Official Plan Review

My comments following are based solely on my attendance at the Public Open House of March 8. I am a regular citizen, my opinions are my own, and I have no agenda. I recognize that it is late in the game to be making comments. I am not against density per se if done properly, but I don't think it will have much impact on affordability or climate change. It is mostly a way to increase developer profits.

From my observation, higher density works if it is coupled with adjacent accessible green space. If people have dogs, they need to walk them. If people have kids, they need to let them play outside. Restaurants and shops to make walkable neighbourhoods are to the good. Getting people out of the house, walking around, greeting each other, is a healthy thing.

I'm mostly worried about the part of the plan centred on the GO station. The priority for this area should definitively be regional transportation. Having the Town Square and Town Park within a 15-minute walking radius of the station is a bonus. I'm pro-environment, but I happen to believe that cars are not going away. We hopefully might see more car sharing in the future, but Covid should have taught us that public transit is only part of the picture. Adaptability is key. Options are good. I will not get into a fuel discussion, but the assumption is it will be something non-gasoline.

Putting my futurist hat on, perhaps the "self-driving car" concept will work in controlled environments. Some day, the area around a GO station could be such an engineered zone where cars are able to park themselves, or make themselves available for the next driver. When trains come in, cars alerted by app could drive themselves to a designated pick-up lot. Far-fetched? Who knows. My point is to stay flexible and not clog the station area with a set of residential buildings, mixed-use or not, that we are stuck with for the next 100+ years.

I do not see the point in putting up office space in the area around the GO station. Maybe some co-working spaces, but otherwise, why? As currently configured, the proposed office space effectively cuts off Sheppard's Bush from any community to the northwest. One of the brilliant things about Aurora is the trail system. I like to ride my bike along these trails, but I hate crossing the tracks at Wellington on my bike. Much better if I could cross at the other end of the GO station approximately around Metcalfe Street and have a path going directly to Sheppard's Bush. A wide crossing for pedestrians and bikes here would also be good for anyone wanting to get over to Town Square from the east side of the tracks.

I would expand the size of the GO station so people can wait for trains in more comfort, maybe even grabbing a coffee. I would not build residences anywhere near the GO parking structure which I consider a necessary eyesore. Better to put the parking underground, something to consider for the future. If you want to move people to/from the north side of Wellington, consider an underground structure with airport style moving sidewalks and escalators. I would put parking over there to more evenly distribute egress from the station. I would have people avoid exiting the station via Wellington, even from the existing garage, to reduce coagulation.

The mock streetscapes shown at the meeting looked depressing. I understand that some residential density is inevitable, but not at any cost. Hopefully council will take some civic pride in the look of the town. The idea that people living here will just spend the whole working week in Toronto may be outdated. More work is needed to create pathways to green space.

I'm discouraged that the policy to pinpoint areas of intensification/densification/growth have been solely granted to arterial and main roads while protecting existing neighbourhoods from any type of growth. Largely this is a policy that does not respect people living in denser housing types. Main roads are hostile to pedestrians, cyclists etc and although I am not against having some of our growth along the routes, we can do more and do better. Defending this model as a way to promote public transit use ignores the fact that we can densify around the arterials, not just directly on top of them. Infill in neighbourhoods has been legislated exclusively and enshrined for single family up to a max GFA of ~4000 sqft. This could easily be up zoned to include multi-family at a similar and greater scale over time. While current residents argue that density on their streets will cause them harm from traffic, planners and lawmakers are content to force anyone living in a multiunit denser forms to contend with these same issues. Defending these choices with noise mitigation standards for mid-rise on arterials is just solving a problem created through planning policy. This is not inclusive nor does it answer to the community energy plan. If we expect more people to use public transit, active transportation, accessibility options we must rethink how we rebuild as a holistic idea where everyone has a choice and we are not creating pockets that have advantages over others. Lastly, Aurora has a green building standard, they must include an abandonment of design guidelines that dictate stepbacks. With new height restrictions at 4-7 storeys, there is no need to build stepbacks from such low storey counts. Furthermore, this requirement in particular creates many inefficiencies from the economic to long term sustainability. Not to mention how wasteful in terms of building materials, the resulting floor plate implications, thermal bridging & a reduction of units. We need to build better buildings that answer to an intersection of the crises we face.

Stable neighbourhoods is outdated policy. This is not inclusive. It needs to rewritten to support infill including missing middle. Policy on community character is outdated and needs to be removed. This plan needs to encourage walkable access to neighbourhood necessities and a range of housing including missing middle across all neighbourhoods. Ensure seniors housing is fully integrated in neighborhoods close to all amenities and walkable. Climate policy needs to greater require fully integrated transportation infrastructure for all forms of mobility, protect for community energy on all large sites, require low impact development.

Thank you to everyone that attended our Public Open House last night! We appreciate your continued interest in helping to shape the future of Aurora.

The Henderson Forest Aurora Ratepayer Association (HFARA) has recently submitted to the Town its detailed response to the June 2022 Draft OP.

In summary, we recognize that over the next two decades, Aurora will be under enormous pressure to accommodate a significant growth in population. However, while we continue to tackle the very real problems of housing shortages and affordability, we must also tackle the equally real problems associated with biodiversity loss and climate change.

In this regard, we're extremely concerned by the evident deterioration in the Draft OP of policies governing environmental protection. While we realize that this is largely mirroring changes approved in the recently updated Regional OP, the latter Plan still allows Aurora to impose more restrictive policies if it so chooses.

We're also concerned by the increased reliance on environmental impact studies commissioned by developers. These studies represent a conflict of interest, particularly given the fact that the Conservation Authority's ability to oversee them is limited due to lack of power and resources. This is only going to get worse with the passing of Bill 23.

We look forward to attending the Open House on December 7th and hope the Town will reconsider its proposed disappointing stance on environmental protection.

George Skoulikas
President, HFARA

The Open House is this Wednesday Dec 7th @ 6pm in Town Hall with a presentation at 6:30pm. A Public meeting will not be held until early 2023.

When is the Public Meeting? This week?

Regarding woodland protection, the Draft OP sets an extremely high ‘bar’ in terms of what areas of woodland will, in future, be protected, leaving many smaller areas, in particular, at the mercy of an Environmental Impact Study (EIS), usually commissioned by a developer. In my opinion, this places these woodlands at high risk of development, resulting is what’s now described as “death by a thousand cuts” to the natural feature, its functions and to the wider natural system.
The Environmental Protection Area designation includes woodlands greater than 10 acres in size (Section 12.2 c) v) or which are designated in some way as ‘significant’. Again, ‘significance’, e.g., ‘Significant Wildlife Habitat’, is usually decided via an EIS and is subjective.

Even when a woodland is, in theory, ‘protected’ as an ‘Environmental Protection Area’, a glaring loophole still enables developers to construct infrastructure and roads directly through Significant Woodland (Section 12.3.2.a) iv). Flood or erosion control projects, stormwater management facilities and ‘low intensity recreational uses’ are also still permitted (Section 12.3.2. a)). To me, this completely contradicts the ‘intent’ of the EP designation which is “to identify, protect and enhance natural features and functions that will form a strong and permanent Greenlands System” (Section 12.3.1).
A further negative impact of permitting roads to cut right through a Significant Woodland is that this can render the remaining parcel of woodland too small to retain its EP designation, leaving it at increased risk of development. Developers’ environmental consultants have been known to argue that, since the remaining parcel is now fragmented, this poses a risk to crossing wildlife and, therefore, should also be removed. In my opinion, that’s warped logic and contradicts what the OP is supposedly aiming to achieve. If the predicted result is negative environmental impact, then surely regulation should be written to prohibit this?

Lastly, there are some concerning wording changes in the Draft OP that erode current protection of Key Natural Heritage Features (which includes Significant Woodlands). For example, in Section 12.3.3.d), the current OP’s wording: “… providing the land use change will not result in development or site alteration that will have adverse effects on …” has been struck through. Apparently, Section 12.3.3 a) and b) are meant to replace this wording. However, these speak only of demonstrating “appropriateness” and giving “consideration” as to whether the change will have a “net adverse effect”. It’s clear to me that the wording of the existing OP awards greater protection than what’s now being proposed.

In summary, I think the Draft OP leaves our remaining areas of green infrastructure, both large and small, too susceptible to future development or fragmentation. I hope, therefore, the Town will consider tightening its policies in favour of protection, to reflect the true value and importance of our Natural Heritage in maintaining biodiversity and combating the effects of climate change.

Regarding wetland protection, given that wetlands play such an integral part in preserving biodiversity and combating the effects of climate change, I think the Draft OP falls short for several reasons. For example, unevaluated wetlands do not appear to be included within the Environmental Protection designation (see Section 12.2 c) iii). This means wetlands that have not yet been evaluated will be vulnerable to future development. The Natural Heritage Reference Manual (a document that was apparently used during the writing of the Town’s Natural Heritage Discussion Paper) substantiates this, stating (in Section 6.3.1) that “planning authorities, especially those with relatively few wetland resources, may choose to apply the same protection for wetlands that are not provincially significant. This would recognize the general environmental importance of wetlands and would be a way to ensure that unevaluated wetlands are not viewed imprudently as potential development areas”.

Section 12.4.1 s) of the Draft OP is also concerning. “Appropriate” protective buffers for watercourses and “provincially non-significant wetlands will be decided “through an Environmental Impact Study and/or a hydrogeologic evaluation” conducted by a developer’s hired consultant. Yet again, that’s a conflict of interest. As to whether a wetland is ‘provincially significant’, according to Ontario Nature, word has it that, as a result of the recently proposed overhaul of the Ontario Wetland Evaluation System, most wetlands will soon find themselves ‘non-significant’ to the obvious benefit of developers. In terms of buffer size, the proposed wording of “may include” suggests it could be less than the (already narrow) buffers of 15 m and 30 m. 'Minimum' should be 'minimum' and also not what's now being used by developers' consultants: "variable buffers", resulting in substantially less than minimum in some areas.

In this regard, subtle word changes in the Draft OP can make all the difference between proper future wetland protection and endless wiggle room for developers. For example, Section 12.3.3 b) “consideration will be given as to whether the change will have a net adverse effect on the key natural feature or key hydrologic feature and its functions” is meaningless.

In summary, I hope the Town can go further than it currently proposes. Wetlands are so important and it’s clear we can no longer rely on the Province or the Region to do what needs to be done to protect them.

Regarding wildlife protection, undoubtedly one of the most alarming changes to the existing OP is the proposed reduced protection of Special Concern Species at Risk. Section 12.4.4 (b) which currently prohibits development and site alteration within the habitat of Special Concern Species has been entirely struck through.

Protection of ‘Special Concern’ species is currently awarded based on the SARO (Species at Risk in Ontario) list, a source that’s both definitive and objective. In future, the level of protection will be decided based on whether the habitat is deemed ‘Significant Wildlife Habitat’. The huge problem here is that this decision is subjective and highly influenced by the environmental firms hired by developers. It’s time it was openly recognised that the opinion of these firms represents a blatant conflict of interest.

The Town’s Natural Heritage Discussion Paper, April 2021, Appendix 1, Table 1, A-2 says:

“As it is currently written, the Town’s policy towards species of special concern by restricting development outright, vs meeting the test of ‘no negative impact’ for which is required for ‘significant wildlife habitat. Revision to this terminology is dependent on how restrictive the Town wants to be. Further discussion is recommended.”

The Draft OP would suggest a decision regarding “how restrictive the Town wants to be” has already been made. In my opinion, there is more than enough scientific evidence to warrant, at the very least, maintaining the current level of protection for ‘Special Concern’ species, not reducing protection going forward.

I urge the Town to re-think this highly damaging move. Species at Risk are faced with unprecedented challenges, including increased loss of habitat. This is one large and unnecessary step backwards in the Town’s commitment towards environmental responsibility.

Stay posted...more information coming soon regarding the release of further policy details for the Official Plan Review. Thank you all for your important feedback thus far.

Early July, the Town of Aurora released a draft Official Plan Amendment. The public has until the end of September to provide feedback. Given that Aurora’s Northwest Planning Area is comprised of environmentally sensitive lands on the ORM, I’m concerned that OPAs and Site-Specific Policies, which are an integral part of shaping Aurora’s future growth, have not been released yet. It would be helpful if Aurora residents could be given enough time to review and evaluate such important documents before the end of September. Therefore, I hope these documents are released soon to enable the public to provide meaningful feedback by the September deadline, based on complete information.

George Skoulikas

Disappointing that no real incentive to provide gentle density when requirements are more stringent than single family density. For example the 40% excess of environmental standard for multi vs only 28% for SFU will only penalize the end users. The town should be finding ways to make multis easier.
Another poor policy is the stated in Stable Neighbourhood section whereby the intent is to to keep the neighbourhood low-density and keep all intensification on Yonge/Promenade corridors where pollution/noise/traffic/safety and general quality of life are less favourable.
Many others ways to prevent missing middle by design like the parking/amenity and site-plan requirements for multi-family and rooming houses are creating more obstacles. It's nice that the OP now talks about missing middle, but the definition is limited and starts to look like a political document more than a one will that will allow growth in a more responsible, moral and equitable way. The repetition of the terms "where appropriate", "decisions by council", "maintaining character" are terms set by groups opposed to change and have taken on aesthetic arguments over practical land use. None of this is surprising however, given all the political dog-whistles this term and involvement of residents' associations in this draft.
Also, if we are throwing around the term "over development" at the council table while directing planning policy and decisions, let's have an accurate glossary definition that captures what that means from a professional planning perspective.

I would like to support "ForTheTrees" position on offsetting. This practice is pure fraud - one system is not equivalent to another. Developers need to be managed not the environment - it was here first and will be here long after.

Additionally, creating pockets of nature that are not connected is just as disingenuous - animal and plant species don't use roads and cross-walks to move from one habitat to another to forage and procreate.

I have two comments. The first is around the preservation of green spaces, wildlife habitats, and watersheds. I see that the town has made efforts, but I'd like to see spaces like this actively supported with the planting of native plant species and additional efforts made to plant more trees and shrubs along residential and high-density streets. The second comment is around the GO Train. Public transit is great for the environment but imposes significant costs of residents close to the GO stations - and with the train close can be a few Km. I know the city has worked with Metrolinx to manage the impact, but the efforts are woefully inadequate. The city needs to insist that additional sound barriers be installed as part of the larger plan especially along Industrial Parkway S by the soccer fields. The residents in Aurora Grove (not that close to the station) can hear and feel the trains accelerating, the stations announcements (even asking Go to lower the volume of the announcements would help), and the train horn. The Go station is extremely disruptive but needed - I am asking efforts to be made to mitigate the impacts on residents. Along these lines we need to look at silencing the train horns - this is not just impactful to residents but to wildlife in Sheppard’s Bush and other natural spaces. I know this has been looked at before, but this was before Aurora was tagged to have twin lines, 15-minute service, and 24-hour trains. This MUST be looked at again. Work with Stoufville, Markham, and Oakville - they all figured out how to do it - mayor to mayor, counsellor to counsellor, city planner to city planner.

I would like the town to focus on preserving existing Greenspace, without allowing the remainder of our vacant land to be developed.
I want there to be zoning changes so that more duplex, triplex and quadriplex housing is allowed in more areas of town. Part of affordable housing is dispensing with the notion that everyone can afford a single family detached house. Instead, let's help the environment and save on developing so much environmentally sensitive land by allowing for more townhouses, triplex and quadriplex housing. As well, in certain areas of town, more apartments of 10-15 storeys should be allowed, as intensification is a reality we all need to get used to.
There should be a change in zoning bylaws to allow interlocking stone walkways or driveways to widen existing driveways. In some streets with townhouses, the bylaw officers like to keep ticketing residents who build an interlocking driveway to allow for more vehicles parked on their front lawn. As long as the interlocking driveway is constructed properly, allowing for proper drainage, this should be an option, as many streets are not built with enough parking spaces to allow for guests to visit. The reality is that children who are young adults living at home, or dependent seniors living with children need enough parking spaces. And allowing more of a front yard to have interlocking stone is acceptable to me.
And I am glad that the town is considering allowing more separate structures in yards for Granny suites, as this is a reality that more people can't afford to move into expensive seniors' retirement residences.
The town needs to work with developers to build affordable housing units in new apartment buildings, as well as allow more affordable subsidized townhouse units.
There needs to be more bike lanes on regional roads, as well as an underpass or overpass at the GO station, to allow for cyclists and pedestrians to cross at Wellington safely.
Let's work with the Region to coordinate YRT bus service with the Go Train. We need much more frequent YRT bus service to all areas of town.

Who knew that single family homeowners were such a disenfranchised group? Largely, all planning decisions around density and providing an equitable mix of housing types is in the hands of an outspoken collection of homeowners voicing their concerns about how their neighbourhoods are at risk and they must be protected at all costs from density in any form. The fact is that the single family dwelling just as the single occupancy vehicle are the two of the largest contributors to carbon and inequality. Yet these are models that our current planning systems enshrine and enable. While we fret about green space being paved over, we continue to widen roads, fight over parking, height restrictions and density limits. It's hard to imagine how painting murals will solve inequity while those with power ignore the expertise and talk about their small town charm. It's long since gone, decades ago and continues every time we sprawl further. With so little developable land left in this town, why focus on "ground level" dwellings, single family homes and roads wide enough to allow parking? Virtually, all the studies point out that "compact development", reimagining existing developed areas, and public & active transportation options are the future. If our zoning will permit 4000 sq ft homes in older neighbourhoods why can we not build 4000 sq ft duplexes and other housing types or divide the lots to double the density equation simply. Where is the expertise in the planning department and why isn't anyone doing their homework and reading beyond the cries from those who already have homes? It's time to start thinking about those that need housing and will continue to be left out in the future. We have and continue to design our towns for those who can afford to live in single family and detached dwellings, afford multiple cars to travel distances to wherever they desire but in the process have ignored those who don't have the same means and put the pressure on them to find their way rather than giving them a chance. The single family homeowner, I have witnessed represents the loudest and strongest voice in this town (and everywhere for that matter). The true failure is that we often assume that everyone should want, aspire to the same things they demand for themselves. This could not be further from the truth. Pushing back on density targets and not providing more accessible housing across the economic spectrum will not help small business flourish and ventures into the territory of exclusion. If you're working to help people with food insecurity but at the same time ignoring housing insecurity you're sadly missing the point.

Great to see that the Town is taking the feedback from residents seriously, I do like the fact that improving transit within Aurora is being considered a top priority to emphasize more in the new official plan going forward. Vehicle traffic on our roads has been a growing problem since the late 2000s. Before you would only see congestion at Yonge/Wellington or the GO station during rush hour, now it's pretty regular to see congestion anywhere along Bayview, St Johns, Yonge, or Wellington during those times and sometimes outside rush hour too. The time is long overdue to start reducing overall dependence on cars.

I'm in support of taller buildings (capped around 10-15 storeys) as long as they're carefully considered, built somewhere that makes sense (i.e. GO station), allows for more purpose-built rental or affordable housing to be built, and it takes away the pressure of expanding too far into greenspaces to meet growth targets. Perhaps implement a policy of only allowing buildings at these heights if some or all units in the buildings are guaranteed as affordable housing units? So we don't run into a situation like Toronto where the only "new" housing options are overpriced shoebox condos.

I'd also like to see more attractive public space projects (new or revilatizations of existing areas) be considered in Aurora. Library Square and the Hartwell Way park are a very good start. I think that we should take notes from what other towns are doing like the Mulock property in Newmarket or Richmond Green in Richmond Hill.

A natural heritage system cannot be considered a system if there is no connectivity between natural spaces; they are simply islands of extinction. The town should focus on preserving its remaining natural spaces and restoring land that has been developed back into a functioning ecosystem. Set ambitious targets to increase forest canopy cover across Aurora, and facilitate ecosystem restoration. Look at opportunities to collaborate with community groups and other municipalities to help increase habitat connectivity. Taking a large scale watershed/ecosystems based approach to land management is how we create resilient communities.

I was extremely concerned to see the practice of 'offsetting' introduced at the recent virtual Open House: Natural Heritage Network. A slide was shown depicting 'offsetting' as "best practice" when, to the contrary, it's considered highly controversial and a means of destroying environmentally sensitive lands and species at risk habitat that would otherwise remain protected. "Offsetting" basically allows developers to remove natural areas on the condition that they create a similar site elsewhere on a like-for-like basis. While this practice can be helpful in limited and carefully executed situations, it rarely works the way in which it was intended. One cannot readily take the biodiversity and complex ecosystems of one area and replicate this elsewhere. The practice also fails to compensate for the immediate loss of wildlife habitat and the services which these areas currently provide. In the unfortunate event that Aurora chooses to go down this extremely dangerous path, environmentally sensitive lands and species at risk habitat should be explicitly EXCLUDED. Even if used as a "last resort" (as explained by the consultant), these "last resorts" are usually the precise time when the lands would otherwise be preserved. "Offsetting" is sadly becoming yet another tool in the developers' ever-expanding toolbox and, to me, sounds a troubling alarm in terms of the direction in which the Official Plan may be heading in terms of meaningful protection of our natural heritage systems.