Agenda - Committee of Adjustment - 20231109Town of Aurora
Committee of Adjustment
Meeting Agenda
Date:Thursday, November 9, 2023
Time:7:00 p.m.
Location:Video Conference
Meetings are available to the public via live stream on the Town’s YouTube channel. To participate
electronically, please visit aurora.ca/participation.
Pages
1.Call to Order
2.Land Acknowledgement
3.Approval of the Agenda
That the Agenda as circulated by the Secretary-Treasurer be approved.
4.Declarations of Pecuniary Interest and General Nature Thereof
5.Receipt of the Minutes
5.1 Committee of Adjustment Meeting Minutes of October 12, 2023, Meeting
Number 23-10
That the Committee of Adjustment Minutes from Meeting Number 23-10
be adopted as circulated.
6.Presentation of Applications
6.1 MV-2023-35 - Loureiro - 26 Steeplechase Ave 1
6.2 MV-2023-34 - 2352107 Ontario Inc. - 1588 St. John's Sideroad 60
6.3 C-2023-05 - 2352107 Ontario Inc. - 1588 St. John's Sideroad, Block 1 & 2 61
7.New Business
8.Adjournment
100 John West Way
Aurora, Ontario
L4G 6J1
(905) 727-3123
aurora.ca
Town of Aurora
Committee of Adjustment Report
No. MV-202 3 -35
_______________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Minor Variance Application
Loureiro
26 Steeplechase Ave
Plan M1582, Lot 43
File: MV-2023-35
Prepared by: Antonio Greco, Planner
Department: Planning and Development Services
Date: November 9, 2023
_______________________________________________________________________________________
Application
The applicant is requesting relief from the requirements of the Town’s Comprehensive
Zoning By-law 6000-17, as amended, to facilitate the relocation of an existing driveway
further east and away from the intersection of Hunters Glen Road and Steeplechase
Avenue.
The following relief is being requested:
a) Section 14.1.2 (ii) of the Zoning By-law states no development or site alteration
shall occur on that portion of said lot that is within a potential key natural heritage
feature without an amendment to or relief from the Zoning By-law;
b) Section 14.1.3 (i) of the Zoning By-law states no development or site alteration
shall occur on that portion of the lot that contains a minimum vegetation protection
zone without an amendment to or relief from the Zoning By-law; and
c) Section 14.1.4 (i) of the Zoning By-law states no development or site alteration
shall occur on that portion of the lot that contains a significant woodland without
amendment to or relief from the Zoning By-law.
Page 1 of 70
November 9, 2023 2 of 11 Report No. MV-2023-35
Background
Subject Property and Area Context
The subject property, municipally known as 26 Steeplechase Avenue, is located on the
east side Steeplechase Avenue at the intersection of Hunters Glen Road (generally
northwest of Bayview Avenue and Bloomington Road). The neighbourhood area consists
of larger estate lots, with the subject property having an approximate area of 0.824
hectares (2.036 acres) and a frontage of 173.7 metres (569.8 feet).
The parcel currently contains an under construction detached dwelling, a driveway, and
mature vegetation. Existing mapping indicates the subject property is outside of the
LSRCA Regulated Area.
Application History – Previous Minor Variance
The owner applied for a minor variance application in 2021 to construct a detached
dwelling, cabana, shed, swimming pool and relocate the existing driveway (MV-2021-21).
The application was presented at the January 13, 2022, Committee of Adjustment
meeting, alongside a supportive staff report. The Committee supported the application
to construct the detached dwelling, cabana, shed and swimming pool, however, did not
support the proposed new driveway relocation at that time. The Committee questioned
the necessity of the driveway relocation, its permeability, and whether more
compensation and replanting above a 1:1 ratio (one new tree planted for every one tree
removed) could be done.
The owner has since received building permit issuance for the detached dwelling, cabana
and swimming pool, which are currently under construction. The previous minor variance
application is considered finalized and closed.
Proposal
The applicant proposes to relocate the existing driveway, which currently faces the
intersection of Hunters Glen Road and Steeplechase Avenue, with a new driveway further
to the east along Steeplechase Avenue (Appendix ‘B’). The relocation of the driveway will
result in 45 trees being removed and the re-planting of 90 new trees.
Official Plan
The subject property is designated as “Estate Residential” by the Town of Aurora Yonge
Street South Secondary Plan (OPA 34) and as “Oak Ridges Moraine Settlement Area”
under OPA 48. One detached dwelling, accessory structures, and compatible home
Page 2 of 70
November 9, 2023 3 of 11 Report No. MV-2023-35
occupations are permitted, as part of a recognized and developed community area. The
Official Plan also permits minor adjustments or refinements to the boundaries of natural
heritage feature areas through a Natural Heritage Evaluation (NHE).
Zoning
The subject property is zoned entirely as “ER – Estate Residential” by the Town of Aurora
Zoning By-law 6000-17, as amended.
Schedule B from the Zoning By-law also recognizes portions of the property as containing
Key Natural Heritage Features (KNHF), Minimum Vegetation Protection Zones (MVPZ)
and Significant Woodlands. These feature areas are mapped on Schedule B to recognize
the need for a Natural Heritage Evaluation to be completed prior to any development, in
line with the policies of the Official Plan. No part of the property is specifically zoned for
Environmental Protection.
Preliminary Zoning Review
A Preliminary Zoning Review (PZR) has been completed by the Town of Aurora’s Building
Division. The PZR identified the required variances, and no other non-compliance was
identified.
Applicant’s stated reason(s) for not complying with the Zoning By-law
As stated on the application form, “there is no other way to relocate the driveway on the
property without applying for a minor variance application through the Committee of
Adjustment”. The Applicant expressed safety concerns due to the alignment of the
existing driveway with the intersection of Steeplechase Avenue and Hunters Glen Road.
Planning Comments
Planning Staff have evaluated Minor Variance Application MV-2023-35 pursuant to the
prescribed tests as set out in Section 45 (1) of the Planning Act, as follows:
a) The proposed variance meets the general intent of the Official Plan.
The intent of the “Estate Residential” designation is to ensure a low-density residential
setting is maintained. The Oak Ridges Moraine (ORM) “Settlement Area” designation also
recognizes the subject property as an established and developed community able to
support residential uses.
Additional policies in the Official Plan require a Natural Heritage Evaluation (NHE) be
provided for any development or site alteration involving key natural heritage features.
Page 3 of 70
November 9, 2023 4 of 11 Report No. MV-2023-35
The vast majority of the neighbourhood area is classified as containing natural heritage
features, and the overall intent of the Official Plan is not that development in this area is
outright prohibited, but instead that it needs to be done in a manner that provides
adequate compensation (re-planting) and appropriate mitigation measures based on the
recommendations of an NHE.
The submitted Natural Heritage Evaluation demonstrates that there will be no adverse
ecological impacts as a result of the proposed
A Natural Heritage Evaluation (NHE) was provided in support of the application to further
review Key Natural Heritage Features (KNHF), Minimum Vegetation Protection Zones
(MVPZ) and Significant Woodlands on the property. The NHE determined that the most
significant woodlands and natural heritage features are located at the rear of the property
and will be undisturbed by the proposed. The proposed new driveway location is not
considered a significant part of the connected forest edge and habitats of endangered or
threatened species are not present. The NHE also provides recommendations on
mitigation measures to be implemented. These mitigation measures have been added as
conditions of approval, as well as a requirement for a 1:2 planting ratio (two new trees for
every one removed) to be implemented, which will enhance the tree canopy and natural
heritage area on site.
Specific Official Plan policies including section 12.6.1 v) also encourage this type of
restoration and replacement plantings. Staff are specifically seeking a re-planting plan as
a condition of approval, with plantings to be strategically located to enhance the forest
edge, restore the existing driveway area that is to be removed, and enhance connectivity
to the key woodland area that is at the rear of the property.
The Official Plan also requires 75% of the lot area to remain in an open, landscaped, or
natural condition. The impervious area resulting from the proposed driveway will account
for less than 3.45% of the total lot area. The remaining total impervious area found on-
site including all structures and walkways as part of the approved dwelling is 8.33%. This
results in the total impervious area being 11.78%, with 88.22% of the lot area set to remain
in a natural condition, which exceeds the requirements of the Official Plan. Based on
comments from the last application, a condition of approval has also been required to
ensure this driveway is comprised of permeable pavers to further mitigate any potential
impacts.
Upon review of the application, Staff are of the opinion that the proposed new driveway
will not adversely affect the ecological integrity of the subject property and surrounding
area, and that the overall intent and purpose of the Official Plan is maintained, subject to
the required conditions of approval listed under Appendix ‘A’.
Page 4 of 70
November 9, 2023 5 of 11 Report No. MV-2023-35
b) The proposed variance meets the general intent of the Zoning By-law
The intent of the “Estate Residential” zone is to ensure the maintenance of a low-density
residential area characterized by larger lot areas and setbacks. Further, Schedule B
recognizes Key Natural Heritage Features, Minimum Vegetation Protection Zones and
Significant Woodlands for the property and surrounding area.
The following is an overview of the requested variances relating to the Key Natural
Heritage Features, Minimum Vegetation Protection Zone and Significant Woodland:
Subject Variance Evaluation Mitigation Measures
No development or site
alteration within a Key
Natural Heritage
Feature (KNHF)
There are no habitats of
endangered or threatened
species located on the
property or within the
proposed new driveway area.
There are no significant
valleylands on the property.
There are no other qualifying
hydrological features or
wetlands on the property.
The key significant woodland
area is located at the rear of
the property and undisturbed
by the requested variance.
A required condition of
approval has been added to
ensure the strategic re-
planting of 90 trees (1:2
ratio)
Soil remediation to be
provided for existing
driveway area.
Dumping of yard waste
within the retained woodland
shall be discouraged;
landscaping and gardens
around the house should not
use invasive species.
No development or site
alteration within a
Minimum Vegetation
Protection Zone
(MVPZ)
The MVPZ on the property
are primarily the open space
areas of the lot and street
that are within the 30m
buffer of any given tree.
The MVPZ runs along the
eastern property line with a
minor encroachment into the
subject property.
Permeable pavers are to be
used for the proposed
driveway to enhance ground
water recharge on the
property and support the
ecological health of the area.
An Edge Management Plan
will be required to be
implemented to demonstrate
create new forest edges.
No development or site
alteration within a
Significant Woodland
The Significant Woodland is
primarily located at the rear
of the property and is
undisturbed by this proposal.
Red Pine plantation is what
is proposed to be removed,
with it being of lower value
ecologically and as wildlife
habitat.
10 of the 45 trees proposed
to be removed are dead.
Replanting of trees will yield
a denser forest canopy and
support overall on site
connectivity.
Species of higher ecological
value to be replanted
including: white birch, white
spruce, red oak, American
basswood and large-tooth
aspen at a greater quantity.
Arborist report to be
provided and include a
schedule of ongoing
monitoring
Page 5 of 70
November 9, 2023 6 of 11 Report No. MV-2023-35
Under Bill 23, Conservation Authorities no longer review Natural Heritage policy, with this
now being the responsibility of the Town and York Region. The Lake Simcoe Region
Conservation Authority did review this subject proposal as part of the previous minor
variance application and had no concerns with its approval. Further, the Town and Region
have reviewed and have no objections. The NHE has sufficiently demonstrated that there
will be no negative ecological impacts, with the appropriate conditions of approval
included.
The implementation of the conditions of approval and mitigation measures will ultimately
result in a net benefit for the lands (greater tree canopy, species diversity, edge
management, connectivity). The proposed driveway relocation meets all other technical
siting and setback provisions. As such, Planning Staff believes that the subject variances
are considered to maintain the general intent of the Zoning By-law, given the conditions
that are now being applied.
c) The proposed variance is considered desirable for the appropriate development of the
land.
The subject lands are located within the Settlement Area and are permitted for urban,
residential uses. The property is surrounded by residential uses to the north, south, east
and west. The applicant is specifically seeking to relocate the driveway due to concerns
with the existing alignment being directly at the bottom terminus of Hunters Glen Road.
Planning staff are of the opinion that the requested variance is desirable due to the fact
that the appropriate conditions of approval have been developed to provide a positive
overall end-state outcome. The impacts of the requested variance and removal of 45
trees (10 dead) is being offset and in fact enhanced through the subject conditions.
Specifically, a 1:2 planting ratio (90 new trees) will be required to enhance the overall tree
canopy and improve the forested area. The NHE provided has also confirmed that there
are no habitats of endangered or threatened species identified on the subject property or
impacted area.
The applicant is also proposing permeable pavers as the landscaping choice for the
driveway, which supports the naturalization and groundwater recharge of the area.
The implementation of an Edge Management Plan will see soil remediation where the
existing driveway access is located; plantings of native plant assemblages which will aid
in species diversity, edge function improvement, and canopy rehabilitation through the
area. Further, an Arborist Report and monitoring of the natural heritage feature (to track
the success of ecological restoration initiatives and guide the short and long-term
maintenance of the restored features) is required. The subject conditions of approval are
specifically geared towards achieving a desirable end-product for the property with
Page 6 of 70
November 9, 2023 7 of 11 Report No. MV-2023-35
binding requirements for increased re-plantings and enhancements to the natural area
overall.
The re-planting of white birch, white spruce, red oak, American basswood and large-tooth
aspen at a greater quantity will create a higher ecological value versus the existing red
pine that is currently onsite and to be removed. The re-plantings will be located over the
existing driveway, which will improve overall connectivity to the primary significant
woodland at the rear. Combined with all other conditions of approval, including those
from the Town’s Parks Department, Planning Staff believe that the variances are desirable
for the appropriate development of the land.
d) The proposed variance is considered minor in nature.
The owner is seeking to relocate the driveway away from the Steeplechase Avenue
intersection at the terminus of Hunters Glen Road. The relocation of the driveway is
considered minor in terms of all technical siting aspects. The requested variances do not
negatively impact the KNHF or Significant Woodlands that are located on the property.
The use of the property continues to be used as a residential lot and is not anticipated to
affect neighbouring properties adversely. Additionally, the Owner has demonstrated
through the submission of an NHE that the proposed development can occur without
adversely impacting the ecological integrity of the features on the subject lands.
According to the submitted NHE, the red pine trees that are being removed are considered
not to be of high ecological value compared to the species that are required to be re-
planted as a condition of approval. Furthermore, 10 of the 45 trees being removed are
confirmed to be dead as outlined in the NHE, with a further Arborist report also required
as a condition of approval.
Through the conditions of approval as listed, Staff believe approval of the subject
variance will serve to in fact enhance the ecological value of the property and surrounding
area. Planning staff are satisfied that the requested variances are minor, given the
conditions listed.
Additional Comments
The minor variance application was circulated to the Town Department/Divisions and
external agencies for review and comment. The following comments were provided:
Department or Agency Comments
Building Division Preliminary Zoning Review completed.
No objections.
Page 7 of 70
November 9, 2023 8 of 11 Report No. MV-2023-35
Department or Agency Comments
Engineering Division No objections.
Operational Services (Parks) No objections.
Operational Services
(Public Works) No objections.
Central York Fire Services No objections.
York Region No objections.
Alectra No objections.
Public Correspondence
Written submissions were not received at the time of writing of this report. Should
additional written submissions be received after writing this report, the Secretary -
Treasurer will provide the submission(s) to Committee members at the meeting.
Conclusion
Planning staff have reviewed the application regarding Section 45 (1) of the Planning Act,
R.S.O, 1990, c.P.13, as amended, and believe that the requested variance meets the four
tests of the Planning Act for granting minor variances. Staff recommend approval of the
requested variance subject to the conditions outlined in Appendix ‘A.’
Attachments
Appendix ‘A’ – Recommended Conditions of Approval
Appendix ‘B’ – Site Plan
Appendix ‘C’ – Natural Heritage Evaluation
Appendix ‘D’ – Edge Management Plan
Page 8 of 70
November 9, 2023 9 of 11 Report No. MV-2023-35
Appendix ‘A’ – Recommended Conditions of Approval
1. That the variance only applies to the subject property, in conformity with the
plan(s) attached as ‘Appendix B’ to this Staff Report, to the satisfaction of the
Director of Planning and Development Services or their designate;
2. That the Owner provide a comprehensive Re-planting Plan illustrating a minimum
1:2 re-planting ratio for the subject property (minimum of two new trees for every
one tree removed) consisting of site-appropriate native species (white birch, white
spruce, red oak, American basswood and large-tooth aspen) that contribute to the
appropriate edge management and species diversity of the site, including required
re-plantings where the existing driveway is being removed, to the satisfaction of
the Director of Planning and Development Services.
3. That the enter into a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) agreeing to
implement the recommendations and mitigation measures of the accompanying
Natural Heritage Evaluation prepared by Kuntz Forestry Consulting Inc, and
Condition #2 to the satisfaction of the Director of Planning and Development
Services, including:
a) Branches and roots that extend past prescribed tree protection zones that
require pruning must be pruned by a qualified Arborist or other tree
professional. All pruning of tree roots and branches must be in accordance
with good arboricultural standards.
b) Vegetation removal or alteration should occur outside the breeding bird
window (April 1 to August 31) and the breeding bat window (May 1 to
October 31). Should removals be required during the breeding bird season,
nest searches conducted by a qualified person must be completed within
48 hours before clearing activities. If nests are found, work within the area
must cease until the nest has fledged, per the federal Migratory Birds
Convention Act.
c) Tree protection measures must be implemented before demolition/
construction to ensure the development does not impact the trees
identified for preservation.
d) Stumps along the peripheries of the disturbance limit should not be
grubbed.
Page 9 of 70
November 9, 2023 10 of 11 Report No. MV-2023-35
e) Low-impact development measures should be employed, including
permeable pavers.
f) The use of siltation control fabric shall be installed around the site's
perimeter to minimize impacts to the retained woodland.
g) Implementing the Edge Management, Restoration Plan and Re-plantings
to the satisfaction of the Town (per condition #2) to reduce impacts on the
retained woodland, including creating a new forest edge and restorations
of plants and soil conditions.
4. That the Owner obtain a Road Occupancy Permit through Public Works, and be
required to close off the existing driveway entrance at Hunters Glen Road and
Steeplechase Avenue, including the removal of the existing culvert and
reinstatement of the ditch, with securities to be determined by Public Works as
part of the Road Occupancy Permit process or alternative.
5. Submission to the Secretary-Treasurer of written confirmation from the Town’s
Director or designate of the Parks Division; that the Applicant has satisfied all
concerns below:
a) That the owner be required to provide an Evaluation Report prepared by a
Certified Arborist or Professional Registered Forester outlining all aspects
of the impacts that this proposal will have on existing and current remaining
vegetation, The report shall include recommendations and an action plan
on the mitigation of negative effects to vegetation , during and post
construction periods as well as measures aimed at tree health care and
protection for trees effected by the project and any remaining trees in the
vicinity of the project that require applicable maintenance.
b) In addition the report shall include a schedule of monitoring the ongoing
site work through a series of scheduled site visits by the Arborist / Forester
during and post construction to ensure the vegetation preservation
measures remain in compliance throughout the project, each site visit to be
documented and any resulting action items required by the Arborist
/Forester shall be implemented and confirmed on site forthwith by the
Arborist /Forester following each visit.
c) The owner be required to provide vegetation compensation and a replanting
plan in accordance with the Town of Aurora Tree Removal/ Pruning and
Page 10 of 70
November 9, 2023 11 of 11 Report No. MV-2023-35
Compensation Policy to the satisfaction of the Director of Operational
Services as compensation for trees removed to facilitate construction.
Compensation planting shall be completed prior to release of the financial
securities (and shall adhere specifically to condition of approval #2 listed
in this report, indicating a minimum 1:2 ratio of replanting – two new trees
for every one removed)
d) The owner shall agree to comply with the Aurora Tree Permit By-law # 5850-
16 prior to the removal of any trees on the property.
e) The owner shall agree to provide financial securities based on the total
value of the Tree Compensation evaluation and all Arboriculture works as
defined by the Town and the Owner’s Arborist/ Forester, to the satisfaction
of the Manager of Parks Division.
f) All of the above shall be included as terms and conditions in a Letter of
Undertaking with the Town of Aurora to guarantee compliance with the
Conditions of Approval and all related site works.
Page 11 of 70
Previously Approved Minor VarianceApplication MV-2021-21Subject to Minor VarianceApplication MV-2023-35Page 12 of 70
Subject to Minor VarianceApplication MV-2023-35Page 13 of 70
Natural Heritage Evaluation
26 Steeplechase Avenue
Aurora, ON
prepared for
Briar Building Group Ltd.
14 Heathmount Court
Richmond Hill, ON
L4C 1E2
prepared by
25 June 2021, revised 10 November 2021
KUNTZ FORESTRY CONSULTING Inc. Project P2779
Page 14 of 70
Briar Building Group Ltd. 25 June 2021, revised 10 November 2021
Natural Heritage Evaluation, 26 Steeplechase Avenue, Aurora
Kuntz Forestry Consulting Inc. P2779 2
Table of Contents
1 Introduction and Background ................................................................................................................... 4
1.1 Policy ............................................................................................................................................. 4
1.1.1 Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan .................................................................................. 4
1.1.2 Town of Aurora Official Plan ..................................................................................................... 4
1.1.3 Region of York Official Plan ...................................................................................................... 4
2 Natural Heritage Features and Functions ................................................................................................ 5
2.1 Site Context ................................................................................................................................... 5
2.2 Natural Heritage Resources Background Review ......................................................................... 5
2.3 Field Surveys ................................................................................................................................. 6
2.3.1 Methodology ............................................................................................................................. 6
2.3.2 Soils .......................................................................................................................................... 7
2.3.3 Topography ............................................................................................................................... 7
2.3.4 Hydrology .................................................................................................................................. 7
2.3.5 Vegetation Communities .......................................................................................................... 7
2.3.6 Flora .......................................................................................................................................... 8
2.3.7 Significant Vascular Plants ....................................................................................................... 8
2.3.8 Wildlife and Wildlife Habitat ...................................................................................................... 8
2.3.9 Species at Risk and Significant Wildlife Habitat ....................................................................... 9
3 Proposed Development ......................................................................................................................... 10
4 Impact Identification and Analysis.......................................................................................................... 10
4.1 Impacts to Individual Trees ......................................................................................................... 10
4.2 Significant Species ...................................................................................................................... 10
4.3 Woodland .................................................................................................................................... 10
4.4 Wildlife and Wildlife Habitat ......................................................................................................... 11
4.4.1 Birds ........................................................................................................................................ 11
4.4.2 Significant Wildlife Habitat ...................................................................................................... 11
4.4.3 Bats ......................................................................................................................................... 11
4.4.4 Herpetofauna .......................................................................................................................... 12
4.5 Landforms and Soils ................................................................................................................... 12
4.6 Policy Analysis ............................................................................................................................ 12
5 Reponses to Impacts - Prevention and Mitigation ................................................................................. 18
5.1 Tree Preservation and Removal Mitigation ................................................................................. 18
5.2 Woodland Preservation and Restoration .................................................................................... 18
5.3 Wildlife ......................................................................................................................................... 19
Page 15 of 70
Briar Building Group Ltd. 25 June 2021, revised 10 November 2021
Natural Heritage Evaluation, 26 Steeplechase Avenue, Aurora
Kuntz Forestry Consulting Inc. P2779 3
5.3.1 Birds ........................................................................................................................................ 19
5.3.2 Bats ......................................................................................................................................... 20
5.3.3 Herpetofauna .......................................................................................................................... 20
5.4 Significant Species ...................................................................................................................... 20
5.5 Landforms and Soils ................................................................................................................... 21
6 Edge Management Plan ........................................................................................................................ 21
6.1 Native Species Planting .............................................................................................................. 21
6.2 Monitoring .................................................................................................................................... 22
7 Summary and Conclusion ...................................................................................................................... 22
8 References ............................................................................................................................................. 24
Figures
Figure 1: Proposed Site Plan and Disturbance Area
Figure 2: Ecological Land Classification
Figure 3: Edge Management Plan
Tables
Table 1: NHIC Query for 9km2 around subject property
Table 2: Field Study Dates
Appendices
Appendix A. Vascular Plant Species List
Appendix B. Site Photos
Appendix C: Approved Terms of Reference for NHE
Appendix D. Wildlife Species List
Appendix E. Significant Wildlife Habitat Assessment
Page 16 of 70
Briar Building Group Ltd. 25 June 2021, revised 10 November 2021
Natural Heritage Evaluation, 26 Steeplechase Avenue, Aurora
Kuntz Forestry Consulting Inc. P2779 4
1 Introduction and Background
Kuntz Forestry Consulting Inc. (KFCI) was retained by Briar Building Group Ltd. to complete a
Natural Heritage Evaluation (NHE) in support of a development application for a property located
at 26 Steeplechase Avenue in Aurora. The property contains Significant Woodland and is
regulated under the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan. As such, a Natural Heritage
Evaluation is required as part of the development application.
The property is located within an estate residential area and is currently occupied by a conifer
plantation and hardwood forest which is contiguous with surrounding properties to the east, south,
and north. The natural heritage system through this area is fragmented by residential homes and
amenity areas and roads including Steeplechase Avenue.
The Natural Heritage Evaluation is intended to assess the potential impacts of the proposed
development to natural heritage elements and ensure impacts from the development are as
minimal as possible. The purpose of NHE is to:
Explain the nature of the proposed development;
Conduct field surveys for flora, wildlife, habitat features, and species at risk;
Identify, locate, delineate, and comment on significant natural heritage features including
species at risk individuals and habitat, ecological functions and linkages;
Identify and discuss the expected impacts of the proposed works; and,
Indicate how aspects of the proposed development could proceed without negatively affecting
flora and wildlife species or significant habitat features by providing mitigation measures and
recommendations.
This Natural Heritage Evaluation was prepared by Kuntz Forestry Consulting Inc., with support
from Dylan White Consulting, who provided assessments and analyses with respect to wildlife,
wildlife habitat, and species at risk.
Refer to Appendix C for the Terms of Reference for this study as approved by reviewing Agencies.
1.1 Policy
1.1.1 Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan
The property contains Significant Woodland and is part of the Settlement Area per the Oak
Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan. Refer to section 4.6 for a review regarding pertinent
policies and compliance.
1.1.2 Town of Aurora Official Plan
The subject property is identified as “Estate Residential” per Schedule A of the Aurora Official
Plan, and per Secondary Plan OPA34, and “Woodlands” and/or “Woodlands – Minimum
Vegetation Protection Zone (30m)” per Schedule E1. Refer to section 4.6 for a review regarding
Town of Aurora Official Plan policies and compliance.
1.1.3 Region of York Official Plan
The subject property is identified as “Urban Area” per Maps 1 and 2 of the York Region Official
Plan and “Woodlands” per Map 5. The property is part of the “Lake Simcoe Protection Area”
Page 17 of 70
Briar Building Group Ltd. 25 June 2021, revised 10 November 2021
Natural Heritage Evaluation, 26 Steeplechase Avenue, Aurora
Kuntz Forestry Consulting Inc. P2779 5
Per Map 1. Refer to section 4.6 for a review regarding Region of York Official Plan policies and
compliance.
2 Natural Heritage Features and Functions
2.1 Site Context
As mentioned above, the property contains woodland that is contiguous with the surrounding
properties. The estate subdivision in which the subject property resides includes conifer and
hardwood forests, with openings in each lot for homes and amenity spaces. The natural features
within this area are fragmented by the amenity spaces and roads including Steeplechase Avenue
and Hunter’s Glen Road. These features display moderate connectivity to the surrounding
landscape, including a golf course, creeks and tributaries to the north and associated natural
heritage features, and larger forest tracts east of Bayview Avenue.
The property is located within the East Holland Subwatershed, which extends from Lake Simcoe
down into the Oak Ridges Moraine. It is “one of the Lake Simcoe basin’s most populated
subwatersheds”, containing urban areas, recreation areas, agricultural lands, and natural heritage
features. Pressures include urbanization and a high proportion of impervious surfaces. (LSRCA
2010)
2.2 Natural Heritage Resources Background Review
A background review of natural heritage resources as they pertain to the subject property was
conducted and reviewed for the purposes of this report. A general query of the Ontario Ministry
of Natural Resources (OMNR) Natural Heritage Information Center (NHIC) databases identified
no element occurrences within the 1km square in which the subject property exists. One natural
area was identified in the square, the Humber River.
NHIC queries for the 9 km2 area surrounding the subject property, presented the following
element occurrences for SAR and rare species (Table 1). This query encompassed the
identified natural areas of Forester Marsh, White Rose West Forest, Snively Street Wetland
Complex, Wilcox-St. George Wetland Complex, Oak Ridges Bog, Lake St George, and the
Aurora Infiltration Areas of the Humber River.
Table 1. NHIC Query for 9km2 around subject property
Common Name Scientific Name SARO
Status
COSEWIC
Status
ATLAS
NAD83
Black Ash Fraxinus nigra THR 17PJ2568
Gypsy Cuckoo Bumble Bee Bombus bohemicus END END 17PJ2568
Midland Painted Turtle Chrysemys picta marginata SC 17PJ2568
Bobolink Dolichonyx oryzivorus THR THR 17PJ2568
Snapping Turtle Chelydra serpentina SC SC 17PJ2568
Eastern Wood-pewee Contopus virens SC SC 17PJ2369
Butternut Juglans cinerea END END 17PJ2369
Page 18 of 70
Briar Building Group Ltd. 25 June 2021, revised 10 November 2021
Natural Heritage Evaluation, 26 Steeplechase Avenue, Aurora
Kuntz Forestry Consulting Inc. P2779 6
2.3 Field Surveys
2.3.1 Methodology
2.3.1.1 Dates
Field studies occurred on the following dates for the purposes of the NHE:
Table 2. Field Study Dates
Date Time Weather Obs Purpose
June 1, 2021 06:55 – 08:00 14o C, clear, calm
(BF 1)
DW Breeding Bird Survey 1 & General
Habitat Screening
June 7, 2021 CB Floral Inventory, ELC
June 12, 2021 07:05 – 08:30 19o C, clear, calm
(BF 1)
MI Breeding Bird Survey 2 & General
Habitat Screening
June 23, 2021 KH Tree Inventory
2.3.1.2 Protocol for Vegetation Community and Structure Analysis
KFCI field investigations for the floral inventory and ELC were conducted on June 7, 2021.
Vegetation community boundaries were determined using desk top analysis (aerial photo
interpretation) and confirmed in the field; communities are described according to the Ecological
Land Classification (ELC) system for southern Ontario (Lee et al. 1998), with revisions.
Nomenclature for vascular plant species follows the Ontario Plant List (Newmaster et al. 1998)
with updates from the Flora Ontario – Integrated Botanical Information Systems (FOIBIS) (2005).
Observations regarding restoration opportunities were made at that time as well.
2.3.1.3 Wildlife and Wildlife Habitat
Breeding Bird Study
The breeding bird surveys were carried out in accordance with the Ontario Breeding Bird Atlas
protocols (OBBA 2001), which require that two surveys take place at least one week apart,
between May 24 and July 12. The surveys must also take place between dawn and 10:00am
under appropriate weather conditions (with light winds and no heavy rain). Dates and
conditions are described in Table 2 above. These breeding bird surveys encompassed the
entire property.
Incidental Wildlife
Incidentally observed wildlife was noted during June 1 and 12 visits (Table 2). All vertebrate
species detected onsite were noted.
Significant Wildlife Habitat (SWH) & Species at Risk Screening (SAR)
Informed by field studies and desktop analysis of the subject property and surrounding area,
Significant Wildlife Habitat and Species at Risk screenings were completed as per Ministry of
Environment, Natural Heritage Information Centre (NHIC), and Conservation & Parks (MECP)
standards for Ontario Ecoregion 6E.
Page 19 of 70
Briar Building Group Ltd. 25 June 2021, revised 10 November 2021
Natural Heritage Evaluation, 26 Steeplechase Avenue, Aurora
Kuntz Forestry Consulting Inc. P2779 7
2.3.2 Soils
The Ontario Soils Survey, Report No. 19 (Ontario Agricultural College 1954) indicates that the
subject property is comprised of two soil classifications, including Pontypool Sandy Loam (Psl),
which has good drainage, irregular or steeply sloping topography, and few stones, and Shc-s,
Schomberg clay loam steep phase, with good drainage, smooth moderately sloping to irregular
steeply sloping, and stonefree.
2.3.3 Topography
The topography within the legal parcel is rolling upland, with the portion of the property containing
the conifer plantation flatter, then sloping up towards the existing home and amenity spaces. The
rear of the property is more undulating, with the rear yard relatively flat but then sloping up towards
the south and east property boundaries.
2.3.4 Hydrology
The existing legal parcel does not contain any defined hydrological features (rivers, pools,
wetlands, etc.).
2.3.5 Vegetation Communities
The subject property contains woodland with an opening containing a low-density residential area
(CVR_1). The surrounding woodland is comprised of two distinct single ELC units, with a conifer
plantation along the western edge of the property towards the road, and a hardwood forest along
the eastern edge of the site.
FOCM6-2
A Dry-Fresh Red Pine Naturalized Coniferous Plantation Type (FOCM6-2) was identified on the
subject property. This unit is located along the Steeplechase Avenue frontage, and wraps around
the northeast and southwest sides of the existing home. This canopy is a near monoculture
comprised of Red Pine (Pinus resinosa) dominant with 70% crown closure, with occasional
associates of White Birch (Betula papyrifera), Black Cherry (Prunus serotina), and Red Maple
(Acer rubrum). The subcanopy contains approximately 60% crown closure and is comprised of
Common Buckthorn (Rhamnus cathartica), Green Ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica), and Black
Cherry. The shrublayer contains 30% cover, also with abundant Common Buckthorn and
occasional Black Raspberry (Rubus occidentalis), Tartarian Honeysuckle (Lonicera tatarica),
Common Elderberry (Sambucus canadensis), and White Birch. The groundcover contains
approximately 35% coverage and is comprised of abundant regenerating Buckthorn, as well as
abundant Poison Ivy (Toxicodendron radicans), Garlic Mustard (Alliaria petiolata), and Bracken
Fern (Pteridium aquilinum). The portion of this feature on the south side of the driveway contains
a higher abundance of invasive species.
FODM5-3
The rear of the property contains a Dry-Fresh Sugar Maple-Oak Deciduous Forest Type (FODM5-
3). This community has approximately 90% cover in the canopy layer, comprised of Red Oak
(Quercus rubra), Sugar Maple (Acer saccharum), White Birch (Betula papyrifera), Black Cherry
(Prunus serotina), and Largetooth Aspen (Populus grandidentata). The subcanopy contains
approximately 60% cover and contains Sugar Maple and Green Ash. The shrublayer contains
Page 20 of 70
Briar Building Group Ltd. 25 June 2021, revised 10 November 2021
Natural Heritage Evaluation, 26 Steeplechase Avenue, Aurora
Kuntz Forestry Consulting Inc. P2779 8
approximately 25% cover and is comprised of Common Buckthorn, Chokecherry (Prunus
virginiana), Common Elderberry, Alternate-Leaved Dogwood (Cornus alternifolia), and Tartarian
Honeysuckle. The groundcover has approximately 80% coverage and contains abundant Poison
Ivy.
Ash management appears to have occurred within this unit. There is a more open pocket behind
the existing house with copious coppice growth from Ash. Refer to Figure 1 for the location of
this unit.
2.3.6 Flora
A total of 51 vascular plant species were recorded within the legal parcel. Refer to Appendix A
for the complete vascular plant species list compiled for the property. There are 17 (33%) species
that are considered introduced and non-native to Ontario. The remaining 34 species (66%) are
considered native in Ontario.
2.3.7 Significant Vascular Plants
Field investigations were undertaken to locate provincially and regionally rare to uncommon native
plant species. No species of provincial or federal concern were found within the legal parcel. Two
species ranked “W” (rare in the Lake Simcoe Watershed) was identified on the property: Red Pine
(Pinus resinosa) and Wild Coffee (Triosteum aurantiacum). Refer to Figure 1 for the location of
the Wild Coffee. There were no Black Ash or Butternut identified on or within 50m of the
disturbance limit. Neighbouring properties were not accessed but were viewed from the subject
property limits.
2.3.8 Wildlife and Wildlife Habitat
Birds
In total, 21 bird species were detected during field surveys (Appendix D). One Species at Risk
– Eastern Wood-Pewee (Contopus virens) [Special Concern] – was heard singing just offsite, (1
male singing >50 m away in the woodlands behind 28 Steeplechase), and another male singing
>100 m away from the north side of Steeplechase Ave/Hunter’s Glen Rd.
Of the 21 bird species detected, 7 exhibited breeding behaviour within the study area. The birds
confirmed, or likely, breeding on site were: Red-eyed Vireo (Viro olivaceus), Blue Jay
(Cyanocitta cristata), Black-capped Chickadee (Poecile atricapillus), Red-breasted Nuthatch
(Sitta canadensis), American Robin (Turdus migratorius), Brown-headed Cowbird (Molothrus
ater) and, American Goldfinch (Spinus tristis) (Appendix D). Of these, Black-capped Chickadee,
American Robin, Brown-headed Cowbird and American Goldfinch, were detected utilizing the
cultural plantation (Pinus resinosa) habitats. All other species detected occurred within forested
habitats at the edge or offsite of the property, as well as anthropogenic habitats offsite
(Appendix D).
Three Area Sensitive species were detected: Red-breasted Nuthatch (edge of the property),
American Redstart (Setophaga ruticilla – well offsite in forest), and Pine Warbler (Setophaga
pinus – well offsite in forest). Area Sensitive is an OMNR (2000) designation that indicates
these species require larger contiguous suitable habitats are required for successful breeding.
The study area is situated amongst patches of mature forested habitats, and is connected to
nearby, offsite, Oak Ridges Moraine natural heritage systems.
Page 21 of 70
Briar Building Group Ltd. 25 June 2021, revised 10 November 2021
Natural Heritage Evaluation, 26 Steeplechase Avenue, Aurora
Kuntz Forestry Consulting Inc. P2779 9
No provincially rare species were detected (Appendix D). Barn Swallow and Chimney Swift
were not observed on site in the existing structures during the Breeding Bird Survey.
Incidental Wildlife
No herpetofauna were detected during any of the field surveys conducted for this report (June,
2021; Table 2). Four (4) mammals were detected during incidental wildlife surveys: Eastern
Cottontail (Sylvifagus floridanus), Gray Squirrel (Sciurus carolinensis), Red Squirrel
(Tamiasciurus hudsonicus), and Eastern Chipmunk (Tamias striatus). No Species at Risk or
provincially rare species were detected (Appendix D).
2.3.9 Species at Risk and Significant Wildlife Habitat
The subject property and surrounding properties, are primarily composed of a matrix of Pinus
resinosa cultural plantation, and mid-aged deciduous forest, with a few cultural meadows
nearby and with a high incidence of anthropogenic lands and roadway interspersion. This
largely treed local landscape is contiguous with Oak Ridges Moraine (ORM) plan natural linkage
corridor designated areas ~800 m to the east, which then connect to ORM plan core natural
areas ~1.5 km to the south-east. This ORM core natural area includes various Areas of Natural
and Scientific Interest (ANSIs) such as the kettle lakes of St George, Wilcox and Simeon.
Overall, the subject property represents an estate lot, residential neighbourhood with extensive
mature tree cover and naturalized lands. Field surveys confirmed that various forest bird
species, including three that are considered Area Sensitive (preceding sections), are breeding in
the vicinity of the subject property. All Area Sensitive birds presented territorial behaviours
within deciduous forest habitats i) directly adjacent to the east (i.e. behind the house’s existing
backyard), ii) >50 m north and iii) >100 m southwest of the study area. Of the seven birds
nesting on, or directly adjacent to the subject property (preceding sections), four were utilizing
the plantation habitat on the street side of the house: Black-capped Chickadee, American
Robin, Brown-headed Cowbird, and American Goldfinch.
The mature deciduous forested habitats adjacent to the subject and surrounding properties, are
of high value to breeding birds and other forest wildlife. These naturalized forested lands shall
largely be retained and protected from encroachment during all proposed development phases.
Significant Wildlife Habitat (SWH) review of the site identified one candidate, and two
confirmed SWH classes present on the subject property and adjacent lands (MNRF, 2000 &
2015):
i) Bat Maternity Roosts (onsite, any/all mature trees are candidate SWH – Candidate SWH);
ii) Woodland Area-Sensitive Bird Breeding Habitat (in the deciduous forest habitat onsite
and adjacent to the property – Confirmed SWH), and;
iii) Special Concern and Rare Wildlife Species (in the deciduous forest habitat onsite and
adjacent to the property, where Eastern Wood-pewees [2 males] presented breeding behaviour
during 2021 field surveys – Confirmed SWH).
Species at Risk (SAR) were considered for the subject property based on field surveys,
regional SAR records and the Natural Heritage Information Centre (NHIC). The results of that
query are discussed in section 2.2.
The subject property does not contain suitable breeding, nesting or foraging habitat for turtles
Page 22 of 70
Briar Building Group Ltd. 25 June 2021, revised 10 November 2021
Natural Heritage Evaluation, 26 Steeplechase Avenue, Aurora
Kuntz Forestry Consulting Inc. P2779 10
(Midland Painted Turtle or Snapping Turtle – Table 1). The subject property does not contain
suitable open country habitat for Bobolink (Table 1). No surveys were conducted to detect the
potential presence of Gypsy Cuckoo Bumble Bee (Table 1). Eastern Wood-pewee is confirmed
present directly adjacent to the subject property, and in nearby forested habitats (see preceding
breeding bird study results and section 4.4.1 on birds).
Barn Swallow and Chimney Swift were not observed on site in the existing structures during the
Breeding Bird Survey.
3 Proposed Development
The demolition of the existing home and the construction of a new 1-storey plus loft dwelling is
proposed for the subject property. The existing driveway access from Steeplechase Avenue will
be removed and a new one created east of that location. A new garage, in-ground pool,
cabana, potting shed, and septic area are proposed in the rear yard. Refer to Figure 1 for the
proposed site plan.
4 Impact Identification and Analysis
4.1 Impacts to Individual Trees
The removal of 168 trees will be required to accommodate the proposed development. Tree
protection fencing will be installed to protect the remaining trees identified for preservation. Refer
to the Tree Inventory and Preservation Plan (KFCI 2021) for a complete discussion of trees
identified for removal and injury, and proposed protection and mitigation measures.
4.2 Significant Species
Provincially significant flora species were not identified on the subject property and as such,
impacts are not anticipated. Red Pine is a considered regionally rare and 125 living Red Pine
will require removal (KFCI 2021). KFCI suggests the Red Pine plantation would be better
served with primarily hardwood plantings as replacement to increase wildlife habitat and
diversity within this unit. See section 6 for details.
One Wild Coffee, also regionally rare was identified and will be impacted. It is recommended
that this species be transplanted as indicated on Figure 3.
As discussed in section 2.3.9 one species at risk – Eastern Wood-Pewee (Special Concern),
was identified just offsite and three area sensitive species were detected on or adjacent to the
property (Red-Breasted Nuthatch, American Redstart, and Pine Warbler).
Refer to section 4.4.1 for a discussion regarding impacts to birds including Eastern Wood-
Pewee.
4.3 Woodland
Given that a large proportion of the property is comprised of woodland, intrusion into the natural
feature will be required to accommodate the proposed development. The FODM5-3 unit will
remain largely intact; the proposed development generally respects the existing dripline of this
hardwood unit and tree removals within this unit are not required. Portions of the FOCM6-2 unit
will be required removal to accommodate a component of the proposed development. The pool,
cabana, and septic are largely outside of the existing woodland features, and much of the house
Page 23 of 70
Briar Building Group Ltd. 25 June 2021, revised 10 November 2021
Natural Heritage Evaluation, 26 Steeplechase Avenue, Aurora
Kuntz Forestry Consulting Inc. P2779 11
is located within the existing home/driveway footprint. The new driveway and garage will
require the removal of a portion of the FOCM6-2 unit. In addition to direct canopy loss, this will
create a new forest edge in some areas. New forest edges can create unintended impacts to
the retained portions of the forest, including increased vulnerability to windthrow, increased light
into the remaining woodland, and increased vulnerability to invasive species, among others.
Impacts as a result of this will be mitigated for to the greatest extent possible as indicated in
section 5.2.
All tree removals will occur in the FOCM6-2 unit, outside of the more sensitive FODM5-3 unit
which is an SWH. The previous version of the site plan required the removal of seven trees
within the FODM5-3 unit; however, the site plan has been revised to eliminate the need for tree
removals within this unit. Refer to the Tree Inventory and Preservation Plan for details.
4.4 Wildlife and Wildlife Habitat
4.4.1 Birds
As noted in the section 2.3.8, the study area, and the edge of the forest directly to the east,
contained habitat for 7 species of breeding birds (Appendix D). The surrounding lands
(especially adjacent and nearby mature deciduous forested habitat) supported an additional 14
species during the 2021 field season (Appendix D). The plantation habitats at the front (street
side) of the property contained four breeding birds: Black-capped Chickadee, American Robin,
Brown-headed Cowbird and American Goldfinch. Impacts to birds during tree removal must be
avoided as indicated in 5.3.1. Habitat impacts to birds include tree and shrub loss as discussed
in section 4.3 – this impact will be mitigation for to the greatest extent possible as discussed in
section 5.2. The deciduous forest directly adjacent to the property’s rear lawn (east) provides
high quality forest wildlife habitat. This habitat is being retained: in conjunction with the rest of
the neighbourhood’s mature forest, it presents as productive forest habitat, which is contiguous
with ORM natural linkage areas ~800 m to the east.
4.4.2 Significant Wildlife Habitat
Two confirmed SWH classes were identified on, adjacent to, and surrounding the subject
property Woodland Area-Sensitive Breeding Bird habitat, and Special Concern and Rare
Wildlife Species (Eastern Wood-pewee)(See preceding SWH section and Appendix D). All
mature, deciduous forested habitats on, adjacent to and surrounding the subject property shall
be retained with minimal intrusion and impacts mitigated for as discussed in section 5.3.
4.4.3 Bats
No surveys were conducted for bats as a part of this study. The mature trees on this site
(especially within the mature deciduous forested habitats at the eastern edge of the property),
present as potential high suitability summer, and/or maternity roosting habitat for a variety of bat
species. Due to the various onsite, adjacent and nearby forested lands, all mature trees have
been identified on this property as Candidate SWH: Bat Maternity Roosts (see section 2.3.9 and
Appendix E).
The monoculture plantation section of the property, presents low habitat structural diversity (i.e.
few visible cavities, large limbs etc.) – and therefore potential low habitat suitability – for cavity
roosting bats. The plantation presents as very low suitability habitat for foliage roosting bats.
Tree and vegetation loss to occur as a result of the proposed development shall occur primarily
Page 24 of 70
Briar Building Group Ltd. 25 June 2021, revised 10 November 2021
Natural Heritage Evaluation, 26 Steeplechase Avenue, Aurora
Kuntz Forestry Consulting Inc. P2779 12
within this lower-qualify bat habitat, as opposed to the hardwood unit at the rear which will
largely be respected.
The existing building contains potentially suitable habitat for maternity roost and/or
overwintering bats.
Impacts to bats during tree and building removal must be avoided as indicated in section 5.3.2.
4.4.4 Herpetofauna
This study area does not contain suitable anuran breeding habitat within >250 m of the property.
No ephemeral pools were detected within the forest or plantation habitats.
Although no reptiles were detected during field surveys, the site presents as suitable habitat for
snakes and plethodontid salamanders. Native species – especially Eastern Gartersnake
(Thamnophis sirtalis sirtalis) and Eastern Red-backed Salamander (Plethodon cinereus) – may
forage, breed or transit through the study area. Field surveys did not detect any high suitability
features for snake hibernacula. The site does not contain aquatic habitats suitable for turtles,
the nearest known aquatic habitat is a constructed golf course pond ~400 m to the NW of the
site.
Impacts to snakes and salamanders during construction shall be prevented as discussed in
section 5.3.3.
4.5 Landforms and Soils
The proposed development is centred in the existing tableland portion of the site, away from the
more undulating topography at the rear of the property. Within the FOCM6-2 unit, there are
features proposed and therefore some regrading within these areas will be required. Regrading
along the peripheries of the new buildings will be limited to the greatest extent possible, with the
use of retaining walls as indicated in the site plan and on Figure 1.
The proposal contemplates the replacement of an existing dwelling and therefore significant
changes to impervious surfaces on site are not anticipated. The property currently contains
approximately 940m2 of hard surface and the proposed development will have approximately
1015m2 of hard surfaces, representing a slight increase of 75m2 which is expected to have
minimal impacts to runoff and overland flows. Much of the new driveway will also be comprised
of pervious paving to mitigate for this impact.
4.6 Policy Analysis
Town of Aurora Official Plan Subject Property Discussion
Schedule A
Per Section 8.2:
a) Permitted uses in suburban and estate
residential areas shall be limited to detached
dwellings, an accessory dwelling and compatible
home occupations.
e) Notwithstanding Section d (above), all
Suburban and Estate Residential development
The subject property is identified as “Estate
Residential” on Schedule A
The proposed development is for a
replacement dwelling of a single detached
dwelling.
Page 25 of 70
Briar Building Group Ltd. 25 June 2021, revised 10 November 2021
Natural Heritage Evaluation, 26 Steeplechase Avenue, Aurora
Kuntz Forestry Consulting Inc. P2779 13
shall conform with the policies of Section 12.0 of
this Plan, the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation
Act, the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan
and the Rural Area policies of the York Region
Official Plan.
Refer to sections below for compliance with
York Region and the ORMCP.
Schedule E1
Sections 12.5 and 12.6 identify pertinent policies
regarding development within key natural heritage
features.
d) Development or site alteration is not permitted
within the Environmental Protection designation,
except in relation to the permitted uses and
policies specified in this Section. Notwithstanding
the policies above, development or site alteration
shall not be permitted within wetlands and habitat
of endangered species, threatened species, and
species of special concern.
Section 12.6.1:
c) An application for development or site alteration
within 120 metres of the Environmental Protection
designation, or a key natural heritage feature or
key hydrologic feature identified on Schedule ‘E’,
shall be accompanied by an Environmental
Impact Statement…
q) Where a policy in this Official Plan permits
development or site alteration in relation to
existing uses, within the Lake Simcoe Watershed,
the following policies apply:
i. All existing uses lawfully used for such purposes
on the day before the Lake Simcoe Protection
Plan comes into force are permitted;
iii. The development permitted in ii., expansion to
existing buildings or structures, accessory
structures and uses, and conversions of legally
existing uses which bring the use more into
conformity with this Plan, are permitted subject to
a demonstration that the use does not expand into
a key natural heritage feature, a key hydrologic
feature and any minimum vegetation protection
zone associated with a feature or the Lake
Simcoe shoreline, unless there is no alternative in
which case any expansion shall be limited in
scope and kept within close geographical
proximity to the existing structure
The subject property is identified as
“Woodlands” and/or “Woodlands – Minimum
Vegetation Protection Zone” on Schedule E1.
d) very minor encroachment (but no tree
loss) into the FODM5-3 unit identified as
Habitat of Special Concern species will be
required, but impacts will be mitigated for as
discussed in section 5.3.1.
This NHE report has been prepared as
required by section 12.6.1.
The replacement dwelling is permitted per
section 12.6.1 q), as it was permitted prior to
the Lake Simcoe Protection Plan coming into
use.
The replacement of the existing home and
the construction of ancillary structures is
permitted in accordance with the relevant
policy. This NHE demonstrates that
expansion into the more sensitive features
and its functions are minimized to the
greatest extent possible, and prescribes
relevant impact prevention and mitigation
measures. The expansion is limited in scope
and primarily within the cultural plantation
unit, and is in close geographical proximity to
the existing structure, especially as it pertains
to the FODM5-3 unit.
Region of York Official Plan
Page 26 of 70
Briar Building Group Ltd. 25 June 2021, revised 10 November 2021
Natural Heritage Evaluation, 26 Steeplechase Avenue, Aurora
Kuntz Forestry Consulting Inc. P2779 14
Maps 1 and 2 The property is identified as “Urban Area” per
Maps 1 and 2 and is located within the Lake
Simcoe Protection Plan area.
Map 5 The property is identified as “Woodlands” Per
Map 5
Section 2.2.45
That significant woodlands be verified on a site-
by-site basis and shall include those woodlands
meeting one of the following criteria:
a. is 0.5 hectares or larger and: i. directly supports
globally or provincially rare plants, animals or
communities as assigned by the Natural Heritage
Information Centre; or, ii. directly supports
threatened or endangered species, with the
exception of specimens deemed not requiring
protection by the Province (e.g. as is sometimes
the case with Butternut); or, iii. is within 30 metres
of a provincially significant wetland or wetland as
identified on Map 4, waterbody, permanent
stream or intermittent stream;
e) on the Oak Ridges Moraine the woodland will
be evaluated for significance based on the
requirements of the Oak Ridges Moraine
Conservation Plan and associated technical
papers.
The property is within the Urban Area and is
on the Oak Ridges Moraine, therefore criteria
a and e must be considered.
a) provincially or globally rare plants,
animals, or communities were not identified
on site. The property does not directly
support threatened or endangered species,
and it is not within 30m of a qualifying
hydrological feature.
e) The woodland qualifies as significant
woodland per the ORMCP (see section
below).
Section 2.1.19 indicates that:
That, for the portions of the Region that are within
the Oak Ridges Moraine, applications for
development or site alteration will only be
approved if they comply with the provisions of the
Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan…
Section 2.2.4 states: To prohibit development and
site alteration within key natural heritage features,
key hydrologic features, and adjacent lands,
unless: a. it is demonstrated through a natural
heritage evaluation, hydrological evaluation, or
environmental impact study that the development
or site alteration will not result in a negative
impact on the natural feature or its ecological
functions
This NHE has been prepared per Section
2.2.4. Refer to the sections below for a
discussion on compliance with the ORMCP.
Lake Simcoe Protection Plan
6.23-DP Development or site alteration is not
permitted within a key natural heritage feature, a
key hydrologic feature and within a related
vegetation protection zone referred to in policy
Page 27 of 70
Briar Building Group Ltd. 25 June 2021, revised 10 November 2021
Natural Heritage Evaluation, 26 Steeplechase Avenue, Aurora
Kuntz Forestry Consulting Inc. P2779 15
6.24, except in relation to the following:
c. Existing uses as specified in policy 6.45;
6.26-DP A natural heritage evaluation referred to
in policies 6.3 and 6.25 shall be carried out in
accordance with guidelines developed by the
MNR…
This NHE has been prepared per Section
6.26.
Section 6.45-DP Where a policy in this Chapter
permits development or site alteration in relation
to existing uses, the following policies apply:
a) All existing uses lawfully used for such
purposes on the day before the
Lake Simcoe Protection Plan comes into force are
permitted;
b) The construction of a building on an existing lot
of record is permitted, provided it was zoned for
such as of the date the Plan comes into effect, or
where an application for an amendment to a
zoning by-law is required as a condition of
a severance granted prior the date this Plan
comes into effect;
c. The development permitted in b., expansion to
existing buildings or structures, accessory
structures and uses, and conversions of legally
existing uses which bring the use more into
conformity with this Plan are permitted subject to
a demonstration that the use does not expand into
a key natural heritage feature, a key hydrologic
feature and any minimum vegetation protection
zone associated with a feature or the Lake
Simcoe shoreline, unless there is no alternative in
which case any expansion shall be limited in
scope and kept within close geographical
proximity to the existing structure;
d. The expansion to existing agricultural buildings
and structures, residential dwellings and
accessory uses to both, may be considered within
a key natural heritage feature, a key hydrologic
feature, and any minimum vegetation protection
zone associated with these features or the Lake
Simcoe shoreline, if it is demonstrated that:
i. there is no alternative to the expansion or
alteration and the expansion or alteration is
directed away from the feature and vegetation
protection zone to the maximum extent possible,
and,
The replacement of the existing home and
the construction of ancillary structures is
permitted in accordance with the relevant
policy. This NHE demonstrates that
expansion into the more sensitive features
and its functions are minimized to the
greatest extent possible, and prescribes
relevant impact prevention and mitigation
measures.
Page 28 of 70
Briar Building Group Ltd. 25 June 2021, revised 10 November 2021
Natural Heritage Evaluation, 26 Steeplechase Avenue, Aurora
Kuntz Forestry Consulting Inc. P2779 16
ii. the impact of the expansion or alteration on the
feature and its functions is minimized to the
maximum extent possible.
Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan, 2017
ORMCP Technical Paper 7 – Identification and
Protection of Significant Woodlands
Identification of Significant Woodlands For the
purposes of applying the policies of the ORMCP,
significant woodlands shall mean woodlands that
have either:
a) a tree crown cover of over 60% of the ground,
determinable from aerial photography (“forest” of
Lee et al. 1998);
And, which have a minimum average width of 40
metres or more measured to crown edges. And,
which are:
c) 4 hectares or larger in size located in the
Countryside or Settlement Areas of the ORMCP;
or
The subject woodlands are “forest”
communities per ELC (Lee et al) as
discussed in section 2.3.5 and are part of a
larger tract of forest that, based on a coarse-
level study of aerial imagery within the
subject area, has a minimum width for 40m
and is greater than 4ha in size. As such, the
natural features associated with the property
qualify as “Significant Woodland” per the
ORMCP and is therefore a key natural
heritage feature.
7. Nothing in this Plan applies to prevent the use,
erection or location of a single dwelling if, (a) the
use, erection and location would have been
permitted by the applicable zoning by-law on
November 15, 2001; and (b) the applicant
demonstrates, to the extent possible, that the use,
erection and location will not adversely affect the
ecological integrity of the Plan Area.
18 (3) With respect to land in Settlement Areas,
all uses permitted by the applicable official plan
are permitted, subject to the provisions of this
Plan that are listed in subsections 19 (3) and 31
(4).
(6) With respect to land in a Settlement Area,
nothing in this Plan applies to prevent a use or the
erection or location of a building or structure if, (a)
the use, erection and location would have been
permitted by the applicable zoning by-law on
November 15, 2001;
The use of the development is permitted
within the Town of Aurora Official Plan. The
use was permitted prior to 2001.
22) (2) All development and site alteration with
respect to land within a key natural heritage
feature or the related minimum vegetation
protection zone is prohibited…
(3) An application for development or site
alteration with respect to land within the minimum
area of influence that relates to a key natural
Page 29 of 70
Briar Building Group Ltd. 25 June 2021, revised 10 November 2021
Natural Heritage Evaluation, 26 Steeplechase Avenue, Aurora
Kuntz Forestry Consulting Inc. P2779 17
heritage feature, but outside the key natural
heritage feature itself and the related minimum
vegetation protection zone, shall be accompanied
by a natural heritage evaluation under section 23.
This NHE has been prepared per Section 22
(3) and 23.
Landform Conservation Areas
Section 30
(5) An application for development or site
alteration with respect to land in a landform
conservation area (Category 1) shall identify
planning, design and construction practices that
will keep disturbance to landform character to a
minimum, including,
(a) maintaining significant landform features such
as steep slopes, kames, kettles, ravines and
ridges in their natural undisturbed form;
(b) limiting the portion of the net developable
area of the site that is disturbed to not more than
25 per cent of the total area of the site; and
(c) limiting the portion of the net developable area
of the site that has impervious surfaces to not
more than 15 per cent of the total area of the site.
(13) With respect to land in Settlement Areas, in
considering applications for development or site
alteration within landform conservation areas
(Category 1 and 2) the approval authority shall
consider the importance of adopting planning,
design and construction practices that will keep
disturbance to landform character to a minimum,
so as to satisfy the requirements of subsections
(5) to (11) if possible.
The property is located within a landform
conservation area 1.
a) Impacts to the landforms (slope) on the
property will be minimized to the greatest
extent possible by utilizing the existing
residential area for the majority of
development, and using retaining walls to
limit peripheral grading requirements.
b) The proposed ESC fence encompasses
2348m2, representing 29% of the subject
property. The majority of this space,
however, is within the area of existing
development and disturbance here cannot be
avoided.
c) The total hard surfaces on site are
proposed to total 1015m2, representing 12%
of the property. Excluding the area of
driveway that will be pervious, impervious
surfaces on the site will total 785m2,
representing 9.5% of the total site area.
Provincial Policy Statement, 2020
2.1 Natural Heritage
2.1.1. Natural features and areas shall be
protected for the long term
2.1.2. The diversity and connectivity of natural
features in an area, and the long-term ecological
function and biodiversity of natural heritage
systems, should be maintained, restored or,
where possible, improved, recognizing linkages
between and among natural heritage features and
areas, surface water features, and ground water
features
This NHE seeks to protect and enhance the
natural features on the property to the
greatest extent possible.
Page 30 of 70
Briar Building Group Ltd. 25 June 2021, revised 10 November 2021
Natural Heritage Evaluation, 26 Steeplechase Avenue, Aurora
Kuntz Forestry Consulting Inc. P2779 18
2.1.7 Development and site alteration shall not be
permitted in habitat or endangered species and
threatened species, except in accordance with
provincial and federal requirements.
No habitat of endangered or threatened
species was identified on the subject
property.
2.1.5 Development and site alteration shall not be
permitted in:
b) Significant Woodlands in Ecoregions 6E and
7E…
d) Significant wildlife habitat
… unless it has been demonstrated that there will
be no negative impacts on the natural features or
their ecological functions.
2.1.7. Development and site alteration shall not be
permitted in habitat of endangered species and
threatened species, except in accordance with
provincial and federal requirements.
2.1.8. Development and site alteration shall not
be permitted on adjacent lands to the natural
heritage features and areas identified in policies
2.1.4, 2.1.5, and 2.1.6 unless the ecological
function has been evaluated and it has been
demonstrated that there will be no negative
impacts on the natural features or on their
ecological functions.
The ecological function has been evaluated
as demonstrated in this report. Impacts will
be avoided or mitigated for.
5 Reponses to Impacts - Prevention and Mitigation
The following sections are a discussion of measures to prevent and mitigate impacts to the
natural feature.
5.1 Tree Preservation and Removal Mitigation
Outside of the portion of the woodland identified for removal, preservation of all other individual
trees on and adjacent to the subject property will be possible with the use of appropriate tree
protection measures. Refer to the Tree Inventory and Preservation Plan (KFCI 2021) for
preservation and mitigation details. Tree protection hoarding is proposed surrounding the
development to protect trees identified for preservation from the construction. This hoarding
should be comprised of erosion and sediment control fabric which can also serve as reptile
exclusion fencing (see section 5.3.3). This fencing should be inspected regularly throughout
construction to ensure that it is maintained and functioning property. The location of this
protection hoarding is shown on Figure 1.
5.2 Woodland Preservation and Restoration
A portion of the natural feature will require removal as discussed in section 4.3. The tree
preservation hoarding as discussed above will limit direct impacts to the remaining portions of
Page 31 of 70
Briar Building Group Ltd. 25 June 2021, revised 10 November 2021
Natural Heritage Evaluation, 26 Steeplechase Avenue, Aurora
Kuntz Forestry Consulting Inc. P2779 19
the woodland. It is recommended that stumps located just beyond the limit of disturbance per
the Tree Inventory and Preservation Plan are not removed or grubbed to reduce impacts to the
soil and seed bank along the peripheries of the development.
To reduce impacts to the remaining woodland as a result of the development in the long-term,
the implementation of the Edge Management Plan is recommended to increase the buffering
capacity of the remaining portion of the woodland, compensate for canopy loss, and mitigate for
impacts as a result of the creation of a new edge. Refer to section 6 for the Edge Management
Plan.
After occupancy of the proposed dwelling, dumping of yard waste into the natural feature is not
recommended. An on-site composter should be utilized, or organic debris from property
maintenance should be disposed of off-site.
To prevent garden plant escapes, gardens and plantings should utilize native and/or non-
invasive species only. Invasive plants shall not be utilized when landscaping the subject
property to avoid the colonization of the remaining woodland.
5.3 Wildlife
5.3.1 Birds
Several of the bird species detected breeding within the study area (see section 2.3.8 and
Appendix D) represent a seasonal constraint to vegetation clearing under the Migratory Birds
Convention Act (MBCA 1994). Vegetation clearing and tree removal, if undertaken during the
breeding period, may be at risk of contravention of the MBCA, which states that:
It is an offence under the Migratory Birds Convention Act, 1994, for anyone to kill, hunt, capture,
injure, harass, take or disturb a migratory bird or to damage, destroy, remove
or disturb a migratory bird nest or eggs without a permit. (MBCA 1994)
The breeding period for migratory birds (pertaining to the species detected within the study
area) is between March 15 and September 1. It is recommended that all vegetation clearing or
tree removal activity be completed after September 1. Tree removal or vegetation clearing may
be possible before September 1, however, a pre-clearance nest sweep, performed by a
qualified ecologist, would be required to prevent contravention of the Act.
As noted in the results section, the study area, and the edge of the forest directly to the east,
contained habitat for 7 species of breeding birds (Appendix A). The surrounding lands
(especially adjacent and nearby mature deciduous forested habitat) supported an additional 14
species during the 2021 field season (Appendix A). In addition to the vegetation clearing
restrictions of the MBCA (above), planning for the site has endeavored to retain mature trees,
and replace any woody vegetation that is removed by way of the Edge Management Plan (see
section 6). The deciduous forest directly adjacent to the property’s rear lawn (east) provides
high quality forest wildlife habitat. Encroachment into this habitat is minimal: in conjunction with
the rest of the neighbourhood’s mature forest, it presents as productive forest habitat, which is
contiguous with ORM natural linkage areas ~800 m to the east.
The plantation habitats at the front (street side) of the property contained four breeding birds:
Black-capped Chickadee, American Robin, Brown-headed Cowbird and American Goldfinch.
Any tree or vegetation removal in this plantation section of the property, should be completed
outside of the breeding bird season (as noted in the preceding MBCA section). Any trees
Page 32 of 70
Briar Building Group Ltd. 25 June 2021, revised 10 November 2021
Natural Heritage Evaluation, 26 Steeplechase Avenue, Aurora
Kuntz Forestry Consulting Inc. P2779 20
removed from the P. resinosa monoculture shall be replaced with a mixture native deciduous
forest trees as per the FODM5-3 unit to enhance habitat function within this area.
The SWH classes identified on, adjacent to, and surrounding the subject property [Woodland
Area-Sensitive Breeding Bird habitat, and Special Concern and Rare Wildlife Species (Eastern
Wood-pewee)] will largely be retained. Very minor encroachment into the dripline towards to
the corner of the septic area will be required but will not require tree removal. Habitat function
within this is not expected to be impacted and will be enhanced by way of the Edge
Management Plan (See section 6) which increases the canopy coverage through this area,
especially within Planting Area 2 (see Figure 3), which represents an area of very limited woody
vegetation and an opportunity for enhancement.
5.3.2 Bats
Congruent with the restrictions of the MBCA (above), building demolition and vegetation
removal – especially any mature trees – should occur after October 31 and before May 1. By
September 1, the large majority of bats leave their summer roosting habitats for regional (short-
distance migrant bats) or distant (long-distance migrant bats) over-wintering sites. All planning
efforts have endeavored to retain the majority of mature trees and snags within the FODM5-3
unit (dead trees) to minimize the loss of potential bat summer and maternity roost habitat. A
pre-demolition sweep of the existing home is recommended to ensure there are no
overwintering bats within the building that would be impacted by the demolition.
5.3.3 Herpetofauna
In order to prevent mortality for snakes and salamanders, which (although not detected during
surveys) are highly likely to occupy this area, exclusion fencing should be installed prior to any
construction or clearing activities and in accordance with the Ministry of Natural Resources and
Forestry guidelines, which have been summarized below: as per the Reptile and Amphibian
Exclusion Fencing Technical Note (OMNRF, 2013).
Light duty geotextile fabric fencing with pre-attached wooden stakes is recommended –
unless project duration is expected to last for more than a year – in which case, heavy
duty geotextile fabric should be used (see Reptile and Amphibian Exclusion Fencing
Technical Note, OMNRF, 2013);
Fencing should be attached to stakes (wooden, metal or heavy plastic) spaced 2 – 3 m
apart;
Metal supportive fencing (if used for heavy duty geotextile fencing) should be installed
on the activity (i.e. demolition/construction) side of the geotextile;
Fencing should be connected to stakes using heavy duty wire staples or tiewire;
Geotextile fencing should be 60 cm high from point of contact with the ground;
The bottom of the fencing should be buried 20 cm underground;
Exclusion fencing should encompass the entire proposed demolition and construction
area, throughout the entire period of demolition and construction work;
All fencing should be installed on site prior to all demolition, construction, earth moving
and/or other heavy machinery activity on site.
5.4 Significant Species
See section 5.3 above for impact avoidance and mitigation measures for potential significant
wildlife. While there were no provincially significant vascular plants identified on the site, Wild
Page 33 of 70
Briar Building Group Ltd. 25 June 2021, revised 10 November 2021
Natural Heritage Evaluation, 26 Steeplechase Avenue, Aurora
Kuntz Forestry Consulting Inc. P2779 21
Coffee, a locally rare plant was identified as discussed in section 4.2. This plant is located
within the footprint of the proposed new driveway. It is recommended that it be transplanted as
part of the Restoration Plan described in section 6.
5.5 Landforms and Soils
A very slight increase in impervious surfaces on the subject property will occur as a result of the
development. As discussed in section 4.5, the use of permeable pavers on portions of the
proposed driveway will mitigate for this impact. The use of rain barrels is also encouraged to
interrupt the flow of runoff across the subject property.
The prescribed siltation control fencing should prevent encroachment of sediment into the
natural feature and impacts to the surrounding soils during construction. Disturbed soils should
be re-vegetated and/or mulched as quickly as possible following construction.
6 Edge Management Plan
The implementation of the Edge Management Plan will mitigate for identified impacts to the
adjacent natural features and functions, reduce impacts as a result of the new woodland edge,
and mitigate for canopy loss. Efforts will focus on the planting of native plant assemblages.
6.1 Native Species Planting
The proposed restoration recommendations including the planting of native plant assemblages
will help improve the floristic quality and ecological integrity of the site. The planting of appropriate
species will aid in species diversity, edge function improvement, and canopy rehabilitation through
the area. The proposed plantings will incorporate native tree, shrub, and herbaceous species
appropriate to the subject areas.
Multi-layered plantings forming distinct vegetation layers will be implemented mirroring a natural
forest edge model, considering the native specimens already present in those layers. The
planting plan will help mimic a new, natural edge where a new edge is created, and enhance the
existing edge where it is proposed to remain. In addition, restoration of open areas (for example,
the P2 planting area, where canopy loss appears to have occurred as a result of Ash removal),
will improve the ecological and wildlife habitat function of the woodland and in particular, the
Significant Wildlife Habitat community (FODM5-3).
Species selection has occurred considering those suitable to the site, including light conditions,
topography, and soil and moisture conditions. Refer to Figure 3 for the planting plan and further
specifications.
Prior to planting, all equipment to be used should be cleaned before being brought on site.
Contractors should refer to the “Clean Equipment Protocol for Industry” (2013) document for
details on inspecting and cleaning their equipment before and after planting.
Post-construction, the disturbed areas surrounding the development, including where existing
cultural/hardscaping features will be removed, should be rehabilitated as quickly as possible.
Compacted soil should be scarified and the application of terra-seed, utilizing a native plant
mixture and/or sod should be incorporated into the landscaping plan for the amenity areas of the
property.
Page 34 of 70
Briar Building Group Ltd. 25 June 2021, revised 10 November 2021
Natural Heritage Evaluation, 26 Steeplechase Avenue, Aurora
Kuntz Forestry Consulting Inc. P2779 22
In the area containing the existing driveway proposed for removal, soil remediation will be
required prior to planting in this area. The asphalt and gravel substrate should be removed and
at least 600mm of qualify topsoil installed to facilitate plantings.
6.2 Monitoring
Monitoring of the natural heritage feature is recommended to track the success of ecological
restoration initiatives and guide the short and long-term maintenance of the restored features.
Short-term monitoring events should occur twice during the growing season for a minimum of two
years following the implementation of restoration plantings and initiatives. Due to the limited size
of the subject property, permanent plots or sample quadrants are not necessary for successful
monitoring. Visual analysis incorporating detailed notes to address survivorship of plant species,
individual plant health and potential growth of invasive species is recommended. Mortality of all
planted individuals should be determined and the causes of mortality identified (shade intolerance,
herbivory, drought, etc.). In particular, where soils were disturbed adjacent the development,
aggressive weed management may be required for a minimum of one year following the
implementation of the edge management plan. Details regarding management should be
determined during the first monitoring event, and subsequent monitoring events, if required.
Post-construction with the monitoring and contractor two-year warranty period, a survivability rate
of 90% is required. If plant survivability is less than 90% at the end of the warranty period,
additional plantings must be provided. A monitoring report is required to be submitted to the
LSRCA for review and comment.
7 Summary and Conclusion
Kuntz Forestry Consulting Inc. was retained by the Briar Building Group Ltd. to prepare a
Natural Heritage Evaluation for the proposed development of the property located at 26
Steeplechase Avenue in Aurora. Identified impacts are generally related to disturbances due to
construction and encroachment into the existing natural feature/loss of canopy. Subject to the
mitigation and protection matters identified in this report and summarized below, it is our
professional opinion that the construction of the single family residence as proposed, will not
adversely affect the ecological integrity of the most sensitive natural features of this area.
The proposed development is generally located within the existing residential area, with
woodland intrusion limited primarily to the Red Pine plantation with is of lower value ecologically
and as wildlife habitat. The proposed edge management plan seeks to compensate for the
canopy loss, and mitigate the effects of the new forest edge. The following recommendations
should be employed to ensure impacts to the woodland are as minimal as possible:
Building demolition and tree removal shall occur between November 1st and March 14st
to respect the active bat season and in accordance with the Migratory Birds Convention
Act.
Stumps along the peripheries of the disturbance limit should not be grubbed.
The use of siltation control fabric shall be installed around the perimeter of the site as
specified on Figure 1 to minimize impacts to the retained woodland.
The use of Low-Impact Development measures, including permeable pavers and rain
barrels should be employed.
Window treatments and bird-friendly lighting should be incorporated into the design of
the proposed house.
Page 35 of 70
Briar Building Group Ltd. 25 June 2021, revised 10 November 2021
Natural Heritage Evaluation, 26 Steeplechase Avenue, Aurora
Kuntz Forestry Consulting Inc. P2779 23
Dumping of yard waste within the retained woodland shall be discouraged; landscaping
and gardens around the house should not use invasive species.
The implementation of the Edge Management Plan as discussed above is critical to
reduce impacts to the retained woodland, including the creation of a new forest edge.
Respectfully Submitted,
Kuntz Forestry Consulting Inc.
Celine Batterink
Celine Batterink, H.B.Sc. Ecology
ISA Certified Arborist #ON-1546A, Ecologist
Email: cbatterink@kuntzforestry.ca
Phone: 289-837-1871 ext. 18
Page 36 of 70
Briar Building Group Ltd. 25 June 2021, revised 10 November 2021
Natural Heritage Evaluation, 26 Steeplechase Avenue, Aurora
Kuntz Forestry Consulting Inc. P2779 24
8 References
BSC (Bird Studies Canada). 2003. Marsh Monitoring Program - Training Kit and Instructions for Surveying
Marsh Birds, Amphibians and their Habitats. 2003 Edition. 40 pages. Published by Bird Studies
Canada in cooperation with Environment Canada and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
March 2003.
Cadman, M., D. Sutherland, G. Beck, D. Lepage, and A. Couturier (Eds.). 2007. The Atlas of the breeding
birds of Ontario, 2001–2005. Bird Studies Canada, Environment Canada, Ontario Field
Ornithologists, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, and Ontario Nature: 728 pp. ISBN: 978-1-
896059-15-0.
Cadman, M., P. Eagles, and F. Helleiner, (Eds). 1987. Atlas of the breeding birds of Ontario, 1980- 1985.
Federation of Ontario Naturalists and the Long Point Bird Observatory. University of Waterloo
Press. 706 pp. http://www.birdsontario.org/atlas/atlasbook.jsp
COSEWIC. 2012. COSEWIC assessment and status report on the Eastern Wood-pewee Contopus virens
in Canada. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. Ottawa. x + 39 pp.
(www.registrelep-sararegistry.gc.ca/default_e.cfm).
Endangered Species Act, 2007. S.O. 2007, c. 6. June 30, 2008
Government of Ontario. Provincial Policy Statement 2020. Order in Council No. 229/2020
Halloran, Joe, Anderson, Hayley and Tassie, Danielle, 2013. Clean Equipment Protocol for Industry.
Peterborough Stewardship Council and Ontario Invasive Plant Council. Peterborough, ON.
Updated May 2016
Kuntz Forestry Consulting Inc. (KFCI), 2021. Tree Inventory and Preservation Plan, 26 Steeplechase
Avenue, Aurora. June 2021, revised November 2021
LSRCA 2010. Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority. East Holland River Subwatershed Plan
Lee, H.T., W.D. Bakowsky, J. Riley, J. Bowles, M. Puddister, P. Uhlig and S. McMurray. 1998. Ecological
Land Classification for Southern Ontario: First Approximation and its Application. Southern Region
Science and Technology Transfer Unit, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. Ontario Ministry of
Natural Resources, Southcentral Science Section, Science Development and Transfer Branch.
SCSS Field Guide FG-02.
MBCA (Migratory Birds Convention Act). 1994. S.C. 1994, c. 22
Ministry of Municipal Affairs 2017. Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan. May 2017.
Newmaster, S.G., A. Lehela, Peter W.C. Uhlig, Sean McMurray and Michael J. Oldham, 1998. Ontario
Plant List. Forest Research Information Paper No. 123, Ontario Forest Research Institute.
Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, Sault Ste. Marie, ON.
NHIC (Natural Heritage Information Centre), 2014. Natural Heritage Information Centre, Ontario Ministry
of Natural Resources.
OBBA (Ontario Breeding Bird Atlas). 2001. Guide for Participants. Atlas Management Board, Federation
of Ontario Naturalists, Don Mills. 34pp.
Page 37 of 70
Briar Building Group Ltd. 25 June 2021, revised 10 November 2021
Natural Heritage Evaluation, 26 Steeplechase Avenue, Aurora
Kuntz Forestry Consulting Inc. P2779 25
OMNR. 2013. Reptile and Amphibian Exclusion Fencing: Best Practices, Version 1.0. Species at Risk
Branch Technical Note. Prepared for the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, Peterborough,
Ontario. 11 pp.
OMNR. 2015. Significant Wildlife Habitat Criteria Schedules For Ecoregion 6E.
OMNR (Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources). 2000. Significant Wildlife Habitat Technical Guide. 151pp.
Ontario Agricultural College 1954. Soil Map of York County. Soil Survey Report No 19.
LSRCA 2003. State of the Lake Simcoe Watershed. Lake Simcoe Environmental Management Strategy
Sauer, J. R., J. E. Hines and J. Fallon. 2005. The North American Breeding Bird Survey, Results and
Analysis 1966 - 2004. Version 2005. 2. USGS Patuxent Wildlife Research Center, Laurel, MD
Town of Aurora 2010. Official Plan. September 2010.
York Region 2010. Official Plan. 2019 Office Consolidation
Page 38 of 70
Briar Building Group Ltd. 25 June 2021, revised 10 November 2021 Natural Heritage Evaluation, 26 Steeplechase Avenue, Aurora Kuntz Forestry Consulting Inc. P2779 APPENDIX A. Vascular Plant Species List Scientific Name1 Common Names Federal SARA Registry Status2 Ontario ESA Species At Risk List Status3 Provincial Conservation or Exotic Rank (S rank or SE Rank) L‐Ranks4 Coefficient Conservation Coefficient Wetness FOCM6‐2 FODM5‐3 Acer platanoides Norway Maple ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ SE5 0 5 x Acer rubrum Red Maple ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ S5 4 0 x x Acer saccharum ssp. saccharum Sugar Maple ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ S5 4 3 x x Actaea sp Baneberry Species ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ x x Aquilegia candensis Wild Columbine ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ S5 5 1 x Aralia nudicaulis Wild Sarsaparilla ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ S5 4 3 x x Arctium lappa Great Burdock ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ SE5 0 5 x Alliaria petiolata Garlic Mustard ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ SE5 * x x Cirsium arvense Canada Thistle ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ SE5 * x Athyrium sp Lady Fern Species ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ 0 0 x Betula papyrifera White Birch ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ S5 2 2 x x Circaea lutetiana ssp. canadensis Canada Enchanter's Nightshade ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ S5 3 3 x x Cirsium vulgare Bull Thistle ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ SE5 0 4 x Convallaria majalis Lily‐of‐the‐valley ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ SE5 ‐‐‐ 5 x Cynanchum rossicum Dog Strangling Vine ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ SE5 * 5 x Echinocystis lobata Wild Cucumber ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ S5 3 ‐2 x Fraxinus pennsylvanica Green Ash ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ S5 3 ‐3 x x Galium mollugo Smooth Bedstraw ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ SE5 0 5 x Geranium robertianum Herb Robert ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ S5 ‐‐‐ 5 x Hesperis matronalis Dame's Rocket ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ SE5 0 5 x Juniperus virginiana Eastern Red Cedar ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ S5 4 3 x Myosotis sylvatica Forget‐me‐not ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ SE4 * x x Leonurus cardiaca ssp. cardiaca Motherwort ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ SE5 0 5 x Page 39 of 70
Briar Building Group Ltd. 25 June 2021, revised 10 November 2021 Natural Heritage Evaluation, 26 Steeplechase Avenue, Aurora Kuntz Forestry Consulting Inc. P2779 Lonicera tatarica Tartarian Honeysuckle SE5 ‐‐‐ 3 x Maiantheumum canadense Canada Mayflower ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ S5 0 5 x x Parthenocissus quinquefolia Virginia Creeper ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ S4? 6 x Picea glauca White Spruce ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ S5 6 3 x Pinus resinosa Red Pine ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ S5 W 8 3 x Pinus strobus White Pine ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ S5 4 3 x x Populus grandidentata Largetooh Aspen ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ S5 3 5 x x Prunus virginiana Choke Cherry ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ S5 2 x Prunus serotina Black Cherry ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ S5 3 3 x x Pteridium aquillinum Bracken Fern ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ S5 3 2 x x Quercus rubra Red Oak ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ S5 6 3 x Rhus typhina Staghorn Sumac ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ S5 1 5 x Rhamnus cathartica Common Buckthorn ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ SE5 * x Ribes sp. Currant species ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ x Toxicodendron radicans Poison Ivy ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ S5 5 x x Rubus occidentalis Black Raspberry ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ S5 2 5 x Sambucus canadensis Common Elderberry ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ S5 5 ‐2 x Sanguinaria canadensis Bloodroot ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ S5 5 4 x x Solidago species Goldenrod species ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ x Taraxacum officinale Common Dandelion ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ SE5 0 3 x Taxus sp. Yew Species ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ x Thuja occidentalis Eastern White Cedar ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ S5 ‐3 4 x Trillium grandiflorum White Trillium ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ S5 5 5 x x Triosteum aurantiacum Wild Coffee ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ S5 W 7 5 x Verbascum thapsus Common Mullein ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ SE5 ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ x x Veronica officinalis Common Speedwell ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ SE5 0 5 x Vinca minor Periwinkle ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ SE5 0 5 x x Page 40 of 70
Briar Building Group Ltd. 25 June 2021, revised 10 November 2021 Natural Heritage Evaluation, 26 Steeplechase Avenue, Aurora Kuntz Forestry Consulting Inc. P2779 1 ‐ Nomenclature According to Newmaster et al (1998) 2 ‐ Federal SARA Registry 3 ‐ MNR Species at Risk list 4 ‐ Regional status according to LSRCA 2010 5 ‐ Sranks ‐ S5 = secure; S4= apparently secure; S3 = vulnerable; S2 = imperiled; SNA(SE) = conservation status ranking not applicable (exotic), ? ‐status uncertain 6 ‐ Granks ‐ G1 Extremely rare; G2 Very rare; G3 Rare to uncommon; G4 Common; G5 Very common; GH Historic, no records in the past 20 years. GU Status uncertain. GX Globally extinct. ? Denotes inexact numeric rank (i.e. G4?). G A "G" (or "T") followed by a blank space means that the NHIC has not yet obtained the Global Rank from The Nature Conservancy. G? Unranked, or, if following a ranking, rank tentatively assigned (e.g. G3?). 7 ‐ NHIC Database information Page 41 of 70
Briar Building Group Ltd. 25 June 2021, revised 10 November 2021
Natural Heritage Evaluation, 26 Steeplechase Avenue, Aurora
Kuntz Forestry Consulting Inc. P2779
APPENDIX B. Site Photos
Image 1. Photo of FOCM6-2 unit
Image 2. Photo of FOCM6-2 unit
Page 42 of 70
Briar Building Group Ltd. 25 June 2021, revised 10 November 2021
Natural Heritage Evaluation, 26 Steeplechase Avenue, Aurora
Kuntz Forestry Consulting Inc. P2779
Image 3. Photo of FOCM6-2 unit with existing driveway
Image 4. Photo of FODM5-3 unit behind existing rear yard amenity space
Page 43 of 70
Briar Building Group Ltd. 25 June 2021, revised 10 November 2021
Natural Heritage Evaluation, 26 Steeplechase Avenue, Aurora
Kuntz Forestry Consulting Inc. P2779
Image 5. Photo of FODM5-3 unit behind existing rear yard amenity space
Image 6. Photo of FODM5-3 unit, south side of existing house
Page 44 of 70
Briar Building Group Ltd. 25 June 2021, revised 10 November 2021
Natural Heritage Evaluation, 26 Steeplechase Avenue, Aurora
Kuntz Forestry Consulting Inc. P2779
APPENDIX C. Approved Terms of Reference for NHE
Page 45 of 70
Terms of Reference
Natural Heritage Evaluation (NHE)
Environmental Impact Study (EIS)
This checklist was developed based on current science, policy and guidelines and may be periodically updated. Last revised: March 30, 2021
1.General Information:
Date: ____________________________________________________
Address: ________________________________________________________________
Name of consulting firm: _______________________________________________________________
Contact information: ___________________________________________________________________
2.Identify all potential natural heritage and hydrologic features in the study area (check all that apply):
*The LSRCA recognizes that this is a preliminary assessment to determine what studies may be suitable for the property. A site visit
may be required to verify the presence/absence of features.
☐ Wetland ☐ Drainage feature/watercourse
☐ Woodland ☐ Kettle lake
☐ Valleyland ☐ Seepage area or spring
☐ Grassland or meadow ☐ Lake or pond (and their littoral zone)
☐ Wildlife habitat ☐ Lake Simcoe shoreline
☐ Area of natural and scientific interest (ANSI) ☐ Natural areas abutting Lake Simcoe
☐ Sand barren, savannah or tallgrass prairie ☐ Habitat of endangered and threatened species
☐ Alvar ☐ Fish habitat
3.Activities to be undertaken and studies required for a complete NHE/EIS submission**:
** Some activities/studies are pre-selected (☒) as they are a minimum requirement for NHE/EIS submissions.
☒ Consult with the appropriate Municipal and Conservation Authority staff, as required, to establish the
required scope of study.
☒ Identify an appropriate study area - generally the area of anticipated disturbance plus 120 m.
☒ Collect and include applicable background information and current environmental mapping for natural
heritage and hydrologic features, and the natural heritage system within and surrounding the study area.
☒ Identify and provide detailed descriptions of natural heritage and hydrologic features in the study area,
their function, and the broader natural heritage system that they are within. Determine the significance
of these natural heritage and hydrologic features under applicable policy.
☒ Evaluate existing vegetation communities using Ecological Land Classification (ELC) for Southern Ontario
(Lee et al. 1998. Ecological Land Classification for Southern Ontario: first approximation and its
applications. SCSS Field Guide FG-02). Provide a description of ELC communities in the study area and
include completed ELC field sheets as an appendix.
☒ Conduct a ______ -season vegetation inventory in the late spring/summer/fall. Include the inventory
categorized by ELC community as an appendix and denote any Species at Risk and/or provincially/locally
rare species.
☐ Conduct three (3) breeding amphibian surveys as per the Marsh Monitoring Program protocol (Bird
Studies Canada). Observational salamander surveys may be required if potential habitat exists in the
study area. Include completed field sheets as an appendix.
April 30, 2019
26 Steeplechase Avenue, Aurora
Kuntz Forestry Consulting Inc.
Celine Batterink
one
Page 46 of 70
Terms of Reference
Natural Heritage Evaluation (NHE)
Environmental Impact Study (EIS)
This checklist was developed based on current science, policy and guidelines and may be periodically updated. Last revised: March 30, 2021
☐ Conduct two (2) dawn breeding bird surveys between May 24 and July 15, under appropriate conditions,
with a minimum of 10 days between surveys, and record all occurrences and breeding behaviors. Point
counts, wandering transects or a combination of the two must be used according to features present and
site conditions. Include completed field sheets as an appendix. A third survey will be required if suitable
grassland bird habitat is present.
☒ Record observations of all wildlife occurrences and behaviours and assess wildlife habitat function.
☒ Screen for Species at Risk (SAR), listed under the Endangered Species Act, 2007, based on existing or
potential habitat. Additional species-specific surveys may be required if SAR habitat is present (e.g.
butternut health assessments, snag surveys, bat acoustic monitoring surveys, evening whip-poor-will
surveys, etc.), please contact the Ministry of Environment, Conservation and Parks (MECP) for further
direction. Include any relevant correspondence with the MECP as an appendix
☒ Assess for Significant Wildlife Habitat (e.g. turtle nesting or wintering area, reptile hibernaculum,
woodland raptor nesting habitat, seeps, springs, etc.) as per the Significant Wildlife Habitat Criteria
Schedules for Ecoregion 6E (MNRF, January 2015).
☒ Identify any ecological linkages or movement corridors within the study area. Demonstrate how
connectivity within and between natural heritage and hydrologic features will be maintained and, where
possible, improved or restored to allow for the effective dispersal and movement of plants and animals.
☒ Provide a general description of the methodology, dates, timing, and locations of completed field surveys.
☐ Confirm the boundaries of any wetland and/or woodland features on the property through a staking
exercise with the LSRCA. Boundary points must be surveyed with a high-accuracy GPS device (accurate to
within 10 cm). A professional Ontario Land Surveyor (OLS) may be required to attend. Wetland staking
exercises must be completed between June 15 and September 30 (exceptions may apply). Note that a
site visit fee may apply.
☐ Complete an aquatic habitat assessment for all drainage features/watercourses in the study area,
including characterization of hydrologic features (i.e. permanent, intermittent, ephemeral, headwater
drainage feature) and suitability as fish habitat. Include a description of instream and riparian cover, bank
stability, substrate composition, stream morphology, dimensions and gradient, thermal regime indicators,
potential barriers, woody debris distribution, aquatic vegetation, groundwater seepage areas, etc.
☐ Complete a catchment-based water balance for the study area to assess how existing drainage conditions
and moisture regimes that support sensitive hydrologic features (e.g. wetland, woodlands, watercourse)
may be impacted by the proposed development. Demonstrate how current hydrologic inputs will be
maintained post-development. Please note, the water balance assessment may also be a requirement
under other provincial policies, therefore the NHE/EIS should coordinate with/summarize the water
balance work undertaken by others.
☐ Recommend the dimensions of an appropriate vegetation protection zone (VPZ)/buffer to natural
heritage and hydrologic features required to mitigate impacts from the proposed development.
Recommendations for restoration/plantings should be provided for all buffers.
☒ Provide a detailed description of the proposed development.
Page 47 of 70
Terms of Reference
Natural Heritage Evaluation (NHE)
Environmental Impact Study (EIS)
This checklist was developed based on current science, policy and guidelines and may be periodically updated. Last revised: March 30, 2021
☒ Map the following information separately on current high quality ortho-air photos:
1) ELC vegetation communities, natural heritage and hydrologic features and their associated VPZs, and
the proposed development and anticipated limit of disturbance (e.g. grading limits); and,
2) ELC vegetation communities, survey locations, other environmental features (e.g. linkages, wildlife
corridors, seeps, springs, stick nests, wildlife habitat, rare species, invasive species, etc.), and existing
structures and/or trails.
☒ Assess the potential direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts of the proposed development on natural
heritage and hydrologic features, the natural heritage system, and related ecological and hydrologic
functions.
☒ Develop and provide an appropriate avoidance/mitigation/restoration strategy to address the potential
impacts of the proposed development.
☒ Demonstrate how the proposed development is in conformity with all federal, provincial, regional, and
municipal natural heritage policies applicable in the Lake Simcoe watershed.
☒ Complete one final report for circulation and approval, prepared by qualified professionals, in an
electronic format as well as one (1) hard copy.
4. Additional studies or plans that may be required include:
☐ Landscape/Restoration/Planting Plan
☐ Edge Management Plan
☐ Tree Inventory/Arborist Report/Tree Preservation Plan
☐ Trails Impact Study
☐ Ecological Offsetting Strategy (please refer to LSRCA’s Ecological Offsetting Policy)
☐ Environmental Monitoring Plan/Report
☐ Fluvial Geomorphological Assessment
☐ Natural Channel Design
5. Additional notes and/or requirements:
Please note that changes to the study area, the proposed development, and/or policy changes may require
additional information/studies.
Please provide current field survey data in the NHE/EIS submission. Field survey data will be considered valid
for five (5) years from the date the survey was conducted, except for Species at Risk screenings, which are
valid for one (1) year. If outdated field data is provided, additional surveys may be required.
Page 48 of 70
Kuntz Forestry Consulting Inc. P2779 1
29 April 2021
Ashley Vanderwal
Town of Aurora
Cc: Jessica Chan, Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority
Bryan Picard, Briar Group
Re: Terms of Reference for Natural Heritage Evaluation, 26 Steeplechase Avenue,
Aurora, ON
Description of Project
Kuntz Forestry Consulting Inc. (KFCI) has been retained by the Briar Group, hereby
referred to as the “Client”, to prepare a Natural Heritage Evaluation for the proposed
development at 26 Steeplechase Avenue in Aurora. The property is located on the Oak
Ridges Moraine and contains Woodlands.
KFCI proposes the following Terms of Reference for the study and requests approval
from the Town of Richmond Hill and Toronto and Region Conservation Authority.
Scope of Work
Scoped Natural Heritage Evaluation
Introduction
o Study Area Location
o Study Area Description
o Development Proposal
o Agency Consultation
Background Natural Heritage Resources Review
o Site Context
o Natural Heritage System and resources
o Soils and Topography
Methodologies
o Terrestrial Assessment Methodologies
Protocol for ELC Analysis and floral inventory
Breeding Bird Survey
Incidental Wildlife Surveys and Wildlife Habitat
General Species at Risk and Significant Wildlife Habitat Screening
Existing Conditions - Natural Heritage
o Ecological Land Classification (ELC) – one-season floristic survey (spring
or summer)
o Breeding Bird Survey (2 visits) (May 24 to July 10)
o Butternut screening
o Species at Risk and Significant Wildlife Habitat Screening
o Footprint siting and opportunities for impact reduction
o Restoration Opportunities along New Edge
Impacts
o Footprint siting, description of development proposal
Page 49 of 70
Town of Aurora 29 April 2021
Terms of Reference, Natural Heritage Evaluation, 26 Steeplechase Avenue, Aurora, ON
Kuntz Forestry Consulting Inc. P2779 2
o Constraints (locations of features and buffers) and Opportunities
(minimize and/or mitigate impacts)
o Fauna and Wildlife Habitat
o Flora and ELC Vegetation Communities
o Landforms and Soils
Mitigation Measures
o Determination of appropriate buffers
o Tree Removals, Protection and Mitigation
o Timing Restrictions
o Landform and soils impact reduction
o Wildlife habitat
o Monitoring
o Development of Edge Management Plan
Conclusions and Recommendations
References
Please review and provide sign-off or revision requests at your earliest convenience.
Respectfully Submitted,
Kuntz Forestry Consulting Inc.
Celine Batterink
Celine Batterink, H.B.Sc. Ecology
Ecologist, ISA Certified Arborist #ON1546-A
Page 50 of 70
Briar Building Group Ltd. 25 June 2021, revised 10 November 2021 Natural Heritage Evaluation, 26 Steeplechase Avenue, Aurora Kuntz Forestry Consulting Inc. P2779 APPENDIX D. Wildlife Species List Common Name Scientific Name COSEWIC MNRF Area Sensitivity (OMNR, 2000) Behaviour Onsite Mourning Dove Zenaida macroura --- --- --- Singing offsite along Steeplechase Ave Downy Woodpecker Picoides pubescens --- --- --- Singing >100m offsite in woodland habitat Eastern Wood-Pewee Contopus virens SC SC --- Two males detected singing at two offsite locations in wooded habitat Great Crested Flycatcher Myiarchus crinitus --- --- --- Singing just offsite in woodland habitat Red-eyed Vireo Vireo olivaceus --- --- --- Singing just offsite in woodland habitat Blue Jay Cyanocitta cristata --- --- --- Seen in appropriate breeding habitat on property American Crow Corvus brachyrhynchos --- --- --- Detected just offsite to the SE of property in woodland habitat Black-capped Chickadee Poecile atricapillus --- --- --- Singing onsite Red-breasted Nuthatch Sitta canadensis --- --- AS Singing just offsite in woodland habitat American Robin Turdus migratorius --- --- --- Singing onsite European Starling Sturnus vulgaris --- --- --- Detected offsite along Steeplechase Ave Cedar Waxwing Bombycilla cedrorum --- --- --- Briefly landed onsite, flew off American Redstart Setophaga ruticilla --- --- AS Singing >100 m offsite in woodland habitat Pine Warbler Setophaga pinus --- --- AS Two males detected singing offsite to the north Chipping Sparrow Spizella passerina --- --- --- Singing offsite along Steeplechase Ave Song Sparrow Melospiza melodia --- --- --- Singing offsite on residential property north of Steeplechase Northern Cardinal Cardinalis cardinalis --- --- --- Singing offsite on residential property north of Steeplechase Rose-breasted Grosbeak Pheucticus ludovicianus --- --- --- Singing offsite (>100 m) in woodland habitat Page 51 of 70
Briar Building Group Ltd. 25 June 2021, revised 10 November 2021 Natural Heritage Evaluation, 26 Steeplechase Avenue, Aurora Kuntz Forestry Consulting Inc. P2779 Brown-headed Cowbird Molothrus ater --- --- --- Detected onsite in suitable habitat American Goldfinch Spinus tristis --- --- --- Singing onsite House Sparrow Passer domesticus --- --- --- Singing offsite along Steeplechase Ave Eastern Cottontail Sylvilagus floridanus --- --- --- Detected onsite Eastern Chipmunk Tamias striatus --- --- --- Detected onsite Gray Squirrel Sciurus carolinensis --- --- --- Detected onsite Red Squirrel Tamiasciurus hudsonicus --- --- --- Detected offsite in woodland habitat LEGEND: COSEWIC: END - Endangered; THR - Threatened; SC - Special Concern; NAR - assessed and deemed to be not at risk; --- = not assessed as population secure OMNR: END - Endangered; THR - Threatened; SC - Special Concern; NAR - assessed and deemed to be not at risk; --- = not assessed as population secure Provincial Sranks: S3 - vulnerable; S4 - apparently secure; S5 - secure; SNA - non-native exotic OPIF: PLS - Priority Landbird Species Area Sensitivity: AS = Area Sensitive species Page 52 of 70
Briar Building Group Ltd. 25 June 2021, revised 10 November 2021 Natural Heritage Evaluation, 26 Steeplechase Avenue, Aurora Kuntz Forestry Consulting Inc. P2779 APPENDIX E. Significant Wildlife Habitat Assessment SIGNIFICANT WILDLIFE HABITAT – ECOREGION 6e Wildlife Habitat Wildlife Species Candidate SWH Confirmed SWH Waterfowl Stopover and Staging Areas (Terrestrial) Indicator species absent. No. ELC ecosites and habitat flooding indicators absent No. Waterfowl Stopover and Staging Areas (Aquatic) Indicator species absent. No. ELC ecosite absent; suitable habitat structure absent. No. Shorebird Migratory Stopover Area Indicator species absent. No. ELC ecosites present as small inclusions. Suitable habitat structure absent. No. Raptor Wintering Area Indicator species absent. No. Open country ELC ecosites absent; suitable habitat structure absent. No. Bat Hibernacula Unknown No. ELC ecosites and suitable habitat structure absent. No. Bat Maternity Colonies Unknown Yes. ELC ecosite present. Some potentially suitable snags present. Mature forest present. No. Turtle Wintering Areas Indicator species absent. No. ELC ecosites absent. Suitable habitat structure absent. No. Reptile Hibernaculum Indicator species absent. No. Suitable habitat structure/features absent. No. Colonially Nesting Bird Breeding Habitat (Bank and Cliff) Indicator species absent. No. ELC ecosite and appropriate habitat structure absent. No. Colonially Nesting Bird Breeding Habitat (Tree/Shrubs) Indicator species absent. No. ELC ecosite and appropriate habitat structure absent. No. Page 53 of 70
Briar Building Group Ltd. 25 June 2021, revised 10 November 2021 Natural Heritage Evaluation, 26 Steeplechase Avenue, Aurora Kuntz Forestry Consulting Inc. P2779 SIGNIFICANT WILDLIFE HABITAT – ECOREGION 6e Wildlife Habitat Wildlife Species Candidate SWH Confirmed SWH Colonially Nesting Bird Breeding Habitat (Ground) Indicator species absent. No. Suitable habitat structure absent. No. Migratory Butterfly Stopover Areas Indicator species absent. No. ELC ecosite combination and appropriate habitat structure absent. >>5 km away from great lake shoreline No. Landbird Migratory Stopover Areas Indicator species present. (Various migratory songbirds) No. ELC ecosite present, however, >>5 km away from great lake shoreline. Species count and numbers absent No. Deer Winter Congregation Areas Indicator species present. (White-tailed Deer) No. Suitable habitat size absent. No. Waterfowl Nesting Area Indicator species absent. No. Suitable ELC ecosites absent. No. Bald Eagle and Osprey Nesting, Foraging and Perching Habitat Indicator species absent. No. Directly adjacent riparian areas absent. No. Woodland Raptor Nesting Habitat Indicator species absent. No. Suitable habitat size and interior habitat absent. No. Turtle Nesting Habitat Indicator species absent. No. Suitable habitat ecosites and structure absent. No. Seeps and Springs Indicator species absent. No. Suitable habitat structure absent. No. Amphibian Breeding Habitat (Woodland) Indicator species absent. No. Suitable habitat structure absent. No. Page 54 of 70
Briar Building Group Ltd. 25 June 2021, revised 10 November 2021 Natural Heritage Evaluation, 26 Steeplechase Avenue, Aurora Kuntz Forestry Consulting Inc. P2779 SIGNIFICANT WILDLIFE HABITAT – ECOREGION 6e Wildlife Habitat Wildlife Species Candidate SWH Confirmed SWH Amphibian Breeding Habitat (Wetlands) Indicator species present. Green Frog & Northern Leopard Frog. No. Suitable ELC ecosites and structure absent. No. Woodland Area-Sensitive Bird Breeding Habitat Indicator species present. Yes. Three indicator species are present nearby. This is the threshold for confirmed SWH, but the habitat does not match the criteria. Yes. Habitat structure does not meet the MNRF criteria described. However, indicator species are present. Marsh Breeding Bird Habitat Indicator species absent. No. Suitable ELC ecosites and structure absent. No. Open Country Bird Breeding Habitat Indicator species absent. No. Suitable ELC ecosites and habitat structure absent. No. Shrub/Early Successional Bird Breeding Habitat Indicator species absent. No. Suitable habitat structure absent. No. Terrestrial Crayfish Indicator species absent. No. Suitable ELC ecosites and habitat structure absent. No. Special Concern and Rare Wildlife Species Indicator species present. (Eastern Wood-pewee detected offsite) Yes. Onsite habitat and indicator species detected. Yes. Eastern Wood-pewee, although only detected offsite, may utilize onsite mature treed habitats for various life stages. Page 55 of 70
Page 56 of 70
Page 57 of 70
Page 58 of 70
Page 59 of 70
100 John West Way
Aurora, Ontario
L4G 6J1
(905) 727-3123
aurora.ca
Town of Aurora
Committee of Adjustment Report
No. MV-202 3 -34
_______________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Minor Variance Application
2352107 Ontario Inc.
1588 St John’s Side Road (Blocks 1 & 2)
Part of Lot 26 Concession 3
File: MV-2023-34
Related Files: SP-2023-12, C-2023-05
Prepared by: Kenny Ng, Planner
Department: Planning and Development Services
Date: November 9, 2023
_______________________________________________________________________________________
Application:
Planning Staff are requesting a deferral of the above noted minor variance application for
1588 St. John’s Sideroad (MV-2023-34). Staff have no concerns with the Committee of
Adjustment continuing with the review of the concurrent consent application C-2023-05.
Additional time is needed to reconsider the preliminary zoning review and associated
notices for the minor variance. This delay will allow staff to thoroughly assess and
reevaluate the proposed zoning to guarantee that it complies with the policies of the
Town’s Official Plan. There are no zoning related deficiencies or variances associated
with the proposed consent itself, so the review of file C-2023-05 is appropriate to proceed.
Staff recognize the importance of making informed decisions and believe the requested
deferral will enable a more accurate and aligned interpretation of the Zoning By-law
provisions over the use of property.
As a result, Staff are requesting the subject application be deferred to the next Committee
of Adjustment meeting for consideration.
Page 60 of 70
100 John West Way
Aurora, Ontario
L4G 6J1
(905) 727-3123
aurora.ca
Town of Aurora
Committee of Adjustment Report
No. C -202 3 -05
_______________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Consent Application
2352107 Ontario Inc.
1588 St John’s Side Road (Blocks 1 & 2)
Part of Lot 26 Concession 3
File: C-2023-05
Related File: MV-2023-34
Prepared by: Kenny Ng, Planner
Department: Planning and Development Services
Date: November 9, 2023
_______________________________________________________________________________________
Application
The proposed consent application is to sever the merge the subject lands as follows (see
Appendix ‘C’ Draft R-Plan):
a) Proposed Retained Lands:
Part 1 of the Draft R-Plan (eastern portion of Block 1, 65M-4790)
Part 4 of the Draft R-Plan (western portion of Block 2, 65M-4790)
b) Proposed Severed Lands:
Part 2 of the Draft R-Plan (eastern portion of Block 1, 65M-4790)
Part 3 of the Draft R-Plan (western portion of Block 2, 65M-4790)
Once severed, the Owner intends to merge the two proposed severed lands to create a
new block described as Block 1A (Appendix “C”).
Background
Subject Property and Area Context
The subject lands are municipally known as 1588 St. John’s Sideroad and are part of the
approved Aurora Mills Business Park subdivision located north of St. John’s Sideroad and
east of Leslie Street.
Page 61 of 70
November 9, 2023 2 of 7 Report No. C-2023-05
The subject consent application is only applicable to portions of Blocks 1 and 2 of the
overall Business Park subdivision, which is located on the north side of Melvin Robson
Avenue (a future interior east-west collector road for the Business Park subdivision).
The subject lands are vacant, and the westerly portion of Block 1 (Part 1 on Draft R-Plan)
is currently undergoing earthworks to prepare the lands for the approved Site Plan (SP-
2020-08) to create two drive-thru restaurants.
Proposal
The Owner is proposing to sever a portion of Block 1 (Part 2) and portion of Block 2
(Part 3) and merge the two proposed severed lands to create one new block identified
as Block 1A (Appendix ‘C’). The new block is intended to facilitate a commercial self-
storage facility, with a concurrent minor variance application also being presented.
Details of the proposed consent are as follows:
Proposed Retained Lands:
Block Plan
65M-4790
Part (Draft R-Plan) Area Frontage
1 1 5,553.02 m2 63.32 m
2 4 7,848.9 m2 117.41 m
Proposed Severed Lands:
Block Plan
65M-4790
Part (Draft R-Plan) Area Frontage
1 2 3,004.28 m2 27.01 m
2 3 1,120.19m2 21.09 m
Merged Block 1A:
Block Plan
65M-4790
Part (Draft R-Plan) Area Frontage
1A 2 & 3 4,124.47 m2 48.1 m
Related Planning Applications
Although there is a concurrent minor variance application on the subject lands (MV-2023-
34), the proposed consent application (C-2023-05) does not rely on the proposed minor
variance application (MV-2023-34) to be approved before considering the proposed
consent application.
Page 62 of 70
November 9, 2023 3 of 7 Report No. C-2023-05
Official Plan
The subject lands are designated ‘Business Park 1’ by the Town of Aurora Official Plan
(OPA 73). The intent of this designation is to provide a full range of employment
opportunities, and the designation permits for prestige industrial uses, office, as well as
ancillary uses that primarily serve the business functions in the Business Park.
Zoning
The current zoning classification on the proposed Block 1A is zoned E-BP (504) and E-BP
(503) “Employment-Business Park Exception Zone”. The Zoning By-law requires all new
lots/blocks to have a minimum of 0.23 hectare of lot area and 30m of lot frontage.
Preliminary Zoning Review
A Preliminary Zoning Review (PZR) has been completed by the Town of Aurora’s Building
Division. Building Staff has reviewed the proposed consent application and have
determined that no variances are required to facilitate the proposed consent.
Planning Comments
Based on a review of Section 51(24) of the Planning Act criteria, staff have no concerns
with the land severance as proposed. Amongst other things, criteria of Section 51 (24)
of the Planning Act are as follows:
Matters of Provincial Interest
Conformity with the Official Plan and adjacent plans of subdivision
Suitability of the land for the purpose in which it is to be subdivided
Adequacy of utilities and municipal services
Number and adequacy of highways
The dimension and shape of the proposed lots
Matters of Provincial Interest
Staff are satisfied that the proposed consent application is consistent with the Provincial
Policy Statement and conforms with applicable provincial plans, as the consent is to
facilitate an ancillary employment opportunity that will assist with the economic
development of the Town and overall business function of the area. The proposal is able
to capitalize land area and supports the overall job density requirements for the planned
Business Park.
Page 63 of 70
November 9, 2023 4 of 7 Report No. C-2023-05
Conformity with the Official Plan and Adjacent Plans of Subdivision
The proposed consent application will help support the business function of the area and
provide land availability through the balance of the subdivision to ensure 66 jobs per
hectare are provided, which exceeds the 40 jobs per hectare requirement of the Official
Plan. Additionally, approximately 86% of the lands within the Business Park are strictly
reserved for employment generating uses to help achieve this job target in line with the
Official Plan.
Suitability of the land and adequacy of utilities, services, highways and access
The proposed consent application is located within an approved plan of subdivision.
There are sufficient municipal services that were approved as part of the subdivision
application process. The proposed Block 1A will have access to Melvin Robson Avenue
through a shared driveway located in the retained Block 1, which supports the effective
and orderly function of the area. Discussions related to traffic movement and access
openings will be reviewed in detail through the site plan review process.
Dimension and shape of the proposed lot
Staff are of the opinion that the proposed consent application is generally compatible with
the surrounding area in regards to dimension and shape of the proposed lot, and will not
result in any negative impacts on adjacent properties or character of the area. The
proposed Block 1A fully conforms to the lot area, frontage, and dimension requirements
of the Town’s Comprehensive Zoning By-law 6000-17.
Additional Comments
The consent application was circulated to Town Departments/Divisions and to external
agencies for review and comment. The following comments were provided:
Department or Agency Comments
Building Division
Preliminary Zoning Review completed.
No objection.
Engineering Division No objection.
Operational Services (Parks) No objection.
Page 64 of 70
November 9, 2023 5 of 7 Report No. C-2023-05
Department or Agency Comments
Operations (Public Works) No objection.
Central York Fire Services No objection.
York Region No objection.
LSRCA No objection.
Hydro One No objection.
Public Correspondence
Written submissions from the public were not received at the time of writing of this report.
Should written submissions be received after the writing of this report, the Secretary
Treasurer will provide the submission(s) to Committee members at the meeting.
Conclusion
Staff have reviewed the application with respect to the Section 51(24) of the Planning Act,
R.S.O, 1990, c.P.13, as amended, the Provincial Policy Statement, Provincial Plans and the
Town’s Official Plan and are satisfied with the proposed consent application.
Based on the aforementioned, Staff have no objection to the approval of Consent
application File C-2023-05, subject to the conditions outlined in Appendix ‘A’ to this report.
Attachments
Appendix ‘A’ – Recommended Conditions of Approval
Appendix ‘B’ – Draft R-Plan
Appendix ‘C’ – Colour Coded Plan of Consent
Appendix ‘D’ – Approved Plan of Subdivision
Page 65 of 70
November 9, 2023 6 of 7 Report No. C-2023-05
APPENDIX ‘A’ – Conditions of Approval
1. That the consent only applies to the subject property in conformity with the plans
attached as Appendix ‘B’ to this report, to the satisfaction of the Director of Planning
and Development Services.
2. That the Owner provide payment of any outstanding property taxes owing to date for
the subject property and that the Secretary-Treasurer receive written confirmation that
this condition has been fulfilled;
3. That the Owner provide written confirmation of all required fees to the Town’s Legal
Department being paid, to the satisfaction of the Secretary-Treasurer;
4. Submission to the Secretary-Treasurer of four (4) white prints of a deposited
Reference Plan for review showing the subject lands, which conforms substantially to
the application form and sketch as submitted with this application (Appendix ‘B’). One
copy of the deposited reference plan must be submitted to the Town prior to the
issuance of the Certificate of Official. Please note, if the transaction in respect of which
the consent was given is not carried out within the two-year period following issuance
of the Certificate of Official, the consent effectively will lapse [Planning Act, R.S.O.
1990, c.P.13, as amended, s. 53 (43)]
5. Submission to the Secretary-Treasurer of the required draft transfers to effect the
severance applied for under Files C-2023-05 in duplicate, conveying the subject lands,
and issuance by the Secretary Treasurer of the certificate required under subsection
53(42) of the Planning Act. Subsection 50 (3 or 5) of the Planning Act, R.S.O 1990,
as amended, applies to any subsequent conveyance of or transaction involving the
parcel of land that is the subject of this consent;
6. That the Owner enter into a Letter of Undertaking to acknowledge the understanding
that the Owner will be required to pay cash-in-lieu of Parkland, development charges,
municipal service connection fees and any other fees as required per the Town’s Fees
and Charges By-law to the satisfaction of the Director of Planning and Development
Services.
7. That the Owner provide the required fee payment for Consent (Minor – Planner
Review Only) of $536.00, as per the LSRCA Fee Schedule;
Page 66 of 70
November 9, 2023 7 of 7 Report No. C-2023-05
8. Fulfilment of all of the above conditions shall occur within two (2) years of the date
that notice of the decision was given under Section 50(17) or 50(24) of the
Planning Act. R.S.O. 1990, c.P.13, or the consent will lapse.
Page 67 of 70
Appendix ‘B’ – Draft R-Plan Page 68 of 70
BLOCK 7
BLOCK 3
B L O C K 2
B L O C K 1
BLOCK 8
BLOCK 9
MELVIN ROBSON AVENUELESLIE STREET(ROAD ALLOWANCE BETWEEN CONCESSION 2 AND 3)N76°29'00"E
79.05
N76°29'00"E N3°44'30"W85.83R=101.51
A=13.92
C=13.91
N80°23'05"E
N11°40'35"W24.00N11°40'50"W65.13N5
7°37'00"W21.0
4
BLOCK 15
0.30 RESERVE
PART 11, PLAN 65R-13020 (L-201-5)PART 2, PLAN 65R - 38199N64°11'00"E
52.80N86°01'40"W20.67N57°02'50"E
11.90
N61°46'50"
W13.91N86°06'50"W12.77N12°37'00"W14.42N4
0
°
0
7'
1
0
"W1
2
.
7
0
BLOCK 14106.20
76.85
SUBJECT TO EASEMENT AS IN INSTRUMENT No. YR3537823
N13°34'30"W77.72P L A N 6 5 M - 4 7 9 0N76°13'00
"W1
8.7
8
13.13
63.32
12.60
40.20
(BY PLAN 65M-4790)PART 1, PLAN YR2201434(L12-011750)N11°40'20"W
3.80
0.3
3
0.40
BLOCK 13
0.30 RESERVE
SIB
R=3018.78A=C=42.90N12°05'20"WPART 1 PART 2LOT 26 CONCESSION 3N57°37'0
0"W20.8
7N11°40'50"W65.28N11°40'20"W
3.93
A
B(YORK REGIONAL ROAD No. 12)7.21
PART 3
PART 4
N18°25'00"W69.30N13°51'10"W84.79LOT LINEN80°30
'25
"E
28
.80
N
85
°1
4'50
"E
34
.9
1N4
3
°3
4'5
5
"W2
1.
9
5
N67°13'30"W23.79
R=101.51A
=21.10C
=21.06N
89°44'50"W
R=
10
1.51A=35.7
9
C=35.60N73°40'40"WR=78.49
A=6.36
C=6.36
N65°53'35"W
R=78.
49A=5
5.08
C=53
.95N88
°19'00
"W
N71°34'55"E
21.30 BLOCK 4LOT LINEPART 1, PLAN 65R-405691588 ST. JOHN'S SIDEROAD
TOWN OF AURORA
REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF YORK
SCALE
DRAWN / REVISED
First Draft10 APRIL 2023
Drawing
CS1
CONSENT APPLICATION SKETCH
by IBW Surveyors, plotted Oct 02, 2023.
- Severance sketch is based on R-PLAN 65M-4790
Notes:
N
File Number:11201
2023-11-02Date:
Drawn By:
Planner:
CAD:
CK
PT
11201_Consent Sketch_2023-11-01.dgn
LEGEND
Revised on R-Plan02 NOV 2023
0 20m10
Severed Lands from Block 2 (Part 3))
(Severed Lands from Block 1 (Part 2) &
Severed Lands merged as Block 1A
Block 1 & 2
Retained Lands
BLOCK 1
RETAINED LANDS
BLOCK 2
RETAINED LANDS
FROM BLOCK 1
LANDS
SEVERED
AS BLOCK 1A
TO BE MERGED
SEVERED LANDS
BLOCK 2
FROM
LANDS
SEVERED
Appendix ‘C’ – Colour Coded Plan of Consent
Page 69 of 70
Appendix ‘D’ – Approved Plan of Subdivision Page 70 of 70