Wednesday, May 29, 2024

2020-Jun-23 Council – Phase 2 Shining Hill Development APPROVED

APPROVED: The 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 to allow development of 90 single-detached dwellings on environmentally sensitive lands, Oak Ridges Moraine settlement.

(R9) PDS20-045 – Application for Official Plan Amendment, Zoning Bylaw 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.

Documents: Council Agenda June 23rd, 2020 (PDF) | Council Meeting Minutes June 23rd, 2020 (Page 11/23; PDF)

Aerial View – Google Maps

Final Decision

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

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; and

8. That the existing two homes and the barn on the subject property be evaluated for heritage value by the Heritage Advisory Committee.

On a recorded vote the motion Carried | Yeas: 6 Nays: 1 | Voting Yeas: Councillors Gallo, Gilliland, Humfryes, Kim, and Thompson, Mayor Mrakas | Voting Nays: Councillor Gaertner

Meeting Transcribed

Mayor Mrakas in the Chair

Council Members: Cllr Gaertner, Cllr Gallo, Cllr Gilliland, Cllr Humfryes, Cllr Kim, Cllr Thompson

Item S2 R9 Discussion Watch at 01:07:27:

S2 R9 Pulled by Cllr Gaertner

At 01:07:32 Cllr Gaertner, “Thank you Mr. Mayor. I want be able to move it.

Mayor Mrakas, “Someone would like to move the recommendation coming out of General Committee? Someone? Cllr Thompson, second Cllr Gilliland. Councillor I am not going to read through that right now at the moment. What’s on the screen, it’s pretty long, it’s lengthy. I think everyone’s seen it. I read it last week. Cllr Gaertner the floor is yours.”

Cllr Gaertner, “This has to do with the Shining Hill development that’s on the north side of St. John’s Sideroad, just east of Bathurst. I did my best to the last meeting to persuade you that this was not in the community’s best interest. But judging from last week’s council meeting this development will be opposed. Although it’s compatible with R3 zone, in order to achieve the density that is required by the development the blocks are going to be quite small. In the R3 zone lots can go from 5000 square feet, almost up to 20,000 square feet. So, if you look at the Brentwood subdivision, that’s primarily where the residents came to us from in the Public Planning meeting, there’s a home for sale at the moment that is 17,000 square feet and comparison of area Brentwood has 14 hectares and 90 houses, this subdivision is proposing 19 houses, but on 7.79 hectares.

I can understand why the residents are upset. You know this if we’re going to use R3 zone, yes it does keep the letter of the law but certainly not the intent of our Official Plan. It’s on the moraine. This development will neither be appropriate or compatible and that is what is required of us to do an OPA 37. So again I’m saying that I’m going to fail at persuading you.

We have to concentrate on schedule A. Schedule A is many pages of conditions of approval. And these are Council’s conditions of approval. Some of them were really routine. Some fall under the jurisdiction of the Lake Simcoe Conservation Authority or the region of York. But there are a lot that will be under our jurisdiction and they all must be satisfied in order to qualify a registration i.e. sale.

So I did, I was in touch with Mr. Waters. Mr. Waters, I think staff has done a great job of identifying the conditions. There are 103 conditions and almost 50 sub-conditions. That’s a lot of work. With respect to fencing that is going to be put in place so that the open space and environmental lands, block 5 and 8 can’t be accessed. Could you comment on what that fence is going to look like and how it’s gonna ensure.

At 01:11:50 Mr. Waters, “That is conditions number 11, draft plan condition. Typically that is a 4 foot chain link fence, that is black. You seen it all over the GTA and in Aurora as well. That separates the open space natural heritage from the residential lot.”

Cllr Gaertner, “I would say definitely that 4 foot fence does not fill the intent of preventing access to these lands so I’d like to have staff look, even I could get over 4 foot fence. And I’m serious about this, we are preventing access we’ve got to prevent access. With respect to be home owners manual, which is number 12, it’s a terrific proposal for manual what residents can can’t do. But who has oversight to make sure the residents don’t do what they’re not supposed to.”

Mr. Waters, “This condition requires the homeowners manual be prepared in order to satisfy the draft plan condition. My understanding is that that manual is prepared in cooperation with the Lakes Simcoe Conservation Authority and the Region of Peel. It’s basically how to treat the natural heritage in a sensitive and respectful way and point to good stewardship that’s required.”

Cllr Gaertner, “It’s great, but how are we going to have oversight on them?”

Mr. Waters, “Council’s question is how do we sort of enforce? What’s good practice? Well, I think we have to leave it up to the individual and through education. They will Implement. what’s in the good practice regarding neighbourhood open space.”

Cllr Gaertner, “I don’t have enough faith in human nature to just let that one go at the moment at will. With respect to the residents who came to us. They were worried about noise and dust, wildlife, trees. So I can say to them that there are three different conditions in here that have to do with noise, noise levels, noise attenuation, dust control. Actually, it’s more than one on dust control. With respect to the traffic and crossing the road Mr. Mayor have to leave that up to you to try to do something at the Region.

The section that worries me the most is number 54 Mr. Waters. It sounds great. It says the owner shall not disturb or otherwise use any portion of block 5 and 8, that’s environmental land and open space for the storage of topsoil, field vehicle or equipment. So will our staff be monitoring that?

Mr. Waters, “Yes, the salt ration permit will require inspections during the grading of the property and that was intended for topsoil that is originating from the grading or from the loss in terms of excavation, not to be stored on the buffer block, including any heavy equipment as well.

At 01:16:21 Cllr Gaertner, “I also might have some amendments. I think Cllr Humfryes might have one as well. So when would be the appropriate time to do that?”

Mayor Mrakas, “As soon as you want to put in amendment for it. Let me know what it is and I will ask for seconder?”

Cllr Gaertner, “No body else wants to speak?”

Mr. Mayor, “I got Cllr Humfryes, but I assume she wants to put amendment before us. Cllr Humfryes?”

Cllr Humfryes, “There is one section I was going through in terms of maybe you can help me with this. The Oak Ridges Moraine does have I think a 30 meter buffer and believe we’re going down to 10 meters here? I was wondering if we could ask if we can make that back to 30 just in terms of keeping that buffer safe distance. So to you Mr. Waters, is that a consideration or something you discussed I missed it at the last discussion last week?”

Mr. Waters, “That buffer or protection zone has been supported through the planning process by the Conservation Authority. So they are supportive of that to protection zone up to 10 years.”

Cllr Humfryes, “Okay, so they’re comfortable with that and confident. Okay, thank you very much. That’s it. Thanks.”

Cllr Gaertner, “No, I am speaking to the possible amendment?”

Mayor Mrakas, “There’s nothing on the floor.”

Cllr Gaertner, “Okay, then I’d like to make an amendment. The Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation plan is very clear that in on the moraine area whenever there is any development there must be a 30-meter buffer zone. And the reason is because there’s such sensitive environmental lands here. 10 meters is really nothing when you’re doing subdivision of this size. So I’m going to put the motion on the table notwithstanding what Lake Simcoe has said because I think this is our subdivision. And I think we’re required to follow the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan. So I put the amendment forward and I need a seconder?”

Mayor Mrakas, “Some would like to the second that? Okay, Cllr Humfryes. Any comments or questions on that?”

At 01:18:51 Cllr Gallo, “Can we please have staff advise whether what the discrepancy is between Lake Simcoe being okay and apparently it not complying with the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Act?”

Mr. Waters, “I think the 30 meters, it depends on if it’s a natural feature or not. That’s defined in the Oak Ridges Plan. So again we work with our partners at Lake Simcoe and if they wanted a 30 meter buffer, they would eventually ask for it as part of the draft plan condition. That doesn’t mean that through the detailed design work if additional buffering is required, it will be implemented.”

Cllr Gallo, “Currently does it comply with the Oak Ridges Moraine?

Mr. Waters, “Yes, in my opinion, it would.”

Cllr Gallo, “Unless I hear differently and I don’t know what else to say.”

At 01:20:09 Cllr Thompson speaking to the amendment, “Mr. Waters if this amendment were to pass, what would be the impact to the applicant?”

Mr. Waters, “It could potentially impact the number of lots they could achieve if there’s additional land that was tabled and that was required to the buffer.”

Cllr Thompson, “So this could in essence and this application and then they may have to either take this to the OMB, or redesign the layout and come back to us?

Mr. Waters, “That’s exactly correct.”

Cllr Thompson, “Thank you.”

Cllr Gaertner, “Mr. Mayor, you know we have buried this reports. The chart that says the differences between what the R3 zoning means, what the R3(XX) is asking for it, and in that chart it says a 30 meter buffer. It says that in the Oak Ridges Moraine Act we got at the moment but it is, it does. So I mean I am at loss of words that we wouldn’t do what is constructed in a provincial plan.”

Mayor Mrakas, “Any other questions or comments to the amendment?”

Cllr Gallo second time, “Can Cllr Gaertner refer to a page number where she was referring to, please?”

Cllr Gaertner, “You’re talking about the chart? Maybe Mr. Waters can you find the chart that’s somewhere after the conditions and before the public comments because I only have one computer going so I can’t find it.”

Mayor Mrakas, “Mr. Waters do you know which pages otherwise it will be difficult? Councillor I would have thought that you would have two computers going. Appreciate that.”

Cllr Gaertner, “Mr. Mayor if the chart was in the body of the report as charts always are there would be no issue.”

Mayor Mrakas, “Cllr Gaertner, before I let Mr. Waters to answer that, I’m just curious you sit on the Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority. You are our delegate there and I’m just worry, did you bring this up at one of those meetings and ask why they’re supportive of this, since you see them and speak to them on regular basis and you’re so concerned. I’m just curious to know?”

Cllr Gaertner, “Mr. Mayor you say this to me all the time, but I am really not there. I haven’t been there, this is a year ago. I haven’t there in the last month, my meeting is on Friday, so I certainly will raise it. But you know what’s right is, right? The Conservation Authority has different parameters, which is to protect the water that goes to Lake Simcoe. We have other parameters, which is protect the moraine.”

Mr. Waters, “Yes, Mr. Mayor, I believe Cllr Gaertner was referring to appendix G, which is on page 77 of 93 I believe of R9.”

Cllr Gaertner, “What does it say please?”

Mr. Waters, “So it is a six-page chart, I believe Cllr Gaertner may be referring to a buffer of that is next to a key natural feature that requires additional buffer protection. In this case, I don’t believe there is one that is next to this proposed subdivision, which is why the 10 meters has been proposed and accepted by the conservation authority.”

Cllr Gallo, “Is there a difference between a key natural feature and a natural heritage system?

Mr. Waters, “Key natural features are located within the natural heritage system. The natural heritage systems considered to be the overall system and the features are the features within the system itself that are identified through the mapping exercise.

Cllr Gallo, “So there is a natural heritage system around this development Mr. Waters?”

Mr. Waters, “That’s correct. In fact, the initial version of this subdivision had the larger natural heritage system as part of a block and it was the direction of the region to remove the block from this subdivision. What remains is block eight, which is the Natural Heritage System that was retained as part of the subdivision but there is part of a larger Natural Heritage system to the north.”

Cllr Gallo, “Yeah, I mean, I wish I could support this and I wish I could point to something that is telling me that that buffer needs to be there. That we’re doing something in there, but I can’t see it. And I’m you know trust staff that is correct because I have no reason to believe that there is a natural heritage system there. Whether inside that there’s a natural heritage future that requires it, surely someone would have triggered at some point that mandated that 30 meters, but I’m at a loss.”


At 01:26:55 Mayor Mrakas, “Call the vote on the amendment.”

Clerk, “Recorded vote for the amendment for R9, Cllr Humfryes YES, Cllr Gallo NO, Cllr Gaertner YES, Cllr Kim NO, Mayor Mrakas NO, Cllr Thompson NO, Cllr Gilliland NO. Motion is defeated.”

Mayor Mrakas, “Back to the main motion.”

Cllr Gaertner, “Mr. Mayor, I have another amendment. The areas around this are Stable Neighbourhood and in any case the height probably when these were built was probably 10 meters to mid. The developer is requesting 11 and I don’t think especially because it’s so dense. Visually I don’t think it’s appropriate so I would like to make an amendment that the maximum height be 10 meters as would have been when all of these homes were built.

Mayor Mrakas, “Someone would like to second that? Not seeing a seconder, oh Cllr Humfryes. Comments and questions on the amendment.”

Cllr Gallo, “Cllr Gaertner are you referring to the homes to the west of this development?”

Cllr Gaertner, “Homes to the west and homes to the south that are on the on R2 and R3 are designated Stable Neighbourhood.”

Cllr Gallo, “The homes to the south have a 10 meter maximum.”

Cllr Gaertner, “Under Stable Neighbourhood they would have. I’m not talking about the estate residential because that’s one home per lot, or the other SR1, that’s two homes for lot, but the more dense subdivisions just south to the west are designated Stable Neighbourhood.”

Cllr Gallo, “I can see a small portion that that is connected to that, maybe seven homes that maybe at that 10 meter, the rest at least from what I can are estate residential, the ER.”

Cllr Gaertner, “If I may, it’s because of number of homes, because of the density, we’re going to have 90 homes with 11 major height. It’s just it’s not going to look very good so I think it’s fair to ask for 10 meters.”

At 01:30:16 Cllr Thompson, “Yeah, I think this is inappropriate. I think that this is not the time to be making amendments on this application. The time was to express the concerns during the Public Planning meeting. The reason why it went to GC, and/or Council is to make a decision on the application because it is before us. Either agree with it, in which case you will vote for it, don’t agree with it because of the height or because of the buffer then you could vote to turn the application down. You cannot make changes at this point of knowing the ramification with regards to the applicant. The application was put back in 2019 is well overdue in terms of the timelines that we as a Council are obligated to make a decision. Now is the time to make that decision, either supported or you don’t. Don’t make changes at the last minute to an application.”

Mayor Mrakas, “The other comments or questions to the amendment?”

Cllr Gaertner, “You know until it comes for approval to Council meeting we can work on an application and I am saying to this Council, this is a complicated long application with so many details that I think it’s not inappropriate if I discover something towards the end of the process where we haven’t voted yet. I don’t think it’s inappropriate to raise it. So I disagree with you respectfully Cllr Thompson.  Thank you.”

At 01:31:57 Cllr Gallo, “I thought I was done but I have to disagree with Cllr Thompson. It is totally appropriate to do this, you may disagree and that’s okay. But if you find something that’s bothering you and you want to express your opinions, this is the venue to do it. Is it better to do with at Public Planning? Absolutely. Is it better to do that at GC? Absolutely. But there’s no way it is inappropriate for anyone to do it at a Council meeting. You can completely disagree and not vote for it and that’s okay too but I think this is part of a healthy debate. I’m not in support of it but I have no issue with anyone bringing up issues that they have.”

Cllr Thompson, “What I am saying is that you either supported or you don’t at this time. This is no different than the Wellington… people didn’t want to support it, they wanted these changes, they said yes, they said no, and on the end of the day no decision was made and that put the Town in a terrible position as the applicant then appeal to LPAT. You make changes to this application, we run the risk of putting the Town and terrible position in order to defend ourselves. You either vote for or you vote against it. That’s the process. That’s the obligation that we as a Council have under the Planning Act, you cannot ignore that.”

Mayor Mrakas, “Any other comments or questions. We will call the vote.”

Clerk, “Recorded vote for the second amendment on S2 R9. Cllr Kim NO, Mayor Mrakas NO, Cllr Thompson NO, Cllr Humfryes YES, Cllr Gilliland NO, Cllr Gaertner YES, and Cllr Gallo NO. Motion is defeated.”

At 01:34:10 Cllr Gaertner, “There is one more amendment. I share this with Cllr Humfryes. In the report it says that there are two homes and one barn existing on this land. I don’t know if they have heritage value, but I would like to make a motion that they go to our Heritage Advisory committee to have it look at it and I think that should have been suggested actually. Anything was an old build on it that’s in the town should go to the Heritage committee. So I am thinking Cllr Humfryes is going to send them this.”

Mayor Mrakas, “What’s the amendment?

Cllr Gaertner, “That the two homes and barn on the property be evaluated for heritage value by the HAC.”

Cllr Humfryes, “My apology, I did miss this, certainly not to stop the development of this point but would like if at all possible, perhaps Mr. Waters already knows of those homes have any significance or if they are on the listed homes of potential heritage? If not, if we don’t know either way it would be great too have that checked out and that’s something that would probably happen at this development continues.”

Mr. Waters, “That issue did not come up through the process nor was it identified at the pre con stage. So I would have to say they are not listed properties and I think in fact, one of them to original large home is quite recent vintage and we’re not going to qualify as a heritage property.”

Cllr Humfryes, “Would it hurt if at this point, again not to sell development, but just to perhaps to go back and just double check that those have no heritage significance. Just to confirm and perhaps we can add on on the next report if this comes back to us, it’s just a double check.”

Mr. Waters, “We can we can examine that request and should it have any heritage value we can certainly come back to you with a report.”

Cllr Kim, “So all this additional report to evaluate the heritage value will that impact the developer? How will it impact the developer?”

Mr. Waters, “This is a draft plan approval so he has a number of conditions to satisfy some very technical and it will take him some time to go through that and while he’s going through the engineering work and the other conditions terms of satisfying them we will undertake to look at the heritage value. Should not be a problem at all.”

At 01:38:07 to the amendment Cllr Gilliland, “To whoever made the amendment, I had some technical difficulties, and I just got back on and I was just wondering if you could explain quickly about too much time, the amendment and the purpose of the amendment.”

Mayor Mrakas, “The amendment is to have the two homes that are sitting there the two structures to evaluate for historical value by the heritage advisory committee.”

Cllr Gilliland, “And I think I believe I kind of logged on when Mr. Waters was explaining that it would not be a problem to go through this process with the developer. Mr. Waters can you confirm that?”

Mr. Waters, “I will also restate through the pre con when the application first came in, one of the items we looked at is the heritage value of the buildings that are on the site, heritage was not flagged as being an issue. So however we can look at that again and if there is any value certainly we can bring forward a report to your to amend the draft plan condition should there be a property of value on the site.”

Cllr Thompson, “Mr. Waters when you say the property wasn’t flagged I assume you mean that all the properties of interest, because they are recorded in our system, have a notation, or do you call it a flag to indicate whether it’s a property of interest or not, certainly staff when they would have done their due diligence and called up this report for these properties it would be clearly labelled whether it was currently in our system.”

Mr. Waters, “That is correct and in fact the developer would have submitted an HIA if it was a listed or designate a property.”

Cllr Thompson, “I just want to understand if this goes forward, what staff are going to do? Are they just going to go back to the computers and note the properties like they did previously and not see it flagged.”

Mr. Waters, “Yes that will be our starting point for making sure we did not miss anything through the pre con and then we will speak to the applicant and have the further understanding of the properties on site. Like I said, one of them is quite recent. It’s less than 20 years old so I doubt it will have any heritage value at all.”

Cllr Thompson, “Just final question. Do you have a rough idea how many properties of interest have been flagged in our system?”

Mr. Waters, “We have over 600 listed properties.”

Mayor Mrakas, “Any other comments or questions to this one?”

Cllr Humfryes, “I certainly don’t want staff to do any rework and maybe the motion just to double check. Normally, if there is a potential heritage property that there’s noted what’s on there right now and there is no significant heritage value. I just didn’t see that comment anywhere. I just want to double check. We’ve got lots of maybe the home, maybe the significance in the barn and the other building. I don’t. I just want confirmation. We had some things occur. I’m not suggesting anytime recently that. I just don’t want it to slip and it would be nice to have a notation that there are no properties of heritage value. We see that almost in every application; so I just wanted the validation. That’s all.”

Clerk, “I call the vote on the amendment number three from S2 R9. Cllr Gaertner YES, Mayor Mrakas NO, Cllr Kim NO, Cllr Gallo YES, Cllr Humfryes YES, Cllr Thompson NO and Cllr Gilliland YES. Motion carries.”

Mayor Mrakas, “Back to main motion as amended.”

At 01:43:05 Cllr Gaertner, “Does anybody else want to speak?”

Mayor Mrakas, “Doesn’t look like it.”

Cllr Gaertner, “Everybody, me being environmentalist apart, but that needs to be underlined by action. If it is our intent to protect the sensitive functions and features of the Moraine we would not be approving this subdivision in the proposed density. Of course we can’t stop them, in fact, this property is in the settlement area of the Oak Ridges Moraine. It’s meant for development, but it’s meant for development with strict guidelines. And the guidelines are in place to protect what is a very important feature, environmental feature with functions. It’s so important that the original government had a whole plan governing that. Developers are looking at their highest and best use of the land. Protecting the moraine has a very different requirement for highest and best use. Climate change is real. As responsible stewards of our environment, we must do everything in our power to minimize the negative impacts of human activity on green spaces. In my opinion this is approved we are putting developers profits ahead of the needs of the environment and I strongly object”

Mayor Mrakas, “Any other comments or questions. Okay Mr. Clerk I call the vote.”

Clerk, “Thank you Mr. Mayor. Recorded vote for S2 R9, the main motion as amended. Cllr Humfryes YES, Cllr Kim YES, Cllr Thompson YES, Cllr Gaertner NO, Cllr Gallo YES, Cllr Gilliland YES, Mayor Mrakas YES. Motion carries.”


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here