Ontario Land Tribunal

Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire

ISSUE DATE: August 21, 2023 CASE NO(S).: OLT-22-001975

PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 22(7) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended

Applicant and Appellant: Shimvest Investments Limited Subject: Request to amend the Official Plan – Failure to adopt the requested amendment Description: To permit the development of a six-storey purpose-built rental residential building containing 155 dwelling units Reference Number: OPA-2021-04 Property Address: 271 Holladay Drive Municipality/UT: Town of Aurora/ Regional Municipality of York OLT Case No.: OLT-22-001975 OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-22-001975 OLT Case Name: Shimvest Investments Limited v. Aurora (Town)

PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 34(11) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended

Applicant and Appellant: Shimvest Investments Limited Subject: Application to amend the Zoning By-law – Neglect to make a decision Description: To permit the development of a six-storey purpose-built rental residential building containing 155 dwelling units Reference Number: ZBA-2021-05 Property Address: 271 Holladay Drive Municipality/UT: Town of Aurora/ Regional Municipality of York OLT Case No.: OLT-22-001976 OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-22-001975

PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 41(12) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended

Referred by: Shimvest Investments Limited Subject: Site Plan Description: To permit the development of a six-storey purpose-built rental residential building containing 155 dwelling units Reference Number: SP-2021-10 Property Address: 271 Holladay Drive Municipality/UT: Town of Aurora/ Regional Municipality of York OLT Case No.: OLT-22-001977 OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-22-001975

Heard: June 22, 2023, by Video Hearing

APPEARANCES:

Parties	Counsel
Shimvest Investments Limited	Meaghan McDermid
Town of Aurora	Chantal deSereville
Region of York	Samantha Whalen

MEMORANDUM OF ORAL DECISION DELIVERED BY DAVID BROWN ON JUNE 22, 2023 AND INTERMIN ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL

Link to Order

INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND

1The matter before the Tribunal concerns three Appeals filed by Shimvest Investments Limited (the “Appellant”) pursuant to s. 22(7), s. 34(11), and s. 41(12) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P. 13, as amended (the “Act”), against the Town of Aurora (“Town”) for its failure to make a decision on an application for an Official Plan Amendment (“OPA”), an application for a Zoning By-law Amendment (“ZBA”), and an application for Site Plan Approval (“SPA”) (collectively the “Applications”) within the time frames prescribed in the Act.

2The lands that are the subject of the Appeals are known municipally as 271 Holladay Drive (the “Subject Property”). The Applications will give effect to the Appellant’s proposal to redevelop the Subject Property with a six-storey purpose-built rental apartment building.

3The Subject Property is located at the southwest corner of Leslie Street and Holladay Drive and is within an approved and recently built-out plan of subdivision. The Subject Property is irregular in shape, has an area of 0.525 hectares, has street frontage on all sides, and is currently vacant. York Regional Transit service is accessible on Leslie Street with connections to the Aurora GO Train Station and an area secondary school. Within a ten-minute walk from the Subject Property are amenities including a public park, a community recreation centre, a medical clinic and retail services including a grocery store, pharmacy, restaurants, and financial services.

4To the north of the Subject Property, on the north side of Holladay Drive, is a natural heritage feature. Across Leslie Street, to the east, is a forested property on the edge of a future business park development. South and west of the Subject Property, across Badgerow Way, are townhomes and single detached dwellings in a subdivision developed by the Appellant.

5The Applications were filed with the Town on July 21, 2021, together with numerous supporting reports and documentation including a Planning Justification Report, a Functional Servicing Report (“FSR”), and a Traffic Impact Study (“TIS”). The Applications contemplated a six-storey purpose-built rental residential building containing 155 units, a rooftop mechanical penthouse and amenity space, 194 vehicle parking spaces, 32 bicycle parking spaces, a gross floor area of 14,006 square metres (“m²”), and a density of 295.2 units per net residential hectare. The Applications were deemed complete on July 28, 2021. The Applications were considered by the Town’s Urban Design Review Panel on October 4, 2021, in advance of a Public Information Meeting held by the Town Council on November 9, 2021. The Applications were appealed to the Tribunal on December 13, 2021.

6The Appellant, the Town, and the Region of York (“Region”) continued discussions concerning the Applications and prior to the commencement of the hearing, the Appellant advised the Tribunal that the Parties have negotiated a settlement of the Appeals. The Tribunal convened the proceedings as a Settlement Hearing.

7The Settlement Proposal before the Tribunal proposes a reduction in the total number of units to 147 comprised of 79 one-bedroom units, 49 two-bedroom units, and 19 three-bedroom units. The mechanical penthouse is shifted easterly with the rooftop indoor and outdoor amenity area maintained. An additional pedestrian access at the north-easterly corner of the building is added and the vehicular access to Badgerow Way is maintained. The total amenity space has been increased from 2,937 m² to 3,808 m² and the total parking supply of 194 parking spaces has remained unchanged, however the ratio between resident and visitor spaces has been revised to provide 147 resident spaces and 47 visitor parking spaces. The gross floor area has been reduced to 12,999.7 m² and the density is reduced to 280 units per net residential hectare.

8The Town and the Region attended and advised that they are not opposing the Settlement Proposal and requested that the terms of the Settlement Proposal be incorporated into any Decision of the Tribunal that approves the OPA, ZBA, and SPA.

EVIDENCE AND SUBMISSIONS

9The Tribunal qualified David McKay, a Registered Professional Planner, to provide opinion evidence as an expert in land use planning. Mr. McKay provided an affidavit, sworn on June 12, 2023, in support of the Settlement Proposal and the approval of the OPA, ZBA, and SPA (Tribunal Exhibit 1).

10Mr. McKay reviewed the revised site and elevation plans in support of the Settlement Proposal (“Settlement Plans”) found in Exhibit L to Tribunal Exhibit 1. Mr. McKay identified the revisions made to address issues raised through the review and circulation of the Applications. The Settlement Plans detail a 147 residential unit rental apartment building having a height of six storeys. The gross floor area has been reduced from the original submission to 12,999.7 m² and the density is reduced to 280 units per net residential hectare. The overall height of the building remains unchanged. The total proposed parking remains at 194, however, the ratio of tenant to visitor parking has been adjusted, increasing the number of visitor parking spaces provided. The amenity space has also increased, resulting in a ratio of 25.9 m² per unit. The setback at the west end of the proposed building has been increased and the step-backs at the westerly end and south-easterly end of the proposed building have been increased to further reduce the massing impacts of the proposed building.

11Within the surrounding area along the Leslie Street corridor, Mr. McKay identified other developments of a comparable nature that have been approved or are currently under review by the Town.

12Mr. McKay reviewed his affidavit with the Tribunal, in which he addressed s. 2 of the Act and the matters of provincial interest as they apply to the Settlement Proposal. He advised that the Subject Property does not contain any Key Natural Heritage or Hydrological Features, as referenced in s. 2(a). In consideration of s. 2(e), Mr. McKay proffered that the Settlement Proposal incorporates low-impact development and transportation demand management measures, which are intended to make the proposed development become resilient and adaptive to climate change. The FSR and TIS addressed servicing issues, stormwater management and traffic impact within the transportation network in response to the matters set out in s. 2(f). The Settlement Proposal will include waste handling systems that are located and designed in accordance with Provincial legislation and standards, as contemplated in s. 2(g). Mr. McKay proffered that the Settlement Proposal maintains the orderly development of safe and healthy communities and will develop the last remaining block of this Subdivision in a form of development as contemplated in the Town Official Plan (“TOP”) and Town Zoning By-law No. 6000-17, as amended (“ZBL”). The Settlement Proposal provides a mix of rental units that include one-, two-, and three-bedroom units, contributing to the Town’s housing supply and providing housing options for residents of all ages and needs, addressing the matters outlined in s. 2(j). Mr. McKay proffered that the Subject Property is an appropriate location for growth and development in an existing urban settlement area, as required by s. 2(p). Section 2(q) is addressed by the Settlement Proposal as it is supportive of existing transit infrastructure given the site is located in proximity of an existing public transit route that connects to Downtown Aurora and the Aurora GO Train Station, which will foster a transit supportive development. The primary front entrance to the building has been located towards Holladay Drive with a secondary entrance towards Leslie Street. The proposed entrances will be visible and directly accessible from the public sidewalks orienting the building towards pedestrians. The Settlement Proposal demonstrates an appropriate location and design for a mid-rise building that aligns with the policy direction and urban design goals of the Town, thus having regard for those matters identified in s. 2(r). The Settlement Proposal will support the efficient use of resources and land as it is contributing to an intensified residential community and contributing to the Province, the Region, and the Town in meeting their greenhouse gas emission targets, as identified in s. 2(s).

13Mr. McKay opined that the Settlement Proposal has regard for the relevant matters of provincial interest set out in s. 2 of the Act.

14In consideration of the Provincial Policy Statement, 2020 (“PPS”), Mr. McKay opined that the Settlement Proposal is consistent with the PPS.

15Mr. McKay reviewed the policies set out in Policy 1.1.1 and proffered that the Settlement Proposal represents an efficient development and land use pattern, as it promotes residential infill within a settlement area, as defined in the PPS, and will provide much-needed rental apartments with a variety of unit sizes. The Settlement Proposal is a compact urban residential development within a settlement area, where growth is to be focused, and represents intensification and transit-supportive development, which will optimize the use of the Subject Property, municipal services, transit investments and infrastructure available to the Subject Property.

16The Settlement Proposal efficiently utilizes land by developing an underutilized, vacant site that will serve to connect with the surrounding neighbourhood. It will optimize existing infrastructure, public service facilities, and will support active transportation through the development’s proximity to bicycle lanes, trails and pedestrian walkways. These elements will be balanced by providing an appropriate transition and compatibility to the surrounding residential and open space uses. The Settlement Proposal is in proximity to commercial uses and open space within the area, thereby promoting minimal travel distance and reduced carbon emissions. The Settlement Proposal is supportive of existing transit infrastructure given the site is located in proximity to an existing public transit route that connects to Downtown Aurora and the Aurora GO Train Station, which will foster a transit-supportive development. Mr. McKay proffered that the Settlement Proposal addresses, and is consistent with, the relevant policies contained in 1.1.3, 1.4.3, and 1.6 of the PPS.

17Mr. McKay directed the Tribunal to his affidavit, wherein he proffered that the Settlement Proposal conforms to the relevant policies of A Place to Grow: Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe (2020), as amended (“Growth Plan”), setting out that the Settlement Proposal proposes an appropriate built-form within the urban settlement area to contribute to the creation of a complete community through its proximity to recreational amenity space and transit facilities that connect to Downtown Aurora and the Aurora GO Train Station. It will broaden the range and mix of residential options within an existing residential community for residents of all ages and needs, including providing rental housing. Further, the proposal is located along a Region transit route and will access existing water, wastewater, and stormwater infrastructure available to the Subject Property, thereby, efficiently using existing infrastructure and services. The Settlement Proposal provides an appropriate level of intensification in a compact urban form within the urban settlement area. The Settlement Proposal is compatible with surrounding land uses through the use of appropriate performance standards to control the built form and building siting. The Settlement Proposal demonstrates an appropriate location and design for a mid-rise building that aligns with the policy direction and urban design goals of the Town. The Settlement Plans establish an urban built form that is massed, designed, and oriented to people, and creates an active and attractive entrance to the surrounding community providing efficient connections to public streets and nearby multi-use trails, thereby reinforcing sustainable mobility options and providing active transportation opportunities, which will result in a more accessible and sustainable environment for all.

18Mr. McKay opined that the Settlement Proposal conforms to the Growth Plan.

19Mr. McKay advised that the Subject Property is located within the watershed boundary that is regulated under the Lake Simcoe Protection Plan (“LSPP”). The LSPP outlines policy themes such as water quality, water quantity, and natural heritage and details policies to address the potential impacts of development on the Lake Simcoe Watershed. In support of the Applications, several reports have been prepared to address LSPP matters relating to stormwater management for the proposed development. Appropriate implementation measures will continue to be refined through the SPA conditions and implemented accordingly through construction. Mr. McKay opined that the Settlement Proposal conforms to the LSPP.

20The Applications are subject to the 2010 Region Official Plan (“ROP”) which identifies the Subject Property as being designated “Urban Area”. Urban Areas are intended to accommodate the majority of the planned growth in the Region. Mr. McKay opined that the Settlement Proposal conforms to the relevant ROP policies as the Settlement Proposal will facilitate the efficient use of the Subject Property by permitting an appropriate level of development, which is compatible with surrounding land uses. The Settlement Proposal will provide for rental residential uses in an apartment-style built form on underutilized lands, thus supporting the housing intensification objectives set forth by the ROP. The Settlement Proposal will contribute to a diversity of housing options assisting with making Aurora a complete community including a range of apartment units. The Settlement Proposal will make efficient use of the Subject Property by optimizing available infrastructure including municipal water and sewage services, utilities, public streets, and public transit. The Settlement Proposal will incorporate low-impact development measures, transportation demand management measures and other sustainable measures to assist the Region and the Town in becoming resilient to climate change. The Settlement Proposal will incorporate green design measures, such as passive and active energy conservation measures, to minimize the development’s energy consumption and greenhouse gas emissions

21Mr. McKay, in his affidavit, and through his viva voce testimony, reviewed the TOP and proffered that the Subject Property is identified in a “Neighbourhood” and specifically designated “Urban Residential Two” (“UR2”) on Schedule A – Land Use Plan to the TOP. The Subject Property is located within the Aurora 2C Secondary Plan (“2CSP”) area of the TOP. Neighbourhoods are the fundamental structural element of the 2CSP and contain a mix of housing types, density, land uses and activities. It is a requirement of the 2CSP that the residential community west of Leslie Street achieves an average minimum density of 50 residents and jobs combined per developable hectare, with higher densities located along major streets, such as Leslie Street. Mr. McKay opined that the Settlement Proposal addresses the Neighbourhood policies and objectives by providing for a broad range and mix of residential options within this existing residential community by including additional one-, two-, and three-bedroom rental apartment units. The Settlement Proposal will provide for a population density that exceeds the minimum required density of 50 residents and jobs per developable hectare. He continued by proffering that the existing low-rise residential uses west and south of the Subject Property are protected through setbacks and step-backs which provide for appropriate transitioning to these areas. The Settlement Proposal intensifies an underutilized site where there are existing transit services and infrastructure to address the growth management policies of the TOP while balancing this with high-quality building and landscape design to address the urban design policies within the TOP.

22Mr. McKay advised that the Subject Property is located along Leslie Street, which has been identified by the 2CSP as one of the streets along which the highest densities shall occur. Further, he advised that Section 3.3.2 of 2CSP contains the UR2 policies and proffered that the intent of UR2 designation is to promote well-designed and transit-supportive medium-density housing forms in proximity to community recreational and convenience commercial facilities. The UR2 designation permits a variety of uses including residential apartments with a maximum building height of six storeys or 20 metres (“m”). Further, a maximum density of 125 units per net residential hectare is permitted for small-scale/low-rise apartment developments. The 2CSP restricts direct vehicular access to Leslie Street. With the exception of the permitted height and density, Mr. McKay proffered that the Settlement Proposal meets the intent of this UR2 designation as it provides for high-quality building design at an appropriate density which is transit-supportive and in proximity to community recreational and convenience commercial facilities.

23Addressing the OPA, Mr. McKay advised that the proposed building has a height of six storeys which meets the maximum building height permitted in the UR2 designation. He explained that the additional building height of approximately 5 m, required for the enclosed rooftop amenity area and mechanical penthouse, will exceed the permitted height of 20 m. Mr. McKay opined that the proposed height is appropriate given that the proposed height increase is marginal and only relates to the small component of the rooftop amenity area and mechanical penthouse. The small protrusion above 20 m is significantly setback from any adjacent residential properties resulting in no shadow or privacy impacts. Further, he opined that through the articulation and fenestration incorporated into the building, including step-backs, the overall massing of the built form is reduced and any shadow impacts on the adjacent low-rise residential properties are acceptable. With respect to the proposed density of 280 units per net residential hectare, which exceeds the maximum permitted density of 125 units per net residential hectare, Mr. McKay opined that the increase is appropriate given the identified need for additional housing, including rental housing, which is specifically called for by the TOP through policies 6.1(c), 6.2(d) and 6.3(a)(i) and (ii). The Subject Property is unique and suitable for additional density as it is bordered on all sides by arterial or local streets and is not located immediately adjacent to any other properties. Further, Mr. McKay opined that the overall increase in density represents intensification and transit-supportive development, which will optimize the use of the Subject Property, municipal services, transit investments, and available infrastructure which is encouraged by the TOP.

24Mr. McKay concluded that the increased density can be appropriately accommodated on the Subject Property with no adverse planning impacts and proffered that the Settlement Proposal and the OPA conform to the policies in the TOP, except as is proposed to be amended, with such amendment being appropriate and reasonable as outlined in his submissions.

25Mr. McKay advised the Tribunal that he has reviewed the Participant Statements received in response to these proceedings and summarized the concerns into seven areas. He responded to each as follows:

1. Density and Building Location on the Subject Lands

26The TOP directs that density be located in proximity to major streets, including Leslie Street. Providing density as proposed on the Subject Property meets the intent of the TOP for focusing intensification in locations where higher densities should be located. Further, the provision for rental housing on the Subject Property is supported by Policy 6.2(d) of the TOP, with the building located in an appropriate location along a major street (Leslie Street).

2. Traffic Safety, Access and Parking

27The traffic safety, access location, and parking supply concerns have been addressed in the TIS, prepared in support of the Applications, and which has been accepted by the Town and the Region, with no substantive issues raised regarding traffic safety or concerns with the vehicular access point. The TIS reviewed the proposed development under the existing and future conditions and confirmed that no substantive impacts to the abutting road network would occur. No traffic safety or capacity concerns have been raised by either the Town or the Region as a result of the proposed development, with the Region having specifically stated that an entrance directly from Leslie Street is not permitted. With respect to parking supply, the proposed parking ratio represents a slight reduction from the current zoning standard but continues to meet the visitor requirements. This parking supply is appropriate and balances the current need for parking with the desire for residents and visitors to take alternative modes of travel (active transportation and transit).

3. Servicing Constraints

28The Consulting Engineers for the project prepared an FSR that concluded that water and sanitary servicing for the proposed development can be accommodated by the existing services. The FSR reviewed the capacity from the sewage pumping station previously constructed for this area and confirmed that sufficient capacity is available to accommodate the additional population that would result from the proposed development. Further, Mr. McKay noted that neither the Region, nor the Town Engineering staff raised any concerns with the analysis undertaken by the Appellant’s Consulting Engineers.

4. Precedent Setting

29Development applications are to be considered on their own merits. Mr. McKay opined that the Settlement Proposal is appropriate for the Subject Property in consideration of the surrounding context. The Subject Property is unique in that it is bordered on all sides by roads. Mr. McKay proffered that every new development is considered in its own unique context.

5. Lack of Amenity Space

30The ZBL requires 18 m² of amenity space per unit of which 50% is to be interior amenity space. The Settlement Proposal is therefore required to provide 2,646 m² of total amenity space, with 1,323 m² being interior amenity space. The Settlement Proposal proposes 3,695 m² of amenity space with 614 m² being interior amenity space. Mr. McKay proffered that this ratio of amenity space is similar to many other recent developments in the Town, where interior amenity space has been reduced, and proffered that the proposed amenity space is appropriate, as the overall combined amenity space exceeds the zoning requirement by more than 1,000 m² and will result in a ratio of 25.9 m² of amenity space per unit.

6. Building Design, Setbacks, Massing, and Height

31The revisions filed with the Town and the Tribunal in support of the Settlement Proposal included modifications to address massing, which include increased step-backs or the introduction of step-backs, the reduction of the rooftop mechanical penthouse and amenity area configuration and the shifting of this element away from the nearby low-density residential uses, and the addition of articulation of the northerly façade. Mr. McKay opined that the Settlement Proposal represents an appropriate design for the Subject Property, incorporating reasonable setbacks, step-backs, articulation and fenestration, to create an appropriate massing on the Subject Property. The proposed setbacks provide for an urban streetwall condition that better frames the street through the step-backs and articulation and enhances the pedestrian experience along Holladay Drive and Leslie Street. Appropriate landscape treatment around the Subject Property, including the use of private terraces, is provided for within the street yards.

7. Compatibility with Surrounding Land Uses

32Mr. McKay proffered that “compatible” means, in the context of development, that a proposal can co-exist in harmony within its existing and planned context. Compatible does not mean “the same as” or “similar to”. He opined that the Settlement Proposal can co-exist in harmony and will not cause unacceptable adverse impacts of a planning nature on neighbouring lands or the public realm. He continued that no adverse shadow impacts are caused by the Settlement Proposal and that the step-backs at the south and west ends of the building provide for an appropriate transition to the existing low-rise residential uses. The location of the building on the Subject Property and step-backs incorporated into the building design reduce overlook and negate privacy issues noting the building faces towards the front yards of adjacent buildings.

33Mr. McKay reviewed the requested conditions for the SPA and proffered that the conditions are typical and standard for a development of this nature. The conditions are appropriate and not onerous for attachment to an approval, should the Tribunal allow the Appeal.

34Mr. McKay reviewed the proposed amendment to the TOP found in Exhibit N of Tribunal Exhibit 1. He advised that the proposed instrument has been reviewed with the Town and that they have indicated that it is acceptable. Mr. McKay then reviewed the proposed amendment to the ZBL found in Exhibit O of Tribunal Exhibit 1, identifying the site-specific provisions contained within the draft instrument addressing the building envelope and capturing the specific setbacks, step-backs, and the maximum heights for the proposed building.

35Mr. McKay concluded opining that the Settlement Proposal and requisite OPA, ZBA, and SPA to implement the Settlement Proposal represent good planning and are in the public interest. He recommended that the Tribunal allow the Appeals and approve the revised OPA and ZBA, as per the amending documents, as set out in Exhibit N and Exhibit O to Tribunal Exhibit 1. Further, he recommended that the Tribunal grant the SPA in accordance with the drawings set out in Exhibit L to Tribunal Exhibit 1 and that the approval of the SPA be subject to the Site Plan Conditions set out in Exhibit P to Tribunal Exhibit 1.

ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS

36The Tribunal accepts the uncontroverted testimony and affidavit evidence of Mr. McKay.

37The Tribunal finds that the Settlement Proposal represents an appropriate intensification of an underutilized site well served with municipal infrastructure, including public transit, that is in an area identified for growth.

38The Settlement Proposal has regard for those matters of provincial interest as set out in s. 2 of the Act. The Tribunal finds that the Settlement Proposal will support the orderly development of safe and healthy communities, will provide an appropriate range of housing types, is an appropriate location for growth, promotes development that is designed to support public transit and pedestrians, be sustainable, and represent a well-designed built form.

39The Tribunal finds that the Settlement Proposal is consistent with the PPS as it will result in efficient development and will provide rental housing that is not prevalent in this area thereby contributing to providing a range of housing types. The Settlement Proposal will efficiently use resources, infrastructure, and services, is transit-supportive, and promotes active transportation.

40In consideration of the Growth Plan, the Tribunal finds that the Settlement Proposal conforms to the policies of the Growth Plan as it will support the achievement of the Town’s density targets, represents intensification within a built-up urban area, and is an efficient use of the land. The Settlement Proposal will contribute to the creation of a complete community with the creation of purpose-built rental residential development.

41The Tribunal is satisfied that the conditions of SPA will appropriately address the stormwater management requirements arising from the LSPP and that the Settlement Proposal conforms to the policies of the LSPP.

42In consideration of the ROP, the Tribunal accepts the opinion of Mr. McKay and finds that the Settlement Proposal conforms to the ROP as it supports the housing intensification objectives of the Region with an appropriate and compatible apartment style development that contributes to the provision of diversity in housing options.

43The Tribunal finds that the Settlement Proposal conforms to the TOP as it proposes increased density along Leslie Street and achieves the housing goals and density objectives of the TOP. The Settlement Plans address the urban design considerations and have reduced the impacts of the proposed building by using a combination of setbacks, step-backs, and exterior treatments to the elevation plans to provide a compatible transition to the surrounding neighbourhood. The Tribunal is satisfied that the shadowing and massing impacts have been appropriately mitigated through the proposed design.

44The Tribunal finds that the OPA conforms with the direction and policies of the TOP, with the exception of those to be amended, and such amendments are appropriate. The Tribunal finds that the ZBA conforms with the TOP and the OPA required to implement the Settlement Proposal. In reviewing the Settlement Plans and the recommended conditions for the SPA, the Tribunal finds that the SPA conforms to the TOP and implements the OPA and ZBA to achieve the goals and objectives of the TOP.

45Having reviewed the Participant Statements filed with the Tribunal, the Tribunal is satisfied that the issues and concerns raised have been appropriately addressed through the Settlement Proposal and as addressed by Mr. McKay in his testimony.

46The Tribunal finds that the Settlement Proposal represents good planning and that the approval of the OPA, ZBA, and SPA is in the public interest.

47The Tribunal allows the Appeals, in part, approves the OPA as set out in the instrument found at Exhibit N of Tribunal Exhibit 1 and approves the ZBA as set out in the instrument found at Exhibit O of Tribunal Exhibit 1. The Tribunal approves the SPA in accordance with the Settlement Plans and subject to the conditions set out in Exhibit P to Tribunal Exhibit 1.

ORDER

48THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS THAT the appeal filed pursuant to s. 22(7) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P. 13, as amended, is allowed in part and the Official Plan for the Town of Aurora is amended as set out in Attachment 1 to this Order. The Tribunal authorizes the municipal clerk of the Town of Aurora to assign a number to this amendment for record-keeping purposes.

49AND THAT the appeal filed pursuant to s. 34(11) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P. 13, as amended, is allowed and By-law No. 6000-17 of the Town of Aurora is hereby amended as set out in Attachment 2 to this Order. The Tribunal authorizes the municipal clerk of the Town of Aurora to assign a number to this by-law for record-keeping purposes.

50AND THAT the appeal filed pursuant to s. 41(12) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P. 13, as amended, is allowed and the site plan drawings prepared by BNKC Architects Inc. referenced as Project no. 20016 and having a plot date of May 19, 2023, are approved subject to the conditions set out in Attachment 3 to this Order.

51AND THAT the Tribunal shall be provided with a written status report from the Appellant and the Town on or before Friday, March 29, 2024, advising of the status of the fulfilment of the conditions of Site Plan Approval as set out in Attachment 3 to this Order. In the event the Tribunal fails to receive the required status report, and/or in the event the conditions of Site Plan Approval are not satisfied by the date indicated above, or by such other deadline as the Tribunal may impose, the Tribunal may, as necessary, arrange the further attendance of the Parties by Telephone Conference Call to address the outstanding conditions of the Site Plan Approval to be fulfilled.

“David Brown”

DAVID BROWN MEMBER

Ontario Land Tribunal Website: www.olt.gov.on.ca Telephone: 416-212-6349 Toll Free: 1-866-448-2248

The Conservation Review Board, the Environmental Review Tribunal, the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal and the Mining and Lands Tribunal are amalgamated and continued as the Ontario Land Tribunal (“Tribunal”). Any reference to the preceding tribunals or the former Ontario Municipal Board is deemed to be a reference to the Tribunal.