AGENDA - Special Council - 20120627PUBLIC RELEASE
June 22, 2012
THE TOWN OF AURORA
SPECIAL COUNCIL – PUBLIC PLANNING
MEETING AGENDA
Wednesday, June 27, 2012
7 p.m.
Council Chambers
I DECLARATIONS OF PECUNIARY INTEREST
II APPROVAL OF AGENDA
RECOMMENDED:
THAT the agenda as circulated by the Customer and Legislative Services
Department be approved.
III PLANNING APPLICATIONS
IV READING OF BY-LAW
RECOMMENDED:
THAT the following listed confirming by-law be given first, second, and
third readings and enacted:
5444-12 BEING A BY-LAW to Confirm Actions by Council pg. 34
Resulting from Special Council – Public Planning
Meeting on June 27, 2012
V ADJOURNMENT
Special Council – Public Planning Meeting Agenda
Wednesday, June 27, 2012
Page 2 of 2
AGENDA ITEMS
1. PL12-032 – Proposed Plans of Subdivisions and Zoning By-law pg. 1
Amendment Applications within the 2C Secondary
Plan Area (West) as follows:
Mattamy (Aurora) Limited
Part of Lot 26, Concession 2 E.Y.S.
Files: D12-02-11 and D14-08-11
TACC Developments (Aurora) Limited
Part of Lot 25, Concession 2 E.Y.S.
Files: D12-03-11 and D14-09-11
St. John’s Road Development Corp. (Metrus Development Inc.)
Part of Lots 24 and 25, Concession 2 E.Y.S.
Files: D12-01-12 and D14-01-12
Brookfield Homes (Ontario) Limited
Part of Lots 23, 24 and 25, Concession 2 E.Y.S.
Files: D12-04-11 and D14-12-11
York Region Christian Seniors Home Inc.
Part of Lot 23, Concession 2 E.Y.S.
Files: D12-05-11 and D14-13-11
Shimvest Investments Limited
Part of Lot 22, Concession 2 E.Y.S.
Files: D12-02-12 and D14-02-12
RECOMMENDED:
THAT the Public Planning Meeting report PL12-032 for the following
Proposed Plans of Subdivision and Rezoning applications within the 2C
Secondary Plan Area be received: Mattamy (Aurora) Limited, Files: D12-
02-11 and D14-08-11; TACC Developments (Aurora) Limited, Files: D12-
03-11 and D14-09-11; St. John’s Road Development Corp. (Metrus
Development Inc.), Files: D12-01-12 and D14-01-12; Brookfield Homes
(Ontario) Limited, Files: D12-04-11 and D14-12-11; York Region Christian
Seniors Home Inc., Files: D12-05-11 and D14-13-11 and Shimvest
Investments Limited, Files: D12-02-12 and D14-02-12; and
THAT comments presented at the Public Planning Meeting be addressed
by Planning & Development Services in a comprehensive report outlining
recommendations and options at a future General Committee Meeting.
THE TOWN OF AURORA
ADDITIONAL ITEMS
FOR SPECIAL COUNCIL – PUBLIC PLANNING
MEETING
Wednesday, June 27, 2012
Re: Item 1 – PL12-032 – Proposed Plans of Subdivisions and Zoning By-law
Amendment Applications within the 2C Secondary
Plan Area (West)
Correspondence from Rick Nethery, Director of Planning and Building
Services, Town of Newmarket; Re: Mattamy (Aurora) Limited
Correspondence from Mike Duffy and Keith King, on behalf of The
Wyndham Village Home Owners Association; Re: Mattamy (Aurora)
Limited
Correspondence from W. Colin Empke, Resident of Newmarket; Re:
Mattamy (Aurora) Limited
Correspondence from Erica Russell, on behalf of the Wildrush
Homeowners Group; Re: Mattamy (Aurora) Limited
Correspondence from Lisa A. Prime, Resident of Aurora
Correspondence from Yash Bidani, Resident of Aurora
RECOMMENDED:
THAT the correspondence regarding Item 1 – PL12-032 be received for
information.
PLANNING AND BUILDING SERVICES
Town of Newmarket www.newmarket.ca
395 Mulock Drive planning@newmarket.ca
P.O. Box 328, STN Main T: 905.953.5321
Newmarket, ON L3Y 4X7 F: 905.953.5140
June 26, 2012
John Leach
Town Clerk
Aurora Town Hall
1 Municipal Drive, Box 1000
Aurora, ON L4G 6J1
Re: D12-02-11 and D-14-08-11 Mattamy (Aurora) Limited
Application for Draft Plan of Subdivision and Zoning By-law Amendment
Dear Mr. Leach,
Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments on various draft plans of subdivision and proposed
zoning by-law amendments for lands within Aurora’s 2c Secondary Planning Area.
We note the compatibility policies as they relate to the interface between lands in Aurora and Newmarket
between Bayview Avenue and Leslie Street are identified in Section 3.3.4 Residential Interface Overlay
Designation in the Aurora 2c Secondary Plan. As Block 587 on the proposed Mattamy (Aurora) draft plan
of subdivision is identified for future development, and little detail is available for this area, we respectfully
request the Town of Newmarket be kept abreast of specific development proposals for this area and that
we be given an opportunity to comment on any such proposal.
Yours truly,
Rick Nethery, B.E.S., MCIP, R.P.P.
Director of Planning and Building Services
Copy: Mayor Van Bynen
Regional Councillor John Taylor
Councillor Tom Vegh
R.N. Shelton, CAO
Neil Garbe, Aurora CAO
June 25, 2012
Town of Aurora
Aurora Town Hall
100 John West Way
Aurora, Ontario
L4G 6J1
Planning and Development Services
Re: Mattamy (Aurora) Limited Draft Plan of Subdivision
Dear Sir / Madam,
The Wyndham Village Home Owners Association (WVHOA) would like to formally state our
opposition to the Draft plan of the subdivision and zoning bylaw amendment applications as
submitted by Mattamy (Aurora) Limited.
The Draft Plan of Subdivision submitted by Mattamy (Aurora) Limited does not respect or comply
with the Residential Interface Overlay Designation in the OPA 73, the Town of Aurora Official
Plan Amendment 73, adopted by Aurora Town Council September 28, 2010.
In particular, the Draft Plan of Subdivision does not abide by the Interface Overlay Designation
principles listed in OPA 73 which include:
1. Sufficient and compatible setbacks and lot sizes.
2. Sufficient information has not been produced pertaining to detail and definition related to
grading and drainage between communities of Aurora and Newmarket.
3. Sufficient detail and definition related to fencing and landscaping.
4. Sufficient detail and definition related to preservation of the sensitive fence line of trees along
the North property boundary as identified in the RJ Brunside Bird and Hale Limited
Environmental Impact Study Mattamy 2C Aurora Lands Town of Aurora Section 6.3
VEGETATION COMMUNITIES AND LANDSCAPE CONNECTIVITY.
Furthermore, Section 3.2.2 of the developer’s Draft Plan of Subdivision states:
“In order to ensure compatible development with the existing residential areas in
Newmarket, single family homes, semi-detached homes and townhomes would
provide a “like-on-like” development condition.”
Despite claiming a “like-on-like” development condition, the Draft Plan of Subdivision shows that
the proposed lots adjacent to the existing residential area of Wyndham Village in Newmarket are
in fact very different from the existing lots in Newmarket as follows:
Existing lots
in
Wyndham
Village Proposed Lots Difference
Property Width 20 M 15 M 25% smaller
Property Length 54 M 40 M 26% smaller
Property Area 1080 M 600 M 44.4% smaller
Rear Setback 27 M 6M 78% smaller
Maximum Coverage 20% 50% 150% larger
Clearly the proposed lots are dissimilar to the adjacent lots in the existing residential area.
Additionally, Section 3.2.2 of the developer’s Draft Plan of Subdivision states:
“Extra depth in the lot area is provided to allow for additional separation for existing
homes and accommodate a drainage swale. A fence is already present along the
rear of the existing homes. The proposed lots will have room for a private
landscaped area to provide for additional screening and visual separation if
necessary.”
Mattamy’s plan to: a) address the significant ground water runoff from the Aurora 2C West land
and b) incorporate additional separation and additional screening into the proposed lots that are
44.4% smaller than the existing lots in Wyndham Village is problematic in several ways:
1) The proposed plan shows limited grading to the large hill on the Aurora 2C West lands
and there is significant concern that the proposed swale cannot sufficiently handle the
ground water runoff - especially since the proposed storm water management pond is at
a higher elevation than some of the proposed lots.
2) The swale will be located on private properties and there is no way of ensuring that it will
not be intentionally or unintentionally altered by one or more of the new residents thereby
impeding the swale’s performance.
3) The lots that are 25% shorter than the existing lots in Wyndham Village do not have
“extra depth”. They have less depth and consequently cannot provide additional
separation.
4) The room for a private landscaped area will be on private properties and therefore there
is no guarantee that these area will ever be screened to provide for visual separation
Finally, Mattamy’s plan fails to address the preservation of the sensitive fence line of trees along
the North property boundary. The proposed lots will have low depth backyards and will be
separated from the adjacent lots by only the existing fence. Creating a drainage swale on these
small lots is likely only possible by disturbing this fence line. It is crucial that Mattamy provide
sufficient detail and definition related to the preservation of this sensitive area.
At this time the Draft Plan of Subdivision submitted by Mattamy (Aurora) Limited lacks critical
details and definition for the Residential Interface Overlay Designation in the OPA 73, the Town
of Aurora Official and as a result should not be approved until Mattamy (Aurora) Limited respects
these requirements.
In closing I would like to thank you for your time and consideration. The Wyndham Village Home
Owners Association welcomes the opportunity to work collaboratively on this unique project to
develop a Residential Interface Overlay detailed design that will satisfy all stakeholders and
serve as a forward thinking positive and progressive example of community planning. Attached
you will find a previously sent letter to this effect.
Sincerely,
Mike Duffy, Keith King
The Wyndham Village Home Owners Association
Cc: Geoffrey Dawe, Mayor of Aurora
Marco Ramunno, Director of Planning - Town of Aurora
Deborah Giannetta, Planning & Development Services - Town of Aurora
Jim Kyle, Manager of Policy Planning - Town of Aurora
Tony Van Bynen, Mayor of Newmarket
Tom Vegh, Ward 1 Councillor - Town of Newmarket
Tome Kondinski, Case Worker - Ontario Municipal Board
July 19, 2011
Allyssa Hrynyk, Planning Consultant
Malone Given Parsons Ltd.
Ms. Hrynyk,
As a resident of Comfort Lane, Newmarket, Ontario, a representative of the Wyndham
Village Home Owners Association, and an active participant in the Aurora 2C Secondary
Plan Review and Development Phase, I would like to propose a unique opportunity to
start up a working group to assist with defining the potential zone of Residential Interface
Overlay between the communities of Aurora and Newmarket.
A working group with representation from Wyndham Village, Mattamy Homes, The Town
of Newmarket and the Town of Aurora will mark a collaborative effort fostering open
communication and highlighting the sharing of ideas towards the design of this sensitive
area. Valuable input from all stakeholders in the development of a detailed design for the
proposed zone of Residential Interface Overlay between neighbouring communities can
benefit all parties.
The Wyndham Village Home Owners Association is particularly interested in contributing
valuable input into the related building types, setbacks, lot sizes, fencing, landscape
treatments and grading incorporated into the design of the Residential Interface Overlay.
The following is a high level outline of the primary topics of interest for the residents of
Wyndham Village living adjacent to Aurora 2C West. A collaborative effort that includes
the following provisions will be warmly accepted by the members of our group and
produce value added benefits for both the developer and the Town of Aurora:
Green Buffer Zone
The Aurora 2C West lands provide the perfect opportunity to create a green buffer zone
between the towns of Aurora and Newmarket. The green buffer zone should be a
minimum of 15 meters in width and should include ample trees planted throughout to
provide complete coverage. In addition to helping each respective town achieve its
green goals and keeping the surroundings properly aligned with the current and new
premium properties, it will also provide all residents with an appropriate level of privacy.
We believe that grading this area, (burying drainage pipes if necessary) and planting the
designated foliage should occur as soon as possible. Allowing this area to mature prior
to commencing construction will help to reduce noise and dust when construction does
begin and increase the marketability of the premium lots in the 2C lands. Just as
importantly, the water management solution should exist before the land’s topography is
changed. The following are some benefits of a proposed green buffer zone.
- Fostering green development in both communities
- Marketability of properties as a premium product along a private green belt or
green buffer zone offering a naturalized setting and privacy.
- Mature landscaping, plant and vegetation already exists in many of the areas
along the proposed green buffer zone. Establishing the 15 metre zone would
require supplementary grading and planting only. Please see Attachment A #1 -
#9 of the established natural environment in the area of the proposed green
buffer zone.
- Eliminate interference with property line and fencing issues with residents of
Wyndham Village. Please see Attachment B #1 - #18 of fence line issues due to
tree interference.
- Eliminate interference with grading and tree root issues with established trees on
properties in Wyndham Village that have drip line projections, tree limbs and tree
roots in the 2C lands. Please see Attachment B #1 - #18 of grading issues due to
tree interference.
- Grading and planting to establish a green buffer zone may qualify for
development charge credits for green/open space development.
- Decreased costs for fencing along the green buffer zone. Chain link fencing
could be installed in the new 2C development along the green buffer zone in lieu
of more costly wood fencing providing future residents with premium lots backing
onto a green naturalized setting.
- A green buffer zone supports the policy statement and possible implementation
methods as stated in the Aurora 2C Secondary Plan Area 3.3.4 Residential
Interface Overlay Policies C) i. site plan agreements related to fencing and/or
other landscape treatments.
- Decrease grading and water management issues. A green buffer zone will assist
with managing run-off from 2C lands to the adjacent properties in Wyndham
Village.
Lot Sizing and Setbacks
The lot sizes of the Wyndham Village properties that are adjacent to the Aurora 2C West
land are 60 feet wide and up to 200 feet deep. Policy within Newmarket’s Official Plan
states:
“In order to ensure compatibility with the existing housing stock, new
housing directly abutting existing homes in Stable Residential Areas should
generally have a physical character similar to the existing neighbourhood in
terms of density, lot sizes, maximum building heights, and minimum
setbacks (Town of Newmarket 2006 Official Plan)”
In addition, the Town of Aurora 2C Secondary Plan Area 3.3.4 Residential
Interface Overlay Designation states:
Policies
c) The lands subject to this overlay designation shall be developed in a
manner that creates a compatible interface with the properties to the North
in Newmarket. Compatible interface condition shall be established by the
developer, and shall be satisfactory to the Council of the Town of Aurora.
Implementation methods could include any one of more of the following, but
not be limited to:
i. requirements in the zoning by-law related to building types, setbacks and
lot sizes.
Similar policy statements between Newmarket and Aurora would support larger than
minimum setback lot sizing and similar building type (all brick, low density, two-storey
single detached dwellings) at the Residential Interface Overlay. In addition to these lots
potentially being adjacent to a green space, larger lot sizes would increase marketability
as a premium product and exposure for the development as a whole being one of the
last new home developments in Aurora.
Grading and Water Management
There is currently significant ground water runoff from the Aurora 2C West land into the
Wyndham Village backyards adjacent to the land and it has resulted in a history of
varying water problems for many of these residents. A properly designed green buffer
zone, mentioned previously, will assist with the absorption of water runoff and proper
channelling of water to storm water management facilities.
In closing I would like to thank you for your time and consideration. The Wyndham
Village Home Owners Association welcomes the opportunity to work collaboratively on
this unique project to develop a Residential Interface Overlay detailed design that will
satisfy all stakeholders and serve as a forward thinking positive and progressive
example of community planning.
Sincerely,
Mike Duffy and The Wyndham Village Home Owners Association
Cc: Marco Ramunno, Director of Planning - Town of Aurora
Glen Letman, Manager of Development Planning - Town of Aurora
Jim Kyle, Manager of Policy Planning - Town of Aurora
Tom Vegh, Ward 1 Councillor - Town of Newmarket
Tome Kondinski, Case Worker - Ontario Municipal Board
Junc 25, 2012
John Leach
Town. Clerk
Town of Aurora
100 John West Way
Aurora ON LAG 6J1
and to:
Deborah Giannetta
Planning & Development Services
Town of Aurora
100 John West Way
Aurora ON L4G 611
Dear Mr. Leach & Ms. Giannetta
W. Colin Hmpke, B.A.,1..T..B.
Newmarket ON .
By Fax to 905-726-4732
By Fax to 905-726-4736
Re: Piles D12-02-11 and D14-08-11
2C Secondary Plan
Mattamy Monies Proposed Subdivision
I am one of the homeowners of in Newmarket.
It is my understanding that my concerns regarding the 2C Secondary Plan and the Mattamy Homes
proposed plan of subdivision must be made in writing in order to preserve my rights to appeal anv
decisions by Council to the Ontario Municipal Board.
My property is located on the east side of the Schaeffer cul-de-sac along the Aurora -Newmarket
town line, immediately adjacent to the Mattamy proposed subdivision. My home has an east -west
orientation, with the front door facing west My side yard and my entire backyard ate adjacent to
the town boundary- My south wall faces the town boundary: The south of my property is a sharp
incline to the level of the Niattamy lands—meazung my south property line is atop a hill that is
approximately 2 stories tall at its highest. My home is built at the bottom of this hill. My top floor
windows look out upon the Mattamy lands, nearly flush with ground level at the top of the hill. The
-2-
significant difference in elevation between my land and the Mattamy lands, combined with the
different lot orientation ate the foundation of my significant concerns about the development.
I have reviewed the draft plan of subdivision and the 2C Secondary plan, to the extent
documentation is available on the Town of Aurora website. I will preface my comments by noting
that public access to the documents at the Town offices is less than ideal. May I suggest that the
Town offices make documents available for public viewing periodically on evenings and weekends.
This would greatly accommodate working homeowners.
I have concerns which have not been addressed in the documentation. It is my view that these
concerns must be addressed in a satisfactory manner before Aurora Council can approve the
proposed subdivision.
My concerns include:
1. Any homes built on the Mattamy lands adjacent to my property line will be built at
the top of the hill. Those houses will tower over my own home. They will block my
sunlight and create shadows. They will potentially create drainage issues. The
ground floor windows of the Mattamy homes will be able to look directly into the
top story windows (e the bedrooms and bathrooms) of my home.
2. Based on the esistiog proposed plan of sub&isioa there will be between 4-5
Mattamy homes facing back onto to my south property line and into my house.
There ate no plans, considerations or accommodations proposed to adjust the
development to match the orientation of my lot (and that of the neighbour across
the cul-de-sac). The balance of the proposed homes to the west along the town line
appear to have matching lot widths, such that each home will back onto only one
other home. As noted, I will have up to 5 new homes capable of looking directly
into my bedroom windows from their kitchens. Each of those homes will be
significantly higher than my own, because of the hill adjacent to my house. No
information has been presented to suggest that grading or any other. accommodation
will address these concerns.
3. There is no evidence that a proper plan has been prepared to address the significant
difference m elevation between my lot and the proposed subdivision. No details
concerning environmental impact on my lot; drainage, soil erosion; access to
sunlight, shadowing, etc, have been provided.
4_ There is no confirmation that these 4-5 homes will --at a minimum --be limited in
height to 2 stories (as opposed to being artificially created walk -outs) to miniyrn e
intrusion on my home's privacy and to limit the effect on my home's access to
sunlight and shadowing on my property.
5. Because nay home is located at the bottom of the hill, I require reassurances that the
construction phase will not create undue erosion or drainage issues, or result in
ground shifting that will affect nay foundations. An assessment of the grading is
necessary to determine the impact of the hill. The height of the new homes as
compared to my home must be capable of accurate determination in the planning
3-
stages. I would like to see those plans so I can assess the impact before Council
approves this subdivision.
6. In my view the proposed development for Block 587 is entirely inappropriate for
this environmentally sensitive area, as is the building of the road to access the area.
The area is rich in wildlife, which will be adversely affected by the placement of a
development squarely in the middle of the environmentally protected areas. The
area is marked "future 'development" without any particulars. I have seen no
assessment of the impact of the proposed road to Block 587 on the environmental
lands or the potential impact on erosion and drainage with respect to my property.
T The 2C Secondary Plan refers to a "Residential Interface Overlay" for which it is the
responsibility of Mattamy to develop a "compatible interface condition" to be
approved by Council. At this time I am advised by the Town that no such plan has
yet been developed by Mattamy. The Newmarket residents along the north
boundary of the Mattamy lands therefore have no means of predicting the impact of
this development on their own property —both physically and aesthetically. I taut
that Council will approve no plan of subdivision until Mattamy prepares and
circulates for fait comment its Residential Interface Overlay plan. It would be
preferred if Mattamy were to utilize its considerable resources to create
computerized simulations of the impact.
8. In my view the Residential Interface Overlay roust provide for certain minimum
tequitemcnts, including (but not limited to);
(a) Adequate lot depth setbacks to ensure that the Newmarket homes are not
crowded by the new development;
(b) In relation to the Schaeffer cul-de-sac in particular some accommodation
must be made to reflect the different lot orientations and elevation
differential. Greater setbacks, special landscaping, adjustment of new home
orientations are all potential solutions-
(c) No walkways or trails be built along the town line, such that the public has
access to the areas between the homes.
(d) Provision is made to preserve existing older growth vegetation at or
Alongside the town line (on both sides). There are considerable older growth
trees alongside my property line which lead directly to the environmentally
protected areas. I would like reassurances that grading activities will preserve
this tteeline, if possible. If the existing trees cannot be preserved an adequate
replacement should be provided.
(e) Restrictive covenants be placed on the adjacent lots to prevent building of
structures in the Interface Overlay and to restrict landscaping activities, in
order to prevent privacy intrusion, erosion, or drainage problems.
.q_
(f) If fences are to be built that there be adequate consultation and study as to
height and style and impact on sight lines, vegetation and shadows —up to an
including an environmental/sunlight assessment
I would appreciate being advised of and provided with a copy of the Mattamy survey for the
northern border of the lands, to confirm the lot lines and that the current farmer's fence reflects the
proper lot line, so I can anticipate the area of impact.
I ask Council to ensure that these concerns are addressed by the appropriate persons. I also trust
that no final decision will be made by Council without Gtst providing me with an opportunity to
comment on the responses received to this letter.
Thank you for your consideration.
Regards,
Colin Empke
Town of Aurora June 26, 2012
Planning and Development Services
100 John West Way
Aurora, Ontario
L4G 6J1
Attention: Deborah Giannetta, Glen Letman, Jim Kyle and John Leach
In response to the Notice of a Public Meeting to be held June 27, 2012 to consider the proposed plans of
subdivisions for the 2C Secondary Plan please find enclosed our written submission outlining the concerns
we have with respect to the proposed subdivision plans. Our group is comprised of several Newmarket
Homeowners whose homes abut the 2C Secondary Plan to the north formally known as the Wildrush
Homeowners Group.
The particular subset of the 2C secondary plan that the below stated concerns apply to is located in the 2C
Northeast quadrant of the planned development owned by Mattamy (Aurora) Limited, more specifically
Block 611 and Block 587 of the revised draft plan. The 2C Northeast quadrant for the purposes of this
submission is defined as those lands situated west of Leslie Street, north of St. John’s Sideroad on lands
abutting Newmarket Township boundaries to the north. A large portion of these lands have been identified
as part of a Natural Heritage System by the Lake Simcoe Regional Conservation Authority.
Our concerns regarding the 2C Northeast area include the following:
We are opposed to the location of the Storm Water Management Pumping Station located in Block
611 of the Residential Plan. Our group is concerned about the possible noise, odors and visual
aesthetics associated with the proposed pumping station.
We are concerned about the environmental impact of the pumping station proposed in Block 611 to
the surrounding wetland areas.
We are concerned that the proposed development of Block 587 does not include a lot size and
minimum setback similar to existing housing stock located on Wildrush Place and Lockwood Circle
in Newmarket, Ontario.
We respectfully request that you take into consideration the aforementioned concerns and review and
amend the proposed 2C Development Plan accordingly.
Thank you for your time and attention.
Respectfully,
Erica Russell
On behalf of the Wildrush Homeowners Group
Lisa A Prime
Aurora, Ont
June 26, 2010
His Worship Mayor Dawe and Members of Council
c/o Clerk
Aurora Town Hall
100 John West Way, Box 1000
Aurora, Ontario L4G 6J1
info@aurora.ca
His Worship Mayor Dawe and Members of Council,
Re: Files: D12‐02‐11 and D14‐08‐11, Files: D12‐03‐11 and D14‐09‐11,
Files: D12‐01‐12 and D14‐01‐12, Files: D12‐05‐11 and D14‐13‐11,
Files: D12‐02‐12 and D14‐02‐12,Files: D12‐04‐11 and D14‐12‐11
I understand Official Plan Amendment No. 73 (OPA 73), the 2C Secondary Plan was adopted by Council
on September 28, 2010 and approved by The Regional Municipality of York with modifications on
February 9, 2011. OPA 73 was subsequently appealed to the Ontario Municipal Board (OMB) and on
August 25, 2011 the OMB issued an order granting approval of OPA 73 policies and modifications for the
lands west of Leslie Street. The Public Meeting of June 27, 2012, considers the six proposed plans of
subdivision and rezoning applications within the OPA 73 area, as referenced.
The total area represents 224.31 hectares of land, within one of the last quadrants of development
within the Town of Aurora urban area. The current plans providing 2,819 residential units and provide
for 122.48 hectares of environmental protection area. This represents 54.6% of the total development
area. Directly adjacent to this planned development is existing environmental protection land, which
also includes important features that comprise property, owned by Ducks Unlimited.
The 2C Secondary Plan recognizes important objectives which include: “emphasis on sustainable
development, energy efficiency and enhancement/protection of environmental natural features and
Wildlife Park throughout the 2C Secondary Plan area”.
The Town of Aurora represents important natural resources, which are recognized by this Secondary
Plan Objective. I would like to emphasize the importance of ensuring the integrity of the natural
heritage plan and the conditions of the natural system within this newly developing area is maintained.
I would like to understand how all of these elements within this key objective are being maintained
through the development approvals process and the operation of the Town. I would ask that the Town
identify key performance measures related to this objective and establish a system through which the
developer and the Town, post development, will maintain reporting on the features and function. I
would also ask that the Town ensure Conditions of Draft Plan Approval be included that represent the
plan objectives and the intent of the natural heritage plan. It is not only the responsibility of the
developers, but also of the Town to protect and ensure the health of the natural system long term.
Although the public notice suggested the staff report would be available prior to the public meeting, it
was not clearly identifiable on the website. I would ask to please be notified of the decision of the Town
of Aurora, in respect of the proposed plan of subdivision or zoning bylaw amendment applications,
based on this letter.
Yours truly,
Lisa A. Prime
From: Yash Bidani
Sent: June-27-12 12:13 PM
To: Celebre, Cristina
Subject: Request of plans for 2C lands
Hi Cristina,
Thank you for taking the time to talk to me about the developments of the
2C lands.
Please send me the planning report and map for my reference.
As a resident of _____________ I am concerned about the density and loss
of wildlife habitat. I am hoping the town will protect the mature trees and
minimize the dirt and dust from the development.
Thanks again for your consideration.
Regards,
Yash Bidani
Aurora, ON