Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
AGENDA - General Committee - 20220705
Town of Aurora General Committee Meeting Revised Agenda Date:Tuesday, July 5, 2022 Time:7 p.m. Location:Council Chambers, Aurora Town Hall Meetings are available to the public in person and via live stream on the Town’s YouTube channel. To participate, 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.Michael White, Resident; Re: Item 9.1 - PDS22-110 - Retaining Wall at 22 Rachewood Court 1 7.Consent Agenda 7.1.Memorandum from Councillor Gaertner; Re: Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority Board Meeting Highlights of April 22, 2022 2 1.That the memorandum regarding Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority Board Meeting Highlights of April 22, 2022, be received for information. 8.Advisory Committee Meeting Minutes 8.1.Heritage Advisory Committee Meeting Minutes of June 6, 2022 6 1.That the Heritage Advisory Committee meeting minutes of June 6, 2022, be received for information. 8.2.Finance Advisory Committee Meeting Minutes of June 14, 2022 10 1.That the Finance Advisory Committee meeting minutes of June 14, 2022, be received for information. 9.Consideration of Items Requiring Discussion (Regular Agenda) 9.1.PDS22-110 - Retaining Wall at 22 Rachewood Court 13 1.That Report No. PDS22-110 be received for information. 9.2.OPS22-014 - Phragmites Remediation 21 1.That Report No. OPS22-014 be received; and 2.That staff be directed to initiate a Phragmites Control Program utilizing chemical herbicide for treatment and controlled burn where applicable; and 3.That the Phragmites Control Program’s incremental annual service costs be included in the Town’s future four (4) year operating budget, commencing in 2023 for Council consideration. 9.3.CAO22-002 - Post-Pandemic Wrap-up 33 1.That Report No. CAO22-002 be received for information. 9.4.CS22-031 - Post-COVID-19 Pandemic Recovery and Future Work Model 41 1.That Report No. CS22-031 be received; and 2.That the Guiding Principles for the development of future Alternative Work Policies be adopted. 9.5.CS22-040 - Deputy Mayor Options 52 1.That Report No. CS22-040 be received; and 2.That staff bring forward an amendment to the Procedure By-law to institute a rotation of the Deputy Mayor position as described in this report; and 3.That the amendment to the Procedure By-law take effect on November 15, 2022. 9.6.FIN22-023 - 2022 Interim Forecast Update - As of April 30, 2022 57 1.That Report No. FIN22-023 be received for information. 9.7.OPS22-015 - Tree Removal Permit Application - 72 Harrison Avenue 88 1.That Report No. OPS22-015 be received; and 2.That the Tree Removal Application for 72 Harrison Avenue be approved. 9.8.PDS22-085 - Notice of Objection to Notice of Intention to Designate 34 Berczy Street under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act 97 1.That Report No. PDS22-085 be received; and 2.That the designation by-law be brought before Council for enactment. 9.9.PDS22-107 - Application for Site Plan Approval, York Region District School Board, 377 Hartwell Way, File Number: SP-2021-12 162 1.That Report No. PDS22-107 be received; and 2.That Site Plan Application File SP-2021-12 to permit the development of a two-storey JK-8 elementary school (638 students) with a Gross Floor Area of 5,985.50 m² (64,427.0 ft²) and accessory childcare facility (48 children), bus drop-off lane, parking areas, additional student drop off lanes, asphalt play yard, outdoor fenced play areas and green space throughout, be approved. 10.Notices of Motion *10.1.Councillor Gaertner; Re: Update of By-law No. 5429-12 - Registration of Second Suites 181 *10.2.Councillor Gaertner; Re: Lessons Learned from Highland Gate Development 183 11.Regional Report 12.New Business 13.Public Service Announcements 14.Closed Session 15.Adjournment -RKQ:HVW:D\ $XURUD2QWDULR /*- DXURUDFD 'HOHJDWLRQ5HTXHVW 7KLVUHTXHVWDQGDQ\ZULWWHQVXEPLVVLRQVRUEDFNJURXQGLQIRUPDWLRQIRUFRQVLGHUDWLRQE\HLWKHU&RXQFLORU &RPPLWWHHVRI&RXQFLOLVEHLQJVXEPLWWHGWR/HJLVODWLYH6HUYLFHV &RXQFLORU&RPPLWWHH *HQHUDO&RPPLWWHH &RXQFLORU&RPPLWWHH0HHWLQJ'DWH a 6XEMHFW 5HSRUW1R3'6±5HWDLQLQJ:DOODW5DFKHZRRG&RXUW ,WHP )XOO1DPHRI6SRNHVSHUVRQDQG1DPHRI*URXSRU3HUVRQ V EHLQJ5HSUHVHQWHG LIDSSOLFDEOH 0LFKDHO:KLWH %ULHI6XPPDU\RI,VVXHRU3XUSRVHRI'HOHJDWLRQ 7KHUHSRUWGRHVQRWDGGUHVVDQ\RIWKHFRQFHUQVWKDW,UDLVHGLQP\GHOHJDWLRQWRFRXQFLORQ)HE +DYH\RXEHHQLQFRQWDFWZLWKD7RZQVWDIIRU&RXQFLOPHPEHUUHJDUGLQJ\RXUPDWWHURILQWHUHVW" <HV 1R )XOOQDPHRIWKH7RZQVWDIIRU&RXQFLO PHPEHUZLWKZKRP\RXVSRNH &RXQFLO 'DWH\RXVSRNHZLWK7RZQVWDIIRUD&RXQFLO PHPEHU y y ,DFNQRZOHGJHWKDWWKH3URFHGXUH%\ODZSHUPLWVILYH PLQXWHVIRU'HOHJDWLRQV $JUHH Page 1 of 183 100 John West Way Aurora, Ontario L4G 6J1 (905) 727-3123 aurora.ca Town of Aurora Memorandum Councillor’s Office Re: Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority Board Meeting Highlights of April 22, 2022 To: Mayor and Members of Council From: Councillor Wendy Gaertner Date: July 5, 2022 Recommendation 1.That the memorandum regarding Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority Board Meeting Highlights of April 22, 2022, be received for information. Attachments Attachment 1 – Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority Board Meeting Highlights of April 22, 2022 Page 2 of 183 Board Meeting Highlights April 22, 2022 Announcements: a)Chair Emmerson offered condolences to City of Kawartha Lakes Board member Councillor Emmett Yeo and his family on the loss of his father. b)CAO Rob Baldwin updated the Board that staff returned to the physical offices two days per week on April 19th, and he reminded the Board that the Newmarket Administrative offices will now be open to the public each week from Tuesday to Thursday. c)CAO Rob Baldwin advised that earlier in the week the Provincial government announced $24M in capital funding towards the Holland Marsh Treatment Facility, which along with the Federal government’s commitment of $16M back in 2020, brings total funds towards this project to $40M for the Municipal Streamline Class Environmental Assessment, design and capital construction. CAO Baldwin was pleased to the attend the announcement with Minister Piccini, Minister Mulroney, and MPP Khanjin, as well as local representatives. More details will be brought to the Board as available. d)CAO Rob Baldwin was pleased to announce that he has been appointed to the Lake Simcoe Coordinating Committee. e)CAO Rob Baldwin announced that at Conservation Ontario’s recently held Annual General Meeting Alan Revill of Catarqui Conservation was appointed as Chair, and Alan Dale of Upper Thames Conservation Authority was appointed Vice Chair. He also noted that along with himself, Linda Laliberte of Ganaraska and Samantha Lawson of Grand River were appointed as Board members. f)CAO Rob Baldwin reminded Board members of a webinar being hosted by MECP on May 2nd regarding Programs and Services of the Conservation Authorities Act changes. g)CAO Rob Baldwin noted that the Phase 2 Regulations of the Conservation Authorities Act were posted on the Environmental Registry of Ontario, and the Conservation Authorities Working Group is now taking a break until after the Provincial election . h)General Manager, Planning, Development and Restoration, Glenn MacMillan, reported that a very successful meeting was recently held with the BILD. The result of which will be a series of webinars, the first one being held on June 8th regarding hydrogeologic submissions. i)Foundation Executive Director, Cheryl Taylor, was pleased to update that the Foundation’s Annual Dinner is sold out with 366 guests expected. She also noted that the 4th Annual Golf Attachment 1 Page 3 of 183 LSRCA Board of Directors Meeting Highlights – April 22, 2022 Page 2 of 3 Tournament is being held on August 22nd at the Nest at Friday Harbour. More information on these events can be found at Lake Simcoe Conservation Foundation j)Manager, Forestry and Greenspace Services, Phil Davies, provided an update on the public webinar held on April 20th on the spongy moth. The webinar was well attended and covered the life cycle and management options. The recorded webinar has been posted on the Conservation Authorities’ website: Spongy Moth webinar Presentations: a)2021 Draft Audited Financial Statements BDO Canada LLP Auditor Adam Delle Cese provided a high-level overview of the Conservation Authority’s 2021 audit process and results, noting that the audit is substantially complete aside from a couple of items; those being approval of the audited financial statements by the Board of Directors, and receipt of the signed representation letter, both expected to be completed after the meeting with no changes expected. He noted a risk base audit approach is taken and significant risk areas are identified; namely, management override of controls and revenue recognition as it relates to grants and special levy. He also noted these two areas are significant to all organizations and was pleased to note there were no issues noted during these tests. Internal control tests found no control deficiencies and no adjusted or unadjusted differences. Accordingly, he advised there are no communications needing the Board’s attention. He reviewed the audit process and noted that some changes are coming for the 2022 audit around testing. In closing, he advised that BDO Canada LLP is independent of the Conservation Authority as required, and BDO did conduct an audit of the financial statements of the Conservation Authority. It is their opinion that the financial statements present fairly and are in accordance with Public Sector Accounting Standards. b)Land Securement Initiative Update, Town of Georgina General Manager, Conservation Lands, Brian Kemp, provided an overview of the recent land securement in the Town of Georgina, noting that the Conservation Authority is very pleased to have this property transferred to its ownership and care. The property is approximately 890 acres consisting of wetlands, woodlands, York Region Greenland and agricultural lands. The lands are situated adjacent to the Arnold C. Matthews Nature Reserve, which are lands protected through a conservation easement held by the Conservation Authority, bringing the total protected lands in this area to over 1,110 acres. He advised the lands are subject to a Minister’s Zoning Order that removes the registered plan of subdivision and replaces it with Environmental Protection Area zoning. GM Kemp shared some photos taken by staff who have walked the property. Next steps include closing off the property to trespassers so that staff may conduct site visits and gain a better understanding of the property’s natural features. Staff are compiling data for submission to the Conservation Land Tax Incentive Program and will begin Page 4 of 183 LSRCA Board of Directors Meeting Highlights – April 22, 2022 Page 3 of 3 discussions with Regional and local municipalities for potential tax relief and exemption. Staff are seeking funding through the Conservation Authority’s Ecological Offsetting Program and the Canada Nature Fund as identified in the accompanying staff report . Staff will be reviewing restoration opportunities for the development of a short-term management plan, as well as a long-term Master Plan, which will include the development of a community stakeholders’ committee. To view this presentation, please click this link: Newly Acquired Lands, Town of Georgina Correspondence and Staff Reports: Correspondence The Board received the Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority’s April 7, 2022 letter to the Federal Minister of Finance, the Honourable Chrystia Freeland, regarding funding for Lake Simcoe. Technical Guidelines for Stormwater Management Submissions The Board received Staff Report No. 16-22-BOD regarding updates to the Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority’s Technical Guidelines for Stormwater Management Submissions and approved the revised Technical Guidelines for Stormwater Management Submissions effective immediately. 2022 Provincial Funding Agreements Summary - Lake Simcoe Protection Plan The Board received Staff Report No. 17-22-BOD regarding recently secured Provincial funding in support of the Lake Simcoe Protection Plan. 2022 Conservation Awards Program and Ceremony The Board received Staff Report No. 18-22-BOD regarding the 2022 Conservation Awards. Confidential Human Resources Matter The Board received Confidential Staff Report No. 19-22-BOD regarding a confidential human resources matter. For more information or to see the full agenda package, visit LSRCA’s Board of Directors’ webpage. Page 5 of 183 1 Town of Aurora Heritage Advisory Committee Meeting Minutes Date: Time: Location: Monday, June 6, 2022 7 p.m. Video Conference Committee Members: Jeff Lanthier (Chair) John Green Matthew Kinsella Robert Lounds Bob McRoberts (Vice Chair) Councillor Sandra Humfryes (arrived 7:14 p.m.) Members Absent: Hoda Soliman Other Attendees: Sara Tienkamp, Manager, Parks and Fleet Brashanthe Manoharan, Planner/Heritage Planning Linda Bottos, Council/Committee Coordinator _____________________________________________________________________ 1. Call to Order The Chair called the meeting to order at 7:01 p.m. 2. Land Acknowledgement The Committee acknowledged that the meeting took place on the traditional and treaty territory of the Anishinaabe and many other Nations whose presence here continues to this day, and that Aurora has shared responsibility for the stewardship of this land. It was noted that Aurora is part of the treaty lands of the Mississaugas of the Credit, recognized through Treaty #13 and the Williams Treaties of 1923. 3. Approval of the Agenda Page 6 of 183 2 Moved by Robert Lounds Seconded by Bob McRoberts That the agenda as circulated by Legislative Services be approved. Carried 4. 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. 5. Receipt of the Minutes 5.1 Heritage Advisory Committee Meeting Minutes of May 2, 2022 Moved by John Green Seconded by Robert Lounds That the Heritage Advisory Committee meeting minutes of May 2, 2022, be received for information. Carried 6. Delegations None. 7. Matters for Consideration 7.1 Memorandum from Planner/Heritage Planning; Re: Heritage Permit Application File: HPA-2022-06, 20 Catherine Avenue The applicant, David Doran, and the property owners, Ian and Patricia Emsley, were present to answer any questions. Staff provided an overview of the memorandum and application. It was noted the heritage permit also includes a tree removal application for the Manitoba Maple tree located in the rear yard to facilitate the proposed addition; however, the tree was knocked down during the recent severe storm leaving only a portion of the trunk which now requires cleanup. The Committee expressed support for the application. Page 7 of 183 3 Moved by Matthew Kinsella Seconded by John Green 1. That the memorandum regarding Heritage Permit Application File: HPA-2022-06, 20 Catherine Avenue, be received; and 2. That the Heritage Advisory Committee comments regarding Heritage Permit Application File: HPA-2022-06 be received and referred to staff for consideration and further action as appropriate. Carried 7.2 Memorandum from Manager of Parks and Fleet; Re: Tree Removal Application - 72 Harrison Avenue Staff provided an overview of the memorandum and application. The Committee expressed support for the application and inquired about the tree replacement follow-up process, which was addressed by staff. Moved by Robert Lounds Seconded by Bob McRoberts 1. That the memorandum regarding Tree Removal Application – 72 Harrison Avenue be received; and 2. That the Heritage Advisory Committee comments regarding Tree Removal Application – 72 Harrison Avenue be received and referred to staff for consideration and further action as appropriate. Carried 8. Informational Items 8.1 Memorandum from Planner/Heritage Planning; Re: Report on 2022 Minor Heritage Permit Approvals Staff provided an overview of the memorandum. The Committee inquired about the property at 74 Centre Street and staff provided clarification. Moved by Matthew Kinsella Seconded by Robert Lounds 1. That the memorandum regarding Report on 2022 Minor Heritage Permit Approvals be received for information. Carried Page 8 of 183 4 8.2 Memorandum from Planner/Heritage Planning; Re: Heritage Advisory Committee Update List Staff provided a brief overview of the memorandum. The Committee expressed appreciation for the update list. Moved by John Green Seconded by Bob McRoberts 1. That the memorandum regarding Heritage Advisory Committee Update List be received for information. Carried 9. Adjournment Councillor Humfryes expressed appreciation to the Committee members and staff for their efforts on the Committee. Moved by Matthew Kinsella Seconded by Robert Lounds That the meeting be adjourned at 7:22 p.m. Carried Page 9 of 183 1 Town of Aurora Finance Advisory Committee Meeting Minutes Date: Time: Location: Tuesday, June 14, 2022 5:45 p.m. Video Conference Committee Members: Mayor Tom Mrakas (Chair) Councillor Harold Kim Councillor Michael Thompson Other Attendees: Doug Nadorozny, Chief Administrative Officer Rachel Wainwright-van Kessel, Director of Finance Jason Gaertner, Manager, Financial Management Sandeep Dhillon, Advisor, Financial Management Linda Bottos, Council/Committee Coordinator _____________________________________________________________________ 1. Call to Order The Chair called the meeting to order at 5:49 p.m. 2. Land Acknowledgement The Committee acknowledged that the meeting took place on the traditional and treaty territory of the Anishinaabe and many other Nations whose presence here continues to this day, and that Aurora has shared responsibility for the stewardship of this land. It was noted that Aurora is part of the treaty lands of the Mississaugas of the Credit, recognized through Treaty #13 and the Williams Treaties of 1923. 3. Approval of the Agenda Moved by Councillor Thompson Seconded by Councillor Kim Page 10 of 183 2 That the agenda as circulated by Legislative Services be approved. Carried 4. 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. 5. Receipt of the Minutes 5.1 Finance Advisory Committee Meeting Minutes of May 9, 2022 Moved by Councillor Thompson Seconded by Councillor Kim That the Finance Advisory Committee meeting minutes of May 9, 2022, be received for information. Carried 6. Delegations None. 7. Matters for Consideration 7.1 Memorandum from Senior Financial Management Advisor: Re: Debt Management Policy Staff provided an overview of the memorandum. The Committee expressed its support of the proposed Debt Management Policy and appreciation to staff for their efforts. The Committee inquired about internal financing and short-term debt, debt scheduling for long- and short-term projects in relation to interest rates, and long-term fixed rate debentures, and staff provided clarification. The Committee made suggestions regarding the Town Debt website report and inclusion of comparators in future reporting. Moved by Councillor Thompson Seconded by Councillor Kim Page 11 of 183 3 1. That the memorandum regarding Debt Management Policy be received; and 2. That the Finance Advisory Committee comments regarding Debt Management Policy be received and referred to staff for consideration and further action as appropriate. Carried 7.2 Memorandum from Manager, Financial Management; Re: Finance Advisory Committee Council Term Summary Staff provided an overview of the memorandum. The Committee expressed its support of the summary and appreciation to its members and staff for all efforts throughout the Council term toward improving the corporate financial planning process. Moved by Councillor Thompson Seconded by Councillor Kim 1. That the memorandum regarding Finance Advisory Committee Council Term Summary be received for information. Carried 8. New Business None. 9. Adjournment Moved by Councillor Kim Seconded by Councillor Thompson That the meeting be adjourned at 6:09 p.m. Carried Page 12 of 183 100 John West Way Aurora, Ontario L4G 6J1 (905) 727-3123 aurora.ca Town of Aurora General Committee Report No. PDS22 -1 10 Subject: Retaining Wall at 22 Rachewood Court Prepared by: Marco Ramunno, Director Planning and Development Services Department: Planning and Development Services Date: July 5, 2022 Recommendation 1. That Report No. PDS22-110 be received for information. Executive Summary This report is presented to General Committee for information in response to a delegation made requesting the Town of Aurora take responsibility of maintaining a retaining wall located in the rear yard of 22 Rachewood Court and abutting the rear yard of 31 Underhill Crescent. In review of this request, it is determined that the retaining wall in question had presumably been constructed without any notification or approval by the Town as it is not recorded in any registered plans, records of title, or later approvals. Further, the retaining wall in question lays over a stormwater drainage easement which does prevent the approval and construction of any infrastructure within the 3-metre easement. The retaining wall encroaches onto Town owned lands. It is the opinion of staff, that the maintenance or removal of the retaining wall as it exists between 22 Rachewood Court and 31 Underhill Crescent, is not a Town responsibility and should be resolved privately between both abutting property owners. In 2019, Town staff received an inquiry from the owner of 22 Rachewood Court seeking clarity on the Town’s position regarding a retaining wall located on their property abutting the rear yard of 31 Underhill Crescent. On February 1, 2022, a delegation was presented by the owner of 31 Underhill Crescent suggesting the responsibility of maintaining the retaining wall belonged to the Town of Aurora. Page 13 of 183 July 5, 2022 2 of 8 Report No. PDS22-110 The retaining wall is not shown on any registered plans, and there is no record of later permits or approvals. The retaining wall encroaches onto a perpetual stormwater easement and onto Town owned lands. The retaining wall appears to have been constructed solely for the purpose of supporting the pool in the rear yard of 31 Underhill Crescent and does not serve any function to the Town. It is the opinion of staff that the maintenance of the retaining wall between 22 Rachewood Court and 31 Underhill Crescent is not a responsibility of the Town of Aurora and should be resolved privately between both abutting property owners. Background In 2019, Town staff received a resident inquiry from the owner of 22 Rachewood Court seeking clarity on the Town’s position regarding a retaining wall located on their property abutting the rear yard of 31 Underhill Crescent. The retaining wall in question is located along the rear property line of 22 Rachewood Court extending approximately 20 feet into Town owned open space land and abuts the entire rear yard of 31 Underhill Crescent (the “Underhill Owner”) (Figure 1). In his inquiry, the Rachewood Owner expressed concern over the state of disrepair of the retaining wall, and that there was question of responsibility between the owners. Page 14 of 183 July 5, 2022 3 of 8 Report No. PDS22-110 Figure 1 – Image showing 31 Underhill Crescent (top) above 22 Rachewood Court with highlighted retaining wall and property boundaries After reviewing the inquiry, staff responded to the Rachewood Owner explaining that the Town did not have any plans or documents on file that confirmed the presence of the retaining wall, and that the wall existed overtop a registered easement on title of the property, in perpetuity. Staff advised that the Town would not pursue removal of the wall unless there was interference with the flow of water, and that this was a private property matter between neighbours. On February 1, 2022, a delegation was presented by the owner of 31 Underhill Crescent suggesting the responsibility of maintaining the retaining wall belonged to the Town of Aurora In May 2021, staff received an inquiry from the Underhill Owner suggesting that the retaining wall was the responsibility of the Town of Aurora. Page 15 of 183 July 5, 2022 4 of 8 Report No. PDS22-110 In August 2021, staff responded to the owners via email reiterating that it was the opinion of staff that the entire intent of the retaining wall was installed for the sole benefit of the original property owner of 31 Underhill Crescent. Further, it was again explained that the original grading plans for this subdivision did not indicate a retaining wall was installed, and it was not shown in any approved engineering drawings the Town has for this subdivision. Both owners were also reminded of the storm water easement which starts from the catch basin within the Town owned lands running west through the rear yard of 22 Rachewood Court. Figure 2 shows the location of the stormwater drainage easement through the rear yard of 22 Rachewood Court. Figure 2 – Approved plan showing drainage easement located through 22 Rachewood Court behind 31 Underhill Crescent. The Underhill Owner elected to present a delegation to General Committee, February 1, 2022. This Information Report is in response to the delegation made (Delegation 6.1, Michael White, Resident; Re Drainage Maintenance between Underhill Crescent and Rachewood Court). Catch Basin Town-Owned Open Space Page 16 of 183 July 5, 2022 5 of 8 Report No. PDS22-110 Through this delegation, the Underhill Owner referred to an ongoing dispute regarding the responsibility of maintaining the catch basin, drainage swale and retaining wall located behind his property, indicating that they are on Town property. He requested that the Town investigate the concerns and assume maintenance responsibilities. General Committee received the comments of the delegation, ratified at the February 22, 2022 meeting of Council. Analysis The retaining wall is not shown on any registered plans, and there is no record of later permits or approvals. As made aware to both owners, the retaining wall is not shown on any registered grading plans, property titles, or later permits or approvals. Notwithstanding statements from Underhill Owner’s delegation, there is no evidence the retaining wall was ever approved by the Town and it is likely it was constructed without staff having any knowledge. Further, the retaining wall lays directly over a storm water easement which restricts the construction of any structure within the 3 metre easement (refer to Figure 2). There is no wording within the easement on title which describes a requirement for a retaining wall or a requirement that states the Town is responsible for maintenance. The retaining wall encroaches onto a perpetual stormwater easement and Town owned land. As shown in Figures 1 and 2, the retaining wall encroaches onto a stormwater easement in the rear yard of 22 Rachewood. The retaining wall then continues beyond the rear yard into Town owned lands, located in close proximity to a municipal catch-basin. In January 2022, a survey was ordered by Town staff to geographically locate and measure the retaining wall for information, at which point the Rachewood Owner requested an update, and was made aware of the Underhill Owner’s planned delegation in February 2022. The retaining wall appears to have been constructed solely for the purpose of supporting the pool in the rear yard of 31 Underhill Crescent and does not serve any function to the Town. In June 2022, staff visited onsite to assess the retaining wall. After this assessment it was determined that the retaining wall appears to have been constructed solely for the purpose of supporting the rear yard and pool at 31 Underhill Crescent, despite being located primarily on the rear parcel of 22 Rachewood Court, with a portion extending Page 17 of 183 July 5, 2022 6 of 8 Report No. PDS22-110 beyond 22 Rachewood Court, encroaching approximately 20 feet into municipally owned property (refer to Figure 1). Based on a visual assessment by staff, it appears the retaining wall could be entirely relocated to 31 Underhill. Given the close proximity of the pool to the property line at 31 Underhill (1.2 m) staff recommend the owners retain a structural engineer at their own cost, to determine if the retaining wall can be completely relocated to 31 Underhill. Staff recommend relocating the wall as close to the pool as possible, and remain outside of the existing easement. It is the opinion of staff that the maintenance of the retaining wall between 22 Rachewood Court and 31 Underhill Crescent is not a responsibility of the Town of Aurora and should be resolved privately between both abutting property owners. Given that the retaining wall was constructed without approval on private property, and lays over a drainage easement which would prevent the approval or construction of any overlaying retaining wall, staff are of the opinion this matter should be dealt with privately between both neighbours. While staff are aware the retaining wall encroaches approximately 20 feet onto Town owned land, it is determined that unless the retaining wall negatively impacts the function of the nearby catch basin, the Town would not decommission the retaining wall. Instead, it is the responsibility of the two owners to finalize the matter. Staff recommend the owners retain a structural engineer to consider moving the wall entirely to the property of 31 Underhill Crescent, and avoid encroaching onto the easement and Town owned property, at the owners sole cost. Legal Considerations The Town’s parks by-law states that no one may encroach on Town public lands unless in accordance with the Town’s encroachment policy and authorized by Council. Even though the retaining wall is an encroachment onto Town lands, as owners of the lands, the Town would likely be held liable for any personal injury claims or property damage that would occur if the retaining wall between the Town lands and 31 Underhill Crescent failed. Since the Town has no use for the retaining wall, the Town may consider removing the wall, however, this may negatively impact the Underhill property. Financial Implications None. Page 18 of 183 July 5, 2022 7 of 8 Report No. PDS22-110 Communications Considerations None. Climate Change Considerations The opinions and considerations from this report do not impact greenhouse gas emissions or impact climate change adaptation. Alternative to the Recommendation 1. That Council provide direction. Conclusions In response to the delegation made to General Committee on February 1, 2022 requesting the Town of Aurora take responsibility of maintaining a retaining wall located primarily at 22 Rachewood Court, it is determined that the retaining wall in question had presumably been constructed without any notification or approval by the Town as it is not recorded in any registered plans, records of title, or later approvals. Further, the retaining wall in question lays over a stormwater drainage easement which does prevent the approval and construction of any infrastructure within the 3 metre easement. It is the opinion of staff, that the maintenance or removal of the retaining wall as it exists between 22 Rachewood Court and 31 Underhill Crescent, is not a Town responsibility and should be resolved privately between both abutting property owners. Staff recommend the owners retain a structural engineer to consider moving the wall entirely to the property of 31 Underhill Crescent to avoid encroaching onto the easement and Town owned property, at the owners cost. Attachments None. Previous Reports None. Page 19 of 183 July 5, 2022 8 of 8 Report No. PDS22-110 Pre-submission Review Agenda Management Team review on Select review date Approvals Approved by Marco Ramunno, Director, Planning and Development Services Approved by Doug Nadorozny, Chief Administrative Officer Page 20 of 183 100 John West Way Aurora, Ontario L4G 6J1 (905) 727-3123 aurora.ca Town of Aurora General Committee Report No. OPS 2 2 -014 Subject: Phragmites Remediation Prepared by: Sara Tienkamp, Manager of Parks and Fleet Department: Operational Services Date: July 5, 2022 Recommendation 1. That Report No. OPS22-014 be received; and 2. That staff be directed to initiate a Phragmites Control Program utilizing chemical herbicide for treatment and controlled burn where applicable; and 3. That the Phragmites Control Program’s incremental annual service costs be included in the Town’s future four (4) year operating budget, commencing in 2023 for Council consideration. Executive Summary This report provides Council with information and recommendations on Phragmites, an invasive grass in Aurora: ‘Phragmites australis’ is an invasive perennial grass introduced to North America in the 1800s along the Atlantic coast, as a seed contaminant in soil ballast and intentionally introduced through the horticulture trade. Impacts of Phragmites are extensive and not specific to plant and wildlife diversity. Wellington Street and St. Johns Sideroad both have extensive populations of reed grass in the public right-of-way and beyond. Control method for Phragmites growth offer preventable steps, and options for both long term and short-term control; however, chemical herbicide is the most effective control, followed by controlled burn of biomass. Phragmites treatment and control occurring within York Region through various stakeholders. Page 21 of 183 July 5, 2022 2 of 10 Report No. OPS22-014 Support for Phragmites mitigation, grant funding and invasive species expertise available through Green Shovels. Background ‘Phragmites australis’ is an invasive perennial grass introduced to North America in the 1800s along the Atlantic coast, as a seed contaminant in soil ballast and intentionally introduced through the horticulture trade. ‘Phragmites australis’ (common reed grass) is an invasive, aggressive perennial that can grow in aquatic and subaquatic environments, reaching heights of more than 5m and densities of over 200 stems/m2. Reproduction is through rhizomes that can grow horizontally several metres per year, creating a significant biomass. Vertical plant growth can reach four (4) centimetres per day and plants can produce thousands of seeds annually. The prolific seed count is dispersed naturally through water, air or animal movement, as well as through human actions and equipment such as horticultural/construction activities, motor vehicles, boats and trailers. In 2005, it was recognized as Canada’s worst invasive plant by scientists at Agriculture and Agri-food Canada. Invasive Phragmites was first introduced along the eastern seaboard but has since been located west and north of the original point of introduction. During the 1990s it spread rapidly throughout Southern Ontario and can now be found as far north as Georgian Bay and Lake Superior. It has become one of the most significant threats to Great Lakes coastal habitats, where it has drastically reduced plant and wildlife diversity, as well as threatened a high number of species at risk. Analysis Impacts of Phragmites are extensive and not specific to plant and wildlife diversity. While Phragmites has a significant affect on native plants and wildlife, along with coastal/wetland and lake habitats, it has many cultural and economic impacts that include: • Damage to infrastructure; • Safety hazards (e.g. dead stands create fire hazards and block sightlines along roadways, etc.); • Increased costs in construction activities, potential delays; • Aesthetic degradation and blocking of property views; Page 22 of 183 July 5, 2022 3 of 10 Report No. OPS22-014 • Reduced property values; • Loss of productivity in woodlots and agriculture; • Impeding access to important infrastructure and utilities (e.g. fire hydrants, hydro corridors, storm water management infrastructure); and • Recreational values. Wellington Street and St. Johns Sideroad both have extensive populations of reed grass in the public right-of-way and beyond. Phragmites is a common sight along Ontario’s major highways and secondary roads as can be seen along Aurora’s major road arteries. It is also taken hold along and within rail and hydro corridors. These transportation corridors all act as vectors to spread the species along with transport of contaminated soils through construction activities. Phragmites sites vary in size in Aurora, from 1m2 to several hundred m2 plots. Staff record locations as they are detected with assistance from residents. Attachment#1 illustrates the identified areas in Aurora, known to staff and includes storm water management areas, private and public lands. Priority areas of concern include: • David Tomlinson Nature Reserve (DTNR) • McKenzie Marsh • Aurora Community Arboretum (ACA) • St. John’s Sideroad – northside between William Graham Blvd/Leslie St. These locations are of particular concern because if Phragmites is controlled it will prevent rampant spread in these sensitive ecosystems. It is well documented that Phragmites changes hydrological and nutrient cycling patterns. This poses a concern for the Town’s storm water management ponds and the affect phragmites has on the infrastructure. During 2020-2021, Operations retained Lake Simcoe Regional Conservation Authority (LSRCA) to inspect all the Storm Water Management (SWM) facilities and infrastructure in Aurora. The study identified deficiencies/outfall blockages/silt buildup/vegetation overgrowth and phragmite presence along with recommendations and prioritization of works. Of the 38 wet SWM ponds, 24 were identified as having phragmites in varying degrees of infestations. As a result of this report, Operations had included a multi-year Storm Water Management Maintenance project in the Operational Budget starting in 2023 for Council Page 23 of 183 July 5, 2022 4 of 10 Report No. OPS22-014 consideration. If the project is granted approval a portion of the funding is earmarked to deal with the Phragmites in the SWM facilities, identified by LSRCA. Control methods for Phragmites growth offer preventable steps, and options for both long term and short-term control; however, chemical herbicide is the most effective control followed by controlled burn of biomass. Integrated pest management involves monitoring thresholds and utilizing the best method of control for the site conditions and most often than not a combination of control methods is applied. The various methods are described in Table 1 below: Table 1. Control methods available in Ontario Method Site Conditions Strengths Limitations Digging/spading (manual) Dry land Easy to implement, cost effective for small sites. Very labour intensive, need soft soils, efficacy variable and requires repeat treatments, time consuming, slow progress towards restoration objectives, biomass must be disposed of responsibly. Cut-to-drown (manual) In water 30cm or greater in depth Reasonably effective in deep water; most suitable for small sites Very labour intensive. Not effective in less than 30cm water. Water level must stay high throughout growing season to be effective. Subject to water level fluctuations; may require repeat treatments. Time consuming, slow progress towards restoration objectives, biomass must be disposed of appropriately. Cut-to-drown (mechanical equipment) In water 30cm or greater in depth Reasonably effective in deep water Requires specialized cutting equipment with trained operators that can be expensive. Not effective in less than 30cm water. Water level must stay high throughout growing season to be effective. Subject to water level fluctuations; may require repeat treatments. Time Page 24 of 183 July 5, 2022 5 of 10 Report No. OPS22-014 Method Site Conditions Strengths Limitations consuming to deliver; biomass must be disposed of appropriately. Potential harm to wildlife/adverse ecological effects Chemical Herbicide Applications Dry land Very high efficacy covers large areas quickly, less labour intensive than mechanical methods, and requires less physical disturbance. Public perceptions of herbicides, multiple authorizations, requires trained exterminators. Best management practices recommend rolling and/or burning of biomass after three (3) weeks. Narrow biological windows for application (fall). Potential harm to wildlife/adverse ecological effects Chemical Herbicide Applications Aquatic (in water) Very high efficacy, covers large areas quickly. Public perceptions of herbicides, complex licensing/permits, multiple applications, trained exterminators. Best practices recommend rolling and or burning of biomass after three (3) weeks. Narrow windows of application. Potential harm to wildlife/adverse ecological effects Controlled Burn Dry sites and aquatic sites (limited to winter). Effective way to remove dead biomass in spring/winter, allows for early detection of new shoots and the establishment of native plant material/replanting. Public perception, permits, timing, climatic impacts affect treatment (lack of ice) Potential harm to wildlife/adverse ecological effects. Biomass removal is an important part of the process as it ensures the adequate containment of seeds/rhizomes and helps with monitoring for new growth on site to Page 25 of 183 July 5, 2022 6 of 10 Report No. OPS22-014 mitigate future infestation. It also allows the opportunity for the reestablishment of native species either through natural regeneration or by replanting efforts. However, transportation and disposal are logistically challenging. Prescribed burning may be suitable for some sites during the dormant season, but in most instances removal and disposal of cut material is necessary. Biocontrol may become a promising additional tool in Phragmites management. Two moth species have been approved for release in Canada and are currently being trialed in Ontario. Although biocontrol may not replace the need for substantial removal of established phragmites sites it has the potential to be an added method to utilize as part of the integrated pest management plan toolbox. Phragmites treatment and control occurring within York Region through various stakeholders. Many Municipalities, Regions, Conservation groups and landowners are dealing with the challenges of Phragmites control throughout Ontario. Currently, these projects range in scale from small, volunteer-driven to large-scale, highly mechanized projects led by professionals in the invasive species industry. Regardless of scale, most projects require a multi-year plan using a combination of tools and techniques to mitigate and manage the issue. The following organizations have worked on phragmites projects to different degrees: York Region In 2019 the Regional Municipality of York (the Region) undertook a formal inventory of phragmites and introduced a ‘pilot’ control program. In 2020 they collaborated with Municipalities and Conservation Authorities on shared populations of phragmites, including a couple sites in Aurora (McKenzie Marsh and Stronach Aurora Recreation Complex). In 2021 the Region focused mainly on populations solely within the road right of ways. Between 2020 and 2021 they cut and treated approximately 47,000m2 with a chemical herbicide, including follow up spring treatments. Costs related to the treatments were approximately $60,500. Aurora Community Arboretum The Aurora Community Arboretum (ACA) initiated treatment of a large area of phragmites just north of the Tim Hortons Plaza (John West Way) in 2015. The area is approximately 1,000m2 and after the initial application of chemical herbicide, the area Page 26 of 183 July 5, 2022 7 of 10 Report No. OPS22-014 continues to be monitored and treated yearly. Other small pockets of the reed grass have also been treated in the Arboretum with total expenditures to date total approximately $40,000. In addition to chemical treatment, the ACA has done planting of trees in the area, which are intended to grow and shade out the area. This has proved extremely difficult as the biomass was not removed. Township of King The Township of King has been working on a couple small scale phragmites management projects which were grant funded with the assistance of Green Shovels. The primary area of focus has been in the Dufferin Marsh in Schomberg, in which they have been working with the Dufferin Marsh Nature Connection group to implement management controls to prevent the phragmites from spreading further. King was able to achieve good results through manual removal with success in eliminating a couple of patches, however the location has been challenging due to the fluctuating water levels. Staff will monitor the site and continue to implement measures to ensure there is no further spread. King Township also has a couple larger locations situated in sensitive wetlands that they have been monitoring but simply do not have the funding to support treatment currently. Staff have plans to create an Invasive Species Strategy soon, which will act as a guiding document, to support a larger scale plan with associated funding. Support for Phragmites mitigation, grant funding and invasive species expertise available through Green Shovels Collaborative. Green Shovels Collaborative is a network of organizations with a common goal of preventing and managing invasive species. They provide a wide variety of expertise and available funding opportunities. Their programming is designed to achieve job creation in the communities they support, economic recovery and environmental progress while addressing invasive species. Phragmites control is a focus of the group and in 2021 they supported King Township in their efforts. The coalition of conservation groups includes Ducks Unlimited Canada, Federation of Ontario Cottagers Association, Invasive Species Centre, Nature Conservancy of Canada, Ontario Federation of Anglers and Ontario Turtle Conservation Centre. Page 27 of 183 July 5, 2022 8 of 10 Report No. OPS22-014 Advisory Committee Review Not applicable. Legal Considerations Herbicides must be applied in accordance with the federal Pest Control Products Act, S.C. 2002, c. 28, the Ontario Pesticides Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.11, Ontario Regulation 63/09 and in accordance with all label directions. Only licensed pesticide applicators may legally apply restricted pesticides in Ontario. Ontario’s Cosmetic Pesticides Ban prohibits the non-essential use of pesticides (Commercial or Restricted) on land. Exceptions exist to allow the use of these herbicides for control of plants, such as Phragmites, that are detrimental to the environment, economy, agriculture and/or human health. To qualify for these exceptions specific criteria must be met and appropriate Ontario ministry approval is required. Financial Implications Operations has included a new Storm Water Management Maintenance program within the draft the 2023 Operational Budget for Council’s consideration. This new maintenance program will include the active management of phragmites within the Town’s storm water management network, principally relating to its storm ponds. This work will be performed based upon the prioritization schedule as defined from the Storm Water Management 2020-2021 Inspection, Maintenance and Prioritization study. For the control of phragmites outside of the SWM network staff propose that an incremental funding requirement of $75,000/year be included in the draft 2023 operating budget for Council’s consideration. This amount would fund the engagement of a contractor for this purpose. Further, it is anticipated that there will be an incremental requirement for a seasonal staff member with expertise in invasives to spearhead this initiative. As the active control of phragmites within the Town represents a service enhancement, these incremental funding requirements would be a new tax pressure that would need to be addressed as part the proposed 2023 operating budget. On an ongoing basis, staff will continue to explore grant funding opportunities as they become available, which could offset funding needs phragmites control projects. In addition, any possible partnerships with other government agencies and regional counterparts to collaborate on identified phragmite sites that have common boarders will be explored. Page 28 of 183 July 5, 2022 9 of 10 Report No. OPS22-014 Communications Considerations There are mandatory, legislative, public notification requirements that must be adhered to when applying chemical herbicides. Staff will coordinate this notification process via the Town of Aurora’s Communications Department who will use “inform” as the level of communication related to this initiative. Communications will implement an education campaign targeted to residents and visitors on the Phragmites Control Program when implemented. The campaign will be multifaceted, and include among others a media release, website content, social media, print advertising, Newsletters and park signage. Climate Change Considerations The recommendations from this report will result in the mitigation of long-term effects of Phragmites within Aurora’s natural environment and to SWM facilities by implementing measures to control the invasive reed grass. In addition, the recommendations will increase the Town’s ability to adapt to a changing climate by decreasing additional stressors to our hydrological infrastructure and sensitive wetland environments. With rising temperature trends, windstorms and storm intensity, it’s more important than ever for the Town to protect and restore the Town’s natural heritage assets and SWM infrastructure, as they play an important role in mitigating the impacts of a changing climate from air/water quality to stormwater management. Link to Strategic Plan Treatment of Phragmites reinforces the Strategic Plan goal of Supporting Environmental Stewardship and Sustainability for all through its accomplishment in satisfying requirements in the following key objectives within this goal statement: Encouraging the stewardship of Aurora’s natural resources: Assess the merits of measuring the Town’s natural capital assets. Alternative(s) to the Recommendation 1. Council may choose to not proceed with the approval of treating Phragmites with a chemical herbicide. 2. As directed by Council. Page 29 of 183 July 5, 2022 10 of 10 Report No. OPS22-014 Conclusions A sustainable long-term program will be required to manage phragmites to gain effective control. While there are several methods to mitigate the spread, the most efficient solution is the use of a chemical herbicide, appropriate to the site conditions, in conjunction with a controlled burn of the biomass. Successful control of Phragmites over the long-term will require an integrated, large scale implementation plan that includes all necessary partners and stakeholders within a region. The plan will require sustained, multi-year funding, utilizing grant opportunities when available, to match the realities of Phragmites control applying integrated pest management techniques. Attachments Attachment # 1 – Location Map of Phragmites in Aurora Attachment # 2 – Township of King Phragmites Control Previous Reports None. Pre-submission Review Agenda Management Team review on June 16, 2022 Approvals Approved by Allan D. Downey, Director, Operational Services Approved by Doug Nadorozny, Chief Administrative Officer Page 30 of 183 Henderson DriveBayview AvenueSt John's SideroadWellington Street WestLeslie StreetBathurst StreetAurora RoadVandorf SideroadVandorf SideroadYonge StreetBloomington RoadWellington Street EastSt John'sSideroadWoodbine Avenue15th SideroadIndustrialParkwaySouthVandorf Sideroad18th SideroadTOWN OF AURORAINVASIVE SPECIES - PHRAGMITESMap created by the Town of Aurora Corporate Services Department September 16, 2021. Map updated, 20/06/2022 . Base data provided by York Region & the Town of Aurora.¯0 0.75 1.5KilometresDocument Path: J:\data\data\Other Various Projects\Maps for Parks Department\Invasive_Species\Phragmites\Figure_Phragmite_Locations.mxdInvasive Species LocationsProperty TypePrivatePublicSWMPAttachment 1Page 31 of 183 Township of King – Phragmites Control 2022 Image from Environmental Stewardship | Township Of King Attachment 2 Page 32 of 183 100 John West Way Aurora, Ontario L4G 6J1 (905) 727-3123 aurora.ca Town of Aurora General Committee Report No. CAO 2 2 -0 02 Subject: Post-Pandemic Wrap-up Prepared by: Carley Smith, Manager, Corporate Communications Department: Office of the Chief Administrative Officer Date: July 5, 2022 Recommendation 1. That Report No. CAO22-002 be received for information. Executive Summary The Town’s goal from the onset of the pandemic was to continue to maintain and offer programs and services to residents to maintain continued quality of life and livelihood while ensuring the health and safety of the community and staff. This report summarizes just a sample of the work and successes during the pandemic, categorized under the following: Financial resourcefulness and support for local economy Continued and improved service Creative and collaborative solutions Progression of Town priorities and projects Physical and mental health support for staff and local community Background The Town’s goal during the pandemic was to continue to maintain and offer programs and services to residents to maintain continued quality of life and livelihood while ensuring the health and safety of the community and staff. Page 33 of 183 July 5, 2022 2 of 8 Report No. CAO22-002 On March 11, 2020, the World Health Organization (WHO) declared COVID-19 a global pandemic. Just seven days later, the Town began remote operations and on March 18, Mayor Tom Mrakas declared a State of Emergency to align with the provincial declaration. Faced with this unprecedented, prolonged crisis, the Town was in a unique position to make quick, informed decisions which not only provided a great citizen experience in the short-term but will provide benefits well into the future, showing that behind every disruption lies an opportunity for change. Analysis Financial resourcefulness and support for local economy The Town continued to manage taxpayer dollars efficiently including taking advantage of all grant opportunities in its successful management of COVID-19's financial pressures. Financial Management Services assisted its departmental clients in the identification of their COVID-19 driven financial pressures, as well as their identification of mitigating cost savings and alternative funding solutions in support of their continued delivery of services. The Town waived all regular permit cancellation fees, allowing community sport organizations to schedule programming while also being able to cancel when needed without fear of financial penalty. The Town introduced the Patio Extension Program (over 25 patios in 2021) and partnered with Aurora Chamber of Commerce on the shop local / emerging Aurora campaign. The Town revitalized Machell’s Alley to support downtown local business. Continued and improved service The Town focused on continuing to provide a great citizen experience by accelerating digital transformation of several in-person services in order to meet the changing needs of the community such as offering new ways to pay tax and water bills electronically. Virtual programs for all age groups were offered including cooking, creative projects, exercise and fitness, take-home kits, virtual tours, photography, geo- caching, festivals, and art – with overall participation in the thousands. Page 34 of 183 July 5, 2022 3 of 8 Report No. CAO22-002 The Town established and maintained outdoor ice pads for safe skating and modified summer camp programs with increased safety measures and the development of several new policies and procedures as well as offered Play in the Park program for families who didn't want full day programming. The Town was routinely one of the first municipalities in the Region to re-open recreation facilities and indoor pools for programs and rentals, enabling a quick return to play for many community sport organizations. The Town implemented Flex Reg online registration system for drop-in programs allowing participants register online and ePACT for summer camp participants to complete health forms and waivers online, avoiding the need for in-person line- ups on the first day of camp – a practice that will continue into the future, despite COVID-19 restrictions. Access Aurora was deemed essential and continued to accommodate in person appointments for payments, commissioning documents, marriage licenses, burial permits, etc. with added safety measures in place. During the early stages of the pandemic, town staff ensured that the business of Council could continue, while maintaining the ability of the public to safely participate, through the successful launch of virtual Council meetings. This would later evolve to hybrid meetings, where Council, residents and staff can join and participate in Council meetings from anywhere they have an internet connection. Hybrid Council meetings will continue post-pandemic as they offer a higher level of accessibility and convenience for Aurora residents wishing to partake in the democratic process. Early in the pandemic, staff quickly switched from a paper-based Freedom of Information (FOI) request process to one that almost entirely online. Requesters are now able to submit their FOI request through an online fillable form. Not only is this contactless, but it also has proven to reduce response times for requests. Staff are currently working on a mechanism to receive online payments for FOI requests which will create more efficiencies in the process. After declaring a state of emergency for the Province, the provincial government filed numerous orders and constantly amended those orders. Legal Services interpreted these orders and provided legal advice and risk management advice to Town staff so that Town operations and events could continue. Creative and collaborative Solutions At the start of the pandemic, the Town was the first municipality in the N6 to transition to a digital emergency operations center. This required digital Page 35 of 183 July 5, 2022 4 of 8 Report No. CAO22-002 infrastructure to be created and our executive and management teams to quickly adapt to a new remote approach to managing the critically important initial response to the pandemic. Our CAO met regularly with his peers across the region and so did other professionals within the organization to ensure that ideas and opportunities to improve programs, policies and approaches were maximized to the benefit of the Town and its constituents. Bylaw Services joined a regional COVID-19 Taskforce to ensure consistent enforcement practices across the Region, addressing community concerns and minimizing enforcement duplication. This taskforce initially consisted of members from the Region’s 9 Municipalities and York Regional Police, but expanded to include: Public Health, Regional Solicitors Office, Conservation Authorities, Ministry of Labour, and AGCO. Bylaw Services was instrumental in assisting the public with inquiries related to COVID-19. Bylaw partnered with Public Health to conduct joint inspections and educate and build awareness around public health regulations. The Town hosted a number of pop-up and GO-VAXX vaccine clinics, created a Pandemic Recovery Playbook and Return to Play guidelines for sports. The Town leveraged technology to create efficiencies and provide staff with the tools to be successful such as ADP Workforce Now ®, Office 365 and a new telephony system. A policy and a process were created to allow for all contracts and other documents to be signed in an electronic format only and to ensure that these electronic documents remained legally valid. During COVID, Aurora was the most active community in York Region in producing in person events when permitted by legislation. Aurora hosted 40 in person event days in 2021. And, when legislation did not allow for in person events, unique online events were offered, including contests, interactive activities, drive in/drive through and other experiences. The Seniors Centre Without Walls (SCWW) program was developed, allowing participants to call in or virtually join fitness classes, trivia sessions, travel stories and much more. The program also included activity bags that were dropped off to the homes of participants who signed up. The program was extremely well received with 12,626 older adults participating in the calls/online sessions and 5,172 bags distributed helping to prevent isolation and loneliness for many older adults during COVID. We hope to continue offering this program (in some form), permanently. The Town launched the Engage Aurora platform to connect with residents virtually in May, 2020 and has since had nearly 16,000 visitors to the site with 28 Page 36 of 183 July 5, 2022 5 of 8 Report No. CAO22-002 projects open for engagement. This allowed the Town to continue to engage with stakeholders virtually on topics such as Official Plan, Promenade Plan, Green Development Standards, Streetscape Plan, Downtown Vision, Budget Consultations etc. Aurora was the first N6 municipality to create a separate COVID-19 webpage which received nearly 100,000 views in 2021 alone. The Town created a virtual Skylight Gallery featuring a new artist every month to continue supporting and featuring local artists. Progression of Town priorities and projects Throughout the pandemic, the Town continued to progress on many projects including the Cultural Action Plan, Public Art Master Plan, Aurora Town Square, Corporate Environmental Action Plan, Procurement Modernization Project, and Service Delivery Review to name a few. Despite the uncertain times, the Town also rolled out important initiatives such as installing new electric vehicle chargers in partnership with Ivy Charging Network, launched the first Town Go Green Challenge, implemented the 3-bag limit and bag tag system, and introduced online building permit process and planning application status map. In 2019, the Town of Aurora received Silver Certification under the Excellence Canada national organizational quality standard. The Town committed to Gold and despite the pandemic the twenty plus member cross functional team met monthly and continued to move continuous improvement initiatives including key performance indicators, customer experience plan, people plan, diversity, equity and inclusion and change management to name a few. The Town will submit its application for gold certification on schedule in late summer of 2022. The Town is currently working towards completing a Business Continuity Management Program which will ensure that the Town will be able to respond effectively and efficiently to unforeseen service disruptions ensuring continuity of service delivery to resident. As a deliverable in the Sport Plan, significant progress was made in the area of gender equity in Sport. A gender equity policy was developed and a working group created. As a pilot project, three local sport organizations implemented the gender equity policy. Other related initiatives include the creation of a Women's Coaches Circle, female only programs and a high school credit course. All of this work will serve the community well after COVID. Page 37 of 183 July 5, 2022 6 of 8 Report No. CAO22-002 Physical and mental health support for Staff and the local community Several health and safety measures were implemented for staff that were required to work at our facilities to comply with public health measures and maintain a healthy and safe work environment for all our employees and for the public we serve including modifying customer service stations and Council chamber. The Town revised Customer Service areas to Greeter Desks in our Recreation Centres to control safe entry, created online screening tools for staff and patrons and increased cleaning standards and protocols in facilities. Staff who were directed to work from home were outfitted with laptops and new IT infrastructure was introduced to facilitate staff to work safely from home. As facilities reopened, the Town had implemented increased filtration levels and improved HVAC systems. Town staff collaborated with our peers across York Region to share knowledge, leading practices and improve our ability to respond to the challenges of the pandemic and collaboratively developed and implemented policies and procedures to safeguard the health and safety of our workforce and the public we serve. Ex. Masking policy, vaccination policy, automating the screening process, enabling remote work for those who were able to. The Town delivered hundreds of wellness and fitness videos virtually for the public and staff participated in collaborative wellness challenges to support mental health and physical wellbeing. The Town created a webpage compiling mental health resources for the community. Advisory Committee Review None. Legal Considerations Not applicable. Financial Implications Not applicable. Page 38 of 183 July 5, 2022 7 of 8 Report No. CAO22-002 Communications Considerations Not applicable. Climate Change Considerations The COVID-19 pandemic, and inevitably Aurora’s progress towards a new hybrid approach to work and community engagement has reduced GHG generating activities such as transportation, facility energy consumption, contactless engagement etc. All these variables helped reduce climate change impacts. Link to Strategic Plan The Town’s work throughout the COVID-19 pandemic aligned with all goals in the Strategic Plan as work continued, despite the challenges of the pandemic, including: Supporting an exceptional quality of life for all Enabling a diverse, creative and resilient economy Supporting environmental stewardship and sustainability Alternative(s) to the Recommendation 1. Council may provide additional direction. Conclusions The COVID-19 pandemic brought unprecedented challenges for municipalities. Faced with this unprecedented, prolonged crisis, the Town was able to make quick, informed decisions which not only provided a great citizen experience in the short-term but will provide benefits well into the future. We will continue to be innovative, invest in technology and identify efficiencies to modernize our processes and provide effective and efficient services to our community but also support our workforce with the tools it needs to be effective in their day-to-day work. Attachments None. Page 39 of 183 July 5, 2022 8 of 8 Report No. CAO22-002 Previous Reports None. Pre-submission Review Agenda Management Team review on June 16, 2022 Approvals Approved by Doug Nadorozny, Chief Administrative Officer Page 40 of 183 100 John West Way Aurora, Ontario L4G 6J1 (905) 727-3123 aurora.ca Town of Aurora General Committee Report No. CS22-031 Subject: Post-COVID-19 Pandemic Recovery and Future Work Model Prepared by: Demetre Rigakos, Manager, Human Resources Department: Corporate Services Date: July 5, 2022 Recommendation 1. That Report No. CS22-031 be received; and 2. That the Guiding Principles for the development of future Alternative Work Policies be adopted. Executive Summary This report provides an overview on the steps the Town’s administration took to respond to the COVID-19 pandemic over the past two years. Also, it provides a summary of the steps the administration is taking as we move forward in our recovery plans post COVID-19. Over the past two years the organization has had to introduce changes to the way we operate as a response to the pandemic crisis and to protect the health and safety of our employees and the public we serve. Processes have changed, new digital service channels have been introduced to maintain business continuity and continue to provide all essential services to our citizens. As the public health restrictions have almost reached a point where they are completely being lifted, we are turning our efforts to planning out our next steps in terms of adjusting to a post COVID-19 work environment. Page 41 of 183 July 5, 2022 2 of 11 Report No. CS22-031 Phase 1 (March-April 2022) of the Town’s recovery efforts focused on returning employees gradually to the office environment as required and when required to meet service needs. Phase 2 (May-August 2022) of the Town’s recovery efforts will continue to focus on incorporating feedback and learnings from employees and leaders into our future flexible work policies and procedures. Phase 3 (September-December) the Town will be formalizing hybrid work and broadening the definition of flexible work arrangements to introduce features such as compressed work week and flexible start and end times. Phase 4 (January-June 2023) will be used to implement the newly developed alternative work arrangements policy across the organization. The Future Work Model and associated policies will be guided by the following set of principles: I. Citizen Experience, Business Continuity, and Innovation II. Employee Attraction and Retention III. Fiscal Responsibility IV. Our Environment and Optimization of Physical Space V. Change Management VI. Culture VII. Excellence Canada Gold Certification Background In March 2020, in response to the developing COVID-19 pandemic situation, the Town of Aurora closed municipal facilities and sent many of its employees to work from home where possible. Several health and safety measures were implemented for staff that were required to work at our facilities to comply with public health measures and maintain a healthy and safe work environment for all our employees and for the public we serve. Since that time, approximately 60 per cent of the Town’s workforce has seamlessly continued working from home, by being equipped with the tools to work remotely (virtual meetings, collaboration tools, soft telephony tools, etc.) Some of our essential Page 42 of 183 July 5, 2022 3 of 11 Report No. CS22-031 and public-facing municipal service staff have continued to work from Town facilities throughout the pandemic with some staff returning to the workplace as services reopened to the public. Service levels have been maintained across the Town and some of the evidence has also shown increased efficiencies and productivity through the use of technology. The Town understands the importance of keeping up with employment trends to attract and retain the best and brightest talent, so we can deliver efficient and effective public service to the residents of Aurora. As we look ahead toward our recovery from the COVID-19 pandemic, the Town introduced a phased approach to our recovery plans that will allow us to carefully balance the needs of our community from a service level expectation with the needs of our employees from a workstyle preference. Analysis The administration took several steps to adapt in response to COVID-19 and preparing for the Future Collaboration with York Region municipalities. The Chief Administrative Officers of all ten York Region municipalities have been meeting regularly to discuss issues of common concerns and identify approaches to sharing resources, ideas, and approaches to better serve our communities. Examples include: Vaccination policies, Vaccination clinics, Research by the Conference Board of Canada into the Future Work Model, as well as wellness related surveys administered by Dr. Linda Duxbury, a professor and researcher who has dedicated her research in assessing workplace policies on work life balance. Dr. Duxbrury’s research has highlighted the elevated levels of psychological illness in the workplace due to the COVID-19 pandemic. In addition, other subgroups have formed their own working groups to address similar issues of concerns such as human resources leaders, health, and safety specialists, etc. The collaboration between the staff across the entire region has created stronger relationships and collaboration on common challenges as well as uniform approaches to how we address future plans. Page 43 of 183 July 5, 2022 4 of 11 Report No. CS22-031 Conference Board of Canada research into the Future Work Model for York Region municipalities. In June 2021, all ten York Region municipal CAOs and HR Leaders participated in a research project conducted by the Conference Board of Canada to examine the benefits and challenges of fully on-site, fully remote and hybrid workplace models. The work included consultations with all CAOs as well as HR leaders along with literature review and the formulation of recommendations for implementation. The outcome of this research was published in a report titled Workplaces for the Future. A Playbook for Municipal Leaders on Exploring Remote, Hybrid, and On-Site Models. The hybrid model where some of the office related work is performed onsite and some remotely was the leading trend among municipalities as a means of optimizing service delivery. The benefits of this model were identified as acceleration of technology, shared workspaces, social connection, and reduction of office space. Some of the challenges identified included scheduling and coordination and employee inclusivity. The report included recommendations on how municipalities can transition effectively to a hybrid model including communicating expectations on vaccination policies, focusing on key performance indicators and employee accountability, redefining workplace culture, enhancing the organization’s digital transformation strategy, incorporating different forms of flexibility, communicating expectations about residence and engaging stakeholders. Surveys to capture the voice and input of our People Over the past two years the organization has deployed surveys to understand the perspective of our people. Overwhelmingly our staff have expressed interest in workplace flexibility. Some employees want to work remotely occasionally while others prefer working remotely for a larger portion of the work week. Finding the right balance that serves the needs of the business as well as the employee preferences is key to successfully implementing this type of work model. Performance Measurement Program In early 2021, Staff shared with Council the Town’s Corporate Strategic Plan framework. Staff have continued to work on fine tuning the strategic plan, including finalizing the integrated business planning process. Over the past several months staff have turned their attention to looking at options to design and implement a performance measurement program that can be implemented across the Page 44 of 183 July 5, 2022 5 of 11 Report No. CS22-031 organization. Significant progress has been made in this area including identifying the appropriate methodology, ensuring alignment across the leadership of the organization and scheduling workshops in the month of May 2022, to implement the new program. One of the cascading benefits of this program will be the ability to track progress on outcomes at the divisional level and summarizing all the results digitally. This will enable the organization not only to improve collaboration, but it will also make results transparent across the organization and give our leaders the ability to hone in on areas that require attention. Technological Enhancements The organization has also made significant progress in improving our technology infrastructure. These improvements include: Implementation of a new Human Resources Information System “ADP Workforce Now” which includes payroll, time, and attendance and many more modules to come. Staff have documented the organization’s business/functional requirements and have issued a Request for Proposal to procure an Enterprise Resource Planning / Finance system. Office 365 has been implemented across the entire workforce allowing for new collaboration tools including the ability to conduct virtual meetings. A new telephony system has been implemented to modernize telephony. This allows for one-click calling for internal and external contacts, real-time call notifications with automated customer data from integrated Office365 tools, call queuing, call forwarding, and much more. Digital signature technology has been adopted to permit digital signatures required for approvals creating a quick seamless way of generating instant approvals. Employee Engagement Action Planning Several employee committees have been established to review our employee engagement results and provide their input into the development of action plans to address opportunities for improvement. Employee participation in workplace culture improvement initiatives is key to engaging our people in designing the type of workplace that is best for creating a high-performance culture. Page 45 of 183 July 5, 2022 6 of 11 Report No. CS22-031 Moving Forward As we enter the second quarter of 2022, we are optimistic that the evolution of COVID- 19 will transition from pandemic to endemic. One of the critical decisions local governments are facing is whether we safely revive the traditional office setting or embrace a hybrid strategy as a model that can support innovation. The administration has developed three distinct phases in our recovery plans that will facilitate a smooth process to get our organization to our future work model. Phase 1 (March-April 2022) Many public health measures were lifted and for the months of March and April 2022 staff were directed to start coming back into the office space to address in person service needs but also to increase face to face collaboration with their colleagues. The maximum capacity was maintained in our facilities at approximately 30 per cent which allowed for a safe transition back to the office space and slowly over time the capacity limit was eliminated altogether. Phase 2 (May-August 2022) During the months of May and June we will continue to learn from our staff and leaders about the gradual return to the office space and start the development and fine tuning of our alternative / remote work policies and procedures. Most municipalities are moving towards a hybrid model of work that will allow the organization to maintain some of the benefits of remote work while at the same time restoring the benefits of being able to collaborate face to face and address in person citizen / customer needs. Phase 3 (September-December 2022) In this phase we will broaden our definition of flexible work by incorporating features such as compressed work week and or flexible start and end times. We will also provide an update to Council in terms of the progress we are making and seek its endorsement of the future direction. Phase 4 (January-June 2023) During Phase 4 the organization will focus on fully implementing the newly developed Alternative Work Policy and Procedures across the entire workforce. This will allow for a smooth transition where everyone is aware of the options, roles and responsibilities and requests from employees are address in a fair and equitable way while at the same time maintaining high quality services to our citizens. Page 46 of 183 July 5, 2022 7 of 11 Report No. CS22-031 Guiding Principles on the Future Work Model The following guiding principles will be adopted to guide our actions in the development of alternative work arrangement policies. Citizen Experience, Business Continuity, and Innovation The Town’s workforce has adapted over the past two years to continue to provide a seamless citizen experience while maintaining a healthy and safe workforce. The work model that we implement will consider new technologies and processes that support an efficient and modern workforce model while maintaining the same or higher levels of service. The Town’s customer experience plan will enable us to receive regular input from on how we are doing in the delivery of services and what adjustments we may need to make to address customer needs. The digitization of our services over the past few years and more recently during the pandemic has resulted in service efficiencies for our citizens. The introduction of flexible work arrangements will further enhance our ability and availability to respond to our citizen’s needs. The Town of Aurora is a growing municipality with emerging needs. We will continue to be innovative, invest in technology and identify efficiencies to modernize our processes and provide effective and efficient services to our community but also support our workforce with the tools it needs to be effective in their day-to-day work. Employee Attraction and Retention The Town’s most important asset is its people. Without a healthy, skilled workfo rce we cannot achieve our strategic plan. The Future Work Model will be designed with a key focus on our people needs from a work-life balance as well as from a psychological and physical health and safety perspective. Our leaders will provide clear direction to our staff in terms of the expected work outcomes, service levels and performance deliverables regardless of physical work location. The Future Work Model will maintain the Town’s competitive position in terms of attracting and retaining skilled employees. Flexible working has emerged as a catalyst for the corporate world throughout the pandemic and will also be a key factor in the ‘next normal,’ as on average, surveys have shown that employees would want to work between two and three days remotely in a post COVID-19 world. One of the emerging issues in our communities is housing affordability and commute Page 47 of 183 July 5, 2022 8 of 11 Report No. CS22-031 times. Providing our employees with flexible work options will address some of these concerns but also enables the Town to attract and retain talent from a broader geographic area thus, increasing our skilled talent as a competitive advantage. Fiscal Responsibility We ensure financial sustainability strategies are in place to support the cost-efficient and financially effective delivery of Town services. Decisions are evidence based with the primary objective of ensuring they are aligned with what is best for the community we serve. Therefore, implementing changes to shift our workplace model will be planned, thoughtful and gradual. Change will be funded by existing budgets or, where it makes sense, we will request increases to allotted budgets and will slowly work towards fully implementing our desired workplace model over time. Our Environment and Optimization of Physical Space We will continue to look for opportunities to optimize the use of physical space at Town facilities. Our Future Work Model will consider flexible use of space, collaboration areas and maximizing efficient use of the space which builds capacity for future growth. Flexible work options will enable the Town to have a larger environmental impact in our work practices by utilizing less physical space but also by reducing the number of daily commuters. Change Management The Future Work Model will necessitate a change in the way we think and the way we work. This will enable us to sustain a healthy, safe, and productive workforce. We will maintain our commitment to staff and support them through this journey and seek their input to ensure the model is one that achieves our objectives. The implementation of the model will include detailed processes and guidelines to ensure that we address employee requests in a fair and equitable way. Culture The workplace culture has been affected by the pandemic as employees have been more isolated, have had to juggle protecting their family members, addressing children and elder care issues while at the same time being productive in their roles. Staff have demonstrated the ability to adapt throughout the pandemic despite the challenges they faced both at work and at home. Our improved culture of trust has been demonstrated by staff continuing to produce work and provide excellent customer service to our internal and external stakeholders, even when our technological Page 48 of 183 July 5, 2022 9 of 11 Report No. CS22-031 infrastructure did not provide us with the same opportunities it does today to connect and work efficiently in a virtual environment. The Future Work Model will require a continuous shift in our mindset to provide an environment that is founded on trust, collaboration, clear outcome expectations and regular feedback, support, and communication. Excellence Canada Gold Certification The above noted guiding principles and proactive actions support the Excellence Canada Gold certification application and the adoption of the future work model will specifically support the “Our People” driver requirements of the application. The “Our People” driver examines how employees are treated, supported, and empowered to contribute to the organization’s success. It is tied directly to culture, and includes the health, well-being, and inclusion of employees. In order to accomplish the requirements of the driver the flexible and remote work aspects of the employee experience need to be addressed. The Town needs to have policies, procedures and best practices related to flexible and remote work. The flexible and remote work policies should consider the diverse needs of the workforce population. As we move through the post-pandemic phases listed earlier in this report, we will look for feedback from our staff and leaders to incorporate flexible work options that address all our employee needs while at the same time continuing to provide seamless service to our citizens and customers. Advisory Committee Review Not applicable. Legal Considerations None. Financial Implications There are no financial implications associated with this report. Page 49 of 183 July 5, 2022 10 of 11 Report No. CS22-031 Communications Considerations Further communication and training will be required with our staff and leaders to ensure a successful implementation of each phase of our recovery as well as any new flexible work features that are developed. Climate Change Considerations The gradual re-integration of employees back into the office along with potential future hybrid work practices are expected to decrease greenhouse gas emissions by reducing the number of employees that are commuting to the workplace on average by 50 percent. Link to Strategic Plan This project supports Objective #6: Promoting service accountability, excellence, and innovation. Alternative(s) to the Recommendation Council may offer alternative recommendations. Conclusions The administration took several steps to adapt its workforce as a response to the COVID-19 pandemic. This enabled the Corporation to continue to provide services to our residents while maintaining the health and safety of our employees and the public the Town serves. As we emerge from the pandemic the administration has taken small, calculated steps to re-integrate our office employees back in our facilities as needed and when needed to maximize the benefits of both the remote and in office work models. We will continue to learn from our employees and leaders and then develop Alternative Work Policies and procedures that provide options for all employees while we continue to provide quality services to our citizens. The guiding principles identified in the report will be used to ensure future work arrangements adhere to these fundamental principles. Attachments None. Page 50 of 183 July 5, 2022 11 of 11 Report No. CS22-031 Previous Reports None. Pre-submission Review Agenda Management Team review via email. Approvals Approved by Techa Van Leeuwen, Director, Corporate Services Approved by Doug Nadorozny, Chief Administrative Officer Page 51 of 183 100 John West Way Aurora, Ontario L4G 6J1 (905) 727-3123 aurora.ca Town of Aurora General Committee Report No. CS2 2 -040 Subject: Deputy Mayor Options Prepared by: Michael de Rond, Town Clerk Department: Corporate Services Date: July 5, 2022 Recommendation 1. That Report No. CS22-040 be received; and 2. That staff bring forward an amendment to the Procedure By-law to institute a rotation of the Deputy Mayor position as described in this report; and 3. That the amendment to the Procedure By-law take effect on November 15, 2022. Executive Summary This report makes a recommendation regarding how the Deputy Mayor position can be instituted for the next term of Council. The Town’s adoption of a ward system has necessitated a change in the way the Deputy Mayor is selected. This report includes the following; The most common approach to the Deputy Mayor position for municipalities similar to Aurora is to rotate the position amongst Councillors. The staff recommended rotation model ensures equitable treatment to members of Council. There are other options available for designating the Deputy Mayor position, but staff do not recommend they are adopted. Background At the March 29, 2022 Council meeting, Council directed that staff report back regarding options for the Deputy Mayor position for when a ward system is implemented, beginning with the 2022 municipal election. Page 52 of 183 July 5, 2022 2 of 5 Report No. CS22-040 Within the Town’s current ‘at-large’ Council structure, the Deputy Mayor appointment comes from the Procedure By-law, specifically section 1(j) which defines the Deputy Mayor as “the Councillor who received the highest number of votes in the last regular election.” The Deputy Mayor position holds no formal authority, and generally has one responsibility, being to chair Council meetings in the absence of the Mayor or during the discussion of a Motion placed on the agenda by the Mayor. Once the Town moves to the ward system, the current definition will become obsolete, thus the need to define how a new Deputy Mayor will be selected. It is important to note that the results of the 2022 municipal election will have no bearing on the Deputy Mayor position. Analysis The most common approach to the Deputy Mayor position for municipalities similar to Aurora is to rotate the position amongst Councillors. The appointment of the Deputy Mayor, or whether the position exists at all, varies depending on the municipality, and often the circumstances of the municipality. Smaller municipalities like Minden Hills, Strathroy-Caradoc, and Tay Township elect the Deputy Mayor, in addition to the Mayor and Councillors to form a Council. Larger municipalities such as Markham, Richmond Hill and Vaughan each have provisions in place that name the Deputy Mayor as the Regional Councillor who received the most votes in the previous election. The most common approach for municipalities using a ward system, where the Deputy Mayor is not elected, and the only member of the upper-tier Council is the Mayor, is to rotate the Deputy Mayor position amongst the elected Councillors. This method is employed by fellow York Region municipalities King, East Gwillimbury and Whitchurch- Stouffville, as well as Halton Hills. The adoption of a rotation for the Deputy Mayor position represents the most equitable way for the Town’s ward Councillors to share the appointment. Staff also recommend that should a rotation of the Deputy Mayor position be adopted, that the monthly appointment also include the responsibility of chairing General Committee meetings (currently rotated amongst Councillors after chairing twice). The staff recommended rotation model ensures equitable treatment to members of Council Page 53 of 183 July 5, 2022 3 of 5 Report No. CS22-040 Should Council agree to rotating the Deputy Mayor position, staff would recommend that a procedure by-law amendment be brought forward with the following parameters; The Clerk will create a schedule (draft for 2022-2026 Council term provided below) outlining the months each ward Councillor would be the Deputy Mayor. Each Councillor would hold the position of Deputy Mayor for seven (non- consecutive) months throughout the Council term. It’s generally accepted that the months of July and August are slower for municipal business than the others, and these months will be split evenly so a member is only Deputy Mayor in July/August once over the course of the term. To ensure Councillors are given the same amount of opportunities to hold the Deputy Mayor position, there would not be a designated Deputy Mayor in December 2022 or from July-October 2026. Councillors would be permitted to trade months should they know of an absence beforehand and can find a willing partner to trade with. When an unexpected absence occurs, the member would retain the designation of Deputy Mayor, but the Mayor would be tasked with chairing any General Committee meeting that occurs during the absence. 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 January Ward 1 Ward 3 Ward 5 Ward 1 February Ward 2 Ward 4 Ward 6 Ward 2 March Ward 3 Ward 5 Ward 1 Ward 3 April Ward 4 Ward 6 Ward 2 Ward 4 May Ward 5 Ward 1 Ward 3 Ward 5 June Ward 6 Ward 2 Ward 4 Ward 6 July Ward 1 Ward 3 Ward 5 August Ward 2 Ward 4 Ward 6 September Ward 3 Ward 5 Ward 1 October Ward 4 Ward 6 Ward 2 November Ward 5 Ward 1 Ward 3 December Ward 6 Ward 2 Ward 4 Page 54 of 183 July 5, 2022 4 of 5 Report No. CS22-040 There are other options available for designating the Deputy Mayor position, but staff do not recommend they are adopted. Council may also choose to designate the Deputy Mayor through one of the following options, however, it would not provide the same equity of opportunity that the recommended option does. By motion or by some electoral process (confirmed by motion), Council could designate a single Councillor as the Deputy Mayor for the term of Council. Council could delegate the responsibility for selecting the Deputy Mayor to the Mayor. If one of these options is preferred, staff would recommend that Council refer this report back to staff to develop a process related to the preferred selection. Advisory Committee Review None Legal Considerations Neither the Municipal Act nor any other legislation contain provisions on the necessity to have a Deputy Mayor or the requirements of appointing one. Once Council chooses a method to select the Deputy Mayor, an amendment will be required to the Procedure By- law. Financial Implications There are no direct financial implications arising from this report. Communications Considerations Not applicable. Climate Change Considerations None Page 55 of 183 July 5, 2022 5 of 5 Report No. CS22-040 Link to Strategic Plan The selection and rotation of the Deputy Mayor position supports the Strategic Plan priority of good governance within the Town. Alternative(s) to the Recommendation 1. Council provide direction. Conclusions This report makes a recommendation and provides Council with options regarding the Deputy Mayor position. The Deputy Mayor is not an elected position and has no formal power. For those reasons, the most equitable way to appoint the position is for Councillors to rotate being Deputy Mayor throughout the term of Council. Attachments None Previous Reports None Pre-submission Review Agenda Management Team review on June 16, 2022 Approvals Approved by Techa Van Leeuwen, Director, Corporate Services Approved by Doug Nadorozny, Chief Administrative Officer Page 56 of 183 100 John West Way Aurora, Ontario L4G 6J1 (905) 727-3123 aurora.ca Town of Aurora General Committee Report No. FIN2 2 -023 Subject: 2022 Interim Forecast Update – As of April 30, 2022 Prepared by: Tracy Evans, Financial Management Advisor Department: Finance Date: July 5, 2022 Recommendation 1. That Report No. FIN22-023 be received for information. Executive Summary This report presents to Council the information to effectively monitor the financial performance of the Town’s operating and capital budget as of April 30, 2022. An overall tax levy surplus of $702,500 is anticipated by fiscal year end The Town’s water, wastewater and stormwater operations is forecasted to be on budget by fiscal year end COVID-19 continues to have a financial impact on the Town’s operations The forecasted capital spend of $54.7M for 2022 is $36.7M lower than the Town’s original planned capital spend of $91.4M for the year These forecasted variances will continue to be subject to change for the remainder of the fiscal year. Any further COVID-19 impacts on the Town’s financial performance for the remainder of the year is difficult to predict. Future Council decisions may also have an impact. Any operational budget short-falls or surpluses remaining at year end will require an offsetting adjustment from/to the tax rate stabilization reserve as defined in the Town’s 2022 surplus control bylaw which will be presented to Council for its approval later this year. Page 57 of 183 July 5, 2022 2 of 12 Report No. FIN22-023 Background To assist Council in fulfilling their role and responsibilities with respect to Town finances and accountability, Finance has worked with all departments to review the corporation’s operations financial performance to date. Each Director has reviewed their department’s operating and capital budget versus the results to date and remaining outstanding plans in consideration of the Town’s present COVID-19 assumptions and forecasted an expected year end position. Finance staff have reviewed each submission and performed the necessary consolidation. The pandemic continued to have an impact on the Town in early 2022. The province moved into the next step of reopening in March, where capacity limits were lifted on all indoor settings as well as lifting proof of vaccination requirements. Analysis An overall tax levy surplus of $702,500 is anticipated by fiscal year end The Town’s tax levy funded operations are forecasted to finish the year with an anticipated surplus of $702,500, based upon its present COVID-19 assumptions. The budget includes $150,000 for salary gapping savings which is distributed across the departments. This recognizes that during the year there will be some staff turnover and periodic vacancies. Also included in the 2022 budget was an additional $50,000 for the additional salary gapping based on previous years trends. This amount was budgeted in Corporate Revenue & Expenditures. As of this report, a total of $438,200 in salary and benefit savings are forecasted, mostly relating to position vacancies. Higher than usual staff turnover seems to be a common trend being experienced across most industries right now. A detailed break-down of the Town’s current forecasted variance by division can be found in Attachment #1. This report has been simplified to show only the net budget amount, the forecasted ending position for each item, and the variance to budget. Overall, the Town’s approved budget for 2022 includes $75,611,600 in approved expenditures, funded by $21,407,500 in revenues consisting of user fees, charges, and investment income, and a total tax levy of $54,204,100. Table 1 presents a departmental summary of the forecasted variances. Page 58 of 183 July 5, 2022 3 of 12 Report No. FIN22-023 Table 1 2022 Operating Forecast to Year end $000s Budget Forecast Variance Surplus/(Deficit) Council 588.1 584.7 3.4 CAO 1,454.0 1,412.5 41.5 Corporate Services 10,258.0 9,939.0 319.0 Finance 2,420.2 2,328.3 91.9 Fire 12,294.9 12,294.9 - Operational Services 11,230.2 11,201.4 28.8 Community Services 10,204.2 9,974.4 229.8 Planning & Development Services 735.2 574.8 160.4 Corporate Revenue & Expenses 5,019.2 5,191.6 (172.4) Tax Levy 54,204.1 54,204.1 - Total Operating 702.5 A summary of the Town’s key forecasted variances by department follows. CAO and Council Council and the Office of the CAO are forecasting to conclude the fiscal year with a surplus of $44,900 on a net operating budget of $2,042,100. This surplus mostly relates to projected sponsorship grant savings based upon applications received to-date and consulting savings. Corporate Services Corporate Services is forecasting a surplus of $319,000 on a total net operating budget of $10,258,000. This surplus is mostly attributable to savings in salaries due to vacancies. Page 59 of 183 July 5, 2022 4 of 12 Report No. FIN22-023 Finance Finance is forecasting a surplus of $91,900 on a net operating budget of $2,420,200. This surplus mostly results from salary savings arising from temporary vacancies as well as higher than budgeted revenue from fees and services. Fire Services The total approved 2022 operating budget for Central York Fire Services (CYFS) is $29,540,900. Aurora’s share of this total budget is $12,294,900. As per normal practice, should a CYFS surplus or deficit arise by fiscal year end, it will be offset by an equal contribution to/from the shared CYFS Reserve, thus leaving the Town’s forecasted Fire Services requirements as budgeted. Operational Services Operational Services, excluding water, wastewater and storm water services, is forecasting an overall surplus of $28,800 on a net operating budget of $11,230,200. Key contributors to this surplus are COVID-19 driven salary savings relating to Crossing Guard services for school closures early in the year and additional revenue in waste collection due to the bag tag program. These favourable variances are partially offset by higher than anticipated salary costs and increased streetlight maintenance costs in Roads Network Operations, offset partially by salary savings in Winter Management. Park Operations has increased its projected ball diamond/soccer field permit revenues because of COVID-19 restrictions being lifted. The unfavourable variance in Fleet relates to increased fuel costs. As per the Town’s winter control reserve policy, if the overall Town operating budget is unable to accommodate the full reported winter management deficit, any required funding shortfall can be drawn from this reserve. As the Town’s present overall, forecasted position indicates that it will have sufficient funds available to offset any forecasted winter management shortfall, a draw from the winter control reserve is not necessary at this time. However, should it become necessary the Town will access this reserve as required. Operational Services’ salaries and wages are split between tax levy and rate (water, wastewater and storm water services) funded programs. In any given year, the operational service staff support of tax levy or rate funded programs can vary, as such costs may shift between these programs based on the operational needs. Page 60 of 183 July 5, 2022 5 of 12 Report No. FIN22-023 Community Services Community Services is forecasting a $229,800 surplus on a net operating budget of $10,204,200. The key contributors to this surplus all relate to salary and contract savings, as well as slight savings in facility operation utility/heating costs. These surpluses are offset by reduced community program, sponsorship/advertising, ice rental and special events revenues, mostly attributable to COVID-19 restrictions in early 2022. Aurora Town Square’s unspent operating budget savings are anticipated relating to the implementation of the Town’s financial strategy to phase in its projected incremental operating costs prior to it becoming fully operational in 2023. Any surplus funds relating to Aurora Town Square’s operation will be contributed to the Town’s Tax Rate Stabilization reserve. The cumulative Aurora Town Square operating savings contributions to this reserve have been earmarked to assist in the management of any arising one-time costs once the project becomes operational. As of April 30th, no savings of this nature are forecasted. Planning and Development Services Planning and Development Services is forecasting a surplus of $160,400 on a net operating budget of $735,200. This surplus is mostly attributable to salary savings due to vacancies as well as unanticipated grant revenue. Not included in this variance is a projected Building Services’ surplus of $1,091,500 as it is a self-funded function as per provincial legislation. Any variance in Building Services is offset through an equal contribution to/from its dedicated reserve as appropriate. The forecasted surplus results from vacant position salary savings, as well as an increase in building permit revenues. Corporate Revenues and Expenses Corporate Revenues and Expenses is forecasting a deficit of $172,400 on a net operating budget of $5,019,200. This deficit is expected as it primarily relates to Town wide salary and benefit adjustments including $127,000 in budgeted salary gapping savings relating to the staffing of newly approved positions for 2022 during the first six months of the year. The offsetting actual salary and benefit savings are reflected as part of each department’s forecast update. The Aurora Town Square’s established budget for its ongoing debt carrying costs is included under Corporate Revenues and Expenses. These costs are expected to be Page 61 of 183 July 5, 2022 6 of 12 Report No. FIN22-023 under budget over the next year and half while the project remains under construction. In 2022, the only debt related costs will be the interest costs arising from the use of the construction line of credit. Any unrequired funds of this nature will be contributed to the Facilities Repair and Replacement reserve as planned. Aurora Public Library Contribution The Aurora Public Library anticipates that it may conclude the 2022 fiscal year in a surplus position as a result of COVID-19. Total Tax Levy The Town is forecasting to collect $54,204,100 of its budgeted total tax levy. The Tax Levy Funded Net Operating Forecast Update can be found in Attachment 1. A surplus/deficit of zero is forecasted by fiscal year end for the Town’s water, wastewater and stormwater operations The Town’s user rate funded operations are currently projected to close the year with a surplus/deficit of zero including a $10,000 deficit from water / wastewater services and a slight surplus of $10,000 in storm water services. This surplus mostly relates to increased revenue in storm water, offset by increased expenses for emergency water main repairs. Table 2 presents a summary of the Town’s rate funded operations forecast to year end. More detail can be found in attachment #2. Table 2 2022 Rate Forecast to Year end $000s Forecast Surplus/(Deficit) Water Services (53.2) Wastewater Services 43.2 Storm Water Services 10.0 Total User Rate Surplus (Deficit) 0.00 Page 62 of 183 July 5, 2022 7 of 12 Report No. FIN22-023 The summer months tend to have the most significant impact on the water and wastewater budget. The revenues collected are directly impacted by the weather patterns as residents use more metered water outside their homes. User rate funded operations budgets include fixed operational costs, funded by the net proceeds from the sale of water, wastewater and storm water services. These fixed operational costs include staff and service maintenance costs related to maintaining the infrastructure systems, water quality testing, and the billing and customer service functions. These costs are not directly impacted by the volume of water flowing through the system. The fixed costs relating to water and wastewater are funded from the net revenues earned by these services which are variable in nature due to the fact that they are based upon metered water consumption volumes. Storm water revenues are not subject to the same volatility as the water and wastewater service lines as it is billed as a flat fee. COVID-19 continues to have a significant financial impact on the Town’s operations COVID-19 continues to have a material impact on the Town’s forecasted financial results. Table 3 offers a summary of the Town’s related pressures as outlined in the 2022 budget which are offset by Safe Restart/Municipal Recovery Funding: Table 3 COVID-19 Related Pressures $000s Tax Levy Funded Operations: Managing net revenue losses for community programs and events 491.1 Managing facility revenue losses and maintaining clean spaces 334.6 Modified services to support the community during COVID-19 recovery and reduce in-person contacts 47.5 Advancement or adaptation of Corporate Technology Strategic Plan initiatives to support remote access and work during pandemic 175.5 Safe Restart/Municipal Recovery Funding (1,048.7) Net Impact - Page 63 of 183 July 5, 2022 8 of 12 Report No. FIN22-023 The forecasted capital spend of $54.7M for 2022 is $36.7M lower than the Town’s original planned capital spend of $91.4M for the year. The capital project forecast focuses on the planned spending for 2022. As many projects have budgets that span multiple years, any amount that is forecasted to not be spent this year may be rolled forward, if needed, to future years through the capital budget process. The Town’s projected capital spending for the year as of April 30, 2022 is $54.7M (40%) lower than the budgeted capital spending of $91.4M. A detailed breakdown of the Town’s current forecasted capital spend by individual capital project can be found in Attachment 3. A summary of the updated 2022 capital spend forecast is presented under Table 4. Table 4 Planned 2022 Capital Spending $000s Planned Spend for 2022 Apr. 30 Forecast Variance Growth & New 58,489.3 33,708.3 24,781.0 Rehab & Replacement 31,418.6 19,928.8 11,489.8 Studies & Other 1,520.6 1,071.9 448.7 Total 91,428.5 54,709.1 36,719.5 This report presents the variance between the forecasted active capital project spend as of April 30, 2022, compared to the planned spend for 2022 and provides a brief explanation for each identified material variance. The 2022 forecasted capital spend does not include any projects that were proposed for closure prior to April 30th, 2022. The following is a summary of the Town’s key forecasted variances by department for active capital projects. CAO The office of the CAO is forecasting to defer $84,000 in previously approved capital spending from 2022 to 2023 which includes Project #12026 Organization Structural Review and Project #12034 Town of Aurora Website. Page 64 of 183 July 5, 2022 9 of 12 Report No. FIN22-023 Fire Services Fire Services does not have any material variances of note. Operational Services Operational Services is projecting planned capital spending of $6.9M as of April 30, 2022, which is $4.7M lower than the budgeted planned spending for the year of $11.6M. The planned capital spending of $4.0M is deferred to 2023 due to construction delays in various operational services capital projects as highlighted in Attachment 3. This includes $1.5M towards the Non-Programmed Park in 2C and 1.2M for the David Tomlinson Nature Reserve. In addition, a Council report on options for the AFLC – Skate Park Reconstruction will be presented in the first quarter of 2023. Therefore, $516K of the planned spend on this project has been postponed to 2023. Community Services Community Services is projecting planned capital spending of $25.3M as of April 30, 2022, which is $21.1M lower than the budgeted planned spending for the year of $46.4M. This variance is heavily driven by the projected spending in 2022 for the Aurora Town Square project being $10.0M less based on the projected monthly cash outflows for the remainder of this year. The funds will be spent in 2023. The other major projects whose 2022 planned spending has been deferred to 2023 include the new Aquatic Center and the SARC Gymnasium. Planning and Development Services Planning and Development Services is projecting planned capital spending of $13.3M as of April 30, 2022, which is $8.7M lower than the budgeted planned spending for the year of $22.0M. The primary driver of this variance is a delay in the repair of the damaged storm pipe on Henderson Drive for $3.0M and Reconstruction of Popular Crescent for $3.8M. The completion of both projects was delayed as the Town is waiting for York Region to complete their portion of construction. Finance Finance is projecting planned capital spending of $2.6M as of April 30, 2022, which is $1.2M lower than the budgeted planned spending for the year of $3.8M. Due to contract delays and global materials shortages for the Advanced Metering Infrastructure project, $600K of this planned 2022 spend will now be incurred in 2023. In addition, $600K in planned spending for the Water Meter Replacement Program will continue into 2023/2024. Page 65 of 183 July 5, 2022 10 of 12 Report No. FIN22-023 Corporate Services Corporate Services is projecting planned capital spending of $2.4M as of April 30, 2022, which is $867K lower than the budgeted planned spending for the year of $3.2M. The key contributors of this variance include $567K in IT project spending that will be carried forward into 2023 and 2024. Advisory Committee Review Not applicable. Legal Considerations None. Financial Implications The final annual surplus or deficit in the tax and user rates operating budget will be allocated by Council to / from various reserves at fiscal year end as per the Surplus/Deficit Management bylaw. To minimize the impact to the Town’s reserves resulting from COVID-19, if required the COVID-19 Recovery Funding will be used to offset any COVID short-falls experienced. Capital projects will be funded throughout the year to match the progress spending in the project. As some planned capital spending is delayed until 2023, this will result in the ability to invest the funds on a short term basis resulting in higher investment income. The next budget process will consider the current year’s forecast along with an update to future requirements for approved projects as part of the 10-year capital plan. There are no other immediate financial implications arising from this report. Council fulfills its role, in part, by receiving and reviewing this financial status report on the operations of the municipality relative to the approved budget. Communications Considerations The Town of Aurora will use ‘Inform’ as the level of engagement for this project. In order to inform, this report will be posted to the Town’s website. Page 66 of 183 July 5, 2022 11 of 12 Report No. FIN22-023 Climate Change Considerations The information contained within this report does not impact greenhouse gas emissions or impact climate change adaption. Link to Strategic Plan Outlining and understanding the Town’s present financial status at strategic intervals throughout the year contributes to achieving the Strategic Plan guiding principle of “Leadership in Corporate Management” and improves transparency and accountability to the community. Alternative(s) to the Recommendation 1. Not applicable. Conclusions Having completed four months of operations, the Town is presently forecasting to end the year with a favourable budget variance from its tax levy funded operations of $702,500. This surplus mostly attributed to salary savings of $438,200 resulting from temporary position vacancies. This forecast will continue to be subject to change over the remainder of the fiscal year as the Town adjusts in response to COVID-19 impacts. This forecast will also continue to be subject to other more normal influencing variables such as the ultimate level of town services consumed by fiscal year end. The user rate funded budget is presently forecasting to conclude the year on budget. Any remaining surplus or deficit at fiscal year end will be offset through a contribution or draw from the tax rate stabilization reserve as per the town’s 2022 surplus/deficit management bylaw which will be presented to Council for approval later this year. The Town is presently forecasting to spend $36.7M less than what was originally planned for all active capital projects as at April 30, 2022. These capital cash outflows will be deferred and spend in 2022 and beyond. Attachments Attachment #1 – Tax Levy Funded Net Operating Forecast Update Page 67 of 183 July 5, 2022 12 of 12 Report No. FIN22-023 Attachment #2 – Water Rate Funded Net Operating Forecast Update Attachment #3 – Capital Project Forecast Update Pre-submission Review Agenda Management Team review June 16, 2022 Approvals Approved by Rachel Wainwright-van Kessel, CPA, CMA, Director, Finance Approved by Doug Nadorozny, Chief Administrative Officer Page 68 of 183 Attachment 1 Shown in $,000's COUNCIL Council Administration 576.1$ 572.7$ 3.4$ 0.6 % Council Programs/Grants 4.0 4.0 - - Advisory Committees 8.0 8.0 - - Council Office Total 588.1$ 584.7$ 3.4$ 0.6 % CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE CAO Administration 583.0$ 553.2$ 29.8$ 5.1 % Communications 871.0 859.3 11.7 1.3 % Chief Administrative Office Total 1,454.0$ 1,412.5$ 41.5$ 2.9 % Council and C.A.O. Combined 2,042.1$ 1,997.2$ 44.9$ 2.2 % CORPORATE SERVICES Corporate Services Administration 489.8$ 452.6$ 37.2 7.6 % Legal Services 1,934.1 1,923.3 10.8 0.6 % Legislative & Administrative Services 816.9 821.2 (4.3) (0.5 %) Human Resources 1,132.8 1,068.2 64.6 5.7 % Elections 98.0 98.0 - - Information Technology 3,558.7 3,369.8 188.9 5.3 % Telecommunications 193.5 176.6 16.9 8.7 % By-law Services 736.5 747.9 (11.4) (1.5 %) Animal Control 316.0 332.7 (16.7) (5.3 %) Customer Service 938.1 905.1 33.0 3.5 % Emergency Preparedness 43.6 43.6 - - Corporate Services Total 10,258.0$ 9,939.0$ 319.0$ 3.1 % FINANCE Policy & Planning Administration 394.5$ 408.7$ (14.2)$ (3.6 %) Financial Reporting & Revenue 671.3 598.9 72.4 10.8 % Financial Management 704.6 704.6 - - Procurement Services 649.8 616.1 33.7 5.2 % Finance Total 2,420.2$ 2,328.3$ 91.9$ 3.8 % Town of Aurora Final NET Tax Levy Funded Operations Results as at April 30, 2022 NET ADJUSTED BUDGET FORECAST Variance Favourable / (Unfavourable) Page 69 of 183 Attachment 1 Shown in $,000's Town of Aurora Final NET Tax Levy Funded Operations Results as at April 30, 2022 NET ADJUSTED BUDGET FORECAST Variance Favourable / (Unfavourable) FIRE SERVICES Central York Fire 12,294.9 12,294.9 - - Total Fire Services 12,294.9 12,294.9 - - Operational Services Operational Services Administration 308.8$ 344.6$ (35.8)$ (11.6 %) Fleet & Equipment 903.9 1,004.1 (100.2) (11.1 %) Winter Management 1,725.1 1,630.5 94.6 5.5 % Road Network Operations 2,730.5 2,857.8 (127.3) (4.7 %) Parks/Open Spaces 3,040.6 2,932.8 107.8 3.5 % Waste Collection & Recycling 2,521.3 2,431.6 89.7 3.6 % Operational Services Total 11,230.2$ 11,201.4$ 28.8$ 0.3 % Community Services Community Services Administration 1,364.1$ 1,376.6$ (12.5)$ (0.9 %) Business Support (358.4) (158.9) (199.5) (55.7 %) Recreational Programming/Community Dev.2,346.5 2,319.3 27.2 1.2 % Facilities 6,852.0 6,437.4 414.6 6.1 % Community Services Total 10,204.2$ 9,974.4$ 229.8$ 2.3 % PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT SERVICES Development Planning (576.5)$ (770.2)$ 193.7$ 33.6 % Long Range & Strategic Planning 684.0 652.7 31.3 4.6 % Engineering Service Operations 627.7 692.3 (64.6) (10.3 %) Net Building Department Operations 443.5 (648.0)$ 1,091.5 246.1 % Contribution To Building Reserve (443.5) 648.0 (1,091.5) (246.1 %) Total Building Services - - - - Planning & Development Services Total 735.2$ 574.8$ 160.4$ 21.8 % CORPORATE REVENUE & EXPENSE Corporate Management (238.2) (65.8) (172.4)$ (72 %) Fiscal Strategy 5,430.6 5,430.6 -$ - Non-Levy Tax Items (1,702.4) (1,702.4) -$ - Cost Recovery from Rate (2,404.9) (2,404.9) -$ - Page 70 of 183 Attachment 1 Shown in $,000's Town of Aurora Final NET Tax Levy Funded Operations Results as at April 30, 2022 NET ADJUSTED BUDGET FORECAST Variance Favourable / (Unfavourable) Net Library Services Operations 3,934.1 3,934.1 -$ - Library net contribution to Town reserves - - -$ n/a 5,019.2$ 5,191.6$ (172.4)$ (3.4 %) TOTAL TAX LEVY FUNDED OPERATIONS 54,204.1$ 53,501.6$ 702.5$ 1.3 % TOTAL TAX LEVY (54,204.1)$ (54,204.1)$ -$ - OPERATING (SURPLUS) DEFICIT - (702.5)$ 702.5$ 1.2 % Surplus Surplus Page 71 of 183 Attachment 2 Shown in $,000's Water Services Retail Revenues (11,437.5) (11,774.9) 337.4$ 3.0 % Penalties (175.0) (171.6) (3.4) (2.0 %) Other (120.1) (181.6) 61.5 51.2 % Total Revenues (11,732.6) (12,128.1) 395.5$ 3.4 % Wholesale water purchase 7,272.8 7,572.8 (300.0) (4.1 %) Operations and maintenance 862.8 1,202.3 (339.6) (39.4 %) Administration and billing 1,031.3 840.4 190.9 18.5 % Corporate overhead allocation 865.8 865.8 - - Infrastructure sustainability reserve contributions 1,700.0 1,700.0 - - Total Expenditures 11,732.6 12,181.3 (448.7)$ (3.8 %) Net Operating Water Services -$ 53.2 (53.2)$ n/a Waste Water Services Retail Revenues (14,514.9) (14,665.8) 150.9$ 1.0 % Other (114.3) (46.5) (67.8) (59.3 %) Total Revenues (14,629.2) (14,712.3) 83.1$ 0.6 % Sewer discharge fees 11,087.2 11,203.9 (116.7)$ (1.1 %) Operations and maintenance 1,269.8 1,193.0 76.8$ 6.0 % Administration and billing 261.4 261.4 -$ - Corporate overhead allocation 710.7 710.7 - - Infrastructure sustainability reserve contributions 1,300.0 1,300.0 - - Total Expenditures 14,629.2 14,669.1 (39.9)$ (0.3 %) Net Operating Waste Water Services - (43.2) 43.2$ n/a Total Water and Waste Water Services - 10.0 (10.0)$ n/a Storm Water Services Retail Revenues (3,410.3) (3,449.1) 38.8$ 1.1 % Penalties - - - n/a Other - - - n/a Total Revenues (3,410.3) (3,449.1) 38.8$ 1.1 % Operations and maintenance 1,265.5 1,294.3 (28.9) (2.3 %) FORECAST NET ADJUSTED BUDGET Town of Aurora Final Net User Rate Funded Operations Results as at April 30, 2022 Variance Favourable / (Unfavourable) Page 72 of 183 Attachment 2 Shown in $,000's FORECAST NET ADJUSTED BUDGET Town of Aurora Final Net User Rate Funded Operations Results as at April 30, 2022 Variance Favourable / (Unfavourable) Administration and billing 105.4 105.4 - - Corporate overhead allocation 39.5 39.5 - - Infrastructure sustainability reserve contributions 2,000.0 2,000.0 - - Total Expenditures 3,410.3 3,439.2 (28.9)$ (0.8 %) Net Operating Storm Water Services - (9.9) 10.0$ n/a OPERATING (SURPLUS) DEFICIT - 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0 % Defict Surplus Page 73 of 183 ($)(%) Office of the Chief Administrative Officer 12026 Organization Structural Review 63,138$ 20,000$ 43,138$ 68.3 % 12032 Resident Survey 30,000 30,000 - - 12037 Town of Aurora Website 44,144 - 44,144 100.0 % 12042 Municipal Levels of Service Review (2,458) - (2,458) (100.0 %) Project complete. Project spend exceeded approved CBA by $2,458, however, this overage is fully covered by Provincial grant funding. Chief Administrative Office Total 134,824$ 50,000$ 84,824$ 62.9 % Fire Services Property 21006 Fire HQ, Hall and Training Construction 3,637,861$ 3,637,861$ -$ - Construction is expected to be completed in 2022. Total Property 3,637,861 3,637,861 -$ - Equipment 21106 Pumper for Fire Hall 4-5 410,000 407,330 2,670 0.7 % Project complete. Awaiting billing from Town of Newmarket for $407K. 21107 Fire Hall 4-5 Turn Out Gear 75,600 39,816 35,784 47.3 % Project complete. Awaiting billing from Town of Newmarket for $40K. 21114 Fire Master Plan - 2019 51,250 51,250 - - Project ongoing. Expected completion in 2022. Total Equipment 536,850 498,396 38,454 7.2 % Fire Services Total 4,174,711$ 4,136,257$ 38,454$ 0.9 % Operational Services Yard/Office 12041 89 Mosley St 9,453$ 216,128 (206,675) (2,186.3 %) Settlement of claim made by project contractor. Project complete - to be closed. 72285 JOC - Additional Work 707,927 120,000$ 587,927 83.0 % Cold storage building to be completed in 2023. Total Yard/Office 717,380 336,128 381,252$ 53.1 % Town of Aurora Budgeted Capital Spend vs. Actuals as at April 30, 2022 2022 Forecast Variance Variance Explanation Planned/Budgeted Capital Spend for 2022 1 of 14 Attachment 3 Page 74 of 183 ($)(%)2022 Forecast Variance Variance Explanation Planned/Budgeted Capital Spend for 2022 Operations 31151 Streetlights 14,827 14,827 - - 34005 Traffic Protection Guide Rail - Kennedy St W.19,156 - 19,156 100.0 % Project complete - to be closed. 34007 Webster Drive Curb/Road Drainage Repair 56,271 38,259 18,012 32.0 % Project complete - to be closed. 34008 Roads Operations Infrastructure Inspection, Repair and Maintenance Program 331,728 331,728 - - 34616 Side Walk /Engineered Walkway Reconstruction 158,894 158,894 - - 34713 Street Light Pole Identification 23,556 5,000 18,556 78.8 % Signs installed by Town instead of by Contractor, therefore, savings expected. Total Operations 604,432 548,708 55,724$ 9.2 % Parks 72281 AFLC - Skate Park Reconstruction (Conditionally Approved 2022)541,541 25,000 516,541 95.4 % Council report on options for repair in Q1 2023. 73085 Arboretum Development 84,875 84,875 - - 73119 Street /Park Tree Planting Contract 96,408 96,408 - - 73134 Parks/ Trails Signage Strategy Study & Implementation 88,108 50,000 38,108 43.3 % Remaining Trails signage to be completed by end of 2023. 73147 Trail Construction as per Trail Master Plan 32,250 32,250 - - 73160 Emerald Ash Borer Management Program 86,665 86,665 - - 73169 David Tomlinson Nature Reserve (Phase 1-5)2,408,663 1,200,000 1,208,663 50.2 % Awaiting approvals from the Department of Fisheries & Oceans and LSRCA signofff before the project can proceed. Expecting to spend the remaining approved CBA of $1,208,663 in 2023. 73175 Walkway Lights - Graham Parkette 60,000 60,000 - - 73192 Board Walk Resurface McKenzie Marsh 600,000 255,000 345,000 57.5 % $100K of approved budget authority will be spent in 2023, with estimated savings of $245K. 2 of 14 Page 75 of 183 ($)(%)2022 Forecast Variance Variance Explanation Planned/Budgeted Capital Spend for 2022 73201 Artificial Turf - G.W. Williams School 150,000 150,000 - - 73215 Playground Replacement, Walkway Repaving- L Willson Park 106,805 106,805 - - 73237 Pathway Paving - various park trails 30,000 30,000 - - 73240 Walkway/Basketball Repaving- Tamarac Park 30,000 30,000 - - 73242 Reconstruction of Fleury Park Washroom Facility (235,461) 189,587 (425,048) (180.5 %) Negative planned spend for 2022 of $235K is the result of higher than anticipated 2021 expenditures. However, overall remaining planned spend is within total approved CBA of $480K. 73247 Trail Construction (Pandolfo/Glen Ridge development area)64,978 64,978 - - 73260 Environmental Monitoring of 2C Lands 89,510 31,100 58,410 65.3 % 10 year project, in year 8 of monitoring. 73287 Hallmark Lands - Baseball Diamonds 1,168,174 1,168,174 - - 73290 Tree Inventory 17,043 17,043 - - 73296 Trails - Joseph Hartman Trail Connection (DG Group)164,755 164,755 - - 73299 Non - Programmed Park in 2C 1,460,872 2,886 1,457,986 99.8 % Construction estimated to begin in 2023. 73303 Tennis Court Resurface - Fleury, Summit & McMahon Park 190,000 190,000 - - 73315 Sheppards Bush Parking Lot Resurface 250,000 250,000 - - 73323 Mattamy Phase 4/5 Trail 900,000 100,000 800,000 88.9 % Project in design phase. Construction will commence in 2023. 73327 DeGraaf Cres Trail 200,000 75,000 125,000 62.5 % Project in design phase. Construction will commence in 2023. 73333 Playground Replacement - Elizabeth Hader 140,000 140,000 - - 73335 Dog Waste Container/Diversion Pilot Project 61,000 61,000 - - 73336 Cousins Park Boardwalk Replacement 170,000 170,000 - - 73338 St. Anne's School Park (Conditionally Approved 2022)200,000 200,000 - - Total Parks 9,156,186 5,031,526 4,124,660$ 45.0 % 3 of 14 Page 76 of 183 ($)(%)2022 Forecast Variance Variance Explanation Planned/Budgeted Capital Spend for 2022 Fleet Management 24023 Cameras for Parking Enforcement 6,880 6,880 - - 34111 Roads - DLA/Multipurpose Road Maintenenace Truck (New)400,000 529,219 (129,219) (32.3 %) Forecasted cash outflows are $129K higher than planned spend for 2022. Of this $129K, $100K remains within approved CBA and remander to be funded by Operating budget. 34262 Vehicle Radio Upgrade 30,000 30,000 - - 34431 Roads - 3/4 Ton Pick Up (#23-21)60,000 75,251 (15,251) (25.4 %) Over budget by $15,251. This shortfall will be managed within the Fleet capital program in 2022. 34436 Roads - 6 Ton Diesel Dump with Sander (#28- 21)300,000 - 300,000 100.0 % This truck will be purchased in 2024 as per Council Report #OPS22-011 Fleet Division Purchases. 34432 Roads - 2 Ton (#24-21)90,000 107,900 (17,900) (19.9 %) Forecasted cash outflows are $17,900 higher than planned spend for 2022, however, project spending remains within approved CBA. 71060 Facilities - 1/2 ton Truck (New)45,000 45,000 - - 71092 Facilities - Van - Aurora Town Square (New)55,000 54,972 28 0.1 % 71117 Parks - Utility Vehicle - Wildlife Park (New)40,000 30,000 10,000 25.0 % Vehicle requires outfitting upon delivery to Fleet, spend in 2022 71136 Parks - 1 Ton Pick Up Crew Cab (#203-21)62,800 62,800 - - 71137 Parks - 3/4 Ton Pick Up (#204-21)60,000 61,117 (1,117) (1.9 %) Over budget by $1,117. This shortfall will be managed within the Fleet capital program in 2022. Total Fleet Management 1,149,680 1,003,139 146,541$ 12.7 % Operational Services Total 11,627,678$ 6,919,501$ 4,708,177$ 40.5 % 4 of 14 Page 77 of 183 ($)(%)2022 Forecast Variance Variance Explanation Planned/Budgeted Capital Spend for 2022 Community Services Programs 73324 Pet Cemetery Restoration 35,306 35,306 - - 73331 Parks & Recreation Master Plan 100,000 100,000 - - 73329 Building Condition Assessment & Energy Audits 165,136 69,384 95,752 58.0 % This study will be completed in 2022 with savings expected. 74007 AFLC Fitness Equipment Replacement 38,689 20,000 18,689 48.3 % 74015 Cultural Services Master Plan 43,474 17,948 25,526 58.7 % Remaining $25K of approved budget authority will be spent in 2023. 74017 Aurora Sports Hall of Fame 1,926 1,926 - - 74019 Active Net Scan System 14,489 1,500 12,989 89.6 % Savings expected here as salaries for training are under budget due to COVID 19. 74029 Parade Float 27,500 27,500 - - 74030 Korean War Memorial 24,000 24,000 - - Total Programs 450,520 297,564 152,956$ 34.0 % Facilities 43057 Installation of Backflow Prevention Meters in Town Facilities 125,000 125,000 - - 72113 New Recreation Facility-Aquatic center 2,150,794 - 2,150,794 100.0 % Project delayed pending further Council direction. 72146 215 Industrial Parkway Exterior Works (Roof and Front Door System)138,334 138,334 - - 72172 ACC- Sport Flooring 73,900 73,900 - - 72201 Work Station Refresh Carpet Paint (2021 Budget Conditionally Approved)428,910 250,000 178,910 41.7 % The remaining approved CBA of $173,888 will be spent in 2023. $5,022 in approved CBA transferred to Project #74021 within Facilities capital program. 72204 Security Audit & Implementation 460,313 230,156 230,157 50.0 % The remaining approved CBA of $230,157 will be spent in 2023. 72206 Back Up Generation for Evacuation Centre 50,000 50,000 - - 72223 Electric Vehicle (EV) Charging Stations at Aurora Town Square 3,217 - 3,217 100.0 % 72226 AFLC HVAC Arena 120,016 19,363 100,653 83.9 % $100,653 in approved CBA transferred to Project #72263 within Facilities capital program. Savings here as AFLC requires further investigation and mechanical consultant review in 2022. 5 of 14 Page 78 of 183 ($)(%)2022 Forecast Variance Variance Explanation Planned/Budgeted Capital Spend for 2022 72263 SARC - Cooling Evaporator Tower 69,274 169,927 (100,653) (145.3 %) $100,653 in approved CBA transferred from Project #72226 within Facilities capital program. Original scope of work was underestimated and did not include allowances for consulting fees nor take into consideration the cost of inflation and goods/services due to COVID 19. 72283 SARC - Replacement of Pylon Sign Message Board 46,438 73,938 (27,500) (59.2 %) Forecasted cash outflows are $27,500 higher than planned spend for 2022, however, project spending remains within approved CBA. 72297 ACC - Ice Resurfacer Room Heater 16,379 16,379 - - 72302 AFLC - Replacement of Arena Seating 51,200 51,200 - - 72305 SARC - West Roof Area - Window Sealant 10,200 10,200 - - 72319 SARC - Replace security system 32,100 - 32,100 100.0 % Spending plan for this project will be confirmed at Council meeting in June 2022. 72323 SARC - Repair of concrete walkways 20,000 - 20,000 100.0 % Spending plan for this project will be confirmed at Council meeting in June 2022. 72324 AFLC - Replace hollow metal doors & exterior exit doors 55,000 55,000 - - 72328 AFLC - Replace built up roofing above Arena dressing rooms 90,100 - 90,100 100.0 % The remaining approved CBA of $90,100 will be spent in 2023/24. The delay was a result in retaining a consultant to complete a review of our roofing projects and determine next steps based on current budgets. 72340 ACC - Reseal exterior windows 13,500 13,500 - - 72346 ACC - Reseal concrete floors 28,700 28,700 - - 72372 215 Industrial - Refurbishment of Generator 43,063 43,063 - - 72381 CYFS 4-3 - Replace windows 28,800 28,800 - - 72393 ASC - Replacement of roofing sections 25,485 25,485 - - 72398 ASC - Replacement of security system 53,600 53,600 - - 72405 Town Hall - Replacement of roof sections and Skylight Sealant 243,716 100,000 143,716 59.0 % The Skylight Sealant will be completed in 2022, while the roof replacement will be completed in 2023/2024. The delay was a result in retaining a consultant and having them complete reviews to validate our existing budgets. 72410 SARC - 7500sqft. Gymnasium MPR Admin.8,164,726 150,000 8,014,726 98.2 % Forecasting for consulting fees in 2022 only. Construction likely to proceed in 2023 and 2024. 72419 Town Hall - Repair of concrete/stone walkways 37,273 37,273 - - 72441 AFLC - Pool Boiler Replacement 150,000 150,000 - - 72443 AFLC - Pylon Sign 30,714 30,714 - - 72444 Yonge St Electronic Sign Replacement 70,000 70,000 - - 6 of 14 Page 79 of 183 ($)(%)2022 Forecast Variance Variance Explanation Planned/Budgeted Capital Spend for 2022 72452 Energy and Demand Management Plan Implementation 100,000 100,000 - - 72453 Unplanned - Emergency Repairs Contingency 98,680 98,680 - - 72454 Victoria Hall - Accessible Ramp - Accessibility Plan Implementation 20,000 - 20,000 100.0 % 72457 Lane Ropes for SARC & AFLC and new diving board at SARC 31,724 36,028 (4,304) (13.6 %) Over budget by $4,300. This shortfall will be managed within the Facilities capital program in 2022. 72459 Facilities Study 90,000 40,000 50,000 55.6 % In progress, savings expected. 72460 Aurora Sports Dome Retrofit 600,000 600,000 - - 72469 COVID-19 Related Facility Improvements 72,550 72,550 - - 72472 SARC Pool Repairs - Grant Funded 354,600 354,600 - - 72476 Unplanned - Emergency Repairs Contingency 2022 100,000 100,000 - - 74021 SARC - Comprehensive Sound/Audio/Public Address System Upgrade 42,656 47,678 (5,022) (11.8 %) Project in progress, to be completed in 2022. $5,022 in approved CBA transferred from Project #72201 within Facilities capital program. 81019 Aurora Town Square 31,599,522 21,580,700 10,018,822 31.7 % In progress. Substantial completion in 2023. Total Facilities 45,940,484$ 25,024,768$ 20,915,716 45.5 % Community Services Total 46,391,004$ 25,322,332$ 21,068,672$ 45.4 % Planning & Development Services Environment/ Waste 42810 Climate Change Adaptation Plan 50,871 45,000 5,871 11.5 % Total Environment/ Waste 50,871 45,000 5,871$ 11.5 % Water 43040 Water Hydraulic Model for the Town 17,513 17,513 - - 43048 St John's Sdrd - Leslie to 2C 246,297 150,000 96,297 39.1 % Project is under warranty. Forecasting for outstanding payments. Total Water 263,810 167,513 96,297$ 36.5 % 7 of 14 Page 80 of 183 ($)(%)2022 Forecast Variance Variance Explanation Planned/Budgeted Capital Spend for 2022 Storm Sewer 42059 Storm Sewer Reserve Fund and Rates Study 102,308 51,154 51,154 50.0 % The remaining approved CBA of $51,154 will be spent in 2023. 42064 Storm Sewer Outlet Cleanup 522,773 522,773 - - 42066 Damaged Storm Pipe off Henderson Dr 3,497,928 500,000 2,997,928 85.7 % Construction work will be completed in 2023. Waiting on York Region to complete their works first. 42075 Performance Monitoring of LID Controls 86,883 86,883 - - 42079 Devlin Place Stream Rehabilitation 25,285 25,285 - - 42080 Jones Court Stream Rehabilitation 104,799 104,799 - - 42083 Willow Farm Lane Stream Rehabilitation 63,612 63,612 - - 42089 Delayne Drive Channel Rehabilitation 100,000 100,000 - - Total Storm Sewer 4,503,588 1,454,506 3,049,082$ 67.7 % Roads 31054 Road Resurfacing - Ind Pkwy S (Engelhard to Yonge), Vandorf (Ind Pwy S - Bayview)191,200 33,100 158,100 82.7 % Project in warranty phase, some deficiencies still to be addressed. $158,100 in approved CBA transferred to Project #31202 ($150K) and #31203 ($8,100) within Roads capital program. 31056 Bloomington Sdrd - Bathurst to Yonge - Sidewalk/ Bikeway/ Illumination 274,693 274,693 - - 31101 Reconstruction - Vandorf Sdrd (Sections)47,900 47,900 - - 31113 M & O and Underground Infrastructure Rehabilitation - Murray Dr, Kennedy St W, Pinehurst Crt. Wiles Crt. 2,940,277 2,940,277 - - 31116 Road Resurfacing - Dunning Ave, Edward St, Golf Links Dr, Ind Pkwy S, McClellan Way, Orchard Hts. Blvd, Tamarac Trail, Yonge St S 612,323 - 612,323 100.0 % Under warranty. Completed under budget. $105,000 in approved CBA transferred to Project #31202 ($75K) and #31203 ($30K) within Roads capital program. 31118 Reconstruction- Browning Crt, Johnson Rd, Holman Cres, Baldwin Rd 58,967 58,968 (1) (0.0 %) 8 of 14 Page 81 of 183 ($)(%)2022 Forecast Variance Variance Explanation Planned/Budgeted Capital Spend for 2022 31119 Reconstruction- Adair Dr, Bailey Cres, Davidson Rd., Harriman Rd.180,767 50,000 130,767 72.3 % Awaiting final invoice and additional works for street lighting in 2022. 31124 Henderson Dr. - Wildlife Passage 99,656 99,656 - - 31126 M & O - Harmon Ave, Orchard Hts Blvd., Whispering Pine Trail 401,948 - 401,948 100.0 % Under warranty. Completed under budget. $255,000 in approved CBA transferred to Project #31202 within Roads capital program. 31134 Road Resurfacing - Yonge St (Golf Links - Orchard Hts)328,629 - 328,629 100.0 % Under warranty. Completed under budget. $152,890 in approved CBA transferred to Project #31202 ($75,890) and #31203 ($77K) within Roads capital program. 31140 Road Resurfacing - Archerhill Crt, Jarvis Ave, Gilbert Dr, Westview Dr, McClellan Way 149,568 - 149,568 100.0 % Under warranty. Completed under budget. $135,000 in approved CBA transferred to Project #31203 within Roads capital program. 31177 Recon - Vandorf Sdrd - Monkman Crt - Carisbrooke Cir.163,631 - 163,631 100.0 % Completed in 2021. $120,000 in approved CBA transferred to Project #31203 within Roads capital program. 31178 Reconstruction of Poplar Crescent 3,814,787 - 3,814,787 100.0 % Construction in 2023. 31199 Road Resurfacing - Gurnett St., Kennedy St. E., Victoria St.,202,412 125,000 77,412 38.2 % Construction in 2023/2024. 31201 M & O - Banbury Crt, HIghland Gate, Corbett Cr, Cossar Dr, Elderberry Tr, Ironshore Crt, Greenbriar Crt, Spyglass Crt, Cranberry Ln, Dawlish Av 1,311,400 1,311,400 - - 31202 M & O - Haida Dr, Windham Trail, Wellington Heights Crt, Bayfair Rd, McDonald Dr, Bell Dr, Devins Dr, Crawford Rose Dr 1,132,900 1,688,790 (555,890) (49.1 %) This project is expected to exceed approved CBA by $555,890 due to significant increases in tendering costs. This shortfall will be funded by savings from Project #31054, 31116, 31126 and 31134 within Roads capital program. 31203 M & O - Vata Crt, Walton Dr, Old Yonge St 636,800 1,006,900 (370,100) (58.1 %) This project is expected to exceed approved CBA by $370,100 due to significant increases in tendering costs. This shortfall will be funded by savings from Project #31054, 31116, 31134, 31140 and 31177 within Roads capital program. 31207 Full Reconstruction - Mill St, Wells St, Edwards St, Temperance St 100,000 50,000 50,000 50.0 % The remaining approved CBA of $50,000 will be spent in 2023. 31210 Full Reconstruction - Marksbury Crt, Gilbank Dr, Lacey Crt, McLeod Dr 167,900 100,000 67,900 40.4 % The remaining approved CBA of $67,900 will be spent in 2023. 31217 Construction of Median at Yonge Street & Ridge Road 150,000 150,000 - - 31228 Goulding Ave and Eric T. Smith Way - Installation of Top Course Asphalt 790,500 790,500 - - 9 of 14 Page 82 of 183 ($)(%)2022 Forecast Variance Variance Explanation Planned/Budgeted Capital Spend for 2022 31229 Construction of a Layby Lane on Tecumseh Drive at Aurora Heights P.S.65,000 65,000 - - 31243 Long Term Remediation for the Pavement Heave Over Vandorf Culvert West of Bayview 230,000 230,000 - - 34006 Pave Snow Storage Facility - Lambert Willson Park 480,988 480,988 - - Total Roads 14,532,246 9,503,172 5,029,074$ 34.6 % Traffic 34518 Pedestrian Crossings as per 2019 DC Study (Conditionally Approved 2022)119,764 47,715 72,049 60.2 % $47K in approved CBA remaining. 34519 Traffic Calming as per 2019 DC Study (Conditionally Approved 2022)184,213 61,663 122,550 66.5 % $61K in approved CBA remaining. 34527 Yonge/Wellington Intersection Improvements 393,440 1,029,907 (636,467) (161.8 %) Forecasted cash outflows are $636K higher than planned spend for 2022. This shortfall will be fully recovered by a cost recovery from York Region. 34533 Traffic Calming Measures in School Zones 17,049 8,524 8,525 50.0 % 34562 Active Transportation Master Plan 145,257 145,257 - - 34563 Intersection Pedestrian Signal on Henderson Drive 192,911 192,911 - - Total Traffic 1,052,634 1,485,977 (433,343)$ (41.2 %) Sidewalks 34617 Sidewalk- Edward/ 100m E of Yonge-Dunning 75,000 75,000 - - 34626 Sidewalk Construction on Kitimat 45,971 45,971 - - 34635 S/W, Multi-use Trail and Illumination - St. John Sdrd - Bayview to Leslie 42,299 42,299 - - 34637 S/W - Leslie St - 600 m north of Wellington to N Town Limit 358,802 358,802 - - Total Sidewalks 522,072 522,072 -$ - Streetlights 34712 Streetlights Improvement on Yonge Street from Wellington to Church 600,000 50,000 550,000 91.7 % The remaining approved CBA of $550,000 will be spent in 2023. Total Streetlights 600,000 50,000 550,000$ 91.7 % 10 of 14 Page 83 of 183 ($)(%)2022 Forecast Variance Variance Explanation Planned/Budgeted Capital Spend for 2022 Studies 81001 Official Plan Review/Conformity to Places to Grow (18,694) 39,445 (58,139) (311.0 %) Negative planned spend for 2022 of $18K is the result of higher than anticipated 2021 expenditures. However, overall remaining planned spend is within approved CBA of $750K. 81032 Town Wide Green Development Guidelines 13,878 13,878 - - Total Studies (4,816)$ 53,323 (58,139)$ (1,207.2 %) Community Planning 81016 Aurora Promenade Streetscape Design & Implementation Plan Capital Works 445,323 - 445,323 100.0 % Streetscape report from consultant will be prepared and presented to Council in 2023. 81027 Municipal Hertiage Register Review and Update 32,297 32,297 - - Total Community Planning 477,620 32,297 445,323$ 93.2 % 240 Building 24014 Digital Plan Review and E-Permit Applications 11,678 7,500 4,178 35.8 % Total 240 Building 11,678 7,500 4,178 35.8 % Planning & Development Total 22,009,703$ 13,321,360$ 8,688,343$ 39.5 % Finance 14012 Financial System 1,160,631$ 1,100,000$ 60,631 5.2 % In 2021 the project went through the RFP process, contract negotiation occurred in the beginning of 2022 and resulted in a report to Council revising the total budget. Planned expenditures will commence in June 2022 and are anticipated to be incurred over a 12 month period. 14077 Community Benefit Charge Study and DC update 31,625 31,625 - - 14107 Second Generation Asset Management Plan - Phase 2 50,000 35,000 15,000 30.0 % Remaning balance to be spent in 2023. 43038 Water Meter Replacement Program 988,520 400,000 588,520 59.5 % 2021 expenditures were delayed due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Project will continue as planned for 2022 through 2024. 43055 Advanced Metering Infrastructure 1,599,500 1,000,000 599,500 37.5 % Contract was still under negotiation in 2021 and has been signed in early 2022. The project is now experiencing delays related to global materials shortages. The planned spend is anticipated to be incurred in 2022 and 2023. Finance Total 3,830,276$ 2,566,625$ 1,263,651$ 33.0 % 11 of 14 Page 84 of 183 ($)(%)2022 Forecast Variance Variance Explanation Planned/Budgeted Capital Spend for 2022 Corporate Services Legal Services 13020 Appraisal of Town Buildings - 2019 11,974$ 11,974$ -$ - 13026 Risk Management (Conditionally Approved 2022)58,297 18,298 39,999 68.6 % Remaining balance to be spent in 2023. This spend is contingent on Business Continuity Plan. Total Legal Services 70,271$ 30,272 39,999$ 56.9 % Human Resources 13015 Employee Engagement Survey - 2020 30,446 - 30,446 100.0 % Remaning balance to be spent in 2023. 13018 Human Resources Information/Payroll System 120,126 70,000 50,126 41.7 % We have implemented the foundational part of our HRIS system which allows us to keep all the records, process payroll, run reports but there are several other modules that have yet to be implemented and were part of the procurement award. These include Applicant Tracking System, onboarding module, performance evaluation and a learning management system that was discussed but not finalized. We are currently planning to implement two more modules this year which will likely require half of the remaining funds and the rest likely to be used in 2023. 13027 Job Hazard Assessments 30,000 15,000 15,000 50.0 % Remaning balance to be spent in 2023. Total Human Resources 180,572 85,000 95,572$ 52.9 % Strategic Initiatives 12016 Customer Experience Plan (CEP)111,815 28,000 83,815 75.0 % Delays due to COVID-19. Will be completed in 2022/2023. 13011 Business Continuity Management Program 150,009 150,009 - - Total Strategic Initiatives 261,824 178,009 83,815$ 32.0 % Bylaw 24015 Radios for By-Law Officers 35,265 35,265 - - 24016 Animal Control Start Up 2,223 - 2,223 100.0 % Project complete - to be closed. 24029 AMPS Implementation 150,000 100,000 50,000 33.3 % The remaining approved CBA of $50,000 will be spent in 2023 Total Bylaw 187,488 135,265 52,223$ 27.9 % 12 of 14 Page 85 of 183 ($)(%)2022 Forecast Variance Variance Explanation Planned/Budgeted Capital Spend for 2022 IT Department 14047 Computer & Related Infrastructure Renewal 298,165 298,165 - - 14058 Project Management Software 25,000 - 25,000 100.0 % Project complete - to be closed. Exploring potential for new ERP system to provide support. 14068 Wireless Upgrades and Enhancements 74,011 50,000 24,011 32.4 % 14070 Boardroom Audio/Video Equipment 93,625 50,000 43,625 46.6 % 14072 Cityview Portal Implementation 92,100 92,100 - - 14073 Information Technology Strategic Plan Implementation - Studies and Other 204,532 100,000 104,532 51.1 % The remaining approved CBA of $104,532 will be spent in 2023 and 2024. 14075 Business Process Automation and Data Integration 229,537 50,000 179,537 78.2 % The remaining approved CBA of $179,537 will be spent in 2023 and 2024. 14076 Digital Education Program 50,000 25,000 25,000 50.0 % The remaining approved CBA of $50,000 will be spent in 2023 and 2024. 14081 Ethernet Switch Redesign 400,000 400,000 - - 14082 Data Centre Upgrades - Cybersecurity 55,866 55,866 - - 14084 Maximo EAM for Cities 100,000 100,000 - - 14085 Migration to Cityview Workspace 27,610 (72,390) 100,000 362.2 % $72K in expenses posted to this project in 2021 and reallocated in 2022. The remaining approved CBA of $100,000 will be spent in 2023 and 2024. 14086 ArcGIS Portal 100,000 100,000 - - 14088 Outdoor Wi-Fi Implementation (Conditionally Approved 2022)50,000 50,000 - - 14089 Business Intelligence 50,000 35,000 15,000 30.0 % 14092 TrackIT Replacement 20,000 20,000 - - 14094 Data Centre Hardware Refresh 100,000 100,000 - - 14095 Cybersecurity Software 90,000 90,000 - - 14097 EZMax Mobile 50,000 - 50,000 100.0 % The remaining approved CBA of $50,000 will be spent in 2023. 14101 Permit Occupancy Application 25,000 25,000 - - 14102 Garbage Tag Portal 25,000 25,000 - - 14103 Backflow Prevention App 25,000 15,000 10,000 40.0 % 14105 IT Security Penetration Testing 25,000 25,000 - - 24013 CityView Portal 78,529 78,529 - - 81025 GIS Scanner 10,000 10,000 - - Total IT Department 2,298,975 1,722,270 576,705$ 25.1 % 13 of 14 Page 86 of 183 ($)(%)2022 Forecast Variance Variance Explanation Planned/Budgeted Capital Spend for 2022 Access Aurora 12002 Accessibility Plan Implementation 200,863 181,845 19,018 9.5 % 12025 Customer Relationship Management (CRM)47,986 47,986 - - 13023 Access Aurora Telephony Project 12,328 12,328 - - Total Access Aurora 261,177 242,159 19,018 7.3 % Corporate Services Total 3,260,307$ 2,392,975$ 867,332$ 26.6 % Total Capital Projects 91,428,503$ 54,709,050$ 36,719,453$ 40.2 % 14 of 14 Page 87 of 183 100 John West Way Aurora, Ontario L4G 6J1 (905) 727-3123 aurora.ca Town of Aurora General Committee Report No. OPS 2 2 -015 Subject: Tree Removal Permit Application - 72 Harrison Avenue Prepared by: Sara Tienkamp, Manager of Parks and Fleet Department: Operational Services Date: July 5, 2022 Recommendation 1. That Report No. OPS22-015 be received; and 2. That the Tree Removal Application for 72 Harrison Avenue be approved. Executive Summary This report is to provide Council with information and recommendations associated with the removal of trees at 72 Harrison Avenue: Town forestry staff assessment confirms information in application for removal. Applicant is proposing planting two (2) native Sugar Maple trees as compensation for the removal. Background The subject property is listed on the Town of Aurora’s Register of Properties of Cultural Heritage Value or Interest under Tree Protection By-law 5850-16. Section 9 (1) (b) states: If a tree subject to an application is found by the Director to be a Heritage Tree, the Director shall not issue a permit unless the injury, destruction or removal is approved by Council following a review by the Town’s Heritage Advisory Committee. On April 18, 2022, Parks Division received a formal Tree Removal Application and supporting documentation for the removal of one (1), White Spruce tree on a lean from the rear yard of the property. Page 88 of 183 July 5, 2022 2 of 4 Report No. OPS22-015 The Heritage Advisory Committee’s comments on this application should focus on the impact on the heritage character of the neighbourhood, not the physical condition of the tree. Analysis Town forestry staff assessment confirms information in application for removal. Staff attended the site and met with the applicant to assess the Spruce tree. The resident has concerns about the lean of the tree towards the house and future impacts as it continues to grow. In addition, the tree is not aesthetically pleasing, and the owner would prefer to have trees along the perimeter of the property to maximize useable space in the yard. It was confirmed that a 15-metre-high Spruce tree, with a DBH of 44 cm, was growing on an approximate 20 degree lean towards the house. The tree has a health and structural integrity rating of fair. The crown is open and somewhat sparse, and the root plate does not appear to have shifted as the ground is level around the tree. It is unknown if the tree was not planted straight originally or if winds have impacted the tree causing it to move towards house when it was younger in age, as the main leader has self corrected over time. Applicant is proposing planting two (2) native Sugar Maple trees as compensation for the removal. The owner is proposing planting two (2) Sugar Maple trees along the western property line to restore the canopy loss as the result from the removal of the Spruce tree. As per the Town’s Tree Removal Compensation Policy, the value of this tree $1,616.22. Should the removal be approved staff will work with the applicant to fulfill the requirements of the compensation policy. Advisory Committee Review The Tree Permit Application for this property was reviewed by the Heritage Advisory Committee (HAC) at its June 6, 2022 meeting. The Minutes include the following comments from the committee: The Committee commented on the future state of the tree, what impact it could potentially have as the tree matures and how it could become a threat to the home should it fail, considering the lean. It was also expressed that taking into Page 89 of 183 July 5, 2022 3 of 4 Report No. OPS22-015 account the recent severe storm over the Victoria Day weekend and the significant damage to the urban forest, they too would share the homeowner’s concerns. Legal Considerations As the trees are located on a listed property, only Council has the authority to approve the removal of the trees, after a review by HAC. Council may approve the removal subject to certain conditions, which includes financial compensation or replanting of trees. Financial Implications As the trees in question are located on private property, their removal will be solely at the property owner’s expense should Council approve their associated tree removal permit applications. The Town has also collected the appropriate fees and security deposits relating to this application. Communications Considerations Not applicable. Climate Change Considerations Removal of live trees increases GHG emissions; however, the Town’s Tree Compensation Policy allows for the re-planting of trees to compensate for the loss of canopy associated with any removals. Link to Strategic Plan Tree removals support the Strategic Plan goal of Supporting Environmental Stewardship and Sustainability for all through its accomplishment in satisfying requirements in the following key objectives within this goal statement: Encouraging the stewardship of Aurora’s natural resources: Assess the merits of measuring the Town’s natural capital assets. Page 90 of 183 July 5, 2022 4 of 4 Report No. OPS22-015 Alternative(s) to the Recommendation 1. Council could decide not to approve the Tree Removal Application for 72 Harrison Avenue. 2. As directed by Council. Conclusions The landscape planting presented to date satisfies the requirements of the Town Tree Compensation Policy and staff will work to finalize details of replanting, tree removal permit and associated securities with applicant. Staff recommend the Tree Removal Application for 72 Harrison Avenue be approved. Attachments Attachment 1 – Tree Removal Permit Application, April 18, 2022 Attachment 2 – Spruce Tree Photo Previous Reports None. Pre-submission Review Agenda Management Team review on June 16, 2022. Approvals Approved by Allan D. Downey, Director, Operational Services Approved by Doug Nadorozny, Chief Administrative Officer Page 91 of 183 ____ 1< -p / ,.;,,.f\ t' Attachment 1 Page 1 of 3 TREE PER.i\iITT APPLICATION Town of Aurora Application to Permit the Municipal Drive Injury or Destruction Box 1000 Of Trees on Private Property Aurora, Ontario L4G 6J1 Phone 905-727-312 ext.3223 The personal information on this form is collected under Bylaw 5850-16 and will be used for the purposes of this application only. Questions should be direc ted to the Freedom of Information Co-ordinator, Ottice of the Town Clerk, 1 Municipal Drive Box 1000, Aurora, Onta;io L4G 6J1, Tel. 905- 727-3123 ext. 3223e THIS IS NOT A PERMIT Instructions for Completion of Application:e 1. Application form to be completed by applicant. Please type or print CLEARLY. Incomplete applications will delay approval. 2.e Municipal address: Street name and number must be included for applications to be considered complete.e 3. Provide an Arborist Report completed by an Arborist as defined in the by-law, at the direction of the Parks Manager.e 4.e If replanting, provide 2 copies of the replanting plan or landscape plan.e 5. Payment of the required fees: See item 12 on page 2 for fee requirements. Writ1en consent is necessary from an adjacent property owner where the base of a tree straddles a property line. 6.e · If this application is signed by an applicant other than the owner, or by an agent, the written authorization of the owner is required.e 7. File this application and other supporting documentation to the Department of Parks and Recreation 100 John West Way Aurora, Ontario L4G 6J1. 8. Applications submitted after 3:30 p.m. local time will not be processed until the next business day.e I am applying for a permit to remove tree/s on private property (please check one) = Three (3) or more trees 20cm (8 inches) in diameter measured at 1.37 m In a 12 month period = Two (2) trees have already been removed between 20cm (B inches) in diameter measured at 1.37 min a 12 month period and require a permit for the removal of the third (3'd) or more tree/s in the same 12 month period =One (1) or more tree/s larger than 70cm (30 inches) in diameter measured at 1.37 �ne (1) or more tree/s in the designated heritage district =One (1) or more designated heritage tree/s APPLICANT INFORMATION 1. 2. 3.e 4. Telephone:e ._ ______ E-mail:e 5. Name of Registered Owner (if different from above): _______________________ _e 6.e Mailing address of Owner (if different from above): ____________________ 7. Existing Land Use: __________________________________ _ 9.e Are the tree(s) located on or near any neighbouring property line resulting in the joint ownership of the tree(s). �� Yes \)(Noe 10. If yes, do you have authorization from the neighbouring property owner to act as their representative in this application to injure or remove tree(s). = Yes No 11.e Reason why trees are being injured or removed. Please circle letter:e A. trees interfere with proposed constructione B. Landscaping on the property C. all trees are dead, dying or hazardous D. trees are interfering with utilities/dwelling/foundatione E.e installing pool ® other (please specify): �t f'\'1ovo,\ W Z \-h f / o, r- S -Jo 1 Page 92 of 183 _____________ � Page 2 of 3 TREE PERMIT APPLICATION 12 Fee Requirements: If all trees are conside;ed dead, dying or haza;dous by the Parks Manager. there is no fee but a permit must still be obtained. Please circle one of the below: Trees over 20cm in diameter 3 trees S214.00 4 trees S320.00 5 trees S427.00 6 trees S534.00 7 trees S640.00 8 or more trees $107.00 per addilional tree to a maximum of $2,552.50 Trees over 70 centimeters in diameter S534.00 per tree (Methods of payment major credil cards. interact, cash, or cheque fees are non-refundable and must be remitted at the time of inilial permit application) , . . . . ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS . I am the owner of the property or acting on behalf of the owner with written authorization (attached)_ The property is not a designated Heritage Property under the Town of Aurora designation The property is designated Heritage and the Heritage Advisory Committee has approved the injury or destruction of the tree/s as per the attached Approved Heritage Permit Applicable fees have been submitted that I have read and understand the required procedures and provisions under the Town of Aurora·s Private Tree By-law and the statements and plans made by me upon this application are, to the best of my belief and knowledge, a true and complete representation of the purpose and intent of this application. I consent to allowing Town of Aurora employees to enter the property to conduct inspections Signed at the Town of Aurora this Signature of Applicant: ' , DOES THE TRUNK OF THE TREE/S AT GROUND LEVEL BISECT OR STRADDLE A PROPERTY LINE? YES IF YOU ANSWERED YES PLEASE COMPLETE DECLARATION 2 Bl!LDW ,, .. DECLARATION 2 I iwe ________________________________ hereby declare print name That I am the owner of 1he ad;acenl property have read and understand the requirea procedures and provisions under the Town of Aurora·s Private Tree By-law and I /we consent lo the intentions respecting the proposed work ior which this application is being made and that the statements and plans made by me upon this application are. to the besi of my belief and knowledge, a true and complete .. I consent to allowing Town of Aurora employees to enter the property to conduct inspections Signed at the Town of Aurora 1his ____ day al ---------• 20 __ Signaiure of Adjacent proper1y ovmer ------------------ Address _______________ 2 Page 93 of 183 ' -. � -.,.., . ----. . ,--. --- . ------,----,. -------· --' ------·-·-.. i .Cor-flew 5vjC\' I !----------··- Page 3 of 3 TREE PER.t\1IT APPLICATION .. - . --' --,_ -PART.A Tree and sile lnformallon ' .. STRUCTURAL INTEGRITY TREE TREE SPECIES TREE DIA_ IN DRIP HEALTH CM. LINE FAIR GOOD " " POOR POOR FAIR GOOD MEASURED AT 1.37M 1 K f., S'p,u Ce-t;J.; {m l.;50(/11 I 2 I I I 3 I I 4 I 5 (IF MORE THAN 5 ATIACH ADDITIONAL PAGES) __ PART B SKETCH OF PROPERTY , : ----·�o.------··--·------------·----------·-·· ·---------·-------· . ---··-·-·· ·- (J _ rro pc:6u1 s r.Jv + (1\r:>pl-cJ, I \. iJ :jj I I ·------·--------------1 _ Please show all proper.y Ii-es, buildir.gs, driveways and the individual treeis thai are to be removed. 1 \.\ o 0'':> C Tree/s s1all be nu,r.bered and cross refe-enced ,-----·-·----.. to maich tree ii in Part A Tree and Site ln!orma1ion CERTIFY THAT THE INFORMATION IN PARTS A, B & C IS CORRECT SIGNATURE DATE 0 1(/;�_o_�_-z-___ _ ( 11�-. e:1 "" •' .-,• LE) / NOTE: COMPLETION OF PARTS A, B & C WILL BE RECOGNIZED AS AN ARBORISTS REPORT 3 Page 94 of 183 Page 95 of 183 Attachment 2 Page 96 of 183 100 John West Way Aurora, Ontario L4G 6J1 (905) 727-3123 aurora.ca Town of Aurora General Committee Report No. PDS2 2 -0 85 Subject: Notice of Objection to Notice of Intention to Designate 34 Berczy Street under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act Prepared by: Brashanthe Manoharan, Planner/Heritage Planning Department: Planning and Development Services Date: July 5, 2022 Recommendation 1. That Report No. PDS22-085 be received; and 2. That the designation by-law be brought before Council for enactment. Executive Summary The purpose of this report is to advise Council of the Notice of Objection to the Notice of Intention to Designate 34 Berczy under Section 29(IV) of the Ontario Heritage Act. This report seeks to provide Council with the necessary information to implement Council’s previous decision to designate 34 Berczy as a property of Cultural Heritage Value or Interest under Section 29(IV) of the Ontario Heritage Act. The Heritage Advisory Committee’s Working Group performed an evaluation and concludes that 34 Berczy Street is worthy of heritage designation, following discussions on June 7, 2021 and February 7, 2022 Heritage Advisory Committee meetings. A Notice of Intention to Designate 34 Berczy Street under Section 29(IV) of the Ontario Heritage Act was served on the May 12, 2022 in accordance with the requirements of the Ontario Heritage Act. A Notice of Objection to the Notice of Intention to Designate was received on May 27, 2022. Page 97 of 183 July 5, 2022 2 of 6 Report No. PDS22-085 Background Application History On January 29, 2020, the Town of Aurora’s Planning and Development Services received an Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment applications (File no.: OPA- 2020-01 & ZBA-2020-01) for the development of an 7-storey mixed use building on the properties municipally known as 26, 30, 32, 34-38 Berczy Street. The application was under review by the Town and subsequently appealed to the Ontario Land Tribunal on November 25, 2021. On March 5, 2020, the Heritage Advisory Committee’s Evaluation Working Group met with Planning Staff to perform an evaluation of the subject properties based on the Town’s Heritage Evaluation Guidelines. 26, 32 and 38 Berczy Street were scored between 45 to 69 out of 100, which suggested they may be worthy of heritage designation. 34 Berczy Street was scored 85 out of 100, which suggested the property is worthy of designation. On June 7, 2021, the Heritage Advisory Committee (HAC) considered a request to remove 26, 32, 34-38 Berczy Street from the Town’s Heritage Register. This request was submitted by the owner following submission of applications for Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendments (File no.: OPA-2020-01 & ZBA-2020-01). The Committee inquired about the March 2020 heritage evaluation working group assessment and expressed disappointment that the buildings had not yet been designated as it was deemed worthy of designation despite the previous modifications. The Committee suggested that, rather than be demolished, the building at 34 Berczy Street be rehabilitated and integrated into the proposed new development, in addition to robust documentation and commemoration. On February 7, 2022, HAC considered the designation of 34- 38 Berczy Street under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act and the delisting of 26 & 32 Berczy Street from the Aurora Register of Properties of Cultural Heritage Value or Interest. The Committee expressed support for the designation of the 26, 32, and 34-38 Berczy Street properties. On April 5, 2022, Council considered the designation of 26, 32, 34-38 Berczy Street whereby the following resolution was passed at the April 26, 2022 Council meeting: 1. That Report No. PDS22-013 be received; and Page 98 of 183 July 5, 2022 3 of 6 Report No. PDS22-085 2. That 34 Berczy Street be designated under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act as properties of Cultural Heritage Value or Interest; and 3. That Council remove 26, 32, and 38 Berczy Street from the Aurora Register of Properties of Cultural Value or Interest conditional upon the submission of a detailed Site and Building Documentation and a fulsome Historical Report inclusive of properties both north and south of Mosley Street, and a detailed Commemorative Plan. Ontario Heritage Act 34 Berczy Street is a non-designated property listed on the Town’s Heritage Register. According to Section 27 of the Ontario Heritage Act, a Municipal Register of Cultural Heritage Value or Interest may include properties that have not been designated under the Ontario Heritage Act, but that the Council of a Municipality believes to be of cultural heritage value or interest. The Ontario Heritage Act enables municipalities to pass a by-law to individually designate a property of cultural heritage value or interest. Individual properties being considered for heritage designation must meet one or more of the prescribed criteria from the O. Reg. 9/06, with respect to design or physical value, historical or associative value, and contextual value. Analysis The Heritage Advisory Committee’s Working Group performed an evaluation and concludes that 34 Berczy Street is worthy of heritage designation, following discussions on June 7, 2021 and February 7, 2022 Heritage Advisory Committee meetings. The Heritage Advisory Committee’s Evaluation Working Group scored 34 Berczy Street as 85/100, which places the building in Group 1, suggesting that the building is worthy of designation. Although the architectural integrity may have been compromised over the years, HAC is of the opinion that 34 Berczy Street is of significant historical and contextual value due the direct association with the Sisman Shoe Company and its notable contributions to Aurora’s history. HAC stated that the industrialist nature and location of the site and proximity to rail corridor speaks to the significance property, as it facilitated the shipment of Sisman shoes and boots across Canada and beyond. A Notice of Intention to Designate 34 Berczy Street was served on the May 12, 2022 in accordance with the requirements of the Ontario Heritage Act. Page 99 of 183 July 5, 2022 4 of 6 Report No. PDS22-085 Following the April 26, Council meeting, A Notice of Intention to Designate (the “Notice”) 34 Berczy Street was served on the property owner, the Ontario Heritage Trust, and was published in the newspaper on May 12, 2022 (Attachment 1). A Notice of Objection to the Notice of Intention to Designate was received on May 27, 2022. A Notice of Objection was received on May 27, 2022 from the property owner, 2601622 Ontario Inc. (Attachment 2). It is stated that the owner is prepared to work with Town staff on the development proposal but continues to have concerns with the extent of the reasons for the designation of 34 Berczy Street. The Notice of Objection further states that the reasons for opposing the designation are as previously outlined in the Heritage Impact Assessment prepared by ERA Architects Inc. dated April 15, 2021 (enclosed within Attachment 2). Advisory Committee Review Not applicable. Legal Considerations In accordance with the Ontario Heritage Act, Council shall consider this objection and make a decision whether or not to withdraw the Notice to designate the property, within 90 days after the end of the 30-day notice period. The 90-day deadline is on September 9, 2022. If Council withdraws the Notice, then notice of the withdrawal must be given to the property owner, any person who objected, and the Trust and also published in the local newspaper. If Council decides to not withdraw the Notice thereby continuing with the designation of the property, then the designation by-law for the subject property must be brought forward to Council for approval within 120 days after the date of publication of the Notice. The development applications relating to 34 Berczy Street have been appealed and are before the Ontario Land Tribunal (the “Planning Appeals”). In order to meet timelines relating to the Planning Appeals, if the decision is to continue with the designation of the property, staff will add the designating by-law to the Council meeting scheduled on July 12. Anyone may appeal the passing of the designating by-law to the Ontario Land Tribunal for a hearing. It is anticipated that the property owner will appeal the passing Page 100 of 183 July 5, 2022 5 of 6 Report No. PDS22-085 of the designation by-law and will consolidate this appeal together with the Planning Appeals so that all matters relating to the property may be heard together. If the by-law is not passed within 120 days of the Notice, then the Notice is deemed to be withdrawn and notice of the withdrawal must be given to the property owner, any person who objected and the Trust and published in the local newspaper. Financial Implications There are no direct financial implications arising from this report. Communications Considerations On May 12, 2022 a Notice of Intention to Designate was served on the property owner, Ontario Heritage Trust (the “Trust”), and published in the local newspaper in accordance with the requirements in the Ontario Heritage Act. Climate Change Considerations The recommendations from this report does not impact greenhouse gas emissions or impact climate change adaptation. 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 withdraw the Notice of Intention to Designate 34 Berczy Street. Conclusions A Notice of Objection was received on May 27, 2022 by Aird & Berlis LLP on behalf of the property owner, 2601622 Ontario Inc. This report seeks to provide the necessary information to implement Council’s previous decision to designate 34 Berczy as a property of Cultural Heritage Value or Interest under Section 29(IV) of the Ontario Heritage Act. Page 101 of 183 July 5, 2022 6 of 6 Report No. PDS22-085 Attachments Attachment 1 – Notice of Intention to Designate dated May 12, 2022 Attachment 2 – Notice of Objection dated May 27, 2022 Previous Reports General Committee Report No. PDS22-013 - Report to Designate 26, 32, and 34-38 Berczy Street under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act – April 5, 2022 Heritage Memorandum – Report to Designate 34-38 Berczy Street under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act and to Delist 26 & 32 Berczy Street from the Aurora Register of Properties of Cultural Heritage Value or Interest - February 7, 2022 Pre-submission Review Agenda Management Team review on June 16, 2022 Approvals Approved by Marco Ramunno, Director, Planning and Development Services Approved by Doug Nadorozny, Chief Administrative Officer Page 102 of 183 NOTICE OF INTENTION TO DESIGNATE A BUILDING OF CULTURAL HERIATGE VALUE OR INTEREST TAKE NOTICE THAT the Council of The Corporation of the Town of Aurora (the “Town”) intends to designate the following property as a property of Cultural Heritage Value or Interest pursuant to the provisions of Section 29 of the Ontario Heritage Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. O.18, as amended (the “Ontario Heritage Act”). A brief statement of reasons is included. 34 Berczy Street T.Sisman Shoe Factory Lot 7 W/S Berczy St and Part of Lot 8 W/S Berczy Street, Plan 68 Town of Aurora, Regional Municipality of York, being part of PIN 03650-0157 (LT) Description of Property The property municipally known as 34 Berczy Street is located on the west side of Berczy Street, south of Wellington Street East and east of Yonge Street, contains a two-storey building which was formerly part of the T. Sisman Shoe Factory. The subject properties were historically part of the Geographic Township of Whitchurch (presently Aurora). In 1805, Ebenezer Britton acquired all 190 acres of lands in LOT 80 EYS from the Crown. In 1836, John Mosley purchased 79 acres of lands on the western portion of lands adjacent to the hamlet of Machell’s Corners. In 1854, Mosley subdivided his lands into built lots which created the Southeast Old Aurora neighbourhood bounded by Wellington Street to the north, Berczy Street to the east, Metcalfe Street to the south and Yonge Street to the west. Statement of Cultural Heritage Value or Interest The Cultural Heritage Value of 34 Berczy Street primarily derives from the historical or associative value due its direct association with the T. Sisman Shoe Factory and its notable contributions to Aurora’s history. Physical Design Value In 1901, The “Underhill & Sisman Shoe Manufacturing Company” moved to Aurora, ON from Markham, ON, acquired 34 & 38 Berczy Street from the Spence family, and contracted George Thomas Browning, a local architect and builder, to construct the shoe factory building at 34 Berczy Street. The company completed construction of a 2-storey factory on the site (later to be known as “Factory No. 2”) within the same year. In 1903, an addition was erected to its south to accommodate a broiler house. The original stone and brick building underwent an extensive renovation and was converted from a single-use industrial factory to a multi-unit building and has now been covered with cream-coloured stucco. The building is rectangular in shape with a flat roof. The main entrance is located on the east facing wall with Attachment 1 Page 103 of 183 three vertical bay windows. Three more entrances into various offices are located at the south elevation. The fenestration is articulated on all elevations with two rows of arched windows. The west half of the north elevation has a simple top cornice with dentils. Currently, the building has very limited visual references to the Sisman Shoe Factory complex. The building remained vacant for several years until it was purchased by the Newell family who undertook extensive interior and exterior renovations to the building. Further renovations were completed to the building in 2002 to accommodate new offices. Today, the buildings resemble something more akin to a multi-unit suburban commercial building. Historical/ Associative Value The Cultural Heritage Value of 34 Berczy Street primarily derives from the historical or associative value due its direct association with the T. Sisman Shoe Factory and its notable contributions to Aurora’s history. Thomas Sisman, founder of T. Sisman Shoe Company lived in a two-storey house between the two factory buildings. The Aurora Museum notes that the property was regarded for its landscaping and was admired locally for its broad lawns and flower gardens. The house was constructed prior to 1911. In 1933, Thomas Sisman died at the age of 83, leaving the members of the Sisman and Linton families to manage the company. In 1950, the Sisman residence was demolished, and a new one-storey block concrete building was constructed in its place in 1951, referred to as Factory No.4 of the complex (38 Berczy Street). The “Underhill & Sisman Shoe Manufacturing Company” moved from Markham, ON to Aurora, ON in 1901. Aurora Council voted to provide a bonus of $10,000 for land and buildings, free water rates for 10 years, and free municipal taxes (except for school taxes) for 10 years. The agreement also stated that Underhill and Sisman must have at least 70 employees residing in the corporation. Following this agreement, Markham took the Town of Aurora to court for passing such an agreement. The Court of Appeal allowed Markham’s appeal and the judgement was reversed. The Town attempted to take the case to the Supreme Court of Canada, whereby the appeal was refused and the Town was ordered to pay the costs of $300 to Markham. Subsequently, By-law #192 and193 was passed by the Province of Ontario on June 12, 1903 to approve the agreement. In 1910, the Underhill-Sisman partnership dissolved. “Underhill Ltd.” continued its operation and the “T. Sisman Shoe Company” constructed a new building at 111 Mosley Street. The new factory on Mosley Street became the principal production facility and was known as Factory No.1 of the complex. In 1912, an addition to the factory at 111 Mosley Street was constructed. Around this time, Underhill Ltd. left Aurora for Barrie, where the company had previously established another plant. Starting in the 1960s, the Canadian shoe industry saw rising competition from import products. In 1966 Kinney Shoes, an American company, purchased Sismans. In 1976, Kinney Shoes announced the closure of the T. Sisman Shoe Company as it could not compete with inexpensive imports from abroad. A group of local businessmen purchased the company and re-opened it under the name Page 104 of 183 of “Sismans of Canada Limited”. Factory No.1 at 103 Mosley Street was demolished between 1978 and 1988. The Sisman name finally disappeared from Aurora’s industrial rolls when the company went into receivership and was closed in 1985. The T. Sisman Shoe Factory manufactured various shoes and boots including for fashion, work, sport, and specialized in steel-toe safety shoes, army and police type shoes, and oxfords to keep up with import pressures. Starting in 1940, the company received the first in a series of contracts from the federal government to manufacture shoes for the war effort. The T. Sisman Shoe Factory was one of the Town’s largest employers, with surrounding dwellings constructed to house its workers. By March of 1902, the plant employed nearly 100 and produced 600 pairs of shoes daily. Contextual Value The property has contextual value as it is physically and functionally associated with the early industrial landscape associated with the Aurora Train Station, which facilitated the shipment of Sisman shoes and boots across Canada and beyond. Description of Heritage Attributes Important to the preservation of the property are the original key attributes that express its value, which include the following exterior elements: Exterior Elements x Stone Foundation x Corbelled Parapets of both end walls x Window Fenestration on north and south elevations DETAILED REASONS FOR THE PROPOSED DESIGNATION CAN BE OBTAINED BY CONTACTING THE UNDERSIGNED. Pursuant to Section 29(5) of the Ontario Heritage Act, any person may, before 4:30 p.m. on the June 11, 2022, (within 30 days of the publication of this notice) send by registered mail or deliver to the Town Clerk, Notice of Objection to the proposed designation, together with a statement setting out the reasons for the objection and all relevant facts. If a Notice of Objection is received, the Council of the Town shall consider the objection and make a decision whether or not to withdraw the Notice to designate the property, within 90 days after the end of the 30-day period. Further information respecting the proposed designation(s) is available from the Town Clerk’s Office upon request. DATED at Aurora this May 12, 2022 Michael de Rond, Town Clerk, Town of Aurora, 100 John West Way, Box 1000, Aurora, ON, L4G 6J1 Page 105 of 183 Naomi Mares Direct: 647.426.2842 E-mail: nmares@airdberlis.com May 27, 2022 HAND DELIVERED Mr. Michael de Rond Town Clerk Town of Aurora 100 John West Way, Box 1000 Aurora, ON L4G 6J1 Dear Mr. de Rond: Re: Notice of an Objection to the Notice of Intention to Designate pursuant to Part IV, Subsection 29(5) of the Ontario Heritage Act 34 Berczy Street, Town of Aurora Aird & Berlis LLP acts for 2601622 Ontario Inc., the owner with respect to the properties municipally known as 26, 30, 32 and 34-38 Berczy Street (collectively, the “Site”) in the Town of Aurora (the “Town”). On April 26, 2022, the Council of the Corporation of the Town of Aurora (the “Council”) resolved to state its intention to designate the property municipally known as 34 Berczy Street on the Site, pursuant to Part IV,Section 29 of the Ontario Heritage Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.O.18 (the “OHA”). 34 Berczy Street is located on the west side of Berczy Street, south of Wellington Street East and east of Yonge Street. The existing structure on 34 Berczy Street is a two-storey structure. Our client received the City’s Notice of Intention to Designate on May 12, 2022. Please accept this letter as a formal Objection to the Notice of Intention to Designate. The Site is also subject to appeals under the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.P.13, as amended, (the “Planning Act”) before the Ontario Land Tribunal (the “OLT”), case no. OLT- 21-001950. We therefore respectfully request that both the consideration of the designation, and the decision with respect to the designation, be placed on the June 6, 2022 Heritage Advisory Committee (the “HAC”) agenda, in order to allow the owner to appeal the designation and have the matter before the OLT at the scheduled October 19, 2022 Case Management Conference. This would allow the OHA matter to be heard together with the Planning Act matters. The requested timing is also crucial in order to have this matter referred to the OLT prior to the Council break due to the municipal election. Our client’s reasons for opposing the designation were outlined in the Heritage Impact Assessment (the “HIA”) prepared by our client’s heritage consultant, ERA Architects Inc. (“ERA”), dated April 15, 2021. For ease of reference, the HIA is enclosed. Furthermore, a Peer Review of ERA’s HIA was undertaken by Steven Burgess Architects Ltd. and dated May 6, 2021. The Peer Review agreed with the conclusions of the HIA that the property at 34 Berczy Street lacked sufficient integrity to warrant designation. Attachment 2 Page 106 of 183 May 27, 2022 Page 2 On February 7, 2022, the HAC received a memorandum dated February 7, 2022, issued by Brashanthe Manoharan (Planner/Heritage Planning) regarding the designation of 34-38 Berczy Street under Part IV of the OHA, and the removal of 26 & 32 Berczy Street from the Aurora Register of Properties of Cultural Heritage Value or Interest (the “Register”). The HAC also commented on this matter and moved that their comments be received and referred to staff for consideration and further action as appropriate. On April 5, 2022, Planning and Development Services issued a report to the General Committee, recommending that the General Committee consider the HAC’s comments to designate 26, 32, and 34-38 Berczy Street under Part IV of the OHA. ERA Architects Inc. submitted a letter on our client’s behalf, objecting to the designation of the properties on the basis that they did not merit designation under the test for determining cultural heritage value under Ontario Regulation 9/06. The General Committee recommended that 34 Berczy Street be designated under Part IV of the OHA, and that 26, 32 and 38 Berczy Street be removed from the Register, subject to certain conditions. Council subsequently adopted both recommendations, resulting in the issuance of the Notice of Intention to Designate for 34 Berczy Street. Our client, with ERA, reviewed the above-noted reports and the Notice of Intention to Designate and does not agree with the reasons for designation. Our client is prepared to work with Heritage Planning Staff on their development proposal but continues to have concerns with the extent of and basis for the reasons for designation for 34 Berczy Street. In fact, Town Staff have previously taken the position that 34 Berczy should not be designated. A Memorandum was issued to the HAC on June 7, 2021 entitled “Request to Remove 26, 32, and 34-38 Berczy Street from the Aurora Register of Properties of Cultural Heritage Value or Interest”, summarizing Staff’s analysis as well as the outcome of a meeting with the HAC’s Evaluation Working Group to evaluate 26, 32, 34 and 38 Berczy Street. In this Memorandum, Town Planner Carlson Tsang advised the following: “The heritage value of 34 and 38 Berczy Street will be better served through documentation.” (page 1) “Factory No. 2 [34 Berczy Street] and Factory No. 4 have been significantly altered and converted into commercial buildings. Although some surviving features (such as the overall massing of the buildings, window openings, stone foundation and corbelled parapets) remain, none of them provide any sense of the industrial nature of the site which is what makes them historically significant.” (page 6) “Staff reviewed the proposed request to delist 26, 32, 34-38 Berczy Street, in consultation with a third party consultant, and are of the opinion that the properties do not meet the criteria prescribed in Ontario Regulation 09/06 for Heritage Designation” (page 7) On January 17, 2020, our client’s planning consultant, Weston Consulting, filed applications to amend the Official Plan and Zoning By-law for the Site, with revised applications submitted April 25, 2021. The proposed amendments would allow for the development of a new seven-storey mixed-use building on the Site. On November 25, 2021, our office appealed Council’s failure to make a decision respecting the applications within the statutory time frame pursuant to Section 22(7) and 34(11) of the Planning Act. The OLT case number is OLT-21-001950. Page 107 of 183 May 27, 2022 Page 3 Our client objects to the Notice of Intention to Designate, and asks that consideration of the designation be placed on the June 6, 2022 HAC agenda, along with decision regarding designation. This course of action would allow the owner to appeal the designation and have the matter before the OLT at the scheduled October 19, 2022 Case Management Conference to allow the OHA matters to be heard together with the Planning Act matters at the OLT. The requested timing is also crucial in order to have this matter referred to the OLT as necessary prior to the municipal election in the Town. We trust the enclosed is satisfactory. Should you require any further information, please do not hesitate to contact the undersigned. Yours truly, AIRD & BERLIS LLP Naomi Mares Associate NM:go Encl. c. Client Denise Baker, WeirFoulds LLP 48848769.1 Page 108 of 183 HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT ISSUED: APRIL 15, 2021 26-38 Berczy Street Town of Aurora Page 109 of 183 PREPARED FOR: PREPARED BY: ii HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT | 26-38 BERCZY STREET, AURORA ERA Architects Inc. 625 Church Street Toronto, Ontario M4Y 2G1 416-963-4497 Project 19-020-01 Cover Image: Aerial image of the Site (Google Earth, 2021) Steven Lee & Wook Chung 300-3000 Steeles Avenue East Markham, ON L3R 4T9 T: 416.410.2188 ext. 111 E: slee@newbridgecanada.com Page 110 of 183 iiiISSUED: APRIL 15, 2021 CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY V 1 INTRODUCTION 1 1.1 Scope of the Report 1 1.2 Present Owner 1 1.3 Site Location and Description 2 1.7 Site Photos 3 1.4 Current Context 6 1.5 Context Photographs 7 1.6 Existing Heritage Recognition 8 1.8 Adjacent and Nearby Heritage Properties 10 2 HISTORICAL BACKGROUND 8 2.1 Pre-Contact & Colonial Context 8 2.2 Early History of the Town of Aurora 9 2.3 Site History 12 3 HERITAGEPOLICY CONTEXT 18 4 ASSESSMENT OF CULTURAL HERITAGE VALUE 24 4.1 Ontario Regulation 9/06 Analysis 24 5 CONDITION ASSESSMENT 26 6 DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT 33 7 IMPACT ASSESSMENT 36 7.2 Impacts on Adjacent Heritage Resources 37 8 CONSERVATION AND MITIGATION STRATEGY 38 8.1 Conservation Strategy 38 8.2 Mitigation Strategies 38 9 CONCLUSION 40 10 PROJECT PERSONNEL 41 11 REFERENCES 42 12 APPENDICES 43 Page 111 of 183 vISSUED: APRIL 15, 2021 Proposed Development The proposed development anticipates the de-listing and removal of the existing buildings on-Site to allow for the construction of a seven-storey, primarily residential, mixed-use development. The proposal features a seven-storey block of residential apartments with townhouses and commercial use at grade fronting onto Berczy Street, and a segment of two-storey townhouses fronting onto the west boundary of the site. Impacts This report finds that the de-listing and removal of these buildings from the Site will impact the cultural heritage value of the Site and adjacent heritage properties. Mitigation The proposed development mitigates these impacts by incorporating design strategies such as setbacks, stepbacks, site arrangement, and architectural expression are sympathetic to the area’s 20th century industrial heritage character. This report also notes commemorative strategies that could be used to further mitigate impacts of the development by communicating historical narratives of the Site through means such as plaques, signage, art. Conclusion This report finds that the proposed development appropriately mitigates negative impacts to the Site and adjacent properties’s cultural heritage value, by introducing contemporary development that interprets the Site’s industrial history and is sensitive to adjacent properties. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Project Background This Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA) was prepared by ERA Architects Inc. (“ERA”) on behalf of Steven Lee & Wook Chung with regards to the proposed redevelopment of 26-38 Berczy Street (the “Site”), including the removal of 26, 32, and 34-36 Berczy Street from the Town of Aurora’s Heritage Register, as well as impact to adjacent cultural heritage resources. Heritage Status The Site contains three properties listed on the Town of Aurora’s Municipal Heritage Register: • 26 Berczy Street: A one and a half storey single- detached dwelling (c.1865); • 32 Berczy Street: A two-storey single-detached dwelling (c.1856); • 34-38 Berczy Street: (34) A two-storey commercial building (c.1901); (38) A one-storey commercial building (c.1954) The Site does not contain any properties designated under Part IV or Part V of the Ontario Heritage Act (OHA). The Site is adjacent to multiple listed properties and one property designated under Part IV of the OHA. Cultural Heritage Value An evaluation of the properties on Site, using O. Reg. 9/06 Criteria for Determining Cultural Heritage Value or Interest concluded that the properties do not have significant heritage value. Further these buildings are not good candidates for conservation as their design/ physical, historical/associative, and contextual value are diminished, and have limited ability to convey historical associations or connections to the Site’s former industrial and supporting residential heritage. Page 112 of 183 1ISSUED: APRIL 15, 2021 1 INTRODUCTION 1.1 Scope of the Report ERA Architects Inc. (“ERA”) was retained by Steven Lee and Wook Chung to prepare a Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA) for the properties at 26, 30, 32, and 34-38 Berczy Street, Aurora (the “Site”). The purpose of an HIA, according to the Town of Aurora’s Heritage Impact Assessments and Conservation Plans Guide (2017), is to “determine if any cultural heritage resources may be adversely impacted by a specific proposed development or site alteration.” This report was prepared with reference to the following; • Provincial Policy Statement (2020); • A Place to Grow: Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horse- shoe, (2019); • The Ontario Heritage Act, R.S.O. 1990; • Ontario Regulation 9/06 Criteria for Determining Cultural Heri- tage Value or Interest; • Parks Canada Standards and Guidelines (2010); • Ontario Heritage Tool Kit; • Region of York Official Plan, (2019 Consolidation); • Town of Aurora Official Plan, (2015 Consolidation); • Aurora Promenade Secondary Plan, (2010); and • The Aurora Promenade Concept Plan Urban Design Strategy, (2010). 1.2 Present Owner Steven Lee & Wook Chung 300-3000 Steeles Avenue East Markham, ON L3R 4T9 T: 416.410.2188 ext. 111 E: slee@newbridgecanada.com Page 113 of 183 2 HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT | 26-38 BERCZY STREET, AURORA 1.3 Site Location and Description The Site comprises of four parcels, municipally known as 26, 30, 32, and 34-38 Berczy Street (Lot 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, ,9, and Part Lot 10, Registered Plan 68), Aurora. The Site is located within a block bounded by Berczy Street to the West, Wellington Street East to the North, Larmont Street to the West and Mosley Street to the South. The Site comprises four parcels, with five municipal addresses: • 26 Berczy Street: Listed on the Municipal Heritage Register; • 30 Berczy Street; No heritage status; • 32 Berczy Street: Listed on the Municipal Heritage Register; and • 34-38 Berczy Street: Listed on the Municipal Heritage Register. The Site is presently occupied by a cluster of low-rise residential and commercial buildings, with surface parking lots interspersed. The commercial buildings located at 34–38 Berczy Street historically formed part of the Underhill-Sisman Shoe Factory and later, the T. Sisman Shoe Factory. The building at 34 Berczy Street (c.1901) was the first building constructed for the shoe company, with an addition being added in 1954 at 38 Berczy Street. Aerial view of the Site. The site is highlighted in blue and the parcel fabric in white (Google Maps, 2021; Annotated by ERA). MOSLEY S TBERCZY STWELLING T O N S T E LARMONT ST26 30 32 34 38 Page 114 of 183 3ISSUED: APRIL 15, 2021 26 Berczy St (c. 1865) (ERA, 2021)30 Berczy St (c.1950) (ERA, 2021) 34 Berczy St (c.1901) (ERA, 2021) 38 Berczy St (c.1954) (ERA, 2021) 32 Berczy St (c.1856) (ERA, 2021) 34-38 Berczy St (ERA, 2021) 1.7 Site Photos Page 115 of 183 4 HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT | 26-38 BERCZY STREET, AURORA Looking south on Berczy Street towards Mosley Street. Pictured is 26 Berczy St (right) (ERA, 2021) Looking east on Berczy Street towards Wellington Street East. Pictured is 38 Berczy Street (left) and 34 Berczy Street (right) (ERA, 2021) Page 116 of 183 5ISSUED: APRIL 15, 2021 Looking north on Berczy Street towards Wellington Street East. Pictured is 38 Berczy St (left) and 34 Berczy St (right) (Google Maps, 2021) Looking south on Berczy Street towards Mosley Street. Pictured is 26 Berczy Street (right) (Google Maps, 2021) Page 117 of 183 6 HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT | 26-38 BERCZY STREET, AURORA 1.4 Current Context The Site is situated near the centre of Aurora’s Village Neighbourhood. The Site context is broadly characterized by diverse mix of employment, commercial and residential uses ranging in density and style to the north and east of the site, while the south and west of the site are characterized by established, low-rise, detached residential. More directly, the site is bounded by the following context: • North: A commercial plaza and parking lot, municipally known as 117 Wellington Street East. • South: A low-rise former industrial site with manufacturing and storage buildings are located directly south of the Site, opposite Mosley Street. • East: The GO transit corridor, associated surface parking, and parkade are the predominant uses on the east side of Berczy Street. Aurora GO station is located approximately 60 metres from the northeast edge of the Site; and • West: Established low-rise residential neighbourhood, The Aurora Town Park is southwest of the Site. At the Park’s western edge, the Wells Street School has been rehabilitated as a multi-unit residential building. Aerial view, looking east towards the Site. The Site is indicated by a blue arrow (Google Maps, 2021; Annotated by ERA). MOSLEY ST BER C Z Y S T WELLI N G T O N S T LAR M O N T S T AURORA GO STATION Page 118 of 183 7ISSUED: APRIL 15, 2021 1.5 Context Photographs Aurora GO Station, directly east of the Site (Google Maps, 2021). Looking west on Wellington Street. 117 Wellington St (left) is directly north of the Site (Google Maps, 2021). Looking towards 103 Mosley Street, listed in the Town of Aurora’s Register of Properties of Cultural Heritage value or Interest. Pictured is the 1-storey portion of the T.Sisman Shoe Company factory complex (c.1941-1942) (Google Maps, 2021). Houses along Mosley Street, directly west of the Site (Google Maps, 2021). 120 Metcalfe Street, 1-storey warehouse and 2-storey office located south of the Site (Google Maps, 2021). Auto-repair shops located at the southern end of Berczy Street (Google Maps, 2021). Page 119 of 183 8 HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT | 26-38 BERCZY STREET, AURORA 1.6 Existing Heritage Recognition The Site does not contain any properties designated under Part IV or Part V of the OHA. The Site contains three properties included on the Town of Aurora’s Municipal Heritage Register: • 26 Berczy Street: A one and a half storey single-detached dwelling (c. 1865); • 32 Berczy Street: A two-storey single-detached dwelling (c.1856); • 34-38 Berczy Street: (34) two-storey commercial building. The first factory as part of the former Underhill-Sisman Shoe Factory, later named ‘Building No.2’ as part of the T.Sisman Shoe Factory (c.1901); and (38) one-storey commercial building and former addition to the Building No.2 (c.1954), known as “Building No. 4”. The building has since been separated from 34 Berczy Street and is now a detached structure . An exact date of construction of the above-noted buildings cannot be ,+Ɯ/*"! 11%&01&*" 03 /&,20 / %&3 )/"0,2/ "0 /"2+ 3 &) )" due to COVID-19). Page 120 of 183 9ISSUED: APRIL 15, 2021 Google Earth 2020, Annotated by ERA.LEGEND Site Listed Property on the Site 26 32 34 38 29 31 33 35 41 45 105 99 98 25 Page 121 of 183 10 HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT | 26-38 BERCZY STREET, AURORA 1.8 Adjacent and Nearby Heritage Properties The Site is considered adjacent* to nine properties listed on the Town of Aurora Municipal Heritage Register, and one property designated under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act. These properties are as follows: • 99 Wellington Street East, Listed • 105 Wellington Street East, Listed • 121 Wellington Street East, Listed • 29 Larmont Street, known as the “Oliver Judd House” (c. 1912), Designated under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act by By-law 5353-11. • 31 Larmont Street, Listed • 33 Larmont Street, known as the “George H. Phillips House”, Listed • 35 Larmont Street, known as the “Quantz-McMahon House”, Listed • 41 Larmont Street , Listed • 45 Larmont Street, known as the “Cockerhill-McMahon House”, Listed • 98 Mosley Street, Listed In addition, the Site is within the Heritage Resource area as identified in Schedule ‘D’ in the Town of Aurora’s Official Plan. *Adjacent means: for the purposes of policy 2.6.3, those lands contiguous to a protected heritage property or as oth- "/4&0"!"Ɯ+"!&+1%"*2+& &- ),ƛ& & ) plan (Provincial Policy Statement, 2020). ,1"ǿ1%"!"Ɯ+&1&,+ ,3"&020"!&+ 1%" 0"+ ",# + )1"/+ 1&3"!"Ɯ+&1&,+ #/,*1%"2/,/ ƛ& & )) +ǽ %",+)6!"Ɯ+&1&,+-/,3&!"!#,/Ȋ !' - "+1ȋ&+1%"2/,/ ƛ& & )) +&0+,1 intended to be applicable to the heritage context, rather it is in reference to natural heritage: adjacent means: a) Those lands contigu- ous to a key natural heritage feature or key hydrologic feature where it is likely that development or site alteration can reasonably be expected to have an im- - 1,+1%"#" 12/"ǽ "+"/ ))6Ǿ !' "+1 lands are considered to be within 120m from any part of the feature (Aurora Of- Ɯ & )) +ǾǗǕǖǕȜǽ Page 122 of 183 11ISSUED: APRIL 15, 2021 LEGEND Site Listed Property on the Site Adjacent* Listed Properties Adjacent* Designated Properties under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act *Refer to PPS definition of ‘adjacent’ on the previous page. Aurora Interactive Mapping, Annotated by ERA. 26 32 34 38 29 31 33 35 41 45 105 99 98 25 121 Page 123 of 183 12 HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT | 26-38 BERCZY STREET, AURORA 98 Mosley Street (ERA, 2021)45 Larmont Street (ERA, 2021) 41 Larmont Street (ERA, 2021)33 Larmont Street (ERA, 2021) 29 (left) and 31 (right) Larmont Street (ERA, 2021) 99 Wellington Street East (ERA, 2021)105 Wellington Street East (ERA, 2021) 35 Larmont Street (ERA, 2021) Page 124 of 183 13ISSUED: APRIL 15, 2021 121 Wellington Street East (ERA, 2021) 103 Mosley Street (ERA, 2021) 121 Wellington Street East (ERA, 2021)121 Wellington Street East (ERA, 2021) 103 Mosley Street (ERA, 2021) Page 125 of 183 8 HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT | 26-38 BERCZY STREET, AURORA For millennia, the Site has formed part of the territory of diverse indigenous peoples, including the Huron- Wendat, Haudenosaunee and the Anishinaabe. For each of these groups, Toronto's regional watershed has been used for transportation, fishing, and adjacent settlement and agriculture. The Site is situated to the northwest of the Rouge River watershed, which flows south from Richmond Hill and Whitchurch-Stouffville to Lake Ontario. The watershed contains numerous archaeological sites, including an ancestral Huron village known as the Aurora Site or Old Ford – located at Vandorf Sideroad and Kennedy Road to the east of the Site. The French colonized the Toronto region during the 1600s, establishing a military and trading presence throughout the regional watershed. The French- Canadian explorer Louis Jolliet is said to have portaged through Whitchurch to the east of the Site in 1669. After the British conquest of New France in 1763, the Crown issued a royal proclamation, which established guidelines for the colonization of indigenous territories in North America. The proclamation stated that indigenous peoples held title to their territory until it was ceded by a treaty. The Site was not subject to a treaty until 1923, after the area had been settled by Euro-Canadians. The Williams Treaties were signed in 1923 by seven Anishnaabe First Nations and the Crown, addressing territories that had not previously been surrendered with a treaty, including the Site. Map of Toronto's regional watershed. The Site is indicated with a blue arrow (Toronto and Region Conservation Au- thority, 2016; annotated by ERA). 1878 county atlas showing the ancestral Huron village known as Old Fort, or the Aurora Site, indicated with a pink arrow (McGill University; annotated by ERA). 2.1 Pre-Contact & Colonial Context 2 HISTORICAL BACKGROUND Page 126 of 183 9ISSUED: APRIL 15, 2021 2.2 Early History of the Town of Aurora In 1792, the colonial administrators of Upper Canada created the province’s first counties, which were subdivided into townships for the purposes of surveying and settlement. The area that would later become the Town of Aurora was split between two townships, King and Whitchurch. In 1793, Lieutenant Governor John Graves Simcoe ordered the construction of a new road known as Yonge Street extending north from York to Lake Simcoe, intended for military and commercial use. Yonge Street served as the dividing line between King and Whitchurch townships, with Whitchurch located to the east and King to the west. Each township was surveyed into numbered concessions running south to north, with each concession comprised of a series of roughly 200 acre lots. The Site formed part of Lot 80 in the 1st Concession of the Township of Whitchurch, granted by the Crown to Ebenezer Britton in 1805. During the early 19th century, a small hamlet known as Machell’s Corners was established by merchant Richard Machell at the intersection of Yonge Street and Wellington Street. The hamlet would serve as the foundation for the future Town of Aurora. Land records indicate that Lot 80 in 1st Concession remained in the possession of Ebenezer Britton until 1816, after which point it was sold and subdivided into smaller parcels to accommodate multiple farms. In 1836, John Mosley purchased 79 acres on the western portion of Lot 80 encompassing the Site, adjacent to the hamlet of Machell’s Corners. The arrival of the Ontario Simcoe & Huron railway in Aurora in 1853 situated John Mosley’s farm between the hamlet and the new railway line – the station was located immediately to northeast of the Site. In anticipation of the Town’s expansion, Mosley subdivided his farm into building lots in 1854. The Site was formed at this time and consisted of a series of Town lots. The plan of subdivision also laid out the current network of streets bounded by: • Wellington Street to the north; • Berczy Street to the east; • Metcalfe Street to the south; and • Yonge Street to the east. After the completion of the railway, a number of industries were established in Aurora, mostly to produce goods for nearby farms. Throughout the mid-to-late 19th century, the Town expanded beyond the original hamlet, with Yonge Street serving as a commercial main street. It is unclear whether there were any buildings or structures on the Site during this period, as the fire insurance plans of Aurora from 1880 and 1890 excluded the Site. Given that the fire insurance plans identified industrial sites across the Town, it is unlikely that the Site contained any notable industries. c.1890 looking south on Yonge Street in Aurora (McIntyre, 1988). c.1870 looking north on Yonge Street from Tyler Street (McIntyre, 1988). Page 127 of 183 10 HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT | 26-38 BERCZY STREET, AURORA 1854 plan of subdivision of John Mosley's farm, the Site is outlined with a dashed blue line (McIntyre, 1988; annotated by ERA). 1860 Tremaine's map of the County of York. The location of the Site is indicated with a blue arrow (University of Toronto; annotated by ERA). 1878 County Atlas. The location of the Site is indicated with a blue arrow (McIntyre, 1988; annotated by ERA). Page 128 of 183 11ISSUED: APRIL 15, 2021 1890 fire insurance plan of Aurora. The location of the Site is indicated with a blue arrow. Note that the plan identified industrial Sites outside the centre of town and excluded the Site (Library and Archives Canada; annotated by ERA). Page 129 of 183 12 HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT | 26-38 BERCZY STREET, AURORA 2.3 Site History T. Sisman Shoe Company In 1901, The Town of Aurora provided the Underhill- Sisman Shoe Manufacturing Company a tax exception, enticing the company to relocate their operations from Markham to the north-west corner of Mosley Street and Berczy Street. The company completed construction of a 2-storey factory on the Site at 34 Berczy Street (later to be known as “Factory No. 2”) within the same year. In 1903, an addition was erected to its south to accommodate a broiler house. After the Underhill-Sisman partnership dissolved in 1910, the Underhill Shoe Company assumed ownership of Factory No.2, and by 1913, the T. Sisman Shoe Factory began its independent operations south of its former location in a three- storey factory building was constructed at the north- west corner of Berczy and Mosley Street, known as “Factory No.1”. Thomas Sisman, founder of T. Sisman Shoe Company lived in a two-storey house between the two factory buildings. The Aurora Museum notes that the property was regarded for its landscaping. The house was constructed prior to 1911. In 1927, T. Sisman acquired the former Underhill Shoe Factory building, after the Underhills relocated to Barrie. The factory was known as “Factory No.2”. The company manufactured various shoes and boots, including for fashion, work and sport. Factory No.1 served as the principal production facility, while Factory No.2, was used primarily for storage. Beginning in 1940, the company received the first in a series of contracts from the federal government to manufacture shoes for the war effort. That same year, the company announced the construction of a new single-storey factory building south of the Site, known as “Factory No. 3”. 1911 postcard showing the Thomas Sisman House (left) and the Underhill-Sisman Shoe factory (right). The factory constructed in 1901 and its addition is outlined in white (Heather Sisman; annotated by ERA). 1913 fire insurance plan. The Site is indicated in a dashed blue line. Note the later 3-storey factory, known as “Fac- tory No. 1” south of the Site, across from Mosley Street. At this time, dwellings start to line Larmont Street (Aurora Museum; annotated by ERA). After 1940, looking southwest from the corner of Berczy and Mosley Streets towards the T. Sisman Shoe Factory No. 1 (left) and No.3 (right) on the Site (Heather Sisman). Page 130 of 183 13ISSUED: APRIL 15, 2021 Diagram illustrating the evolution of the T. Sisman Shoe Company complex on the Site (Google, 2021; Annotated by ERA). No. 3 1940-1 Mosley S t A Site. T. Sisman Factory No 1. Completed c. 1913 (demolished). T. Sisman Factory No 3. Completed 1940-1 (remaining at 103 Mosley Street on the Site). T. Sisman Factory No 2. Former Underhill-Sisman fac- tory. Completed c.1901 (remaining) Thomas Sisman House (demolished). Factory No 4. Completed by 1954 (remaining).Berczy StA No. 1 c.1913 No. 4 c.1954 No. 2 c.1901 Page 131 of 183 14 HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT | 26-38 BERCZY STREET, AURORA The Thomas Sisman House was demolished in the 1950, and a one-storey concrete building was constructed in its place in 1951. Referred to as “Factory No. 4”, the concrete building was built as an addition to Factory No. 1. The 1960 fire insurance plan indicates that Factory No. 1 was primarily used for storage with a sample room occupying the front portion of the building, while Factory No. 4 was used for shoe manufacturing. At its height, the T. Sisman Shoe Company was one of Town’s largest employers, with surrounding dwellings constructed to house its workers, and competing with the nearby Collis Tannery, west of Yonge Street. During the 1940s, the T. Sisman shoe company shifted from producing retail goods to produce supplies for the war ef- fort (Heather Sisman, n.d.). 1960 Fire Insurance Plan indicates that Factory No. 1 (34 Berczy Street) was primarily used for storage, while manufacturing took place inside Factory No. 4 (38 Berczy Street) (Aurora Museum, 1960). 34 38 Page 132 of 183 15ISSUED: APRIL 15, 2021 Advertisement showing the Factory No. 1 & No. 3 to the south of the Site (top and middle) and Factory No. 2 on the site (lower), exact date unknown, c. 1939-1945. The extant building on the Site at 34 Berczy Street is highlighted in blue (Heather Sisman, Annotated by ERA). Page 133 of 183 16 HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT | 26-38 BERCZY STREET, AURORA End of the Shoe Era Starting in the 1960s, the Canadian shoe industry saw rising competition from imports of non-leather footwear and the T.Sisman Shoe Factory was purchased by Kinney Shoes, an American Company. By the 1970s, the Sisman Shoe company was no longer occupying the Site as Factory No. 1 and Factory No.4 ceased operations and all manufacturing took place in the larger building, Factory No. 2 located south of the Site. The closure of the Shoe Factory was announced later in 1976. The factory buildings on the Site remained vacant until 1980s, when interior and exterior renovations were completed by its new owners, the Newell family. The buildings re-opened as a flea market and storage warehouse. Further renovations were completed to 34 and 38 Berczy Street in 2002 to accommodate offices. Aerial images during this period show that the broiler room which would have connected the two factories, and a walkway were removed, most likely to accommodate additional parking spaces for the businesses. The Berczy St. Flea Market opened in the 1980s (Newmar- ket Era, 1984. p.B6) 1970 Aerial Image of the Site. The broiler room and walkway is shown connecting the buildings at 34 and 38 Berczy Street (York Region; annotated by ERA). 2002 Aerial image of the Site. The buildings at 34 and 38 Berczy Street are no longer connected and Factory No.2, located south of the Site, has been demolished (Google Earth; an- notated by ERA). 2020 Looking west towards the sur- face parking area between 34 and 38 Berczy Street (Google Earth). Page 134 of 183 17ISSUED: APRIL 15, 2021 Residential Development on Berczy Street From the mid 19th to early 20th century, the segment of Berczy Street between Mosley Street and Wellington Street was at one time, owned by Rosanna Spence, a resident of York Township. Land registry and census records suggest that the dwellings in the area were often used as a rental investment, with owners’ holding several properties. The York directories indicates that the Spence family never resided on the Site, rather the homes were of rental tenure. After Mosley’s Plan of Subdivision was completed in 1954, a one and a half storey dwelling at 32 Berczy Street was the first to be constructed in 1856 under the ownership of George Coles. By 1865, a two storey dwelling was constructed at 26 Berczy Street, while the adjacent lot to the north is recorded to be vacant. In the 1960 fire insurance plan, the three dwellings municipally known as 26, 30, and 32 Berczy Street are visible. 32 Berczy Street, one of the early dwellings to be con- structed as part of the Mosley subdivision (c.1856) (Aurora Museum, 1981). In 1960, the three dwellings on the Site are recorded in the Fire Insurance Plan. 26 and 32 Berczy Street are listed in the Municipal Heritage Register (Aurora Museum). 26 30 32 Page 135 of 183 18 HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT | 26-38 BERCZY STREET, AURORA 3 HERITAGE POLICY CONTEXT The following policy documents were reviewed in the preparation of this HIA, as they provide the framework for the property with respect to the properties on Site and adjacent heritage resources: • Provincial Policy Statement, 2020 (the “PPS”); • A Place to Grow: Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horse- shoe, 2019 (the “Growth Plan”); • Region of York Official Plan, 2019 Consolidation (the “Regional Official Plan”); • Town of Aurora Official Plan, 2015 Consolidation (the “Official Plan”); • Aurora Promenade Secondary Plan, 2010 (the “Secondary Plan”) • The Aurora Promenade Concept Plan Urban Design Strategy, 2010 (The “Urban Design Strategy”). Provincial Policy Statement, 2020 The PPS directs land use planning in Ontario and identifies the importance of balancing growth demands with the conservation of significant built heritage resources and cultural heritage landscapes: 2.6.1 Significant built heritage resources and significant cultural heritage landscapes shall be conserved. 2.6.3 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. A Place to Grow: Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe, 2020 The Growth Plan supports the development of prosperous and complete communities across the Greater Golden Horseshoe Region. This approach includes the recognition and conservation of cultural heritage resources and identifies the importance of built heritage and cultural landscapes to local identity, the tourist sector and the investment potential of communities. Significant: means in 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 On- tario Heritage Act (PPS 2020). Built heritage resource: means a build- ing, structure, monument, installation or any manufactured or constructed part or remnant that contributes to a property’s cultural heritage value or interest as &!"+1&Ɯ"! 6 ,**2+&16Ǿ&+ )2!&+$ + Indigenous community. Built heritage resources are located on property that may be designated under Parts IV or V of the Ontario Heritage Act, or that may be included on local, provincial, federal and/or international registers (PPS 2020). Adjacent Lands: means for the purposes of policy 2.6.3, those lands contiguous to a protected heritage property or as ,1%"/4&0"!"Ɯ+"!&+1%"*2+& &- ),ƛ& & ) plan (PPS 2020). Heritage attributes: means the principal features or elements that contribute to a protected heritage property’s cultural heritage value or interest, and may include the property’s built, constructed, or manufactured elements, as well as natural landforms, vegetation, water features, and its visual setting (e.g. 0&$+&Ɯ +13&"40,/3&01 01,,/#/,* protected heritage property). (PPS 2020). Page 136 of 183 19ISSUED: APRIL 15, 2021 Cultural Heritage Resources: Built heritage resources, cultural herit- age landscapes and archaeological resources that have been determined to have cultural heritage value or interest for the important contribution they make to our understanding of the history of a place, an event, or a people. While some cultural heritage resources may already "&!"+1&Ɯ"! +!&+3"+1,/&"! 6,ƛ& & ) 0,2/ "0Ǿ1%"0&$+&Ɯ + ",#,1%"/0 +,+)6 "!"1"/*&+"! ƞ"/"3 )2 1&,+ț /""+ ")1 Plan, as referenced in Growth Plan 2019). Under 4.2.7 Cultural Heritage Resources, the Growth Plan directs the following: 1. Cultural heritage resources will be conserved in order to #,01"/ 0"+0",#-) " +! "+"Ɯ1 ,**2+&1&"0Ǿ- /1& 2) /)6 in strategic growth areas. 2. Municipalities will work with stakeholders, as well as First Nations and Métis communities, in developing and &*-)"*"+1&+$,ƛ& & )-) +-,)& &"0 +!01/ 1"$&"0#,/1%" &!"+1&Ɯ 1&,+Ǿ4&0"20" +!* + $"*"+1,# 2)12/ )%"/&1 $" resources. 3. Municipalities are encouraged to prepare archaeological management plans and municipal cultural plans and consider them in their decision-making. Region of York Official Plan, 2010 The primary objectives of Section 3.4 Cultural Heritage of the Regional Official Plan are: To recognize, conserve and promote cultural heritage and its value and benefit to the community. Policies under Section 5.5 identify the importance of preserving “Local Centres” and existing heritage streetscapes and place emphasis on urban design guidelines as a measure to ensure that forms and scale complement the existing character of surrounding communities. Aurora Official Plan, 2010 Aurora’s long-term vision includes the conservation and enhancement of cultural heritage resources and recognizes the important role cultural heritage plays in fostering community identity and local sense of place. Section 13 of the Official Plan directs the conservation of cultural heritage resources, with objectives that aim towards (a) conservation, enhancement; (b) preservation, restoration, rehabilitation; and (c) promotion of, and public involvement in, managing cultural heritage resources. Cultural Heritage Resources: a) Resources that contribute to our under- standing of our past, including: ii. built heritage resources, which means ,+" ,/ *,/" 0&$+&Ɯ +1 2&)!&+$0Ǿ structures, monuments, installations or remains associated with architectural, cultural, social, political, economic or *&)&1 /6%&01,/6 +!&!"+1&Ɯ"! 0 "&+$ &*-,/1 +11, ,**2+&16ț2/,/ ƛ& & ) Plan, 2015). Page 137 of 183 20 HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT | 26-38 BERCZY STREET, AURORA The Site is located within the town’s identified “Heritage Resource Area” as per Schedule D which is considered to be of primary significant to the Town’s heritage (13.2.s). Evaluation of cultural heritage is based on “i. aesthetic, design or physical value; ii. historical or associative value; and/or, iii. contextual value” (s.13.3d) and protection and conservation practices are based on “the Standards and Guidelines for the Conservation of Historic Places in Canada, the Appleton Charter for the Protection and Enhancement of the Built Environment and other recognized heritage protocols and standards” with “protection, maintenance and stabilization for all conservation projects” as a core guiding principle (s.13.3.i). With respect to development adjacent to heritage resources, the following policies set out under s.13.3 apply: l) A Heritage Impact Assessment may also be required for any proposed alteration work or development activities &+3,)3&+$,/ !' "+11,%"/&1 $"/"0,2/ "01,"+02/"1% 1 there will be no adverse impacts caused to the resources and their heritage attributes. Mitigation measures shall be imposed as a condition of approval of such applications. All options for on-site retention of properties of cultural %"/&1 $"0&$+&Ɯ + "0% )) ""5% 201"! "#,/"/"0,/1&+$ to relocation. The following alternatives shall be given due consideration in order of priority: i. on-site retention in the original use and integration with the surrounding or new development; ii. on site retention in an adaptive re-use; iii. relocation to another site within the same development; and, iv. relocation to a sympathetic site within the Town. n) In the event that demolition, salvage, dismantling or relocation of a built heritage resource or cultural heritage landscape is found to be necessary as determined by Council, thorough archival documentation of the heritage resources is required to be undertaken by the proponent, at no cost to the Town. The information shall be made available to the Town for archival purposes. Page 138 of 183 21ISSUED: APRIL 15, 2021tttttttttttttRailway/GO Transit TREET WEST YOSchedule D of the Town of Aurora’s Official Plan. The Site identified by blue arrow (2010; annotated by ERA). LEGEND Municipal Boundary Road Oak Ridges Moraine Boundary Proposed Road Built Boundary Heritage Resources Designated Heritage Properties Part IV - OHA Heritage Resource Areas Boundary of Oak Ridges Moraine Area Ontario Regulation 01/02 "Boundary of Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan Area Ontario Regulation 140/02 " Northeast Old Aurora Heritage Conservation District Part V - OHA Section 4 provides further guidance for new development, with regards to its interface with cultural heritage resources: 4.2. General Urban Design and Architectural Policies: f) To achieve human scale, attractive and safe public "+3&/,+*"+10Ǿ&+"+1/64 60Ǿ%"/&1 $" /" 0Ǿ&+ +! !' "+1 to streets and open spaces, the following urban design approaches should be implemented: i. Development should encourage: access to historic areas by walking, cycling and transit; iv. Upper storeys of larger buildings may require stepbacks to achieve: vistas to heritage sites. Page 139 of 183 22 HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT | 26-38 BERCZY STREET, AURORA The Aurora Promenade Concept Plan Urban Design Strategy, 2010 The purpose of the Urban Design Strategy is to guide and manage growth in Aurora. It provides guidance on public realm and private development and informs the Aurora Promenade Secondary Plan, 2010 policies set out under the Official Plan, 2010. . The Site is located within the Wellington Street Promenade Character Area, one of the Aurora Promenade’s four distinct character areas, as identified by the Urban Design Strategy. The Wellington Street Promenade is noted for having an inconsistent built character. It includes the Aurora Go Station Focus Area and is bounded by large open green spaces. Built form is comprised of a mix of employment, commercial and residential uses and made up of buildings that range in density and style. The design strategy for the Wellington Street Promenade aims to take advantage of intensification targets set by the proximity to public transport while scaling appropriately between an intensified area around the Aurora Go Station and the heritage neighbourhoods to the west. With respect to adjacent listed heritage buildings the following guidelines are set out under Section 4: • New development proposed in The Aurora Promenade !' "+11, +&!"+1&Ɯ"!Ǿ)&01"!,/!"0&$+ 1"!%"/&1 $" -/,-"/16,/&!"+1&Ɯ"!) +!* /( 2&)!&+$0%,2)!% 3" design that is sensitive and complementary. ș%"/" 2&)!&+$&0 "&+$!"0&$+"!1,/"Ɲ" 1 %&01,/& architectural style, it should be consistent and true to all aspects of that era. It should appear to be architecturally authentic (e.g., Victorian or Edwardian). • New buildings should consider and respect the scale, * 1"/& ) +!* 00&+$,# !' "+1%"/&1 $"0&$+&Ɯ +1 buildings. • Setbacks of new buildings will be permitted in certain conditions where such placement will enhance the -/,*&+"+ ",#1%" !' "+1%"/&1 $" 2&)!&+$Ǿ +!-/,3&!" +,--,/12+&161, /" 1" "+"Ɯ11, 20&+"00ț#,/"5 *-)"Ǿ a restaurant seating area). WELLINGTON STREET PROMENADE ge Aurora GO Station Aurora GO Station Armoury Saint Maximilian Kolbe C.S. n Park Sheppard’s Bush Conservation AreaEDWARD STMARY STREETI NDUSTRY STHARRISO N A V E NEDY ST E CENTRE S T R E E T JOHN WEST WAYROSS ST CONNAU G H T A V EBERCZY STMA RY S TR EET B I RCH CRTWALTON DR IVE CENTRE CRESSCANLON C R T R T H LARMONT STREETINDUSTRIAL PARKWA Y S O UTH The Aurora Promenade Character Areas. Blue arrow identifying Site ( The Aurora Promenade Concept Plan Urban Design Strategy 2010, anno- tated by ERA). Page 140 of 183 23ISSUED: APRIL 15, 2021 Aurora Promenade Secondary Plan, 2010 The Site is located within the boundaries of the Aurora Promenade as identified on Schedule B1 under the Official Plan (see map on following page). The Promenade includes Aurora’s historic town centre and aims to encourage growth and development that preserves local cultural heritage while building upon existing assets to establish a vibrant and walkable “main street” or “downtown” character. With respect to cultural heritage resources, the following Objectives (11.1) of the Secondary Plan guide decision making in the area and aim to achieve: i. Distinct Heritage and Culture – This Plan builds on the distinct %"/&1 $" +! 2)12/",#1%"2/,/ /,*"+ !"ǽ 1!"Ɯ+"0 the heritage resources and provides guidance on methods to conserve, protect and reinforce the neighbourhoods, 01/""10 -"0 +!0&$+&Ɯ +1 2&)!&+$0Ȁ vii. Great Design and Architecture – This Plan is focused on ensuring a vibrant, inviting and appealing environment that will attract residents and new businesses, enhance the vitality of retail uses, encourage walking and resonate with visitors. To %&"3"1%&0Ǿ+"4!"3"),-*"+1*201ȊƜ1ȋ&+ +!"+% + "1%" character, quality and appeal of The Aurora Promenade; and viii. Towards a Sustainable Town - This Plan promotes a sustainable Aurora Promenade that respects its historic culture and character and embraces diverse cultural development and renewal in harmony with sound environmental management and business development activity. Policies under Section 11 include guidance on built form, including direction on height, as well as compatibility of design with the existing character and community context, and encouraging architectural variety. According to Schedule B3, the Site is located on streetscapes identified as “Village Street” along Berczy Street and “Residential Heritage Street” along Mosley Street (s.11.12). Village Streets are noted for their “small- town, village-like atmosphere and character” and are characterized by their older house form buildings, with a mix of residential, office and retail, while Heritage Residential Streets are intended to remain residential in character, with primarily house form buildings. CedarCresHarrison Ave Engelhard Dr Mary St TemperanceStIndustSSpruce StWalton DrRoyal Rd Connaught Ave Larmont StIrwin Ave Mosley St St Catherine Ave Kennedy St E WenderlyDrDunning Ave Maple St Mark St EdwardStWellsStCentre St Cousins Dr dust r i al PkwyNGurnettStCousins Dr EBerczyStVictoriaStYONGE STHeig h t s DrMark St W Edward StIndustrialPkwy S I n dustrialPkwySCentre St WELLINGTON ST EST W RailwSite identified by blue arrow (Aurora Official Plan 2010; annotated by ERA). LEGEND Secondary Plan Boundary Downtown Shoulder Promenade General Promenade Focus Area Special Design Areas Downtown Upper Downtown Promenade General Site Specific Policy Area Page 141 of 183 24 HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT | 26-38 BERCZY STREET, AURORA 4.1 Ontario Regulation 9/06 Analysis The Site has been evaluated against the “Criteria For Determining Cultural Heritage Value or Interest” as found in Ontario Reg. 9/06 under the Ontario Heritage Act (the “OHA”). O. Reg. 9/06 states that “a property may be designated under section 29 of the Act if it meets one or more of the following criteria for determining whether it is of cultural heritage value or interest”, as identified in the following pages. Meeting one or more of these criteria does not necessarily mandate designation. This report finds that the de-listing and removal of 26, 32, and 34-38 Berczy Street from the Site will have an impact on cultural heritage value of the site. These buildings however, do not have significant heritage value, and are not good candidates for conservation as their design/physical, historical/associative, and contextual value are diminished, and have limited ability to convey historical associations or connections to the Site’s former industrial and supporting residential heritage. 4 ASSESSMENT OF CULTURAL HERITAGE VALUE Page 142 of 183 25ISSUED: APRIL 15, 2021 Value (quoted from Ontario Reg. 9/06) Assessment of 26 Berczy Street The property has design value or physical value because it, i. is a rare, unique, representative or early example of a style, type, expression, material or construction method, &&ǽ!&0-) 60 %&$%!"$/"",# / ƞ0* +0%&-,/ artistic merit, or iii. demonstrates a high degree of technical or 0 &"+1&Ɯ %&"3"*"+1ǽ The property at 26 Berczy Street is a one and a half storey detached dwelling, with an estimated construction date of 1865. 1913 fire insurance plans and early photographs suggests that the building was constructed with brick. Presently, the exterior has been modified with siding and the porch has been enclosed. The building is reflective of the Gothic Revival Cottage-style but is not a particularly rare or representative example of mid-to-late 19th century residen- tial architecture. The property does not reflect a high degree of craftsmanship, artistic merit, or technical achievement. The property has historical value or associative value because it, i. has direct associations with a theme, event, belief, person, activity, organization or institu- 1&,+1% 1&00&$+&Ɯ +11, ,**2+&16Ǿ ii. yields, or has the potential to yield, informa- tion that contributes to an understanding of a community or culture, or &&&ǽ!"*,+01/ 1"0,//"Ɲ" 101%"4,/(,/&!" 0,# an architect, artist, builder, designer or theorist 4%,&00&$+&Ɯ +11, ,**2+&16ǽ A review of directories, land registry records and census records indicate that the property has contained residential uses since the mid 19th century. The property was originally under the ownership of Matthew Lepper, a general merchant and later Reeve of Aurora Village, it does not appear that a dwelling was constructed under Lepper’s ownership. Rosanna Spence, of York Township, owned the property along with several other parcels surrounding the Aurora Station. Lepper’s and Spence’s historical significance is limited. The property has little potential to yield information that contributes to an understanding of community or culture. The architect or builder is unknown. The property has contextual value because it, &ǽ&0&*-,/1 +1&+!"Ɯ+&+$Ǿ* &+1 &+&+$,/02-- porting the character of an area, ii. is physically, functionally, visually or histori- cally linked to its surroundings, or iii. is a landmark. 26 Berczy Street is located in an evolving context, where there is a fragment of uses. The character of Berczy Street is not overwhelmingly prevalent. Like all properties, the property at 26 Berczy Street is physically, functionally, visually and historically linked to its surroundings. However it does not exhibit such significant relationships to its sur- roundings to merit conservation under the Ontario Heritage Act. The property is not considered a landmark. Page 143 of 183 26 HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT | 26-38 BERCZY STREET, AURORA ERA conducted a site visit to for the purpose of completing a preliminary review of the properties at 26, 30, 32, and 34-38 Berczy Street. Due to provincially mandated lock-down restrictions in place at the time due to COVID-19, a complete condition assessment was not completed. A full condition assessment and thorough documentation of the site will be completed upon lifting of restrictions. 5 CONDITION ASSESSMENT Page 144 of 183 27ISSUED: APRIL 15, 2021 30 Berczy Street (ERA, 2021) 30 Berczy Street (ERA, 2021) 32 Berczy Street (ERA, 2021) 32 Berczy Street (ERA, 2021) 32 Berczy Street (ERA, 2021) 32 Berczy Street (ERA, 2021) 26 Berczy Street (ERA, 2021) 26 Berczy Street (ERA, 2021) Page 145 of 183 28 HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT | 26-38 BERCZY STREET, AURORA 34 Berczy Street (ERA, 2021) 34 Berczy Street (ERA, 2021) 34 Berczy Street (ERA, 2021) 34 Berczy Street (ERA, 2021) 34 Berczy Street (ERA, 2021) 34 Berczy Street (ERA, 2021) 34 Berczy Street (ERA, 2021) Page 146 of 183 29ISSUED: APRIL 15, 2021 38 Berczy Street (ERA, 2021) 38 Berczy Street (ERA, 2021) 38 Berczy Street (ERA, 2021) 38 Berczy Street (ERA, 2021) 38 Berczy Street (ERA, 2021) 38 Berczy Street (ERA, 2021) 38 Berczy Street (ERA, 2021) Page 147 of 183 30 HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT | 26-38 BERCZY STREET, AURORA Value (quoted from Ontario Reg. 9/06)Assessment of 32 Berczy Street The property has design value or physical value because it, i. is a rare, unique, representative or early example of a style, type, expression, material or construction method, &&ǽ!&0-) 60 %&$%!"$/"",# / ƞ0* +0%&-,/ /1&01& merit, or iii. demonstrates a high degree of technical or 0 &"+1&Ɯ %&"3"*"+1ǽ The property at 32 Berczy Street contains a two storey detached dwelling, with an estimated date of construc- tion of 1856 under the ownership of George Coles. The directories do not suggest that Coles was a resident of the Town of Aurora. The dwelling is not representative of any recognized architectural style. The property does not reflect a high degree of craftsman- ship, artistic merit, or technical achievement. The property has historical value or associative value because it, i. has direct associations with a theme, event, belief, person, activity, organization or institution that is 0&$+&Ɯ +11, ,**2+&16Ǿ ii. yields, or has the potential to yield, information that contributes to an understanding of a commu- nity or culture, or &&&ǽ!"*,+01/ 1"0,//"Ɲ" 101%"4,/(,/&!" 0,# + architect, artist, builder, designer or theorist who is 0&$+&Ɯ +11, ,**2+&16ǽ Similar to 26 Berczy Street, 32 Berczy Street was later owned by Rosanna Spence, suggesting the building was occupied by rental tenure. Cole’s and Spence’s historical significance is limited. The property has little potential to yield information that contributes to an understanding of community or culture. The architect or builder is unknown. The property has contextual value because it, &ǽ&0&*-,/1 +1&+!"Ɯ+&+$Ǿ* &+1 &+&+$,/02--,/1&+$ the character of an area, ii. is physically, functionally, visually or historically linked to its surroundings, or iii. is a landmark. 32 Berczy Street is located in an evolving context, where there is a fragment of uses. The character of Berczy Street is not overwhelmingly prevalent. Like all properties, the property at 32 Berczy Street is physically, function- ally, visually and historically linked to its surroundings. However it does not exhibit such significant relation- ships to its surroundings to merit conservation under the Ontario Heritage Act. The property is not considered a landmark. Page 148 of 183 31ISSUED: APRIL 15, 2021 Value (quoted from Ontario Reg. 9/06) Assessment of 34-38 Berczy Street The property has design value or physical value because it, i. is a rare, unique, representative or early example of a style, type, expression, material or construction method, &&ǽ!&0-) 60 %&$%!"$/"",# / ƞ0* +0%&-,/ artistic merit, or iii. demonstrates a high degree of technical ,/0 &"+1&Ɯ %&"3"*"+1ǽ The integrity of the buildings are limited due to the extensive renovations completed to the buildings in converting the use from industrial to commercial. Alterations to the buildings include the following: • removal of the adjoining components (broiler room and walkway) between 34 and 38 Berczy Street; • removal of the second entrance on 34 Berczy Street’s front elevation; • removal of the side entrance and steps on 34 Berczy Street’s south elevation; and • the original stone and brick construction on 34 Berczy Street and concrete block construction on 38 Berczy Street have been covered with cream-coloured stucco. The property has historical value or associa- tive value because it, i. has direct associations with a theme, event, belief, person, activity, organization or &+01&121&,+1% 1&00&$+&Ɯ +11, ,**2+&16Ǿ ii. yields, or has the potential to yield, infor- mation that contributes to an understanding of a community or culture, or &&&ǽ!"*,+01/ 1"0,//"Ɲ" 101%"4,/(,/&!" 0 of an architect, artist, builder, designer or 1%",/&014%,&00&$+&Ɯ +11, ,**2+&16ǽ The building at 34 to 38 Berczy Street formed part of the larger T. Sisman Shoe Factory, one of the largest employers in the Town of Aurora in the 20th century. Many of its workers were recorded to live in adjacent streets, such as Larmont and Mosley Street. The factory has contributed to the early industrial landscape of Berczy Street, supported by the Aurora Train Station. The buildings were used as a secondary spaces for the T.Sisman Shoe Factory, with Factory No. 2 (34 Berczy Street) used pri- marily for storage and Factory No. 4 (38 Berczy Street) shortly used for manufacturing. The T. Sisman Shoe Factory primarily operated in Factory No. 1, south of the Site, that has since been demolished. The integrity of the building is diminished due to the extensive alterations completed in late 20th century. The property has little potential to yield information that contributes to an under- standing of community or culture. The architect or builder is unknown. The property has contextual value because it, &ǽ&0&*-,/1 +1&+!"Ɯ+&+$Ǿ* &+1 &+&+$,/ supporting the character of an area, ii. is physically, functionally, visually or historically linked to its surroundings, or iii. is a landmark. 34-38 Berczy Street is located in an evolving context, where there is a fragment of uses. The character of Berczy Street is not overwhelmingly prevalent. Like all properties, the property at 34-38 Berczy Street is physically, functionally, visually and historically linked to its surroundings. However it does not exhibit such significant relationships to its surroundings to merit conservation under the Ontario Heritage Act. The main factory building, being Factory No. 1, and the Thomas Sisman House has been demolished. The buildings on the Site was secondary to the demolished buildings, and its tie to the T.Sisman Shoe Factory is not apparent. The property is not considered a landmark. Page 149 of 183 32 HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT | 26-38 BERCZY STREET, AURORA East elevation render of the proposed development (Studio JCI, 2021) East elevation render of the proposed development (Studio JCI, 2021) Page 150 of 183 33ISSUED: APRIL 15, 2021 The proposed development anticipates the removal of the existing buildings on the Site to allow for the construction of a seven-storey mixed-use development. The proposed design is the result of close collaboration between ERA and Studio JCI. Preliminary heritage design direction provided included the following parameters: • Focus of density along Berczy Street, furthest from adjacent listed house-form buildings; • Reference to the elongated, rectilinear, industrial buildings which are primarily oriented perpendicular to the streets they front onto such as at 103 Mosley and 38 Berczy; • Reveals that break up the Berczy streetwall giving the appearance of the perpendicular orientation noted above; • Integration of progressive stepbacks on the west elevation to create a gradual transition of massing towards the residential neighbourhood; • Integration of stepbacks above the 4th and 6th storey of the east elevation to minimize the visual impact of the increased density; • Integration of glazing along upper storeys (5th- 8th storeys on west elevation), to mitigate the visual weight of increased height; • Integration of smaller, stepbacks along the north and south elevations; • Siting of lower-scale townhouses at the Site’s western extents, set back from the west property line to provide buffer between the development and residential neighbourhood to the west; • Articulation of distinct masonry building base elements, to visually divide the building into smaller units and integrate new construction with the existing and historic context. This collaborative effort resulted in a design that is responsive to the Site’s former industrial character, and is sensitive to its heritage context. The proposed development is primarily composed of two segments; • a seven-storey block consisting of townhouses and commercial use at grade, fronting onto Berczy Street; and, • a segment of two-storey townhouses fronting the west boundary of the site, and accessed via a new, pedestrian-oriented laneway located along the western boundary of the site. The two building segments share underground parking , with vehicular access off Mosley Street. The development features a shared outdoor amenity space, situated in the interior of the site. The first-four storeys of the development are detailed in brick masonry, with industrial-inspired windows and doors. Storeys five and above feature progressive stepbacks, residential terraces, and design that is more contemporary in expression, articulation and material. 6 DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT Page 151 of 183 34 HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT | 26-38 BERCZY STREET, AURORA East elevation render view of the proposed development (Studio JCI, 2021) Southeast render view of the proposed development (Studio JCI, 2021) Page 152 of 183 35ISSUED: APRIL 15, 2021 Southwest render view of the proposed development (Studio JCI, 2021) Render of the proposed shared amenity space (Studio JCI, 2021) Page 153 of 183 36 HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT | 26-38 BERCZY STREET, AURORA 7.1 Impacts on Site The development proposes to remove all properties on Site, including the following buildings which are listed on the Municipal Heritage Register; • 26 Berczy Street, Listed • 32 Berczy Street, Listed • 34-38 Berczy Street, Listed This report finds that the de-listing and removal of these buildings from the Site will have negative impacts on the Site as identified by the Ontario Heritage Toolkit. As noted in the Assessment of Cultural Heritage Value section of this report, these buildings however, are not good candidates for conservation. The proposed development mitigates impacts by incorporating design that is informed by the Site’s industrial past, most notably the former T. Sisman Shoe brick-and-beam Factory buildings that occupied the site. Design considerations that mitigate impacts to adjacent heritage resources have also be incorporated, as described later in this report. The Ontario Heritage Toolkit is a series of guides designed to help understand the heritage conservation process in +1 /&,ǽ%",,)(&1&!"+1&Ɯ"0-,1"+1& )negative impacts on a cultural heritage resource from new development. Negative impacts include, but are not limited to: Destruction of any, or part of any, sig-+&Ɯ +1%"/&1 $" 11/& 21"0,/#" 12/"0Ȁ Alteration that is not sympathetic, or is incompatible, with the historic fabric and appearance; Shadows created that alter the appear-ance of a heritage attribute or change the viability of a natural feature or plantings, such as a garden; Isolation of a heritage attribute from its surrounding environment, context or a 0&$+&Ɯ +1/") 1&,+0%&-Ȁ Direct or indirect obstruction ,#0&$+&ƜȒcant views or vistas within, from, or of built and natural features; A change in land use such as /"7,+&+$ 11)"Ɯ")! #/,* ,-"+space to residential use, allowing new !"3"),-*"+1,/0&1" )1"/ 1&,+1,Ɯ))&+the formerly open spaces; Land disturbances such as a change in grade that alters soils, and drainage - 11"/+0 1% 1 !3"/0")6 ƛ" 1 +archaeo logical resource. (Ontario Heritage Toolkit). 7 IMPACT ASSESSMENT Page 154 of 183 37ISSUED: APRIL 15, 2021 7.2 Impacts on Adjacent Heritage Resources The proposed development is not anticipated to have any negative impacts, as identified by the Ontario Heritage Toolkit, on the cultural heritage value of the adjacent heritage resources. Development of the Site will have impacts on the adjacent heritage properties inherent to any form of intensification, including increased pedestrian and vehicular activity, and change of use. While the majority of proposed massing is distributed along the Site’s eastern edge, the development will visually impact the context of this historically low-rise area, when viewed from the listed properties to the west. A pedestrian laneway situated on the east edge of the site creates a buffer between the properties, and a two-storey townhouses mitigate this visual impact by providing a gentle transition to the neighbouring sites. This report finds that the proposed development appropriately mitigates these impacts by introducing contemporary mixed-use development that interprets the Site’s industrial history and employs a number of heritage designs strategies , as detailed in the following section of the report. Adjacent Heritage Properties • 99 Wellington Street East, Listed • 121 Wellington Street East, Listed • 105 Wellington Street East, Listed • 25 Larmont Street, Listed • 29 Larmont Street, Designated un- der Part IV, OHA • 31 Larmont Street, Listed • 33 Larmont Street, Listed • 35 Larmont Street, Listed • 41 Larmont Street, Listed • 45 Larmont Street, Listed • 98 Mosley Street, Listed Page 155 of 183 38 HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT | 26-38 BERCZY STREET, AURORA • Integration of glazing along upper storeys (5th-7th storeys on east elevation), to miti- gate the visual weight of increased height; • Progressive stepbacks of the 4th, 5th, 6th and 7th storeys of the building on both the east and west elevations; • Siting of lower-scale townhouses at the Site’s western extents, set back from the west property line by approximately 9 m; • The use of materials that are distinct from, and sympathetic to, the adjacent heritage resources; • Glazing pattern that references the articu- lation and gridded fenestration patterns found on the surrounding industrial heritage resources; • Arched brick window details consistent with heritage context; and • Fine-grain ground-floor activation consis- tent with the evolving Berczy Street context. Additional commemorative strategies may be explored to further mitigate impacts of the development by communicating the historical narratives of the Site, using interpretive media. This approach would complement the interpretive architectural elements discussed above and include themes such as the history of the T. Sisman Shoe Company, and the development of railside industry in early Aurora, and the evolution of the Berczy Street corridor. Both on-and off-Site strategies are proposed to be explored. Preliminary approaches may include plaques, signage, art and off-site contributions to historic understanding of the area (books, articles, videos, exhibits). 8.1 Conservation Strategy ERA has evaluated the Site against the Criteria For Determining Cultural Heritage Value for Interest, Ontario Reg. 9/06, under the OHA, and concluded that the buildings presently on-Site do not possess significant cultural heritage value. Further, the proposal described in Section 6 of this report considers the removal of the buildings on Site. Therefore, a conservation strategy has not been provided, rather a mitigation strategy that responds to the heritage character of adjacent heritage context is proposed. 8.2 Mitigation Strategies The proposed development interprets features inspired by the former brick-and-beam T. Sisman Shoe Factory buildings. Design considerations with regard to the Site’s heritage character and relationships to adjacent properties on the Municipal Heritage Register have been incorporated as follows: • Focus of density along Berczy Street, furthest from adjacent listed house-form buildings; • Reference to the elongated, rectilinear, industrial buildings which are primarily oriented perpendicular to the streets they front onto such as at 103 Mosley and 38 Berczy; • Reveals that break up the Berczy streetwall giving the appearance of the perpendicular orientation noted above; • Distinct yet compatible architectural expression to further give the appearance of distinct volumes; • Varied masonry palette applied to break up visual mass and integrate new construction with the existing and historic context; 8 CONSERVATION AND MITIGATION STRATEGY Page 156 of 183 39ISSUED: APRIL 15, 2021 West Elevation (Studio JCI, 2021) East Elevation (Studio JCI, 2021) South Elevation (Studio JCI, 2021) North Elevation (Studio JCI, 2021) Page 157 of 183 40 HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT | 26-38 BERCZY STREET, AURORA This report finds that the de-listing and removal of 26, 32, and 34-38 Berczy Street from the Site will have an impact on cultural heritage value of the site. These buildings however, do not have significant heritage value, and are not good candidates for conservation as their design/ physical, historical/associative, and contextual value are diminished, and have limited ability to convey historical associations or connections to the Site’s former industrial and supporting residential heritage. The proposed development proposes to interpret the cultural heritage value of the Site by introducing contemporary development which uses materiality and architectural expression consistent with the former main T. Sisman factory building on the Site. The proposed design responds to the criteria set out in heritage policy applicable to this site, such as those set out in Section 4 of The Aurora Promenade Concept Plan Urban Design Strategy, 2010, and Section 11 Aurora Promenade Secondary Plan, 2010. The proposal achieves this by incorporating design strategies such as setbacks, stepbacks, and site arrangement, and architectural expression are sympathetic to the area’s 20th century industrial heritage character. Additional commemorative strategies may be explored to further mitigate impacts of the development by communicating the historical narratives of the Site, using interpretive media, such as plaques, signage, art and off-site contributions to historic understanding of the area (books, articles, videos, exhibits). In conclusion, this report finds that the proposed development appropriately mitigates negative impacts to the Site and adjacent properties’s cultural heritage value. 9 CONCLUSION Page 158 of 183 41ISSUED: APRIL 15, 2021 Philip Evans Philip Evans is a registered architect with the OAA, principal of ERA Architects and the founder of small. In the course of his career, he has led a range of conservation, adaptive reuse, design, and feasibility planning projects. Philip is a professional member of CAHP and RAIC. Janice Quieta Janice Quieta is an associate with the heritage architecture team at ERA Architects. She received her Master of Architecture degree from Dalhousie University after completing a Bachelor of Architectural Science degree at Ryerson University. Her graduate thesis examined the feasibility of retrofitting post-war residential towers Toronto’s St. Jamestown using a socially and ecologically sustainable program. She has studied and worked in Toronto, Halifax, Dusseldorf, and Koln. Neil Phillips Neil Phillips is a Project Manager with the heritage team at ERA Architects. He holds a Master of Landscape Architecture from the University of Toronto, a certificate in Urban Design from Harvard University, a Bachelor of Urban and Regional Planning from Ryerson University, and a Bachelor of Public Administration from the University of Ottawa. Catherine Huynh Catherine Huynh is a planner with ERA Architects. She holds a Bachelor of Urban and Regional Planning (BURPI) from Ryerson University. 10 PROJECT PERSONNEL Page 159 of 183 42 HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT | 26-38 BERCZY STREET, AURORA Aurora Museum and Archives. (n.d.). Fire Insurance Plans. Town of Aurora. Toronto Public Library. (1960). Insurance Plan of the Town of Aurora, Ont. : Popu- lation 6,000: plan dated May 1960. https://www.torontopubliclibrary.ca/detail. jsp?Entt=RDM1633775&R=1633775 Johnston, J. (1963). Aurora: Its Early Beginnings. Aurora Centennial Committee. Library and Archives Canada. (n.d.). Collection Search. https://www. bac-lac.gc.ca/ eng/collectionsearch/Pages/collectionsearch. aspx McGill University. (n.d.). The Canadian County Atlas Digital Project. Digital Collec- tions and Exhibitions. https://digital.library.mcgill. ca/countyatlas/default.htm McIntyre, J. W. (1988). Aurora: A History in Pictures. The Boston Mills Press. Ontario Community Newspapers Portal. (n.d.). The Newmarket Era. https://news. ourontario.ca/ Ontario Land Registry. (n.d.). Abstract/Parcel Register Book. https:// www.onland.ca/ ui/lro/books/search Sisman, H. [@sismanshoes]. (n.d.). The T. Sisman shoe Co. Ltd [Facebook Page]. https://www.facebook.com/sisman shoes/ Toronto Public Library. (n.d.). Globe and Mail Historical Newspaper Archive. https:// www.torontopubliclibrary.ca/detail. jsp?R=EDB0057 University of Toronto. (n.d.). Map and Data Library. https://mdl.library. utoronto.ca/ York Region. (n.d.). Archival Aerial Imagery. York Region Interactive Maps and Spatial Data. https://ww6.yorkmaps.ca/Html5Viewer24/ Index.html?configBase=https:// ww6.yorkmaps.ca/Geocortex/ Essentials/Essentials43/REST/sites/CommunitySer- vices/ viewers/YorkMaps/virtualdirectory/Resources/Config/Default 11 REFERENCES Page 160 of 183 43ISSUED: APRIL 15, 2021 12 APPENDICES Page 161 of 183 100 John West Way Aurora, Ontario L4G 6J1 (905) 727-3123 aurora.ca Town of Aurora General Committee Report No. PDS2 2 -107 Subject: Application for Site Plan Approval York Region District School Board 377 Hartwell Way File Number: SP-2021-12 Prepared by: Sean Lapenna, Development Planner Department: Planning and Development Services Date: July 5, 2022 Recommendation 1. That Report No. PDS22-107 be received; and 2. That Site Plan Application File SP-2021-12 to permit the development of a two-storey JK-8 elementary school (638 students) with a Gross Floor Area of 5,985.50 m² (64,427.0 ft²) and accessory childcare facility (48 children), bus drop-off lane, parking areas, additional student drop off lanes, asphalt play yard, outdoor fenced play areas and green space throughout, be approved. Executive Summary This report seeks Council’s approval of a site plan application at 377 Hartwell Way for the development of a future Elementary School 5,985.50 m² (64,427.0 ft²) (12,519.0 ft²) with accessory childcare facility, to be fully developed and occupied by September 2024. The proposed Site Plan conforms to the Town of Aurora Official Plan; The Proposed Site Plan conforms to the Town’s Comprehensive Zoning By-law; Planning Staff are satisfied with Site Design and Building Elevations; Planning Staff recommend that the site plan application be approved. Final technical matters will be addressed prior to the execution of the site plan agreement. Page 162 of 183 July 5, 2022 2 of 12 Report No. PDS22-107 Background Application History The Site Plan Application was submitted to the Town on October 4, 2021. The application was deemed complete on October 20, 2021. The applicant made a resubmission on March 30, 2022 to address and respond to comments on the first submission issued by the Town and commenting agencies. Location/Land Use The subject lands are municipally known as 377 Hartwell Way and are located south of St. John’s Sideroad, west of Leslie Street and on the south-east corner of Hartwell Way and William Graham Drive. The subject lands are currently vacant, have an approximate lot area of 5.87 ac (23, 764.0 m²) and a lot frontage of 179.50 m (590.0 ft). Surrounding Land Uses The surrounding land uses are as follows: North: Low-density residential and Hartwell Way; South: Low-density residential and Open Spaced lands; East: Low-density residential and vacant lands; West: Low-density residential and Environmentally Protected lands. Policy Context Provincial Policies All development applications shall have regard for the Provincial Policy Statement (PPS), which provides policy direction on matters of Provincial interest. These policies support the development of strong communities through the promotion of efficient land use and development patterns. The Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe (The Growth Plan) is a guiding document for growth management within the Greater Golden Horseshoe Area. The Growth Plan provides a framework which guides land use planning. Page 163 of 183 July 5, 2022 3 of 12 Report No. PDS22-107 The Lake Simcoe Protection Plan (LSPP) provides policies which address aquatic life, water quality and quantity, shorelines and natural heritage, other threats and activities (invasive species, climate change and recreational activities). York Region Official Plan The subject lands are designated as ‘Urban’ within the York Region Official Plan. York Region’s vision for the Urban Area is to strategically focus growth while conserving resources and to create sustainable, lively communities. Under York Region’s Official Plan, one regional urbanization goal is to enhance the Region’s urban structure through city building, intensification and compact, complete communities. Town of Aurora Official Plan As illustrated on Figure 2, the majority of the subject lands are designated ‘Elementary School’ while a western portion of the site is designated ‘Urban Residential 1’ by the Town of Aurora’s Official Plan. As outlined in the ‘Elementary School’ designation, the subject lands are one of two sites which have been identified in the Secondary Plan area to accommodate future elementary school developments, as shown on Schedule A of OPA 73 (Aurora 2C Secondary Plan). It is the intent of the Urban Residential 1 designation to promote well-designed, low density housing in appropriate locations throughout the community. Elementary School is listed as a Permitted Use in the Urban Residential 1 designation. Zoning By-law 6000-17, as amended The subject property is zoned ‘I (419) (Institutional Exception Zone)’ under Zoning By- law 6000-17, as amended, which permits Public or Private Schools. Reports and Studies The Applicant submitted the following studies, reports and plans as part of a complete Site Plan Application: Page 164 of 183 July 5, 2022 4 of 12 Report No. PDS22-107 Report/Drawing Name Report/Drawing Author Site Plan Hossack & Associates Architects Building Elevations Hossack & Associates Architects Floor Plans Hossack & Associates Architects Landscape Plan FRP Inc. Tree Inventory and Protection Plan FRP Inc. Site Grading Plan MGM Consulting Inc. Site Servicing Plan MGM Consulting Inc. Stormwater Management Report MGM Consulting Inc. Erosion and Sediment Control Plan MGM Consulting Inc. Geotechnical Investigation Forward Engineering & Associates Inc. Hydrogeological Assessment Report Cambium Inc. Phase One Environmental Site Assessment Tetra Tech Traffic Impact Study GHD Limited. Pavement Marking & Signage Plan GHD Limited. Green Development Standards Report Hossack & Associates Architects Proposed Application The site plan application was submitted in order to accommodate the development of a new two-storey JK-8 elementary school (638 students) with a childcare facility (48 children). The facility has a Gross Floor Area of approximately 5,985.50 m² (64,427.0 ft²) and a building height of 10.75 m (35.0 ft). The submitted site plan outlines that the property will be accessed by a total of four driveways (three driveways along Hartwell Way and one driveway off of William Graham Drive). A total of 90 parking spaces (including 5 barrier free parking spaces) have been provided along with 15 bicycle parking spaces. The site plan also includes an outdoor play field in the south-west corner of the site which has an area of 2,706 m² (29,127 ft²), an asphalt play field which has an area of 2,600 m² (27,986 ft² ) which is located behind the future two-storey school building to the south, as well as an outdoor play area for future kindergarten students which is located in front of the future two-storey school building to the north. Additional outdoor play space will be provided for the future childcare facility to be accessed off of William Graham Drive to the east. The application outlines that approximately 27 classrooms will be provided internal to the building as well as an indoor school gymnasium, a library resource centre, student support centre space as well as washroom, change room, mechanical room and office space throughout the facility. Page 165 of 183 July 5, 2022 5 of 12 Report No. PDS22-107 The school will also include an accessory childcare program which will be operated by a third-party provider, inside the school facility. The childcare program will host two program rooms designed to provide childcare services to a maximum of 48 children. The childcare program will have fenced play areas with a combination of asphalt and landscaping as well as a separate parking lot to be accessed off of William Graham Drive and which is located in the south-east corner of the site. Analysis The proposed Site Plan conforms to the Town of Aurora Official Plan As noted earlier in this report, the majority of the subject lands are predominantly designated ‘Elementary School’ while a western portion of the site is designated ‘Urban Residential 1’ by the Town of Aurora Official Plan. Elementary Schools within the ‘Urban Residential 1’ designation will be permitted with a maximum height of 12.0 metres. The subject property overall has been specifically designated to accommodate a future elementary school. Section 3.3.6 of OPA 73 outlines that this site has been selected to reflect the role of school sites in supporting the definition of community structure and patterns of land use. The policies that apply to the subject property through OPA 73 outline that schools shall provide parking for both vehicles and bicycles, amenity areas with planting and/or fencing from adjacent residential dwellings. The policies that apply further note that that parking and loading areas will be provided and access points designed in a manner that will minimize conflicts between pedestrian and vehicular traffic and will enhance the aesthetic character of the neighbourhood. Planning Staff are of the opinion that the proposed site plan conforms to the policies of both the ‘Urban Residential 1’ and predominant ‘Elementary School’ Official Plan designations that apply to the property. The proposed Site Plan conforms to the Town’s Comprehensive Zoning By-law The subject property is zoned ‘I (419) (Institutional Exception Zone)’ under Zoning By- law 6000-17, as amended, which permits Public or Private Schools. The applicant has proposed a new two-storey elementary school with childcare centre. The school use as mentioned is a permitted use under the site zoning in place. In addition to this, zoning staff have also confirmed that the childcare centre use would be classified as an Page 166 of 183 July 5, 2022 6 of 12 Report No. PDS22-107 accessory use to the permitted school use, meaning that the zoning is in place to accommodate the development as proposed. Zoning staff have also confirmed that the proposal conforms to all applicable by-law requirements. These would include lot coverage, building height, setbacks and minimum parking requirements (for both vehicle and bicycle). Planning Staff are of the opinion that the proposed site plan conforms to the ‘I (419) (Institutional Exception Zone)’ zoning in place under Zoning By-law 6000-17, as amended. Planning Staff are satisfied with Site Design and Building Elevations The site plan review has progressed to a stage where staff are satisfied with the overall site and physical design including matters such as the proposed building elevations, site circulation, parking arrangements and landscaping. As such, staff are recommending that the site application be approved. Building Elevations The building elevations were reviewed by Planning Staff to ensure that the overall design was appropriate for the subject site and area. The building elevations reflect that the materials to be used for the construction of the new elementary school consists primarily of red masonry brick, light grey masonry brick, glazed brick (charcoal coloured) as well as horizontal corrugated steel siding panelling (white, grey and charcoal coloured). Windows have been placed and designed in a manner to provide a breakup between the predominate brickwork throughout each side of the building, as well as the panelling used as an accent material, in order to achieve a level of variation throughout and to avoid monotony. Site Circulation A total of four driveways are proposed to accommodate the development as proposed. Beginning in the north-west corner of the site and fronting Hartwell Way, this proposed driveway includes one ingress lane and two egress lanes for a total of three lanes and a width at street line of 24.820 m (81.0 ft). This driveway provides access to and from the school’s parking lot (80 parking spaces including 4 barrier free parking spaces) as well as two pick up and drop off lanes internal to the site (labelled on site plan “Kiss & Ride Lane”). Central to the site along Hartwell Way are located two more driveways (one ingress and one egress) as designated entry and exit points for school bus use only. Each driveway Page 167 of 183 July 5, 2022 7 of 12 Report No. PDS22-107 includes two lanes and has a width at street line of 21.230 m (70.0 ft). These driveways will be utilized by school buses to enter and exit the subject lands for pick-up and drop off purposes. This area onsite also functions as a designated fire route. The final driveway proposed is located off of William Graham Drive in the south-east end of the site. It includes one ingress lane and one egress lane for two lanes in total with a width at the street line of 24.980 m (82.0 ft). This driveway provides access to and from a separate parking area (10 spaces including one barrier free space) which is intended for use by the proposed childcare program which is accessory to the School (Principal Use). In addition to the parking areas being located onsite, staff acknowledge that the site has been specifically designed to accommodate student drop off areas via “Kiss & Ride” lanes and bus drop off lanes to be internal to the site, as opposed to resorting to on street parking. As such, staff are satisfied with the site circulation design as shown on the site plan. Parking Based on the number of classrooms to be provided (27) along with the accessory child care program and future portables located outdoors (6) (not part of this application) the minimum number of onsite parking spaces required is 74, which includes 4 barrier free parking spaces. The submitted site plan outlines that approximately 90 parking spaces will be provided (including 5 barrier free spaces) resulting in a parking surplus. Further to the previous section of this report (site circulation) staff are of the opinion that the overall parking configuration has been designed in a manner to mitigate the potential for conflicts to the greatest extent possible. As such, staff are satisfied with the onsite parking provided. Landscaping The applicant is proposing a variety of plantings along all property lines and staff note a higher concentration of plantings along the side yard property line to the west and rear yard property line to the south, considering that these particular areas onsite abut existing single-detached dwellings (see Figure 1). A total of 54 new deciduous trees are proposed, along with 10 new coniferous trees. 96 new deciduous shrubs are proposed and 50 new coniferous shrubs are proposed overall. Of these new plantings 30 are proposed along the side yard property line to the west (13 trees & 17 shrubs) while 38 new plantings are proposed along the rear yard property line to the south (17 trees & 21 shrubs). Page 168 of 183 July 5, 2022 8 of 12 Report No. PDS22-107 A 3.0 m wide landscape buffer along the side yard property line to the west and 5.6 m wide landscape buffer along the rear yard property line to the south will be in place in order to accommodate all new plantings as well as to provide adequate buffering and visual screening between abutting residential neighbouring properties and the school site. The front yard property line to the north and east side property line to the east are bordered by Hartwell Way and William Graham Drive. Overall, Parks Division staff are satisfied with the latest landscaping submission and have already confirmed security and fee amounts to be included as part of the future site plan agreement. Waste & Recycling The school includes a designated waste and recycling area, which is now shown on the latest site plan in the south-west area of the elementary school (see Figure 4). The designated area for management of waste and recycling will be internal to the building, with interior rooms being located inside the school building. The applicant has confirmed that custodial staff will make arrangements with private garbage and recycling operators to coordinate pickup and removal of all waste and recycling generated onsite. Snow Storage As shown on the latest site plan, designated areas have been provided onsite for snow storage during the winter months. All snow storage locations located onsite will be finalized with Town Staff prior to execution of the site plan agreement. Department/Agency Comments Planning Staff recommend that the Site Plan application be approved. Final technical matters will be addressed prior to execution of the site plan agreement Planning and Development Services – Development Engineer The Town’s Development Engineer has no objections to approval of the Site Plan application and is accepting of the Green Development Standards report submitted as part of the second submission. Any remaining comments on the latest technical submission will be addressed prior to execution of the site plan agreement. Page 169 of 183 July 5, 2022 9 of 12 Report No. PDS22-107 Building Division The Town’s Building Division has no objections to approval of the site plan application. From a zoning standpoint, all applicable zoning by-law requirements are being with the development as proposed. Operational Services – Parks Division The Town’s Parks Division expressed no objection to approval of the site plan application and is satisfied with the overall landscaping plan (see Figure 5). As noted earlier in the report, a total of 54 new deciduous trees are proposed, along with 10 new coniferous trees. 96 new deciduous shrubs are proposed as well as 50 new coniferous shrubs. Overall, Parks Division staff are satisfied with the latest landscaping submission and have already confirmed security and fee amounts to be included as part of the future site plan agreement. Operational Services – Public Works Division The Town’s Public Works Division expressed no objection to approval of the site plan application but did confirm through their latest review that a water meter would need to be relocated inside a property line onsite and that a backflow preventor would need to be installed inside the building. All snow storage locations will need to be confirmed and finalized by Town Staff. Staff will be sure to address these matters prior to execution of the site plan agreement. Traffic/Transportation A Traffic Impact Study was submitted as part of the Site Plan application to which the Town’s Traffic Analyst has expressed no objection to the findings and conclusions contained within. The applicant also submitted as part of a complete application a Pavement Marking and Signage Plan which requires no further updates. A Traffic Management Plan will need to be submitted prior to the beginning of construction. Staff will ensure approval of this plan prior to execution of the site plan agreement. The Town’s Traffic Analyst has expressed no objection to approval of the site plan application. The Regional Municipality of York The Regional Municipality of York has reviewed the application and advises that they have no objection to approval of the site plan. Page 170 of 183 July 5, 2022 10 of 12 Report No. PDS22-107 Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority (LSRCA) The Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority has confirmed that several minor technical comments are required to be addressed with respect to the submitted Hydrogeological Assessment and Stormwater Management Reports. These reports will need to be finalized and approved prior to execution of the site plan agreement. The Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority has provided their conditions of approval to be included in the site plan agreement. The Owner will be required to satisfy all LSRCA conditions of approval in the site plan agreement. Central York Fire Services Central York Fire Services (CYFS) has reviewed the application and have confirmed that all comments have been addressed satisfactorily. As such, CYFS has no objection to site plan approval. Public Comments Planning Staff have not received any public comments with respect to this site plan application. Advisory Committee Review Accessibility Advisory Committee The Town’s Accessibility Advisor reviewed the site plan on behalf of the Accessibility Advisory Committee in accordance with the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act in order to encourage barrier free access. Upon review of the first submission, the Accessibility Advisor noted that automatic door openers for all public access locations should be provided. In response to this comment, the applicant confirmed that the only public access entrance to the school is the front entrance, which the applicant confirmed will include an automated power door operator. In response to additional comments made by the Accessibility Advisor after the first submission, the applicant also confirmed that all customer service counters will have an allocated accessibility spot, all drop off locations will have a rolling curb depression providing access to exterior paths of travel and that an accessible route or ramp will be provided to the stage in the gymnasium. Page 171 of 183 July 5, 2022 11 of 12 Report No. PDS22-107 In addition to this, the school will also be equipped with fully functioning elevator (lift) capabilities to allow for barrier free access between both floors. Finally, the barrier free parking requirements as noted earlier in this report have been met as the required number of barrier free parking spaces will be provided onsite. On this basis, Town Staff are satisfied with the barrier free needs provided for this site and as such, the Town’s Accessibility Advisor provided no further comments. Legal Considerations In accordance with Section 41 of the Planning Act, the owner may appeal a site plan application if Council fails to approve the application within thirty (30) days of the application being submitted. The owner may also appeal any of the Town’s conditions, including the terms of a site plan agreement. There is no right of appeal for any other person. Financial Implications All applicable fees and securities will be collected upon execution of the Site Plan agreement. Furthermore, this development will generate development charge and annual tax levy revenues for the Town. Communications Considerations Site plan applications submitted under Section 41 of the Planning Act do not require public notification. However, a Notice of Site Plan application sign was posted on the subject property in November 2021 by the applicant. In addition to this, all planning applications are listed on the Town’s website through the Planning Application Status List which is reported to Council and updated quarterly. Link to Strategic Plan The proposed Site Plan Application supports the Strategic Plan goal of supporting an exceptional quality of life for all through its accomplishment in satisfying objectives within the following goal statement: Strengthening the fabric of our community: By working with York Region, college and university partners to establish post-secondary education options in Aurora, we are strengthening the fabric of our community. Page 172 of 183 July 5, 2022 12 of 12 Report No. PDS22-107 Alternative(s) to the Recommendation 1. That Council provide direction. Conclusion Planning and Development Services have reviewed this Site Plan Application in accordance with the policies of Provincial Plans; the Regional and Town Official Plans, the Town’s Zoning By-law and municipal development standards. Overall, Staff are satisfied with the proposed Site Plan and it has progressed to the stage where it can be presented to Council for approval subject to comments stated herein. The majority of comments to date have been addressed by the applicant and any outstanding technical matters and comments will be addressed by the Town prior to execution of the Site Plan agreement. Attachments Figure 1: Location Map Figure 2: Existing Official Plan Designation Figure 3: Existing Zoning Figure 4: Proposed Site Plan Figure 5: Proposed Landscape Plan Figure 6: Proposed Building Elevations - North, East, West & South Figure 7: Exterior Perspectives - North, East, West & South Previous Reports None. Pre-submission Review Agenda Management Team review on June 16, 2022. Approvals Approved by Marco Ramunno, MCIP, RPP, Director Planning & Development Services Approved by Doug Nadorozny, Chief Administrative Officer Page 173 of 183 BolandCourtRoth StreetBolsbyCourtKashaniCourtSchurman StreetCobbStreetHartwell WayReadStreetWarrenMcBrideCrescentJosephHart m a n C r e sce nt Hartwell WayPeter Miller StreetW il l ia m Gra ha m D r i v e W i l li a m G r a h a m Drive C raneStreetLOCATION MAPMap created by the Town of Aurora Planning and Building Services Department, 3/2/2022. Base data provided by York Region & the Town of Aurora. Air Photos taken Spring 2021, © First Base Solutions Inc., 2021 Orthophotography.¯FIGURE 1St John's SdrdWellington St EVandorf SdrdHenderson Drive^Wellington St WUV404UV404Leslie StYonge StBathurst StBayview AveBloomington Rd050100MetresAPPLICANT: Hossack & Associates Architectural Inc.FILE: SP-2021-12Document Path: J:\data\data\Planning Maps\377 Hartwell Way (Hossack SP-2021-12 )\March 2021\Figure_1_Location_Map.mxdSubject Lands - 377 Hartwell WayPage 174 of 183 HARTWELL WAYWILLIAM GRAHAM DR ¬«SWM¬«NP¬«NP¬«ES¬«ES¬«WPEXISTING OFFICIAL PLAN DESIGNATION¯APPLICANT: Hossack & Associates Architectural Inc.FILE: SP-2021-12FIGURE 2St John's SdrdWellington St EVandorf SdrdHenderson Drive^Wellington St WUV404UV404Leslie StYonge StBathurst StBayview AveBloomington RdMap created by the Town of Aurora Planning and Building Services Department, 3/2/2022. Base data provided by York Region & the Town of Aurora.050100MetresDocument Path: J:\data\data\Planning Maps\377 Hartwell Way (Hossack SP-2021-12 )\March 2021\Figure_2_Existing Official Plan Designation.mxdSubject Lands - 377 Hartwell WayOPA 73Environmental Protection AreaUrban Residential 1Stormwater Management FacilityParkElementary SchoolPage 175 of 183 Roth StreetKashaniCourtHartwell WayC o bb S tre e tHartwell WayWilliam Graham DriveO1R3(409)R3(410)R3(410)R3(408)R3(408)R3(410)R3(409)I(419)R3(408)R3(410)R3(407)R3(410)R3(408)R3(409)R3(410)R3(409)R3(410)R3(407)R3(408)R3(408)R3(409)R3(409)R3(407)R3(410)R3(410)R3(451)O1R3(410)R3(409)R3(408)R3(409)R3(410)R3(407)R8(412)R3(410)O1R3(410)R3(407)R3(409)R3(410)R3(407)R3(408)R3(408)R3(410)R3(408)R3(410)R3(409)R3(410)R3(408)I(419)R3(407)EPR3(408)R3(408)R3(410)R3(407)R3(409)R3(410)R3(408)EXISTING ZONING¯FIGURE 3Zoning LegendRESIDENTIAL ZONESPublic Open SpaceOPEN SPACES ZONESO1Detached ThirdDensity ResidentialR3Townhouse DwellingResidentialR8INSTITUTIONAL ZONESInstitutionIEnvironmental ProtectionEPSt John's SdrdWellington St EVandorf SdrdHenderson Drive^Wellington St WUV404UV404Leslie StYonge StBathurst StBayview AveBloomington RdAPPLICANT: Hossack & Associates Architectural Inc.FILE: SP-2021-12Map created by the Town of Aurora Planning and Building Services Department, 3/2/2022. Base data provided by York Region & the Town of Aurora.Document Path: J:\data\data\Planning Maps\377 Hartwell Way (Hossack SP-2021-12 )\March 2021\Figure_3_Existing Zoning.mxdSubject Lands - 377 Hartwell Way050100MetresI(419)Page 176 of 183 PROPOSED SITE PLANFIGURE 4APPLICANT: Hossack & Associates Architectural Inc.FILE: SP-2021-12Map created by the Town of Aurora Planning and Building Services Department, 20/06/2022. Base data provided by Hossack & Associates Inc.Document Path: J:\data\data\Planning Maps\377 Hartwell Way (Hossack SP-2021-12 )\March 2021\Figure_4_Proposed Site Plan.mxdPage 177 of 183 PROPOSED LANDSCAPING PLANFIGURE 5APPLICANT: Hossack & Associates Architectural Inc.FILE: SP-2021-12Map created by the Town of Aurora Planning and Building Services Department, 20/06/2022. Base data provided by FRP Inc. Landscape Architects.Document Path: J:\data\data\Planning Maps\377 Hartwell Way (Hossack SP-2021-12 )\March 2021\Figure_5_Proposed Landscaping Plan.mxdPage 178 of 183 PROPOSED BUILDING ELEVATIONSFIGURE 6APPLICANT: Hossack & Associates Architectural Inc.FILE: SP-2021-12Map created by the Town of Aurora Planning and Building Services Department, 3/2/2022. Base data provided by Hossack & Associates Inc.Document Path: J:\data\data\Planning Maps\377 Hartwell Way (Hossack SP-2021-12 )\March 2021\Figure_6_Proposed Building Elevations.mxdPage 179 of 183 EXTERIOR PERSPECTIVESFIGURE 7APPLICANT: Hossack & Associates Architectural Inc.FILE: SP-2021-12Map created by the Town of Aurora Planning and Building Services Department, 3/2/2022. Base data provided by Hossack & Associates Inc.Document Path: J:\data\data\Planning Maps\377 Hartwell Way (Hossack SP-2021-12 )\March 2021\Figure_7_Exterior Perspectives.mxdPage 180 of 183 100 John West Way Aurora, Ontario L4G 6J1 (905) 727-3123 aurora.ca Town of Aurora Notice of Motion Councillor’s Office _______________________________________________________________________________________ Re: Update of By-law No. 5429-12 - Registration of Second Suites To: Mayor and Members of Council From: Councillor Wendy Gaertner Date: July 5, 2022 _______________________________________________________________________________________ Whereas the Municipal Act, 2001, in subsection 11(2) provides that a lower-tier municipality may pass by-laws respecting the health, safety and well-being of persons and the protection of persons and property; and Whereas on April 23, 2012, Aurora Council revoked existing By-law 5221-10, with the updated 5429-12, to establish new regulations for the registration of second suites with additional clarification from an administrative perspective; and Whereas Section 3, PROHIBITION, restricts residential occupancy per Dwelling to one Unit unless a Two-Unit House has been registered with the Registrar; and Whereas Section 4, REGISTRATION, (b), requires inspection to ensure safety under the Building and Fire Codes, which may be refused; or revoked if the Unit ceases to meet requirements; and Whereas due to lack of supply and the cost of housing there has and will be an increasing need for Two Unit Homes; and Whereas the number of Units that are not Registered is also increasing due to lack of information or intent; and Whereas it may be impossible for staff to have knowledge and inspect all of these, the Town has a List of Two Unit Houses that have been Reported; and Whereas the ability to inspect these non-conforming homes, as required in the By-law, can be problematic due to lack of entry permission by the tenant or owner who does not reside in the house; and Page 181 of 183 Update of By-law No. 5429-12 - Registration of Second Suites July 5, 2022 Page 2 of 2 Whereas this can leave tenants living in unsafe conditions for months, in one known case years; 1. Now Therefore Be It Hereby Resolved That staff, who have knowledge of the historical and current problems enacting the Sections of this By-law required for safety, be directed to bring forward Updates to at the very least ensure that a house has a working hardwired fire alarm system and a second means of emergency escape. Page 182 of 183 100 John West Way Aurora, Ontario L4G 6J1 (905) 727-3123 aurora.ca Town of Aurora Notice of Motion Councillor’s Office _______________________________________________________________________________________ Re: Lessons Learned from Highland Gate Development To: Mayor and Members of Council From: Councillor Wendy Gaertner Date: July 5, 2022 _______________________________________________________________________________________ Whereas there have been many issues that have and continue to affect residents in the adjacent neighbourhood; and Whereas the Town will be doing a substantial redevelopment through intensification in existing residential neighbourhoods; and Whereas the Highland Gate development can provide us with valuable information and knowledge on how to improve the quality of life for those experiencing construction disruptions going forward; 1. Now Therefore Be It Hereby Resolved That a Committee to report on Lessons Learned from the Highland Gate development be formed. Page 183 of 183