One of our subscribers notified me of the Minor Variance request for 219 Old Yonge. I had no idea. Our town notifies the surrounding neighbours of the property in question. The town also puts up a sign. The one they put up is so small and faces the road. So when you are driving by the property, you don’t see it. When you walk on the sidewalk, personally I would require magnifying glasses to see what was on the sign.
The Minor Variance is to allow a learning centre use on the subject lands. (The Learning Centre is for Autistic Children.)
One subscriber and I (on behalf of other neighbours who have e-mailed me) spoke against the variance at the meeting.
The applicant stated that specific staff and our Mayor are in support of the variance. The applicant stated that this was a perfect location for them because of all the grass, trees, land …. During the hearing the Committee of Adjustment asked specific questions and notified the applicant that the Lake Simcoe County Region Conservation Authority looks like they have a line on the house from the map that they have received. This would mean that the applicant would NOT be allowed to use the backyard. The Committee of Adjustment suggested the applicant may want to check this out first. The applicant looked at the owner & her colleagues in the gallery for “X” seconds and commented back to the committee stating it was ok. They would NOT use the backyard. Hmmm ... who will monitor this? Where will the children play outdoors?
The following are some of our concerns.
1. Increase in traffic flow / congestion during week day rush hours on a road that our town states the volume far exceeds its design and type.
2. The applicant stated it is NOT a school but a Learning Centre. Yet on their Web site and in the Auroran they say it is a school. Reason: Learning Centre is NOT monitored by the authorities but a school would be. This was a real concern to many that no government authority would ensure the children / property would be safe …
3. Old Yonge narrows at this location.
4. Applicant stated they would park at the Oakland Hall Inn and walk over. The owner stated they had an agreement if I heard correctly. What happens if the Oakland Inn changes hands down the road? Will the new owners keep the agreement? Is it a verbal agreement?
5. We had concerns that student drop offs and pick ups could become a safety issue especially in the winter. Think about one or two cars waiting on Old Yonge to get into the driveway while another driver is trying to get out on the road from the driveway.
6. The topography of the driveway is long, slopes downward to the dwelling and is single lane.
7. Parking concerns now but more so in the winter.
8. Where will they put the snow?
9. For a learning centre looking after children there will be no place for them to play outside. The property is not fenced.
10. Schools have specific standards. This property has NO sprinkler system, from my understanding there is one 2pc washroom on the main level. Think about that for the possibility of a maximium of 25 children plus staff and guests.
11. The property is NOT accessible for the physically challenged.
12. What is interesting is that the applicant already had 219 Old Yonge Street as their contact address both on their Web site and Letter Heads well before the Committee of Adjustment meeting. No wonder they agreed to anything.
In my opinion, there is a need for a government monitored School for Autistic Children in Aurora but 219 Old Yonge is the wrong location.
Conclusion: The minor variance was passed by the committee with a close vote of 3 to 2. All I can say is we warned them. When I stated that the property is not accessible for the physically challenged and not fenced the committee should have picked up on this and asked a number of questions. Unfortunatly, this did not occur.
FYI: The Learning Centre charges $24,000.00 per student plus a one time registration fee of $1,500.00