Survey of borehole elevations; • Clear underground utilities; • lull time supervision of drilling; • Laboratory testing (natural moisture content on each sample, fourteen (14) grain size analyses, four (4) Atterberg tests and four (4) sulphate content); • Drafting; • Engineering analyses and report. Our cost estimate for the above services and disbursements is presented on Table 1 attached. We trust that this brief letter contains the, information that you have requested, however, should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact the undersigned. Yours very truly, G O=CANADA.1.TD. P SMP:sf ➢WIOD/0-0$,0101 AVAPrp GE6-CAMADA —45— NO, 2913 P. 5D3/113 ,.GENERAL COMMITTEE — FEBRUARY 21, 2006 Ref, No G-05.0101 R,V, ,,Anderson Associates Limited 'Bloomington Rd. Retaining Walls Table 1 Supplementary Geotechnicalluvestigatiou Cost Estimate 1.0 Engineering Fees 1.1 Borehole lay otit $450.00 1.2 Obtain permits 500.00 1.3 Survey 400.00 1.4 Clear utilities 600.00 1.5 Supervise drilling 1,200.00 1.6 Laboratory testing (geotechnioal) 1,900.00 1.7 Drafting 500.00 1.8 Engineer analyses, report 2,100.00 Total Fees $7,650,00 2.0 Disbursements 2.1 Drilling contractor Mobilization, 7 boreholes (52m), 5 piezometers $3,600.00 2.2 Transportation 140.00 Total Disbursements $3,740.00 Total Estimated Cost $11,390.00 + GST 10 Contingency Additional o'vcatime charge for work on weekends $90,00/hr, G60-CANADA —46— GENERAL CONAZE& -'�- 46&tLihay 21, 2006 NON U11 Murviotpat Drive AAA APPENDIX "B" � e at DEPA ATMNVOV Pt1jAL11C1W0RxS uroraq ON Repay Aftention: WIL "okkeot, PW.104, L413 6J1 vrector *fPi1jA0W.qrkg (oag) 121-0% Vxtoh�ioo 4911 August 3, 2005 Nft. Bruce Macgregor, P.Eng. Commissioner of Engineering and Public Works Town of Richmond Hill 225 East Beaver Creek Road 5' Floor — Engineering Department Richmond Hill, Ontario L4C 4Y5 Re. Construction offtewdy on Bloomington Sidereadftem Rath urst Street to Bay"idw Avenue Dear Mr. Macgregor: The Town of Aurora Council at its meeting of June 22, 2005 adopted the attd0h6d Report PW2003-014 (Approval to Execute an Engineering Agreement — Design of Sidtwi&; BikewaY, and Illumination on BloomingtOt Sideroad from Balhurst Street to BayView Menue). In adopting this report, Council also adopted the following resolution: THAT the Town of Mokmend Hill he qMMached to consider fintakg their proportionate share of the costs for the design of the bikewdy, dhoaft0lon and retamft waif." The Councillors felt that although the bikeway would be an the north side of Bloomington Road (in Aurora), given the development pattern along N100M,109ton Sideroad, it was felt that this bikeway may, in fact, be used more by Richmond Hill residents than Aurora residents. Accordingly, Council has req4ested that we discuss the above noted r0ablud on, Please call or write when you have had a chance to consider this matter. Yours truly ly W. H. Jacks Director of Public Works Attachment SAPubheWojks\0efiSrft1 Volders\TOS Capital Works -sead Dogige\T-13loomington Road (Aegiori)\TAtter S. MaXftgor.doz —47— TEE — FEBRUARY 21, 2006 APPENDIX "C" ENGINEERING AND PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT October 31, 2005 Town o�Aurora P.O. Box 1000 100 John West Way Aurora, Ontario L4G 6J1 Attention: Mr. W.M. Jackson, P.Eng., Director of Public Works Dear Mr. Jackson: Re: Bikeway Construction on Bloomington Sideroad Your Letter Dated August 3, 2005 Our File: T03-BL TOS ` .Lurvii of Richmon Hill P.O. Box 300 225 East Beaver Creek Road Richmond Hill, Ontario Canada L4C V5 (905) 771-8800 www.richmondhill.ca In response to the above noted letter and our subsequent telephone conversation in this matter, I have reviewed the Town of Aurora's request for the Town to contribute towards the design for the construction of a proposed bikeway, illumination and retaining wall on the north side of Bloomington Road in the Town of Aurora. We agreed in our conversation that since both municipalities are arranging for street lighting to be installed to Regional Standards either side of Bloomington Road, that there is no issue of cost sharing for this item. It was noted that the estimate to design this work is the same for both municipalities. With regards to the bikeway and retaining wall, it is my understanding that the Town of Aurora has requested the Region to construct the bikeway and this has resulted in Aurora being billed an additional $22,500.00 for the design of this work. The Town of Aurora realizing that their design fees are higher than Richmond Hill's (resulting from the additional request for the bikeway and retaining wall), suggest that the Town of Richmond Hill should pay for a portion of the bikeway and retaining wall design. I note that there is no request toshare the construction cost at this time however, anticipate that Aurora would pursue this at a later date as well. The basis of Aurora's request is the assumption that Richmond Hill residents would be utilizing the bikeway more than Aurora residents. I understand that Aurora's Official Plan requires bike pathways be installed on all arterial/boundary roads and that the costs for these works are funded from the Development Charge Reserves. 2/... —48— GENERAL COMMITTEE — FEBRUARY 21, 2006 -2- In considering Aurora's request, I have confirmed that the Town of Richmond Hill's Official Plan does not specifically require bicycle pathways on arterial/boundary roads. Bikeways may be provided if it is determined that there is a `heavy volume of non -motorized movement'. The Town has no record of any requests from Richmond Hill residents in the area for bikeways along Bloomington Road. In addition, our Development Charge By-law has not been developed to consider this infrastructure. Given that this work would be considered an enhanced or new level of service, the cost for such work would have to be paid through the tax rate. With the above in mind, we are not in a position to recommend to Council the sharing of costs for the design of the bikeway and retaining wall. We note however, that the Region of York recently reported to Regional Council with regards to engaging a consultant to conduct a "Pedestrian and Cycling Master Plan Study". The Region of York, in making this recommendation, has recognized that pursuing these alternate forms of travel is consistent with their objective to shift the public away from the predominate use of vehicles. On this basis, the Town of Aurora may wish to pursue the Region of York for some form of assistance on the bikeway. Regards, Stephen C. Fick, C.E.T., Director of Design & Construction SCF/blt c: Italo Brutto,TRH Eugene Zawadowsky, TRH Marcel Lanteigne, TRH —49— GENERAL COMMITTEE - FEBRUARY 21, 2006 AGENDA ITEM # TOWN OF AURORA GENERAL COMMITTEE REPORT No. PW06-006 SUBJECT: Vehicle Replacement Program —Update to 2006 Budget FROM: W. H. Jackson, Director of Public Works DATE: February 21, 2006 RECOMMENDATIONS THAT the approved 2006 Capital vehicle replacement budget be amended as described within Report No. PW06-006. BACKGROUND On December 20, 2005, Council adopted the 2006 Capital Budget which, among other items, listed the various vehicles that are proposed to be replaced from 2006 to 2009 inclusive. COMMENTS One of the first steps in developing an appropriate fleet management function is to establish a sustainable fleet replacement program and to monitor and continually update this program. Upon critically re-examining the fleet replacement program adopted as part of the 2006 budget, it became apparent that some of the 2006 vehicle replacement funds could be utilized in a more effective manner. Based on this review, it was determined that it would be more cost effective to retain the backhoe for at least one more year and, in its place, replace the skid steer loader and one ice resurfacer. Table No. 1 presents this information in tabular form. Table No. 1: Proposed Change to 2006 Vehicle Replacement Program Capital Project Number Adopted 2006 Bud A Proposed 2006 Actions Skid Steer Loader $70,000 (Replace) Backhoe $145,000 Defer until 2007 Ice Resurfacer $78,000 (Replace) TOTAL $145,000 $148,000 The backhoe has received significant repairs over the last 3 years and, upon closer mechanical examination, it was determined that this vehicle could provide the required —50— GENERAL COMMITTEE - FEBRUARY 21, 2006 February 21, 2006 .2. Report No. PW06-006 service level in 2006 and therefore need not be replaced in 2006. Conversely, it was determined that the skid steer loader and ice resurfacer were each in need of extensive repairs. Even after these repairs, these two vehicles would still be candidates for replacement in 2007 and accordingly, it is felt prudent to replace these vehicles now. Not only will this eliminate the need for the repairs but it will also provide more assuredly in terms of performance and ability to complete the tasks these vehicles are required for. It should also be noted that the skid steer loader cost includes approximately $20,000 for attachments which were not originally included in the budget. These attachments will allow the skid steer loader to be used for jobs beyond what it presently is used for and hence, will increase the utility of this vehicle. As can be seen in Table No. 1, the difference in cost estimate between the backhoe and the skid steer plus ice resurfacer is $3,000. Funds in this amount are available in the -vehicle reserve. The aforementioned attachment costs will be included in the vehicle replacement life cycle funding model to ensure the vehicle reserve remains viable over time. No amendments to the timing of the remaining vehicles identified in the 2006 budget are proposed at this time. OPTIONS Council may wish to retain the previously approved 2006 vehicle replacement program. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS The revised 2006 vehicle replacement program as identified earlier in this reportwill require an additional $3,000 from the vehicle reserve. There are sufficient funds within this reserve to accommodate this minor additional amount. CONCLUSIONS It has been ascertained that a refinement to the 2006 vehicle replacement program as described in this report will provide a more efficient and cost effective allocation of vehicle replacement funds. One of the purposes of the reorganized fleet management function was to provide Council, and the Town, with a robust and effective vehicle replacement program. This program will continually undergo critical review to ensure the life cycle costs of all vehicles in the fleet are minimized and any updates to the program will be presented to Council as required. —51— GENERAL COMMITTEE - FEBRUARY 21, 2006 February 21, 2006 - 3 - Report No. PWO6-006 LINK TO STRATEGIC PLAN Goal "A" speaks to maintaining a well -managed and fiscally responsible municipality, ATTACHMENTS None PRE -SUBMISSION REVIEW Management Team Meeting — February 15, 2006 Prepared by. W.H. Jackson, Director of Public Works, Ext. 4371 W. H. Jackserr" " Director of Public Works -52- GENERAL COMMITTEE — FEBRUARY 21, 2006 Ara.4fr PA# % TOWN OF AURORA GENERAL COMMITTEE REPORT No. PW06-007 SUBJECT: Tender Award No. PW-2006-10 - Supply and Operation of Street Sweepers FROM: W. H. Jackson, Director of Public Works DATE: February, 21, 2006 RECOMMENDATIONS THAT Tender No. PW-2006-10, Supply and Operation of Four or More Contracted Street Sweepers, be awarded to A&G The Road Cleaners Ltd. at its tendered price of $32,600.00 (exclusive of GST) peryear for two years with the option to renew for an additional one year period; and THAT Council authorize the Mayor and Municipal Clerk to execute the Agreement between the Town of Aurora and A&G The Road Cleaners Ltd. for the supply and operation of street sweepers. BACKGROUND As a standard annual maintenance component of the roads operations, the Town's roads are swept in the spring to remove the winter sand that was applied the prior season. This routine operation entails the use of heavy duty mechanical sweepers that typically complete the entire town in about two weeks. The Public Works Department also uses its one vacuum sweeper to assist in this operation however, this machine is not primarily designed for spring time heavy duty sweeping and this single machine would be insufficient to clean the entire Town of the winter sand. Accordingly, contracted equipment and operators are utilized to undertake this work. COMMENTS Tenders were received by the Town on February 3, 2006 for the supply and operation of street sweepers with the following results: Tenderer Tender Bid/Year 1. A & G The Road Cleaners Ltd. $32,600.00 2. Almon Equipment Ltd. $34,400.00 —53— GENERAL COMMITTEE — FEBRUARY 21, 2006 February 21, 2006 - 2 - Report No. PW06-007 The tender was issued by the Town's Treasury Department and advertised according to the requirements of the Town's standard purchasing procedures. Highlights of the tender include: A two year contract at a fixed hourly unit rate, with an optional one year extension at the Town's discretion at no cost increase; A clause allowing the Contractor to provide more than four street sweepers (four is the minimum number to be provided) at the same fixed hourly unit rate to advance the spring sweeping operations. Under the Town's Purchasing Policy, the yearly tendered amount is below the level that requires a report to Council. However, because of the multi -year aspect of this tender (2 years plus an optional year at our discretion) this report is being presented to Council. OPTIONS There are no options considered at this time because of the negative environmental and customer service impacts from reducing the level of service of this activity. Additionally, reducing or eliminating this operation will result in additional catch basin cleaning costs, dust and liability potentials. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS Sufficient funds have been allocated in the Public Works 2006 Operating Budget for this activity. As well, sufficient funds have been proposed in the 2007 and 2008 Outlook portions of the budget for the future years of the term of this Contract. It is also noted that the annual contracted costs for this contract are about 2% less than last year's hourly rate and that these rates will be held firm for the term of the contract. CONCLUSIONS The lowest tenderer for spring street sweeping is A&G The Road Cleaners Ltd. This firm has competently supplied street sweeping services for other municipalities including the Town of Richmond Hill, City of Barrie, and currently has contracted services with the Region of York and the City of Vaughan. Staff have checked the references for this firm and is satisfied they will provide the appropriate level of service we require. LINK TO STRATEGIC PLAN Goal A - To Maintain a Well Managed and Fiscally Responsible Municipality. —54— GENERAL COMMITTEE - FEBRUARY 21, 2006 February 21, 2006 .3. Report No. PW06-007 ATTACHMENTS • Appendix "A" - Form of Agreement PRE -SUBMISSION REVIEW Management Team Meeting — February 15, 2006 Prepared by. Erwin Molnar, Operations Technician, Ext.3441 W. H. Jack Director of Public Works —55— `GENERAL COMMITTEE TH%W6R ,W�OFAURORA APPENDIX "A" TENDER # TENDER # PW2006-10 DATE ISSUED: JANUARY 19, 2006 CLOSING DATE: 12:00:00 NOON, LOCAL TIME, FEBRUARY 2, 2006 FORM OF AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT made (in triplicate) this h�N day ofQli? AD 2006 BETWEEN: The Corporation of the Town of Aurora hereinafter called the "OWNER" of the First Part -'7and hereinafter called the "CONTRACTOR" of the Second Part WHEREAS the Bid of the Contractor respecting the construction work, hereinafter referred to and described, as accepted by the Owner on the ,T day of 2 2006 . THEREFORE THIS AGREEMENT WITNESSETH that in consideration of the premises and the covenants hereinafter contained, the Parties hereto agree as follows: 1. The Contractor hereby covenants and agrees to provide and supply at the Contractor's own expense, all and every kind of labour, appliances, equipment, and materials for, and to undertake and complete in strict accordance with this Bid Document dated February 2 2006 prepared for the Town of Aurora Public Works Department, all of which said Documents are annexed hereto and form part of this agreement to thqsame extent as if fully embodied herein at and for the price or sum of $ -3 2,Ica C�-,D e5�e i pus i 4U=-63�—I—) 2. The Contractor further covenants and agrees to undertake and perform the said work in a proper work like manner under the supervision and direction and to the complete satisfaction of the Owner within the period of time specified in the Form of Bid. 3. The Contractor further covenants and agrees that the Contractor will at all times, indemnify and save harmless the Owner, the Owners officers, servants, and agents from and against all loss or damage, and from and against all actions, suits, claims and demands whatsoever which may be made or brought against the Owner, the Owners officers, servants, and agents by reason or in consequence of the execution and performance or maintenance of the said work by the Contractor, the Contractor's servants, agents or employees. 4. The Contractor further covenants and agrees to furnish in accordance with the above specification, a Performance Bond in an amount equivalent to one hundred percent (100%) of the contract price approved by the Owner's Solicitor, guaranteeing the faithful performance of the said work, in accordance with the terms of this Agreement. 6. The Owner hereby covenants and agrees that if the said work shall be duly and properly executed and materials provided as aforesaid and if the Contractor shall carry out, perform and observe all of the requirements and conditions of this agreement, the Owner will pay the Contractor the contract price herein set forth in the Contractor's Bid, such payment or payments to be made in accordance with the provisions of the General Conditions of the Contract referred to above. 7. This agreement and everything herein contained shall ensure to the benefit of and be binding upon the Parties hereto, their successors and assigns, respectively. Rev: Aug 21, 2005 MS Outlook\Public Folders\Treasury\Purchasing0d Templates\Tenders\COVERSHEET — Tender with Labour+ Terms & Conditions.doc —56— GENERAL COMMITTEE - FEBRUARY 21, 2006 8. All communications in writing between the parties or between them and the Town shall be deemed to have been received by the addressee if delivered to the Individual or to a member of the bidder or to an officer of the Corporation for whom they are intended or if sent by post, telegram or facsimile addressed as follows: THE OWNER: CORPORATION OF THE TOWN OF AURORA 1 Municipal Drive P.O. Box 1000 Aurora, Ontario L4GG�X: 6JI %FA905-841-7119 THE CONTRACTOR: J �Cs / K�� /j za %ice✓--'Srx�l �"i FAX: qe,?) �'S r � �'jZ IN WITNESS WHEREOF the parties hereto have hereunto affixed their corporate seals duly attested by the hands of their proper officers in that behalf respectively. CONTRACTOR OWNER Mayor, T. Jones Clerk, Bob Panizza, A.M.C.T. -57- Rev: Aug 21, 2005 GENERAL COMMITTEE,- FEBRUARY 21, 2006 i' eri�+'� HE TOWN OF AURORA GENERAL COMMITTEE REPORT No. PW06-010 SUBJECT: Waste Diversion Strategy FROM: W. H. Jackson, Director of Public Works DATE: February 21, 2006 RECOMMENDATIONS THAT Report No. PW06-010 entitled "Waste Diversion Strategy" be received for information; THAT Council authorize staff to participate with the Region of York and the other local municipalities in the Region in the development of a joint waste diversion strategy; THAT Report No. PW06-010 be sent to the Environmental Advisory Committee for information and input as appropriate; and THAT the Region of York be informed of this decision. BACKGROUND Regional Council at its meeting of January 26, 2006 adopted the following: 11 1. Council request the nine local municipalities in the .Region to participate in the development of a joint waste diversion strategy. 2. Staff report back to Committee and Council in May, 2006." COMMENTS The Region's original waste management strategy is over eight years old and in many ways no longer reflective of the current waste management issues facing the Region and the Province of Ontario. York Region's diversion rate in 2005 was 34%, significantly lower than the 50% target previously adopted. Inconsideration of this, the Regional Solid Waste Management Committee requested during the 2006 budget process that staff prepare a revised strategy and finalize it by the summer of 2006. The development of a new strategy needs to take into account the potential changes in provincial regulations, new technologies, community interests, infrastructure and economics. Waste management is a two-tier function in York Region and accordingly, the GENERAL COMMITTEE — FEBRUARY 21, 2006 February 21, 2006 .2. Report No. PW06-010 development of a revised strategy requires the participation and agreement of both levels of government. Implementation of a variety of waste diversion options will be required to significantly improve our diversion level. There are, however, significant cost implications associated with the implementation of some of the options. Also, some of the options are solely within the purview of the local municipalities to implement. The following waste diversion list of options is being discussed at this point: o Source Separated Organics o Construction & Demolition Waste o Bag Limits and User Pay o Dongara Proposal (pelletizing project) o Increased Yard Waste Collection o Enhanced Promotion & Education o Diversion/Disposal Bans o Expanded Electronics. Recycling o Textiles Recycling o Expanded Blue Box o Community Environmental Centres The purpose of this present study is to develop a strategy to identify and prioritize these and other options with appropriate implementation dates. In depth analysis of the various options and their ultimate cost implications to the Region and local municipalities is, however, outside the scope and timeline of the present study. Accordingly, it is proposed that this detailed analysis would occur subsequent to endorsement of the strategy by the local municipal Councils and Regional Council. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS The cost of the waste diversion strategy is estimated at $65,000. The Region has hired a consulting firm at an estimated cost of $35,000 to assist in the facilitation and development of the strategy. It is estimated an additional $30,000 may be required for public consultation and/or surveys. The Regional 2006 Solid Waste Management Operating budget has sufficient funds for this work. The Town may, however, wish to hold additional public consultation (i.e. open house) and/or advertise beyond what is planned by the Region. Accordingly, it would be prudent to authorize staff to spend up to $2,000 for this purpose. The 2006 waste and recycling budgets have sufficient funds to cover this amount. CONCLUSIONS Regional Council has requested the formal participation of the local municipalities in the development of a waste diversion strategy. Staff are of the opinion this is an important initiative which should receive the Town's support. —59— GENERAL COMMITTEE - FEBRUARY 21, 2006 February 21, 2006 - 3 - Report No. PW06-010 LINK TO STRATEGIC PLAN Goal "A" - To Maintain a Well Managed and Fiscally Responsible Municipality ATTACHMENTS None. PRE -SUBMISSION REVIEW C.A.O. - February 16, 2006 Prepared by. Peter Horvath, Manager of Operations Services, Ext. 3446 W. H. Jacksop_-'-j Director of Public Works GENERAL COMMITTEE - FEBRUARY 21, 2006 AGES®AITE�1 $ 'TOWN OF AURORA GENERAL COMMITTEE No. PL06-020 SUBJECT: Application to Amend the Zoning By-law and Draft Plan of Subdivision Chapman Court (Kylemore Homes) Part of Lot 80, Concession 1, E.Y.S Files: D14-13-05A & D12-05-3A (Ref, • D11-10-05) FROM: Sue Seibert, Director of Planning and Development Services DATE: February 21, 2006 RECOMMENDATIONS THAT report PL06-020 respecting files D14-13-05A and D12-05-03A (Kylemore Homes) be received as information and staff be instructed to prepare conditions of draft approval. BACKGROUND A Public Planning meeting was held regarding the subject applications on November 23, 2005. The application circulation was not complete however, in the interests of keeping Council informed and to receive early public input staff brought the application forward at that time. Council's direction was: "THAT staff be directed to prepare a report, including but not limited to a complete review of the zone standards and subdivision matters, once the comments from the circulation of this application has been received so Council may finalize their position on the application." Accordingly, this report provides an update to the application circulation for Council's review and consideration to assist in determining their position on the subject applications. Also provided is an outline of how outstanding issues have been addressed since the Public Planning meeting on these applications was held. A copy of the Public Planning Meeting report is attached for Council's convenience, Results of Application Circulation At the Public Meeting of November 23, 2005 comments from the following External Agencies were outstanding: —61— GENERAL COMMITTEE - FEBRUARY 21, 2006 February 21, 2006. - 2 - Report No. PL06-020 • Aurora Hydro-PowerStream Region of York; • Bell Canada; • Canada Post; and, • Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority Please find a summary of the comments provided by the aforementioned agencies: Aurora Hydro-Powerstream Comments dated February 1, 2006. Aurora Hydro-Powerstream Inc. has provided Conditions of Draft Approval. Comments on the zoning amendment portion of the application include the following: • A minimum of 1.0 m separation between the "Utilities Service Trench" (hydro, gas and communication services) and property line. On the driveway side of the dwelling Aurora Hydro-PowerStream requires a 1.2m minimum clearance between the driveway and property line for installation of service. • A minimum of 1.Om separation is required between the hydro metre and property line to operate and maintain the equipment within the set safety standards and without encroaching on private property. • Aurora-Hydro-PowerStream's typical subdivision design requires the electrical secondary underground services and meter bases to be installed back to back to allow for temporary power restoration (conductor installed above grade connected between meter bases) in the event of a service failure. • It is Aurora Hydro-Powerstream's system requirement that a minimum of 1.2m side yard setback be provided and utilized for installation of the secondary service and that it adjoins a similar 1.2m side yard setback for the adjacent dwelling. The above matters can be addressed in the implementing zoning by-law and subdivision agreement. Planning staff will ensure that the aforementioned are considered and if necessary incorporated into the implementing zoning by-law and/or subdivision agreement for this development. Region of York Comments dated January 23, 2006. The Region of York has no objections to the approval of the applications and has provided Conditions of Draft Approval. —62— GENERAL COMMITTEE — FEBRUARY 21, 2006 February 21, 2006. - 3 - Report No. PL06-020 Bell Canada Comments dated November 23, 2005. Bell Canada has no objection to the subject applications and has provide a Condition of Draft Approval. Canada Post Comments dated February 2, 2006. Canada Post had no objection to the applications and have provided Conditions of Draft Approval. Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority Comments dated January 26, 2006 Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority staff have no objection to the proposed development. Conditions of Draft Approval have been provided. In addition, they have recommended that Blocks 49 thru 53 be zoned as Open Space or similar type zoning that does not permit the construction of buildings and structures on those lands. Planning staff will ensure that these block are appropriately zoned in the implementing by-law for this development. Outstanding Issues In addition to the outstanding comments from external agencies, there were some outstanding issues that needed to be resolved prior to the subject applications approval. First, as noted in Central York Fires Services previous comments, there was a concern regarding hydrant locations, water supply and a secondary access for emergency services. The applicant and Planning Staff met with Fire Services Staff to resolve the issues. In terms of water supply, the proposed development has adequate water supply evidenced by the fact that it has servicing allocation for 60 units although only 48 units are proposed by these applications. Hydrant locations will be reviewed in detail through the site plan approval process. In terms of a secondary access, given that the site is primarily surrounded with open space and/or environmentally sensitive lands a secondary access was not possible. Therefore, the applicant as agreed to by Fire Services Staff has provided the following: the entry road into the development has been widened from 6.0 metres to 7.5 metres to accommodate emergency vehicles and a 1 metre wide mountable rolled curb consisting of heavy duty unit pavers along the south side of the entry road to allow emergency vehicles access in the event that the entry road is blocked. A revised landscape has been submitted which reflects the aforementioned. Second with regard to Public Works comments that required the submission of a —63— GENERAL COMMITTEE — FEBRUARY 21, 2006 February 21, 2006. - 4 - Report No. PL06-020 preliminary grading plan, the submission of a functional Servicing Report and details of the proposed walkway between units 14 and 15, Public Works staff have advised that a preliminary grading plan has been submitted as part of the site plan approval process and is currently under review. The submission and approval of a Functional Servicing Report will be satisfied through Conditions of Draft Plan Approval which have already been provided. Staff are satisfied with the details provided by the applicant regarding the walkway. Finally, in terms of previous Leisure Services comments, concerns and/or issues were expressed about the use of Block 52, the requirement for a tot lot play area, the requirement for the submission of a vegetation assessment, details on the retaining wall systems and the requirement for boundary fences where public and private lands adjoin. In terms of Block 52 being proposed as an access (trail connection) to the adjacent public open space system, the applicant has advised Leisure Services staff that this access will be a full public access (facilitating resident access beyond the Kylemore Homes project, i.e., from Millcliff Circle, etc). On this basis Leisure Services staff have have requested that the trail connection be designed for accessibility (no stairs) and that Kylemore Homes be responsible for acquiring Conservation Authority approvals for the required bridge crossing and providing to the Town a complete cost estimate for construction of the trail connection and bridge. The applicant has agreed to provide the aforementioned information for staff's review and consideration. In terms of the requirement for a tot -lot, the applicant advised Leisure Services staff that the subject development is being marketed to the "empty -nester" and therefore a tot -lot would not be needed. Based on this, cash -in -lieu of parkland will be required. In the event that families with children occupy this development, the recreational needs of these residents can be services by the nearby Timbers Park. With respect to the requirement for a Vegetation Assessment and protection measures which were directed primarily to the remnant hedgerow, on the south property line, the applicant is aware that this will have to be detailed on the landscape plans, in accordance with Town standards and as a requirement of the Site Plan process. Regarding the proposed retaining wall system, the applicant has advised that the proposed retaining wall systems will not encroach onto adjacent Town lands. Leisure Services staff are satisfied that the details of the wall system will be provided on the landscape and/or engineering plans through the Site Plan approval process. Finally, with respect to the boundary fences that are required where residential properties abut open space and stormwater management facilities, these will also be required to be detailed on the landscape plans as part of the Site Plan approval process. —64— GENERAL COMMITTEE — FEBRUARY 21, 2006 February 21, 2006. - 5 - Report No. PL06-020 Leisure Services staff are satisfied that all of the above issues, as well as the balance of landscape matters, will be satisfied through appropriate conditions of Draft Approval and the remaining Site Plan approval process. Planning staff will compile the Conditions of Draft Approval received and report back to Council at a future meeting for Council's endorsement of those conditions. Zoning Issues The applicant met with Building Department staff and provided the outstanding information that was identified in the previous comments and has revised the site plan to meet deficiencies that were noted. The zoning of these lands will remain a R6-32. The hold on the zoning will be removed and the following exceptions will be imposed: ■ a porch encroachment of 2.0 metres into any required yard whereas the by-law does not currently permit any encroachments (the steps of the porches were not included in the encroachment however, they meet the 1.0 metre setback requirement from a private lane/fire route); ■ a minimum 2.45 metre end or side wall setback to a public or private street whereas the by-law requires a minimum of 3.0 metres; • a reduced rear yard setback (6.2 metres, 7.2 metres and 2.75 metres) for 3 lots only (Block 1-Unit 1, Block 2-Unit 6 and Block 7-Unit 38 respectively) due to their irregular shape, whereas the by-law requires a minimum setback of 7.5 metres; ■ an exception for eight lots, Block 1-Unit 5, Block 2-Unit 6, Block 2-Unit 7, Bock 5- Unit 25, Block 7-Unit 31, Block 7-Unit 32 and Block 8-Unit 39 from the requirement of a minimum 15 metre distance between the front and side of buildings. These lots would have a minimum distance of 13.6 metres; ■ an increase in the maximum floor area per dwelling unit of 240m2 whereas the by-law requires a maximum floor area of 175m2; ■ a maximum building height of 12.5 metres whereas the by-law requires a maximum of 10.0 metres; and, ■ a rear deck/balcony projection of 3.0 metres whereas a maximum projection of 2.5 metres is permitted. Staff have no concerns with the proposed exceptions to the by-law. The intent of the by-law is considered to be maintained. The development meets all other provisions of the by-law. The above exceptions are primarily technical issues that arose as a result of this development being proposed as a common elements condominium rather than a freehold townhouse development and the irregular configurations of some lots. It is not expected that additional exceptions to the zone standards will arise as the site plan application is now in its second circulation. Public Planning Meeting A Public Planning Meeting was held on November 23, 2005 at which no members of the —65— GENERAL COMMITTEE — FEBRUARY 21, 2006 February 21, 2006. - 6 - Report No. PL06-020 public attended. OPTIONS As per the recommendations, staff recommends that Council receive this report as information and determine its position on the subject applications. CONCLUSIONS The subject applications represent proper and orderly planning from a land use planning perspective. The proposal conforms with the Town's Official Plan policies and is in general keeping with the Zoning By-law. No objections or concerns regarding the proposed land use were raised as a result of the application circulation or at the public meeting by area residents. The applications are consistent with the provisions of the Provincial Policy Statement, the Town's Strategic Plan and represents no servicing allocation issues. Based on the aforementioned, staff recommends approval of the subject applications. PRE -SUBMISSION REVIEW Management Team Meeting of February 15, 2006. ATTACHMENTS Figure A — Public Planning Report, dated November 23, 2005 Prepared by. Deborah Giannetta, M.Sc.PI, Planner Extension 4347 4�_ S Sei0e ft MCIP, RPP D ector of Planning and Development Services GENERAL COMMITTEE - FEBRUARY 21, 2006 FIGURE A 'TOWN OF AURORA PUBLIC PLANNING No. PLOS-109 SUBJECT: Proposed Zoning Bylaw Amendment Application and Plan of Subdivision Application Chapman Court (Kylemore Homes) Part of Lot 80, Concession 1, E.Y.S Files: D14-13-05A & D12-05-3A (Ref. D11-10-05) FROM: Sue Seibert, Director of Planning and Development Services DATE: November 23, 2005 RECOMMENDATION THAT report PL05-109 be received as information; and, That staff report back to Council once the application circulation is complete. BACKGROUND The subject lands were purchased from the Town of Aurora in 2004. The new owner, Kylemore Homes, submitted a site plan application for a residential townhouse development in April 2005. In order to properly develop the site, it was subsequently determined that the configuration of the property needed to change to reflect flood plain areas and to better site the proposed buildings. Kylemore Homes presented the Town with a land exchange proposal whereby lands would be conveyed to the Town in exchange for lands needed to facilitate an appropriately designed neighbourhood at this site. The additional sale of Town lands to Kylemore Homes was endorsed by Council on September 27, 2005 whereby the following resolution was adopted: "THAT the Mayor and Clerk be authorized to execute an Offer to Purchase Agreement by Kylemore (Chapman Court) Ltd. respecting the conveyance of certain lands in the Town of Aurora, Regional Municipality of York, being Part Lot 80, Con. 1, EYS, designated as Parts 2 and 5 on a draft Reference Plan prepared by J.D. Barnes Limited as File No. 04-21-279-00-B dated February 21, 2005; and THAT the Mayor and Clerk be authorized to execute an Offer to Purchase Agreement respecting the acquisition of certain lands from Kylemore (Chapman Court) Ltd. in the Town of Aurora, Regional Municipality of York, being Part Lot -67- GENERAL COMMITTEE — FEBRUARY 21, 2006 November 23, 2005 - 2 - Report No. PL05-109 80, Con. 1, EYS, designated as Parts 3 and 4 on a draft Reference Plan prepared by J.D. Barnes Limited as File No. 04-21-279-00-B dated February 21, 2005; and, THAT By-law 4696-051, being a by-law to declare lands surplus and authorize the conveyance and By-law 4697-051, being a by-law to authorize the acquisition be provided all three readings." The above noted transactions between the Town and the owner of the lands have recently been finalized. Accordingly, the applicant has now submitted the applicable Zoning Amendment and Plan of Subdivision applications needed to facilitate the proposed development of these lands. This development is intended to ultimately be conveyed as a Common Elements Condominium. The Common Element portion of the development will be the future extension of Chapman Court and the internal road serving this development. This will be a private road. To establish the condominium tenure of these units, a Plan of Condominium Application will be submitted at a later date. For Council's information, it should be noted that during the processing of the Zoning Amendment, Plan of Subdivision and Site Plan Application the applicant wishes to market this development. To this end, the applicant has opened an information booth on adjacent lands. This functions similar to a sales trailer however, no sales are being offered and only reservations are being taken for expressions of interest. Staff have approved the drawings and/or display materials that will be posted within the proposed information booth. Once the appropriate approvals are in place to allow for the sale of these homes (i.e. draft plan approval), this trailer will function as the sales trailer for this development. PROPOSAL The subject applications for a Plan of Subdivision and Zoning Amendment propose 48 residential townhouse units (see Figures 2 and 3). Details of this proposal are as follows: a) Plan of Subdivision Application Lot Size Unit Type Garage Type Number of Lots 7.0 metres 23 feet Townhouse Double 34 6.0 metres 20 feet Townhouse Single 14 Total 48 ■ Density: 30.4 units per hectare (12 units per acre); GENERAL COMMITTEE — FEBRUARY 21, 2006 November 23, 2005 - 3 - Report No. PL05-109 ■ Lot Area per Unit (calculated on a total site basis): 313m2; • Parking: 104 spaces (82 spaces for the residential units and 22 on -site visitor spaces, including 1 barrier free space); and, ■ Access: to be provided via a private road (future extension of Chapman Court). This will be built by Kylemore Homes. The population projection for this plan is estimated at 144 (based on a calculation of 48 units x 3.0 persons per unit). b) Zoning Amendment Application The subject lands are currently zoned 'Row Dwelling Residential ((H)R6-32) Exception Zone" under Town of Aurora By -Law 2213-78, as amended. The current zone category permits the residential use of the lands however, the proposed development could not meet all of the development standards of the current zone category. Accordingly, a zoning amendment application was submitted. Proposed are the following amendments to the zoning by-law: • a revised definition of the "Front of Building" that refers to the driveway portion of a lot as the front of the lot for the purposes of measuring the front wall, rather than the portion of a lot where the front door is located; • a porch encroachment of 2.0 metres into any required yard whereas the by-law does not currently permit any encroachments; ■ a minimum 2.45 metre end or side wall setback to a public or private street whereas the by-law requires a minimum of 3.0 metres; ■ a reduced rear yard setback (6.2 metres, 7.2 metres and 2.75 metres) for 3 lots only (Block 1-Unit 1, Block 2-Unit 6 and Block 7-Unit 38 respectively) due to their irregular shape, whereas the by-law requires a minimum setback of 7.5 metres; • an exception. for two lots, Block 1-Unit 5 and Block 2-Unit 6, from the requirement of a minimum 15 metre distance between the front and side of buildings. These lots would have a minimum distance of 13.6 metres; • an increase in the maximum floor area per dwelling unit of 240m2 whereas the by-law requires a maximum floor area of 175m2; ■ a maximum building height of 12.5 metres whereas the by-law requires a maximum of 10.0 metres. It should be noted that a number of the by-law exceptions outlined above arose as a result of the lands being proposed to be developed as a Common Elements Condominium rather than a freehold block townhouse development. A site plan application under file D11-10-05 is currently under review in conjunction with the subject applications. GENERAL COMMITTEE — FEBRUARY 21, 2006 November 23, 2005 - 4 - Report No. PI05-109 Location/Land Use The subject lands are located south and west of the intersection of Wellington Street East and Bayview Avenue and fronts onto the western terminus of Chapman Court (see Figure 1). The property is legally described as Part of Lot 80, Concession 1, E.Y.S and has the following characteristics: ■ a site area of 1.51 hectares (3.72 acres); ■ has frontage onto Chapman Court; ■ is currently vacant; and, ■ does not have any significant environmental/natural features present. Surrounding Uses The surrounding land uses are as follows: North: open space lands; South: existing residential lands and environmentally protected lands; East: hydro corridor beyond which are existing residential lands; and, West: open space lands. PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS Official Plan The subject lands are designated "Urban Residential High Density" and "Urban Residential Medium Density" within the North Bayview Residential Neighbourhood Secondary Plan (Official Plan Amendment 61). The proposal is consistent with the objectives and policies contained therein and therefore, an amendment to this document is not required to facilitate this application. Zoning By-law The subject lands are currently zoned 'Row Dwelling Residential ((H)R6-32) Exception Zone" under Town of Aurora By -Law 2213-78, as amended. This zone category permits the proposed residential townhouses however, as outlined above, some of the development standards within this zone could not be met. Accordingly, an amendment to the zoning by-law is required to facilitate this application. In addition, there is an "H" on the zoning of this property. The removal of this hold is subject to the execution of a site plan agreement between the owner of the lands and the Town. In light of the subject applications and the site plan application currently under review, this condition will be satisfied. Accordingly, the hold will.be removed as part of the zoning amendment application. —70— GENERAL COMMITTEE — FEBRUARY 21, 2006 November 23, 2006 - 5 - Report No. PL05-109 Circulation Comments and Planning Considerations The subject application was circulated to Town Departments and external agencies. All comments and/or conditions have not yet been received. The following comments still remain outstanding from external agencies: Powerstream (formerly Aurora Hydro) Region of York Bell Canada Canada Post Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority A summary of the comments received to date are outlined below. Building Department The Building Department has reviewed the proposal have noted the following: 1. A revised definition of "Front of Building" will not be required. Based on previous applications of this definition in similar developments, the proposal meets the by- law requirements. 2. Clarification on the details of the proposed porch encroachment is required. 3. The requirement for a screen wall or fence (Section 15.36.3) shall apply between attached units only. 4. Setbacks from common lot lines for decks and balconies in the private outdoor living areas shall apply and should be outlined in the site specific zoning by-law. Leisure Services Leisure services staff have commented on the subject proposal and have noted the following: 1. Additional information as to the use of Block 52 will be required. 2. A tot lot play area is required given the density of the proposed plan. 3. A vegetation assessment will be required. 4. Further details on the retaining wall systems proposed are required. 5. Boundary fences where public and private lands adjoin will be required. Public Works Public works have provided Conditions of Draft Approval for the subject development and the following comments that will need to be addressed prior to draft approval: 1. Submission of a preliminary grading plan. —71— GENERAL COMMITTEE — FEBRUARY 21, 2006 November 23, 2005 - 6 - Report No. PL05-109 2. Submission and approval of a Functional Servicing Report 3. Details and proposed function of the proposed walkway between units 14 and 15. Central York Fire Services Staff have identified concerns regarding hydrant locations and water supply as well as secondary access for emergency services. Planning staff have had discussions with Fire Services staff and a meeting between staff and the applicant will be scheduled to explore available options for a secondary access to the site. Aurora Cable Internet Aurora Cable staff have reviewed the application and do not have any objections to the application however, would like to review composite utility drawings to ensure the co- ordination of other infrastructure and municipal services. Hydro One Networks Hydro One staff have provided Conditions of Draft Approval and have no objection in principal to the proposed development. In addition to the Conditions of Draft Approval they have provided, they have also requested the following warning clause: "The transmission lines abutting this subdivision operate at 500,00, 230,000 or 115,000 volts. Section 186-Proximity-of the Regulations for Construction Projects in the Occupation Health and. Safety Act, require that no object be brought closer than 6.0 metres (20 feet) to an energized 500 kV conductor. The distance for 230 kV conductors is 4.5 metres (15 feet) and for 115 kV conductors it is 3 metres (10 feet). It is the proponents responsibility to be aware, and to make all personnel on site aware, that all equipment and personnel must come no closer that the distance specified in the Act. They should also be aware that the conductors can raise and lower without warning, depending on the electrical demand placed on the line." Although comments have not yet been received from Lake Simcoe Conservation Authority, discussions with staff at the Conservation Authority have indicated that the application is currently under review. A Stormwater Design Brief and an Erosion Limits Analysis submitted in support of the application is also being reviewed at this time. It should be noted that the applicant had extensive consultation with the Conservation Authority in determining the limits of development delineated on the proposed plans. Upon receipt of the outstanding comments, staff will report back to Council with the results of the aforementioned circulation so Council can finalize their position on the subject applications. —72— GENERAL COMMITTEE - FEBRUARY 21, 2006 November 23, 2005 - 7 - Report No. PL05-109 OPTIONS As per the recommendations, staff recommends that Council receive this report as information and direct staff to report back once the comments from the circulation of this application has been received so Council may finalize their position on the application. SERVICING ALLOCATION The subject proposal has servicing allocation for 60 residential units reflecting the current zoning. PROVINCIAL POLICY STATEMENT The subject proposal is consistent with the provisions of the Provincial Policy Statement. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS Development charges and other associated development fees will be generated as a result of the subject development proposal. 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. The subject applications will facilitate this objective through the creation of this new community of residential townhomes. CONCLUSIONS In the interest of keeping Council informed on applications under consideration, and to ensure that early public input is received, staff scheduled the public meeting shortly after the receipt of the subject applications. The applications conform with the official plan and is in general keeping with the zoning by-law. The proposed amendments to the by-law relate to detailed zone standards rather than the principal of development on the site. In view of the various outstanding comments from external agencies, staff suggest that a further report be brought before Council that includes a complete review of the zone standards and subdivision matters. ATTACHMENTS Figure 1 - Location Plan Figure 2 —Proposed Plan of Subdivision Figure 3 - Proposed Site Concept Plan —73— GENERAL COMMITTEE — FEBRUARY 21, 2006 November 23, 2005 - 8 - Report No. PL05-109 PRE -SUBMISSION REVIEW The subject application was reviewed at the Management Team Meeting of November 16, 2005. Prepared by: Deborah Giannetta, M.Sc.PI., Planner Extension 4347 i Sue Jlgtbe .C.I.P., R.P.P. Director of -Planning and Development Services —74— WELLINGTON STREET EAST a 0 U a Z Lu 41 '':``:'':'•, Alder Gr Q S'.U,BJ E.CT w ::•:. Chapman Q Cri CO Stone Rd n x 0 o O 9 r LOCATION PLAN APPLICANT: CHAPMAN COURT (KYLEMORE HOMES) 0 50 100 FILES: D14-13-06 & D12-05-3A Auu-011A AURORA PLANNING DEPARTMENT Metres DATE: NOVEMBER 23RD, 2006 Scale 1:2500 FIGURE 1 Location Plan Map created by the Town ofAurorlfygning Department, October 11 th, 2005. Base data provided by York Region. a Y5; if:alPiRU,! �� �; �; �� •°pia !. � r, g ;:a � o I$F t$I iiiii�raie8igtg � p� �d$¢�F t F9 6! 11 a9 nFr� �• '. 9 ppgpk.Y..kNk F8B8RB8BBB9819919 g :1........ Baii�11a1111fH'.,Id9Ra91199�1!lSalaal3 ! Y 1SISf4an:.an19`e9lie91ele91eavmja3 §gmfli li wiuf 114 !dluungl —...tl 99a9..y.,.;.....id ...fe9 mn w. nv..m •d.ag gg, • 3 ,.. •+.•new � iJJ � �• It F1 F to ee tb Ap IT a � I ' p�/ / . f✓ �o>o. ✓ ~. � my ° ' $° \ \ \ \ ---- -- 4 Z O > W 2 m W U) SW LL J z O I W Z 2 w a 0M�N J voa..o �- arWpM G Vf N u.wzW W =ozm vfyz2 O ,— W a < O ..=z I:LW a��¢ <U.¢o O N a h 0 a -FEBRUARY 21, 2006 LU M � 9!. a 1 n a" m 0 N £^ W C L `o 3 a m N a Jw q a, W L 0 U r = W d W a UJ H V � a Zw O z Z V W � an W :) N � V 0 IL arQM: Oa..o9za w=o2m Z a 01=� aj jL Z O P1V DMZ anL�=) Q LL Q y d">; 385; 559 2 a}a;g3 ! 6 3 ep > > g5 5 g (� 48 it 5Si HIM n53ES��2Yb:���dlil99iEW}gn9�{�il3p�ii 9j+999 $ �IYpt )(g9 ]�]ro C'e 'mWO ryiy fi tlp4 ' 11111 1 ®9SjE gg, �G 9: i qe $ 59i99iA y § g g, 5 E 1,111M tlbb60m03:C j�nme®fvei L �9ig �yyyog�gb e � �8l III 9 Z ei9�ii@.��fB��9�91i� iliCii$i g4ggggg[[�ii3E�epgtSi3 gF ���� »ob dEn,ve ISM1 GENERAL COMMITTEE - FEBRUARY 21, 2006 ICI TOWN OF AURORA GENERAL COMMITTEE No. PL06-021- SUBJECT: Bill 51- The Planning and Conservation Land Statute Law Amendment Act FROM: Susan Seibert, Director of Planning and Development Services DATE: February 21, 2006 RECOMMENDATIONS THAT the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing be advised that the Council of the Town ofAurora supports the proposals of Bill 51 and requests that consideration be given to the following: 1) Additional wording be included in the legislation to ensure there is a common understanding of the phrase "sustainable development" ii) Consideration for and acknowledgement that the initiatives surrounding Five Year Reviews of Official Plans to make them compliant with Provincial Policy and three year turn around to bring Zoning By-laws into conformity with the same could be an additional financial burden to municipalities. iii) Introduction of new provisions to require that where a municipality has identified lands as part of a natural heritage system, such lands would be conveyed to the municipality at no cost. BACKGROUND: On December 12, 2005 Bill 51, The Planning and Conservation Land Statute Law Amendment Act was introduced in the Legislature (Bill 51). It is part of a "suite" of changes intended to "help reduce sprawl, preserve greenspace protect important natural resources and build better communities where people will want to live, work and invest'. The changes are in response to a series of issues mainly driven by anticipated growth in the Greater Golden Horseshoe area. These issues include consumption of agricultural land, gridlock, and resultant air quality concerns and infrastructure demands. The objective is to create more liveable, stronger and sustainable communities. The series of initiatives undertaken by the Province to improve planning tools available to municipalities include: The Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Act; Bill 26 (the Strong Communities Act) enacted in 2004 that increased the amount of time available to 0" GENERAL COMMITTEE — FEBRUARY 21, 2006 February 21, 2006 - 2 - Report No. PL06-021 municipalities to review plans before they become appealable and the removal of private applicants ability to force the expansion of urban boundaries, and the requirement to be consistent with Provincial requirements among other things; the Greenbelt Act; Places to Grow; and, the New Provincial Policy Statement (PPS). Bill 51 provides tools to implement these initiatives and proposes reforms and process changes. For simplicity the legislative changes proposed are categorized under three broad areas: Implementing Places to Grow Ontario Municipal Board Reform Process changes/increased transparency Staff have reviewed staff reports from other municipalities and the Region and discussed them collectively, so comments made below also reflect that input. Implementing Places to Grow Bill 51: Expands the list of Provincial interest to include sustainable development, support for public transit, and pedestrian orientation. These changes are consistent with the PPS and Places to Grow policies, however there is no definition within the legislation, nor common understanding of the meaning of "sustainable development'. This term includes many possible understandings, including higher density development that reduces sprawl and makes transit more effective, pedestrian oriented development, building types and appliances that conserve energy and so on. Bill 51 includes means of obtaining many of these features, so a common understanding of the term would be helpful in the. application of these tools. Requires councils and appeal bodies to make decisions consistent with PPS and provincial plans in existence at the time the decision is made. Under current legislation the decision must be consistent with the PPS plans etc in place at the time the application was made. The current situation is often frustrating for Councils and members of the public who anticipate that more proactive requirements will be the standard for any consideration for approval. Expands municipal authority within Community Improvement Areas to include energy efficient uses of lands buildings structures and facilities within the costs of a Community Improvement Plan, allow municipalities to register grant or loan agreements on title and allow upper tier municipalities to establish community improvement plans within certain area. These changes would assist both the Region and lower tier municipalities to meet urban structure objectives set out within Places to Grow and within the Regional Official Plan. ■ Clarifies density provisions to include the power to regulate minimum as well as —79— GENERAL COMMITTEE — FEBRUARY 21, 2006 February 21, 2006 - 3 - Report No. PL06-021 maximum heights and densities. This provision is phrased so as to indicate that despite the decision of any court to the contrary this shall always have been the case. This would reflect that current situation where most municipalities already use these provisions. ■ Expands site plan provisions to allow municipalities to include without limitation, the power to regulate exterior design of buildings including the character, scale appearance and design features of buildings and their sustainable design provide municipalities have provisions relating to these matters. This will assist with concerns about implementing more compact, intensified development. Allows municipalities to establish second unit policies in their official plans and zoning by-law that would permit such without appeal to the Ontario Municipal Board. This gives municipalities the right to determine for example that a second dwelling unit could be established in any type of existing or new unit that meets certain criteria with Council making a final binding decision. Creating such Official Plan and Zoning policies/provisions would be subject to normal public input requirements, only the right of appeal to the OMB would be excluded. Provides that zoning can be subject to conditions on the use, erection or location being met subject to there being Official Plan polices relating to such provisions. This would be enforced through an agreement registered on title. There needs to be clarity provided on how such conditional zoning might be reversed should conditions not be met. While this provision is superior to current standards where such conditions are attempted to be dealtwith through site plan agreements, it needs to be clear how such conditional zoning is "undone". ■ Section 51 (the subdivisions section) is proposed to be changed by adding a policy of the items to be considered when a subdivision is reviewed. The proposed change to add "the extent to which the plan's design optimizes the available supply, means of supplying, efficient use and conservation of energy". This will require an additional level of analysis. A new definition is added to define "areas of employment". This greatly limits retail uses as a employment uses. New Processes proposed to make the planning process more accessible and transparent include: ■ Municipalities will now be able to establish in their Official Plans additional information that will be required as part of any development application. This will allow municipalities to ensure that all aspects that need to be considered are available for review prior to a consideration being given with respect to applications. It should allow for more informed decisions to be made. ■ Municipalities will be required to ensure that all decisions and existing documents are consistent with and conform to provincial policy statements and plans that are :m GENERAL COMMITTEE — FEBRUARY 21, 2006 February 21, 2006 - 4 - Report No. PL06-021 in effect at the time the decision is made rather than at the time the application is made. Matters of provincial interest will include ensuring development is designed to be sustainable, transit and pedestrian friendly. Residents will feel better served by the requirement that the policies in place must be complied with rather than those at the time of the application. ■ Municipalities will be required to update their Official Plan every five years to conform with the provincial plans and be consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement. This is currently implied in the present legislation although the requirement at present is simply that not less than every five years, the Council shall hold a public meeting to determine if there is a need to amend the Official Plan. In addition, new provisions require that within three years of updating an Official Plan, implementing zoning by-laws must be put in place. ■ Municipalities will be able to refuse proposals to convert employment lands to other uses with no right of appeal except at the time of a five year official plan review. This requirement is quite similar to the Town's current Official Plan requirements enacted through Official Plan Amendment # 55, the Employment Land Retention Strategy. ■ In addition to holding a public meeting on development applications, municipalities will be required to hold public open houses no later than seven days before the Public Hearing itself. The requirement is for all applications no matter how minor or inconsequential. ■ Councils will be required to permit or by by-law require that applicants consult with municipalities prior to submitting applications. It is unclear if this is intended to solicit Council commentary in a formal way or to make a presentation and have informal discussions. Ontario Municipal Board Reforms: When the OMB makes a decision, it will need to have regard to the decision made by the municipal Council. This is an important proposal because it provides additional credence to the Council decision. Since such decisions could be subject to more scrutiny, however, it will be important that such decisions be carefully worded to ensure their validity in the face of opposition. Materials supporting an application at the OMB will be limited to those that the Council had when making its decision unless the new information could not have been reasonably provided before the Council's decision. This a welcomed proposal since often supporting materials come much after the appeals have been filed and place duress on staff to review, commission peer reviews etc. in time for the actual hearing. ■ If the OMB determines that new information could have casued a municipal council to make a different decision, it could be sent back to the municipality for Imm GENERAL COMMITTEE — FEBRUARY 21, 2006 February 21, 2006 - 5 - Report No. PL06-021 reconsideration. Bill 51 makes provision for municipalities to appoint local boards to hear appeals from decisions of the Committee of Adjustment. There are detailed requirements concerning how such a board would be constituted and it anticipated by the draft legislation that regulations would be prescribed governing the procedures etc of the appeal board. It is not anticipated that there would be a great deal of demand for such a board in communities such as Aurora where there are very few appeals from Committee of Adjustment decisions. Staff Comments: Generally staff welcome the proposed amendments. The changes will balance the opportunities for the public to comment and put more accountability in the hands of municipal decision makers. At the same time however, Council's will need to be very careful at crafting controversial decisions to ensure they will stand up to OMB scrutiny. As well, the fact that only those studies that were available when making the decision can be used in an OMB Hearing is significant. Once again, clarity is needed, as some applicants could bring in the pertinent studies at the Council meeting, so staff review etc cannot take place prior to the public meeting. In that instance perhaps an adjournment of the Hearing would be in order to preserve the meeting date but give time for review. When the legislation is proclaimed appropriate protocols for those types of situations need to be established. This provision would benefit from a minimum time frame in which to review additional materials being included. The proposals are not without financial implications as well. The need for Five Year review of Official Plans are often put off in times of less development as funds flowing into the Planning Departments from development approvals is reduced. Given the length of time needed to prepare comprehensive review of Official Plans, Five Year Reviews become a constant process, completing one aspectwhile initiating another. Bringing zoning by-laws into conformity is also lengthy and costly and in some instance undesirable. Examples would be developments where standards might change and where the use of site specific amendments may best serve the public interest. Once again, there are financial aspects to be considered as many municipalities derive a good deal of their planning department funding from application fees. Many municipalities are also questioning the need for public open houses for all applications. Technical applications, and very simple ones may not need open houses and additional staff time to attend such open houses would need to be allotted. Other municipalities have also requested that consideration be given to requiring where a municipality has identified lands as part of a natural heritage system, they be conveyed at no cost to the municipality. This could be a great benefit to municipalities like Aurora where there are many natural heritage features but would require judicious use of such a power and strong background analysis to ensure valid use would be made of such a power. Im GENERAL COMMITTEE — FEBRUARY 21, 2006 February 21, 2006 -6- Report No. PL06-021 The new ability to establish Hearing Board to consider appeals from Committee of Adjustment appeals would quite likely have little application for municipalities having a limited number of applications to the Committee of Adjustment a very few of which are appealed. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: As noted above, there are additional costs associated with some of the new processes particularly the mandatory Five Year Review of Official Plans to gain compliance with Provincial initiatives and the three year period in which to bring zoning by-laws into conformity. If such reviews included prezoning of sites, revenue from fees could be impacted LINK TO STRATEGIC PLAN The Strategic Plan contains objectives to ensure high quality, comprehensive community Planning. The draft legislation could be of significant assistance in achieving these goals if enacted. CONCLUSIONS Generally staff support the initiatives of Bill 51. The majority of changes are very positive for municipalities. Some proposed changes would benefit from minor rewording to add clarity or from additional definition. There are costs to municipalities to ensuring that Official Plans and Zoning By-laws are current. Funds would need to be budgeted in a regular basis to ensure this happens. However, taxpayers do express the desire to have state of the art planning documents and may be quite willing to see additional funds expended to ensure that ongoing review and consultation takes place. Attachments N/A PRE -SUBMISSION REVIEW Management Team Meeting —February 15, 2006 Prepared by. Sue Seibert, ext. 4341 an ibert Director of Planning and Development Services C = GENERAL COMMITTEE - FEBRUARY 21, 2006 LGEN A ITEM #1 TOWN OF AURORA GENERAL COMMITTEE REPORT No. PL06-022 SUBJECT: Request for Street Names Hallgrove Estates Inc. Part of Lot 20, Concession 3 File Numbers: D12-00-2A & D14-06-00 FROM: Sue Seibert, Director of Planning DATE: February 21, 2006 RECOMMENDATIONS THAT, the following list of street names be allocated to the proposed internal streets within the proposed Draft Plan of Subdivision, D12-00-2A, Hallgrove Estates Inc. Street "A" Major Street `B" Constable 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 Central York Fire Services, and subsequently Council's approval. The Trinison Management Corporation has indicated their desire to proceed with the clearance of conditions of draft approval, working towards the Subdivision Agreement and final approval stage of the process. It is appropriate that the street names be approved for the site at this time. COMMENTS The proposed names were brought forward by David Farrow, Trinison Management Corporation, who first reviewed the Approved Bank of Street Names for possible consideration. All of the names submitted by Mr. Farrow have been selected from the Council approved Street Name Bank. All of the submitted names have been approved by Central York Fire Services and Region of York for use in Aurora. The names included within the Name Bank are those of historical persons or families and others within the Zm GENERAL COMMITTEE — FEBRUARY 21, 2006 February 21, 2006 -2- Report No. PL06-022 municipality who have made outstanding, significant and/or exemplary contributions to the Town of Aurora. The name Major originated from an early landowner from the 1800's. The name Constable is derived from a former Council member (served from 1991 to 1994). The only access to the subdivision is through Street'A' (Major) from Leslie Street. Please see Figure 2 (Location Map) and Figure 3 (Draft Plan) for the complete street configuration. There may be implications to lands that are adjacent to the property in question. Pending further approval, Street'A' (Major) and Street'B' (Constable) may eventually extend south into lands that are currently owned by the Town of Aurora (File # D14-05-04 & D12-05-1A). There is also the potential that Street 'B' (Constable) may extend north where there is currently no application (1623 Wellington Street East). Please see Figure 2 (Location Map) for further clarification. OPTIONS Council has the option to refuse the allocation and assignment of all or any of these proposed names, at which point the developer would 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 the names be considered for use on the internal roads servicing this site. LINK TO STRATEGIC PLAN Goal C — Continuing Controlled, Well Planned Growth FIGURES Figure 1 — Key Map Figure 2 — Location Map Figure 3 — Site Plan CLIC GENERAL COMMITTEE - FEBRUARY 21, 2006 February 21, 2006 - 3 - Report No. PL06-022 PRE -SUBMISSION REVIEW Management Team Meeting — February 15th, 2006 Prepared by: Cory Fagan, GIS Database Analyst Extension 4348 Su Se rt, MCIP, RPP Director of Planning