{"id":23817,"date":"2019-05-16T17:22:28","date_gmt":"2019-05-16T21:22:28","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.newspapers-online.com\/auroran\/?p=23817"},"modified":"2019-05-23T16:03:32","modified_gmt":"2019-05-23T20:03:32","slug":"henderson-forest-advocates-claim-a-victory-at-committee","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.newspapers-online.com\/auroran\/henderson-forest-advocates-claim-a-victory-at-committee\/","title":{"rendered":"Henderson Forest advocates claim a victory at Committee"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

By Brock Weir<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Residents fighting for the preservation of woodlands on\nHenderson Drive claimed a victory Thursday night as Aurora\u2019s Committee of\nAdjustment rejected plans to redevelop the site for residential use.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Cheers rang out from the Council Chamber galleries as\nthree members of the Committee \u2013 Tom Plamondon, Clarence Lui, and Daniel Lajeunesse\n\u2013 voted to reject plans put forward for two parcels of privately-owned wooded\nland \u2013 672 and 684 Henderson Drive, across the street from Case Woodlot \u2013\nciting both environmental risks and environmental unknowns.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Committee members Michelle Boyer and Steve D\u2019Angeli were\nnot present for the debate.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Property owners will have 20 days from May 14 to appeal\nthe Committee of Adjustment\u2019s decision. If an appeal is made, it will go to\nLPAT, the Local Planning Appeals Tribunal.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Nearly 20 concerned residents, ranging from a Grade 4\nstudent to long-established neighbours, approached the podium to express their\nconcerns while planners on behalf of the property owner were present to state\ntheir case and answer questions posed by Committee and public alike.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The area in question was two lots, one of approximately\nfive acres and the second just under three acres. The landowner proposed two\nbuilds on the northwest and the southeast of the complete land envelope.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Planner Ryan Guetter, representing consultants retained\nby the landowner, told the Committee of Adjustment that in his opinion the two\napplications before them were both minor variances and had planning merit.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The applications, he said, have undergone a number of\nchanges since they were first filed at Town Hall based on comments from both\nmunicipal staff and members of the public. Additionally, he said the proposed\nbuilds were smaller than the building envelopes allowing for flexibility\nfurther down the planning line. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

He offered examples of analysis \u2013 environmental and\notherwise \u2013 carried out by the proponent and said that impacts to the\nsurrounding area would be minimal, arguing that the application for a new\ndwelling would be allowed under the provisions of the Oak Ridges Moraine\nConservation Plan.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cThat is central to the basis of the application,\u201d he\nsaid. \u201cThe policy is intended to allow that to take place. It is recognized\nfurther in that test that it is not the test of there being no impact or no\ndisturbance [on the land], it is a test that applies the demonstration to the\nextent possible the ecological integrity of the Moraine is not adversely\naffected. Based upon the analysis of our ecologist, the peer review findings,\nConservation Authority analysis, that test has been met for both properties.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Residents in Council Chambers last week, however, had a\ndecidedly different view on the matter.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

First to speak on the issue was George Skoulikas,\nPresident of the Henderson Forest Aurora Ratepayers Association. In addition to\nthe Ratepayers, he told the Committee there were 5,700 people who had signed a\npetition on Change.org trying to stop the development.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Much has been made, he said, that the land in question is\nprivately owned, with some arguing this should give the landowners the right to\nbuild. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cWhile this was undoubtedly the case prior to 2001, the\nopposite is true today,\u201d he argued. \u201cAfter November 15, 2001, when the Oak\nRidges Moraine Conservation Plan came into effect. Since that time, specific\nconditions must be met in order for an owner to build on Oak Ridges Moraine\nSettlement Lands. These criteria are clearly violated in multiple ways by the\ntwo variance applications in question.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Policies in place prohibit all developments and site\nalterations on lands with key natural heritage features, he said, and the\ndevelopment proposal encompasses \u201csignificant woodland occupied by a forest and\nvalley corridor with a watercourse and wetland at the base of the valley.\u201d\nFurther policy statements go on to note that legacy building rights \u2013 that is,\nlands with specific zoning prior to 2001 \u2013 state that building can take place\nonly if it can be demonstrated that there will be no negative impacts to the\nsite\u2019s ecological integrity.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cThe applicant told you this evening that everything has\nbeen done to reduce impacts and further, to reduce impacts even further and\nthat continued effort will be made during the design process,\u201d said Mr.\nSkoulikas. \u201cThis deflects from the issue that is not relevant. The bylaws\nclearly state that there should be no negative impact to the ecological\nintegrity of the lands.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cThe applicant is asking the Town to set aside municipal\nand provincial protections in order to permit development where it is\nexplicitly prohibited. We\u2019re asking the committee to reject both of these\napplications and preserve the lands not only for us here today but future\ngenerations of Aurorans who stand to lose if this area of pristine\nenvironmentally protected woodland and endangered species habitat is destroyed.\nOnce it is gone, it\u2019s gone. It\u2019s easier to protect than restore.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

These views were echoed by the nearly 20 other residents\nwho stepped up to speak to the committee. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

While many spoke to the present situation, some spoke to\nthe future impacts of whatever decision the Committee was poised to make,\nincluding 22-year-old Kurt Mighton who said his generation will be left to pick\nup the pieces.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cThe Town of Aurora\u2019s Official Plan says its intent is to\nprotect and enhance the natural environment for current and future generations,\nfuture generations obviously speaks to me and I cannot see how the proposal to\ndestroy so much of this forest represents or reflects any of that intent,\u201d he said.\n\u201cThe vast majority of climate change experts consider climate change to be the\nmost serious environmental issue facing human kind. Addressing this at the\nlocal level is crucial. Dismissing these proposals is crucial for my\ngeneration. The unfortunate reality is we have been tasked to deal with climate\nchange in the future, so we rely on members of the committee like you to enact\nchange at local levels to make positive change for the future. The decisions\nyou guys make today effects my generation and all future generations to come.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

These comments were taken to heart by members of the\ncommittee, who ultimately sided with the residents.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Committee chair Tom Plamondon recognized the \u201cpassion\u201d\ndemonstrated by both sides, while his two fellow committee members moved to\nblock the application.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cI do not believe it maintains the general intent of the\nTown\u2019s Official Plan,\u201d said Daniel Lajeunesse, moving a motion to reject the\nproposal for 672 Henderson Drive. \u201cOne example being the environmental\ndesignations. I do not believe it is appropriate development of the land and I\ndo not believe it is a minor variance as the impact of both the building\nenvelope and the driveway as well.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The same reasoning was used by Clarence Lui, who moved to\nreject the 680 Henderson application. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cWe have a duty to protect the land of this Town in which\nwe live,\u201d he said. \u201cThat is why this Committee is composed of residents of this\nTown. I share the concerns expressed by my colleagues and members of the public\nover the impact on the ecological integrity, including the number of trees that\ncould be removed, the actual number of which is not yet known, together with\nthe negative impact on wildlife, the significance of which, in my mind, is\nunclear\u2026 but the negative impact will be permanent should the proposed\ndevelopment on the land is permitted to proceed.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cWith respect to this particular application, the size of\nthe proposed building envelope at 916 square metres and the area of disturbance\nis troubling in my view. The proposed variance is not minor in nature.\nAccordingly, I move to reject the application.\u201d<\/p>\n\r\n\"Facebook\"<\/a>\"twitter\"<\/a>\"mail\"<\/a>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Residents fighting for the preservation of woodlands on Henderson Drive claimed a victory Thursday night as Aurora\u2019s Committee of Adjustment rejected plans to redevelop the site for residential use.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":"","jetpack_publicize_message":"","jetpack_publicize_feature_enabled":true,"jetpack_social_post_already_shared":true,"jetpack_social_options":{"image_generator_settings":{"template":"highway","default_image_id":0,"font":"","enabled":false},"version":2},"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false},"categories":[4,5],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-23817","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-general_news","category-news"],"jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/p3D2k4-6c9","publishpress_future_action":{"enabled":false,"date":"2026-05-25 07:08:44","action":"change-status","newStatus":"draft","terms":[],"taxonomy":"category","extraData":[]},"publishpress_future_workflow_manual_trigger":{"enabledWorkflows":[]},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newspapers-online.com\/auroran\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/23817","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newspapers-online.com\/auroran\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newspapers-online.com\/auroran\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newspapers-online.com\/auroran\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newspapers-online.com\/auroran\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=23817"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.newspapers-online.com\/auroran\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/23817\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newspapers-online.com\/auroran\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=23817"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newspapers-online.com\/auroran\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=23817"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newspapers-online.com\/auroran\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=23817"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}