The URL can be used to link to this page

AGENDA - General Committee - 20200616General Committee Meeting Agenda Tuesday, June 16, 2020 7 p.m. Video Conference Public Release June 9, 2020 Town of Aurora General Committee Meeting Agenda Tuesday, June 16, 2020 7 p.m., Video Conference Note: This meeting will be held electronically as per Section 20.1 of the Town's Procedure By-law No. 6228-19, as amended, due to the COVID-19 State of Emergency. Mayor Mrakas in the Chair 1.Approval of the Agenda 2.Declarations of Pecuniary Interest and General Nature Thereof 3.Community Presentations 4.Delegations Note: At this time, the Municipal Offices are closed. This meeting will be live streamed at https://www.youtube.com/user/Townofaurora2012/videos. Residents who would like to provide comment on an agenda item are encouraged to visit www.aurora.ca/participation. 5.Consent Agenda 6.Advisory Committee Meeting Minutes 7.Consideration of Items Requiring Discussion (Regular Agenda) R1. CS20-013 – Pros and Cons of Ward and At-large Electoral Systems General Committee Meeting Agenda Tuesday, June 16, 2020 Page 2 of 6 Recommended: 1. That Report No. CS20-013 be received for information. R2. CS20-014 – Electoral System Review – Final Report Presentation to be provided by Beate Bowron, President, Beate Bowron Etcetera Recommended: 1. That Report No. CS20-014 be received; and 2. That Council provide direction regarding the adoption of a ward system for the 2022 Municipal Election. R3. CMS20-012 – Library Square – Governance Review Recommended: 1. That Report No. CMS20-012 be received; and 2. That the Not-for-Profit/Municipal Hybrid Model be approved as the governance model for the future operation of Library Square; and 3. That staff work with stakeholders to develop a fees and charges schedule for Library Square and report back to Council at a later date; and 4. That the Director of Community Services form a Space Allocation Working Group comprised of Town staff and key stakeholders that will provide recommendations regarding rental and booking responsibilities for Library Square, including all spaces at 22 Church St. School, the New Addition, Outdoor Square, Bridge and Aurora Public Library; and 5. That the Director of Community Services form a Collaborative Programming Working Group comprised of Town staff and key stakeholders that will provide recommendations regarding program delivery strategies and create a programming and performance schedule for Year 1 and Year 2 of Library Square operations; and General Committee Meeting Agenda Tuesday, June 16, 2020 Page 3 of 6 6. That the Director of Community Services form an Information Technology Working Group comprised of Town staff and key stakeholders that will provide recommendations regarding the delivery of IT Services for Library Square, including all spaces at 22 Church Street School, the New Addition, Outdoor Square, Bridge and Aurora Public Library. R4. CMS20-014 – Hallmark Lands: Request for Information and User Group Survey Results Recommended: 1. That Report No. CMS20-014 be received; and 2. That the Director of Operational Services be authorized to commence the tendering process for 100 Vandorf Sideroad and proceed with Capital Project No. 73287 as previously presented; and 3. That staff report back to Council with an updated budget request prior to awarding the contract, if required. R5. FIN20-017 – 2020 User Rate Funded Operations Forecast Update – as of April 30, 2020 Recommended: 1. That Report No. FIN20-017 be received; and 2. That the Town’s present ‘break-even’ water, wastewater and storm water rates be maintained for the remainder of the year; and 3. That a by-law to extend the Town’s ‘break-even’ water, wastewater and storm water rates be brought to the June 23, 2020 Council meeting for approval. R6. OPS20-010 – Award of Tender for Supply and Delivery of One (1) 2021 Combination Dump, Sander and Plow Truck General Committee Meeting Agenda Tuesday, June 16, 2020 Page 4 of 6 Recommended: 1. That Report No. OPS20-010 be received; and 2. That the total approved budget for Capital Project No. 34440 be increased to $263,900, representing an increase of $23,900 to be funded from the Fleet Repair and Replacement Reserve. R7. PDS20-032 – Revoking Servicing Allocation Recommended: 1. That Report No. PDS20-032 be received; and 2. That water and sewage capacity previously allocated to the following Site Plan Application be extended for one year: (i) Site Plan Application File SP-2018-03 at 15086-15106 Yonge Street; and 3. That water and sewage capacity previously allocated to the following Site Plan Applications, be revoked: (i) Site Plan Application File SP-2006-13 (formerly D11-13-06) at 15356 Yonge Street; and (ii) Site Plan Application File SP-2013-05 at 15132-15136 Yonge Street. R8. PDS20-037 – Capital Project No. 34527 – Yonge Street at Wellington Street Right Turn Lane Intersection Improvement Proposed Capital Budget Increase Recommended: 1. That Report No. PDS20-037 be received; and 2. That the total approved budget for Capital Project No. 34527 be increased from $75,000 to $94,100, representing an increase of $19,100, to be funded from the Roads Repair and Replacement Reserve. General Committee Meeting Agenda Tuesday, June 16, 2020 Page 5 of 6 R9. PDS20-045 – Application for Official Plan Amendment, Zoning By-law Amendment, and Draft Plan of Subdivision Shining Hill Estate Collections Inc. 306, 370, 434 and 488 St. John’s Sideroad File Numbers: OPA-2018-01, ZBA-2018-02 & SUB2018-02 Recommended: 1.That Report No. PDS20-045 be received; and 2.That Official Plan Amendment application OPA-2018-01 (Shining Hills Collections Inc.) be endorsed in principle to: a)Amend Schedule AA of OPA 37 to re-designate the subject lands from ‘Suburban Residential (SR)’, ‘Suburban Residential (SR-1)’, ‘Core Area Open Space’ and ‘Supporting Area Open Space’ to ‘Suburban Residential (SR-2)’ and ‘Core Area Open Space (COS- 1); and b)Amend Section 2.0 of OPA 37 to add the following new Section 2.5 ‘Suburban Residential (SR-2)’ and the following policy: “Suburban Residential permits fully serviced single-detached lots with frontages generally greater than 15 metres and areas generally greater than 460 square metres. Accessory uses and home occupations which are accessory to the residential use and compatible with the residential character may also be permitted. Neighbourhood oriented community services such as schools and parks shall also be permitted”; and c) Amend Section 2.0 of OPA 37 to add the following new Section 2.6, ‘Core Area Open Space (COS-1)’ and the following policy: “The Core Area Open Space designation permits lands that are open space, approved stormwater management ponds, and approved road and municipal service crossings. Other than the above permitted services this area shall remain in its natural state with only passive recreation uses permitted; and 3.That Zoning By-law Amendment application ZBA-2018-02 (Shinning Hills Collections Inc.) be approved to rezone the subject lands from ‘Oak Ridges Moraine Rural General (RU-ORM)’ to ‘Detached Third Density General Committee Meeting Agenda Tuesday, June 16, 2020 Page 6 of 6 Residential Exception Zone (R3-XX)’, Private Open Space (O2-XX), ‘Oak Ridges Moraine Environmental Protection (EP-ORM)’; and 4. That the Draft Plan of Subdivision application SUB-2018-02 (Shinning Hills Collections Inc.) to create 8 blocks be approved, subject to the conditions listed in Schedule ‘A’ to this report; and 5. That Council grant an allocation of 291 persons from the reserve to service the development of 90 single-detached dwellings on the approved Draft Plan of Subdivision; and 6. That the implementing Official Plan Amendment be forwarded to the Region of York for approval; and 7. That the Zoning By-law Amendment ZBA-2018-02 be brought forward to a future Council Meeting, after the implementing Official Plan Amendment is approved by the Region of York. 8. Notices of Motion 9. New Business 10. Public Service Announcements 11. Closed Session 12. Adjournment Town of Aurora General Committee Report No. CS20-013 Subject: Pros and Cons of Ward and At-Large Electoral Systems Prepared by: Michael de Rond, Town Clerk Department: Corporate Services Date: June 16, 2020 Recommendation 1. That Report No. CS20-013 be received for information. Executive Summary This report is being provided concurrently with the Electoral System Review – Final Report to provide Council and the public with academically accepted pros and cons of the ward and at-large electoral systems. The pros and cons are provided by Dr. Robert Williams, a Professor at the University of Waterloo for many years. Background On December 10, 2019, Council directed staff to include a report regarding pros and cons of the Town’s potential change to a ward system. The report is to be provided to Council concurrently with the final report from the consultant regarding ward options for the Town. Analysis Dr. Robert Williams provided last term’s Governance Review Ad Hoc Committee with some general pros and cons of both ward and at-large system. Perceived pros and cons of each system are often circumstantial and may differ greatly across municipalities. Dr. Williams, Professor Emeritus at the University of Waterloo, Political Science department, has conducted or advised on ward boundary and electoral system reviews in more than twenty-five Ontario municipalities, provided generally accepted academic pros and cons of the system in 2017 which are below. In some cases, he provided some Aurora specific points in parenthesis; At-Large System – Pros General Committee Meeting Agenda Tuesday, June 16, 2020 Item R1 Page 1 of 12 June 16, 2020 Page 2 of 4 Report No. CS20-013 • Electors have greater choice and flexibility in elections (each voter has the opportunity to consider every candidate in the Council election). • Electors are able to select the candidates they think will do the best job, rather than having to make a choice among candidates who happen to run in their ward. • Residents will have a larger number of Councillors to approach with their concerns. • The system promotes the concept of a Town-wide focus, with Councillors being elected by, and concerned for, the Town as a whole, rather than placing a priority on more parochial interests. • The likelihood of acclamations is reduced. At-Large System – Cons • There would be no designated voices for particular neighbourhoods. • At-large elections can lead to significant communities of interest and points of view being unrepresented (or under-represented). • The system can lead to Councillors being relatively inaccessible for residents of some parts of the Town (each Councillor has 55,000+ constituents). • Candidates who appeal to areas where voter turnout is highest tend to be elected disproportionately. • Large numbers of candidates on the ballot (18 in 2010, 28 in 2014) can be confusing for voters. • Candidates must campaign across the entire municipality; this may make the cost of a campaign prohibitive (especially for newcomers). • The format can lead to confusion of responsibilities and duplication of effort on the part of Councillors (everybody on Council represents everybody in the municipality).1 Ward System – Pros • Councillors are more likely to be truly local representatives, easily accessible to residents and aware of local issues • Significant communities of interest are more likely to be represented. 1 Dr. Robert Williams, Report to Town of Aurora Governance Review Ad Hoc Committee, https://www.aurora.ca/en/your-government/resources/Legislative-Services/Agendas-and-Minutes/2020- Committee-Documents/Governance-Review-Ad-Hoc-Committee/GRAHC-2020-03-04-Agenda-bmk.pdf, page 3 General Committee Meeting Agenda Tuesday, June 16, 2020 Item R1 Page 2 of 12 June 16, 2020 Page 3 of 4 Report No. CS20-013 • It is less likely that one particular point of view or sectional interest will dominate the Council. • Provides more cost-efficient government, primarily by eliminating duplication of administrative work communicating the same information to and from two or more Councillors. • Simplifies the election process for electors. Ward System – Cons • Voters may have a restricted choice of candidates in elections for individual wards. • There is a greater likelihood of acclamations. • There may be problems if a Councillor is not performing effectively or is clashing with some electors, as electors in a single-member ward have no alternative (knowledgeable) Councillor to approach. • Ward boundaries may be susceptible to frequent change caused by demographic shifts. • Population changes can lead to unequal workloads for Councillors until ward boundaries are reviewed. • If a Councillor resigns or dies, it may be necessary to hold a by-election to select a replacement. • May discourage new candidates if an incumbent is generally popular or if an incumbent who is popular with a dominant community of interest is running.2 Advisory Committee Review Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the planned meeting of the Governance Review Ad Hoc Committee was cancelled. This report was circulated to the Committee for comment prior to being placed on the agenda. Legal Considerations None 2 Dr. Robert Williams, Report to Town of Aurora Governance Review Ad Hoc Committee, https://www.aurora.ca/en/your-government/resources/Legislative-Services/Agendas-and-Minutes/2020- Committee-Documents/Governance-Review-Ad-Hoc-Committee/GRAHC-2020-03-04-Agenda-bmk.pdf, page 3-4 General Committee Meeting Agenda Tuesday, June 16, 2020 Item R1 Page 3 of 12 June 16, 2020 Page 4 of 4 Report No. CS20-013 Financial Implications None Communications Considerations None Alternative(s) to the Recommendation 1. Council provide direction . Conclusions This report is being provided in accordance with Council direction and is meant to offer general pros and cons for the ward and at -large electoral systems. Attachments Attachment 1 - Report to Town of Aurora Governance Review Ad Hoc Committee Previous Reports None Pre -submission Review Agenda Management Team review by email prior to June 5, 2 020 Departmental Approval Approved for Agenda Techa van Leeuwen Doug Nadorozny Director Chief Administrative Officer Corporate Services General Committee Meeting Agenda Tuesday, June 16, 2020 Item R1 Page 4 of 12 Report to Town of Aurora Governance Review Ad Hoc Committee May 5, 2017 Prepared by Dr. Robert J. Williams Purpose On April 11, 2017, the Governance Review Ad Hoc Committee voted to “recommend to Council: (a) That staff investigate and report back on the feasibility of a ward system, including the process and cost of retaining a consultant, projected budget, and timelines”. This report is provided to the Governance Review Ad Hoc Committee in response to its direction to staff. Systems of Representation in Ontario Municipalities Municipalities in Ontario are governed by elected Councils that are subject to legislative provisions found in the Municipal Elections Act, 1996 and the Municipal Act, 2001. While elections themselves are subject to numerous standard practices related, for example, to elector and candidate eligibility, nominations, financial accountability and other institutional arrangements that are set out in detail, the system of representation is described in minimal terms. The Municipal Act, 2001 at s. 217 (1) (4) provides that “other than the head of council, members shall be elected by general vote or wards or by any combination of general vote and wards” and at s. 222 (1) it authorizes a municipality “to divide or redivide the municipality into wards or to dissolve the existing wards” through a by-law. Beyond those brief references, there are no conditions or constraints imposed by the Province to help formulate a local decision to adopt one electoral system or another. The distinction between the two systems is primarily based on the way the municipality is organized to elect the members of the Council. In one system, referred to as a “general vote” system in the Municipal Act, 2001 (or as an “at-large” system in popular terminology), the municipality is a Attachment 1 General Committee Meeting Agenda Tuesday, June 16, 2020 Item R1 Page 5 of 12 single electoral district in which all seats on the municipal Council are contested. In other words, the entire municipality can be considered a “multi-member” electoral district. In the other system (a ward system), the municipality is divided into a number of electoral districts that elect representatives in separate contests. Within this arrangement, the “district magnitude” (that is the number of seats to be elected in each district) may vary from one (a “single-member” ward) to some larger number (a “multi- member” ward). As noted above, s. 217 of the Municipal Act, 2001, makes it possible to include both general vote and ward systems in a single municipality’s electoral system. In some cases, as well, the system of representation includes a combination of single-member and multi-member wards. Aurora has always used a general vote system, despite attempts from time to time to change to a ward system. Once again, there is no direction from the Province either through legislation or regulation about the conditions to be met or considered for changing from one system to the other. While there are clearly differences in the impact of each system, there are no “standard” circumstances that favour one method over the other. Nor is one system or the other mandatory for particular types of municipalities. For many people, a general vote system is the most appropriate election method in municipalities where the population is small. Aurora has traditionally been considered “small.” Today the population is approximately 55,000 and arguably that label should no longer apply.1 However, as noted already, there is no conventional benchmark to apply to indicate whether a change is appropriate. Exercising the authority set out in s 217 of the Municipal Act, 2001 to adopt one system rather than the other is therefore at Council’s discretion. Comparing the Alternatives The Governance Review Ad Hoc Committee is interesting in exploring a ward system for Aurora in 2017 through a Ward Boundary Review. Given the long history of at-large elections in the Town, it is prudent to provide 1 The 2016 Census shows a population of 55,445 in Aurora, up from 53,203 in the 2011 Census (an increase of 4.2%). General Committee Meeting Agenda Tuesday, June 16, 2020 Item R1 Page 6 of 12 members of Council and residents a summary of some of the implications of the two systems as background.2 Implications of an At-Large System of Representation Advantages Disadvantages • Electors have greater choice and flexibility in elections (each voter has the opportunity to consider every candidate in the Council election). • Electors are able to select the candidates they think will do the best job, rather than having to make a choice among candidates who happen to run in their ward. • Residents will have a larger number of Councillors to approach with their concerns. • The system promotes the concept of a Town-wide focus, with Councillors being elected by, and concerned for, the Town as a whole, rather than placing a priority on more parochial interests. • The likelihood of acclamations is reduced. • There would be no designated voices for particular neighbourhoods. • At-large elections can lead to significant communities of interest and points of view being unrepresented (or under-represented). • The system can lead to Councillors being relatively inaccessible for residents of some parts of the Town (each Councillor has 55,000+ constituents). • Candidates who appeal to areas where voter turnout is highest tend to be elected disproportionately. • Large numbers of candidates on the ballot (18 in 2010, 28 in 2014) can be confusing for voters. • Candidates must campaign across the entire municipality; this may make the cost of a campaign prohibitive (especially for newcomers). • The format can lead to confusion of responsibilities and duplication of effort on the part of Councillors (everybody on Council represents everybody in the municipality). Implications of a Ward System of Representation Advantages Disadvantages • Councillors are more likely to be truly local representatives, easily accessible to residents and aware of local issues. • Councillors may be elected on minor or parochial issues and may lack a perspective of what is to the benefit of the Town as a whole. 2 This is a summary extracted by the author from reports he has previously prepared. Many of these points were also included in Wards for Aurora: A Discussion Paper prepared in 2010 by Aurora’s Customer & Legislative Services Department. General Committee Meeting Agenda Tuesday, June 16, 2020 Item R1 Page 7 of 12 Advantages Disadvantages • Significant communities of interest are more likely to be represented. • It is less likely that one particular point of view or sectional interest will dominate the Council. • Provides more cost-efficient government, primarily by eliminating duplication of administrative work communicating the same information to and from two or more Councillors. • Simplifies the election process for electors. • Voters may have a restricted choice of candidates in elections for individual wards. • There is a greater likelihood of acclamations. • There may be problems if a Councillor is not performing effectively or is clashing with some electors, as electors in a single-member ward have no alternative (knowledgeable) Councillor to approach. • Ward boundaries may be susceptible to frequent change caused by demographic shifts. • Population changes can lead to unequal workloads for Councillors until ward boundaries are reviewed. • If a Councillor resigns or dies, it may be necessary to hold a by-election to select a replacement. • May discourage new candidates if an incumbent is generally popular or if an incumbent who is popular with a dominant community of interest is running. Briefly, the at-large system places an emphasis on Councillors having a Town-wide mandate and outlook and electors having greater choices at election time. The reality, however, is that all eight Councillors are faced with the potential of having to deal with questions and issues from all 55,000 plus residents and electors have been required to sort through 18 candidates in 2010 and 28 candidates in 2014 to mark up to eight names on their ballot. The ward system places greater emphasis on direct accountability and the expectation that distinctive neighbourhood voices will be heard around the Council table. The reality, however, may be that in some wards choices will be limited and the ward boundaries will need to be reviewed periodically to stay in step with population changes. General Committee Meeting Agenda Tuesday, June 16, 2020 Item R1 Page 8 of 12 What is a Ward Boundary Review? A Ward Boundary Review (W.B.R.) is basically a task designed to assist Council in reaching a determination on an electoral arrangement that provides effective representation through a structure sensitive to the geographic distribution of the inhabitants of the municipality. In Ontario there is no prescribed process for a municipality to follow to review its system of representation and no mandatory principles to apply in the design of an electoral system. It is therefore up to each municipal council to set the terms of reference for a review, including the process to be followed, and, ideally, to establish criteria or guiding principles that can be used to evaluate the municipality’s electoral system. Given the primary importance of the electoral structure to those presently holding public office in the Town, a review that would be considered acceptable by the community (and by the O.M.B. in the event of an appeal) must be conducted for the municipality by someone who is not a member of Council or a municipal employee, ideally an experienced independent consultant. Furthermore, a successful W.B.R. requires expertise on municipal electoral systems, reliable data on present and future population trends across the municipality, expertise to develop and map alternative designs and a public engagement strategy. Without access to such capacities, there is a risk that an electoral review may lead to unfair, ill-conceived or politically motivated results. An effective W.B.R. process would require Council to agree at the outset on a set of guiding principles (that is, “what would wards and a ward system ‘look like’ in Aurora?”) and a process consistent with Town practices in relation to public consultation. In this instance, it would also be important for Council to confirm what the Municipal Act, 2001 calls “the composition of Council.” That is, will the Council remain at nine members (a Mayor and eight Town Councillors)? In conducting a comprehensive W.B.R., a consultant would start by developing a clear understanding of the present electoral system, including its origins and operations as a system of representation. The next step would be to evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of the present system on the basis of the identified principles with the aim of Identifying plausible General Committee Meeting Agenda Tuesday, June 16, 2020 Item R1 Page 9 of 12 modifications to the present electoral structure. Without wards in place, some of the evidence would possibly have to be anecdotal (for example voter turnout or residential addresses of successful candidates). Put another way, what are the “problems” with representation that could be solved by changing from an at-large system to a ward system? Since an at-large system implicitly treats the municipality as a single community of interest, some evidence about the delivery of services, transportation patterns, residential configurations, retail and commercial clusters and other data will shed light on whether Aurora can be considered a compact community built around a single population node – a community where an at-large system might still be appropriate. If this is not the case, the Review would seek to develop options that capture the diversity of the Town in the election of its Councillors. In order to design wards that will provide effective representation over at least two elections, detailed population data (including growth forecasts) for the Town will also be a priority. A successful W.B.R. will include an appropriate consultation process to ensure community support for the review and its outcome. In this phase, various alternative arrangements will be subject to public discussion and comment both at public meetings and through on-line tools. Finally, Council will receive a report that will set out recommended alternative ward boundaries to ensure effective and equitable electoral arrangements for the Town of Aurora, based on the principles identified. Are Wards “Feasible” in Aurora? The Governance Review Ad Hoc Committee asks about the “feasibility” of wards in Aurora. This is a legitimate concern since the Municipal Act, 2001 stipulates that municipal elections be conducted under provisions in place on January 1 of an election year. Since 2018 is the next municipal election year in Ontario, any changes to the Town’s electoral system must be agreed upon in time to allow for an Ontario Municipal Board hearing, should any decision to divide the municipality into wards be appealed. The full process includes two segments: getting to a Council decision and the legislated appeal period. The latter (Municipal Act, 2001 section 222) basically includes a 15 day notification period after Council passes a by-law to establish wards, a 45 day appeal period during which the by-law could be appealed to the O.M.B. and the time needed by the Board to schedule, General Committee Meeting Agenda Tuesday, June 16, 2020 Item R1 Page 10 of 12 conduct and rule on an appeal. Unless a by-law passed after the middle of October has significant community support and is unlikely to be appealed, the implementation of a change to a ward system late this year is risky. It can be done but above all requires Council to select a plausible and defensible ward configuration. The process of getting a recommendation to Council can take several months, depending on the time required to collect and analyze data, to undertake background research and consultation, to conduct public consultation and finalize suitable options for Council to consider. However, several of these steps can be compressed without compromising the integrity of the process. Ideally, to meet the timelines just noted, Council should endorse a W.B.R. as soon as possible, including a set of guiding principles and other terms of reference. As well, an independent consultant should be identified and engaged by the end of June 2017. Stage in Process Month Conduct research on present electoral system Collect data on present and future population Conduct interviews with elected officials and senior Town staff July 2017 Conduct public open house to consider alternative ward configurations and seek public feedback September 2017 Prepare report to Council with alternative ward configurations and recommendation early October 2017 Council approval of final report and adoption of by- law mid-October 2017 at the latest Possible O.M.B. appeal process (includes time for appeals, notifications, and hearings by the Board) October- December 2017 Budget Requirements Comparable Ward Boundary Reviews with appropriate public consultation have been conducted by experienced consultants on a budget of $35,000 - $40,000 (including disbursements but excluding HST). Municipal staff’s role would be limited to providing background data to support technical work, to General Committee Meeting Agenda Tuesday, June 16, 2020 Item R1 Page 11 of 12 oversee provision of communications, correspondence and to make logistical arrangements for the public consultation component. The consultants would handle the bulk of the project at arm’s length, including research, data collection, mapping, running public consultation sessions and preparing and presenting reports. This report was prepared by Dr. Robert J. Williams, an independent consultant specializing in municipal electoral systems. Since 2008 he has personally undertaken reviews for Kitchener, Markham, Milton, New Tecumseth, Oakville, Whitchurch- Stouffville, Windsor and West Lincoln. He has also worked in conjunction with Watson and Associates on reviews for Pelham, Barrie, Bradford West Gwillimbury, Clearview, Gravenhurst, Hamilton, Milton, Georgina and Severn. They are currently collaborating on ward boundary reviews in Oshawa, Scugog, Orillia and Essex. Dr. Williams has also been an advisor to Municipal Clerks or citizens on ward boundary matters in Wilmot, Brantford, East Gwillimbury, Georgian Bay, Kearney, Killarney and Kawartha Lakes. He has served as an expert witness before the OMB hearings on ten occasions. In 2010 he was engaged by the Nova Scotia Utilities and Review Board to prepare reports in relation to the appropriate size of councils in Halifax and Cape Breton Regional Municipalities. Dr. Williams is a Professor Emeritus of Political Science, University of Waterloo. General Committee Meeting Agenda Tuesday, June 16, 2020 Item R1 Page 12 of 12 Town of Aurora General Committee Report No. CS20-014 Subject: Electoral System Review – Final Report Prepared by: Michael de Rond, Town Clerk Department: Corporate Services Date: June 16, 2020 Recommendation 1. That Report No. CS20-014 be received; and 2. That Council provide direction regarding the adoption of a ward system for the 2022 Municipal Election Executive Summary This report and attachment provides the results of the Town’s Electoral System Review and seeks direction regarding the adoption of a ward system for the 2022 Municipal Election. Background At the May 14, 2019 Council Meeting, the following motion was carried by Council; 1. That Report No. CS19-018 be received; and 2. That Capital Project No. 13025 – Electoral System Review be approved; and 3. That a total budget of $60,000 be approved for Capital Project No. 13025 – Electoral System Review to be funded from the Studies and Other Capital Reserve Fund; and 4. That Council endorse, in principle, the electing of all Aurora councillors, other than the Mayor, by ward vote instead of general Town-wide vote. Staff then undertook a competitive procurement process to select a consultant which resulted in Beate Bowron Etcetera being retained to complete the review. The attached report provides the findings and recommendations of the review. General Committee Meeting Agenda Tuesday, June 16, 2020 Item R2 Page 1 of 27 June 16, 2020 Page 2 of 4 Report No. CS20-014 Analysis See attached report Advisory Committee Review A meeting of the Governance Review Ad Hoc Advisory Committee was scheduled for the end of March to provide feedback on the final report, however, the meeting was cancelled due to the pandemic. The final report was circulated by email to members of the Committee for comments prior to being included on the agenda.. Legal Considerations Section 222 of the Municipal Act, 2001 provides that Councils may, by by-law, split their territory into smaller voting subdivisions (wards) or dissolve wards. This by-law is subject to appeals. Section 222(8)(a) of the Municipal Act, 2001 mandates that any by-law adopted under Section 222 must be done so on or before December 31 of the year prior to the year of an election, therefore, the bylaw must be in force (which includes the outcome of any appeal) by December 31, 2021. The passing of a by-law under Section 222 also includes a 45 day period where it can be appealed to the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal. Should a by-law to adopt wards be enacted in the form recommended by the consultant, and if it were to be appealed, the consultant would attend the hearing to defend the by- law on behalf of the Town. If Council chooses to amend the recommended ward boundaries to a point where they are no longer consistent with ‘effective representation,’ the consultant would no longer be able to defend the Town’s position. Financial Implications None General Committee Meeting Agenda Tuesday, June 16, 2020 Item R2 Page 2 of 27 June 16, 2020 Page 3 of 4 Report No. CS20-014 Communications Considerations Should a ward system be adopted, staff will undertake a substantial communication effort between the end of the appeal period and the 2022 municipal election regarding the change in governance model. Link to Strategic Plan The completion of an electoral system review by the Town shows a commitment to good governance by exploring the optimal system for Town of Aurora residents to elect their representatives. Alternative(s) to the Recommendation 1. That the XX ward option presented by the consultant be adopted and implemented for the 2022 Municipal Election and that a by-law be brought forward to a future Council meeting to enact the ward system. Conclusions This report and attachment provides the results of the Town’s Electoral System Review. Attachments Attachment 1 – Final Report, Beate Bowron Etcetera Previous Reports CS19-018 – Electoral System Review Pre-submission Review Circulated by email before June 5, 2020 General Committee Meeting Agenda Tuesday, June 16, 2020 Item R2 Page 3 of 27 June 16, 2020 Page 4 of 4 Report No. CS20-014 Departmental Approval Approved for Agenda Techa van Leeuwen Doug Nadorozny Director Chief Administrative Officer Corporate Services General Committee Meeting Agenda Tuesday, June 16, 2020 Item R2 Page 4 of 27 Electoral System Review Final Report Prepared by: Beate Bowron Etcetera Hemson Consulting Ltd. The Davidson Group June 2020 General Committee Meeting Agenda Tuesday, June 16, 2020 Item R2 Page 5 of 27 1 AURORA ELECTORAL SYSTEM REVIEW FINAL REPORT - JUNE 2020 Contents 1. Introduction ........................................................................................ 2 2. Aurora ESR Public Engagement ....................................................... 2 2.1 What We Did ................................................................................ 2 2.2 What We Heard ............................................................................ 3 3. A Preferred Option ............................................................................. 4 3.1 Suggested Boundary Changes to Option 2 - 4 Wards .............. 6 3.2 Suggested Boundary Changes to Option 4 - 6 Wards .............. 6 4. Recommended Ward Configuration ................................................. 7 Appendix A - Aurora ESR Public Engagement .....................................10 Appendix B Options 2 and 4 Maps and Tables ..................................12 Appendix C Analysis of Suggested Boundary Changes ...................14 Appendix D Other Comments .............................................................18 General Committee Meeting Agenda Tuesday, June 16, 2020 Item R2 Page 6 of 27 2 AURORA ELECTORAL SYSTEM REVIEW FINAL REPORT - JUNE 2020 1. Introduction In May 2019, Aurora Town Council passed a motion to investigate a ward system for the Town and launched the Aurora Electoral System Review (Aurora ESR). A team of independent consultants undertook the Aurora ESR using an approach that has been recognized by the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal (formerly the Ontario Municipal Board) and the Courts. Briefly, the approach includes background research, examination of growth trends, extensive public engagement, development of ward boundary options and review of these options by the public, stakeholders and Members of Council and a final recommendation. This report is the Final Report of the project and recommends a ward configuration for the Town of Aurora. The recommendation is based on projected populations for the Town, an objective analysis of the ward boundary options for Aurora and two rounds of public engagement. Along with the expertise of the Consultant Team, Round 1 informed the development of four Options for a new ward system and Round 2 informed the selection of the preferred Option and its ward boundaries. Given the projected populations, the recommended ward alignment should serve Aurora for three, and possibly four, municipal elections 2022, 2026, 2030, and perhaps 2034. The recommended ward configuration achieves effective representation and is based on principles established by the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal and the Courts. 2. Aurora ESR Public Engagement 2.1 What We Did The Aurora ESR included two rounds of public engagement. Round 1 (October 8 28, 2019) sought input into what a ward system for Aurora might look like. Issues such as potential number of wards, ward population sizes, growth in Aurora and possible ward boundaries were discussed. Round 2 (December 4, 2019 January 17, 2020) asked for feedback on four Options for a ward system for the Town. Both rounds of the engagement process were multi-faceted and offered a multitude of opportunities to get involved. They included the following: W with link to project webpage at aurora.ca/esr Online survey at surveymonkey.com/r/aesr Placespeak, online engagement platform, at placespeak.com/esr Social media posts (Facebook; Twitter; Instagram); General Committee Meeting Agenda Tuesday, June 16, 2020 Item R2 Page 7 of 27 3 AURORA ELECTORAL SYSTEM REVIEW FINAL REPORT - JUNE 2020 Council member interviews Governance Review Ad Hoc Committee meetings Public meetings in accessible locations Emails to residents/ratepayers associations Print advertising Advertising on Auroran Town Notice Board Library/community centre/Seniors Centre posters Display panels at the Town Hall and rotating panels in community centres E-blasts to Seniors Association In-person contact at Aurora Seniors Centre Mobile signs E-mails to project mailing list The dedicated webpage contained background information on the project, including an explanation of the differences between electing councillors at-large versus through wards and the concep The webpage outlined the multiple opportunities to become involved in the Aurora ESR, linked users to the online surveys and displayed project documents such as the Aurora ESR Options Report. Appendix A summarizes the pro extensive public engagement activities. 2.2 What We Heard In addition to the general social media activity, over 580 individuals participated actively in both rounds of the Aurora ESR. Based on our experience, this is a very respectable number. This high rate of public involvement is undoubtedly due to some of the innovative ways the project was promoted, such as through the mobile signs, the rotating display panels at the Town Hall and community centres and paid social media advertisements. By comparison, recent ward boundary reviews in Vaughan (population 300,000) involved 235 individuals; Hamilton (population 540,000) 447 individuals; and Ajax (population 120,000) 180 individuals. During Round 1 of the public engagement process, participants expressed their opinions on potential number of wards, preferred ward population size, suitable ward boundaries and communities which should be kept together. During Round 2, participants ranked the four Options and made suggestions for how various ward boundaries could be improved. Section 3 of this Report describes the Round 2 results in more detail. During both Rounds, participants also made a number of other comments, which are not directly related to the Aurora ESR. Notably, there was animated discussion of whether or not Aurora should implement a ward system and the relevance of the 2014 referendum on the issue. Appendix C of the November 2019 Aurora Electoral System General Committee Meeting Agenda Tuesday, June 16, 2020 Item R2 Page 8 of 27 4 AURORA ELECTORAL SYSTEM REVIEW FINAL REPORT - JUNE 2020 Options Report (https://www.aurora.ca/esr ) summarizes the comments from Round 1. Round 2 ther Comments are attached to this Report as Appendix D. 3. A Preferred Option Following Round 1 of the public engagement process, the Consultant Team developed four ward boundary Options: Option 1 3 Wards; Option 2 4 Wards; Option 3 5 Wards; and Option 4 6 Wards. All the Options were designed based on population estimates for the target year of 2026. The Options Report illustrated each Option on a map showing the ward boundaries and a table calculating relative voter parity for the election years of 2022, 2026, 2030 and 2034. The Report also discussed the implications for the composition of Town Council for each Option. For a detailed discussion of the development of the ward boundary options, see the Aurora Electoral System Review Options Report which can be found at https://www.aurora.ca/esr. All the ward boundary O means that the Options balance the key criteria for designing wards relative voter parity, clear boundaries, consideration of future growth and respect for geographical communities of interest. Any of the Options would provide a sound ward system for Aurora. While all Options achieve effective representation, they are all quite different. Choosing amongst the four Options was the focus of Round 2 of the public engagement process. Round 2 sought to determine which was the preferred Option. Participants were asked to rank the Options and to suggest any boundary adjustments that would improve the Options. Through the Round 2 survey, public meetings, interviews with all Members of Council and a meeting with the Governance Review Ad Hoc Committee option preferences and suggestions for boundary changes were gathered and analyzed. The two tables below show the rankings from the Round 2 survey, Members of Council and the Governance Review Ad Hoc Committee. General Committee Meeting Agenda Tuesday, June 16, 2020 Item R2 Page 9 of 27 5 AURORA ELECTORAL SYSTEM REVIEW FINAL REPORT - JUNE 2020 Table 1- Rankings of Options Round 2 Survey Option First Choice Second Choice Third Choice Fourth Choice the Option Option 1 3 Wards 20 17 15 25 31 Option 2 4 Wards 42 31 33 5 1 Option 3 5 Wards 28 44 23 8 5 Option 4 6 Wards 38 12 14 16 32 Results from 133 surveys filled out on-line and 3 completed at the public meetings Table 2 - Rankings of Options Members of Council and Governance Review Ad Hoc Committee Option First Choice Second Choice Third Choice Fourth Choice the Option Option 1 3 Wards 2 4 Option 2 4 Wards 1 3 Option 3 5 Wards 4 1 1 Option 4 6 Wards 7 1 Results from interviews with all Members of Council and a meeting with the Governance Review Ad Hoc Committee The data on rankings present a complex pattern and show a wide range of preferences from first to fourth choice to e O Survey respondents ranked Option 2 (4 Wards) in top place with 42 first choice mentions and Option 4 (6 wards) in second place with 38 mentions. Neither Members of Council nor Members of the Governance Review Ad Hoc Committee selected Option 2 as their first choice, while Option 4 received 7 first place mentions. If the first place mentions of all participants are added together, then Option 2 has 42 mentions and Option 4 has 45. In terms of rankings this is a virtual tie. For ease of reference, Appendix B shows the Option 2 - 4 Ward and Option 4 - 6 Ward maps and voter parity variance tables. Since Options 2 and 4 were virtually tied as first place choices, suggested boundary changes to those Options were explored individually, to see if they could be incorporated and still achieve effective representation. The main concerns in evaluating proposed boundary changes are voter parity, clear and recognizable boundaries and communities of interest. Appendix C lists all the proposed boundary changes for Option 2 and Option 4 and indicates what action was taken on each. Many participants indicated that they liked the proposed boundaries of the Options and these comments have been included. There are certain themes to the suggested boundary changes and the ability to act on them. General Committee Meeting Agenda Tuesday, June 16, 2020 Item R2 Page 10 of 27 6 AURORA ELECTORAL SYSTEM REVIEW FINAL REPORT - JUNE 2020 3.1 Suggested Boundary Changes to Option 2 - 4 Wards The map and variance table for Option 2, as they appeared in the Options Report, are attached to this report in Appendix B. Participants appear to consider the boundaries of W2-1 and W2-2 to be quite appropriate. A majority of the suggested boundary changes focus on the boundary between W2-3 and W2-4. This boundary is Timberline Trail/Trillium Dr./Golf Links Dr. Participants suggested moving the boundary either north to Kennedy or Wellington or south to Henderson, mostly to keep the whole Highland Gate community in the same ward. The major issue with moving the boundary away from its current location is the number of people living in the area between Wellington and Henderson and how they are distributed. For example, in 2026 the target year for the Aurora ESR, there will be some 5,700 people between Timberline Trail and Wellington and 1,522 between Timberline Trail and Kennedy. Between Timberline Trail and south to Henderson there will be some 7,000 people. Any movement of this boundary between W2-3 and W2-4 leads to a situation in which the two wards fail to achieve acceptable voter parity. A similar situation arises if the railway tracks became the boundary between W2-3 and W2-4. While the railway is a clear boundary, the loss of population between the railway tracks and Timberline Trail leaves W2-4 with far too few people, and conversely W2-3 with far too many. The current boundary alignment between W2-3 and W2-4 does split off a small portion of the Highland Gate community. Including the whole of the Highland Gate community in either W2-3 or W2-4 would lead to unacceptable voter parity. There is one minor change that would keep the residents on both sides of Timberline Trail in the same ward. The boundary could be moved to the Tannery Creek Tributary immediately south of Timberline Trail and then follow Trillium, Dr. and Golf Links Dr. to Yonge. If Option 2 is the Option that Council selects, we would recommend this minor change. 3.2 Suggested Boundary Changes to Option 4 - 6 Wards The map and variance table for Option 4, as they appeared in the Options Report, are attached to this report in Appendix B. As the number of wards increases from Option 1 to Option 4, the boundaries become more complex in the quest for voter parity and keeping communities of interest together. Option 4, the 6- ward option, demonstrates this situation. There were numerous suggestions for boundary changes, which are all listed and analysed in Appendix C. General Committee Meeting Agenda Tuesday, June 16, 2020 Item R2 Page 11 of 27 7 AURORA ELECTORAL SYSTEM REVIEW FINAL REPORT - JUNE 2020 Many of the suggestions focus on the irregular shape of W4-1. Based on the population distribution in Aurora three wards are needed west of the railway tracks to create six wards. W4-2 and W4-3 have excellent boundaries, voter parity and keep communities together. W4-1 has a small population west of Yonge and needs additional area, hence the area east of Yonge to the railway tracks has to be added. This area contains much A number of suggestions and comments attempt to include portions west of Yonge in W4-1 in order to keep all of the heritage areas in one ward. However, there are no north-south connections that would result in clear ward boundaries. Many other boundary changes in the area east of Yonge to the railway tracks were tested, but all lead to unacceptable voter parity. The reason is that W4-1 is a small ward, with respect to population. In our experience, having more than one Councillor responsible for areas that are important to the whole Town is an advantage rather than a disadvantage. One apparent anomaly in W4-1 is the area east of the railway tracks, Sideroad and west of Bayview. Moving this area to either W4-5 or W4-6 was tested. However, this area will have some 1,400 people in 2026. Shifting it out of W4-1 makes W4-1 too small and its voter parity becomes unacceptable. Similarly, adding this area to either W4-5 or W4-6 makes their populations too large and leads to unacceptable voter parity in those Wards. It should also be pointed out that several respondents found the boundaries of Option 4 quite acceptable. Having tested alternative boundaries for Option 4 in considerable detail, the Consultant Team does not recommend any boundary changes. 4. Recommended Ward Configuration Based on the results from the Round 2 public engagement process, Option 2 4 Wards and Option 4 6 Wards were in a virtual tie. Both Options achieve effective representation and either one could be adopted by Aurora Town Council. However, the Consultant Team is recommending Option 4 6 Wards. The reason has to do with the implications for Council composition. The 4-ward configuration would most likely lead to a Council size of 5, 4 Ward Councillors and a Mayor. During the public process there was some discussion of having an elected Deputy Mayor, but opinions on this issue were divided. There was some concern that Council would then have an even number of members, which was seen as undesirable. The 6-ward configuration results in a Council of 7 members, 6 Ward Councillors and a Mayor. This is the same size as the current Council. Aurora Town Council has recently reduced its size from 9 to 7 and, at this juncture, a further reduction does not seem appropriate. General Committee Meeting Agenda Tuesday, June 16, 2020 Item R2 Page 12 of 27 8 AURORA ELECTORAL SYSTEM REVIEW FINAL REPORT - JUNE 2020 Because Option 4 achieves effective representation and includes the least impact on Council operations, it is the Option recommended by the Consultant Team. The recommended Ward map showing boundaries and the voter parity table are shown below. General Committee Meeting Agenda Tuesday, June 16, 2020 Item R2 Page 13 of 27 9 AURORA ELECTORAL SYSTEM REVIEW FINAL REPORT - JUNE 2020 Recommended Ward Configuration Ward Populations and Variances for Recommended Ward Configuration Town of Aurora Forecast Census Population at Election Years Population 2022 Variance from average Population 2026 Variance from average Population 2030 Variance from average Population 2034 Variance from average Ward 1 10,155 -4.2% 10,595 -6.5% 10,935 -8.1% 11,185 -9.2% Ward 2 10,785 1.7% 11,545 1.9% 12,115 1.8% 12,555 1.9% Ward 3 11,660 10.0% 12,000 5.9% 12,280 3.2% 12,490 1.4% Ward 4 8,780 -17.2% 9,690 -14.5% 10,400 -12.6% 10,890 -11.6% Ward 5 11,740 10.8% 12,440 9.8% 13,000 9.2% 13,410 8.8% Ward 6 10,490 -1.0% 11,710 3.4% 12,680 6.6% 13,380 8.6% Average Ward Population 10,600 11,330 11,900 12,320 General Committee Meeting Agenda Tuesday, June 16, 2020 Item R2 Page 14 of 27 10 AURORA ELECTORAL SYSTEM REVIEW FINAL REPORT - JUNE 2020 Appe ndix A -Aurora ESR Public Engagement Types of Engagement Round 1 Date(s) Round 1 Responses Round 2 Date(s) Round 2 Responses Online Survey Oct. 8 28, 2019 174 Dec. 4, 2019 Jan. 17, 2020 133 Survey (hard copies) at Town Hall; public meetings; Seniors Centre Oct. 8 28, 2019 5 Dec. 4, 2019 Jan. 17, 2020 3 placespeak Oct. 8 28, 2019 5 Dec. 4, 2019 Jan. 17, 2020 1 Meeting with Governance Review Ad Hoc Committee Oct. 9, 2019 N.A. Nov. 27, 2019 N.A. Facebook Oct. 7 28, 2019 4 discussion participants; 3,900* Impressions; 250 Engagements Dec. 4 11, 2019 & Jan. 6 - 13, 2020 Approx. 25 discussion participants; 7,494* Impressions; 452 Engagements Twitter Oct. 7 28, 2019 1,121* Impressions; 24 Engagements Dec. 4 11, 2019 & Jan. 6 - 13, 2020 4,071 Impressions; 60 Engagements Instagram Oct. 7 28, 2019 13 Likes Dec. 4 11, 2019 & Jan. 6 - 13, 2020 52 Likes* Aurora Seniors Association e-blast Oct. 17, 2019 1,044 recipients (88 to online survey; 8 to webpage) Dec. 10, 2019 1,070 recipients (64 to online survey) Aurora Seniors Centre Posters N.A. N.A. Jan. 7 17, 2020 N.A. Aurora Seniors Centre (in person) N.A. N.A. Jan. 8, 2020, 11 am to noon 10 Contacts Print Ads (Aurora Banner, Auroran) Oct. 10 & 17, 2019 N.A. Nov. 28, 2019 & Jan. 9, 2020 N.A. General Committee Meeting Agenda Tuesday, June 16, 2020 Item R2 Page 15 of 27 11 AURORA ELECTORAL SYSTEM REVIEW FINAL REPORT - JUNE 2020 Auroran (Town Notice Board) Oct. 17, 2019 N.A. Nov. 28, Dec. 12, 19, 2019 & Jan. 2, 2020 N.A. Public Meetings Oct. 23 & 28, 2019 9 + 15 Dec. 11, 2019 & Jan. 15, 2020 17 + 16 Meetings with Members of Council Oct. 9 23, 2019 7 Dec. 10 20, 2019 7 Email to Residents/Ratepayers Associations/BIA Oct. 16, 2019 N.A. Dec. 8, 2019 & Jan. 7, 2020 N.A. Library/Community Centre Posters Oct. 8 28, 2019 N.A. Dec. 4, 2019 Jan. 17, 2020 N.A. Mobile Signs N.A. N.A. Nov. 28 Dec. 12, 2019 & Jan. 2 16, 2020 N.A. Aurora ESR Display Panels (Town Hall; SARC; AFLC; AAC) N.A. N.A. Dec. 19, 2019 Jan. 17, 2020 N.A. Email to Aurora ESR Mailing List Oct. 16, 2019 122 contacts Dec. 8, 2019 & Jan. 7, 2020 200 contacts (total) *Included paid advertisements social media outreach. General Committee Meeting Agenda Tuesday, June 16, 2020 Item R2 Page 16 of 27 12 AURORA ELECTORAL SYSTEM REVIEW FINAL REPORT - JUNE 2020 Appe ndix B Options 2 and 4 Maps and Tables Option Map 2: 4 Wards Ward Populations and Variances Option 2 Town of Aurora - Ward Boundary Options Forecast Census Population at Election Years OPTION 2 Population 2022 Variance from average Population 2026 Variance from average Population 2030 Variance from average Population 2034 Variance from average W2-1 15,960 0.4% 16,510 -2.9% 16,940 -5.1% 17,250 -6.7% W2-2 15,990 0.6% 17,840 4.9% 19,310 8.2% 20,380 10.3% W2-3 14,640 -7.9% 15,500 -8.8% 16,140 -9.6% 16,640 -10.0% W2-4 17,020 7.0% 18,130 6.6% 19,020 6.6% 19,640 6.3% Average Ward Population 15,900 17,000 17,850 18,480 General Committee Meeting Agenda Tuesday, June 16, 2020 Item R2 Page 17 of 27 13 AURORA ELECTORAL SYSTEM REVIEW FINAL REPORT - JUNE 2020 Option Map 4: 6 Wards Ward Populations and Variances Option 4 Town of Aurora - Ward Boundary Options Forecast Census Population at Election Years OPTION 4 Population 2022 Variance from average Population 2026 Variance from average Population 2030 Variance from average Population 2034 Variance from average W4-1 10,155 -4.2% 10,595 -6.5% 10,935 -8.1% 11,185 -9.2% W4-2 10,785 1.7% 11,545 1.9% 12,115 1.8% 12,555 1.9% W4-3 11,660 10.0% 12,000 5.9% 12,280 3.2% 12,490 1.4% W4-4 8,780 -17.2% 9,690 -14.5% 10,400 -12.6% 10,890 -11.6% W4-5 11,740 10.8% 12,440 9.8% 13,000 9.2% 13,410 8.8% W4-6 10,490 -1.0% 11,710 3.4% 12,680 6.6% 13,380 8.6% Average Ward Population 10,600 11,330 11,900 12,320 General Committee Meeting Agenda Tuesday, June 16, 2020 Item R2 Page 18 of 27 14 AURORA ELECTORAL SYSTEM REVIEW FINAL REPORT - JUNE 2020 Appendix C Analysis of Suggested Boundary Changes Suggestions/Comments on Options 2 and 4 (Survey/Public Meetings/ GRAHC/Members of Council) # Suggestions/Comments Option 2 4 Wards Action 1 Should W2-4 end at the RR tracks? Does not achieve acceptable voter parity between W2-4 and W2-3 2 W2-1 has good boundaries Comment 3 W2-1 is different north and south of Wellington Comment 4 Shift area north of Henderson from W2-4 to W2-3 (6)* Does not achieve acceptable voter parity between W2-4 and W2-3 5 End W2-3 at Wellington Makes W2-3 population too small; does not achieve acceptable voter parity 6 Expand W2-4 north to Wellington (incl. area from W2-1) Makes W2-4 population too large; does not achieve acceptable voter parity 7 W2-4 Timberline boundary divides Highland Gate community; Timberline should be in W2-4; move boundary north to Kennedy (4)* Does not achieve acceptable voter parity between W2-4 and W2-3; boundary between W2-3 and W2-4 changed to Tannery Creek Tributary/Trillium Dr./Golf Links Dr.; all of Timberline now in W2-3 8 Would like the number of Council members to total 5. Keep Kennedy NOT as a boundary Comment 9 Use Tamarac as boundary between W2-3 and W2-4 Does not create clear boundary; makes W2-4 population too small; does not achieve acceptable voter parity between W2-3 and W2-4 10 Option 2 is fine as is; looks good; ideal (6)* Comment 11 One ward north of Wellington, west of Yonge to Bathurst to a little north of St. John Side Rd to the Newmarket border. The other north of Wellington, east of Yonge to 404 and up to Newmarket border. Does not achieve acceptable voter parity among the four wards General Committee Meeting Agenda Tuesday, June 16, 2020 Item R2 Page 19 of 27 15 AURORA ELECTORAL SYSTEM REVIEW FINAL REPORT - JUNE 2020 The third south of Wellington, west of Yonge to Bathurst and south to Bloomington. The fourth south of Wellington, east to 404, south to Bloomington. Equal. 12 Option 2 is my first choice simply based on the boundaries, however, I think 5-6 wards for Aurora seems to be the best case Comment 13 Splitting wards along Yonge Street especially in the old downtown area is potentially problematic. Aurora has an old core area which should be part of a single ward Comment 14 W2-2 should extend to Vandorf Does not achieve acceptable voter parity between W2-2 and W2-4 15 As long as ward populations are similar...very important Comment 16 Excellent voter parity Comment 17 1) Best population variance of all ward options comparing 2022 & 2034. (14.9% & 20.3%) 2) It is the best balanced of wards and boundaries. The area south of Wellington and east of Yonge is not stuck on like an extra arm or leg like in the other ward options. e.g. this area has little in common with other areas such as Bathurst and St. Jon's Sideroad. 3) It keeps the north south flow of Aurora's greenbelt, Mackenzie Marsh, Arboretum and Sheppard's Bush leading into the Moraine without boundaries cutting through Comment # Suggestions/Comments Option 4 6 Wards Action 1 Transfer Stone Road area from W4-4 to W4-5 or to W4-3 Does not create clear boundaries on its own; moving area incl. Vandorf/RR tracks/Wellington/Bayview out of W4-4 makes W4-4 population too small; does not achieve acceptable voter parity 2 Can historic area east & west of Yonge, north & south of Wellington be kept together? Does not create clear boundaries 3 Extend W4-1 to Aurora Heights; make Mark north of Wellington its southern boundary east of Yonge Makes W4-1 population too small; does not General Committee Meeting Agenda Tuesday, June 16, 2020 Item R2 Page 20 of 27 16 AURORA ELECTORAL SYSTEM REVIEW FINAL REPORT - JUNE 2020 achieve acceptable voter parity 4 Add south of Mark Street to RR tracks to W4-2 Makes W4-1 population too small; does not achieve acceptable voter parity 5 Dodie Street and George Street are part of Kennedy West area; include in W4-2 (2)* Does not create clear boundaries 6 Add area east of RR W4-5 (6)* Makes W4-1 population too small; does not achieve acceptable voter parity between W4-1 and W4-5 7 west of RR tracks are together in W4-1 Comment 8 Could Temperance between Wellington and Kennedy be part of W4-1 to keep more of the historic area together? Does not create clear boundaries 9 W4-1 feels right; boundaries are ok (3)* Comment 10 W4-1 is hard to understand; can Town Park area become part of W4-2 or W4-3? Makes W4-1 population too small; does not achieve acceptable voter parity 11 W4-4 works as a ward; people with similar interests (4)* Comment 12 Boundaries of W4-3 are good Comment 13 Boundaries of W4-2 are good Comment 14 Transfer area west of Marsh Creek from W4-6 to W4-5, if Pinnacle Trail area shifts to W4-5. But both wards are ok as is, if populations work Comment 15 Extend W4-2 across Yonge to RR tracks; end W4-2 at Kennedy or at Dunning Makes W4-1 population too small; does not achieve acceptable voter parity 16 Extend W4-3 across Yonge up to Wellington; Councillors will share heritage areas Makes W4-1 population too small; does not achieve acceptable voter parity 17 into W4-6 Makes W4-1 population too small; does not achieve acceptable voter parity between W4-1 and W4-6 18 Shift Town Park area from W4-1 into W4-4 Makes W4-1 population too small; does not General Committee Meeting Agenda Tuesday, June 16, 2020 Item R2 Page 21 of 27 17 AURORA ELECTORAL SYSTEM REVIEW FINAL REPORT - JUNE 2020 achieve acceptable voter parity 19 Heritage area in W4-1 is combined with other development south of Dunning Comment 20 Adding the old area west of Yonge - keeping all the heritage areas in one ward; It is essential to keep all the heritage areas together to ensure their position on development is sensitive to the value of a distinct heritage area Does not create clear boundaries 21 Intensification probable in W4-1 and W4-2 because of large lots Comment 22 Shape of W4-1 is a problem; extends a long distance N-S and covers too wide a range of socio-economic neighbourhoods Comment 23 W4-1 includes a mix of developments Comment 24 Can W4-2 be extended across to RR tracks? Makes W4-1 population too small; does not achieve acceptable voter parity 25 Boundaries seem reasonable/excellent (3)* Comment 26 Use Wellington as a boundary as the needs/ interests on either side can be very different Wellington is boundary east of RR tracks 27 W4-6 should include Bayview and Wellington, not dissecting with a small streets Makes W4-5 too small; does not achieve acceptable voter parity between W4-5 and W4-6 28 The north-south boundary line between Ward 4-5 and Ward 4-6 seems unusual. People just east of Mavrinac will still have things in common with the people just west of that street. Perhaps consider moving this boundary line to the east to be consistent with the green "valley area" Mavrinac is a clear boundary (bus route); worsens voter parity between W4-5 and W4-6 29 Keep north-east area as a unit If W4-5 and W4-6 are combined, there are only 5 wards 30 I don't understand why the boundaries of Option 4 are so muddled. I would prefer to see neater boundaries Comment 31 Splitting wards along Yonge Street especially in the old downtown area is potentially problematic. Aurora has an old core area which should be part of a single ward Comment. Examined in context of other specific comments *Numbers in brackets refer to the number of times a suggestion/comment was made. General Committee Meeting Agenda Tuesday, June 16, 2020 Item R2 Page 22 of 27 18 AURORA ELECTORAL SYSTEM REVIEW FINAL REPORT - JUNE 2020 Appendix D Other Comments Other Comments GRAHC/Members of Council Not sure whether there should be wards There should be another referendum re wards Community will not like 3-ward system * No less than 5 wards 1 Councillor per ward Real representation would mean having full-time Councillors; part-time community events Before contemplating full-time Councillors, a cost-benefit study would need to be done Current Councillors are able to function well, in addition to having full-time jobs Not in favour of full-time Councillors If at-large system remained, there should be fewer, but full-time Councillors If a 4-ward system were adopted, 2 additional full-time Councillors should be elected at-large Deputy Mayor position is more ceremonial; should rotate among Councillors, just like Committee Chairs (2)* Deputy Mayor does not have many responsibilities now Need defined role for Deputy Mayor Elect Deputy Mayor (4)* Electing a Deputy Mayor is not a good idea, would compete with the Mayor Unsure about whether or not to elect a Deputy Mayor Allow Deputy Mayor to represent Town, if needed No Deputy Mayor needed with 6 wards May not need Deputy Mayor, if no extra seat on Regional Council Deputy Mayor can attend Regional Council (non-voting) Aurora has no chance of getting an extra Regional Council seat 5 wards would only work, if Aurora got an extra seat on Regional Council; waste of a Deputy Mayor position 2 Councillors per ward in 3- ward Option not helpful; results in competition among Councillors, just like now (3)* 4-ward Option could work, if Councillors were full-time; meetings could be during the day Current at-large system is inefficient; results if competition and duplication; a ward system can encourage new people to run Have just changed number of Councillors; should not change them again right now *Numbers in brackets refer to the number of times a suggestion/comment was made. General Committee Meeting Agenda Tuesday, June 16, 2020 Item R2 Page 23 of 27 19 AURORA ELECTORAL SYSTEM REVIEW FINAL REPORT - JUNE 2020 Other Comments Public (Survey, Public Meetings, placespeak, Facebook) Questions Will there be growth in the Moraine? Could one start with three wards and then grow to 4 or 5 later? Could a 3-Ward Option include 3 Ward Councillors and 3 at-large Councillors? similar numbers of people in a ward or keeping communities together? Will there be another round of public engagement on recommended ward system? Has any municipality elected a councillor at-large solely in charge of business and industry? Has any town ever switched to a ward system and then changed back to at-large elections? Wards Base ward boundaries on the age of houses Use school area boundaries as ward boundaries Wards are too large in Option 3. Aurora needs better representation , we live in a heritage neighbourhood which has different needs than a new subdivision or business area Option 3 provides the boundaries that are most natural for the Town of Aurora and would allow for more growth in each Ward in the future Keep it simple 4 Wards makes the most sense to me and is equitable now with plenty of room for population growth in the 'open' areas The boundary really not that important to me long as its mixed with different age groups and has schools, parks, recreation, etc. in each ward I'm concerned about the wards inadvertently being segregated by income class Council Composition/Roles Councillors should be full-time The issue of councillors part time responsibilities has not been addressed at all! I.e. what if the councillor in my ward has a job which does not allow weekday calls, but another will. I think the approach taken is too simplistic and lazy 2 Councillors per ward is good. 6 plus the Mayor gives an odd number of votes, no ties Dislike 2 Councillors per ward, results in competition Like 2 Councillors per ward, because residents have 2 Councillors to talk to, if * Wards are the way to go. A rotating deputy Mayor may be an option rather than having Council or the Mayor appoint Prefer 3 Councillors + Mayor and Deputy Mayor at large More wards would give a better chance of representative needs in council I like the idea of still voting for the Mayor at-large General Committee Meeting Agenda Tuesday, June 16, 2020 Item R2 Page 24 of 27 20 AURORA ELECTORAL SYSTEM REVIEW FINAL REPORT - JUNE 2020 Good idea to have a Deputy mayor elected OPTION TWO WITH FOUR COUNCILLORS AND ONE MAYOR; THIS OPTION PROVIDES FOR ALL COUNCIL MEMBERS TO BE ELECTED ON AN EQUAL BASIS; 4 COUNCILLORS SHOULD PROMOTE COMPETITION AMONGST THE GROUP I far prefer the ward system and would not like to see the size of Council reduced. More voices means more debate, plus, too few Councillors would entail too heavy a work load for committees and other business. 6+a mayor seems the proper number for a town of this size. I come from Fredericton, NB which has a population of ~60000 and 10 Councillors. (I thought that was too many but you certainly could get their ear on an issue) My preference would be that each of 3 wards would elect one Councillor and the mayor and deputy-mayor would be elected in SEPARATE at-large elections i.e. run for mayor/ deputy-mayor. This would result in 5 members (odd number for votes) and provide a balance of "local" ward interests and Aurora "global" town interests (2)* My second choice would be that each of 5 wards would elect one Councillor and the mayor and deputy-mayor would be elected in SEPARATE at-large elections i.e. run for mayor or deputy-mayor. This would result in 7 members (odd number for votes) and also provide a balance of "local" ward interests and Aurora "global" town interests (2)* Options with equal number of councillors lead to tie votes. That is very undesirable. 6 -7 councillors is as current and too many We need to ensure that we can vote for a Deputy Mayor who is full time and can attend regional council when the Mayor is not able to attend. There are many regional issues that are affecting Aurora and we need to make sure that our small but strong voice is heard!! Accountability/Representation Like the idea of wards for Aurora; better accountability; get it done (9)* Implement a ward system so we have a ward councillor who understands the needs of a particular neighbourhood and is the clear representative to approach when there is an issue. Then he/she is accountable to their constituents. In the past it was very difficult to find the right person on Council to talk to about a very local issue, ie a walkway needed creating in our neighbourhood. Issues are different in various wards; good to have Ward Councillors The ward system will work provided the elected Councillor lives in the ward. This way the Councillor knows the issues and voice the residents concern. Each Councillor will be held accountable and will vote for the wishes of the majority of the Councillor's constituents Need people that care about the area. I am extremely disappointed that there is not one person I can call about the issues I have in my area, i.e. speed on my street; I am always given the run around We REALLY need the Ward system. If you live in a new area, the councillors don't care about you!!! They all live in old Aurora and that's all they care about General Committee Meeting Agenda Tuesday, June 16, 2020 Item R2 Page 25 of 27 21 AURORA ELECTORAL SYSTEM REVIEW FINAL REPORT - JUNE 2020 Reducing council and making elected councillors responsible for areas will reduce taxpayer costs and improve efficiency; Aurora must be one of the only municipalities in Canada calling itself a TOWN that does not have a Ward system, shameful I feel totally out of touch with what is happening in my area (Bayview Greens). I didn't know there was a monster home going in to 130 St. John's, wasn't aware a McDonald's was being built, now the Fire Department is being relocated here. I should be informed about these changes in advance of them happening I assume there would be councillors dedicated to each ward that would keep us informed of what is happening in our ward? The ward system only works with councillors who are committed and dedicated to their constituents. I've already lived through this in Toronto, where this was not the case I am glad to see that the ward system is likely to be adopted here. I think it will bring new people in to represent us on council and elections will mean residents have to get to know who is running to prevent the same people being elected every time We like the ward system as residents know which Councillor to approach first with any local concerns I love 3 or possibly 4 ward system, given proper training is given to all candidates who run for Council in the areas of diversity, PR and involvement in their convenient or for council meetings, but absent in their community General I have eagerly awaited the ward system since moving here 18 years ago. The long list of potential councillors every election has been a total voting turn off leaving both my husband and I disinterested and disappointed in Aurora. After stubborn lack of forward thinking Seems absurd to grow the council...simply costs taxpayers more money for another salary on council. We pay more than enough in property tax as it is to support town bureaucracy Please reduce government expenses I believe that the revitalization of old downtown Aurora will never happen until deliberate policy and by-laws are set to see all businesses there be people attractive. Businesses such as quality restaurants, swanky antique or novelty shops, quality night life bars and maybe theatre. There are only a few shops there that bring those looking to be wowed and do local shopping, one being Mary salons, chiropractors, Canada Services and community services, lawyers and a tile and floor shop, etc. Yes, they are needed but not at this location. We really need things there that give us all the wow factor General Committee Meeting Agenda Tuesday, June 16, 2020 Item R2 Page 26 of 27 22 AURORA ELECTORAL SYSTEM REVIEW FINAL REPORT - JUNE 2020 Parking could be better, far less reserved parking on the East Side behind businesses. First come first get. Also not too far away, the old Tannery location if it ever gets detoxed would make a wonderful extra parking area for the downtown. You can put all the overhead lighting you can, all the flowers you can, but if the businesses there are not the right ones, their taxes are too high to maintain the business and they are not quaint and beautiful window and interior shops no one will go out of their way to go to the downtown. Case in point, beautiful downtown quaint and pretty of Uxbridge. Unionville, Alora Newmarket, Schomberg all put ours to shame. Sorry to say but this is how I and many see it Not in Favour of Wards Don't go to ward system * Should discuss the pros and cons of a ward system Survey should have included a question re whether to have a ward system (6)* This survey is completely biased in favour of wards. My preference is zero division of wards! That option is not even offered so my preference when FORCED to choose, is the lesser number and more councilors! You are wasting our tax dollars! We have been through this already! I don't want the Town divided and ward against ward! Stop this stupidity. Who determined to waste our tax dollars in this manner! There is no format here to guarantee that my voice in the future will be equal to any others NO CHOICE! THIS A TOTALLY BIASED SURVEY. WE DO NOT NEED A WARD SYSTEM AND ARE WASTING OUR TAX DOLLARS YET AGAIN ON WHAT HAS ALREADY BEEN REJECTED BY OUR COMMUNITY! Stop this anti-democratic process! I want to ensure that my concerns are carried forward by whomever I choose, in a 6-7 councillor community. I do not want to choose between 2 candidates and I do not want our community further divided...which this WILL do! I am not in favour of a ward system - we have already voted on this issue (23 Facebook discussion) I dislike the ward system and all options (2)* Concerned that wards will divide Aurorans (2)* I oppose a ward system for Aurora strongly. This council is hurting the residents of Aurora by attempting to disenfranchise our democratic ability to select Councillors in an at-large system and by trying to further reduce the number of Councillors Do not have any Wards. We should be just one town - NO WARDS. Keep the Council as small as possible. Too many Councillors cost too much & are certainly NOT cost effective No wards, the population and geographical area does not support an expensive administration of ward implementation; elected politicians are to support and represent all areas, all people and take all factors into consideration when making best decisions for the community they represent *Numbers in brackets refer to the number of times a suggestion/comment was made. General Committee Meeting Agenda Tuesday, June 16, 2020 Item R2 Page 27 of 27 Town of Aurora General Committee Report No. CMS20-012 Subject: Library Square – Governance Review Prepared by: Phil Rose-Donahoe, Manager of Library Square Department: Community Services Date: June 16, 2020 Recommendation 1. That Report No. CMS20-012 be received; and 2. That the Not-for-Profit/Municipal Hybrid Model be approved as the governance model for the future operation of Library Square; and 3. That staff work with stakeholders to develop a fees and charges schedule for Library Square and report back to Council at a later date; and 4. That the Director of Community Services form a Space Allocation Working Group comprised of Town staff and key stakeholders that will provide recommendations regarding rental and booking responsibilities for Library Square, including all spaces at 22 Church St. School, the New Addition, Outdoor Square, Bridge and Aurora Public Library; and 5. That the Director of Community Services form a Collaborative Programming Working Group comprised of Town staff and key stakeholders that will provide recommendations regarding program delivery strategies and create a programming and performance schedule for Year 1 and Year 2 of Library Square operations; and 6. That the Director of Community Services form an Information Technology Working Group comprised of Town staff and key stakeholders that will provide recommendations regarding the delivery of IT Services for Library Square, including all spaces at 22 Church St. School, the New Addition, Outdoor Square, Bridge and Aurora Public Library. General Committee Meeting Agenda Tuesday, June 16, 2020 Item R3 Page 1 of 11 June 16, 2020 Page 2 of 11 Report No. CMS20-012 Executive Summary This report makes recommendations regarding the adoption of the Not-for-profit (NFP)/Municipal Hybrid Model as the preferred option for Library Square and details next steps in implementing this model. • The Library Square Governance Review was influenced by a number of key messages that emerged during consultation with stakeholders • As directed by Council, staff further analyzed the feasibility of the Direct Delivery and NFP/Municipal Hybrid models as options for Library Square governance • Based on the additional analysis, staff believe the NFP/Municipal Hybrid Model is the most viable governance structure for the optimization of cultural service delivery and the overall management of Library Square • Some of the challenges associated with the NFP/Municipal Hybrid Model can be mitigated by adopting key improvements aimed at enhancing the efficiency and effectiveness of the current structure • As a first step in implementing the NFP/Municipal Hybrid Model, staff recommend forming three (3) working groups with the purpose of developing the necessary policies, plans and strategies to serve as the operational framework for the NFP/Municipal Hybrid Model and report back at a later date Background On March 31, 2020, Council passed the following resolution in regards to Library Square governance: “That staff be directed to continue to explore the feasibility of the Direct Delivery and Not-for-profit/Municipal Hybrid governance models and report back with further recommendations regarding the most appropriate model for the operation of Library Square.” Council also determined that given the numerous challenges associated with implementing the Municipal Service Board Model, it was the least feasible model for the future governance of Library Square, and should be removed from further consideration. Since receiving Council’s direction in March, staff have undertaken additional research, consultation and analysis in determining the best governance model for Library Square, the results of which are detailed in this report. General Committee Meeting Agenda Tuesday, June 16, 2020 Item R3 Page 2 of 11 June 16, 2020 Page 3 of 11 Report No. CMS20-012 Analysis The Library Square Governance Review was influenced by a number of key messages that emerged during consultation with stakeholders One approach to governance or governance model is not innately superior to another. Rather, governance is a function of an organization's unique competencies, history and mandate. In the case of Library Square, each of the key stakeholders involved in determining the most appropriate governance model for the project – including the Town, Aurora Cultural Centre (ACC) and Aurora Public Library (APL) – operate under particular styles of governance that make it challenging to select one overarching model that is adaptable enough to effectively manage the facility’s numerous functions and multiple stakeholders. While there is not one perfect governance model to choose from, one of the consistent messages throughout the governance review process was that the Town should leverage the resources, skills and expertise already available to it. Each of the Town’s main partners on the Library Square initiative have historically exhibited good governance practices and possess proven track records of delivering quality programs and services to the community. Rather than start from scratch, therefore, the Town should adopt a governance model that builds on the past accomplishments and strengths of its partners. Another common message throughout the review process was that the Town, as owner, is ultimately accountable to the public for the success of this project. Moreover, given the municipality’s substantial financial investment in Library Square, the Town should obtain a degree of control over various aspects of the project, such as programming, facility operations, bookings/rentals and IT services. So while the governance model that is chosen should build on earlier successes, it must also allow the Town to exert significant influence over the decision making processes at Library Square once the facility is operational. One final prevailing message was that the chosen governance model must address whatever duplication of services, programs and processes currently exists. When experiencing all that Library Square will have to offer, the public must receive a unified approach to customer service, parity in rates offered for programs and room rentals, and consistent messaging and communication. General Committee Meeting Agenda Tuesday, June 16, 2020 Item R3 Page 3 of 11 June 16, 2020 Page 4 of 11 Report No. CMS20-012 While these messages were driving factors in the continued evaluation of the Direct Delivery and NFP/Municipal Hybrid models, staff also applied the following criteria when analyzing both models: 1. Potential for adverse community reaction; 2. Administrative complexity; 3. Timing; 4. Level of municipal investment; 5. Political sensitivity; 6. Disruption to program and service delivery; and 7. Proven track record of success. As directed by Council, staff further analyzed the feasibility of the Direct Delivery and Not-for-profit/Municipal Hybrid models as options for Library Square governance Staff’s intention was to host a series of face-to-face workshops with stakeholders, including internal staff, ACC and APL, to undertake a step-by-step analysis of decision- making processes that will occur at Library Square. These workshops were meant to highlight the challenges and opportunities inherent to the Direct Delivery and NFP/Municipal Hybrid models and how they might be mitigated or advanced when applied to the future operation of Library Square. Based on the results of these workshops, and guided by the factors and criteria named above, staff would be in a position to make final recommendations regarding Library Square governance. However, due to the closures as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic, staff were unable to hold face-to-face workshops as planned, but instead hosted a series of virtual sessions with key individuals. As subject matter experts of their respective fields, each person that was consulted provided insight into how current processes work regarding program delivery, rentals and bookings, IT services, marketing and promotion, museum and heritage services, facility maintenance, and more, identifying the major inputs involved, as well as the deliverables or outputs that are produced. The following is a list of governance meetings hosted by the Manager of Library Square that informed the content of this report: • Curator of AMA, April 22, 2020 • Manager of Business Support, Manager of Recreation Services, Manager of Facilities and Curator of AMA, April 23, 2020 • Executive Director, ACC, April 28, 2020 General Committee Meeting Agenda Tuesday, June 16, 2020 Item R3 Page 4 of 11 June 16, 2020 Page 5 of 11 Report No. CMS20-012 • Manager of Recreation Services, May 4, 2020 • Manager of Business Support, Facilities Booking Administrators, and Supervisor of Customer Service, May 5, 2020 • Aurora Cultural Centre Staff, May 11, 2020 • IT Manager, May 7, 2020 • Director of Community Services and CAO, May 11, 2020 • Chief Executive Officer, Aurora Public Library, May 19, 2020 Based on the additional analysis, staff believe the NFP/Municipal Hybrid Model is the most viable governance structure for the optimization of cultural service delivery and the overall management of Library Square Direct Delivery Model: Direct Delivery describes the model wherein the Town, as owner, operates Library Square exclusively as part of the Community Services Department. Under this model, the Community Services Department is responsible for the development and delivery of municipal cultural programming, theatre performances and box office management, museum administration, rentals and bookings, program registration, facility maintenance and repairs, among other responsibilities. Although the Direct Delivery Model provides some tangible benefits, such as enhanced municipal influence over decision-making and the ability to streamline various processes to better align with current Town practices, transitioning to this model would have major impacts on the Town’s relationship with its partners, particularly with the ACC. Throughout the governance review process, staff regularly heard that the ACC is performing well, have consistently met their key performance indicators, and provide a solid return on the Town’s investment. As the Town’s main provider of cultural services, it was also suggested that their expertise in delivering cultural services to the community should be leveraged as much as possible. While Direct Delivery allows for this in a limited way, it would also likely have negative impacts on the work being undertaken by the ACC to deliver cultural services on behalf of the municipality, which may in turn result in community pushback to what is perceived as a top-down decision by the Town to “take over” the ACC and cultural programming. Direct Delivery, therefore, poses a number of noteworthy challenges from a political and community perspective that could adversely affect the smooth implementation of this model. Additional downsides of the Direct Delivery Model include: General Committee Meeting Agenda Tuesday, June 16, 2020 Item R3 Page 5 of 11 June 16, 2020 Page 6 of 11 Report No. CMS20-012 • Potentially adverse impact on fundraising for Library Square since some private donors and granting bodies (e.g. Ontario Trillium Foundation) may be less likely to give to municipalities; • At least in the short term, some artists, artisans, cultural professionals and others, might be less inclined to collaborate with the Town, thereby limiting local creative expression and audience development efforts; • Perception that municipal structures are overly rigid, or bureaucratic; and • The higher salary structure associated with Direct Delivery would either require a smaller staff complement or greater municipal investment as a result of higher operating costs. NFP/Municipal Hybrid Model: This model describes how 22 Church St. currently operates where the ACC, a not-for- profit/charitable organization, provides cultural services to the community under a Provision of Cultural Services Agreement and Lease Agreement. As a municipal-run entity, the Aurora Museum & Archives (AMA) shares the historic 22 Church St. School with the ACC, where they provide heritage and museum services as a part of the Community Services Department. Throughout the consultation phase, there was a unanimous feeling that as co-located organizations, the ACC and AMA have successfully provided cultural and heritage programs/services to the community under one roof. Furthermore, many stated that the hybrid model provides a solid foundation on which to build and should be sustained where possible. Some benefits of the NFP/Municipal Hybrid Model include: • Expertise in cultural and heritage program and service delivery; • Proven governance integrity as demonstrated by the ACC’s accreditation from Imagine Canada, an organization whose mission is to strengthen Canada’s charitable sector; • Ongoing development of the AMA’s collection and important strides in exhibition development and public access to Aurora’s material culture; • Town oversight through the annual budget process, key performance indicator tracking and participation of two Council members on the ACC’s board of directors; • Awareness among the local community and cultural partners of the AMA and ACC as cultural service delivery organizations that are key to the vibrancy of the creative sector; General Committee Meeting Agenda Tuesday, June 16, 2020 Item R3 Page 6 of 11 June 16, 2020 Page 7 of 11 Report No. CMS20-012 • ACC support for maintaining a partnership with the Town in the delivery of cultural services under the current governance structure; • A strong network of partnerships with artists, artisans, performers, heritage experts, volunteers, cultural organizations and professionals that demonstrate the municipality’s commitment to local cultural development; • Similarly, strong audience development experience necessary to support Library Square programming; and • Access to fundraising sources (e.g. grants and individual giving) not necessarily available to municipalities via the ACC’s not-for-profit status. For these reasons, and given the concerns associated with the Direct Delivery Model, staff believe the NFP/Municipal Hybrid Model is the most viable governance model for Library Square. Some of the challenges associated with the NFP/Municipal Hybrid Model can be mitigated by adopting key improvements aimed at enhancing the efficiency and effectiveness of the current structure Although the NFP/Municipal Hybrid Model provides a solid foundation on which to build, it is not perfect and there is an opportunity for the Town to enhance its accountability to the public by exerting greater influence over key aspects of Library Square’s operations. Some of the challenges with the NFP/Municipal Hybrid Model that need to be addressed include: • Potential for inefficient customer service due to the absence of centralized leadership and a unified direction for the facility as a whole; • Greater potential for confusion, duplication, and uneven approaches to service and program delivery; • Unclear as to how the Community Services Department’s programming fits into the hybrid governance model; • Lack of Town control over space allocation and an inability to offset the municipality’s investment via rental and booking revenue of a Town-owned space; and • Challenges in quantifying the Town’s in-kind support (e.g. facility cleaning, maintenance, IT support, etc.) to a non-Town entity (i.e. the ACC) on a zero cost- recovery basis. Therefore, if Council approves the adoption of the NFP/Municipal Hybrid Model for Library Square, the Town will need to continue to work with key stakeholders to determine how best to address these challenges. General Committee Meeting Agenda Tuesday, June 16, 2020 Item R3 Page 7 of 11 June 16, 2020 Page 8 of 11 Report No. CMS20-012 As a first step in implementing the NFP/Municipal Hybrid Model, staff recommend forming three (3) working groups with the purpose of developing the necessary policies, plans and strategies to serve as the operational framework for the NFP/Municipal Hybrid Model and report back at a later date The implementation of the NFP/Municipal Hybrid Model should begin with the formation of the following three (3) working groups: Space Allocation Working Group: the purpose of this working group will be to review, assess and report on how space across the entire Library Square facility will be allocated and utilized. It will make recommendations on how requests for space are processed and by whom, and one of its key deliverables will be a Space Allocation Policy. Collaborative Programming Working Group: the purpose of this working group will be to collaborate to determine which programs will be offered at Library Square and which organization(s) is best suited to deliver them. It will develop an integrated approach to planning, implementation, monitoring, and evaluation of programs and services at Library Square. One of the major deliverables will be a proposed programming and performance schedule for the first two years of Library Square operations. Information Technology Working Group: the purpose of this working group is to develop the necessary strategies, plans, roadmaps and processes regarding the integration and optimization of IT services for Library Square. At a minimum, each group will be comprised of Town staff and representatives from the ACC and APL. Additional representatives from the Town’s Cultural Partners and other community groups may also be consulted as necessary. Staff will prepare a third Library Square Governance Review report for the fall that proposes further recommendations based on the work undertaken by these working groups. Additional working groups may also be proposed in the fall as attention turns to opening, staffing, and operating the facility. Advisory Committee Review Not applicable. General Committee Meeting Agenda Tuesday, June 16, 2020 Item R3 Page 8 of 11 June 16, 2020 Page 9 of 11 Report No. CMS20-012 Legal Considerations If Council approves the NFP/Municipal Hybrid Model, agreements will be entered into, or modified, to define the roles and responsibilities of the partnership and address any other such matters as may be required. Financial Implications At this time there are no financial implications of note. As part of the ongoing review of the Town’s desired Library Square Governance model, the financial implications of each will be examined at that time. The Town commenced a three year plan to phase into its core operating budget a total incremental amount of $720,000 in support of the Library Square’s operations including its selected governance model. Communications Considerations The Town of Aurora will use ‘Inform’ as the level of engagement for this project. There are five different levels of community engagement to consider, with each level providing the community more involvement in the decision making process. These levels are: Inform, Consult, Involve, Collaborate and Empower. Examples of each can be found in the Community Engagement Policy. These options are based on the International Association of Public Participation (IAP2) Spectrum and assist in establishing guidelines for clearly communicating with our public and managing community engagement. In order to inform the public, this report will be posted to the Town’s website and other means of feedback options of the Library Square governance model will be issued at a later date where all stakeholders can participate. Link to Strategic Plan The development of Library Square supports the following Strategic Plan goals and key objectives: Supporting an exceptional quality of life for all in its accomplishment in satisfying requirements in the following key objectives within these goal statements: • Invest in sustainable infrastructure • Celebrating and promoting our culture • Encourage an active and healthy lifestyle General Committee Meeting Agenda Tuesday, June 16, 2020 Item R3 Page 9 of 11 June 16, 2020 Page 10 of 11 Report No. CMS20-012 • Strengthening the fabric of our community Enabling a diverse, creative and resilient economy in its accomplishment in satisfying requirements in the following key objectives within these goal statements: • Promoting economic opportunities that facilitate the growth of Aurora as a desirable place to do business Alternative(s) to the Recommendation 1. Council may direct staff to continue to explore the feasibility of the Direct Delivery Model. 2. Council may provide further direction. Conclusions This report presents recommendations regarding Library Square governance. Based on additional research and consultation, staff are seeking Council’s direction to move forward with the NFP/Municipal Hybrid Model as the preferred governance model for Library Square. As a first step in implementing this model, staff are proposing the formation of three (3) working groups dedicated to space allocation, collaborative programming and IT services. The policies, plans and strategies developed by these working groups will be presented to Council in the fall, along with additional recommendations regarding the further implementation of the NFP/Municipal Hybrid Model. Attachments No attachments. Previous Reports CMS19-005 – Library Square Project Update - GC Template, February 12, 2019 FS19-012 – Library Square – Financial Strategy, March 21, 2019 CMS19-009 – Library Square - Proposed Operating Plan, March 21, 2019 General Committee Meeting Agenda Tuesday, June 16, 2020 Item R3 Page 10 of 11 June 16, 2020 Page 11 of 11 Report No. CMS20-012 CMS 20-008 – Library Square – Governance Review, March 3, 2020 Pre-submission Review Reviewed by Agenda Management Team May 28, 2020 Departmental Approval Approved for Agenda Robin McDougall Doug Nadorozny Director Chief Administrative Officer Community Services General Committee Meeting Agenda Tuesday, June 16, 2020 Item R3 Page 11 of 11 Town of Aurora General Committee Report No. CMS20-014 Subject: Hallmark Lands: Request for Information and User Group Survey Results Prepared by: John Firman, Manager, Business Support Department: Community Services Date: June 16, 2020 Recommendation 1. That Report No. CMS20-014 be received; and 2. That Council authorize the Director, Operational Services to commence the tendering process for 100 Vandorf Sideroad and proceed with Capital Project No. 73287 as previously presented; and 3. That staff report back to Council with an updated budget request prior to awarding the contract, if required. Executive Summary This report intends to inform Council of the results of the Request for Information (RFI) and user group survey regarding the potential third-party construction and operation of an indoor multi-sport facility on the Hallmark Lands, and seeks Council approval to commence a new tendering process for Capital Project No. 73287. Should the new tendering process result in the need for funds in excess of the previously approved $3,000,000, staff will report back to Council accordingly. If staff are able to proceed within the approved budget, staff will award the tender without a further report. • The Town received two fulsome responses to the RFI and six responses expressing interest in construction only • A survey of ball diamond user groups revealed an overwhelming preference to proceed with the original plan for two outdoor lit ball diamonds as previously approved by Council • The Sports Field Development Strategy supports the construction of two ball diamonds at this location • As the original tender has expired, it will be necessary to commence a new tendering process and an increase in budget is anticipated General Committee Meeting Agenda Tuesday, June 16, 2020 Item R4 Page 1 of 7 June 16, 2020 Page 2 of 7 Report No. CMS20-014 Background At the meeting of July 24, 2018, Council approved the construction of two senior softball diamonds on the Hallmark Lands, with an approved budget of $3,000,000 for Capital Project No. 73287. Staff generated a Terms of Reference for Consulting Services, for the design and contract administration for the project commencing September 2018, releasing RFP 2018-94-OPS- P. After the review process/evaluation, the contract was awarded in December 2018. In early January 2019, design works were initiated with the engagement of Aurora King Baseball Association (AKBA). Following the redesign of the park to accommodate site challenges, tender 2019-86-OPS-P for the Construction of a New Municipal Park with two (2) Baseball Diamonds was released for competitive bid July 11, 2019. On December 3, 2019 staff submitted report No. OPS19-019 requesting additional funds for this project as a result of increased costs for earthworks and site servicing. This decision was deferred pending the presentation of the Sports Field Development Strategy at the January 28, 2020 Council meeting. On January 28, 2020 Council received the staff report presenting the completed Sports Field Development Strategy, along with the recommendation to increase the budget for the two ball diamonds on the Hallmark Lands. In addition to the staff report, a delegation was made by a third party proposing the construction of an indoor, year-round, baseball training facility in place of one of the previously approved ball diamonds. Council referred the matter to staff to acquire further information and report back. On April 28, 2020 Council authorized staff to prepare a Request for Information to seek expressions of interest regarding potential development of an indoor multi-sport facility that would be operated by a third party. In the April 28th report to Council, staff also committed to conducting a survey of Town ball diamond user groups. Analysis The Town received two fulsome responses to the RFI and six responses expressing interest in construction only General Committee Meeting Agenda Tuesday, June 16, 2020 Item R4 Page 2 of 7 June 16, 2020 Page 3 of 7 Report No. CMS20-014 Staff issued an RFI requesting expressions of interest for third-party construction and operation of an indoor multi-sport facility on the Hallmark Lands. Respondents to the RFI were asked to provide the following information: • Facility Concept o Type of facility proposed (air dome, rigid structure) o Size o Impact to current Layout Plan o Field design • Operating Model o Local sport organization access at affordable rates o Town access for municipal programming o Public/Private/Commercial access o Agreement or lease term requirements • Partnership Model o Required contribution from the Town o Opportunity to offset Town capital costs The Town received eight responses to the RFI, six of which expressed interest in the construction of an approved facility but offered no information regarding the potential third- party operation of the facility. Two responses were received that addressed the operational/partnership model. A summary of those responses is shown in the following table: Subject Respondent #1 Respondent #2 Facility Concept 330’ x 220’ air dome, with clubhouse, designed with one large rectangular field that could be separated into four smaller rectangular fields. (ie: soccer dome). This would result in the loss of one of the two ball diamonds from the existing plan. 79,500 sq. ft. air dome, with clubhouse, designed two 200’ x 110’ baseball infields and one 220’ x 90’ rectangular field, all of which can accommodate multi-sport use. Also includes eight retractable batting cages and three or four movable pitching mounds. This would result in the loss of one of the two ball diamonds from the existing plan. Operational Model Town would have first right of refusal on bookings, with next priority access being given to local Specified hours provided for Town and local sport group use, consisting of 10 hours per week on General Committee Meeting Agenda Tuesday, June 16, 2020 Item R4 Page 3 of 7 June 16, 2020 Page 4 of 7 Report No. CMS20-014 sport organizations, before being offered to the broader community. Proponent requires a 25 year lease commitment. ball diamonds and 40 hours per week on soccer field. Proponent requires a 50 year lease commitment. Partnership Model Requirements from the Town include: - 25 year land lease - Waiving of development fees and charges - Waiving property taxes - Providing connections to existing utilities at no cost Would reduce the Town’s capital costs through the reduction of one ball diamond. Further discussion required to determine any additional offset of Town’s capital costs. Requirements from the Town include: - 50 year land lease - Fully graded and serviced lot with parking lot Would reduce the Town’s capital costs through the reduction of one ball diamond. A survey of ball diamond user groups revealed an overwhelming preference to proceed with the original plan for two outdoor lit ball diamonds as previously approved by Council Staff conducted a survey of ball diamond user groups, inviting 18 user groups, including all groups that were invited to participate in the Sports Field Development Strategy. Groups were notified in advance of the upcoming survey and all groups received two separate invitations requesting their participation. Surveys were completed by eight groups including most of the major user groups, representing both youth and adult groups. A summary of key outcomes from the survey are shown in the following table: Question No Yes No Response If an indoor facility was built in Aurora, would your organization use it? 3 0 5 If an indoor facility was built in Aurora, would you relocate your programs from facilities outside of Aurora and/or expand programming using the new facility? 5 2 1 General Committee Meeting Agenda Tuesday, June 16, 2020 Item R4 Page 4 of 7 June 16, 2020 Page 5 of 7 Report No. CMS20-014 Would you be willing to give up one of the two planned ball diamonds in favour of having an indoor facility? 6 1* 1 *Note: this respondent is a small group of less than 100 members, with an estimate of 10 members being Aurora residents. The Sports Field Development Strategy supports the construction of two ball diamonds at this location The recently completed Sports Field Development Strategy identified ball diamonds as our greatest current need, indicating that the Town currently has a deficit of two ball diamonds (unlit equivalents), increasing to a deficit of an additional five ball diamonds by 2031. Proceeding with the construction of two lit ball diamonds on the Hallmark Lands will address our immediate deficit and the inclusion of lighting on these diamonds will begin to address the future needs of our user groups as identified in the strategy. Unlike rectangular fields where partnership opportunities exist, there are no existing partnership opportunities for ball diamonds. Therefore, the only opportunity for new ball diamonds is on Town-owned land, and the Hallmark Lands represent the only suitable land currently owned by the Town. As the original tender has expired, it will be necessary to commence a new tendering process and an increase in budget is anticipated The deadline to act upon the previously submitted tender has passed. As a result, the development of the Hallmark Lands will need to be put out for tender again. This capital project was previously approved at a budget of $3,000,000. Staff have previously identified additional costs that will require a budget increase, and given that this will not be going back to tender until approximately one year or more since the last bid process (Aug 2019) an additional budget increase is anticipated. Current market indications are that while construction companies are ramping up from the COVID- 19 slow down, the supply chain remains slow and there are no COVID-19 related discounts being offered. Staff will report back to Council with further details of the required project budget following completion of the Tender process, if a budget increase is required. Advisory Committee Review Not applicable General Committee Meeting Agenda Tuesday, June 16, 2020 Item R4 Page 5 of 7 June 16, 2020 Page 6 of 7 Report No. CMS20-014 Legal Considerations None Financial Implications In July, 2018 Council approved a total budget of $3,000,000 for the construction of two baseball diamonds on the Hallmark lands. As two years have elapsed since the original cost estimate of $3,000,000 was derived, staff anticipate that this budget will be insufficient. In light of the COVID-19 environment in which the Town now finds itself, an estimate of the required increase to this budget is difficult to predict. Consequently, staff will instead await the results of the RFP and if required, request a further budget adjustment at this time. Communications Considerations The Town of Aurora will use ‘Inform’ as the level of engagement for this project. There are five different levels of community engagement to consider, with each level providing the community more involvement in the decision making process. These levels are: Inform, Consult, Involve, Collaborate and Empower. Examples of each can be found in the Community Engagement Policy. These options are based on the International Association of Public Participation (IAP2) Spectrum and assist in establishing guidelines for clearly communicating with our public and managing community engagement. In order to inform the public, this report will be posted to the Town’s website. Link to Strategic Plan Development of the Hallmark Lands for sports facilities supports the Strategic Plan goal of Supporting an exceptional quality of life for all in its accomplishment in satisfying requirements in the following key objective within this goal statement: Objective 4: Encouraging an active and healthy lifestyle Alternative(s) to the Recommendation 1. Council may provide alternate direction. General Committee Meeting Agenda Tuesday, June 16, 2020 Item R4 Page 6 of 7 June 16, 2020 Page 7 of 7 Report No. CMS20-014 Conclusions That local community sport organizations have shown little interest in an indoor facility, while expressing a preference for the construction of two lit ball diamonds on the Hallmark Lands, and that staff recommend proceeding to commence the tendering of this project. Attachments None Previous Reports x OPS18-018 100 Vandorf Sideroad – Hallmark Lands Community Park Design x OPS19-019 Hallmark Baseball Diamonds – Additional Funding x CMS20-001 Outdoor Sports Field Development Strategy x CMS20-011 Request for Information re: Construction and Operation of an Indoor Baseball Training Facility on the Hallmark Lands Pre-submission Review Agenda Management Team review on May 28, 2020 Departmental Approval Approved for Agenda Robin McDougall Doug Nadorozny Director Chief Administrative Officer Community Services General Committee Meeting Agenda Tuesday, June 16, 2020 Item R4 Page 7 of 7 Town of Aurora General Committee Report No. FIN20-017 Subject: 2020 User Rate Funded Operations Forecast Update – As of April 30, 2020 Prepared by:Laura Sheardown, Financial Management Advisor Department:Finance Date:June 16, 2020 Recommendation 1. That Report No. FIN20-017 be received for information; and 2. That the Town’s present ‘break-even’ water, wastewater and storm water rates be maintained for the remainder of the year. 3. That a bylaw to extend the Town’s ‘break-even’ water, wastewater and storm water rates be brought to the June 23rd Council meeting for approval. Executive Summary This report presents to Council the information to effectively monitor the financial performance of the Town’s user rate funded operating budget as of April 30, 2020. COVID-19 is forecasted to have a material financial impact on the Town’s user rate funded operations. x An overall zero budget variance is forecasted by fiscal year end after all COVID- 19 mitigation measures have been applied and an assumption made that the Town will continue with its present ‘break-even’ rates x Continuing with the rates approved on April 28th will allow the Town to proceed with its original 2020 operational plans x The timing of the Town’s water, wastewater and storm water rate changes is important in ensuring fairness to all customers x As user rate funded operations provide an essential service to the community, there are few COVID-19 impact mitigation measures possible These forecasted variances could continue to be subject to material change as the COVID-19 pandemic progresses over the remainder of the fiscal year. Future Council General Committee Meeting Agenda Tuesday, June 16, 2020 Item R5 Page 1 of 8 June 16, 2020 Page 2 of 7 Report No. FIN20-017 decisions may also have any impact. Any operational budget short-falls at year end will require an offsetting contribution from the appropriate user rate reserve as defined in the Town’s 2020 surplus control by-law. Background To assist Council in fulfilling its roles and responsibilities with respect to Town finances and accountability, the Finance Department has worked with Town’s user rate funded operations to review its water, wastewater, and storm water service line operating budget financial performance to date with a particular focus on mitigating its COVID-19 impacts where possible. On March 20th the Town of Aurora announced the waiving of all late payment penalties on any unpaid water bill amounts owing until June 30, 2020. On April 28th Council approved ‘break-even’ rates to be in effect at least until the end of June, 2020 by which time Council would be presented with additional information from staff that would allow it to make a final decision on the rates to be applied for the remainder of the fiscal year. These ‘break-even’ rates adjust the Town’s originally approved 2020 rates to reflect its anticipated savings on wholesale water and wastewater treatment costs stemming from a York Region decision to maintain its 2019 rates. On May 26th Council extended the Town’s waiving of all late payment penalties on any unpaid water bill amounts owing until the end of the calendar year. Analysis An overall zero budget variance is forecasted by fiscal year end after all COVID-19 mitigation measures have been applied and an assumption made that the Town will continue with its present ‘break-even’ rates The user rate funded operations service line budgets are comprised primarily of fixed operational costs, funded by the net proceeds from the sale of water, wastewater and storm water services. These fixed operational costs include staff and service maintenance costs related to maintaining the infrastructure systems, water quality testing, and the billing and customer service functions. These costs are not directly impacted by the volume of water flowing through the system. The fixed costs relating to water and wastewater are funded from the net revenues earned by these services General Committee Meeting Agenda Tuesday, June 16, 2020 Item R5 Page 2 of 8 June 16, 2020 Page 3 of 7 Report No. FIN20-017 which are variable in nature due to the fact that they are based upon metered water consumption volumes. Storm water revenues are not subject to the same volatility as the water and wastewater service lines as it is billed as a flat fee. The Town’s user rate funded operations is currently projected to close the year with a zero budget variance assuming that the Town’s present ‘break-even’ rates are extended for the remainder of the fiscal year. This variance includes a COVID-19 driven deficit of $153,500 attributable to the waiving of water late payment penalties for the remainder of the calendar year. This deficit has been fully offset through salary savings due to positon vacancies and through the implementation of mitigating measures such as the reduction of non-essential administrative expenses and a refocusing of available resources on operations and maintenance. No negative impact is anticipated to the Town’s delivery of these services as a result of these mitigation measures. This forecasted variance will continue to be subject to change over the remainder of the fiscal year. Should any user rate funded service deficits remain at fiscal year-end, they will require an offsetting funding transfer from their respective reserve funds as set out in the town’s 2020 surplus control bylaw. The user rate funded operations summary can be found in Attachment 1. Continuing with the rates approved on April 28th will allow the Town to proceed with its original 2020 operational plans On April 28th Council approved reduced 2020 water and wastewater rates, compared to what was originally budgeted, in response to COVID-19 driven wholesale water and wastewater treatment financial relief offered by York Region’s Council. These reduced rates were calculated to reflect the recent financial relief offered by York Region, but to also allow operations for these services to proceed as originally budgeted. Council approved these 2020 rates up until the end of June with the intent of receiving a forecast update from staff on these operation’s financial performance prior to it making a decision to extend these rates further. Table 1 presents a summary of the adjusted 2020 rates that were approved by Council. General Committee Meeting Agenda Tuesday, June 16, 2020 Item R5 Page 3 of 8 June 16, 2020 Page 4 of 7 Report No. FIN20-017 Table 1 Summary of rates As discussed previously, should Council extend the Town’s presently approved 2020 rates for the remainder of the year, it is forecasted that these operations will be able to sufficiently mitigate all existing COVID-19 pressures while proceeding with its original operational plans for the year such as its continuing strategy to ensure that its reserves are sufficiently funded and the Town’s storm water ponds maintained as per the Town’s defined service standards. The rates approved in the multi-year budget for 2021 and 2022 will also likely change as York Region will need to re-evaluate the rates they charge on wholesale water and wastewater after not increasing them in 2020. Also should Aurora Council not extend the ‘break-even’ rates beyond the end of June, then Town’s required rate increase in 2021 could be even higher to recover the impact on contributions to reserves. With this in mind, staff recommend that the Town’s current ‘break-even’ 2020 rates be extended until the rates are updated for May 1st, 2021. The timing of the Town’s water, wastewater and storm water rate changes is important in ensuring fairness to all customers Residential water and wastewater billings are issued on a quarterly basis. A monthly stormawater charge is included on all issued bills. The Town has three billing cycles that account for all the residential water accounts. Each of these cycles are billed four times throughout a twelve month period. Non-residential accounts are billed on a bi-monthly basis receiving six bills during a twelve month period. Historically, rate changes are effective May 1st and remain in place for a year. With the current billing cycles, rates need to be effective for a minimum of six months to be fairly applied to all residential and non-residential customers. Residential customers would receive two bills while non-residential customers would receive three bills, however both would account for six months’ worth of consumption. Rate Change % Rate Change % Retail Water (per cu.m) 2.18$2.41$ 10.6% 2.18$0.0% Retail Wastewater (per cu.m)2.65 3.11 17.4%2.77 4.5% Combined Water & Wastewater (per cu.m)4.83$5.52$14.3%4.95$2.5% Storm Flat Rate - Residential (per month) 5.44$7.09$ 30.3% 7.09$30.3% Storm Flat Rate - Non-Residential (per month) 69.08$90.07$30.4% 90.07$30.4% 2019 Rate 2020 Budget Revised Break-Even General Committee Meeting Agenda Tuesday, June 16, 2020 Item R5 Page 4 of 8 June 16, 2020 Page 5 of 7 Report No. FIN20-017 As user rate funded operations provide an essential service to the community, there are few COVID-19 impact mitigation measures possible There is little opportunity for the mitigation of COVID-19 financial impacts within the Town’s user rate funded operations budget as the majority of its costs are driven by clean drinking water legislation or a requirement to maintain the Town’s underground infrastructure at the Town’s desired levels of service. However, with this in mind, staff have examined its operations for possible financial mitigation opportunities. The following mitigation measures have been identified and are reflected in the above presented forecast: reduction of administrative expenses and a refocusing of available resources on operations and maintenance. There is the potential for further savings in contracts and supplies as a portion (30-35%) of the approved budget is earmarked for the response of emergency repairs required due to breaks and leaks. However, it would not be prudent to re-direct these funds elsewhere as they would need to be available should emergency repairs be required. Advisory Committee Review Not applicable. Legal Considerations None. Financial Implications At fiscal year end the surplus or deficit arising from user rate funded operations will be allocated by Council to / from the appropriate service line reserve as per the Town’s surplus control bylaw. Should Council choose not to extend or reduce the Town’s current 2020 “break-even” rates for the remainder of the fiscal year, there may be a significant impact to operational plans depending upon the degree to which these rates change. Should material financial impacts arise, further mitigating measures would need to be identified such a reduction to planned contributions in support of asset sustainability or the possible reduction in planned maintenance. General Committee Meeting Agenda Tuesday, June 16, 2020 Item R5 Page 5 of 8 June 16, 2020 Page 6 of 7 Report No. FIN20-017 Furthermore, a further reduction to the 2020 rates will subject future year rates to greater upward pressure as the Town strives to catch-up required lost service recovery revenues from 2020. Communications Considerations The Town of Aurora will use ‘Inform’ as the level of engagement for this report. There are five different levels of community engagement to consider, with each level providing the community more involvement in the decision making process. These levels are: Inform, Consult, Involve, Collaborate and Empower. Examples of each can be found in the Community Engagement Policy. These options are based on the International Association of Public Participation (IAP2) Spectrum and assist in establishing guidelines for clearly communicating with our public and managing community engagement. In order to inform the public, this report will be posted to the Town’s website. Link to Strategic Plan Outlining and understanding the Town’s present financial status at strategic intervals throughout the year contributes to achieving the Strategic Plan guiding principle of “Leadership in Corporate Management” and improves transparency and accountability to the community. Alternative(s) to the Recommendation Not applicable. Conclusions Having completed four months of operations, the management team is presently forecasting that its user rate funded operations will conclude the year with a zero budget variance based upon an assumption that the Town’s current 2020 “break-even” rates continue for the remainder of the fiscal year. This forecast is based upon the best information and estimates available at this time. Particularly in light of the COVID-19 pandemic and other influencing difficult to predict variables such as emergency repairs for breaks and leaks, this forecast will continue to be subject to change over the remainder of the fiscal year. General Committee Meeting Agenda Tuesday, June 16, 2020 Item R5 Page 6 of 8 June 16, 2020 Page 7 of 7 Report No. FIN20-017 Staff will remain vigilant to continue to realize budget savings that do not have an adverse impact on service delivery whenever possible. In particular, the Town will continue to monitor the financial impacts on operations as a result of COVID-19 and provide regular updates back to Council through its quarterly Interim Operating Budget Forecast Update report. Any remaining deficits at fiscal year end will be offset through a transfer from the appropriate service line reserve as will be defined in the town’s 2020 surplus control bylaw. Attachments Attachment #1 – User Rate Funded Operations Net Operating Forecast Update Previous Reports None Pre-submission Review Agenda Management Team review on May 28, 2020 Departmental Approval Approved for Agenda ___________________________________ ___________________________ Rachel Wainwright-van Kessel, CPA, CMA Doug Nadorozny Director, Finance/Treasurer Chief Administrative Officer Digitally signed by Rachel Wainwright-van Kessel, CPA, CMA Date: 2020.06.01 14:36:55 -04'00' General Committee Meeting Agenda Tuesday, June 16, 2020 Item R5 Page 7 of 8 Attachment 1 Shown in $,000's Water ServicesRetail Revenues (10,891.9) (10,883.5) (8.4)$ (0.1 %) Penalties (175.0) (21.5) (153.5) (87.7 %) Other (230.1) (281.4) 51.3 22.3 % Total Revenues (11,297.0) (11,186.4) (110.6)$ (1.0 %) Wholesale water purchase 6,915.4 6,919.2 (3.8) (0.1 %) Operations and maintenance 922.8 993.0 (70.2) (7.6 %) Administration and billing 1,009.7 825.1 184.6 18.3 % Corporate overhead allocation 749.1 749.1 - - Infrastructure sustainability reserve contributions 1,700.0 1,700.0 - - Total Expenditures 11,297.00 11,186.4 110.6$ 1.0 % Net Operating Water Services - - -$ n/a Waste Water Services Retail Revenues (13,823.9) (13,825.2) 1.3$ 0.0 % Penalties - - - n/a Other (90.0) (82.5) (7.5) (8.3 %) Total Revenues (13,913.9) (13,907.7) (6.2)$ (0.0 %) Sewer discharge fees 10,542.3 10,541.5 0.8$ 0.0 % Operations and maintenance 1,225.0 1,219.6 5.4$ 0.4 % Administration and billing 261.4 261.4 -$ - Corporate overhead allocation 585.2 585.2 - - Infrastructure sustainability reserve contributions 1,300.0 1,300.0 - - Total Expenditures 13,913.9 13,907.7 6.2$ 0.0 % Net Operating Waste Water Services - - -$ n/a Total Water and Waste Water Services - - -$ n/a Storm Water Services Retail Revenues (2,511.4) (2,510.5) (0.9)$ (0.0 %) Penalties - - - n/a Other - - - n/a Total Revenues (2,511.4) (2,510.5) (0.9)$ (0.0 %) Operations and maintenance 769.6 768.7 0.9 0.1 % Administration and billing 105.4 105.4 - - Corporate overhead allocation 36.4 36.4 - - Infrastructure sustainability reserve contributions 1,600.0 1,600.0 - - Total Expenditures 2,511.4 2,510.5 0.9$ 0.0 % Net Operating Storm Water Services - - -$ n/a OPERATING (SURPLUS) DEFICIT - -$ -$ - Surplus Surplus (Unfavourable) Town of Aurora User Rate Net Operating Report as at April 30, 2020 Variance Favourable / FORECASTADJUSTED BUDGET General Committee Meeting Agenda Tuesday, June 16, 2020 Item R5 Page 8 of 8 Town of Aurora General Committee Report No. OPS20-010 Subject: Award of Tender for Supply and Delivery of One (1) 2021 Combination Dump, Sander and Plow Truck Prepared by: Sara Tienkamp, Manager of Parks & Fleet Department: Operational Services Date: June 16, 2020 Recommendation 1. That Report No. OPS20-010 be approved; and 2. That the total approved budget for Capital Project No. 34440 be increased to $263,900, representing an increase of $23,900 to be funded from the Fleet R&R reserve. Executive Summary This report seeks Council approval to award the tender for the supply and delivery of one (1) combination dump, sander and plow truck: • Vehicle was tendered as part of a competitive bid process. • Total bid exceeds allotted budget funding for Capital Project No. 34440 Background In January 2020, Council approved Capital Project No. 34440 for $240,000, to replace Roads Operations six (6) ton truck #33, as per the Asset Management Plan and Fleet Management Strategy. The truck is essential to the fleet and is utilized for road maintenance, primarily supporting winter operations. Analysis Vehicle was tendered as part of a competitive bid process Staff released Tender 2020-59-OPS-F for the supply and delivery of one (1) conventional cab combination dump, sander and plow truck to the Town of Aurora on April 9, 2020. General Committee Meeting Agenda Tuesday, June 16, 2020 Item R6 Page 1 of 4 June 16, 2020 Page 2 of 4 Report No. OPS20-010 Tender closed on May 8, 2020 and a total of three (3) firm’s submitted bids. One (1) bid was deemed compliant. Below Table is a breakdown of compliant prices submitted for Tender 2020-59-OPS-F. Company Name Total Bid (excluding taxes) 1 Lewis Motor Sales Inc. $259,339.27 Total bid exceeds allotted budget funding for Capital Project No. 34440 The total bid price for the six (6) ton plow truck exceeds the budget allowance for project 34440 by $23,903 after unrecoverable taxes are considered for the supply and delivery of the vehicle. These vehicles are manufactured in the United States therefore need to be imported by the suppliers and subject to US/CAN dollar volatility. In generating the 2020 budget costs staff based funding on market value costs in 2019 of approximately $230,000-$235,000 for similar models of vehicle. Advisory Committee Review Not applicable. Legal Considerations None. Financial Implications The approved Capital Budget for Project 34440 Replacement six (6) ton plow truck is $240,000. The below Table presents a financial summary for Capital Project 34440 based upon the Tender submitted by Lewis Motors Sales Inc.: General Committee Meeting Agenda Tuesday, June 16, 2020 Item R6 Page 2 of 4 June 16, 2020 Page 3 of 4 Report No. OPS20-010 Approved Budget Capital Project 34440 $240,000 Total Approved Budget $240,000 Less previous commitments $0 Funding available for subject Contract $240,000 Contract Award excluding HST $259,339 Non-refundable taxes (1.76%) $4,564 Total Funding Required (Rounded) $263,900 Budget Variance $23,900 It is recommended that the above identified funding short-fall be funded from the Fleet R&R reserve. This reserve is able to accommodate this additional funding transfer. Communications Considerations There is no external communication required. Link to Strategic Plan Maintaining our fleet of roads vehicles supports the Strategic Plan goal of Investing in sustainable infrastructure by maintaining infrastructure to support forecasted population growth through technology, waste management, roads, emergency services and accessibility. Alternative(s) to the Recommendation 1. Council may choose to not to increase budget and award tender of project No.34440. The Tender evaluation process meets all requirements of the Procurement By-law and awarding this contract is the next step in fulfilling the requirements of the Tendering process. If Council chooses to not increase budget and award this contract, service levels may not be met and public road safety could be compromised. General Committee Meeting Agenda Tuesday, June 16, 2020 Item R6 Page 3 of 4 General Committee Meeting Agenda Tuesday, June 16, 2020 Item R6 Page 4 of 4 Town of Aurora General Committee Report No. PDS20-032 Subject: Revoking Servicing Allocation Prepared by: Michael Logue, Senior Policy Planner, Growth Management Department: Planning and Development Services Date: June 16, 2020 Recommendations 1. That Report No. PDS20-032 be received; 2. That water and sewage capacity previously allocated to the following site plan application be extended for one year: (i) Site Plan Application File SP-2018-03 at 15086-15106 Yonge Street 3. That water and sewage capacity previously allocated to the following site plan application be revoked: (i) Site Plan Application File SP-2006-13 (formerly D11-13-06) at 15356 Yonge Street; and, (ii) Site Plan Application File SP-2013-05 at 15132-15136 Yonge Street. Executive Summary This report seeks Council’s direction for three site plan applications given the Sewage and Water Allocation Policies of the Official Plan. Council is responsible for granting or revoking preliminary servicing assignments for draft plans, condominiums and site plan applications in accordance with the policies of the Official Plan. x Aurora has about five years supply of servicing allocation, necessary for developments to proceed, and will require additional capacity prior to Upper York Sewage Solutions coming online in 2027 at the earliest to accommodate growth projections within the current Official Plan horizon and beyond; x York Region did not grant new allocation to Aurora or Upper York municipalities in 2019; General Committee Meeting Agenda Tuesday, June 16, 2020 Item R7 Page 1 of 8 June 16, 2020 Page 2 of 8 Report No. PDS20-032 x To optimize capacity assignments, York Region requires water and sewage- saving allocation bonus programs, and formal ‘Use It or Redistribute It” policies; x Substantial allocation is anticipated for future development blocks; x Aurora’s Official Plan prescribes a “Use It or Redistribute It” approach; Subdivisions have three years to proceed from approval to registration while Site Plans have one year to execute an agreement; x Staff have identified three site plan applications that require attention, in accordance with the Sewage and Water Allocation Policies of the Official Plan; x Three inactive or on hold Site Plans represent 76 units or 193 persons allocation; and, x As of right development permissions remain; sewage and water capacity may be re-allocated in a future report to Council. Background Aurora has about five years supply of servicing allocation, necessary for developments to proceed, and will require additional capacity prior to Upper York Sewage Solutions coming online in 2027 at the earliest to accommodate growth projections within the current Official Plan horizon and beyond Servicing allocation for water and sewage capacity is required for residential development applications to proceed in York Region. Due to constraints in the water/wastewater system, York Region rations servicing allocation to the local municipalities, and Aurora Council in turn assigns servicing allocation to developments. Residential servicing allocation is accounted for by number of persons, which can be converted to number of units using average household sizes. Non-residential developments do not require servicing allocation. Allocation is granted on a ‘First Come, First Served’ basis, and preliminarily assigned at draft plan approval or site plan approval stage. Estimated servicing allocation balances at year-end 2019 were 6,300 persons or 2,100 units worth, representing about 5 years supply to 2024, based on current rates of development. Sufficient allocation is currently available for all active residential General Committee Meeting Agenda Tuesday, June 16, 2020 Item R7 Page 2 of 8 June 16, 2020 Page 3 of 8 Report No. PDS20-032 applications, but additional capacity will be required prior to Upper York Sewage Solutions coming online in 2027.The Upper York Sewage Solutions project (UYSS) is planned to resolve the servicing allocation constraints in Aurora, Newmarket, and East Gwillimbury, but experiencing ongoing delays in the Environmental Assessment process. York Region did not grant new allocation to Aurora or Upper York municipalities in 2019 Since interim servicing solutions in Aurora at the St. John’s Side Road pumping station and in the Yonge Street and Henderson Drive vicinity were announced in 2018, York Region did not grant any new servicing allocation for Aurora in 2019 (or to the other two municipalities impacted by the delay in the UYSS: Newmarket and East Gwillimbury). Analysis To optimize capacity assignments, York Region requires water and sewage- saving bonus programs, and formal ‘Use It or Redistribute It” policies The Region’s servicing incentive programs promote sustainable residential development, while allowing local municipalities to extend the life of their servicing capacity. They include: x Servicing Incentive Program (SIP), for ground-related development x Sustainable Development Through Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) Incentive Program, for high-rise x Developer-funded Inflow and Infiltration (I & I) Reduction Programs, which aim to reduce dilution in sanitary sewers through measures such as repairing leaks in catchbasins and disconnecting downspouts on private property Aurora has had developments successfully participate in these programs, helping to extend the Town’s servicing capacity. York Region has also adopted formal “use it or redistribute it” policies, to discourage applications from being approved and allocated, but not proceeding to development in a timely manner. This avoids premature infrastructure investment on the part of municipalities and ensures finite allocation resources are put towards projects in a position to move forward. General Committee Meeting Agenda Tuesday, June 16, 2020 Item R7 Page 3 of 8 June 16, 2020 Page 4 of 8 Report No. PDS20-032 Substantial allocation is anticipated for future development blocks As reported to General Committee in March 2020, based on the Town’s Planning Application Status Lists, there are active development applications for about 1,600 units, or 3,600 persons worth, which have not been assigned servicing allocation. And beyond the identified units of future residential supply captured in the Planning Application Status List, several large active applications include future residential development blocks without identifying unit types or totals. Some of these known applications which are planned to accommodate substantial population and still require servicing allocation to move forward include Shining Hill Estates on St. John’s Sideroad West (beyond first phase), Aurora Bayview Southeast (Magna/Stronach lands), and buildout of the Yonge Street South Secondary Plan Area (OPA 34). Clearly, Aurora is anticipated to experience continued development pressures within the current 2031 planning horizon of the Official Plan. Aurora’s Official Plan prescribes a ‘Use It or Redistribute It’ approach; Subdivisions have three years to proceed from approval to registration while Site Plans have one year to execute an agreement Section 14.3 in Aurora’s 2010 Official Plan, and specifically policies under subsection 14.3.2 (Sewage and Water Allocation Policies) provide direction on servicing allocation. Section 14.3.2 (a) and 14.3.2 (b) iterate that Council is responsible for granting servicing allocation, that no development requiring servicing allocation may proceed without it being granted, and that not all development proposals may be able to proceed on the basis of servicing allocation availability. Section 14.3.2 (c) requires that all proposed development assigned allocation obtain necessary planning approvals in a timely manner, and that Council may impose deadlines. Section 14.3.2 (e) covers site plan approval, stating that servicing allocation shall be preliminarily assigned for a one-year period to allow the applicant to execute a Site Plan agreement with the Town. If an agreement is not executed within one year, a report will be presented to Council to extend or revoke servicing allocation in whole or in part and if an agreement is executed, it should stipulate that a building permit must be obtained within six months unless a further extension is given by the Town. General Committee Meeting Agenda Tuesday, June 16, 2020 Item R7 Page 4 of 8 June 16, 2020 Page 5 of 8 Report No. PDS20-032 Staff have identified three site plan applications that require attention in accordance with the sewage and allocation policies of the Official Plan Table 1 identifies three site plan applications from the most recent Planning Application Status List of March 2020 that meet the policies of the Official Plan. Table 1: Inactive Site Plan Applications SP-2018-03, 15086-15106 Yonge Street, Silhouette (formerly Bara Group) The three addresses at 15086 through 15106 Yonge Street, have recently changed ownership, and may no longer be pursuing the site plan for 59 stacked townhouses as currently approved in principle by Council. Given that the applicant was recently working with staff towards a resubmission, staff are recommending the extension of servicing allocation for one year in accordance with Section 14.3.2 (e) of the Official Plan. SP-2013-05, 15132 Yonge Street (Joe Cara) It has been more than three years since Council approved in principle a site plan application located at 15132 Yonge Street. To date, the applicant has not executed the site plan agreement but paid file maintenance fees in February 2020. SP-2006-13, 15356 Yonge Street (Bruce Spragg) 15356 Yonge Street (Bruce Spragg) is the oldest candidate file for revoking servicing allocation. The application was submitted fourteen years ago, and approved ten years ago this November. The same owner has submitted new applications with a different development concept for the same property in 2017, but also continued paying file maintenance fees to keep the original application open. If and when the newer application proceeds for approval, allocation may be granted for this property at that time. File #Staff Report # Development Name Address Units Approved Allocation (Persons) Approval Date Years Elapsed Exceeds OP Policy By SP-2018-03 PDS18-070 Silhouette (Ex-Bara) 15086-15106 Yonge St 59 Stacked Towns 159 26-Jun-2018 2 1 year SP-2013-05 PBS17-017 Joe Cara 15132-15136 Yonge St 12 Apartments 21 23-May-2017 3 2 years SP-2006-13 (D11-13-06) PL09-080 Bruce Spragg 15356 Yonge St 5 Townhouses 13 10-Nov-2009 10 9 years 76 units total 193 2009 - 2018 2 - 10 1-9 years3 Site Plan applications General Committee Meeting Agenda Tuesday, June 16, 2020 Item R7 Page 5 of 8 June 16, 2020 Page 6 of 8 Report No. PDS20-032 Three inactive or on hold Site Plans represent 76 units or 193 persons allocation In total the three site applications represent 76 units, or allocation for 193 persons-worth of water and sewage capacity. None of the three applications have executed development agreements. Applicants Cara and Spragg paid the Town’s annual file maintenance fees even though their developments are inactive. As of right d evelopment permissions remain; sewage and water capacity may be re-allocated in a future report to Council It should be noted that development permissions are not proposed to be revoked. The three applicants impacted by this report have been notified and afforded an opportunity to address the Town on the matter. For the two applications subject to the staff recommendation of revoking servicing allocation, a report to Council re-allocating preliminary sewage and water capacity will be required. Existing file maintenance and file closure procedures will continue to be followed in the meantime. Advisory Committee Review Not applicable. Legal Considerations As per the policies of the Town's Official Plan, Council may revoke the municipal servicing allocation in whole or in part. Financial Implications There is potential financial risk to Aurora if servicing allocation balances were allowed to fully deplete, in terms of missing out on growth-related revenues (planning and building fees, development charges, and increases in property assessment). Communications Considerations The Town of Aurora will use ‘Inform’ as the level of engagement for this project. There are five different levels of community engagement to consider, with each level providing the community more involvement in the decision making process. These levels are: Inform, Consult, Involve, Collaborate and Empower. Examples of each can be found in the Community Engagement Policy. These options are based on the International General Committee Meeting Agenda Tuesday, June 16, 2020 Item R7 Page 6 of 8 June 16, 2020 Page 7 of 8 Report No. PDS20-032 Association of Public Participation (IAP2) Spectrum and assist in establishing guidelines for clearly communicating with our public and managing community engagement. In order to inform the public, this report will be posted to the Town’s website. Link to Strategic Plan This report supports the Strategic Plan objective of Investing in Sustainable Infrastructure, specifically through the action item of developing policies to ensure that growth is phased and coordinated with existing and planned infrastructure. Alternative(s) to the Recommendation 1. That Council provide direction Conclusions Council must assign servicing allocation before a development may proceed, preliminarily at draft plan approval or site plan approval stage. Aurora has approximately a five-year supply of unallocated servicing capacity, and will require additional capacity prior to Upper York Sewage Solutions coming online in 2027 at the earliest. York Region granted no new allocation to Aurora in 2019. In the current context of finite servicing capacity and continued development pressures, neither the Region nor Aurora can afford to have approved applications reserve allocation and not proceed to registration and construction. Aurora currently has three inactive applications that require attention with regards to the servicing allocation policy of the Official Plan. Staff are recommending that the servicing assignment for the Silhouette (former Bara) site plan application be extended for one year while Council revoke the allocation for the Cara and Spragg applications. Attachments None. General Committee Meeting Agenda Tuesday, June 16, 2020 Item R7 Page 7 of 8 June 16, 2020 Page 8 of 8 Report No. PDS20-032 Previous Reports General Committee Report No. PL09-080, dated November 3, 2009. Council Report No. PL13-046, dated July 16, 2013. Council Report No. PL14-048, dated July 29, 2014. Council Report No. PL14-055, dated July 29, 2014. General Committee Report No. PBS17-017, dated May 16, 2017. General Committee Report No. PBS17-043, dated November 21, 2017. General Committee Report No. PDS18-070, dated June 19, 2018. Information Report No. PDS18-068, dated July 17, 2018. General Committee Report No. PDS20-006, dated March 3, 2020. Pre-submission Review Agenda Management Team Meeting review on May 28, 2020 Departmental Approval Approved for Agenda David Waters, MCIP, RPP, PLE Doug Nadorozny Director Chief Administrative Officer Planning and Development Services General Committee Meeting Agenda Tuesday, June 16, 2020 Item R7 Page 8 of 8 Town of Aurora General Committee Report No. PDS20-037 Subject: Capital Project No. 34527 – Yonge Street at Wellington Street Right Turn Lane Intersection Improvement Proposed Capital Budget Increase Prepared by: Patrick Ngo, Municipal Engineer Department: Planning and Development Services Date: June 16, 2020 Recommendations 1. That Report No. PDS20-037 be received; and, 2. That the total approved budget for Capital Project No. 34527 be increased from $75,000 to $94,100, representing an increase of $19,100 to be funded from the Roads R&R Reserve. Executive Summary This report requests Council authorization to increase the total approved budget for the development of an exclusive southbound right turn on Yonge Street at the intersection with Wellington Street (Capital Project No. 34527) to $94,100. This represents, an increase of $19,100 to be funded from the Roads R&R Reserve Fund. • The Request for Quotation has been undertaken by Town Staff that resulted in five compliant bid submissions that all exceeded the approved 2017 capital budget for the project. • As a precautionary measure, a cash allowance was included in the Request for Quotation to cover the cost for permit fees for potential hydro poles relocation and geotechnical investigation to identify all impacted underground infrastructure during design if required. • As the next phase of improvements, the Region is proposing to realign the Yonge & Wellington Intersection in 2022 by introducing exclusive turn lanes in all directions and parking restrictions on the west side of Yonge Street. General Committee Meeting Agenda Tuesday, June 16, 2020 Item R8 Page 1 of 10 June 16, 2020 Page 2 of 7 Report No. PDS20-037 Background The intersection of Yonge and Wellington Streets has long been the subject of traffic operational studies and initiatives. Wellington Street, including the signalized intersection, is under the jurisdiction of York Region. The segment of Yonge Street, north and south of Wellington Street, is under the jurisdiction of the Town of Aurora. A York Region Traffic Operation Assessment Report of April 2018 recommended the construction of the Yonge Street southbound right turn lane to address the traffic congestion at this intersection. The Region have agreed to cost share 50 percent of the total cost (design, construction and land expropriation) of the southbound right turning curb lane. As directed by Council, staff included $75,000 in the 2017 capital budget (see Attachment 2), for the design of a southbound right turning lane at Yonge and Wellington intersection. The approved capital budget does not include costs for property acquisition or related legal expenses but does include the preparation of an R- Plan. The former will be the subject of a future report to Council. The design budget for this capital project has been approved by Council in 2017, and this report provides the details of the tendering results and recommends proceeding with the design of the exclusive southbound right turn lane. If approved by Council, the design of the southbound right turning lane is planned to be completed by the end of 2020. Staff have submitted a budget request for funding construction in 2021. The right turn lane is anticipated to be completed before the end of 2021. Analysis The Request for Quotation was undertaken by Town in five compliant bid submissions that all exceeded the approved 2017 capital budget for the project Engineering worked collaboratively with Procurement to facilitate the process of retaining a qualified consultant to undertake the project. The Request for Quotation was issued on March 13, 2020 and closed on March 27, 2020, where a total of five (5) compliant bid submissions were received. Of these five (5) submissions, the lowest bidder is Ainley & Associates Limited with a bid price of $84,038 excluding taxes which exceeded the approved budget of $75,000. Costs associated with property acquisition or related legal expenses were not included in the Request for Quotation. General Committee Meeting Agenda Tuesday, June 16, 2020 Item R8 Page 2 of 10 June 16, 2020 Page 3 of 7 Report No. PDS20-037 As a precautionary measure, cash allowance was included in the Request for Quotation to cover the cost for permit fees for potential hydro poles relocation and geotechnical investigation to identify all impacted underground infrastructure during design, if required Bid submissions closed on March 27, 2020 and exceeded the project’s approved budget of $75,000 which was established based on previous similar work undertaken by the Town. As a precautionary measure, the Request for Quotation included the cost of cash allowance for permit fees related to hydro pole(s) relocation and geotechnical investigation such as additional boreholes, within the project area, if required, as set out in the Request for Quotation as shown in Table 1. Due to the nature of construction projects, there is always a degree of uncertainty in terms of site conditions especially with regards to underground infrastructure. The proposed Yonge Street southbound right turn lane is to be installed directly on the existing boulevard with no setback due to property constraints. There are numerous above ground and underground utilities, traffic light poles, controller, red-light camera, sensor loops, street lights, bus shelter and municipal services that may need to be relocated. It is unlikely that the total replacement of the underground infrastructure will be required, however, a cash allowance was included in the Request for Quotation. The cash allowance is for additional geotechnical investigation if needed during the design stage, to establish with more certainty the location of underground infrastructure and its impact on the right-turn lane. As the next stage of improvements, the Region is proposing to realign the Yonge & Wellington Intersection in 2022 by introducing exclusive turn lanes in all directions and parking restrictions on the west side of Yonge Street In addition to the exclusive southbound right turn lane which is considered Phase 1 of intersection improvements, the Region is proposing to realign the Yonge and Wellington intersection as the next stage of improvements. Phase 2, proposed for 2022, will be led by the Region and involves introducing exclusive left turn lanes in all directions and restricting parking on the west side of Yonge Street south of Wellington Street. The Region’s decision to cost share the right turn lane is not conditional on Aurora Council General Committee Meeting Agenda Tuesday, June 16, 2020 Item R8 Page 3 of 10 June 16, 2020 Page 4 of 7 Report No. PDS20-037 endorsing Phase 2 of the proposed intersection improvements. The Region will be presenting their proposal for Phase 2 to a future General Committee meeting. Advisory Committee Review Not applicable. Legal Considerations The awarding of this contract is in accordance with the Town’s procurement By-law. Financial Implications This is a cost sharing project with the Region, 50 percent of the total amount will be recovered from York Region upon substantial completion of the project. Table 1 presents a financial summary of the total estimated requirements for Capital Project No. 34527 based upon the lowest bid price submitted by Ainley & Associates Limited before contingencies and non-refundable taxes. Table 2 offers a more detailed break-down of the cash allowance items. Table 1 – Summary of Tender Prices Tender Prices Submitted from Consultant Mandatory Assignment $66,037.50 Cash Allowance $18,000.00 Total Tender Price $84,037.50 General Committee Meeting Agenda Tuesday, June 16, 2020 Item R8 Page 4 of 10 June 16, 2020 Page 5 of 7 Report No. PDS20-037 Table 2 – Detailed Breakdown of Cash Allowance Item No. Item 1 Geotechnical investigation including additional boreholes, water monitoring, infiltration testing, etc. 2 Obtain all necessary permits requested by affected agencies as required. (e.g. hydro poles relocation) Table 3 – Financial Summary Approved Budget Capital Project #34527 (Yonge Street at Wellington Street Intersection Improvements) $75,000 Funding available for the subject contract $75,000 Contract Award excluding HST $84,000 Sub-Total $84,000 Contingency amount (10% of the Contract Award Amount) $8,400 Non-refundable taxes (1.76% of the Contract Award Amount) $1,600 Total Funding Required $94,100 Budget Variance ($19,100) As indicated in Table 3, with the addition of a 10 percent contingency and non- refundable taxes, this project’s total budget is now $94,100, representing an additional funding requirement of $19,100. As noted above, 94% of this required increase is attributable to the addition of the cash allowance items as listed in Table 2. Should this work not be required, any excess funds will be returned to source at the end of the project. It is recommended that this project’s total approved budget be increased to $94,100 and its resultant funding shortfall be funded from the Roads R&R Reserve Fund. This reserve has sufficient funds available for this purpose. General Committee Meeting Agenda Tuesday, June 16, 2020 Item R8 Page 5 of 10 June 16, 2020 Page 6 of 7 Report No. PDS20-037 As indicated above, 50% of the total cost of the project including design, construction and land acquisition, will be recovered from the Region. Communications Considerations The Town of Aurora will use ‘Inform’ as the level of engagement for this project. There are five different levels of community engagement to consider, with each level providing the community more involvement in the decision making process. These levels are: Inform, Consult, Involve, Collaborate and Empower. Examples of each can be found in the Community Engagement Policy. These options are based on the International Association of Public Participation (IAP2) Spectrum and assist in establishing guidelines for clearly communicating with our public and managing community engagement. In order to inform, this report will be posted to the Town’s website. Communications will also inform the community on the Town’s website and social media during the construction phases and when the project is completed. Link to Strategic Plan This project supports the Strategic Plan goal of Supporting an Exceptional Quality of Life for All by Investing in Sustainable Infrastructure. This ensures road safety is provided to meet the needs and expectations of our community. Invest in sustainable infrastructure: Maintain and expand infrastructure to support forecasted population growth through technology, waste management, roads, emergency services, and accessibility. Alternative(s) to the Recommendation 1. That Council provides direction. Conclusions The Tender review has complied with the Town’s Procurement By-law and it is recommended that total budget for Capital Project No. 34527 for the Yonge Street and Wellington Street Intersection Improvements to be increased to $94,100 with additional funding of $19,100 to be provided from the Roads R&R Reserve Fund. This amount General Committee Meeting Agenda Tuesday, June 16, 2020 Item R8 Page 6 of 10 June 16, 2020 Page 7 of 7 Report No. PDS20-037 does not include the costs of property acquisition and related legal costs which will be the subject of a future report to Council. The majority of additional funding is for a cash allowance to cover the cost of possible additional geotechnical investigation work and necessary permit fees during the design. All excess funds will be returned to source at the end of the project. As indicated above, 50% of the total cost of the project including design, construction and land acquisition, will be recovered from the Region upon the substantial completion of the project. Attachment Attachment 1 – Key Plan showing Yonge Street and Wellington Street Intersection Attachment 2 - Capital budget for the design of a southbound right turning lane at Yonge and Wellington intersection Previous Reports None. Pre-submission Review Agenda Management Team Meeting review on May 28, 2020. Departmental Approval Approved for Agenda David Waters, MCIP, RPP, PLE Doug Nadorozny Director Chief Administrative Officer Planning and Development Services General Committee Meeting Agenda Tuesday, June 16, 2020 Item R8 Page 7 of 10 Þ Þ Þ ñ ñYONGE STREETYONGE STREETWELLINGTONWELLINGTON Mosley Street Victoria StreetTemperance StreetMill StreetTyler Street Spruce StreetSpruce StreetCatherine Avenue Centre Street Irwin Avenue Machell AvenueAlex Gardner Circle Victoria StreetTemperanceStreetSTREET WEST STREET EAST Aurora Public Library Aurora Cultural Centre Map created by the Town of Aurora Corporate Services Department, IT Division, April 15th, 2020. Base data provided by York Region and Aurora - GIS. This is not a legal survey. ¯ 02550 Metres PDS20-037 LOCATION OF PROPOSED INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS YONGE STREET AT WELLINGTON STREET KEY PLAN Area of InterestHwy 404Bathurst StYonge StYonge StBayview AveLeslie StLeslie StHwy 404St John's Sdrd Wellington St EWellington St W Henderson Vandorf Sdrd Bloomington Rd Area of Interest ) Dr Temperance Street Parkette Lions Parkette $77$&+0(17 General Committee Meeting Agenda Tuesday, June 16, 2020 Item R8 Page 8 of 10 Town of Aurora Capital Projects Project Department Version Year 34527 Yonge/Wellington Intersection Improvements Infrastructure & Environmental Services Final Approved Budget 2017 Description PURPOSE: To provide funding for the design and construction of a right turn lane going southbound from Yonge on Wellington (westbound)The project will be delivered in 2 parts: Part 1 - design and obtain regional approval, will be delivered in 2017 and Part 2 - Construction which will be delivered in 2019. LINK TO STRATEGIC PLAN: Supporting an exceptional quality of life for all, Objective 2: Invest in sustainable infrastructure - maintain and expand infrastructure PERFORMANCE/ACTIVITY IMPACTS: The project will improve the flow of traffic on Yonge Street in the Downtown Core Class "D" cost estimate EXPLANATION/HIGHLIGHTS The project involves: - construction of a 20m long right turn lane with an additional 30m taper at Yonge Street going southbound on Wellington, - traffic signal relocation - pavement markings - crosswalk (street print) - parking lot renovations - design will be delivered in 2017 with construction to follow in 2019 Project was not included in the 2015 Ten Year Capital Investment Plan. Budget Future20222020201920182017 2021Total Expenditures Estimated Expenditures CONSULTING 75,00075,000 CONTRACTS 312,500312,500 387,500 75,000 312,500 387,500 75,000 312,500Expenditures Total Funding Other Funding Sources GROWTH & NEW RES CONT'N 75,000 312,500387,500 387,500 75,000 312,500 387,500 75,000 312,500Funding Total Total Over (Under) Funded ATTACHMENT 2 General Committee Meeting Agenda Tuesday, June 16, 2020 Item R8 Page 9 of 10 Town of Aurora Capital Projects Project Department Version Year 34527 Yonge/Wellington Intersection Improvements Infrastructure & Environmental Services Final Approved Budget 2017 Gallery Q:\_Departments_space\Works\Capital Projects\CP 34527 - Yonge St and Wellington St Intersection Improvements\CP_34527.jpg General Committee Meeting Agenda Tuesday, June 16, 2020 Item R8 Page 10 of 10 Town of Aurora General Committee Report No. PDS20-045 Subject: Application for an Official Plan Amendment, Zoning By-law Amendment and Draft Plan of Subdivision Shining Hill Estate Collections Inc. 306, 370, 434 & 488 St. John’s Sideroad File Number: OPA-2018-01, ZBA-2018-02 & SUB-2018-02 Prepared by: Anna Henriques, Senior Development Planner Department: Planning and Development Services Date: June 16, 2020 Recommendations 1. That Report No. PDS20-045 be received; 2. That Official Plan Amendment application OPA-2018-01 (Shinning Hills Collections Inc.) be endorsed in principle to: a) amend Schedule AA of OPA 37 to re-designate the subject lands from ‘Suburban Residential (SR)’, ‘Suburban Residential (SR-1)’, ‘Core Area Open Space’ and ‘Supporting Area Open Space’ to ‘Suburban Residential (SR-2)’ and ‘Core Area Open Space (COS- 1); b) amend Section 2.0 of OPA 37 to add the following new Section 2.5 ‘Suburban Residential (SR-2)’ and the following policy: Suburban Residential permits fully serviced single-detached lots with frontages generally greater than 15 metres and areas generally greater than 460 square metres. Accessory uses and home occupations which are accessory to the residential use and compatible with the residential character may also be permitted. Neighbourhood oriented community services such as schools and parks shall also be permitted. c) amend Section 2.0 of OPA 37 to add the following new Section 2.6, ‘Core Area Open Space (COS-1)’ and the following policy: “The Core Area Open Space designation permits lands that are open space, approved stormwater management ponds, and approved road and municipal service crossings. Other than the above permitted services this area shall remain in its natural state with only passive recreation uses permitted. General Committee Meeting Agenda Tuesday, June 16, 2020 Item R9 Page 1 of 93 June 16, 2020 Page 2 of 20 Report No. PDS20-045 3. That Zoning By-law Amendment application ZBA-2018-02 (Shinning Hills Collections Inc.) be approved to rezone the subject lands from ‘Oak Ridges Moraine Rural General (RU-ORM)’ to ‘Detached Third Density Residential Exception Zone (R3-XX)’, Private Open Space (O2-XX), ‘Oak Ridges Moraine Environmental Protection (EP-ORM)’; 4. That the Draft Plan of Subdivision application SUB-2018-02 (Shinning Hills Collections Inc.) to create 8 blocks be approved, subject to the conditions listed in Schedule ‘A’ to this report; 5. That Council grant an allocation of 291 persons from the reserve to service the development of 90 single-detached dwellings on the approved Draft Plan of Subdivision; 6. That the implementing Official Plan Amendment be forwarded to the Region of York for approval; and, 7. That the Zoning By-law Amendment ZBA-2018-02 be brought forward to a future Council Meeting, after the implementing Official Plan Amendment is approved by the Region of York. Executive Summary This report seeks Council’s endorsement in principle of proposed Official Plan Amendment, Zoning By-Law Amendment and Draft Plan of Subdivision applications, subject to Regional approval of the Official Plan Amendment, to create 8 Blocks on a Plan of Subdivision to facilitate the future development of 90 single detached lots on a private condominium road. • The proposed Official Plan Amendment, Zoning By-law Amendment and Draft Plan of Subdivision applications are consistent with Provincial, Regional and Municipal Plans; • The Official Plan Amendment application seeks to add a new site specific land use designation and policies to permit the development of 90 single detached lots; and community support services; • The Zoning By-law Amendment application seeks rezone the subject lands to Detached Third Density Residential (R3) exception zone, Oak Ridges Moraine Environmental Protection (EP-ORM) and Private Open Space (O2); • Subsequent to the Statutory Public Meeting in 2019 the proposed draft plan has been revised to address comments; General Committee Meeting Agenda Tuesday, June 16, 2020 Item R9 Page 2 of 93 June 16, 2020 Page 3 of 20 Report No. PDS20-045 • Internal departments and external agencies have no concerns with the approval of the subject applications, subject to the Conditions of Approval (Schedule ‘A’) • Final technical matters will be addressed through future site plan and plan of condominium applications. Background Application History The subject applications were submitted on April 24, 2018. The Town declared the applications complete on June 4, 2018. In August 2018, in response to the applicant’s request that the Official Plan Amendment be exempt from Region of York approval, the Region advised the Town that the proposed Amendment is not exempt and will require Regional approval because a portion of the subject lands are located within the Regional Greenlands System. On June 26, 2019, the proposed Official Plan Amendment, Zoning By-law Amendment and Draft Plan of Subdivision were presented at a Public Planning Meeting. Comments were provided relating to a number of matters including, but not limited to, opposition to the proposed development, increased traffic, impacts on St. John’s Sideroad, and noise and dust during construction. A summary of the feedback received at the Public Meeting is summarized in Appendix ‘G’ attached to this report. At that meeting, General Committee passed a resolution referring the applications back to staff to address the comments presented. Minutes of the June 26, 2019 Public Planning Meeting are attached as Appendix A: Location / Land Use The subject lands are generally located at the northwest corner of Yonge Street and St. John’s Sideroad (Figure 1) and is comprised of four separate properties that are municipally known as 360, 370, 434 & 488 St. John’s Sideroad. Combined, the subject lands have a lot area of approximately 31.30 hectares (77.34 acres), a lot frontage of approximately 185 m (607 ft) along St. John’s Sideroad and an average lot depth of approximately 402 m (1319 ft). Two single-detached dwellings are located on the subject lands; one at 370 St. John’s Sideroad and the other at 488 St. John’s Sideroad. The remainder of the lands are vacant and part of a larger natural heritage system. General Committee Meeting Agenda Tuesday, June 16, 2020 Item R9 Page 3 of 93 June 16, 2020 Page 4 of 20 Report No. PDS20-045 Surrounding Land Uses The surrounding land uses are generally described as follows: North: Undeveloped Land, Natural Heritage lands and the Town of Newmarket; South: St. John’s Sideroad and existing estate homes; East: Vacant Land, Natural Heritage and Yonge Street; West: Existing residential subdivision. Policy Context Provincial Policies All development applications shall have regard for the Provincial Policy Statement (PPS), which provides policy direction on matters of Provincial interest. These policies support the development of strong communities through the promotion of efficient land use and development patterns. The Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe (The Growth Plan) is a guiding document for growth management within the Greater Golden Horseshoe Area. The Growth Plan provides a framework which guides land-use planning. The Lake Simcoe Protection Plan (LSPP) provides policies which address aquatic life, water quality and quantity, shorelines and natural heritage, other threats and activities (invasive species, climate change and recreational activities) and implementation. The Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan (ORMCP) provides land use and resource management planning direction on how to protect the Moraine’s ecological and hydrological features and functions. Official Plan Amendment No. 48 (OPA 48) was adopted by Council on October 22, 2003 to bring the Town of Aurora Official Plan into conformity with the ORMCP. York Region Official Plan (YROP) The subject lands are designated as ‘Urban Area’ within the York Region Official Plan. York Region’s vision for the Urban Area is to strategically focus growth while conserving resources and to create sustainable, liveable communities. Under York Region’s Official Plan, one regional urbanization goal is to enhance the Region’s urban structure through city building, intensification and compact, complete communities. General Committee Meeting Agenda Tuesday, June 16, 2020 Item R9 Page 4 of 93 June 16, 2020 Page 5 of 20 Report No. PDS20-045 Town of Aurora Official Plan – OPA 37 The subject lands are designated ‘Suburban Residential (SR)’, ‘Suburban Residential (SR-1)’, ‘Core Area Open Space’ and ‘Supporting Area Open Space’ under OPA 37 (Figure 2). The intent of the ‘Suburban Residential (SR)’ designation within OPA 37 is that these lands shall be developed for fully serviced residential lots of approximately 0.2 hectares is size. Development on lands designated Suburban Residential shall be compatible with the existing estate and suburban residences on the south side of St. John's Sideroad. The intent of the ‘Suburban Residential - (SR-1)’ designation within Site Specific Policy Area OPA 37 is that these lands be developed as fully serviced single-detached residential lots with frontages generally greater than 24 metres, and areas generally greater than 800 square metres. Neighbourhood oriented community services such as schools and parks are also be permitted. The intent of the ‘Core Area Open Space’ designation within the Site Specific Policy Area OPA 37 is that these lands shall be comprised of open space, approved stormwater management outlets, and approved road and municipal service crossings. Other than the above permitted services these lands are intended to remain in its natural state with only passive recreation uses being permitted. Development in proximity to these Core Area Open Space lands is intended to protect and respect the existing natural edges, provide slope stabilization, and if desirable and necessary, provide trails and open space management programs. Lands designated Core Area Open Space are comprised of two interrelated ecological elements -the riparian corridor and the highest quality vegetation communities. Lands designated ‘Supporting Area Open Space’ within the Site Specific Policy Area of OPA 37 are intended to generally be comprised of open space, approved stormwater management facilities, approved road and municipal service crossings, trails and passive use parks. Boundaries and natural edges will be defined, through the subdivision approval process. Lands designated “Supporting Area Open Space” are comprised of two interrelated ecological elements - the supporting vegetation communities and the valley land forms. General Committee Meeting Agenda Tuesday, June 16, 2020 Item R9 Page 5 of 93 June 16, 2020 Page 6 of 20 Report No. PDS20-045 Zoning By-law 6000-17, as amended The subject lands are currently zoned ‘Oak Ridges Moraine Rural General (RU-ORM)’ under Town of Aurora Zoning By-law 6000-17, as amended (Figure 3). The Zoning By-law provisions state that no person shall use these lands, including expanding, enlarging or otherwise altering an existing use, building or structure, for any use other than a use legally existing as of November 15, 2001, or a use for which a building permit has already been legally issued in accordance with Section 1.9.1 of By- law 6000-17, as amended, without an amendment to the Zoning By-law or relief from this by-law in accordance with the policies of the Official Plan and the Planning Act. Reports and Studies The reports and studies submitted to the Town as part of complete applications were listed in the Public Planning Report Number PDS19-060. Proposed Applications The Official Plan Amendment application seeks to amend OPA 37 by adding two new site specific designations and policies to permit the development of 90 single detached lots and supporting uses. As shown on Figure 6, the applicant is proposing to re-designate the subject lands from ‘Suburban Residential (SR)’, ‘Suburban Residential (SR-1)’, ‘Core Area Open Space’ and ‘Supporting Area Open Space’ to ‘Suburban Residential (SR-2) and ‘Core Area Open Space (COS-1)’. The proposed ‘Suburban Residential (SR-2) site specific designation provides revised minimum lot frontage and lot area requirements when compared to the ‘Suburban Residential (SR-1)’ designation. The proposed SR-2 designation is consistent with all other SR-1 policies in OPA 37 including the permission for neighbourhood oriented support services such as schools and parks. The following outlines the difference between the SR-1 Official Plan policies and the proposed SR-2 policies: General Committee Meeting Agenda Tuesday, June 16, 2020 Item R9 Page 6 of 93 June 16, 2020 Page 7 of 20 Report No. PDS20-045 Existing SR-1 Designation Proposed SR-2 Designation Lot Frontage Generally greater than 24 (79 ft.) Generally greater than 15m (49 ft.) Lot Area Generally greater than 800 m² Generally greater than 460 m² The proposed new site specific ‘Core Area Open Space (COS-1)’ designation is similar to the Core Area Open Space (COS) policies with the exception that the lands require dedication to the Town. The following is the proposed COS-1 policy amendment: “Core Area Open Space - 1” within the Site Specific Policy Area shall be comprised of open space, stormwater management ponds, and road and municipal service crossings. Other than the above permitted services, this area shall remain in its natural state with only passive recreation uses being permitted.” As shown on Figure 7, the proposed Zoning By-law Amendment seeks to rezone the subject lands from RU-ORM to a ‘Detached Third Density Residential Exception Zone (R3-XX)’, ‘Oak Ridges Moraine Environmental Protection (EP-ORM)’ and ‘Private Open Space Exception Zone (O2-XX)’ under By-law 6000-17, as amended. Appendix ‘B’ compares the difference between the parent R3 and O2 Zone requirements and the proposed R3 and O2 Exception Zones. Site specific zoning by-law provisions are also proposed to increase maximum encroachments including, but not limited to, open-sided roofed porches, uncovered terraces, porticos, patios, etc. (See Appendix ‘B’). No reductions to parking requirements are proposed and the owner will be required to demonstrate compliance with the R3 zone’s parking standards and other standard requirements, including maximum height (11m), through a future site plan application. Zoning standards will be finalized by staff in detail prior to the implementing Zoning By- law Amendment being presented to Council for enactment. Proposed Draft Plan of Subdivision The proposed draft plan of subdivision proposes 8 blocks to accommodate a future residential development on Block 1 which will be accessed by a private condominium road off of St. John’s Sideroad. The proposed draft plan also includes blocks for an open space feature, a storm water management facility, landscape/walkway buffering, road widening and natural heritage. With the exception of the road widening block (Block 4), all blocks will remain in private ownership. General Committee Meeting Agenda Tuesday, June 16, 2020 Item R9 Page 7 of 93 June 16, 2020 Page 8 of 20 Report No. PDS20-045 As illustrated on Figure 4, the Draft Plan of Subdivision proposes a total of 8 blocks as summarized below: Table 2: Draft Plan of Subdivision Breakdown Proposed Land Use Blocks Area Future residential development consisting of 90 single- detached dwellings serviced by a private condominium road 1 7.79 ha (19.24 ac) Landscape Buffer 2 0.18 ha (0.45 ac) Landscape Buffer 3 0.28 ha (0.69 ac) Road Widening 4 0.43 ha (1.06 ac) Open Space 5 0.77 ha (1.90 ac) Stormwater Management facility 6 0.36 ha (0.89 ac) 10 m Buffer/Walkway 7 0.07 ha (0.18 ac) Natural Heritage System 8 1.28 ha (3.16 ac) Total 11.16 ha (27.57 ac) Analysis Planning Considerations The proposed Official Plan Amendment, Zoning By-law Amendment and Draft Plan of Subdivision applications are consistent with Provincial, Regional and Municipal Plans Provincial Policy Statement (PPS) It is Planning Staff’s opinion that the proposed Official Plan Amendment, Zoning By-law Amendment and Subdivision applications are consistent with the PPS by encouraging the development of strong, healthy communities through the promotion of efficient land use and development patterns. Appendix ‘C’ further describes how the proposed development conforms to the PPS. Places to Grow Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe Staff is satisfied that the proposed applications are consistent with the Growth Plan by encouraging a range of housing types, using existing infrastructure and concentrating General Committee Meeting Agenda Tuesday, June 16, 2020 Item R9 Page 8 of 93 June 16, 2020 Page 9 of 20 Report No. PDS20-045 population growth in settlement areas. Appendix D further describes how the proposed development conforms to the Growth Plan. Lake Simcoe Protection Plan (LSPP) The subject lands are located within the regulated area of the LSPP. The proposed development also constitutes major development under the LSPP (the construction of a building or buildings within a ground floor area of 500 m2 or more). The Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority (LSRCA) has reviewed the proposed applications in concert with the LSPP and has no objections, subject to the Conditions of approval as attached to this report. Staff is of the opinion that the proposed application conforms to the LSPP. Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan (ORMCP) The ORMCP states that all uses permitted by the applicable Official Plan are permitted. Single-Detached Dwellings are listed as a Permitted Use under OPA 37 and specifically, within the existing ‘Suburban Residential (SR-1)’ land use designation. Further, OPA 48 states that continued development within existing urban settlement areas in the ORMCP should be provided, subject to applicable policies which generally seek to maintain the ecological integrity of all lands within the Plan. Planning staff are satisfied that the proposed development conforms with the ORMCP. Appendix G to this report outlines, in greater detail, how the development conforms to these documents in greater detail. Natural Features The subject property contains natural heritage features and a portion of the subject lands are located within the Regional Greenlands System. The The Environmental Impact Statement/Natural Heritage Evaluation submitted in support of the applications outlines the Minimum Vegetation Protection Zones established to protect the site’s natural features as required. York Region Official Plan (YROP). The proposed OPA will enable a development that is designed to ensure accessibility to people of all ages, cultures, and abilities (Policy 5.2.7) and will assist in ensuring "that General Committee Meeting Agenda Tuesday, June 16, 2020 Item R9 Page 9 of 93 June 16, 2020 Page 10 of 20 Report No. PDS20-045 by the year 2015 and for each year thereafter, a minimum of 40% of all residential development will occur within the built-up area as defined by the Growth Plan (Policy 5.3.1). The proposed development is consistent with the policies of the “Urban Area” in the YROP. On this basis, York Region Development Planning staff is of the opinion that the proposed OPA aligns with the policy intent of YROP. The proposed Official Plan Amendment is not exempt from Regional Approval and will be forwarded to the Region for approval should Committee endorse the subject applications in principle. Appendix E to this report highlights how the proposed development aligns with the York Region triple bottom line objectives, and other policies within the Plan. Town of Aurora Official Plan – OPA 37 The proposed Official Plan Amendment to accommodate a future residential development of 90 single family dwelling units and associated neighbourhood oriented support services is consistent with the Official Plan. The proposed site specific Official Plan designations [Suburban Residential (SR-2) and Core Area Open Space (COS-1)] generally conform with the policies of the Aurora Official Plan and satisfies the intent of OPA 37. The Suburban Residential (SR-2) designation allows for fully serviced and environmentally sensitive residential development consisting of single-detached housing which is currently permitted through OPA 37. Although the frontages and lot areas have been slightly reduced compared to what is presently permitted in OPA 37, staff are of the opinion that the proposed housing product is compatible with the existing pattern of residential development within the host community. Staff are of the opinion that the proposed development maintains the general intent of OPA 37 and the existing Core Area Open Space designation by providing a Natural Heritage Block which will remain in its natural state. This Natural Heritage Block has been established in accordance with the limit of the staked dripline by the LSRCA on May 24, 2017 and is proposed to remain in private ownership, as recommended by Town staff. It is anticipated that the balance of the natural heritage system located on the subject lands, and outside the limits of the proposed draft plan, may be gratuitously dedicated to the Town as part of future planning application. As such, staff have included a draft plan condition that provides the Town with the flexibility to request that Blocks 8 (Natural Heritage) and Block 7 (Walkway/Buffer) be gratuitously dedicated to General Committee Meeting Agenda Tuesday, June 16, 2020 Item R9 Page 10 of 93 June 16, 2020 Page 11 of 20 Report No. PDS20-045 the Town should the balance of the natural heritage system be dedicated to the Town (through future development approvals), prior to release of the plan for registration. A stormwater management pond is also proposed with the Core Area Open Space designation, consistent with OPA 37 policies. Planning staff are of the opinion that the proposed Official Plan Amendment will facilitate appropriate development that is compatible with adjacent lands and protects key existing environmental features. Appendix ‘F’ further outlines how the proposed development conforms to the Official Plan. Zoning By-law 6000-17, as amended The proposed zoning by-law amendment to rezone the subject lands to Detached Third Density Residential (R3) exception zone, Oak Ridges Moraine Environmental Protection (EP-ORM) and Private Open Space (O2) exception zone is appropriate and represents good planning. Planning staff have evaluated the proposed Zoning By-law amendment (Appendix ‘B’) in the context of OPA 37 and the proposed Draft Plan of Subdivision. Planning staff are of the opinion that the proposed amendment is compatible with adjacent and neighbouring development and will protect natural heritage features. Subsequent to the Statutory Public Meeting in 2019 the proposed draft plan has been revised to address comments In response to comments received at the June 2019 Statutory Public Planning Meeting, and staff and agency review comments, the following revisions were made to the proposed draft plan: • Reduction in number of residential lots from 92 to 90 as illustrated on the proposed Development Concept (See Figure 5); • Increasing the lot frontage for lots located closer to St. John’s Sideroad • Decreasing in area the residential block from 7.95 ha to 7.79 ha; • Increasing in area the landscape buffer block from 0.25 ha to 0.28 ha; • Increasing in area the road widening block from 0.40 ha to 0.43 ha; • Increasing in area the private open space block from 0.69 ha to 0.77 ha; • Increasing the stormwater management block from 0.28 ha to 0.36 ha; • Decreasing in area the Natural Heritage block from 13.40 ha to 1.28 ha; • Including an additional 10 m walkway/buffer (0.07 ha) now shown as Block 7; General Committee Meeting Agenda Tuesday, June 16, 2020 Item R9 Page 11 of 93 June 16, 2020 Page 12 of 20 Report No. PDS20-045 • Introducing a Core Area Open Space (COS-1) Official Plan land use designation; • Revising the Proposed Zoning to change from Public Open Space (01) to Private Open Space (O2) (see Figure 7). Proposed Lot Pattern Regarding concerns relating to density and compatibility, the applicant has reduced the overall number of units proposed from 92 to 90 lots on the proposed Concept Plan. Additionally, the proposed Concept Plan was revised to provide for lots with larger frontages closer to St. John’s Sideroad. The proposed lotting pattern is illustrated on Figure 5 (Development Concept) where the lots will range in frontage from 15.24 m (50 ft) to 18.3 m (60 ft) and in depth from 18.9 m (62 ft) to 57.3 m (188 ft). A minimum lot area of 460 m² is proposed for each lot. Planning staff consider the proposal to be appropriate for the development of the subject lands as it is compatible with the existing characteristic of the host community which includes low density subdivisions with a similar lot fabric and unit types (i.e. single-detached). As such, Planning staff do not anticipate any adverse impacts on neighbourhood character. Landscape and Open Space To address concerns with respect to neighbourhood character and buffering and screening for adjacent residential dwellings, the proposed plan was revised to include landscape buffers (Blocks 2 & 3) along St. John’s Sideroad and at the west end of the draft plan (Block 7) which protect existing mature vegetation while also providing screening for future and existing residents. Natural Heritage The total area of this natural heritage block has been refined from previous submissions to address comments from the Region of York. Blocks 8 consists of the Natural Heritage System and is proposed to remain in private ownership at this time. However, staff have included a draft plan condition that provides the Town with the option to request that Block 8 be dedicated to the Town prior to final approval of the plan. It is anticipated that the balance of the natural heritage system located on the subject lands, but outside the limits of the proposed draft plan, may be gratuitously dedicated to the Town as part of a future planning application. These natural heritage lands, once General Committee Meeting Agenda Tuesday, June 16, 2020 Item R9 Page 12 of 93 June 16, 2020 Page 13 of 20 Report No. PDS20-045 secured through future development approvals, will facilitate the construction of trail routes on the subject lands and to the east and west, as illustrated in the Town of Aurora Trails Master Plan. Once the lands are conveyed to the Town, the proposed trail system north of St. John’s Sideroad may be planned and designed. Overall, Staff are satisfied with the revised plan, block pattern and draft limits established through the proposed draft plan of subdivision, as shown on Figure 4. Stormwater Management & Site Servicing A Bioretention System was added to the Stormwater Management Block (6) to provide a higher level of treatment as it relates to drainage. Stormwater runoff will drain into a bioretention cell, placed downstream of the proposed detention storage and control structures from the tank. In addition to the Stormwater Management Block, other areas throughout the site along the northern boundary will drain to the adjacent creek. The proposed Stormwater Management scheme provided in the submitted Functional Servicing Report outlines a treatment train which contains catchbasin shields (CB Shields) along roads, an Oil Grit Separator unit, as well as a filtration bed. The LSRCA supports the approach for storm water management to service the development including the size of Block 6 and have issued draft plan conditions that can be viewed in Schedule A. The Town’s Engineering Department has reviewed the subject applications and has indicated that no servicing constraints were identified. Traffic/Transportation A revised Transportation Mobility study was submitted and reviewed by the Town’s Traffic Analyst and Region of York who have both confirmed that they have no objection to approval of the proposed development subject to conditions of draft approval. Staff consider the proposed 9.2 metre wide private condominium road off of St. John’s Sideroad sufficient to provide access to the proposed residential development on Block 1. This will be a full-moves intersection and York Region has confirmed that the intersection is not to be signalized due to insufficient traffic warrants and have no concerns rearding sight-lines. (Figure 5). General Committee Meeting Agenda Tuesday, June 16, 2020 Item R9 Page 13 of 93 June 16, 2020 Page 14 of 20 Report No. PDS20-045 The Region has also provided responses to comments made by the public at the June 2019 Public Planning Meeting relating to the widening of St. John’s Sideroad, increased traffic and congestion, access, traffic lights, crosswalks and pedestrian safety (see Appendix ‘G’). The Region has confirmed they have no additional concerns at this time and have issued draft plan conditions that can be viewed in Schedule A. Department / Agency Comments Internal departments and external agencies have no concerns with the approval of the subject applications subject to Conditions of Approval, attached as Schedule ‘A’. The proposed applications were circulated to internal departments and external agencies for review and comment. In general, all circulated departments and agencies are satisfied that comments have been adequately addressed or will be addressed through the recommended draft plan conditions and therefore, have no objection to approval of the applications. Planning and Development Services – Development Engineering The Development Engineer has reviewed the materials submitted in conjunction with the proposed applications and has no concerns with approval of the subject applications, subject to all engineering related conditions being satisfied prior to execution of the development agreement. Outstanding technical matters will be addressed through the recommended draft plan conditions. Building Division The Town’s Building Division has expressed no objection to approval of the subject applications and have confirmed that they have no further comments. Traffic/Transportation The Town’s Traffic Analyst has no further comments and has expressed no concerns with the findings and conclusions of the Transportation Mobility Plan (TMP) submitted as it relates to the impact and operations of roads under the jurisdiction of the Town. General Committee Meeting Agenda Tuesday, June 16, 2020 Item R9 Page 14 of 93 June 16, 2020 Page 15 of 20 Report No. PDS20-045 Operational Services – Parks Division Parks staff acknowledge that the development as proposed is ultimately intended to be a condominium development and that the Town does not typically designate public parkland within private developments. As such, the Town’s Parks Division has confirmed that they will be requesting Cash-In-Lieu of parkland. Therefore, the owner will be required to provide Cash-In-Lieu prior to building permit issuance. Operations Services – Waste & Recycling As stated earlier in this report, a future site plan and plan of condominium applications are required. The Town’s Operations Department has confirmed that condominium developments are typically serviced by private pickup for waste and recycling. This will be further evaluated as part of future planning applications. Regional Municipality of York The Regional Municipality of York has reviewed the application and advises that they have no objection to approval of the subject applications, subject to the owner satisfying technical requirements through draft plan conditions prior to execution of the subdivision agreement. In addition, as previously stated the proposed Official Plan Amendment requires approval by the Region of York. Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority (LSRCA) The Lake Simcoe Conservation Authority reviewed the proposed applications with no objections subject to technical comments being addressed. As such, the owner will be required to satisfy these requirements which are listed as draft plan conditions prior to the execution of the Development Agreement. Central York Fire Services Central York Fire Services (CYFS) has reviewed the application and indicated no objection to approval of the applications subject to the owner satisfying technical requirements through draft plan conditions prior to execution of the Development Agreement. General Committee Meeting Agenda Tuesday, June 16, 2020 Item R9 Page 15 of 93 June 16, 2020 Page 16 of 20 Report No. PDS20-045 Policy Planning & Economic Development Staff are recommending that Council grant servicing allocation in the amount of 291 persons from the reserve for the proposed development. An average of 3.23 persons per unit is required to service a single detached dwelling. In consultation with Policy Planning, it has been confirmed that capacity is available for allocation. Final technical matters will be addressed through future site plan and plan of condominium applications. The subdivision application submitted is intended to establish the block pattern and draft limits of this plan as shown on Figure 4, to facilitate the development of 90 single detached lots/units and associated neighbourhood services on a private condominium road. A plan of condominium application will be required to include the private road, providing access off of St. John’s Sideroad, and the open space, stormwater management, buffer/walkway and natural heritage blocks. If freehold single detached lots are proposed, a Part Lot Control Application will also be required to establish 90 parcels of tied land (POTLS). A Site Plan application will also be required to review details as it pertains to building elevations and overall urban design and massing aspects related to this development. As part of site plan control, all urban design matters will need to be to the satisfaction of Council prior to final approval. Internal departments and external agencies will also be circulated on a future Site Plan, Draft Plan of Condominium and Part Lot Control (if required) applications for review and comment. Public Comments At the time of writing this report, no written comments were submitted from the public. Responses to verbal comments made at the June 2019 Statutory Public Planning Meeting are attached to this report as Appendix H. Advisory Committee Review Accessibility Advisory Committee The Town’s Accessibility Advisor has reviewed the site plan on behalf of the Accessibility Advisory Committee in accordance with the Accessibility for Ontarians with General Committee Meeting Agenda Tuesday, June 16, 2020 Item R9 Page 16 of 93 June 16, 2020 Page 17 of 20 Report No. PDS20-045 Disabilities Act in order to encourage barrier free access. The Town’s Accessibility Advisor has no further comments at this time and comments as it relates to barrier free accessibility throughout this site will be addressed as part of a future site plan application. Legal Considerations Subsections 22(7) and 22(7.0.2) of the Planning Act states that if Council refuses the Official Plan Amendment application or fails to make a decision on it within 180 days after the receipt of the application, the applicant (or the Minister) may appeal the application to the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal (LPAT). Subsection 34(11) of the Planning Act states that if Council refuses the Zoning By-law Amendment application or fails to make a decision on it within 120 days after the receipt of the application, the applicant (or the Minister) may appeal the application to the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal (LPAT). Subsection 51(34) of the Planning Act states that if Council refuses the Draft Plan of Subdivision application or fails to make a decision on it within 180 days after the receipt of the application, the applicant (or the Minister) may appeal the application to the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal (LPAT). These applications were received in 2018 and therefore, the applicant may appeal them to the LPAT at any time. Financial Implications There are no financial implications identified at this time. Communications Considerations On January 4, 2018, a Notice of Complete Application and Public Planning Meeting was published in the Aurora Banner and Auroran newspapers and given by mail to all addressed property owners within a minimum of 120 metres (393 feet) of the subject lands. On the same date, a Notice of Public Planning Meeting sign was also posted on the subject lands fronting Yonge Street. All interested parties were notified that the subject applications would be presented at the June 16, 2020 General Committee Meeting. While not a statutory meeting, public notification of the General Committee meeting was issued by the Town. General Committee Meeting Agenda Tuesday, June 16, 2020 Item R9 Page 17 of 93 June 16, 2020 Page 18 of 20 Report No. PDS20-045 Link to Strategic Plan The proposed Official Plan Amendment, Zoning By-law Amendment and Subdivision applications support the Strategic Plan goal of supporting an exceptional quality of life for all through its accomplishment in satisfying requirements in the following key objectives within this goal statement: Strengthening the fabric of our community: Through the review and approval of the Zoning By-law Amendment, Official Plan Amendment and Plan of Subdivision applications, housing opportunities are created that collaborates with the development community to ensure future growth includes housing opportunities for everyone. Alternatives to the Recommendation 1. That Council provide direction. Conclusions Planning and Development Services has reviewed the proposed Official Plan Amendment, Zoning By-law Amendment and Draft Plan of Subdivision applications against the relevant Provincial plans, Regional and Town Official Plans, Town Zoning By-law and municipal development standards. The development proposal is considered good planning, and conforms to Provincial and Regional policies and is consistent with policies of the Town’s Official Plan. The OPA, zoning by-law and draft plan conditions work together to protect the ecological function of the natural heritage system in addition to implementing a future residential development that is compatible with the host community. Therefore, staff recommend approval, in principle, of the proposed Official Plan Amendment (OPA-2018-01), Zoning By-law Amendment (ZBA-2018-02) and Subdivision applications (SUB-2018-02). The Official Plan Amendment will be forwarded to the Region of York for approval and once approval has been granted, staff will present the implementing zoning by-law to a future Council meeting for approval. General Committee Meeting Agenda Tuesday, June 16, 2020 Item R9 Page 18 of 93 June 16, 2020 Page 19 of 20 Report No. PDS20-045 Attachments Attachment 1 Figure 1 – Location Map Figure 2 – Existing Official Plan Designation Figure 3 – Existing Zoning Figure 4 – Proposed Plan of Subdivision Figure 5 – Development Concept – Future Draft Plan of Condominium Figure 6 – Proposed Official Plan Designation Figure 7 – Proposed Zoning Attachment 2 Schedule ‘A’ – Conditions of Draft Plan Approval Attachment 3 Appendix A – Excerpt from Minutes of the June 26, 2019 Public Planning Meeting Appendix B – Proposed Residential Exception and Private Open Space Zones Appendix C – Provincial Policy Statement Analysis Appendix D – Growth Plan Policy Analysis Appendix E – York Region Official Plan Analysis Appendix F – OPA 37 Policy Analysis Appendix G – Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan Policy Analysis Appendix H – Response to Public CommentsΠρεϖιουσ Ρεπορτσ Previous Reports Public Planning Report No. PDS19-060, dated June 26, 2019. Pre-submission Review Agenda Management Team Meeting review on May 28, 2020 General Committee Meeting Agenda Tuesday, June 16, 2020 Item R9 Page 19 of 93 June 16, 2020 Page 20 of 20 Report No. PDS20-045 Departmental Approval Approved for Agenda ______________________________ ______________________________ Waters, MCIP, RPP, PLE Doug Nadorozny Director Chief Administrative Officer Planning and Development Services General Committee Meeting Agenda Tuesday, June 16, 2020 Item R9 Page 20 of 93 TOWN OF NEWMARKETFallingLeafCourtSt John's SideroadLOCATION MAPMap created by the Town of Aurora Planning & Building Services Department, May 25, 2020. Base data provided by York Region & the Town of Aurora. Air Photos taken Spring 2019, © First Base Solutions Inc., 2019 Orthophotography.¯FIGURE 1St John's SdrdWellington St EVandorf SdrdHenderson Drive^Wellington St WUV404UV404Leslie StYonge StBathurst StBayview AveBloomington Rd0 50 100 150 200MetresAPPLICANT: Shining Hill ApplicationFILES: OPA-2018-01, ZBA-2018-02 & SUB-2018-02SUBJECT LANDSGeneral Committee Meeting Agenda Tuesday, June 16, 2020 Item R9 Page 21 of 93 TOWN OF NEWMARKETWillowFarm LaneFallingLeafCourtST JOHN'S SIDEROADEXISTING OFFICIAL PLAN DESIGNATIONMap created by the Town of Aurora Planning & Development Services Department, May 25, 2020. Base data provided by York Region & the Town of Aurora.¯0 50 100 150 200MetresAPPLICANT: Shining Hill ApplicationFILES: OPA-2018-01, ZBA-2018-02 & SUB-2018-02FIGURE 2SUBJECT LANDSSchedule A - Structure PlanEstate ResidentialStable Neighbourhoods!!!!Existing Major InstitutionalPrivate ParklandOPA 37Suburban Residential (SR-1)Suburban ResidentialPublic ParklandEnvironmental ProtectionCore Area Open SpaceSupporting Area Open SpaceGeneral Committee Meeting Agenda Tuesday, June 16, 2020 Item R9 Page 22 of 93 TOWN OF NEWMARKETRU-ORMRUEPER(72)R2(74)R2(74)EPO2(75)R2(74)R1(299)ER(72)R3(302)O2(75)O2(75)R2(300)O2(75)EPO2(75)EPST JOHN'S SIDEROADEXISTING ZONINGMap created by the Town of Aurora Planning & Development Services Department, May 25, 2020. Base data provided by York Region and Aurora - GIS.¯050100150200MetresAPPLICANT: Shining Hill ApplicationFILES: OPA-2018-01, ZBA-2018-02 & SUB-2018-02FIGURE 3SUBJECT LANDSDetached FirstDensity ResidentialR1Zoning LegendRESIDENTIAL ZONESEstate ResidentialEROPEN SPACES ZONESEnvironmentalProtectionEPDetached SecondDensity ResidentialR2RuralRURURAL ZONESDetached ThirdDensity ResidentialR3Oak Ridges Moraine RuralRU-ORMPublic Open SpaceO1Private Open SpaceO2General Committee Meeting Agenda Tuesday, June 16, 2020 Item R9 Page 23 of 93 Map created by the Town of Aurora Planning & Development Services Department, May 25, 2020. Base data provided by Malone Given ParsonsPROPOSED PLAN OF SUBDIVISIONAPPLICANT: Shining Hill ApplicationFILES: OPA-2018-01, ZBA-2018-02 & SUB-2018-02FIGURE 4General Committee Meeting Agenda Tuesday, June 16, 2020 Item R9 Page 24 of 93 Map created by the Town of Aurora Planning & Development Services Department, May 25, 2020. Base data provided by Malone Given ParsonsDEVELOPMENT CONCEPT – FUTURE DRAFT PLAN OF CONDOMINIUMAPPLICANT: Shining Hill ApplicationFILES: OPA-2018-01, ZBA-2018-02 & SUB-2018-02FIGURE 5General Committee Meeting Agenda Tuesday, June 16, 2020 Item R9 Page 25 of 93 TOWN OF NEWMARKETWillowFarmLaneST JOHN'S SIDEROADPROPOSED OFFICIAL PLAN DESIGNATIONMap created by the Town of Aurora Planning & Development Services Department, June 1, 2020. Base data provided by York Region & the Town of Aurora.¯0 50 100 150 200MetresAPPLICANT: Shining Hill ApplicationFILES: OPA-2018-01, ZBA-2018-02 & SUB-2018-02FIGURE 6Lands to be designated toSuburban Residential (SR-2)SUBJECT LANDSSchedule A - Structure PlanEstate ResidentialStable Neighbourhoods!!!!Existing Major InstitutionalPrivate ParklandOPA 37Suburban Residential (SR-1)Suburban ResidentialPublic ParklandEnvironmental ProtectionCore Area Open SpaceSupporting Area Open SpaceLands to be designated toCore Area Open Space – 1General Committee Meeting Agenda Tuesday, June 16, 2020 Item R9 Page 26 of 93 TOWN OF NEWMARKETRUEPER(72)R2(74)R2(74)R2(74)ER(72)O2(75)R2(300)ER(73)R1(299)IO2(75)O2(75)O2(75)EPO2(75)ST JOHN'S SIDEROADPROPOSED ZONINGMap created by the Town of Aurora Planning & Development Services Department, June 8, 2020. Base data provided by York Region and Aurora - GIS.¯0 50 100 150 200MetresAPPLICANT: Shining Hill ApplicationFILES: OPA-2018-01, ZBA-2018-02 & SUB-2018-02FIGURE 7SUBJECT LANDSDetached FirstDensity ResidentialR1Zoning LegendRESIDENTIAL ZONESEstate ResidentialEROPEN SPACES ZONESEnvironmentalProtectionEPDetached SecondDensity ResidentialR2RuralRURURAL ZONESDetached ThirdDensity ResidentialR3Oak Ridges Moraine RuralRU-ORMPublic Open SpaceO1Private Open SpaceO2RU-ORMR3-XXEP-ORMO2-XO2-XProposed ZonesO2-XGeneral Committee Meeting Agenda Tuesday, June 16, 2020 Item R9 Page 27 of 93 Schedule “A” CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL DRAFT PLAN OF SUBDIVISION (SUB-2018-02) Shining Hill Homes (St. John’s) Inc. and Shining Hill Estates Collection Inc. 306, 370, 434 and 488 St. John’s Sideroad West, legally described as Part Lot 86, Con. 1 King, Part 1, Plan 65R-26049, Parts 1 and 2, Plan 65R-36724 and Parts 1 and 2, Plan 65R-37588 (the “Lands”) DRAFT PLAN APPROVAL AND THE FOLLOWING DRAFT PLAN CONDITIONS LAPSE AT THE EXPIRATION OF THREE YEARS FROM THE DATE THAT THE DRAFT PLAN OF THE LANDS HAS BEEN APPROVED BY COUNCIL. PROVIDED THAT DRAFT PLAN APPROVAL HAS NOT LAPSED, COUNCIL MAY, AT ITS SOLE DISCRETION, EXTEND THE APPROVAL. THE CONDITIONS OF AURORA COUNCIL THAT SHALL BE SATISFIED BY THE OWNER OF THE LANDS (THE “OWNER”) PRIOR TO THE RELEASE FOR REGISTRATION OF ANY M-PLAN OF THE LANDS (THE “PLAN”), ARE AS FOLLOWS: Planning Division Conditions 1.The draft plan prepared by Malone Given Parsons dated April 23, 2018 (Revision Date: May 14, 2020) with respect to the creation of 8 Blocks on a plan of subdivision (the “Draft Plan”) and associated conditions of Draft Plan approval shall be amended to the satisfaction of the Town’s Planning Division, if revisions are required to implement or integrate any recommendations resulting from studies required as a condition of Draft Plan approval. Further, minor redline revisions to the Draft Plan may also be required to ensure property alignment with existing or proposed lots, blocks, streets, and/or facilities on lands adjacent to the Draft Plan. 2.Prior to the release for registration of the M-Plan, the Owner shall submit, to the satisfaction of the Planning Division, the final draft M-Plan in the following form: a) an electronic and hardcopy version of the signed white paper print approved by the Land Registry Office for registration; b) one (1) original mylar; c)two (2) mylar duplicates; and d)three (3) white paper prints, one (1) of which contains an A.O.L.S form. 3.Prior to the execution of the Development Agreement as defined in Draft Plan Condition No. #, the Lands shall be: a)appropriately designated in the Official Plan by a official plan by-law that has come into effect in accordance with the provisions of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.P.13, as amended (the “Planning Act”); and General Committee Meeting Agenda Tuesday, June 16, 2020 Item R9 Page 28 of 93 Attachment 2 Shining Hill Homes (St. John’s) Inc. and Shining Hill Estates Collection Inc. SUB-2018-02 Conditions of Approval Page 2 b) appropriately zoned by a zoning by-law that has come into effect in accordance with the provisions of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.P.13, as amended (the “Planning Act”). 4. Prior to the execution of the Development Agreement(s), the Owner shall amend the Plan of Subdivision application submitted to the Town to include the adjacent lands to the east (where Block 6 encroaches into), also owned by the Owner. 5. The Owner shall, prior to the release for registration of the Plan, obtain approval for a residential development consisting of ninety (90) dwellings serviced by a private condominium road on Block 1 on the Draft Plan, and enter into and execute agreement(s) with The Corporation of the Town of Aurora, including but not limited to an agreement to satisfy all conditions, legal, financial (including fees and securities) and otherwise of the Town (collectively the “Development Agreement”). A clause shall be added to the Development Agreement stating that the Owner shall register a condominium plan to create a condominium road on Block 1 on the Draft Plan in accordance with a related Draft Plan of Condominium Application (the “Condo Plan”). The Development Agreement and related documents shall be registered on title against the Lands, as provided for in the Planning Act, and, if applicable, the Condominium Act, 1998, S.O. 1998, c. 19, s. 9 (2), as amended, at the sole expense of the Owner. 6. Prior to the execution of the Development Agreement, the Owner shall prepare a Green Building and Development report for the development of the Lands related to Environmental Protection, Energy Efficiency, Solar Gain, Energy Technologies, Water Conservation, Green Materials and Waste Reduction, Reduction of Noise Pollution, Indoor Air Quality and Residential Information/ Education Package, all to the satisfaction of the Town’s Planning Division. A clause shall be added to the Development Agreement stating that the Owner shall implement any and all recommendations of this report to the satisfaction of the Town. 7. Prior to execution of the Development Agreement and any major site alteration, the Owner shall prepare an update of the detailed Environmental Impact Study/Natural Heritage Evaluation and a Bioretention Memorandum prepared by GeoProcess Research Associates, dated April 2020 and May 14, to the satisfaction of the Town and Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority. A clause shall be added to the Development Agreement stating that the Owner shall implement any and all recommendations of the Study/Evaluation and Memorandum, as amended. 8. Prior to execution of the Development Agreement, the Owner shall prepare Urban and Architectural Design Guidelines consistent with Policy 4.2 – General Design and Architectural Policies of the Town’s Official Plan. The Guidelines General Committee Meeting Agenda Tuesday, June 16, 2020 Item R9 Page 29 of 93 Shining Hill Homes (St. John’s) Inc. and Shining Hill Estates Collection Inc. SUB-2018-02 Conditions of Approval Page 3 shall include matters such as the design and construction of all residential dwelling units, walkways, landscaping and all other elements within the Draft Plan. Strict compliance with the Urban Design Guidelines shall be undertaken by the Owner unless otherwise approved by the Town’s Planning Division. A clause shall be added to the Development Agreement stating that the Owner shall implement any and all recommendations of the Guidelines. 9. A clause shall be added to the Development Agreement stating that prior to the release for registration of the Plan, the road allowances included within the Draft Plan, being the condominium road to be constructed on Block 1 on the Draft Plan (the “condominium road”) shall be named to the satisfaction of the Town’s Planning Division and the Region of York. 10. A clause shall be added to the Development Agreement stating that the Owner shall erect and maintain signs on any vacant land within the Plan indicating the designated or proposed use of all lots and/or blocks (including temporary turning circles) on the Plan, other than those lots designated for residential purposes. 11. A clause shall be added to the Development Agreement stating that the Owner shall erect and maintain fencing along rear yards that abut or have access to open space and environmental protection lands to restrict access, to the satisfaction of the Town. 12. Prior to execution of the Development Agreement, the Owner shall prepare a homeowner’s manual, to be approved by the Town, to educate homeowners about the benefit and attributes of the natural features in the area and to advise them of good stewardship practices. 13. A clause shall be added to the Development Agreement stating that the Owner shall satisfy any requirements in accordance with: a) the Town’s Parkland/Cash-in-lieu By-law, as amended or successor thereto and applicable policies; and b) any related Parkland Agreements imposed by the Town. Legal Services Division Conditions 14. Prior to the execution of the Development Agreement, the Owner shall provide a draft Solicitor’s Title Opinion for the Lands as well as an electronic and hardcopy version of all draft Reference Plans referred to in the Subdivision Agreement in a final signed form as approved by the Land Registry Office for registration. 15. A clause shall be added to the Development Agreement stating that the Owner shall, at no cost and free of all encumbrances to the Town to the satisfaction of the Town Solicitor: a) grant all easements required for municipal purposes; b) General Committee Meeting Agenda Tuesday, June 16, 2020 Item R9 Page 30 of 93 Shining Hill Homes (St. John’s) Inc. and Shining Hill Estates Collection Inc. SUB-2018-02 Conditions of Approval Page 4 convey all lands required for municipal purposes, including 0.3m reserves; and c) dedicate as public highways on the Plan, all streets and road widenings. 16. A clause shall be added to the Development Agreement stating that the Owner shall consent to the Town’s registration of the Development Agreement, and any ancillary agreements as necessary in priority of all encumbrances to the Town to the satisfaction of the Town Solicitor and to pay to the Town its associated fees upon execution of the Development Agreement for the preparation and registration of same as set out in the Town’s Fees and Charges By-law, as amended or successor thereto. 17. A clause shall be added to the Subdivision Agreement stating that, immediately following the registration of the Plan, the Owner shall register at its sole expense, an Application to Annex Restrictive Covenants S. 118 which restricts the transfer of the lots on the Plan without the consent of the Town to the satisfaction of the Town Solicitor at the sole cost of the Owner. The Town’s consent to the Owner’s registration of the deletion of the Restrictive Covenant at the Owner’s sole cost shall be provided by the Town immediately after the registration of the Condo Plan. Engineering Division Conditions Private Wells: 18. A clause shall be added in the Development Agreement stating that prior to the release for registration of the Plan, the Owner shall provide the Town with a survey and written report to study nearby private wells on lands external to the Draft Plan, including information on water quality and quantity. Water sampling and analysis on external lands shall be completed at selected wells where existing water quality concerns are suspected upon obtaining legal access from external land owners. The study shall provide yearly information and the recommendations contained therein shall be carried out by the Owner for a minimum of 2 years after completion of any construction of servicing or until any noted concerns are mitigated. 19. A clause shall be added in the Development Agreement stating that the Town may require the Owner to provide confirmation that there will be no future ground source heat pump installations involving wells associated with the Draft Plan and that all existing private wells on the Draft Plan will be located and properly abandoned. 20. A clause shall be added to the Development Agreement stating that Owner shall properly abandon and plug any unused wells on the Draft Plan in accordance with the Ontario Water Resources Act, R.S.O.1990, c. O.40, and R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 903. General Committee Meeting Agenda Tuesday, June 16, 2020 Item R9 Page 31 of 93 Shining Hill Homes (St. John’s) Inc. and Shining Hill Estates Collection Inc. SUB-2018-02 Conditions of Approval Page 5 Stormwater Management: 21. A clause shall be added to the Development Agreement stating that Block 6 on the Draft Plan will be used for private stormwater management purposes, and that all future maintenance shall be the sole responsibility of the Owner. 22. Prior to the execution of the Development Agreement, the Owner shall submit a detailed Stormwater Management Report, to the satisfaction of the Town, to substantiate that the Lands meet the current stormwater balance, phosphorous removal, quantity and quality requirements in accordance with the latest Ministry of Environment guidelines and the Town’s Infrastructure & Environmental Services Department Policy #68 (Stormwater Management Pond and Pond Block Design, Safety and Maintenance). The Owner shall meet the stormwater management control targets to protect surface and ground water and other natural resources in accordance with the criteria and objectives set out in the Town’s master plan for stormwater management. The Owner shall also provide a separate operations and maintenance manual quantifying the frequency of inspections and maintenance requirements and costs for individual items and areas of the stormwater management system to the satisfaction of the Town. 23. Prior to the execution of the Development Agreement, the Owner shall submit a salt water management plan. The report shall provide details and methods whereby salt and saltwater is to be prevented from entering the groundwater and creeks to the satisfaction of the Town and in accordance with the LSRCA requirements for salt water management. 24. Prior to the execution of the Development Agreement, the Owner shall submit a Stormwater Management Report and a Hydrogeological Report which addresses water balance and phosphorous removal; demonstrates that the post development water balance and phosphorous removal is acceptable; and provides any recommendations required for mitigation. A clause shall be added to the Development Agreement stating that the Owner shall carry-out the recommendations/mitigation measures set out in the Reports to the satisfaction of the Town and the Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority. Roads and Services: 25. A clause shall be added to the Development Agreement stating that the Owner shall construct, at its sole cost, any turning circles with emergency access as required. 26. Prior to the execution of the Development Agreement, the Owner shall prepare and submit a functional servicing report with detailed engineering design General Committee Meeting Agenda Tuesday, June 16, 2020 Item R9 Page 32 of 93 Shining Hill Homes (St. John’s) Inc. and Shining Hill Estates Collection Inc. SUB-2018-02 Conditions of Approval Page 6 drawings and reports for the layout and construction of roads and services (i.e. water, storm and sanitary) in accordance with the Town of Aurora Infrastructure and Environmental Services Design Criteria Manual to the satisfaction of the Town’s Engineering Division. A clause shall be added to the Development Agreement stating that the Owner shall construct the sanitary sewer outside the Region R.O.W. and implement any and all recommendations of the Functional Servicing Report prepared as amended with respect to the detailed engineering design drawings and reports for the layout and construction of roads and services (i.e. water, storm and sanitary) in accordance with the Town of Aurora Design Criteria Manual to the satisfaction of the Town’s Engineering Division. 27. Prior to the release for registration of the Plan, the Owner shall prepare and submit detailed engineering drawings which will include, but not be limited to, grading control plans (including any retaining walls and details), plan and profile drawings of all underground and above ground services, general plans (notes, above and below ground and updated to conform to current constructions requirements to reduce infiltration), drainage plans, composite utility plans (to include above and non-standard below ground utilities, services, driveways and boulevard tree locations, etc. signed as approved by all related utility providers and Canada Post), stormwater management plans, detail plans, erosion and sediment control plans, construction mitigation plan, illumination (to be controlled to the sidewalk and road and being “dark sky” compliant), and signalization plans, if any, etc. to the satisfaction of the Town’s Engineering Division. The drawings shall include the details of related works on external lands, where applicable. Any proposed final grading shall eliminate retaining walls, unless approved otherwise by the Town’s Engineering Division. Construction details and notes, material descriptions, location and dimensions including top and bottom of wall elevations, heights and length of all retaining walls approved by the Town’s Engineering Division shall be provided in the detailed engineering plans stamped by a professional engineer registered in the Province of Ontario. Any approved retaining walls shall include drainage systems with positive outlets, shall not permit surface drainage to drain over the top of wall (unless certified by a professional engineer), and located on the high side of private property. 28. Prior to the execution of the Development Agreement, the Owner shall submit a capacity study of the Town’s water distribution system to the Lands in order to determine that the proposed development on Block 1 on the Draft Plan can be adequately serviced to the satisfaction of the Town. As part of the study, any pressure reducing valves (PRVs) shall be located and detailed. 29. Prior to the release for registration of the Plan, the Owner shall submit a detailed sanitary sewer capacity study including review of existing sewer conditions in order to determine that the proposed development can be adequately serviced to the satisfaction of the Town. A clause shall be added to General Committee Meeting Agenda Tuesday, June 16, 2020 Item R9 Page 33 of 93 Shining Hill Homes (St. John’s) Inc. and Shining Hill Estates Collection Inc. SUB-2018-02 Conditions of Approval Page 7 the Development Agreement stating that the Owner shall upgrade or remediate any sewers that the study reports require remediation or upgrading. 30. Prior to the release for registration of the Plan, the Owner shall submit plans acceptable to the Town, detailing any phasing of construction and development, together with the means by which construction access to the Lands will be gained during any construction or phasing. Should phasing be necessary or requested, a clause shall be added to the Development Agreement stating that the Owner shall comply with the phasing plan and make all builders aware of the phasing plan. 31. A clause shall be added to the Development Agreement stating that construction access may be limited until such time as the first occupancy of any lot or block on the Plan if determined by the Town in consultation with York Region and approved by Central York Fire Services and the Chief Building Official. 32. At the time of second submission of detailed engineering drawings, the Town, in its sole discretion, may request the Owner to pay engineering fees to the Town in the amount of 1% of the estimated cost of all the works necessary for the construction of the servicing including all grading, drainage and infrastructure works etc., as estimated by the consultant for the project. Upon execution of the Development Agreement, the Owner shall pay any additional engineering fees to a total fee of 6% of the estimated cost of all work to the satisfaction of the Town’s Engineering Division in accordance with the Town’s Fees and Charges By-Law, as amended or successor thereto. 33. A clause shall be added to the Development Agreement stating that the Owner shall provide servicing securities to the Town, in a form acceptable to the Town’s Financial Services Division and in such amount as approved by the Town’s Engineering Division. 34. A clause shall be added to the Development Agreement stating that the Owner shall provide detailed engineering drawings and be required to construct or pay for the construction of roads, bicycle lanes, curbs, gutters, sidewalks (in accordance with applicable Town policy), underground and above ground services, street lights and illumination, street signs, utilities, storm water management facilities, etc., and any and all other works necessary for the development and servicing of the Lands to the satisfaction of the Town. 35. A clause shall be added to the Development Agreement(s) stating that the Owner shall construct and pay for the boundary water meter chambers to the satisfaction of the Town’s Engineering Division. General Committee Meeting Agenda Tuesday, June 16, 2020 Item R9 Page 34 of 93 Shining Hill Homes (St. John’s) Inc. and Shining Hill Estates Collection Inc. SUB-2018-02 Conditions of Approval Page 8 36. A clause shall be added to the Development Agreement stating that the Owner shall be responsible for snow removal and winter maintenance costs for the roads and sidewalks within the Draft Plan. 37. A clause shall be added to the Development Agreement stating that the Owner shall be responsible for street lighting and maintenance costs within the Draft Plan and shall provide metering to verify lighting costs. 38. A clause shall be added to the Development Agreement stating that the Owner shall connect the sanitary servicing on the Lands to the external sanitary sewer and that no Development Charge Credits shall apply to the said connection. 39. Prior to undertaking any grading on the Lands, and in connection with the Town’s issuance of a Topsoil Removal Permit (if required), the Owner shall submit a Lot Grading and Erosion Control Plan for any grading within the Draft Plan for approval by the Town and the Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority that shall include a Certificate of Decommissioning for any well(s) and septic systems and proposed methods for: a) erosion and sediment control prior to and during construction including the extent of grading/filling, the access location and erosion control detail, the location of spoil pile storage and the location and nature of sediment control works; b) progressive stripping and grading to ensure minimum duration of exposed soil areas to the extent practical; and c) archaeological clearance. 40. Prior to the execution of the Development Agreement, the Owner shall complete an Environmental Site Assessment in accordance with the Environmental Protection Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. E.19, O. Reg. 153/04 and O. Reg. 511/95, all as amended, undertaken by a qualified person registered to ensure that the land is suitable for the proposed use. If in the opinion of the qualified person, the Environmental Site Assessment indicates the land may not be suitable for the proposed uses, the qualified person shall so advise the Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks and the Town. Prior to the release for registration of the Plan, the Owner shall do further investigative studies and do all work required to make the Lands suitable for the proposed use. 41. A clause shall be added to the Development Agreement stating for any land to be conveyed to the Town including open spaces, (ravines and buffer areas/natural heritage system etc.), the Owner shall undertake an environmental audit (under Environmental Protection Act, regulation O. Reg. 153/04) and shall obtain any further investigative studies as necessary to General Committee Meeting Agenda Tuesday, June 16, 2020 Item R9 Page 35 of 93 Shining Hill Homes (St. John’s) Inc. and Shining Hill Estates Collection Inc. SUB-2018-02 Conditions of Approval Page 9 complete all required works to clean the said lands of soil contamination to make the lands suitable for the proposed uses. 42. A clause shall be added to the Development Agreement stating that all blocks on the Plan to be left vacant for longer than six (6) months, and all portions of private condominium roadsthat are not paved, together with all drainage swales, shall be graded, seeded and/or sodded and maintained by the Owner to the satisfaction of the Town. 43. A clause shall be added to the Development Agreement stating that the Owner shall grant the required easements to the appropriate authority for public utilities, drainage purposes, turning circles, or any other services as deemed necessary. Any off site easements and works necessary to connect watermains, storm sewers and sanitary sewers to outfall trunks and storm water management facilities on external lands shall be satisfactory to and granted to the appropriate authorities. No works off site or connections to existing infrastructure may be undertaken prior to such approvals and easements being in place. 44. Prior to the execution of the Development Agreement, the Owner shall satisfy the Town’s Engineering Division that the services to be installed within, and in conjunction with the Draft Plan will provide for sidewalks which meet the Town's standards along the Lands’ frontage onto roadways that have/will have transit services. 45. Prior to the execution of the Development Agreement, the Owner shall submit an internal and external traffic management plan including internal traffic study for review and approval by the Town. A clause shall be added to the Development Agreement stating that all road work and construction shall be completed in accordance with the approved internal traffic study, which shall include works relating to road cross-sections (in accordance with the latest development standards as approved by the Town), parking controls, bike ways, pavement markings, pedestrian crossings, sidewalks, access driveways locations, traffic signage including bicycle route signage on the collector or minor collector road in accordance with the Town’s Traffic Demand Management Policy, and other requirements as set out in the said internal traffic study. All traffic control devices (including temporary pavement markings) as specified in the internal traffic study shall be constructed to the satisfaction of the Town’s Engineering Division prior to the occupancy of any dwelling. 46. Prior to the execution of the Development Agreement, the Owner shall submit detailed engineering drawings to demonstrate compliance with the Town’s standard configuration with respect to all road bends on the Draft Plan to the satisfaction of the Town’s Engineering Division. General Committee Meeting Agenda Tuesday, June 16, 2020 Item R9 Page 36 of 93 Shining Hill Homes (St. John’s) Inc. and Shining Hill Estates Collection Inc. SUB-2018-02 Conditions of Approval Page 10 47. Prior to release for registration of the Plan, the Owner shall ensure that all dead end public highways and sides of municipal road allowances requiring restricted access as designated by the Town’s Engineering Division shall be terminated in 0.3 metre reserves to prohibit access at certain locations either temporarily or permanently in the sole discretion of the Town. 48. A clause shall be added to the Development Agreement stating that the Owner shall provide sanitary sewer and storm sewer inspection testing and acceptance in accordance with the latest standards and certifications of the National Association of Sewer Service Companies. Sanitary sewer inspection testing and acceptance shall be in accordance with York Region Sanitary Inspection, Testing and Acceptance Guideline requirements dated September 2011, as amended from time to time and the requirements of the Town. Storm sewer and manhole inspection testing and acceptance shall be in accordance with the requirements and policies of the Town. 49. A clause shall be added to the Development Agreement stating that the Owner shall retain, at its sole expense, a qualified company acceptable to the Town to provide a video (CCTV) inspection of all sanitary and storm sewers and to prepare a report of the findings and conclusions. The report shall summarize and identify sewer pipe material used in accordance with the Town’s and Region of York’s specifications as well as any deleterious materials to be cleaned, settlements, or deflections, if any, with qualified justification provided which are stamped by a professional Engineer registered in the Province of Ontario for possible deviation from Region of York, Town and OPS standards and specifications with recommendations to mitigate construction impacts, if any. If as a result of carrying out the video (CCTV) inspection, modifications or rectifications are required, provide for, at its own expense, such modifications or rectifications as required, the Owner shall, at its sole expense and prior to the Town’s final release of securities, provide for such modifications or rectifications as required through such means as agreed to by the Town until such CCTV inspection and rectifications, if any, are completed to the satisfaction of the Town’s Engineering Division. 50. A clause shall be added to the Development Agreement stating that natural gas, telecommunication service providers and cable television services, including other street hardware, where possible, shall be constructed underground the to the satisfaction of the Town. 51. A clause shall be added to the Development Agreement stating that the Owner shall grant access, on reasonable terms and conditions, to any telecommunications service providers indicating an interest to locate within a municipal right-of-way. The Owner shall advise any telecommunications service provider intending to locate within a municipal right-of-way, of the requirement to enter into a Municipal Access Agreement with the Town, and to satisfy all conditions, financial and otherwise of the Town. General Committee Meeting Agenda Tuesday, June 16, 2020 Item R9 Page 37 of 93 Shining Hill Homes (St. John’s) Inc. and Shining Hill Estates Collection Inc. SUB-2018-02 Conditions of Approval Page 11 Noise Attenuation Barrier Conditions: 52. Prior to the execution of the Development Agreement, the Owner shall submit a noise attenuation study in accordance with MOECC, Region and Town requirements. Note that the Town max dba is 55dba and The Town does not accept the +5dba difference. A clause shall be added to the Development Agreement stating that the Owner shall be responsible to construct, install, maintain, inspect, alter, remove and reconstruct any noise attenuation walls in accordance with the approved Noise Study to the satisfaction of the Town’s Engineering Division. Attenuation barriers must not be located on Town property and the Town will not accept or provide maintenance of attenuation barriers. Details of the noise attenuation barriers for outdoor living areas, location, dimensions, including top and bottom of barrier elevations, and construction details and notes shall be provided on the detailed engineering plans and approved by the Town’s Engineering Division. Parks Division Conditions Natural Heritage System and Open Space Lands: 53. A clause shall be added to the Development Agreement stating that, if requested by the Town’s Parks Division, the Owner shall convey or grant easements at no charge and free of all encumbrances over Blocks 7 and/or 8 on the Draft Plan to the Town for environmental protection and open space purposes, which may include a future public trail and trail connections, consistent with the Town of Aurora Trails Master Plan. 54. A clause shall be added to the Development Agreement stating that the Owner shall, in regard to Blocks 5 and 8 on the Draft Plan: a) not disturb or otherwise use any portion of these lands for the storage of topsoil or fill materials, vehicles or equipment. b) not encroach into these lands without prior written approval of the Town’s Parks Division c) not alter grades within buffers to these lands; d) provide a forest edge enhancement and management plan addressing invasive species removal, native restoration plantings, and removal of dead or hazardous trees and limbs within these lands; e) install on-site temporary Paige wire protection/silt fencing along the boundaries of these lands prior to any adjacent development disturbance, and maintain in place the temporary fencing for the duration of development construction; and f) restore and revegetate any proposed disturbance or grading activities within these lands with extensive plantings using native species compatible with the surrounding environment. General Committee Meeting Agenda Tuesday, June 16, 2020 Item R9 Page 38 of 93 Shining Hill Homes (St. John’s) Inc. and Shining Hill Estates Collection Inc. SUB-2018-02 Conditions of Approval Page 12 Vegetation Management: 55. A clause shall be added to the Development Agreement stating that the Owner shall implement any and all recommendations of a Vegetation Management Plan (the “VMP”) to the satisfaction of the Town’s Parks Division which VMP shall be prepared by a consulting landscape architect in coordination with a certified arborist or registered professional forester, or other environmental specialist, as required, and shall include, but not be limited to, the following: a) a detailed vegetation inventory and assessment identifying all vegetation 50mm caliper or greater for individual tree assessments and/or perimeter at canopy of woodland, groups or stands of vegetation; identifying trees and vegetation on adjacent property that may be impacted; and including inventory that identifies species, size and condition; b) identification of all vegetation removals and identification of all protection measures including tree preservation zones for vegetation designated to be preserved; an at–grade impact assessment to support vegetation removals; and/or preservation measures; c) a monetary vegetation appraisal in order to determine compensation planting in accordance with the Town’s Tree Removal/Pruning & Compensation Policy; d) provisions for compliance monitoring and protection/mitigation specifications and implementation of all arboricultural requirements for trees designated to be preserved during construction; and provisions for post construction performance monitoring and rehabilitation specifications; e) coordination with existing homeowners for trees located on property boundaries that require removal with homeowner’s approval for removals and coordination, method of removal, and replacement being obtained; f) a compensation planting plan providing plantings equal to or greater than the appraised value of vegetation designated to be removed from the Lands, which compensation planting shall be completed in addition to the Town’s minimum planting standards; and where compensation plantings cannot be provided on the Lands in the full assessed value, the Owner shall pay a fee to the Town equal to the value of the balance of compensation plantings, to the satisfaction of the Director of the Parks Division; and g) coordination of naturalization and restoration plantings and vegetation related recommendations from the approved Environmental Impact General Committee Meeting Agenda Tuesday, June 16, 2020 Item R9 Page 39 of 93 Shining Hill Homes (St. John’s) Inc. and Shining Hill Estates Collection Inc. SUB-2018-02 Conditions of Approval Page 13 Statement (Natural Heritage Evaluation) dated May 2019 by GeoProcess Research Associates Inc., as amended. 56. Prior to the commencement of any demolition, topsoil removal, grading or construction activities on the Lands, the Owner shall construct temporary Paige post and wire protection fencing for all vegetation and natural areas to be preserved, in accordance with the VMP. A clause shall be added to the Subdivision Agreement stating that the Owner shall maintain this fencing in good condition for the duration of development on the Lands and provide signage panels on protection fencing identifying the purpose of the fencing and indicating no disturbance beyond the fence to the satisfaction of the Town’s Parks Division. 57. The Owner shall only be permitted to remove trees on any blocks on the Draft Plan upon meeting the following conditions with respect to tree removal, preservation, payment of fees, and any such other related items, all to the satisfaction of the Town’s Parks Division: a) tree removal plan and the execution of the Development Agreement; or b) prior to the execution of the Development Agreement, the submission of a Vegetation Management Plan and the execution of a Vegetation Management Agreement. Landscaping: 58. Prior to the execution of the Development Agreement, the Owner shall provide landscape design plans for approval by the Town’s Parks Division detailing landscape works for street tree planting on all road allowances within the Draft Plan. A clause shall be added to the Development Agreement stating that the Owner shall implement said landscape works in accordance with Town standards and to the satisfaction of the Town’s Parks Division. 59. Prior to the execution of the Development Agreement, the Owner shall provide landscape design plans for all proposed fencing, landscape structures, subdivision entry features, buffer plantings or any other landscape features required by urban and architectural design guidelines or as required by Town standards, to the satisfaction of the Town’s Parks Division. A clause shall be added to the Development Agreement stating that the Owner shall implement said landscape works. 60. A clause shall be added to the Development Agreement stating that the Owner shall provide consistent and continuous minimum 300mm depth topsoil for all areas associated with tree and shrub plantings within the Plan, to the satisfaction of the Town’s Parks Division. These areas shall include all boulevards designated for street tree plantings, storm water management facilities and landscape and grading buffers. General Committee Meeting Agenda Tuesday, June 16, 2020 Item R9 Page 40 of 93 Shining Hill Homes (St. John’s) Inc. and Shining Hill Estates Collection Inc. SUB-2018-02 Conditions of Approval Page 14 61. A clause shall be added to the Development Agreement stating that the Owner shall provide the Town the right of first refusal of surplus topsoil at no cost to the Town and shall provide the Town with prior notification of topsoil removal from the Plan. 62. A clause shall be added to the Development Agreement stating that the Owner shall perform topsoil testing in accordance with Town standards by an approved agency to determine nutrient availability for all topsoil sources to be utilized within the Plan and that the Owner shall implement fertilizers and soil amendments in accordance with topsoil test recommendations, to the satisfaction of the Town’s Parks Division. 63. A clause shall be added to the Development Agreement stating that the Owner shall, prior to the release for registration of the Plan, provide landscape securities to the Town, in a form acceptable to the Town’s Financial Services Division, in such amount which is equal to one hundred percent (100%) of the estimated costs of the landscape works, to ensure performance and compliance of all landscape works, to the approval and satisfaction of the Town’s Parks Division. 64. A clause shall be added to the Development Agreement stating that the Owner shall, upon execution of the Subdivision Agreement, pay landscape fees to the Town based on the percentage amount of estimated landscape works as set out in the Town’s Fees and Charges By-law, as amended or successor thereto. The estimated cost of the landscape works shall be provided by the consulting landscape architect and approved by the Town. Building Division Conditions 65. Prior to the release for registration of the Plan, the Owner shall submit a schedule certified by an Ontario Land Surveyor indicating the areas and frontages of the blocks within the Plan, to the satisfaction of the Chief Building Official. 66. Prior to the execution of the Development Agreement, the Owner shall submit a geotechnical report for review and approval by the Town, which deals with the relative elevations of foundations and footings, the requirements for engineered fill based on existing subsurface conditions, and the requirements for road and municipal services construction, to the satisfaction of the Town’s Building Division. 67. Prior to the execution of the Development Agreement, the Owner shall submit reference plans, engineering details and specifications and recommendations for any retaining walls to be constructed on the lands for which a building permit is required under the Building Code Act, 1992, S.O. 1992, c. 23, as amended, and O. Reg. 350/06 (Building Code), (the “Building Code Act”), indicating General Committee Meeting Agenda Tuesday, June 16, 2020 Item R9 Page 41 of 93 Shining Hill Homes (St. John’s) Inc. and Shining Hill Estates Collection Inc. SUB-2018-02 Conditions of Approval Page 15 therein any restrictions such as setback limits for structures, in-ground or above ground pools, trees and landscaping etc. to the satisfaction of the Town’s Building Division and Engineering Division. If any such restrictions are identified, a clause shall be added to the Development Agreement stating that the Owner shall register the Restrictive Covenants on title to the restricted lands to the satisfaction of the Town. 68. Prior to the release for registration of the Plan, the Owner shall obtain a permit under the Building Code Act for the decommissioning of any septic system and shall submit a consultant’s certificate upon completion of the decommissioning, to the satisfaction of the Chief Building Official. 69. Prior to the release for registration of the Plan, the Owner shall obtain a permit under the Building Code Act for the demolition of any buildings or structures prior to the demolition of said buildings or structures to the satisfaction of the Chief Building Official. 70. A clause shall be added to the Development Agreement stating that prior to the offering of any blocks on the Plan for sale, the Owner shall submit and obtain the written approval from the Town’s Building Division with respect to the location of sales trailers and with respect to the display plans and other information to be used for sales and/or marketing purposes. Such information shall include the following: a) the latest version of the approved Plan(s) or registered Plan(s), including any phasing; b) the Draft Plan and adjacent lands including all sidewalks and walkways, community mail boxes, parks by type (including all recreational facilities to be provided), schools, churches, open space areas, environmental protection areas, stormwater management ponds, landscaping, entranceway features, noise attenuation measures (both internal and external to the dwelling unit), erosion control facilities, buffer areas, watercourses, and surrounding land uses; c) a copy of the approved zoning by-law for the lands together with a copy of the executed Subdivision Agreement (as soon as it is available); d) a grade and utility composite plan showing the location of all community facilities (community mail boxes, bus shelter and stops, street trees, sidewalks, street light poles, hydrants, cable boxes, transformers or any other above grade facilities) to the satisfaction of the Town; and e) no alteration to grading and drainage swales, and no removal of vegetation or development of any sheds and structures on lands that are zoned open space. General Committee Meeting Agenda Tuesday, June 16, 2020 Item R9 Page 42 of 93 Shining Hill Homes (St. John’s) Inc. and Shining Hill Estates Collection Inc. SUB-2018-02 Conditions of Approval Page 16 The Owner shall further keep all of the above materials up-to-date, to reflect the most current approvals, and/or submissions regarding the Plan, and/or engineering design drawings, and other such matters as may be required by the Town’s Building Division and Engineering Division. Noise Impact Study: 71. Prior to the execution of the Development Agreement, the Owner shall engage the services of a qualified noise consultant to complete a noise impact study (environmental noise analysis) which assesses projected nuisances caused by noise or vibration (as necessary) within Block 1 on the Draft Plan with recommended mitigation measures for noise generated by the private internal road network, road traffic on external roads or by any other identified source to the satisfaction of the Town’s Chief Building Official and the Region of York, if necessary. The noise impact study shall demonstrate how noise levels can be made to be acceptable in accordance with current Ministry of Environment and Energy guidelines, Provincial standards and Town and Regional policies, and address the long-term functionality and maintenance of any recommended mitigation measures, which are deemed appropriate and acceptable to the Town and the Region of York. The recommendations of the noise impact study shall address the 55dBA limit on all lots, blocks and/or units on the Draft Plan. All attenuation measures and mitigating measures proposed for acoustical purposes shall be approved by the Town’s Engineering Division and the Region of York Transportation and Works Department. 72. A clause shall be added to the Development Agreement stating that the Owner shall implement the recommendations and measures of the approved noise impact study, including, but not limited to, noise, and, or, vibration control measures and warning clauses to the satisfaction of the Town, in consultation with the Region of York. Warning Clauses: 73. A clause shall be added to the Development Agreement(s) stating that the Owner shall include in all Offer to Purchase Agreements with prospective purchasers of lands within Block 1 on the Draft Plan, a notice clearly identifying specifications relating to location, timing of installation, colour, materials, height and other design details of the fencing or urban design features to be installed on the lot being purchased, in addition to specific warning clauses, with evidence of same being provided to the Town, if requested, prior to the execution of the Development Agreement, including, but not limited to: i) street trees; ii) corner lot fencing as identified on the approved engineering plans; iii) rear lot fencing as identified on the approved engineering plans; General Committee Meeting Agenda Tuesday, June 16, 2020 Item R9 Page 43 of 93 Shining Hill Homes (St. John’s) Inc. and Shining Hill Estates Collection Inc. SUB-2018-02 Conditions of Approval Page 17 iv) noise attenuation measures including fencing and berms as identified in the approved noise impact study and the approved engineering plans; v) fencing (if required) along school blocks, park blocks and environmental protection lands as identified on the approved engineering plans; vi) entry features and fencing (if required) as identified on the approved landscape plans”; vii) adjacent lands that are intended for conservation and naturalization, and intended to remain as much as possible in their natural state; and viii) any restrictive covenants registered on title. York Region Conditions 74. The following conditions shall be included in the Development Agreement: a) The Owner shall save harmless the Town of Aurora and York Region from any claim or action as a result of water or sanitary sewer service not being available when anticipated. b) The Owner shall agree to implement the TDM recommendations provided in the Transportation Study, to the satisfaction of York Region. c) The Owner shall agree where enhanced landscape features beyond street tree planting, sod and concrete walkways are proposed in the York Region rightofway by the Owner or the area municipality, these features must be approved by Development Engineering and shall be maintained by the area municipality. Failure to maintain these landscape features to York Region’s satisfaction will result in the area municipality incurring the cost of maintenance and/or removal undertaken by the Region. d) The Owner shall agree, in wording satisfactory to Development Engineering, to implement the noise attenuation features as recommended by the noise study and to the satisfaction of Development Engineering. e) The Owner shall agree, in wording satisfactory to Development Engineering, that where berm, noise wall, window and/or oversized forced air mechanical systems are required, these features shall be certified by a professional engineer to have been installed as specified by the approved Noise Study and in conformance with the Ministry of Environment guidelines and the York Region Noise Policy. General Committee Meeting Agenda Tuesday, June 16, 2020 Item R9 Page 44 of 93 Shining Hill Homes (St. John’s) Inc. and Shining Hill Estates Collection Inc. SUB-2018-02 Conditions of Approval Page 18 f) The following warning clause shall be included in a registered portion of the development agreement with respect to the lots or blocks affected: "Purchasers are advised that despite the inclusion of noise attenuation features within the development area and within the individual building units, noise levels will continue to increase, occasionally interfering with some activities of the building's occupants". g) Where noise attenuation features will abut a York Region rightofway, the Owner shall agree, in wording satisfactory to York Region’s Development Engineering, as follows: x That no part of any noise attenuation feature shall be constructed on or within the York Region rightofway; x That noise fences adjacent to York Region roads may be constructed on the private side of the 0.3 metre reserve and may be a maximum 2.5 metres in height, subject to the area municipality's concurrence; and, x That maintenance of the noise barriers and fences bordering on York Region rightofways shall not be the responsibility of York Region. h) The Owner shall agree, in wording satisfactory to Development Engineering, that the Owner will be responsible for determining the location of all utility plants within York Region rightofway and for the cost of relocating, replacing, repairing and restoring any appurtenances damaged during construction of the proposed site works. The Owne must review, or ensure that any consultants retained by the Owner, review, at an early stage, the applicable authority’s minimum vertical clearances for aerial cable systems and their minimum spacing and cover requirements. The Owner shall be entirely responsible for making any adjustments or relocations, if necessary, prior to the commencement of any construction. 75. The following conditions shall be satisfied prior to Final Approval: a) The road allowances included within the draft plan of subdivision shall be named to the satisfaction of the Town of Aurora and York Region. b) The Owner shall provide to York Region the following documentation to confirm that water and wastewater services are available to the subject development and have been allocated by the Town of Aurora: i) A copy of the Council resolution confirming that the Town of Aurora has allocated unrestricted servicing capacity, specifying the specific source of the capacity to the development proposed within this draft plan, or any phase thereof. General Committee Meeting Agenda Tuesday, June 16, 2020 Item R9 Page 45 of 93 Shining Hill Homes (St. John’s) Inc. and Shining Hill Estates Collection Inc. SUB-2018-02 Conditions of Approval Page 19 ii) A copy of an email confirmation by a Town of Aurora staff member stating that allocation to the subject development remains valid at the time of the request for regional clearance of this condition. c) The Owner shall provide an electronic set of final engineering drawings showing the watermains and sewers for the proposed development to the Community Planning and Development Services branch and the Infrastructure Asset Management branch for record. d) The Owner shall provide a revised SWIAMP letter to the satisfaction of York Region. e) Prior to excavation, the Owner shall provide a dewatering plan, prepared by a qualified person, and submitted by the proponent to the Region’s Water Resources Group for approval should significant dewatering be required (i.e. excavations are over 8 m deep and over 400,000 litres per day will be dewatered or permanent dewatering will occur). If there will be water discharging to the Regional storm or sanitary sewer, it is recommended that the proponent consult with Regional Sewer use bylaw group and obtain a dewatering discharge permit as necessary. Please contact the Sewer Use Bylaw group at SewerUsebylaw@york.ca or 18774649675. f) The Owner shall provide an updated Hydrogeological Study, prepared by a qualified person, addressing the outstanding technical comments to the satisfaction of York Region. g) Prior to construction, the Owner shall provide confirmation of decommissioning of the recommended water supply wells located within the subject site boundaries, in compliance with O. Reg. 903, to the satisfaction of York Region. h) The Owner shall implement the proposed intersection to Regional standards and requirements with exclusive turning lanes on St. John's Sideroad, to the satisfaction of York Region. i) The Owner shall demonstrate that the appropriate daylighting triangle requirements are provided, to the satisfaction of York Region. j) Prior to final approval and concurrent with the submission of the subdivision servicing application (MOE) to the area municipality, the Owner shall provide a set of engineering drawings, for any works to be constructed on or adjacent to the York Region road, to Development Engineering, Attention: David Mhango Manager, Development Engineering, that includes the following drawings: General Committee Meeting Agenda Tuesday, June 16, 2020 Item R9 Page 46 of 93 Shining Hill Homes (St. John’s) Inc. and Shining Hill Estates Collection Inc. SUB-2018-02 Conditions of Approval Page 20 i) Plan and Profile for the York Region road and intersections; ii) Grading and Servicing; iii) Intersection/Road Improvements, including the recommendations of the Traffic Report; iv) Construction Access Design; v) Utility and Underground services Location Plans; vi) Illumination Designs; vii) Line Painting; viii) Traffic Control/Management Plans; ix). Erosion and Siltation Control Plans; x) Stormwater Management Report; xi) Landscaping Plans, including tree preservation, relocation and removals; xii) Sidewalk locations, concrete pedestrian access to existing and future transit services and transit stop locations as required by York Region Transit; xiii) Functional Servicing Report (water, sanitary and storm services); xiv) Water supply and distribution report; xv) Engineering drawings showing plan and profile views of proposed sewers and watermains and appurtenances, including manholes, watermains, valves, hydrants, etc. proposed within the subdivision; xvi) Engineering drawings showing plan and profile views of proposed works related to connections to or crossing of Regional watermain or sewer, including the following as applicable: x Disinfection Plan; x MOECC Form 1 Record of Watermains Authorized as a Future Alteration. k) The Owner shall provide drawings for the proposed servicing of the site to be reviewed by the Engineering Department of the area municipality. Three (3) sets of engineering drawings (stamped and signed by a professional engineer), and MOE forms together with any supporting information shall be submitted to Development Engineering, Attention: Mrs. Eva Pulnicki, P.Eng. l) The Owner shall submit a detailed Development Charge Credit Application to York Region, if applicable, to claim any works proposed within the York Region rightofway. Only those works located in their ultimate location based on the next planning upgrade for this rightofway will be considered eligible for credit, and any work done prior to submission without prior approval will not be eligible for credit. General Committee Meeting Agenda Tuesday, June 16, 2020 Item R9 Page 47 of 93 Shining Hill Homes (St. John’s) Inc. and Shining Hill Estates Collection Inc. SUB-2018-02 Conditions of Approval Page 21 m) The Owner shall provide to York Region engineering drawings and functional servicing report for, and to construct to the satisfaction of the Town of Aurora and York Region, planned watermains and sanitary sewage works, including location and alignment of servicing and connections to existing systems, both within and external to this draft plan of subdivision. n) The Owner shall demonstrate, to the satisfaction of Development Engineering, that all local underground services will be installed within the area of the development lands and not within York Region’s road allowance. If a buffer or easement is needed to accommodate the local services adjacent to York Region rightofway, then the Owner shall provide a satisfactory buffer or easement to the Area Municipality, at no cost to York Region. o) The Owner shall demonstrate, to the satisfaction of Development Engineering, that elevations along the streetline shall be 0.2 metres above the centreline elevations of the York Region roadway, unless otherwise specified by the Development Engineering. p) The location and design of the construction access for the subdivision work shall be completed to the satisfaction of Development Engineering and illustrated on the Engineering Drawings. q) The Owner shall demonstrate, to the satisfaction of Development Engineering, that all existing driveways along the Regional road frontage of this subdivision will be removed as part of the subdivision work, at no cost to York Region. r) The Owner shall have prepared, by a qualified Tree Professional, a Tree Inventory and Preservation / Removals Plan and Arborist Report identifying all existing woody vegetation within the York Region rightofway to be removed, preserved or relocated. The report / plan, submitted to Development Engineering for review and approval, shall adhere to the requirements outlined in the York Region Street Tree and Forest Preservation Guidelines and shall be to the satisfaction of York Region Natural Heritage and Forestry Staff. s) The Owner shall have prepared, by a qualified professional Landscape Architect, landscape design plans detailing landscape works and street tree planting in the York Region rightofway as required by any and/or all of the following, York Region’s Streetscaping Policy, York Region’s Street Tree Preservation and Planting Design Guidelines, any prevailing Streetscape Masterplan or Secondary Plan or as required by Urban and Architectural Design Guidelines. General Committee Meeting Agenda Tuesday, June 16, 2020 Item R9 Page 48 of 93 Shining Hill Homes (St. John’s) Inc. and Shining Hill Estates Collection Inc. SUB-2018-02 Conditions of Approval Page 22 t) The Owner shall engage the services of a consultant to prepare and submit for review and approval, a noise study to the satisfaction of Development Engineering recommending noise attenuation features. u) Upon registration of the plan, the Owner shall convey the following lands to York Region for public highway purposes, free of all costs and encumbrances, to the satisfaction of the Regional Solicitor: i) A widening across the full frontage of the site where it abuts St. John’s Sideroad of sufficient width to provide a minimum of 18.0 metres from the centreline of construction of St. John’s Sideroad; ii) A 15.0 metre by 15.0 metre daylight triangle at the northeast and northwest corners of Proposed Access and St. John’s Sideroad; iii) A 0.3 metre reserve across the full frontage of the site, except at the approved access location, adjacent to the above noted widening, where it abuts St. John’s Sideroad and adjacent to the above noted widening(s); and, iv) An additional 2.0 metre widening, 30 metres in length, together with a 70 metre taper for the purposes of a westbound right turn lane at the proposed access to St. John’s Sideroad. v) The Owner shall provide a solicitor's certificate of title in a form satisfactory to York Region Solicitor, at no cost to York Region with respect to the conveyance of the above noted lands to York Region. York Region requires the Owner to submit, in general accordance with the requirements of the Environmental Protection Act and O. Reg. 153/04 Records of Site Condition Part XV.1 of the Act (as amended) (“O. Reg. 153/04”), a Phase I environmental site assessment (“Phase I ESA”) of the Owner’s lands that are the subject of the application, including the lands to be conveyed to the Region (the “Conveyance Lands”). The Phase I ESA cannot be more than 2 years old as of the actual date title to the Conveyance Lands is transferred to the Region. If the Phase I ESA is linked to different phases of development and there will be multiple conveyances of lands, the Phase I ESA prepared in respect of a specific conveyance and phase of development cannot be more than two years old as of the actual date of transfer of title to the Region. If a Phase I ESA is or would be more than two years old as of the actual date of transfer of title to the Region, the Phase I ESA will need to be either updated or a new Phase I ESA obtained by the Owner in accordance with the requirements of this section. The Region, at its discretion, may require further study, investigation, assessment and delineation to determine whether any remedial or other action is required regardless of the findings or conclusions of the Phase I ESA. Any Phase II environmental site assessment required by or submitted to the Region must be prepared in general accordance with the requirements of O. Reg. 153/04 (as noted above). Reliance on the Phase I General Committee Meeting Agenda Tuesday, June 16, 2020 Item R9 Page 49 of 93 Shining Hill Homes (St. John’s) Inc. and Shining Hill Estates Collection Inc. SUB-2018-02 Conditions of Approval Page 23 ESA and any subsequent environmental reports or other documentation prepared in respect of the environmental condition of the lands must be provided to the Region and: (i) will be addressed to “The Regional Municipality of York”; (ii) contain wording to the effect that the Region is entitled to rely on such reports or documentation in their entirety; and (iii) the terms and conditions of the reliance extended (including any wording seeking to limit liability) must be satisfactory to the Region. The Owner shall also provide the Region’s Development Engineering with a certified written statement from the Owner or the Owner’s authorized representative that no contaminant, pollutant, waste of any nature, hazardous substance, toxic substance, dangerous goods, or other substance or material defined or regulated under applicable environmental laws is present at, on, in or under lands to be conveyed to the Region (including soils, substrata, surface water and groundwater, as applicable): (i) at the time of conveyance, at a level or concentration that exceeds the Environmental Protection Act O. Reg. 153/04 (as amended) full depth generic site condition standards applicable to the intended use of such lands by the Region or any other remediation standards published or administered by governmental authorities applicable to the intended land use; and (ii) in such a manner, condition or state, or is emanating or migrating from such lands in a way, that would contravene applicable environmental laws. The preparation and delivery of the Phase I ESA, any subsequent environmental reports, other documentation, reliance and the Owner’s certified written statement shall be provided at no cost to the Region. w) The Owner shall demonstrate, to the satisfaction of Development Engineering, that Street ‘1’ shall be designed to intersect St. John’s Sideroad at a right angle, or on a common tangent. x) The Owner shall demonstrate, to the satisfaction of Development Engineering, that the throat width of Street ‘1’ shall be designed to accommodate the recommendations of the transportation report approved by York Region. y) The Owner shall design the intersection of St. John’s Sideroad and Street ‘1’ to the satisfaction of Development Engineering with any interim or permanent intersection works including turning lanes, profile adjustments, illumination and/or signalization as deemed necessary by Development Engineering. z) The Owner shall demonstrate, to the satisfaction of Development Engineering, that the Owner will provide the installation of visual screening between the proposed window streets and St. John’s Sideroad, consisting General Committee Meeting Agenda Tuesday, June 16, 2020 Item R9 Page 50 of 93 Shining Hill Homes (St. John’s) Inc. and Shining Hill Estates Collection Inc. SUB-2018-02 Conditions of Approval Page 24 of either a screening fence or a combination of a berm and appropriate planting, to a minimum of 1.8 metres in height, to be located within the rightofway of St. John’s Sideroad. The Owner shall submit to Development Engineering for review and approval, landscape plans showing the proposed planting for headlight screening purposes. aa) The Owner shall provide an executed copy of the Subdivision Agreement to the Regional Corporate Services Department, outlining all requirements of the Corporate Services Department. bb) The Owner shall enter into an agreement with York Region, agreeing to satisfy all conditions, financial and otherwise, of the Regional Corporation; Regional Development Charges are payable in accordance with Regional Development Charges Bylaw in effect at the time that Regional development charges, or any part thereof, are payable. Lake Simcoe Region and Conservation Authority Conditions 76. That this approval is applicable to the Draft Plan of Subdivision prepared by Malone Given Parsons, (Revision date May 14, 2020) and may be subject to redline revisions based on the detailed technical plans and studies. 77. That prior to final plan approval and any major site alteration, the following shall be prepared to the satisfaction of the LSRCA and Municipality: a) A detailed Stormwater Management Report in accordance with Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority Technical Guidelines for Stormwater Management Submissions and in conformity with the Stormwater Management Master Plan approved under Strategic Action 4.5-SA of the Lake Simcoe Protection Plan; b) A detailed erosion and sediment control plan; c) A detailed grading and drainage plan; d) A detailed water balance and phosphorus budget in concert with 4.8-DP of the Lake Simcoe Protection Plan and 6.40-DP of the Lake Simcoe Protection Plan if applicable; e) A detailed Geotechnical Report for the proposed Stormwater Pond; f) A detailed Environmental Impact Study; 78. That prior to final approval, the following shall be undertaken to the satisfaction of the LSRCA, in accordance with the South Georgian Bay Lake Simcoe Source Protection Plan: a) Detailed Hydrogeological Report / Water Balance b) Compensatory Measures if required General Committee Meeting Agenda Tuesday, June 16, 2020 Item R9 Page 51 of 93 Shining Hill Homes (St. John’s) Inc. and Shining Hill Estates Collection Inc. SUB-2018-02 Conditions of Approval Page 25 79. That prior to final approval, the following shall be undertaken to the satisfaction of the LSRCA, in accordance with the Phosphorus Offsetting Policy: a) Phosphorus budget b) Compensatory measures if required 80. That the owner shall agree in the Subdivision Agreement to carry out, or cause to be carried out, the recommendations and requirements contained within the plans and reports as approved by the LSRCA and the Municipality. 81. That the owner shall agree in the Subdivision Agreement to retain a qualified professional to certify in writing that the works were constructed in accordance with the plans and reports as approved by the LSRCA and the Municipality. 82. That the owner shall agree in the Subdivision Agreement to ensure that proper erosion and sediment control measures will be in place in accordance with the approved Grading and Drainage Plan, and Erosion and Sediment Control Plan prior to any site alteration or grading. 83. That the owner shall agree in the Subdivision Agreement to grant any easements required for storm water management purposes to the Municipality. 84. That prior to final plan approval, the owner shall pay all development fees to the LSRCA in accordance with the approved fees policy, under the Conservation Authorities Act. 85. That prior to final plan approval and any major site alteration, a restoration planting plan for the vegetation protection zone to natural heritage features shall be prepared to the satisfaction of the LSRCA. 86. That prior to final plan approval, the Owner shall implement an Ecological Offsetting Strategy to the satisfaction of the LSRCA if required. 87. That prior to final plan approval and any major site alteration, a monitoring plan shall be prepared to the satisfaction of the LSRCA. 88. That the owner shall agree in the Subdivision Agreement to maintain all existing vegetation up until a minimum of 30 days prior to any grading or construction on-site in accordance with 4.20b.-DP of the Lake Simcoe Protection Plan. 89. That prior to final plan approval, the owner shall successfully apply and amend the Zoning By-Law by zoning Block 8 Environmental Protection (EP). General Committee Meeting Agenda Tuesday, June 16, 2020 Item R9 Page 52 of 93 Shining Hill Homes (St. John’s) Inc. and Shining Hill Estates Collection Inc. SUB-2018-02 Conditions of Approval Page 26 90. That prior to final plan approval, the owner shall obtain a permit from the LSRCA for any development within an area subject to Ontario Regulation 179/06 under the Conservation Authorities Act. 91. That prior to final approval the provisions of the Endangered Species Act shall be addressed to the satisfaction of the Ministry of Environment, Conservation and Parks. 92. The Owner shall agree in the Subdivision Agreement to indemnify and save harmless the municipality and the LSRCA from all costs, losses, damages, judgements, claims, demands, suits, actions, or complaints resulting from any increased flooding or erosion to property and people as a result of the approved storm water management scheme. The Owner shall obtain and maintain in full force and effect during the term of this agreement general liability insurance with respect to the storm water management works and system. Notes to Draft Approval: The LSRCA will require the following prior to the issuance of a clearance letter: a) A copy of the executed subdivision agreement. b) A copy of the draft M-Plan. c) A letter from the developer’s planning consultant detailing how each LSRCA condition of draft plan approval has been fulfilled to the satisfaction of the conservation authority. Central York Fire Services Conditions 93. Prior to release of the plan for registration, the Owner shall demonstrate the following, to the satisfaction of Central York Fire Services: a) A minimum width of 6 metres from face of the curb to face of the curb is to be provided for fire route, and cannot be impacted by any on street parking; b) Fire hydrants shall be installed in accordance with the applicable Municipal Design Standards; c) Private and municipal hydrants shall be clearly identified on the site plan; d) The minimum width for a firebreak is 9 metres; e) A maximum of six single homes in a row are permitted to be under construction consecutively before a fire break is required; f) A maximum of one townhouse block is permitted to be under construction consecutively before a fire break is required; g) A schedule of firebreak lots shall be submitted to Central York Fire Services, Fire Prevention Division for approval; General Committee Meeting Agenda Tuesday, June 16, 2020 Item R9 Page 53 of 93 Shining Hill Homes (St. John’s) Inc. and Shining Hill Estates Collection Inc. SUB-2018-02 Conditions of Approval Page 27 h) Fire route location to be indicated on plans; i) A minimum of temporary street signage must be in place to assist emergency responses prior to construction of buildings; j) All roads must be complete to a minimum base coat and be able to support emergency vehicles with site access acceptable to Central York Fire Services prior to any building construction; k) Plans shall include provisions for emergency vehicle access required to be maintained during construction; l) Water supply for firefighting, including hydrants must be installed and operational prior to construction of buildings; m) A schedule of Firebreak lots/blocks is to be submitted to Central York Fire services for approval prior to construction of buildings. Builders/developers will not make application for building permits for designated firebreak lots/blocks without written release of firebreak designation from Central York Fire Services; n) Authorized signs shall be placed at points of commencement and termination of the fire route, respectively, and at 23.0 metre intervals in between the said points of the commencement and termination. As these roads appear to be common element/condo roads, they are all considered fire route and must be designated/signed as such; o) Where the fire route abuts the face of a building, fire route signs mat be affixed to the face of a building at a minimum height of 2.0 metres, and a maximum height of 2.75 metres. Where the fire route abuts a sidewalk or landscaped area, fire route signs shall be erected on permanent posts at a minimum height of 2.0 metres and a maximum height of 2.75 metres; p) Fire route design for centre line turning radius shall not be less than 12m as required by the OBC Di B 3.2.5.6 (1) (b). Turning radii are to be indicated on the site plan; q) Snow removal and snow plowing is to be provided for common element condo roads during winter months to maintain clear fire department access and turn around facilities. 94. Prior to any servicing or pre-servicing (water mains, hydrants, etc.) of the site or registration of the Plan, whichever comes first, the Owner shall provide a fire safety design plan to address the response time for all lots/units proposed in Block 1 on the Plan as required by Central York Fire Services’ Fire Master Plan to the satisfaction of Central York Fire Services and the Director of Planning and Development Services. A clause shall be added to the Subdivision Agreement stating that the Owner shall implement any and all recommendations from the Owner’s Fire Safety Design Plan. Ministry of Tourism and Sport 95. A clause shall be added to the Development Agreement stating that the Owner shall not grade or otherwise disturb the soil on the Lands prior to the General Committee Meeting Agenda Tuesday, June 16, 2020 Item R9 Page 54 of 93 Shining Hill Homes (St. John’s) Inc. and Shining Hill Estates Collection Inc. SUB-2018-02 Conditions of Approval Page 28 Ministry of Tourism Culture and Sport confirming that all archaeological resource concerns have met licensing and resource conservation requirements. Canada Post 96. A clauses shall be included in the Development Agreement(s) stating that the Owner shall: a. The owner/developer will consult with Canada Post to determine suitable permanent locations for the placement of Community Mailboxes and to indicate these locations on appropriate servicing plans. b. Confirm to Canada Post that the final secured permanent locations for the Community Mailboxes will not be in conflict with any other utility; including hydro transformers, bell pedestals, cable pedestals, flush to grade communication vaults, landscaping enhancements (tree planting) and bus pads. c. Install concrete pads at each of the Community Mailbox locations as well as any required walkways across the boulevard and any required curb depressions for wheelchair access as per Canada Post’s concrete pad specification drawings. d. Prepare and maintain an area of compacted gravel to Canada Post’s specifications to serve as a temporary Community Mailbox location. This location will be in a safe area away from construction activity in order that Community Mailboxes may be installed to service addresses that have occupied prior to the pouring of the permanent mailbox pads. This area will be required to be prepared a minimum of 30 days prior to the date of first occupancy. e. Communicate to Canada Post the excavation date for the first foundation (or first phase) as well as the expected date of first occupancy. f. Include in all offers of purchase and sale a statement, which advises the prospective new home purchaser/tenants that mail delivery will be from a designated Community Mailbox, and to include the exact locations (list of lot #s) of each of these Community Mailbox locations; and further, advise any affected homeowners/tenants of any established easements granted to Canada Post. g. Be responsible for officially notifying the purchasers of the exact Community Mailbox locations prior to the closing of any home sales with specific clauses in the Purchase offer, on which the homeowners do a sign off. Alectra Utilities 97. Prior to release of plan for registration, the owner/developer shall complete a subdivision application form and enter into a legal binding Offer to Connect (OTC) agreement with Alectra Utilities which outline roles and responsibilities pertaining to the design, installation, energization and servicing of the Electrical General Committee Meeting Agenda Tuesday, June 16, 2020 Item R9 Page 55 of 93 Shining Hill Homes (St. John’s) Inc. and Shining Hill Estates Collection Inc. SUB-2018-02 Conditions of Approval Page 29 Distribution System (EDS) for the subdivision. Design and Installation of the EDS can only commence once all monies, securities, easements and executed OTC have been received by Alectra Utilities. The owner/developer is responsible to provide proof of the executed OTC to the municipality to have this condition met. Enbridge Gas 98. The owner shall contact Enbridge Gas Distribution’s Customer Connections department by emailing SalesArea30@enbridge.com for service and meter installation details and to ensure all gas piping is installed prior to the commencement of site landscaping (including, but not limited to: tree planting, silva cells, and/or soil trenches) and/or asphalt paving. 99. If the gas main needs to be relocated as a result of changes in the alignment or grade of the future road allowances or for temporary gas pipe installations pertaining to phase construction, all costs are the responsibility of the applicant. 100. Easement(s) are required to service this development and any future adjacent developments. The applicant will provide all easement(s) to Enbridge Gas Distribution at no cost. 101. In the event a pressure reducing regulator station is required, the applicant is to provide a 3 metre by 3 metre exclusive use location that cannot project into the municipal road allowance. The final size and location of the regulator station will be confirmed by Enbridge Gas Distribution’s Customer Connections department. For more details contact SalesArea30@enbridge.com. Clearances 102. The Town’s Planning Division shall advise that Conditions 1-13 have been satisfied, stating briefly how each condition has been met. 103. The Town’s Legal Services Division shall advise that Conditions 14-17 have been satisfied, stating briefly how each condition has been met. 104. The Town’s Engineering Division shall advise that Conditions 18-52 have been satisfied, stating briefly how each condition has been met. 105. The Town’s Parks Division shall advise that Conditions 53-64 have been satisfied, stating briefly how each condition has been met. 106. The Town’s Building Division shall advise that Conditions 65-73 have been satisfied, stating briefly how each condition has been met. General Committee Meeting Agenda Tuesday, June 16, 2020 Item R9 Page 56 of 93 Shining Hill Homes (St. John’s) Inc. and Shining Hill Estates Collection Inc. SUB-2018-02 Conditions of Approval Page 30 107. York Region shall advise that Conditions 74-75 have been satisfied; the clearance letter shall include a brief statement detailing how each condition has been met. 108. The Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority shall advise that Conditions 76-92 have been satisfied; the clearance letter shall include a brief statement detailing how each condition has been met. 109. Central York Fire Services shall advise that Conditions 93-94 have been satisfied; the clearance letter shall include a brief statement detailing how the condition has been met. 110. The Ministry of Tourism shall advise that Conditions 95 have been satisfied; the clearance letter shall include a brief statement detailing how each condition has been met. 111. Enbridge Gas shall advise that Conditions 98-101 have been satisfied, stating briefly how each condition has been met. 112. Canada Post shall advise that Condition 96 have been satisfied; the clearance letter shall include a brief statement detailing how each condition has been met. 113. Alectra shall advise that Condition 97 have been satisfied; the clearance letter shall include a brief statement detailing how each condition has been met General Committee Meeting Agenda Tuesday, June 16, 2020 Item R9 Page 57 of 93 General Committee June 16, 2020 Appendices Page 1 of 23 Report No. PDS20-045 Appendix A – Excerpt from Minutes of the June 26, 2019 Public Planning Meeting Town of Aurora Council Public Planning Meeting Minutes Council Chambers, Aurora Town Hall Wednesday, June 26, 2019 Attendance Council Members Mayor Mrakas in the Chair; Councillors Gaertner (arrived 7:12 p.m.), Gillian (arrived 7:03 p.m.), Kim, and Thompson (departed 7:45 p.m.) Members Absent Councillor Gallo Other Attendees David Waters, Director of Planning and Development Services, Sean Lapenna, Planner, Katherine Bibby, Planner, Samatha Yew, Deputy Town Clerk, and Linda Bottos, Council/Committee Coordinator. The Chair called the meeting to order at 7:01 p.m. Council consented to recess the meeting at 8:45 p.m. and reconvened the meeting at 9:01 p.m. 1. Approval of the Agenda Moved by Councillor Gilliand Seconded by Councillor Kim That the agenda as circulated by Legislative Services be approved. Carried General Committee Meeting Agenda Tuesday, June 16, 2020 Item R9 Page 58 of 93 General Committee June 16, 2020 Appendices Page 2 of 23 Report No. PDS20-045 2. Declarations of Pecuniary Interest and General Nature Thereof There were no declarations of pecuniary interest under the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. M.50. 3. Planning Applications Mayor Mrakas outlined the procedures that would be followed in the conduct of the public meeting. The Deputy Town Clerk confirmed that the appropriate notice had been given in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Planning Act. 1. PDS19-060 – Applications for Official Plan Amendment, Zoning By-law Amendment, Draft Plan of Subdivision, Shining Hill Estate Collections Inc., 306, 370, 434 and 488 St. John’s Sideroad West, File Numbers: OPA-2018-01, ZBA-2018-02, SUB-2018- 02 Planning Staff Mr. Sean Lapenna, Planner, presented an overview of the application and staff report respecting the proposal: to amend the Official Plan designations of OPA 37 that apply to the subject properties from the Suburban Residential (SR), Suburban Residential (SR-1), Core Area Open Space, and Supporting Area Open Space designations to Suburban Residential (SR-2) and Core Area Open Space; and to rezone the subject lands from Oak Ridges Moraine Rural General (RU-ORM) to Detached Third Density Residential Exception Zone, Oak Ridges Moraine Environmental Protection (EP-ORM) and Public Open Space (O1); to accommodate a future residential development block consisting of 92 single- family dwelling lots fronting a private condominium road, two landscaped buffers, road widening, open space block, stormwater management pond, and natural heritage system. Consultant Mr. Don Given, President of Malone Given Parsons Ltd., presented an overview of the application including original and revised submission plans, site attributes, land ownership, trail connections, and requested amendments. General Committee Meeting Agenda Tuesday, June 16, 2020 Item R9 Page 59 of 93 General Committee June 16, 2020 Appendices Page 3 of 23 Report No. PDS20-045 Public Comments Aurora residents, including Joseph Avolio, Amy Babak, Martin Bressel, Pierre Geoffroy, Gordon Logan, Joe Lourelro, Marie Lourelro, Nella Mauceri, Bill Reynolds, Jintao Shen, and Sydney Singroy, provided the following comments: x Opposition to the proposed development x Opposition to widening of St. John’s Sideroad x Concerns regarding: x Increased traffic and congestion on St. John’s Sideroad x Area already overbuilt, loss of greenspace x Noise levels x Dust levels x Impact on flora and fauna x Impact on quality of life x Potential higher property taxes and diminished property values x Protection of river and pond x Forest and greenspace coverage x Proposed lot sizes not reflective of area x Icy surfaces and snow on slope of eastbound St. John’s Sideroad and potential increased risk of accidents x Challege and safety risk of left-hand turn onto St. John’s Sideroad x Safety of school buses and children on St. John’s Sideroad x Amount of ongoing construction, dirt, traffic and noise on St. John’s Sideroad x Construction Process x Questions regarding: x Impact on traffic of St. John’s Sideroad x Intention for traffic light at site entrance x Impact on wildlife x Access to safe crossing of St. John’s Sideroad x Road widening design, grading, and impact on existing trees x Protection of mature maple trees on St. John’s Sideroad x Timing and availability of regional traffic study. x Suggestions: x Relocate site entrance from St. John’s Sideroad General Committee Meeting Agenda Tuesday, June 16, 2020 Item R9 Page 60 of 93 General Committee June 16, 2020 Appendices Page 4 of 23 Report No. PDS20-045 x Reduce speed limit on St. John’s Sideroad x Install crosswalk on St. John’s Sideroad x Reduce number of units in proposal x Increase buffer for existing residents x Conserve natural setting, protect trees, keep country road character x Install noise barrier on both north and south sides x Perform additional traffic assessment of St. John’s Sideroad Chair and Planning Staff Mr. Given addressed the questions and concerns regarding buffers, tree protection, road widening and sidewalk, signal crossing, natural heritage system, wildlife, and lot sizes. Main Motion Moved by Councillor Gaertner Seconded by Councillor Humfryes 1. That Report No. PDS19-060 be received; and 2. That comments presented at the Public Planning meeting be addressed by Planning and Development Services in a report to a future Public Planning Meeting. Amendment Moved by Councillor Humfryes Seconded by Councillor Kim That the main motion be amended by replacing the words “Public Planning” in the second clause with the words “General Committee”. Main motion as amended Moved by Councillor Gaertner Seconded by Councillor Humfryes That the main motion be amended by replacing the words “Public Planning” in the second clause with the words “General Committee”. 1. That Report No. PDS19-060 be received; and 2. That comments presented at the Public Planning meeting be addressed by Planning and Development Services in a report to a future General Committee Meeting. Carried as amended General Committee Meeting Agenda Tuesday, June 16, 2020 Item R9 Page 61 of 93 General Committee June 16, 2020 Appendices Page 5 of 23 Report No. PDS20-045 Appendix B – Proposed Zoning Exception Zones (R3 & O2) The following compares the difference between the parent R3 Zone requirements and the proposed R3 Exception Zone. Parent R3 Zone Proposed R3 (H) (XX) Exception Zone Requirements Permitted Uses Detached dwelling, second suite dwelling, home occupation Detached dwelling, second suite dwelling, home occupation Lot Area (minimum)460.0 m2 460.0 m2 Lot Frontage (minimum)15.0 m 15.0 m Front Yard (minimum) 6.0 m To Main Building: 4.5 m * To Garage Face: 6.0 m Rear Yard (minimum)7.5 m 7.5 m Interior Side Yard (minimum) 1.2 m (One Storey) 1.5 m (Two Storeys)1.2 m * Exterior Side Yard (minimum) 6.0 m 3.0 m * Lot Coverage (maximum)35% n/a * Height (maximum)10.0 m 11.0 m * Encroachments Maximum projection for Open-sided roofed porches, uncovered terraces, porticos, patios and decks not exceeding 3 metres above grade with or without foundation and steps 3.5 m (into any required yards) Bay, bow, or box window maximum width 4.5 m Bay, bow or box window or fireplace maximum projection 0.6 m (required front, exterior and rear yards) General Committee Meeting Agenda Tuesday, June 16, 2020 Item R9 Page 62 of 93 General Committee June 16, 2020 Appendices Page 6 of 23 Report No. PDS20-045 Sills, belt courses, cornices, gutters, chimneys, pilasters, eaves, parapets or canopies maximum projection 0.6 m (all required yards) Daylighting Triangle Notwithstanding any other provisions to the contrary, on a corner lot where a daylighting triangle or corner rounding has been conveyed to a public authority, the Exterior Side Lot Line and the front lot line shall be deemed to be the continued projection of the Exterior Side Lot Line and the front lot line to a point of intersection, for the purposes of calculating the required minimum front yard and the required minimum exterior side yard requirements. Notwithstanding the provisions above, and any other provisions to the contrary, no building or structure shall be permitted to encroach within the daylighting triangle or corner rounding. Note: The proposed bylaw exceptions are highlighted and labelled with an asterisk “*”. The following compares the difference between the parent O2 Zone requirements and the proposed O2 Exception Zone. Parent O2 Zone Proposed O2 (X) Exception Zone Requirements Permitted Uses Athletic Fields Agricultural Uses Conservation uses Golf Courses Public Park Private Park Woodlands Recreation Centre Athletic Fields Conservation uses Private Park Stormwater Management Ponds Woodlands Lot Area (minimum)2,000 m 2 n/a Lot Frontage (minimum)30m n/a Front Yard (minimum) 7.5m n/a General Committee Meeting Agenda Tuesday, June 16, 2020 Item R9 Page 63 of 93 General Committee June 16, 2020 Appendices Page 7 of 23 Report No. PDS20-045 Rear Yard (minimum)7.5 m n/a Side Yard (minimum) 3m n/a Lot Coverage (maximum)10%n/a Height (maximum)10.0 m n/a Final zoning performance standards will be finalized by staff in detail prior to the implementing Zoning By-law Amendment being brought forward to Council for enactment. General Committee Meeting Agenda Tuesday, June 16, 2020 Item R9 Page 64 of 93 General Committee June 16, 2020 Appendices Page 8 of 23 Report No. PDS20-045 Appendix C – Provincial Policy Statement Analysis PPS Policies (summarized)Policy Analysis Section 1.1.1 Healthy, liveable and safe communities are sustained by a) promoting efficient development and land use patterns; b) accommodating a range of residential types, and recreational uses; c) avoiding development patterns which may cause environmental or public health and safety concerns; e) promoting integration of land use planning, growth management, transit-supportive development, and infrastructure planning to achieve cost- effective development patterns; and g) ensuring necessary infrastructure is available to meet current and projected needs. The proposed development exhibits components of a Block Plan, and facilitates an efficient land use pattern that accommodates 90 single detached dwellings along a private condominium road (Block 1), two landscape buffers (Blocks 2 & 3), a road widening (Block 4), a private open space block (Block 5), a stormwater management pond (Block 6), a buffer/walkway block (Block 7) and a natural heritage system (Block 8). The development has been planned to ensure that future development will not adversely effect the environment or public health and safety and to provide necessary infrastructure to accommodate the needs of the future residents. Section 1.1.3.1 Settlement areas shall be the focus of growth and development The proposed development exhibits components of a Block Plan, and facilitates an efficient land use pattern that accommodates 90 single detached dwellings along a private condominium road (Block 1), two landscape buffers (Blocks 2 & 3), a road widening (Block 4), a private open space block (Block 5), a stormwater management pond (Block 6), a buffer/walkway block (Block 7) and a natural heritage system (Block 8). The development has been planned to ensure that future development will not adversely effect the environment or public health and safety and to provide necessary infrastructure to accommodate the needs of the future residents. Sections 1.4.1 and 1.4.3 The proposed dwellings will contribute to the Town’s housing stock, and General Committee Meeting Agenda Tuesday, June 16, 2020 Item R9 Page 65 of 93 General Committee June 16, 2020 Appendices Page 9 of 23 Report No. PDS20-045 Provide for an appropriate range and mix of housing options and densities to meet projected market-based and affordable housing needs of current and future residents of the regional market area. accommodate residential growth within a Settlement Area. Section 2.1 Natural Heritage features shall be protected for the long term. 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. A 1.28 hectare (3.16 acre) Natural Heritage System has been established which forms Block 8 on the Draft Plan. The limits of the feature have been delineated, and no development is to occur within the feature. The proposed development has been designed to ensure that there are no adverse effects to the long-term function of the feature. General Committee Meeting Agenda Tuesday, June 16, 2020 Item R9 Page 66 of 93 General Committee June 16, 2020 Appendices Page 10 of 23 Report No. PDS20-045 Appendix D – Growth Plan Policy Analysis Growth Plan Policies (summarized)Policy Analysis Section 2.2.1 Achievement of complete communities that: x feature a diverse mix of land uses; x provide a diverse range and mix of housing options…to accommodate people at all stages of life, and to accommodate the needs of all household sizes and incomes; x expand access to a range of transportation options, safe, publicly-accessible open spaces, parks, trails, and other recreational facilities; and, x provide for a vibrant public realm including public open spaces. The subject lands are located within OPA 37 which was adopted by Town Council in order to allow for the development of an urban and suburban residential community which contemplates a range of uses (environmentally-sensitive residential, institutional and open space). The proposed environmentally-sensitive residential development on full urban services with open space uses conform to the uses permitted by OPA 37. The development encompasses access to St. John’s Sideroad which expands access to a range of transportation options (vehicles, bus, trails, and pedestrian infrastructure). Section 2.2.6 Municipalities will support the achievement of complete communities by: a) planning to accommodate forecasted growth; b) planning to achieve the minimum intensification and density targets; c) considering the range and mix of housing options and densities of the existing housing stock; and d) planning to diversify their overall housing stock. The applicant is proposing development of 90 residential dwelling units, which will contribute to the Town’s goal of achieving the minimum intensification and density targets as provided for in the Growth Plan. The applicant has also included a permission for secondary suites in the proposed Zoning By-law Amendment which considers the range and mix of housing options within the development, and enables diversification of the housing stock across the municipality. General Committee Meeting Agenda Tuesday, June 16, 2020 Item R9 Page 67 of 93 General Committee June 16, 2020 Appendices Page 11 of 23 Report No. PDS20-045 Section 4.2.5 Establish an open space system within settlement areas, which may include public parks. Blocks 5 on the proposed draft plan is intended to function as a Private Open Space area (0.77 ha/1.90 acres) which will accommodate a recreational space for future residents of this subdivision. General Committee Meeting Agenda Tuesday, June 16, 2020 Item R9 Page 68 of 93 General Committee June 16, 2020 Appendices Page 12 of 23 Report No. PDS20-045 Appendix E – York Region Official Plan Analysis YROP Objective Analysis Having a sustainable natural environment through ensuring that significant environmental features and functions are protected and natural hazards are avoided. The proposed development is located within the Oak Ridges Moraine. Part of the proposing re-zoning allows for the creation of a Natural Heritage System through Block 8, which will be zoned Oak Ridges Moraine Environmental Protection (EP-ORM) as well Open Space Blocks (Blocks 2, 3, 5, 6 & 7) zoned Private Open Space (O2). Creating healthy communities by: promoting a mix and range of housing types; and promoting the health and well- being of residents in accessible and safe communities. Single detached dwellings are proposed in accordance with the permitted uses under the ‘Suburban Residential (SR)’ and ‘Suburban Residential (SR-1)’ designations allowed for through OPA 37. The applicant has included secondary suites as an additional permitted use in the amending Zoning By-law, which will provide for a range of housing types. The proposed development will be accessed off of St. John’s Sideroad which is connected to Yonge Street to the east where future residents will have access to transit and pedestrian infrastructure. Ensuring economic vitality by balancing job creation with population growth; promoting economic diversity and resilience; and, delivering context sensitive and efficient infrastructure. The YROP forecasts a population of 70,200 residents within the Town of Aurora by 2031. The proposed application will contribute 90 single detached dwelling units (with potential for secondary suites) to Aurora’s housing stock. Policy 5.2.8 As a condition of Draft Plan approval, the Owner will be required to prepare and General Committee Meeting Agenda Tuesday, June 16, 2020 Item R9 Page 69 of 93 General Committee June 16, 2020 Appendices Page 13 of 23 Report No. PDS20-045 To employ the highest standard of urban design, which: x Provides pedestrian scale, safety, comfort, accessibility and connectivity; x Complements the character of existing areas and fosters each community’s unique sense of place; x Promotes landscaping, public spaces and streetscapes; and x Ensures compatibility with and transition to surrounding land uses. implement Urban and Architectural Design Guidelines for the design and construction of all residential dwelling units, walkways, landscaping and all other elements within the Draft Plan, to the satisfaction of the Planning Division. General Committee Meeting Agenda Tuesday, June 16, 2020 Item R9 Page 70 of 93 General Committee June 16, 2020 Appendices Page 14 of 23 Report No. PDS20-045 Appendix F – OPA 37 Policy Analysis OPA 37 Policies Policy Analysis Policy 2.1 - Suburban Residential (SR-1) designation These lands shall be comprised of fully serviced single-detached residential lots with frontages generally greater than 24 metres, and areas generally greater than 800 square metres. Neighbourhood oriented support services such as schools and parks are also be permitted. The applicant is proposing 90 units over 11.16 hectares (27.57 acres) of land with frontages generally greater than 15 metres and areas generally greater than 460 square metres. Neighbourhood oriented support services such as schools and parks shall also be permitted. Policy 2.2 - Suburban Residential (SR) designation These lands shall be comprised of fully serviced residential lots of approximately 0.2 hectares is size. Development on lands designated Suburban Residential shall be compatible with the existing estate and suburban residences on the south side of St. John's Sideroad. Reverse frontage onto St. John's Sideroad shall not be permitted. The applicant is proposing 90 units over 11.16 hectares (27.57 acres) of land with frontages generally greater than 15 metres and areas generally greater than 460 square metres. Neighbourhood oriented support services such as schools and parks shall also be permitted. Policy 2.3 – Core Area Open Space (COS) designation These lands shall be comprised of open space, approved stormwater management outlets, and approved road and municipal service crossings. Other than the above permitted services these lands are intended to remain in its natural state with only passive recreation uses being permitted The applicant has proposed a ‘Core Area Open Space (COS-1)’ site specific designation as part of this development (Figure 6) which is described as follows: ‘Core Area Open Space – 1’ within the Site Specific Policy Area shall be comprised of open space, approved stormwater management ponds, and approved road and municipal service crossings. Other than the above permitted services, this area shall remain in its natural state with only passive recreation uses being permitted. General Committee Meeting Agenda Tuesday, June 16, 2020 Item R9 Page 71 of 93 General Committee June 16, 2020 Appendices Page 15 of 23 Report No. PDS20-045 This site specific policy was proposed so that the lands where this designation apply remain in private ownership. Policy 3.0 x The location of the proposed new intersections along St. John's Sideroad and Bathurst Street shall be consistent with the locations shown on Schedule "AA". Minor flexibility in these locations may be permitted subject to approval of the Region of York, the Town and affected landowners. x All new lots shall have access to internal streets only. Plans of subdivision shall provide new access locations for existing residential dwellings from internal streets and existing entrances to St. John's Sideroad and Bathurst Street shall be closed as part of the execution of individual subdivision agreements. x The location of the internal streets shall be in general conformity with the locations as shown on "Schedule AA". Alteration to the road pattern may be considered provided consideration is given to the location of roadways on adjacent properties and subject to approval of the Town and affected landowners. x The location of the proposed creek crossing shall be in the location shown on Schedule "AA" and be designed to the satisfaction of the Town and the Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority. x The site access to be provided as shown on Figures 4 & 5 are consistent with the locations shown in Schedule “AA” of OPA 37. x As shown on Figure 5, the proposed residential development will have access to internal streets via the future condominium roadway off of St. John’s Sideroad. Based on the proposed block configuration on the draft plan of subdivision, a new access is not required to service existing residential residential dwellings. development. Any existing entrances included in the draft limits of the proposed plan will be closed. x The location of the future condominium road is in general conformity with the internal street layout shown on “Schedule AA” of OPA 37. The future condominium road as shown on Figure 5 is conceptual at this point and may be subject to further refinement through the future site plan and draft plan of condominium applications. x The location of the proposed creek crossing as shown on Schedule “AA” does not fall within the draft General Committee Meeting Agenda Tuesday, June 16, 2020 Item R9 Page 72 of 93 General Committee June 16, 2020 Appendices Page 16 of 23 Report No. PDS20-045 limits of the proposed plan of subdivision and is not located within the subject property boundary area. Policy 4.0 x Landscaped buffer strips shall be located along St. John's Sideroad and along Bathurst Street. These buffers strips shall generally be within private property. The subdivision agreement shall include a clause that requires the developer to be responsible for the completion of such landscaped buffers. x The proposed driveways to the suburban residential lots shall include entrance features along with landscaping along the entire driveway length to provide a buffer from adjacent lots. The design of such features and landscaping and associated costs shall be the responsibility of the developer. x The proposed homes along St. John's Sideroad shall be complimentary to the existing homes in the area. Policy 4.2 - Urban Design of the Town of Aurora Official Plan shall apply to the subject lands. x Noise reports shall be required as part of the subdivision approval process and warning clauses shall be placed on title indicating that traffic volumes along St. John's Sideroad and Bathurst Street will increase. x Landscape Buffer strips have been included as part of the proposed Draft Plan of Subdivision, as shown on Figure 4 (Blocks 2, 3 and 7). The landscape buffers will be located within private property. The developer will be responsible for the completion of the landscape buffers which will be reflected in future development agreement(s). x Entrance features for driveways will be evaluated by Planning Staff through the future site plan application. The design and cost of the landscaping and features will be the responsibility of the Owner and will be outlined in the future development agreement. x A condition of draft plan approval requires the Owner to prepare and implement Urban and Architectural Design Guidelines as part of the future site plan application for the design and construction of all residential dwelling units, walkways, landscaping and all other elements within Block 1 on the Draft Plan. x The owner will be required to submit a noise attenuation report and to implement recommended noise attenuation measures to the General Committee Meeting Agenda Tuesday, June 16, 2020 Item R9 Page 73 of 93 General Committee June 16, 2020 Appendices Page 17 of 23 Report No. PDS20-045 x Vegetation impact assessments will be required for areas outside of the Open Space Designations. Such assessment shall include preservation/protection measures and restoration plantings shall occur within the Landscape buffer strips. satisfaction of Town’s Engineering Department and Region of York prior to execution of the development agreement. x The Town’s Parks Division Department has a condition of draft plan approval requiring the owner to prepare and submit a Vegetation Management Plan (the “VMP”) to the satisfaction of the Town’s Parks Division. The condition included addresses items identified through Policy 4.0 such as preservation/protection measures as well as restoration plantings. Policy 5.0 x A Functional Servicing Plan that addresses the provision of water supply, wastewater and stormwater facilities including how the proposal will strive to protect and retain significant natural features shall be completed to the satisfaction of the Town, the Region of York and other appropriate government agencies prior to any draft plan approvals. x The draft plan approvals shall contain a condition which requires confirmation that servicing allocation is available for the site prior to the adoption of a zoning by-law. Alternatively the by-law may contain a holding prefix which cannot be removed until confirmation of servicing allocation. x The owner submitted a Functional Servicing Report in support of the subject applications. The Town’s Engineering Department, the Regional Municipality of York as well as the Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority have no objection to the proposed applications subject to conditions of approval which require finalization of Functional Servicing Report prior to execution of the development agreement(s) and final approval of the plan. x Town Staff have confirmed that servicing allocation is available for the subject site. Policy 6.0 x Parks staff acknowledge that the development as proposed is General Committee Meeting Agenda Tuesday, June 16, 2020 Item R9 Page 74 of 93 General Committee June 16, 2020 Appendices Page 18 of 23 Report No. PDS20-045 x Parkland dedication shall be in accordance with Section 3.5 of the Official Plan. Any lands dedicated for parks shall be in a location and condition acceptable to the Town. x Tot lot play areas will be required within the amendment area in locations approved by the Town. The Town requires a minimum of one such facility to the west of the existing valleylands and the determination of need for future facilities will occur during the subdivision approval processes which will also determine the required size and location of such facilities. ultimately intended to be a condominium development and that the Town does not typically locate public parkland within private developments. Both the owner as well as the Park’s Division acknowledge that Block 5 as shown on Figure 4 is intended to be Private Open Space and not Parkland. Regardless, the Private Open Space Block will provide for recreational amenity space for the future residents. x The Town’s Parks Division has confirmed that they will be requesting Cash-In-Lieu of parkland. Therefore, the owner will be required to provide Cash-In- Lieu prior to issuance of building permits x Tot Lots will not be provided for this development, cash-in-lieu will be provided instead. Policy 7.0 x In addition to Development Charges capital contributions, prior to final approval of any plans of subdivision, or prior to the granting of any severance, the Town will require that any applicant for a plan of subdivision or severance enter into Cost Sharing Agreements or make other suitable arrangements, in the opinion of the Town, amongst other landowners in this secondary planning area to share the costs of infrastructure and other public services (the "public services") where those other landowners benefit from the construction or dedication of the x The Owner will be responsible for all costs as it relates to any necessary infrastructure required in order to support this development on the subject lands and there are no public services for adjacent property owners to benefit from. x A condition of draft plan approval has been included in the event that a cost sharing agreement is required. General Committee Meeting Agenda Tuesday, June 16, 2020 Item R9 Page 75 of 93 General Committee June 16, 2020 Appendices Page 19 of 23 Report No. PDS20-045 public services in order to implement development of the secondary plan area and equalize the cost of development. Such costs may include secondary plan component studies, other common studies, infrastructure, facilities and works, including the costs of planning, constructing and providing land for the establishment of schools, park sites and stormwater management facilities. The Town will not negotiate or be a party to such arrangements. The issuance of approvals or the release of lands for development may be subject to the finalization, execution or registration of such cost sharing agreements, as appropriate. x The implementation and interpretation of this Amendment shall be in accordance with the respective policies of the Aurora Official Plan. General Committee Meeting Agenda Tuesday, June 16, 2020 Item R9 Page 76 of 93 General Committee June 16, 2020 Appendices Page 20 of 23 Report No. PDS20-045 Appendix G – Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan Policy Analysis Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan Policies (summarized)Analysis Section 21 – Minimum area of influence and MVPZ x Key Natural Heritage Features and Key Hydrologic Features have minimum areas of influence and MVPZs. Section 22 – Key Natural Heritage Features x Wetlands and Significant Woodlands are considered KNHFs. All development and site alteration within features are prohibited except specific uses listed in Section 22(2). x An application for development or site alteration within the minimum area of influence of a KNHF shall be accompanied by a Natural Heritage Evaluation. Section 23 – Natural Heritage Evaluation (NHE) x AN NHE shall demonstrate development will not adversely affect the KHNF; identify practices that will maintain, and where possible improve its function; and determine a sufficient MVPZ. Section 24 – Watershed Plans Section 25 – Water Budgets and Conservation Plans x York Region shall have a watershed plan. Major Sections 21 – 26 outline the need to identify and protect the key natural heritage (KNHF)/hydrological sensitive features (HSF) and associated minimum vegetative protection zone, through a natural heritage evaluation and watershed/conservation plans. The revised Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) prepared by GeoProcess also serves as a Natural Heritage Evaluation and has been submitted in support of the subject applications. The EIS submitted establishes an appropriate Minimum Vegetation Protection Zone (MVPZ) to the significant woodland and has determined that the proposed buffer is adequate to ensure there are no negative impacts to the feature and its functions. Town Staff are of the opinion that the proposed Draft Plan of Subdivision will bear no negative impact on the Key Natural Heritage Features (KNHF) and Hydrologically Sensitive Features (HSF) in accordance with the policies of these sections, as supported by the Revised EIS. Subsection 24(8) (b)(ii) requires demonstration that there is an adequate water supply for the development, which does not compromise the ecological integrity of the Plan Area. The proposed development will be developed on full municipal water and sanitary sewer servicing and, as per the Hydrogeological Study completed by Soil Engineers Ltd, General Committee Meeting Agenda Tuesday, June 16, 2020 Item R9 Page 77 of 93 General Committee June 16, 2020 Appendices Page 21 of 23 Report No. PDS20-045 development is prohibited unless the development conforms to the watershed plan; and a water budget and water conservation plan is prepared in accordance with Section 25. Section 26 – Key Hydrologic Features (KHFs) x Wetlands are considered a KHF. All development within a KHF or its MVPZ are prohibited, aside from uses listed in 26(2). An application for development within the minimum area of influence shall be accompanied by a Hydrological Evaluation. Subsection 26(4) provides that a Hydrological Evaluation shall demonstrate development will not adversely affect the KHF; identify practices that will maintain, and where possible improve its function; and determine a sufficient MVPZ. the proposed development will not negatively affect the water supply and the ecological integrity of the surrounding area. Section 25 – The applicant has submitted a Hydrogeological Study (which includes a Water Budget and Conservation Plan), to the satisfaction of the LSRCA. Section 26 – The assessment of the Wetlands feature was included in the Environmental Impact Study submitted as part of the subject applications. An offline wetland feature has been proposed to replace the northern third of the existing pond. The wetland will be designed to receive flows from the channel when flow levels exceed the top of bank (i.e.,approximately 1-3 times per year). Only minor regrading and planting will be required to construct the wetland which will provide flood relief and storage during high flow events. Section 27 – Subwatersheds x Respecting land in Settlement Areas, considering applications for development on land within a subwatershed, the approval authority shall consider maintenance, improvement or restoring of natural vegetation; and minimizing impervious surfaces and impact on water quality and quantity. The seep area located near St. John’s Sideroad is protected by a wooded natural area and interior open space which maintains the drainage to the channel and the natural vegetation in this area. The seep area has been staked by LSRCA on May 24, 2017. An appropriate VPZ width has been applied. The entire width of the VPZ buffer is to be planted with native species to protect the natural edge of the feature. Section 28 – Wellhead Protection Areas Section 28 prohibits waste disposal sites/facilities, the storage of certain harmful materials and the generation and storage of hazardous waste. The Draft Plan of Subdivision does not propose General Committee Meeting Agenda Tuesday, June 16, 2020 Item R9 Page 78 of 93 General Committee June 16, 2020 Appendices Page 22 of 23 Report No. PDS20-045 waste disposal site/facility and will not be used for the storage of noxious and toxic substances. As such, these policies are satisfied. Section 29 – Areas of High Aquifer Vulnerability x These sections outline uses that are prohibited within WHPAs and Areas of High Aquifer Vulnerability. The applicant is not proposing any uses on the subject lands that comprise the list of prohibited uses provided for in these sections of the ORMCP. Section 30 – Landform Conservation x With respect to lands within Settlement Areas, in considering applications for development or site alteration within landform conservation areas, adopting planning, design and construction practices to keep disturbance to a minimum shall be considered. As demonstrated in the Engineering submission prepared by Schaeffers Engineers, grading is kept to a minimum to keep any disturbances to the landform character to a minimum. Section 41 – Infrastructure x Municipalities shall ensure that the development of new infrastructure or the upgrading or extension of existing infrastructure is supported by the necessary studies, assessments and documentation such as infrastructure master plans, asset management plans, land use and financial scenarios, watershed studies and subwatershed plans, environmental assessments and other relevant studies. Required reports and studies as outlined in the Statutory Public Planning Meeting report and referenced throughout the recommendation report have been submitted to support the proposed uses on site. Where technical matters need to be addressed, this will be done so prior to execution of the development agreement(s) and final approval of the plan. Section 43 – Sewage and Water Services x Applications for major development shall be accompanied by a sewage and water system plan that demonstrates: the ecological integrity of KNHFs and KHFs will be maintained; (b) the quantity and quality of groundwater and surface A Functional Servicing Report completed by Schaeffers Engineers has been submitted as part of the subject applications. Town staff and agencies are generally satisfied with the proposed development subject to the resolution of outstanding technical matters prior to execution of the development agreement(s) and final approval of the plan. General Committee Meeting Agenda Tuesday, June 16, 2020 Item R9 Page 79 of 93 General Committee June 16, 2020 Appendices Page 23 of 23 Report No. PDS20-045 water will be maintained; (c) that stream baseflows will be maintained; (d) the project will comply with any applicable watershed plan, water budget, water conservation plan, water and wastewater master plan or subwatershed plan; (d.1) that the assimilative capacity of receiving lakes, rivers or streams with respect to sewage from surrounding areas will not be exceeded and the attenuation capacity of groundwater with respect to subsurface sewage service systems will not be exceeded; and (e) that the water use projected for the development will be sustainable. Section 44 – Partial Services Section 44 prohibits the construction or expansion of partial services, unless it is addressing a serious health or environmental concern. This application does not propose partial services. Section 45 and 46 – Stormwater Management and Stormwater Management Plans x Application for major development shall be accompanied by a stormwater management plan, as set out in Section 46. It shall be demonstrated that design and construction practices that protect water resources will be used; x Development standards shall incorporate planning, design and construction practices that will: reduce the portions of lots and sites that have impervious surfaces; and, provide the flexibility A Stormwater Management Plan is incorporated into the Functional Servicing Report submitted in support of this application. The FSR completed has been designed in accordance with the policies of the ORMCP and meets the intent of applicable guidelines and criteria. Furthermore, subsections 45(7) and (8) specifically prohibit the disposal of stormwater into kettle lakes and the establishment of new ponds in areas with KNHF’s and HSF’s. There are no kettle lakes on the site and stormwater will be accommodated through a bioswale that will be constructed along St. John’s Sideroad. General Committee Meeting Agenda Tuesday, June 16, 2020 Item R9 Page 80 of 93 General Committee June 16, 2020 Appendices Page 24 of 23 Report No. PDS20-045 to use alternative stormwater management techniques. x Disposal of stormwater into a kettle lake is prohibited. x New stormwater management ponds are prohibited on lands within a KNHF or KHF. x A "stormwater management pond" shall mean a detention basin that temporarily stores or treats collected stormwater runoff and releases it at a controlled rate. Section 47 – Rapid Infiltration basins and columns Section 47 prohibits new rapid infiltration basins and columns. No rapid infiltration basins and columns are proposed as part of this application. General Committee Meeting Agenda Tuesday, June 16, 2020 Item R9 Page 81 of 93 General Committee June 16, 2020 Appendices Page 25 of 23 Report No. PDS20-045 Appendix H – Public Comments received at June 26, 2019 Public Meeting with responses from the Town. Public Comments Response Opposition to proposed development Planning Staff are of the opinion that the proposed development is consistent with applicable policies of the Provincial, Regional and Municipal planning documents. Since the Statutory Public Planning Meeting in June 2019, the applicant has revised the Draft Plan to address some comments. Key revisions include a decrease in the total number of units and the addition of a Buffer Block (Block 7). Town staff are satisfied with the changes made and are of the opinion that the development proposed is suitable and appropriate for this area. Opposition to widening of St. John's Sideroad Improvements to St. John’s Sideroad between Yonge Street and Bathurst Street are not currently identified in the Region’s 10-Year Road Construction Capital Program. Further to this, the Regional Municipality of York’s Transportation Planning Department in co-ordination with Traffic Signal Operations, Development Engineering and YRT/Viva, have indicated no objection to the proposed applications, subject to the owner satisfying conditions of approval. Public Concerns Response Increased traffic and congestion on St. John’s Sideroad A transportation study was submitted in support of the proposed development which included a review of potential traffic impacts and mitigation measures. General Committee Meeting Agenda Tuesday, June 16, 2020 Item R9 Page 82 of 93 General Committee June 16, 2020 Appendices Page 26 of 23 Report No. PDS20-045 The Study’s review of nearby intersections suggests that site traffic will not have significant impacts at various times of the day, including most peak times. Potential impacts may be mitigated with the implementation of TDM measures and modified signal times. The Regional Municipality of York’s Transportation Planning Department in co-ordination with Traffic Signal Operations, Development Engineering and YRT/Viva, have indicated no objection to the proposed development, subject to the owner satisfying conditions of approval which include, but is not limited to, the implementation of TDM measures. Area already overbuilt, loss of greenspace It is the opinion of Planning staff that the proposed development is consistent and compatible with development in the surrounding area. The proposed lot fabric and built form is similar to and compatible with in the area. Planning Staff are satisfied with the overall amount of greenspace to remain and to be provided as the proposed development will protect the natural heritage system (Block 8) and existing mature vegetation along St. John’s Sideroad (Blocks 2 & 3) while also providing additional green space (Block 5). Additionally, Planning Staff are of the opinion that the proposed development is consistent with the policies of the Provincial, Regional and Municipal planning documents. Noise levels The Town’s Engineering Department will require that noise during the construction process be controlled through a Construction Mitigation Plan. This Plan is required as a condition of draft plan approval and will require approval from the Town prior to execution of the Subdivision Agreement. In addition to this, the owner will be required to conform to the requirements of the Town’s Noise By-law during construction. With respect to noise for future residents of this development, a noise study will be submitted to the Town and Region of York for review and approval. General Committee Meeting Agenda Tuesday, June 16, 2020 Item R9 Page 83 of 93 General Committee June 16, 2020 Appendices Page 27 of 23 Report No. PDS20-045 Recommended noise attenuation measures will need to implemented and this will be secured thorough the detailed design, site plan application and related agreements. Dust levels The Town’s Engineering Department will require that dust during the construction process be controlled through a Construction Mitigation Plan. This Plan is required as a condition of draft plan approval and will require approval from the Town prior to execution of the development agreement(s). Impact on flora and fauna An Environmental Impact Study/Natural Heritage Evaluation was submitted in support of the proposed development which was reviewed by the LSRCA. The LSRCA are satisfied that potential impacts have been adequately mitigated and have no objections to approval of the proposed development subject to conditions of approval. Conditions of approval, include but are not limited to, the Owner satisfying the provisions of the Endangered Species Act, to the satisfaction of the Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Park; providing a restoration planting plan for the vegetation protection zone to the natural heritage feature on the subject lands (Block 8); and, a monitoring program to identify potential impacts on environmental protection areas and recommended mitigation measures. Further, the natural heritage system (Block 8) within the limits of the draft plan of subdivision will be protected by zoning the lands EP-ORM which limits development and site alteration. Existing mature vegetation along St. John’s Sideroad will also be preserved as landscape buffers and zoned as open space. Impact on quality of life Planning Staff are of the opinion that the proposed development is consistent with the Provincial, Regional and Municipal planning policies and plans which promote complete communities. The proposed General Committee Meeting Agenda Tuesday, June 16, 2020 Item R9 Page 84 of 93 General Committee June 16, 2020 Appendices Page 28 of 23 Report No. PDS20-045 development provides housing options off a regional road that is directly connected to the broader regional transportation network and close access to the natural environment. It is the opinion of Planning staff that these are elements of complete communities that positively contribute to quality of life. Potential higher property taxes and diminished property values Planning Staff are of the opinion that the proposed development is consistent with the Provincial, Regional and Municipal planning policies and plans which promote complete communities. The proposed development is ideally located off a regional transportation network and is in close proximity to the natural environment for enjoyment of future residents. As such, Planning staff do not anticipate negative impacts on property values in the area. Property tax rates are established by municipal and regional government and based on property assessments conducted by MPAC. Protection of river and pond An Environmental Impact Study/Natural Heritage Evaluation has been submitted and reviewed by the Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority. A detailed design has been completed for the watercourse realignment and naturalization. The design will restore natural cold-water aquatic habitat to the watercourse while preserving or enhancing the habitat and flood control benefits of th existing pond feature. The LSRCA has no objection to approval of the proposed development subject to the Owner satisfying conditions of approval including, but not limited to, the Owner adhering to erosion and sediment control measures, the Owner submitting a detailed Hydrogeological/Water Balance Report and providing compensatory measures, if required, and General Committee Meeting Agenda Tuesday, June 16, 2020 Item R9 Page 85 of 93 General Committee June 16, 2020 Appendices Page 29 of 23 Report No. PDS20-045 the Owner implementing an Ecological Offsetting Strategy. Forest and greenspace coverage No development is proposed to take place in the forest. The natural heritage area will be protected by Block 8 (Natural Heritage Block). A 10 metre Vegetation Protection Zone (MVPZ) has been provided from the dripline staked by the LSRCA in 2017 to protect the natural heritage feature on the subject lands which forms part of the Regional Greenlands System. Further, based on the Environmental Impact Study/Natural Heritage Evaluation submitted in support of the proposed development, staff and commenting agencies are satisfied with the proposed development subject to the owner satisfying conditions of approval, including but not limited to, providing a restoration planting plan for the vegetation protection zone for the natural heritage feature (Block 8). Proposed lot sizes not reflective of area Planning Staff are of the opinion that the proposed lotting pattern which will accommodate future single detached dwellings, as shown on Figure 5, is generally consistent and compatible with the existing character of the area to the west, south and east, past the St. John’s Sidroad and Yonge St intersection. The surrounding area generally consists of lots that are similar in size which also accommodate single detached dwellings. The proposed lotting pattern will be implemented through the future draft plan of condominium application or a part lot control application. Icy surfaces and snow on slope of eastbound St. John’s Sideroad and potential increased risk of accidents The Region’s winter maintenance crews continually monitor weather conditions and patterns and respond accordingly. Challenge and safety risk of left-hand turn onto St.John’s Sideroad A Transportation Study was submitted in support of the proposed development. This study includes the General Committee Meeting Agenda Tuesday, June 16, 2020 Item R9 Page 86 of 93 General Committee June 16, 2020 Appendices Page 30 of 23 Report No. PDS20-045 identification of any potential traffic impacts from the and includes mitigation measures. An assessment of eastbound left turn warrants was conducted to ensure the proposed combined storage and parallel lane length is adequate to ensure safety The proposed lane provides greater deceleration distance than other intersections in the area. Further, a sight distance analysis was conducted showing that there is adequate sight distance to the west for traffic exiting the site. The Regional Municipality of York’s Transportation Planning Department in co-ordination with Traffic Signal Operations, Development Engineering and YRT/Viva, have reviewed the study and indicated no objection to the proposed development, subject to the owner satisfying conditions of approval. Conditions of approval include, but are not limited to, implementing TDM recommendations in Transportation Study. Intersection/road improvements and Traffic Control/Management Plans will be finalized during the detailed engineering design. Safety of School buses and children on St. John’s Sideroad The York Region District School Board, the York Catholic District School Board, the Central-South Catholic District School Board and as well as the Center-South West District School Board were circulated on the subject development applications and expressed no concerns or objections to the proposed development. In addition, the Region of York have reviewed the Transportation Study and have no objections to the proposed development subject to the owner satisfying conditions of approval. Speeding vehicles and safety on St.John’s Sideroad Speeding is a Highway Traffic Act violation. York Regional Police have the authority to enforce the Act and to address violations with respect to speeding on St. John’s Sideroad. General Committee Meeting Agenda Tuesday, June 16, 2020 Item R9 Page 87 of 93 General Committee June 16, 2020 Appendices Page 31 of 23 Report No. PDS20-045 No safe crossing to access services across St.John’s Sideroad York Region installs pedestrian and traffic signals in accordance with criteria established by the Ministry of Transportation of Ontario. The criteria requires at a minimum 200 pedestrians crossing the street in the 8 busiest hours of the day. The Region has confirmed that Staff will complete a pedestrian study once development is complete to re- assess the need for a midblock crossing or intersection crossing. Amount of ongoing construction, dirt, traffic and noise on St. John’s Sideroad The Town’s Engineering Department will require the owner to submit a Construction Mitigation Plan. This Plan will require approval from the Town and Region prior to execution of the Development Agreement(s). Additionally, the applicant will be responsible to mitigate dirt and mud tracking onto St.John’s Siderorad via York Region’s Road Occupancy Permit Process. Securities are held to ensure the applicant abides by the provisions of the approvals. The Region’s Road Operations group will monitor for compliance. With respect to noise, the Owner must comply with the Town’s Noise By-law. Construction process The Town’s Engineering Department will require the owner to submit a Construction Mitigation Plan. This Plan will require approval from the Town and Region prior to execution of the Development Agreement(s). Public Questions Response Impact on traffic of St. John’s Sideroad The Owner submitted a Transportation Study in support of the proposed development and the study identifies mitigation measures to address any potential impacts. The Study’s review of nearby intersections suggests that site traffic will not have significant impacts at various times of the day, including most peak times. Potential impacts may be mitigated with the General Committee Meeting Agenda Tuesday, June 16, 2020 Item R9 Page 88 of 93 General Committee June 16, 2020 Appendices Page 32 of 23 Report No. PDS20-045 implementation of TDM measures, modified signal times, etc. The Regional Municipality of York’s Transportation Planning Department in co-ordination with Traffic Signal Operations, Development Engineering and YRT/Viva, have reviewed the Study and indicated no objection to the proposed development, subject to the owner satisfying conditions of approval including, but not limited to, the implementation of TDM measures. Intersection/road improvements for St. John’s Sideroad and Traffic Control/Management Plans will be finalized during the detailed engineering design. Intention for traffic light at site entrance The Owner submitted a Transportation Study in support of the proposed development and it includes a traffic signal warrant analysis at the proposed site entrance. The Region only permits traffic signals that meet the Ontario Ministry of Transportation warrant criteria. The Region has confirmed that the intersection will not be signalized due to insufficient traffic warrants and no concerns with sight lines. Further, the Region has reviewed the Transportation Study and indicated they have no objections to the proposed development subject to conditions of approval including, but not limited to, the implementation of TDM measures. Impact on wildlife An Environmental Impact Study/Natural Heritage Evaluation was submitted in support of the proposed development which was reviewed by the LSRCA. Block 8 (Natural Heritage System) will be zoned for environmental protection and will protect wildlife habitat. The LSRCA are satisfied that potential impacts have been adequately mitigated and have no objections to approval of the proposed development subject to conditions of approval. Conditions of approval, include but are not limited to, the Owner satisfying the provisions of the Endangered Species Act, to the satisfaction of the Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks; and, providing General Committee Meeting Agenda Tuesday, June 16, 2020 Item R9 Page 89 of 93 General Committee June 16, 2020 Appendices Page 33 of 23 Report No. PDS20-045 a restoration planting plan for the vegetation protection zone for the natural heritage feature (Block 8). Access to safe crossing of St.John’s Sideroad A Transportation Study was submitted in support of the proposed development which included an assessment of the need for a midblock or intersection crossing. York Region installs pedestrian and traffic signals in accordance with criteria established by the Ministry of Transportation of Ontario. The criteria requires at a minimum 200 pedestrians crossing the street in the 8 busiest hours of the day. The Region has indicated no objection to the applications submitted, subject to the owner satisfying conditions of approval, including but not limited to, implementing TDM recommendations in Transportation Study. Intersection/road improvements including potential location of sidewalks, pedestrian access to existing and future YRT transit stops (as required), etc. will be finalized during the detailed engineering design. York Region will complete a pedestrian study once development is complete to re-assess the need for a midblock crossing or intersection crossing. Road widening design, grading and impact on existing trees Improvements to St. John’s Sideroad between Yonge Street and Bathurst Street are not currently identified in the Region’s 10-Year Road Construction Capital Program. The Region has also addressed the future widening through their conditions of approval which will require the future widening to be completed in accordance with all applicable and required Regional and Engineering Standards. These requirements and any potential impacts on existing trees will be reviewed during the detailed engineering design. Protection of mature maple trees on St. John’s sideroad Two 6m wide landscape buffers have been proposed along St. John’s Sideroad (Blocks 2 & 3) intended to protect existing mature trees along St. John’s Sideroad while also providing screening. In addition to this, the Region has also confirmed that the future General Committee Meeting Agenda Tuesday, June 16, 2020 Item R9 Page 90 of 93 General Committee June 16, 2020 Appendices Page 34 of 23 Report No. PDS20-045 widening of St. John’s Sideroad is not within their current 10 year plan. Timing and availability of regional traffic study. A Transportation study as submitted in support of the proposed development which has been reviewed by Town staff and Regional staff. It is not typical for the Region to conduct its own study for a proposed private development and as such, the Region will not be conducting a study for this development. During the Region’s review and update of their Official Plan (ongoing), Regional Transportation matters are reviewed to inform policies in the updated Plan. Public Suggestions Response Relocate site entrance from St. John’s Sideroad Through the review of the subject applications, there has been no concern expressed by any internal department or external agency regarding the proposed site entrance. An access point off of St. John’s Sideroad is required to service the proposed development. Access location is determined based on safety and operational review. The Region of York has the authority to enforce access requirements and has indicated no objection to the proposed development, subject to the owner satisfying conditions of approval, including but not limited to, the owner implementing intersection improvements as recommended in the Transportation Study and consistent with York Region requirements. Reduce speed limit on St. John’s Sideroad Currently the posted speed limit on this section of St. John’s Sideroad is 60 km/h and York Region is of the opinion that it is appropriate at this time. Speed limit revisions are evaluated against the York Region Speed Limit Policy. The policy considers many roadway characteristics and elements including the number of access driveways, junction with public roads, visibility, roadway geometry, pedestrian and General Committee Meeting Agenda Tuesday, June 16, 2020 Item R9 Page 91 of 93 General Committee June 16, 2020 Appendices Page 35 of 23 Report No. PDS20-045 cyclist exposure, pavement condition and roadside environment (rural or urban). York Region staff review speed limits on Regional roads when there is a change in roadway environment such as new development. As such, staff will re-evaluate the posted speed limit against the policy when the development is built. Install crosswalk on St. John’s Sideroad York Region installs pedestrian and traffic signals in accordance with criteria established by the Ministry of Transportation of Ontario. The criteria requires at a minimum 200 pedestrians crossing the street in the 8 busiest hours of the day. The Region has confirmed that Staff will complete a pedestrian study once development is complete to re- assess the need for a midblock crossing or intersection crossing. Reduce number of units in proposal The total number of units proposed has been reduced from 92 to 90 since the Statutory Public Planning Meeting in June 2019. Town staff and commenting agencies have no objection to the proposed number of units and, as outlined in the staff report, Planning staff are of the opinion that the proposed development is compatible with the existing character of the area as it introduces a similar lot fabric and unit types while also maintaining key natural heritage features and providing open/landscaped space. Increase buffer for existing residents In response to this comment, an additional 10 m wide Buffer/Walkway Block has now been added to the west side of the property through Block 7. Town Staff are satisfied that the buffer provided provides adequate separation and screening between the proposed Plan of Subdivision and the existing residential community to the west. Conserve natural setting, protect trees, keep country road character The proposed development includes a Natural Heritage Block (Block 8) which includes a 10m vegetation protection zone. This Block will be zoned accordingly (EP-ORM) to protect the significant General Committee Meeting Agenda Tuesday, June 16, 2020 Item R9 Page 92 of 93 General Committee June 16, 2020 Appendices Page 36 of 23 Report No. PDS20-045 natural feature which forms part of the Regional Greenlands System. In addition to this, two landscape buffers (Blocks 2 & 3) are proposed along St. John’s Sideroad which will preserve existing mature trees. Where preservation of trees is not possible or appropriate, the Town’s Parks Department will require Compensation Plantings in accordance with Town Standards. A restoration planting plan for the vegetation protection zone for the natural heritage feature (Block 8) is also required by the LSRCA as a condition of approval. Install noise barrier on both north and south sides The owner will be required to submit a noise attenuation report based on the proposed grading and lotting for review and approval to the satisfaction of the Town’s Engineering Department and Region of York prior to execution of the subdivision agreement. Recommended noise attenuation measures are to be implemented to the satisfaction of the Town and Region, as outlined in the conditions of approval. Perform additional traffic assessment of St. John’s Sideroad. A Transportation study was submitted in support of the proposed development. The Region has reviewed this Study and has confirmed that another study (in addition to the study already provided by the Owner for the subject properties) is not required for the proposed development. Town Planning Staff therefore have no concerns. General Committee Meeting Agenda Tuesday, June 16, 2020 Item R9 Page 93 of 93 Public Release June 15, 2020 Town of Aurora Additional Items to General Committee Meeting Agenda Tuesday, June 16, 2020 7 p.m., Video Conference • Revised General Committee Agenda Index • Delegation (a) Don Given, Founding Partner, Malone Given Parsons Ltd. Re: Item R9 – PDS20-045 – Application for Official Plan Amendment, Zoning By-law Amendment, and Draft Plan of Subdivision, Shining Hill Estate Collections Inc., 306, 370, 434 and 488 St John’s Sideroad, File Numbers: OPA-2018-01, ZBA-2018-02 & SUB2018-02 • Item C1 – Memorandum from Mayor Mrakas Re: Letter from Canadian Wireless Telecommunications Association (CWTA), Re: The Benefits and Safety of 5G • Item A1 – Heritage Advisory Committee Meeting Minutes of June 1, 2020 • Item R9 – Replacement Report – PDS20-045 – Application for Official Plan Amendment, Zoning By-law Amendment, and Draft Plan of Subdivision, Shining Hill Estate Collections Inc., 306, 370, 434 and 488 St John’s Sideroad, File Numbers: OPA-2018-01, ZBA-2018-02 & SUB2018-02 • Notice of Motion (a) Councillor Gallo Re: Trail Crossings Public Release June 15, 2020 Town of Aurora General Committee Meeting Agenda (Revised) Tuesday, June 16, 2020 7 p.m., Video Conference Note: This meeting will be held electronically as per Section 20.1 of the Town's Procedure By-law No. 6228-19, as amended, due to the COVID-19 State of Emergency. Mayor Mrakas in the Chair 1. Approval of the Agenda 2. Declarations of Pecuniary Interest and General Nature Thereof 3. Community Presentations 4. Delegations Note: At this time, the Municipal Offices are closed. This meeting will be live streamed at https://www.youtube.com/user/Townofaurora2012/videos. Residents who would like to provide comment on an agenda item are encouraged to visit www.aurora.ca/participation. (a) Don Given, Founding Partner, Malone Given Parsons Ltd. Re: Item R9 – PDS20-045 – Application for Official Plan Amendment, Zoning By-law Amendment, and Draft Plan of Subdivision, Shining Hill Estate Collections Inc., 306, 370, 434 and 488 St John’s Sideroad File Numbers: OPA-2018-01, ZBA-2018-02 & SUB2018-02 (Added Item) 5. Consent Agenda General Committee Meeting Agenda (Revised) Tuesday, June 16, 2020 Page 2 of 7 Items listed under the Consent Agenda are considered routine or no longer require further discussion and are enacted in one motion. The exception to this rule is that a Member may request that one or more items be pulled for discussion and voted on separately. Recommended: That the following Consent Agenda Item, C1, be received: C1. Memorandum from Mayor Mrakas Re: Letter from Canadian Wireless Telecommunications Association (CWTA) Re: The Benefits and Safety of 5G (Added Item) Recommended: 1.That the memorandum regarding Letter from Canadian Wireless Telecommunications Association (CWTA) regarding the Benefits and Safety of 5G, be received for information. 6.Advisory Committee Meeting Minutes A1. Heritage Advisory Committee Meeting Minutes of June 1, 2020 (Added Item) Recommended: 1. That the Heritage Advisory Committee meeting minutes of June 1, 2020 be received for information. 7.Consideration of Items Requiring Discussion (Regular Agenda) R1. CS20-013 – Pros and Cons of Ward and At-large Electoral Systems Recommended: 1.That Report No. CS20-013 be received for information. General Committee Meeting Agenda (Revised) Tuesday, June 16, 2020 Page 3 of 7 R2. CS20-014 – Electoral System Review – Final Report Presentation to be provided by Beate Bowron, President, Beate Bowron Etcetera Recommended: 1. That Report No. CS20-014 be received; and 2. That Council provide direction regarding the adoption of a ward system for the 2022 Municipal Election. R3. CMS20-012 – Library Square – Governance Review Recommended: 1. That Report No. CMS20-012 be received; and 2. That the Not-for-Profit/Municipal Hybrid Model be approved as the governance model for the future operation of Library Square; and 3. That staff work with stakeholders to develop a fees and charges schedule for Library Square and report back to Council at a later date; and 4. That the Director of Community Services form a Space Allocation Working Group comprised of Town staff and key stakeholders that will provide recommendations regarding rental and booking responsibilities for Library Square, including all spaces at 22 Church St. School, the New Addition, Outdoor Square, Bridge and Aurora Public Library; and 5. That the Director of Community Services form a Collaborative Programming Working Group comprised of Town staff and key stakeholders that will provide recommendations regarding program delivery strategies and create a programming and performance schedule for Year 1 and Year 2 of Library Square operations; and 6. That the Director of Community Services form an Information Technology Working Group comprised of Town staff and key stakeholders that will provide recommendations regarding the delivery of IT Services for Library Square, including all spaces at 22 Church Street General Committee Meeting Agenda (Revised) Tuesday, June 16, 2020 Page 4 of 7 School, the New Addition, Outdoor Square, Bridge and Aurora Public Library. R4. CMS20-014 – Hallmark Lands: Request for Information and User Group Survey Re sults Recommended: 1. That Report No. CMS20-014 be received; and 2. That the Director of Operational Services be authorized to commence the tendering process for 100 Vandorf Sideroad and proceed with Capital Project No. 73287 as previously presented; and 3. That staff report back to Council with an updated budget request prior to awarding the contract, if required. R5. FIN20-017 – 2020 User Rate Funded Operations Forecast Update – as of April 30, 2020 Recommended: 1. That Report No. FIN20-017 be received; and 2. That the Town’s present ‘break-even’ water, wastewater and storm water rates be maintained for the remainder of the year; and 3. That a by-law to extend the Town’s ‘break-even’ water, wastewater and storm water rates be brought to the June 23, 2020 Council meeting for approval. R6. OPS20-010 – Award of Tender for Supply and Delivery of One (1) 2021 Combination Dump, Sander and Plow Truck Recommended: 1. That Report No. OPS20-010 be received; and 2. That the total approved budget for Capital Project No. 34440 be increased to $263,900, representing an increase of $23,900 to be funded from the Fleet Repair and Replacement Reserve. General Committee Meeting Agenda (Revised) Tuesday, June 16, 2020 Page 5 of 7 R7. PDS20-032 – Revoking Servicing Allocation Recommended: 1. That Report No. PDS20-032 be received; and 2. That water and sewage capacity previously allocated to the following Site Plan Application be extended for one year: (i) Site Plan Application File SP-2018-03 at 15086-15106 Yonge Street; and 3. That water and sewage capacity previously allocated to the following Site Plan Applications, be revoked: (i) Site Plan Application File SP-2006-13 (formerly D11-13-06) at 15356 Yonge Street; and (ii) Site Plan Application File SP-2013-05 at 15132-15136 Yonge Street. R8. PDS20-037 – Capital Project No. 34527 – Yonge Street at Wellington Street Right Turn Lane Intersection Improvement Proposed Capital Budget Increase Recommended: 1. That Report No. PDS20-037 be received; and 2. That the total approved budget for Capital Project No. 34527 be increased from $75,000 to $94,100, representing an increase of $19,100, to be funded from the Roads Repair and Replacement Reserve. R9. PDS20-045 – Application for Official Plan Amendment, Zoning By-law Amendment, and Draft Plan of Subdivision Shining Hill Estate Collections Inc. 306, 370, 434 and 488 St John’s Sideroad File Numbers: OPA-2018-01, ZBA-2018-02 & SUB2018-02 (Added Item – replacement report) Recommended: General Committee Meeting Agenda (Revised) Tuesday, June 16, 2020 Page 6 of 7 1.That Report No. PDS20-045 be received; and 2.That Official Plan Amendment application OPA-2018-01 (Shining Hills Collections Inc.) be approved to: a)Amend Schedule AA of OPA 37 to re-designate the subject lands from ‘Suburban Residential (SR)’, ‘Suburban Residential (SR-1)’, ‘Core Area Open Space’ and ‘Supporting Area Open Space’ to ‘Suburban Residential (SR-2)’ and ‘Core Area Open Space (COS-1)'; and b)Amend Section 2.0 of OPA 37 to add the following new Section 2.5 ‘Suburban Residential (SR-2)’ and the following policy: “Suburban Residential permits fully serviced single-detached lots with frontages generally greater than 15 metres and areas generally greater than 460 square metres. Accessory uses and home occupations which are accessory to the residential use and compatible with the residential character may also be permitted. Neighbourhood oriented community services such as schools and parks shall also be permitted”; and c)Amend Section 2.0 of OPA 37 to add the following new Section 2.6, ‘Core Area Open Space (COS-1)’ and the following policy: “The Core Area Open Space designation permits lands that are open space, approved stormwater management ponds, and approved road and municipal service crossings. Other than the above permitted services this area shall remain in its natural state with only passive recreation uses permitted"; and 3.That Zoning By-law Amendment application ZBA-2018-02 (Shinning Hills Collections Inc.) be approved to rezone the subject lands from ‘Oak Ridges Moraine Rural General (RU-ORM)’ to ‘Detached Third Density Residential Exception Zone (R3-XX)’, 'Private Open Space (O2-XX)', ‘Oak Ridges Moraine Environmental Protection (EP-ORM)’; and 4.That the Draft Plan of Subdivision application SUB-2018-02 (Shinning Hills Collections Inc.) to create eight blocks be approved, subject to the conditions listed in Schedule ‘A’ to this report; and General Committee Meeting Agenda (Revised) Tuesday, June 16, 2020 Page 7 of 7 5.That Council grant an allocation of 291 persons from the reserve to service the development of 90 single-detached dwellings on the approved Draft Plan of Subdivision; and 6.That the implementing Official Plan Amendment be forwarded to the Region of York for approval; and 7.That the Zoning By-law Amendment ZBA-2018-02 be brought forward to a future Council meeting, after the implementing Official Plan Amendment is approved by the Region of York. 8.Notices of Motion (a)Councillor Gallo Re: Trail Crossings (Added Item) 9.New Business 10.Public Service Announcements 11.Closed Session 12.Adjournment ☐☐☐☐ ܆ ܆ ܆ ܆ 1MFBTFDMJDLIFSFGPSNPSFJOGPSNBUJPO &MFDUSPOJD%FMFHBUJPO3FRVFTU June 16, 2020 - General Committee R9. PDS20-045 - Application for OPA, ZBA and DPOS Shining HIll Estate Collections Inc. File Numberes OPA-2018-01, ZBA 2018-02 & SUB 2018-02 Don Given (Malone Given Parsons Ltd.) Support staff recommendation on Report Item R9. PDS20-045 (Shining Hill Estate Collections Inc.) ✔ ✔ ✔ Additional Items to General Committee Meeting Agenda Tuesday, June 16, 2020 Delegation (a) Page 1 of 1 Memorandum Date: June 16, 2020 To: Members of Council From: Mayor Tom Mrakas Re: Letter from Canadian Wireless Telecommunications Association (CWTA) Re: The Benefits and Safety of 5G Recommendations 1. That the memorandum regarding Letter from Canadian Wireless Telecommunications Association (CWTA) regarding the Benefits and Safety of 5G, be received from information. Attachments Attachment 1 – Letter from CWTA dated June 12, 2020; Re: The Benefits and Safety of 5G 100 John West Way Box 1000 Aurora, Ontario L4G 6J1 Phone: 905-727-3123 ext. 4746 Email: tmrakas@aurora.ca www.aurora.ca Town of Aurora Office of the Mayor Additional Items to General Committee Meeting Agenda Tuesday, June 16, 2020 Item C1 Page 1 of 10 T 613 233 4888 F 613 233 2032 www.cwta.ca 300-80 rue Elgin Street Ottawa, ON K1P 6R2 June 12, 2020 via email : tmrakas@aurora.ca Dear Mayor Markas: Re: The Benefits and Safety of 5G As you have likely heard, 5G, the next generation of wireless technology is being introduced around the world, including Canada. New generations of wireless technology have always ushered in a wave of economic growth by improving the way people live and work, and 5G will be no exception. 5G will not only help connect more Canadians to the internet, it will propel a wave of innovation that will increase Canadians’ productivity and quality of life, and enable governments at all levels to deliver services more efficiently. Unfortunately, there is a small, but vocal, group of people spreading misinformation and fear concerning the safety of 5G. This happened during the introduction of 3G and 4G wireless, the technology that Canadians have safely relied upon for more than a decade, but their message has been amplified through the pervasiveness of social media. As you and your citizens have likely already heard some of this misinformation, we are writing to set the record straight. Contrary to the myths circulating on social media and elsewhere, there is a broad consensus among governments and health organizations that there are no established health risks from low-energy radio frequencies used in wireless telecommunication, including 5G. The radio frequencies used in wireless telecommunications are similar to those used by radio, television, and even baby monitors. The use of these low energy frequencies has been studied for decades and there is no substantiated evidence of harmful health effects when used in accordance with the safety standards established by regulators around the world, including Canada. One of the most recent reports is the February 2020 report by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Following a comprehensive review of the scientific literature regarding research into a possible connection between radio frequency energy and cancer, the FDA concluded, “there are no quantifiable adverse health effects in humans caused by exposures at or under the current cell phone exposure limits.”1 Also earlier this year, the International Commission on Non-ionizing Radiation Production (ICNIRP) updated its guidelines for limiting exposure to electromagnetic fields in the 100 kHz to 300 GHz range (frequencies used in wireless communications fall within this range) and stated that “5G technologies will not be able to cause harm when [the ICNIRP guidelines] are adhered to.”2 1 https://www.fda.gov/media/135043/download 2 See also: https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2020/mar/12/5g-safe-radiation-watchdog-health Attachment 1 Additional Items to General Committee Meeting Agenda Tuesday, June 16, 2020 Item C1 Page 2 of 10 2 It is also important to note that 5G will initially operate in the same radio frequency band as 4G, and while it will eventually use higher band frequencies, these higher frequencies are still considered low-energy frequencies and do not mean higher exposure levels. While deployment of 5G is still in its infancy in Canada, testing of 5G installations in countries where 5G is more widespread have shown that these 5G installations have electromagnetic emissions that are small fractions of the established safety limits. For example, the regulator in the UK, OfCom, completed a test of 5G installations in the UK and found that the “the highest level we observed in the band used for 5G was just 0.039% of the reference level.”3 Similar findings have been recorded in Australia.4 Nevertheless, false information continues to be published about the safety of 5G. In Australia, concerns regarding the propagation of such false claims prompted the Australian government to publish a warning to Australians, “to be cautious of claims from anti-5G campaigns. These campaigns are generating unfounded fears and concern within the community.”5 The Government of Canada has also raised concerns about the increase of misinformation on social media and on the internet, and cautions that: “[m]isinformation and opinions on the health risks from exposure to radiofrequency fields are increasing on social media and on the Internet. There have been claims linking the deployment of 5G networks to the novel coronavirus (COVID-19) and to increased risks of cancer. Health Canada confirms there is no scientific basis to these claims.”6 Conspiracy theorists have also used the outbreak of COVID-19 to perpetuate their false claims by attempting to link 5G to the pandemic. This has led cellular towers and other infrastructure to be vandalized in jurisdictions such as the UK, where the government and even social media companies have taken steps to combat these false claims.7 We have also recently seen suspicious fires at a few 3G and 4G cell sites in Quebec. While these incidents are still under investigation and the motivation is unknown, vandalism of critical infrastructure is not only senseless; it is dangerous for all Canadians as it can deprive them of critical services, including 9-1-1 service. The spread of false and confusing information on 5G has made it difficult for Canadians to be aware of the facts about this important technology, and the ways in which it will improve quality of life and boost our economy. To make it easier for you and your citizens to find accurate, up-to-date information on 5G, including the strict safety standards followed by our industry, we put together the following resources: 1. Setting the Record Straight on 5G Wireless & RF Safety – a copy of which is enclosed and can also be found at https://www.5gcc.ca/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/Setting-the-Record-Straight-on-5G- Wireless-RF-Safety-April-28-2020.pdf 2. Radio Frequency Safety Standards- https://www.cwta.ca/for-consumers/radiofrequency-safety- standards/ 3 https://www.ofcom.org.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0015/190005/emf-test-summary.pdf 4 https://exchange.telstra.com.au/5-surveys-of-5g-show-eme-levels-well-below-safety-limits/ 5 https://www.arpansa.gov.au/news/misinformation-about-australias-5g-network 6 http://www.ic.gc.ca/eic/site/smt-gst.nsf/eng/sf11467.html 7 “Twitter said the search prompt would inform users that the government had seen no link between 5G and COVID-19, and include a link to a government website with credible, factual and verified information in relation to 5G.” https://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/2020/05/06/twitter-steps-fight-back-against-5g-coronavirus-conspiracy- theories/ Additional Items to General Committee Meeting Agenda Tuesday, June 16, 2020 Item C1 Page 3 of 10 3 3. RF Safety – What the experts say - https://www.cwta.ca/for-consumers/rf-safety-what-the-experts- say/ We have also commissioned the following independent studies regarding the benefits that 5G will bring to the Canadian economy, and to communities such as yours: 1. Fuel for Innovation: Canada’s Path in the Race to 5G - https://bit.ly/2W3VnYY 2. Accelerating 5G in Canada: Benefits for Cities and Rural Communities - https://bit.ly/2Sh0GDc It is clearly in the interest of all Canadians to have a balanced and fact-based discussion about how 5G wireless technologies will impact their lives. Thank you for your interest in learning more about 5G, and please do not hesitate to reach out to us if you have any questions or if we can be of further assistance. Best regards, Robert Ghiz President & CEO C.C. Harold Kim Wendy Gaertner Sandra Humfryes Michael Thompson Rachel Gilliland John Gallo Doug Nadorozny Additional Items to General Committee Meeting Agenda Tuesday, June 16, 2020 Item C1 Page 4 of 10 ŗ ć ŔŒŔŒ ėĬŗė Additional Items to General Committee Meeting Agenda Tuesday, June 16, 2020 Item C1 Page 5 of 10 %°ôēÄƆéÄēÄŊŠøĞēĞÚ ƆøŊÄćÄŏŏŠÄ°ôēĞćĞéƌôŏ°ŊÄŠÄºƆƅÄĞÚ Ä°ĞēĞďø°éŊĞƆŠôēºøďĶŊĞƅÄºŠôÄƆƌ ēºøēŏćøƅÄēºƆĞŊĄĻ à4¸ŠôÄēÄƋŠéÄēÄŊŠøĞēĞÚƆøŊÄćÄŏŏēÄŠƆĞŊĄŏ¸ Ɔøćć§ÄēĞÄƋ°ÄĶŠøĞēĻtôÄºƅē°Äº °Ķ§øćøŠøÄŏĞÚà4ƆøććŊÄŏŬćŠøēÄƅÄēÚŏŠÄŊ ďĞ§øćÄºŠŏĶÄÄºŏ¸Äē§ćÄøēēĞƅŠøƅÄēÄƆ ĶŊĞºŬ°ŠŏēºŏÄŊƅø°Äŏ¸ēºôÄćĶ°ĞēēÄ°ŠďĞŊÄ ēºøēŏŠĞŠôÄ=ēŠÄŊēÄŠĻŬŠŏƆøŠôŠôÄ øēŠŊĞºŬ°ŠøĞēĞÚĞŠôÄŊēÄƆŠÄ°ôēĞćĞéøÄŏ¸à4°ē §ÄŠôÄŏŬ§ÿÄ°ŠĞÚďøŏŬēºÄŊŏŠēºøēéēº¸øē ŏĞďÄ°ŏÄŏ¸ºÄćø§ÄŊŠÄďøŏøēÚĞŊďŠøĞēĻ tôÄŊÄøŏēøē°ŊÄŏøēéďĞŬēŠĞÚ ďøŏøēÚĞŊďŠøĞē°øŊ°ŬćŠøēéĞēŠôÄ=ēŠÄŊēÄŠēº ŠôŊĞŬéôĞŠôÄŊ°ôēēÄćŏ§ĞŬŠĶĞŏŏø§ćÄ ôŊďÚŬćÄÚÚÄ°ŠŏÚŊĞďà4ďĞ§øćÄƆøŊÄćÄŏŏ ēÄŠƆĞŊĄŏĻ ĞēŠŊŊƌŠĞŠôÄŏÄ°ćøďŏ¸ŠôÄŊÄŊÄēĞ ÄŏŠ§ćøŏôÄºôÄćŠôŊøŏĄŏÚŊĞďŠôÄ ŊºøĞÚŊÄĿŬÄē°ƌƆƅÄŏŬŏÄºøēà4ēÄŠƆĞŊĄŏ øē°°ĞŊºē°ÄƆøŠôĶĶćø°§ćÄŏÚÄŠƌ ŏŠēºŊºŏĻ Ʋ ÄŬŊéÄƌĞŬŠĞ§Ä °ŬŠøĞŬŏĞÚ°ćøďŏÚŊĞď ēŠø÷à4°ďĶøéēŏ tôÄŏÄ°ďĶøéēŏŊÄ éÄēÄŊŠøēéŬēÚĞŬēºÄº ÚÄŊŏēº°Ğē°ÄŊē ƆøŠôøēŠôÄ°ĞďďŬēøŠƌĻŇ ĵ ĸĹ ŗĞ à4ĞŊŅÚøÚŠôéÄēÄŊŠøĞēŇŊÄÚÄŊŏŠĞŠôÄēÄƋŠ éÄēÄŊŠøĞēĞÚďĞ§øćÄƆøŊÄćÄŏŏŏŠēºŊºŏēº ŠÄ°ôēĞćĞéøÄŏĻà4ƆøććÄē§ćÄÚŬććƌ°ĞēēÄ°ŠÄºēº ďĞ§øćÄŏĞ°øÄŠƌ¸ēººÄćøƅÄŊŬēĶŊÄ°ÄºÄēŠÄº §ÄēÄÚøŠŏŠĞ°øŠøƓÄēŏ¸øēºŬŏŠŊƌēºéĞƅÄŊēďÄēŠĻ tôÄ°ĞēŏŬćŠøēéÚøŊďU°°ÄēŠŬŊÄôŏÄŏŠøďŠÄºŠôŠ à4ƆøććŅŏøéēøÚø°ēŠćƌøďĶŊĞƅÄēºøēŏňĿŬćøŠƌĞÚ Ʋ ¬tôÄŊÄøŏēĞ ŏŬ§ŏŠēŠøƅÄÄƅøºÄē°Ä ŠôŠºƅÄŊŏÄôÄćŠô ÄÚÚÄ°Šŏ¸øē°ćŬºøēé °ē°ÄŊ¸°ēĞ°°ŬŊøē ĶÄĞĶćÄÄƋĶĞŏÄºŠĞl3 ćÄƅÄćŏŠĞŊ§ÄćĞƆŠôÄ ćøďøŠŏŏÄŠ§ƌ øēŠÄŊēŠøĞēć ŏŠēºŊºŏĻŇ ĵ ĸĹ ćøÚÄēºŠôÄÄ°ĞēĞďƌŠĞŠôÄŠŬēÄĞÚēÄŊćƌÁæƗēēŬć4"jŬĶćøÚŠ§ƌũƗũśŇēº ºº°ćĞŏÄŠĞũàƗ¸ƗƗƗĶÄŊďēÄēŠÿĞ§ŏŠĞŠôÄēºøēÄ°ĞēĞďƌøēŠôÄŏďÄ ŠøďÄĶÄŊøĞºĸU°°ÄēŠŬŊÄ·3ŬÄćÚĞŊ=ēēĞƅŠøĞē·ēºňŏjŠôøēŠôÄl°ÄŠĞà4ĹĻ Additional Items to General Committee Meeting Agenda Tuesday, June 16, 2020 Item C1 Page 6 of 10 l3ÄēÄŊéƌŬŏÄºÚĞŊ ďĞ§øćÄĶôĞēÄŏ¸§ŏÄ ŏŠŠøĞēŏĞŠôÄŊ ƆøŊÄćÄŏŏŏÄŊƅø°Äŏôŏ §ÄÄēŏŠŬºøÄºÚĞŊ ºÄ°ºÄŏĻ tôÄŏÄŏŠŬºøÄŏôƅÄ ŊÄŏŬćŠÄºøēēĞ ŏŬ§ŏŠēŠøŠÄº ŏ°øÄēŠøÚø°ÄƅøºÄē°ÄĞÚ ôŊďÚŬćôÄćŠôÄÚÚÄ°Šŏ ÚŊĞďl3ŠÄ°ôēĞćĞéøÄŏ ŬŏÄºƆøŠôøēēŠøĞēć ēºøēŠÄŊēŠøĞēć ŏÚÄŠƌŏŠēºŊºŏĻ SĞŏŠĞÚŠôÄ ďøŏøēÚĞŊďŠøĞēŊĞŬēº ŠôÄŏÚÄŠƌĞÚ°ÄććŠĞƆÄŊŏ ēºďĞ§øćÄºÄƅø°Äŏ¸ øē°ćŬºøēéà4¸°ÄēŠÄŊŏĞē ŠôÄøŊŬŏÄĞÚ ŊºøĞÚŊÄĿŬÄē°ƌĸl3Ĺ ÄēÄŊéƌĻ Ğ ĹmÅƆùÅƇşğÛşkŭ¨ĈùŐõÅ»ş MùšÅŋšŭŋÅş¨ÅšƇÅÅĔşŪƘƘÍş Ĕ»şŪƘĨÍşğÛşmÅĈÅƆĔ±Åşšğş m»ùğÛŋÅŀŭÅĔ±ƍşm»ùšùğĔş Ĕ»şĔ±Åŋ¹ş4Å¨ŋŭŋƍş ŪƘŪƘĺşÓ yļqļş4ğğ»şĔ»ş #ŋŭêş»ĐùĔùŐšŋšùğĔ Ĺ>U>mkş5ŭù»ÅĈùĔÅŐşÛğŋş MùĐùšùĔêş&ƌķğŐŭŋÅşšğş &ĈÅ±šŋğĐêĔÅšù±ş4ùÅĈ»Őş ĹĨƘƘşą;ƔşšğşťƘƘş5;Ɣĺ¹ş ŪƘŪƘĺşÓ >ĔšÅŋĔšùğĔĈş ğĐĐùŐŐùğĔşğĔşUğĔø >ğĔùƔùĔêşm»ùšùğĔş kŋğšÅ±šùğĔ ÏSÄŏŬŊÄďÄēŠŏćŏĞŏôĞƆŠôŠŠôÄ°ĞēŠŊø§ŬŠøĞēĞÚà4ŠĞ ŠôÄŠĞŠćÄďøŏŏøĞēŏćÄƅÄćĞ§ŏÄŊƅÄºøŏ°ŬŊŊÄēŠćƌćĞƆÒ ŠôÄ ôøéôÄŏŠćÄƅÄćƆÄĞ§ŏÄŊƅÄºøēŠôÄ§ēºŬŏÄºÚĞŊà4Ɔŏ ÿŬŏŠƗĻƗŤęĺĞÚŠôÄŊÄÚÄŊÄē°ÄćÄƅÄćŇ ÏŠôÄŊÄŊÄēĞĿŬēŠøÚø§ćÄºƅÄŊŏÄôÄćŠôÄÚÚÄ°Šŏøē ôŬďēŏ°ŬŏÄº§ƌÄƋĶĞŏŬŊÄŏŠĞŊŬēºÄŊŠôÄ°ŬŊŊÄēŠ°Äćć ĶôĞēÄÄƋĶĞŏŬŊÄćøďøŠŏĻŇ ÏĻà4ŠÄ°ôēĞćĞéøÄŏƆøććēĞŠ§Ä§ćÄŠĞ°ŬŏÄôŊďƆôÄē ¬ŠôÄ=T=ljéŬøºÄćøēÄŏŊÄºôÄŊÄºŠĞĻŇ ŗĞ Ĺ&ĈÅ±šŋğĐêĔÅšù±ş4ùÅĈ»ş Ĺ&T4ĺşĐÅŐŭŋÅĐÅĔšŐşĔÅŋş á5şĐğ¨ùĈÅşķõğĔÅş¨ŐÅş ŐššùğĔŐ¸şqŭĐĐŋƍşğÛş mÅŐŭĈšŐ¹ş4Å¨ŋŭŋƍşŪƘŪƘĺşÓ yKş\ÛÛù±ÅşğÛş ğĐĐŭĔù±šùğĔŐşĹ\ÛğĐĺ 3ĞŊďĞŊÄøēÚĞŊďŠøĞēĞēƆôŠ éĞƅÄŊēďÄēŠéÄē°øÄŏēº øēŠÄŊēŠøĞēć§ĞºøÄŏôƅÄŠĞ ŏƌ§ĞŬŠl3pÚÄŠƌ ƅøŏøŠ· ôŠŠĶŏ·gg§øŠĻćƌgũƅÚũ% Ʋ Ʋ Ʋ Additional Items to General Committee Meeting Agenda Tuesday, June 16, 2020 Item C1 Page 7 of 10 ġ Ğ ēºňŏĶĶŊĞ°ôŠĞl3ŏÚÄŠƌøŏďĞēéŠôÄďĞŏŠ ŏŠŊøēéÄēŠøēŠôÄƆĞŊćºĻ:ÄćŠôēºôŏ ÄŏŠ§ćøŏôÄºéŬøºÄćøēÄŏÚĞŊŏÚÄÄƋĶĞŏŬŊÄŠĞl3 ÄēÄŊéƌ¸ĄēĞƆēŏpÚÄŠƌĞºÄś¸Ɔôø°ôŬŠøćøƓÄŏ ƅÄŊƌ°ĞēŏÄŊƅŠøƅÄćøďøŠŏŏÄŠŠćÄŏŠàƗŠøďÄŏ §ÄćĞƆŠôÄŠôŊÄŏôĞćºĞÚēƌĶĞŠÄēŠøćºƅÄŊŏÄ ôÄćŠôÄÚÚÄ°ŠŏĻ=ēēĞƅŠøĞē¸p°øÄē°Äēº%°ĞēĞďø° "ÄƅÄćĞĶďÄēŠēºĸ=p%"ĹŬŏÄŏpÚÄŠƌĞºÄśøē ŏÄŠŠøēéøŠŏŏŠēºŊºŏēºŊÄéŬćŠøĞēŏÚĞŊl3 ÄƋĶĞŏŬŊÄćøďøŠŏÚĞŊƆøŊÄćÄŏŏºÄƅø°Äŏēº ŏŏĞ°øŠÄºøēÚŊŏŠŊŬ°ŠŬŊÄ¸ŏŬ°ôŏēŠÄēēŏĻ UććƆøŊÄćÄŏŏºÄƅø°ÄŏďŬŏŠďÄÄŠ=p%"ňŏ ŊÄĿŬøŊÄďÄēŠŏēº§Ä°ÄŊŠøÚøÄº§ÄÚĞŊÄ§ÄøēéŏĞćºøē ēºĻUēŠÄēēøēŏŠććŠøĞēŏďŬŏŠćŏĞďÄÄŠ =p%"ňŏŊÄĿŬøŊÄďÄēŠŏŠććŠøďÄŏŏ°ĞēºøŠøĞēĞÚ °ŊŊøÄŊňŏćø°ÄēŏÄĻ ēºňŏďĞ§øćÄēÄŠƆĞŊĄĞĶÄŊŠĞŊŏ°ĞēŏøŏŠÄēŠćƌ ďĞēøŠĞŊŠôÄøŊēÄŠƆĞŊĄŏ¸ēº=p%"ŬºøŠŏƆøŊÄćÄŏŏ ºÄƅø°ÄŏēºēŠÄēēøēŏŠććŠøĞēŏŠĞÄēŏŬŊÄ °ĞďĶćøē°ÄƆøŠôŏÚÄŠƌŏŠēºŊºŏĻ $ ēºňŏ ŏ°øÄē°Ä÷§ŏÄº ŏÚÄŠƌŏŠēºŊºŏ ŊÄ°ĞēŏøŏŠÄēŠ ƆøŠôŠôÄŏÚÄŠƌ ŏŠēºŊºŏŬŏÄºøē ĞŠôÄŊĶŊŠŏĞÚŠôÄ ƆĞŊćº¸øē°ćŬºøēé ŠôÄxēøŠÄºpŠŠÄŏ¸ ŠôÄ%ŬŊĞĶÄē xēøĞē¸?Ķē¸ UŬŏŠŊćøēº TÄƆÄćēºĻ ĸĹ ćŗ SĞ§øćÄ°ĞďďŬēø°ŠøĞēŏŬŏÄºøÚÚÄŊÄēŠĶĞŊŠøĞēŏĞÚŠôÄ ŊºøĞÚŊÄĿŬÄē°ƌŏĶÄ°ŠŊŬď¸ĞÚŠÄēŊÄÚÄŊŊÄºŠĞŏćĞƆ¸ ďøº¸ēºôøéô§ēºŏĶÄ°ŠŊŬďĻ ďďƅÄ ŏĶÄ°ŠŊŬďøŏĞēÄĞÚŠôÄŏĶÄ°ŠŊŬď§ēºŏŠôŠ Ɔøćć§ÄŬŏÄºÚĞŊà4¸§ŬŠºÄŏĶøŠÄ°ćøďŏŠĞŠôÄ°ĞēŠŊŊƌ¸ ďďƅÄ ŏĶÄ°ŠŊŬďĸŤƗ4:ƓŠĞŤƗƗ4ôƓĹøŏēĞŠēÄƆēº øŏćŊÄºƌ§ÄøēéŬŏÄºŠĞºƌÚĞŊÚøƋÄºƆøŊÄćÄŏŏ °ĞďďŬēø°ŠøĞēŏēºŏŠÄććøŠÄ=ēŠÄŊēÄŠŏÄŊƅø°ÄŏĻtôÄ ÄƋøŏŠøēé=p%"l3ÄƋĶĞŏŬŊÄćøďøŠŏēºŊÄéŬćŠøĞēŏĶĶćƌ ŠĞŬŏÄĞÚďďƅÄ ŏĶÄ°ŠŊŬďĻ Additional Items to General Committee Meeting Agenda Tuesday, June 16, 2020 Item C1 Page 8 of 10 ĴœśćŗĞ tôÄ[="÷ħęĶēºÄďø°ôŏéøƅÄēŊøŏÄŠĞďēƌ §ŏÄćÄŏŏ°ĞēŏĶøŊ°ƌŠôÄĞŊøÄŏ¸øē°ćŬºøēéŠŠÄďĶŠŏŠĞ ćøēĄà4ŠĞ[="÷ħęĻ ôøćÄŠôøŏďƌŠôôŏ§ÄÄēƆøºÄćƌºÄ§ŬēĄÄº¸øŠôŏ ćÄºŠĞŠôÄƅēºćøƓŠøĞē ĞÚŏÄƅÄŊćēŠÄēē øēŏŠććŠøĞēŏøēĞŠôÄŊ°ĞŬēŠŊøÄŏĻ pŬ°ô°ŠøĞēŏŊÄēĞŠĞēćƌÚĞĞćøŏô¸ŠôÄƌ°ēºÄĶŊøƅÄ ÚÚÄ°ŠÄº°ĞďďŬēøŠøÄŏ¸øē°ćŬºøēéÚøŊŏŠŊÄŏĶĞēºÄŊŏ ēºę÷ħ÷ħŏÄŊƅø°ÄĶŊĞƅøºÄŊŏ¸ĞÚ°ŊøŠø°ć ŠÄćÄ°ĞďďŬēø°ŠøĞēŏŏÄŊƅø°ÄŏĻ Ʋ +&(8 UƆĞŊćºƆøºÄĞēćøēÄ °ĞēŏĶøŊ°ƌŠôÄĞŊƌ ôŏŠŠÄďĶŠÄºŠĞ ćøēĄà4°ÄććĶôĞēÄ ŠÄ°ôēĞćĞéƌŏ §ÄøēéĞēÄĞÚŠôÄ °ŬŏÄŏĞÚŠôÄ °ĞŊĞēƅøŊŬŏĻSēƌ °ÄććŠĞƆÄŊŏĞŬŠŏøºÄ ĞÚŠôÄxĻpĻôƅÄ §ÄÄēŏÄŠĞēÚøŊÄŏ ŊÄŏŬćŠĻà4 ŠÄ°ôēĞćĞéƌºĞÄŏ T[t°ŬŏÄ °ĞŊĞēƅøŊŬŏĻŇ ĵ Ę ĸ Ĺ 3ĞŊďĞŊÄºÄ§ŬēĄøēéĞÚ à4g[="÷ħę ŏŠĞŊøÄŏƅøŏøŠ· ôŠŠĶŏ·ggƆƆƆĻĶĞƌēŠÄŊĻĞŊégŀŏÕàé Ğ xēćøĄÄď°ŊĞ°Äććŏ¸ŠôÄćŊéÄŊºøĞēŠÄēē øēŏŠććŠøĞēŏƌĞŬŏÄÄĞē§ŬøćºøēéŊĞĞÚŠĞĶŏ¸ćĞēé ôøéôƆƌŏĞŊøēÚøÄćºŏ¸ŏďćć°ÄććŏŊÄ°ĞďĶ°ŠŊºøĞ ÄĿŬøĶďÄēŠēºēŠÄēēøēŏŠććŠøĞēŏ ŠôŠ°ē§Ä ĶĞŏøŠøĞēÄºĞēƆøºÄƅŊøÄŠƌĞÚŏŠŊŬ°ŠŬŊÄŏ¸ŏŬ°ôŏ ŏŠŊÄÄŠćøéôŠŏĞŊŠôÄŏøºÄĞÚ§ŬøćºøēéŏĻ tôÄŏÄćĞƆ÷ĶĞƆÄŊÄº°ÄććŏøŠÄŏŊÄŠƌĶø°ććƌŬŏÄº ŠĞŠŊēŏďøŠćŊéÄďĞŬēŠŏĞÚºŠĞƅÄŊ ŊÄćŠøƅÄćƌŏôĞŊŠºøŏŠē°ÄŏĻtôøŏććĞƆŏÚĞŊďĞŊÄ ÄÚÚø°øÄēŠŬŏÄĞÚl3ŏĶÄ°ŠŊŬď¸øē°ŊÄŏÄºēÄŠƆĞŊĄ °Ķ°øŠƌ¸ēº§ÄŠŠÄŊďĞ§øćÄƆøŊÄćÄŏŏÄƋĶÄŊøÄē°Ä ÚĞŊŬŏÄŊŏĻUŏŠôÄƌŊÄŬŏÄºÚĞŊ°ĞďďŬēø°Šøēé ĞƅÄŊŏôĞŊŠºøŏŠē°Äŏ¸ŏďćć°ÄććŏŬŏÄćĞƆÄŊćÄƅÄćŏ ĞÚĶĞƆÄŊēºĶŊĞºŬ°ÄćĞƆÄŊl3ÄēÄŊéƌÄďøŏŏøĞēŏ Šôēď°ŊĞ°ÄććŏĻUććŏďćć°ÄććøēŏŠććŠøĞēŏďŬŏŠ °ĞďĶćƌƆøŠôŏÚÄŠƌŊÄéŬćŠøĞēŏĻ Additional Items to General Committee Meeting Agenda Tuesday, June 16, 2020 Item C1 Page 9 of 10 7EHMS+VIUYIRG]*RIVK]ERHEJIX]Ò ôŠŠĶŏ·gg§øŠĻćƌgũŏƆkÚ +EGXLIIXƭ ;LEXMWEJIX](SHI$Ò ôŠŠĶŏ·gg§øŠĻćƌgũJÿď?4T ;LEXXLI*\TIVXWE]Ò ôŠŠĶŏ·gg§øŠĻćƌgũƅÚũ% +EGXWEFSYXXS[IVWÒ ôŠŠĶŏ·gg§øŠĻćƌgũ3ę?4=Ä ,(EREHE(SYRGMPÒ ƆƆƆĻàé°°Ļ°gŊÄŏĞŬŊ°Äŏ ę tôÄēºøēøŊÄćÄŏŏtÄćÄ°ĞďďŬēø°ŠøĞēŏUŏŏĞ°øŠøĞēøŏŠôÄŊÄ°ĞéēøƓÄº ŬŠôĞŊøŠƌĞēƆøŊÄćÄŏŏøŏŏŬÄŏ¸ºÄƅÄćĞĶďÄēŠŏēºŠŊÄēºŏøēēºĻ øŏøŠƆƆƆĻ°ƆŠĻ°ÚĞŊďĞŊÄøēÚĞŊďŠøĞēĻ Additional Items to General Committee Meeting Agenda Tuesday, June 16, 2020 Item C1 Page 10 of 10 Town of Aurora Heritage Advisory Committee Meeting Minutes Date: Monday, June 1, 2020 Time and Location: 7 p.m., Video Conference Committee Members: Jeff Lanthier (Chair), Neil Asselin, John Green, Councillor Sandra Humfryes, Bob McRoberts (departed 8:21 p.m.), Mayor Tom Mrakas (ex-officio) Members Absent: Matthew Kinsella, Hoda Soliman (Vice Chair) Other Attendees: Carlson Tsang, Planner, Linda Bottos, Council/Committee Coordinator This meeting was held electronically as per Section 20.1 of the Town's Procedure By- law No. 6228-19, as amended, due to the COVID-19 State of Emergency. The Chair called the meeting to order at 7:09 p.m. The Chair relinquished the chair to Neil Asselin at 8:35 p.m., during consideration of Item 4 – HAC20-008 – Streetscape Improvements for the Northeast Old Aurora Heritage Conservation District, and resumed the chair at 8:50 p.m. 1. Approval of the Agenda Moved by Councillor Humfryes Seconded by Bob McRoberts That the agenda as circulated by Legislative Services be approved. Carried 2. Declarations of Pecuniary Interest and General Nature Thereof Additional Items to General Committee Meeting Agenda Tuesday, June 16, 2020 Item A1 Page 1 of 6 Heritage Advisory Committee Meeting Minutes Monday, June 1, 2020 Page 2 of 6 Declarations of pecuniary interest under the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. M.50, were made by Jeff Lanthier and Bob McRoberts regarding Item 4, Report No. HAC20-008 – Streetscape Improvements for the Northeast Old Aurora Heritage Conservation District, as they each own property in the subject area. Mr. Lanthier and Mr. McRoberts did not participate in any discussion or voting on Item 4. 3. Receipt of the Minutes Heritage Advisory Committee Meeting Minutes of February 3, 2020 Moved by John Green Seconded by Councillor Humfryes That the Heritage Advisory Committee meeting minutes of February 3, 2020, be received for information. Carried 4. Delegations Moved by Councillor Humfryes Seconded by John Green That each delegation be allowed to speak to their respective agenda item just prior to the consideration of each item. Carried (a) Douglas Reeve, co-owner of 67 Catherine Avenue Re: Item 1 – HAC20-005 – Major Heritage Permit Application File: HPA- 2019-08, 67 Catherine Avenue Mr. Reeve expressed appreciation to the Committee and staff for their efforts through the heritage preservation process. Moved by Councillor Humfryes Seconded by John Green That the comments of the delegation be received and referred to Item 1. Carried Additional Items to General Committee Meeting Agenda Tuesday, June 16, 2020 Item A1 Page 2 of 6 Heritage Advisory Committee Meeting Minutes Monday, June 1, 2020 Page 3 of 6 (b) Claudio Brutto, representing Cedartrail Developments Inc. Re: Item 2 – HAC20-006 – Heritage Street Naming for Cedartrail Subdivision File: SUB-2014-04 – 14288 Yonge Street Mr. Brutto presented background and history of the current owner, Mr. Frank Dodaro, principal of Cedartrail Developments Inc. and North Star Homes Inc., in support of his recommendation that the new private road be named Dodaro Lane or North Star Lane. Moved by John Green Seconded by Neil Asselin That the comments of the delegation be received and referred to Item 2. Carried (c) Wayne Morgan, representing agent for owner of 15074 Yonge Street Re: Item 3 – HAC20-007 – Heritage Designation and Consent Application for 15074 Yonge Street (Poplar Villa) Mr. Morgan presented background and highlighted various elements of his Cultural Heritage Impact Assessment of the subject property, including the heritage value of the building and landscape, and aspects of the proposed severance and Heritage Easement Agreement. He recommended that the Committee support the proposed heritage designation of the property and the proposed severance subject to conditions. Moved by Councillor Humfryes Seconded by John Green That the comments of the delegation be received and referred to Item 3. Carried 5. Matters for Consideration 1. HAC20-005 – Major Heritage Permit Application File: HPA-2019-08, 67 Catherine Avenue The Committee expressed support for the applicant’s proposal to partially demolish the existing rear addition to accommodate a proposed new addition, Additional Items to General Committee Meeting Agenda Tuesday, June 16, 2020 Item A1 Page 3 of 6 Heritage Advisory Committee Meeting Minutes Monday, June 1, 2020 Page 4 of 6 noting that the new addition would blend in with the neighbourhood. The Committee also expressed appreciation of the collaborative process between staff and the property owner. Moved by Councillor Humfryes Seconded by John Green 1. That Report No. HAC20-005 be received; and 2. That the Heritage Advisory Committee’s comments regarding Heritage Permit Application File: HPA-2019-08 be received and referred to staff for consideration and action as appropriate. Carried 2. HAC20-006 – Heritage Street Naming for Cedartrail Subdivision File: SUB-2014-04 – 14288 Yonge Street The Committee inquired about the proposed street name and staff provided clarification regarding Mrs. Phila Cannon and the Cannon family farmhouse. The Committee expressed support for staff’s recommendation regarding the proposed street name Phila Lane in order to honour the history of the family and satisfy the condition previously set by Council. The Committee inquired about the street naming policy and the possibility of adding the name Dodaro to the street name list, and staff provided a brief overview of the policy and process. Moved by John Green Seconded by Councillor Humfryes 1. That Report No. HAC20-005 be received; and 2. That the Heritage Advisory Committee’s comments regarding heritage street naming for Cedartrail Subdivision File: SUB-2014-04 at 14288 Yonge Street be received and referred to staff for consideration and action as appropriate. Carried Additional Items to General Committee Meeting Agenda Tuesday, June 16, 2020 Item A1 Page 4 of 6 Heritage Advisory Committee Meeting Minutes Monday, June 1, 2020 Page 5 of 6 3. HAC20-007 – Heritage Designation and Consent Application for 15074 Yonge Street (Poplar Villa) The Committee inquired about the permitted uses of the property and staff provided clarification regarding its current designation and permitted uses within the “PDS1 Promenade Downtown Shoulder – Central Commercial” zone, an area intended for intensification. The Committee expressed concerns about the severance proposal respecting the resultant frontage size and balance of the lot with an added structure on the south side, the Town’s influence on the architecture of a new structure that would be complementary to the existing building, and the potential for the severed parcel to be joined with the property to the south to accommodate a new development. The Committee suggested that, with the heritage designation and restrictions on the scale of any new development, the benefits to intensification would be greatly reduced. Staff advised that a potential development agreement would apply to the severed parcels with specific restrictions to ensure protection of the heritage attributes including the front yard landscape. Staff noted that any potential development of the severed lot would be subject to the regular site plan review process including review by the Committee and Council. Staff agreed to confirm whether a development agreement registered on title would remain if the severed parcel was merged with another lot. The Committee expressed support for the heritage designation of the property, including interior elements, under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act, and did not support the proposed severance. Moved by Councillor Humfryes Seconded by John Green 1. That Report No. HAC20-007 be received; and 2. That the Heritage Advisory Committee’s comments regarding the heritage designation for 15074 Yonge Street be received and referred to staff for consideration. Carried Additional Items to General Committee Meeting Agenda Tuesday, June 16, 2020 Item A1 Page 5 of 6 Heritage Advisory Committee Meeting Minutes Monday, June 1, 2020 Page 6 of 6 4. HAC20-008 – Streetscape Improvements for the Northeast Old Aurora Heritage Conservation District Staff provided an overview of the report providing a status update on the streetscape improvement recommendations of the Northeast Old Aurora Heritage Conservation District (NEOAHCD) Plan that have been implemented by the Town and those that are outstanding due to budget constraints. The Committee discussed and agreed that the remaining streetscape improvement recommendations of the NEOAHCD Plan should be moved forward and suggested that staff be directed by Council to complete a cost analysis for consideration in the next budget cycle. It was further suggested that, once the Downtown Street Wall Mural Program is established, the Committee may wish to consider how the retaining wall in front of Our Lady of Grace could be dedicated to the commemoration of the Town’s heritage and the district as part of the streetscape analysis. Moved by John Green Seconded by Councillor Humfryes 1. That Report No. HAC20-008 be received; and 2. That the Heritage Advisory Committee’s comments regarding streetscape improvements for the Northeast Old Aurora Heritage Conservation District Plan be received and referred to staff for consideration and action as appropriate. Carried 6. Informational Items None 7. Adjournment Moved by Councillor Humfryes Seconded by John Green That the meeting be adjourned at 8:51 p.m. Carried Additional Items to General Committee Meeting Agenda Tuesday, June 16, 2020 Item A1 Page 6 of 6 Town of Aurora General Committee Report No. PDS20-045 Subject: Application for an Official Plan Amendment, Zoning By-law Amendment and Draft Plan of Subdivision Shining Hill Estate Collections Inc. 306, 370, 434 & 488 St. John’s Sideroad File Number: OPA-2018-01, ZBA-2018-02 & SUB-2018-02 Prepared by: Anna Henriques, Senior Development Planner Department: Planning and Development Services Date: June 16, 2020 Recommendations 1.That Report No. PDS20-045 be received; 2.That Official Plan Amendment application OPA-2018-01 (Shinning Hills Collections Inc.) be approved to: a)amend Schedule AA of OPA 37 to re-designate the subject lands from ‘Suburban Residential (SR)’, ‘Suburban Residential (SR-1)’, ‘Core Area Open Space’ and ‘Supporting Area Open Space’ to ‘Suburban Residential (SR-2)’ and ‘Core Area Open Space (COS- 1); b)amend Section 2.0 of OPA 37 to add the following new Section 2.5 ‘Suburban Residential (SR-2)’ and the following policy: Suburban Residential permits fully serviced single-detached lots with frontages generally greater than 15 metres and areas generally greater than 460 square metres. Accessory uses and home occupations which are accessory to the residential use and compatible with the residential character may also be permitted. Neighbourhood oriented community services such as schools and parks shall also be permitted. c)amend Section 2.0 of OPA 37 to add the following new Section 2.6, ‘Core Area Open Space (COS-1)’ and the following policy: “The Core Area Open Space designation permits lands that are open space, approved stormwater management ponds, and approved road and municipal service crossings. Other than the above permitted services this area shall remain in its natural state with only passive recreation uses permitted. Additional Items to General Committee Meeting Agenda Tuesday, June 16, 2020 Item R9 Replacement Report Page 1 of 93 June 16, 2020 Page 2 of 20 Report No. PDS20-045 3.That Zoning By-law Amendment application ZBA-2018-02 (Shinning Hills Collections Inc.) be approved to rezone the subject lands from ‘Oak Ridges Moraine Rural General (RU-ORM)’ to ‘Detached Third Density Residential Exception Zone (R3-XX)’, Private Open Space (O2-XX), ‘Oak Ridges Moraine Environmental Protection (EP-ORM)’; 4.That the Draft Plan of Subdivision application SUB-2018-02 (Shinning Hills Collections Inc.) to create 8 blocks be approved, subject to the conditions listed in Schedule ‘A’ to this report; 5.That Council grant an allocation of 291 persons from the reserve to service the development of 90 single-detached dwellings on the approved Draft Plan of Subdivision; 6.That the implementing Official Plan Amendment be forwarded to the Region of York for approval; and, 7.That the Zoning By-law Amendment ZBA-2018-02 be brought forward to a future Council Meeting, after the implementing Official Plan Amendment is approved by the Region of York. Executive Summary This report seeks Council’s approval of the proposed Official Plan Amendment, Zoning By-Law Amendment and Draft Plan of Subdivision applications, subject to Regional approval of the Official Plan Amendment, to create 8 Blocks on a Plan of Subdivision to facilitate the future development of 90 single detached lots on a private condominium road. •The proposed Official Plan Amendment, Zoning By-law Amendment and Draft Plan of Subdivision applications are consistent with Provincial, Regional and Municipal Plans; •The Official Plan Amendment application seeks to add a new site specific land use designation and policies to permit the development of 90 single detached lots; and community support services; •The Zoning By-law Amendment application seeks rezone the subject lands to Detached Third Density Residential (R3) exception zone, Oak Ridges Moraine Environmental Protection (EP-ORM) and Private Open Space (O2); •Subsequent to the Statutory Public Meeting in 2019 the proposed draft plan has been revised to address comments; Additional Items to General Committee Meeting Agenda Tuesday, June 16, 2020 Item R9 Replacement Report Page 2 of 93 June 16, 2020 Page 3 of 20 Report No. PDS20-045 •Internal departments and external agencies have no concerns with the approval of the subject applications, subject to the Conditions of Approval (Schedule ‘A’) •Final technical matters will be addressed through future site plan and plan of condominium applications. Background Application History The subject applications were submitted on April 24, 2018. The Town declared the applications complete on June 4, 2018. In August 2018, in response to the applicant’s request that the Official Plan Amendment be exempt from Region of York approval, the Region advised the Town that the proposed Amendment is not exempt and will require Regional approval because a portion of the subject lands are located within the Regional Greenlands System. On June 26, 2019, the proposed Official Plan Amendment, Zoning By-law Amendment and Draft Plan of Subdivision were presented at a Public Planning Meeting. Comments were provided relating to a number of matters including, but not limited to, opposition to the proposed development, increased traffic, impacts on St. John’s Sideroad, and noise and dust during construction. A summary of the feedback received at the Public Meeting is summarized in Appendix ‘G’ attached to this report. At that meeting, General Committee passed a resolution referring the applications back to staff to address the comments presented. Minutes of the June 26, 2019 Public Planning Meeting are attached as Appendix A: Location / Land Use The subject lands are generally located at the northwest corner of Yonge Street and St. John’s Sideroad (Figure 1) and is comprised of four separate properties that are municipally known as 360, 370, 434 & 488 St. John’s Sideroad. Combined, the subject lands have a lot area of approximately 31.30 hectares (77.34 acres), a lot frontage of approximately 185 m (607 ft) along St. John’s Sideroad and an average lot depth of approximately 402 m (1319 ft). Two single-detached dwellings are located on the subject lands; one at 370 St. John’s Sideroad and the other at 488 St. John’s Sideroad. The remainder of the lands are vacant and part of a larger natural heritage system. Additional Items to General Committee Meeting Agenda Tuesday, June 16, 2020 Item R9 Replacement Report Page 3 of 93 June 16, 2020 Page 4 of 20 Report No. PDS20-045 Surrounding Land Uses The surrounding land uses are generally described as follows: North: Undeveloped Land, Natural Heritage lands and the Town of Newmarket; South: St. John’s Sideroad and existing estate homes; East: Vacant Land, Natural Heritage and Yonge Street; West: Existing residential subdivision. Policy Context Provincial Policies All development applications shall have regard for the Provincial Policy Statement (PPS), which provides policy direction on matters of Provincial interest. These policies support the development of strong communities through the promotion of efficient land use and development patterns. The Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe (The Growth Plan) is a guiding document for growth management within the Greater Golden Horseshoe Area. The Growth Plan provides a framework which guides land-use planning. The Lake Simcoe Protection Plan (LSPP) provides policies which address aquatic life, water quality and quantity, shorelines and natural heritage, other threats and activities (invasive species, climate change and recreational activities) and implementation. The Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan (ORMCP) provides land use and resource management planning direction on how to protect the Moraine’s ecological and hydrological features and functions. Official Plan Amendment No. 48 (OPA 48) was adopted by Council on October 22, 2003 to bring the Town of Aurora Official Plan into conformity with the ORMCP. York Region Official Plan (YROP) The subject lands are designated as ‘Urban Area’ within the York Region Official Plan. York Region’s vision for the Urban Area is to strategically focus growth while conserving resources and to create sustainable, liveable communities. Under York Region’s Official Plan, one regional urbanization goal is to enhance the Region’s urban structure through city building, intensification and compact, complete communities. Additional Items to General Committee Meeting Agenda Tuesday, June 16, 2020 Item R9 Replacement Report Page 4 of 93 June 16, 2020 Page 5 of 20 Report No. PDS20-045 Town of Aurora Official Plan – OPA 37 The subject lands are designated ‘Suburban Residential (SR)’, ‘Suburban Residential (SR-1)’, ‘Core Area Open Space’ and ‘Supporting Area Open Space’ under OPA 37 (Figure 2). The intent of the ‘Suburban Residential (SR)’ designation within OPA 37 is that these lands shall be developed for fully serviced residential lots of approximately 0.2 hectares is size. Development on lands designated Suburban Residential shall be compatible with the existing estate and suburban residences on the south side of St. John's Sideroad. The intent of the ‘Suburban Residential - (SR-1)’ designation within Site Specific Policy Area OPA 37 is that these lands be developed as fully serviced single-detached residential lots with frontages generally greater than 24 metres, and areas generally greater than 800 square metres. Neighbourhood oriented community services such as schools and parks are also be permitted. The intent of the ‘Core Area Open Space’ designation within the Site Specific Policy Area OPA 37 is that these lands shall be comprised of open space, approved stormwater management outlets, and approved road and municipal service crossings. Other than the above permitted services these lands are intended to remain in its natural state with only passive recreation uses being permitted. Development in proximity to these Core Area Open Space lands is intended to protect and respect the existing natural edges, provide slope stabilization, and if desirable and necessary, provide trails and open space management programs. Lands designated Core Area Open Space are comprised of two interrelated ecological elements -the riparian corridor and the highest quality vegetation communities. Lands designated ‘Supporting Area Open Space’ within the Site Specific Policy Area of OPA 37 are intended to generally be comprised of open space, approved stormwater management facilities, approved road and municipal service crossings, trails and passive use parks. Boundaries and natural edges will be defined, through the subdivision approval process. Lands designated “Supporting Area Open Space” are comprised of two interrelated ecological elements - the supporting vegetation communities and the valley land forms. Additional Items to General Committee Meeting Agenda Tuesday, June 16, 2020 Item R9 Replacement Report Page 5 of 93 June 16, 2020 Page 6 of 20 Report No. PDS20-045 Zoning By-law 6000-17, as amended The subject lands are currently zoned ‘Oak Ridges Moraine Rural General (RU-ORM)’ under Town of Aurora Zoning By-law 6000-17, as amended (Figure 3). The Zoning By-law provisions state that no person shall use these lands, including expanding, enlarging or otherwise altering an existing use, building or structure, for any use other than a use legally existing as of November 15, 2001, or a use for which a building permit has already been legally issued in accordance with Section 1.9.1 of By- law 6000-17, as amended, without an amendment to the Zoning By-law or relief from this by-law in accordance with the policies of the Official Plan and the Planning Act. Reports and Studies The reports and studies submitted to the Town as part of complete applications were listed in the Public Planning Report Number PDS19-060. Proposed Applications The Official Plan Amendment application seeks to amend OPA 37 by adding two new site specific designations and policies to permit the development of 90 single detached lots and supporting uses. As shown on Figure 6, the applicant is proposing to re-designate the subject lands from ‘Suburban Residential (SR)’, ‘Suburban Residential (SR-1)’, ‘Core Area Open Space’ and ‘Supporting Area Open Space’ to ‘Suburban Residential (SR-2) and ‘Core Area Open Space (COS-1)’. The proposed ‘Suburban Residential (SR-2) site specific designation provides revised minimum lot frontage and lot area requirements when compared to the ‘Suburban Residential (SR-1)’ designation. The proposed SR-2 designation is consistent with all other SR-1 policies in OPA 37 including the permission for neighbourhood oriented support services such as schools and parks. The following outlines the difference between the SR-1 Official Plan policies and the proposed SR-2 policies: Additional Items to General Committee Meeting Agenda Tuesday, June 16, 2020 Item R9 Replacement Report Page 6 of 93 June 16, 2020 Page 7 of 20 Report No. PDS20-045 Existing SR-1 Designation Proposed SR-2 Designation Lot Frontage Generally greater than 24 (79 ft.) Generally greater than 15m (49 ft.) Lot Area Generally greater than 800 m² Generally greater than 460 m² The proposed new site specific ‘Core Area Open Space (COS-1)’ designation is similar to the Core Area Open Space (COS) policies with the exception that the lands require dedication to the Town. The following is the proposed COS-1 policy amendment: “Core Area Open Space - 1” within the Site Specific Policy Area shall be comprised of open space, stormwater management ponds, and road and municipal service crossings. Other than the above permitted services, this area shall remain in its natural state with only passive recreation uses being permitted.” As shown on Figure 7, the proposed Zoning By-law Amendment seeks to rezone the subject lands from RU-ORM to a ‘Detached Third Density Residential Exception Zone (R3-XX)’, ‘Oak Ridges Moraine Environmental Protection (EP-ORM)’ and ‘Private Open Space Exception Zone (O2-XX)’ under By-law 6000-17, as amended. Appendix ‘B’ compares the difference between the parent R3 and O2 Zone requirements and the proposed R3 and O2 Exception Zones. Site specific zoning by-law provisions are also proposed to increase maximum encroachments including, but not limited to, open-sided roofed porches, uncovered terraces, porticos, patios, etc. (See Appendix ‘B’). No reductions to parking requirements are proposed and the owner will be required to demonstrate compliance with the R3 zone’s parking standards and other standard requirements, including maximum height (11m), through a future site plan application. Zoning standards will be finalized by staff in detail prior to the implementing Zoning By- law Amendment being presented to Council for enactment. Proposed Draft Plan of Subdivision The proposed draft plan of subdivision proposes 8 blocks to accommodate a future residential development on Block 1 which will be accessed by a private condominium road off of St. John’s Sideroad. The proposed draft plan also includes blocks for an open space feature, a storm water management facility, landscape/walkway buffering, road widening and natural heritage. With the exception of the road widening block (Block 4), all blocks will remain in private ownership. Additional Items to General Committee Meeting Agenda Tuesday, June 16, 2020 Item R9 Replacement Report Page 7 of 93 June 16, 2020 Page 8 of 20 Report No. PDS20-045 As illustrated on Figure 4, the Draft Plan of Subdivision proposes a total of 8 blocks as summarized below: Table 2: Draft Plan of Subdivision Breakdown Proposed Land Use Blocks Area Future residential development consisting of 90 single- detached dwellings serviced by a private condominium road 1 7.79 ha (19.24 ac) Landscape Buffer 2 0.18 ha (0.45 ac) Landscape Buffer 3 0.28 ha (0.69 ac) Road Widening 4 0.43 ha (1.06 ac) Open Space 5 0.77 ha (1.90 ac) Stormwater Management facility 6 0.36 ha (0.89 ac) 10 m Buffer/Walkway 7 0.07 ha (0.18 ac) Natural Heritage System 8 1.28 ha (3.16 ac) Total 11.16 ha (27.57 ac) Analysis Planning Considerations The proposed Official Plan Amendment, Zoning By-law Amendment and Draft Plan of Subdivision applications are consistent with Provincial, Regional and Municipal Plans Provincial Policy Statement (PPS) It is Planning Staff’s opinion that the proposed Official Plan Amendment, Zoning By-law Amendment and Subdivision applications are consistent with the PPS by encouraging the development of strong, healthy communities through the promotion of efficient land use and development patterns. Appendix ‘C’ further describes how the proposed development conforms to the PPS. Places to Grow Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe Staff is satisfied that the proposed applications are consistent with the Growth Plan by encouraging a range of housing types, using existing infrastructure and concentrating Additional Items to General Committee Meeting Agenda Tuesday, June 16, 2020 Item R9 Replacement Report Page 8 of 93 June 16, 2020 Page 9 of 20 Report No. PDS20-045 population growth in settlement areas. Appendix D further describes how the proposed development conforms to the Growth Plan. Lake Simcoe Protection Plan (LSPP) The subject lands are located within the regulated area of the LSPP. The proposed development also constitutes major development under the LSPP (the construction of a building or buildings within a ground floor area of 500 m2 or more). The Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority (LSRCA) has reviewed the proposed applications in concert with the LSPP and has no objections, subject to the Conditions of approval as attached to this report. Staff is of the opinion that the proposed application conforms to the LSPP. Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan (ORMCP) The ORMCP states that all uses permitted by the applicable Official Plan are permitted. Single-Detached Dwellings are listed as a Permitted Use under OPA 37 and specifically, within the existing ‘Suburban Residential (SR-1)’ land use designation. Further, OPA 48 states that continued development within existing urban settlement areas in the ORMCP should be provided, subject to applicable policies which generally seek to maintain the ecological integrity of all lands within the Plan. Planning staff are satisfied that the proposed development conforms with the ORMCP. Appendix G to this report outlines, in greater detail, how the development conforms to these documents in greater detail. Natural Features The subject property contains natural heritage features and a portion of the subject lands are located within the Regional Greenlands System. The The Environmental Impact Statement/Natural Heritage Evaluation submitted in support of the applications outlines the Minimum Vegetation Protection Zones established to protect the site’s natural features as required. York Region Official Plan (YROP). The proposed OPA will enable a development that is designed to ensure accessibility to people of all ages, cultures, and abilities (Policy 5.2.7) and will assist in ensuring "that Additional Items to General Committee Meeting Agenda Tuesday, June 16, 2020 Item R9 Replacement Report Page 9 of 93 June 16, 2020 Page 10 of 20 Report No. PDS20-045 by the year 2015 and for each year thereafter, a minimum of 40% of all residential development will occur within the built-up area as defined by the Growth Plan (Policy 5.3.1). The proposed development is consistent with the policies of the “Urban Area” in the YROP. On this basis, York Region Development Planning staff is of the opinion that the proposed OPA aligns with the policy intent of YROP. The proposed Official Plan Amendment is not exempt from Regional Approval and will be forwarded to the Region for approval should Committee endorse the subject applications in principle. Appendix E to this report highlights how the proposed development aligns with the York Region triple bottom line objectives, and other policies within the Plan. Town of Aurora Official Plan – OPA 37 The proposed Official Plan Amendment to accommodate a future residential development of 90 single family dwelling units and associated neighbourhood oriented support services is consistent with the Official Plan. The proposed site specific Official Plan designations [Suburban Residential (SR-2) and Core Area Open Space (COS-1)] generally conform with the policies of the Aurora Official Plan and satisfies the intent of OPA 37. The Suburban Residential (SR-2) designation allows for fully serviced and environmentally sensitive residential development consisting of single-detached housing which is currently permitted through OPA 37. Although the frontages and lot areas have been slightly reduced compared to what is presently permitted in OPA 37, staff are of the opinion that the proposed housing product is compatible with the existing pattern of residential development within the host community. Staff are of the opinion that the proposed development maintains the general intent of OPA 37 and the existing Core Area Open Space designation by providing a Natural Heritage Block which will remain in its natural state. This Natural Heritage Block has been established in accordance with the limit of the staked dripline by the LSRCA on May 24, 2017 and is proposed to remain in private ownership, as recommended by Town staff. It is anticipated that the balance of the natural heritage system located on the subject lands, and outside the limits of the proposed draft plan, may be gratuitously dedicated to the Town as part of future planning application. As such, staff have included a draft plan condition that provides the Town with the flexibility to request that Blocks 8 (Natural Heritage) and Block 7 (Walkway/Buffer) be gratuitously dedicated to Additional Items to General Committee Meeting Agenda Tuesday, June 16, 2020 Item R9 Replacement Report Page 10 of 93 June 16, 2020 Page 11 of 20 Report No. PDS20-045 the Town should the balance of the natural heritage system be dedicated to the Town (through future development approvals), prior to release of the plan for registration. A stormwater management pond is also proposed with the Core Area Open Space designation, consistent with OPA 37 policies. Planning staff are of the opinion that the proposed Official Plan Amendment will facilitate appropriate development that is compatible with adjacent lands and protects key existing environmental features. Appendix ‘F’ further outlines how the proposed development conforms to the Official Plan. Zoning By-law 6000-17, as amended The proposed zoning by-law amendment to rezone the subject lands to Detached Third Density Residential (R3) exception zone, Oak Ridges Moraine Environmental Protection (EP-ORM) and Private Open Space (O2) exception zone is appropriate and represents good planning. Planning staff have evaluated the proposed Zoning By-law amendment (Appendix ‘B’) in the context of OPA 37 and the proposed Draft Plan of Subdivision. Planning staff are of the opinion that the proposed amendment is compatible with adjacent and neighbouring development and will protect natural heritage features. Subsequent to the Statutory Public Meeting in 2019 the proposed draft plan has been revised to address comments In response to comments received at the June 2019 Statutory Public Planning Meeting, and staff and agency review comments, the following revisions were made to the proposed draft plan: •Reduction in number of residential lots from 92 to 90 as illustrated on the proposed Development Concept (See Figure 5); •Increasing the lot frontage for lots located closer to St. John’s Sideroad •Decreasing in area the residential block from 7.95 ha to 7.79 ha; •Increasing in area the landscape buffer block from 0.25 ha to 0.28 ha; •Increasing in area the road widening block from 0.40 ha to 0.43 ha; •Increasing in area the private open space block from 0.69 ha to 0.77 ha; •Increasing the stormwater management block from 0.28 ha to 0.36 ha; •Decreasing in area the Natural Heritage block from 13.40 ha to 1.28 ha; •Including an additional 10 m walkway/buffer (0.07 ha) now shown as Block 7; Additional Items to General Committee Meeting Agenda Tuesday, June 16, 2020 Item R9 Replacement Report Page 11 of 93 June 16, 2020 Page 12 of 20 Report No. PDS20-045 •Introducing a Core Area Open Space (COS-1) Official Plan land use designation; •Revising the Proposed Zoning to change from Public Open Space (01) to Private Open Space (O2) (see Figure 7). Proposed Lot Pattern Regarding concerns relating to density and compatibility, the applicant has reduced the overall number of units proposed from 92 to 90 lots on the proposed Concept Plan. Additionally, the proposed Concept Plan was revised to provide for lots with larger frontages closer to St. John’s Sideroad. The proposed lotting pattern is illustrated on Figure 5 (Development Concept) where the lots will range in frontage from 15.24 m (50 ft) to 18.3 m (60 ft) and in depth from 18.9 m (62 ft) to 57.3 m (188 ft). A minimum lot area of 460 m² is proposed for each lot. Planning staff consider the proposal to be appropriate for the development of the subject lands as it is compatible with the existing characteristic of the host community which includes low density subdivisions with a similar lot fabric and unit types (i.e. single-detached). As such, Planning staff do not anticipate any adverse impacts on neighbourhood character. Landscape and Open Space To address concerns with respect to neighbourhood character and buffering and screening for adjacent residential dwellings, the proposed plan was revised to include landscape buffers (Blocks 2 & 3) along St. John’s Sideroad and at the west end of the draft plan (Block 7) which protect existing mature vegetation while also providing screening for future and existing residents. Natural Heritage The total area of this natural heritage block has been refined from previous submissions to address comments from the Region of York. Blocks 8 consists of the Natural Heritage System and is proposed to remain in private ownership at this time. However, staff have included a draft plan condition that provides the Town with the option to request that Block 8 be dedicated to the Town prior to final approval of the plan. It is anticipated that the balance of the natural heritage system located on the subject lands, but outside the limits of the proposed draft plan, may be gratuitously dedicated to the Town as part of a future planning application. These natural heritage lands, once Additional Items to General Committee Meeting Agenda Tuesday, June 16, 2020 Item R9 Replacement Report Page 12 of 93 June 16, 2020 Page 13 of 20 Report No. PDS20-045 secured through future development approvals, will facilitate the construction of trail routes on the subject lands and to the east and west, as illustrated in the Town of Aurora Trails Master Plan. Once the lands are conveyed to the Town, the proposed trail system north of St. John’s Sideroad may be planned and designed. Overall, Staff are satisfied with the revised plan, block pattern and draft limits established through the proposed draft plan of subdivision, as shown on Figure 4. Stormwater Management & Site Servicing A Bioretention System was added to the Stormwater Management Block (6) to provide a higher level of treatment as it relates to drainage. Stormwater runoff will drain into a bioretention cell, placed downstream of the proposed detention storage and control structures from the tank. In addition to the Stormwater Management Block, other areas throughout the site along the northern boundary will drain to the adjacent creek. The proposed Stormwater Management scheme provided in the submitted Functional Servicing Report outlines a treatment train which contains catchbasin shields (CB Shields) along roads, an Oil Grit Separator unit, as well as a filtration bed. The LSRCA supports the approach for storm water management to service the development including the size of Block 6 and have issued draft plan conditions that can be viewed in Schedule A. The Town’s Engineering Department has reviewed the subject applications and has indicated that no servicing constraints were identified. Traffic/Transportation A revised Transportation Mobility study was submitted and reviewed by the Town’s Traffic Analyst and Region of York who have both confirmed that they have no objection to approval of the proposed development subject to conditions of draft approval. Staff consider the proposed 9.2 metre wide private condominium road off of St. John’s Sideroad sufficient to provide access to the proposed residential development on Block 1. This will be a full-moves intersection and York Region has confirmed that the intersection is not to be signalized due to insufficient traffic warrants and have no concerns rearding sight-lines. (Figure 5). Additional Items to General Committee Meeting Agenda Tuesday, June 16, 2020 Item R9 Replacement Report Page 13 of 93 June 16, 2020 Page 14 of 20 Report No. PDS20-045 The Region has also provided responses to comments made by the public at the June 2019 Public Planning Meeting relating to the widening of St. John’s Sideroad, increased traffic and congestion, access, traffic lights, crosswalks and pedestrian safety (see Appendix ‘G’). The Region has confirmed they have no additional concerns at this time and have issued draft plan conditions that can be viewed in Schedule A. Department / Agency Comments Internal departments and external agencies have no concerns with the approval of the subject applications subject to Conditions of Approval, attached as Schedule ‘A’. The proposed applications were circulated to internal departments and external agencies for review and comment. In general, all circulated departments and agencies are satisfied that comments have been adequately addressed or will be addressed through the recommended draft plan conditions and therefore, have no objection to approval of the applications. Planning and Development Services – Development Engineering The Development Engineer has reviewed the materials submitted in conjunction with the proposed applications and has no concerns with approval of the subject applications, subject to all engineering related conditions being satisfied prior to execution of the development agreement. Outstanding technical matters will be addressed through the recommended draft plan conditions. Building Division The Town’s Building Division has expressed no objection to approval of the subject applications and have confirmed that they have no further comments. Traffic/Transportation The Town’s Traffic Analyst has no further comments and has expressed no concerns with the findings and conclusions of the Transportation Mobility Plan (TMP) submitted as it relates to the impact and operations of roads under the jurisdiction of the Town. Additional Items to General Committee Meeting Agenda Tuesday, June 16, 2020 Item R9 Replacement Report Page 14 of 93 June 16, 2020 Page 15 of 20 Report No. PDS20-045 Operational Services – Parks Division Parks staff acknowledge that the development as proposed is ultimately intended to be a condominium development and that the Town does not typically designate public parkland within private developments. As such, the Town’s Parks Division has confirmed that they will be requesting Cash-In-Lieu of parkland. Therefore, the owner will be required to provide Cash-In-Lieu prior to building permit issuance. Operations Services – Waste & Recycling As stated earlier in this report, a future site plan and plan of condominium applications are required. The Town’s Operations Department has confirmed that condominium developments are typically serviced by private pickup for waste and recycling. This will be further evaluated as part of future planning applications. Regional Municipality of York The Regional Municipality of York has reviewed the application and advises that they have no objection to approval of the subject applications, subject to the owner satisfying technical requirements through draft plan conditions prior to execution of the subdivision agreement. In addition, as previously stated the proposed Official Plan Amendment requires approval by the Region of York. Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority (LSRCA) The Lake Simcoe Conservation Authority reviewed the proposed applications with no objections subject to technical comments being addressed. As such, the owner will be required to satisfy these requirements which are listed as draft plan conditions prior to the execution of the Development Agreement. Central York Fire Services Central York Fire Services (CYFS) has reviewed the application and indicated no objection to approval of the applications subject to the owner satisfying technical requirements through draft plan conditions prior to execution of the Development Agreement. Additional Items to General Committee Meeting Agenda Tuesday, June 16, 2020 Item R9 Replacement Report Page 15 of 93 June 16, 2020 Page 16 of 20 Report No. PDS20-045 Policy Planning & Economic Development Staff are recommending that Council grant servicing allocation in the amount of 291 persons from the reserve for the proposed development. An average of 3.23 persons per unit is required to service a single detached dwelling. In consultation with Policy Planning, it has been confirmed that capacity is available for allocation. Final technical matters will be addressed through future site plan and plan of condominium applications. The subdivision application submitted is intended to establish the block pattern and draft limits of this plan as shown on Figure 4, to facilitate the development of 90 single detached lots/units and associated neighbourhood services on a private condominium road. A plan of condominium application will be required to include the private road, providing access off of St. John’s Sideroad, and the open space, stormwater management, buffer/walkway and natural heritage blocks. If freehold single detached lots are proposed, a Part Lot Control Application will also be required to establish 90 parcels of tied land (POTLS). A Site Plan application will also be required to review details as it pertains to building elevations and overall urban design and massing aspects related to this development. As part of site plan control, all urban design matters will need to be to the satisfaction of Council prior to final approval. Internal departments and external agencies will also be circulated on a future Site Plan, Draft Plan of Condominium and Part Lot Control (if required) applications for review and comment. Public Comments At the time of writing this report, no written comments were submitted from the public. Responses to verbal comments made at the June 2019 Statutory Public Planning Meeting are attached to this report as Appendix H. Advisory Committee Review Accessibility Advisory Committee The Town’s Accessibility Advisor has reviewed the site plan on behalf of the Accessibility Advisory Committee in accordance with the Accessibility for Ontarians with Additional Items to General Committee Meeting Agenda Tuesday, June 16, 2020 Item R9 Replacement Report Page 16 of 93 June 16, 2020 Page 17 of 20 Report No. PDS20-045 Disabilities Act in order to encourage barrier free access. The Town’s Accessibility Advisor has no further comments at this time and comments as it relates to barrier free accessibility throughout this site will be addressed as part of a future site plan application. Legal Considerations Subsections 22(7) and 22(7.0.2) of the Planning Act states that if Council refuses the Official Plan Amendment application or fails to make a decision on it within 180 days after the receipt of the application, the applicant (or the Minister) may appeal the application to the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal (LPAT). Subsection 34(11) of the Planning Act states that if Council refuses the Zoning By-law Amendment application or fails to make a decision on it within 120 days after the receipt of the application, the applicant (or the Minister) may appeal the application to the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal (LPAT). Subsection 51(34) of the Planning Act states that if Council refuses the Draft Plan of Subdivision application or fails to make a decision on it within 180 days after the receipt of the application, the applicant (or the Minister) may appeal the application to the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal (LPAT). These applications were received in 2018 and therefore, the applicant may appeal them to the LPAT at any time. Financial Implications There are no financial implications identified at this time. Communications Considerations On January 4, 2018, a Notice of Complete Application and Public Planning Meeting was published in the Aurora Banner and Auroran newspapers and given by mail to all addressed property owners within a minimum of 120 metres (393 feet) of the subject lands. On the same date, a Notice of Public Planning Meeting sign was also posted on the subject lands fronting Yonge Street. All interested parties were notified that the subject applications would be presented at the June 16, 2020 General Committee Meeting. While not a statutory meeting, public notification of the General Committee meeting was issued by the Town. Additional Items to General Committee Meeting Agenda Tuesday, June 16, 2020 Item R9 Replacement Report Page 17 of 93 June 16, 2020 Page 18 of 20 Report No. PDS20-045 Link to Strategic Plan The proposed Official Plan Amendment, Zoning By-law Amendment and Subdivision applications support the Strategic Plan goal of supporting an exceptional quality of life for all through its accomplishment in satisfying requirements in the following key objectives within this goal statement: Strengthening the fabric of our community: Through the review and approval of the Zoning By-law Amendment, Official Plan Amendment and Plan of Subdivision applications, housing opportunities are created that collaborates with the development community to ensure future growth includes housing opportunities for everyone. Alternatives to the Recommendation 1.That Council provide direction. Conclusions Planning and Development Services has reviewed the proposed Official Plan Amendment, Zoning By-law Amendment and Draft Plan of Subdivision applications against the relevant Provincial plans, Regional and Town Official Plans, Town Zoning By-law and municipal development standards. The development proposal is considered good planning, and conforms to Provincial and Regional policies and is consistent with policies of the Town’s Official Plan. The OPA, zoning by-law and draft plan conditions work together to protect the ecological function of the natural heritage system in addition to implementing a future residential development that is compatible with the host community. Therefore, staff recommend approval of the proposed Official Plan Amendment (OPA- 2018-01), Zoning By-law Amendment (ZBA-2018-02) and Subdivision applications (SUB-2018-02). The Official Plan Amendment will be forwarded to the Region of York for approval and once approval has been granted, staff will present the implementing zoning by-law to a future Council meeting for approval. Additional Items to General Committee Meeting Agenda Tuesday, June 16, 2020 Item R9 Replacement Report Page 18 of 93 June 16, 2020 Page 19 of 20 Report No. PDS20-045 Attachments Attachment 1 Figure 1 – Location Map Figure 2 – Existing Official Plan Designation Figure 3 – Existing Zoning Figure 4 – Proposed Plan of Subdivision Figure 5 – Development Concept – Future Draft Plan of Condominium Figure 6 – Proposed Official Plan Designation Figure 7 – Proposed Zoning Attachment 2 Schedule ‘A’ – Conditions of Draft Plan Approval Attachment 3 Appendix A – Excerpt from Minutes of the June 26, 2019 Public Planning Meeting Appendix B – Proposed Residential Exception and Private Open Space Zones Appendix C – Provincial Policy Statement Analysis Appendix D – Growth Plan Policy Analysis Appendix E – York Region Official Plan Analysis Appendix F – OPA 37 Policy Analysis Appendix G – Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan Policy Analysis Appendix H – Response to Public CommentsΠρεϖιουσ Ρεπορτσ Previous Reports Public Planning Report No. PDS19-060, dated June 26, 2019. Pre-submission Review Agenda Management Team Meeting review on May 28, 2020 Additional Items to General Committee Meeting Agenda Tuesday, June 16, 2020 Item R9 Replacement Report Page 19 of 93 June 16, 2020 Page 20 of 20 Report No. PDS20-045 Departmental Approval Approved for Agenda ______________________________ ______________________________ Waters, MCIP, RPP, PLE Doug Nadorozny Director Chief Administrative Officer Planning and Development Services Additional Items to General Committee Meeting Agenda Tuesday, June 16, 2020 Item R9 Replacement Report Page 20 of 93 Notice of Motion Councillor John Gallo Date: June 16, 2020 To: Mayor and Members of Council From: Councillor Gallo Re: Trail Crossings Whereas since the 1970’s, Aurora’s planners have been urged to include off-road trails in natural environments for non- motorized traffic; and Whereas in 2011 with the assistance of Town staff and MMM Group the Trails Sub- Committee developed the Town of Aurora Trails Master Plan; and Whereas during these unpresented times, Aurora’s trails have been used and appreciated more than ever; and Whereas Aurora trails serve “the dual function of the trails network; as community infrastructure for non-motorized and self-propelled traffic, for utilitarian as well as recreational purposes”; and Whereas key goals to the development of the Trails Master Plan are “Improve connections between existing trails, and to provide new trails and connections between residential areas, schools, commercial, industrial and institutional establishments, and parks, greenspace and natural areas” and “Create a connected network of trails which provide Aurora's residents with active, healthy lifestyle opportunities, the ability to travel easily throughout Town with opportunities to experience nature without having to rely on a car”; and Whereas the Trails Master Plan has identified difficulties in trail development such as “challenging or non-existent road or rail crossings” and “a lack of trail continuity”; and Whereas the Trails Master Plan has identified that the “implementation of the plan can only be accomplished through short, medium and long term actions under the leadership and guidance of Council”; and Additional Items to General Committee Meeting Agenda Tuesday, June 16, 2020 Notice of Motion (a) Page 1 of 2 Notice of Motion Re: Trail Crossings June 16, 2020 Page 2 of 2 Whereas Section 11.10 (d) Policies for Public Open Space of the Town of Aurora Official Plan states “This Plan aims to encourage retention, enhancement, and full utilization of the existing public parks, including enhancements to improve the visual and physical linkages with the parks and associated trails with, for example, wayfinding signage, improved streetscape links and crosswalks”, and Section 12 (d) states “Enhance the Greenlands System through a comprehensive network of trails, in accordance with the Town’s Trails Master Plan”; and Whereas in addition, section 12.2 (a) The Greenlands System of the Town of Aurora Official Plan clearly states “It is a fundamental principle of this Plan that the Town promote an active, healthy lifestyle for its residents. The provision of a highly integrated system of environmentally protected lands, parks, trails and recreation facilities that are well distributed, strategically located, well maintained and diverse plays an important role in encouraging community members to have active and healthy lifestyles”; and Whereas Council has passed the following resolution “Now Therefore Be It Hereby Resolved That staff work with our local MPPs for their support and to advocate for Aurora to Metrolinx for re-opening the Cousins Drive Crossing and that staff provide an update report to a future General Committee meeting including an estimate of the costs of all possible options should the Town undertake the project”; and Whereas the Mayor has sent a letter to Mr. Verster (CEO of Metrolinx) on May 13, 2020 regarding Cousins Drive; and Whereas it is fundamentally clear the Town of Aurora is bisected by train tracks and in order to properly implement the Trails Master Plan and parts of the Town of Aurora Official Plan frequent and safe east west crossing for non-motorized traffic must be established; and Whereas should the Town be interested in multiple non-motorized crossings along the train track, designs must be included in the tender documents during the track reconstruction by Metrolinx; 1. Now Therefore Be It Hereby Resolved That staff provide a status report on all potential pedestrian crossings for non-motorized traffic along the train corridor to a General Committee meeting by the end of October; and 2. Be It Further Resolved That staff include in that report the priority crossings as identified in the Trails Master Plan and costing of detailed designs so that they may be included in the tender documents during the reconstruction by Metrolinx. Additional Items to General Committee Meeting Agenda Tuesday, June 16, 2020 Notice of Motion (a) Page 2 of 2 Public Release June 16, 2020 Town of Aurora Additional Items No. 2 to General Committee Meeting Agenda Tuesday, June 16, 2020 7 p.m., Video Conference • Delegation (b) Bruce Hall, The Planning Partnership, representing Owners of 15356 Yonge Street Re: Item R7 – PDS20-032 – Revoking Servicing Allocation ☐☐☐☐ ܆ ܆ ܆ ܆ 1MFBTFDMJDLIFSFGPSNPSFJOGPSNBUJPO &MFDUSPOJD%FMFHBUJPO3FRVFTU General Committee June 16th 2020 Agenda Item R7 Regarding PDS20-032 – Revoking Servicing Allocation Bruce Hall, The Planning Partnership, Agent on Behalf of Owner of 15356 Yonge Street Request that servicing allocation not be revoked as recommended in report PDS20-032. ✔ Owner has been in touch with Michael Logue June 15 2020 ✔ ✔ Additional Items No. 2 to General Committee Meeting Agenda Tuesday, June 16, 2020 Delegation (b) Page 1 of 1