The URL can be used to link to this page

Agenda - General Committee - 20211116Town of Aurora General Committee Meeting Revised Agenda Date:November 16, 2021 Time:7 p.m. Location:Council Chambers, Aurora Town Hall Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, meetings will be available to the public via live stream only on the Town’s YouTube Channel. To participate electronically, please visit aurora.ca/participation. Pages 1.Call to Order Councillor Humfryes in the Chair. Note: Additional items are marked with an asterisk (*). 2.Land Acknowledgement 3.Approval of the Agenda 4.Declarations of Pecuniary Interest and General Nature Thereof 5.Community Presentations 6.Delegations 6.1.Phiona Durrant, Rebekah Murdoch, Shaheen Moledina; Re: Aurora Black Community 1 *6.2.Steve Armes, Resident: Re: Item 9.1 - PDS21-105 - Heritage Permit Application File: HPA-2020-04 - 74 Centre Street 17 *6.3.Hassan Faraji, Owner, and David Eqbal, Architect; Re: Item 9.1 - PDS21- 105 - Heritage Permit Application File: HPA-2020-04 - 74 Centre Street 18 7.Consent Agenda 8.Advisory Committee Meeting Minutes 8.1.Accessibility Advisory Committee Meeting Minutes of October 27, 2021 19 That the Accessibility Advisory Committee meeting minutes of1. October 27, 2021, be received for information. *8.2.Heritage Advisory Committee Meeting Minutes of November 1, 2021 25 That the Heritage Advisory Committee meeting minutes of November 1, 2021, be received for information. 1. 9.Consideration of Items Requiring Discussion (Regular Agenda) 9.1.PDS21-105 - Heritage Permit Application File: HPA-2020-04 - 74 Centre Street 32 That Report No. PDS21-105 be received; and1. That Heritage Permit Application HPA-2020-04 be approved to permit the construction of a two-storey triplex dwelling at 74 Centre Street. 2. 9.2.PDS21-124 - Review of Aurora Register - Evaluation Methodology 47 That Report No. PDS21-124 be received; and1. That Ontario Regulation 9/06 be approved to evaluate properties for cultural heritage interest and discontinue the use of “Evaluation of Heritage Resources in the Town of Aurora (2010).” 2. 9.3.CMS21-038 - Disc Golf Opportunities in Aurora 108 That Report No. CMS21-038 be received; and1. That Highland Gate property be identified as the preferred location for a future nine-hole disc golf course following additional consultation with the community and Highland Gate Ratepayers Association; and 2. That a preferred operating model for a future nine-hole disc golf course be municipally operated; and 3. That a new capital project for the design and construction of a nine-hole disc golf course be included in the 2023 capital budget for consideration. 4. 9.4.PDS21-123 - Amendment to Heritage Designation By-law Number 6182- 19, De La Salle College and Pine Ridge Trail (Monk’s Walk), 50-100 Bloomington Road West 115 That Report No. PDS21-123 be received; and1. That Council direct staff to issue a Notice of Intent to amend Heritage Designation By-law Number 6182-19 for 50-100 Bloomington Road West, as discussed herein in accordance with the requirements of the Ontario Heritage Act; and 2. That Council direct staff to bring forward the amending by-law should there be no objections to the proposed amendment to By- law Number 6182-19. 3. 9.5.PDS21-128 - Heritage Permit Application File: HPA-2021-14, 15356 Yonge Street (Knowles-Readman House) 126 That Report No. PDS21-128 be received; and1. That Heritage Permit Application HPA-2021-14 be approved for the removal of the two-storey tail wing of the “Knowles-Readman House”. 2. 9.6.PDS21-131 - Town-Initiated Zoning Amendment to Comprehensive Zoning By-law Number 6000-17 315 That Report No. PDS21-131 be received; and1. That staff be directed to proceed with a Statutory Public Meeting to present a draft Zoning By-law amendment to the Town’s Comprehensive Zoning By-law Number 6000-17 for general housekeeping purposes, as described herein. 2. 10.Notices of Motion *10.1.Councillor Gilliland; Re: Property Standards By-law Modernization and Review 328 11.Regional Report 11.1.York Regional Council Highlights of October 28, 2021 329 That the York Regional Council Highlights of October 28, 2021, be received for information. 1. 12.New Business 13.Public Service Announcements 14.Closed Session There are no Closed Session items for this meeting. 15.Adjournment 100 John West Way Aurora, Ontario L4G 6J1 (905) 727-3123 aurora.ca Delegation Request This request and any written submissions or background information for consideration by either Council or Committees of Council is being submitted to Legislative Services. Council or Committee * Council Council or Committee Meeting Date *  2021-11-16 Subject * Aurora Black Community Full Name of Spokesperson and Name of Group or Person(s) being Represented (if applicable) * Phiona Durrant Rebekah Murdoch Shaheen Moledina Brief Summary of Issue or Purpose of Delegation * 1. Seeking assistance from Town for the provision of a meeting space and share our 1 yrs process report (report will be forwarded prior to meeting) 2. Seeking clarity of Councillors roles and responsibilities as it relates to the Town's Racism Taskforce 3. Seeking point of contact to address Town's communicate process with partners and community organizations Have you been in contact with a Town staff or Council member regarding your matter of interest? * Yes No Full name of the Town staff or Council member with whom you spoke Mayor Tom Mrakas and Councillor Harold Kim Eliza Bennett Date you spoke with Town staff or a Council member 2021-10-12   Page 1 of 338 ABC 1 YEARPROGRESSREPORT 2021 Page 2 of 338 Acknowledgement Result: What we have done Priority & Focus Upcoming Event Message from President Next Step Measurement of progress TABLE OFCONTENTS 03 05 10 04 09 6-8 Aurora Black Community 1 Year Progress Report 2021 Page 3 of 338 Thank to our Board of Directors who have worked extremely hard to accomplish organization's action plans. They took accountability, responsibility, and the necessary actions need to measure our progress over the past year. We acknowledge our stakeholders and partners without whose support our work wouldn't be possible. Some of our those main sponsors are: The Residents of Aurora, Aurora Film Circuit, Town of Aurora, CIBC Aurora, MPP Michael Para Office, Aurora Public Library Coconut Village, Sandra Humfryes, The Auroran and The Era Banner. Aurora Black Community focus and mission is to unify our community, One Vision Diverse Voices. We are Creating safe spaces for Black people and the entire community to strengthen relationships, build a stronger community, and create cultural connections. We are grateful to volunteers like Victoria, Mary-Lou, Meave, Grace, Lukas, Alex, and all others who have invested time in the building of our community. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT Aurora Black Community 1 Year Progress Report 2021 Page 4 of 338 The intent to be supportive of community initiatives only matters when there is action behind it MESSAGE FROM OURPRESIDENT Aurora Black Community 1 year Progress Report 2021 create cultural connections. create strategic partnerships that develop active allyship and collective change take actions and create solutions provide cross-cultural dialogues for everyone though shared experiences address systematic support for Black and BIPOC families to eradicate racism from our town. As the President of ABC and a Black Woman, I play a critical role in the community. My focus is the lead with grace, compassion and truth. I value and respect our leaders and therefore, they are an important part of our collaborative mission. I understand the impact and responsibility of my role to our community and have worked diligently to build trusting authentic relationships and build confidence in the community as we continue to... Page 5 of 338 PRIORITY FOCUS In our 1st year of operation we identified that there were lots to be done. However, we knew that to be effective we must prioritize our focus. So, the focus in our 1 year of operation were community engagements & support, Education and awareness, and Leadership and Community Partnership Community Engagement & Support Nothing should be done for the people without including the people. We have created a healthy community engagement and continues to build upon that. We want people to know that they belong! That they matter, and that they are heard. We are grateful to all Media platforms who made it possible to share and amplify our voice so we can reach people in Aurora and beyond. Aurora Black Community 1 Year Progress Report 2021 No. 01 — Eudcation & Awareness We provided and in-depth Black History Education - through 15 different informational segments Launched Aurora Black Community: fun interactive social to continue fostering awareness of diversity and inclusion in Aurora Educational Movie Reviews to encourage meaningful conversations and identify changes needed in our community No. 02 — Leadership & Community partnership Our voice, given the support of our leaders, is a powerful step of collaborative effort to support diversity and inclusion. Leaders set the tone for our community. We need leaders who are ready to make decisions to put the lives of the people in front of their comfort and politics. We have created some meaningful trusted relationships with many leaders and community organizations and continues to build on them. No. 03 — Page 6 of 338 Results How we did overall Aurora Black Community 1 Year Progress Report 2021 June 2020 Started Facebook Group to create a safe place for our community to connect and support each other. BIRTH OF ABC https://www.toronto.com/news-story/10070685--now-what-after-aurora-black-lives-matter-rally-mom-builds-on- momentum/ Invited the community my kitchen table. June 20th Aurora’s Michael Baskin was one of the two people who made curried shrimp, jerk chicken and fried dumplings called festivals with Durrant in her kitchen on June 20. “We even had that discussion, that there’s a few things everybody has in common, even though there are always cultural differences. It’s art, music and food,” said Baskin. December 2020 we helped two families a Black family of 4 facing eviction and a White family of 3 who reached out for support with food. Together we raised $600 for grocery gift card and basket loaded with items. July 3 2020, Met with Mayor about Black History Deputation/Proclamation to have Black History Month be recognized officially by the Town of Aurora Aurora Black Community Single-handled led Aurora's first Black History Celebration through a series of 15 on-line activities such as: discussions, art, food, music, film, and financial literacy, and so much more see list below. It was a tremendous success. Feb 2nd Black History Month Proclamation The Mayor made a public announcement of the Black History Month Proclamation, which formally expresses the importance of celebrating Black History Month as a Town. Feb 4 – Highlights of Canadian Black History - Feb 6 – Film night with live review and discussion – “Self-Made” a series of films with the objective of providing historical accuracy, education and fair representation of Black culture. Feb 9, 16, 20 Appreciation and recognition encourage participation and growth. Each week, one person from the community will be highlighted as part of our Black History Month Celebration. ~ Sponsored by Trureal - Feb 11 – Cooking Demonstration – Black History Food Celebration - Feb 12 – Legacy Transfer and Financial Literacy – speakers: Calvin Chan, Jeff Eddos, Kim Leacock-Ambrose, Jonathan Ho. - Feb 18 - Film night with live review and discussion – “Miss Virginia” – in partnership with Aurora Film Circuit, Aurora Black Community and Councillor Humfryes - Feb 19 – Legacy Transfer and Financial Literacy – speakers: Terrence Yuen, Hadriana Leo, Keisha Telfer – - Feb 21 - Film night with live review and discussion – “What Happened, Miss Simone?” - - Feb 26 – Discussion – Racialized Stigmas & Mindset, Guest Speaker: Karen Carrington – - Feb 27 – Wrap up event – land a Black Excellence Art Contest We continued to support anyone in need: this was another example FAMILY HELPED https://www.thestar.com/local- aurora/news/2021/07/20/aurora-family-has-feces-thrown-on-house-hopes-for-anti-racism-education.html Page 7 of 338 in a difficult pandemic we took the heart felt initial to lead a vigil in support of our indigenous community. It was well received. Vigil Results: what we have doneHow we did overall Aurora Black Community 1 Year Progress Report 2021 Curated a week of conversations in May to learn and celebrate Asian Heritage month. Mayor Mrakas and Harold Kim canceled; however, we had some amazing conversations with MPP Wendy Wei, MPP Michael Parsa Councillor Grace Simon, YRDSB Superintend, Cecil Roach and local residents. Page 8 of 338 Black History Month or Virtual Celebration was extremely successful and will be continued in addition to our in-person sesssion 2.5k ABC Launch was engaging with 500 correspondence from 105.9 radio audience, social media, and local residents 500BHM01LaunchCollaborationEngagement500 400 300 200 100 0 Statics of Results How we did overall Our goals have been met above and beyond expectation Educational - Black History Month and A successful programme with Aurora Film Circuit and Councillor Sandra Humfryes Launch - over 180 person in attendance Collaboration - Aurora Public Library, Aurora Film Circuit, Small Businesses & Restaurants, Aurora Town of Aurora Museum & Achieves, Sport Aurora, Trureal, CIBC Bank, Aurora High School, Rose of Sharon Engagement - active socials, in-person community activities, Media and publications Aurora Black Community 1 Year Progress Report 2021 Page 9 of 338 NEXT STEPS 2022 to 2025 our next 3 years objective Action & Commitment Systematic Racism are in the system on how organizations and committees operates. Our focus to continue building relationships and giving support to those organization and work together for the success of our community. ABC will work with our organizations such as Town of Aurora and its Committees, Chamber of Commerce, BIA, Schools, Shelters, and Churches to evaluate and assess their Diversity and Inclusion plans and offer our support. This process will help us to provide proper support and resources to the Black, BIPOC, and newcomers families in Aurora. We will know what's working and want needs to improve so we can create the equity needed for a more diverse and inclusive town. No. 01 — Action: build on/expand existing ideas Activate our Test Project Culinary exchanges - working with the Canadian Food and Wine Institute at the Aurora Armoury, and York Region Food Network, we plan on having monthly cultural cooking experiences to help connect the community and building relationships. Workshops/Mentoring events - to truly feel a sense of belonging in any community, one needs to have a network of people and organizations upon which they can reach out to and rely on. Sport participation is an important socializing factor in any community. No. 02 — Action: Funding and Leadership support building strong financial support to fund the programs need to take barriers affecting our Black Community Key to the success of this project will be the involvement of community leaders such at Town Council, local MP's and MPP's who will meet and welcome program participants and be available for support. No. 03 — Aurora Black Community 1 Year Progress Report 2021 Page 10 of 338 We thank you for your continued support in our efforts to contribute to the SDGs. Contact Phiona Durrant www.aurorablackcommunity.com abc@aurorablackcommunity.com 905.505.4673 Facebook @auroraworkingtogether IG @aurorablackcommunity_abc Aurora Black Community 1 Yr Progress Report 2021 UPCOMING EVENTS Get an individual ticket Sponsor the event Get a complimentary Ticket Sponsor a Table volunteer your invaluable time Black History Gala at Aurora Armoury: see our website for full details Page 11 of 338 Black History Month Gala 2022 ProposalPage 12 of 338 MARKETING SOLUTIONSSPONSORSHIP OPPORTUNITIESTitle Sponsor - $5,000 x1xPresented by…xProminent position on all marketing materialx½ page ad with augmented reality video message in NeighburmagazinexGala event program, onsite signage, table card with augmented reality video messagexPaid and organic social media campaign with video messagexTable of 6 donation back to ABC to be given to individuals that can’t afford a ticket xRecognition during eventTable Sponsor - $750 x 5xTable of 6 donation back to ABC to be given to individuals that can’t afford a ticket xTable tent card with augmented reality message from the sponsor.xSocial media promotion with videoxGala event program with augmented reality messagexRecognition during eventDid you know… Poster Sponsor - $600 X 6xThere will be 6 posters in the venue with historic moments in Black HistoryxSponsor name will be on the poster along with an augmented reality video message that includes information about that moment in history delivered by the sponsorxThere will also be a contest element to the posters. Guests will need to enter a mystery word following each augmented reality video message for a chance to win xThese Did you know…images will also be in the Gala event program so people can enter later at home.In Kind SponsorsxBeer/WinexPrizesxProgramxFoodxMusicxVenuexLive StreamAll sponsorship augmented reality video messages will have a direct link to DONATE to ABCPage 13 of 338 MARKETING SOLUTIONSTICKETING & GALA PROGRAMTicket SalesxTicket sales will be handled through the Neighbur platform xTickets are $100 individual or buy a table for $600 (there are limited table options) most of the venue will be set up with cruiser tables.xWe are proposing an option that people can buy a ticket and donate it back to ABC to give it to an individual that could not otherwise afford a ticket.Gala Event Program (Printed Guide)xInformation on ABCxMessages from ABC members, Mayor, MP’sxSponsorship info with ARxDid you know … with AR and contest details and prizePage 14 of 338 MARKETING SOLUTIONSEXECUTIONNeighbur to…xDesign and produce all marketing elements (sponsorship package, print ads, Gala program, onsite signage, table cards, ‘Did you know…’ postersxSet up ticketing on Neighbur platform xUpdate ABC website with event content xShoot AR videos for Title sponsor, Table sponsors and ‘Did you know’ posters xManage paid and organic social media campaign xCoordinate and set up AR contest xThemed Community Giving Back pages in magazineTotal Value: $8,925Page 15 of 338 Black communities play an essential role in the economy, but in comparison to other cultures, many struggle with ﬁnancial wellness. So, paying our guest speakers is critical. We must put ﬁnancial resources to where they are needed in order to do the work that’s needed for equity. Some of those areas to work on are with the Black, Indigenous, racialized community and for persons with disabilities. After all expenses are paid remaining funds will be used towards 2022 work plan/programs. Black History 2022 Expense Cost Sponsored by: Additional Notes Administration/ Marketing Cost Sponsored by Neighbur Includes Website updates, Social Media Ads, tickets and ﬂyers www.aurorablackcommunity.com Entertainment $600.00 site and related campaigns; Food $4,704.00 Armoury Facility Rental $1,585.80 Armoury Artist Fees $2,000.00 Including Hon. Dr. Jean Augustine’s honorarium $1000 In-kind $500.00 Coconut Village Spa & Microhotel Hospitality, gifts and accommodation Town of Aurora Other $150.00 Miscellaneous Total $9,539.80 Black History Budget Black History 2021 Category Budget Sponsored by: Additional Notes Administration/ Marketing Cost $1,500.00 Aurora Museum and Archives Live Streaming services, www.aurorablackcommunity.com Equimpments & Resources $500.00 COCONUT VILLAGE SPA Streamyard membership, Zoom Account, lightings , internet booster Gifts $200.00 Multiple local restaurants Tina’s grill, Local, State of Main, Harveys etc. Facility Rental $0.00 Artist Fees $2,000.00 Time donated by speakers Guest speakers: Calvin Chan, Jeff Eddos, Kim Leacock-Ambrose andJonathan Ho, Client Manager, Group Underwriting, National Accounts, Sun Life Guest Speakers:Terrence Yuen of (learnez.ca), Hadriana Leo of (hadrianaleo.com) andKeisha Telfer, Transitions Realty Inc., Brokerage. In-kind $350.00 COCONUT VILLAGE SPA Speakers fee: Karen Carrington Town of Aurora Other Miscellaneous Total $4,550.00 Table 1 Revenues Requested/ amount Received to-date note TD Ready Commitment Contribution 5,000 To be conﬁrmed Town of Aurora 10,000 Ticket sale & Sponsors/Donations 7500 1,536 5 table sponsorship of $250, and single tickets In-Kind $8,925.00 Marketing by Neighbur see attached CIBC 500 500 Received Total Revenues $31,925.00 $2,036.00 Page 16 of 338 100 John West Way Aurora, Ontario L4G 6J1 (905) 727-3123 aurora.ca Delegation Request This request and any written submissions or background information for consideration by either Council or Committees of Council is being submitted to Legislative Services. Council or Committee * General Committee Council or Committee Meeting Date *  2021-11-16 Subject * PDS21-105 - Heritage Permit Application File: HPA-2020-04 - 74 Centre Street Full Name of Spokesperson and Name of Group or Person(s) being Represented (if applicable) * Steve Armes Brief Summary of Issue or Purpose of Delegation * On behalf of the residents of Centre Street & Catherine Street, we are opposing this proposal Have you been in contact with a Town staff or Council member regarding your matter of interest? * Yes No Full name of the Town staff or Council member with whom you spoke Brashanthe Manorhan Date you spoke with Town staff or a Council member 2021-11-15   Page 17 of 338 100 John West Way Aurora, Ontario L4G 6J1 (905) 727-3123 aurora.ca Delegation Request This request and any written submissions or background information for consideration by either Council or Committees of Council is being submitted to Legislative Services. Council or Committee * General Committee Council or Committee Meeting Date *  2021-11-16 Subject * 74 Centre st application Full Name of Spokesperson and Name of Group or Person(s) being Represented (if applicable) * Hassan Faraji Brief Summary of Issue or Purpose of Delegation * I am the owner and since there is chance neighbour’s delegation I would like to make comments. Have you been in contact with a Town staff or Council member regarding your matter of interest? * Yes No Full name of the Town staff or Council member with whom you spoke Brashanthe Date you spoke with Town staff or a Council member 2021-11-15   Page 18 of 338 1 Town of Aurora Accessibility Advisory Committee Meeting Minutes Date: Time: Location: Wednesday, October 27, 2021 7 p.m. Video Conference Committee Members: Rachelle Stinson (Chair) Matthew Abas (Vice Chair) Max Le Moine John Lenchak Jo-anne Spitzer Members Absent: Hailey Reiss Councillor John Gallo Other Attendees: Lisa Hausz, Manager, Economic Development and Policy Matthew Volpintesta, Senior Policy Planner, Land Use & Real Estate Mat Zawada, Accessibility Advisor 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 7:02 p.m. 2. Approval of the Agenda Moved by Matthew Abas Seconded by Jo-anne Spitzer That the agenda as circulated by Legislative Services be approved. Carried Page 19 of 338 2 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 Accessibility Advisory Committee Meeting Minutes of September 8, 2021 Moved by Matthew Abas Seconded by Max Le Moine That the Accessibility Advisory Committee meeting minutes of September 8, 2021, be received for information. Carried 5. Delegations None. 6. Matters for Consideration 6.1 Memorandum from Senior Policy Planner; Re: Green Development Standards – Consultation Staff provided an overview of the Green Development Standards (GDS) project toward the development and implementation of principles, within five major themes, to be applied to new development projects in Town. Staff briefly reviewed the economic, environmental and social benefits, accessible and sustainable design, project timeline, best practice review, and consultation. The consultant, Nadia Dowhaniuk, Head of Research, PRIME Strategy and Planning, was also present to answer questions. The Committee and staff provided feedback regarding noise and light pollution, associating barrier-free parking with EV charging stations, inclusion of the Town's own accessibility standards and guidelines to be implemented in 2022, and integrating an accessible trail system that exceeds the minimum AODA standards. Moved by Matthew Abas Seconded by Jo-anne Spitzer Page 20 of 338 3 1. That the memorandum regarding Green Development Standards – Consultation be received; and 2. That the Accessibility Advisory Committee comments regarding Green Development Standards – Consultation be received and referred to staff for consideration and further action as appropriate. Carried 6.2 Memorandum from Manager, Economic Development and Policy; Re: Streetscape Needs Assessment Consultation Staff provided a brief overview of the memorandum and introduced the project consultants: Donna Hinde, Principal, Communication and Landscape Architecture; and Andrew Hooke, Project Manager; of The Planning Partnership. The consultants sought input from the Committee on streetscape elements and any concerns specifically related to the downtown core area from Yonge and Wellington Streets south to Church Street. The Committee and staff provided feedback and suggestions on various issues including: barrier-free access to businesses; overhead clearance guidelines; sidewalk barriers related to garbage, plowed snow and ice; snow plowed into accessible parking spaces; access to/from barrier-free parking spaces; traffic noise reduction; wayfinding signage; raised crosswalks; paving materials and maintenance; enclosed/covered moving walkway/ramp to parking lot; additional accessible parking on Yonge Street; banning heavy-truck turning at Yonge and Wellington; rolling curbs; sidewalk awnings for weather protection; service animal relief spots; and technology-related enhancements. Staff advised the Town's Facility Accessibility Design Standards (FADS) are being finalized and would be shared with the consultant. Staff noted that engageaurora.ca/ downtownstreetscape is available for further feedback and input. Moved by Jo-anne Spitzer Seconded by John Lenchak 1. That the memorandum regarding Streetscape Needs Assessment Consultation be received; and 2. That the Accessibility Advisory Committee comments regarding Streetscape Needs Assessment Consultation be received and referred to staff for consideration and further action as appropriate. Carried Page 21 of 338 4 6.3 Memorandum from Accessibility Advisor; Re: Site Plan Application OPA- 2021-04, ZBA-2021-05, SP-2021-10 (Submission #1), 271 Holladay Drive Staff provided an overview of the site plan and comments submitted to the Planner on behalf of the Committee. The Committee and staff discussed various aspects of the site plan and a further suggestion was made regarding consideration for: the provision of at least three barrier- free parking spaces on parking level 2. Moved by Matthew Abas Seconded by Max Le Moine 1. That the memorandum regarding Site Plan Application OPA-2021-04, ZBA-2021-05, SP-2021-10 (Submission #1), 271 Holladay Drive be received; and 2. That the Accessibility Advisory Committee comments regarding Site Plan Application OPA-2021-04, ZBA-2021-05, SP-2021-10 (Submission #1) be received and referred to staff for consideration and further action as appropriate. Carried 6.4 Memorandum from Accessibility Advisor; Re: Site Plan Application SP- 2021-11 (Submission #1), 25 and 29 George Street Staff provided an overview of the site plan and comments submitted to the Planner on behalf of the Committee. The Committee and staff discussed various aspects of the site plan and further suggestions were made regarding consideration for: the provision of barrier-free access to the waste facilities; and a rear access to the elevator. Moved by Matthew Abas Seconded by John Lenchak 1. That the memorandum regarding Site Plan Application SP-2021-11 (Submission #1), 25 and 29 George Street be received; and 2. That the Accessibility Advisory Committee comments regarding Site Plan Application SP-2021-11 (Submission #1) be received and referred to staff for consideration and further action as appropriate. Carried Page 22 of 338 5 6.5 Memorandum from Accessibility Advisor; Re: Site Plan Application ZBA 2021-04 and SP 2021-09 (Submission #1), 14700 and 14720-14760 Yonge Street Staff provided an overview of the site plan and comments submitted to the Planner on behalf of the Committee. The Committee and staff discussed various aspects of the site plan and further suggestions were made regarding consideration for: the provision of additional barrier-free parking spaces for external units; and improved connectivity between buildings. Moved by Jo-anne Spitzer Seconded by Matthew Abas 1. That the memorandum regarding Site Plan Application ZBA 2021-04 and SP 2021-09 (Submission #1), 14700 and 14720-14760 Yonge Street be received; and 2. That the Accessibility Advisory Committee comments regarding Site Plan Application ZBA 2021-04 and SP 2021-09 (Submission #1) be received and referred to staff for consideration and further action as appropriate. Carried 6.6 Memorandum from Accessibility Advisor; Re: Site Plan Application SP- 2020-09 (Submission #2), 1588 St. John’s Sideroad (Block 1) Staff provided an overview of the site plan and comments submitted to the Planner on behalf of the Committee. The Committee and staff discussed various aspects of the site plan and further suggestions were made regarding consideration for: the relocation of the barrier-free parking spaces closer to the main entrance; sidewalk connectivity with the plaza network; and the addition of a four-way stop. Moved by Jo-anne Spitzer Seconded by Matthew Abas 1. That the memorandum regarding Site Plan Application SP-2020-09 (Submission #2), 1588 St. John’s Sideroad (Block 1) be received; and 2. That the Accessibility Advisory Committee comments regarding Site Plan Application SP-2020-09 (Submission #2) be received and referred to staff for consideration and further action as appropriate. Page 23 of 338 6 Carried 6.7 Round Table Discussion; Re: Town of Aurora Accessibility Plan 2018 to 2024 (Link to Accessibility Plan) Staff gave an update on the draft Accessibility Plan 2022-2026 and future reporting timelines, noting a public consultation would be held on November 24, 2021, and requested that Committee members provide their feedback by November 19, 2021. Staff provided an update on the progress of the Information and Communications Standard remediation project, noting that developers will have the choice between submitting acceptable accessible plans or submitting plans to the Town to be remediated for a fee. Moved by Matthew Abas Seconded by John Lenchak 1. That the Accessibility Advisory Committee comments regarding the Town of Aurora Accessibility Plan 2018 to 2024 be received and referred to staff for consideration and action as appropriate. Carried 7. Informational Items None. 8. Adjournment Moved by Matthew Abas Seconded by Max Le Moine That the meeting be adjourned at 9:12 p.m. Carried Page 24 of 338 1 Town of Aurora Heritage Advisory Committee Meeting Minutes Date: Time: Location: Monday, November 1, 2021 7:00 p.m. Video Conference Committee Members: Jeff Lanthier (Chair) John Green Matthew Kinsella Robert Lounds Bob McRoberts Councillor Sandra Humfryes Members Absent: Hoda Soliman (Vice Chair) Other Attendees: Mayor Tom Mrakas (ex-officio) Sara Tienkamp, Manager, Parks and Fleet Lisa Hausz, Manager, Economic Development and Policy Brashanthe Manoharan, Planner/Heritage Planning Ishita Soneji, 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 Mayor and the Committee welcomed new member Robert Lounds. The Chair called the meeting to order at 7:02 p.m. 2. Approval of the Agenda The Committee inquired about the possibility of including updates on various heritage related topics of interest on the agenda. It was mentioned that as per Page 25 of 338 2 the current process, the Committee members can request for items or updates two to three weeks prior to the scheduled meeting and updates would be provided accordingly. Moved by Matthew Kinsella Seconded by John Green That the revised agenda as circulated by Legislative Services, be approved. 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 13, 2021 The Committee referred to Item 6.1 - Heritage Permit Application for 74 Centre Street and inquired about the next steps regarding any revisions to the proposed designs. Staff noted that a revised proposal has been submitted to the Town and will be brought for Council consideration to the November 16, 2021 General Committee meeting. Moved by Matthew Kinsella Seconded by Bob McRoberts That the Heritage Advisory Committee Meeting Minutes of September 13, 2021, be received for information. Carried 5. Delegations 5.1 Gord and Erin Heyting, Residents; Re: Item 6.5 - Memorandum from Planner/Heritage Planning; Re: Tree Removal Permit Application - 144 Temperance Street Gord Heyting spoke in support of the Tree Removal Permit Application and responded to questions regarding the condition of the existing trees and the replanting plan. Page 26 of 338 3 Moved by Bob McRoberts Seconded by Matthew Kinsella That the comments of the delegation be received and referred to Item 6.5. Carried 6. Matters for Consideration The Committee consented to consider the items in the following order: 6.5, 6.1, 6.2, 6.3, and 6.4. 6.1 Memorandum from Manager, Economic Development and Policy; Re: Streetscape Needs Assessment – Heritage Consultation Staff provided a brief overview of the memorandum and sought the Committee's input regarding the streetscape improvements. Donna Hinde and Andrew Hooke from The Planning Partnership were also present to respond to questions. The Committee sought clarification on the size of the subject area and possibility of including surrounding streets, and staff noted that the focus area was determined as per the Aurora Promenade Streetscape Plan. The Committee noted the importance of maintaining the heritage aspects of the buildings in the proposed subject area through preservation of the heritage features and commemorative signage. The Committee further provided suggestions regarding parking signage, adding more trees to the streetscape, and pedestrian safety measures. Moved by Bob McRoberts Seconded by John Green 1. That the memorandum regarding Streetscape Needs Assessment - Heritage Consultant be received; and 2. That the Heritage Advisory Committee comments regarding Streetscape Needs Assessment be received and referred to staff for consideration and further action as appropriate Carried Page 27 of 338 4 6.2 Memorandum from Heritage Planner; Re: Review of Aurora Register – Evaluation Methodology Dan Currie from MHBC Planning presented an overview of the Review of the Aurora Register project highlighting the evaluation methodology including legislated requirements for the evaluations, policy framework and classification criteria, examples of the reviews conducted, and the next steps. Vanessa Hicks and Robyn McIntyre, MHBC Planning were also present to respond to questions. The Committee, Staff, and the Consultants discussed about the timeline of the project and the future role of the Evaluation Sub-committee. The Committee suggested that appropriate training for current sub-committee members would be beneficial before the new evaluation methodology is adopted by Council. The Committee sought clarification regarding the interpretation of the “at risk” value criteria in the evaluation form, and the Consultants noted that at risk criteria is general in nature to determine high priority properties. Moved by Bob McRoberts Seconded by Matthew Kinsella 1. That the memorandum regarding Review of Aurora Register – Evaluation Methodology be received; and, 2. That the Heritage Advisory Committee comments regarding Review of Aurora Register – Evaluation Methodology be received and referred to staff for consideration and further action as appropriate. Carried 6.3 Memorandum from Planner/Heritage Planning; Re: Heritage Permit Application, File: HPA-2021-14, 15356 Yonge Street (Knowles-Readman House) Bruce Hall, Planning Consultant and Wayne Morgan, Heritage Planner, The Planning Partnership, presented an overview of the heritage permit application for the subject property. They provided details on the proposed removal of the two-storey tail wing and design changes from the previous Page 28 of 338 5 submission. They further addressed key aspects such as heritage preservation, building height, gross floor area, and area fit. Staff provided a brief overview of the memorandum and application. The Committee expressed support on the removal of the two-storey tail wing as proposed and had no further comments. Moved by Matthew Kinsella Seconded by Robert Lounds 1. That the memorandum regarding Heritage Permit Application File: HPA-2021-14 be received; and 2. That the Heritage Advisory Committee comments regarding Heritage Permit Application File: HPA-2021-14 be received and referred to staff for consideration and further action as appropriate. Carried 6.4 Memorandum from Planner/Heritage Planning; Re: Amendment to Heritage Designation By-law 6182-19, De La Salle College and Pine Ridge Trail (Monk’s Walk), 50-100 Bloomington Road West Staff provided a brief overview of the memorandum outlining the purpose of the amendment to the Heritage Designation By-law 6182-19 and the next steps. The Committee referred to the proposed addition to the Historical/Association Value section and sought clarification on the occupancy of the building and staff provided a response. The Committee expressed support and had no further comments. Moved by John Green Seconded by Bob McRoberts 1. That the memorandum regarding a proposed Amendment to Heritage Designation By-law 6182-19 be received; and 2. That the Heritage Advisory Committee comments regarding a proposed Amendment to Heritage Designation By-law 6182-19 be received and referred to staff for consideration and further action as appropriate. Carried Page 29 of 338 6 6.5 Memorandum from Planner/Heritage Planning; Re: Tree Removal Permit Application – 144 Temperance Street Staff provided a brief overview of the memorandum and application. The Committee commented on the maturity of the Spruce trees and noted that the removal would not affect the streetscape. The Committee sought clarification on the tree compensation value and how the value was derived, and staff provided clarification. The Committee was in support of the application and further discussed about the proposed landscape and replanting plan. Moved by Bob McRoberts Seconded by Matthew Kinsella 1. That the memorandum regarding Tree Removal Permit Application – 144 Temperance Street be received; and 2. That the Heritage Advisory Committee comments regarding the Tree Removal Application – 144 Temperance Street be received and referred to staff for consideration and further action as appropriate. Carried 7. Informational Items 7.1 Memorandum from Planner/Heritage Planning; Re: Alterations to a Listed Heritage Property – 53 Metcalfe Street Staff provided an overview of the memorandum. The Committee had no further comments. Moved by Matthew Kinsella Seconded by Bob McRoberts 1. That the memorandum regarding alterations to a listed heritage property at 53 Metcalfe Street be received for information. Carried 8. Adjournment Moved by Matthew Kinsella Seconded by Robert Lounds Page 30 of 338 7 That the meeting be adjourned at 8:50 p.m. Carried Page 31 of 338 100 John West Way Aurora, Ontario L4G 6J1 (905) 727-3123 aurora.ca Town of Aurora General Committee Report No. PDS21 -105 Subject: Heritage Permit Application File: HPA-2020-04 - 74 Centre Street Prepared by: Brashanthe Manoharan, Planner/Heritage Planning Department: Planning and Development Services Date: November 16, 2021 Recommendation 1. That Report No. PDS21-105 be received; and, 2. That Heritage Permit Application HPA-2020-04 be approved to permit the construction of a two-storey triplex dwelling at 74 Centre Street. Executive Summary The purpose of this report is to recommend to Council approval of Heritage Permit Application HPA-2020-04 for 74 Centre Street. The revised heritage permit application is a requirement before the Town can issue a building permit for the development of a two-storey triplex dwelling at 74 Centre Street, which is located in the Northeast Old Aurora Heritage Conservation District Plan.  Staff support the two-storey triplex dwelling as it represents a Homestead architectural style and maintains the historical streetscape of Centre Street..  Staff are of the opinion that the revised design is in keeping with the guidelines of the Northeast Old Aurora Heritage Conservation District Plan.  Staff are satisfied that the proposed rear yard parking space maintains adequate rear yard amenity space Page 32 of 338 November 16, 2021 2 of 8 Report No. PDS21-105 Background Property Description The subject property is located within the Northeast Old Aurora Heritage Conservation District on the north side of Centre Street between Spruce Street and Walton Drive. There is an existing 1½ storey Arts and Crafts bungalow on the property that was constructed around 1873. The building has been subject to a number of renovations over the years including a front addition and siding. The original elements of the style may have been either removed or covered as a result of the alterations. There is a mature tree located at the front of the existing dwelling that is considered significant as part of the historical streetscape. Application History On November 26, 2020, the current owner submitted a Heritage Permit Application (HPA-2020-04) to permit the construction of two-storey double duplex building with four parking spaces at the rear. The proposal was presented to the HAC on April 5, 2021, whereby concerns regarding building depth, number of windows on the front elevation, and lack of landscape in the rear yard were expressed. Staff worked with the owner to address the concerns, and revised plans were presented to General Committee on July 6, 2021 for consideration. At the time of the July 6, 2021 General Committee meeting, neighbouring property owners expressed concern regarding the scale of the development and its inconsistency with the historical character of the area, impacts of proposed rear parking, and noted their willingness to work with the owner to address their concerns. The application was deferred to a future General Committee meeting. On August 6, 2021, the owner submitted a revised proposal to permit the construction of a two-storey triplex dwelling with a total of four (4) parking spaces in the front yard [three (3) new spaces west of the dwelling and one (1) parking space (existing) east of the dwelling), and a cedar tree hedge along the rear property line. This proposal was presented at the September 13, 2021 Heritage Advisory Committee meeting, whereby comments regarding parking across the front of the house, unit parking distribution and control, front porch depth and proximity/view to parking, potential basement units, and traffic were expressed. The Committee further recommended that the applicant engage an experienced heritage architect to assist Page 33 of 338 November 16, 2021 3 of 8 Report No. PDS21-105 with designing a more compatible with the Northeast Old Aurora Heritage Conservation District. On October 4, 2021, the application was reviewed by the Town’s Design Review Panel (DRP) where comments relating to site design, parking, amenity space, landscaping, design of verandah, and entrances were discussed. The comments were provided to the owner, who has considered them in the revised proposal. Revised Application Following consultations with area residents, HAC members, and DRP, the owner submitted a revised proposal on October 19, 2021 to permit the construction of a two- storey triplex dwelling with a total of four (4) parking spaces [three (3) spaces in the rear yard which will be accessed by a driveway located along the west side yard, and one (1) parking space (existing) in the front yard, east of the dwelling], and a cedar tree hedge along the rear property line (see Attachment 2 – Proposed Drawings). No other vegetation on the property is proposed to be removed. The proposed building continues the Homestead architectural style of a square shaped building designed with a gable roof. The front façade features a covered verandah that stretches across the entire front elevation and is supported by six columns. The siding will consist of light grey horizontal vinyl. All the windows will be an arts and crafts style. The proposed building has a total of four glazed entrances, two at the front, and one on each side elevation. The large mature tree in the front yard is to remain. The proposed building also features a first and second storey balcony at the rear of the building for amenity space, as well as a basement walk-up entrance on the north (rear) elevation. 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. Page 34 of 338 November 16, 2021 4 of 8 Report No. PDS21-105 Analysis The Homestead architectural design style is common on Centre Street and is considered compatible with the character of the neighbourhood As per the District Plan, 74 Centre Street is described as a “renovated Cape Cod Cottage, perhaps a DVA House”, characterized by its horizontal siding, gable roof, and plain trims around the windows. The proposed triplex dwelling replicates some of the original attributes while maintaining a homestead architectural style, which is characterized by a gable roof, simple details, sash windows, and clapboard finishes. This architectural style is common on Centre Street and is considered compatible with the character of the neighbourhood. Staff are of the opinion that the revised design is in keeping with the guidelines of the Northeast Old Aurora Heritage Conservation District Plan As per Section 4.5.1 of the District Plan, new residential buildings should complement the immediate physical context and streetscape by being generally the same scale, orientation, having similar setbacks, and being of like materials and colours. The initial proposal was for a two-storey double duplex building resulting in area residents expressing concern regarding the scale of the development and its inconsistencies with the historical character of the neighbourhood. In consulting with neighbouring properties, the owner revised the proposal to a triplex dwelling, which is permitted as of right in the R7 zone provided it meets applicable zoning standards including a maximum lot coverage of 35%. The proposal has a coverage of 216.64 square metres (30.3%), which is well under the maximum 35% lot coverage but will require relief from the lot coverage and lot area standards of the R7 zone. Staff are of the opinion that the proposed triplex dwelling is compatible with the scale and massing of the neighbourhood. Section 9.1.2.4 of the District Plan states that new construction should respect the overall setback pattern of the streetscape on which it is situated in. The proposed triplex has a setback of 7.50 m (24.60 ft), excluding the verandah which has a setback of 5.30 m (17.38m). The main dwelling is setback further than the adjacent dwellings, to facilitate the front verandah that brings the proposed dwelling forward and allows sufficient space for landscaping treatment in the front yard. This will decrease any potential visual dominance issues and are not anticipated to create adverse affects to the streetscape. Page 35 of 338 November 16, 2021 5 of 8 Report No. PDS21-105 Further, 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), excluding an open porch projection to be consistent with the other existing homes in the neighborhood. The proposed triplex has a total building depth of 15.76 m (51.70 ft). Staff are satisfied that the revised proposal reflects a built form that is in keeping with the design objectives of the Heritage District Plan. Staff are satisfied that the proposed verandah is consistent with the porch styles that are currently within the Heritage Conservation District On April 5, 2021, HAC suggested the extension of the front verandah across the whole front elevation. As such, the owner has revised the proposal with a verandah that is similar to a Victorian Gothic style open porch with decorative trims under the porch eaves, as described in Section 9.2.8 of the District Plan. The proposed verandah further articulates the front elevation while providing leisure space in the front yard. As such, staff are satisfied that the proposed verandah is consistent with the open/closed porch styles that are currently within the Heritage Conservation District. Staff are satisfied that the proposed rear yard parking space maintains adequate rear yard amenity space The previous design proposed a total of four (4) parking spaces at the front [three (3) new spaces west of the dwelling and one (1) parking space (existing) east of the dwelling]. On September 13, 2021, HAC expressed their concerns with parking across the front of the house and its visual impacts to the streetscape. Following comments received at the October 4, 2021 DRP meeting, the plan has been revised to provide four (4) parking spaces: three (3) spaces in the rear which will be access by a driveway located along the west side yard, and one (1) parking space (existing) east of the dwelling. The parking area has been adjusted to accommodate a landscape buffer with pyramidal cedars along the rear property line to help lessen the visual impact on the adjacent property to the north. The existing vegetation along the east property line will further mitigate potential impacts of the parking spaces on the abutting property to the east. Further, although the rear yard will be predominately hardscaped due to the proposed rear yard parking, the rear elevation features a two-storey balcony, which provides a private outdoor amenity area for the units. The proposal is subject to site plan control. Comments relating, but not limited to, the physical layout of the development, parking, and tree preservation will be addressed in further detail through the site plan and the site plan agreement. As such, staff are Page 36 of 338 November 16, 2021 6 of 8 Report No. PDS21-105 satisfied that the proposed rear yard parking provides adequate rear-yard amenity space. Potential Additional Units in Basement Secondary units are not permitted in triplex buildings as per the Town’s Zoning By-law. In the event that one is proposed, it will require Town Planning Approval (i.e., Minor Variance or Zoning By-law Amendment). Prior to the issuance of the building permit, the applicant is required to sign an undertaking stating that the basement will not be converted into an apartment. As a precautionary measure, staff will include a clause in the Site Plan Agreement that will be registered on title to advise future owners that a secondary dwelling unit is not permitted. Advisory Committee Review The Heritage Advisory Committee discussed Heritage Permit Application HPA-2020-04 at its meeting on September 13, 2021. The Committee expressed their concerns relating to the extent of the owner’s community consultation, parking across the front of the house, unit parking distribution and control, front porch depth and proximity/view to parking, potential basement units, and traffic. The Committee expressed concern about setting a precedent with the addition of a multi-unit dwelling in the heritage conservation district and questioned the need for intensification within the District. The Committee recommended that the applicant engage an experienced heritage architect to assist with a design that is more compatible with the Northeast Old Aurora Heritage Conservation District. Legal Considerations Under Section 42 of the Ontario Heritage Act, any developments or alterations that would potentially impact the heritage attributes of a designated property requires Council’s consent. This legislative requirement is implemented in the Town of Aurora through the process of a Heritage Permit Application, which is subject to Council’s approval. Council must make a decision on a heritage permit application within 90 days after the notice of receipt is served on the applicant, otherwise Council shall be deemed to have consented to the application. In June 2021, the owner consented to an additional 90-day extension, which expires on October 14, 2021. On August 27, 2021, the owner consented to another 60-day extension which expires on December 13, 2021. Council may extend the review period Page 37 of 338 November 16, 2021 7 of 8 Report No. PDS21-105 of a heritage application in a heritage conservation district without any time limit under the Ontario Heritage Act provided it is agreed upon by the owner. If Council refuses the application, the owner may appeal the refusal to the Ontario Land Tribunal. Financial Implications There are no direct financial implications arising from this report. Development Charges will be owing at the appropriate time in the process prior to the issuance of a building permit. Communications Considerations The Town will use ‘Inform’ as the level of engagement for this application. There are five different levels of community engagement to consider, with each level providing the community more involvement in the decision-making process. These levels are: Inform, Consult, Involve, Collaborate and Empower. Examples of each can be found in the Community Engagement Policy. These options are based on the International Association of Public Participation (IAP2) Spectrum and assist in establishing guidelines for clearly communicating with our public and managing community engagement. In order to inform the public, this report will be posted to the Town’s website. Link to Strategic Plan The conservation of heritage resources supports the Strategic Plan g oal of Supporting an Exceptional Quality of Life for All through its accomplishment in satisfying requirements in objective Celebrating and Promoting our Culture. Alternative(s) to the Recommendation 1. That Council refuse the Heritage Permit Application HPA-2020-04 with an explanation for the refusal. 2. Approval of the application with terms and conditions. Page 38 of 338 November 16, 2021 8 of 8 Report No. PDS21-105 Conclusions Staff are satisfied that the revised proposal reflects a built form that is in keeping with the design objectives of the Northeast Old Aurora Heritage Conservation Heritage District Plan. Staff recommend to Council that Heritage Permit Application HPA-2020- 04 for 74 Centre Street be approved. Attachments Attachment 1 – Location Map Attachment 2 – Proposed Drawings Previous Reports Heritage Memorandum - Heritage Permit Application File: HPA-2020-04 - September 13, 2021 Pre-submission Review Agenda Management Team review on October 28, 2021 Approvals Approved by David Waters, MCIP, RPP, PLE, Director, Planning and Development Services Approved by Doug Nadorozny, Chief Administrative Officer Page 39 of 338 Wellington Street EastCentre StreetWalton DriveWells Street NorthWalton DriveWellington Street EastCentre StreetMap created by the Town of Aurora Planning and Building Services Department, June 9, 2021. Base data provided by York Region & the Town of Aurora. Air Photos taken Spring 2020, © First Base Solutions Inc., 2020 Orthophotography.¯St John's SdrdWellington St EVandorf SdrdHenderson Drive^Wellington St WUV404UV404Leslie StYonge StBathurst StBayview AveBloomington Rd02550MetresLOCATION MAP74 CENTRE STREETFILE: +3$SUBJECT LANDSAttachment 1Page 40 of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o. Description Date ByAttachment 2Page 41 of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o. Description Date ByPage 42 of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o. Description Date ByPage 43 of 338 83838383'1':5()':5()'1':':6)81),1,6+('%$6(0(176):$/.287 6)81),1,6+('%$6(0(17 6))$0,/<52206).,7&+(16)+$//:$<6))$0,/<52206)+$//:$<6).,7&+(16)/2%%<6)&/26(76)%$7+52206)(168,7(6):,&6)0$67(5%('52206)%('52206)&/26(76))851$&(6)%$7+52206):,&6)(168,7(6)0$67(5%('52206)%('52206))851$&( 6)/$81'5<6)/$81'5<352-(&712'5$:1%<&+(&.('%<&/,(17 61$0( $''5(666+((72)6+((77,7/(6&$/('$7($%&352-(&767$786352-(&7$''5(66352-(&71$0(&RS\ULJKW3UR9LVLRQ$UFKLWHFWXUH,QF2$$'XSOLFDWLRQRUUHSURGXFWLRQE\DQ\PHDQVZLWKRXWWKHH[SUHVVZULWWHQFRQVHQWRI3UR9LVLRQ$UFKLWHFWXUH,QF2$$LVDYLRODWLRQRI)HGHUDODQGLQWHUQDWLRQDOODZ7KHLQIRUPDWLRQFRQWDLQHGRQWKLVGRFXPHQWDUHWKHLQWHOOHFWXDOSURSHUW\RI3UR9LVLRQ$UFKLWHFWXUH,QF2$$DQGDOOULJKWVWKHUHWRDUH5HVHUYHG&23<5,*+73529,6,21$5&+,7(&785(,1&7)(PDLOSYD#SURYLVLRQDUFKFRP<RQJH6W8QLW%$XURUD21/*0DEVLELOPMENT AT3529,6,21$5&+,7(&785(,1&$0 A1.1BASEMENT / 1STFLOOR PLANS74 CENTRE ST.'(6&'(6(374 CENTRE ST., AURORA, ON L4G 1J8CONCEPT DRAWINGS %$6(0(17 67)/225REVISION SCHEDULENo. Description Date ByPage 44 of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o. Description Date ByPage 45 of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o. Description Date ByPage 46 of 338 100 John West Way Aurora, Ontario L4G 6J1 (905) 727-3123 aurora.ca Town of Aurora General Committee Report No. PDS21 -124 Subject: Review of Aurora Register – Evaluation Methodology Prepared by: Brashanthe Manoharan, Planner/Heritage Planning Department: Planning and Development Services Date: November 16, 2021 Recommendation 1. That Report No. PDS21-124 be received; and, 2. That Ontario Regulation 9/06 be approved to evaluate properties for cultural heritage interest and discontinue the use of “Evaluation of Heritage Resources in the Town of Aurora (2010).” Executive Summary This report seeks Council’s approval to formally adopt the Ontario Regulation 9/06 to evaluate properties of cultural heritage interest and discontinue the use of “Evaluation of Heritage Resources in the Town of Aurora (2010)”.  Staff support the use of Ontario Regulation 9/06 to evaluate listed properties for cultural heritage interest.  Under the Ontario Heritage Act, Ontario Regulation 9/06 provides the criteria for determining cultural heritage value or interest. Background In November 2019, Council approved a capital budget to fund a comprehensive review of the Town’s Heritage Register. The review focuses on assessing the heritage value of more than 400 properties currently listed on the Register in order for the Town to better prioritize its conservation efforts and preservation programs. The findings of the study will result in the properties being recommended for designation, delisting, or continuing to be listed on the Register. Page 47 of 338 November 16, 2021 2 of 6 Report No. PDS21-124 The work will be undertaken based on the following four phases:  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. Phase 1 of the project is complete. Comprehensive research has been conducted to gather the necessary information to understand the heritage context of each listed property on the Town’s heritage register. Commencement of Phase 2 Phase 2 of the project is underway. This phase focuses on the evaluation of listed properties and the preparation of Cultural Heritage Evaluation Reports or CHERs (see Attachment 2) for each listed property to assess its heritage value and to recommend the appropriate level of protection and/or preservation. The CHER will include the following information:  Site plan or survey, at an appropriate scale, indicating the context in which the heritage resource is situated  A location map with indications of existing land use, zoning, as well as the zoning and land use of adjacent properties  A detailed site history to include a listing of owners from the Land Registry Office, and a history of the site use(s)  Current legible photographs from each elevation to capture architectural features and building materials  Historical photos, drawings, or other archival material that may be relevant  Description of all the heritage resources (i.e., structures, buildings, building elements, landscaping, archaeological resources, etc.)  A recommendation as to whether the subject property is worthy of heritage designation in accordance with the criteria per Ontario Regulation 9/06. In February 2021, MHBC recommended that the Town’s current evaluation scoring system, which is based on a guiding document titled “Evaluation of Heritage Resources in the Town of Aurora (2010)”, be discontinued because it is outdated and does not appropriately place value on some criteria more than others. MHBC recommended a Page 48 of 338 November 16, 2021 3 of 6 Report No. PDS21-124 new classification system based on the legislated criteria of Ontario Regulation 9/06 and the guidance provided in the Ontario Heritage Toolkit. Analysis Staff support the use of Ontario Regulation 9/06 to evaluate listed properties for cultural heritage interest On October 1, 2021, a meeting was held with MHBC and the Steering Committee to discuss the methodology for the evaluation of cultural heritage resources as part of the review of the Aurora Register project. Upon review of the legislative requirements of the Provincial Policy Statement (2020) and the Ontario Heritage Act, MHBC recommended that the Town use Ontario Regulation 9/06 to evaluate properties of cultural heritage interest and discontinue the use of “Evaluation of Heritage Resources in the Town of Aurora (2010)”. The Steering Committee concurred that the Town should make use of Ontario Regulation 9/06 to evaluate listed properties for cultural heritage interest. Under the Ontario Heritage Act, Ontario Regulation 9/06 provides the criteria for determining cultural heritage value or interest Under the Ontario Heritage Act, Ontario Regulation 9/06 provides the criteria for determining cultural heritage value or interest. Ontario Regulation 9/06 considers the following criteria: 1. The property has design value or physical value because it,  is a rare, unique, representative or early example of a style, type, expression, material or construction method,  displays a high degree of craftsmanship or artistic merit, or  demonstrates a high degree of technical or scientific achievement. 2. The property has historical value or associative value because it,  has direct associations with a theme, event, belief, person, activity, organization or institution that is significant to a community,  yields, or has the potential to yield, information that contributes to an understanding of a community or culture, or  demonstrates or reflects the work or ideas of an architect, artist, builder, designer or theorist who is significant to a community. Page 49 of 338 November 16, 2021 4 of 6 Report No. PDS21-124 3. The property has contextual value because it,  is important in defining, maintaining or supporting the character of an area,  is physically, functionally, visually or historically linked to its surroundings, or  is a landmark. O. Reg. 9/06, s. 1 (2). Evaluation of a property using the Provincial criteria triggers a comprehensive consideration of a wide range of potential heritage values. The outcome of evaluating listed properties using Ontario Regulation 9/06 can result in the property recommended for designation, remaining on the register, or removal. Should Council formally adopt Ontario Regulation 9/06 to evaluate properties of cultural heritage interest, MHBC will provided the required training to ensure that Town staff and the Heritage Advisory Committee have a well-rounded understanding of how to apply Ontario Regulation 9/06 to evaluate properties for heritage significance. Advisory Committee Review The Heritage Advisory Committee discussed the proposal at its meeting on November 1, 2021. The Committee inquired about the process and timing of the adoption new methodology, whether HAC will receive training on how to use Ontario Regulation 9/06, and the need for a subcommittee following the review of the Aurora Register. The consultants stated that although the current evaluation system is undergoing changes and the Town is moving towards an approach that is more in line with Provincial policy, there will always be a need to recognize the importance of subcommittees and the knowledge and experience of those who are local to the Town. Further, the consultants stated that they will work with the Town to provide the appropriate training on how to apply Ontario Regulation 9/06. Legal Considerations Ontario Regulation 9/06 provides the prescribed criteria for determining the cultural heritage value or interest of a property that is proposed to be designated under section 29 of the Ontario Heritage Act. The Ontario Heritage Act does not provide for any criteria to be used when determining whether a property should be included on the register. As such, staff is recommending that the same criteria be used to add a potential property to the Town’s Register. Page 50 of 338 November 16, 2021 5 of 6 Report No. PDS21-124 Financial Implications Council has approved a 2020 capital budget which includes the procurement of consultant services to undertake a comprehensive heritage assessment of the Town’s Register. A Request for Proposal (RFP), which is included in the Terms of Reference, will be issued for public tender. This is expected to be a multi-year study. Additional funding, subject to Council’s approval, may be required should the preferred proposal exceed the approved capital budget. There are no direct financial implications with adopting Ontario Regulation 9/06 to evaluate properties of cultural heritage interest. Communications Considerations The Town will use ‘Inform’ as the level of engagement for this application. There are five different levels of community engagement to consider, with each level providing the community more involvement in the decision-making process. These levels are: Inform, Consult, Involve, Collaborate and Empower. Examples of each can be found in the Community Engagement Policy. These options are based on the International Association of Public Participation (IAP2) Spectrum and assist in establishing guidelines for clearly communicating with our public and managing community engagement. In order to inform the public, this report will be posted to the Town’s website. Link to Strategic Plan The conservation of heritage resources supports the Strategic Plan goal of Supporting an Exceptional Quality of Life for All through its accomplishment in satisfying requirements in objective Celebrating and Promoting our Culture. Alternative(s) to the Recommendation 1. That Council provide direction. Conclusions Staff recommend to Council that the Town formally adopt the Ontario Regulation 9/06 to evaluate properties of cultural heritage interest and discontinue the use of Page 51 of 338 November 16, 2021 6 of 6 Report No. PDS21-124 “Evaluation of Heritage Resources in the Town of Aurora (2010)” to evaluate listed properties for cultural heritage value within Aurora. Attachments Attachment 1 - Terms of Reference for the Review of the Heritage Register Attachment 2 – Samples of Cultural Heritage Evaluation Reports (CHERs) Attachment 3 - Consultant Presentation (Heritage Evaluation Methodology) Previous Reports Heritage Memorandum - Review of Aurora Register – Evaluation Methodology – November 1, 2021 Pre-submission Review Agenda Management Team review on October 28, 2021 Approvals Approved by David Waters, MCIP, RPP, PLE, Director, Planning and Development Services Approved by Doug Nadorozny, Chief Administrative Officer Page 52 of 338 Terms of Reference Review of Aurora Register of Properties of Cultural Heritage Value or Interest January 2020 TERMS OF REFERENCE Review of Aurora Register of Properties of Cultural Heritage Value or Interest March 2020 $WWDFKPHQW Page 53 of 338 Terms of Reference Review of Aurora Register of Properties of Cultural Heritage Value or Interest Page 2 of 10 Table of Contents 1.0 INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................................3 2.0 PROJECT OVERVIEW ...........................................................................................................3 3.0 PROCESS .......................................................................................................................................... 4 3.1 Phase 1 - Data Collection ........................................................................................ 4 3.2 Phase 2- Cultural Heritage Evaluation Report (CHER) ...................................... 4 3.2.1 Deliverables for Phase 2 .......................................................................................... 5 3.3 Phase 3 – Consultation with Heritage Advisory Committee and Council......... 6 3.4 Phase 4 – Heritage Designation, Delisting and Update to the Register........... 6 3.4.1 Deliverables for Phase 4 .......................................................................................... 7 4.0 NORTHEAST OLD AURORA HERITAGE CONSERVATION DISTRICT ............................7 5.0 TIMING … ................................................................................................................................7 6.0 ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES ................................................................................................ 7 6.1 Steering Committee .................................................................................................. 7 6.2 Town Staff (Planning Division)................................................................................ 8 6.3 Consultant .................................................................................................................. 8 7.0 REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL ......................................................................................................... 8 7.1 Required Proposal Format ..................................................................................... 8 7.2 Interviews .................................................................................................................. 9 7.3 Selection and Awarding of Contract ...................................................................... 9 7.4 Submission Deadline ............................................................................................. 10 Page 54 of 338 Terms of Reference Review of Aurora Register of Properties of Cultural Heritage Value or Interest Page 3 of 10 1.0 INTRODUCTION The Ontario Heritage Act allows municipalities to maintain a publicly accessible register, known as the Register of Properties of Cultural Heritage Value or Interest, to help manage the conservation of local cultural heritage resources. The register includes a list of properties that are designated under Part IV (individual designation) and Part IV (within a Heritage Conservation District) of the Ontario Heritage Act, and non- designated properties that have been listed as being of potential cultural heritage value or interest to the community. The Town of Aurora’s register consists of 48 individually designated properties, 148 properties within the Northeast Old Aurora Heritage Conservation District, and 413 listed properties. The properties on the register were originally identified in the Town’s first official inventory prepared by the Local Architectural Conservation Advisory (now known as the Heritage Advisory Committee) between 1976 and 1987. The inventory was compiled through a windshield survey, which targeted buildings constructed prior to the Second World War that exhibited some degree of architectural and/or historical significance. In September 2006, Aurora Town Council officially changed the name of the Aurora Inventory of Heritage Building to the “Aurora Register of Property of Cultural Heritage Value or Interest” and all properties included in the Inventory were transferred to the Register in accordance with the 2005 Amendments to the Ontario Heritage Act. More than 400 properties had not been subject to a heritage evaluation and still remain on the register as non-designated (“listed”) without any heritage score or classification . These properties are prone to unlawful demolition and unsympathetic alteration. There is a need to undertake a comprehensive review to determine if they warrant heritage designation for a greater degree of protection. This is also a good opportunity to reorganize the register by screening out the irrelevant properties that have no heritage value to the community, which will result in a more effective register to assist the Town in managing the protection of its heritage resources. 2.0 PROJECT OVERVIEW The Town is requesting proposals from a qualified Consultant to conduct a comprehensive review of the Aurora Register of Properties of Cultural Heritage Value or Interest to ensure it maintains an accurate and informative inventory of the Town’s heritage resources. The key objectives of the project includes: Page 55 of 338 Terms of Reference Review of Aurora Register of Properties of Cultural Heritage Value or Interest Page 4 of 10 x Determining the level of heritage importance of each listed property on the register in order to prioritize future conservation efforts and preservation programs. x Identifying those properties of significant cultural heritage value and pursue designation for their long-term protection under the Ontario Heritage Act. x Update the register with more complete information, and remove irrelevant properties that have no heritage value to the community 3.0 PROCESS 3.1 Phase 1 - Data Collection Conduct comprehensive research from various sources to fully understand the historical and heritage context of each listed property on the Town’s heritage register. The data gathered will be used to inform the preparation of the subsequent heritage evaluation, and also be documented in the municipal archive for the Town’s references. The source of the data may include (but not limited to): x Title Search; x Field investigation; x Tax Assessment Records; x Archival Research (Aurora Historical Society and Aurora Museum); x Relevant Provincial and Municipal documents; and x Relevant published sources 3.2 Phase 2- Cultural Heritage Evaluation Report (CHER) Prepare a Cultural Heritage Evaluation Report (CHER) for each listed property to assess its heritage value and recommend the appropriate level of protection required (i.e. designation or documentation). The CHER will include the following information: x Site plan or survey, at an appropriate scale, indicating the context in which the heritage resource is situated. x A location map with indications of existing land use, zoning, as well as the zoning and land use of adjacent properties. Page 56 of 338 Terms of Reference Review of Aurora Register of Properties of Cultural Heritage Value or Interest Page 5 of 10 x A detailed site history to include a listing of owners from the Land Registry Office, and a history of the site use(s). x Current legible photographs from each elevation to capture architectural features and building materials. x Historical photos, drawings, or other archival material that may be available or Relevant. x Description of all the heritage resources on the subject property which include, but are not limited to: structures, buildings, building elements (like fences and gates), building materials, architectural and interior finishes, natural heritage elements, landscaping, and archaeological resources. The description will also include a chronological history of the structure(s) developments, such as additions, removals, conversions, alterations etc. x Score each property based on the guidelines outlined in the Town’s document titled Evaluation of Heritage Resources in the Town of Aurora (March 2010). Depending on the score, the property will be categorized under one of the priority groups to help determine its level of heritage significance. x A recommendation as to whether the subject property is worthy of heritage designation in accordance with the criteria per Ontario Regulation 9/06. Should the consultant support heritage designation, it must include the statement of cultural heritage value and description of heritage attributes. 3.2.1 Deliverables for Phase 2 The Consultant will provide the following deliverables to the satisfaction of the Planning Division at a time defined in the approved work plan. All printed materials shall be fully reproducible and all deliverables shall become the absolute property of the Town of Aurora including data developed throughout the process. x One (1) hard copy of the Cultural Heritage Evaluation Report (CHER) prepared for each property. x One (1) hard copy of a document summarizing the key findings of each property such as: a brief description of the existing building or structure including its construction date, its heritage score based on the Town’s evaluation guidelines, recommendation as to whether it meets the criteria of Ontario Regulation 9/06 for designation, and details of heritage attribute, if applicable. Page 57 of 338 Terms of Reference Review of Aurora Register of Properties of Cultural Heritage Value or Interest Page 6 of 10 x A list of properties recommended to be individually designated under the Ontario Heritage Act; and delisted from the Town’s register. x Electronic copy of all the above documents, preferably in Microsoft Word and PDF format. 3.3 Phase 3 – Consultation with Heritage Advisory Committee and Council The properties will be sorted by residential neighbourhoods (i.e. Town Park, Aurora Heights) to help manage the organization of data. A separate interim staff report for each neighbourhood will be brought to the Heritage Advisory Committee and Council to present the findings of the heritage evaluation. The Consultant will be expected to attend all the necessary meetings to discuss the findings of the CHERs. 3.4 Phase 4 – Heritage Designation, Delisting and Update to the Register Staff will work with the Consultant to address any comments made by the Heritage Advisory Committee and Town Council, which may include re-examining particular properties and carrying out further heritage investigation. A final staff report will be presented to the Heritage Advisory Committee and Council to recommend the final list of properties to be designated for long-term protection, and delisted from the Aurora Register of Properties of Cultural Heritage Value or Interest, for the Heritage Committee and Council’s consideration. Following Council’s decision, the Town will proceed to designate the appropriate properties in accordance with the requirements of the Ontario Heritage Act. The irrelevant properties will be removed from the Town’s heritage register. The consultant will develop a new template for the Town’s register to include additional details about each property as required under Section 27 (1.1) of the Ontario Heritage Act and Section 13.3 b) of the Town’s Official Plan, which includes legal description, owner information, statement of cultural heritage value, description of heritage attributes and designation by-law number. Listed properties only requires a brief description about their heritage resource. Page 58 of 338 Terms of Reference Review of Aurora Register of Properties of Cultural Heritage Value or Interest Page 7 of 10 3.4.1 Deliverables for Phase 4 The Consultant will provide the following deliverables to the satisfaction of the Planning Division at a time defined in the approved work plan. All printed materials shall be fully reproducible and all deliverables shall become the absolute property of the Town. x One (1) hard copy of an updated register in a new template including all the additional information listed in Section 3.4 x Electronic copy of all the document, preferably in both Microsoft Word and PDF format 4.0 NORTHEAST OLD AURORA HERITAGE CONSERVATION DISTRICT The scope of the review may be expanded in the future to include the properties located within the Northeast Old Aurora Heritage Conservation District subject to budget availability and Council’s approval. This will help determine whether the properties within the Heritage Conservation District, which is already subject to protection under Part V of the Ontario Heritage Act, is also worthy of individual designation under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act. The budget needed to undertake this task should be costed out separately for the overall review. 5.0 TIMING The estimated timeline for completing the study has not been determined, but it is estimated that the study will take a minimum of one year to complete, from when the consultant team begins work on the project to Council’s approval of the recommendations of the CHERs. Through the request for proposal (RFP) process, consultants will be asked to identify opportunities for efficiencies while still meeting the requirements of the terms of reference and all applicable requirements. 6.0 ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES 6.1 Steering Committee A five (5) person Steering Committee is being proposed by Staff to provide direction, guidance and recommendations on the project. Staff are recommending that the Committee be comprised of three (3) members of the Heritage Advisory Committee and two (2) members from Town Council. The number of meetings required will be Page 59 of 338 Terms of Reference Review of Aurora Register of Properties of Cultural Heritage Value or Interest Page 8 of 10 determined by Town Staff and the retained consultant. It is not anticipated that more than five (5) to ten (10) meetings will be required over the course of the project. 6.2 Town Staff (Planning Division) x Provide supporting documents and information as required by the Consultant x Prepare staff report for the Heritage Committee and Council’s consideration x Attend Committee and Council Meetings 6.3 Consultant x Conduct all historical research associated with the project x Prepare a Cultural Heritage Evaluation Report for each listed property based on the parameters set out in the Terms of Reference x Provides the Planning division an update of the project on a bi-monthly basis x Attend pertinent Committee and Council Meetings x Develop a new template for the Town’s register to include additional information outlined in Section 3.4 x Submits all deliverables indicated in the Terms of Reference 7.0 REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL 7.1 Required Proposal Format In order to receive consistent format of information from all prospective consulting firms the following should be addressed in the proposal: x Proposals should be submitted electronically only in PDF format (less than 15 MB in size) including a letter of submission signed by an authorized representative of the Consultant. x Proposals must outline the cost of completing the project listed in the Terms of Reference both as a total price, total plus HST and by a cost per task format. The Page 60 of 338 Terms of Reference Review of Aurora Register of Properties of Cultural Heritage Value or Interest Page 9 of 10 consultant shall identify sub-consultants, if required, and their fees. These cost shall be paid for and supervised by the consultant. x The proposal shall include a Work Plan and the expected time frame for the completion of the project x The Proposal will include a summary of the Consultant’s professional information and relevant experience. x A summary of past projects which will demonstrate the Consultant’s experience in the study tasks as outlined in the terms of reference. x Proposals must be submitted with a minimum of three references listed for contact respecting recent and relevant projects. 7.2 Interviews Consultants may be asked to attend an interview prior to a final decision. 7.3 Selection and Awarding of Contract The appointment of the successful consultant shall be in accordance with a selection process carried out by Town Staff, with Council authorizing final selection, if required. Consultants are advised that the lowest cost proposal will not be necessarily be awarded the contract, as the selection will be based on the following criteria and cost is only one of the criteria. x The degree to which the proposal responded to the RFP and Terms of Reference. x The demonstration of relevant experience in similar studies and the professional reputation of the consultants. x The demonstrated ability of the consultant to provide the services. x The total cost and timing of the project Page 61 of 338 Terms of Reference Review of Aurora Register of Properties of Cultural Heritage Value or Interest Page 10 of 10 7.4 Submission Deadline The proposal shall be submitted to the Town of Aurora via email at Planning@aurora.ca by 4:30 p.m. on xxxxxx, 2020 (to be determined). Proposals received after this date and time will not be considered. Page 62 of 338 Wells Street Mosley S t r e e t Address: 57 Mosley Street AURORA HERITAGE REGISTER REVIEW PROPERTY EVALUATION SHEET Heritage Status: Listed Property Number (PIN): Map Legal Description: Plan 68 Designation By-law: Wood Plaque: Yes Ontario Regulation 9/06 Assessment General Information Property Description Date/Era Constructed: 1877 Date Listed: 1976 to 1982 Architectural Style/Influence: Gothic Revival Integrity: Fair Current Owner: Condition: Excellent Photo Documentation Date: September 2021 Page 308 of 448 Contains public sector information made available under The Regional Municipality of York's Open Data License •• Heritage Attributes: Institutional or Public Building Heritage Attributes Notes: Masonic Hall Condition Notes: Risk: No Risk Notes: Design/Physical Value: Rare: Yes Early (pre-1867): No Unique: No Representative: Yes High Degree of Craftsmanship/Artistic Merit: Yes High Degree of Technical/Scientific Achievement: No Design/Physical Value Description: Major Historical/Associative Value: Significant Event: No Significant Person: No Significant Activity: Yes Significant Organization/Institution: Yes Significant Theme Description: Significant Theme: Historical/Associative Value Description: Masonic Lodge Contextual Value: Defines the Character of the Area: No Moderate Maintains the Character of the Area: No Supports the Character of the Area: Yes Is Important in its Physical Link to its Surroundings: No Is Important in its Functional Link to its Surroundings: No Is Important in its Visual Link to its Surroundings: No Is Important in its Historical Link to its Surroundings: No Is a Landmark: Yes Contextual Value Description: Part of the Southeast Old Aurora NeighbourhoodRecommendation Major Value - Major Value (and/or) at Risk, Proritize for Part IV Designation Culturally-Significant Natural Feature: Yes Neighbourhood Group: Southeast Old Aurora Attachment 2 Page 63 of 338 AlexGardnerCircle Machell AvenueAddress: 16 Machell Avenue AURORA HERITAGE REGISTER REVIEW PROPERTY EVALUATION SHEET Heritage Status: Listed Property Number (PIN): Map Legal Description: Lot 19 Plan 36 Designation By-law: Wood Plaque: No Ontario Regulation 9/06 Assessment General Information Property Description Date/Era Constructed: Date Listed: Architectural Style/Influence: American Foursquare Integrity: Excellent Current Owner: Condition: Excellent Photo Documentation Date: September 2021 Page 142 of 448 Contains public sector information made available under The Regional Municipality of York's Open Data License •• Heritage Attributes: Dwelling Heritage Attributes Notes: oriel window Condition Notes: Rear addition and garage Risk: No Risk Notes: Design/Physical Value: Rare: No Early (pre-1867): No Unique: No Representative: Yes High Degree of Craftsmanship/Artistic Merit: No High Degree of Technical/Scientific Achievement: No Design/Physical Value Description: Minimal Historical/Associative Value: Significant Event: No Significant Person: No Significant Activity: No Significant Organization/Institution: No Significant Theme Description: Associated with Plan 36, registered by Richard Wells and dwellings constructed shortly after the time Plan 36 was registered in the late 19th century Minimal Significant Theme: Yes Historical/Associative Value Description: Contextual Value: Defines the Character of the Area: No Minimal Maintains the Character of the Area: No Supports the Character of the Area: Yes Is Important in its Physical Link to its Surroundings: No Is Important in its Functional Link to its Surroundings: No Is Important in its Visual Link to its Surroundings: No Is Important in its Historical Link to its Surroundings: No Is a Landmark: No Contextual Value Description:Recommendation Moderate Value - Remain on the Register, Meets the Criteria Culturally-Significant Natural Feature: No Neighbourhood Group: Machell/Irwin Page 64 of 338 Wells Street Harrison A v e n u e Address: 101 Wells Street AURORA HERITAGE REGISTER REVIEW PROPERTY EVALUATION SHEET Heritage Status: Listed Property Number (PIN): Map Legal Description: Lot 61 Plan 120 Designation By-law: Wood Plaque: No Ontario Regulation 9/06 Assessment General Information Property Description Date/Era Constructed: 1940s Date Listed: Architectural Style/Influence: Altered (unknown) Integrity: Poor Current Owner: Condition: Fair Photo Documentation Date: August 2021 Page 10 of 448 Contains public sector information made available under The Regional Municipality of York's Open Data Licence 1 Heritage Attributes: Dwelling Heritage Attributes Notes: One and half storey cottage with open gabled roof, gabled dormer. House has a rear addition and attached open gable garage. Original window frame at rear of main house. Condition Notes: Vinyl siding covering original material, likely wood frame construction. Risk: No Risk Notes: Design/Physical Value: Rare: No Early (pre-1867): No Unique: No Representative: No High Degree of Craftsmanship/Artistic Merit: No High Degree of Technical/Scientific Achievement: No Design/Physical Value Description: None Historical/Associative Value: Significant Event: No Significant Person: No Significant Activity: No Significant Organization/Institution: No Significant Theme Description: Minimal Significant Theme: No Historical/Associative Value Description: Property is located on lands originally owned by Herman (also Hermas) E. Proctor who was Irish and a Postmaster by occupation (also lists army) although he is listed as living on Young Street not this property. Later owned between 1942-1965 by Mundell Family. Contextual Value: Defines the Character of the Area: No Moderate Maintains the Character of the Area: No Supports the Character of the Area: Yes Is Important in its Physical Link to its Surroundings: No Is Important in its Functional Link to its Surroundings: No Is Important in its Visual Link to its Surroundings: No Is Important in its Historical Link to its Surroundings: No Is a Landmark: No Contextual Value Description: Contextual value is solely in its support to the overall character of the area.Recommendation None/Minimal Value - Remove from the Register Culturally-Significant Natural Feature: Yes Neighbourhood Group: Southeast Old Aurora Page 65 of 338 REVIEW OF THE AURORA REGISTERSteering CommitteeMeeting no. 4Friday September 10, 2021Dan Currie, MHBCVanessa Hicks, MHBC1Attachment 3Page 66 of 338 Presentation OverviewPurpose of today’s meeting:•Methodology for the evaluation of cultural heritage resources as part of the Review of the Aurora Register Project (i.e. evaluation of listed properties)Page 67 of 338 Presentation Overview1. Aurora Register Project Background;2. Review Legislated requirements for heritage evaluations (PPS, OHA);3. Review methodology for the Review of the Aurora Register project;4. Review examples in Aurora;5. Next Steps.Page 68 of 338 Aurora Register Project – RFPProject RFP Goals•Comprehensive review of the Aurora Register to ensure it maintains an accurate and informative inventory of the Town’s heritage resources:•Determine level of importance of each property;•Prioritize conservation efforts;•Identify those properties which could be designated under the OHA;•Remove irrelevant properties which have no value to the community.Page 69 of 338 Aurora RegisterPage 70 of 338 Aurora Register Project –Phased Work PlanPhase 1•First SC Meeting January, 2021•Evaluation Criteria •Research & Data Collection (inventory completed July)Phase 2•Evaluate listed properties•Prepare final list of recommendationsPhase 3•Consult with MHAC & Council on recommendationsPhase 4•Revise Reports, Final recommendations to MHAC & Council•Update Register of Heritage Resources* We are herePage 71 of 338 Aurora Register Project What is the need?•Updated PPS (2020) and OHA (2021)•431 Listed Properties•Outdated Information•Some of which dating back to 1970s/1980s•Difficulties when processing applications•Staff cannot quickly ascertain if a property is of CHVI or not•Some properties have changed over time or been removed and are no longer of CHVIPage 72 of 338 Classification Systems (OHTK)•The current Aurora Evaluation system uses a numerical classification system•Adding up points = Group 1, Group 2, Group 3•Example: “is it early”•Pre 1851 – 1881 : (Excellent = 30)•1882 – 1914 : (Good = 20)•1915 – 1945 : (Fair = 10)•1947 – present : (Poor = 0)•Pre 1851 : (Bonus – 10)•Municipalities moving away from evaluation systems based on numerical scoring. Understand how O-Reg 9/06 is intended to be interpreted and applied:–Is it early based on the context? (i.e. Aurora vs. N-O-T-L)–Is it Pre-Confederation (1867)–Understanding that it doesn’t need to be early to be worthy of long-term conservationPage 73 of 338 Presentation OverviewMethodology for the Aurora Register Project:•Those properties which are not good candidates for conservation are removed;•Those which are of major heritage value or at risk are prioritized for designation; and•Practicality of the designation process•Those other properties would remain on the register and could be designated later (i.e. “work plan”).Page 74 of 338 Methodology FrameworkPPS 2020Significant: meansin regard to cultural heritage and archaeology, resources that have been determined to have cultural heritage value or interest. Processes and criteria for determining cultural heritage value or interest are established by the Province under the authority of the Ontario Heritage Act.(i.e. O-Reg 9/06)Ontario Heritage Took Kit, Heritage EvaluationIndividual 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 it, the greater the property’s cultural heritage value or interest, and the stronger the argument for its long-term protection. Page 75 of 338 MinimalModerateMajorPage 76 of 338 Condition & Integrity (OHTK)•Condition: Decay of elements•Integrity: Original features retained (or not)•Poor condition and/or integrity has an impact on whether or not long-term conservation should be pursuedExample: Poor condition, good integrityExample: Good condition, poor integrityPage 77 of 338 Classification System for the Review of the AuroraRegister ProjectZero to Minimal Value=Should be considered for Removal from the RegisterModerate Value= Remain on the RegisterMajor Value and/or At Risk= Part IV DesignationPage 78 of 338 Aurora RegisterRemoved Remain Listed Designated (short-listed)2002 Vandorf Sideroad 59 Tyler Street 50 Wellington St. East75 George Street 1978 Vandorf Sideroad 57 Mosley StreetPage 79 of 338 Aurora RegisterRecommended for Removal from the Register 2002 Vandorf Sideroad75 George StreetPage 80 of 338 2002 Vandorf SideroadPage 81 of 338 Aurora Register•2002 Vandorf Sideroad1870s-1880s (Pt Lot 16, Con 3)Page 82 of 338 Aurora Register•2002 Vandorf Sideroad1954Page 83 of 338 Aurora Register•2002 Vandorf Sideroad1963Page 84 of 338 2002VandorfSideroad(None/Minimal–RemovefromtheRegister)O-Reg9/06Sub-Criteria:Description:Value:(Minimal,Moderate, Major)Design/PhysicalHas value because it is considered:Rare, UniqueRepresentativeEarly (Pre-Confederation)Has value because it demonstrates a:High degree of craftsmanship/artistic meritHigh degree of technical/scientific achievement•Altered (unknown style)•Constructed bet. 1954 - 1963•Wood Frame•1.5 storeysNoneMinimalModerateMajorPoor ConditionLoss of IntegrityAt RiskHistorical/AssociativeDirectassociations witha significant:ThemeEventPersonActivityOrganization/Institution•No information which provides evidence of a significant event, theme, person, family, activity, etc. associated with the existing lot/welling.•May have been constructed by members of the Baber family in 1956 (original Baber home at 1978 VandorfSideroad)NoneMinimalModerateMajorContextualIs importantin its ability to:Define the character of the areaMaintain the character of an areaSupport the character of an areaDemonstratesthat it is importantin its:Physical, functional, visual or historical link to its surroundingsLandmark status•Does not define, maintain, or support character of the area.•No important physical, functional, visual, links.•Located adjacent to the original Baber family home•Not a landmark.NoneMinimalModerateMajorPage 85 of 338 Aurora Register75 George StreetPage 86 of 338 75 George Street•Not identified by LACAC;•Likely part of a ‘blanket’ identification;•Not included on any FIP;1954 aerial photo1970 aerial photo(demolished)1878 County AtlasPage 87 of 338 75GeorgeStreet(None/Minimal–RemovefromtheRegister)O-Reg9/06Sub-Criteria:Description:Value:(Minimal,Moderate, Major)Design/PhysicalHas value because it is considered:Rare, UniqueRepresentativeEarly (Pre-Confederation)Has value because it demonstrates a:High degree of craftsmanship/artistic meritHigh degree of technical/scientific achievement•Former WWII-era bungalow removed (“victory house”)•21stCentury (new construction)NoneMinimalModerateMajorPoor ConditionLoss of IntegrityAt RiskHistorical/AssociativeDirectassociations witha significant:ThemeEventPersonActivityOrganization/Institution•21stCentury (new construction)•Lot fabric has no significant historical/associative valueNoneMinimalModerateMajorContextualIs importantin its ability to:Define the character of the areaMaintain the character of an areaSupport the character of an areaDemonstratesthat it is importantin its:Physical, functional, visual or historical link to its surroundingsLandmark status•No important physical, functional, visual, or historic links to its surroundings.•Not a landmark.NoneMinimalModerateMajorPage 88 of 338 Aurora RegisterRemain Listed (consider designation in the future)59 Tyler Street1978 Vandorf SideroadPage 89 of 338 59 Tyler StreetPage 90 of 338 59 Tyler Street•Not included in FIPs•LACAC research–Summaries of tax rools, census, title searches•Regency characteristics•1870s •Property directly associated with Walter Henry Machell•Existing house likely not the birth-place of Walter Machell(previously thought to be constructed in the 1850s)1878 County AtlasPage 91 of 338 59TylerStreet(Moderatevalue–RemainontheRegister)O-Reg9/06Sub-Criteria:Description:Value:(Minimal,Moderate, Major)Design/PhysicalHas value because it is considered:Rare, UniqueRepresentativeEarly (Pre-Confederation)Has value because it demonstrates a:High degree of craftsmanship/artistic meritHigh degree of technical/scientific achievement•1870s•Regency characteristics•Hip roof – single storey•Likely constructed of bricks from the Machell brickyardNoneMinimalModerateMajorPoor ConditionLoss of IntegrityAt RiskHistorical/AssociativeDirectassociations witha significant:ThemeEventPersonActivityOrganization/Institution•Property associated with the Machell family;•Existing building likely the residence of Walter Henry MachellNoneMinimalModerateMajorContextualIs importantin its ability to:Define the character of the areaMaintain the character of an areaSupport the character of an areaDemonstratesthat it is importantin its:Physical, functional, visual or historical link to its surroundingsLandmark status•Historically linked to local industry (brickyard)•Not a landmark.NoneMinimalModerateMajorPage 92 of 338 1978 Vandorf Sideroad (The Baber House)Page 93 of 338 1978VandorfSideroad(TheBaberHouse)O-Reg9/06Sub-Criteria:Description:Value:(Minimal,Moderate, Major)Design/PhysicalHas value because it is considered:Rare, UniqueRepresentativeEarly (Pre-Confederation)Has value because it demonstrates a:High degree of craftsmanship/artistic meritHigh degree of technical/scientific achievement•Brick Classical Revival•1880s•Common in Ontario•Integrity retained•Original verandah removedNoneMinimalModerateMajorPoor ConditionLoss of IntegrityAt RiskHistorical/AssociativeDirectassociations witha significant:ThemeEventPersonActivityOrganization/Institution•Built for Fred Ransom (farmer, made maple syrup)•Baber family homeNoneMinimalModerateMajorContextualIs importantin its ability to:Define the character of the areaMaintain the character of an areaSupport the character of an areaDemonstratesthat it is importantin its:Physical, functional, visual or historical link to its surroundingsLandmark status•Context has changed, no longer afarm complex.•Became 1 acre lot by 1939•Not important physical, functional, visual, links.•Baber family later constructed a house next door in 1956 •Not a landmark.NoneMinimalModerateMajorPage 94 of 338 Aurora RegisterDesignated (short-listed)50 Wellington St. East57 Mosley StreetPage 95 of 338 50 Wellington Street EastPage 96 of 338 50 Wellington Street East•“Andrews-Morrison House”•C. 1855•Gothic Revival cottage•Plan 107, Pt lot 19•Assoc. with Edward Andrews (tailor) andGeorge Morrison (carriage maker)1878 County Atlas1904 rev. 1913Page 97 of 338 50WellingtonStreetEast(ConsiderPartIVDesignation)O-Reg9/06Sub-Criteria:Description:Value:(Minimal,Moderate, Major)Design/PhysicalHas value because it is considered:Rare, UniqueRepresentativeEarly (Pre-Confederation)Has value because it demonstrates a:High degree of craftsmanship/artistic meritHigh degree of technical/scientific achievement•Gothic Revival Cottage;•c. 1855NoneMinimalModerateMajorPoor ConditionLoss of IntegrityAt RiskHistorical/AssociativeDirectassociations witha significant:ThemeEventPersonActivityOrganization/Institution•Andrews-Morrison House•Edward Andrews (tailor)•George Morrison (carriage maker)NoneMinimalModerateMajorContextualIs importantin its ability to:Define the character of the areaMaintain the character of an areaSupport the character of an areaDemonstratesthat it is importantin its:Physical, functional, visual or historical link to its surroundingsLandmark status•Part of the Wellington St. E. streetscapeNoneMinimalModerateMajorPage 98 of 338 57 Mosley StreetPage 99 of 338 57MosleyStreet(MethodistEpiscopalChurch/RisingSunMasonicLodge)O-Reg9/06Sub-Criteria:Description:Value:(Minimal,Moderate, Major)Design/PhysicalHas value because it is considered:Rare, UniqueRepresentativeEarly (Pre-Confederation)Has value because it demonstrates a:High degree of craftsmanship/artistic meritHigh degree of technical/scientific achievement•Gothic Revival Church (1877)•Unique elements as a result of use as a Masons Lodge (since 1885)•Built by Cane & Sons•Alterations which have taken on value as part of its use as a Masonic Lodge•Some unsympathetic alterationsNoneMinimalModerateMajorPoor ConditionLoss of IntegrityAt RiskHistorical/AssociativeDirectassociations witha significant:ThemeEventPersonActivityOrganization/Institution•Associated with two institutions which have had a significant impact on the local communityNoneMinimalModerateMajorContextualIs importantin its ability to:Define the character of the areaMaintain the character of an areaSupport the character of an areaDemonstratesthat it is importantin its:Physical, functional, visual or historical link to its •Supports the Southeat Old Aurora neighbourhood;•Local landmarkNoneMinimalModerateMajorPage 100 of 338 Concluding Statements•PPS 2020 directs municipalities to use O-Reg 9/06•Determine whether or not a property meets the criteria: –To what extent does a property meet that criteria?–Is it direct and/or important?–Retained its integrity?–Is it at risk?–Does it warrant long-term conservation of its physical attributes?–If the physical attributes are removed – could the historical/associative value be commemorated?Page 101 of 338 Next Steps•Support from this Steering Committee for the methodology and the use of O-Reg 9/06•MHBC to continue to evaluate properties•Bring forward to Steering Committee at next meetings•Present to Council (fall 2021)•Council formal adoption and recognition of Ontario Regulation 9/06•Staff/MHAC to Use O-Reg 9/06 in other applications (i.e. adding properties to the register•Next Presentation to MHAC: Final Recommendations (Spring 2022)Page 102 of 338 Next Steps•Further training on the use of O-Reg 9/06•Changes to the OHA in July 2021 require updates to the existing OHTK•Opportunities for heritage staff and Committees in Ontario to participate in future training sessions provided by the MinistryPage 103 of 338 THANK-YOUQuestions?Page 104 of 338 Page 105 of 338 Page 106 of 338 Public Input & Consultation•Properties considered for removal from the Register would be put forward to the next agenda of the Steering Committee. •All recommendations to be considered by MHAC and Council.Page 107 of 338 100 John West Way Aurora, Ontario L4G 6J1 (905) 727-3123 aurora.ca Town of Aurora General Committee Report No. CMS 2 1 -0 38 Subject: Disc Golf Opportunities in Aurora Prepared by: Erin Hamilton, Sport & Community Development Specialist Department: Community Services Date: November 16, 2021 Recommendation 1. That Report No. CMS21-038 be received; and 2. That Highland Gate property be identified as the preferred location for a future nine- hole disc golf course following additional consultation with the community and Highland Gate Ratepayers Association; and 3. That a preferred operating model for a future nine-hole disc golf course be municipally operated; and 4. That a new capital project for the design and construction of a nine-hole disc golf course be included in the 2023 capital budget for consideration. Executive Summary This report provides an overview of research conducted on disc golf courses and operating models around Ontario as well as considerations for land space to build a disc golf course in Aurora.  There are several factors that contribute to building a successful disc golf course in the community.  Operating models for disc golf courses around Ontario vary and can be dependent on the presence of a disc golf club or group in the community.  Highland Gate is the location of choice after various land options were reviewed.  Financial and human resources will be required to build and maintain a disc golf course Page 108 of 338 November 16, 2021 2 of 7 Report No. CMS21-038 Background On January 26, 2021, a delegation was made to Council requesting an opportunity to discuss how the addition of disc golf could contribute to the community and provide a COVID-19 safe sport option for 2021 and beyond. A motion was put forward on June 22, 2021, for staff to investigate feasibility, operating models and locations to build a disc golf course in Aurora. Analysis There are several factors that contribute to building a successful disc golf course in the community. The investment into a disc golf course goes beyond finding a piece of land and building the course as there are several other factors that will contribute to whether a course is used frequently by the community. Town staff met with five municipalities to learn about their disc golf courses. Municipalities included Bracebridge, Huntsville, Peterborough, Midland and Orillia. Furthermore, Town staff met with Tilt Bridge Consulting and community member Todd Billo for insight into factors that should be considered when building a disc golf course. To support the development of a disc golf course on a piece of land, adequate and properly placed signage and parking can impact the experience of potential users. Taking a similar approach to a golf course can create a welcoming space, ensure safe use of the space and enhance the user experience. This would include sufficient parking, welcome and entrance signage, directional signage and signs at each hole to identify the hole number, hole length and a visual image of the hole. Without proper signage, users can get disoriented, throw discs in the wrong direction creating a safety issue and frustration among users. Those communities that were consulted through research, identified lack of signage and building a course that does not meet the skill level of the target market and general community as key factors in lack of community use of their disc golf course. Identifying the primarily target market and building a course that aligns with that market is critical to success. Disc golf courses vary greatly in size and complexity and without an understanding of the market, a disc golf course could sit empty year-round. Effectively reaching the primary market and their experience will be critical to the success of a course. Page 109 of 338 November 16, 2021 3 of 7 Report No. CMS21-038 Building community awareness and sufficient education about the sport and course, can positively impact usage rates. Some communities engaged through research have not invested in any promotion of the disc golf course which has resulted in low usage rates. Knowledge of the disc golf course has been based on word of mouth. A well planned and executed communications campaign through Town channels can increase awareness and interest to reach more of the community. Furthermore, opportunities to educate the community through try-it sessions where they are provided information about disc golf and taught some of the basic skills can encourage usage. Operating models for disc golf courses around Ontario vary and can be dependent on the presence of a disc golf club or group in the community. There are three main models for operating disc golf courses in Ontario. Research has shown that disc golf courses built on municipal property are typically offered free of charge for usage as it operates like a playground model. However, a fee may be applied if permitted for a tournament. 1. Municipal Property, Municipally Operated / Maintained - Disc golf course on municipal property and operated/maintained by the municipality  Municipality takes full responsibility for building, maintaining and operating the course 2. Municipal Property, Community Group Operated / Maintained Disc golf course on municipal property and operated/maintained by a community group (i.e. – disc golf club), except grass cutting which is done by the municipality  Municipality identifies and provides the land for the disc golf course  Local group / disc golf club builds the course  Local group / disc golf club fixes any broken cages  Local disc golf clubs use course and run leagues at their own discretion on courses without a permit or fee  Municipality conducts all course inspections 3. Private property/Privately Operated - Disc golf course on private property and operated by the private business  Privately run, generally with a fee to use Page 110 of 338 November 16, 2021 4 of 7 Report No. CMS21-038 The following is a summary of pros and cons to each model: Model Pros Cons 1. Municipal Property, Municipally Operated / Maintained Ensure all safety measures are in place Oversee all maintenance to ensure it is done within a timely manner Build and maintain focus on a identified target user Additional cost to maintain course Responsible for all communication and promotion for usage 2. Municipal Property, Community Group Operated / Maintained Disc golf club brings existing clientele Remove cost and responsibility of maintaining Potential issues with local group and club to meet municipal standards 3. Private Property, Privately Operated No cost to the municipality to build and maintain the course Fee structure for participation which could be a barrier for some community members Course design may not meet the needs of the community as a whole to encourage and support life long physical activity. Highland Gate is the location of choice after various land options were reviewed. At this time, only two suitable locations have been identified:  Highland Gate  Aurora Community Arboretum Highland Gate Parklands is the preferred location for a new nine-hole disc golf course. Previously a golf course, the setting is conducive to disc golf. It is not a loud, active sport and use would be less than typical golf. Page 111 of 338 November 16, 2021 5 of 7 Report No. CMS21-038 The addition of disc golf as an amenity would need to be presented to the Highland Gate Rate Payers as they played an active role in the Memorandum of Understanding and park design in which the lands are to be developed. There is no parking with some potential for limited spots near Highland Gate and Bathurst, otherwise on the street. The Aurora Community Arboretum lands were also considered as an opportunity to construct a disc golf course as they flow through and around Lambert Willson Park/Aurora Family Leisure Complex. However, to facilitate the layout of the course it would require mowing of large tracks of land that are currently in a natural state. The Arboretum Master Plan outlines all future naturalization/trail initiatives on the parkland and the inclusion of disc golf would not allow for important planting and habitat creation projects to be completed. Financial and human resources will be required to build and maintain a disc golf course. Building a disc golf course will include an initial cost to build as well as ongoing maintenance cost and promotional initiatives. The initial cost to build would be up to $ 26,000, which includes design costs, tee pad, disc golf cages and signage throughout the course. In addition, there would be potential engineering and traffic analyst costs to address parking in the area. Once the course is built, this will result in an increase to the level of service for maintenance of the course, mowing etc. Advisory Committee Review N/A Legal Considerations None. Financial Implications The estimated initial cost for the construction of a nine-hole disc golf course is $26,000. As this proposal is new, it currently is not included in the Town’s budget. Should Council be supportive of this proposal, staff will include a new capital project for the construction of a 9-hole disc golf course in the 2023 capital budget for its consideration. In addition, all future replacement costs for the disc golf course will be included in the rehabilitation & replacement capital plan. Page 112 of 338 November 16, 2021 6 of 7 Report No. CMS21-038 Furthermore, all incremental operating and maintenance costs for the proposed golf course will be included in the upcoming year’s multi-year operating budget for Council’s consideration. Communications Considerations The Town will use “engage” as the level of engagement for this project. Should Council approve this, the Town will implement an engagement process through its engagement portal Engage Aurora to gather community and stakeholder input. Link to Strategic Plan Supporting an exceptional quality of life for all in its accomplishment in satisfying requirements in the following key objectives within these goal statements:  Encourage an active and healthy lifestyle Alternative(s) to the Recommendation 1. Receive report, further discussion by staff will no longer take place. 2. Direct staff to revisit alternative lands to build a disc golf course. 3. Direct staff to review the demand for disc golf in the community as part of the Parks and Recreation Master Plan review. Conclusions The addition of a disc golf course in Aurora can contribute and support the priorities of the Parks and Recreation Master Plan. Furthermore, it is a safe activity that encourages physical activity for all ages. As a free activity, it is accessible to many community members and can be used year-round. Attachments None Previous Reports None Page 113 of 338 November 16, 2021 7 of 7 Report No. CMS21-038 Pre-submission Review Agenda Management Team review on October 28, 2021 Approvals Approved by Robin McDougall, Director, Community Services Approved by Doug Nadorozny, Chief Administrative Officer Page 114 of 338 100 John West Way Aurora, Ontario L4G 6J1 (905) 727-3123 aurora.ca Town of Aurora General Committee Report No. PDS21 -123 Subject: Amendment to Heritage Designation By-law Number 6182-19 De La Salle College and Pine Ridge Trail (Monk’s Walk) 50-100 Bloomington Road West Prepared by: Brashanthe Manoharan, Planner/Heritage Planning Department: Planning and Development Services Date: November 16, 2021 Recommendation 1. That Report No. PDS21-123 be received; 2. That Council direct staff to issue a Notice of Intent to amend Heritage Designation By- law Number 6182-19 for 50-100 Bloomington Road West, as discussed herein in accordance with the requirements of the Ontario Heritage Act; and, 3. That Council direct staff to bring forward the amending by-law should there be no objections to the proposed amendment to By-law Number 6182-19. Executive Summary This report seeks Council’s approval to the application for a proposed amendment to Heritage Designation By-law 6182-19 for 50-100 Bloomington Road West.  The subject property is designated as a property of cultural heritage value or interest under Section 29 (Part IV) of the Ontario Heritage Act.  Staff are proposing an amendment to the “Historical/Associative Value” section of Heritage Designation By-law 6182-19 for 50-100 Bloomington Road West, to acknowledge the history of the Pine Ridge institution. Page 115 of 338 November 16, 2021 2 of 6 Report No. PDS21-123 Background Property Description The subject property is located on the northwest corner of Yonge Street and Bloomington Road West. The property exceeds 70 acres in and includes heritage attributes such as the front courtyard and the Monk’s Walk trail at the northern portion of the property. The four-storey building was constructed c. 1916, designed in a Collegiate Gothic Architectural style by J.P. Haynes. The building currently serves as an office building for the Government of Ontario. There is an Ontario Provincial Police Building located to the north of the subject lands, that was constructed in 1989. It is also noted that a walking trail known locally as “The Monk’s Walk” is located in a wooded area at the northern portion of the property. History of the Property 50-100 Bloomington Road West has a unique history over the past 200 years. The lands were originally settled by Joseph Minthorn in 1808. Another notable early settler includes William Mair, who held the land until 1878. In 1914, the property was purchased by the Christian Brotherhood. By 1916, the Brotherhood built a school known as “De La Salle College” for young men destined to pursue religious services. During this time, the Brotherhood established the walking trail at the north end of the property known locally as Monk’s Walk. This trail comprises of religious carvings in trees along the route, used by the Brotherhood for meditation. The Christian Brotherhood continued to operate the school until 1949 when at that time, the school was moved back to Toronto. In 1950, the property was purchased by the Government of Ontario and the building was converted into a residential facility for males 16 years of age and older with developmental disabilities due to the overcrowding at the Huronia Regional Centre in Orillia. The facility was re-named “Pine Ridge” in 1974 and continued to operate until August 1984. During these years, it has been reported that the residents were emotionally, physically, and psychologically abused. The building housed over 170 residents, until it closed in August 1984. After the closure of Pine Ridge, the Government of Ontario retrofitted the building for offices. The building was converted into an office for the Ministry of Natural Resources and an Ontario Registry Office. An Ontario Provincial Police facility was constructed on the north end of the property in 1989. These uses continue to exist on the property to this day. Page 116 of 338 November 16, 2021 3 of 6 Report No. PDS21-123 A portion of the site (approximately 10 acres at the north end of Academy Drive) was also the subject of a Ministry’s Zoning Order issued in 2020 to permit the development of a long-term care facility and low-density housing. Heritage Designation In 2019, Town Council passed By-law 6182-19 to designate 50-100 Bloomington Road West under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act as a cultural heritage landscape. By-law 6182-19 identifies the exterior and cultural heritage landscape elements as the original key attributes that contribute to the heritage value of the property (see Attachment 1). Analysis Staff are recommending that Heritage Designation By-law 6182-19 for 50-100 Bloomington Road West be amended to include additional information about Pine Ridge During the April 5, 2021 Heritage Advisory Committee meeting, Len Bulmer and Kathy Kantel requested that the heritage designation by-law be reconsidered to acknowledge the true history of the Pine Ridge institution. Staff have since undertaken a thorough investigation to gather the facts of the events that occurred at Pine Ridge, and based on that review, are proposing an amendment to Heritage Designation By-law 6182-19. Institutions for people as we describe today as having “developmental disabilities” have existed for over 130 years in Ontario, from the opening of the first asylum in 1876 to the closing of the final three facilities in 2009. While the intention of these facilities was to promote health, support services, and other aspects of well-being, it was ultimately determined that the institutionalization of people with disabilities was not the best approach as it contributed to isolation, stigmatization, and abuse. In December 2013, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice approved a $35-million settlement between the survivors of Huronia Regional Centre (including Pine Ridge) and the Ontario government. Shortly after, the Ontario government issued a formal apology to the former residents of Huronia Regional Centre, recognizing that the residents of this institution endured forcible restraints, were stripped of their dignity, and underwent physical and emotional abuse. As such, Staff are proposing an amendment to Heritage Designation By-law 6182-19 by way of the following addition to the “Historical/ Associative Value” section: In 1950, the property was purchased by the Government of Ontario and the building was converted into a residential facility for males 16 years of age and older with developmental disabilities due to the overcrowding at the Huronia Page 117 of 338 November 16, 2021 4 of 6 Report No. PDS21-123 Regional Centre in Orillia. The facility was re-named “Pine Ridge” in 1974 and continued to operate until August 1984. During these years residents were victim to emotional, physical, and psychological abuse instead of receiving the care that these residential institutions claimed to have provided. The building housed over 170 residents, until its closure in August of 1984. Staff will also be recommending that a commemorative plaque be erected on the site at the owner’s cost. Should the proposed amendment be approved, wording for the plaque will be drafted by the Town. Advisory Committee Review The Heritage Advisory Committee discussed the proposed amendment at its meeting on November 1, 2021. The Committee inquired about the present owner of the property and clarified the number of residents that were at the facility during the time of its closure. The Heritage Advisory Committee had no objections to the proposed amendment of Heritage Designation By-law 6182-19 for 50-100 Bloomington Road West. Legal Considerations Under Section 30.1 of the Ontario Heritage Act, Council may amend a by-law designating a property made under Section 29 to clarify or correct the statement in the designation by-law that explains the cultural heritage value or interest of the property. If Council decides to proceed with the amendment to the heritage designation by-law, a notice of intention will be served on the property owner. Once the Town issues a Notice of Intention to Amend the Designation (the “Notice”), the owner may object to the proposed amendment within 30 days of the Notice. If there are no objections within the 30-day period, the amended designation by-law for the subject property will be brought forward to Council for enactment. If there are objections, the objection will be brought to Council for consideration, and Council may either withdraw the notice or proceed to enacting the amended designation by-law. If the owner objects to the passing of the amended designation by-law, it may appeal to the Ontario Land Tribunal for a hearing. Financial Implications There are no direct financial implications arising from this report. Page 118 of 338 November 16, 2021 5 of 6 Report No. PDS21-123 Communications Considerations The Town will use ‘Inform’ as the level of engagement for this application. There are five different levels of community engagement to consider, with each level providing the community more involvement in the decision-making process. These levels are: Inform, Consult, Involve, Collaborate and Empower. Examples of each can be found in the Community Engagement Policy. These options are based on the International Association of Public Participation (IAP2) Spectrum and assist in establishing guidelines for clearly communicating with our public and managing community engagement. In order to inform the public, this report will be posted to the Town’s website. Link to Strategic Plan The conservation of heritage resources supports the Strategic Plan goal of Supporting an Exceptional Quality of Life for All through its accomplishment in satisfying requirements in objective Celebrating and Promoting our Culture. Alternative(s) to the Recommendation 1. That Council refuse the amendment to Heritage Designation By-law 6182-19 for 50- 100 Bloomington Road West with an explanation for the refusal. Conclusions Staff have reviewed and verified the information provided by the delegates from the April 5, 2021 and support the amendment to “Historical/ Associative Value” section of Heritage Designation By-law 6182-19 for 50-100 Bloomington Road West, to acknowledge the history of the Pine Ridge institution. Attachments Attachment 1 – Location Map Attachment 2 - Heritage Designation By-law 6182-19 Previous Reports Heritage Memorandum – Amendment to Heritage Designation By-law 6182-19 – November 1, 2021 Page 119 of 338 November 16, 2021 6 of 6 Report No. PDS21-123 Pre-submission Review Agenda Management Team review on October 28, 2021 Approvals Approved by David Waters, MCIP, RPP, PLE, Director, Planning and Development Services Approved by Doug Nadorozny, Chief Administrative Officer Page 120 of 338 Elderberry TrailBloomington RoadYonge StreetCalla TrailHoudini WayGlensteeple TrailAcademy DriveDavina CircleEquestrian DriveDol TerraceCowie C o urt Milbourne LaneRailway / GO Transit Line¯0 40 80 120 160 200MetresLOCATION PLAN3'650 BLOOMINGTON ROAD WEST ATTACHMENT 1TOWN OF RICHMOND HILLSubject LandsPine Ridge Trail (Monk's Walk)Court YardMap created by the Town of Aurora Corporate Services Department, October 22, 2021. Base data provided by York Region & the Town of Aurora. Air Photos taken Spring 2020, © First Base Solutions Inc., 2020 Orthophotography.*Colour Reversed On MapPage 121 of 338 The Corporation of the Town of Aurora By-law Number 6182-19 Being a By-law to designate a property to be of cultural heritage value or interest (De La Salle College and Pine Ridge Trail (Monk's Walk)-50-100 Bloomington Road West). Whereas Section 29 of the Ontario Heritage Act, R.S.O. 1990, Chapter 0.18, as amended, provides that the council of a municipality may, by by-law, designate a property within the municipality to be of cultural heritage value or interest; And whereas on January 22, 2019 The Corporation of the Town of Aurora (the "Town") approved the recommendations of its Heritage Advisory Committee to designate the property municipally known as 50-100 Bloomington Road West, Aurora (the "Property") to be of cultural heritage value or interest; And whereas the Town Clerk of the Town caused notice of the intention to designate the Property to be served on the owner of the Property and the Ontario Heritage Trust and published in a newspaper having general circulation in the municipality; And whereas there were no objections to the proposed designation of the Property served on the Town; And whereas the Council of the Town deems it necessary and expedient to enact a by law to designate the Property to be of cultural heritage value or interest; Now therefore the Council of the Corporation of the Town of Aurora herby enacts as follows: 1. The Property described on Schedule "A" attached hereto and forming part of this By-law be and is hereby designated to be of cultural heritage value or interest. 2.A statement explaining the cultural heritage value or interest of the Property and a description of the heritage attributes of the Property are set out on Schedule "B" attached hereto and forming part of this By-law. 3.The Town Clerk of the Town shall serve a copy of this By-law on the owner of the Property and the Ontario Heritage Trust and publish notice of this By-law in a newspaper having general circulation in the municipality. 4.The Town Solicitor shall register against the Property in the proper Land Registry Office, a copy of this By-law including an Affidavit of the Town Clerk respecting the giving of notice referenced herein to be attached to and forming part of this By-law. Enacted by Town of Aurora Council this 2a• day of May, 2JJ19 � Tom Mrakas, Mayor Michael de Rond, Town Clerk Attachment 2 Page 122 of 338 Page 123 of 338 Page 124 of 338 Page 125 of 338 100 John West Way Aurora, Ontario L4G 6J1 (905) 727-3123 aurora.ca Town of Aurora General Committee Report No. PDS21 -128 Subject: Heritage Permit Application File: HPA-2021-14 15356 Yonge Street (Knowles-Readman House) Prepared by: Brashanthe Manoharan, Planner/ Heritage Planning Department: Planning and Development Services Date: November 16, 2021 Recommendation 1. That Report No. PDS21-128 be received; and, 2. That Heritage Permit Application HPA-2021-14 be approved for the removal of the two-storey tail wing of the “Knowles-Readman House”. Executive Summary This report seeks Council’s approval of Heritage Permit Application HPA-2021-14. The purpose of the application is to remove the tail wing on the rear elevation to the “Knowles-Readman House”, which is located at 15356 Yonge Street.  The property is subject to a 2017 planning application for the development of a five (5) storey, 37 unit apartment building with below grade parking including the restoration of the Knowles-Readman House.  Staff support the removal of the two-storey tail wing of the “Knowles-Readman House” as it will not adversely impact the heritage value of the dwelling. Background Property Description The subject property is located on the west side of Yonge Street, north of Irwin Avenue and immediately south of the Hilary House (see Attachment 1). The subject property is adjacent to two properties designated under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act – Hillary Page 126 of 338 November 16, 2021 2 of 8 Report No. PDS21-128 House (15372 Yonge Street) and Horton Hall (15342 Yonge Street), and across the street from Our Lady of Grace Roman Catholic Church (15347 Yonge Street) which is also designated for heritage protection. In 1906, James Knowles, an Aurora area builder and politician, acquired the vacant property. In 1907, Knowles constructed the existing house and lived in it until 1913. Eventually, in 1920, the property was sold to John Readman who moved to the House in 1924 after retiring from his Vaughan farm. His estate continued to own the House until 1951. It was acquired by the current owner in 1981. The Readman House is vacant and many of the interior finishes have been removed. The property contains a 2 ½ storey solid brick house, constructed in an Edwardian Classicism architectural style. The House a rectangular layout, with a projection towards the rear of the north side that gives the house a slight ‘L’ shape. The House has a wood clad two storey tail wing. The HIA prepared by the applicant lists the following heritage attributes of the Readman House (see Section 6.4 of Attachment 3):   The 2 ½–storey house form building  The scale, form, height and massing on a rectangular-shaped lot  The rock-faced concrete blocks above the poured concrete foundation, the moulded concrete lintels above all openings and the moulded concrete lug window sills.  The red brick walls on the front (east) and side (north and south) elevations  Window openings on the ground and upper floors of the front and side elevations containing one over one window sashes  The front and side entrances with their paneled wood doors and the upper floor east door opening  The two storey porch with its gable roof; square, paneled wood porch posts on paneled concrete piers (ground floor) and wood piers (upper floor); balustrade with carved balusters and the rock-faced concrete block foundation  The medium pitched, asphalt clad hip roof with projecting eves, plain soffits and narrow wood frieze; the two smaller gable roofs with their wood shingle siding and decorative trim over the porch and on the north elevation; the latter gable includes a pair of small attic windows  The dormer window on the south elevation  The two red brick chimneys  The placement of the house form building on the lot Page 127 of 338 November 16, 2021 3 of 8 Report No. PDS21-128  The front yard with its green space in front of the House and walkway to Yonge Street and the north and south side yards  On the interior, the staircase and remaining door and window casings and baseboards The two-storey tail wing proposed to be removed is not listed as a heritage attribute. Although over the years, the Readman House has experienced a few exterior modifications, which are listed below, the structure, when viewed from the street, is largely as originally constructed. The exterior modifications undertaken over time include:   loss of porch posts and piers – four on the front porch and one on the side porch;  loss of the north, ground floor balustrade on the front and side porches;  replacement of a door on the upper floor of the east elevation with a modern door;  addition of the upper floor door on the north elevation;  addition of the metal fire escape on the north elevation;  enlargement of the tail wing including addition of an upper floor;  alteration of the window opening on the west elevation of the brick part of the House;  infilling of a window opening on the south elevation; and  the possible addition of the dormer window on the roof. Application History The property is subject to a 2017 planning application for the development of a five (5) storey, 37 unit apartment building with below grade parking including the restoration of the Knowles-Readman House On September 2017, a Zoning By-law Amendment and Site Plan application was submitted for the restoration of the existing Knowles-Readman House and the development of a five (5) storey, 37 unit apartment building with below grade parking. The existing Knowles-Readman House was proposed to include one dwelling unit below grade. In November 2017, the proposal was presented to Public Planning where concerns were raised over compatibility with neighbouring properties including the Hilary House. Since then, the applicants have worked closely with area residents, the Aurora Historical Society (AHS), as well as the Ontario Heritage Trust (OHT) to address these concerns. Page 128 of 338 November 16, 2021 4 of 8 Report No. PDS21-128 In April 2021, the applicants submitted a revised proposal that integrates the Knowles- Readman House and proposes the retention and restoration of most of the House (except for tail wing) as well as the construction of a four (4) storey, 35 unit apartment building with below grade parking (see Attachment 2). The new apartment building, including balconies and canopy, will be set back between 13.2 metres (43.4 feet) and 17.4 metres (57 feet) from the House above grade. The new building is contemporary in design but uses exterior materials that relate to the heritage buildings on and adjacent to the subject property. The design of the proposed building and site layout will be reviewed further by the Town as part of site plan control. Heritage Designation In 2006, Town Council passed By-Law 4804-06.D to designate 15356 Yonge Street under Part V of the Ontario Heritage Act as part of the Northeast Old Aurora Heritage Conservation District. Town 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 and alteration of the properties and streetscapes located within the boundaries of the District. Heritage Permit Application The applicant is proposing to retain in situ and integrate the Knowles-Readman House into a new development for a four-storey apartment building at 15356 Yonge Street. The heritage permit application is to remove the entire tail wing located at the rear of the House to permit the construction of underground parking, loading, and waste storage areas. Removal of the tail wing will enable the location of the underground parking to be close to the rear of the House. The front and the majority of the south side yards adjacent to the House will be retained as green space as will some of the rear of the property. Vehicle access to the property will be from a northern expansion of the existing driveway at Yonge Street, which will service both the subject property and the Hillary House property. The House will be treated as a separate building with one residential unit, with parking for the House provided in the underground parking garage of the proposed development. Two large trees in front of the house along Yonge Street (tree 1 - 55cm DBH and 2 - 45cm DBH) (see Attachment 1) are being preserved. Tree 34 to the south is dead and is proposed to be removed. Trees 3-6 to the north are also being removed in order to allow the driveway widening. Three of these trees are in poor or fair/poor condition. The removal of the trees are subject to a future tree removal application. Page 129 of 338 November 16, 2021 5 of 8 Report No. PDS21-128 The front and the majority of the south side yards adjacent to the House will be retained as green space as will some of the rear of the property. Vehicle access to the property will be from a northern expansion of the existing driveway at Yonge Street, which will service both the subject property and the Hillary House property. Restoration works of the exterior includes the front and side porches, windows, doors, removal of the exterior fire escape, infilling any associated openings, repairs to masonry, roof, trim, and decorative details, removal of tail wing and associated infilling, and treatment of the west wall including the foundation. Restoration of the interior includes repairs to the staircase from ground o upper floor, use or replication of original materials for doors and window casings, baseboards, and flooring. The restoration works may be subject to a future heritage permit application. The Ontario Heritage Trust (OHT) holds a heritage easement agreement on the Hilary House property. As such, a heritage easement is proposed to preserve the home on the subject lands, making the OHT the final approval authority over the shared access to the Hilary House. Analysis Staff support the removal of the two-storey tail wing of the “Knowles-Readman House” as it will not adversely impact the heritage value of the dwelling. When the House was initially constructed, it had a one storey, gable roofed tail wing that extended across less than half of the rear of the House. Originally the tail wing was likely used as a pantry (ground floor) and storage (basement). It was enlarged by extending it across the entire rear of the House and adding a second floor. Other previous alterations to the tail wing included changing the cladding and a sliding glass door on the west wall. The removal of the tail wing will facilitate access, loading, and underground parking of the new four-storey apartment building that is proposed behind the House. As per Section 9.1.1 of the District Plan, the Edwardian Classicism style is described as having elaborate brick work, low-slope hipped ‘cottage’ roof with asphalt shingles, non- symmetrical plan and façade, and wide double hung windows as features to name a few. The tail wing is not a necessary or essential component of the Edwardian Classicism architectural style and was not determined to be a heritage attribute in the Heritage Impact Assessment (see Section 6.4 of Attachment 3). Further, the tail wing has been substantially altered by enlargement, changes in both cladding and roof shape, and insertion of a sliding glass door. It is located at the back of the house, and is Page 130 of 338 November 16, 2021 6 of 8 Report No. PDS21-128 generally not visible from Yonge Street. For these reasons, staff are of the opinion that the removal of the tail wing will not negatively impact the heritage character of the Knowles-Readman House. Advisory Committee Review The Heritage Advisory Committee discussed the heritage permit application at its meeting on November 1, 2021. The Committee stated that they were pleased that the applicants will be establishing a heritage easement for the House as it repesents the highest form of protection, and that the House is proposed to be restored to its former glory through the proposed redevelopment of the site. The Heritage Advisory Committee had no objection to the approval of Heritage Permit Application HPA-2021-14. Legal Considerations Under Section 42 of the Ontario Heritage Act, any developments or alterations that would potentially impact the heritage attributes of a designated property requires Council’s consent. This legislative requirement is implemented in the Town of Aurora through the process of a Heritage Permit Application, which is subject to Council’s approval. Council must make a decision on a heritage permit application within 90 days after the notice of receipt is served on the applicant, otherwise Council shall be deemed to have consented to the application. The 90-day deadline for this permit application is January 2, 2022. Council may extend the review period of a heritage application in a heritage conservation district without any time limit under the Ontario Heritage Act provided it is agreed upon by the owner. If Council refuses the application, the owner may appeal the refusal to the Ontario Land Tribunal. Financial Implications There are no financial implications arising from this report. Communications Considerations The Town will use ‘Inform’ as the level of engagement for this application. There are five different levels of community engagement to consider, with each level providing the community more involvement in the decision-making process. These levels are: Inform, Page 131 of 338 November 16, 2021 7 of 8 Report No. PDS21-128 Consult, Involve, Collaborate and Empower. Examples of each can be found in the Community Engagement Policy. These options are based on the International Association of Public Participation (IAP2) Spectrum and assist in establishing guidelines for clearly communicating with our public and managing community engagement. In order to inform the public, this report will be posted to the Town’s website. Link to Strategic Plan The Town will use ‘Inform’ as the level of engagement for this application. There are five different levels of community engagement to consider, with each level providing the community more involvement in the decision-making process. These levels are: Inform, Consult, Involve, Collaborate and Empower. Examples of each can be found in the Community Engagement Policy. These options are based on the International Association of Public Participation (IAP2) Spectrum and assist in establishing guidelines for clearly communicating with our public and managing community engagement. In order to inform the public, this report will be posted to the Town’s website. Alternative(s) to the Recommendation 1. That Council approve the application with terms and conditions. 2. That Council refuse the Heritage Permit Application HPA-2021-14 with an explanation for the refusal. Conclusions Staff have reviewed Heritage Permit Application HPA-2021-14 for 15356 Yonge Street and are satisfied that the removal of the tail wing will not impact the heritage integrity of the Knowles-Readman House. Attachments Attachment 1 – Location Map Attachment 2 – Drawings Attachment 3 – Heritage Impact Assessment Page 132 of 338 November 16, 2021 8 of 8 Report No. PDS21-128 Previous Reports Heritage Memorandum - Heritage Permit Application File: HPA-2021-14 – November 1, 2021 Pre-submission Review Agenda Management Team review on October 28, 2021 Approvals Approved by David Waters, MCIP, RPP, PLE, Director, Planning and Development Services Approved by Doug Nadorozny, Chief Administrative Officer Page 133 of 338 Yonge StreetMachell AvenueMaple Street Catherine Avenu e Irwin Avenue LEGAL DESCRIPTION: PLAN 246 LOT 13 RP 65R31151 PART 1 MUNICIPAL ADDRESS: 15356 Yonge Street File No.: HPA-2021-14 03060 Metres Map created by the Town of Aurora Planning Department, October 1, 2021 Base data provided by York Region. This map is for addressing purposes only and should not be used for calculations or measurements. LOCATION MAP ¯St John's Sdrd Wellington St E Vandorf SdrdHenderson Drive ^ Wellington St W UV404 UV404 Subject Lands Leslie StYonge StBathurst StBayview AveBloomington Rd Attachment 1 Page 134 of 338 Attachment 2 Page 135 of 338 (;,67,1*%$51<21*(675((7/3/3/3/3/3/3/:/:/:/:/:/%/%/%/%/%/%/%/%/%/%62412'46;««.+0'O$$(;,67,1*.12:/(65($'0$1+286(<21*(675((7Pð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Ä(#: Ä99910'52#%'70.+/+6'&%1/'$7(6&$/('5$:,1*352-(&7180%(53/277(''$7(RQHVSDFHXQOLPLWHGLQF&/,(17352-(&7$''5(66 217$5,2,1&)$,5%$,51*$7(48((169,//(217$5,2/*5(1/$5*('6,7(3/$1$+<RQJH6WUHHW$XURUD2QWDULR(1/$5*('6,7(3/$1Page 136 of 338 3523(57</,1(3523(57</,1((;,67,1*+286(3$1(/6<67(07<3(%$/&21<5$,/,1*:,1'2::$//9,6,213$1(/6<67(07<3($/7(5('7$,/:,1*72%(5(029('$//'5$:,1*6$5(7+(3523(57<2)21(63$&($1'7+(<$5(12772%(5(352'8&(',1:+2/(25,13$57:,7+287:5,77(1&216(17)52021(63$&('5$:,1*6$5(,17(1'('72&219(<6&23(2):25.$1',1',&$7(*(1(5$/$1'$3352;,0$7(/2&$7,21$55$1*(0(17$1'6,=(62)0$7(5,$/6$1'352'8&76$//&216758&7,2172%($&&25',1*72%(67&2002135$&7,&($1'&21)250727+(217$5,2%8,/',1*&2'(,1())(&7$77+(7,0(CTEJKVGEVWTG KPVGTKQTFGUKIP56''.'5#8'9'5657+6'8#7)*#0106#4+1..-6'. Ä(#: Ä99910'52#%'70.+/+6'&%1/'$7(6&$/('5$:,1*352-(&7180%(53/277(''$7(RQHVSDFHXQOLPLWHGLQF&/,(17352-(&7$''5(66 217$5,2,1&)$,5%$,51*$7(48((169,//(217$5,2/*51257+(/(9$7,219+<RQJH6WUHHW$XURUD2QWDULR1257+(/(9$7,21Page 137 of 338 $//'5$:,1*6$5(7+(3523(57<2)21(63$&($1'7+(<$5(12772%(5(352'8&(',1:+2/(25,13$57:,7+287:5,77(1&216(17)52021(63$&('5$:,1*6$5(,17(1'('72&219(<6&23(2):25.$1',1',&$7(*(1(5$/$1'$3352;,0$7(/2&$7,21$55$1*(0(17$1'6,=(62)0$7(5,$/6$1'352'8&76$//&216758&7,2172%($&&25',1*72%(67&2002135$&7,&($1'&21)250727+(217$5,2%8,/',1*&2'(,1())(&7$77+(7,0(CTEJKVGEVWTG KPVGTKQTFGUKIP56''.'5#8'9'5657+6'8#7)*#0106#4+1..-6'. Ä(#: Ä99910'52#%'70.+/+6'&%1/'$7(6&$/('5$:,1*352-(&7180%(53/277(''$7(RQHVSDFHXQOLPLWHGLQF&/,(17352-(&7$''5(66 217$5,2,1&)$,5%$,51*$7(48((169,//(217$5,2/*53(563(&7,9(6$+<RQJH6WUHHW$XURUD2QWDULR+HULWDJH%XLOGLQJDW6WUHHW+HULWDJH%XLOGLQJ)URQW+HULWDJH%XLOGLQJ1RUWK6LGH+HULWDJH%XLOGLQJ6RXWK6LGHPage 138 of 338 HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT KNOWLES / READMAN HOUSE 15356 YONGE STREET TOWN OF AURORA, ONTARIO July 2017 Prepared for: 2578461 Ontario Inc. Prepared by: WAYNE MORGAN HERITAGE PLANNER Knowles / Readman House –East and North Elevations c 1920 2016 %XXEGLQIRX Page 139 of 338 HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT KNOWLES / READMAN HOUSE 15356 YONGE STREET TOWN OF AURORA, ONTARIO July 2017 Prepared for: 2578461 Ontario Inc. Prepared by: Wayne Morgan, Heritage Planner PO Box 1203, 21 Land’s End Sutton West, Ontario L0E 1R0 Telephone: 905-722-5398 E-mail wayne.morgan@sympatico.ca Page 140 of 338 Heritage Impact Assessment Page i 15356 Yonge Street Town of Aurora, Ontario Wayne Morgan July 2017 Heritage Planner EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Aurora Official Plan requires a heritage impact assessment (HIA) for development proposals on or adjacent to a designated heritage property. 2578461 Ontario Inc. is submitting planning applications for the property at 15356 Yonge Street retaining the heritage resource identified as the ‘Knowles / Readman House’ in situ and constructing a five storey residential building to the rear of the House. The property is designated under Part V of the Ontario Heritage Act as part of the Northeast Old Aurora Heritage Conservation District. The applicant commissioned this HIA to identify, evaluate and assess the heritage values and impacts on and adjacent to the subject property and to recommend heritage conservation and mitigation measures. History- The 1794 Yonge Street survey laid out the Street and adjacent lots. From this survey, the subject property is part of the east half of Lot 81, Concession 1 West Yonge Street. Although the 210 acre Lot 81 was sold to Thomas Phillips and, over the years, developed for agricultural purposes, the subject half acre part of the Lot was vacant when sold by Robert Irwin to Rachel Butcher in 1874. It was still vacant when sold in 1906 to James Knowles, an Aurora area builder and politician. In 1907, Knowles constructed the existing house and lived in it until 1913. Eventually, in 1920, the property was sold to John Readman who moved to the House in 1924 after retiring from his Vaughan farm. His estate continued to own the House until 1951. It was acquired by the current owner in 1981. The House is vacant and many of the interior finishes have been removed. Evaluation - After documenting its history and inspecting and recording it, the property was evaluated for cultural heritage value using provincial criteria and examining its condition and heritage integrity. This evaluation determined that the Knowles / Readman House, which is a 2 ½ storey house form building constructed in an Edwardian Classicism architectural style, warrants conservation under the Act. The front yard is part its heritage character and is included as a heritage attribute. Adjacent Heritage Resources- The subject property is adjacent to two designated properties – Hillary House and Horton Hall (15324 and 15372 Yonge Street) and across the street from Our Lady of Grace Roman Catholic Church (15347 Yonge Street). All properties are designated under Part V of the Act; the first two are also designated under Part IV of the Act. Proposed Development and Its Impact - The development proposal, described above, will retain, restore, renovate, and incorporate the Knowles / Readman House in situ in the proposed development. The front yard will remain as green space. Vehicle access will use the existing Yonge Street driveway. It was determined that the proposed development will not adversely affect the heritage values and attributes of the subject property and the adjacent heritage properties. Recommendations - This HIA recommends that the proposed development be approved substantially as shown in drawings prepared by onespace unlimited inc. dated June 30, 2017, some of which are contained in Appendix N of this report subject to the following heritage conditions of Site Plan Approval, to be fulfilled to the satisfaction of the Town prior to issuing a building permit. The owner: 1. enter into a Heritage Easement Agreement with the Town to provide permanent protection for the heritage values of the Knowles / Readman property; 2. prepare a Conservation Plan for the heritage features of the Knowles / Readman property; 3. prepare a Protection Plan to protect the heritage resources prior to and during construction; 4. prepare a Landscape / Grading Plan for the property; 5. agree to commemorate the Knowles / Readman property’s heritage values; and 6. provide financial securities to the Town to implement the above recommendations. Page 141 of 338 Heritage Impact Assessment Page ii 15356 Yonge Street Town of Aurora, Ontario Wayne Morgan July 2017 Heritage Planner PROJECT PERSONNEL Wayne Morgan Heritage Planner Member, Canadian Association of Heritage Professionals Member, Canadian Institute of Planner Member, Ontario Professional Planners Institute President, Community Heritage Ontario Page 142 of 338 Heritage Impact Assessment Page iii 15356 Yonge Street Town of Aurora, Ontario Wayne Morgan July 2017 Heritage Planner TABLE OF CONTENTS Page 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1 2.0 DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPERTY AND ITS CONTEXT 2 2.1 Location 2 2.2 Ownership and Legal Description 3 2.3 Area Character and Physiography 3 2.4 Context – General Character 5 2.5 Context – Adjacent or Adjacent Heritage Properties 5 3.0 HERITAGE POLICIES 6 3.1 The Planning Act and Provincial Policy Statement (2014) 6 3.2 Ontario Heritage Act (OHA) 7 3.3 Places to Grow – Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe 8 3.4 York Region Official Plan 8 3.5 Aurora Official Plan and Zoning By-law 9 3.6 Northeast Old Aurora Heritage Conservation District 12 3.7 Standards and Guidelines for the Conservation of Historic Places in Canada 12 3.8 Municipal Heritage Status of the Subject and Adjacent Heritage Properties 13 4.0 HISTORICAL SUMMARY 14 4.1 Development of the Area 15 4.2 The Subject Property 20 5.0 BUILT AND LANDSCAPE RESOURCE DESCRIPTIONS 25 5.1 Knowles / Readman House Exterior 25 5.2 Knowles / Readman House Interior 29 5.3 Landscape Resources 31 6.0 HERITAGE EVALUATION OF THE RESOURCES 33 6.1 Introduction 33 6.2 Application of Provincial Criteria 33 6.2.1 House 33 6.2.2 Landscape 38 6.3 Overall Evaluation Summary 38 6.4 Statement of Cultural Heritage Value 39 6.5 Cultural Heritage Values of Adjacent/Nearby Heritage Properties 40 7.0 DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL 41 7.1 Description of the Development Proposal 41 Page 143 of 338 Heritage Impact Assessment Page iv 15356 Yonge Street Town of Aurora, Ontario Wayne Morgan July 2017 Heritage Planner TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued) Page 8.0 DEVELOMENT PROPOSAL IMPACT ON HERITAGE RESOURCES 44 8.1 Impact of Development on the Property Heritage Resources 44 8.2 Impact of Development on Adjacent Heritage Properties 45 9.0 CONSERVATION AND MITIGATION 47 9.1 Options for Conserving the Heritage Resource 47 9.2 Mitigation Measures 55 9.2.1 Heritage Easement Agreement 55 9.2.2 Conservation Plan 55 9.2.3 Protection Plan 56 9.2.4 Landscape / Grading Plan 56 9.2.5 Commemoration 56 9.2.6 Financial Securities 56 10.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 57 10.1 Conclusions 57 10.2 Recommendations 58 SOURCES CONSULTED 59 APPENDICIES A Property Survey B Photographs – Context C Maps and Insurance Plans D Aerial Photographs E Knowles / Readman House Exterior Photographs F Knowles / Readman House Floor Plan Sketches G Knowles / Readman House Interior Photographs H Knowles / Readman House Property Landscape Photographs I Knowles / Readman House Historic Photographs J Property Ownership History K Ontario Heritage Act, Regulation 9/06 L Adjacent Heritage Properties M Town of Aurora and York Region Planning Document Maps N Development Proposal O Curriculum Vitae – Wayne Morgan Page 144 of 338 Heritage Impact Assessment Page v 15356 Yonge Street Town of Aurora, Ontario Wayne Morgan July 2017 Heritage Planner LIST OF FIGURES Page Figure 2.1 Location – Streets & Properties [Source: YorkMaps, 2016]. 2 Figure 2.2 Subject Site in Context [Source: York Maps, image 2015]. 2 Figure 2.3 Figure 4.1 Figure 4.2 Figure 4.3 Figure 4.4 Figure 4.5 Figure 4.6 Figure 4.7 Figure 4.8 Figure 4.9 The Area in 1946 [Source: National Air Photo Library, Roll A10115, Photo 087]. Yonge Street Proclamation, 1798 Yonge Street, looking north to Aurora from Hutchinson’s Hill near Vandorf Sideroad [Source: McIntyre, 8] Nathaniel Gamble’s Inn at Armitage, c1910 [Source: Gilham, 7]. The Radial Railway crossing the Grand Trunk Railway near Vandorf Sideroad [Source, Stamp, 25]. Yonge Street in Aurora looking north, circa 1870 [Source: McIntyre, 14]. Historical Development of Aurora to 1971 [Source: Regional Municipality of York, Historical Development, insert]. Obituary – James Albert Knowles [Source: Newmarket Era and Express, April 28, 1949] The Knowles / Readman House, c1920 [Source: Aurora Heritage Committee] John W. and Catherine Readman [Source: Brydon website] 4 16 16 17 17 18 19 22 22 23 Figure 5.1 Figure 5.2 Figure 5.3 Figure 5.4 Figure 5.5 Figure 7.1 Figure 7.2 Figure 8.1 Figure 9.1 Figure 9.2 Figure 9.3 Figure 9.4 Figure 9.5 Figure 9.6 Figure 9.7 Figure 9.8 Knowles / Readman House, East Elevations, circa 1982 Knowles / Readman House, East and North Elevations, 2016. Edwardian Classicism, Kingston Example. [Source: Blumenson, 167]. York County Mouldings – 1910s–1920s [Source: Duncan, 159] Landscape Elements in 2015 of the Knowles / Readman property [Source: York Maps]. Site Plan, Proposed Development South Elevation, Proposed Development. The Proposed Development in Context Tail Wing – Ground Level and Underground Parking Yonge Street Sight Lines of the House and Proposed Development Panorama view of the development from the east side of Yonge Street, Drawing A500 Existing Driveway Conditions viewed from Yonge Street Existing Driveway Conditions Existing and Proposed Driveway Proposed North Side Yard Condition West of the House Proposed New Building Viewed from the Northeast 25 26 29 30 31 42 43 46 48 49 49 51 51 51 52 53 Page 145 of 338 Heritage Impact Assessment Page vi 15356 Yonge Street Town of Aurora, Ontario Wayne Morgan July 2017 Heritage Planner Table 2.1 Table 3.1 Table 4.1 Table 6.1 Table 6.2 Table 7.1 LIST OF TABLES Adjacent or Abutting Heritage Properties Heritage Status of Adjacent or Abutting Heritage Properties Historical Timelines – Knowles / Readman House, 15356 Yonge St. Application of Heritage Criteria to the Resources of the Knowles / Readman Property, 15356 Yonge Street, Aurora. Cultural Heritage Values of Adjacent Heritage Properties Site Statistics Page 5 13 20 34 40 41 Page 146 of 338 Heritage Impact Assessment Page 1 15356 Yonge Street Town of Aurora, Ontario Wayne Morgan July 2017 Heritage Planner 1.0 INTRODUCTION Policy 13.3 k) of the Aurora Official Plan provides for a Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA) where development is proposed “on or adjacent to a designated heritage resource to demonstrate that the heritage property and its heritage attributes are not adversely affected”. This HIA is for the property at 15356 Yonge Street which is in the east half of Lot 81 in the first concession west of Yonge Street. The property contains the house form structure referred to as the ‘Knowles / Readman House’ in this report. The property is included in the Aurora Heritage Register as provided under the Ontario Heritage Act and is designated by the Town under Part V of the Act as it is within the Northeast Old Aurora Heritage Conservation District. The property is 0.2659 hectares (0.657 acres). The applicant, Fusioncorp Developments Inc. has prepared a site plan application (Appendix N) proposing medium density residential development on the property. The owner is proposing to retain and incorporate the heritage resource in situ in the development. Fusioncorp Developments Inc. retained Wayne Morgan, Heritage Planner, to prepare this HIA. It was prepared in accordance with the Town’s Official Plan, other Town requirements and Provincial heritage policies. A curriculum vitae for Wayne Morgan is included as Appendix O. Page 147 of 338 Heritage Impact Assessment Page 2 15356 Yonge Street Town of Aurora, Ontario Wayne Morgan July 2017 Heritage Planner 2.0 DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPERTY AND ITS CONTEXT 2.1 Location The subject property is located in the Town of Aurora in the Regional Municipality (formerly County) of York in the east half of Lot 81 in the first concession west of Yonge Street (WYS). The property is bounded by Yonge Street on the east, the rear lot line of a property fronting on Machell Avenue on the west, the south lot line of the property containing Hillary House (15372 Yonge Street) Lot 25 and the north property lines of Horton Place (15342 Yonge Street) and three properties fronting on Irwin Avenue. The property is part of the urban community of Aurora (Figures 2.1 and 2.2). It is 0.2569 hectares (0.657 acres) in size. Figure No. 2.1 Location – Streets & Properties [Source: YorkMaps, 2016] Figure No. 2.2 Subject Site in Context [Source: YorkMaps, image 2015]. Subject Property Subject Property Page 148 of 338 Heritage Impact Assessment Page 3 15356 Yonge Street Town of Aurora, Ontario Wayne Morgan July 2017 Heritage Planner 2.2 Ownership and Legal Description The subject property is currently owned by: 1087931 Ontario Limited c/o Bruce Spragg Remax Hallmark York Group Realty Limited 15004 Yonge Street Aurora, ON L4G 1M6 The short legal description of the property is: Lot 13, Plan 246, Aurora, Part 1, 65R31151, Aurora; together with an easement over part lot 12 Plan 246, Part 4, 65R31151 as in YR1009502; together with an easement over Part Lot 12, Plan 246, Part 1 Plan 65R31604 as in YR1404149. A copy of a plan of survey of the property together with the applicable part of Plan 246, Aurora is contained in Appendix A. The property was previously addressed by the municipality as 64 Yonge Street North. Its current address is 15356 Yonge Street 2.3 Area Character and Physiography As shown on the topographic maps (Appendix C), the subject property rises slightly above the Yonge Street grade directly east of the House and then slopes down slightly immediately west of the House. Beyond that slight plateau behind the House, there is a stone retaining wall. West of that wall, the land slopes down approximately six metres to the west limit of the lot. The 1929 topographic map and Figure 2.2 show a creek west of Machell Avenue. This creek drains north ultimately reaching the Holland River which drains into Lake Simcoe. The 1946 aerial photograph (Appendix D) shows considerable forest cover on the east half of the lots on the west side of Yonge Street north of Irwin Avenue. Since then, and despite the construction of Houses prior to 1960 on the east side of Machell Avenue, the amount of forest cover on the lots on the west side of Yonge Street north of Irwin Avenue has increased. Since 1946, the urban area of Aurora has expanded with the subject and nearby properties are no longer at the north limit of the urban area (Figure 2.3). However, aerial photographs show that the character the area immediately near the subject property has remained relatively stable. Noteworthy exceptions are the construction two new buildings - a low rise apartment building north of Hillary House, built between 1970 and 1978 and, on the east side of Yonge Street between Maple Street and Catherine Avenue, a new Catholic church and associated parking areas constructed between 1978 and 1988. Although not visible in the air photos, Yonge Street has been expanded from two to four lanes since 1946. Aerial photographs of the Study Area from 1946 to 2015 are found in Appendix D. Page 149 of 338 Heritage Impact Assessment Page 4 15356 Yonge Street Town of Aurora, Ontario Wayne Morgan July 2017 Heritage Planner The property is located in the Schomberg Clay Plains physiographic region1 which is described as: Located near Schomberg, Newmarket, and to the north of Lake Scugog, the three larger areas, taken together cover about 475 square miles, and are included under the name of the Schomberg clay plains. In the first two areas the surface under the clay is that of a drumlinized till plain. The smaller drumlins are completely covered, but many of the larger ones escaped complete burial although the clay may occur well up the slopes of the hills. The average depth of the clay deposit seems to be about 15 feet … Since the rolling relief of the underlying till plain has not entirely been eliminated these areas are not so flat as many lake plains. … The original vegetation was hardwood forest… 1 Chapman and Putnam, pp 296 – 299. Figure No. 2.3 The Area in 1946 [National Airphoto Library, Roll A10115, Photo 087]. Subject Property Wellington Street West Yonge Street CN Rail Page 150 of 338 Heritage Impact Assessment Page 5 15356 Yonge Street Town of Aurora, Ontario Wayne Morgan July 2017 Heritage Planner 2.4 Context - General Character The subject property is within an area that, to the south east, is changing in character from low rise residential and commercial uses to taller, mixed use buildings. Also a number of house form buildings on Yonge Street have been converted from residential to commercial use. To the north and west, the area has been relatively stable over the last thirty years. Yonge Street, which is the only road frontage for the subject property, is a municipal, four lane, arterial road with an urban character – buried storm drains and sidewalks on both sides of the road. The nearest intersection to the subject property, at Irwin Avenue and Yonge Street, is a ‘T’ intersection that is not signalized. The nearest signalized intersection is at Aurora Heights Drive / Mark Street and Yonge Street. There is frequent bus transit service on Yonge Street in front of the subject property. From 1899 to 1930 public transit service, in the form of the Metropolitan Radial Railway, ran on Yonge Street in front of the property. 2.5 Context - Adjacent or Abutting Heritage Properties There are three heritage properties that abut or are adjacent the subject property. For the purposes of this Assessment, adjacent includes properties that are directly across the street from the subject property. The properties are illustrated in Appendix L and listed in Table 2.1 below. Table 2.1 Adjacent or Abutting Heritage Properties No. Street Address Building Name 1 15342 Yonge Street Horton Place 2 15347 Yonge Street Our Lady of Grace Roman Catholic Church 3 15372 Yonge Street Hillary House No other potential heritage properties were identified adjacent to the subject site. Although 8 Irwin Avenue is listed in the Aurora Register of Heritage Properties, it does not abut the subject property. Page 151 of 338 Heritage Impact Assessment Page 6 15356 Yonge Street Town of Aurora, Ontario Wayne Morgan July 2017 Heritage Planner 3.0 HERITAGE POLICIES 3.1 The Planning Act and Provincial Policy Statement (2014) Section 2 of the Planning Act identifies, “matters of provincial interest, which includes the conservation of significant features of architectural, cultural, historical, archaeological or scientific interest.” 2 Section 3 of the Planning Act enables the Province to issue Policy Statements on matters of Provincial Interest. The Provincial Policy Statement (2014) (PPS) issued under the Planning Act applies to this Study Area. Section 2.6 of the PPS addresses Cultural Heritage. PPS Policy 2.6.1 states: Significant built heritage resources and significant cultural heritage landscapes shall be conserved. The PPS provides the following definitions to the italicized terms. Significant means in regard to cultural heritage and archaeology, “resources that have been determined to have cultural heritage value or interest for the important contribution they make to our understanding of the history of a place, an event, or a people.” Built heritage resources “means a building, structure, monument, installations or any manufactured remnant that contributes to a property’s cultural heritage value or interest as identified by a community, including Aboriginal community. Built heritage resources are generally located on property that has been designated under Parts IV or V of the Ontario Heritage Act, or included on local, provincial and/or federal registers.” Cultural heritage landscape means a defined geographical area that may have been modified by human activities and is identified as having cultural heritage value or interest by a community including an Aboriginal community. The area may involve features such as structures, spaces, archaeological sites or natural elements that are valued together for their interrelationship meaning or association. Examples may include, but are not limited to, heritage conservation districts designated under the Ontario Heritage Act; villages, parks, gardens, battlefields, mainstreets and neighbourhoods, cemeteries, trailways, viewsheds, natural areas and industrial complexes of heritage significance, and areas recognized by federal or international designation authorities (e.g., a National Historic Site or District designation, or a UNESCO World Heritage Site). conserved means “the identification, protection, management and use of built heritage resources, cultural heritage landscapes and archaeological resources in a manner that ensures their cultural heritage value or interest is retained under the 2Ontario Ministry of Culture. Heritage Resources in the Land Use Planning Process, p 1. Page 152 of 338 Heritage Impact Assessment Page 7 15356 Yonge Street Town of Aurora, Ontario Wayne Morgan July 2017 Heritage Planner Ontario Heritage Act. This may be achieved by the implementation of recommendations set out in a conservation plan, archaeological assessment and/or heritage impact assessment. Mitigative measures and/or alternative development approaches can be included in these plans and assessments.” Policy 2.6.3 of the PPS deals with development adjacent to a protected heritage property: Planning authorities shall not permit development and site alteration on adjacent lands to protected heritage property except where the proposed development and site alteration has been evaluated and it has been demonstrated that the heritage attributes of the protected heritage property will be conserved. Each of the italicized terms has the following definition in the PPS: Development means “the creation of a new lot, a change in land use, or the construction of buildings and structures, requiring approval under the Planning Act”; Site alteration means activities, such as grading, excavation and the placement of fill that would change the landform and natural vegetative characteristics of a site; Adjacent lands means “for the purposes of policy 2.6.3, those lands contiguous to a protected heritage property or as otherwise defined in the municipal official plan”; Protected heritage property means “property designated under Part IV, V or VI of the Ontario Heritage Act; property subject to a heritage conservation easement under Parts II or IV of the Ontario Heritage Act; property identified by the Province and prescribed public bodies as provincial heritage property under the Standards and Guidelines for Conservation of Provincial Heritage Properties; property protected under federal legislation, and UNESCO World Heritage Sites ”. Heritage attributes means “the principal features or elements that contribute to a protected heritage property’s cultural heritage value or interest, and many included the property’s built or manufactured elements, as well as natural landforms, vegetation, water features, and its visual setting (including significant views or vistas to or from a protected heritage property)”; and Conserved is defined above. 3.2 Ontario Heritage Act (OHA) Parts IV (individual properties) and V (heritage conservation districts) of the Act enables a municipality to list and designate properties and areas of cultural value or interest after consultation with its heritage advisory committee, if one is appointed. Section 27 of the Act requires the municipal clerk to keep a register of properties of cultural heritage value or interest. Subsection 27.1 of the Act allows municipal councils to include properties of cultural Page 153 of 338 Heritage Impact Assessment Page 8 15356 Yonge Street Town of Aurora, Ontario Wayne Morgan July 2017 Heritage Planner heritage value that have not been designated (listed properties) on the register after the council has consulted with its heritage advisory committee. The Provincial Government has established criteria for determining the cultural heritage value or interest of properties under Part IV of the Act through Regulation 9/06 (Appendix K). Once a property is designated, demolition or alterations that may affect the heritage attributes may not occur without municipal council approval. Heritage conservation districts have plans that provide guidance to municipal councils and property owners on alterations, demolitions and new construction within the district. An owner may appeal Council’s decision on an application to alter or demolish to the Ontario Municipal Board. 3.3 Places to Grow – Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe In 2006, the Provincial Government approved the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe and subsequently amended it in 2013. The Growth Plan is the Government’s framework for development and the management of growth in the area to 2041. The subject site is shown as ‘Built-Up Area - Conceptual’ on Schedule 2, Places to Grow Concept. For this Area, the Plan ‘envisages increasing intensification of the existing built-up area, with a focus on urban growth centres, intensification corridors, major transit station areas, brownfield sites and greyfields.’ The Plan directs a significant portion of new growth to the built up area through intensification. Specifically, a minimum of 40% of new residential growth is required to be through intensification in the built up area. Under the new Growth Plan, this minimum requirement will increase to 50% before 2031 and 60% thereafter. Municipalities are to include policies in their official plans to support these Growth Plan policies (Section 2.2.2, policy 1 a). The Growth Plan also requires that municipalities develop and implement official plan policies and other strategies in support of cultural heritage conservation (Section 4.2.4, policy e). 3.4 York Region Official Plan The Official Plan of the Regional Municipality of York (ROP) was adopted by Regional Council on December 16, 2009 and approved by the Minister with modifications. The ROP has been appealed in part to the OMB. Parts of the Plan have been approved by the OMB. The Plan has also been amended in part by Regional Council since 2009. The consolidated ROP with OMB approvals up to and including April, 2016 has been reviewed for this report. Section 3.4 of the Regional Plan provides the following relevant cultural heritage policies: 3. To require local municipalities to adopt official plan policies to conserve significant cultural heritage resources. Page 154 of 338 Heritage Impact Assessment Page 9 15356 Yonge Street Town of Aurora, Ontario Wayne Morgan July 2017 Heritage Planner 11. To require local municipalities to adopt official plan policies to conserve significant cultural heritage resources and ensure that development and site alteration on adjacent properties will conserve the heritage attributes of that property. With respect to policy 3, the Aurora Offical Plan contains policies for the conservation of significant cultural heritage resource. With respect to policy 14, the Aurora Official Plan has policies dealing with the conservation of heritage resources which are discussed below. In addition, this report considers the impact of the proposed development on adjacent heritage resources. In the Regional Plan, the subject property is designated ‘Urban Area’ on the east and ‘Regional Greenlands System’ on the west on the Regional Structure Map (Appendix M). There are no additional policies in these land use designations regarding the conservation of cultural heritage resources. 3.5 Aurora Official Plan and Zoning By-law The Official Plan (OP) for the Town of Aurora was adopted in September 2010 and revised in 2015. The most recent version of the OP on the Town’s website was reviewed for this report. In the OP, the heritage objectives and policies are contained in Chapter 13, Conserving Cultural Heritage Resources. OP heritage objectives relevant to this project are: a. Conserve and enhance recognized cultural heritage resources of the town for the enjoyment of existing and future generations; b. Preserve, restore and rehabilitate structures, buildings or sites deemed to have significant historic, archaeological, architectural or cultural significance and, preserve cultural heritage landscapes, including significant public view; and c. Promote public awareness of Aurora’s cultural heritage and involve the public in heritage resource decision affecting the municipality. Cultural heritage conservation policies of the Aurora OP relevant to this project are: Policy 13.2 b): The Town may use the power and tools provided by the enabling legislation, policies and programs … [which] include but not be limited to the following: i. The power to stope demolition and/or alterations of designated heritage properties … as set out in Section 13.3 … Page 155 of 338 Heritage Impact Assessment Page 10 15356 Yonge Street Town of Aurora, Ontario Wayne Morgan July 2017 Heritage Planner ii. The power to require a Heritage Impact Assessment and Restoration/Conservation Plan for development proposals and other land use planning proposal that may potentially affect a designated or significant heritage resources or heritage Conservation District; iii. Using zoning by-law provision to protect heritage resources by regulating such matters as use, massing, for, design, location and setbacks; iv. Using the site plan control by-law to ensure that new development is compatible with heritage resources; Policy 13.2 c): The Town’s by-laws, regulations and standards shall be sensitive to the Town’s heritage resources and may permit non-standard solutions in order to support the Town’s objectives for heritage preservation. Specific measures may include, but are not limited to reduced lot sizes, reduced setbacks and alternative parking requirements. Policy 13.2 d): The Town shall acquire heritage easements, and enter into development agreements, as appropriate, for the preservation of heritage resources and cultural heritage landscapes. Policy 13.2 f): Financial securities from the owner may be required as part of the conditions of site plan or other development approvals to ensure the retention and protection of heritage properties during and after the development process. Policy 13.2 o): Impact on the significant heritage elements of designated and other heritage resources shall be avoided through the requirements of the Town’s sign permit application system and the heritage permit under the Ontario Heritage Act. Policy 13.2 r): Alterations made to a designated heritage property shall comply with the Town of aurora Accessibility Technical Standards except where such alterations are deemed to alter the essential nature or substantially affect the viability of the enterprise, as allowed for under the Ontario Human Rights codes, or affect the defining heritage attributes. Policy 13.3 i): Heritage resources will be protected and conserved in accordance with the Standards and Guidelines for the Conservation of Historic Places in Canada, Page 156 of 338 Heritage Impact Assessment Page 11 15356 Yonge Street Town of Aurora, Ontario Wayne Morgan July 2017 Heritage Planner … Protection, maintenance and stabilization of existing cultural heritage attributes and features over removal or replacement will be adopted as the core principles for all conservation projects. Policy 13.3 j) Alteration, removal or demolition of heritage attributes on designated heritage properties will be avoided. Any proposal involving such works will require a heritage permit application to be submitted … Policy 13.3 k) Council may require that a heritage impact assessment be prepared by a qualified professional to the satisfaction of the Town for … any development proposal .. involving or adjacent to a designated heritage resource to demonstrate that the heritage property and its heritage attributes are not adversely affect. Mitigation measures and/or alternative development approaches shall be required .. to ameliorate any potential adverse impacts that may be cause to the designated heritage resources and their heritage attributes. Policy 13.5 Policies for Heritage Conservation Districts a) Existing Designated Heritage Conservation Districts are shown on Schedule ‘D’. Within these Districts, all applications and all permits shall be reviewed in accordance with the approved District Plan and in accordance with Section 13.5m of this Plan. m) In reviewing all application and all permits the Town shall be guided by the applicable Heritage Conservation District Plan and the following guiding principles: i. Heritage buildings … including their environs should be protected from any adverse effects of the proposed alterations, works or development; ii. Original building fabric and architectural features should be retained and repaired; iii. New additions and features should generally be lower than the existing building and be placed to the rear of the building or set-back substantially from the principal façade; and iv. New construction and/or infilling should fit harmoniously with the immediate physical context and streetscape and be consistent with the existing heritage architecture by among other things, being generally of the same height, width, mass, bulk and disposition; of similar setback; of like materials and colours, and using similarly proportioned windows, doors and roof shape. Page 157 of 338 Heritage Impact Assessment Page 12 15356 Yonge Street Town of Aurora, Ontario Wayne Morgan July 2017 Heritage Planner In the Aurora OP, the majority of the subject site is designated “The Aurora Promenade”, while the rear portion is designated “Private Parkland” (Appendix M). The designation “The Aurora Promenade” is the secondary plan area for downtown Aurora. Relevant objectives of this designation are: i. Distinct Heritage and Culture - to build on the distinct heritage and culture of the area, to conserve and protect the neighbourhoods, streetscapes and significant buildings; ii. Vibrant Places - Create a mixed use urban environment; and vii. Great Design and Architecture – “new development must ‘fit’ in and enhance the character, quality and appeal” of the area. Aurora OP Schedule B1 designates the front of the subject property ‘Downtown Shoulder’ and the rear ‘Promenade General’ (Appendix M). The former designation is predominantly residential with a potential for infill development sensitive to heritage resources and adjacent neighbourhoods. The minimum and maximum building heights are two and five storeys (Schedule B2), while the maximum lot coverage is 80%. In the ‘Promenade General’ designation new development is to be mostly residential. The same building heights apply, while the maximum lot coverage is 90%. Aurora OP policy 11.9 a) permits the use of density and height incentives to achieve, among other matters, heritage preservation. The Town’s Zoning By-law 2213-78 as amended3, zones most of the subject property Row Dwelling Residential (R6-65) Exception permitting the Knowles /Readman House and five row houses to the rear (Appendix M). The balance of the property is zoned Environment Protection and Environmental Protection (EP-17) Exception permitting private open space uses. The Zoning By-law does not have any additional heritage requirements. The applicant will be seeking an amendment to the Zoning By-law to permit the proposed development. 3.6 Northeast Old Aurora Heritage Conservation District Plan On November 9, 2006, the OMB approved the Heritage Conservation District boundaries (Appendix M) and the District plan for Northeast Old Aurora. The subject property is in the District and is recognized on page 121 as having ‘Very high heritage value – to be preserved’. Policy 9.5.3.5 refers to the high value heritage properties in the Yonge Street Corridor, which includes the subject property. The plan require conservation of the existing buildings and new construction to the rear and architecturally sympathetic to the heritage buildings. It further states “The plan does not preclude the future consideration by the Town of alternate types of development for the property at 15356 Yonge Street which incorporates the heritage building.”4 3.7 Standards and Guidelines for the Conservation of Historic Places in Canada 3 Aurora By-law Number 5173-09. 4 Carter, 123. Page 158 of 338 Heritage Impact Assessment Page 13 15356 Yonge Street Town of Aurora, Ontario Wayne Morgan July 2017 Heritage Planner Parks Canada produced a set of standards and guidelines for the conservation of historic places in Canada (the Standards) in 2005 with revisions in 2010. The Standards identify best practices in the management of heritage resources which include buildings, landscapes and archaeological sites. The approach taken in developing the Standards has been informed by international charters for the conservation of heritage resources developed under the auspices of ICOMOS, the international council on historic sites and monuments, a body of heritage professionals which advises the United Nations Educational and Scientific Committee. In general the Standard seek to: x preserve the heritage attributes of the historic places; x ensure that restoration work is consistent with documentary evidence; x ensure that alterations are reversible and do not create a false sense of history; and x ensure that additions to a heritage place are distinguishable from the heritage character of the place, yet sympathetic to that character. The Town has adopted the Standards as policy through its OP (policy 13.3i, quoted above). 3.8 Municipal Heritage Status - Subject Property and Adjacent Heritage Properties The subject property listed on the Aurora Heritage Register as per section 27 of the Ontario Heritage Act (OHA). It is designated under Part V of the OHA as part of the Northeast Old Aurora Heritage Conservation District. The subject property is not designated individually under Part IV of the OHA. The heritage status of adjacent heritage properties is shown in Table 3.1. All three properties are designated as part of the Northeast Old Aurora Heritage Conservation District. In addition, 15342 and 15373 Yonge Street are designated individually under the OHA and included in the Canadian Register of Historic Places. Hillary House (15372 Yonge Street) has also been identified by the National Historic Sites and Monuments Board as a National Historic Site. Table 3.1 Heritage Status of Adjacent or Abutting Heritage Properties No. Street Address On Municipal Heritage Register Designated under Part IV OHA Designated under Part V OHA 1 15342 Yonge Street Yes Yes - By-law No. 2891-87 Yes 2 15347 Yonge Street Yes No Yes 3 15372 Yonge Street Yes Yes – 1982 designation By- law Yes Page 159 of 338 Heritage Impact Assessment Page 14 15356 Yonge Street Town of Aurora, Ontario Wayne Morgan July 2017 Heritage Planner 4.0 HISTORICAL SUMMARY In 1783, the chiefs of the Mississauga Indians agreed to sell the British government a tract of land stretching from Cataraqui near Kingston to the Etobicoke Creek along the north shore of Lake Ontario. As this purchase was improperly drawn up, in 1787 the Crown bought from the Mississaugas, the Toronto Purchase. This land acquisition was further clarified in a confirmatory treaty in an 1805 meeting with the Mississaugas5 and finally settled in 1923 with the signing of the Williams Treaty. Lands forming part of King Township (now part of Aurora) were part of that acquisition. King Township, named after Major John King, an English Under-Secretary of State from 1794 to 1801 for the Home Department in the Portland Administration6, was established as an administrative unit within the Home District and became a municipality in 1849. In 1851, the Home District was divided into York, Peel and Ontario counties with King in York County.7 In 1863 portions of the Townships of King and Whitchurch forming the settlement of Aurora separated from those Townships to create the Village of Aurora. In 1888, Aurora was incorporated as a Town. In 1971 the Regional Municipality of York was created from the then County of York and the subject lands was included in the new Town of Aurora. Aurora is bounded on the south by the Town of Richmond Hill, on the west by King Township, on the north by the Town of Newmarket and on the east by the Town of Whitchurch-Stouffville. In 1794, Augustus Jones was instructed by Lieutenant-Governor John Graves Simcoe to layout Yonge Street, as a military road to provide access, via Lake Simcoe, to Georgina Bay. Also in 1794, Abraham Iredell laid out lots on either side Yonge Street, including King Township, with the numbering of the lots starting with one at what is now Eglinton Avenue in Toronto. In Aurora, these lots start at number 71 with the subject lands in lot 81. In 1800, John Stegman surveyed the rest of King Township, with the lots abutting Yonge Street being the base for the concessions which numbered to the west of this base. The township, including the lots on Yonge Street, was laid out in the ‘Single Front System’: … two systems emerge as the basic methods of land survey from 1783 to 1829, the Single Front and Double Front systems. In the former system, the township was to be six miles square, seven concession deep and 25 lots wide. The side of the lots varied, with 120 and 200 acres the common sizes. The shape was long and narrow, 19 x 63 chains (approximately) for the small lot, 19 x 105 chains (approximately) for the larger. The system resulted in a settlement pattern consisting of single rows of farmsteads along the concession line road. Intensity of land use decreased to the back of the concession where woodlands persisted. As settlement matured many of the 200 acre lots in these townships were divided by boundaries parallel to the concession line. The result of the wide split was a new settlement patterns with houses now appearing in double rows.8 5 Champion, 5. 6 Widipedia, King Township 7 Dean, plate 98. 8 Gentilcore, 7 - 8 Page 160 of 338 Heritage Impact Assessment Page 15 15356 Yonge Street Town of Aurora, Ontario Wayne Morgan July 2017 Heritage Planner This survey system imposed a settlement grid system on the land that persists to this day. The resulting 200 acre Township lots, including those lots fronting on Yonge Street, were rectangular in shape. The subject lands are identified relative to this grid system as part of the east half of Lots 81, Concession 1 WYS (West Yonge Street). Selections from the Registry Office’s abstract index to deeds and mortgages for the development site are contained in Appendix J. 4.1 Development of the Area The Larger Geographic Area and King Township The opening of the area to early settlement was facilitated by the survey of Yonge Street and land in the adjacent townships in 1800 and earlier. Although the subject land is located in an area north of the Oak Ridges moraine, the land was so fertile that it stimulated early settlement. Chapman and Putnam, in their discussion of physiographic regions of southern Ontario, have alluded to this in their discussion of development of the area up to the 1960s. Being associated with well-drained upland soils of drumlinized areas, such as the Bondhead series, and being fairly easily accessible to colonization routes from York, these clay plains were well settled and thoroughly cleared during the first half of the nineteenth century. Little forest cover remains except in the wettest places. Mixed farming was the rule with a dominance of grain in the cropping program. … With the extension of paved roads these areas come with the range of the Toronto milk shed and some of the farms became fluid milk suppliers9. Yonge Street had the dual purpose of developing the adjacent new Townships (King and Whitchurch in this area) and serving as a military road. Initial clearling of parts of Yonge Street was undertaken in 1795 by the Queen’s Rangers. Subsequent clearing and maintenace of Yonge Street would have been the responsibility of adjacent land owners. As a result, the Government’s priority was to accelerate continuous settlement along Yonge Street. Therefore, lands intended as Crown and Clergy Reserves along Yonge Street were dispersed throughout the inner concessions of King and Whitchurch Townships so that settlement along Yonge Street was continuous. Lots bordering the Street were the amongst the earliest granted. As well, settlement duties were shortened to twelve months from the usual two years. In a 1792 proclamation, Figure 4.1, the Governor of Upper Canada, John Graves Simcoe, offered free land grants, subject to settlement conditions, along Yonge Street. 9 Chapman and Putnam, pp 298 – 299. Page 161 of 338 Heritage Impact Assessment Page 16 15356 Yonge Street Town of Aurora, Ontario Wayne Morgan July 2017 Heritage Planner Gillam has disccussed the early settlement of King Township: In 1800, when the township was first surveyed, there were twenty residents. In 1809, according to available recores, the popuation hasw increase to 160 … The first part of the township to be settled was along Yonge Street, subsequently setttlement pushed westward towards Kettleby and Lloydtown. … Settlement had to await the improvement of roads, particularly of Yonge Street. In August 1825, Lewis Rapp advertised in the Gazette and Weekly Register that he had begun to operate a light covered wagon for the accommodation of travellers on a twice –weekly service between York and Holland Landing. In 1828, the Yonge Street stage was initiated, and by 1833 daily serivce was provided. Finally, by the late eitheen-forties, Yonge Street wasmacadamized or stoned as far as Holland Landing. The first permanent settlement in King Township was established in the beginning of the nineteenth century at Armitage, on the west side of Yonge Street, southwest of the town of Newmarket, whose boudnaries have now been expanded to include it.10 10 Gillham, pp. 1 -5. Figure No. 4.2 Yonge Street, looking north to Aurora from Hutchinson’s Hill, near Vandorf Sideroad [Source, McIntyre, 8]. Figure No. 4.1 Yonge Street Proclamation, 1798. Page 162 of 338 Heritage Impact Assessment Page 17 15356 Yonge Street Town of Aurora, Ontario Wayne Morgan July 2017 Heritage Planner Smith’s Canadian Gazetteer describes King Township in 1846 as: An old settled township, and possesses some fine farms; but a portion of the township is hilly and broken, the timber being hemlock intermingled with hardwood. … King is settled by a mixed population, consisting principally of Irish, with a few English, Scotch, Candians and Americans. … There are eight grist and twelve saw mills in the township. Population in 1842, 2625.11 The community of Aurora was not mentioned in Smith’s 1846 gazetteer. On May 16, 1853, Ontario’s first railway, the Ontario, Simcoe and Huron (later Grand Trunk) Railway, connected Aurora, then called Matchell’s Corners, with Toronto. The railway route came north from Toronto through King City and then verred east to Aurora, crossing Yonge Street at Vandorf Sidroad. The station was at Wellington Street, east of Yonge Street. The railway was later extended to Newmarket and then Collingwood. It provided ready access to Toronto for area residents and farm produce and stimulated development in the village of Aurora. 11 Smith, pp. 90 – 91.. Figure No. 4.3 Nathaniel Gamble’s Inn at Armitage, c 1910 [Source: Gilllham, 7.] Figure No. 4.4 The Radial Railway crossing the Grand Trunk Railway near Vandorf Sideroad [Source, Stamp, 25]. Page 163 of 338 Heritage Impact Assessment Page 18 15356 Yonge Street Town of Aurora, Ontario Wayne Morgan July 2017 Heritage Planner In 1899, a second rail line, the Toronto and York Radial Railway (the Metropolitan), was extended through the area on Yonge Street from Richmond Hill to Aurora and north to Newmarket and Lake Simcoe. This provided additional accessibility to the Toronto area for passengers and freight. This rail line passed in front of the subject site on the east side of Yonge Street. Town of Aurora The town of Aurora had its origin as a small cross-roads settlement (Yonge and Wellington Streets) until the arrival of the railway in 1853. The town grew quickly, with new hotels springing up along Wellington Street East near the station and new industries being created by the transportation facilities. In 1859 the Aurora Agricultural Works opened its foundry on Wellington Street West, providing employment for much of Aurora’s populace for over three- quarters of a century. … Other businesses, many associated with the foundry, opened over the next few years. Millers, carriage makers, a rope walk, … a brewery, a cooperage, and potash works were all operating within a few years of the coming of rail transportation. … In 1856 the Mechanics Institute was founded and soon opened a library for the use of the public. Education was organized circa 1822, and about 1840 the first school opened on the west side of Yonge Street. … the Methodist built their new frame church in 1855 … In 1857 a brick school was built on the north side of Figure No. 4.5 Yonge Street in Aurora, looking north, circa 1870. [Source, McIntyre, 14]. Page 164 of 338 Heritage Impact Assessment Page 19 15356 Yonge Street Town of Aurora, Ontario Wayne Morgan July 2017 Heritage Planner Church Street … The first Anglican church was built in 1846 … The town also boasted a Temperance Hall and a Rising Sun Masonic Hall. In 1863 the village had been growing steadily for a decade, and the decision was made to incorporate to allow the village to elect its own municipal council and separate it from both the township of Whitchurch and King.12 After 1870, progress [in Aurora] was slower as fewer businesses opened up and by 1880 some of the small factories had closed. The population increased at a slow rate during the 1880’s with the census of 1891 establishing the population of Aurora at 1,743. … As it became more difficult to find housing in Toronto, Aurora along with other centres in the Region, experience another period of rapid growth, its population increasing from 5,000 to 11,000 during the 1960s.13 As shown in Figure 4.6, Aurora grew slowly into the 1950s. With the provision of large scale sewerage services, the construction of Highway 404 on the east boundary of Aurora and GO train service, development in Aurora during the last thirty years has accelerated. 12 Whitchurch History Book Committee, pp. 41 - 43. 13 Regional Municipality of York, Historical Development, p. 10. Figure No. 4.6 Historical Development of Aurora to 1971 [Source, Regional Municipality of York, Historical Development, insert]. Subject Site Page 165 of 338 Heritage Impact Assessment Page 20 15356 Yonge Street Town of Aurora, Ontario Wayne Morgan July 2017 Heritage Planner 4.2 The Subject Property Table 4.1 HISTORICAL TIMELINES – Knowles / Readman House, 15356 Yonge St Key Date Historical Event 1794 Yonge Street and adjacent township lots surveyed 1797 Grant of land (210 acres) by Crown to Thomas Phillips 1803 Sale of land (210 acres) to Thomas Hind & then Jacob Hollingshead 1853 Sale of 140 acres from Hollingshead to Robert P. Irwin 1874 Sales of ½ acre on Yonge Street from Irwin to Rachel Butcher ($325) 1906 Sales of ½ acre on Yonge Street from Butcher to James Knowles 1907 Estimated construction of House by James Knowles 1913 Sale of ½ acre on Yonge Street from Knowles to Hugh Wright 1919 Sale of ½ acre on Yonge Street from Wright to W’m J Buchanan 1920 Sale of ½ acre on Yonge Street from Buchanan to John A Readman 1924 John Readman and his wife move from Vaughan to the Aurora House 1951 Sale from Readman estate to Gwendolyn McArthur 1962 Sale from McArthur to W’m & Mabel Dakin 1972 Sale from Dakin to Richard & Marg Holder 1981 Sale from Holder to numbered Ontario company In 1797, the patent for all 210 acres of Lot 81 was conveyed by the Crown to Thomas Phillips14. Little information could be found about Phillips. In acquiring the patent to the land he would have had to have fulfilled, or have someone fulfill the settlement duties (Figure 4.1), which included constructing a dwelling measuring at least 16 feet by 20 feet. In 1803 Phillips conveyed ownership of Lot 81 by deed poll to Thomas Hind, an owner of a large amount of land in the area15. Hind immediately conveyed ownership of all 210 acres to Jacob Hollingshead16. Hollingshead (1776 – 1845), an American immigrant who was married to Mary Haines, was listed in the 1809 King Township roll of inhabitants as having 4 male and 3 female children. Over the succeeding years Hollingshead, in addition to being a farmer, was listed as an assessor and then overseer of roads. Both Walton’s 1837 Directory and Brown’s 1846 – 47 Directory list Hollingshead living on the subject property. 14 Land Records, York Region, Lot 13, Plan No. 246, Aurora, Patent. 15 Land Records, York Region, Lot 13, Plan No. 246, Aurora, Instrument No. 337. 16 Ibid, Instrument No. 339. Page 166 of 338 Heritage Impact Assessment Page 21 15356 Yonge Street Town of Aurora, Ontario Wayne Morgan July 2017 Heritage Planner With the death of Jacob Hollingshead in 1845, the farm was leased to others17. In 1853, the estate of Jacob Hollingshead sold 140 acres of the original 210 acres to Robert P. Irwin18, a miller. Tremaine’s 1860 York County map (Appendix C) shows Irwin owning the 140 acres. Although some buildings are shown on the Yonge Street portion of the property, Tremaine was not consistent in depicting houses on his maps. The 1861 Census does not show Robert Irwin living on Lot 81 Concession 1 WYS or elsewhere in King Township. In 1863, part of Lot 81, Concession 1 WYS, including the subject property, was incorporated into the Village of Aurora. In 1874, from his 140 acre property, Robert Irwin sold a one half acre lot fronting on Yonge Street, the subject property, to Rachel Butcher19. The price for the lot was only $325 suggesting that, despite houses built on adjacent lots, the subject property was vacant. The 1878 map of Aurora (Appendix C) does not show any development on the property, although it only depicts non-residential structures. In 1906, Rachel Butcher sold the subject property to James Knowles20. The sale price, $425, suggests the subject property was still vacant. James Albert Knowles was born in Aurora in September 186721 to George and Sarah Knowles. On November 28, 1888 James married Annie McKinnon of Markham. They had one son, Albert Edward Knowles, born in 1901. They were members of the Methodist, later United, Church of Aurora. In the 1911 Census he was identified as a mason, although, in other sources, he was listed as a builder and a furniture and clock maker. He has been identified as a builder of houses in Aurora and probably built the Knowles / Readman House. The name of Aurora builder James Knowles is linked to many of these sturdy houses which may be found not only on Wellington Street, but on Catherine Avenue, Fleury Street, Wells Street, Kennedy Street West and here and there in other parts of town as well.22 Knowles served on the Aurora municipal council from 1922 to 1939 as a councillor and reeve. He died on April 22, 1949 and is buried with his wife in the Aurora cemetery. His obituary from the Newmarket Era and Express is reproduced in Figure 4.7. 17 1851 Census of Canada (agriculture), King Township, Schedule A, EA No.2, p. 207, line 45. 18 Land Records, York Region, Lot 13, Plan No. 246, Aurora, Instrument No. 50729. 19 Ibid, Instrument No. 597. 20 Ibid, Instrument No. 3578. 21 According to the 1911 Census. His tombstone lists the birth date as September 27, 1866. 22 McIntyre, 39. Page 167 of 338 Heritage Impact Assessment Page 22 15356 Yonge Street Town of Aurora, Ontario Wayne Morgan July 2017 Heritage Planner The Knowles / Readman House was probably constructed in 1907. Building permits records from this era do not exist and the Aurora Banner did not report construction of the House. However, the September 20, 1907 edition of the Banner reported: Mr. Robert Bret who recently purchased Mr. James Knowles residence on Yonge Street is having the residence brickclad besides several other improvements to the property. This suggests that James Knowles’ new house at 15356 Yonge Street had been finished and he had moved from his old house, also on Yonge Street, into his new house. The 1910 Aurora Assessment Roll values the subject property as $300 and the building as $1,500. No earlier Assessment Rolls were found. The 1904 Fire Insurance Plan was revised in 1913 and includes a depiction of the House (Appendix C – 1913). The 1911 Census lists James A. Knowles living in a residence on Yonge Street immediately following the entry for Charles Figure No. 4.7 Obituary - James Albert Knowles [Source: Newmarket Era and Express, April 28, 1949.] Figure No. 4.8 The Knowles / Readman House, c1920 [Source: Aurora Heritage Committee] Page 168 of 338 Heritage Impact Assessment Page 23 15356 Yonge Street Town of Aurora, Ontario Wayne Morgan July 2017 Heritage Planner Webster who owned Horton Hall23. Finally, the front porch of the House appears in a 1913 photograph of the Aurora Tennis Club taken from Hillary House (Appendix I) In 1913, Knowles sold the subject property to Hugh W. Wright for $3,895.24 Wright was also a mason. In 1919, Wright sold the property to William J. Buchanan25, who in 1920, sold it to John W. Readman26, a farmer from Vaughan Township. Readman (1861 to 1934) was married to Catherine Hall (1864 to 1950). They had one son who died when just a child. They adopted two boys, Louis and William Marwood. Although Readman acquired the property in 1920, he did not move to Aurora until he retired from his Vaughan farm in 192427. In the interim the property was leased to others. Although he died in 1934 and is buried in the King City cemetery, the property continued to be owned by his estate and was the residence of his wife until her death in 1950. The 1927 Fire insurance plan of the property (Appendix C – 1927) shows no change in the footprint of the house following purchase and occupation by the Readmans. The 1929 topographic (Appendix C) shows the Knowles / Readman House as part of in a row of four houses on the west side of Yonge Street north of Irwin Avenue. In 1933 the Town of Aurora engaged the surveyors W. S. Gibson and Son to prepare a land survey of part of the Town. The survey was registered as Plan 246 and the subject property, excluding parts to the north and south, was identified as Lot 13 (Appendix A). A 1946 aerial photograph of the property (Appendix D) shows the House and property within that context. The Yonge Street frontage of the properties north of Irwin Avenue on the west 23 1911 Census of Canada, Aurora, Schedule 1, Enumeration Area – North Ward, page 39. 24 Land Records, York Region, Lot 13, Plan No. 246, Aurora, Instrument No. 4784. 25 Ibid, Instrument No. 4787. 26 Ibid, Instrument No. 5721. 27 Letter, Aurora Archives, Readman family file; obituary Catherine Readman, Aurora Banner, November 30, 1950. Figure No. 4.9 John W. and Catherine Readman Date unknown [Source: Brydon website.] Page 169 of 338 Heritage Impact Assessment Page 24 15356 Yonge Street Town of Aurora, Ontario Wayne Morgan July 2017 Heritage Planner side of Yonge Street was heavily forested while the rear of those properties generally lacked trees, although the rear of the subject property had trees. Although the aerial photo lacks clarity when enlarged to show fine grained details on the subject property, the House, front walkway, garage, large trees and plantings defining the boundary are discernable. Much of the rear of the property was open, possibly being used as a vegetable garden. In 1950 Catherine Readman died and ownership of the property was transferred to Gwendolyn McArthur28. McArthur held the property until 1962 when she sold it to William and Mary Dakin29. A 1970 aerial photograph shows that the one storey tail wing had been altered creating a tail wing that extended across almost the full width of the House30. The Dakins held the property for ten years, selling it to Richard and Marg Holder in 197231. A 1978 aerial photograph of the property (Appendix D) shows little change since 1946 except that the rear portion of the property appears to be grassed and not used as a garden. In 1981, the Holders sold the property to a numbered Ontario company32. In 1982 the Aurora Heritage Committee prepared a heritage property report on 15356 Yonge Street when it was noted that the House had been divided into two several residential units. Between 2005 and 2009 the garage was demolished. A 2015 aerial photograph (Appendix D) shows little change since the 1978 aerial photograph except for the previously noted demolition of the garage. As of the June 22 2016 site visit, the House was vacant and boarded up. 28 Land Records, York Region, Lot 13, Plan 246, Aurora, Instrument No 10584. 29 Ibid, Instrument No. 56572A. 30 https://ww6.yorkmaps.ca 31 Land Records, York Region, Lot 13, Plan 246, Aurora, Instrument No. 126079. 32 Ibid, Instrument No. 275212. Page 170 of 338 Heritage Impact Assessment Page 25 15356 Yonge Street Town of Aurora, Ontario Wayne Morgan July 2017 Heritage Planner 5.0 BUILT AND LANDSCAPE RESOURCE DESCRIPTIONS In June and July 2016, on-site surveys were conducted to examine and photograph all built and landscape resources on the subject property. The resources of this property are documented in photographs and sketch plans in: - Appendix E –House Exterior Photographs; - Appendix F - House Floor Plan Sketches; - Appendix G –House Interior Photographs; and - Appendix H - Landscape Photographs. Dimensions for the House were done on-site using imperial measurements which are con- temporary to its construction. The measuring stick in the photographs is scaled in one foot intervals. 5.1. Knowles / Readman House Exterior Dating the House –1907. The construction date for the House was evident based on visual and documentary information, the latter as detailed in section 4 of this report. However, information on the designer and builder of the House could not be found. Given that Knowles was a prominent Aurora house builder, it is likely he constructed this House. The historic photographs of the House, the oldest of which appear to date from the 1920s (Appendix I), provide a record of the evolution of the front of the House through time (as illustrated in Figure 5.1). Figure 5.1 Knowles / Readman House East Elevation circa 1982. Page 171 of 338 Heritage Impact Assessment Page 26 15356 Yonge Street Town of Aurora, Ontario Wayne Morgan July 2017 Heritage Planner Overview - The House, which faces east, is setback slightly above the Yonge Street grade approximately 8.14 metres (26.7 feet) from the west edge of the Yonge Street sidewalk. The House is a single detached, two and one-half storey, solid brick structure. The plan of the House is essentially rectangular, although a projection towards the rear of the north side gives a slight ‘L’ shape to the plan. The House has a wood clad, two storey tail wing. The brick part of the House rests on a poured concrete and concrete block foundation with the poured concrete below grade and the rock-faced blocks above grade. The tail wing appears to rest on poured concrete, although the exterior is parged and decorated to resemble blocks. The bricks, which measure 8½“x 23/8 “, are laid in stretcher bond. On all elevations, except most of the rear or west, the bricks are dark red; the rear bricks are gray. The tail wing is a clad in horizontal clapboard siding. The main section of the House is capped by a medium pitched, asphalt shingle clad, hip roof that projects beyond the walls of the structure. Two smaller gable roofs are on the front porch and the north projection. On the south side of the roof there is an off-centre, gable roofed dormer window. The broad, unadorned soffits are clad in modern synthetic materials. Below the soffits, there is a plain, narrow wood frieze. There is no evidence of brackets either currently or in historic photographs. The gable ends of the roof are clad in wood shingles and a decorative treatment in the gable peak. The north gable has a pair of small windows below the decorative treatment. The tail wing is capped by an asphalt shingle clad shed roof. Two red brick chimney stacks project above the roof; one on the south side west of the dormer window and the other at the rear of the brick section of the House. The typical window opening is rectangular with a flat head. The openings have flat concrete lintels and lug sills, the facing edges of which are moulded imitating sawn stone. Most window openings have been boarded. The front windows have had two sashes – a narrow upper sash above a much larger single glazed lower sash. A smaller window opening on the south elevation still contains its one over one sash (Appendix G – 13). Figure 5.2 Knowles / Readman House East and North Elevations 2016. Page 172 of 338 Heritage Impact Assessment Page 27 15356 Yonge Street Town of Aurora, Ontario Wayne Morgan July 2017 Heritage Planner East Elevation – This is the principal or front elevation of the House. It is a two bay façade, with a north door and south window on both the ground and upper floors. The door openings have concrete lintels, similar to those over the windows, wood thresholds and plain wood surrounds with moulded edges. The ground floor door is solid wood with three sections - an upper, four paned glazed section; a middle consisting of a line of three small square panels; and a lower with one large rectangular panel. The upper floor door opening contains a modern door. The prominent feature of this elevation is the two storey porch capped by a gable roof. The porch is supported by tapered, square, paneled posts resting on square, paneled concrete piers. On the upper floor the posts are supported by wood piers. Originally there was a triple set of posts and piers on the outer corners (Appendix I – c 1920 photographs) of both levels of the porch. The balustrade has carved balusters. On the upper floor, the balustrade encloses the porch, while on the lower floor, it is limited to the north and south sides. The rock-faced concrete block porch foundation is identical to the House foundation. This elevation contains a side entrance on the north side of the House. The side door is a simpler paneled version of the front door, although the large upper panel is glazed. There is a small porch for this entrance, although the balustrade and porch post are missing. North Elevation – Excluding the front porch, this elevation has three sections – the east brick section, the centre projecting section and the tail wing. The ground floor of the east section has a small rectangular window above a basement window and the porch roof for the side entrance. The centre section contains three centrally placed and aligned windows, one on each of the basement, ground and upper floors. The upper floor of this section has a modern door opening on the east side that opens onto a modern metal fire escape that extends onto the tail wing. All window openings on the east and centre sections have typical concrete lintels and sills. The tail wing has a ground floor window and a basement door towards the west end. The ground and upper floors of the tail wing are divided by a projecting band. West Elevation – This elevation contains the rear elevation of the tail wing and a small part of the brick section of the House. The tail wing, which is much larger than the original construction, has four rectangular window openings, two on the ground floor and two on the upper floor. The north ground floor window opening is a large glass sliding door. The brick section has a ground floor window opening which, based on evidence on the interior, has been reduced in size. South Elevation – This elevation, excluding the front porch, has two sections - the brick part of the House and the tail wing. The brick part has five windows – three aligned towards the west end of this section on the basement and ground and upper floors; another basement window towards the front and the dormer window on the roof. All window openings, except the dormer, have typical concrete lintels and sills. A former window opening above the front basement window has been infilled with brick. The tail wing has only one window opening – in the basement. Page 173 of 338 Heritage Impact Assessment Page 28 15356 Yonge Street Town of Aurora, Ontario Wayne Morgan July 2017 Heritage Planner Although over the years, the House has experienced a few exterior modifications, which are listed below, the structure, when viewed from the street, is largely as originally constructed. The exterior modifications include: - loss of porch posts and piers – four on the front porch and one on the side porch; - loss of the north, ground floor balustrade on the front and side porches; - replacement of a door on the upper floor of the east elevation with a modern door; - addition of the upper floor door on the north elevation; - addition of the metal fire escape on the north elevation; - enlargement of the tail wing including addition of an upper floor; - alteration of the window opening on the west elevation of the brick part of the House; - infilling of a window opening on the south elevation; and - the possible addition of the dormer window on the roof. The architectural style of this House is a vernacular variation of ‘Edwardian Classicism’ (1900 – 1930): The simplified but formal composition of the Edwardian house with an emphasis on Classical motifs was indicative of the new direction architecture was to take in the twentieth century. In contrast to the highly colouristic, complicated and often eclectic compositions of the late nineteenth century, Edwardian Classicism, through its balanced facades, simplified but large roofs, smooth brick surfaces and generous fenestration, restored simplicity and order to domestic architecture. … Generally, the Edwardian façade is highlighted by a frontispiece or portico imaginatively derived from Classical tradition set against a monochromatic smooth exterior brick finish. Tall chimneys are not decorated with enriched terra- cotta panels. Spindles and carved brackets of verandas are minimalized in favour of short colonettes and brick piers. Dormers remained popular, but their profile reflected the simplified shape of the main roof and gone are the profusion of finials and cresting from the ridges. The extended roof eaves are supported not by carved or turned brackets but by plain elongated blocks or cantilevered brackets similar to those used in the Regency and Italian Villa styles. Flat arches made with bricks standing on end or massive but plain stone lintels span apertures. At times, oversized, Classically inspired elements, such as keystone and voussoirs, accentuate window and door surrounds. Contrasting stone trim or dressings may also be used for watertable and string courses. Rather than wood panels, the entrance door often is a full-length panel of clear glass having beveled or cut pattern. When stained glass is employed, the designs are simpler and the colours lighter than Victorian examples.33 Another source on Ontario architectural styles describes Edwardian Classicism as: Edwardian 1900-1920 Simple, classical, balanced Edwardian style is a precursor to the simplified styles of the 20th century 33 Blumenson, p 166. Page 174 of 338 Heritage Impact Assessment Page 29 15356 Yonge Street Town of Aurora, Ontario Wayne Morgan July 2017 Heritage Planner Form: Straight lines, square or rectangular Storeys: 2+ Façade: Usually smooth brick with multiple windows Roof: Flat in public and apartment buildings, hip and gable in residences, heavy cornices Windows: Sash, paned, usually 1-over-1, plain stone lintels. Key stones and voussoirs on large buildings Entrance: Usually with classic detailing, keystones, door in portico or veranda34 This source also references the American ‘Four Square’ type of house within this style. The Knowles / Redman House has most of the characteristics referenced in the architectural style sources cited above although it does have some variations including the lack of brackets supporting the eaves and the use of concrete, rather than brick, lintels. In addition, as will be shown in the interior examination of the House, it is a ‘Four Square’ house. 5.2 Knowles / Readman House Interior Although most interior finishes have been stripped, room partitions and enough decorative wood elements remain to inform the original layout and interior design of the House. Ground Floor - Originally this floor consisted of four rooms of similar size (the ‘Four Square’ plan) plus the tail wing. Room 1 contains the hall and staircase. Much of the staircase remains although part of the newel post, railing and all spinals, except one, have 34 HPI Nomination Team, 18. Figure 5.3 Edwardian Classicism – Kingston example [Source: Blumenson, 167] Page 175 of 338 Heritage Impact Assessment Page 30 15356 Yonge Street Town of Aurora, Ontario Wayne Morgan July 2017 Heritage Planner been removed. The staircase window casing remains intact, but is different from casings elsewhere on the floor. Some of the front door casing remains; the base blocks of which are identical to those remaining in Room 2 suggesting the casing is original. Room 2, the parlour, retains baseboards identical to those in the hall. The exposed bricks on the south wall of Room 2 indicate removal of an earlier window. Between Rooms 2 and 3, two paneled pocket doors remain within wall partitions; the upper two panels were once glazed. Room 3, the dining room, contains baseboards identical to Rooms 1 and 2. The plain window casings remaining in this Room are the same as the front door, supporting the originality of both. Room 3 contains remains of a fireplace on the west wall; the mantel is not extant. In Room 4, the kitchen, there is little original material, other than wall partitions. A plugged stove pipe hole in the west wall supports the kitchen use. Room 4 was later partitioned to provide a bathroom. Room 5, the original one storey tail wing used as a pantry retains remains of a stove pipe on the west wall. The original tail wing cladding, wood ship-lap siding, appears in the north wall of Room 6, which a later addition. It is possible that ground floor mouldings of the House are a variation of those shown in Figure 5.4 with the addition of corner blocks at the base of all door casings and a different profile on the top part of the baseboard. The upper floor room configuration in the brick part of the House consists of 4 rooms, including a bathroom, although, unlike the ground floor, the rooms differ substantially in dimensions. Only Room 8 retains its original baseboards, which are shorter than the ground floor baseboards, suggesting that the other rooms may have been repartitioned from the original layout. The one room in the tail wing contains evidence of the gable roof of the original one storey tail wing. The east wall of Room 11, which was originally an exterior wall, also shows that most of the bricks on the west elevation were gray rather than red. Figure 5.4 York County Mouldings – 1910s – 1920s [Source: Duncan, 159] Page 176 of 338 Heritage Impact Assessment Page 31 15356 Yonge Street Town of Aurora, Ontario Wayne Morgan July 2017 Heritage Planner The attic room partitions are relatively recent and therefore were not documented. The roof framing is relatively simple with rafters nailed into a centre ridge board and collar-beams nailed to the rafters. The basement consists of three rooms in the brick part of the House and one in the tail wing. The foundation walls visible in the basement (Appendix G – Basement – 1 & 10) show the construction with the lower part being poured concrete and the upper part concrete block with a parged finish. The basement floor is poured concrete. The east wall of Room 15 contains the poured concrete base for the ground floor fire place. 5.3 Landscape Resources: There are four distinct landscape elements to the property illustrated in Figure 5.6, below and Appendix H: o Front Yard, including the lawn, walkway and driveway; o House; o Rear Yard; and o Back Yard to the rear lot line. Figure 5.5 Landscape Elements in 2015 of the Knowles / Readman property [Source: York Maps] Front yard Rear yard House Back yard Page 177 of 338 Heritage Impact Assessment Page 32 15356 Yonge Street Town of Aurora, Ontario Wayne Morgan July 2017 Heritage Planner Front Yard - The small Front Yard consists of a lawn, a concrete walkway between the front steps and the Yonge Street sidewalk, two Norway maples on either side of the walkway, the driveway, a line of overgrown cedar trees on the south property line, trees on the north property line, foundation plantings and concrete retaining walls on the Yonge Street frontage and along the south limit of the driveway. The retaining wall is necessary because the lawn is at a higher elevation than Yonge Street and the driveway is lower – at the Yonge Street elevation. Historic photographs of the front yard (Appendix I) show that: x there were no trees immediately in front of the House until the 1970s, x the cedars on the south property line were much lower, providing a visual connection between Horton Place and this House; x the foundation plantings were modest and are currently overgrown x there were posts on either side of the walkway at Yonge Street but no fencing along the Yonge Street frontage. House Area - This area includes the House, the driveway, walkways above the retaining wall, the concrete retaining wall between the House and driveway, trees along the north boundary and a small grassed side yard with overgrown cedar trees along the south boundary. The cast iron fencing on the retaining wall top next to the driveway appears in photographs only starting in 1982 suggesting that it is not original to the property. Rear Yard – This area, immediately to the rear of the House consists of trees on the north boundary, a lawn, driveway, site of the garage (now demolished) and a rubble stone retaining wall. The retaining wall provides for a relatively level surface adjacent to the House while dealing with the drop in grade to the rear of the House. Back Yard – This area consists of trees and shrubs along the north and south boundaries and an extensive grassed area. There is no evidence in the aerial photographs of a formal planting of gardens and trees, other than the boundary trees, in this area, although part of its may have been used as a vegetable garden for a period of time. The portion of the subject property south of the original property for 15356 Yonge Street and to the rear of the Horton Place (15342 Yonge Street) property is primarily wooded. Page 178 of 338 Heritage Impact Assessment Page 33 15356 Yonge Street Town of Aurora, Ontario Wayne Morgan July 2017 Heritage Planner 6.0 HERITAGE EVALUATION OF THE RESOURCES 6.1 Introduction Criteria for determining cultural heritage value or interest of a property are specified in Ontario Regulation 9/06 made under the Ontario Heritage Act (Appendix K). The criteria, which are intended to assist municipalities in evaluating properties for designation, are grouped into three broad categories – design or physical value, historical or associative value and contextual value. A property has to meet only one of the criteria to warrant designation. Additional criteria specific to Aurora have not been adopted by Town Council; therefore the provincial criteria were used in this evaluation. The criteria are insufficient in an impact assessment to determine the merits of heritage resource conservation. Other factors that should be considered include the resource condition – that is the extent of deterioration in the attributes and fabric of a resource – and its heritage integrity – that is the extent to which significant heritage attributes (character defining features) remain in place. 6.2 Application of Provincial Criteria In this report, the application of provincial criteria, in addition to consideration of condition and heritage integrity, are based on a thorough examination of the subject property. They have been applied to the House and its landscape. Table 6.1 summarizes the evaluation. 6.2.1 House Design or Physical Value: i. Example of a style, type, expression, material or construction The Knowles / Readman House is a representative and relatively early example of its architectural style and use of poured concrete, although it is not a rare or unique example this style, type, expression, material or construction method. The architectural style of the House – a vernacular example of the ‘Four Square’ subset of Edwardian Classicism - was common in the first quarter of 20th century in Ontario. Examples survive in Aurora and the Heritage District. Therefore this House is not a rare or unique example of the style. However it is a representative example incorporating many features of the style such as smooth monochromatic brick wall surfaces, a hip roof with extended eaves, tall unadorned chimneys, 1 over 1 window sash, flat arched window and door openings with plain lintels made of concrete imitating stone, entrance in a portico (porch), porch colonettes on concrete piers and contrasting concrete block imitating stone for the watertable. Page 179 of 338 Heritage Impact Assessment Page 34 15356 Yonge Street Town of Aurora, Ontario Wayne Morgan July 2017 Heritage Planner Table 6.1 Application of Heritage Criteria to the Resources of the Knowles / Readman Property, 15356 Yonge Street, Aurora Criteria Resource Knowles / Readman House Landscape Design or Physical Value i. Rare, unique, representative or early example of a style, type, expression, material or construction method. Yes No ii. Displays a high degree of craftsmanship or artistic merit. No No iii. Demonstrates a high technical or scientific achievement No No Historical or Associative Value i. Has direct association with a theme, event, belief, person, activity, organization or institution of community significance Yes No ii. Yields, or has the potential to yield, information that contributes to an understanding of a community or culture No No iii. Demonstrates or reflects the work or ideas of an architect, artist, builder, designer or theorist significant to a community Yes No Contextual Value i. Is important in defining, maintaining, or supporting the area character. Yes Yes ii. Is physically, functionally, visually or historically linked to its surroundings. Yes Yes iii. Is a landmark * No Condition / Heritage Integrity 3 i. Significant condition problems - No N/A i. Integrity – retains much of its original built heritage character - Yes – High (exterior) N/A N/A – Not Applicable; * - Marginal This architectural style existed from roughly 1900 to 193035. The House dates from 1907, relatively early in the period when it was popular. Brick, used extensively in Ontario since the early 19th century, is the predominant material used in the construction of the House walls. However the use of poured concrete in the foundation was relatively new at the time of construction36. This House is an early example of this material in residential construction in Ontario. 35 Blumenson 37 – 51. 36 McIlwraith, 96 – 99. Page 180 of 338 Heritage Impact Assessment Page 35 15356 Yonge Street Town of Aurora, Ontario Wayne Morgan July 2017 Heritage Planner ii Craftsmanship or Artistic Merit The House, on both the exterior and interior, does not display a high degree of craftsmanship or artistic merit. The exterior of the House does not display exceptional craftsmanship or artistic merit. It is an example of well-built House that any competent builder should construct, although its execution is not exceptional. iii. Technical or Scientific Achievement The House does not demonstrate high technical or scientific achievement. There is nothing about the exterior or interior of the House that exhibits high technical or scientific achievement. Historical or Associative Value: i. The House is associated with a theme and person of community significance. No event, belief, activity, organization or institution significant to the community could be identified in association with the House or property. However, the House is associated a theme – the transition of architecture styles in the area from the complicated mid and late Victorian tradition to the much simpler designs of the 20th century. The positioning of the House between a mid-Victorian house (Hillary House) and a late-Victorian house (Horton Place) reinforces the Knowles / Readman House’s association with this theme. The House was built in 1907 for James Albert Knowles and his family. Knowles was a prominent Aurora house builder who constructed many houses during this period. Knowles also served the community on the Aurora municipal council for seventeen years as a councillor and then reeve. . ii. Potential to yield information that contributes to an understanding of the community or culture The House does not have the potential to yield information that contributes to an understanding of the community or culture. The House does not have the potential to yield any additional information about the community and the culture of the period that isn’t documented in this report. Page 181 of 338 Heritage Impact Assessment Page 36 15356 Yonge Street Town of Aurora, Ontario Wayne Morgan July 2017 Heritage Planner iii. Association with an architect, artist, builder, designer or theorist significant to a community The House is associated with a builder significant to the Aurora. Although no architect, artist, designer or theorist could be identified for the House, its likely builder, James Knowles, was a prominent Aurora area house builder. Contextual Value i. Importance in defining, maintaining or supporting the area character The House is important in defining, maintaining or supporting the area character. The House is visible from the street and centred in a group of three residential structures with expansive front yards that define the area character. Its removal would adversely affect the area streetscape; therefore it meets this criteria. ii. Physically, functionally, visually or historically linked to its surroundings The House is physically, functionally, visually and historically linked to its surroundings. The House has important linkage characteristics to its surroundings. It has existed on this site since 1907 and is the first building constructed on the property since the lot was created in 1874. It is visually, part of a line of three prominent houses with expansive front yards. It contributes to the original residential function of the area and defined the original northern limit of Aurora urban area. iii. Landmark The House has marginal value as a landmark. Although the House does not terminate a view or vista nor does is serve as a reference point in the landscape, it has considerable visual presence on this part of Yonge Street, providing a prominent visual contrast with the adjacent to Victorian residences. For this reasons it is evaluated as having marginal landmark value. Condition / Heritage Integrity i. Condition Overall, the Knowles / Readman House is in good condition. The brick walls appear to be plumb, exhibiting no bowing or failure. The roof is intact and shows Page 182 of 338 Heritage Impact Assessment Page 37 15356 Yonge Street Town of Aurora, Ontario Wayne Morgan July 2017 Heritage Planner no signs of bowing or water leakage. The foundation is generally sound and the basement dry. However, there are some minor, repairable condition issues that do not detract from the conclusion that the House should be conserved. These minor condition issues include: x Water damage on the south side: Due to the exterior grade sloping to the House, water is draining into the south side of the building (Room 15 – south wall – photo 6) causing deterioration in the foundation. x Heaving of part of the basement floor: Parts of the concrete basement floor have cracked and heaved in Room 13 (photo 1). x Cracks in the brick walls: A crack in the brick work of the south wall extends from the basement window to the upper floor window. The crack may be stable or may be related to the on-going water damage discussed above. There is also a crack on the west brick wall above the fire escape. x Soffit deterioration: On the south elevation below the chimney and dormer window, part of the soffit is missing (visible in the photo of the west and south elevations, Appendix E). x Deterioration in the tail wing siding: Some of the siding on the upper floor of the tail wing, south and north elevations has fallen off or is in the process of falling off. x Mortar failure of the side porch concrete blocks: There is a loss of mortar between concrete blocks of the side porch foundation. As a result some of the blocks have shifted. x Loss of window glazing. There is extensive loss of window glazing. x Loss of porch balustrades and post. Some of the balustrade from the front and side porches is missing as is the corner post of the side porch. ii. Heritage Integrity The Knowles / Readman House has a moderately high level of heritage integrity on the exterior and a low level on the interior. a. Exterior Based on documentary evidence, much of the exterior of the House, excluding the tail wing, is intact from its original date of construction. The following alterations are noted: x Loss of porch posts. Originally the front porch, on both the ground and upper floors, had three corner posts. Only one of each three remains. The side porch had a single post which is missing although the pier for the post is on the ground. The remaining porch posts provide a template for any replacements. x Loss of and alteration to porch balustrade. When some of the porch posts were removed, the porch balustrades were lengthened. It cannot Page 183 of 338 Heritage Impact Assessment Page 38 15356 Yonge Street Town of Aurora, Ontario Wayne Morgan July 2017 Heritage Planner be determined whether the balusters on the ‘new’ balustrades are the same design as the originals. Several of the balustrades (front porch – ground floor, north side; side porch – north side) are missing. x Removal of south wall window. A ground floor window opening on the south wall of Room 2 has been bricked in. (Photo 8, Appendix G, Ground Floor and South elevation, Appendix E). Judging by the infill area, it was infilled early in the history of the House. x Loss of one chimney. The chimney from the original kitchen has been removed. It is visible in one of the c1920 photographs (Appendix I). x Modern upper floor front door. The upper floor front door, which opens onto the porch, was similar to the ground floor front door (1982 photograph, Appendix I). It has been replaced with a modern door. x Addition of dormer window. Based on the c1920 photographs, the dormer window is a later addition. x Enlargement of the tail wing. The former small, one storey tail wing was enlarged to extend across almost all of the west elevation and to include a second storey. Evidence of the original roof line and cladding remain on the interior b. Interior The interior has a low level of heritage integrity with all of the wall and ceiling finishes and most interior doors having been removed. However a sufficient number of door and window casings and baseboards remain to provide some indication of the character of the interior as originally constructed. 6.2.1 Landscape The front yard and side yards, while not a designed landscape, are important as a green space that permits views of the House from Yonge Street. These yards also strongly relate to the green spaces on the adjacent heritage properties to the north and south. This front and side yard condition, while currently overgrown, is a reminder the area’s early, large lot residential character. The rest of the landscape, immediately to the rear of the House and in the rear yard, does not have significant cultural heritage value. It does not appear to be a designed landscape of any significance and is not important in understanding or appreciating the House. 6.3 Overall Evaluation Summary It was determined through the application of Provincial criteria and consideration of heritage integrity and building condition that the Knowles / Readman House, together with its front and side yards, warrants conservation under the Ontario Heritage Act. Page 184 of 338 Heritage Impact Assessment Page 39 15356 Yonge Street Town of Aurora, Ontario Wayne Morgan July 2017 Heritage Planner 6.4 Statement of Cultural Heritage Values and Heritage Attributes Description The property at 15356 Yonge Street warrants conservation under the Ontario Heritage Act for its cultural heritage value, and meets the criteria for municipal designation prescribed by the Province of Ontario under the three categories of design, association and contextual values. Located on the west side of Yonge Street north of Irwin Avenue, the Knowles / Readman House (1907) is a 2 ½ storey house form building. Statement of Cultural Heritage Value The Knowles / Readman House is a well preserved, representative example of a ‘Four Square’, Edwardian Classicism style house form building in the Northeast Old Aurora Heritage Conservation District. It was constructed for the prominent Aurora builder and municipal politician, James Albert Knowles. The House was likely built by James Knowles. Still in its original location facing east onto Yonge Street, the House retains much of its original exterior architectural detailing. The House, together with its front and side yards, contributes to the streetscape of this part of Yonge Street and illustrates the evolution of architectural styles from the flanking Victorian houses to the much simpler detailing of an early twentieth century House. James Knowles and family lived in the House until 1913. It was later the residence of the Readman family, a former Vaughan farm family that lived in the House from 1924 until 1950. Heritage Attributes The heritage attributes of the property at 15356 Yonge Street are: x The 2 ½–storey house form building x The scale, form, height and massing on a rectangular-shaped lot x The rock-faced concrete blocks above the poured concrete foundation, the moulded concrete lintels above all openings and the moulded concrete lug window sills. x The red brick walls on the front (east) and side (north and south) elevations x Window openings on the ground and upper floors of the front and side elevations containing one over one window sashes x The front and side entrances with their paneled wood doors and the upper floor east door opening x The two storey porch with its gable roof; square, paneled wood porch posts on paneled concrete piers (ground floor) and wood piers (upper floor); balustrade with carved balusters and the rock-faced concrete block foundation x The medium pitched, asphalt clad hip roof with projecting eves, plain soffits and narrow wood frieze; the two smaller gable roofs with their wood shingle siding and decorative trim over the porch and on the north elevation; the latter gable includes a pair of small attic windows Page 185 of 338 Heritage Impact Assessment Page 40 15356 Yonge Street Town of Aurora, Ontario Wayne Morgan July 2017 Heritage Planner x The dormer window on the south elevation x The two red brick chimneys x The placement of the house form building on the lot x The front yard with its green space in front of the House and walkway to Yonge Street and the north and south side yards x On the interior, the staircase and remaining door and window casings and baseboards The two storey tail wing is not a heritage attribute. 6.5 Cultural Heritage Values of Adjacent/Nearby Heritage Properties The cultural heritage values of these properties are specified in Appendix L and summarized in Table 6.2, below. Table 6.2 Cultural Heritage Values of Adjacent Heritage Properties No. Street Address Cultural Heritage Values 1 15342 Yonge Street (Horton Place) House & relationship to Yonge Street including fence – Heritage attributes (character defining heritage elements) listed in Appendix L. 2 15347 Yonge Street (Our Lady of Grace Roman Catholic Church) Non-heritage building – no heritage value; potential enlargement of the existing building or redevelopment of the property governed by the HCD Plan. 3 15372 Yonge Street (Hillary House) House, ancillary buildings, fencing and layout on site including trees, bushes and old creek bed– Heritage attributes (character defining heritage elements) listed in Appendix L. Page 186 of 338 Heritage Impact Assessment Page 41 15356 Yonge Street Town of Aurora, Ontario Wayne Morgan July 2017 Heritage Planner 7.0 DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL 7.1 Description of the Development Proposal The applicant, 2578461 Ontario Inc., has prepared drawings for the proposed development of 15356 Yonge Street which are included in Appendix N and Figures 7.1 and 7.2. The proposal is to construct a five storey residential structure as shown in Figures 7.1 and 7.2 and retain, restore and integrate the Knowles / Readham House, except for its tail wing, into the development. The front and south side yards adjacent to the House will be retained as green space as will some of the rear of the property which is in the flood plain. The new building will be setback approximately 1.9 metres (6.2 feet) from the north property line with the Hillary House property, west of the driveway into the building. Vehicle access to the property will be from a northern expansion of the existing driveway at Yonge Street. The driveway will be shared with the Hillary House to the north. Vehicle parking will be accessed by ramps internal to the new building. The Knowles / Readman House will be treated as a separate building with one residential unit, although vehicle parking for the House will be in the underground parking garage in the new building. Table 7.1 provides an overview of the site statistics for the proposed development. Table 7.1 Site Statistics Site Area 2,556 m2 Total Gross Floor Area 3,914.36 m2 42,134.17 sq ft Unit Count 38 including 1 in existing house 1 Bedroom & den 8 2 Bedroom 10 2 Bedroom + den 17 3 Bedroom 3 Parking 40 resident 3 visitor Bike Storage 22 The new building, including balconies and canopy, will be set back between 13.5 metres (44.3 feet) and 20 metres (65.6 feet) from the Knowles / Readman House. The materials for the new building are shown in Figure 7.2 and in Appendix N. The new building has been designed in a modern style but using exterior materials that relate to the heritage buildings on and adjacent to the subject property. Page 187 of 338 Heritage Impact Assessment Page 42 15356 Yonge Street Town of Aurora, Ontario Waye Morgan July 2017 Heritage Planner Figure 7.1 – Site Plan, Proposed Development Source: onespace unlimited inc. Drawing Date: 2017-06-30 Knowles / Readman House Yonge Street Page 188 of 338 Heritage Impact Assessment Page 43 15356 Yonge Street Town of Aurora, Ontario Waye Morgan July 2017 Heritage Planner Figure 7.2 – South Elevation, Proposed Development Knowles / Readman House Material Palette for the New Building: Yonge Street Source: onespace unlimited inc. Drawing A301, Date: 2017-06-30 Page 189 of 338 Heritage Impact Assessment Page 44 15356 Yonge Street Town of Aurora, Ontario Wayne Morgan July 2017 Heritage Planner 8.0 DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL IMACT ON HERITAGE RESOURCES 8.1 Impact of Development on the Property Heritage Resources As shown in Figures 7.1 and 7.2, it is proposed that the Knowles / Readman House, except for the tail wing, be retained in situ and integrated into a new development that involves the construction of a five storey residential building with vehicle access from Yonge Street. The potential impact of the proposed development on the heritage values of the property is contained in the following discussion. 1. Loss of the tail wing of the Knowles / Readman House The development proposal will remove all of the tail wing to permit construction of vehicle access to the underground parking, loading garbage areas. Removal of the tail wing also enables construction of underground parking close to the rear of the House. 2. Proximity of the Proposed New Building to the Knowles / Readman House The proposed new building is between 13.5 to 20 metres (44.3 to 65.6 feet) from the rear wall of the Knowles / Readman House above grade. Although the underground parking area is much closer to the rear wall of the House (Appendix N – Building Section – Drawing A400), it is not visible above grade. The proposed new building, including roof structures, is approximately 19.7 metres (64.7 feet) above the grade at the east side of the new building. Because the grade rises between Yonge Street and the House and then drops to the rear of the House, the proposed building, including roof structures, is 8.35 metres (27.4 feet) higher than the House. 3. Loss of much of the Back Yard as Green Space In the proposed development much of the back yard will be occupied by the new residential building. Most of the back yard that is in the flood plan will not be development. 4. Vehicle Access will affect the Front and North Side Yard conditions In order to provide two way vehicle access to the proposed development, the existing driveway to the property will be widen to the north removing all vegetation currently existing along the north limit of the property. The driveway to the subject site will be combined with the driveway to Hillary House at the Yonge Street entrance. 5. The Proposed Development Introduces a Building in a Modern Design to the HCD The new building in the proposed development is in a modern architectural design rather than being designed as a late nineteenth or early twentieth century structure. Page 190 of 338 Heritage Impact Assessment Page 45 15356 Yonge Street Town of Aurora, Ontario Wayne Morgan July 2017 Heritage Planner 8.2 Impact of Development on Adjacent Heritage Properties Figure 8.1 places the proposed development in its immediate context, showing its relationship to surrounding heritage properties. Although the Yonge Street frontage, with its nineteenth century single detached houses on large lots will be maintained with the construction of the proposed development, there are potential impacts on the adjacent heritage properties which are listed below. 6. Back yard overlook from the proposed five storey building The proposed five storey building is higher than any of the adjacent buildings and will be visible from the rear yards of the adjacent heritage properties – Hillary House (15372 Yonge Street) and Horton Hall (15342 Yonge Street). At its closest, the proposed building will be approximately 43.3 metres (142 feet) from Hillary House and 16.7 metres (54.8 feet) from Horton Hall. 7. Loss of back yard vegetation. The backyard of the subject property is currently a mix of trees, shrubs and grass providing a green corridor to the rear of the three Yonge Street heritage properties. The proposed development will remove much of that green corridor especially near the north property limit. There does not appear to be any impact from the proposed development on the heritage property across Yonge Street (15347 Yonge Street – Our Lady of Grace Roman Catholic Church). Page 191 of 338 Heritage Impact Assessment Page 46 15356 Yonge Street Town of Aurora, Ontario Wayne Morgan July 2017 Heritage Planner Figure 8.1 The Proposed Development in ContextHillary House Horton Hall Knowles / Readman House Proposed 5 storey building Page 192 of 338 Heritage Impact Assessment Page 47 15356 Yonge Street Town of Aurora, Ontario Wayne Morgan July 2017 Heritage Planner 9.0 CONSERVATION AND MITIGATION 9.1 Options Related to Impacts of the Proposed Development Since the applicant is proposing retention of the Knowles/ Readman House, excluding the tail wing, in situ in its original use, other broad options for the conservation of the heritage resource, such as relocation, were not considered in this Assessment. Rather the details of the proposed development and its impact on the heritage resources as discussed in Chapter 8 were reviewed and options for those aspects of the proposed development were considered. 1. Loss of the tail wing of the Knowles / Readman House When first constructed, the House had a one storey, gable roofed tail wing extending across less than half of the rear of the House (Appendices C (1913 & 1927 Insurance plans) and G (ground floor - photos 21 & 22, upper floor- photo 17)). Originally the tail wing was likely used a pantry (ground floor) and storage (basement). The tail wing was enlarged by extending it across the rear of the House and adding a second floor. Other previous alterations to the tail wing included changing the cladding and a sliding glass door on the west wall. The development proposal is to remove all of the tail wing for access, loading and underground parking. An option to retain the tail would require a reduction on the footprint and size of the proposed building reducing the economic viability of the project. Figure 9.1 shows the existing and proposed condition relative to the tail wing of the Knowles / Readman House. The tail wing has been substantially altered by enlargement, changes both in cladding and roof shape, and insertion of a sliding glass door. The tail wing generally is not visible from Yonge Street. The tail wing is not a necessary or essential component of the Edwardian Classicism architectural style of the House. Due to the previous alterations, no visibility from Yonge Street, and lack of importance to the architectural style of the House, the tail wing was not determined to be a heritage attribute when the Statement of Cultural Heritage Values (Section 6.4) was prepared. For these reasons, retention of the tail wing is not considered essential to the conservation of the Knowles / Readman House. An option that retains the tail wing was not considered warranted. Page 193 of 338 Heritage Impact Assessment Page 48 15356 Yonge Street Town of Aurora, Ontario Wayne Morgan July 2017 Heritage Planner 2. Proximity of the Proposed New Building to the Knowles / Readman House The new building is set back approximately 20 metres (65 feet) from the rear wall of the House above grade. The underground parking area is closer to the House but is not visible above grade. The proposed new building is approximately 8.35 metres (27 feet) higher than the House. Figure 9.2 shows the sight lines of the proposed development immediately in front of the Knowles / Readman House at Yonge Street , while Figure 9.3 shows an image of the proposed development from the east side of Yonge Street. Figure 9.1 Tail Wing – Ground Level and Underground Parking Underground Parking – Level P1 Site Plan 2016 Aerial Photo – York Maps Knowles / Readman House Knowles / Readman House Knowles / Readman House Tail Wing Tail Wing Tail Wing Page 194 of 338 Heritage Impact Assessment Page 49 15356 Yonge Street Town of Aurora, Ontario Wayne Morgan July 2017 Heritage Planner Figure 9.2 Yonge Street Sight Lines of the House and Proposed Development Figure 9.3 Panorama view of the development from the east side of Yonge Street Drawing A500 North Elevation – Drawing A300 Knowles / Readman House Page 195 of 338 Heritage Impact Assessment Page 50 15356 Yonge Street Town of Aurora, Ontario Wayne Morgan July 2017 Heritage Planner The approximately 20 metres separation between the proposed new building and the Knowles / Readman House is sufficient to readily show that the House is a separate structure. The sight lines in Figure 9.2 shows that a person standing on the west Yonge Street sidewalk in front of the House will not see the new building behind the House. A person standing on the east Yonge Street sidewalk in front of the House will barely see the top of the new building above the roof of the Knowles / Readman House. Figure 9.3 shows that, from different perspectives on the Yonge Street sidewalk, the new building will be partially visible, but frequently screened by vegetation. In summary, the new building proposed to the rear of the Knowles / Readman House does not overpower or dominate the House. The applicant did consider lowering the height of the proposed building by one storey to a total of four storeys. However, their analysis showed that the loss of the fifth storey jeopardized the financial viability of the project. For the above reasons, options which increased the separation between the new building and the House or which lowered the height of the building were not pursued further. 3. Loss of much of the Back Yard as Green Space Except for the rear portion of the property which is in the floor plain, much of the back yard will be occupied by the new residential building. The back yard was not evaluated as a landscape worthy of conservation. It is not a publicly accessible area that affords important view of either the Knowles / Readman House or any of the adjacent heritage buildings. The back yard is not essential to understanding or appreciating the architectural style of the House. The back yard was not identified as a heritage attribute of the property. For the above reasons, options which retained more of the back yard as green space were not considered further. New plantings should assist in mitigating the impact of the loss of this private green space area. 4. Vehicle Access will affect the North Side Yard condition The proposed development requires the widening of the existing driveway to provide two way vehicle access to the property. The widening, which is within the access easement on the property to the north, will require the removal of all existing vegetation along the north property limit north of and east of the House. Figures 9.4 and 9.5 show the existing driveway condition while Figure 9.6 shows the existing and proposed driveway on the site plan. Page 196 of 338 Heritage Impact Assessment Page 51 15356 Yonge Street Town of Aurora, Ontario Wayne Morgan July 2017 Heritage Planner Figures 9.4 and 9.5 Existing Driveway Conditions Viewed from Yonge Street and from the north, near Yonge Street, looking southwest Yonge Street Driveway Driveway Figure 9.6 Existing and Proposed Driveway Approximate width of existing driveway Widening Page 197 of 338 Heritage Impact Assessment Page 52 15356 Yonge Street Town of Aurora, Ontario Wayne Morgan July 2017 Heritage Planner However, the new driveway will combine and improve the access to both the subject property and the Hillary House property. Given the need to retain the Knowles / Readman House in situ and that the only street access to the property is from Yonge Street, there is only one option - make use of and expansion to the existing driveway. For the above reasons, no other access options were considered. West of the House, the driveway turns into the new building which is set back approximately 1.9 metres (6 feet) from the north property limit. This setback will provide a measure of protection for trees that are on the Hillary House property and provide opportunity for a native meadow planing. The sections of the Site Plan and the Landscape Concept illustrating this north side condition are shown in Figures 9.7. The applicant considered the option of an exterior vehicle ramp on the north side of the building, but rejected it as having an adverse impact on the Hillary House property. Since the rear yard landscape was not evaluated as a heritage attribute of the property, options to the proposed building were not developed. 5. The Proposed Development Introduces a Building in a Modern Design to the HCD The proposed development will result in the construction of a new building in a modern architectural design into the Heritage Conservation District, rather than being designed as a late nineteenth or early twentieth century structure. Figure 9.8 provides a view from the northeast of the new building. Figure 9.7 Proposed North Side Yard Condition West of the House Site Plan Landscape Concept Page 198 of 338 Heritage Impact Assessment Page 53 15356 Yonge Street Town of Aurora, Ontario Wayne Morgan July 2017 Heritage Planner The 19th century Yonge Street context of the subject property will be maintained by the proposed development – the Knowles / Readman House will be retained and restored in situ. The front and south side yards will be retained as green space. The new building will be to the rear of the subject property. As such, the design of the new building will have secondary importance to persons viewing the area from Yonge Street. Further new buildings designed to replicate 19th or early 20th century structures, even within a heritage conservation district, is not supported because: x It creates a false sense of history. A building designed in a historic style never existed on the rear of this property. The new building is not, and should not be viewed as, an extension of the existing House. x It creates confusion in the mind of the public. Am I looking at an old building or am I looking at a fake? Even placing a date stone on a building designed in a historic style does not resolve the confusion. x It diminishes the value of true heritage buildings by making heritage buildings appear to be more common than they really are. x It implies that we can build new ‘old’ buildings. x It creates a sense that architecture has not evolved but is frozen in time. The proposed new building incorporates a palette of materials (Appendix N) that relate to nearby heritage structures. For these reasons, options that included a new building designed to replicate historic architectural styles were not developed for this project. Figure 9.8 Proposed New Building Viewed from the Northeast Knowles / Readman House Page 199 of 338 Heritage Impact Assessment Page 54 15356 Yonge Street Town of Aurora, Ontario Wayne Morgan July 2017 Heritage Planner 6. Back yard overlook from the proposed five storey building The proposed new building is higher than any adjacent buildings and will be visible from the rear yards of the adjacent heritage properties – Hillary House and Horton Hall. As shown in Figure 8.1, the proposed new building is approximately 43.3 metres (142 feet) from Hillary House and 16.7 metres (54.8 feet) from Horton Hall. In the case of Hillary House, there will be a greater distance between the proposed new building and Hillary House than between the 24 metres that separate Hillary House from the 5 storey residential building to the north at 15390 Yonge Street. In both instances, the new building will be partially screened from the adjacent heritage structures by existing vegetation in the area. Upon a review of the heritage attributes or character defining elements of the two adjacent properties (Appendix L) the overlook that will be created by the construction of the new building on the subject property does not adversely affect the heritage attributes of the adjacent heritage properties. The proposed new building is sufficiently far enough from the heritage structures on the adjacent properties that new building will not dominate or overwhelm those adjacent heritage structures. 7. Loss of back yard vegetation. The backyard of the subject property is currently a mix of trees, shrubs and grass providing a green corridor to the rear of the three Yonge Street heritage properties. The proposed development will remove much of that green corridor although some will be retained in the flood plain. This issue is largely addressed in item 3 above. Any impact on vegetation on the adjacent heritage properties will be addressed in the landscape plan to be development for the subject property. The loss of vegetation on the subject property will not adversely affect the heritage attributes of the adjacent heritage properties. Any potential damage to trees on the adjacent properties from the construction of the proposed development should be addressed in the landscape plan for the property. 9.2 Mitigation Measures To mitigate any potential adverse impacts from the proposed development and to provide for the permanent protection of the heritage values of the of the subject property, the following mitigation measures are recommended. These recommendations are to be required as a condition of site plan approval and fulfilled prior to the issuance of any building permit. Page 200 of 338 Heritage Impact Assessment Page 55 15356 Yonge Street Town of Aurora, Ontario Wayne Morgan July 2017 Heritage Planner 9.2.1 Heritage Easement Agreement The owner enter into a Heritage Easement Agreement with the Town to provide permanent protection for the heritage values of the Knowles / Readman Property. The heritage values include not only the House, but also the front and south side yards. Section 37 of the Ontario Heritage Act enables municipalities to, by by-law, enter into heritage easement agreements for the permanent protection of the cultural heritage values of property and to enforce such easements. In general, heritage easement agreements specify: - the cultural heritage values of the property; - the alterations permitted to the property; - the property be maintained in a state of good repair; - the property be insured against damage; and - any further alterations to the property that may affect the cultural heritage values of the property requires the approval of only the municipal council. 9.2.2 Conservation Plan The owner prepare, to the satisfaction of the Town, a Conservation Plan for the heritage features of the property – the House and the front and side yards – by an appropriate qualified individual or firm with demonstrated experience in the conservation of heritage properties. A Conservation Plan sets out, in drawings, text and specifications, the ways in which heritage resources are to be conserved and adapted to the proposed use. In this instance, the Plan would detail conservation of the: x House exterior - including restoration of the front and side porches, the windows and the doors; removal of the exterior fire escape and infilling of the associated openings; repairs to masonry, roof, trim and decorative details; removal of the tail wing and associated repairs, alterations and treatment of the west wall including the foundation. x House interior – including repairs to the staircase from the ground to upper floor; use or replication of original materials for the door and window casings, baseboards and flooring. x Landscaping of the front and side yards appropriate to history of the House. x On-going maintenance of the building 9.2.3 Protection Plan The owner prepare, to the satisfaction of the Town, a Protection Plan for the Knowles / Readman House. This Plan would detail the ways in which the House will be protected while vacant and during construction. Not only should the Plan specify the means to protect the House from vandalism, but it should also address protection of the House during excavation for the new building. Excavation for underground parking will come close to the rear Page 201 of 338 Heritage Impact Assessment Page 56 15356 Yonge Street Town of Aurora, Ontario Wayne Morgan July 2017 Heritage Planner foundation of the House. In addition, Plan should require that the House be alarmed for unauthorized entrance and for the possibility of fire. 9.2.4 Landscape / Grading Plan The owner prepare, to the satisfaction of the Town, a Landscape / Grading Plan for the property. Not only should this Plan address landscaping on the subject property, but it should also address the impact of the proposed development on trees on adjacent properties. The Plan should ensure that there are no adverse grading issues created for the Knowles / Readman House by the proposed development. 9.2.5 Commemoration The owner commemorate the heritage values of the property through measures such as plaquing. This should include the erection of a plaque, in a form and location near Yonge Street acceptable to the Town, which would provide information about the House and its occupants. 9.2.6 Financial Securities As a condition of site plan approval, the owner post financial security with the Town to ensure implementation of the above recommendations including ensuring that conservation of the House is achieved consistent with the Conservation Plan. Page 202 of 338 Heritage Impact Assessment Page 57 15356 Yonge Street Town of Aurora, Ontario Wayne Morgan July 2017 Heritage Planner 10.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATION The owner of a 0.2569 hectare (0.657 acre) parcel of land at 15356 Yonge Street (Lot 81, Concession 1 WYS) northwest of the Yonge Street and Irwin Avenue intersection in Aurora proposes to develop a five storey residential building to the rear of the property. The property is designated under Part V of the Ontario Heritage Act as part of the Northeast Old Aurora Heritage Conservation District and contains the heritage resource referred to in this report as the ‘Knowles / Readman House’. The applicant is proposing to retain and restore the House as part of the residential development. The property is adjacent to two protected heritage properties – Hillary House (15372 Yonge Street) and Horton Hall (15342 Yonge Street). 10.1 Conclusions Following detailed examination of the property’s history, documentation of its built and landscape resources in June and July 2016 and evaluation using criteria established by regulation under the Act and taking into consideration the condition and heritage integrity of the resources, it was determined that the Knowles / Readman House, constructed 1907, has cultural heritage value or interest for the following reasons: 1. design value or physical value because: o the House is a representative example of a “Four Square’ vernacular interpretation of the ‘Edwardian Classicism’ architectural style; 2. historical or associative value because: o the House was built as the residence of James Albert Knowles, a prominent Aurora house builder and later Aurora municipal councillor and reeve; the House is also a good example of his work as a house builder; 3. contextual values, because: o the House is important in defining, maintaining and supporting the character of the area on the west side of Yonge Street as the central structure in a row of three nineteenth / early twentieth century houses showing the evolution of architectural styles during the period; o the House has been physically, visually and historically linked to the site since 1907. The House is in good condition but has minor issues that are repairable. It has a moderately high level of heritage integrity on the exterior and low level on the interior. The front and side yards are important not only in permitting views of the House, but also as part of part of a continuous area of green space along Yonge Street north of Irwin Avenue. Although the proposed development will have some impact on the subject property and the two properties to the north and south, it was found that, either those impacts will not Page 203 of 338 Heritage Impact Assessment Page 58 15356 Yonge Street Town of Aurora, Ontario Wayne Morgan July 2017 Heritage Planner adversely affect the heritage attributes of the properties, or that any adverse impacts can be addressed through mitigation measures such as Conservation and Landscape / Grading Plans. 10.2 Recommendation To mitigate the impacts of the proposed development on the heritage values of the property and to provide for the permanent protection of those heritage values, the following is recommended: Recommendation – Approve the proposed development subject to heritage conditions: 1. It is recommended that the Aurora Town Council approve the proposed planning applications for 15356 Yonge Street substantially in accordance with the drawings prepared by onspace unlimited inc., some of which are in Appendix N of this report, subject to the following heritage conditions of Site Plan Approval, that are to be fulfilled prior to the issuance of any building permit for the property. The owner: a. enter into a Heritage Easement Agreement with the Town of Aurora to provide permanent protection for the heritage values of the Knowles / Readman property (15356 Yonge Street) substantially as described in section 6.4, Statement of Cultural heritage Values and Heritage Attributes, of this report; b. prepare a Conservation Plan by a qualified professional with demonstrated experience in the conservation of heritage properties to the satisfaction of the Town of Aurora that provides for the conservation of the Knowles/Readman House exterior and interior and the front and side yards associated with the House substantially as described in section 9.2.2 of this report; c. prepare a Protection Plan to the satisfaction of the Town of Aurora that provides for the protection of the heritage resources of the property (15356 Yonge Street) before and during construction on the property; d. prepare a Landscape / Grading Plan to the satisfaction of the Town of Aurora for the property (15356 Yonge Street) that, among other matters, ensures that existing drainage issues associated with the House are corrected, that no new grading issues are created by the development of the property, that trees on adjacent heritage properties affected by the development are protected or replaced and that, wherever possible, new plantings on the subject property buffer the proposed development and the adjacent heritage properties; e. commemorate, to the satisfaction of the Town of Aurora, the heritage values of the Knowles / Readman property (15356 Yonge Street); and f. provide financial securities to the Town in an amount and form acceptable to the Town to implement recommendations 1a through 1e. 1.It is recommended that the Aurora Town Council approve the proposed planning applications for 15356 Yonge Street substantially in accordance with the drawings prepared by onspace unlimited inc., some of which are in Appendix N of this report, subject to the following heritage conditions of Site Plan Approval, that are to be fulfilled prior to the issuance of any building permit for the property. The owner: a.enter into a Heritage Easement Agreement with the Town of Aurora to provide permanent protection for the heritage values of the Knowles / Readman property (15356 Yonge Street) substantially as described in section 6.4, Statement of Cultural heritage Values and Heritage Attributes, of this report; b.prepare a Conservation Plan by a qualified professional with demonstrated experience in the conservation of heritage properties to the satisfaction of the Town of Aurora that provides for the conservation of the Knowles/Readman House exterior and interior and the front and side yards associated with the House substantially as described in section 9.2.2 of this report; c.prepare a Protection Plan to the satisfaction of the Town of Aurora that provides for the protection of the heritage resources of the property (15356 Yonge Street) before and during construction on the property; d.prepare a Landscape / Grading Plan to the satisfaction of the Town of Aurora for the property (15356 Yonge Street) that, among other matters, ensures that existing drainage issues associated with the House are corrected,that no new grading issues are created by the development of the property,that trees on adjacent heritage properties affected by the development are protected or replaced and that, wherever possible, new plantings on the subject property buffer the proposed development and the adjacent heritage properties; e.commemorate, to the satisfaction of the Town of Aurora, the heritage values of the Knowles / Readman property (15356 Yonge Street); and f.provide financial securities to the Town in an amount and form acceptable to the Town to implement recommendations 1a through 1e. Page 204 of 338 Heritage Impact Assessment Page 59 15356 Yonge Street Town of Aurora, Ontario Wayne Morgan July 2017 Heritage Planner SOURCES CONSULTED Publications Aurora Banner, 1905 – 1911. Aurora Heritage Committee. Heritage Property Report – 64 Yonge Street North. Written by Kathryn Anderson. Aurora. 1982. Blumenson, John. Ontario Architecture, A Guide to Styles and Building Terms 1784 to the Present. Toronto: Fitzhenry & Whiteside. 1990. Carter, Phillip H. et al. Northeast Old Aurora Heritage Conservation District, The Plan 2006. OMB approval November 9, 2006. Census Returns, Canada, Ontario, York County. Aurora, 1911 and 1921. Chapman, L. J.; Putnam, D. F. The Physiography of Southern Ontario. 2nd Edition. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. 1966. Duncan, George W. J. York County Mouldings from Historic Interiors. Architectural Conservancy of Ontario. Toronto. 2001. Fitzgibbon, Meaghan. The Mississaugas: The Treaty Period. Mississauga: Heritage Mississauga. 2007. Gentilcore, Louis; Donkin, Kate. Land Surveys of Southern Ontario, Supplement No. 2 to the Canadian Cartographer, Vol. 10, 1973. Gentilcore, R. Louis; Head, C. Grant. Ontario’s History in Maps. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. 1984. Gillham, Elizabeth McClure. Early Settlements of King Township Ontario. Published by the author. King City, Ontario. 1975. HPI Nomination Team, Ontario Architectural Styles. Heritage Resource Centre, University of Waterloo. January 2009. McIlwraith, Thomas. F. Looking for Old Ontario. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. 1997. McIntyre, W. John. Aurora A History in Pictures. The Boston Mills Press. Erin, Ontario. 1988. Ontario Regulation 9/06 made under the Ontario Heritage Act, Criteria for Determining Cultural Heritage Value or Interest, January 25, 2006. Page 205 of 338 Heritage Impact Assessment Page 60 15356 Yonge Street Town of Aurora, Ontario Wayne Morgan July 2017 Heritage Planner Ontario Heritage Act, R.S.O. Chapter 0.18. Ontario Ministry of Culture. Heritage Resources in the Land Use Planning Process. Toronto: Queen’s Printer for Ontario. 2006. Ontario Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing, Provincial Policy Statement 2014, Toronto: Queen’s Printer for Ontario. 2014. Ontario Ministry of Public Infrastructure Renewal. Places to Grow, Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe. Toronto: Queen’s Printer for Ontario. Office Consolidation, June 2013. Parks Canada. Standards and Guidelines for the Conservation of Historic Places in Canada, Second Edition. Ottawa: Queen’s Printer. 2010. Regional Municipality of York. A Summary of the Historical Development of York Region. Regional Official Plan Technical Appendix 1. Newmarket. June 1974. Regional Municipality of York. Official Plan. Office Consolidation with OMB approval up to February 3, 2014. Smith, Wm. H. Smith’s Canadian Gazetteer; comprising Statistical and General Information Respecting all parts of the Upper Province, or Canada West. Toronto: H & W. Rowsell. 1846. Stamp, Robert M. Riding the Radials, Toronto’s Suburban Electric Streetcar Lines. Boston Mills Press. Erin, Ontario. 1989. Town of Aurora. Aurora Register of Properties of Cultural Heritage Value or Interest, January 2016. Town of Aurora. Official Plan – September 2010; revised 2015. Town of Aurora. By-law 5173-09 being a By-law to amend Zoning By-law 2213-78 as amended, (15356 Yonge Street). Walton, George. City of Toronto and the Home District Commercial Directory 1837. Whitchurch History Book Committee. Whitchurch Township. Boston Mills Press. Erin, Ontario. 1993. Page 206 of 338 Heritage Impact Assessment Page 61 15356 Yonge Street Town of Aurora, Ontario Wayne Morgan July 2017 Heritage Planner Museums / Government Offices Aurora Archives, Aurora. Library and Archives Canada (LAC), Ottawa. National Airphoto Library, Ottawa. Ontario Ministry of Government Services, Land Registry Office, York Region, Service Ontario, Aurora. Maps Department of National Defense, Geographical Section, General Staff. National Topographic System. Map 30M/13. Bolton. Scale 1:63,360. 1909 reprinted with corrections 1926. Ottawa. 1926. Department of Energy, Mines and Resources. Surveys and Mapping Branch. National Topographic System. Map 30M/13a & b, Bolton. Edition 2. Scale 1:25,000. Ottawa. from airphotos – 1969, culture check – 1970, printed 1972 & 3. Department of Energy, Mines and Resources. Surveys and Mapping Branch. National Topographic System. Map 30M/13, Bolton. Edition 6. Scale 1:50,000. Ottawa. information current as of 1989, printed 1994. Miles & Co. Illustrated Historical Atlas of the County of York, Ontario. Toronto: Miles & Co. Toronto. 1878. Tremaine, George R., Tremaine’s Map of York County, Canada West. Toronto: G. C. Tremaine. 1860. Websites http://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Hollingshead-217 - biographical information about Jacob Hollingshead. http://www.brydondale.com/genealogy/tng/getperson.php?personID=i316&tree=bryd2 – biographical information about the Readman family. http://www.historicplaces.ca – Canadian Register of Historic Places Page 207 of 338 Appendix A: Property Survey Page 208 of 338 Heritage Impact Assessment Appendix A – Property Survey 15356 Yonge Street Town of Aurora, Ontario Wayne Morgan July 2017 Heritage Planner PROPERTY INDEX MAP Subject Property Page 209 of 338 Heritage Impact Assessment Appendix A – Property Survey 15356 Yonge Street Town of Aurora, Ontario Wayne Morgan July 2017 Heritage Planner PARCEL FABRIC Source: York Maps Aerial Photography - 2015 North Yonge Street Subject Property Page 210 of 338 Heritage Impact Assessment Appendix A – Property Survey 15356 Yonge Street Town of Aurora, Ontario Wayne Morgan July 2017 Heritage Planner PART OF PLAN 246, AURORA WELLINGTON STREET WEST Subject Property (approximate) Page 211 of 338 Heritage Impact Assessment Appendix A – Property Survey 15356 Yonge Street Town of Aurora, Ontario Wayne Morgan July 2017 Heritage Planner SURVEY Source: Lloyd & Purcell Ltd. Ontario Land Surveyors October 25, 2016 Page 212 of 338 Appendix B: Photographs – Context Page 213 of 338 Heritage Impact Assessment Appendix B: Photographs - Context 15356 Yonge Street Town of Aurora, Ontario Wayne Morgan July 2017 Heritage Planner View north on Yonge Street from in front of Horton Hall, 15342 Yonge Street. East side of Yonge Street opposite the driveway into 15356 Yonge Street. Our Lady of Grace Page 214 of 338 Heritage Impact Assessment Appendix B: Photographs - Context 15356 Yonge Street Town of Aurora, Ontario Wayne Morgan July 2017 Heritage Planner West side of Yonge Street, including subject proprty. View south on Yonge Street from in front of Hillary House, 15372 Yonge Street. Horton Hall Subject Property Hillary House Page 215 of 338 Heritage Impact Assessment Appendix B: Photographs - Context 15356 Yonge Street Town of Aurora, Ontario Wayne Morgan July 2017 Heritage Planner 63 – 65 Machell Avenue. West side of Machell Avenue. Page 216 of 338 Appendix C: Maps and Insurance Plans Page 217 of 338 Heritage Impact Assessment Appendix C – Maps and Insurance Plans 15356 Yonge Street Town of Aurora, Ontario Wayne Morgan July 2017 Heritage Planner PATENT PLAN Part of the west side of the Yonge Street Survey through Aurora Subject Property North Page 218 of 338 Heritage Impact Assessment Appendix C – Maps and Insurance Plans 15356 Yonge Street Town of Aurora, Ontario Wayne Morgan July 2017 Heritage Planner 1860 – TREMAINE CONTEXT Approximate Location of Subject Property (i) North Yonge Street Wellington Street Bathurst Street St. John Sideroad Page 219 of 338 Heritage Impact Assessment Appendix C – Maps and Insurance Plans 15356 Yonge Street Town of Aurora, Ontario Wayne Morgan July 2017 Heritage Planner 1878– YORK COUNTY ILLUSTRATED HISTORICAL ATLAS CONTEXT Approximate Location of Subject Property () Yonge Street Page 220 of 338 Heritage Impact Assessment Appendix C – Maps and Insurance Plans 15356 Yonge Street Town of Aurora, Ontario Wayne Morgan July 2017 Heritage Planner 1913 – FIRE INSURANCE PLAN PROPERTY AND IMMEDIATE CONTEXT Subject Property (approximate) Knowles / Readman House 15342 Yonge Street Pasted over revision Page 221 of 338 Heritage Impact Assessment Appendix C – Maps and Insurance Plans 15356 Yonge Street Town of Aurora, Ontario Wayne Morgan July 2017 Heritage Planner 1913 – FIRE INSURANCE PLAN KNOWLES / READMAN HOUSE DETAIL Number of Storeys Porch Solid Red Colour – solid brick construction Yellow Colour – frame construction, wood clad Page 222 of 338 Heritage Impact Assessment Appendix C – Maps and Insurance Plans 15356 Yonge Street Town of Aurora, Ontario Wayne Morgan July 2017 Heritage Planner 1927 – FIRE INSURANCE PLAN PROPERTY AND IMMEDIATE CONTEXT Subject Property (approximate) 15342 Yonge Street Knowles / Readman House Page 223 of 338 Heritage Impact Assessment Appendix C – Maps and Insurance Plans 15356 Yonge Street Town of Aurora, Ontario Wayne Morgan July 2017 Heritage Planner Subject Property (approximate) 1960 – FIRE INSURANCE PLAN PROPERTY AND IMMEDIATE CONTEXT Knowles / Readman House 15342 Yonge Street Page 224 of 338 Heritage Impact Assessment Appendix C – Maps and Insurance Plans 15356 Yonge Street Town of Aurora, Ontario Wayne Morgan July 2017 Heritage Planner 1929 – 1948 NATIONAL TOPOGRAPHC AURORA Knowles / Readman House Source: National Topographic Survey Sheets 30 M 14 (south) & 31 D 3 (north) Dates: 1950 (south), 1929 (north) Contour Interval - 25 feet Page 225 of 338 Heritage Impact Assessment Appendix C – Maps and Insurance Plans 15356 Yonge Street Town of Aurora, Ontario Wayne Morgan July 2017 Heritage Planner 1987 – TOPOGRAPHICAL SURVEY PROPERTY Source: R. D. Tomlinson Limited Ontario Land Surveyor July 22, 1987 Contour Interval - 0.25 metres Knowles / Readman House Page 226 of 338 Heritage Impact Assessment Appendix C – Maps and Insurance Plans 15356 Yonge Street Town of Aurora, Ontario Wayne Morgan July 2017 Heritage Planner 1987 - TOPOGRAPHICAL SURVEY DETAIL Knowles / Readman House Source: R. D. Tomlinson Limited Ontario Land Surveyor July 22, 1987 Contour Interval - 0.25 metres Page 227 of 338 Appendix D: Aerial Photographs Page 228 of 338 Heritage Impact Assessment Appendix D – Aerial Photographs 15356 Yonge Street Town of Aurora, Ontario Wayne Morgan July 2017 Heritage Planner 1946 – July 2 Source – National Airphoto Library Roll No A10115, Photo 87 Hillary House North Knowles / Readman House Yonge Street Context Irwin Avenue Machell Avenue Horton Hall Page 229 of 338 Heritage Impact Assessment Appendix D – Aerial Photographs 15356 Yonge Street Town of Aurora, Ontario Wayne Morgan July 2017 Heritage Planner Property 1946 – July 2 Source – National Airphoto Library Roll No A10115, Photo 87 Yonge Street North Knowles / Readman House garage walkway large trees boundary plantings Page 230 of 338 Heritage Impact Assessment Appendix D – Aerial Photographs 15356 Yonge Street Town of Aurora, Ontario Wayne Morgan July 2017 Heritage Planner Property 1978 Source: York Maps North Knowles / Readman House Yonge Street Subject Property Garage walkway Page 231 of 338 Heritage Impact Assessment Appendix D – Aerial Photographs 15356 Yonge Street Town of Aurora, Ontario Wayne Morgan July 2017 Heritage Planner 1978 Source: York Maps Rear Addition Chimneys Knowles / Readman House Front Porch Driveway Front Walkway Garage House and Immediate Area Yonge Street North Page 232 of 338 Heritage Impact Assessment Appendix D – Aerial Photographs 15356 Yonge Street Town of Aurora, Ontario Wayne Morgan July 2017 Heritage Planner 2015 Source: York Maps North Property Knowles / Readman House Subject Property Yonge Street Page 233 of 338 Heritage Impact Assessment Appendix D – Aerial Photographs 15356 Yonge Street Town of Aurora, Ontario Wayne Morgan July 2017 Heritage Planner 2015 Source: York Maps North House and Immediate Area Rear Addition Front Walkway Yonge Street Knowles / Readman House Chimneys Front Porch Driveway Page 234 of 338 Appendix E: Knowles / Readman House Exterior Photographs Page 235 of 338 Heritage Impact Assessment Appendix E – Knowles/ Readman House 15356 Yonge Street Exterior Photographs Town of Aurora, Ontario Wayne Morgan July 2017 Heritage Planner Aerial view of the House 2014, Source: York Maps East Elevation EAST Page 236 of 338 Heritage Impact Assessment Appendix E – Knowles/ Readman House 15356 Yonge Street Exterior Photographs Town of Aurora, Ontario Wayne Morgan July 2017 Heritage Planner East and North Elevations North Elevation 19’ 1 ¼“ Page 237 of 338 Heritage Impact Assessment Appendix E – Knowles/ Readman House 15356 Yonge Street Exterior Photographs Town of Aurora, Ontario Wayne Morgan July 2017 Heritage Planner West and South Elevations North and West Elevations Page 238 of 338 Heritage Impact Assessment Appendix E – Knowles/ Readman House 15356 Yonge Street Exterior Photographs Town of Aurora, Ontario Wayne Morgan July 2017 Heritage Planner South Elevation, east end South and East Elevations Page 239 of 338 Heritage Impact Assessment Appendix E – Knowles/ Readman House 15356 Yonge Street Exterior Photographs Town of Aurora, Ontario Wayne Morgan July 2017 Heritage Planner Detail of concrete lintel over front entrance, East Elevation Front entrance, East Elevation, Detail of front entrance threshold and wood surround, East Elevation 7’ 1¾ ” 3’ 3½“ 10 ¾ ” 3’ 11“ Page 240 of 338 Heritage Impact Assessment Appendix E – Knowles/ Readman House 15356 Yonge Street Exterior Photographs Town of Aurora, Ontario Wayne Morgan July 2017 Heritage Planner Ground Floor Window Opening, East Elevation Porch Post, East Elevation Porch Balustrade, East Elevation 56 ” 77½” 64 ¼” Sill Height – 4 ¾” 9 3/16” 1’ 64 ” 10 ¾ ” 1’ 9” 8 ¼” 8 ¼” Page 241 of 338 Heritage Impact Assessment Appendix E – Knowles/ Readman House 15356 Yonge Street Exterior Photographs Town of Aurora, Ontario Wayne Morgan July 2017 Heritage Planner Infill area – former window?, South Elevation Gable Detail, North Elevation. Page 242 of 338 Heritage Impact Assessment Appendix E – Knowles/ Readman House 15356 Yonge Street Exterior Photographs Town of Aurora, Ontario Wayne Morgan July 2017 Heritage Planner Typical Brickwork Rear Chimney North and West Elevations South Chimney, Dormer & Soffit Detail, South elevation 2 3/8“ 8 ½“ Concrete Blocks 10“ 18” 9“ Page 243 of 338 Appendix F: Knowles/ Readman House Floor Plan Sketches Page 244 of 338 Heritage Impact Assessment Appendix F – Knowles / Readman House 15356 Yonge3 Street Floor Plan Sketches Town of Aurora, Ontario Wayne Morgan July 2017 Heritage Planner Roof Plan Source: York Maps, 2014 North Page 245 of 338 Heritage Impact Assessment Appendix F – Knowles / Readman House 15356 Yonge3 Street Floor Plan Sketches Town of Aurora, Ontario Wayne Morgan July 2017 Heritage Planner Building Footprint 25’ 6” North 5’ 16’ 14’ 25’ 6” 14’ 3’ 7” 8 ½“ 12’ 2 ½“ 10’ 3 ½” 7’ ¼“ 11 ½“ 6’ 6” 6’ Page 246 of 338 Heritage Impact Assessment Appendix F – Knowles / Readman House 15356 Yonge3 Street Floor Plan Sketches Town of Aurora, Ontario Wayne Morgan July 2017 Heritage Planner Ground Floor 12’ 2 ½” 13’ 1” 13’ 10” 14’ 9½ “ 13’ 7½” 13’ 2½” 3’ 3” 10’ 5½” 13’ 4” 13’ 7½” 14’ ½” 13’ 7½” 9’ 8” 2’ 8¼” Page 247 of 338 Heritage Impact Assessment Appendix F – Knowles / Readman House 15356 Yonge3 Street Floor Plan Sketches Town of Aurora, Ontario Wayne Morgan July 2017 Heritage Planner Upper Floor 23’ ¾” 19’ 9” 13’ 6½” 14’ 10’ 8” 7’ 9’ 10” 13’ 8½” 9’ 4” 24’ 9¼” 13’ 6” Page 248 of 338 Heritage Impact Assessment Appendix F – Knowles / Readman House 15356 Yonge3 Street Floor Plan Sketches Town of Aurora, Ontario Wayne Morgan July 2017 Heritage Planner Attic Attic partitions were not documented as they are a relatively recent alteration. Page 249 of 338 Heritage Impact Assessment Appendix F – Knowles / Readman House 15356 Yonge3 Street Floor Plan Sketches Town of Aurora, Ontario Wayne Morgan July 2017 Heritage Planner Basement 13’ 11” 13’ 5” 13’ 1” 8’ 11” 28’ 4” 14’ 2½” 23’ 9” 13’ 2” Fire place foundation Foundation - concrete block above poured concrete Tail wing foundation - poured concrete Page 250 of 338 Appendix G: Knowles / Readman House Interior Photographs Page 251 of 338 Heritage Impact Assessment Appendix G – Knowles / Readman House 15356 Yonge Street Interior Photographs Town of Aurora, Ontario Wayne Morgan July 2017 Heritage Planner Ground Floor 1. Room 1 – Staircase -North & West Walls Photograph Locations Ground Floor Sketch Newel post – 6” square 1 2 3 4 5 6 8 9 7 10 11 12 13 14 17 15 16 18 19 21 20 22 Page 252 of 338 Heritage Impact Assessment Appendix G – Knowles / Readman House 15356 Yonge Street Interior Photographs Town of Aurora, Ontario Wayne Morgan July 2017 Heritage Planner Ground Floor 2. Room 1 – Staircase & Front Door – North & East Walls 3. Room 1 – Staircase paneling - North Wall Page 253 of 338 Heritage Impact Assessment Appendix G – Knowles / Readman House 15356 Yonge Street Interior Photographs Town of Aurora, Ontario Wayne Morgan July 2017 Heritage Planner Ground Floor 6. Room 1 – Baseboard 5. Room 1 – Front door, East Wall 4. Room 1 – Baseboard & Flooring on staircase landing 6’ 11 ¾” 2’ 11 5/8” 9 ½” Page 254 of 338 Heritage Impact Assessment Appendix G – Knowles / Readman House 15356 Yonge Street Interior Photographs Town of Aurora, Ontario Wayne Morgan July 2017 Heritage Planner Ground Floor 7. Room 2 – North & East Walls 8. Room 2 – South & West Walls Page 255 of 338 Heritage Impact Assessment Appendix G – Knowles / Readman House 15356 Yonge Street Interior Photographs Town of Aurora, Ontario Wayne Morgan July 2017 Heritage Planner Ground Floor 9. Room 2 – Baseboard, flooring & parging over brick 10. Room 2 – Pocket door on west wall 9 ½” Page 256 of 338 Heritage Impact Assessment Appendix G – Knowles / Readman House 15356 Yonge Street Interior Photographs Town of Aurora, Ontario Wayne Morgan July 2017 Heritage Planner Ground Floor 12. Room 3 – North & East Walls 11. Room 3 – South & West Walls Page 257 of 338 Heritage Impact Assessment Appendix G – Knowles / Readman House 15356 Yonge Street Interior Photographs Town of Aurora, Ontario Wayne Morgan July 2017 Heritage Planner Ground Floor 14. Room 3 – Baseboard, flooring and parging 13. Room 3 – Window, South Wall 9 ½” 4 ½” Page 258 of 338 Heritage Impact Assessment Appendix G – Knowles / Readman House 15356 Yonge Street Interior Photographs Town of Aurora, Ontario Wayne Morgan July 2017 Heritage Planner Ground Floor 15. Room 4 – West & North Walls 16. Room 4 – South & West Walls 7” Page 259 of 338 Heritage Impact Assessment Appendix G – Knowles / Readman House 15356 Yonge Street Interior Photographs Town of Aurora, Ontario Wayne Morgan July 2017 Heritage Planner Ground Floor 18. Room 5 – West & North walls 17. Room 4 – East & South walls Page 260 of 338 Heritage Impact Assessment Appendix G – Knowles / Readman House 15356 Yonge Street Interior Photographs Town of Aurora, Ontario Wayne Morgan July 2017 Heritage Planner Ground Floor 20. Room 6 – East and South Walls 19. Room 5 – East & South walls Page 261 of 338 Heritage Impact Assessment Appendix G – Knowles / Readman House 15356 Yonge Street Interior Photographs Town of Aurora, Ontario Wayne Morgan July 2017 Heritage Planner Ground Floor 21. Room 6 – West & North Walls 22. Room 6 – Detail, North wall, originally exterior wall Shiplap siding Page 262 of 338 Heritage Impact Assessment Appendix G – Knowles / Readman House 15356 Yonge Street Interior Photographs Town of Aurora, Ontario Wayne Morgan July 2017 Heritage Planner Upper Floor Photograph Locations Upper Floor Sketch 1. Room 7 – Newell post and spindle on staircase landing near upper floor 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 12 10 11 13 14 15 16 17 Page 263 of 338 Heritage Impact Assessment Appendix G – Knowles / Readman House 15356 Yonge Street Interior Photographs Town of Aurora, Ontario Wayne Morgan July 2017 Heritage Planner Upper Floor 2. Room 7 – Staircase opening trim at upper floor level 3. Room 7 – North wall and staircase opening Page 264 of 338 Heritage Impact Assessment Appendix G – Knowles / Readman House 15356 Yonge Street Interior Photographs Town of Aurora, Ontario Wayne Morgan July 2017 Heritage Planner Upper Floor 4. Room 7 – North and east walls 5. Room 7 – East wall Page 265 of 338 Heritage Impact Assessment Appendix G – Knowles / Readman House 15356 Yonge Street Interior Photographs Town of Aurora, Ontario Wayne Morgan July 2017 Heritage Planner Upper Floor 6. Room 7 – South & west walls 7. Room 8 – East & south walls 6” Page 266 of 338 Heritage Impact Assessment Appendix G – Knowles / Readman House 15356 Yonge Street Interior Photographs Town of Aurora, Ontario Wayne Morgan July 2017 Heritage Planner Upper Floor 8. Room 8 – West & north walls 9. Room 8 – Baseboard, parging & flooring, south wall 8” Page 267 of 338 Heritage Impact Assessment Appendix G – Knowles / Readman House 15356 Yonge Street Interior Photographs Town of Aurora, Ontario Wayne Morgan July 2017 Heritage Planner Upper Foor 10. Room 9 – West & north walls 11. Room 9 – North & east walls Page 268 of 338 Heritage Impact Assessment Appendix G – Knowles / Readman House 15356 Yonge Street Interior Photographs Town of Aurora, Ontario Wayne Morgan July 2017 Heritage Planner Upper Floor 12. Room 10 – North wall viewed from the entrance to Room 8 13. Room 10 – North & east walls Page 269 of 338 Heritage Impact Assessment Appendix G – Knowles / Readman House 15356 Yonge Street Interior Photographs Town of Aurora, Ontario Wayne Morgan July 2017 Heritage Planner Upper Floor 14. Room 10 – South & west walls 15. Room 11 – East, south & west walls Page 270 of 338 Heritage Impact Assessment Appendix G – Knowles / Readman House 15356 Yonge Street Interior Photographs Town of Aurora, Ontario Wayne Morgan July 2017 Heritage Planner Upper Floor 16. Room 11 – West, north & east walls 17. Room 11 – East wall showing roof line of original addition Roof outline of original tail wing Page 271 of 338 Heritage Impact Assessment Appendix G – Knowles / Readman House 15356 Yonge Street Interior Photographs Town of Aurora, Ontario Wayne Morgan July 2017 Heritage Planner Attic 1. Attic – The east side from near the west side 2 3 4 5 6 1 Page 272 of 338 Heritage Impact Assessment Appendix G – Knowles / Readman House 15356 Yonge Street Interior Photographs Town of Aurora, Ontario Wayne Morgan July 2017 Heritage Planner Attic 2. Attic – The south side and dormer window from near the north side 3. Attic – The west side from near the east side Page 273 of 338 Heritage Impact Assessment Appendix G – Knowles / Readman House 15356 Yonge Street Interior Photographs Town of Aurora, Ontario Wayne Morgan July 2017 Heritage Planner Attic 4. Attic – The north side, west of the staircase, from near the middle 5. Attic – The north side, east of the staircase, from near the south side Page 274 of 338 Heritage Impact Assessment Appendix G – Knowles / Readman House 15356 Yonge Street Interior Photographs Town of Aurora, Ontario Wayne Morgan July 2017 Heritage Planner Attic 6. Attic – Roof framing – view to the north side Collar-beam rafter Page 275 of 338 Heritage Impact Assessment Appendix G – Knowles / Readman House 15356 Yonge Street Interior Photographs Town of Aurora, Ontario Wayne Morgan July 2017 Heritage Planner Basement Photograph Locations Basement Sketch 1. Room 13 – Staircase, North and east walls 1 2 3 4 9 6 10 5 7 8 Poured concrete Parging over concrete block Page 276 of 338 Heritage Impact Assessment Appendix G – Knowles / Readman House 15356 Yonge Street Interior Photographs Town of Aurora, Ontario Wayne Morgan July 2017 Heritage Planner Basement 3. Room 14 – North and west walls 2. Room 13 – South and west walls Page 277 of 338 Heritage Impact Assessment Appendix G – Knowles / Readman House 15356 Yonge Street Interior Photographs Town of Aurora, Ontario Wayne Morgan July 2017 Heritage Planner Basement 4. Room 14 – East and south walls 5. Room 15 – West, north and east walls Page 278 of 338 Heritage Impact Assessment Appendix G – Knowles / Readman House 15356 Yonge Street Interior Photographs Town of Aurora, Ontario Wayne Morgan July 2017 Heritage Planner Basement 6. Room 15 – West, south and east walls 7. Room 11 – West and north walls Fireplace base Page 279 of 338 Heritage Impact Assessment Appendix G – Knowles / Readman House 15356 Yonge Street Interior Photographs Town of Aurora, Ontario Wayne Morgan July 2017 Heritage Planner Basement 9. Room 16 – Opening on east wall to Room 15 8. Room 16 – East, south and west walls 10. Room 16 – East wall, concrete block on poured concrete Page 280 of 338 Appendix H: Knowles / Readman House Property Landscape Photographs Page 281 of 338 Heritage Impact Assessment Appendix H – Landscape Photographs 15356 Yonge Street Town of Aurora, Ontario Wayne Morgan July 2017 Heritage Planner Location Index to Landscape Photographs 2015 Source – York Maps Yonge Street Horton Hall 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Page 282 of 338 Heritage Impact Assessment Appendix H – Landscape Photographs 15356 Yonge Street Town of Aurora, Ontario Wayne Morgan July 2017 Heritage Planner 1. View of the Front Yard and House at Yonge Street looking south west to the driveway and House. 2. View of the Front Yard and House from the east side of Yonge Street. Knowles / Readman House Subject Property Driveway Driveway Page 283 of 338 Heritage Impact Assessment Appendix H – Landscape Photographs 15356 Yonge Street Town of Aurora, Ontario Wayne Morgan July 2017 Heritage Planner 4. Rear Yard - Stone retaining wall towards the rear (west side) of the House. 3. Cast iron fence on the north side of the House. tDriveway Page 284 of 338 Heritage Impact Assessment Appendix H – Landscape Photographs 15356 Yonge Street Town of Aurora, Ontario Wayne Morgan July 2017 Heritage Planner 6. Back Yard - Immediately to the rear of the House and the retaining wall on the south side of the lot looking east north east to the House. 5. Back Yard - Immediately to the rear (west) of the House and retaining wall looking east, south east to the House Knowles / Readman House Stone retaining wall Page 285 of 338 Heritage Impact Assessment Appendix H – Landscape Photographs 15356 Yonge Street Town of Aurora, Ontario Wayne Morgan July 2017 Heritage Planner 7. Back Yard - View from near the west end of the property looking east to the House. 8. Back Yard - View from near the west end of the property looking west to Machell Avenue. Knowles / Readman House Rear of 63 Machell Avenue Page 286 of 338 Appendix I: Knowles / Readman House Historic Photographs Page 287 of 338 Heritage Impact Assessment Appendix I – Knowles / Readman House 15356 Yonge Street Historic Photographs Town of Aurora, Ontario Wayne Morgan July 2017 Heritage Planner C 1920, East and North Elevations. [Source:1982 Heritage Property Report] 1913, Front porch visible from Hillary House. [Source: Aurora Archives.] Front porch of 15356 Yonge Street Page 288 of 338 Heritage Impact Assessment Appendix I – Knowles / Readman House 15356 Yonge Street Historic Photographs Town of Aurora, Ontario Wayne Morgan July 2017 Heritage Planner C 1920, East Elevation. [Source:1982 Heritage Property Report] c1970, 15342 & 15356 Yonge Street. [Source: Aurora Archives, 2002.19.426] Page 289 of 338 Heritage Impact Assessment Appendix I – Knowles / Readman House 15356 Yonge Street Historic Photographs Town of Aurora, Ontario Wayne Morgan July 2017 Heritage Planner C 1982, East Elevation. [Source:1982 Heritage Property Report] 1974, Part of Knowles / Readman House visible from Hillary House. [Source: Aurora Archives. 2002.4.456] 15356 Yonge Street Page 290 of 338 Heritage Impact Assessment Appendix I – Knowles / Readman House 15356 Yonge Street Historic Photographs Town of Aurora, Ontario Wayne Morgan July 2017 Heritage Planner 1982, East and North Elevations. [Source:1982 Heritage Property Report] 1982, East and South Elevations. [Source:1982 Heritage Property Report] Page 291 of 338 Heritage Impact Assessment Appendix I – Knowles / Readman House 15356 Yonge Street Historic Photographs Town of Aurora, Ontario Wayne Morgan July 2017 Heritage Planner 1982, South Elevation. [Source:1982 Heritage Property Report] Page 292 of 338 Appendix J: Property Ownership History Page 293 of 338 Heritage Impact Assessment Appendix J– Property Ownership History 15356 Yonge Street Town of Aurora, Ontario Wayne Morgan July 2017 Page 1 Municipality Aurora (formerly King Twp) Part of Concession: 1 WYS Lot: 81; Plan 246 Lot 13 No. of Instrument Instrument Date of Instrument Date of Registration Grantor Grantee Amount Remarks Patent 10.02.1797 Crown Thomas Phillips 210 acres 144 Mort 05.01.1801 20.01.1801 Thomas Hind William Crooks et ux 210 acres Intal, Dis. 1595 150 B & S 09.02.1799 25.02.1801 Thomas Hind William Graham Lots 81 & 82, w. side Yonge St 337 Deed Poll 13.06.1803 25.06.1803 John Jones atty for Thomas Phillips Thomas Hind 210 acres intal 339 B & S 14.06.1803 27.06.1803 Thomas Hind Jacob Hollingshead 210 acres 50729 B & S 15.07.1853 26.08.1853 Eli Hollingshead et al Robert P. Irwin $4,200 140 acres 65465 Will 30.06.1845 27.12.1856 Jacob Hollingshead Lot 81 & certain mill property on Lot 80 577 B & S 09.10.1874 05.12.1874 Robert P. Irwin et ux Rachel Butcher $325 ½ acre 3578 B & S 31.12.1906 05.01.1907 Rachel Butcher James Knowles $450 ½ ac pt of Lot 4784 B & S 01.10.1913 02.03.1914 James A . Knowles et ux Hugh W. Wright $3,895 Pt N. E. ¼ front on Yonge St 5571 B & S 21.07.1919 31.07.1919 Hugh A. Wright William J. Buchanan $4,000 ½ ac, pt N. E. ½ 5721 B & S 01.03.1920 08.03.1920 Wm J Buchanan et ux John A. Readman $5,000 ½ ac pt lot front on Yonge St 246 Plan 11.12.1933 15.12.1933 W. S. Gibson & Son OLS Town of Aurora Pt lot 81, Con 1 King (Intal) 10584 Grant 30.12.1950 05.01.1951 Wm H Brydon ext of John W. Readman Gwendolyn G. McArthur $12,000 All 56572A Grant 18.04.1962 01.05.1962 Gwendolyn G. McArthur William & Mabel Dakin $24,000 All 126079 Grant 13.07.1972 01.09.1972 William & Mabel Dakin Richard B & Marg Holder JT V. C. & $1 All 275212 Grant 24.06.1981 30.06.1981 Richard B & Marg Holder 484226 Ontario LImited V. C. & $2 All R-Plan 65R-17802 30.05.1995 YR462624 Ch Name Owner 03.05.2004 484226 Ontario Limited 1087931 Ontario Limited Page 294 of 338 Appendix K: Ontario Heritage Act Regulation 9/06 Page 295 of 338 Heritage Impact Assessment Appendix K – Ontario Heritage Act 15356 Yonge Street Regulation 9/06 Town of Aurora, Ontario Wayne Morgan July 2017 Heritage Planner Page 296 of 338 Appendix L: Adjacent/Nearby Heritage Properties Page 297 of 338 Heritage Impact Assessment Appendix L – Adjacent/Nearby 15356 Yonge Street ` Heritage Properties Town of Aurora, Ontario Wayne Morgan July 2017 Heritage Planner Source: Airphoto - York Maps 2015 Page 298 of 338 Heritage Impact Assessment Appendix L – Adjacent/Nearby 15356 Yonge Street ` Heritage Properties Town of Aurora, Ontario Wayne Morgan July 2017 Heritage Planner CHARACTER DEFINING ELEMENTS & Extract from HERITAGE VALUE: Horton Place – 15342 Yonge Street Character defining elements which express the heritage value of Horton Place include the: - symmetrical appearance - square plan - central entrance - two-storey brick construction - hipped roof - historic additions - original fenestration with round headed sashes - louvered shutters - wide overhanging eaves with heavy ornamental paired brackets - main entrance porch and side verandah, both with cast iron balcony railings - original entrances, including doors and sidelights - decorative trim throughout In 1968, due to the widening of the main thoroughfare, Yonge Street, through Aurora, a concrete retaining wall was constructed in front of Horton Place, which altered the relationship of the site to the street. However, bordered on top by a small iron railing Horton Place continues to be a prominent well-maintained property of the streetscape. Hillary House – 15372 Yonge Street Character defining elements that embody the heritage value of the Hillary House include the: - one-and-a-half-storey red brick walls - decorative yellow brick of the quoins and triple row coursing - cedar shingled roof with centre gable - decorative bargeboard trim - wraparound veranda with bell curved roof, clustered columns, and spring pointed wooden arch trellis - small balcony with clustered column railings - main entrance with sidelights, transom, and scrollwork - fenestration, including the pointed arch centre gable window, six over six sash windows and casement windows on the second storey - wood window labels, sills and louvered shutters - wood fence sheltering house from the street - barn itself, along with its position on the site - layout of the site including the relationship between the house, barn, fencing, and original creek course, now a dried bed The lot is covered with mature trees, bushes and tall plantings, providing a cooling effect in the summer as well privacy from traffic on Yonge Street. Source: Canadian Register of Historic Places Page 299 of 338 Appendix M: Town of Aurora and York Region Planning Document Maps Page 300 of 338 Heritage Impact Assessment Appendix M– Town of Aurora and York Region 15356 Yonge Street Planning Document Maps Town of Aurora, Ontario Wayne Morgan July 2017 Heritage Planner Regional Municipality of York Official Plan Part of Map 1 Regional Structure Subject Property (approximate) Page 301 of 338 Heritage Impact Assessment Appendix M– Town of Aurora and York Region 15356 Yonge Street Planning Document Maps Town of Aurora, Ontario Wayne Morgan July 2017 Heritage Planner Town of Aurora Official Plan Part of Schedule ‘A’ Structure Plan Subject Property (approximate) Page 302 of 338 Heritage Impact Assessment Appendix M– Town of Aurora and York Region 15356 Yonge Street Planning Document Maps Town of Aurora, Ontario Wayne Morgan July 2017 Heritage Planner Town of Aurora Official Plan Part of Schedule ‘B1’ The Aurora Promenade Secondary Plan Area Subject Property (approximate) Page 303 of 338 Heritage Impact Assessment Appendix M– Town of Aurora and York Region 15356 Yonge Street Planning Document Maps Town of Aurora, Ontario Wayne Morgan July 2017 Heritage Planner Town of Aurora Zoning By-law By-law 5173-09 amending Zoning By-law No. 2213-78, Schedule A Page 304 of 338 Heritage Impact Assessment Appendix M– Town of Aurora and York Region 15356 Yonge Street Planning Document Maps Town of Aurora, Ontario Wayne Morgan July 2017 Heritage Planner Northeast Old Aurora Heritage Conservation District District Boundaries Subject Property (red overlay) Source: Aurora By-Law No. 4804-06, Schedule A, approved by the OMB November 9, 2006. Page 305 of 338 Appendix N: Development Proposal Page 306 of 338 Heritage Impact Assessment Appendix N – Development Proposal 15356 Yonge Street Town of Aurora, Ontario Wayne Morgan July 2017 Heritage Planner Site Plan – Drawing A003Source: onespace unlimited inc. Date: 2017-06-30 Knowles / Readman House Page 307 of 338 Heritage Impact Assessment Appendix N – Development Proposal 15356 Yonge Street Town of Aurora, Ontario Wayne Morgan July 2017 Heritage Planner Elevations – Drawing A300 Source: onespace unlimited inc. Date: 2017-06-30 Knowles / Readman House Page 308 of 338 Heritage Impact Assessment Appendix N – Development Proposal 15356 Yonge Street Town of Aurora, Ontario Wayne Morgan July 2017 Heritage Planner Elevations – Drawing A301 Source: onespace unlimited inc. Date: 2017-06-30 Knowles / Readman House Page 309 of 338 Heritage Impact Assessment Appendix N – Development Proposal 15356 Yonge Street Town of Aurora, Ontario Wayne Morgan July 2017 Heritage Planner Material Board Page 310 of 338 Heritage Impact Assessment Appendix N – Development Proposal 15356 Yonge Street Town of Aurora, Ontario Wayne Morgan July 2017 Heritage Planner Building Section – Drawing A400 Source: onespace unlimited inc. Date: 2017-06-30 Page 311 of 338 Heritage Impact Assessment Appendix N – Development Proposal 15356 Yonge Street Town of Aurora, Ontario Wayne Morgan July 2017 Heritage Planner Landscape Concept Source: Planning Partnership. Date: 2017-06-07 Knowles / Readman House Page 312 of 338 Appendix O: Curriculum Vitae Wayne Morgan Page 313 of 338 Heritage Impact Assessment Appendix O – Curriculum Vitae 15356 Yonge Street Wayne Morgan Town of Aurora, Ontario Wayne Morgan July 2017 Heritage Planner Page 314 of 338 100 John West Way Aurora, Ontario L4G 6J1 (905) 727-3123 aurora.ca Town of Aurora General Committee Report No. PDS21 -131 Subject: Town Initiated Zoning Amendment to Comprehensive Zoning By-Law Number 6000-17 Prepared by: Wm. Jean, Manager-Building Division/CBO Department: Planning and Development Services Date: November 16, 2021 Recommendation 1. That Report No. PDS21-131 be received; and, 2. That Staff be directed to proceed with a Statutory Public Meeting to present a draft Zoning By-Law amendment to the Town’s Comprehensive Zoning By-Law Number 6000-17 for general housekeeping purposes, as described herein. Executive Summary This report seeks Council’s direction to proceed with a Statutory Public Meeting to present a Town initiated Zoning By-law amendment for general housekeeping purposes. Staff have identified the following amendments to the Town's Comprehensive Zoning By-law 6000-17:  A minimum landscaping area is proposed for the front yard in residential zoning districts.  Reviewing the encroachment into the rear yard of residential dwellings for decks. Background Section 34 of the Planning Act grants municipalities the power to pass a Zoning By-Law as well as subsequent amendments to the document. Finding technical issues within a comprehensive Zoning By-Law is not unusual or uncommon. The intent of regular housekeeping amendments is to make technical updates to the document to address Page 315 of 338 November 16, 2021 2 of 6 Report No. PDS21-131 issues that may come up and ensure that the policies of the Town’s Official Plan and the Province are effectively implemented. Analysis Since the implementation of the Comprehensive Zoning By-Law 6000-17 in 2017, staff have strived to ensure the document is monitored so that it remains relevant, implementing the intent and any corrections are completed in a timely manner. This report deals with the following amendments: A minimum landscaping area is proposed for the front yard in residential zoning districts The objectives of the Town’s Stable Neighbourhood Urban Design Guidelines with respect to landscaping in Front Yards are to:  Maintain the green landscape character of the neigbourhood;  Plan for the urban canopy;  Screen views to rear yard parking; and,  Preserve mature trees. The Stable Neighbourhood Urban Design Guidelines speaks to “Preserving the integrity of the existing landscaped pattern of front and rear yards, notably with mature trees and large front lawns”. The current regulations for driveways in low density residential zoning districts places a restriction on the maximum width of a driveway based on the width of the lot. The current regulations place a maximum restriction of the width of the driveway as follows: Lot Frontage Maximum width of driveway Less than 3.5 meters 3.5 meters 9.0 meters – 18.0 meters 6.0 meters 18.0 meters or greater 10.0 meters Located on exterior lot line < 18 meters 6.0 meters Located on exterior lot line > 18 meters 10.0 meters, with the exception of 6.0 meters at street line With regards to the Estate Residential and Rural Zones, a maximum driveway width does not apply, with the exception that the maximum driveway width at the street line should not exceed 6.0 meters. Page 316 of 338 November 16, 2021 3 of 6 Report No. PDS21-131 Circular driveways are only permitted on lots having a lot frontage of 25.0 meters or greater with a maximum cumulative width of the driveway at the street line of 10 meters. These regulations control the amount of area in a residential front yard for the purposes of a driveway or parking space. The remaining front yard is not addressed. Also, the Town’s Official Plan does not address landscaped open space in the general residential context. Under current zoning regulations, there are no provisions on how the remaining front yard should be treated. There is currently no prohibition to disallow the entire front yard of a residential dwelling to be paved with a hard surface. This allows for by-law infractions such as illegal front yard parking. It is proposed that the areas in the front yard of a residential zoning district other than the driveway be required to be landscaped, as per the definition of Landscaping in the Town’s Comprehensive Zoning By-law. This will not fully disallow any hard landscaping in the front yard, as the current definition of Landscaping does allow minor hard landscaping components such as walkways and sidewalks. Also, importantly this will deter illegal front yard parking, as well as, ensuring an aesthetical residential neighbourhood and facilitate permeability for ground water recharge. This amendment would also be consistent with the standards of many York Region municipalities. See Figure 1 for a summary of front yard landscaping standards residential zones for a number of municipalities in York Region. Reviewing the encroachment into the rear yard for residential dwellings for decks The Town’s Zoning By-law requires minimum yard setbacks for residential buildings for the front, side, and rear yards. However, certain building and architectural elements may encroach into the yard. The amount of encroachment depends on the type of building element. Currently, open porches, uncovered terraces and decks 3.2 meters in height or less may encroach 3.7 meters into a required rear yard but in no case closer than 3.8 meters from the rear lot line. The Town has received complaints in the past that the privacy of neighbours is impinged when high decks are constructed in rear yards. It is proposed that the current encroachment regulations apply to 1.8 meters or less instead of the current 3.2 meters or less. For decks greater than 1.8 meters, the same maximum encroachment would apply as that of a balcony which is 2.5 meters. The aim of the proposed amendment is to protect neighbours’ privacy by having high decks encroaching less into rear yards. Page 317 of 338 November 16, 2021 4 of 6 Report No. PDS21-131 The current regulations in the Town’s Comprehensive Zoning By-law are consistent with the other York Region municipalities (see Figure 2). In fact, the other municipalities have less strict regulations than the Town of Aurora except for the City of Vaughan. Figure 3 lists the current regulations for Yard Encroachments in the Town’s Zoning By- Law and Figure 4 presents the proposed regulations for Yard Encroachments. Advisory Committee Review Not applicable Legal Considerations Even though the amendments detailed in this report are being initiated by the Town, the Planning Act requires Council to hold at least one statutory public meeting for the purpose of giving the public an opportunity to make representations in respect of the proposed amendments. Any person or public body who makes oral submissions at the Public Meeting may appeal any amendment to the zoning by-law once it is enacted by Council. Financial Implications There are no direct financial implications as a result of this report. Communications Considerations The Town will use “inform” as the level of engagement for this meeting. The meeting will be publicized through the Town’s website as well as through social media and the local newspapers, in accordance with past practice. The Town will also reach out to those who have registered on Engage Aurora to participate in the Official Plan review process to ensure that those interested stakeholders are provided with the information regarding the meeting and have an opportunity to participate. Link to Strategic Plan While the Zoning By-law amendment process supports all of the goals and objectives of the Town’s Strategic Plan in some fashion, the most relevant goals are: Supporting an exceptional quality of life for all and enabling a diverse, creative and resilient economy. The relevant supporting objectives include: Strengthening the fabric of our community Page 318 of 338 November 16, 2021 5 of 6 Report No. PDS21-131 and promoting economic opportunities that facilitate the growth of Aurora as a desirable place to do business. Alternative(s) to the Recommendation 1. That Council provide direction. Conclusions Staff is proposing a Town initiated zoning amendment to the Comprehensive Zoning By- Law to ensure the front yard of residential dwellings are not compromised by illegal front yard parking, as well as keeping front yards aesthetically attractive and facilitating ground water recharge. The proposed rear yard amendment for decks will ensure residents have a greater privacy for the use of their rear yards. Subject to Council’s direction, staff is proposing to hold a statutory public meeting to present a draft amendment to the Town’s Comprehensive Zoning By-Law 6000-17. The proposed housekeeping amendment will help ensure that the Zoning By-Law remains relevant and fulfils the intent of the Town’s Official Plan. Attachments Figure 1 – Comparison of Municipalities front yard landscaping for residential buildings Figure 2 – Comparison of Municipalities on residential rear yard deck encroachments Figure 3 – Current Yard Encroachment Regulations Figure 4 - Proposed Yard Encroachment Regulations Figure 5 – Draft By-law for proposed housekeeping zoning amendments Previous Reports None Pre-submission Review Agenda Management Team review on October 28, 2021 Approvals Approved by David Waters, MCIP, RPP, PLE, Director, Planning and Development Services Page 319 of 338 November 16, 2021 6 of 6 Report No. PDS21-131 Approved by Doug Nadorozny, Chief Administrative Officer Page 320 of 338 Page 321 of 338 Page 322 of 338 Page 323 of 338 Page 324 of 338 Page 325 of 338 The Corporation of the Town of Aurora By-law Number XXXX:-:XX Being a By-law to amend By-law Number 6000-17, as amended, to make a Number of Housekeeping and Technical Corrections Whereas under section 34 of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended {the "Planning Act"), zoning by-laws may be passed by the councils of local municipalities to prohibit and regulate the use of land, buildings, and structures, And whereas the Council of the Town deems it necessary and expedient to further amend the Zoning By-Law, Now therefore the Council of The Corporation of the Town of Aurora hereby enacts as follows: 1.Section 4.20 of the Zoning By-law be deleted and is hereby replaced as follows: 4.20 Yard Encroachments Permitted The structures listed in the following table shall be permitted to project into the minimum yards indicated for the distances specified: Structure or Feature Applicable Yard Maximum Encroachment into a Minimum Yard Sills, belt courses, cornices, Any yard 0.7m gutters, chimneys, pilasters, eaves, parapets or canooies Window Bays, with or without Front, Rear and Exterior Side 1m foundation up to 3 m in width Yards Interior Side Yards 0.33 m Open porches, uncovered Front & Exterior Side Yards 2.5m terraces and decks (1.8 m in height or less) In no case shall be 4.5 m from the Front Lot Line, 3 m from the Exterior Side Yard Rear Yards 3.7 m; In no case shall be 3.8 m from the Rear Lot Line Open porches, un covered Front & Exterior Side Yards 2.Sm terraces and decks (greater than 1.8 meters and less In no case shall be 4.5 m than 3.2 meters) from the Front Lot Line, 3 m from the Exterior Side Yard Rear Yards 2.5m Balconies Front and Exterior Side Yards 2m for all residential buildinas Rear Yards for all residential 2.5m buildinos Steps, Landings All yards 2m In no case shall be closer than 4.5 m from the Front Lot Line and 2.1 m from the Exterior Side Lot Line In no case shall be closer than 0.3 m from the Interior Side Lot Line Figure 5 Page 326 of 338 Page 327 of 338 100 John West Way Aurora, Ontario L4G 6J1 (905) 727-3123 aurora.ca Town of Aurora Notice of Motion Councillor ’s Office _______________________________________________________________________________________ Re: Property Standards By-law Modernization and Review To: Mayor and Members of Council From: Councillor Rachel Gilliland Date: November 16, 2021 _______________________________________________________________________________________ Whereas the Town’s current Property Standards by-law was last written in 1999; and Whereas the population growth and building landscape has changed drastically in the last 22 years; and Whereas the Town would benefit from a review of the Property Standards By-law to reflect the growth and modernization experienced in Aurora; 1. Now Therefore Be It Hereby Resolved That staff report back with a modernized review of the Property Standards By-law. Page 328 of 338 100 John West Way Aurora, Ontario L4G 6J1 (905) 727-3123 aurora.ca Town of Aurora Memorandum Office of the Mayor Subject: York Regional Council Highlights of October 28, 2021 To: Members of Council From: Mayor Mrakas Date: November 16, 2021 Recommendation 1. That the York Regional Council Highlights of October 28, 2021, be received for information. Page 329 of 338 , Monday, November 1, 2021 York Regional Council – Thursday, October 28, 2021 Live streaming of the public session of Council and Committee of the Whole meetings is available on the day of the meeting from 9 a.m. until the close of the meeting. Past sessions are also available at York.ca/councilandcommittee York Region welcomes provincial reopening plans while continuing to respond to COVID-19 York Regional Council welcomed the release of the provincial Plan to Safely Reopen Ontario and Manage COVID-19 for the Long-Term as a measured and cautious plan to gradually open the economy in a way that balances the health and well-being of residents with the economic interests of businesses. The lifting of capacity limits across businesses and facilities that require proof of vaccination will help drive economic activity and fuel the post-pandemic recovery of our communities. At the same time, Regional Council remains committed to protecting the health and safety of York Region’s 1.2 million residents by maintaining public health measures to help slow the spread of the virus in the community. This includes physical distancing, wearing a mask, staying home when feeling unwell and completing full immunization of the COVID-19 vaccine. Still in the fourth wave of the COVID-19 pandemic, York Region has experienced a general plateau of new cases over the past several weeks with the situation being closely monitored. Regional Council was provided with an update on the Social Services response to COVID-19 and the Region’s ongoing efforts to support vulnerable groups and community needs, including: •The closure of York Region’s Voluntary Isolation Centre in June 2021 and the subsequent partnership with Peel Region to facilitate any future York Region residents needing to self- isolate to Peel Region’s COVID-19 Voluntary Isolation Housing •Continued primary care and mental health and addictions support for people experiencing homelessness through the Community Paramedicine and York Region’s Outreach Teams •Supporting 33 projects delivered by 29 community agencies that address increased service demand for mental health, housing stability and food security assistance through the COVID-19 Community Investment Fund •Continuation of vital services established to address the impacts of COVID-19 and an orderly wind-down of programs supported through additional $12 million in Social Services Relief Funding from the province Regional Council was also informed of existing federal income supports, including the Canada Recovery Benefit, Canada Recovery Caregiving Benefit, Canada Recovery Sickness Benefit, Canada Emergency Rent Subsidy and Canada Emergency Wage Subsidy, expired on October 23, 2021 and will be replaced by more targeted measures to help particularly hard-hit sectors. This change could potentially result in increased demand for Regional financial support programs, including Ontario Works, rent assistance and emergency assistance. Page 330 of 338 Regional Council also received an update on the financial impacts of COVID-19. Analysis suggests the financial impacts of the pandemic total $220 million for 2021 to date and are expected to reach between $265 and $295 million by year end. Approximately 20%, or $45.5 million, can be attributed to the delivery of the Region’s mass immunization programs. York Region continues to work with senior levels of government to address the continued financial impacts of the pandemic, with projected operating funding of $171 million expected in 2021. In addition to the operating funding commitments, the Region expects to receive $53.4 million for capital projects in support of the COVID-19 response and recovery, including a one-time $33.8 million increase in Federal gas tax funding, $12.3 million through the Canada Infrastructure Plan and $7.3 million through the Social Services Relief Fund. More information about York Region’s ongoing response to COVID-19 can be found at york.ca/COVID19 Councillor Chan takes seat as alternate member of Regional Council City of Richmond Hill Councillor Godwin Chan recited the Declaration of Office and assumed the seat of alternate member of York Regional Council for the City of Richmond Hill. Under the Municipal Act, 2001, S.O. 2001, the Richmond Hill Council appointed Councillor Chan as alternate member following the retirement of former City of Richmond Mayor Dave Barrow. Councillor Chan will represent the City of Richmond Hill on Regional Council until the vacancy in the Office of the Mayor has been filled permanently. Vacant Homes Tax could address York Region’s affordable housing challenges To address York Region’s affordable housing challenges, Regional Council has authorized staff to begin a feasibility study for a Vacant Homes Tax. Net revenues generated from this tax would support affordable housing initiatives. Other than the City of Toronto, the province designates which municipalities may implement a Vacant Homes Tax. To date, no Ontario municipality has been designated. Should this tax be implemented in York Region, a 1% to 2% Region-wide vacancy tax rate could potentially generate between $15 million and $90 million in gross revenues in the first year. Staff will begin public consultation on the design of a Vacant Homes Tax and anticipate reporting back to Council in 2022. Depending upon Regional Council direction, a final report on the Vacant Homes Tax would come to Council followed by a submission to the Province seeking the ability to implement the tax. Rapid Housing Initiatives support affordable and transitional housing Regional Council received an update on approved and proposed senior government funding initiatives that will create additional supply of affordable and transitional housing in York Region along with programing to prevent homelessness and mitigate risks to vulnerable population. In October and December of 2020, the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing confirmed a total of $16,554,114 in Social Services Relief Fund Phase 2 funding to support the creation of 26 transitional housing units with completion targets in early 2022: •8 new transitional housing units are being constructed on the Sutton Youth Services site at 20898 Dalton Road in the Town of Georgina Page 331 of 338 •18 new transitional housing units are being constructed on the existing Porter Place/Leeder Place site at 18838 Highway 11 in the Town of East Gwillimbury York Region was not included in Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation’s Rapid Housing Initiative, but on August 24, 2021, York Region submitted a revised Rapid Housing Initiative application consisting of five modular housing projects, representing 124 units. Additionally, two priority projects in the Town of Newmarket and City of Markham were identified to support future housing development. Required planning applications to facilitate the pre-development activities on both sites are anticipated to be submitted in fall 2021. Traffic volume and collision rates down 40% in 2020 Regional Council received the Annual Traveller Safety Report which provides a breakdown of traffic and collision data occurring on Regional roads during the previous calendar year. In 2020, more than 30% of fatal collisions on Regional roads were related to speeding. Enforcement statistics over the past five years also identify speeding as the top traffic violation, representing more than 60% of all traffic offences. Additional key findings in the 2020 Annual Traveller safety report include: •Annual traffic volumes decreased between 20% to 50% during the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020 •More than 60% of all traffic offences and more than 30% of fatal collisions were speed-related •Annual collision rate decreased by approximately 40% •Pedestrian collision rate decreased by 42% •Cycling collision rate decreased by 35% •94% of pedestrian collisions and 84% of cycling collisions resulted in injury or death York Region continues to put measures in place to address safety concerns including: •Implementing a Region-wide 10 km/hour speed limit reduction by time of day in school zones, using the new school zone maximum speed sign •Piloting a two-year limited use, automated speed enforcement program in school zones at select locations to reduce speed •Enhancing traffic control measures to traffic signals or all-way stop which significantly reduces the frequency of T-bone collisions •Implementing fully protected left turns which reduces collisions at busy intersections •Rehabilitation pavement programs which improve traction leading to a reduction in rear-end collisions as well as extending the life of the road Funding the Yonge North Subway Extension in a financially sustainable manner Regional Council passed a resolution thanking the Government of Ontario for renewing the Growth Cost Supplement to the Region’s Annual Repayment Limit and for the provisions in the Supporting People and Businesses Act, 2021, (Bill 13) which amends the Development Charges Act, 1997 (Act) recognizing the Yonge North Subway Extension (YNSE) as a discrete service. Amendments to Bill 13 support the Ontario economy by introducing measures to promote economic stability and encourage investment. As it relates to the Act, the proposed changes reflect Regional Council’s request to treat the Yonge North Subway Extension as a discrete service, extending the planning horizon from 10 to 20 years, allowing the Region to fund and finance the municipal share of the subway extension in a financially sustainable manner. Page 332 of 338 Despite these positive changes, Bill 13 does not address Council’s request to exempt the Yonge North Subway Extension from the freezing of development charges rates. Regional Council continues to work with the province to request an amendment to Bill 13 that would exempt the Yonge North Subway Extension from provisions that freeze development charges upon application under the Act. High Occupancy Vehicle lane designated on Major Mackenzie Regional Council approved a traffic bylaw amendment to allow the designation of Major Mackenzie Drive West in the City of Vaughan, between Pine Valley Drive and Islington Avenue, to become a High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) lane. These new HOV lanes will provide continuity along the Major Mackenzie corridor and complete the connection between the future Highway 400 and Highway 427 HOV lanes. Dedicated lanes for buses and vehicles carrying the driver and passenger(s) help limit bus delays and encourage carpooling. These new HOV lanes become operational on Monday, November 1, 2021. Creating more connections to the Region’s transportation system and destinations Regional Council received an update on the Municipal Streetscape Partnership Program and Pedestrian and Cycling Partnership Program. These programs offer cost-sharing to the Region’s cities and towns for local projects that support walking and cycling in safe and vibrant communities that all can enjoy. Each year, York Region commits $1 million to the Municipal Streetscape Program and $500,000 to the Pedestrian and Cycling Program. For 2021, the following projects were funded: Streetscaping • $253,414: Two bermed and planted landscape gateway features along Major Mackenzie Drive, Amusement Way and Jane Street in the City of Vaughan • $97,234: Enhanced pedestrian walkway on Highway 7, integrated into the Highway 7 rapidway in the City of Vaughan • $152,317: Streetscape design including planters with large trees faced in the same stone as the Civic Centre in the City of Vaughan • $242,357: Accessible access to Maple GO Station along Major Mackenzie Drive in the City of Vaughan • $65,668: Gateway features including masonry natural stone walls, fencing, planting, decorative paving and signage at Leslie Street and Mount Albert Sideroad in the Town of East Gwillimbury Pedestrian and cycling • $148,500: Two trail connections to provide a link to the Rouge Valley Trail from Highway 7 and Mainstreet and Kennedy Road and Austin Drive in the City of Markham • $96,288: Construction of Phase 5 of the Lake to Lake Cycling Route and Walking Trail within the Oak Ridges Corridor Conservation Reserve in the City of Richmond Hill • $255,212: Construction of the Holland River Bridge over environmentally sensitive lands between Doane Road and Oriole Drive in the Town of East Gwillimbury Both programs fund projects that support the Region’s goals to create connections to the Region’s transportation system and destinations. More information is available at york.ca/streetscape Transportation Master Plan virtual consultations delivers results Page 333 of 338 York Region is completing public and stakeholder engagement to better understand the transportation needs and priorities of York Region residents, workers and businesses through to 2051. In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, many previously in-person Transportation Master Plan (TMP) consultations were moved to using virtual methods to conduct surveys, seek input and host online open houses. Residents, businesses and workers interested in providing feedback on the future of York Region’s roads, transit corridors, walking and cycling facilities and trails are invited to share their ideas and see what others are saying at york.ca/tmp The information shared through theses engagement processes are used to help draft recommendations for the transportation network and define future areas of focus. The final TMP update will be presented to Council in June 2022. Water and Wastewater capital infrastructure status update Regional Council received a status update for key water and wastewater infrastructure projects critical to meet future system demands, servicing capacity and associated approvals, including: • Continued support for York Durham Sewage System and expanding capacity to meet growth • $2.9 billion in water, wastewater, waste management, forestry and energy projects through the 2021 Environmental Services Budget and 10-Year Capital Plan o Includes $1.65 billion for growth infrastructure to provide servicing capacity in the Regional water and wastewater systems o Approximately $1.2 billion over the next 10 years for proactive management and maintenance of infrastructure through a comprehensive asset management program • $100.5 million from Infrastructure Canada in Disaster Mitigation and Adaptation Funding for five capital projects with further applications pending • 131 active projects with additional project work forecasted focused on building the Regional trunk system, sustaining infrastructure service levels and managing system risk and resiliency Growth-related water and wastewater projects are funded with development charges. Project timelines established in the 2021 10-Year Capital Plan are contingent on the Region achieving its growth and development charge collection projections. During COVID-19, York Region has continued to deliver essential water and wastewater infrastructure projects identified in the 10-Year Capital Plan. To date, there have been no immediate, major impacts to ongoing environmental assessment, design and construction work as a result of the pandemic. Providing quality senior care and improving long-term care Regional Council received the annual update on York Region’s two long-term care homes, Newmarket Health Centre and Maple Health Centre. The homes provide long-term care, short-stay and respite beds with an array of services for residents and continued to provide high-quality care to residents despite the challenges of a global pandemic. 2020 long-term care home highlights include: • High occupancy rates (92.4% for Maple Health Centre and 97.9% for Newmarket Health Centre) for 2020 and remained in demand by those on the waitlist • The Residents Quality of Life Survey for 2020 showed 100% of residents who provided a response on their “Overall Satisfaction” reported favourably • The average number of non-compliance findings per Ministry of Health inspection in 2020 was 1.9 across both homes, lower than other municipal homes • Maple Health Centre and Newmarket Health Centre improved or sustained performance on six of nine publicly reported indicators Page 334 of 338 Both homes received a three-year continuance of their accreditation status (2020 to 2023) - the longest period of accreditation the Commission on Accreditation of Rehabilitation Facilities awards to long-term care homes. As part of York Region’s commitment to continuous improvement, York Region proposes 23 (of the total 85) priority recommendations from the Ontario’s Long-Term Care COVID-19 Commission’s report for urgent provincial action to transform the long-term care sector. In addition, consultations also identified the need for transformation of the whole system for seniors’ care with further provincial investments in home and community care, affordable senior-friendly housing and innovative community-based solutions. The majority of the Commission’s final recommendations reflect the recommendations from York Region’s Submission to the Ontario Long-Term Care COVID-19 Commission. York Region has already taken steps to strengthen operations at Newmarket Health Centre and Maple Health Centre, however, fully operationalizing changes resulting from the Commission’s recommendations will require significant funding, guidance and support from the Province. York Region will continue to advocate for seniors’ needs, influence decision-making and plan and support key players across the sector to address issues related to the aging population. New framework for Community Investment Fund Regional Council approved a new framework for the Community Investment Fund program which supports non-profit agencies to deliver local initiatives that address service gaps and complement Regional services. The Community Investment Fund is an important part of York Region’s human service system, addressing gaps in community needs through targeted, time-limited funding to local initiatives delivered by not-for-profit agencies. Changes to the Community Investment Program include: • Broadening target population beyond income threshold to include other priority groups • Enabling participation in multi-sectoral partnerships to respond to complex human services issues • Diversifying methods for selecting projects • Investing in pandemic response and recovery, and capacity building for new and small organizations • Prioritizing initiatives that help implement the Community Safety and Well-being Plan for York Region • Ongoing funding for Seasonal Shelters will be included in the 2022 Budget Implementation will begin in 2022 and include recommended funding extensions to stabilize the sector. To support transition and as the community continues to respond to COVID-19, a six-month extension to current projects has been approved. Regional Official Plan Amendment No. 7 Regional Council adopted a motion regarding Regional Official Plan Amendment No. 7 which proposes to change the land-use designation from Agricultural Area to Rural/Major Open Space Area. This change would permit passive parkland, trails and other recreation uses within portions of the Protected Countryside designation of the Provincial Greenbelt Plan Page 335 of 338 The purpose and intent of ROPA 7 is to permit active urban parkland, trails and other recreational uses adjacent to residential neighbourhoods. York Region participates in Intake 2 of the Provincial Audit and Accountability Fund Through the Audit and Accountability Fund (AAF), the Government of Ontario is working in partnership with large municipalities to fund service delivery and administrative expenditure reviews to find efficiencies while protecting front-line services. Through this program, municipalities are required to use the approved funding to hire independent third-party consultants to review municipal services delivery expenditures and identify efficiencies. Following the review, a final report must be submitted to the province outlining their third-party reviewers analysis, findings and actional recommendations. To date the province has administered two rounds of funding, with a third underway. In November 2019, York Region received $250,000 in finding through AAF Intake 1 to complete the Public Health Administrative Efficiencies Review. In February 2021, York Region received confirmation of up to $400,000 in funding for two additional projects under the AAF Intake 2. This funding supported the independent third-party reviews and reports for: • Provincial Offences Courts Modernization Opportunities • York Trax Modernization Opportunities The specific and actionable recommendations for cost savings captured within the Courts and YorkTrax Modernization Opportunities reports will be considered through York Region’s budget process. Small Business Week Regional Council celebrated Small Business Week from October 17 to 23, 2021, recognizing the contributions of entrepreneurs and small business across Canada. Small businesses are the backbone of the local economy and make up more than 80% of all businesses in York Region. These businesses provide good quality jobs and contribute to prosperous and competitive communities. Over the past 19 months local businesses have faced many challenges related to the COVID-19 pandemic. They have also demonstrated strength and resilience as they have worked to find creative ways to keep their doors open and continue serving the community. As York Region continues to respond to the health and economic impacts of COVID-19, residents are reminded of the importance of supporting local businesses. By shopping in our own neighbourhoods, we can each contribute to a vibrant and successful business community. To learn more about supports for small businesses, visit yorklink.ca/smallbusiness Celebrating the 20th anniversary of Waste Reduction Week Regional Council celebrated the 20th anniversary of Waste Reduction Week from October 18 to 24, 2021, marking environmental efforts and inspiring new innovative ideas and solutions for waste reduction across Canada. Every year since 2012, York Region has ranked number one for diversion in large urban municipalities with over 90% of our waste diverted from landfill. Page 336 of 338 Further successes through our SM4RT Living Waste Management Plan include: • Municipal textile collections supporting local reuse charities resulted in 1,794 tonnes of textiles collected in 2020 • The Lendery, a series of lending libraries, now has three locations in partnership with the City of Markham, City of Vaughan and Town of Newmarket • The Good Food program is one of the first municipal food waste reduction education programs supported by a unique partnership between York Region’s Waste Management, Public Health and Economic Development services • Circular Economy Initiatives Fund provided $100,000 in funding to six non-profit organizations to support them advancing the circular economy; for 2021 funding recipients and projects • Circular Cities and Regions Initiative, working with other Canadian municipalities to identify and implement circular policies in our operations Residents are encouraged to reflect on what they can do to reduce their waste and support Waste Reduction Week’s mission to mitigate climate change, water pollution and preserve our natural resources. Commemorating the 7th anniversary of attack on the National Way Memorial Regional Council commemorated the 7th anniversary of the attack on the National Way Memorial and Parliament Hill, which claimed the life of Corporal Nathan Cirillo, a sentry at the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier, along with the attack in Saint-Jean-sur-Richelieu, Quebec where Warrant Officer Patrice Vincent also lost his life. Regional Council marked this sombre anniversary by sharing support and sympathies with the family and friends of Corporal Cirillo, Warrant Officer Vincent and all those affected by this senseless act of violence. United Nations Day Regional Council recognized October 24, 2021 as United Nations Day. Celebrated annually around the world, United Nations Day recognizes this global organization dedicated to disaster relief, humanitarian aid, peacekeeping and international unity. On the 76th anniversary of United Nations Day, Regional Council also celebrated on-going collaboration with the United Nations Institute for Training and Research (UNITAR) on initiatives to promote diversity and inclusion in York Region. Remembering Hershel Weinberg Regional Council extended condolences following the passing of former York Region Commissioner of Planning Hershel Weinberg on October 15, 2021. Appointed Commissioner of Planning by York Regional Council in September 1976, Mr. Weinberg served in this role for 16 years until his retirement in 1992. During this time, Mr. Weinberg was closely involved in the development of the York Durham Sewage System which helped position York Region as one of the fastest growing municipalities in Canada. On behalf of York Region’s 1.2 million residents, Regional Council offered condolences and support to Mr. Weinberg’s wife, Markham-Unionville Member of Parliament and former York Region Medical Officer of Health the Honourable Dr. Helena Jaczek, and his extended family and friends. Next meeting of York Regional Council Page 337 of 338 York Regional Council will meet on Thursday, November 25, 2021 at 9 a.m. To maintain physical distancing and protect the health and well-being of residents, this is currently planned to be a virtual meeting and streamed on york.ca/live The Regional Municipality of York consists of nine local cities and towns and provides a variety of programs and services to 1.2 million residents and 54,000 businesses with over 650,000 employees. More information about the Region’s key service areas is available at york.ca/regionalservices -30- Media Contact: Kylie-Anne Doerner, Corporate Communications, The Regional Municipality of York Phone: 1-877-464-9675, ext. 71232 Cell: 289-716-6035 kylie-anne.doerner@york.ca Page 338 of 338