{"id":30009,"date":"2021-09-23T18:07:28","date_gmt":"2021-09-23T22:07:28","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.newspapers-online.com\/auroran\/?p=30009"},"modified":"2021-09-23T18:14:59","modified_gmt":"2021-09-23T22:14:59","slug":"shining-hill-proposal-loses-apartment-block-environmental-concerns-still-at-issue","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.newspapers-online.com\/auroran\/shining-hill-proposal-loses-apartment-block-environmental-concerns-still-at-issue\/","title":{"rendered":"Shining Hill proposal loses apartment block, environmental concerns still at issue"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

A residential redevelopment proposed for the northwest corner of Yonge Street and St. John\u2019s Sideroad has been downsized following concerns from neighbours, but environmental issues are still leaving residents seeing red.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Last week, proponents of the Shining Hill Development presented a revised plan to Council.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Seated at the Public Planning meeting, Councillors received a new proposal for 87 detached homes, five townhouse blocks (21 units in total), a neighbourhood park block, a school block (St. Anne\u2019s School) and a natural heritage system.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Gone from the proposal is a previously pitched 200-unit multi-storey residential building, which has now been replaced with 21 townhouse units.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cThe [changes] do come as a result of listening to the residents,\u201d said planner Don Given on behalf of the proponent. \u201cWe have removed 200 units from the plan and replaced that with townhouses, which are 21 townhouses and a couple of singles. The total change in this development is significant. We have reduced the yield by 180 units.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Residents who came to speak remotely at the four-hour meeting, however, had other matter of significance in mind, with concerns including the impact of the development on at-risk wildlife, traffic on St. John\u2019s and the surrounding communities, and overall quality of life.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Environmental advocate Wendy Kenyon, for instance, said 10-metre buffers proposed by the applicant between the homes being built and green and naturalized areas do not go far enough.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cNatural heritage systems to the west and the east have been identified as extremely sensitive,\u201d she said, underlining that nearby lands have been identified as potential endangered bat habitat. \u201cThe Natural Heritage Evaluation (NHE) has also identified area-sensitive bird species in the valley. The stressor is months, most likely years of subdivision construction and human disturbance thereafter, including trails, dogs off-leash and dumping. As per policy guidance\u2026the development and site alteration shall not be permitted on adjacent lands (ie: 120 metres) unless it is demonstrated there will be no negative impact on the natural features or their ecological functions. I don\u2019t believe that has been proven here.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Similarly, resident Maricella Sauceda focused on habitat damage with a lens on tree removal.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cWe understand that approximately 588 trees are currently earmarked for preservation \u2013 and that is probably an optimistic figure (given all the unknowns) but do we really think this deserves a pat on the back?\u201d she asked. \u201cWhy on earth are we setting the bar so low on these environmentally-sensitive lands, using as our baseline, \u2018no trees saved whatsoever\u2019 with anything above that a so-called achievement? That is not how it works in a climate emergency, so let\u2019s stop kidding ourselves. The critical measurement is what will be lost right now \u2013 in this case, a minimum of 1,500 trees, likely more.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Beyond wildlife and trees, resident George Skoulikas said there were myriad other unanswered questions, ranging from slope stability, water protection and lot configuration, to road connections and wetland offsetting.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cThere are so many unanswered questions from the LSRCA (Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority), Aurora engineering and planning departments and the public, such that the LSRCA requested the application be deferred and York Region refers to the application as premature. I am concerned that none of these questionable comments (on tree size and tree types, wildlife and wildlife habitat, barn swallow nests, traffic study data and encroachment areas) have been properly challenged, except by the public, and by Councillor Gallo [and] Councillor Gaertner. It should not be up to the public to verify questionable comments made by the consultant and by Aurora\u2019s planning staff.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The delegations from members of the public left Councillor John Gallo \u201cfeeling quite rejuvenated\u201d after a feeling of what he described as \u201cspinning his wheels at the table.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Among his concerns was what, in staff\u2019s eyes, triggers a \u201ccomplete application\u201d as, in his view, there were too many unanswered questions at the table \u2013 from residents, Councillors, and agencies like the Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority \u2013 on a number of issues, particularly how the community connects with the proposed subdivision that will abut Shining Hill on the Newmarket side of the town line for him to feel comfortable in moving the presentation forward.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cIt doesn\u2019t make sense to me to say we\u2019re only dealing with Aurora,\u201d he said, referring to a road that heads in the direction of Newmarket. \u201cOtherwise, we\u2019re going to have to wait and see what Newmarket does before we move forward with this application. How can we deal with just Aurora and that roadway goes right into Newmarket and they haven\u2019t made any decisions yet?\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Town Planner David Waters said Newmarket is yet to issue any planning approvals and it is a \u201cwhat-if\u201d scenario.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cThis will simply be a dead-end road and there will be a three-metre reserve,\u201d added Mayor Mrakas. \u201cThat wouldn\u2019t be lifted unless the Town of Aurora accepted any solutions or anything to lift that three-metre reserve from opening up.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Another concern outlined at the meeting was the issue of carbon capture, with Councillor Rachel Gilliland stating she would like to see more information on the environmental impacts of the development before moving anything forward.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

This was an issue also shared by Councillor Wendy Gaertner who said she has \u201cnever seen so many outstanding issues\u201d in a report and it was \u201cinappropriate\u201d for it to be brought to Council without the answers.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cHow can we do our due diligence and make a responsible decision?\u201d Councillor Gaertner asked. \u201cI would like this to go back to a Public Planning meeting, but I can see the will is not going to be there. When it comes back to a Public Planning meeting, it will not be accepted if these comments, questions and concerns are not answered. I think it was disrespectful to bring it to us in this state. The residents were amazing. I can only imagine how many hours they spent on this. The residents were also speaking to quality of life issues. We have a duty to protect our existing residents and those residents who are not here yet. I receive so many complaints from residents around noise, traffic, safety and this is just setting itself up to be a long, complicated and unpleasant process for the current residents and the ones coming in. It is up to us to protect them.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

At the end of the meeting, however, Mayor Mrakas noted a final decision was not being made that evening. Rather, Council was moving the process forward \u201cto make sure we continue to all work together as we come to a point where we can make a decision as a Council and that is where we will get to.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cIf we don\u2019t have all the information we need to make that proper decision for the community, then we won\u2019t make it and we\u2019ll say no. If we do have the information, we feel comfortable and feel it is in the best interests of our community\u2026we will move forward with that decision.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

By Brock Weir<\/strong>
Editor
Local Journalism Initiative Reporter<\/em><\/p>\n\r\n\"Facebook\"<\/a>\"twitter\"<\/a>\"mail\"<\/a>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

A residential redevelopment proposed for the northwest corner of Yonge Street and St. John\u2019s Sideroad has been downsized following concerns from neighbours, but environmental issues are still leaving residents seeing red. Last week, proponents of the Shining Hill Development presented a revised plan to Council. Seated at the Public Planning meeting, Councillors received a new […]<\/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-30009","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\/p3D2k4-7O1","publishpress_future_action":{"enabled":false,"date":"2026-05-25 05:59:59","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\/30009","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=30009"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.newspapers-online.com\/auroran\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/30009\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newspapers-online.com\/auroran\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=30009"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newspapers-online.com\/auroran\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=30009"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newspapers-online.com\/auroran\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=30009"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}