The URL can be used to link to this page

AGENDA-Heritage Advisory Committee-20210405Town of Aurora Heritage Advisory Committee Meeting Agenda Date:Monday, April 5, 2021 Time:7:00 p.m. Location:Video Conference Pages 1.Procedural Notes This meeting will be held electronically as per Section 19. i) of the Town's Procedure By-law No. 6228-19, as amended, due to the COVID-19 situation. 2.Appointment of Committee Chair and Vice Chair That a Committee member be elected as Chair for Year 2021 of the Heritage Advisory Committee (2018-2022 Term); and 1. That a Committee member be elected as Vice Chair for Year 2021 of the Heritage Advisory Committee (2018-2022 Term). 2. 3.Approval of the Agenda 4.Declarations of Pecuniary Interest and General Nature Thereof 5.Receipt of the Minutes 5.1.Heritage Advisory Committee Meeting Minutes of November 2, 2020 1 That the Heritage Advisory Committee meeting minutes of November 2, 2020, be received for information. 6.Delegations Note: At this time, the Municipal Offices are closed. This meeting will be live streamed at https://www.youtube.com/user/Townofaurora2012/videos. Anyone wishing to provide comment on an agenda item is encouraged to visit www.aurora.ca/participation for guidelines on electronic delegation. 6.1.Len Bulmer and Kathy Kantel, Residents; Re: Reconsideration of Heritage Designation - 55 Bloomington Road West 9 6.2.Hasan Faraji, Resident; Re: Item 7.1 - Memorandum from Planner; Re:10 Heritage Permit Application HPA-2020-04 - 74 Centre St 7.Matters for Consideration 7.1.Memorandum from Planner; Re: Heritage Permit Application HPA-2020- 04 – 74 Centre Street 11 That the memorandum regarding Heritage Permit Application HPA-2020-04 to permit the construction of a double duplex building at 74 Centre Street be received; and 1. That the Advisory Committee comments regarding Heritage Permit Application HPA-2020-04 to permit the construction of a double duplex building at 74 Centre Street be received and referred to staff for consideration and further action as appropriate. 2. 7.2.Memorandum from Planner; Re: Conversion of the Petch House to a Wedding Chapel 25 That the memorandum regarding the proposal for Conversion of the Petch House to a Wedding Chapel be received; and 1. That the Heritage Advisory Committee comments regarding the proposal for Conversion of the Petch House to a Wedding Chapel be received and referred to staff for consideration and further action as appropriate. 2. 7.3.Memorandum from Planner; Re: Update on the Comprehensive Review of the Aurora Heritage Register 49 That the memorandum regarding the status of the Comprehensive Review of the Aurora Heritage Register project be received; and 1. That the Heritage Advisory Committee comments regarding the status of the Comprehensive Review of the Aurora Heritage Register project be received and referred to staff for consideration and further action as appropriate. 2. 7.4.Round Table Discussion; Re: New Sidewalk on Metcalfe Street That the Heritage Advisory Committee comments regarding the New Sidewalk on Metcalfe Street be received and referred to staff for consideration and action as appropriate. 1. 8.Informational Items 8.1.Memorandum from Planner; Re: Alterations to a Listed Heritage Property – 26 Machell Avenue 127 That the memorandum regarding Alterations to a Listed Heritage Property at 26 Machell Avenue be received for information. 1. 8.2.Memorandum from Planner; Re: Approval of Heritage Permit Application HPA-2020-03 under Delegated Authority – 28 Wellington Street West 131 That the memorandum regarding the Approval of Heritage Permit Application HPA-2020-03 under Delegated Authority for 28 Wellington Street West be received for information. 1. 9.Adjournment 1 Town of Aurora Heritage Advisory Committee Meeting Minutes Date: Time: Location: Monday, November 2, 2020 7:00 p.m. Video Conference Committee Members: Jeff Lanthier (Chair) Neil Asselin John Green Matthew Kinsella Bob McRoberts Hoda Soliman (Vice Chair) Councillor Sandra Humfryes Other Attendees: Carlson Tsang, Planner Linda Bottos, Council/Committee Coordinator ______________________________________________________________________________________ 1. Procedural Notes This meeting was held electronically as per Section 19. i) of the Town's Procedure By-law No. 6228-19, as amended, due to the COVID-19 situation. The Chair called the meeting to order at 7:03 p.m. 2. Approval of the Agenda Moved by John Green Seconded by Hoda Soliman That the revised agenda as circulated by Legislative Services, including the following added items, be approved:  Delegation 5.2 - Lenard Lind, Owner; Re: Item 6.2 - Memorandum from Manager, Parks and Fleet; Re: Tree Removal Permit Application - 17 Church Street Page 1 of 136 2  Delegation 5.3 - Rebecca Beaton, Resident; Re: Item 7.2 - Memorandum from Planner/Heritage Planning; Re: Maintenance of the Aurora GO Station Building  Item 6.6 - Verbal Update from Planner/Heritage Planning; Re: Appointment to Steering Committee for Comprehensive Review of Town's Heritage Register Carried 3. Declarations of Pecuniary Interest and General Nature Thereof There were no declarations of pecuniary interest under the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. M.50. 4. Receipt of the Minutes 4.1 Heritage Advisory Committee Meeting Minutes of September 14, 2020 Moved by John Green Seconded by Councillor Humfryes That the Heritage Advisory Committee meeting minutes of September 14, 2020, be received for information. Carried 5. Delegations Moved by Bob McRoberts Seconded by John Green That each delegation be allowed to speak at their respective item prior to consideration of the item. Carried 5.1 Jesse Micak and Sarah Micak, Residents; Re: Item 6.1 - HAC20-011 - Heritage Permit Application for 23 Mark Street Mr. Micak and Ms. Micak addressed the Committee in support of their application to replace twenty-seven windows on their home with respect for the heritage character of the property and neighbourhood. Moved by John Green Seconded by Councillor Humfryes Page 2 of 136 3 That the comments of the delegation be received and referred to Item 6.1. Carried 5.2 Lenard Lind, Owner; Re: Item 6.2 - Memorandum from Manager, Parks and Fleet; Re: Tree Removal Permit Application - 17 Church Street Mr. Lind addressed the Committee in support of his application to remove four trees from his property as part of a landscape redesign and noted the replanting proposal to replace the trees. Moved by John Green Seconded by Councillor Humfryes That the comments of the delegation be received and referred to Item 6.2. Carried 5.3 Rebecca Beaton, Resident; Re: Item 7.2 - Memorandum from Planner/Heritage Planning; Re: Maintenance of the Aurora GO Station Building Ms. Beaton provided an update on her research and communications with Metrolinx regarding maintenance of the Aurora GO station building, noting there is no provincial or federal legislation in place to maintain these buildings, and indicated that she would forward information to staff to be shared with the Committee. Moved by John Green Seconded by Councillor Humfryes That the comments of the delegation be received and referred to Item 7.2. Carried 6. Matters for Consideration 6.1 HAC20-011 - Heritage Permit Application for 23 Mark Street Staff provided a brief overview of the heritage permit application and proposal to install twenty new double-hung windows and seven new casement windows on the existing dwelling. The Committee expressed support for staff's recommendation to approve the application. Page 3 of 136 4 Moved by Neil Asselin Seconded by Matthew Kinsella 1. That Report No. HAC20-011 be received; and 2. That the Heritage Advisory Committee comments regarding Heritage Permit Application File: HPA-2020-02 be received and referred to staff for consideration and action as appropriate. Carried 6.2 Memorandum from Manager, Parks and Fleet; Re: Tree Removal Permit Application - 17 Church Street The Committee expressed support for the proposal as well as concerns regarding the potential loss of mature trees from the neighbourhood canopy. The Committee inquired about the Town's tree by-law protection of new trees on a heritage-designated property and staff provided clarification. The Committee recommended that the Locust (#1) and Silver Maple (#4) trees remain and that the two Norway Maple (#2 and #3) trees be replaced with two indigenous, mature trees of substantial size. Moved by Bob McRoberts Seconded by Matthew Kinsella 1. That the memorandum regarding Tree Removal Permit Application – 17 Church Street be received; and 2. That the Heritage Advisory Committee comments regarding the proposed Tree Removal Permit Application for 17 Church Street be received and referred to staff for consideration and action as appropriate. Carried 6.3 HAC20-012 - Potential Conversion of the Petch House Staff gave an overview of the report, background and options for the potential conversion of the Petch Log House into a wedding chapel. The Committee expressed questions and concerns regarding parking capacity, occupant load, fire safety compliance, washroom facilities, accessibility, HVAC type and potential noise issues, electrical facilities, seasonal requirements, interior furnishings, cost estimates and revenue, heritage Page 4 of 136 5 reserve fund spending, method of upgrade installation and project oversight, and the potential impact of any installation on the heritage attributes of the building. The Committee further questioned the justification for an additional wedding venue and suggested there may be other uses to consider such as a welcome centre for school classes visiting the Arboretum. Staff provided clarification and agreed to obtain more detailed information on the potential conversion, associated costs and other raised issues, and report back to the Committee. Motion to refer Moved by Councillor Humfryes Seconded by Hoda Soliman That Report No. HAC20-012 - Potential Conversion of the Petch House be referred back to staff for more detailed information to address the questions and concerns of the Heritage Advisory Committee. Carried 6.4 HAC20-013 - Heritage Permit Application for 15032 Yonge Street Staff provided a brief overview of the report and background to the application to remove twelve louvered window shutters. The Committee commented on options for repair and/or replacement of the shutters and suggested that the shutters should be removed, documented and stored, possibly by the Town, to prevent further deterioration until such time that any repairs can be done. Staff agreed to discuss the Committee's suggestions with the applicant and report back on the outcome. The Committee expressed support for staff's recommendation to deny the application, thereby terminating the process, to allow the applicant to engage a heritage restoration consultant to complete a damage assessment report and explore repair/replacement options without any time restrictions. Moved by Neil Asselin Seconded by Bob McRoberts 1. That Report No. HAC20-013 be received; and 2. That the Heritage Advisory Committee comments regarding Heritage Permit Application File: HPA-2019-07 for the removal of twelve louvered window shutters on the Reuben J. Kennedy House at 15032 Page 5 of 136 6 Yonge Street be received and referred to staff for consideration and action as appropriate. Carried 6.5 HAC20-014 - Request to Remove a Property from the Aurora Register of Properties of Cultural Heritage Value or Interest, 93 Tyler Street Staff gave a brief overview of the report and the Committee expressed support for staff's recommendation to approve the removal of the subject property from the Aurora Register of Properties of Cultural Heritage Value or Interest. Moved by Bob McRoberts Seconded by Matthew Kinsella 1. That Report No. HAC20-014 be received; and 2. That the Heritage Advisory Committee comments regarding the delisting of 93 Tyler Street be received and referred to staff for consideration and action as appropriate. Carried 6.6 Verbal Update from Planner/Heritage Planning; Re: Appointment to Steering Committee for Comprehensive Review of Town's Heritage Register Staff provided a verbal update on the plan to form a Steering Committee to provide direction in the comprehensive review of the Town's Heritage Register, which is to include at least three members of the Heritage Advisory Committee and two members of Council per the Terms of Reference endorsed by Council. Staff noted that the Steering Committee's kick-off meeting would be held in early December and the role of the members would be further defined. Three Committee members expressed interest in being involved, and Councillor Humfryes also expressed interest in representing Council on the Steering Committee. Moved by John Green Seconded by Bob McRoberts 1. That the verbal update regarding the appointment of the members of the Steering Committee for the comprehensive review of the Town’s Heritage Register be received; and Page 6 of 136 7 2. That the Heritage Advisory Committee appoint members Bob McRoberts, Hoda Soliman, and Neil Asselin to the Steering Committee for the comprehensive review of the Town’s Heritage Register. Carried 7. Informational Items The Committee consented to consider item 7.2 following consideration of item 6.3. 7.1 Memorandum from Planner; Re: Building Permit Application for 103 Edward Street Staff provided a brief overview of the memorandum and background to the building permit application proposing the construction of a one-storey, single detached dwelling. Moved by Neil Asselin Seconded by Matthew Kinsella 1. That the memorandum regarding Building Permit Application for 103 Edward Street be received for information. Carried 7.2 Memorandum from Planner/Heritage Planning; Re: Maintenance of the Aurora GO Station Building Staff gave a brief overview of the memorandum and background, noting that the Town has no jurisdiction over provincial heritage properties, Metrolinx has been made aware of the building's status, and the Committee would be updated as further information becomes available. Moved by Bob McRoberts Seconded by Neil Asselin 1. That the memorandum regarding Maintenance of the Aurora GO Station Building be received for information. Carried 8. Adjournment Page 7 of 136 8 Moved by Councillor Humfryes Seconded by Bob McRoberts That the meeting be adjourned at 9:05 p.m. Carried Page 8 of 136 $$$# !$ $ " *_v[z_;zpc_d-z 9CIiP-kJt9z(9ctI29iz +FKhz 9Q9D-lL_[z%9bq9ilz ;_cVz.\7z-[xzwcLlm9[ziq/WKhiJ_\iz_cz0-2NDc_q\7zK[;_cW-lJ_\z<_d 2_[iI79c-lJ_\z1xz9IlF9cz_q[3LQz_dz_WXIlm99iz_;z_r[2IPzWqilz/9ziq1VIlm97zl_z9EKiR.lKu9 (9gL29i 4@2',D4:D 4./'?>D>'2$D ?D %TVMP @*?D _dY:dz #I]:z&I7E:z=-4KPMkxzzS__YM\El_\z'7z, 0D4!D64+<6:<42D :[zrPV:dz 0D4!D :4@6D4:D;<52<D(2$D6;<3>D)"D78-)- CD )s`a_fk:7z/xz-lGxz.[l:Sz :'#D@1.:BD4#D=<@D4;D@:94=D4#D,$>'52D &:br:jlM\Ezc:2_\jK7:d-lM_[z_>z c:5_ZW:\7.lL_\z?_dz:cMk-D:z:jKD\-lK_[z_@zkGIj 1rIT8I]Ez1:4-rj:z_=zlH:z7_6sY:\l:8z-1rj:zjrAB:d:7z/xz>_cV:czc:jL8:^kj -t9z x_rz199\zI\z2_[l-2mzvKlFz-z*_v[zil-;;z_dz =D 4D _q[3KUzV9V/9ezc9D-d7I[Dzy_qdzW-ll9cz_;zI[l9c9ilz #DB<DA'>%DA&5.D ?D :no:dzk_z!-x_cz.[7z_q\6KSz "_t:Y1:dz z z z-3O[_vQ98E9zkF-lz kF9z$c_297qc9zxP-vz`9dXIliz;Lu9zzVI[rk9iz;_cz9Q9D-lL_[i Page 9 of 136 /..,-K ATJR(>RA 'lS0 John West Way Aurora, Sntario 146 6Jt (905i 727-31:3 aur0ra.ca Town of Aurora ffieleEatisrT ffiequest Legislative Services This Deiegation Request form and any written submissions or background information for consideration by either Councii or Committees of Council must be submitted to Legislative Services. Council or Cornmittee Meeting Date: ?",? Itlr rl 5ub.!ect: 74 centre st heritaEe committee I Name of Spokesperson: HASSAN FARAJI,STAN IV]ALLORY Name of Group or Person{s} being Represented (if applicable): Brief Summary of lssue or Purpose of Delegation: ANSWERING POTENTIAL QUESTIONS AND CONCERNS OF COMIVIITTEE ABOUT HEIGHT AND DESIGN. Have you been in contact with a Town staff or Council member regarding your matter r:f tnterestT r'Yes No lf yes, CARLSI with whom? ON TSANG Date: r'i acknowledqe that the Procedure By-law permits five (5) minutes for Delegations. LI Page 10 of 136 100 John West Way Aurora, Ontario L4G 6J1 (905) 727-3123 aurora.ca Town of Aurora Memorandum Planning and Development Services Re: Heritage Permit Application HPA-2020-04 – 74 Centre Street To: Heritage Advisory Committee From: Carlson Tsang, Planner Date: April 5, 2021 Recommendation 1. That the memorandum regarding Heritage Permit Application HPA-2020-04 to permit the construction of a double duplex building at 74 Centre Street be received; and, 2. That the Advisory Committee comments regarding Heritage Permit Application HPA- 2020-04 to permit the construction of a double duplex building at 74 Centre Street be received and referred to staff for consideration and further action as appropriate. Background Property Description and Context The subject property is located on the north side of Centre Street between Spruce Street and Walton Drive, within the Northeast Old Aurora Heritage Conservation District (see Attachment 1). There is an existing 1½ storey Arts and Crafts bungalow on the property constructed circa 1873. The building has been subject to extensive renovations over the years including a front addition and replacement of siding. The original elements of the style may have been either removed or covered due to alterations. There is a significant tree located at the front of the existing building that is considered significant for the historical streetscape. Application History On November 4, 2014, the owner at the time submitted Heritage Permit Application NE- HCD-HPA-14-04 & NE-HCD-HPA-14-05 to permit the demolition of the existing building and construction of a two-storey detached dwelling with a detached garage on the property. The building was evaluated by the Heritage Working Group and deemed not worthy of preservation due to extensive alterations. No concerns were identified with the design of the new building. The application was approved by Council on February Page 11 of 136 Heritage Permit Application HPA-202004 April 5, 2021 Page 2 of 4 10, 2015. However, the owner never constructed the project and eventually sold the property. The existing building continued to remain as is. On November 21, 2016, the subsequent owner submitted Heritage Permit Application NE-HCD-HPA-16-12 with a completely different design for a one-storey detached dwelling on the property. The application was approved by Council on December 13, 2016. However, the Town never received a building permit application for the proposed development nor a demolition permit for the existing building. The property has since changed ownership. Proposal The current owner submitted Heritage Permit Application HPA-2020-04 to permit the construction of two-storey double duplex building with four parking spaces in the rear yard (see Attachment 2). The proposed building can be described as a square shaped building designed with a gable roof and two side dormers. The siding will consist of horizontal vinyl or a composite material. The applicant is proposing traditional sash windows with 9/9 grid. The building will have two glazed front entrance doors; one on the west end with a front covered porch, and the other one on the east end with a canopy above. There will also be one side entrance door on the east side wall and one on the west side wall. The proposal includes a new driveway on the east side of the property providing access to four parking spaces in the rear yard. The applicant confirms that the large mature tree in the front will not be removed. Heritage Designation In 2006, Town Council passed By-Law 4809-06.D to designate 74 Centre Street under Part V of the Ontario Heritage Act as part of the Northeast Old Aurora Heritage Conservation District. Council also passed By-Law 4809-06.D to adopt the “Northeast Old Aurora Heritage Conservation District Plan” as the document to guide the preservation, redevelopment of properties and streetscapes located within the boundaries of the District. Analysis The architectural design of the proposed dwelling is generally consistent with the guidelines set out in the Heritage District Plan. Page 12 of 136 Heritage Permit Application HPA-202004 April 5, 2021 Page 3 of 4 The proposed double duplex is a homestead style building, characterized by a steep gable roof, simple details, square-headed openings, sash windows and clapboard finishes. This type of architectural style is common on Centre Street and is considered compatible with the character of the neighbourhood. The proposed building initially had a building height of 10.5 m (34.44 ft) measured to the ridge of the roof. Staff requested the applicant to reduce the height of the building in order to lessen the visual impact on the neighbourhood. The applicant reduced the height of the building by 1.5 m (4.92 ft) to 9 m (29.52 ft). Staff are satisfied that the vertical massing of the building is consistent with the established character of the heritage district. The western portion of the front elevation was initially designed a cantilevered second floor that extends approximately 1.54 m (5 ft) beyond the main floor. Staff worked with the applicant to eliminate the cantilevered section of the building and replace it with a roofed porch feature that is more in keeping with the architectural character of the other homes on the street. Staff are concerned that the proposed dwelling exceeds the maximum depth permitted by the North East Old Aurora Heritage Conservation District Plan developed to protect the historic building patterns and rear yard amenity space in the neighborhood. Section 4.2 of the District Plan states that new dwelling should be limited to a maximum depth of 16.8 m (55.11 ft) to be consistent with the other existing homes in the neighbourhood. The depth provision also helps protect rear yard amenity space, which is one of the key elements that the District Plan seeks to protect. The proposed building initially had a depth of 20.1 m (65.94 ft), which exceeds the maximum allowance by 3.3 m (10.82 ft). Staff were concerned that the proposed dwelling would significantly deviate from the existing development pattern in the neighbourhood and compromise the rear yard amenity space of the property. In response, the applicant reduced the total depth of the building by 1.3 m (4.26 ft) to 18.8 m (61.67 ft). The depth reduction results in approximately 34 m2 (111.54 ft2) of additional rear yard space. Staff are not satisfied with the revised drawings. Staff are of the opinion that the proposed depth should be further reduced to comply with the maximum allowance in order to achieve a built form that is in keeping with the guidelines of the District Plan and provide adequate rear yard amenity space for the property. Page 13 of 136 Heritage Permit Application HPA-202004 April 5, 2021 Page 4 of 4 The number of windows proposed on the front elevation exceeds the maximum ratio recommended in the Heritage District Plan. Section 9.2.3 of the District Plan encourages windows to comprise between 15% and 20% of a wall to achieve an appropriate balance of glazing on a building. The proposed dwelling contains fourteen windows on the front elevation. Staff are concerned that the number of windows is not proportionate to the building and therefore does not reflect the design objective of the District Plan. Staff requested the applicant to reduce the number of windows or possibly redistribute some of them to the side elevations to achieve a more balanced fenestration design. Staff have not received any revised drawings at the time of writing this report. Conclusion While the general architectural design of the proposed dwelling is deemed acceptable, staff are concerned that the proposed building depth and the number of windows is not in keeping with the design guidelines of the Heritage District Plan and therefore do not support the approval of Heritage Permit Application HPA-2020-04 at this time. Attachments Attachment 1 – Location Map Attachment 2 – Proposed Drawings Page 14 of 136 Page 15 of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ttachment 2Page 16 of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age 17 of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age 18 of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age 19 of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age 20 of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age 21 of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age 22 of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age 23 of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age 24 of 136 100 John West Way Aurora, Ontario L4G 6J1 (905) 727-3123 aurora.ca Town of Aurora Memorandum Development and Planning Services Re: Conversion of the Petch House to a Wedding Chapel To: Heritage Advisory Committee From: Carlson Tsang, Planner Date: April 5, 2021 Recommendation 1. That the memorandum regarding the proposal to convert the Petch House to a wedding chapel be received; and, 2. That the Heritage Advisory Committee comments regarding the proposal to convert the Petch House to a wedding chapel be received and referred to staff for consideration and further action as appropriate. Background The Petch Log House was originally located at 15395 Leslie Street. The building was constructed in 1840 by the Petch family who immigrated to Canada in 1818 from England. The building was built as log cabin, which was one of the earliest European construction methods brought to Canada in the early 19th Century. The building was recognized as one of the Town’s oldest buildings and a significant heritage resource for its association with Aurora’s early settlement history. In 2003, the property was sold to Smart Centres for development. The log house was temporarily relocated to a new site and left unoccupied for several years, which led to severe deterioration. The Town evaluated the building and determined that the most effective restoration strategy was to dismantle the building while saving all usable components, and rebuild the log house as closely as possible to its original appearance. In 2012, the log house was rebuilt with approximately 70% of its original materials and relocated to its current location at 86 John West Way on the Town’s property (see Attachment 1). Since the Town assumed ownership of the cabin, it has remained empty until a new use could be determined. Page 25 of 136 Conversion of Petch House to a Wedding Chapel April 5, 2021 Page 2 of 6 At its meeting on February 27, 2018, Council requested Staff to investigate the feasibility and cost for the Petch House to be converted into a wedding chapel for marriage services. The Building Division indicates that it would be possible to covert the building into a wedding chapel as it presently exists with no upgrades on a conditional seasonal basis. If the building were used for wedding ceremonies on a year-round basis, it will need to be upgraded with electrical facilities and a HVAC system to comply with Ontario Building Code requirements. These recommendations were communicated to Council in Report No. PDS18-038 in April 2018. Council deferred the item and requested staff to obtain comments from the Heritage Advisory Committee prior to making a final decision. On November 2, 2020, the Heritage Advisory Committee received Report No. HAC20- 012 regarding the conversion proposal and asked the following questions:  What type of HVAC and electrical system is being proposed? Will the interior attributes be damaged from the upgrades?  Does the chapel require a washroom facility?  Will air conditioning generate significant noise making it difficult to hold marriage ceremony inside the building?  Does the estimated cost, which was prepared in 2018, need to be revisited?  Who would monitor the installation of the upgrades?  What is the current situation with the existing marriage service facilities? Is the proposed conversion financially justified?  Will there be any parking issues with the Senior’s Centre?  Has the Town considered any other potential uses? Staff agreed to obtain more detailed information about the proposal and present a follow up report to a future Heritage Advisory Committee Meeting with answers to the above questions for the Committee’s consideration. Analysis HVAC and Electrical System The Town will retain a Professional Engineer to design an HVAC and electrical system for the Petch House should Council approve the building to be used as a wedding chapel on a year-round basis. Buildings intended for occupancy in the winter months are Page 26 of 136 Conversion of Petch House to a Wedding Chapel April 5, 2021 Page 3 of 6 required to be equipped with heating facilities to maintain a minimum indoor temperature of 18 degrees Celsius. Cooling systems are not required under the Ontario Building Code. However, an air conditioning system could be installed with the heating system. The Building Division is contemplating a small ductless heat pump system for heat and air conditioning. The installation only requires mounting an indoor air handler on an inside wall and an outdoor compressor unit. Some heat pumps are specifically designed with special features like an insulated compressor compartment and vibration dampeners to reduce the amount of noise generated from the unit. The Building Division will work with an engineer to minimize the noise level of the HVAC system so it will not impact the operation of the log house. The log house is currently not equipped with any electrical fixtures or lighting. Lighting fixtures controlled by a wall switch will be required to illuminate the public area with a minimum illumination level of 100 lx (9.3 foot-candles). There is already an electrical panel installed on the east wall of the building. The upgrades mainly require the installation of electrical outlets and light fixtures. The wiring could be covered to minimize the visual impact on interior space. A permit would be required through the Electrical Safety Authority. The Building Division may consider other alternative systems and options subject to consultation with the Engineer. Efforts will be made to minimize the impact on the interior attributes such as the structural beams the hand-hewn squared logs. The proposed work will require a building permit. The Heritage Advisory Committee will be given an opportunity to comment on the final design of the HVAC and electrical system prior to the issuance of a permit. The Building Division will conduct inspections to ensure the systems will be installed in accordance with the approved drawings. Marriage Services The Town has suspended its Civil Ceremony program since March 2020 due to the pandemic. Marriage ceremonies were normally held in the Council Chamber. Services were available every other Friday from 1pm to 4pm. The number of marriage ceremonies performed by the Town has increased from 30 in 2016 to 38 in 2019. Despite the growing demand, the Town has not been able to increase its services because the Council Chamber was often booked for meetings with Council, Committees and occasionally the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal. Aurora is one of the few municipalities in York Region that offers less than 4 days of marriage services every month. Many municipalities such as Markham and Stouffville Page 27 of 136 Conversion of Petch House to a Wedding Chapel April 5, 2021 Page 4 of 6 have secondary venues and are able to increase their services to more than three days a week. The Town is currently partnering with the Canadian Food and Wine Institute (CFWI) for a joint wedding program to use the Armoury Building as an alternative location for marriage ceremonies. The program is anticipated to launch in April 2021. The fee for the service at the Armoury building starts at $1,000, which includes food, decor and photography. However, this program was developed based on a cost recovery model where the Town would only recover an officiant fee of $125 per service. If the Petch House can be used as a wedding chapel, the Town can collect the regular fee of $500 per service, which is $375 or 75% more than the joint program with CFWI. This not only generates more revenue for the Town but also provides a more affordable option to the public. Further, from a long-term perspective, given the Petch House can be booked more easily than the Council Chamber, the Town would be able to increase the frequency of its services to meet increasing demand. Parking The average attendance for each civil marriage ceremony in Aurora is less than five people. The attendees often travel together by carpool. In addition to the parking lot at Town Hall, there is on-street parking available on John West Way (north of the Senior’s Centre) and Amberhill Way. Visitors can also park at the Queen’s Diamond Jubilee Park on Civic Square Gate which is located within walking distance of the Petch Log House. The Town’s Traffic Analyst has conducted a preliminary review and is of the opinion that the proposal is feasible from a parking demand perspective. To alleviate the parking issue, the Town can adjust the schedule of the marriage ceremonies to avoid peak periods for Town Hall and Senior’s Centre. Barrier Free Accessibility and New Floor System The cabin has been placed on a concrete slap that is about 8 inches lower than the entrance door. The Building Division indicates that any change of use to buildings that are over 5 years in age and less than 300 square meters in area are not subject to any upgrading for barrier free access to the log house. As the log house is not required to be upgraded to provide barrier free accessibility, the existing floor may remain. However, it is possible to provide a wood flooring system on Page 28 of 136 Conversion of Petch House to a Wedding Chapel April 5, 2021 Page 5 of 6 top of the existing slap with wood sleepers, a plywood subfloor and a finished flooring. The ground surface inside the log house would be elevated to about the same level as the entrance after the new floor is installed and thereby eliminates the gap to achieve barrier-free accessibility. The estimated cost to install a new floor in the building is about $7,500. The Town’s Accessibility Advisor will be consulted prior to finalizing the cost of renovating the Petch House and the plans will be presented to the Accessibility Advisory Committee for review prior to the issuance of a building permit. Washroom Facility The Petch House currently does not have a plumbing or drainage system. The Ontario Building Code states that plumbing fixtures do not need to be provided in a building that is not normally occupied by persons where such installations are impractical and other fixtures are available in nearby buildings when the subject building is in use. As long as the chapel operates in the same hours of operation as the Town Hall, the building would not be required to provide any sanitary facilities in accordance with the Ontario Building Code. The guests will be directed to Town Hall for washroom facilities. Cost of Upgrades Below is a breakdown of the estimated cost to upgrade the Petch House with a new HVAC and electrical system in order for the building to be used as a year-round wedding chapel. The upgrades would increase the maximum capacity of the building from 10 to 50 people as per the Building Code. The cost estimate is calculated by applying the inflation rate from the Consumer Price Index (CPI) to the figures contained in Report No. PDS18-038 prepared by the Building Division.  Electric outlets, lighting and service - $15,740  HVAC system - $20,987 Below is a breakdown of the estimated cost for some of the additional upgrades that are not mandated by the Ontario Building Code for occupancy:  New Floor System - $7,500  Two (2) Washroom Facility (Interior) - $ 20,000  Sewer and water tap to municipal services - $30,000 Page 29 of 136 Conversion of Petch House to a Wedding Chapel April 5, 2021 Page 6 of 6 Other Potential Uses Staff have connected with Community Services regarding ideas for other potential uses as alternative options in addition to a wedding chapel. Consensus was reached that the Petch House can support multiple uses concurrently to meet various municipal needs, such as: - Cross-programming opportunities for school groups and the community as part of a larger project with other partners such as the Aurora Historical Society - Special event rentals in connection with other indoor/outdoor events using either the Senior’s Centre, Town Hall, the parking lot, or the Arboretum. - Meetings and/or stand-alone events using only the Petch House. - Recreation programming - Extension of Town special events at Town Hall Conclusion While the main intent of this report is to provide the Heritage Advisory Committee with necessary information to comment on the proposal to use the Petch House as a wedding chapel, the Heritage Advisory Committee is welcome to suggest other potential uses as alternative options. Once the Heritage Advisory Committee’s comments are received, staff will reconnect with the other internal departments to evaluate all the potential uses and then prepare a final recommendation report for Council’s consideration for the Petch House. Attachments Attachment 1 - Location Map Attachment 2 - Heritage Designation Brief Page 30 of 136 LOCATION MAP LOCATION: 86 John West Way Petch Log House Attachment 1 SUBJECT LANDS Map created by the Town of Aurora Planning and Building Services Department, August 29 2019. Base data provided by York Region & the Town of Aurora. Air Photos taken Spring 2018, © First Base Solutions Inc., 2018 Orthophotography. 0 10 20 30 40 4 Metres Subject Property Page 31 of 136 Heritage Designation Brief “The Petch Log House” Built c. 1844 86 John West Way Aurora, ON (originally located at 15395 Leslie Street) October 2013 Attachment 2 Page 32 of 136 2 Table of Contents 1.0 Heritage Property Status Sheet ................................................................... 3 2.0 Designation Policy ........................................................................................ 3 3.0 Property Location ......................................................................................... 5 4.0 History............................................................................................................ 7 5.0 Statement of Significance for Designation By-law .................................... 8 6.0 Photographs ................................................................................................ 11 Page 33 of 136 3 1.0 HERITAGE PROPERTY STATUS SHEET: Street address: 86 Wellington Street East Roll number: TBA Short Legal description: TBA Year built: c. 1844 Original Owner(s): Petch family Current Owner(s): Whitwell Developments (II) Limited House name: Petch Log House Builder: The Petch Family Owner’s concurrence: Yes Original use: Residential Current use: TBD by Council Heritage status: Not included on the Register Reasons for report: Designation Agreement between Whitwell Developments (II) Limited and The Corporation of the Town of Aurora Heritage Brief Completion Date: October 2013 Prepared by: Vanessa Hicks Program Manager, Heritage Planning Historical research: Fayle Associates (July, 2000) Submission date: October 7, 2013 Report number: HAC13-024 Page 34 of 136 4 2.0 DESIGNATION POLICY: Ontario Regulation 9/06 According to Regulation 9/06 of the Ontario Heritage Act, Section (2) outlines that, “A property may be designated under section 29 of the Act if it meets one or more of the following criteria for determining whether it is of cultural heritage value or interest.” The criteria is described as being related to the following: 1. The property has design value or physical value because it, i. Is a rare, unique, representative or early example of a style, type, expression, material or construction method, ii. Displays a high degree of craftsmanship or artistic merit, or iii. Demonstrates a high degree of technical or scientific achievement. 2. The property has historical value or associative value because it, i. Has direct associations with a theme, event, belief, person, activity, organization or institution that is significant to a community ii. Yields, or has the potential to yield, information that contributes to an understanding of a community or culture, or iii. Demonstrates or reflects the work or ideas of an architect, artist, builder, designer or theorist who is significant to a community. 3. The property has contextual value because it, i. Is important in defining, maintaining or supporting the character of an area, ii. Is physically, functionally, visually or historically linked to its surroundings, or ii. Is a landmark. O.Reg 9/06, s. 1 (2). Page 35 of 136 5 3.0 PROPERTY LOCATION: The Petch Log House located at 86 John West Way, Town of Aurora, is situated on the west side of John West Way, between Aurora Town Hall and the Aurora Seniors Centre. Map 1: Aerial photo of 86 John West Way, Aurora. Source: Town of Aurora Approximate location of the Petch Log House as shown above. Page 36 of 136 6 Map 2: Location Map, 86 John West Way Page 37 of 136 7 4.0 HISTORY: The following passages are extracted from the report, Petch Log House, prepared by Fayle Associates (July, 2000) as well as information from the 1861 Census and documents kept by the Aurora Historical Society including an article in the Aurora Banner by Marjorie Richardson (February 8, 1967). Clergy Reserve lands were set apart by the Constitutional Act in 1791. Families could rent this land for $2 per annum until land began being sold to settling families between 1827 and 1854. In 1840, Jonathan Petch received his land deed from the Crown for 200 acres in the amount of one hundred and seventy pounds. The Petch family went on to own this property located at Lot 21, Concession 3 (previously in Whitchurch Township, now the Town of Aurora) until 1904. According to Marjorie Richardson, a family bible brought by the Petch family to Canada in 1817 gives insight to the early history of the Petch family. They may have been Hussites leaving Hungary for England seeking refuge. Reaching England, it is possible that they may have changed the original spelling of their family name from Petsch to Petch. Jonathan Petch Sr. (deceased in 1793 at the age of 55 years) was presumeably father to William, Sarah, Ann, John, Hannah, Elizabeth, Jonathan and Rachel. His two youngest children, Jonathan Jr. and Rachel, were the only descendants of Jonathan Petch Sr. who immigrated to Canada in 1817 from Whitby, Yorkshire, England with their spouses and children. Jonathan Jr. (born May 13, 1778) had married Sarah Gale (born August 24, 1782) and had four children at the time. Jonathan Petch was a ship’s carpenter who lost his leg falling off a cliff and walked with a wooden leg. He served with Lord Nelson on the battleship “Victory” at Trafalgar. Jonathan and Sarah eventually had seven children, those being Jonathan (1814 – 1887), Ann (1816 – 1886), Rachel (1819 – 1934), Isaac (1821 – 1899), John (1825 – 1902), Ella Jane may (1864 – 1942), and George Wellington (1868 – 1925). John (1825 – 1902) married Anne Elizabeth Lloyd (died 1906) of White Rose on December 15, 1847. John and Elizabeth gave birth to Charles Albert on September 11, 1851. Charles Albert came to play an important role in the Town of Aurora. He became the chief constable of the village and became town clerk in 1914. He lived at 3 Catherine Avenue until his death in April 1926. Rachel Petch (born July 1, 1781) married William Wells (born September 4, 1788) and had two children. Members of the Petch family attempted to provide additional religious services to their community. At the time, “saddlebag preachers” or “circuit riders” (religious men travelling by horseback) were the only religious instructors available. When Page 38 of 136 8 Jonathan Petch bought his land in 1840, he promptly gave land for the building of a church. When Jonathan died, John and Isaac inherited the property. Family history as recorded by Mrs. Richardson for the Vandorf Women’s Institute suggests that Isaac Petch (1821 – 1899) built the The Petch Log House in 1844 and lived on the north half of Lot 21, Concession 3. This would have been about the time that he married Emma Hacking. However, the historic record cannot confirm as to whether it was Jonathan or Isaac Petch who built the log house. The 1861 Census states that both John and Isaac lived in log houses. Isaac’s house left the Petch family in 1903, when it was sold to Matthew and Mary Ann Homer. During the first half of the 20th century, the house belonged to the Crawford Family, then in 1946 it was sold to Clayton and Lillian Ada Pogue. Gordon Russell acquired the property in 1970 and four years later sold it to Chair-Man Mills Ltd. 5.0 STATEMENT OF SIGNIFICANCE FOR DESIGNATION BY-LAW The following information outlines the Statement of Significance to be used in the creation of the heritage designation By-law under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act. 5.1 Statement of Significance The Petch Log House is significant for its historical association with the Petch family, immigrating to Canada in the 19th century, and owning their land in Whitchurch Township (now Aurora) in 1840. The home was constructed c. 1844 by members of the Petch family, most likely Jonathan or Isaac. The building was originally located at 15395 Leslie Street in the Town of Aurora (historically the Township of Whitchurch). The building was relocated to 86 John West Way and fully restored, respecting the original built heritage attributes and construction methods. The building also has design/phsycal value as a rare and well- preserved example of the first European residential construction methods brought to Canada in the early 19th century. 5.2 Historical or Associative Value The building is significant for its historical associations with the Petch Family. The Petch family was is a significant early settlement family. Jonathan Petch and his family emigrated to Canada in 1817. In 1840, Jonathan Petch acquired title to 200 acres of land described as Lot 21 Concession 3. Page 39 of 136 9 5.3 Architectural Value The Petch Log House was constructed in the log cabin style. The building has been restored to reflect its original log cabin construction. The building is therefore representative of the first building style erected by European settlers in Ontario. The building style also represents building construction methods of early historic settlers in Whitchurch Township (now the Town of Aurora) in the early 19th century. The restoration of the Petch Log House enabled the preservation of the historic one-and-a-half storey building with 3-bay façade using structural materials original to the building respecting historic construction methods. 5.4 Contextual Value The Petch Log House, while losing its original rural context, has been relocated to a site which has the potential to be integrated into public realm and serve as a physical reminder of Aurora’s early settlement history. 5.5 Heritage Attributes The Designation of the Petch Log House will include the following heritage attributes and apply to all elevations and the roof including all entrances, windows, trim, together with historic construction materials and techniques. Exterior Elements  shallow pitched roof with end gables, soffits, eaves and wooden fascia;  three-bay facade;  all window openings;  Reconstructed 6 over 6 sliding sash wood windows on north-east, south- west, and south-east elevations;  Reconstructed 3 over 3 sliding sash windows on north-west and south- east elevations;  centered front door opening;  off-set door openings and doors on north-west elevation and north-east elevation;  Lap key joints and hand hewn squared log construction;  Roof cladding with cedar shakes; Page 40 of 136 10  Wood trim around all windows and doors on all elevations. Interior Elements  Exposed hand hewn squared logs;  Chinking between logs;  Exposed structural beams;  Mezzanine;  Exposed roof cladding. Page 41 of 136 11 6.0 PHOTOGRAPHS BEFORE: Petch Log House prior to relocation (Photo Credit: unknown) Page 42 of 136 12 BEFORE: Petch Log House (Photo Credit: Town of Aurora, November, 2009) AFTER: North-West Elevation, Petch Log House (Photo Credit: Town of Aurora, September, 2013) Page 43 of 136 13 BEFORE: Petch Log House (Photo Credit: Town of Aurora) AFTER: South-West (rear) Elevation, Petch Log House (Photo Credit: Town of Aurora, September, 2013) Page 44 of 136 14 BEFORE: Petch Log House (Photo Credit, Town of Aurora) AFTER: North-East (front) Elevation, Petch Log House (Photo Credit: Town of Aurora, September, 2013) Page 45 of 136 15 BEFORE: Petch Log House (Photo Credit: Town of Aurora) AFTER: View of Petch House looking South-East (Photo Credit: Town of Aurora, September, 2013) Page 46 of 136 16 BEFORE: View of Interior showing modern replacement window, overhead floor joists, and exposed hand hewn logs with chinking AFTER: View of Interior showing overhead floor joists, and exposed hand hewn logs with chinking. Page 47 of 136 17 BEFORE: Interior view of hand hewn logs and ceiling joists (mezzanine). AFTER: Interior view of hand hewn logs and ceiling joists (mezzanine). Page 48 of 136 100 John West Way Aurora, Ontario L4G 6J1 (905) 727-3123 aurora.ca Town of Aurora Memorandum Planning and Development Services Re: Update on the Comprehensive Review of the Aurora Heritage Register To: Heritage Advisory Committee From: Carlson Tsang, Planner Date: April 5, 2021 Recommendation 1. That the memorandum regarding the status of the Heritage Register Review project be received; and, 2. That the Heritage Advisory Committee comments regarding the status of the Heritage Register Review project be received and referred to staff for consideration and further action as appropriate. Background In November 2019, Council approved a capital project that includes funding for the procurement of consultant services to undertake a comprehensive review of the Town’s Heritage Register. The review focuses on assessing the heritage value of the 413 properties currently listed on the Register in order for the Town better prioritize its conservation efforts and preservation programs. The study will result in the properties being recommended for designation, delisting or remain listed on the Register. In October 2020, the Town awarded the contract to MacNaughton Hermsen Britton Clarkson Planning Limited (MHBC). MHBC will be responsible for conducting historical research, undertaking heritage evaluation and preparing a Cultural Heritage Evaluation Report for the properties that will be recommended for designation. The Town has appointed a Steering Committee to provide direction, guidance and recommendations on the project, which include:  Wendy Gaertner (Councillor)  Sandra Humfryes (Councillor) Page 49 of 136 Update on the Comprehensive Review of the Aurora Heritage Register April 5, 2021 Page 2 of 3  Bob McRoberts (Heritage Advisory Committee)  Neil Asselin (Heritage Advisory Committee)  Hoda Soliman (Heritage Advisory Committee)  David Waters (Director of Planning and Development Services)  Bill Jean (Chief Building Official)  Anna Henriques (Manager of Planning) Steering Committee Meeting #1 – January 15, 2021 On January 15, 2021, a Kickoff Meeting was held virtually with MHBC and the Steering Committee to introduce the project team and discuss the work plan for the project. MHBC provided an overview of the four phases of work, which are as follows:  Phase 1: Data Collection, Inventory, Research  Phase 2: Cultural Heritage Evaluation Reports Preparation  Phase 3: Consultation with the Heritage Advisory Committee and Council  Phase 4: Updates to the Register by Town Staff and Council. Steering Committee Meeting #2 – February 26, 2021 On February 26, 2021, a second meeting was held with MHBC and the Steering Committee to discuss the evaluation criteria and methodology that will be used to undertake the study. MHBC recommended that the Town’s current evaluation scoring system, which is based on a guiding document entitled “Evaluation of Heritage Resources in the Town of Aurora (2010)”, be discontinued as it is outdated and inappropriately places value on some criteria more than others. MHBC recommended a new classification system based on the legislated criteria of Ontario Regulation 9/06 and the guidance provided in the Ontario Heritage Toolkit. The details of the new evaluation methodology proposed by MHBC is attached hereto as Attachment 1. Commencement of Phase 1 Phase 1 of the project is currently underway, which focuses on research and data collection. MHBC is reviewing existing data and information available from various sources such as fire insurance plans, historic maps, history books, the local historian, Page 50 of 136 Update on the Comprehensive Review of the Aurora Heritage Register April 5, 2021 Page 3 of 3 tax assessment rolls and census records. MHBC will also employ the use of their digital GIS inventor application to take current photos of properties and record relevant information such as architectural styles, physical features and land use pattern, etc. Next Steps MHBC is targeting to present the first batch of properties recommended for delisting to the next Steering Committee meeting towards the end of April for review and discussion. Staff will bring a second Information report to the Heritage Advisory Committee on June 7, 2021 for an update on the project. Attachments Attachment 1 – Evaluation Methodology, February 24, 2021 (MHBC Planning) Page 51 of 136 (image: Excerpt of the Illustrated County Atlas of York, Twp. King South) Attachment 1 Page 52 of 136 Aurora Register Review Evaluation Criteria February 2021 MHBC | 1 Table of Contents 1.0 Introduction & Project Background ................................................................................................................................. 3 1.1 Purpose of the Project ................................................................................................................................................................ 3 1.2 Purpose of this Document ...................................................................................................................................................... 4 1.3 Summary of the Aurora Heritage Register .................................................................................................................... 4 1.4 Relevant Policy Background ................................................................................................................................................... 5 1.4.1 Ontario Heritage Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. O.18, as amended ............................................................................. 5 1.4.2 Town of Aurora Official Plan .......................................................................................................................................... 6 2.0 Best Practices ...................................................................................................................................................................................... 8 2.1 Introduction ...................................................................................................................................................................................... 8 2.2 Ontario Regulation 9/06 ........................................................................................................................................................... 8 2.3 Ontario Heritage Toolkit: Heritage Property Evaluation ...................................................................................... 9 2.3.1 Classification Systems ..................................................................................................................................................... 10 2.3.2 Evaluation of Integrity and Condition ................................................................................................................. 11 2.3.3 Qualification of O-Reg. 9/06 Criteria ..................................................................................................................... 12 2.3.4 Research .................................................................................................................................................................................. 13 2.3.5 Inventory ................................................................................................................................................................................. 14 2.4 Aurora Evaluation Document (2010) ............................................................................................................................. 15 3.0 Applying Best Practices to the Review of the Aurora Register Project ........................................... 16 3.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................................................................... 16 3.2 Methodology & Classification ............................................................................................................................................. 16 -designated) .............................................................. 17 3.2.2 Recommended for Designation under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act ................................ 18 - .............................................................. 19 4.0 Summary of Recommendations ............................................................................................................................................ 21 Appendix A Aurora Register of Properties of Cultural Heritage Value or Interest .................................... 22 Appendix B Evaluation of Heritage Resources in the Town of Aurora (2010, updated 2019) ......... 23 Page 53 of 136 Aurora Register Review Evaluation Criteria February 2021 MHBC | 2 Appendix C MHSTCI Standards & Guidelines (O-Reg 9/06 Summary) .............................................................. 24 Appendix D Ontario Heritage Toolkit: Heritage Property Evaluation (Property Survey Recording Form) ................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 25 Page 54 of 136 Aurora Register Review Evaluation Criteria February 2021 MHBC | 3 1.0 Introduction & Project Background 1.1 Purpose of the Project In November 2020, The Town of Aurora retained MHBC to undertake a review of the Aurora Register Register The purpose of the Review of the Aurora Heritage Register project is to review the 413 properties which -designated) on the Aurora Register. The intended outcome is that each of the 413 properties will be sorted into one of three categories as follows: 1) Those that are recommended for removal from the Register; 2) Those recommended to remain on the Register; 3) Those recommended for designation under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act. Currently, the onus of demonstrating whether or not a property is of cultural heritage value or interest typically falls on the owner through the land use planning process. This often requires the includes enough information to know the reasons for which properties are of cultural heritage value or interest, and which of those are of considerable value and could be considered for designation under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act. The project will result in conducting evaluations of each property as per Ontario Regulation 9/06, which is the legislated criteria for determining Cultural Heritage Value or Interset (CHVI). The evaluation of properties will ensure that information accompanies each property in order to assist staff in processes under the Ontario Heritage Act and the Planning Act. At present, many listed properties included on the Register are not accompanied with an explanation of why the property is of cultural heritage value or interest and much of the information availble to staff is outdated. Page 55 of 136 Aurora Register Review Evaluation Criteria February 2021 MHBC | 4 1.2 Purpose of this Document The purpose of this document is to provide a clear rationale and method for how the project will be completed. Specifically, this document provides:  A summary of the requirements of the Ontario Heritage Act pertaining to maintaining a Register of listed properties ;  A review of best practices for conducting research, inventories, and evaluations of cultural heritage resources in the Province of Ontario;  A review of the existing method of evaluating properties in the Town of Aurora (i.e. the current Aurora Evaluation process/document (2010); and  A recommended process and evaluation method for updating the Register 1.3 Summary of the Aurora Heritage Register The Ontario Heritage Toolkit explains that a municipal heritage Register is a planning document that can be consulted by municipal decision makers when development proposals or permits are being considered. When the Ontario Heritage Act was first enacted in 1974, municipal councils appointed Architectural Conservation Advisory Committees (s ) to assist in cultural heritage matters. Work conducted by LACAC often included research and inventories. The Ontario Heritage Act has since been amended, and the LACAC is now known as the Municipal Heritage Advisory Committee, The purpose of MHAC generally remains the same, but has been further defined under the legislated processes of the Ontario Heritage Act. The existing Aurora Register is the result of work which has been conducted over time by LACAC, MHAC, staff and Council. This work includes research, photography, inventories, and evaluations, all of which assist in identifying cultural heritage resources. Members of LACAC compiled information beginning in the 1970s/1980s period which resulted in identifying properties of architectural interest. The baseline for beginning to identify these properties included putting all buildings constructed prior to the year 1940 on an Inventory. The level of detail conducted by LACAC at this time did not consider the existing requirements under the Ontario Heritage Act for establishing cultural heritage value or interest. Subsequent to the 2005 amendments to the Ontario Heritage Act, the Council of the Town of Aurora compiled by LACAC Page 56 of 136 Aurora Register Review Evaluation Criteria February 2021 MHBC | 5 from that day forward given protection under Section 27 of the Ontario Heritage Act. The majority of properties currently listed on the Register are therefore a result of this decision by Council. Additional properties have been added to the Register on an ad-hoc basis since 2005. 1.4 Relevant Policy Background 1.4.1 Ontario Heritage Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. O.18, as amended The Ontario Heritage Act provides the legislative framework which enables municipalities to maintain a heritage Register. The purpose of the Register is to identify properties which are of Cultural Heritage Value or Interest (CHVI) within the municipality. The Register must include all properties in the municipality that are designated under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act. Section 27(1.1) states that the register shall include the following information for Part IV designated properties: a) A legal description of the property; b) The name and address of the owner; and c) A statement explaining the cultural heritage value or interest of the property and a description of the heritage attributes of the property. OHA, ss. 27(1.1) Section 27 (1.2) states that in addition to designated properties, the municipality shall include the following as it relates to listed properties (bold added for emphasis), In addition to the property listed in the register under subsection (1.1), the register may include property that has not been designated under this Part but that the council of the municipality believes to be of cultural heritage value or interest and shall contain, with respect to such property, a description of the property that is sufficient to readily ascertain the property. The Ontario Heritage Act requires that the Council of a municipality consult with its Heritage Advisory Committee before adding or removing properties from Register. As a result of Bill 108, amendments to the Ontario Heritage Act are anticipated to come into effect in 2021 while the Review of the Aurora Register project is underway. These amendments will result in changes to the requirements when properties are proposed to be added to a heritage Register Page 57 of 136 Aurora Register Review Evaluation Criteria February 2021 MHBC | 6 or designated under the Ontario Heritage Act. None of the proposed amendments to the Ontario Heritage Act will have an effect on removing properties from the Register. Ontario Regulation 9/06 provides the criteria for determining whether or not a property has cultural heritage value or interest and warrants designation under Part IV. The regulation includes 3 main criteria, each having 3 sub-criteria. Further information on Ontario-Regulation 9/06 and how it will be used in this project is provided in Sections 2.3 of this document. The Ontario Heritage Act is accompanied by a series of documents which help to explain the legislation. This is known as the Ontario Heritage Toolkit. One of these explanatory documents one is specifically related to the evaluation of potential cultural heritage resources. An overview of this document is provided in Section 2.2 of this document. 1.4.2 Town of Aurora Official Plan Section 13 of the Town of Aurora Official Plan (2010) provides objectives and policies related to the conservation of cultural heritage resources. states the following as it relates to maintaining the Aurora Register, 13.3 Policies for Built Cultural Heritage Resources That the Town will maintain a Register of Cultural Heritage Resources that are considered significant and have been identified by one or more of the following means: i. designated under the Ontario Heritage Act; ii. protected by an easement entered into under the Ontario Heritage Act; iii. designated by the National Historic Sites and Monuments Board as a National Historic Site; iv. identified by the Province of Ontario; v. endorsed by the Council as having significant cultural heritage value, including built heritage resources, cultural heritage landscapes, areas with cultural heritage character and heritage cemeteries. The properties identified under category v are those listed properties which are included on the Aurora Register and are the focus of this project. Page 58 of 136 Aurora Register Review Evaluation Criteria February 2021 MHBC | 7 Section 13.3 of the Aurora Official Plan provides the following policy, which acknowledges that whether or not a property is of cultural heritage value or interest is determined by a set of criteria which aligns with Ontario Regulation 9/06: d) Evaluation Criteria for assessing the cultural heritage value of the cultural heritage resources have been developed by the Town in consultation with its Municipal Heritage Committee. The identification and evaluation of cultural heritage resources must be based on the following core values: i. Aesthetic, design, or physical value; ii. Historical or associative value; and/or iii. Contextual value. Page 59 of 136 Aurora Register Review Evaluation Criteria February 2021 MHBC | 8 2.0 Best Practices 2.1 Introduction The purpose of this section is to provide an overview of best practices in the evaluation of cultural heritage resources. The same evaluation criteria which is used to determine cultural heritage value or interest will be used to determine which properties are not of CHVI and could be considered for removal from the Aurora Register. 2.2 Ontario Regulation 9/06 Ontario Regulation 9/06 is the legislated criteria for determining cultural heritage value or interest. This criteria (and its sub-criteria) is provided in Table 1 below. Table 1. Corresponding Sub-criteria for Cultural Heritage Evaluation. Ontario Regulation 9/06. Criteria Sub-criteria Design/ Physical value The property has design value or physical value because it, i. is a rare, unique, representative or early example of a style, type, expression, material or construction method, ii. displays a high degree of craftsmanship or artistic merit, or iii. demonstrates a high degree of technical or scientific achievement. Historical/ Associative value The property has historical value or associative value because it, i. has direct associations with a theme, event, belief, person, activity, organization or institution that is significant to a community, ii. yields, or has the potential to yield, information that contributes to an understanding of a community or culture, or iii. demonstrates or reflects the work or ideas of an architect, artist, builder, designer or theorist who is significant to a community. Page 60 of 136 Aurora Register Review Evaluation Criteria February 2021 MHBC | 9 Contextual value The property has contextual value because it, i. is important in defining, maintaining or supporting the character of an area, ii. is physically, functionally, visually or historically linked to its surroundings, or iii. is a landmark. O. Reg. 9/06, s. 1 (2). Properties must meet at least one of these criteria to demonstrate cultural heritage value or interest. The Ontario Heritage Act and the Ontario Heritage Toolkit do not provide any more in-depth explanation of these criteria and sub-criteria. However, the Ministry of Heritage, Sport, Tourism and Culture Industries (MHSTCI) published the Standards & Guidelines for the Conservation of Provincial Heritage Properties document, which includes a more in-depth explanation of the criteria provided with O-Reg 9/06. This document of the MHSTCI will be applied to aspects of the evaluation of listed properties on the Aurora Register. A copy of the explanation of this criteria is summarized in Appendix C of this document. 2.3 Ontario Heritage Toolkit: Heritage Property Evaluation The Heritage Property Evaluation: A Guide to Listing Researching and Evaluating Cultural Heritage Property in Ontario Communities (2006) is one of the explanatory guides to the Ontario Heritage Act and best practices when evaluating cultural heritage resources in Ontario. According to the Ontario Heritage Toolkit, listing a property is a valuable tool in the municipal process. This document provides the following: Listing a property of cultural heritage value or interest is the first step a municipality should take in the identification and evaluation of a property that may warrant some form of heritage conservation, recognition and/or long-term protection such as designation. Page 61 of 136 Aurora Register Review Evaluation Criteria February 2021 MHBC | 10 In many cases, listed (non-designated) properties are candidates for protection under section 29 of the Ontario Heritage Act. These require further research and an assessment using a more comprehensive evaluation that is consistent with Ontario Regulation 9/06 prescribing criteria for determining property of cultural heritage value or interest. The Ontario Heritage Toolkit provides guidance the following best practices:  The use of classification systems;  The definition of, and evaluation of integrity and condition of historical resources;  The qualification of criteria under Ontario Regulation 9/06; and  Research and Inventories. Further information on these best practices are provided below. 2.3.1 Classification Systems Chapter 3 of the Ontario Heritage Toolkit (Evaluation document) provides guidance on the use of classification systems in the completion of inventories and evaluations. Classification systems result in the assigning a value (either numerical or otherwise) to cultural heritage resources in order to provide guidance in their management. The current Aurora Evaluation system uses a classification system. The Ontario Heritage Toolkit provides the following guidance on the creation and use of a classification system: 3 Potential Avenues for Classification Systems:  Some evaluation criteria have a numeric rating system; for example, #1 has no cultural heritage value or interest, while #10 warrants long-term protection.  An alphabetical rating system may assist to categorize; for example, an A has protection and conservation priority; B is conserved in some manner, but not designated; C should be documented before demolition or has minimal cultural heritage value or interest.  A checklist of questions about the design/physical, historical/associative and contextual values of the property can generate discussion that concludes with a Yes/No. The discussion response and explanatory notes form the argument for or against heritage conservation. No numeric or alphabetical rating is used. (Chapter 3) Page 62 of 136 Aurora Register Review Evaluation Criteria February 2021 MHBC | 11 The use of classification systems are valuable in undertaking evaluations and inventories. However, some methods of qualification are better than others. The overly complex and/or arbitrary assignment of some criteria as being more value than others is problematic. Classification systems should be clear and result in consistent outcomes. 2.3.2 Evaluation of Integrity and Condition Evaluating the heritage integrity and condition of a building is an important aspect of completing an inventory. Condition and integrity are at times interrelated, but are defined differently. Condition refers to the physical state of a built feature or attribute, which has deteriorated or degraded due to a variety of reasons, including neglect, and exposure to the elements. According to the Ontario Heritage Toolkit, physical condition is described as follows: Some cultural heritage properties are found in a deteriorated state but may still maintain all or part of their cultural heritage value or interest. The ability of the structure to exist for the long term, and determining at what point repair and reconstruction erode the integrity of the heritage attributes, must be weighed against the cultural heritage value or interest held by the property. The Ontario Heritage Toolkit describes the integrity of a heritage resource as follows: Integrity is a question of whether the surviving physical features (heritage attributes) continue to represent or support the cultural heritage value or interest of the property. Ontario Regulation 9/06 does not consider the integrity of the resource or its physical condition when evaluating its cultural heritage value or interest. However, the Ontario Heritage Toolkit recognizes that it is important to understand condition and integrity when determining whether or not conservation is warranted. The Ministry of Culture Tourism and Sport advises on Integrity (Page 26) and the Physical Condition of properties (Page 27) in part of Section 4, Municipal Criteria of the Heritage Property Evaluation document of the Ontario Heritage Toolkit. In the matter of integrity the Guide notes that: (underline for emphasis), A cultural heritage property does not need to be in original condition. Few survive without alterations on the long journey between their date of origin and today. Integrity is a question of whether the surviving physical features (heritage attributes) continue to represent or support the cultural heritage value or interest of the property. Page 63 of 136 Aurora Register Review Evaluation Criteria February 2021 MHBC | 12 For example, a building that is identified as being important because it is the work of a local architect, but has been irreversibly altered without consideration for design, may not be worthy of long-term protection for its physical quality. The surviving features no longer represent the design; the integrity has been lost. If this same building had a prominent owner, or if a celebrated event took place there, it may hold cultural heritage value or interest for these reasons, but not for its association with the architect. Cultural heritage value or interest may be intertwined with location or an association with another structure or environment. If these have been removed, the integrity of the property may be seriously diminished. Similarly, removal of historically significant materials, or extensive reworking of the original craftsmanship, would warrant an assessment of the integrity. There can be value or interest found in the evolution of a cultural heritage property. Much can be learned about social, economic, technological and other trends over time. The challenge is being able to differentiate between alterations that are part of an historic evolution, and those that are expedient and offer no informational value. 2.3.3 Qualification of O-Reg. 9/06 Criteria Properties are evaluated under the legislated criteria of Ontario-Regulation 9/06 to determine cultural heritage value or interest. However, not all properties which meet this criteria are suitable for long-term conservation. The Ontario Heritage Toolkit provides the following guidance on this issue (bold added for emphasis): Individual properties being considered for protection under section 29 must undergo a more rigorous evaluation than is required for listing. The evaluation criteria set out in Regulation 9/06 essentially form a test against which properties must be assessed. The better the characteristics of the property when the criteria are applied to argument for its long-term protection. The better the characteristics of the property when the criteria are applied to it, the argument for its long-term protection. This does not mean that the pro meet a criterion in each category in order to allow for protection. When more categories are applied, more is learned about the property and its relative cultural heritage value or Page 64 of 136 Aurora Register Review Evaluation Criteria February 2021 MHBC | 13 interest. As a result, a more valid decision regarding heritage conservation measures can be made. A property may not be considered a good candidate for long-term conservation for reasons including (but not limited to), condition and heritage integrity. Meaning, that a property may have value for its historical associations (for example), its physical form and attributes may have deteriorated or been lost to such an extent that conservation is not feasible. We will take this principle into consideration as it relates to establishing criteria for properties which may be either considered candidates for designation as well as those which should be considered for removing from the Register. 2.3.4 Research Research is required in order to make an evaluation of whether or not a property is of cultural heritage value or interest as per the criteria of Ontario Regulation 9/06. Research primarily aids in determining the historical/associative value of a property, but can be valuable in determining certain sub-criteria of design/physical and contextual value. It is not the objective of this project to conduct comprehensive research for every property which is currently listed on the Register. Instead, research will be conducted to make a justifiable determination as to whether or not a property should remain on, or be removed from the Register. Further research will be conducted for those properties of significant cultural heritage value or are at risk and could be considered for designation under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act. Therefore, it is not the objective of this project to complete a comprehensive database of historical information, but to compile a reasonable amount of research to the extent that a justifiable recommendation can be provided for consideration by the Heritage Advisory Committee and Council. This project will build upon research which has been completed for properties from the 1970s to present. This includes information available at the Town of Aurora and the Aurora Museum/Archives. It should be noted that some of the resources which are part of the holdings of the Town of Aurora Museum/Archives, but are not available due to the relocation of the facility. This information could be added to the Aurora Register as supplementary information when it becomes available. Other research will be conducted using both primary and secondary sources, including (but not limited to) the following:  Fire Insurance Plans;  Historic Maps;  Registered Plans of Subdivision;  Historic Aerial and Topographic Maps; Page 65 of 136 Aurora Register Review Evaluation Criteria February 2021 MHBC | 14  Historic Photographs;  Local History (books, post cards, summaries, etc.);  Knowledge from local historians;   Information compiled by LACAC and the MHAC;  The Town of Aurora Register Pages/Binders; and  Census Records, Assessment Rolls, and Parcel Abstracts. 2.3.5 Inventory Undertaking inventories of cultural heritage resources is a valuable tool in a variety of projects. The undertaking of an inventory is generally referred to the collection of information related to a particular property or resource in order to create a database with updated and accurate information. In order to update the existing Register for the Town of Aurora, we propose to take an inventory of all of the existing properties which are listed. This will result in the following work:  Undertake a site visit for each property (from the public realm); o Take notes on the characteristics of the property (such as its architectural style, materials of construction, etc.); o Take notes on the integrity and condition of the heritage resource; o Take notes of attributes of the property related to its design/physical, and contextual values;  Take at least one current photograph of the property or resource (additional photographs will be taken for corner lots, or properties which may have more than one feature, for example); and  Add this information to a digital database which will be submitted to the Town of Aurora at the end of the project, which will form part of the new Aurora Register used by Staff. The database will be supplemented by both information collected on-site (as above) as well as research collected throughout the project, which will aid in the description of the historical/associative value of the property. The Ontario Heritage Toolkit recommends that research and inventories be conducted with an understanding of patterns, themes, similarities, and people, and circumstances which have helped shaped the community. The Review of the Aurora Register project includes the completion of historical summaries for neighbourhoods which Page 66 of 136 Aurora Register Review Evaluation Criteria February 2021 MHBC | 15 include concentrations of cultural heritage resources, such as those found along Young Street and Wellington Street, for example. The sample Property Recording Form of the Ontario Heritage Toolkit is provided in Appendix D of this report. A similar method will be used for the inventory of listed properties when information is collected during site visits. 2.4 Aurora Evaluation Document (2010) The Town of Aurora has their own guiding document for evaluating cultural heritage properties, A copy of this document is provided in Appendix B. The purpose of this document is to provide a classification system which scores and ranks properties based on their cultural heritage value in order to help make informed decisions as part of municipal process. This document is loosely related to those criteria under Ontario Regulation 9/06. The document results in ranking cultural heritage resources and giving them a numerical score between 1 and 100, as follows:  Group 1(score 70-100): Those buildings of major significance or importance to the Town and are worth designation under the Ontario Heritage Act.  Group 2 (score 45-69): Those buildings of heritage significance and worthy of preservation.  Group 3 (score 0 45): Those buildings considered to be of modest significance and worthy of documentation or preservation of a particular contextual value. Section 13.3 (d) of the Town of Aurora Official Plan acknowledges this classification system and sets forth the direction to prioritize the designation of a value in evaluating properties and quantifying their value, we are of the opinion that the evaluation document is outdated. Some scoring systems are overly complicated and places value on some criteria more than others. For example, the existing evaluation system diminishes the value of buildings which are constructed at a later date in time and adds value to those constructed at an earlier date. This is problematic as there are some cases where post-war era homes could be just as worthy of conservation as those constructed in the 19th century. The scoring system also places more weight onto the design/physical and historical/associative values than contextual value. Page 67 of 136 Aurora Register Review Evaluation Criteria February 2021 MHBC | 16 3.0 Applying Best Practices to the Review of the Aurora Register Project 3.1 Introduction The applicable Povincial and Municipal policy framework, as well as guidelines and best practices reviewed in Sections 1.0 and 2.0 of this document will be used to formulate an appropriate and efficient methodology to the Review of the Aurora Register project. This includes the creation of a methodology for evaluating the properties included on the Register. Currently, there are 413 properties listed on the register which must be evaluated. The evaluation will result in the properties being recommended for 1 of 3 main categories as follows:  Remain on the Register;  Identified as being of a high level of cultural heritage value or interst and/or at risk and warrants designation under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act; o These properties would remain on the Register as listed until such a time that Council initiates the designation process.  Removal from the Register. 3.2 Methodology & Classification The project will result in conducting evaluations of each property as per Ontario Regulation 9/06, which is the legislated criteria for determining Cultural Heritage Vlaue or Interset (CHVI). The evaluation of properties will ensure that information accompanies each property in order to assist staff in processes under the Ontario Heritage Act and the Planning Act. At present, listed properties included on the Register are not accompanied with updated information, or an explanation of why Page 68 of 136 Aurora Register Review Evaluation Criteria February 2021 MHBC | 17 the property is of cultural heritage value or interest. Further, much of the information availble to staff is outdated. As noted in Section 2.4 of this properties that are currently listed on the Register may meet the minimum requirements of establishing cultural heritage value or interest, only those which provide a justifiable argument for long- heritage value or interest may be minor, moderate, or major. The following sub-section provides detailed information and a rationale for the recommended classification system to be used in the Aurora Register project. 3.2.1 -designated) A portion of the properties which are currently listed on the Aurora Register will meet the test of Ontario Regulation 9/06 and be identified as having cultural heritage value or interest. These properties should remain on the register. The justification for keeping these properties on the register is that they may have value for their design/physical, historical/associative and/or contextual values. These properties must be demonstrated as having retained their heritage integrity as it relates to design/physical value. These properties may require further work should an owner propose demolition in the future. In this case, the Town of Aurora has the ability to request Cultural Heritage Evaluation Reports and/or Heritage Impact Assessments in order to be conclusive on their attributes. The Aurora Register project will result in staff having updated information on the reasons for which the property is of cultural heritage value or interest on-hand. This will enable staff to determine whether or not a demolition application could be granted, or if designation should be pursued. At the end of the Review of the Aurora Register Project, we propose that the Register be updated and include the following information for properties which are recommended to remain listed:  Current photographs;  Summary of how the property meets the criteria under Ontario-Regulation 9/06 (chart format);  Compilation of previous evaluations and information completed by LACAC, MHAC, staff and local historians; Additional information can be added to the Aurora Register for these individual properties as they become available over time. Page 69 of 136 Aurora Register Review Evaluation Criteria February 2021 MHBC | 18 3.2.2 Recommended for Designation under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act Through evaluating the existing listed properties under Ontario Regulation 9/06, it is likely that a portion of these properties will demonstrate major cultural heritage value or interest and would provide defensible argument for warranting long-term conservation under the Ontario Heritage Act. For example, some of these properties may have a high level of design/physical value and are considered rare, rather than common or typical. The property may define the streetscape or context, rather than support it, or alternatively be a recognizable landmark. These properties may also be at risk and should be considered for designation in order to provide it with a level of protection against alteration or demolition. The Town of Aurora recognizes these circumstances may arise and provides the following policy in Section 13.3 of the Official Plan as follows: f) The Town will give immediate consideration to the designation of any heritage resource under the Ontario Heritage Act if that resource is threatened with demolition, significant alterations or other potentially adverse impacts. Following the completion of the Review of the Aurora Register project, these properties would remain on the Aurora Register until such a time that Council is able to initiate a By-law on title and, ideally, work with property owners through the legislated process of Section 29 of the Ontario Heritage Act. Should a property owner submit a formal objection to the designation by Council, staff would be required to defend the position that the property warrants designation to Conservation Review Board (CRB), or the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal (LPAT). As more work is required in order to justify that a property should be designated, we recommend that we provide a more in-depth level of research and evaluation on these properties. At the end of the Phase 3 of the Aurora Register Project, we propose that the the following information be completed by the consultants for properties which are recommended to be designated under Part IV, Section 29 of the Ontario Heritage Act:  Current photographs;  More in-depth historical summary, and title search (where records are available);  Explanation of how the property meets the criteria under Ontario-Regulation 9/06 (chart format and in-depth summary);  Statement of Cultural Heritage Value or Interest (i.e. used by staff in drafting a designation By-law) including a list of heritage attributes; and  Compilation of previous evaluations and information completed by LACAC, MHAC, staff and local historians; Page 70 of 136 Aurora Register Review Evaluation Criteria February 2021 MHBC | 19 3.2.3 - The Aurora Register currently includes a high volume of listed properties. This is likely a result of constructed prior to 1940 are listed on the Register without providing clear information as to the reasons for which the property has plausible cultural heritage value. The high number of listed properties on the Aurora Register results in difficulties through the planning process. The source of the difficulty lies in the requirements of listed properties under Section 27 of the Ontario Heritage Act. Here, an owner who intends to demolish any building or structure time to consider whether or not designation should be pursued in order to prevent demolition. At times, properties with little to no cultural heritage value are required to go through this process. In addition, the onus is on property owners to demonstrate that the property is not of cultural heritage value or interest. For example, a property may have been listed for an existing dwelling and the designation is sought for an outbuilding, which has no cultural heritage value or interest. The ability of staff to have information on-hand which clearly outlines the reasons for which properties are of cultural heritage value or interest is advisable. Further, there may be other circumstances where the reasons for which the property was listed have been lost, and as a result, the property owner is needlessly taken through the process under the Ontario Heritage Act. Some listed properties on the existing Register are not accompanied by an explanation of why the properties were identified as being of cultural heritage value or interest. This includes properties which were identified by LACAC beginning in the 1980s. As a result, the information accompanied by some of these properties is outdated. In addition, the reasons for which some of these properties may have been identified may be obsolete. For example, a property which may have been listed as being a representative example of a particular architectural style may have degraded over time, or have been altered and its heritage integrity may have been diminished. Properties which have low design/physical value, but retain strong historical/associative value would not be recommended for removal from the Register. We would undertake the following as part of the inventory and evaluation process to determine which properties could be considered for removal from the Register:  Site visit & photographs;  Historical research;  Summary of Evaluation under Ontario-Regulation 9/06 (chart format); Page 71 of 136 Aurora Register Review Evaluation Criteria February 2021 MHBC | 20 Properties considered for removal from the Aurora Register would be put forward to the next agenda of the Steering Committee. Through this consultation process, we would rely on members of the Steering Committee, the Municipal Heritage Advisory Committee, staff, and members of the public to flag any of these properties which should not be removed if information is not part of the historic record but contributes to its cultural heritage value or interest. Page 72 of 136 Aurora Register Review Evaluation Criteria February 2021 MHBC | 21 4.0 Summary of Recommendations The Review of the Aurora Register project requires a clear approach and methodology in order to ensure a transparent work plan. The intent of the work plan is conduct an inventory and evlauation of all existing properties which are listed on the Register. The completion of this work will result in recommendations that listed properties either remain on the Register or be removed. Some of the properties to remain on the Register may be of high value or be at risk and recommended for designation under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act. All evaluations completed for the existing listed properties must be completed under the criteria of Ontario Regulation 9/06. This includes an assessment of its design/physical value, historical/associative value and contextual value. This criteria is detailed in Sections 2.3 of this report. While the vast majority of properties may meet the minimal criteria of Ontario Regulation 9/06, not all of these properties may provide a sufficient argument for inclusion on the Register as either listed or designated. A classification system is recommended through the evaluation process to determine which properties could be removed from the Register. The use of classifications is supported in the Ontario Heritage Toolkit. It is reccomended the existing classification system used by the Town of Aurora (provided in Appendix B of this document) be discontinued, for both this should be conducted under the legislated criteria of Ontario Regulation 9/06 and the guidance provided in the Ontario Heritage Toolkit. Classification System Zero to Minimal Value = Should be considered for Removal from the Register Moderate Value = Remain on the Register Major Value and/or At Risk = Part IV Designation Page 73 of 136 Aurora Register Review Evaluation Criteria February 2021 MHBC | 22 Appendix A Aurora Register of Properties of Cultural Heritage Value or Interest Page 74 of 136 TOWN OF AURORA AURORA REGISTER OF PROPERTIES OF CULTURAL HERITAGE VALUE OR INTEREST PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES Heritage Planning Phone: 905-727-3123 ext. 4226 Fax: 905-726-4736 Email: planning@aurora.ca Town of Aurora 100 John West Way, Box 1000, Aurora, ON L4G 6J1 www.aurora.ca Oct 2020 Page 75 of 136 TOWN OF AURORA Planning and Building Services Aurora Register of Properties of Cultural Heritage Value or Interest Aurora Register of Properties of Cultural Heritage Value or Interest (2019) Page 1 of 16 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 Introduction………………………………………………………………………..…...2 Designated Properties (Part IV and Part V)……………………………………...…..2 Listed (non-designated) properties………………………………………………..…..2 2.0 Appendices…………………………………………………………………………..…4 Aurora Register of Properties of Cultural Heritage Value or Interest Schedule As of February 20, 2019………………………………………………………………..4 1.0 Introduction Page 76 of 136 TOWN OF AURORA Planning and Building Services Aurora Register of Properties of Cultural Heritage Value or Interest Aurora Register of Properties of Cultural Heritage Value or Interest (2019) Page 2 of 16 Part IV, Section 27 of the Ontario Heritage Act gives Municipalities the authority to keep a record of properties located within the municipality that is of significant cultural heritage value or interest. This record is known as the Register of Properties of Cultural Heritage Value or Interest. Keeping a Register allows a municipality to keep track of cultural heritage resources and appropriately plan for their conservation while abiding by the policies of the Ontario Heritage Act. The Town of Aurora maintains a Register of Properties of Cultural Heritage Value or Interest which includes over 600 properties. The Register includes both designated properties (under Part IV and Part V) and listed (non-designated) properties. Designated properties (Part IV and Part V): Properties designated under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act are considered individual property designations where a By-law is registered on-title to a legally described property lot. Properties designated under Part V of the Ontario Heritage Act are included within the boundary of a Heritage Conservation District (HCD). HCDs encompass multiple properties in an identified area which has significant heritage character. Listed (non-designated) properties: In addition to properties which are designated under the Ontario Heritage Act, the Register may include properties which are not designated, but have been identified as having cultural heritage value or interest. The Aurora Inventory of Heritage Buildings was compiled by the Local Architectural Conservation Advisory Committee (LACAC), now known as the Heritage Advisory Committee, between 1976 and 1981. On September 26, 2006, Aurora Town Council officially added the properties noted in the Inventory to the Aurora Register of Properties of Cultural Heritage Value or Interest in conformity with the Amendments to the Ontario Heritage Act in 2005. The principal implication of properties being listed is outlined in Section 27 (3) of the Ontario Heritage Act where owners are required to provide the Town at least 60 days’ notice in writing of their intention to demolish or remove a building or structure on the Page 77 of 136 TOWN OF AURORA Planning and Building Services Aurora Register of Properties of Cultural Heritage Value or Interest Aurora Register of Properties of Cultural Heritage Value or Interest (2019) Page 3 of 16 property. This notice period allows Town Council to make informed decisions and consult with the Aurora Heritage Advisory Committee regarding whether or not a property requires designation under the Ontario Heritage Act in order to ensure that the resource is appropriately conserved. Properties can have multiple layers of heritage status. Under the Ontario Heritage Act, it is possible that a property may be designated under both Part IV and Part V, for example. Please note that the Aurora Register of Properties of Cultural Heritage Value or Interest is a work in progress and requires regular updates. In order to confirm the heritage status of your property, please contact Planning and Building Services. This will ensure that you are receiving the most updated information in regards the heritage status of your property. For more information, please contact Heritage Planning at 905-727-3123 Ext. 4226 or email planning@aurora.ca Page 78 of 136 2.0 Appendices Aurora Register of Properties of Cultural Heritage Value or Interest Schedule as of February 20, 2019. No. Street Heritage Status of Property 95 ALLAURA BLVD Listed, Designation Notice Published 1991 14425 BAYVIEW AVE Part IV (Individual) –By-law 4953-07.R 26 BERCZY ST Listed 32 BERCZY ST Listed 34-38 BERCZY ST Listed 50 - 100 BLOOMINGTON RD W Part IV (Individual) –By-law 6182-19 3 CATHERINE AVE Part V (NE Old Aurora HCD) By-law 4804-06.D 7 CATHERINE AVE Part V (NE Old Aurora HCD) By-law 4804-06.D 11 CATHERINE AVE Part V (NE Old Aurora HCD) By-law 4804-06.D 15 CATHERINE AVE Part V (NE Old Aurora HCD) By-law 4804-06.D 16 CATHERINE AVE Part V (NE Old Aurora HCD) By-law 4804-06.D 19 CATHERINE AVE Part V (NE Old Aurora HCD) By-law 4804-06.D 20 CATHERINE AVE Part V (NE Old Aurora HCD) By-law 4804-06.D 23 CATHERINE AVE Part V (NE Old Aurora HCD) By-law 4804-06.D 24 CATHERINE AVE Part V (NE Old Aurora HCD) By-law 4804-06.D 27 CATHERINE AVE Part V (NE Old Aurora HCD) By-law 4804-06.D 30 CATHERINE AVE Part V (NE Old Aurora HCD) By-law 4804-06.D 31 CATHERINE AVE Part V (NE Old Aurora HCD) By-law 4804-06.D 34 CATHERINE AVE Part V (NE Old Aurora HCD) By-law 4804-06.D 39 CATHERINE AVE Part V (NE Old Aurora HCD) By-law 4804-06.D 55 CATHERINE AVE Part V (NE Old Aurora HCD) By-law 4804-06.D 58 CATHERINE AVE Part V (NE Old Aurora HCD) By-law 4804-06.D 59 CATHERINE AVE Part V (NE Old Aurora HCD) By-law 4804-06.D 60 CATHERINE AVE Part V (NE Old Aurora HCD) By-law 4804-06.D 61 CATHERINE AVE Part V (NE Old Aurora HCD) By-law 4804-06.D 63 CATHERINE AVE Part V (NE Old Aurora HCD) By-law 4804-06.D 64 CATHERINE AVE Part V (NE Old Aurora HCD) By-law 4804-06.D 67 CATHERINE AVE Part V (NE Old Aurora HCD) By-law 4804-06.D 70 CATHERINE AVE Part V (NE Old Aurora HCD) By-law 4804-06.D 71 CATHERINE AVE Part V (NE Old Aurora HCD) By-law 4804-06.D 72 CATHERINE AVE Part V (NE Old Aurora HCD) By-law 4804-06.D 73 CATHERINE AVE Part V (NE Old Aurora HCD) By-law 4804-06.D 76 CATHERINE AVE Part V (NE Old Aurora HCD) By-law 4804-06.D 77 CATHERINE AVE Part V (NE Old Aurora HCD) By-law 4804-06.D 80 CATHERINE AVE Part V (NE Old Aurora HCD) By-law 4804-06.D 81 CATHERINE AVE Part V (NE Old Aurora HCD) By-law 4804-06.D 82 CATHERINE AVE Part V (NE Old Aurora HCD) By-law 4804-06.D 83 CATHERINE AVE Part V (NE Old Aurora HCD) By-law 4804-06.D 85 CATHERINE AVE Part V (NE Old Aurora HCD) By-law 4804-06.D 86 CATHERINE AVE Part V (NE Old Aurora HCD) By-law 4804-06.D Page 79 of 136 Aurora Register of Properties of Cultural Heritage Value or Interest (2019) Page 5 of 16 88 CATHERINE AVE Part V (NE Old Aurora HCD) By-law 4804-06.D 89 CATHERINE AVE Part V (NE Old Aurora HCD) By-law 4804-06.D 92 CATHERINE AVE Part V (NE Old Aurora HCD) By-law 4804-06.D 93 CATHERINE AVE Part V (NE Old Aurora HCD) By-law 4804-06.D 94 CATHERINE AVE Part V (NE Old Aurora HCD) By-law 4804-06.D 16 CENTRE ST Part V (NE Old Aurora HCD) By-law 4804-06.D 18 CENTRE ST Part V (NE Old Aurora HCD) By-law 4804-06.D 20 CENTRE ST Part V (NE Old Aurora HCD) By-law 4804-06.D 22 CENTRE ST Part V (NE Old Aurora HCD) By-law 4804-06.D 26 CENTRE ST Part V (NE Old Aurora HCD) By-law 4804-06.D 28 CENTRE ST Part V (NE Old Aurora HCD) By-law 4804-06.D 41 CENTRE ST Part V (NE Old Aurora HCD) By-law 4804-06.D 45 CENTRE ST Part V (NE Old Aurora HCD) By-law 4804-06.D 51 CENTRE ST Part V (NE Old Aurora HCD) By-law 4804-06.D 52 CENTRE ST Part V (NE Old Aurora HCD) By-law 4804-06.D 54 CENTRE ST Part V (NE Old Aurora HCD) By-law 4804-06.D 55 CENTRE ST Part V (NE Old Aurora HCD) By-law 4804-06.D 58 CENTRE ST Part V (NE Old Aurora HCD) By-law 4804-06.D 60 CENTRE ST Part V (NE Old Aurora HCD) By-law 4804-06.D 61 CENTRE ST Part V (NE Old Aurora HCD) By-law 4804-06.D 62 CENTRE ST Part V (NE Old Aurora HCD) By-law 4804-06.D 63 CENTRE ST Part V (NE Old Aurora HCD) By-law 4804-06.D 64 CENTRE ST Part V (NE Old Aurora HCD) By-law 4804-06.D 65 CENTRE ST Part V (NE Old Aurora HCD) By-law 4804-06.D 67 CENTRE ST Part V (NE Old Aurora HCD) By-law 4804-06.D 68 CENTRE ST Part V (NE Old Aurora HCD) By-law 4804-06.D 69 CENTRE ST Part V (NE Old Aurora HCD) By-law 4804-06.D 70 CENTRE ST Part V (NE Old Aurora HCD) By-law 4804-06.D 71 CENTRE ST Part V (NE Old Aurora HCD) By-law 4804-06.D 72 CENTRE ST Part V (NE Old Aurora HCD) By-law 4804-06.D 74 CENTRE ST Part V (NE Old Aurora HCD) By-law 4804-06.D 75 CENTRE ST Part V (NE Old Aurora HCD) By-law 4804-06.D 77 CENTRE ST Part V (NE Old Aurora HCD) By-law 4804-06.D 78 CENTRE ST Part V (NE Old Aurora HCD) By-law 4804-06.D 79 CENTRE ST Part V (NE Old Aurora HCD) By-law 4804-06.D 81 CENTRE ST Part V (NE Old Aurora HCD) By-law 4804-06.D 82 CENTRE ST Part V (NE Old Aurora HCD) By-law 4804-06.D 90 CENTRE ST Part V (NE Old Aurora HCD) By-law 4804-06.D 91 CENTRE ST Part V (NE Old Aurora HCD) By-law 4804-06.D 92 CENTRE ST Part V (NE Old Aurora HCD) By-law 4804-06.D 93 CENTRE ST Part V (NE Old Aurora HCD) By-law 4804-06.D 95 CENTRE ST Part V (NE Old Aurora HCD) By-law 4804-06.D 96 CENTRE ST Part V (NE Old Aurora HCD) By-law 4804-06.D 97 CENTRE ST Part V (NE Old Aurora HCD) By-law 4804-06.D 98 CENTRE ST Part V (NE Old Aurora HCD) By-law 4804-06.D 108 CENTRE ST Part V (NE Old Aurora HCD) By-law 4804-06.D 112 CENTRE ST Part V (NE Old Aurora HCD) By-law 4804-06.D 116 CENTRE ST Part V (NE Old Aurora HCD) By-law 4804-06.D 120 CENTRE ST Listed 136 CENTRE ST Listed 138 CENTRE ST Listed Page 80 of 136 Aurora Register of Properties of Cultural Heritage Value or Interest (2019) Page 6 of 16 140 CENTRE ST Listed 142 CENTRE ST Listed 148 CENTRE ST Listed 154 CENTRE ST Listed 156 CENTRE ST Listed 13 CHURCH ST Listed 17 CHURCH ST Listed 21 CHURCH ST Listed 22 CHURCH ST Part IV (Individual) –By-law 2390-80 33 CHURCH ST Listed 35 CONNAUGHT AVE Listed 36 CONNAUGHT AVE Listed 37 CONNAUGHT AVE Listed 40 CONNAUGHT AVE Listed 44 CONNAUGHT AVE Listed 47 CONNAUGHT AVE Listed 51 CONNAUGHT AVE Listed 52 CONNAUGHT AVE Listed 68 CONNAUGHT AVE Listed 71 CONNAUGHT AVE Listed 72 CONNAUGHT AVE Listed 75 CONNAUGHT AVE Listed 76 CONNAUGHT AVE Listed 85 CONNAUGHT AVE Listed 96 CONNAUGHT AVE Listed 160 DEGRAAF CRES Part IV (Individual) –By-law 5947-17 101 EDWARD ST Listed 103 EDWARD ST Listed 104 EDWARD ST Listed 105 EDWARD ST Listed 106 EDWARD ST Listed 107 EDWARD ST Listed 109 EDWARD ST Listed 111 EDWARD ST Listed 44 FLEURY ST Part V (NE Old Aurora HCD) By-law 4804-06.D 48 FLEURY ST Part V (NE Old Aurora HCD) By-law 4804-06.D 49 FLEURY ST Part V (NE Old Aurora HCD) By-law 4804-06.D 52 FLEURY ST Part V (NE Old Aurora HCD) By-law 4804-06.D 53 FLEURY ST Part V (NE Old Aurora HCD) By-law 4804-06.D 56 FLEURY ST Part V (NE Old Aurora HCD) By-law 4804-06.D 57 FLEURY ST Part V (NE Old Aurora HCD) By-law 4804-06.D 60 FLEURY ST Part V (NE Old Aurora HCD) By-law 4804-06.D 61 FLEURY ST Part V (NE Old Aurora HCD) By-law 4804-06.D 64 FLEURY ST Part V (NE Old Aurora HCD) By-law 4804-06.D 65 FLEURY ST Part V (NE Old Aurora HCD) By-law 4804-06.D 38 GEORGE ST Listed 42 GEORGE ST Listed 46 GEORGE ST Listed 80 GEORGE ST Part IV (Individual) –By-law 5078-08.R 91 GURNETT ST Listed 95 GURNETT ST Listed Page 81 of 136 Aurora Register of Properties of Cultural Heritage Value or Interest (2019) Page 7 of 16 96 GURNETT ST Listed 97 GURNETT ST Listed 99 GURNETT ST Listed 100 GURNETT ST Listed 101 GURNETT ST Listed 102 GURNETT ST Listed 103 GURNETT ST Listed 107 GURNETT ST Listed 26 HADLEY CRT Part IV (Individual) –By-law 3573-94.R 40 HARRISON AVE Listed 41 HARRISON AVE Listed 43 HARRISON AVE Listed 44 HARRISON AVE Listed 47 HARRISON AVE Listed 48 HARRISON AVE Listed 51 HARRISON AVE Listed 52 HARRISON AVE Listed 55 HARRISON AVE Listed 57 HARRISON AVE Listed 68 HARRISON AVE Listed 72 HARRISON AVE Listed 73 HARRISON AVE Listed 76 HARRISON AVE Listed 77 HARRISON AVE Listed 80 HARRISON AVE Listed 81 HARRISON AVE Listed 84 HARRISON AVE Listed 85 HARRISON AVE Listed 92 HARRISON AVE Listed 97 HARRISON AVE Listed 100 HARRISON AVE Listed 97 HILLVIEW RD Listed 101 HILLVIEW RD Listed 45 INDUSTRIAL PKY S Listed 93 INDUSTRIAL PKY S Part IV (Individual) –By-law 4976-07.D 520 INDUSTRIAL PKY S Part IV (Individual) –By-law 4850-06.R 8 IRWIN AVE Listed 9 IRWIN AVE Listed 15 IRWIN AVE Listed 17 IRWIN AVE Listed 21 IRWIN AVE Listed 8 KENNEDY ST E Listed 7 KENNEDY ST W Listed 8 KENNEDY ST W Listed 11 KENNEDY ST W Listed 12 KENNEDY ST W Listed 15 KENNEDY ST W Listed 19 KENNEDY ST W Listed 21 KENNEDY ST W Listed 24 KENNEDY ST W Listed 26 KENNEDY ST W Listed Page 82 of 136 Aurora Register of Properties of Cultural Heritage Value or Interest (2019) Page 8 of 16 28 KENNEDY ST W Listed 29 KENNEDY ST W Listed 34 KENNEDY ST W Listed 38 KENNEDY ST W Listed 41 KENNEDY ST W Listed 73 KENNEDY ST W Listed 81 KENNEDY ST W Listed 88 KENNEDY ST W Listed 133 KENNEDY ST W Listed 11 LARMONT ST Listed 15 LARMONT ST Listed 19 LARMONT ST Listed 24 LARMONT ST Listed 25 LARMONT ST Listed 28 LARMONT ST Listed 29 LARMONT ST Part IV (Individual) –By-law 5353-11 31-33 LARMONT ST Listed 32 LARMONT ST Listed 35 LARMONT ST Listed 36 LARMONT ST Listed 37 LARMONT ST Listed 41 LARMONT ST Listed 45 LARMONT ST Listed 49 LARMONT ST Listed 63 LARMONT ST Listed 67 LARMONT ST Listed 69 LARMONT ST Listed 71 LARMONT ST Listed 75 LARMONT ST Listed 13831 LESLIE ST Part IV (Individual) –By-law 4729-05.R 13918 LESLIE ST Listed 14421 LESLIE ST Listed 14897 LESLIE ST Listed 14985 LESLIE ST Part IV (Individual) –By-law 5268-10 11 MACHELL AVE Listed 12 MACHELL AVE Listed 16 MACHELL AVE Listed 19-21 MACHELL AVE Listed 22 MACHELL AVE Listed 24 MACHELL AVE Listed 26 MACHELL AVE Listed 28 MACHELL AVE Listed 30 MACHELL AVE Listed 31 MACHELL AVE Listed 35 MACHELL AVE Listed 39 MACHELL AVE Listed 40 MACHELL AVE Listed 48 MACHELL AVE Listed 56 MACHELL AVE Listed 60 MACHELL AVE Listed 64 MACHELL AVE Listed Page 83 of 136 Aurora Register of Properties of Cultural Heritage Value or Interest (2019) Page 9 of 16 9 MAPLE ST Part V (NE Old Aurora HCD) By-law 4804-06.D 12 MAPLE ST Part V (NE Old Aurora HCD) By-law 4804-06.D 14 MAPLE ST Part V (NE Old Aurora HCD) By-law 4804-06.D 16 MAPLE ST Part V (NE Old Aurora HCD) By-law 4804-06.D 24 MAPLE ST Part V (NE Old Aurora HCD) By-law 4804-06.D 28 MAPLE ST Part V (NE Old Aurora HCD) By-law 4804-06.D 32 MAPLE ST Part V (NE Old Aurora HCD) By-law 4804-06.D 33 MAPLE ST Part V (NE Old Aurora HCD) By-law 4804-06.D 36 MAPLE ST Part V (NE Old Aurora HCD) By-law 4804-06.D 40 MAPLE ST Part V (NE Old Aurora HCD) By-law 4804-06.D 44 MAPLE ST Part V (NE Old Aurora HCD) By-law 4804-06.D 63 MAPLE ST Part V (NE Old Aurora HCD) By-law 4804-06.D 76 MAPLE ST Part V (NE Old Aurora HCD) By-law 4804-06.D 2 MARK ST Part V (NE Old Aurora HCD) By-law 4804-06.D 11 MARK ST Part V (NE Old Aurora HCD) By-law 4804-06.D 15 MARK ST Part V (NE Old Aurora HCD) By-law 4804-06.D 16 MARK ST Part V (NE Old Aurora HCD) By-law 4804-06.D 19 MARK ST Part V (NE Old Aurora HCD) By-law 4804-06.D 20 MARK ST Part V (NE Old Aurora HCD) By-law 4804-06.D 23 MARK ST Part V (NE Old Aurora HCD) By-law 4804-06.D 24 MARK ST Part V (NE Old Aurora HCD) By-law 4804-06.D 27 MARK ST Part V (NE Old Aurora HCD) By-law 4804-06.D 29 MARK ST Part V (NE Old Aurora HCD) By-law 4804-06.D 31 MARK ST Part V (NE Old Aurora HCD) By-law 4804-06.D 32 MARK ST Part V (NE Old Aurora HCD) By-law 4804-06.D 36 MARK ST Part V (NE Old Aurora HCD) By-law 4804-06.D 22 MARKSBURY CRT Listed 35 METCALFE ST Listed 37 METCALFE ST Listed 43 METCALFE ST Listed 44 METCALFE ST Listed 47 METCALFE ST Listed 51 METCALFE ST Listed 53 METCALFE ST Listed 55 METCALFE ST Listed 59 METCALFE ST Listed 61 METCALFE ST Listed 83 METCALFE ST Listed 85 METCALFE ST Listed 87 METCALFE ST Listed 89 METCALFE ST Listed 90 METCALFE ST Listed 91 METCALFE ST Listed 93 METCALFE ST Listed 95 METCALFE ST Listed 97 METCALFE ST Listed 99 METCALFE ST Listed 102 METCALFE ST Listed 103 METCALFE ST Listed 106 METCALFE ST Listed 107 METCALFE ST Listed Page 84 of 136 Aurora Register of Properties of Cultural Heritage Value or Interest (2019) Page 10 of 16 46 MILL ST Listed 50 MILL ST Listed 11-13 MOSLEY ST Listed 15 MOSLEY ST Part IV (Individual) –By-law 4951-07.R 16 MOSLEY ST Listed 18 MOSLEY ST Listed 19 MOSLEY ST Listed 22 MOSLEY ST Listed 23 MOSLEY ST Listed 27 MOSLEY ST Part IV (Individual) –By-law 5081-08.R 33 MOSLEY ST Listed 37 MOSLEY ST Listed 40 MOSLEY ST Listed 41 MOSLEY ST Listed 43 MOSLEY ST Listed 45 MOSLEY ST Listed 46 MOSLEY ST Listed 48 MOSLEY ST Listed 49 MOSLEY ST Listed 52 MOSLEY ST Listed 53 MOSLEY ST Listed 54 MOSLEY ST Listed 56-58 MOSLEY ST Listed 57 MOSLEY ST Listed 68 MOSLEY ST Listed 76 MOSLEY ST Listed 80 MOSLEY ST Listed 88 MOSLEY ST Listed 89 MOSLEY ST Part IV (Individual) –By-law 5615-14 91 MOSLEY ST Listed 95 MOSLEY ST Listed 103 MOSLEY ST Listed 100 OLD YONGE ST Part IV (Individual) –By-law 5082-08.R 220 OLD YONGE ST Part IV (Individual) –By-law 5905-16 8 RANSOM ST Listed 16 REUBEN ST Listed 18-20 REUBEN ST Listed 23 REUBEN ST Listed 27 REUBEN ST Listed 28 REUBEN ST Listed 29 REUBEN ST Listed 30 REUBEN ST Listed 31 REUBEN ST Listed 40 RIDGE RD Listed 114 RIDGE RD Listed 42 ROYAL RD Listed 10-12 SPRUCE ST Part V (NE Old Aurora HCD) By-law 4804-06.D 15 SPRUCE ST Part V (NE Old Aurora HCD) By-law 4804-06.D 16 SPRUCE ST Part V (NE Old Aurora HCD) By-law 4804-06.D 19 SPRUCE ST Part V (NE Old Aurora HCD) By-law 4804-06.D 20 SPRUCE ST Part V (NE Old Aurora HCD) By-law 4804-06.D Page 85 of 136 Aurora Register of Properties of Cultural Heritage Value or Interest (2019) Page 11 of 16 24 SPRUCE ST Part V (NE Old Aurora HCD) By-law 4804-06.D 25 SPRUCE ST Part V (NE Old Aurora HCD) By-law 4804-06.D 37 SPRUCE ST Part V (NE Old Aurora HCD) By-law 4804-06.D 40 SPRUCE ST Part V (NE Old Aurora HCD) By-law 4804-06.D 41 SPRUCE ST Part V (NE Old Aurora HCD) By-law 4804-06.D 45 SPRUCE ST Part V (NE Old Aurora HCD) By-law 4804-06.D 48 SPRUCE ST Part V (NE Old Aurora HCD) By-law 4804-06.D 49 SPRUCE ST Part V (NE Old Aurora HCD) By-law 4804-06.D 52 SPRUCE ST Part V (NE Old Aurora HCD) By-law 4804-06.D 53 SPRUCE ST Part V (NE Old Aurora HCD) By-law 4804-06.D 56 SPRUCE ST Part V (NE Old Aurora HCD) By-law 4804-06.D 57 SPRUCE ST Part V (NE Old Aurora HCD) By-law 4804-06.D 60 SPRUCE ST Part V (NE Old Aurora HCD) By-law 4804-06.D 61 SPRUCE ST Part V (NE Old Aurora HCD) By-law 4804-06.D 65 SPRUCE ST Part V (NE Old Aurora HCD) By-law 4804-06.D 68 SPRUCE ST Part V (NE Old Aurora HCD) By-law 4804-06.D 69 SPRUCE ST Part V (NE Old Aurora HCD) By-law 4804-06.D 76 SPRUCE ST Listed 77 SPRUCE ST Listed 79 SPRUCE ST Listed 80 SPRUCE ST Listed 81 SPRUCE ST Listed 83 SPRUCE ST Listed 84 SPRUCE ST Listed 85 SPRUCE ST Listed 87 SPRUCE ST Listed 88 SPRUCE ST Listed 96 SPRUCE ST Part V (NE Old Aurora HCD) By-law 4804-06.D 39 TEMPERANCE ST Listed 42 TEMPERANCE ST Part IV (Individual) –By-law 5052-08.R 50 TEMPERANCE ST Listed 54 TEMPERANCE ST Listed 56 TEMPERANCE ST Listed 58 TEMPERANCE ST Listed 60 TEMPERANCE ST Listed 78 TEMPERANCE ST Listed 79 TEMPERANCE ST Listed 82 TEMPERANCE ST Listed 83 TEMPERANCE ST Listed 87 TEMPERANCE ST Listed 89 TEMPERANCE ST Listed 91 TEMPERANCE ST Listed 92 TEMPERANCE ST Listed 95 TEMPERANCE ST Listed 96 TEMPERANCE ST Listed 98 TEMPERANCE ST Part IV (Individual) –By-law 5354-11 99 TEMPERANCE ST Listed 100 TEMPERANCE ST Listed 101 TEMPERANCE ST Listed 102 TEMPERANCE ST Listed 103 TEMPERANCE ST Listed Page 86 of 136 Aurora Register of Properties of Cultural Heritage Value or Interest (2019) Page 12 of 16 104 TEMPERANCE ST Listed 107 TEMPERANCE ST Listed 108 TEMPERANCE ST Listed 110 TEMPERANCE ST Listed 113 TEMPERANCE ST Listed 117 TEMPERANCE ST Listed 119 TEMPERANCE ST Listed 120 TEMPERANCE ST Listed 121 TEMPERANCE ST Listed 126 TEMPERANCE ST Listed 134 TEMPERANCE ST Listed 137 TEMPERANCE ST Listed 138 TEMPERANCE ST Listed 139 TEMPERANCE ST Listed 142 TEMPERANCE ST Listed 143 TEMPERANCE ST Listed 144 TEMPERANCE ST Listed 5 TYLER ST Part IV (Individual) –By-law 5215-10 7 TYLER ST Listed 11 TYLER ST Listed 15 TYLER ST Listed 28 TYLER ST Listed 31 TYLER ST Listed 35 TYLER ST Listed 37 TYLER ST Listed 38 TYLER ST Listed 42 TYLER ST Listed 46 TYLER ST Listed 50 TYLER ST Listed 58 TYLER ST Listed 59 TYLER ST Listed 62 TYLER ST Listed 63 TYLER ST Listed 66 TYLER ST Listed 70 TYLER ST Listed 71 TYLER ST Listed 74 TYLER ST Listed 75 TYLER ST Listed 78 TYLER ST Listed 79 TYLER ST Listed 80 TYLER ST Listed 81 TYLER ST Listed 96 TYLER ST Listed 121 TYLER ST Listed 1455 VANDORF SDRD Listed 1563 VANDORF SDRD Listed 1964 VANDORF SDRD Listed 1978 VANDORF SDRD Listed 20 VICTORIA ST Listed 21 VICTORIA ST Listed 28 VICTORIA ST Listed Page 87 of 136 Aurora Register of Properties of Cultural Heritage Value or Interest (2019) Page 13 of 16 33 VICTORIA ST Listed 32 VICTORIA ST Listed 36 VICTORIA ST Listed 37 VICTORIA ST Listed 40 VICTORIA ST Listed 63 VICTORIA ST Listed 67 VICTORIA ST Listed 79 (75-79) VICTORIA ST Listed 80 VICTORIA ST Listed 84 VICTORIA ST Listed 86 VICTORIA ST Listed 89 VICTORIA ST Listed 10 WALTON Part V (NE Old Aurora HCD) By-law 4804-06.D 22 WALTON Part V (NE Old Aurora HCD) By-law 4804-06.D 23-25 WALTON Part V (NE Old Aurora HCD) By-law 4804-06.D 9 WELLINGTON ST E Listed 14 WELLINGTON ST E Listed 17 WELLINGTON ST E Listed 20 WELLINGTON ST E Part V (NE Old Aurora HCD) By-law 4804-06.D 21 WELLINGTON ST E Listed 25 WELLINGTON ST E Listed 32 WELLINGTON ST E Part IV (Individual) –By-law 4948-07.R Part V (NE Old Aurora HCD) By-law 4804-06.D 34 WELLINGTON ST E Part IV (Individual) –By-law 4949-07.R 35-37 WELLINGTON ST E Listed 38 WELLINGTON ST E Part IV (Individual) –By-law 4950-07.R Part V (NE Old Aurora HCD) By-law 4804-06.D 41 WELLINGTON ST E Listed 42 WELLINGTON ST E Listed 46 WELLINGTON ST E Listed 49 WELLINGTON ST E Listed 50 WELLINGTON ST E Listed 53 WELLINGTON ST E Listed 54 WELLINGTON ST E Listed 58 WELLINGTON ST E Part V (NE Old Aurora HCD) By-law 4804-06.D 59 WELLINGTON ST E Listed 61 WELLINGTON ST E Listed 64 WELLINGTON ST E Listed 65 WELLINGTON ST E Part IV (Individual) –By-law 5120-09 66 WELLINGTON ST E Part IV (Individual) –By-law 4952-07.R 68 WELLINGTON ST E Part IV (Individual) –By-law 5375-11 69 WELLINGTON ST E Part IV (Individual) –By-law 2896-87 70 WELLINGTON ST E Part IV (Individual) –By-law 5376-11 73 WELLINGTON ST E Listed 74 WELLINGTON ST E Part IV (Individual) –By-law 3064-89 Part V (NE Old Aurora HCD) By-law 4804-06.D 77 WELLINGTON ST E Listed 78 WELLINGTON ST E Listed 80-82 WELLINGTON ST E Listed 81 WELLINGTON ST E Listed 85 WELLINGTON ST E Listed Page 88 of 136 Aurora Register of Properties of Cultural Heritage Value or Interest (2019) Page 14 of 16 86 WELLINGTON ST E Listed 88 WELLINGTON ST E Part V (NE Old Aurora HCD) By-law 4804-06.D 89 WELLINGTON ST E Listed 90 WELLINGTON ST E Part V (NE Old Aurora HCD) By-law 4804-06.D 91 WELLINGTON ST E Listed 94 WELLINGTON ST E Listed 98 WELLINGTON ST E Listed 99 WELLINGTON ST E Listed 104 WELLINGTON ST E Listed 105 WELLINGTON ST E Listed 108 WELLINGTON ST E Listed 110 WELLINGTON ST E Listed 112 WELLINGTON ST E Listed 116 WELLINGTON ST E Listed 118 WELLINGTON ST E Part IV (Individual) –By-law 4699-05.R 121-135 WELLINGTON ST E Part III.i (Provincial Heritage Property) 124 WELLINGTON ST E Part IV (Individual)- By-law 6164-19 136 WELLINGTON ST E Part IV (Individual) By-law 6236-20 150 WELLINGTON ST E Listed 28 WELLINGTON ST W Listed 35 WELLINGTON ST W Listed 20 WELLS ST Listed 24 WELLS ST Listed 28 WELLS ST Listed 31 WELLS ST Listed 35 WELLS ST Listed 36 WELLS ST Listed 37 WELLS ST Listed 39 WELLS ST Listed 40 WELLS ST Part IV (Individual) –By-law 5050-08.R 43 WELLS ST Listed 47 WELLS ST Listed 49 WELLS ST Part IV (Individual) –By-law 6063-18 64 WELLS ST Part IV (Individual) –By-law 4994-08.D 68 WELLS ST Listed 78 WELLS ST Part IV (Individual) –By-law 4993-08.D 88 WELLS ST Part IV (Individual) –By-law 4848-06.R 89 WELLS ST Part IV (Individual) –By-law 4851-06.R 92 WELLS ST Part IV (Individual) –By-law 5079-08.R 93 WELLS ST Part IV (Individual) –By-law 5217-10 96 WELLS ST Part IV (Individual) –By-law 5051-08.R 97 WELLS ST Part IV (Individual) –By-law 4846-06.R 100 WELLS ST Listed 101 WELLS ST Listed 103 WELLS ST Listed 104 WELLS ST Listed 106 WELLS ST Part IV (Individual) –By-law 4849-06.R 107 WELLS ST Listed 108 WELLS ST Listed 111 WELLS ST Listed 113 WELLS ST Listed Page 89 of 136 Aurora Register of Properties of Cultural Heritage Value or Interest (2019) Page 15 of 16 15 WILLIAM GRAHAM DR Part IV (Individual) –By-law 5918-16 14086 YONGE ST Listed 14108 YONGE ST Listed 14121 YONGE ST Listed 14170 YONGE ST Listed 14253 YONGE ST Part IV (Individual) –By-law 2927-87 14659 YONGE ST Part IV (Individual) –By-law 4977-07.D 14888 YONGE ST Listed 14900 YONGE ST Listed 14988 YONGE ST Listed 14993 YONGE ST Listed 15000 YONGE ST Listed 15004 YONGE ST Listed 15010 YONGE ST Listed 15018 YONGE ST Listed 15029 YONGE ST Listed 15032 YONGE ST Part IV (Individual) –By-law 4845-06.R 15037 YONGE ST Listed 15040 YONGE ST Listed 15048 YONGE ST Listed 15054 YONGE ST Listed 15074 YONGE ST Part IV (Individual) –By-law 6218-20 15114 YONGE ST Listed 15120 YONGE ST Listed 15199 YONGE ST Listed 15203 YONGE ST Listed 15210 YONGE ST Listed 15213 YONGE ST Part IV (Individual) –By-law 3481-93 15216 YONGE ST Listed 15218 YONGE ST Listed 15220 YONGE ST Listed 15221 YONGE ST Listed 15222 YONGE ST Listed 15224-15226 YONGE ST Listed 15225 YONGE ST Listed 15229 YONGE ST Listed 15231 YONGE ST Part IV (Individual) –By-law 5230-10 15233 YONGE ST Listed 15240 YONGE ST Listed 15242 YONGE ST Listed 15243a YONGE ST Listed 15243b YONGE ST Listed 15297 YONGE ST Part V (NE Old Aurora HCD) By-law 4804-06.D 15335 YONGE ST Part V (NE Old Aurora HCD) By-law 4804-06.D 15347 YONGE ST Part V (NE Old Aurora HCD) By-law 4804-06.D 15342 YONGE ST Part IV (Individual) –By-law 2926-87 Part V (NE Old Aurora HCD) By-law 4804-06.D 15356 YONGE ST Part V (NE Old Aurora HCD) By-law 4804-06.D 15372 YONGE ST Part IV (Individual) –By-law 2540-82 Part V (NE Old Aurora HCD) By-law 4804-06.D 15375 YONGE ST Part V (NE Old Aurora HCD) By-law 4804-06.D Page 90 of 136 Aurora Register of Properties of Cultural Heritage Value or Interest (2019) Page 16 of 16 15381 YONGE ST Part V (NE Old Aurora HCD) By-law 4804-06.D 15387 YONGE ST Part V (NE Old Aurora HCD) By-law 4804-06.D 15393 YONGE ST Part V (NE Old Aurora HCD) By-law 4804-06.D 15403 YONGE ST Part V (NE Old Aurora HCD) By-law 4804-06.D 15407 YONGE ST Part V (NE Old Aurora HCD) By-law 4804-06.D 15411 YONGE ST Part V (NE Old Aurora HCD) By-law 4804-06.D 15417 YONGE ST Part V (NE Old Aurora HCD) By-law 4804-06.D 15423 YONGE ST Part V (NE Old Aurora HCD) By-law 4804-06.D 15435 YONGE ST Part V (NE Old Aurora HCD) By-law 4804-06.D 15441 YONGE ST Part V (NE Old Aurora HCD) By-law 4804-06.D 15800 YONGE ST Listed 15858 YONGE ST Listed 15900 YONGE ST Part IV (Individual) –By-law 3415-92 16003 YONGE ST Part IV (Individual) –By-law 4361-02.R Page 91 of 136 Aurora Register Review Evaluation Criteria February 2021 MHBC | 23 Appendix B Evaluation of Heritage Resources in the Town of Aurora (2010, updated 2019) Page 92 of 136 EVALUATION OF HERITAGE RESOURCES IN THE TOWN OF AURORA Heritage Planning Planning and Development Services Town of Aurora February 2019 Page 93 of 136 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1 2.0 EVALUATION PRINCIPLES AND PROCEDURES 3 2.1 Evaluation Principles 3 2.2 Evaluation Procedural Steps 3 3.0 HISTORICAL RESEARCH 4 4.0 EVALUATION CRITERIA 5 4.1 Historical Value Category 6 4.2 Architectural Value Category 9 4.3 Environmental/Contextual Value Category 12 5.0 SCORING PROCEDURE 15 5.1 Criteria Scoring 15 5.2 Category Scoring 16 6.0 CLASSIFICATION 18 APPENDICES ‘A’ - HERITAGE BUILDING EVALUATION WORKSHEET PACKAGE Page 94 of 136 4.0 EVALUATION CRITERIA The use of a standard evaluation system has become an essential tool to assist in the examination and classification of buildings considered to be of architectural and/or historical value. The first official inventory of heritage buildings in Aurora was compiled by the Town of Aurora Heritage Advisory Committee (then known as LACAC). The inventory was compiled largely through windshield survey technique with minimal historical research. It was a preliminary identification of all potential heritage buildings in the municipality constructed prior to the Second World War exhibiting some degree of architectural and/or historical significance. No records of why a building was listed. In 1988, The Heritage Advisory Committee of Aurora adopted a broad set of criteria for selecting properties of historical or architectural value. This system did not, however, score potential heritage properties to determine their relative value. The evaluation and scoring of heritage properties through an established rating system can be a useful tool to help municipalities to prioritize efforts to preserve heritage resources and determine their relative value. With this information, municipalities can establish and implement standard policies outlining appropriate action that should be taken to preserve and protect heritage resources. It can also be useful as the basis for initiating future individual heritage building designations under the Ontario Heritage Act, establishing heritage conservation district boundaries and can also assist in reviewing development applications to alter or demolish these properties. An evaluation system is usually based upon well-defined criteria to which standards may be set for evaluation. The proposed Town of Aurora evaluation system is based primarily on a system developed and widely used by the City of Ottawa which was itself derived from the internationally recognized Parks Canada system for the evaluation of buildings. Similar systems used by the cities of Toronto, Vaughan, Markham, and Mississauga were also examined. In all cases, in order for the evaluation system to be as effective as possible, it is important to ensure that the property being reviewed has been thoroughly researched and examined, to determine as clear a picture as possible of its historical and architectural background. While it may be desirable to immediately evaluate and classify all the buildings listed, this is not possible due to the time required to undertake a full documentation of a heritage structure, the number of buildings involved and staff resources and commitments. Therefore, it is proposed that a building evaluation work program be introduced with specific targets to be achieved on an annual basis. A Building Evaluation Committee comprised of the Manager of Heritage Planning and Urban Design and a minimum of two representatives of Heritage Advisory Committee of Aurora would be responsible for this task. It is further proposed that priority be given to buildings which are identified as having potential impacts from future development (secondary plan areas, infill development in the historic core, properties subject to development applications, Page 95 of 136 4.0 EVALUATION CRITERIA etc), or under potential threat (demolition permit/inquiry, etc.). Building evaluation for specific development applications and potential designations would occur as required. The classification of a building may also change over time due to alterations or to the depletion of the heritage resource, the uncovering of further historical or architectural research, and appreciation of the architectural contribution of later periods, etc... Those structures not worthy of designation in 2005 may change in status in the future. As a result, prior to making a decision with respect to a resource (e.g. demolition, major alteration, etc.) an up-to-date evaluation should be undertaken. It should be noted that the designation or demolition of a building should not be based solely on the results of this rating and classification exercise. There may be exceptions, for example where a building may possess one specific historical attribute of great significance, but otherwise receives a low rating. While the evaluation criteria and classification system will provide a valid guideline for both staff and Council, the Town should retain the option to make exceptions when necessary. The building classifications are as follows: Group 1 those buildings of major significance and importance to the Town and worthy of designation under the Ontario Heritage Act. Group 2 those buildings of heritage significance and worthy of preservation. Group 3 those buildings considered to be of moderate significance and worthy of documentation or preservation if of a particular contextual value (e.g. part of a heritage streetscape). The general policies and procedures associated with each of the above Group classifications are presented in Section 6.0 of this document. Page 96 of 136 4.0 EVALUATION CRITERIA 2.1 EVALUATION PRINCIPLES It is possible to limit the subjectivity of the evaluation process by using a standard set of evaluation principles. To ensure that the evaluation system will aid decision-making for the identification of significant heritage buildings and potential heritage conservation districts/study areas, and to ensure that it will be of assistance when dealing with applications to alter or demolish identified heritage buildings, the evaluation system must: • Be based on a set of well-defined criteria; • Establish the relative significance of individual heritage buildings and heritage areas; • Be flexible in order to ensure a fair evaluation of all structures and areas which contribute to an understanding of the beginnings and growth of the Town of Aurora, and to ensure that each building is evaluated according to its merit as a heritage resource in the context of its specific surroundings; and • Provide a means for standardizing judgments that are based on professional experience and expertise. 2.2 EVALUATION PROCEDURE The following procedure has been developed to evaluate and classify buildings of architectural and/or historical value. The evaluation procedure consists of four stages: 1) Building Research see Section 3.0 2) Evaluation see Section 4.0 3) Scoring see Section 5.0 4) Classification see Section 6.0 The first stage involves the collection of historical research on the specific building under consideration. An evaluation of the building using a series of historical, architectural and environmental criteria comprises the second stage. As a third stage, a score is obtained which will vary depending on whether the building is part of a heritage district/study area or whether it is elsewhere in the community. Based upon this score, in stage four, the building can be classified as to its significance to Aurora. In order to complete the evaluation process, as much historical information as possible must be collected for the potential heritage building. Where the potential exists for a heritage conservation district designation, data should be collected for all the buildings in the area regardless of whether they were or were not identified as potential heritage buildings. Page 97 of 136 4.0 EVALUATION CRITERIA The purpose of the Historical Research Package is to establish a basis for evaluating and ultimately classifying the heritage structure. The information to be collected for the “Research Package” consists of the following: • Property Identification: - present owner and tenants - municipal address, legal description - assessment roll number - Inventory code number - Present use, zoning and O.P. designations • Photographic Record • Historical Research: - abstract index of deeds for the property - title search (Municipal Heritage Committees may access records for free) - census information - assessment roll - cemetery records - family history - historic photographs • Architectural Description: - Canadian Inventory of Historic Building Survey (modified) - Documentation of alterations - Evidence of original features The forms on which the above information is to be recorded area exhibited in Appendix ‘A’: Heritage Building Evaluation Worksheet Package. Upon completion of the “Research Package”, the heritage buildings can be evaluated according to the Town of Aurora’s evaluation criteria. It is recommended that the actual evaluation and scoring should be carried out by more than one person in order to eliminate any individual bias on the part of a single evaluator, providing for a more comprehensive and objective review of each building. Therefore, a Building Evaluation Committee consisting of The Manager of Heritage Planning and Urban Design and a minimum of two members of the Heritage Advisory Committee of Aurora will review, evaluate and classify buildings. The criteria used in evaluating Aurora’s heritage buildings were chosen to describe the qualities that contribute to the heritage significance of that building. The evaluation criteria can be grouped into three main categories: • Historical • Architectural • Environmental/Contextual Page 98 of 136 4.0 EVALUATION CRITERIA Under the Historical Value Section, the rating criteria relate to the age of the building, its association with a notable person or event, and the building’s thematic potential as illustrative of patterns or trends of cultural, social, political, military, industrial or agricultural history. The building’s usefulness for illustrating and/or teaching cultural history and its tourist promotion potential can also be factored in. Under the Architectural Value Section, the rating criteria relate to the stylistic purity or rarity, the quality and/or rarity of design and craftsmanship, the significance of the architect/builder, the structural condition and the building’s state of preservation or integrity. Under the Contextual Value Section, the rating criteria relate to how well the building contributes to the identity of the community or landscape. Bonus criteria for interior elements, historic groupings and archaeological resources are reserved for those buildings which are accorded greater importance due to the presence of a particular attribute. While these attributes can contribute significantly to a building’s importance, their absence does not detract from the rating. For each of the criteria, buildings are evaluated as either excellent, good, fair or poor. The “Heritage Building Evaluation Worksheet Package” is included as Appendix ‘A’. Page 99 of 136 4.1 HISTORICAL VALUE CATEGORY The standard criteria chosen to define historic significance are as follows: a) Date of construction; b) Trends exhibited by the building; c) Events associated with the building; and, d) Persons associated with the building. Additional criteria may include: e) Archaeological Resources f) Historic Grouping a) Date of Construction The date of construction is used as an indicator of potential historic significance as it provides a basis for evaluating the amount of history reflected by a particular building. This criterion ensures that a building’s age is given some consideration in determining historical significance; and to ensure that older structures, which cannot be linked to a specific trend, or cannot be associated with an event or person, are not completely overlooked with respect to historical significance. When scoring a building for its construction date, the following should be used as a guide: Pre 1851 -Bonus Early Settlement and Immigration 1851-1881 -Excellent Railway Era and Village Growth 1882-1914 -Good Industrial Development to First World War 1915-1945 -Fair 1st Half 20th Century – Wars, the Depression 1947-Present -Poor Post WW2 Expansion b) Association with Historic Trends/Patterns/Themes Association with historic trends, patterns or themes means that the site reflects a particular social, economic, political or cultural pattern characteristic of the Town of Aurora’s history and/or the history of a potential heritage conservation district/study area. This criterion is the most important of the four history criteria and the most heavily weighted. Over and above their associations with people or events, buildings can visually represent the historic trends of both the town and a local area. The following gradations are the basis for evaluating how a building reflects historical trends: Page 100 of 136 Excellent: The building can be linked to a specific and important trend, pattern or theme associated with Aurora’s history, and illustrates the trend extremely well. Good: The building can be linked to a specific trend, pattern or theme important to Aurora’s history, but illustrates the trend only fairly well; or the building can be linked to a specific trend that only has significance in the local area. Fair: The building can be linked in the most general way to a broad trend, pattern or theme (usually by date of construction). Poor: The building cannot be linked to any trend, pattern or theme that has historical significance either to the Town of Aurora or to a local area. c) Association with Events Association with events means that a building or structure can be directly linked to an event of local, regional or national significance. This criterion is generally applicable to only a limited number of buildings. The historical importance of a building that is associated with a noteworthy historical event should not be overlooked in evaluating a building’s independent heritage value, or its significance within a heritage conservation district/study area. A distinction should be made between human interest one-time events, and events which have had long-lasting consequence. To account for these distinctions, the evaluation of buildings which may be associated with significant events should be based on the following: Excellent: A single event, possibly related to the building’s function, which has had long-term consequences socially, culturally, politically or economically for the village, town, region or nation. Good: A single event which is very newsworthy or is associated with a person of importance, but which has had limited social, political, economic or cultural consequences. Fair: A single event, such as the laying of a cornerstone by a prominent figure, which is somewhat newsworthy; or events which are human interest stories of no real consequence. Poor: If no event has occurred, this is the appropriate grading choice. d) Association with a Person or Group Association means that the building can be directly linked to a person, group, institution, or corporation that has made a significant contribution to the local community, province or nation. Page 101 of 136 As was the case with the Events criterion, this is applicable to a limited number of buildings. However, where a building is associated with a notable person, group, institution or corporation, the added historical significance should not be overlooked. Evaluating the importance of a building’s association with a notable person or entity should be based on the following: Excellent: The person or entity had very strong ties with the building and was extremely important in the history of the Town, region or nation. For example, the home of Henry Machell who gave the name “Machell’s Corners” to the village. Good: The person or entity was reasonably important and had strong ties with the building but is not exclusively associated with the building. For example, a building where the village’s first postmaster lived for a number of years. Fair: The person or entity was reasonably important, with identifiable ties to the building, but is not necessarily significant. For example, a building that was owned by a prominent Aurora businessperson but not necessarily their primary residence or place of business. Poor: The building has no association with a notable person or entity. e) Archaeological Resources (Bonus) Archaeological resources are known or assumed to exist on the property. Archaeological resources on the property have yielded or may yield information important to the history of the property or the community. Excellent: A significant archaeological site(s) is known to exist on the property. Good: A potentially significant archaeological site(s) or an identified archaeological site of unknown importance is known to exist. Fair: A potential archaeological site of unknown importance is suspected. Poor: Property is of little or no archaeological significance. f) Historic Grouping (Bonus) The building forms a part of a historically associated grouping of older buildings. This grouping of buildings could be a number of contiguous structures or a group of related, but not necessarily contiguous structures (eg. Trinity Anglichan Chruch and Rectory, Farmhouse and Barn, buildings in an historic village) Page 102 of 136 Excellent: The grouping strongly or exceptionally illustrates an important trend or pattern in the community. Good: The grouping strongly illustrates a fairly important trend or pattern, or illustrates a major trend reasonably well. Fair: The grouping reasonably illustrates a trend or pattern or some note. Poor: The building is not part of a historic grouping of buildings. 4.2 ARCHITECTURAL VALUE CATEGORY The architectural value criteria are concerned primarily with the visual aspects and design qualities of heritage buildings. This is not limited to buildings which can be given academic labels as to their particular architectural style, but also includes vernacular buildings – those which represent the ordinary or common building style found in the Town of Aurora. a) Design The building is particularly significant because of the excellence, artistic merit or uniqueness of its design, composition, craftsmanship or details. This criterion is intentionally concerned with the design qualities of heritage buildings irrespective of style. Unusual or notable proportions, decoration, colour, texture, and massing, relative to the local area in which the building is located, are the prime considerations for evaluating design. For example, the Hillary House located in on Yonge Street could be rated high for its decorative bargeboard and verandah. Also to be considered in this category are exterior alterations which can impact the original design qualities of buildings. Integrity should only be considered in evaluating design insofar as the alterations have compromised the original character of the building The standard criteria to define architectural value are as follows: a) Design; b) Style; c) Architectural Integrity; d) Physical Condition; and e) Designer/ Builder. An additional criterion may include: f) Interior Elements Page 103 of 136 and are not easily reversible. For example, minor alterations such as aluminum storm doors which could be removed, or positive additions that enhance the building’s character would not result in a lower evaluation. Excellent: The building relative to its local area is particularly significant as a result of the excellence, artistic merit or uniqueness of its design. Good: The building relative to its local area is generally well-designed and will generally exhibit some unusual or notable design characteristics with respect to proportion, decoration, colour, texture or massing; or the building was particularly attractive or unique, but due to some exterior alterations that have changed the original, can no longer be evaluated as excellent. Fair: The building design relative to its local area is generally not unusual or notable with respect to proportions, decoration, colour, texture or massing. The building may have exhibited design characteristics warranting an excellent or good evaluation, but due to major exterior alterations has lost much of its original character. Poor: The building relative to its local area is not well-designed, unique or notable. This may be a result of numerous unsympathetic exterior alterations; or it may never have been “designated” in the first place. b) Building Style The building exhibits design features of a particular architectural style, period or method of construction. Style is considered separately from “design” as discussed above. Style compares the building to others of its particular architectural style. In most Canadian towns, absolute conformity to a particular architectural style is exceedingly rare. Many of the Town of Aurora’s notable heritage buildings contain elements of different styles, or are considered vernacular: characteristic of a local place or period and usually without a known architect. To account for the prominence of vernacular architecture or architecture which does not conform to a particular style, evaluation of this criterion is determined relative to other buildings as are known that exhibit that particular style. The following serves as the basis for evaluating building style: Excellent: If many buildings of the same style survive, the building should be a perfect or extremely early example; if few survive the building should be one of the best examples. Good: If many buildings of the same style survive, the building should be an excellent or very early example; if few survive, it should be a good example. Fair: If many buildings of the same style survive, is should be a good example; if few survive, it should be a fair example. Page 104 of 136 Poor: The building is of no particular stylistic interest or difficulty is encountered in identifying an original style. c) Architectural Integrity The important stylistic elements of the building are intact without alterations or additions of an insensitive or irreparable nature. This criterion considered the architectural integrity of the building. If alterations are significantly old and complementary, they may be judged on their own merits. Excellent: The heritage building is virtually intact or is readily capable of being restored to original. Good: Alterations or additions that are fully compatible have been made without affecting the major stylistic elements of the original building; or, the building is close to its original form in terms of major elements, but has had some minor alterations. Fair: Substantial additions and/or numerous alterations have been made, with the basic form and stylistic intentions remaining visible but severely altered. Some major elements should still exist. Poor: The building has been irreversibly damaged to the point where insensitive additions and/or alterations have resulted in the building no longer exhibiting any original features or any of its original character. d) Physical Condition The general state of the building’s structural condition is to be considered. Excellent: The building appears to be in superior physical condition Good: The building would appear to require minor structural repair. Fair: The building would appear to require a moderate amount of structural repair. Poor: The building would appear to require extensive structural repair. e) Designer/Builder The building was designed by an architect, engineer or other design professional, or was constructed by a builder whose work is of local, regional or national importance. Page 105 of 136 As noted earlier, most of the building stock in Aurora is of a vernacular style constructed by the owner or local trades people. Excellent: The designer or builder was of particular importance to the history of the village, town, region, province or nation. Good: The designer or builder was of some importance to the history of the village, town, region, province or nation. Fair: The designer or builder is known, or can be identified, but is of no particular importance. Poor: The designer or builder cannot be identified or is of no importance locally, regionally or nationally. f) Interior Elements (Bonus) The interior elements of the building such as the original floor plan, finishes, craftsmanship and/or architectural detail are particularly attractive, unique or are of historic significance to a period, and have experienced little alteration. Excellent: Interior elements are basically unchanged. Good: Interior elements may have changed, but the dominant character is retained. Fair: Interior elements are significantly changed, but some elements are visible. Poor: Interior elements are unremarkable, unknown or the character has been destroyed. 4.3 ENVIRONMENTAL/CONTEXTUAL CATEGORY The set of criteria developed to evaluate the environmental significance of a building focuses on know well a building fits in with its surroundings; how prominent the building is as a heritage landmark in its environment; and, whether the building has an historical association with its surroundings by being a significant component of community life. The standard criteria to define the environmental significance are as follows: a) Design Compatibility with Streetscape/Environs; b) Community Context; c) Landmark Status; and d) Site. Page 106 of 136 These considerations are important as it is the visual relationship of buildings in an area that contributes to the identity of an existing or proposed heritage conservation district/study area such as the neighbourhoods of Old Aurora. The building’s setting and surrounding landscape features are also to be evaluated as a part of this process. For buildings not located in a heritage conservation district/study area, the building’s environmental significance is considerably less important. However, this is not to say that a building not located in a district/study area lacks environmental significance. These buildings may be landmarks or may have strong historical and symbolic associations with the community. Consequently, consideration of environmental significance is still necessary, even though it is not as important as the historical and architectural categories in determining the heritage value of buildings not located in a heritage district/study area. a) Design Compatibility with Streetscape/Environs The compatibility of the building, in comparison with surrounding buildings or landscape features, is to be examined. In a rural area, a building may be part of a farm setting while in an urban area, the building may be within a historic setting or located next to new development. In the latter case, the evaluation should be according to whether the newer buildings are compatible with the remaining heritage building(s). This ensures that the building’s compatibility is evaluated from a heritage perspective. The degree of compatibility should be evaluated using the following: Excellent: The building, in conjunction with its surrounding landscape features or adjacent buildings, forms a highly distinctive and compatible setting. Good: The building, in conjunction with surrounding landscape features or adjacent buildings, contributes to the area’s distinctiveness. Fair: The building cannot be said to be part of a distinctive setting or the building may detract from the compatibility of the setting as a result of incompatible colour and style even though the building’s general mass and scale are compatible. Poor: The building, with respect to mass, scale, colour, style and detail is incompatible with and detracts from its setting. This could also apply to drastically altered buildings in a potential heritage district/study area. b) Community Context The building has a strong historical association with its neighbourhood, whether in public use or in private use with public associations; and historically was and/or today is, an integral Page 107 of 136 part of community life; and for sentimental or symbolic reasons, has become a significant part of the community’s identify. This criterion deals with the functional and symbolic role of potential heritage buildings in the life and identity of the community. The community context criterion has limited application but cannot be overlooked since the buildings which were important to life in the community are often unique reflections of that community. Even though these buildings may lack landmark status or design compatibility, they have a distinct environmental value established by their continued association with community life, or by their former association with community life, which makes them symbolically or sentimentally significant to the community’s identity. One such example is the former Hartman’s Corners schoolhouse Excellent: The building has strong historical association with the neighbourhood as a public use building, and continues to serve and function in the same capacity as an important component of life in the community. As a result, the building, in addition to having actual significance, has become and remains symbolically and sentimentally significant to the community’s identity. Good: The building has a strong historical association with the neighbourhood as a public use building. However, the building no longer serves or functions in that same capacity as an important component of life in the community. Its significance is consequently sentimental or symbolic to the community’s identity. Fair: The building has a limited historical association with the neighbourhood, but this association may not be as a result of the building being a public use building. Rather the association may be strictly as a result of age which establishes some limited symbolic significance to the community’s identity as a historical residence or commercial establishment. Many potential heritage buildings, since they generally were not or are not public use buildings, might receive this grading. Poor: The building has no historical association with the neighbourhood in terms of either age or function. c) Landmark Status The building serves as a visual, historical or cultural point of reference that has acquired value by the community as a known feature of the streetscape or area. Excellent: The building is highly visible or is a strong point of reference from several points in the Town of Aurora. Good: The building is a strong point of reference from several points in the Town of Aurora. Fair: The building is only visible locally and may be used in giving directions within a local area. Page 108 of 136 Poor: The building is difficult to find, or is a landmark without historical association. d) Site The building occupies its original site and illustrates the site’s original layout. Excellent: The site is substantially unchanged and the building has not been moved. Good: The site elements may be altered, but discernable. A building may be on a new foundation, but on its original site. Fair: The building may have been relocated on its original property or the original site elements have been altered substantially. Poor: The building has been relocated to a new site and the contextual value or character of the site is destroyed. Page 109 of 136 5.0 SCORING PROCEDURE The scoring procedure to be used involves two basic levels. First, the building is scored according to its appropriate level of importance under each of the individual criteria within the three major categories (Historical, Architectural and Environmental). The results of each category are totaled for a maximum of 100 points. Second, each of the three categories are assigned a percentage value that varies depending on whether the building is to be considered an individual entity or an entity within a heritage conservation district/study area. Finally, an overall score out of a possible 100 points is derived and the building can be classified as to its relative significance. 5.1 CRITERIA SCORING The procedure for the criteria scoring process relates to the actual points assigned to each of the gradings (ie. excellent, good, fair, poor) under each criterion. In some evaluation systems, these point values change depending on what part of the community is under study (ie. a rural farmhouse versus a building in a traditional village). However, for Aurora, a standard point distribution has been used for each criterion throughout the Town as illustrated below: Excellent Good Fair Poor HISTORICAL Trends/Patterns/Themes 40 27 14 0 Date of Construction 30 20 10 0 Events 15 10 5 0 Persons 15 10 5 0 Archaeological (Bonus) 10 7 3 0 Historic Grouping (Bonus) 10 7 3 0 Construction Date (Bonus) 10 HISTORICAL TOTAL /100 ARCHITECTURAL Style 30 20 10 0 Design 20 13 10 0 Architectural Integrity 20 13 7 0 Physical Condition 20 13 7 0 Designer/Builder 10 7 3 0 Interior Elements (Bonus) 10 7 3 0 ARCHITECTURAL TOTAL /100 Page 110 of 136 ENVIRONMENTAL/CONTEXTUAL Design Compatibility 40 27 14 0 Landmark 20 13 7 0 Community Context 20 13 7 0 Site 20 13 7 0 ENVIRONMENTAL/CONTEXTUAL TOTAL /100 5.2 CATEGORY SCORING As noted earlier, the categories are assigned a percentage weighting that varies dependant on whether the building is being evaluated independently or is located within a heritage district/study area. The percentage value assigned to the category scoring reflects: -the priorities assigned to environment, architecture and history for buildings within a heritage district/study area. -the equal importance of history and architecture categories and the limited importance of the environment category in assessing a building not in a district. 5.2.1 Individual Buildings The significance of a building being considered individually is based equally on the building’s historical and architectural significance. To consider one element to be more important than the other could prejudice those buildings which lack significance in one of these categories. The building’s environmental significance is the least important of the tree when determining the significance of an individual building not located in a heritage conservation district/study area. Consequently, the heritage significance of buildings to be evaluated on an individual basis is established in this order of priority: * Architectural Significance 40% * Historical Significance 40% * Enviro/Contextual Significance 20% * OVERALL SIGNIFICANCE 100% 5.2.2 Buildings within the Heritage Resource Area of Old Aurora The significance of a building located within the Heritage Resource Area of Old Aurora as defined in the Official Plan is primarily established by the building’s environmental significance – its compatibility with its heritage surroundings, its landmark status, and its community context. Also important is the building’s architectural significance and integrity which reflects the building’s contribution to the area’s heritage character. The historic character of the individual buildings is of lesser importance when a building is Page 111 of 136 evaluated as part of a Heritage Resource area of Old Aurora. Consequently, the heritage significance of buildings in this area is established in this order of priority: * Environmental Significance 45% * Architectural Significance 35% * Historical Significance 20% * OVERALL SIGNIFICANCE 100% The score obtained from the evaluation stage allows a given building to be classified as being a Group’1’, Group ‘2’ or Group ‘3’ structure. Buildings can be classified using the following point breakdown: Points Group Significance 70-100 Group ‘1’ -of major significance and importance, worthy of designation 45-69 Group ‘2’ -significant, worthy of preservation less than 45 Group ‘3’ -moderately significant, worthy of documentation and preservation as part an historic grouping It should be understood that the above classification groups may be different from the Type ‘A’, ‘B’ and ‘C’ classification given to buildings located within a heritage conservation district in the event that one is established. These ratings may be useful in establishing neighborhood character and significance, however since it is unlikely that an exhaustive research report would be carried out on each individual building, a heritage district plan classification may be considered preliminary. The general policies and procedures associated with each of the Evaluation System’s Group classifications are as follows: Group ‘1’ The designation of the building pursuant to the Ontario Heritage Act will be pursued. Every attempt must be made to preserve the building on its original site. Any development application affecting such a building must incorporate the identified building. Appropriate alternative uses for the building will be encouraged when necessary to ensure its preservation. Page 112 of 136 A Letter of Credit will typically be required to ensure the protection and preservation of the building in connection with a redevelopment application. Group ‘2’ The designation of the building pursuant to the Ontario Heritage Act will be encouraged. The retention of the structure in its existing location is encouraged. Any development application affecting such a structure should incorporate the identified building. Appropriate alternative uses for the building will be encouraged when necessary to ensure its preservation. A Letter of Credit may be required to ensure the protection and preservation of the building in connection with a redevelopment application. Group ‘3’ The designation of the building pursuant to the Ontario Heritage Act may be supported with an approved restoration plan, but would not necessarily be initiated by the Town unless part of an historic grouping such as an intact heritage streetscape. Retention of the building on the site is supported, particularly if part of an historic streetscape. If the building is to be demolished, a photographic record, measured drawings and/or salvage of significant architectural elements may be required. Additional Notes: It is the responsibility of the Evaluation Working Group to reach a consensus on the score and categorize the property to the appropriate Group based on their own discussion, debate and consideration of other factors, such as financial or community interest. While the evaluation criteria and classification system will provide a valid guideline for both staff and Council, the Town should retain the option to make exceptions when necessary. Page 113 of 136 APPENDIX ‘A’ HERITAGE BUILDING EVALUATION WORKSHEET PACKAGE Page 114 of 136 Municipal Address: ______________________________________________________________________ Legal Description: _________________________ Lot:___________ Conc: __________________ Building Name: ______________________________________________ Inventory Identification: _______________________________________ Date of Construction:_____________________ Additions to Building: _______________________ Original Use: ___________________________ Original Owner: ____________________________ Current Use: ____________________________ Current Owner: ____________________________ Current Zoning: _________________________ Official Plan Designation: ____________________ Name of Recorder: _________________________________ Date of Evaluation: _________________________________ Committee Review: ________________________________ Photograph Date of Photo: ______________ View: ___________ Negative: ______________ Credit:_____________ HERITAGE BUILDING EVALUATION: IDENTIFICATION Page 115 of 136 Prepared By: ___________________________________ Date: __________________________ HERITAGE BUILDING EVALUATION: ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW STYLE OF BUILDING: DESIGN/DETAILS/CRAFTSMANSHIP: ARCHITECTURAL INTEGRITY/PHYSICAL CONDITION: DESIGN/BUILDER/ARCHITECT: INTERIOR ELEMENTS: SUMMARY/COMMENTS ON ARCHITECTURAL SIGNIFICANCE: Page 116 of 136 Prepared By: ___________________________________ Date: __________________________ DESIGN COMPATIBILITY WITH STREETSCAPE/ ENVIRONS: COMMUNITY CONTEXT: LANDMARK STATUS: SITE: SITE SKETCH: HERITAGE BUILDING EVALUATION: ENVIRO/CONTEXTUAL REVIEW Page 117 of 136 Prepared By: ___________________________________ Date: __________________________ Date of Construction: ____________________________ Factual or Estimated: F___ E ___ Sources: __________________________________________________________________ TRENDS/PATTERNS/THEMES: EVENTS OR PERSONS: ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES: HISTORIC GROUPING OF BUILDINGS: SUMMARY/COMMENTS ON HISTORICAL SIGNIFICANCE: HISTORICAL SOURCES: HERITAGE BUILDING EVALUATION: HISTORICAL REVIEW Page 118 of 136 Municipal Address: _______________________________________________ Legal Description: _____________________ Lot: ______ Cons: _______ Group: Date of Evaluation: ________________ Name of Recorder: _____________ HISTORICAL E G F P TOTAL Date of Construction 30 20 10 0 /30 Trends/Patterns/Themes 40 27 14 0 /40 Events 15 10 5 0 /15 Persons/Groups 15 10 5 0 /15 Archaeological (Bonus) 10 7 3 0 /10 Historic Grouping (Bonus) 10 7 3 0 /10 Construction Date (Bonus) 10 /10 HISTORICAL TOTAL /100 ARCHITECTURAL E G F P TOTAL Design 20 13 7 0 /20 Style 30 20 10 0 /30 Architectural Integrity 20 13 7 0 /20 Physical Condition 20 13 7 0 /20 Design/Builder 10 7 3 0 /10 Interior (Bonus) 10 7 3 0 /10 ARCHITECTURAL TOTAL /100 ENVIRONMENTAL/CONTEXTUAL TOTAL Design Compatibility 40 27 14 0 /40 Community Context 20 13 7 0 /20 Landmark 20 13 7 0 /20 Site 20 13 7 0 /20 ENVIRONMENTAL/CONTEXTUAL TOTAL /100 SCORE INDIVIDUAL OLD AURORA Historical Score X 40% = _______ X 20% = _______ Architectural Score X 40% = _______ X 35% = _______ Enviro/Contextual Score X 20% = _______ X 45% = _______ TOTAL SCORE HERITAGE BUILDING EVALUATION: SCORESHEET GROUP 1 = 70-100 GROUP 2 = 45-69 GROUP 3 = 44 or less Page 119 of 136 Aurora Register Review Evaluation Criteria February 2021 MHBC | 24 Appendix C MHSTCI Standards & Guidelines (O-Reg 9/06 Summary) Page 120 of 136 Page 1 of 3 Ontario Regulation 9/06 MHSTC Standards & Guidelines for Conservation of Provincial Heritage Properties Design/Physical Value Sub- criteria: To meet this criterion, the property should illustrate or exemplify: i. is a rare, unique, representative or early example of a style, type, expression, material or construction method,  A style (shared characteristics that make up a recognizable look or appearance of a building or constructed landscape typical of a particular group, time, or place);  A type (a particular kind or group usually with a common function, activity or use, e.g. schools, hospitals, courthouses, parks, etc. and may include sub-types);  An expression (to display, show, embody or be the physical symbol of a way of life, belief, tradition, etc.);  A material;  Construction method;  Rare (because there were few in number originally, or there are few in number today due to subsequent loss);  Unique (the only one of its kind or a prototype);  Representative (serving as a portrayal or symbol); and/or  Early example (in the context of time and place). ii. displays a high degree of craftsmanship or artistic merit, or  The property satisfies this criterion if it currently demonstrates or presents craftsmanship or artistic merit in a greater than normal quality or at an intensity well above an industry standard.  Criterion 1. Ii considers the quality of execution in the assembly of materials, construction materials, spatial arrangements, etc. iii. demonstrates a high degree of technical or scientific achievement.  The property satisfies this criterion if it currently displays or presents technical or scientific achievement in a greater than normal quality or at an intensity well above an industry standard.  Criterion 1.iii considers the characteristics and evolution of construction techniques and the use of materials within the local historic context. A property may represent a technical or scientific innovation or a change in techniques or materials as it relates to: o Technical expertise in its construction materials; o Scientific achievement in the use or adaptation of materials, forms, spatial arrangements; and/or o Breakthroughs in design or construction techniques. Historical/Associative/Phys ical Value Sub-criteria: To meet this criterion, the property should illustrate or exemplify: Page 121 of 136 Page 2 of 3 i. has direct associations with a theme, event, belief, person, activity, organization or institution that is significant to a community,  That the association is direct whether the property exemplifies or has strong evidence of its connection to a theme, event, belief, person, activity, organization or institution. For example, the property may be the product of, or was influenced by, or has influenced, or was the site of an event, theme, belief, activity, organization.  Is significant to the community because a theme, event, belief, person, activity, organization or institution. For example, the property may be the product of, or was influenced by, or has influenced, or was the site of an event, theme, belief, activity, organization;  Is significant to the community because a theme, event, belief, person, activity, organization or institution has made a strong, noticeable or influential contribution to the evolution or pattern of settlement and development in the community. A property may satisfy this criterion if little else survives to property is the last of its kind or provides rare early evidence. ii. yields, or has the potential to yield, information that contributes to an understanding of a community or culture, or  Criterion 2. Ii considers whether a property has or can have the ability to provide evidence of one or more notable or a culture. The culture may not be currently associated with the property.  To meet this criterion, the evidence should e.g. offer new knowledge or a greater understanding of particular aspects contribute to a comparative analysis of similar properties, etc. The evidence may be demonstrated through the property, or the combination of the property and associated documentary material or artifacts. iii. demonstrates or reflects the work or ideas of an architect, artist, builder, designer or theorist who is significant to a community.  Display or present the work of an architect, artist, builder, designer or theorist; and  Be significant to the community because an architect, artist, builder, designer, or theorist has made a strong, noticeable or influential contribution. The contribution may have been recognized in its day or through subsequent interpretation. The evidence of the work/idea needs to be explicitly identified, thoroughly supported in research, and be essential to understanding or interpreting the importance that the architect, history. Incidental association does not satisfy this criterion. The property has contextual value because it, Page 122 of 136 Page 3 of 3 i. is important in defining, maintaining or supporting the character of an area, To meet this criterion the property needs to be in an area that has a unique or definable character and it is desirable to maintain that character. The character of a place need not be attractive for it to be meaningful. For example, places with an industrial character can be of cultural heritage value. The research needs to consider how much or to what degree, the property contributes to determining, establishing, or affirming the character. For example, the research should consider what would happen to the character of the area if the property was considerably altered or lost. ii. is physically, functionally, visually or historically linked to its surroundings, or To satisfy this criterion, a property needs to have a relationship to its broader context that is important to understand the meaning of the property or its context. The relationship may be:  Physical i.e. when there is material connection between the property and its surroundings; or  Functional i.e. necessary to fulfill a particular purpose; or  Visual i.e. when there is a visual connection between it and at least one feature in the context. It is not visually linked merely because adjacent properties can be seen from it; or  Historical i.e. when there is a connection to the historic context. iii. is a landmark. O. Reg. 9/06, s. 1 (2). This criterion considers whether the property is or includes a landmark that is meaningful to a community. The key physical characteristic of a landmark is its prominence within its context, e.g. a well-known marker in the community. Landmarks are usually memorable and easily discernible. They often serve as orientation guides and/or local/regional tourist attractions. A recognizable natural or human-made feature used for a point of reference that helps orienting in a familiar or unfamiliar environment; it may mark an event or development; it may be conspicuous. Page 123 of 136 Aurora Register Review Evaluation Criteria February 2021 MHBC | 25 Appendix D Ontario Heritage Toolkit: Heritage Property Evaluation (Property Survey Recording Form) Page 124 of 136 This form collects the information useful as an initial survey of properties that may be listed on the municipal register of cultural heritage properties. Other categories of local importance can be added. Recorders are encour- aged to learn about the heritage of the community as a whole before undertaking this survey. Recorder 1 Date of recording 2 Name of recorder ❑Municipal Heritage Committee ❑Municipal Staff ❑Heritage Consultant ❑Student ❑Other 3 What is your level of expertise in identifying and describing a cultural heritage property? ❑Beginner ❑Some Experience ❑Expert Property Identification 4 Street address and legal description 5 Name of building, if any 6 Name and address of owner Design or Physical Value 7 Identify the type of property Examples:Residential, commercial, institutional, agricultural or indus- trial building; monument such as a cenotaph, statue or public art; structure such as a water tower, culvert, fence or bridge; natural feature that has cultural heritage value or interest; cemetery, grave- stone or cemetery marker; cultural heritage landscape; spiritual site; interior; ruins or other feature 8 Identify the materials used Examples:Wood, stone, metal, plastic or other 9 Does the property display any particular qualities of artistic merit, craftsmanship, technical or scientific achievement, expression or innovation? Historical or Associative Value 10 What do you know about this property from research or local traditions? List sources 11 Does the property have any fea- tures similar to other properties? Contextual Value 12 Does the property define, maintain or support the character of an area? 13 Is the property physically, function- ally, visually or historically linked to its surroundings? 14 Is the property a landmark? Status 15 Identify any physical or other risks to the condition and/or integrity of the property and/or individual features Photographs 16 Photographs should be taken from the nearest publicly accessible viewpoint. (Do not enter a property without permission.) The front or prominent feature will be used as the key image. Identify all images with north, south, east and west orientation. Recommendation 17 Make an initial recommendation or comment on whether or not to list a property on the municipal register. Give reasons. Heritage Property Evaluation • Compiling a Register of Cultural Heritage Properties 11 Sample: Property Survey Recording Form Page 125 of 136 200-540 BINGEMANS CENTRE DRIVE KITCHENER / ONTARIO /N2B3X9 / T:519.576.3650 / F: 519-576-0121 / WWW.MHBCPLAN.COM Page 126 of 136 100 John West Way Aurora, Ontario L4G 6J1 (905) 727-3123 aurora.ca Town of Aurora Memorandum Planning and Development Services Re: Alterations to a Listed Heritage Property – 26 Machell Avenue To: Heritage Advisory Committee From: Carlson Tsang, Planner Date: April 5, 2021 Recommendations 1. That the memorandum regarding alterations to a listed heritage property at 26 Machell Avenue be received for information. Background The purpose of this memorandum is to inform the Heritage Advisory Committee about a building permit application submitted on October 29, 2020 for a listed property at 26 Machell Avenue. The applicant is proposing to raise the building and replace the foundation walls. The building will be returned to its original footprint upon completion of the new foundation. The proposed work does not require a heritage permit under the Ontario Heritage Act. However, the property must be evaluated and scored by the Heritage Advisory Committee’s Working Group prior to the issuance of a permit. If the property receives a high score, the Town will pursue designation under the Ontario Heritage Act to protect the building through the heritage permit process. If the evaluation suggests that the property is not worthy of designation, the result would be reported to the Heritage Advisory Committee for information, and the applicant can continue with their building permit application. On November 30, 2020, Planning Staff met with the Heritage Working Group to evaluate the subject property (see Attachment 1). The property scored 53.85/100 which puts it in the Group 2 category, suggesting that it is not worthy of designation. The Heritage Advisory Committee has reviewed the results of the evaluation and expressed no objection to the proposed alteration. The property will remain listed pending completion of the comprehensive review of the Heritage Registry. Page 127 of 136 Alterations to a Listed Heritage Property – 26 Machell Avenue April 5, 2021 Page 2 of 2 Attachments Attachment 1– Heritage Evaluation by the Working Group Attachment 2 – Photo of the existing dwelling Page 128 of 136 Municipal Address: _______________________________________________ Legal Description: _____________________ Lot: ______ Cons: _______ Group: Date of Evaluation: ________________ Name of Recorder: _____________ HISTORICAL E G F P TOTAL Date of Construction 30 20 10 0 /30 Trends/Patterns/Themes 40 27 14 0 /40 Events 15 10 5 0 /15 Persons/Groups 15 10 5 0 /15 Archaeological (Bonus) 10 7 3 0 /10 Historic Grouping (Bonus) 10 7 3 0 /10 Construction Date (Bonus) 10 /10 HISTORICAL TOTAL /100 ARCHITECTURAL E G F P TOTAL Design 20 13 7 0 /20 Style 30 20 10 0 /30 Architectural Integrity 20 13 7 0 /20 Physical Condition 20 13 7 0 /20 Design/Builder 10 7 3 0 /10 Interior (Bonus) 10 7 3 0 /10 ARCHITECTURAL TOTAL /100 ENVIRONMENTAL/CONTEXTUAL TOTAL Design Compatibility 40 27 14 0 /40 Community Context 20 13 7 0 /20 Landmark 20 13 7 0 /20 Site 20 13 7 0 /20 ENVIRONMENTAL/CONTEXTUAL TOTAL /100 SCORE INDIVIDUAL OLD AURORA Historical Score X 40% = _______ X 20% = _______ Architectural Score X 40% = _______ X 35% = _______ Enviro/Contextual Score X 20% = _______ X 45% = _______ TOTAL SCORE HERITAGE BUILDING EVALUATION: SCORESHEET GROUP 1 = 70-100 GROUP 2 = 45-69 GROUP 3 = 44 or less 0DFKHOO$YHQXH 1RY&DUOVRQ7VDQJ $WWDFKPHQW 20 0 0 0 7 7 10 7 0 27 0 20 GROUP 2 = 45-69 Page 129 of 136 "UUBDINFOUPage 130 of 136 100 John West Way Aurora, Ontario L4G 6J1 (905) 727-3123 aurora.ca Town of Aurora Memorandum Planning and Development Services Re: Approval of Heritage Permit Application HPA-2020-03 under Delegated Authority – 28 Wellington Street West To: Heritage Advisory Committee From: Carlson Tsang, Planner Date: April 5, 2021 Recommendation 1. That the memorandum regarding the approval of Heritage Permit Application HPA- 2020-03 under Delegated Authority for 28 Wellington Street West be received. Background This report is to present to the Heritage Advisory Committee the decision by the Planning Division to approve Minor Heritage Permit Application HPA-2020-03 under Delegated Authority to allow the replacement of fifteen windows and two doors on a designated building at a property municipally known as 28 Wellington Street West. The details of the new windows and doors are attached hereto as Attachment 1. Staff were satisfied that new windows and doors are in keeping with the original character of the building. The application was approved on January 18, 2021 and a notice of consent was issued in accordance with Ontario Heritage Act requirements. All decisions on Heritage Permit applications made under delegated powers must be presented to the Town’s Heritage Advisory Committee for information in accordance with By-law 5365-11. The delegated authority contributes to achieving excellence in managing and delivering quality services in an efficient and expeditious manner. Attachments Attachment 1 - Specification of the new windows and doors Page 131 of 136 - Phone Number - Email Representative Date Number Quote Email Phone Number City, Province Address Name Customer Number Postal Code Customer QTY WIDTH HEIGHT FRAME DESCRIPTION PRICEOUTSIDE VIEW Windows $1,473.00134"68"8" Series 370, Hybrid Double Hung Window Option: Jamb Extension Color: Exterior: Black - Interior: White Option: Full Screen Glass: Clear with Low-E & Argon Gas Installation: Full Frame Location: Upper living room $1,473.00134"68"8" Series 370, Hybrid Double Hung Window Option: Jamb Extension Color: Exterior: Black - Interior: White Option: Full Screen Glass: Clear with Low-E & Argon Gas Installation: Full Frame Location: Upper kitchen $1,473.00134"68"8" Series 370, Hybrid Double Hung Window Option: Jamb Extension Color: Exterior: Black - Interior: White Option: Full Screen Glass: Clear with Low-E & Argon Gas Installation: Full Frame Location: Upper kitchen $1,473.00134"68"8" Series 370, Hybrid Double Hung Window Option: Jamb Extension Color: Exterior: Black - Interior: White Option: Full Screen Glass: Clear with Low-E & Argon Gas Installation: Full Frame Location: Upper bedroom 1 of 8GST: 79656 7881 RT0001 Attachment 1 Page 132 of 136 56-969Order NumberMauro BucciCustomer Name QTY WIDTH HEIGHT FRAME DESCRIPTION PRICEOUTSIDE VIEW Windows $1,473.00134"68"8" Series 370, Hybrid Double Hung Window Option: Jamb Extension Color: Exterior: Black - Interior: White Option: Full Screen Glass: Clear with Low-E & Argon Gas Installation: Full Frame Location: Lower front bedroom 1 $1,473.00134"68"8" Series 370, Hybrid Double Hung Window Option: Jamb Extension Color: Exterior: Black - Interior: White Option: Full Screen Glass: Clear with Low-E & Argon Gas Installation: Full Frame Location: Lower front bedroom 2 $1,473.00134"68"8" Series 370, Hybrid Double Hung Window Option: Jamb Extension Color: Exterior: Black - Interior: White Option: Full Screen Glass: Clear with Low-E & Argon Gas Installation: Full Frame Location: Lower front bedroom 2 $1,473.00134"68"8" Series 370, Hybrid Double Hung Window Option: Jamb Extension Color: Exterior: Black - Interior: White Option: Full Screen Glass: Clear with Low-E & Argon Gas Installation: Full Frame Location: Lower front bedroom 3 $1,473.00134"68"8" Series 370, Hybrid Double Hung Window Option: Jamb Extension Color: Exterior: Black - Interior: White Option: Full Screen Glass: Clear with Low-E & Argon Gas Installation: Full Frame Location: Lower living room 2 of 8GST: 79656 7881 RT0001 Page 133 of 136 56-969Order NumberMauro BucciCustomer Name QTY WIDTH HEIGHT FRAME DESCRIPTION PRICEOUTSIDE VIEW Windows $1,473.00134"68"8" Series 370, Hybrid Double Hung Window Option: Jamb Extension Color: Exterior: Black - Interior: White Option: Full Screen Glass: Clear with Low-E & Argon Gas Installation: Full Frame Location: Kitchen $1,167.00134"50"8" Series 370, Hybrid Double Hung Window Option: Jamb Extension Color: Exterior: Black - Interior: White Option: Full Screen Glass: Clear with Low-E & Argon Gas Installation: Full Frame Location: Kitchen $1,473.00134"68"8" Series 370, Hybrid Double Hung Window Option: Jamb Extension Color: Exterior: Black - Interior: White Option: Full Screen Glass: Clear with Low-E & Argon Gas Installation: Full Frame Location: Bathroom $1,473.00134"68"8" Series 370, Hybrid Double Hung Window Option: Jamb Extension Color: Exterior: Black - Interior: White Option: Full Screen Glass: Clear with Low-E & Argon Gas Installation: Full Frame Location: Lower bedroom $750.00134"17"4 1/2" Series 470, Hybrid Sliding Window Option: Jamb Extension Color: Exterior: Black - Interior: White Option: Half Screen Glass: Clear with Low-E & Argon Gas Installation: Insert Location: Basement 3 of 8GST: 79656 7881 RT0001 Page 134 of 136 56-969Order NumberMauro BucciCustomer Name QTY WIDTH HEIGHT FRAME DESCRIPTION PRICEOUTSIDE VIEW Windows $750.00134"17"4 1/2" Series 470, Hybrid Sliding Window Option: Jamb Extension Color: Exterior: Black - Interior: White Option: Half Screen Glass: Clear with Low-E & Argon Gas Installation: Insert Location: Basement QTY DESCRIPTION PRICEOUTSIDE VIEW Doors 1 $3,309.00 Steel Door Configuration Single Door Inswing - Hinges on Right Same opening and hinge configuration as existing door Sizes Sizes: 33 1/2" x 81 1/2" - Jamb: 6 1/2" Slab Model Slab Width: 32" - Orleans Glass Door: Novatech - Sandblasted, 22x48 Color Door: Exterior: Gentek - Black 525 Interior: - Polytex White (Inside Jamb: unpainted) Cladding: - Gentek - Black 525 Cladding: - Gentek - Black 525, Novatech - Sandblasted, 22x48, Novatech - Sandblasted, 22x48 Sill: Standard - 8 3/8" - Finish: Mill - Sill Horns: 2" Each Side Brickmould: 1 5/8" - Cladding: None Hardware: Hardware (installation included): Single-point - Weiser - Tavaris Handleset, Interior Halifax (Square Rose) - Matte Black Miscellaneous: Hinges: Finish: Satin Nickel Drilling: Handle Hole (Primary Door Only), Deadbolt Hole 2 1/8" (Primary Door Only) Jamb Cladding: PVC Installation: Standard Location: Side door 1 4 of 8GST: 79656 7881 RT0001 Page 135 of 136 56-969Order NumberMauro BucciCustomer Name QTY DESCRIPTION PRICEOUTSIDE VIEW Doors 1 $3,309.00 Steel Door Configuration Single Door Inswing - Hinges on Right Same opening and hinge configuration as existing door Sizes Sizes: 33 1/2" x 81" - Jamb: 6 1/2" Slab Model Slab Width: 32" - Orleans Glass Door: Novatech - Sandblasted, 22x48 Color Door: Exterior: Gentek - Black 525 Interior: - Polytex White (Inside Jamb: unpainted) Cladding: - Gentek - Black 525 Cladding: - Gentek - Black 525, Novatech - Sandblasted, 22x48, Novatech - Sandblasted, 22x48 Sill: Standard - 8 3/8" - Finish: Mill - Sill Horns: 2" Each Side Brickmould: 1 5/8" - Cladding: None Hardware: Hardware (installation included): Single-point - Weiser - Tavaris Handleset, Interior Halifax (Square Rose) - Matte Black Miscellaneous: Hinges: Finish: Satin Nickel Drilling: Handle Hole (Primary Door Only), Deadbolt Hole 2 1/8" (Primary Door Only) Jamb Cladding: PVC Installation: Standard Location: Side door 2 5 of 8GST: 79656 7881 RT0001 Page 136 of 136