Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
AGENDA - General Committee - 20220405
Town of Aurora General Committee Meeting Revised Agenda Date:Tuesday, April 5, 2022 Time:7 p.m. Location:Council Chambers, Aurora Town Hall As of March 1, 2022, meetings will be 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 Gallo in the Chair. 2.Land Acknowledgement 3.Approval of the Agenda 4.Declarations of Pecuniary Interest and General Nature Thereof 5.Community Presentations 6.Delegations 7.Consent Agenda 7.1.FIN22-009 - Q4 2021 Procurement Report 1 (Information report dated March 29, 2022, included on agenda per request of Member of Council) That Report No. FIN22-009 be received for information.1. 7.2.Memorandum from Councillor Gaertner; Re: Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority Board Meeting Highlights of February 25, 2022 8 That the memorandum regarding Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority Board Meeting Highlights of February 25, 2022, be received for information. 1. 8.Advisory Committee Meeting Minutes 8.1.Accessibility Advisory Committee Meeting Minutes of March 9, 2022 12 That the Accessibility Advisory Committee meeting minutes of March 9, 2022, be received for information. 1. *8.2.Anti-Black Racism and Anti-Racism Task Force Meeting Minutes of March 23, 2022 17 That the Anti-Black Racism and Anti-Racism Task Force meeting minutes of March 23, 2022, be received for information. 1. 9.Consideration of Items Requiring Discussion (Regular Agenda) 9.1.CMS22-019 - Aurora Town Square – Space Usage and Room Permitting Policy 20 That Report No. CMS22-019 be received; and1. That the Aurora Town Square Space Usage and Room Permitting Policy be approved. 2. 9.2.PDS22-013 - Report to Designate 26, 32, and 34-38 Berczy Street under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act 31 That Report No. PDS22-013 be received; and1. That Council consider Heritage Advisory Committee’s comments to designate 26, 32, and 34-38 Berczy Street under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act as properties of Cultural Heritage Value or Interest. 2. 9.3.CMS22-017 - Application for Third Party Event in an Outdoor Town Facility - Aurorapalooza 133 That Report No. CMS22-017 be received; and1. That staff be directed to review and approve or deny the Aurorapalooza application in accordance with the Third-Party Events in Outdoor Town Facilities Policy; and 2. That if the Aurorapalooza third-party event is approved, that it be designated as an event of Town significance for the purpose of attaining a Special Occasion Permit in accordance with the Municipal Alcohol Policy. 3. 9.4.CMS22-018 - Application for Third Party Event in an Outdoor Town Facility – Community Craft Beer Festival Aurora 138 That Report No. CMS22-018 be received; and1. That staff be directed to review and approve or deny the Community Craft Beer Festival Aurora application in accordance with the Third Party Events in Outdoor Town Facilities Policy; and 2. That if the Community Craft Beer Festival Aurora third-party event is approved, that it be designated as an event of Town significance for the purpose of attaining a Special Occasion Permit in accordance with the Municipal Alcohol Policy. 3. 9.5.CMS22-021 - Sport Tourism Strategy 2022-2026 142 That Report No. CMS22-021 be received; and1. That the recommendations in the Town of Aurora Sport Tourism Strategy 2022 – 2026 be endorsed in principle, subject to Council approval of budgetary implications. 2. 9.6.CS22-019 - Updates to the Proclamation Policy 158 That Report No. CS22-019 be received; and1. That the updated Proclamation Policy (Attachment 1) be approved. 2. 9.7.PDS22-045 - Anti-Idling Policy Update 166 That Report No. PDS22-045 be received; and1. That the Anti-Idling Policy be revised to reflect changes to the enforcement mechanism and to reduce idling time from five minutes to two minutes, to align with surrounding municipalities. 2. 10.Notices of Motion *10.1.Mayor Mrakas; Re: Addition of Sunset Clauses to Site-Specific Zoning By-law Amendments 185 11.Regional Report 12.New Business 13.Public Service Announcements 14.Closed Session There are no Closed Session items for this meeting. 15.Adjournment 100 John West Way Aurora, Ontario L4G 6J1 (905) 727-3123 aurora.ca Town of Aurora Information Report No. FIN2 2 -0 09 Subject: Q4 2021 Procurement Report Prepared by: Anna Ruberto, Procurement Manager Department: Finance Date: March 22, 2022 In accordance with the Procedure By-law, any Member of Council may request that this Information Report be placed on an upcoming General Committee or Council meeting agenda for discussion. Executive Summary This report presents procurement information for Q4 of 2021 as per the Town’s procurement by-law reporting requirements including: • Awarded contracts which exceed $250,000 • Sole and Single Source contracts awarded with values between $10,000 to $100,000 Background An award to suppliers can occur when there is sufficient budget as approved by Council during the budget process. Approval of award is provided by town staff according to approval authority as delegated by the applicable department head. There is a purchase order (PO) and legal contract when the award is over $50,000 and executed by the appropriate department head. Contracts over $1,000,000 require the approval of the Chief Administrative Officer (CAO) and there is a PO and contract which is executed by the CAO. Pursuant to provision 27.1 of the by-law, the Procurement Manager shall prepare a quarterly summary information report to Council outlining all awarded contracts over $250,000. A sole source purchase may be used for the procurement of goods, services, or Construction when there is only one source that is able to meet the requirements of the Page 1 of 185 March 22, 2022 2 of 7 Report No. FIN22-009 procurement, which may be due to their unique ability or skill, possession of proprietary technology, copyright, patent, or other intellectual property. A single source purchase is a method of procurement used after soliciting and negotiation with only one contractor when there is more than one potential source available for such procurement. Provision 13.6 (a) provides for circumstances in which such a procurement is permissible, such as in situations where a certain vendor needs to be retained for reasons of standardization or compatibility with existing products, where a purchase is made pursuant to a co-operative bid put out by another government agency or where a contract is required due to a contract termination or expiry, for a short interim period to meet immediate recurring business requirements. Sole / single source contract awards over $50,000 require approval and execution by the CAO and awards over $100,000 require Council approval and execution by the Mayor and Town Clerk. Sections 13.5 and 13.6 of the procurement by-law requires the Procurement Manager to prepare a quarterly report of sole and single source purchases not requiring Council approval. This report excludes emergency procurements which have separate reporting requirements and low value procurements under $10,000. All procurement thresholds and those listed in this report exclude the harmonized sales tax (HST). Analysis Contracts which exceeded $250,000 awarded and executed in Q4 of 2021 Within Q4 2021, there were three (3) awards made over $250,000, for a total award amount of $4,282,610.00. These awards resulted from open competitions in accordance with the procurement by-law and are summarized in Table 1. Page 2 of 185 March 22, 2022 3 of 7 Report No. FIN22-009 Table 1 Q4 2021 Contracts Awarded Over $250,000 PROCUREMENT NUMBER & DESCRIPTION DEPARTMENT SUPPLIER NAME TERM AMOUNT (EXCL. HST) 2021-50-CMS-F Consultant: Gym and Multipurpose Program Space (SARC) Community Services CS&P Architects Inc. PO issued 10/28/2021 No Term $554,400.00 2021-95-PDS- ENG Sewer and Watermain Service Connections Planning and Development Services Trisan Construction Ltd. PO issued 24/11/2021 5-year term $3,460,715.00 2021-96-OPS-P McKenzie Marsh Boardwalk Replacement Operations Canada Construction Ltd. PO issued 01/12/2021 No Term $267,495.00 Sole and Single Source contracts valued at $10,000 to $100,000 awarded and executed in Q4 of 2021 Within Q4 2021, there were four awards made for a total award amount of $298,255.03. There was one sole source award for a total amount of $88,937.55 for Community Services, Facilities division. Additionally, there were three single source awards made for a total amount of $209,317.48, with two for Community Services, Facilities division and one for Operations, Parks division. Page 3 of 185 March 22, 2022 4 of 7 Report No. FIN22-009 Table 2 Q4 2021 Sole Source Contracts Awarded PROCUREMENT BY-LAW REFERENCE DEPART- MENT & DIVISION SUPPLIER NAME DESCRIPTION AMOUNT (EXCL. HST) Sole: Only one source able to meet the requirements which is due to their unique ability or skill, possession of proprietary technology, copyright, patent or other intellectual property Community Services Facilities JOHNSON CONTROLS CANADA L.P. Building automation services for a three-year term for the Metasys System within buildings that have a Johnson Controls BAS. The Metasys BAS systems are proprietary to Johnson Controls and only Johnson Controls are permitted to maintain and/or repair these systems. $88,937.55 Table 3 Q4 2021 Single Source Contracts Awarded PROCUREMENT BY-LAW REFERENCE DEPART- MENT & DIVISION SUPPLIER NAME DESCRIPTION AMOUNT (EXCL. HST) Single: (i) for reasons of standardization, warranty, function or service, such as technical qualifications Community Services Facilities TEKNION LTD Furniture for the 2nd Floor at the Library. Teknion has been the supplier of furniture for the office refresh program through a VOR. The VOR agreement is being finalized through the Ontario Government. Teknion have $67,739.96 Page 4 of 185 March 22, 2022 5 of 7 Report No. FIN22-009 PROCUREMENT BY-LAW REFERENCE DEPART- MENT & DIVISION SUPPLIER NAME DESCRIPTION AMOUNT (EXCL. HST) committed to keeping the same pricing schedule as per the expired VOR agreement. Single (ii) where compatibility with an existing product, equipment, facility or services is a paramount consideration Operations Parks PLAYPOWER LT CANADA Supply and install a Zoom Twist Diamond climbing apparatus at Hickson Park. Compatibility of existing equipment from same manufacturer of current playground equipment. $12,120.00 Single (ix) in an Emergency Purchase situation pursuant to section 13.4 of this by-law Community Services Facilities HOLLANDIA GARDENS LTD SARC Hydrotherapy pool repair and liner replacement. Quotes were requested from five suppliers. Two suppliers partnered with Myrtha Pools for their submission. The pools at the SARC presently have Myrtha liners. $129,457.52 Advisory Committee Review None Page 5 of 185 March 22, 2022 6 of 7 Report No. FIN22-009 Legal Considerations Pursuant to the requirements of the Procurement By-law that was in place at the time of these procurements, the Procurement Manager shall prepare a quarterly report of awarded procurements exceeding $250,000 and sole source and single source purchases not requiring Council approval, excluding Low Value Procurements (i.e., less than $10,000). This report satisfies these provisions. Financial Implications The value of awarded procurements which exceed $250,000 represent a financial obligation to the Town of $4,282,610.00. Additionally, the above lists of awarded sole and single source procurements represent a financial obligation to the Town of $298,255.03. Communications Considerations None Climate Change Considerations The Green Procurement Policy was approved by Council on February 22, 2022. Any future procurement that uses this policy will be outlined in this section. Link to Strategic Plan Regular reporting to Council on the Town’s awarded contracts 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 None Conclusions The by-law requirements to provide a quarterly procurement report for awards over $250,000 and sole and single source procurements, not requiring Council approval, has been fulfilled. Page 6 of 185 March 22, 2022 7 of 7 Report No. FIN22-009 Attachments None Previous Reports None Pre-submission Review Agenda Management Team review on March 3, 2022 Approvals Approved by Rachel Wainwright-van Kessel, CPA, CMA, Director, Finance/Treasurer Approved by Doug Nadorozny, Chief Administrative Officer Page 7 of 185 100 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 February 25, 2022 To: Mayor and Members of Council From: Councillor Wendy Gaertner Date: April 5, 2022 Recommendation 1. That the memorandum regarding Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority Board Meeting Highlights of February 25, 2022, be received for information. Attachments Attachment 1 – Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority Board Meeting Highlights of February 25, 2022 Page 8 of 185 Board Meeting Highlights February 25, 2022 Announcements: a) CAO Baldwin updated the Board on staff’s return to the physical offices, which had been planned for January 10th. He advised that the return to office date is now scheduled for March 21st, on a cohort basis of every other week with a minimum of two days during the week. April 19th will be the formal return to a hybrid business model. More to come on those details in March. b) CAO Baldwin noted that the Ministry of Environment, Conservation and Parks has put a call out for agricultural Board representatives through their Public Appointees Secretariat. Members who are appointed by the Province and will have certain limitation, for example no ability to vote on budgetary or financial matters. The CAO has requested through the Provincial Conservation Authorities Working Group that recommended appointees be vetted by the Authority to ensure they have never been in violation of the Conservation Authorities Act, which would be a direct conflict. c) Lake Simcoe Conservation Foundation Executive Director Cheryl Taylor advised that plans for the 33rd Annual Conservation Dinner are going well with just a few tickets left. The dinner will take place on June 22nd. Presentations: a) 2022 Proposed Capital and Operating Budget General Manager, Corporate and Financial Services/CFO Mark Critch, provided an overview of the Authority’s Proposed 2022 Capital and Operating Budget. He first provided a brief summary of 2021 highlights, noting that a higher than anticipated year-end operation surplus can be attributed to an increase in volume of Planning Act and permit applications received in the second half of the year, some salary gapping due to staffing changes, some operational savings realized with staff working remotely throughout the year, and full cost recovery form external projects that provided additional corporate overhead. He noted that these highlights will be discussed in more detail in March when the year-end financial report will be brought to the Board. Moving on to 2022, GM Critch noted that the in-year budget improvement policy approved in 2021 has increased transparency and improved reporting. The Planning and Development fees review completed in the fall of 2021 has helped to improve consistency with fees and to ensur e full cost recovery. He noted the updated Purchasing Policy has helped with project approvals Page 9 of 185 LSRCA Board of Directors Meeting Highlights – February 25, 2022 Page 2 of 3 and timing, the Conservation Authorities Act review continues but does not impact the 2022 budget. He also noted that no new investments have been added in 2022 while Transformation 2022-2024 begins to be implemented, however achieving these outcomes will impact the budgets of 2023 and 2024. He reviewed the twelve 2022 Annual Priorities that have been identified by the Executive Leadership Team. GM Critch noted that the 2022 Proposed Capital and Operating Budget has been developed within the guidelines and assumptions approved by the Board in June of 2021 and can be summarized as follows: Board approved updated Planning and Development fees; five new full- time equivalents fully funded by fees; and at meeting time approval has been received from seven of the nine funding municipalities, with the remaining two expected shortly. To view this presentation, please click this link: 2021 Budget Highlights and 2022 Proposed Budget Presentation Correspondence and Staff Reports: Correspondence The Board received the January 5, 2022 Ministry of Northern Development, Mines, Natural Resources and Forestry letter of thanks regarding British Columbia’s flooding emergency . 2022 Proposed Capital and Operating Budget The Board received Staff Report No. 02-22-BOD regarding the Authority’s 2022 Proposed Capital and Operating Budget, adopted all projects therein, and authorized staff to enter into all agreements and execute all documents for the undertaking of said projects. The 202 2 Capital and Operating Budget was approved by weighted vote as required by Ontario Regulation 139/96 (formerly O.S. 231/97). Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act: Annual Statistical Report The Board received Staff Report No. 03-22-BOD regarding the Authority’s Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act 2021 Annual Statistical Report . Monitoring Report – Planning and Development Applications for the Period January 1 through December 31, 2021 The Board received Staff Report 04-22-BOD regarding monitoring of planning and development applications for the period January 1 through December 31, 2021. Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority’s Programs and Services Inventory List The Board received Staff Report No. 05-22-BOD regarding the Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority’s Programs and Services Inventory List and authorized its circulation to the Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks, as well as member and specified municipalities . Page 10 of 185 LSRCA Board of Directors Meeting Highlights – February 25, 2022 Page 3 of 3 Ministry of Environment, Conservation and Parks - Phase 2 Regulatory and Policy Proposal Consultation Guide The Board received Staff Report No. 06-22-BOD regarding the update on the Ministry of Environment, Conservation and Parks Phase 2 Regulatory and Policy Proposal Consultation Guide. Confidential Legal Matter The Board received Confidential Staff Report No. 07-22-BOD regarding a confidential legal matter. Confidential Legal Matter The Board approved Confidential Staff Report No. 08-22-BOD regarding a confidential legal matter. Confidential Land Matter The Board received a Confidential presentation regarding a confidential land matter. For more information or to see the full agenda package, visit LSRCA’s Board of Directors’ webpage. Page 11 of 185 1 Town of Aurora Accessibility Advisory Committee Meeting Minutes Date: Time: Location: Wednesday, March 9, 2022 7 p.m. Video Conference Committee Members: Rachelle Stinson (Chair) Matthew Abas (Vice Chair) Max Le Moine (arrived 7:07 p.m.) John Lenchak (arrived 8:09 p.m.) Hailey Reiss Jo-anne Spitzer Members Absent: Councillor John Gallo Other Attendees: Mateusz Zawada, Accessibility Advisor Linda Bottos, Council/Committee Coordinator _____________________________________________________________________ 1. Call to Order The Chair called the meeting to order at 7:01 p.m. 2. Approval of the Agenda Moved by Matthew Abas Seconded by Jo-anne Spitzer That the agenda as circulated by Legislative Services be approved. Carried 3. Declarations of Pecuniary Interest and General Nature Thereof There were no declarations of pecuniary interest under the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. M.50. Page 12 of 185 2 4. Receipt of the Minutes 4.1 Accessibility Advisory Committee Meeting Minutes of February 9, 2022 Moved by Matthew Abas Seconded by Hailey Reiss That the Accessibility Advisory Committee meeting minutes of February 9, 2022, be received for information. Carried 5. Delegations None. 6. Matters for Consideration 6.1 Memorandum from Accessibility Advisor; Re: Pre-Application Consultation PRE-2022-01, 375 Addison Hall Staff provided an overview of the site plan and comments submitted to the Planner on behalf of the Committee. The Committee and staff discussed various aspects of the site plan and a further suggestion was made regarding consideration for: preference for option 1 layout of the ground floor women's washroom; and an accessible washroom in each bridal suite. Moved by Matthew Abas Seconded by Jo-anne Spitzer 1. That the memorandum regarding Pre-Application Consultation PRE- 2022-01, 375 Addison Hall, be received; and 2. That the Accessibility Advisory Committee comments regarding Pre- Application Consultation PRE-2022-01 be received and referred to staff for consideration and further action as appropriate. Carried 6.2 Memorandum from Accessibility Advisor; Re: Site Plan Application OPA- 2021-03, ZBA-2021-03, and SP-2021-07 (Submission #4), 15296 to 15314 Yonge Street Page 13 of 185 3 Staff provided an overview of the site plan and comments submitted to the Planner on behalf of the Committee. The Committee had no further input. Moved by Hailey Reiss Seconded by Jo-anne Spitzer 1. That the memorandum regarding Site Plan Application OPA-2021-03, ZBA-2021-03, and SP-2021-07 (Submission #4), 15296 to 15314 Yonge Street, be received; and 2. That the Accessibility Advisory Committee comments regarding Site Plan Application OPA-2021-03, ZBA-2021-03, and SP-2021-07 (Submission #4) be received and referred to staff for consideration and further action as appropriate. Carried 6.3 Memorandum from Accessibility Advisor; Re: Site Plan Application SP- 2021-14 (Submission #1), 32 Don Hillock Drive Staff provided an overview of the site plan and comments submitted to the Planner on behalf of the Committee. The Committee and staff discussed various aspects of the site plan and a further suggestion was made regarding consideration for: clarification from developer on proposed ramp vs. exterior path of travel and specifications. Moved by Jo-anne Spitzer Seconded by Max Le Moine 1. That the memorandum regarding Site Plan Application SP-2021-14 (Submission #1), 32 Don Hillock Drive, be received; and 2. That the Accessibility Advisory Committee comments regarding Site Plan Application SP-2021-14 (Submission #1) be received and referred to staff for consideration and further action as appropriate. Carried 6.4 Memorandum from Accessibility Advisor; Re: Site Plan Application SP- 2021-15 (Submission #1), 420 Addison Hall Circle Staff provided an overview of the site plan and comments submitted to the Planner on behalf of the Committee. The Committee had no further input. Page 14 of 185 4 Moved by Matthew Abas Seconded by Jo-anne Spitzer 1. That the memorandum regarding Site Plan Application SP-2021-15 (Submission #1), 420 Addison Hall Circle, be received; and 2. That the Accessibility Advisory Committee comments regarding Site Plan Application SP-2021-15 (Submission #1) be received and referred to staff for consideration and further action as appropriate. Carried 6.5 Memorandum from Accessibility Advisor; Re: Site Plan Application OPA- 2021-02, ZBA-2021-02, and SUB-2021-01 (Submission #2), 162, 306, 370, 434, and 488 St. John's Sideroad Staff provided an overview of the site plan and comments submitted to the Planner on behalf of the Committee. The Committee and staff discussed various aspects of the site plan and further suggestions were made regarding consideration for: accessible mailbox locations; and audible pedestrian signals at signalized intersections. Moved by Jo-anne Spitzer Seconded by Matthew Abas 1. That the memorandum regarding Site Plan Application OPA-2021-02, ZBA-2021-02, and SUB-2021-01 (Submission #2), 162, 306, 370, 434, and 488 St. John's Sideroad, be received; and 2. That the Accessibility Advisory Committee comments regarding Site Plan Application OPA-2021-02, ZBA-2021-02, and SUB-2021-01 (Submission #2) be received and referred to staff for consideration and further action as appropriate. Carried 6.6 Round Table Discussion; Re: Town of Aurora Multi-Year Accessibility Plan 2022 to 2026 (Link to Multi-Year Accessibility Plan) Staff provided an update on the new Multi-Year Accessibility Plan noting that Council endorsed the Plan on February 22, 2022, and commended the Committee on its accomplishments. Page 15 of 185 5 Staff gave an update on capital budget items including the Seniors’ Centre external ramp and funding options were discussed with the Committee. An update was provided on operating budget items including a pool chair replacement, and options for an additional sensory path and sensory room equipment were discussed with the Committee. Staff presented the Committee’s first accessibility awareness campaign video “What Does Accessibility Mean to You?” noting its availability on the Town’s main Accessibility web page, to be shared further through various social media channels. The Committee and staff discussed next steps and further opportunities for the awareness campaign including additional videos (teaching, showcasing), involvement of local businesses, an online self-auditing tool, community events and challenges. Moved by Matthew Abas Seconded by Hailey Reiss 1. That the Accessibility Advisory Committee comments regarding the Town of Aurora Multi-Year Accessibility Plan 2022 to 2026 be received and referred to staff for consideration and further action as appropriate. Carried 7. Informational Items None. 8. Adjournment Moved by Matthew Abas Seconded by Hailey Reiss That the meeting be adjourned at 8:52 p.m. Carried Page 16 of 185 1 Town of Aurora Anti-Black Racism and Anti-Racism Task Force Meeting Minutes Date: Time: Location: Wednesday, March 23, 2022 7:00 p.m. Video Conference Committee Members: Jennie Dekkema (Vice Chair) Mark Lewis Edlene Antonio Mae Khamissa Councillor Harold Kim Members Absent: Noor El-Dassouki (Chair) Shivangi Bagga Keenan Hull Other Attendees: Mayor Tom Mrakas (ex-officio) Techa Van Leeuwen, Director of Corporate Services Phillip Rose, Manager, Library Square Ishita Soneji, Council/Committee Coordinator _____________________________________________________________________ 1. Call to Order The Vice Chair called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m. 2. Approval of the Agenda Moved by Mark Lewis Seconded by Mae Khamissa That the agenda as circulated by Legislative Services, be approved. Carried Page 17 of 185 2 3. Declarations of Pecuniary Interest and General Nature Thereof There were no declarations of pecuniary interest under the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. M.50. 4. Receipt of the Minutes 4.1 Anti-Black Racism and Anti-Racism Task Force Meeting Minutes of January 19, 2022 Moved by Mae Khamissa Seconded by Mark Lewis That the Anti-Black Racism and Anti-Racism Task Force meeting minutes of January 19, 2022, be received for information. Carried 5. Delegations None. 6. Matters for Consideration 6.1 Memorandum from Manager, Aurora Town Square; Re: Cultural Action Plan Staff provided an overview of the memorandum highlighting the background and details of the Cultural Action Plan and sought the Task Force's input regarding the overall strategic vision for arts and culture in Aurora. Staff noted that interviews with cultural stakeholders in the community have been conducted for further input and extended the interview option to the Task Force members as well. The members and staff discussed about the importance of getting diverse input from the community and stakeholders. The members inquired about the feedback received from the community through the interviews and the opportunities available for input from the public. Staff provided a brief overview of the responses thus far and noted that opportunities for input from the public will be explored over the summer at various Town events and through other means such as online surveys. It was suggested that further input opportunity could be explored at the various pop-up concerts Page 18 of 185 3 in conjunction with the Aurora Cultural Centre and expanding outreach through social media would be beneficial in receiving diverse feedback. Moved by Edlene Antonio Seconded by Councillor Kim 1. That the memorandum regarding the Cultural Action Plan be received; and 2. That the Anti-Black Racism and Anti-Racism Task Force comments regarding the Cultural Action Plan be received and referred to staff for consideration and further action as appropriate. Carried 7. Informational Items None. 8. Adjournment Moved by Mae Khamissa Seconded by Edlene Antonio That the meeting be adjourned at 7:32 p.m. Carried Page 19 of 185 100 John West Way Aurora, Ontario L4G 6J1 (905) 727-3123 aurora.ca Town of Aurora General Committee Report No. CMS 2 2 -0 19 Subject: Aurora Town Square – Space Usage and Room Permitting Policy Prepared by: Phil Rose, Manager of Aurora Town Square Department: Community Services Date: April 5, 2022 Recommendation 1. That Report No. CMS22-019 be received; and 2. That the Aurora Town Square Space Usage and Room Permitting Policy be approved. Executive Summary This report seeks approval of the Aurora Town Square Space Usage and Room Permitting Policy (the Policy). The Policy provides transparency and structure for user groups and individuals pertaining to the fair allotment and use of interior and exterior space at Aurora Town Square. The Policy identifies which Town staff are responsible for administering, monitoring and ensuring compliance. The Policy establishes a ranking that prioritizes the allocation of space and how to address conflicting requests when they arise. The Policy grants grandfathering provisions, but only to specific groups. Background Below is a summary of Council resolutions related to the development of the Space Usage and Room Permitting Policy. Page 20 of 185 April 5, 2022 2 of 6 Report No. CMS22-019 June 16, 2020 - “That the Director of Community Services form a Space Allocation Working Group comprised of Town staff and key stakeholders that will provide recommendations regarding rental and booking responsibilities for Library Square, including all spaces at 22 Church St. School, the New Addition, Outdoor Square, Bridge and Aurora Public Library.” June 16, 2020 – “That the Director of Community Services form a Collaborative Programming Working Group comprised of Town staff and key stakeholders that will provide recommendations regarding program delivery strategies and create a programming and performance schedule for Year 1 and Year 2 of Library Square operations.” June 15, 2021 – “That staff assume responsibility for all facility bookings across the entire Library Square complex, including the meeting spaces adjoining the Aurora Public Library, but not the remainder of the Library.” Analysis The Policy provides transparency and structure for user groups and individuals pertaining to the fair allotment and use of interior and exterior space at Aurora Town Square. The Policy applies to all facility permit holders and all individuals and/or user groups requesting use of Town owned and/or operated space at Aurora Town Square (ATS), as well as Town staff responsible for the use and/or operation of ATS. Its objectives are to: Ensure consistency in the programming and ongoing use of space at ATS. Ensure that the highest quality facility is maintained and available for all user groups. Provide a framework and consistent approach to the use of space at ATS in a fair and equitable manner. Ensure that the Town’s investment in ATS is managed in the best interest of all users and the citizens of Aurora. Establish clear guidelines and communication between applicable Town divisions, stakeholders, and user groups. Clearly define the rules of use in maintaining compliance Page 21 of 185 April 5, 2022 3 of 6 Report No. CMS22-019 The Policy identifies which Town staff are responsible for administering, monitoring and ensuring compliance. The following table summarizes staff responsibilities related to the Policy: Staff or Division Responsible Responsibility Manager of Aurora Town Square To review and recommend updates to the Policy as required from time to time. Note: the Policy will be reviewed two (2) years after the initial approval date. Manager of Business Support Services To supervise the staff that process facility permits and communicate with staff, individuals and user groups regarding use of space and related equipment at ATS. Manager of Facilities To ensure individuals and user groups receive all facility-related support as stipulated in facility permits. Manager of IT To ensure individuals and user groups receive all IT-related support as stipulated in facility permits. Director of Community Services To consider any exceptions to the Policy as it relates to submission deadlines, grandfathering, allocation priority, conflicting requests, waiving of fees, cancellation notices, and facility use regulations. Business Support Services Division To process facility permits for space and related equipment at ATS in accordance with the Policy. The Policy establishes a ranking that prioritizes the allocation of space and how to address conflicting requests when they arise. The priority order is as follows: Page 22 of 185 April 5, 2022 4 of 6 Report No. CMS22-019 Town of Aurora (including Aurora Museum & Archives) Aurora Cultural Centre (ACC) and Aurora Public Library (APL) Cultural Partners as defined in this Policy Aurora-based not-for-profit groups District School Boards Aurora-based commercial groups/individuals Other groups and individuals The Policy grants grandfathering provisions, but only to specific groups. Grandfathering rights are only to be applied to the following groups: Town of Aurora Aurora Cultural Centre Aurora Public Library Cultural Partners, as defined in the Policy Aurora based groups, as defined in the Policy Representative groups, as defined in the Policy These rights would go into effect following year 1 of ATS operations and allow the groups named above to maintain those times on an annual basis thereafter, or until such time as they surrender that time. Advisory Committee Review Not applicable. Legal Considerations Although the Town’s Delegation By-law gives delegated authority to the CAO to approve administrative policies, Council may request that it be the approval authority for a particular policy, as it has done in this case. Financial Implications All revenues generated from the ATS’ space usage and room permitting will be directed in support of the ATS’ ongoing operations. Permit holders will not be permitted to sub- let their booking time. Page 23 of 185 April 5, 2022 5 of 6 Report No. CMS22-019 Communications Considerations The policy, once approved, will be posted on the Town’s website. Climate Change Considerations The recommendations from this report do not impact greenhouse gas emissions or impact climate change adaptation. Link to Strategic Plan Aurora Town Square supports the following Strategic Plan goals and key objectives: Supporting an exceptional quality of life for all in its accomplishment in satisfying requirements in the following key objectives within these goal statements: Invest in sustainable infrastructure Celebrating and promoting our culture Encourage an active and healthy lifestyle Strengthening the fabric of our community Enabling a diverse, creative, and resilient economy in its accomplishment in satisfying requirements in the following key objectives within these goal statements: Promoting economic opportunities that facilitate the growth of Aurora as a desirable place to do business Alternative(s) to the Recommendation 1. Council may provide further direction. Conclusions This report recommends the approval of the ATS Space Usage and Room Permitting Policy. Staff will continue to provide Council with regular progress updates regarding the ongoing implementation of the Hybrid Governance Model. Attachments Aurora Town Square Space Usage and Room Permitting Policy Page 24 of 185 April 5, 2022 6 of 6 Report No. CMS22-019 Previous Reports CMS20-008, Library Square – Governance Review, March 3, 2020 CMS20-012, Library Square – Governance Review, June 16, 2020 CMS20-026, Library Square – Governance Review, November 3, 2020 CMS21-022, Library Square Governance Update, June 15, 2021 CMS21-029, Aurora Town Square Governance Update, September 21, 2021 CMS22-013, Aurora Town Square Status Update – Space Usage and Room Permitting Policy, March 1, 2022 Pre-submission Review Agenda Management Team review on March 17, 2022 Approvals Approved by Robin McDougall, Director, Community Services Department Approved by Doug Nadorozny, Chief Administrative Officer Page 25 of 185 100 John West Way Aurora, Ontario L4G 6J1 (905) 727-3123 aurora.ca Town of Aurora Aurora Town Square Space Usage and Permitting Policy Community Services Department Attachment 1 – CMS22-019 Contact: Manager of Aurora Town Square Approval Authority: Council Effective: ______________________________________________________________________________________ Background Aurora Town Square (ATS) is an investment in sustainable infrastructure that supports an exceptional quality of life by celebrating and promoting our culture, encouraging an active and healthy lifestyle, strengthening the fabric of our community, and promoting economic opportunities that facilitate the growth of Aurora as a desirable place to do business. This Policy provides transparency and structure for user groups and individuals pertaining to the fair allotment and use of interior and exterior space at ATS. Objectives • Ensure consistency in the programming and ongoing use of space at ATS • Ensure that the highest quality facility is maintained and available for all permitted user groups • Provide a framework and consistent approach to the ongoing use of space at ATS in a fair and equitable manner • Ensure that the Town’s investment in ATS is managed in the best interest of all users and the citizens of Aurora • Establish clear guidelines and communication between the Business Support Services Division, the Cultural Services Division, the Facilities Division, other internal stakeholders, and/or the user group contacts • Clearly define the rules of use in maintaining compliance Scope This Policy applies to all facility permit holders and all individuals and/or user groups requesting use of Town owned and/or operated space at ATS, as well as Town staff responsible for the use and/or operation of this facility. Page 26 of 185 Attachment 1 – CMS22-019 Definitions Aurora based: Refers to a group that conducts business from a location in Aurora or demonstrates that the majority (50% or greater) of its members or those served by the group are residents of Aurora. Aurora Museum & Archives: Refers to the artifacts, photographs, textiles, books, documents, and other loaned or owned material culture that is cared for by the Community Services Department of the Town of Aurora. Aurora Town Square: Refers to the municipally owned facility located on Church Street, between Yonge Street and Victoria Street, that includes an outdoor public square, a performance hall, a variety of programming spaces, archival and museum collection space, a café, an enclosed pedestrian bridge, reading garden, and meeting space adjoining the Aurora Public Library. Cultural Partners: Refers to the nine (9) local and regional cultural organizations, as approved by Council, that assists the Town with implementation of cultural planning initiatives and receives either in-kind or financial support from the Town, including the following: Aurora Cultural Centre, Aurora Farmers’ Market, Aurora Historical Society, Aurora Public Library, Aurora Seniors Centre, Aurora Sports Hall of Fame, Pine Tree Potters’ Guild, Society of York Region Artists, and Theatre Aurora. Director: Refers to the Director of Community Services or their designate or successor. Facility: Refers to any Town owned and/or operated permittable space. Not-for-profit: Refers to any incorporated not-for-profit organization or registered charitable organization. Proof of status may be required at the discretion of the Director. Normal operating hours: Refers to the hours in which the facility is usually staffed and available for permitting. This may not coincide with normal business hours for Town operations within the facility. Permit holder: Refers to the organization, group, or individual to which a facility rental permit has been issued, including all participants, volunteers, guests and invitees of the permit holder and their participants, volunteers, guests, and invitees. Representative organization: Refers to an organization that does not meet the criteria required to be deemed “Aurora Based” but is the only organization that offers a particular program to Aurora residents. Page 27 of 185 Attachment 1 – CMS22-019 Town: Refers to the Town of Aurora, including Council, Committees of Council and Town departments, unless otherwise specified. York Region based: Refers to a group that conducts business from a location in York Region and provides a service for residents of Aurora. Policy That the Policy be followed when determining how to allocate interior and exterior space at ATS. Responsibilities Management The Manager of Aurora Town Square is responsible for reviewing and recommending updates to the Policy as required from time to time. The Manager of Business Support Services is responsible for supervising the staff that process facility permits and communicate with staff, individuals and user groups regarding use of space and related equipment at ATS. The Manager of Facilities is responsible for ensuring individuals and user groups receive all facility-related support as stipulated in facility permits. The Manager of IT is responsible for ensuring individuals and user groups receive all IT- related support as stipulated in facility permits. Executive Leadership The Director of Community Services is responsible for consider any exceptions to the Policy as it relates to submission deadlines, grandfathering, allocation priority, conflicting requests, waiving of fees, cancellation notices, and facility use regulations. Specific Department(s) The Business Support Services Division of the Community Services Department is responsible for processing facility permits for space and related equipment at ATS in accordance with the Policy. Grandfathering The actual number of hours allocated to each client is reviewed annually. Before any expansion of programming is considered, please consult with the Facility Booking Administrator. Page 28 of 185 Attachment 1 – CMS22-019 All seasonal permit holders with grandfathering rights will maintain their existing times on an annual basis, until such time as the permit holder surrenders that time. The following allocation apply only to new requests, time surrendered by an existing permit holder, or if new space is made available. Exceptions may be made at the mutual agreement of an existing permit holder and the Director for the release of permitted time on a one-time basis to accommodate the needs of another organization or for space re-allocated at the discretion of the Director. Grandfathering provisions only apply to permits issued to the following groups: • Town of Aurora • Aurora Cultural Centre • Aurora Public Library • Cultural Partners, as defined in this Policy • Aurora based groups, as defined in this Policy • Representative groups, as defined in this Policy Allocation Priority All annual, seasonal, and new requests not subject to the grandfathering provisions shall be subject to the following allocation priority. In all other cases, permits will be issued on a first-come-first-serve basis with the established priority ranking applied when deemed necessary by the Director. Space will be allocated in the following priority order: • Town of Aurora (including Aurora Museum & Archives) • Aurora Cultural Centre (ACC) and Aurora Public Library (APL) • Cultural Partners as defined in this Policy • Aurora-based non-for-profit groups • District School Boards • Aurora-based commercial groups/individuals • Other groups and individuals In the event of conflicting requests between the ACC and APL, first priority will be given to the ACC for space at 22 Church Street, including the addition to the heritage schoolhouse, and first priority will be given to the APL for space near or adjacent to the Library. Additional conflicting requests within the same allocation priority group, or not otherwise clearly resolved by this Policy, shall be resolved at the sole discretion of the Director. Page 29 of 185 Attachment 1 – CMS22-019 Town Authority The Town reserves the right to cancel or alter permits, including waiving grandfathering rights, at the discretion of the Director, where it is deemed in the best interest of the Town. Monitoring and Compliance To ensure its effectiveness, this Policy will be reviewed two (2) years after the initial approval date. The Manager of Aurora Town Square is responsible for reviewing and recommending updates to the Policy as required from time to time. References/Codes Other regulations, policies, and procedures applicable to facility permits, include but are not limited to: • Fees and Charges By-law • Municipal Alcohol Policy • Third Party Events in Outdoor Town Facilities Policy • Health Protection and Promotion Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.7 • Liquor Licence Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. L.19 • Liquor Control Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. L.18 • Gaming Control Act, S.O. 1992, c. 24 • Council Chambers and Holland Room Use Policy • Smoke-Free Ontario Act, S.O. 1994, c. 10 • Noise By-law • Room/Hall Allocation Policy • Fees and Charges By-law • Municipal Alcohol Policy • Third Party Events in Outdoor Town Facilities Policy Page 30 of 185 100 John West Way Aurora, Ontario L4G 6J1 (905) 727-3123 aurora.ca Town of Aurora General Committee Report No. PDS2 2 -0 13 Subject: Report to Designate 26, 32, and 34-38 Berczy Street under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act Prepared by: Brashanthe Manoharan, Planner/Heritage Planning Department: Planning and Development Services Date: April 5, 2022 Recommendation 1. That Report No. PDS22-013 be received; 2. That Council consider Heritage Advisory Committee’s comments to designate 26, 32, and 34-38 Berczy Street under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act as properties of Cultural Heritage Value or Interest. Executive Summary This report seeks to provide Council with the necessary information to designate 26, 32, 34-38 Berczy Street as properties of Cultural Heritage Value or Interest under Section 29(IV) of the Ontario Heritage Act. The Heritage Advisory Committee’s Working Group and the Heritage Advisory Committee is of the opinion that 34-38 Berczy Street is of significant heritage value and is worthy of designation under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act. The Heritage Advisory Committee is of the opinion that 26 and 32 Berczy Street add contextual value to the history of surrounding properties and is worthy of designation under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act. Page 31 of 185 April 5, 2022 2 of 13 Report No. PDS22-013 Background Property Description 26, 32 & 34-38 Berczy Street are located on the west side of Berczy Street, south of Wellington Street East and east of Yonge Street (see Attachment 1). Surrounding uses include manufacturing to the south, low-rise residential to the west, the GO Transit Station to the east and offices to the north. 26 Berczy Street contains a 1 ½ storey detached dwellings constructed 1865. The building can be described as a Gothic Revival Cottage style building characterized by pitched roof and centre gable with windows. The building exterior is clad with modern siding and the basement level is covered with stone veneer. There is a verandah on the east elevation which has been enclosed. The south elevation features a brick chimney and a single-storey addition with a small sliding window. Roof cladding on the building is comprised of contemporary asphalt shingles. 32 Berczy Street contains a two-storey detached dwelling constructed circa 1865. The building exhibits elements of a vernacular Georgian House characterized by gable roof and proportion based on classical architecture. The building exterior is clad with stucco. The window openings are horizontal in orientation instead of vertical in a traditional style. The window frames, gutters and flashings are considered contemporary in style. Roof cladding is comprised of contemporary asphalt shingles. There is a porch added to the front of the building in the 1950s. 34 Berczy Street contains a two-storey building which was formerly part of the Sisman Shoe Factory. The original brick building underwent an extensive renovation and was converted from a single-use industrial factory to a multi-unit building. The building exterior is now clad with stucco. The building is rectangular in shape with a flat roof. The main entrance is located on the east facing wall with three vertical bay windows. Three more entrances into various offices are located at the south elevation. The fenestration is articulated at all elevation with two rows of arched windows. The west half of the north elevation has a simple top cornice with dentils. 38 Berczy Street contains a single storey office building constructed circa 1954, and was also formerly part of the Sisman Shoe Factory complex. The building is rectangular in shape with a flat roof. The east elevation contains the front main entrance and two large square windows at the sides. Two additional entrances are located at the south elevation facing the parking lot. The building features several rectangular windows with horizontal strip. The south and north elevations are divided four pilasters. Page 32 of 185 April 5, 2022 3 of 13 Report No. PDS22-013 History of 26, 32, and 34-38 Berczy Street 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. In 1901, The “Underhill & Sisman Shoe Manufacturing Company” moved to Aurora from Markham, 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. By March of 1902, the plant employed nearly 100 and produced 600 pairs of shoes daily (Aurora Banner, 21 March 1902). In 1903, an addition was erected to its south to accommodate a broiler house. In 1910, the Underhill-Sisman partnership dissolved and “Underhill Ltd.” continued its operation at 36 Berczy Street, 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. 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 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). 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 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 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. Factory No. 2 at 34 Berczy Street remained vacant for several years until it was purchased by the Newell family who undertook extensive interior and exterior Page 33 of 185 April 5, 2022 4 of 13 Report No. PDS22-013 renovations to the building. Further renovations were completed to the buildings at 34 and Berczy Street in 2002 to accommodate new offices. The buildings are currently being used as an Autism Service Centre. The two buildings at the present day have a uniform cream stucco finish. 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 8-storey mixed use building on the properties municipally known as 26, 30, 32, 34-38 Berczy Street. 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) proposing to demolish the existing buildings to accommodate the development of an eight (8) storey mixed use development. The application was under review by the Town and subsequently appealed to the Ontario Land Tribunal on November 25, 2021. During the meeting, HAC expressed concerns about the heritage evaluation process and several references in the staff report. The Committee provided historical background on the T. Sisman Shoe Company, noting that much of the historical value was missing from the report. The Committee further 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 discussed Page 34 of 185 April 5, 2022 5 of 13 Report No. PDS22-013 the merits of a heritage designation and sought clarification regarding the accuracy of the site history of 34-38 Berczy Street as noted in the heritage impact assessment prepared by ERA Architects. The Committee expressed support for the designation of the 26, 32, and 34-38 Berczy Street properties. Ontario Heritage Act 26, 32, and 34-38 Berczy Street are non-designated properties 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. Evaluation of Heritage Resources in the Town of Aurora The evaluation and scoring of heritage properties through an established rating system can be a useful tool to help municipalities to prioritize efforts to preserve heritage resources and determine their relative value. The Heritage Evaluation Working Group is a sub-committee of the Heritage Advisory Committee that assists in the evaluation of listed (non-designated) properties. The evaluation of a property was formerly based on the Town’s Heritage Evaluation Guidelines, which focuses on design/architectural value, associated/historical value, and contextual value. It should be noted that the designation or demolition of a building should not be based solely on the results of this rating and classification exercise. There may be exceptions, for example where a building may possess one specific historical attribute of great significance, but otherwise receives a low rating. The evaluation system is an objective method of assessing heritage resources based upon a standard set of criteria. While the evaluation criteria and classification system will provide a valid guideline for both staff and Council, the Town should retain the option to make exceptions when necessary. Depending on the score, properties would be categorized under the one of the following groups to determine its priority for designation: Page 35 of 185 April 5, 2022 6 of 13 Report No. PDS22-013 Group 1: Those buildings of major significance and importance to the Town and worthy of designation under the Ontario Heritage Act. Group 2: Those buildings of heritage significance and worthy of preservation. Group 3: Those buildings considered to be of moderate significance and worthy of documentation or preservation if of a particular contextual value (e.g. part of a heritage streetscape). Heritage Register Review Project The Town is currently working with a Heritage Consultant to undertake a comprehensive review of the Heritage Register. The review focuses on assessing the heritage value of the properties currently listed on the Register in order for the Town better prioritize its conservation efforts and preservation programs. The findings of the study will result in the properties being recommended for designation, delisting, or continuing to be listed on the Register. It is the Consultant’s assessment that 34-38 Berczy Street remain on the Register as it does meet one criterion under Ontario Regulation 9/06. However, they are of the opinion that designation under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act would not be appropriate, and that commemorating the site through robust documentation and interpretation would be the better approach. The Steering Committee is of the opinion that 34-38 Berczy Street should be designated under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act. Provincial Policy Statement (2020) The Provincial Policy Statement (PPS) provides policy direction on matters of provincial interest. The PPS identifies that significant built heritage resources and significant cultural heritage landscapes shall be conserved. Built heritage resource is defined in the PPS as a building, structure, monument, installation or any manufactured remnant that contributes to a property’s cultural heritage value or interest as identified by a community; and they are generally located on a property that has been designated under Part IV or V of the Ontario Heritage Act, or included on local, provincial and/or federal registers. York Region and Town of Aurora Official Plans The York Region Official Plan encourages local municipalities to compile and maintain a register of significant cultural heritage resources, in consultation with heritage experts and local heritage committees. It requires local municipalities to conserve significant cultural heritage resources and ensure that development and site alteration of adjacent Page 36 of 185 April 5, 2022 7 of 13 Report No. PDS22-013 lands to protected heritage properties will conserve the attributes of the protected heritage property. The Town’s Official Plan states that all significant heritage resources shall be designated as being of cultural heritage value or interest in accordance with the Ontario Heritage Act to ensure effective protection and their continuing maintenance, conservation and restoration. Analysis The Heritage Advisory Committee’s Working Group performed an evaluation of 26 & 32 Berczy Street and concludes that the properties are not worthy of heritage designation but may be worthy of preservation. On March 5th, 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 Berczy Street scored 58.6/100 and 32 Berczy Street scored 42.6/100, which places the property in Group 2, suggesting the following: The designation of the building pursuant to the Ontario Heritage Act will be encouraged. The retention of the structure in its existing location is encouraged. Any development application affecting such a structure should incorporate the identified building. Appropriate alternative uses for the building will be encouraged when necessary to ensure its preservation. A Letter of Credit may be required to ensure the protection and preservation of the building in connection with a redevelopment application. Following the discussions at the February 7, 2022 HAC meeting, Committee members advised that designating the properties would be appropriate. The Committee suggested that the properties be designated under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act as they are of historical significance and add contextual value to the history of surrounding properties. The Heritage Advisory Committee’s Working Group performed an evaluation of the property and concludes that 34-38 Berczy Street is worthy of heritage designation, following discussions on June 7, 2021 and February 7, 2022 Heritage Advisory Committee meetings. Page 37 of 185 April 5, 2022 8 of 13 Report No. PDS22-013 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. 38 Berczy Street scored 53.8/100, which places the building in Group 2, suggesting that the building may be worthy of designation. The buildings on the property have been significantly altered over the years and converted into commercial buildings. The alterations include but not limited to the removal of the tall chimney stack and the broiler room connection between the two buildings and the loss of original stone and brick construction that have been covered with cream-coloured stucco. The fulsome extent of the alterations are discussed further in the report. Although the architectural integrity may have been compromised over the years, HAC is of the opinion that 34-38 Berczy Street are 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. The Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA), which has been peer reviewed by a third-party consultant, suggests that 26, 32, and 34-38 Berczy Street will be better served through robust documentation and commemorative measures. The applicant submitted a HIA for the subject properties (see Attachment 2). In September 2020, Stevens Burgess Architects Ltd.(SBA) was contacted by the Town of Aurora to conduct an independent review of the HIA for 26, 32, and 34-38 Berczy Street. Below is a summary of the findings of the evaluation of subject properties: 26 Berczy Street: The building exhibits basic elements of the Gothic Revival Cottage architectural style such as a one and a half storey massing and a single gable above the front entrance in the centre of the building. However, the building does not present any decorative elements such as ornamentation and bargeboard which give Gothic Revival building the trademark “gingerbread” appearance. The gutters and flashing are all contemporary in style. The prominent verandah had also been entirely enclosed which completely changed the architectural character of the façade. While the building displays the Gothic Revival Cottage style, there are many better examples in Aurora that possess greater heritage and architectural integrity. Page 38 of 185 April 5, 2022 9 of 13 Report No. PDS22-013 32 Berczy Street: The building had also been subject to extensive renovations. The two original chimneys on the two sides of the building had been removed. The original rectangular window including its fenestration above the front entrance is no longer present. The other remaining windows have been converted from traditional double hung windows to sliding windows with a reduced sized opening. The original clapboard siding on the exterior of the walls have been replaced by stucco. The shingles have been replaced by contemporary materials. Due to the modifications to the building, the property has lost its ability to present or support its cultural heritage value or interest. As per the above, both properties have little potential to yield information that contribute to the understanding of the history and culture of the community. The HIA prepared by ERA Architects, which has been peer-reviewed by SBA concludes that 26 and 32 Berczy Street do not have sufficient merits to warrant heritage designation under the Ontario Heritage Act. Further, it is SBA’s recommendation that the properties be delisted, as discussed further in this report. The peer review identified some discrepancies within the applicant’s methodology and assessment of the properties while acknowledging the recommendations within the HIA. Notwithstanding 32 Berczy Street, SBA disagrees with the HIA, that none of the properties meet criteria under O.Reg 9/06, as they do meet at least one criterion. Based on the information included in the HIA, it is SBA’s assessment that at a minimum, the following properties would meet at least one criteria under O.Reg 9/06: 26 Berczy Street (One and a half storey – Ontario Cottage Style): o The property has design value or physical value because it is a rare, unique, representative or early example of a style, type, expression, material or construction method. 32 Berczy Street (Two-storey): o No recognizable heritage style. Would not meet any of the criteria. 34-38 Berczy Street (Sisman Shoe Factory): o The property has historical value or association because it has a direct association with a theme, event, belief, person, activity, organization or institution that is significant to the community. It is SBA’s assessment that 26 Berczy Street is a representative example of the Ontario Cottage style, however there are many better examples that possess greater heritage integrity within Aurora. Page 39 of 185 April 5, 2022 10 of 13 Report No. PDS22-013 In regards to 34-38 Berczy Street, although the property has historical value because of its direct association with Sisman Shoe Factory, the heritage integrity is such that it may not be worthy of designation. At one time, the tall chimney stack and the broiler room were important attributes that truly signalled the industrial character of the Sisman Shoe Factory complex. However, these attributes were completely demolished, possibly during the renovation in the 1980s. Further, the original stone and brick construction have been covered with cream-coloured stucco which have a significant impact on its character. The two buildings currently have very limited visual references to the Sisman Shoe Factory complex. Today, the buildings resemble something more akin to a multi- unit commercial building. The industrialist nature of the site also suffers from the loss of the principal production facility (Factory No.1) historically located at 103 Mosley Street. Coupled with the demolition of Thomas Sisman’s residence at the northwest corner of Mosley and Berczy, the integrity of the factory complex had significantly diminished. The remaining components, with varying modifications, do not have sufficient context to communicate the cultural heritage value of the Sisman Shoe Factory. SBA recommends that the properties be delisted and that the historical value may be better served through detailed Site and Building Documentation Report, a fulsome Historical Report, and a detailed Commemorative Plan. Alternatives to designating 26, 32, and 34-38 Berczy Street under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act. A Part IV designation under the Ontario Heritage Act will produce a designation by-law which is a mechanism to protect and conserve physical attributes of a property. The buildings at 34-38 Berczy Street have been significantly altered and converted over the years, as noted in the previous section. Robust documentation and commemorative measures (i.e., interpretive plaques, public art, etc.) of 34-38 Berczy Street may serve as a more effective approach to celebrate the notable contributions of the Sisman Shoe Factory to Aurora’s history. Should Council delist 26, 32, and 34-38 Berczy Street, it may be conditional upon the submission of the below: A detailed Site and Building Documentation Report for 34-38 Berczy Street to the satisfaction of the Heritage Advisory Committee and Town Staff; A fulsome historical report for the entire Sisman properties both north and south of Mosley Street inclusive of ample primary research; A detailed Commemorative Plan to the satisfaction of Town Staff. The plan shall be incorporated within the subject lands and financed by the owner. Page 40 of 185 April 5, 2022 11 of 13 Report No. PDS22-013 Advisory Committee Review At its meetings on June 7, 2021 and February 7, 2022, the Heritage Advisory Committee expressed that 26, 32, and 34-38 Berczy Street be designated under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act. The Committee discussed the merits of a heritage designation and sought clarification regarding the accuracy of the site history of 34-38 Berczy Street noted in the Heritage Impact Assessment. The Committee suggested that further details, including corrections where necessary, regarding the origin and history of the Sisman Shoe factory, the built years of subject properties, ownership chronology, and contribution of various owners be included in future reports. Legal Considerations Should Council decide to proceed with the designation of 26, 32, 34-38 Berczy Street, a notice of intention to designate (the “Notice”) will be served on the property owner and Ontario Heritage Trust (the “Trust”), and published in the local newspaper. Once the Town issues the Notice, the property is protected under the Ontario Heritage Act as designated. Any person may object to the Notice within 30 days of its publication. If there are no objections within the 30-day period, 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. If there are objections, any person that objects to the proposed designation shall, within 30 days of the publication of the Notice, serve a notice of objection setting out the reason(s) for the objection and all relevant facts. Council 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. 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. Anyone may appeal the passing of the designating by-law to the Ontario Land Tribunal for a hearing. Page 41 of 185 April 5, 2022 12 of 13 Report No. PDS22-013 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 The Town will use ‘Inform’ as the level of engagement for this application. There are five different levels of community engagement to consider, with each level providing the community more involvement in the decision-making process. These levels are: Inform, Consult, Involve, Collaborate and Empower. Examples of each can be found in the Community Engagement Policy. These options are based on the International Association of Public Participation (IAP2) Spectrum and assist in establishing guidelines for clearly communicating with our public and managing community engagement. In order to inform the public, this report will be posted to the Town’s website. 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 remove 26, 32, and 34-38 Berczy Street from the Aurora Register of Properties of Cultural Value or Interest conditional upon the submission of a detailed Site and Building Documentation report of 34-38 Berczy Street, a fulsome Historical Report inclusive of properties both north and south of Mosley Street, and a detailed Commemorative Plan. Page 42 of 185 April 5, 2022 13 of 13 Report No. PDS22-013 Conclusions Following discussions from the June ,7, 2021 and February 7, 2022 Heritage Advisory Committee meetings, HAC is of the opinion that 26, 32, and 34-38 Berczy Street are of significant historical and contextual value and is worthy of designation under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act. Attachments Attachment 1 – Location Map Attachment 2 – 34-38 Berczy Street Heritage Score Attachment 3 - 26 & 32 Berczy Street Heritage Score Attachment 4 – Heritage Impact Assessment (submitted by applicant) Attachment 5 – Peer Review of Applicant’s HIA Previous Reports 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 Heritage Memorandum – Request to Remove 26, 32 and 34-38 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 March 17, 2022 Approvals Approved by Marco Ramunno, Director, Planning and Development Services Approved by Doug Nadorozny, Chief Administrative Officer Page 43 of 185 Walton DriveWellington Street East Mosley Street Berczy StreetLarmont StreetI n d ustrial Parkway South Wellington Street East Railway / GO Transit LineLOCATION MAP Map created by the Town of Aurora Corporate Services Department, 1/12/2022. B ase data provided by York Region & the Town of Aurora. Air Photos taken Spring 2021, © First Base Solutions Inc., 2021 Orthophotography. ¯ St John's Sdrd Wellington St E Vandorf SdrdHenderson Drive ^Wellington St W UV404 UV404Leslie StYonge StBathurst StBayview AveBloomington Rd 0 40 80 Metres34-38 BERCZY STREET SUBJECT LANDS Document Path: J:\data\data\Other Various Projects\Maps for Planning & Development\Maps For Brashanthe Manoharan\34-38 Berczy Street\Location_Map_34_38_Berczy_St.mxd Page 44 of 185 Municipal Address: _______________________________________________ Legal Description: _____________________ Lot: ______ Cons: _______ Group: Name of Recorder: _____________ HISTORICAL E G F P TOTAL Date of Construction 30 20 10 0 /30 Trends/Patterns/Themes 40 27 14 0 /40 Events 15 10 5 0 /15 Persons/Groups 15 10 5 0 /15 Archaeological (Bonus) 10 7 3 0 /10 Historic Grouping (Bonus) 10 7 3 0 /10 Construction Date (Bonus) 10 /10 HISTORICAL TOTAL /100 ARCHITECTURAL E G F P TOTAL Design 20 13 7 0 /20 Style 30 20 10 0 /30 Architectural Integrity 20 13 7 0 /20 Physical Condition 20 13 7 0 /20 Design/Builder 10 7 3 0 /10 Interior (Bonus) 10 7 3 0 /10 ARCHITECTURAL TOTAL /100 ENVIRONMENTAL/CONTEXTUAL TOTAL Design Compatibility 40 27 14 0 /40 Community Context 20 13 7 0 /20 Landmark 20 13 7 0 /20 Site 20 13 7 0 /20 ENVIRONMENTAL/CONTEXTUAL TOTAL /100 SCORE INDIVIDUAL OLD AURORA Historical Score X 40% = _______ X 20% = _______ Architectural Score X 40% = _______ X 35% = _______ Enviro/Contextual Score X 20% = _______ X 45% = _______ TOTAL SCORE HERITAGE BUILDING EVALUATION: SCORESHEET GROUP 1 = 70-100 GROUP 2 = 45-69 GROUP 3 = 44 or less 34 Berczy Street (Sisman Shoe Factory) Date of Evaluation: March 5, 2020 Carlson Tsang 25 98 8.5 74.5 80 39.2 29.8 16 85 1 Attachment 2 Page 45 of 185 Page 46 of 185 Attachment 3 Page 47 of 185 Page 48 of 185 HERITAGE ImpAc T AssEssmEnT Issued: AprIl 15, 2021 26-38 Berczy street Town of Aurora Attachment 4 Page 49 of 185 PREPARED FOR:PREPARED BY: ii HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT | 26-38 BERCZY STREET, AURORA er A 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 50 of 185 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 HerITAGe pOlICY 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 51 of 185 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. Ex Ecutiv E Summary Project Background This Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA) was prepared by erA Architects Inc. (“er A”) 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 52 of 185 1Issued: AprIl 15, 2021 1 introduction 1.1 scope of the report er A Architects Inc. (“er A”) 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 53 of 185 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 ST WELLINGT O N S T E LARMONT ST 26 30 32 34 38 Page 54 of 185 3Issued: AprIl 15, 2021 26 Berczy st (c. 1865) (erA, 2021)30 Berczy st (c.1950) (er A, 2021) 34 Berczy st (c.1901) (erA, 2021) 38 Berczy st (c.1954) (erA, 2021) 32 Berczy st (c.1856) (er A, 2021) 34-38 Berczy st (er A, 2021) 1.7 site photos Page 55 of 185 4 HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT | 26-38 BERCZY STREET, AURORA looking south on Berczy street towards Mosley street. pictured is 26 Berczy st (right) (er A, 2021) looking east on Berczy street towards Wellington street east. pictured is 38 Berczy street (left) and 34 Berczy street (right) (er A, 2021) Page 56 of 185 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 57 of 185 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 er A).MOSLEY STBERCZ Y S T WELLIN G T O N S T LAR M O N T S T AURORA GO STATION Page 58 of 185 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 59 of 185 8 HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT | 26-38 BERCZY STREET, AURORA 1.6 e xisting 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 confirmed at this time as various archival resources are unavailable due to COVID-19). Page 60 of 185 9Issued: AprIl 15, 2021 Google earth 2020, Annotated by er A.leGeNd site listed property on the site 26 32 34 38 29 31 33 35 41 45 105 99 98 25 Page 61 of 185 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- erwise defined in the municipal official plan (Provincial Policy Statement, 2020). Note: the PPS definition above is used in the absence of an alternative definition from the Aurora Official Plan. The only definition provided for “adja- cent” in the Aurora Official Plan is not 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- pact on the feature. Generally, adjacent lands are considered to be within 120m from any part of the feature (Aurora Of- ficial Plan, 2010). Page 62 of 185 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 er A. 26 32 34 38 29 31 33 35 41 45 10599 98 25 121 Page 63 of 185 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 (er A, 2021) 29 (left) and 31 (right) larmont street (er A, 2021) 99 Wellington street east (erA, 2021)105 Wellington street east (er A, 2021) 35 larmont street (er A, 2021) Page 64 of 185 13Issued: AprIl 15, 2021 121 Wellington street east (er A, 2021) 103 Mosley street (er A, 2021) 121 Wellington street east (er A, 2021)121 Wellington street east (erA, 2021) 103 Mosley street (er A, 2021) Page 65 of 185 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 er A). 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 er A). 2.1 pre-Contact & Colonial Context 2 HiS torical Background Page 66 of 185 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 67 of 185 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 er A). 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 er A). 1878 County Atlas. The location of the site is indicated with a blue arrow (McIntyre, 1988; annotated by er A). Page 68 of 185 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 er A). Page 69 of 185 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 er A). 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 70 of 185 13Issued: AprIl 15, 2021 diagram illustrating the evolution of the T. sisman shoe Company complex on the site (Google, 2021; Annotated by er A). No. 3 1940-1 Mosley St 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 St A No. 1 c.1913 No. 4 c.1954 No. 2 c.1901 Page 71 of 185 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 72 of 185 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 er A). Page 73 of 185 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 er A). 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 74 of 185 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 75 of 185 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 identified by a community, including an 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 otherwise defined in the municipal official 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. significant views or vistas to or from a protected heritage property). (PPS 2020). Page 76 of 185 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 be identified and inventoried by official sources, the significance of others can only be determined after evaluation (Greenbelt 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 foster a sense of place and benefit communities, particularly in strategic growth areas. 2. Municipalities will work with stakeholders, as well as First Nations and Métis communities, in developing and implementing official plan policies and strategies for the identification, wise use and management of cultural heritage 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 one or more significant buildings, structures, monuments, installations or remains associated with architectural, cultural, social, political, economic or military history and identified as being important to a community (Aurora Official Plan, 2015). Page 77 of 185 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 involving or adjacent to heritage resources to ensure that 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 heritage significance shall be exhausted before resorting 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 78 of 185 21Issued: AprIl 15, 2021 t ttttttttttttttttttttttttt tttttt tt ttt ttttt ttttttttttttt tttttt t t ttttt tttt ttt t tttt tttttt ttttt t tttttttttt tttt t tttttttt ttt tttt t ttt ttt ttt ttttttt t t t t t t t t t t ttttttttttttttt ttttttttt tttttttttttt t t t t t tttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttt tttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttt tt tttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttt t ttttttt t t t ttttttt ttttttttttttttttttttttttttttt TOWNSHIP OF KINGRailway/GO Transit LineTOWN OF WHITCHURCH-STOUFFVILLETOWN OF NEWMARKET Railway/GO Transit LineCanadianNationalRailwayHydro CorridorHydro Corr idor TOWN OF RICHMOND HILL ST. JOHN'S SIDEROAD ST. JOHN'S SIDEROAD WELLINGTON STREET WEST WELLINGTON STREET EAST HENDERSON DRIVE VANDORF SIDEROAD BLOOMINGTON ROAD BLOOMINGTON ROADBATHURST STREETBATHURST STREETYONGE STREETYONGE STREETBAYVIEW AVENUEBAYVIEW AVENUELESLIE STREETLESLIE STREET404 404 404 AURORA OFFICIAL PLAN THIS SCHEDULE IS A CONSOLIDATION AND IS PREPARED FOR CONVENIENCE ONLY. FOR ACCURATE REFERENCES, THE ORIGINAL OPA SCHEDULES SHOULD BE CONSULTED. COPIES OF THE ORIGINALS ARE AVAILABLE IN THE CORPORATE & FINANCIAL SERVICES OR PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENTS. SCHEDULE 'D'HERITAGE RESOURCEAREAS ´0 0.75 1.5 Kilometres CREATED: 09/28/2011 APPROVED BY: JK UPDATED: 11/26/2014 UPDATED BY: ML DRAWN BY: CF & JS FILE NAME: Schedule_D_Heritage_Resource_Areas.mxd 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 schedule d of the Town of Aurora’s Official plan. The site identified by blue arrow (2010; annotated by er A). tttttt tttttttttttttttttt tt ttttttttttt ttttt ttttttttttttt tttttt t t ttttt tttt ttt t tttt tttttt ttttt t tttttttttt tttt t tttttttt ttt tttt t ttt ttt ttt ttttttt t t t t t t t t t t ttttttttttttttt ttttttttt tttttttttttt t t t t t ttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttt ttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttt tt tttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttt t ttttttt t t t ttt tttt ttt t t t t t t t t t t t ttttt t t tttttttt TOWNSHIP OF KINGRailway/GO Transit LineTOWN OF WHITCHURCH-STOUFFVILLETOWN OF NEWMARKET Railway/GO Transit LineCanadianNationalRailwayHydro CorridorHydro Corr idor TOWN OF RICHMOND HILL ST. JOHN'S SIDEROAD ST. JOHN'S SIDEROAD WELLINGTON STREET WEST WELLINGTON STREET EAST HENDERSON DRIVE VANDORF SIDEROAD BLOOMINGTON ROAD BLOOMINGTON ROADBATHURST STREETBATHURST STREETYONGE STREETYONGE STREETBAYVIEW AVENUEBAYVIEW AVENUELESLIE STREETLESLIE STREET404 404 404 AURORA OFFICIAL PLAN THIS SCHEDULE IS A CONSOLIDATION AND IS PREPARED FOR CONVENIENCE ONLY. FOR ACCURATE REFERENCES, THE ORIGINAL OPA SCHEDULES SHOULD BE CONSULTED. COPIES OF THE ORIGINALS ARE AVAILABLE IN THE CORPORATE& FINANCIAL SERVICES OR PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENTS. SCHEDULE 'D'HERITAGE RESOURCEAREAS ´0 0.75 1.5 Kilometres CREATED: 09/28/2011 APPROVED BY: JK UPDATED: 11/26/2014 UPDATED BY: ML DRAWN BY: CF & JS FILE NAME: Schedule_D_Heritage_Resource_Areas.mxd 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 environments, in entryways, heritage areas, in and adjacent 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 79 of 185 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 adjacent to an identified, listed or designated heritage property or identified landmark building should have a design that is sensitive and complementary. • Where a building is being designed to reflect a historic 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, material and massing of adjacent heritage significant buildings. • Setbacks of new buildings will be permitted in certain conditions where such placement will enhance the prominence of the adjacent heritage building, and provide an opportunity to create a benefit to a business (for example, a restaurant seating area). OLD TOWN SOUTH YONGE STREET PROMENADE WELLINGTON STREET PROMENADE YONGE STREET PROMENADE St Andrew’s Shopping Centre Wellington Street Village Cultural Precinct Historic Downtown Aurora GO Station Memorial Peace Park Aurora GO Station Aurora Leisure Complex Church Street School Our Lady of Grace Church Library Aurora Community Centre St. Andrew’s College Fire Station Armoury FamilyLeisure Complex AuroraTown Hall Trinity Church United Church Saint-Jean C.S. Saint Maximilian Kolbe C.S. Lester B. Pear - son P.S. Well’sStreetP.S. Dr. G.W. Williams Secondary School cy Acres St. Joseph C.S.George Street P.S. Aurora Heights P.S.McMahon Park Valhalla Park Craddock Park Craddock Park Machell Park Fleury Park Sandusky ParkHerb Mck - enzie Park Aurora War Memorial Peace Park Town Park Jack Wood ParkHighland Field Alliance Forest Lambert Wilson Park Sheppard’s Bush Conservation Area James Lloyd Park Aurora Hig hl a n d s G ol f & C o u n t r y Cl u b Aurora Hig h l a n d s G ol f & C o u n t r y C l u b YONGE STREETWELLINGT O N S T R E E T W E S T TYLER STR E E T TEMPERANCE STREETCENTRE S T R E E T HENDERS O N D R I V E POPLAR CRES CARUSO G D N S CASEY CRTTHOMPKI NSCRES POPLAR CRES DAVIS R O A DJONES CRTRICHARDSON DRIVE BAI LEY CRESROYAL R D EVELYN BU C K L N EDWARD STKENNEDY S T E MARY STREETI NDUSTRY STBAT S ON DRIV E DUNNIN G A V E N UECRESCENT WILES CRTVICTOR IA STREETSPRUCE STREETCATHERIN E A V E N U E METCALF E S T HARRISO N A V E KENNED Y S T EODIN CRESVA T A C R TPARKLAND COURT RANSOM STJAS PE R D RIVEHURON CRT CHI LD DR IVE A L LAURA BO U LEVARD STODDART DRIVEGURNETT STBOWLER ST ELDON CRESVALHALLA CRTCENTRE S T R E E T JOHN WEST WAYSAN D U SKY CRESCENTROSS STGEORGE STWELLS STREET MUGFORD R D CHURCH S T MAPLE STR EET CONNAU G H T A V E HOLLI DGE BLVD BERCZY STMI LL STREETS CR E SC E N T MOSLEY S T R E E T BANBURY CRTTECUMSEH DRIVEMA RY S TR EET B I RCH CRTWEBSTER RDCAMERON AVECABOT CRTMOSAICS AVEGEORGE STNISBET DRIVECOUSINS D R E PATRIC K DRW OODROOF C R E S FALCONWOOD HOLLOWWELLS STREET DUNH A M CRESENG ELHARD DR I V E IN DUSTRI AL PARKWAY SOUTHEDWARD STDAVI DSON ROADO C H ALSK I RD CORBE TT CRESSPRINGBU R N C R E S COSSAR D RI V E GLENVIEW D RI V E FAIRWAY D RI V E BROOKLAND A VENU E GOLF LI N K S D RI VE DOD IE ST REUBEN S T R A N S O M CR T HAWTHO R NE LA N E H IL L VIEW RO ADHARRIMAN ROADMACHELL AVENUEJASPER DRI VEAURORA HEIGHTS DRIVE S U NRAY PLILLINGWO R T H C R TLAURENTIDE AVENUES DRIVE S T.AND R E W’S COURT CY P R E S S CRT KEYSTONE CR T BATSON D R IV EWALTON DRI VEAVONDALE CRES BURGON P L CLOSS SQ U A R E WALTON DRIVE OA K COURTCOMMUNITY CENTRELANEWATER WELL LNCEDAR CRESCENTSPRUCE STREETFLEURY STREETWELLS LNWALTON DRIVE CENTRE CRES SCANLON C R T I ND U S T R I A L P A R K WA Y N O R T H LARMONT STREETIBER CRT WENDERLY DRIVEEDWARD S T R E E T JARVIS AVENUEMEADOW L ARK LNINDUSTRIAL PARKWA Y S O UTH WOODROO F C R E S H O L L A N D V I E W T R A ILLUXTON AVE JOHN WEST WAY Aurora Promenade Boundary Flood Lines Potential Link / Lanes Deferred Pending Further Review LEGEND Character Area Boundary Key Focus Area Primary Entryway Secondary Entryway The Aurora Promenade Character Areas Public Open Space Private Open Space School/Recreation Mixed Use Areas Residential Areas Character Areas THE AURORA PROMENADE14 The Aurora promenade Character Areas. Blue arrow identifying site ( The Aurora promenade Concept plan urban design strategy 2010, anno- tated by er A). Page 80 of 185 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 heritage and culture of the Aurora Promenade. It defines the heritage resources and provides guidance on methods to conserve, protect and reinforce the neighbourhoods, streetscapes and significant buildings; 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 achieve this, new development must “fit” in and enhance the 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. Masters Row A l l a u ra B lv d KnowlesCresCloss Sq Morland CresCollins Cres Starr Cres Ames CresBuchananCresMoorcrest Dr CedarCresForeht CresC aris brooke C i r Kane CresAlgonquinCresCollis DrPatrick DrEarl StewartDr C ros si n g Bridge PlDavidson RdBoulding DrHolmanCresIvy Ja y C r e s Ivy Jay Cres T i mp s onDr BeaconH allDrB r o o kland Ave Woodroof Cres Tonner Cres Weslock CresDeerhorn C resCandacVal l eyDrC o pla ndTrSteel DrCasemount StFouracr e W a y Harrison Ave Pattemore Gt Somerton Crt Simmons Cre s Kirkvalley CresLong Valley Rd McCle n n yDrCorbettCres Devins Dr Twelve Oaks Dr Fi e l dingDrMarshview Ave Delattaye AveBrooks Ave McDonald Dr Nicklaus Dr Glenview Dr Al mCrtEngelhard Dr Murdock AveHarmon Ave Barr CresValleyCres Cranberry Ln LanewoodDr HarrimanRdTribbling Cres OctoberLnHill Dr Mary St Hodg k i n s o n C r e s JarvisAveDeergl enT err D eerg le n T e rrKerrLnSisman AveHilldaleRdDelayneDr TemperanceStStoddartDrWil l is D r WillisDr IndustryStSpruce StBenvilleCresStone Rd S to n e RdZokolDrTecumse h DrAttridgeDrMurray DrMurrayDr B r u s h GrWalton DrJasperDrSeatonDrMcClellanWayBeaco n HallDrTamarac Tr Corner Ridge Rd Corner Ridge Rd BilbroughStBilbrough St Gilbank Dr SneddenAveBirkshire Dr WindhamTrBrittonTrMillcliffCirBatsonDrBatsonD rMavrinacBlvdHo ll a nd view Tr Ho l l i d g e B l v d JohnWestWayConoverAveConoverAveG o l f L i n k s D r Prim eau Dr PetermannStRaiford St Hillview Rd Steckley St Ostick St Hawthorne Ln BigwinDrH averhill TerrSkiptonTrPerivaleGdns TreeTopsLn AbbottAveEakins Dr Royal Rd D odie St Blaydon Ln Magna DrMill StConnaught Ave Child Dr Milgate Pl UsherwoodStLarmont StIrwin Ave Mugford Rd Mosley St Bowler St Cossar Dr Reuben St Catherine AveBanffDr Kennedy St EGeorgeSt WenderlyDrDunning Ave Maple St Mark St Tim berlin e Tr EdwardStTyler St WellsStCentre St Fairway Dr NisbetDrLensmith DrGundy WayBaycroftLnLuxtonAveHeathwoodHeightsDrMcNallyWay Cousins Dr G l a s sD rMartell Gt Fife Rd Hollingshead Dr Kemano Rd Gilbert Dr I ndust r i al PkwyNLaurentideAveHalldorson Ave Richardson Dr Bridgenorth DrMe a d o w o o dDrGurnettStAurora Heights Dr Cousins Dr EBerczySt McMasterAveT r i l liu m D r HaidaDrMosaicsAveVictoriaStBorealis Ave Mavrinac B lvd O r c h a r d Heights Blvd Hollandview T r River Ridge Blvd Kennedy St W OldYongeStWillow Farm Ln Spring Farm Rd WELLINGTON ST W VANDORF SDRD ST JOHN'S SDRD W WELLINGTON ST E HENDERSON DR BAYVIEW AVEYONGE STVANDORF SDRDYONGE STJohnWestW ayIndustrialPkwyNAurora Heig h t s DrOrchard Heights Blvd OldYongeStBatson DrSpruce StMark St W alto n Dr Devins Dr K e m a n o R d Willow F a rmLnMeadowoodDrOrch a r d H e ig h ts B lv d Ke ma noRd Gilbank Dr Aurora H e i ghts Dr McLeod DrKennedy StW T i m p sonDrCranberry Ln T i mberlineTr Seaton Dr M urray Dr Child DrG l a s s Dr TamaracTr Murray Dr Kennedy St W MurrayDrEdward St Edward StRichardsonDrT a m aracTrIndustrialPkwy S In dustrialPkwySIndustr i a l P k w y S Engelhard DrMary StCentre St MavrinacBlvdYONGE STBAYVIEW AVEST JOHN'S SDRD W WELLINGTON ST EWELLINGTON ST W Holladay DrScrivenerDrMillikenDrDugganStHydro CorridorHydro Corr idor BAYVIEW AVENUES Railway / GO Transit LineRailway / G O Tr a n sit Li n e AURORA OFFICIAL PLANTHE AURORA PROMENADESCHEDULE 'B1'SECONDARY PLAN AREA ´ CREATED: 09/28/2011 APPROVED BY: JK UPDATED: 11/26/2014 UPDATED BY: ML DRAWN BY: CF & JS FILE NAME: Schedule_B1_Secondary_Plan.mxd 0 0.25 0.5 Kilometres THIS SCHEDULE IS A CONSOLIDATION AND IS PREPARED FOR CONVENIENCE ONLY. FOR ACCURATE REFERENCES, THE ORIGINAL OPA SCHEDULES SHOULD BE CONSULTED. COPIES OF THE ORIGINALS ARE AVAILABLE IN THE CORPORATE & FINANCIAL SERVICES OR PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENTS. LEGEND Secondary Plan Boundary Downtown Shoulder Promenade General Promenade Focus Area Special Design Areas Downtown Upper Downtown Promenade General Site Specific Policy Area site identified by blue arrow (Aurora Official plan 2010; annotated by er A). Masters Row A l la u r a B lv d KnowlesCresCloss Sq Morland CresCollins Cres Starr Cres Ames CresBuchananCres Moorcrest Dr CedarCresForeht CresC aris brooke Ci r Kane CresAlgonquinCresCollis DrPatrick DrEarl Stewart Dr C rossi n g BridgePlDavidson RdBoulding DrHolmanCresIvy Ja y C r e s Ivy Jay Cres Ti mp s onDr BeaconH a llDrBrooklan d Ave Woodroof Cres Tonner Cres Weslock CresDeerhornCres CandacVall eyDrCopla ndTrSteel DrCasemount StFouracr e W a y Harrison Ave Pattemore Gt Somerton Crt SimmonsCre s Kirkvalley CresLong Valley Rd McClennyDrCorbettCres Devins Dr Twelve Oaks Dr Fi e l dingDrMarshview Ave Delattaye AveBrooks Ave McDonald Dr Nicklaus Dr GlenviewDr Al mCrtEngelhard Dr MurdockAve HarmonAve Barr CresValleyCres Cranberry Ln LanewoodDr HarrimanRdTribblingCres OctoberLnHillDr Mary St HodgkinsonCres JarvisAveDeergl enT err D eerg le n T e rrKerrLnSisman AveHilldaleRdDelayneDr TemperanceStStoddartDrWil l is D r WillisDr IndustryStSpruce StBenvilleCresStone Rd S to n e RdZokolDrTecumsehDr AttridgeDrMurrayDrMurrayDr B r u s h GrWalton DrJasperDrSeatonDrMcClel lanWayBeaco n HallDrTamaracTr CornerRidgeRd CornerRidgeRd BilbroughStBilbrough St Gilbank Dr SneddenAveBirkshire Dr WindhamTrBrittonTrMillcliffCirBatsonDrBatson D rMavrinacBlvdHo ll a nd view Tr Hol l i d g e B l v d JohnWestWayConoverAveConoverAveGolfLinksDr Primeau D r PetermannStRaiford St HillviewRd Steckley St Ostick St HawthorneLnBigwinDr H averhill Terr Skipton Tr Perivale Gdns TreeTopsLn AbbottAveEakins Dr Royal Rd DodieSt Blaydon Ln Magna DrMill StConnaught Ave Child Dr MilgatePl UsherwoodStLarmont StIrwin Ave Mugford Rd Mosley St Bowler St CossarDr Reuben St Catherine AveBanffDr Kennedy St EGeorgeSt WenderlyDrDunning Ave Maple St Mark St TimberlineTr EdwardStTylerSt WellsStCentre St Fairway Dr NisbetDrLensmith DrGundy WayBaycroftLnLuxtonAveHeathwoodHeightsDrMcNallyWay Cousins Dr GlassDr Martell Gt Fife Rd Hollingshead Dr KemanoRd Gilbert Dr I ndust r i al PkwyNLaurentideAveHalldorson Ave Richardson Dr Bridgenorth DrMea d o w o o d DrGurnettStAurora Heights Dr Cousins Dr EBerczySt McMasterAveTrilliumDrHaidaDr MosaicsAveVictoriaStBorealis Ave Mavrinac B lvd OrchardHeightsBlvd Hollandview T r River Ridge Blvd Kennedy St W OldYongeStWillow Farm Ln Spring Farm Rd WELLINGTON ST W VANDORF SDRD ST JOHN'S SDRD W WELLINGTON ST E HENDERSON DR BAYVIEW AVEYONGE STVANDORF SDRDYONGE STJohnWestW ayIndustrialPkwyNA urora Heig h t s DrOrchard Heights Blvd OldYongeStBatson DrSpruce StMark St W alto n Dr DevinsDr K e m a n o R d WillowFa rmLnMeadowoodDrOrchardHeightsBlvdK e ma noRd Gilbank Dr AuroraHeightsDr McLeod DrKennedyStW TimpsonDr Cranberry Ln TimberlineTr Seaton Dr M urray Dr Child DrG l a s s Dr TamaracTr Murray Dr Kennedy St W MurrayDrEdward St Edward StRichardsonDrTamaracTr IndustrialPkwy S In dustrialPkwySIndustria l P k w y S Engelhard DrMary StCentre St MavrinacBlvdYONGE STBAYVIEW AVEST JOHN'S SDRD W WELLINGTON ST EWELLINGTON ST W Holladay DrScrivenerDrMillikenDrDugganStHydro CorridorHydro Corr idor BAYVIEW AVENUES Railway / GO Transit LineRailway / G O Tr a n sit Li n e AURORA OFFICIAL PLANTHE AURORA PROMENADESCHEDULE 'B1'SECONDARY PLAN AREA ´ CREATED: 09/28/2011 APPROVED BY: JK UPDATED: 11/26/2014 UPDATED BY: ML DRAWN BY: CF & JS FILE NAME: Schedule_B1_Secondary_Plan.mxd 0 0.25 0.5 Kilometres THIS SCHEDULE IS A CONSOLIDATION AND IS PREPARED FOR CONVENIENCE ONLY. FOR ACCURATE REFERENCES, THE ORIGINAL OPA SCHEDULES SHOULD BE CONSULTED. COPIES OF THE ORIGINALS ARE AVAILABLE IN THE CORPORATE & FINANCIAL SERVICES OR PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENTS. LEGEND Secondary Plan Boundary Downtown Shoulder Promenade General Promenade Focus Area Special Design Areas Downtown Upper Downtown Promenade General Site Specific Policy Area Page 81 of 185 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 a SSESSmEnt oF cultural HEritagE valuE Page 82 of 185 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, ii. displays a high degree of craftsmanship or artistic merit, or iii. demonstrates a high degree of technical or scientific achievement. 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- tion that is significant to a community, ii. yields, or has the potential to yield, informa- tion that contributes to an understanding of a community or culture, or iii. demonstrates or reflects the work or ideas of an architect, artist, builder, designer or theorist who is significant to a community. 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, i. is important in defining, maintaining or sup- 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 83 of 185 26 HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT | 26-38 BERCZY STREET, AURORA er A 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 a SSESSmEnt Page 84 of 185 27Issued: AprIl 15, 2021 30 Berczy street (er A, 2021) 30 Berczy street (er A, 2021) 32 Berczy street (er A, 2021) 32 Berczy street (er A, 2021) 32 Berczy street (er A, 2021) 32 Berczy street (er A, 2021) 26 Berczy street (erA, 2021) 26 Berczy street (erA, 2021) Page 85 of 185 28 HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT | 26-38 BERCZY STREET, AURORA 34 Berczy street (er A, 2021) 34 Berczy street (er A, 2021) 34 Berczy street (er A, 2021) 34 Berczy street (er A, 2021) 34 Berczy street (er A, 2021) 34 Berczy street (er A, 2021) 34 Berczy street (er A, 2021) Page 86 of 185 29Issued: AprIl 15, 2021 38 Berczy street (er A, 2021) 38 Berczy street (er A, 2021) 38 Berczy street (er A, 2021) 38 Berczy street (er A, 2021) 38 Berczy street (er A, 2021) 38 Berczy street (er A, 2021) 38 Berczy street (er A, 2021) Page 87 of 185 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, ii. displays a high degree of craftsmanship or artistic merit, or iii. demonstrates a high degree of technical or scientific achievement. 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 significant to a community, ii. yields, or has the potential to yield, information that contributes to an understanding of a commu- nity or culture, or iii. demonstrates or reflects the work or ideas of an architect, artist, builder, designer or theorist who is significant to a community. 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, i. is important in defining, maintaining or supporting the character of an area, ii. is physically, functionally, visually or historically linked to its surroundings, or iii. is a landmark. 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 88 of 185 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, ii. displays a high degree of craftsmanship or artistic merit, or iii. demonstrates a high degree of technical or scientific achievement. 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 institution that is significant to a community, ii. yields, or has the potential to yield, infor- mation that contributes to an understanding of a community or culture, or iii. demonstrates or reflects the work or ideas of an architect, artist, builder, designer or theorist who is significant to a community. 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, i. is important in defining, maintaining or supporting the character of an area, ii. is physically, functionally, visually or historically linked to its surroundings, or iii. is a landmark. 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 89 of 185 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 90 of 185 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 dE v EloPmEnt Page 91 of 185 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 92 of 185 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 93 of 185 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 Ontario. The Toolkit identifies potential 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- nificant heritage attributes or features; 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 significant relationship; Direct or indirect obstruction of signifi cant views or vistas within, from, or of built and natural features; A change in land use such as rezoning a battlefield from open space to residential use, allowing new development or site al teration to fill in the formerly open spaces; Land disturbances such as a change in grade that alters soils, and drainage patterns that adversely affect an archaeo logical resource. (Ontario Heritage Toolkit). 7 imPact a SSESSmEnt Page 94 of 185 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 95 of 185 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 S tratEgy Page 96 of 185 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 97 of 185 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 98 of 185 41Issued: AprIl 15, 2021 philip evans philip evans is a registered architect with the OAA, principal of er A 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 r AIC. 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 er A 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 r yerson university, and a Bachelor of public Administration from the university of Ottawa. Catherine Huynh Catherine Huynh is a planner with er A Architects. she holds a Bachelor of urban and regional planning (BurpI) from ryerson university. 10 ProjEct PErS onnEl Page 99 of 185 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 100 of 185 43Issued: AprIl 15, 2021 12 a PPEndicES Page 101 of 185 PEER REVIEW OF CULTURAL HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT for 26, 30, 32, 34-38 Berczy Street (Lots 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, and Part Lot 10) TOWN OF AURORA, ONTARIO dated April 15th, 2021 by ERA Architects for STEVEN LEE & WOOK CHUNG Prepared for the Town of Aurora SBA Project No.: 20024.1 Date: May 6th, 2021 Attachment 5 Page 102 of 185 Client Carlson Tsang Planner, Planning & Development Services Town of Aurora Phone: 905-727-3123 ext. 4349 Email: CTsang@aurora.ca Author Jane Burgess OAA, CAHP, MRAIC, APT Stevens Burgess Architects Ltd. 120 Carlton St. Suite 204 Toronto, Ontario M5A 4K2 Tel: 416-961-9690 Email: jane@sba.on.ca Page 103 of 185 Peer Review of ERA HIA for 26, 30, 32, 34-38 Berczy Street, Aurora, Ontario SBA No. 20024.1 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 Introduction ................................................................................................................... 1 2.0 Evaluation of HIA Completeness .................................................................................. 3 3.0 Evaluation of Arguments ............................................................................................ 9 4.0 Conclusion and Recommendations ...........................................................................12 APPENDICES: Appendix A: CV for Jane Burgess Appendix B: MHSTCI: Info Sheet #5 Heritage Impact Assessments & Conservation Plans Page 104 of 185 Peer Review of ERA HIA for 26, 30, 32, 34-38 Berczy Street, Aurora, Ontario SBA No. 20024.1 1 1.0 INTRODUCTION In September 2020 SBA was contacted by the Town of Aurora (“Town”) to conduct an independent review of the Cultural Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA) for 26, 30, 32, 34-38 Berczy Street (Lot 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, ,9, and Part Lot 10, Registered Plan 68) in the Town of Aurora, Ontario. The HIA was produced by Architects Rasch Eckler Associates Ltd. (AREA) and dated January, 2020. The Town had received Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendment applications for the proposed development. The developer, 2601622 Ontario Inc., is seeking to have the four listed properties of heritage value or interest contained within the site delisted. The following is the summary of issues found with AREA’s HIA: No. HIA Section Reference Summary of Issue 1 2.2.1 Adjacent Properties and Land Uses Lack of meaningful references to and discussion of Planning Policies 2 2.2.2 Adjacent Cultural Heritage Resources Lack of inclusion of adjacent buildings which form a context for the subject sites 3 Inadequate description of adjacent designated sites 4 2.2.3 Site Conditions and Property Features Site conditions and Property Features inadequately documented or detailed 5 3.2 History of Property Ownership Incomplete research and documentation of historical background 6 3.3 Evaluation of Cultural Heritage Value It is premature to evaluate the cultural heritage evaluation as presented in the HIA based on the incompleteness identified in the preceding Issues 1 through 5. In addition, there has been no evaluation undertaken following the methodology described in “Evaluation of Heritage Resources in Aurora.” 7 4.0 Description of Proposed Development Lack of identification of heritage impacts from the proposal 8 No discussion of mitigation measures 9 Fails to address impact on adjacent heritage properties 10 5.0 Conclusions & Recommendations It does not contain specific conclusions and recommendations as to delisting or designation Additional comments re: Lack of qualified authorial oversight of the HIA It was recommended that because the HIA was incomplete the applicant should be requested to resubmit an HIA and that all aspects of the HIA be undertaken by a qualified heritage consultant. This current subject HIA is also for Official Plan and Zoning Amendment as well as the delisting of the four listed properties. The current HIA has been undertaken by ERA, a firm that specializes in Heritage Conservation. The listed project personnel for the subject HIA included one CAHP member. There is no formal process for the preparation of applications for delisting a property under the Ontario Heritage Act (“Act” or “OHA”) or the Toolkit. The onus to demonstrate the lack of heritage value or interest is on the applicant. Page 105 of 185 Peer Review of ERA HIA for 26, 30, 32, 34-38 Berczy Street, Aurora, Ontario SBA No. 20024.1 2 This Peer Review will evaluate the Heritage Impact Assessment for the Cultural Heritage Evaluation (CHE) for each of the four properties that are requested to be delisted in conformance with: the Town of Aurora’s Heritage Impact Assessments and Conservation Plans Guide, Town of Aurora’s Evaluation of Heritage Resources in the Town of Aurora, the MHSTCI’s Info Sheet #5 Heritage Impact Assessments and Conservation Plans, Ontario Regulation 9/06 and best practices. This Peer review will evaluate the completeness of the HIA and whether best practices were followed as per the guidelines and standards noted above, the effectiveness and strength of the arguments, as well as substantive errors or omissions. The subject HIA did not include architectural plans or sections for the Proposed Development. In order to expedite the review process SBA requested the missing material from the Town who forwarded the complete set of JCI Studio’s architectural drawings dated April 14th. 2021. Jane Burgess, OAA, CAHP, MRAIC, APT of SBA attended the site on September 11th 2020. Page 106 of 185 Peer Review of ERA HIA for 26, 30, 32, 34-38 Berczy Street, Aurora, Ontario SBA No. 20024.1 3 2.0 Evaluation of HIA – Completeness and Conformance with Best Practices 2.1 Evaluation Against MHSTCI’s Info Sheet #5 The designation of heritage properties falls under the purview of the Ontario Heritage Act. Since the 1990 Heritage Act the criteria to determine if a property is of provincial significance has been contained in Regulation 9/06. In order to become a property of provincial significance a site must meet one or more of the criteria identified. The Ontario Government in both its Provincial Policy Statement under the Planning Act dated 2005 and more recently in its Provincial Policy Statements dated 2020 supports the preservation of significant built heritage resources. The government is currently working on reissuing its 2005 Ontario Heritage Toolkit including the Info Sheets that provide direction on how to deal with Heritage Resources under the Planning Act. Within this ToolKit there is an entire book that deals with how to evaluate a Heritage Property, and Info Sheet #5 outlines Heritage Impact Assessments and Conservation Plans as a condition of development and site alteration. Info Sheet #5 also outlines what an Impact Assessment should generally contains but which is not limited to that criteria. Alignment with Info Sheet #5 and conformance with Reg 9/06 are the minimum requirements of an HIA Requirement as per Info Sheet #5 Comments Sections 1, 2, and 5: Historical Research, Site Analysis, and Evaluation The historical research with respect to the pre settlement period and the history of Aurora sets the historical context. The history of the T. Sisman Shoe Company, and especially the diagram illustrating its evolution, is very informative. Section 1 provides almost no information regarding the history of the properties at #32 & #26, which is very strange considering there is more detail given later in the document within the 9/06 evaluation criteria. There are neither Land Title or Land Registry listings within the HIA or its appendices nor are there any footnotes as to the source of the information. Land records indicate that in 1853 Coles buys #32 and Lepper buys #26. Lepper sells his property in 1855, and Cole sells his property in 1858. While the HIA indicates that Cole builds in 1857 it does not reference any source. In addition, a review of Land records would have informed the HIA that referenced Rosanna Spence didn’t own #32 until 1883 and #26 until 1899. The HIA notes that the site is adjacent to no fewer than 10 listed and designated buildings, but it does not analyse these properties to provide an understanding of “the character of the area.” Throughout the HIA the documentation refers solely to the evolution of only Berczy Street with no reference or analysis of the block or area that are also part of the context. It is noted that the site analysis and evaluation that should be included in Section 5 was not completed due to COVID restrictions. Notwithstanding COVID restrictions, the exterior photo documentation could be more inclusive and graphically presented in a more understandable format. Section 5 is inserted in the midst of Section 4, which suggests a lack of review and oversight. There lacks a description of each building including giving the basic style of the building and an outline of their attributes. Without having the heritage attributes listed it is impossible to understand the impact on them. Page 107 of 185 Peer Review of ERA HIA for 26, 30, 32, 34-38 Berczy Street, Aurora, Ontario SBA No. 20024.1 4 Section 4: Identification of the Significance and Heritage Attributes of the Cultural Heritage Resources Reg 9/06 for #26 Berczy Street - Residence The property has design value or physical value There appears to be an error. The 1913 Fire Plan does not show #26 constructed with brick; therefore, its siding could be of similar construction to the original. The HIA notes that it is representative, and so meets this criterion. In addition, to meet the criteria, it need not be both rare and representative. The Condition Assessment will need to be completed to confirm what does exist. The property has historical value or associate value because it, There is no reference to where the information that notes that Lepper, a Reeve, did not build the house. There is also not any research provided about the person to indicate or substantiate the conclusion that he is not significant. The property has contextual value because it, The assessment is not of the character of an area but solely that of Berczy Street. The assessment notes that the property is physically, functionally, visually, and historically linked to its surroundings, but then curiously argues that these linkages are insufficient for designation. The intent of Reg. 9/06 is to assess if a property meets the criteria. While the assessor may recommend one way or the whether the evaluation is sufficient to merit designation (to that end, Section 9 - Conclusion should include these recommendations), it is the role of the municipality to make the determination whether the evaluation provides sufficient reasons for designation. Requires a statement as to whether the property meets the criteria of 9/06 or not. Reg 9/06 for #32 Berczy - Residence The property has design value or physical value: The information about George Coles belongs in the historical value portion of the evaluation, but that does not change the assessment. The property has historical value or associate value because it, No additional comment The property has contextual value because it, The assessment is not of “the character of an area” but solely that of Berczy Street. (Refer to comments for #26, above) Requires a statement as to whether the property meets the criteria of 9/06 or not. Reg 9/06 for #34 -38 Berczy - Sisman Shoe Property. The property has design value or physical value: The assessment deals only with heritage integrity. As the style and attributes of the buildings have not been provided in the evaluation section it is almost impossible to asses its design value. Page 108 of 185 Peer Review of ERA HIA for 26, 30, 32, 34-38 Berczy Street, Aurora, Ontario SBA No. 20024.1 5 The property has historical value or associate value because it, The integrity of the building does not have anything to do with its historical association. The information provided regarding Sisman as the Town’s largest employer suggests that the property does, in fact, have a direct association with a theme and institution that is significant to the community. The property has contextual value because it, “Unlike the residence the character area the factory is associated with is this site and the block to the south whether Factory Bldg No 1 was.” Although awkwardly phased once clarified the conclusions of this section are probably accurate. Requires a statement as to whether the property meets the criteria of 9/06 or not. Section 3 & 6: Description of the Planning Context and the Proposed Development Section 3 gives a good overview of the heritage policy context but fails to expand on the site’s inclusion in the Special Design Designation of the Promenade Secondary Plan. There is no mention of any of the policies at the municipal and provincial level concerning housing – about where it should be located or about the shortage of it. The absence of this information limits the Planning arguments for the development. Section 6, as noted in the introduction of this review, did not include any plans or sections that the Town has since supplied. This section of the HIA barely touches upon the rationale and does not address at all “how the development fits with the objectives of the municipality.”1 Section 7: Measurement of Development or Site Alteration Impact There is no description of what either the direct or indirect negative impacts are on the site. How the design is informed by “the T. Sisman Shoe brick and beam Factory buildings that occupied the site” has not been fulsomely illustrated here or in the description of the proposal. The indirect impacts on the adjacent heritage properties are not listed other than increased traffic, so it is hard to relate directly the mitigating measures. Section 8: Consideration of Alternatives, Mitigation and Conservation Methods There is no discussion here as to why demolition could not be avoided as per Info Sheet #5. Given that due to COVID protocols in place the authors were unable to undertake any meaningful site analysis and assessment and were therefore unable to identify and/or confirm heritage attributes, at the least a very detailed Documentation Report for each of the properties should be proposed as a mitigation measure. NIC: Implementation and Monitoring Not applicable as the proposal it to demolish the buildings. Summary Statement and Conservation Recommendations The gaps in the documentation as noted above weaken the conclusions. 1 MCSTI Info Sheet #5 Heritage Impact Assessments and Conservation Plans Page 109 of 185 Peer Review of ERA HIA for 26, 30, 32, 34-38 Berczy Street, Aurora, Ontario SBA No. 20024.1 6 2.2 Evaluation Against Heritage Impact Assessments and Conservation Plans Guide (Town of Aurora, 2017) In 2017, the Town of Aurora produced a Heritage Impact Assessment and Conservation Plans guide to assist in planning for heritage within the Town. This Guide is meant to provide direction regarding Official Plan Policy 13.2 (b) where: “The Town may use the power and tools provided by the enabling legislation, policies and programs, particularly the Ontario Heritage Act, the Planning Act, the Environmental Assessment Act and the Municipal Act in implementing and enforcing the policies of this section. These may include but not be limited to the following: i. The power to stop demolition and/or alteration of designated heritage properties and resources provided under the Ontario Heritage Act and as set out in Section 13.3 of this policy; ii. The power to require a Heritage Impact Assessment and Restoration/Conservation Plan for development proposals and other land use planning proposals that may potentially affect a designated or significant heritage resource or Heritage Conservation District.” The Guide recognizes that heritage resources are primarily evaluated by Ontario Regulation 9/06 of the Ontario Heritage Act, Section (2) of Ontario Regulation 9/06. The Guide lays out in Section 5.3 the required contents of a Heritage Impact Assessment, which includes all the content from Info Sheet #5 provided by MHSTCI (noted in Section 2.1). The Guide provides additional guidance with respect to the specific information required. Since the HIA did not include all the basic requirements of Info Sheet #5 it was not productive to review in detail its conformance with the more detailed requirements of the Town’s Guide. The items highlighted in yellow below are basic requirements spelled out in the guide that are usually included in any HIA but which were missing from the subject HIA. The Guide’s contents are given below for general interest only. i. An outline of the methods employed in the study; ii. Description of the property and context in detail including all necessary surveys, maps and plans; iii. Description of the proposed development in detail; iv. An outline of applicable planning and heritage policies, guidelines and resources including (but not limited to): a. The Planning Act; b. Provincial Policy Statement, 2014; c. Ontario Heritage Act; d. York Region Official Plan; e. Town of Aurora Official Plan; f. Standards and Guidelines for the Conservation of Historic Places; and g. The Ontario Heritage Tool Kit. v. Description of the heritage status of the subject property and adjacent properties; vi. Historical research including (but not limited to): a. Title search; b. Tax assessment records; c. Archival research (Aurora Historical Society); d. County Atlas; and e. Fire Insurance Plans. Page 110 of 185 Peer Review of ERA HIA for 26, 30, 32, 34-38 Berczy Street, Aurora, Ontario SBA No. 20024.1 7 vii. Description of the subject lands with an analysis of cultural heritage landscapes, archaeological sites, natural heritage sites and built heritage resources noting all cultural features (including barns, accessory structures, fences, outbuildings, etc.) as per the definitions found in Provincial Policy Statement, 2014; viii. If the proposed development or site alteration has been determined to have no adverse impact to identified significant heritage resources, the Heritage Impact Assessment must outline the rationale for such a recommendation; ix. A description of the identified heritage resources that have been determined to be of significant cultural heritage value or interest; x. Evaluation of the identified significant resources in terms of the criteria as outlined in the Ontario Heritage Act and Ontario Regulation 9/06; xi. A Statement of Significance for each significant heritage resource identified in relation to Ontario Regulation 9/06 including a description of the significant heritage attributes; xii. A summary of the integrity and condition of identified heritage resources; xiii. A detailed description of impacts of proposed developments on the identified heritage resources noting the degree or severity of the impact; xiv. Recommendations for mitigation, conservation, and commemoration noting how these recommendations will address the impacts that have been identified; Note: Where an impact on a cultural heritage resource has been identified and the proposed conservation or mitigative measures including avoidance are considered ineffective, other conservation or mitigative measures and alternatives for the proposed development or site alteration must be recommended. xv. Recommendations regarding additional studies (e.g. Conservation Plans); xvi. Recommendations for implementation and monitoring; Note: This is a schedule and reporting structure for implementing the recommended conservation or mitigative or avoidance measures, and monitoring the cultural heritage resource as the development or site alteration progresses. xvii. Addendums, Appendices and References (works cited); xviii. Digital photographs with captions (provided on a data stick or disk); All Heritage Impact Assessments should include accurate and detailed site plans, maps, and surveys identifying the geographical locations of proposed development or site alteration and all heritage resources. It should also be accompanied by historic as well as current photographic documentation. Page 111 of 185 Peer Review of ERA HIA for 26, 30, 32, 34-38 Berczy Street, Aurora, Ontario SBA No. 20024.1 8 2.3 Evaluation Against Evaluation of Heritage Resources in the Town of Aurora (2019) The Town of Aurora also evaluates the relative value of heritage resources within its document entitled the Evaluation of Heritage Resources in the Town of Aurora. In order for an evaluation to be accurate it must be based on a thorough review of information pertaining to the resource including, but not limited to, historical/associative value, design/physical value, and context. The evaluation system is an objective method of assessing heritage resources based upon a standard set of criteria. Once a building is assessed, the evaluation system provides general policies and procedures that are required to be followed. They are as follows: Points Group Significance 70-100 Group 1 Of major significance and importance, worthy of designation 45-69 Group 2 Signif icant, worthy of preservation Less than 45 Group 3 Moderately significant, worthy of documentation and preservation as part an historic grouping This method of evaluation can be at odds with Reg 9/06 which is the authoritative method of evaluation as indicated by the Ontario Heritage Act. While the above-outlined process may be helpful for the local historical society to affirm or judge their interest in a property, it is the author’s opinion that it should not be a requirement for a qualified heritage professional to use for an evaluation as part of an HIA. Page 112 of 185 Peer Review of ERA HIA for 26, 30, 32, 34-38 Berczy Street, Aurora, Ontario SBA No. 20024.1 9 3.0 Evaluation of Arguments 3.1 Overview The HIA submitted by ERA is at best a draft document. It was compiled out of order and lacked a chain of ownership, a survey, or even a plan of the proposed development. ERA explains that due to COVID safety protocols they could not assess the existing conditions. Based on the author’s own firms’ (SBA) experience it is certainly difficult to provide the appropriate level of oversight that comes from when individuals work from home. When working from home we all also lack the central resources of our offices, and especially our curate heritage libraries. SBA has reviewed the previous HIA that contained the chain of ownership and the survey. SBA visited the site at a time when the current high level of COVID restrictions were not in place. SBA through their work with the Town on the designations of properties along its historic main street has acquired an in-depth knowledge of the Promenade Secondary Plan. In short, in some ways SBA has more or equal knowledge of the property than ERA. In an attempt to assist planning staff and prevent another cycle of HIA resubmissions, SBA will attempt to clarify ERA’s arguments for them. Jane Burgess spoke with Carlson Tsang, the planner on the file, about this unorthodox approach and he felt it might be a helpful strategy. 3.2 Reg 9/06 Meeting the Criteria for Becoming a Provincial Heritage Property. Based on the information included in the two HIAs it is the author’s assessment that at a minimum the following properties would meet the criteria under O.Reg. 9/06. 1. 26 Berczy Street – One and a half storey – Ontario Cottage Style 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. The building is a representative example of the Ontario Cottage Style. 2. 34-38 – Berczy – Underhill-Sisman Shoe Factory The property has historical value or association because it, i) has a direct association with a theme, event, belief, person, activity, organization or institution that is significant to the community. The property is associated with the T. Sisman Shoe factory, which was once the Town’s largest employer. Its first factory was built at 34 Berczy Street. The property is also associated with the early industrial landscape associated with the Aurora Train Station. The property at 32 Berczy Street (Two Storey with no recognizable heritage style) would not meet any of the criteria Page 113 of 185 Peer Review of ERA HIA for 26, 30, 32, 34-38 Berczy Street, Aurora, Ontario SBA No. 20024.1 10 3.3 Heritage Designation Recommendations A property may be designated under Section 29 of the Act if it meets one or more of the criteria for determining whether it is of cultural heritage value or interest. The criteria are insufficient of themselves to make a comprehensive determination. Factors such as condition and integrity of heritage attributes as well as a community’s interest or value placed must also be taken into account 2. SBA disagrees with both of the submitted HIA’s assessments of 26 and 34-38 Berczy Street. They clearly do meet at least one criterion under O.Reg. 9/06. Notwithstanding the fact that each meets a criterion SBA agrees with the authors of the HIAs to not recommend designation, provided certain stipulations: 26 Berczy Street – Residential a) Although a representative example of a style there are many better examples of the Ontario Cottage style that possess greater heritage integrity within Aurora. b) Although historically it would have supported the character of the residential neighbourhood along Larmont Street, the current pressure for parking for the commercial uses along Berczy and Wellington Streets has resulted in the property’s once green, residential yard becoming a commercial parking lot, which has isolated it from the residential uses of Larmont Street. 34-38 Berczy Street – Industrial/ Commercial 3. Although the property has historical value because of its direct association with the Underhill-Sisman Shoe Company, its heritage integrity is such that it may not be worthy of designation. It is unfortunate that neither HIA itemized the heritage attributes of the property. The list of heritage attributes for 34 Berczy Street might include massing, stone foundation, corbelled parapets of both end walls etc. However, the problem is that none of these attributes provide any sense of the industrial nature of the site, which is what makes it historically significant. At one time, the tall chimney stack was the heritage attribute that truly signalled the industrial nature of the site; however, it was demolished circa 1980. The building at 34 Berczy Street is a utilitarian concrete block building built in 1954 and was used solely as a warehouse. Today the buildings resemble something more akin to a rundown suburban multi-unit commercial building. The industrial nature of the site also suffers from the loss of the “f lagship” building: the handsome three and a half storey Factory No. 1 building at the southwest corner of Mosley and Berczy Streets. The historical value of the site might be better served through detailed documentation of the buildings. 2 Ontario Regulation 9/06 Page 114 of 185 Peer Review of ERA HIA for 26, 30, 32, 34-38 Berczy Street, Aurora, Ontario SBA No. 20024.1 11 3.4 Planning Arguments – The Community’s Interest or Value. Although Planning initiatives do not have a place in heritage evaluations, they do have a place in HIAs. They should be included in the description of the proposed development. The initial HIA by AREA lightly touched on this matter and the current HIA is mute on all but heritage planning policies. Currently, a key area in provincial planning of interest and pertinence to all communities is the lack of housing: On May 2, 2019, the Province of Ontario (the “Province”) released “More Homes, More Choice: Ontario’s Housing Supply Action Plan”. The Action Plan included a series of initiatives intended to address housing supply in the Province, including a review of the PPS. On July 22, 2019, the Province released proposed changes to the PPS. The PPS provides direction on matters of provincial interest as it relates to land use planning. The most recent version of the PPS came into effect April 2014. The PPS is issued under Section 3 of the Planning Act and all decisions of Council affecting land use planning matters shall be consistent with the PPS. A Place to Grow: Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe The Growth Plan provides a strategic framework for managing growth in the Greater Golden Horseshoe (the “GGH”) region including: Setting intensification targets within built-up areas, minimum density targets within greenfield areas, and establishing Major Transit Station Areas as mixed- use mobility hubs. These and related policies direct municipalities to make more efficient use of land, resources and infrastructure to reduce sprawl. They promote a culture of conservation, compact built form, and better designed communities with an attractive and vibrant public realm; and, Building complete communities with a diverse range of housing options, public service facilities, recreation and green space that better connect transit to where people live and work. SBA are first and foremost heritage architects but are cognizant of greater issues that might influence planning for a property. Given that the community’s interest in and value of the subject property as something that could be redeveloped, and given its limited heritage value, the interests of urban planning, and in particular housing, might outweigh the cost of conserving the heritage resources. Page 115 of 185 Peer Review of ERA HIA for 26, 30, 32, 34-38 Berczy Street, Aurora, Ontario SBA No. 20024.1 12 4.0 Conclusion and Recommendations Delist the 3 properties conditional upon: 1. A detailed Site and Building Documentation Report for each property to the satisfaction of Town Staff; 2. A fulsome Historical Report for the entire Underhill- Sisman properties both north and south of Mosely Street inclusive of ample primary research; and 3. A detailed Commemorative Plan to the satisfaction of Town Staff. The plan shall be incorporated within the site and financed by the owner. Page 116 of 185 Peer Review of HIA for 26, 30, 32, 34-38 Berczy Street, Aurora, Ontario SBA No. 20024.1 APPENDIX A: CV for Jane Burgess Page 117 of 185 Jane Burgess OAA, CAHP, MRAIC, APT Founding Partner EDUCATION Bachelor of Architecture, 1974, University of Toronto TEACHING University of Waterloo, School of Architecture, 5th yr. Program, 1979 University of Waterloo, School of Architecture, Visiting Critic, 1978-79 Ryerson Polytechnic Institute, Studio Instructor, 1988, 1989 PROFESSIONAL 1984 to date Stevens Burgess Architects Ltd., Toronto EXPERIENCE 1976 to 1984 Jane Burgess Architect, Toronto PROFESSIONAL Royal Architectural Institute of Canada, RAIC ASSOCIATIONS Ontario Association of Architects, OAA (Council 2009 – 2011) Toronto Society of Architects, TSA Canadian Assoc. of Heritage Professionals, CAHP (President 1997-99, V.P. 2012) Association of Preservation Technologists, APT Jane, a founding partner of SBA, has practiced within the heritage industry for over thirty years and is well respected with the heritage community. She has contributed to heritage policy making, advocacy and education. She has served as President of CAHP, Vice Chair of the Toronto Preservation Board and Vice President of the OAA. Jane continues to mentor the next generations of conservation architects. Jane is the partner-in-charge of heritage projects and has either provided oversight to or has been the conservation architect for all the projects listed below. SELECTED HERITAGE PROJECTS: (+ indicates award winning) Ontario Heritage Trust – Niagara Apothecary, Niagara-on-the-Lake • Building Condition Assessment Isaac Gould House – 62 Mill Street, Uxbridge ▪ HIA Peer Review and Assessment of Designated Property conforming with Reg. 9/06 of Heritage Act ▪ OMB Expert Witness Swift River Energy, Moon River Falls Portage Landing, Bala ON ▪ Heritage Consultant – adjacency compliance for Portage Landing Site ▪ Commemoration plan Wesley Mimico United Church, Toronto, ON Heritage Condition Assessment and Conservation Plan Senior Heritage Architect for Renovation of Wesley Mimico United Church Redemptorists of Toronto and Edmonton - 131 McCaul St Monastery, Toronto (Designated) Study to determine feasibility of conversion to self-contained residential suites. Conservation of the building envelope, interior retrofit and accessibility improvements. SNC Lavalin – Strathmore House, 390 King St., Cobourg (Designated) Building envelope conservation including of removal of Kenitex non-breathable coating Edenshaw, 78 Park Street East, Port Credit, ON Heritage Impact Assessment CBRE and City of Toronto, Queen’s Park Circle, Toronto, ON Heritage Impact Assessment for site of planned Pollination Garden Town of Richmond Hill, Old Richmond Hill High School Foundation Wall Investigation and Report Infrastructure Ontario – Huronia Lands: Heritage ABIRs-Orillia ON IO pilot project to establish protocols within the VFA management system for undertaking heritage ABIR’s Infrastructure Ontario – Barrie Jail Complex: Heritage ABIR-Barrie ON IO pilot project to establish protocols within the VFA management system for undertaking heritage ABIR’s Infrastructure Ontario – North Bay Normal School / Government Office Building, North Bay (Designated) Statement of heritage value, assessment, conservation, recommendations and implementation plan. Page 118 of 185 Jane Burgess City of Toronto – Fort York, Toronto (Museum, National Historic Site, Designated) Building Condition Assessment and Capital Plan for rampart enclosed site and its eight buildings. Conservation Master Plan Conservation of exterior and interior plus exhibit enhancement of Officers’ Mess and Brick Magazine. Brick Masonry Conservation Plan City of Toronto – Young Peoples Theatre, Toronto (Designated) Heritage Window Conservation Feasibility Study and subsequent conservation of wood and metal windows. Infrastructure Ontario - Sir James Whitney School, Belleville (Ontario Government Heritage Inventory) Heritage Conservation Plan and Capital Plan for this 96 acre site and five designated buildings. Infrastructure Ontario - Century Manor, Hamilton Psychiatric Hospital, Hamilton (Designated) Adaptive Reuse Study to convert building use to office, museum, and half-way house. Ontario Realty Corporation - Ontario Fire College (Scott Hall), Gravenhurst (Ontario Government Heritage Inventory) Master Plan for the phased conservation of building envelope and interiors and code compliance. + Scott Hall building envelope conservation and interior heritage structure and plaster assessment. University of Guelph - Macdonald Institute, Guelph (Heritage Inventory) Master Plan for the phased conservation of building envelope and heritage interiors spaces. Conservation of ceremonial stairs and commemorative stained glass windows. + Reconstruction of building brick and clay tile parapets and entry portico and limestone terrace. Modernization of Lecture Hall 300 to an IT lecture theater while conserving the heritage elements. Ontario Heritage Trust- Ontario Heritage Centre, 10 Adelaide St E., Toronto (Designated) Condition Assessment report for exterior and interior inclusive of identification of sustainable strategies. Harber Industries - Ravine Vineyard Estate Winery, St. David’s + Reconstruction of heritage Woodruff House and conservation and adaptive reuse of packing shed to restaurant Planning and design of new event restaurant Ontario Realty Corporation - Whitney Block and Tower, Toronto (Ontario Government Heritage Inventory) Heritage Significance Study and Feasibility Study for the conservation of the exterior envelope. Whitney Tower Re-Occupancy Study to determine a code compliance strategy to reoccupy space vacated in 1970 Queenston Quarry project quarried the last bench to provide building stone for Whitney conservation. + Conservation of the building envelope of the Whitney Tower and the northern section of the building. + Heritage Conservation Plan; a maintenance and capital plan for all interior and exterior heritage features. SNC Lavalin – Brantford Jail, Victoria Park Square Heritage District, Brantford (Designated, Part V) Building Envelope Conservation Master Plan for prison yard walls, governor’s house, cell block and kitchen. Various conservation and upgrade projects on the buildings within this district Huronia Provincial Parks - Sainte Marie Among the Hurons, Midland (Museum, Ont. Gov. Heritage Inventory) Post Disaster Study to determine feasibility of reconstruction of burned three buildings. + Conservation of the chapel and reconstruction of blacksmith shop, carpentry shop and palisade. Aventis Pasteur – Connaught Campus Heritage Centre, 1755 Steeles Ave. W. Toronto + Barton Ave. Stables reconstruction of Dr. FitzGeralds’ metal clad stable-laboratory and reuse as museum. Conservation and adaptive reuse gatekeeper’s cottage to welcome centre and site security office. Ontario Realty Corporation - Welland County Courthouse, Welland (Designated) Heritage Impact Assessment of a proposed major addition to this 1855 Kivas Tully stone courthouse. Ministry Of Environment – Islandview and O.T. Workshop, Old Kingston Psychiatric Hospital, Kingston Feasibility Study for reusing a collection of heritage buildings as a showcase sustainable office complex. ProFac – Century Manor, Old Hamilton Psychiatric Hospital, Hamilton (Ontario Government Heritage Inventory) Stabilization Master Plan for this building that had been vacant for years. Phase 1 Stabilization; Re-roofing and the rebuilding or three ornate brick and stone chimneys. ProFac – Grove Hall, Old Hamilton Psychiatric Hospital, Hamilton (Ontario Government Heritage Inventory) Conservation Master Plan. Slate roof replacement and metal window conservation. Federal Building Heritage Review Office – Fort York Armories, Toronto (Federally Recognized) Identification of twenty two types of metal windows. Window conservation and hardware refurbishment. Ontario Heritage Trust – George Brown House, Toronto (Designated) Design of an operable wood storm window system and eave repairs. Page 119 of 185 Jane Burgess Ontario Realty Corporation - Old Whitby Psychiatric Site, Whitby (Ontario Government Heritage Inventory) Heritage Significant Study and Intervention Guidelines for this 64 acre site containing 48 buildings Stabilization of 12 heritage buildings that were threatened by sub grade water penetration and general decay. Realty Master Plan to evaluate constraints and opportunities for site redevelopment Twigg Yonge Adelaide Ltd – One Financial Place Historic Block, (Adelaide to King, Yonge to Victoria) Toronto 20 Victoria St.: Designation, conservation and interior retrofit of this 9 storey limestone and brick office building 44 Victoria St. (Listed): Integration of covered side façade and public space within block re-development. 85 Yonge St, (Designated): Resurrection of historical midblock pedestrian connection & building conservation. Ontario Realty Corporation - Old Don Jail, Toronto (Ontario Government Heritage Inventory) Heritage Significance Study & Intervention Guidelines Stabilization, including; re-roofing, structural re-enforcement, masonry, bars and window conservation. Beaverton Presbyterian Church – Old Stone Church, Beaverton (National Historic Site, Designated) Heritage Significance Study and application for designation provincially and recognition federally. Conservation Feasibility Study, easement agreement and funding application to Ontario Heritage Trust. Conservation of fieldstone, cedar roofing, wood windows, and interior plaster and woodwork. Page 120 of 185 Peer Review of HIA for 26, 30, 32, 34-38 Berczy Street, Aurora, Ontario SBA No. 20024.1 APPENDIX B: Ministry of Culture, Sport, Tourism and Culture Industries’ Info Sheet #5 – Heritage Impact Assessments and Conservation Plans Page 121 of 185 Standards & Guidelines for Conservation of Provincial Heritage Properties - Information Bulletin 3 January 31, 2017 1 of 11 Information Bulletin 3 Heritage Impact Assessments for Provincial Heritage Properties The purpose of this Bulletin is to provide guidance on preparing a Heritage Impact Assessment to meet the requirements of the Standards and Guidelines for the Conservation Provincial Heritage Properties. Purpose The conservation of Ontario’s cultural heritage resources is a matter of public and provincial interest. The purpose of the Standards & Guidelines for Conservation of Provincial Heritage Properties (S&Gs) is the conservation and good stewardship of provincial heritage properties – properties the Government of Ontario owns or controls that have cultural heritage value or interest. Working together with other government legislation, regulations and policies, the S&Gs provide a framework for the consistent protection, maintenance, use and disposal of these properties . They are intended to ensure that decisions about these properties are made in an open and accountable way. Context The S&Gs contain a principle that requires the assessment of impact of proposed activities that may affect the cultural heritage value or interest and the heritage attributes of a provincial heritage property1 and inform decisions that may affect them. . Provision F.4. requires that, the removal or demolition of any building or structure on a provincial heritage property be considered a last resort after all other alternatives have been considered, subject to heritage impact assessment and public engagement. Ministries and presc ribed public bodies are required to use best efforts to mitigate loss of cultural heritage value or interest. Provision F.5. requires that, in the case of a provincial heritage property of provincial significance, the consent of the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Sport (MTCS) be obtained before removing or demolishing buildings or structures on the property or before transferring the property from provincial control. A Heritage Impact Assessment will provide the documentation and rationale for applications for MTCS Ministers’ Consent. What is a Heritage Impact Assessment? A Heritage Impact Assessment is an independent study to determine the impacts of a proposed activity on a provincial heritage property. It will recommend options and mitigation measures, consistent with the property’s Strategic Conservation Plan, in order to reduce negative impacts, and conserve its cultural heritage value or interest. A Heritage Impact Assessment under the S&Gs: is based on the Statement of Cultural Heritage Value 1 Italicized terms are defined in the Glossary section of the Standards and Guidelines for the Conservation of Provincial Heritage Properties document [link] Page 122 of 185 Standards & Guidelines for Conservation of Provincial Heritage Properties - Information Bulletin 3 January 31, 2017 2 of 11 is prepared by a qualified person(s) considers impacts to the whole property even if the proposed activity only directly affects a portion of it considers and recommends alternatives and mitigation measures that are consistent with the strategies articulated in the Strategic Conservation Plan approved by the ministry or prescribed public body and/or MTCS, if it is a provincial heritage property of provincial significance considers the relevant findings of any archaeological assessment(s) and other technical studies that have been undertaken takes into account the views of interested persons or communities. When to Prepare a Heritage Impact Assessment A Heritage Impact Assessment will be prepared when an activity is proposed for a provincial heritage property that may affect its cultural heritage value or interest and/or heritage attributes and: a Strategic Conservation Plan is not yet in place the adopted Strategic Conservation Plan directs that a Heritage Impact Assessment be prepared for a proposed activity (e.g. the removal or demolition of a building or structure on a provincial heritage property) the adopted Strategic Conservation Plan did not anticipate or consider in detail the proposed activity or cannot be followed for reasons that were unforeseen when it was completed. Ministries and prescribed public bodies are encouraged to seek advice from MTCS to determine whether a Heritage Impact Assessment should be prepared. Who prepares a Heritage Impact Assessment A Heritage Impact Assessment is prepared by a qualified person(s) with individual expertise, recent experience and knowledge relevant to the type of cultural heritage resources2 being considered and the nature of the activity being proposed. A person qualified to work on a provincial heritage property will demonstrate: qualifications and expertise gained through having personally worked on cultural heritage resources in the past (i.e. individual credentials and personal experience must be demonstrated over that of the consulting firm that may employ the individual) expertise that is relevant to the type of resource and the nature of the activity or project being considered recent experience in the conservation of cultural heritage resources (i.e. within the last three to five years) 2 Provincial heritage properties include three types of cultural heritage resources: built heritage resources, cultural heritage landscapes, and archaeological sites (see page 3 of S&Gs). Page 123 of 185 Standards & Guidelines for Conservation of Provincial Heritage Properties - Information Bulletin 3 January 31, 2017 3 of 11 in accordance with the Ontario Heritage Act, only a licensed archaeologist may alter or disturb an archaeological site. If an archaeological site may be impacted, altered or disturbed in any way, the only qualified person is a licensed archaeologist3. The expertise of more than one qualified person working in a multi-disciplinary team may be required. For example, a complex property with more than one type of cultural heritage resource may require a historian, a professional engineer, an architect, a licensed archaeologist, a landscape architect, a specialist in historic preservation, conservator, heritage planner, or other. Similarly, determining appropriate solutions to address specific issues, such as accessibility, security, way finding system, signage, may also require specialized qualifications. Before undertaking the preparation of a Heritage Impact Assessment the qualified person(s) must develop a thorough understanding of the property, its cultural heritage value or interest and the level of significance. In addition to site investigation(s), this would require review of the Statement of Cultural Heritage Value, the Strategic Conservation Plan, and any other existing documents, reports or technical studies such as archaeological assessment(s) provided to them by the ministry or prescribe public body. Qualified person(s) must also have an understanding of the ministry or prescribed public body’s heritage management process, and mandate, needs and objectives as they relate to the property. The ministry or prescribed public body should ensure that its consultant(s) is provided with all available documents, reports and information they may require. Community Engagement Under the S&Gs, ministries and prescribed public bodies are required to engage with and take into account the views of individuals and communities when making decisions about a property’s future and when considering alterations that may affect property users (E.5.). Community engagement protects the public interest in identifying and protecting cultural heritage resources, while helping to ensure that any concerns are identified and appropriately addressed. In the case of Heritage Impact Assessments engagement could include local communities (including Indigenous communities4), stakeholders, local government, other ministries and agencies, such as: municipal staff (e.g. municipal heritage planners and/or Municipal Heritage Committees) local neighbourhood or residential community heritage interest groups that operate locally or in the larger area those that may be affected by anticipated alterations or changes (e.g. affected users in implementing accessibility standards – see Provision E.5.) any person who is responsible for maintenance, inspection and alterations of the property, such as facility managers, service providers and/or maintenance personnel. 3 Archaeological assessment reports must conform to the MTCS’s Standards and Guidelines for Consultant Archaeologists (2011) [link] 4 The Crown has a duty to consult with Indigenous communities when it has knowledge, real or constructive, of an Aboriginal right or treaty right and the Crown contemplates conduct that might adversely affect the right in question. Page 124 of 185 Standards & Guidelines for Conservation of Provincial Heritage Properties - Information Bulletin 3 January 31, 2017 4 of 11 Community engagement should: provide for early and ongoing dialogue to inform appropriate strategies explain the purpose of the engagement and how the community’s input will be used respect a community’s preferences regarding information exchange (e.g. formal or informal face-to-face meetings, presentations, written communiqués, interviews and surveys). Conclusions and recommendations should be shared with the consulted community to allow for further review, consideration and response. Conclusions and recommendations may have to be amended based on the community’s response. Coordination with other Planning Processes, Activities or Requirements Under certain circumstances, a proposed activity may require a ministry or prescribed public body to follow and comply with legislative or regulatory requirements such as the Environmental Assessment Act, the Planning Act, and the Renewable Energy Approvals (REA) regulation. Where appropriate and to avoid duplication, common process elements, such as preparation of a Heritage Impact Assessment and the requirement for public or community engagement, may be coordinated, while ensuring that the requirements of the S&Gs are met. Content of a Heritage Impact Assessment The Heritage Impact Assessment must consider how the cultural heritage value or interest and heritage attributes identified in the approved Statement of Cultural Heritage Value will be affected by the proposed activity. The qualified person(s) are to develop a thorough understanding of the property, its cultural heritage value or interest and the level of significance. This requires a thorough review of the Statement of Cultural Heritage Value, and other relevant documents, reports or technical studies such as archaeological assessment reports, as provided by the ministry or prescribed public body, as well as site investigation(s). A Heritage Impact Assessment under the S&Gs includes: 1. Introduction 2. Statement of Cultural Heritage Value 3. Assessment of Existing Conditions 4. Description and Purpose of Proposed Activity 5. Impact Assessment 6. Considered Alternatives and Mitigation Measures 7. Summary of Community Engagement 8. Recommendations 1. Introduction The introduction provides an overview and context for the report that follows and includes: Page 125 of 185 Standards & Guidelines for Conservation of Provincial Heritage Properties - Information Bulletin 3 January 31, 2017 5 of 11 a brief description of the property, including its level of significance (i.e. provincial, regional or local significance) a brief summary of the proposed activity and the purpose for the activity. This may include a ministry mandate or priority. other applicable processes or requirements (e.g. Environmental Assessment, Renewable Energy Approval, Realty Directive) reference to the Strategic Conservation Plan and the applicable strategy a brief overview of the potential impacts to the property’s cultural heritage value or interest a brief summary of the recommended mitigation measures if the removal or demolition of a building or structure is being proposed, provide a statement that all the other alternatives have been considered and rejected and that removal or demolition is the best alternative and a last resort if MTCS Minister’s consent is being sought, provide rationale for Minister’s approval for removal/demolition. 2. Statement of Cultural Heritage Value A full copy of the Statement of Cultural Heritage Value, as approved by the ministry or prescribed public body, should be included. Supplementary material, such as site plan, photographs and a key map that can assist the reader in understanding the property, cultural heritage value or interest, heritage attributes and the areas that may be affected by the proposed activity should also be included. Technical heritage studies and reports developed under the S&Gs are meant to be complementary and not duplicative. In preparing the Heritage Impact Assessment the cultural heritage value or interest of the property should not be re-evaluated and the Statement of Cultural Heritage Value should not be modified. If new information comes to light that could affect the reliability of the Statement of Cultural Heritage Value the qualified person(s) should inform and seek advice from the ministry or prescribed public body. 3. Assessment of Existing Conditions A concise written and visual description of the property in its current condition should be included in the Heritage Impact Assessment and details of the on-site investigation(s) including: any significant changes in the current physical or material condition of the property from that depicted in the approved Statement of Cultural Heritage Value how, when and who conducted the on-site investigation(s) any limitations of the on-site investigation(s), such as limited access. 4. Description and Purpose of Proposed Activity A written description of the proposed activity and its purpose should be provided and include: the rationale, purpose and need for the proposed activity Page 126 of 185 Standards & Guidelines for Conservation of Provincial Heritage Properties - Information Bulletin 3 January 31, 2017 6 of 11 how the proposed activity fits within the ministry or prescribed public body’s objectives for the property where there is an adopted Strategic Conservation Plan, how the proposed activity fits within the ministry or prescribed public body’s objectives as articulated in the Strategic Conservation Plan supporting graphic materials, such as site plans, design drawings and specifications, photographs and detailed descriptions supporting drawings and graphics as appropriate how the proposed activity fits within the physical context of the overall property, even if only a portion of the property will be directly impacted how the proposed activity fits within a broader community and land use planning context any other applicable considerations or planning process requirements or required permits or approvals, such as municipal planning considerations, Environmental Assessment, Renewable Energy Approval 5. Impact Assessment The impact assessment will identify and assess the proposed activity to determine any impacts – positive or negative, direct or indirect – the proposed activity may have on the property’s cultural heritage value or interest. For the purposes of this document, an impact is a change in an identified cultural heritage resource resulting from a particular activity. In order to make predictions about potential impacts, additional factors should be considered. Factors may include the scale or severity of impacts, whether they are to be temporary or permanent, reversible or irreversible, etc. A direct adverse impact would have a permanent and irreversible negative affect on the cultural heritage value or interest of a property or result in the loss of a heritage attribute on all or part of the provincial heritage property. Examples of direct adverse impacts on a provincial heritage property may include, but are not limited to: removal or demolition of all or part of any heritage attribute removal or demolition of any building or structure on the provincial heritage property whether or not it contributes to the cultural heritage value or interest of the property (i.e. non-contributing buildings) any land disturbance, such as a change in grade and /or drainage patterns that may adversely affect a provincial heritage property, including archaeological resources alterations to the property in a manner that is not sympathetic, or is incompatible, with cultural heritage value or interest of the property. This may include necessary alterations, such as new systems or materials to address health and safety requirements, energy-saving upgrades, building performance upgrades, security upgrades or servicing needs alterations for access requirements or limitations to address such factors as accessibility, emergency egress, public access, security Page 127 of 185 Standards & Guidelines for Conservation of Provincial Heritage Properties - Information Bulletin 3 January 31, 2017 7 of 11 introduction of new elements that diminish the integrity of the property, such as a new building, structure or addition, parking expansion or addition, access or circulation roads, landscape features changing the character of the property through removal or planting of trees or other natural features, such as a garden, or that may result in the obstruction of significant views or vistas within, from, or of built and natural features change in use for the provincial heritage property that could result in permanent, irreversible damage or negates the property’s cultural heritage value or interest continuation or intensification of a use of the provincial heritage property without conservation of heritage attributes. An indirect adverse impact would be the result of an activity on or near the property that may adversely affect its cultural heritage value or interest and/or heritage attributes. Examples of indirect adverse impacts include, but are not limited to: shadows that alter the appearance of a heritage attribute or change the visibility of an associated natural feature or plantings, such as a tree row, hedge or garden isolation of a heritage attribute from its surrounding environment, context or a significant relationship vibration damage to a structure due to construction or activities on or adjacent to the property alteration or obstruction of a significant view of or from the provincial heritage property from a key vantage point. Positive impacts are those that may positively affect a property by conserving or enhancing its cultural heritage value or interest and/or heritage attributes. Examples of positive impacts may include, but are not limited to: changes or alterations that are consistent with accepted conservation principles, such as those articulated in MTCS’s Eight Guiding Principles in the Conservation of Historic Properties, Heritage Conservation Principles for Land Use Planning, Parks Canada’s Standards and Guidelines for the Conservation of Historic Places in Canada adaptive re-use of a property – alteration of a provincial heritage property to fit new uses or circumstances of the of property in a manner that retains its cultural heritage value of interest public interpretation or commemoration of the provincial heritage property. 6. Considered Alternatives and Mitigation Measures The Heritage Impact Assessment must describe the alternative options and mitigation measures that were assessed in order to avoid or reduce any negative impacts to the property’s cultural heritage value or interest. These should be consistent with the relevant conservation strategies established in the adopted Strategic Conservation Plan where one exists. Where a proposed activity may result in a negative, irreversible impact to the property’s cultural heritage value or interest or heritage attribute(s), the report should explain why the proposed course of action is the Page 128 of 185 Standards & Guidelines for Conservation of Provincial Heritage Properties - Information Bulletin 3 January 31, 2017 8 of 11 only viable solution and why other alternatives that do not involve negative impact are not viable. In addition, the report should describe proposed mitigation measures and provide evidence as to why they should be adequate. The specific negative impacts should be listed, with statements made under each as to why they cannot be avoided, and what steps have been planned to mitigate their effects. In cases where the proposed activity will result in the demolition or removal of a building or structure and/or MTCS Minister’s Consent is being sought, the Heritage Impact Assessment must clearly demonstrate the efforts that have been made to mitigate the loss of cultural heritage value or interest, including but not limited to: the alternative options that were considered and why they were not feasible why the building(s) or structure(s) cannot be adapted to fit new uses why retention and/or modification of the building(s) or structure(s) is not viable that demolition or removal is the only viable option, and the last resort. 7. Summary of Community Engagement The Heritage Impact Assessment should provide a brief summary of the steps and results of the community engagement and include: the groups and individuals who were engaged how and when community engagement was undertaken whether stakeholder and community engagement was combined with another planning process, such as Environmental Assessment, Renewable Energy Approval the results of the engagement, including responses, comments or concerns expressed and how they were considered (a detailed summary can be attached as an appendix). 8. Recommendations The best alternative to the proposed activity should be summarized, describing how the proposed activity should proceed and the mitigation measures that are proposed. The recommendations should demonstrate how they are consistent with the objectives and strategies outlined in the adopted Strategic Conservation Plan where one exists. The recommendations should also provide direction for additional requirements such as: any required approvals and permits, such as municipal approvals/permits, federal permits, etc. special qualifications required for anyone responsible for conservation work further technical studies that may be required such as archaeological assessment(s). Ministry or Prescribed Public Body Review and Acceptance of Recommendations On completion of the Heritage Impact Assessment the ministry or prescribed public body should attach a written confirmation that it has reviewed the completed report and has accepted the qualified person(s) final recommendations on the preferred alternative and/or mitigation measures that will be implemented. Page 129 of 185 Standards & Guidelines for Conservation of Provincial Heritage Properties - Information Bulletin 3 January 31, 2017 9 of 11 Submission Requirements In the case of provincial heritage properties of provincial significance or properties not yet evaluated, MTCS Minister’s consent is required before removing or demolishing buildings or structures on the property, whether or not they contribute to the cultural heritage value or interest of the property (i.e. non-contributing buildings, or before transferring the property from provincial control). The Heritage Impact Assessment adopted/approved by the ministry or prescribed public body must accompany any application for MTCS Minister’s consent. For further information refer to MTCS Approvals and Consents (February 2011). Ministries and prescribed public bodies are encouraged to seek the advice of MTCS Heritage Advisors and to share a draft of the Heritage Impact Assessment for comments and feedback prior to submitting application for MTCS Minister’s Consent. Contact us: Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport Culture Division | Programs and Services Branch | Heritage Program Unit 401 Bay Street, Suite 1700 | Toronto, ON M7A 0A7 Heritage Advisors and Registrar: Provide technical advisory services and/or comments on implementation of the S&Gs and province wide policies and procedures to ministries and prescribed public bodies. Karla Barboza, Heritage Advisor T. 416.314.7120 | F. 416.212.1802 Email: karla.barboza@ontario.ca Deborah Hossack, Registrar/Heritage Advisor T. 416.314.7204 | F. 416.212.1802 Email: deborah.hossack@ontario.ca Page 130 of 185 Standards & Guidelines for Conservation of Provincial Heritage Properties - Information Bulletin 3 January 31, 2017 10 of 11 APPENDIX: Outline for a Heritage Impact Assessment for a Provincial Heritage Property MTCS recommends that this format be used for Heritage Impact Assessments for all provincial heritage properties including those of provincial significance that are to be submitted for MTCS’ approval. Executive Summary (1-2 page maximum) The Executive Summary provides a brief summary and key recommendation(s) of the report. Confirmation of Ministry or Prescribed Public Body Review and Acceptance of Recommendations Provide confirmation that the ministry or prescribed public body has reviewed the Heritage Impact Assessment report and accepts the recommendations and mitigation measures articulated in it. 1.0 Introduction The introduction provides an overview and context for the Heritage Impact Assessment. It includes benchmark information about the property, the activity being proposed, reference to the Strategic Conservation Plan and the applicable strategy, and the recommended mitigation measures. The introduction should also state whether the removal or demolition of a building or structure is being proposed, provide a statement that all the other alternatives have been considered and rejected and that removal or demolition is the best alternative and a last resort. If MTCS Minister’s consent is being sought, provide rationale for Minister’s approval for removal/demolition. 2.0 Statement of Cultural Heritage Value A full copy of the approved Statement of Cultural Heritage Value is to be included and any supplementary material to assist with understanding the property and its cultural heritage value or interest, heritage attributes and the areas that may be affected by the proposed activity. 3.0 Assessment of Existing Conditions This section provides a written and visual description of the cultural heritage resource(s) in its current condition, identifies any significant changes to the property, and provides key information about the on -site investigation(s). 4.0 Description and Purpose of Proposed Activity This section provides a detailed written and visual description of the proposed activity, and the rationale, purpose and need for the proposed activity. 5.0 Impact Assessment This section identifies and articulates how the proposed activity will affect the cultural heritage value or interest of the property and assesses impacts, whether positive or negative, direct or indirect. 6.0 Considered Alternatives and Mitigation Measures The section provides details of alternative options that were considered and that would reduce or mitigate negative impacts. This section should also demonstrate how the alternatives or mitigation measures are consistent with conservation strategies established in the adopted Strategic Conservation Plan. If the proposed activity will result in the demolition or removal of a building or structure, demonstrate why: Page 131 of 185 Standards & Guidelines for Conservation of Provincial Heritage Properties - Information Bulletin 3 January 31, 2017 11 of 11 the alternative options that were considered and why they were not feasible why the building(s) or structure(s) cannot be adapted to fit new uses why retention and/or modification of the building(s) or structure(s) is not viable that demolition or removal is the only viable option, and the last resort. 7.0 Summary of Community Engagement This section provides a brief summary of the groups and individuals who were engaged, how and when community engagement was undertaken and the results of the engagement, including responses, comments or concerns expressed and how these were considered (a detailed summary can be attached as an appendix). Also indicate whether engagement was combined with the requirements of another process such as an Environmental Assessment. 8.0 Recommendations This section describes how the proposed activity may proceed, the mitigation measures that are to be implemented, and provide direction for any additional requirements. APPENDICES References/Bibliography Provide a list of the documents referenced in the Heritage Impact Assessment report. Project Personnel List the personnel involved in preparing the report, indicating their qualifications and their role in preparing the report. Page 132 of 185 100 John West Way Aurora, Ontario L4G 6J1 (905) 727-3123 aurora.ca Town of Aurora General Committee Report No. CMS 2 2 -0 17 Subject: Application for Third Party Event in an Outdoor Town Facility - Aurorapalooza Prepared by: John Firman, Manager, Business Support Department: Community Services Date: April 5, 2022 Recommendation 1. That Report No. CMS22-017 be received; and 2. That staff be directed to review and approve or deny the Aurorapalooza application in accordance with the Third-Party Events in Outdoor Town Facilities Policy; and 3. That if the Aurorapalooza third-party event is approved, that it be designated as an event of Town significance for the purpose of attaining a Special Occasion Permit in accordance with the Municipal Alcohol Policy. Executive Summary The applicant has requested a permit for Town Park on August 20, 2022, for the purpose of holding a special event: Aurorapalooza. This will be the third consecutive year for this event. Aurorapalooza features live music, local food, and a display of local art. Council direction is requested in accordance with section 5.7 of the Third Party Events in Outdoor Town Facilities Policy. Designation as an event of Town significance is required in order for the applicant to receive a Special Occasion Permit for the sale of alcohol. Page 133 of 185 April 5, 2022 2 of 5 Report No. CMS22-017 Background Aurorapalooza features live music, local food, and a display of local art As per the application, Aurorapalooza is a one-day ticketed event raising money in support of mental health and supporting local musicians and businesses. The applicant has requested a permit for Town Park on Saturday, August 20, 2022, with event set-up beginning after the Farmer’s Market has concluded for the day. The first Aurorapalooza was held in the summer of 2020 and has become an annual event since. The event will include local musicians and food vendors, be sponsored by local businesses, and will include the serving of alcohol. The 2020 and 2021 Aurorapalooza events were well managed, without incident. Although attendance restrictions were in place due to COVID, the events were both well attended. This event request was not brought forward to Council in 2020 or 2021, as the restrictions outlined in the policy were already in place for Town events due to COVID-19 operational requirements. Now that those restrictions are no longer in place, this event requires Council approval. Analysis Council direction is requested in accordance with section 5.7 of the Third Party Events in Outdoor Town Facilities Policy Section 5.7 of this policy states: Applications for any Event permit, excluding sporting events and tournaments, that meet any of the following criteria, will be referred to Council for consideration: a) restricts public access to the Outdoor Facility; b) requires any fencing of an Outdoor Facility (however, fencing required for an Event where alcohol will be served shall be approved in accordance with the Municipal Alcohol Policy); c) is for an Event that is planned to be held over more than one (1) consecutive day; or d) requires the support of Employees or resources not currently budgeted for or available within normal operating procedures. As this event meets criteria a) and b) Council direction is requested in accordance with section 5.9 of this policy, which states: Page 134 of 185 April 5, 2022 3 of 5 Report No. CMS22-017 Town Council, upon review and consideration of an application received in accordance with section 5.7 shall provide the Director with direction to: a) Review the application and approve or deny it in accordance with this Policy; b) Deny the application without further review; or c) Approve the application and administer/issue the Facility Permit in accordance with this and other applicable Town Policies. Designation as an event of Town significance is required in order for the applicant to receive a Special Occasion Permit for the sale of alcohol. As the applicant wishes to serve alcohol, they must apply to the AGCO for a Special Occasion permit. In accordance with section 6.2.1 of the Municipal Alcohol Policy, the event must be designated as an event of Town significance in order to be eligible for a Special Occasion Permit. Advisory Committee Review Not applicable Legal Considerations If Council directs staff to review the application and staff approve it, a facility permit will be issued, which includes insurance and indemnification clauses. Financial Implications Permit fees will be charged in accordance with the Fees & Charges Bylaw, and any additional support required would be charged back to the applicant. This event is cost neutral for the Town. Communications Considerations There are no communications considerations for this event. Climate Change Considerations The recommendations from this report does not impact greenhouse gas emissions or impact climate change adaptation. Page 135 of 185 April 5, 2022 4 of 5 Report No. CMS22-017 Link to Strategic Plan This application supports the Strategic Plan goal of supporting an exceptional quality of life for all through its accomplishment in celebrating and promoting our culture in the following key objectives within this goal statement: Expand opportunities and partnerships that contribute to the celebration of culture in the community. Alternative(s) to the Recommendation 1. Council may direct staff to deny the application without further review. 2. Council may direct staff to approve the application and administer/issue the Facility Permit in accordance with this and other applicable Town Policies. 3. Council may decline to designate this as an event of Town significance, resulting in no alcohol being served. 4. Council may provide other direction. Conclusions That staff be directed to review and approve or decline the application in accordance with the Third Party Events in Outdoor Town Facilities Policy, and that the Aurorapalooza event be designated as an event of Town significance for the purpose of attaining a Special Occasion Permit. Attachments Not applicable Previous Reports Not applicable Pre-submission Review Agenda Management Team review on March 17, 2022 Page 136 of 185 April 5, 2022 5 of 5 Report No. CMS22-017 Approvals Approved by Robin McDougall, Director, Community Services Approved by Doug Nadorozny, Chief Administrative Officer Page 137 of 185 100 John West Way Aurora, Ontario L4G 6J1 (905) 727-3123 aurora.ca Town of Aurora General Committee Report No. CMS 2 2 -0 1 8 Subject: Application for Third Party Event in an Outdoor Town Facility – Community Craft Beer Festival Aurora Prepared by: John Firman, Manager, Business Support Department: Community Services Date: April 5, 2022 Recommendation 1. That Report No. CMS22-018 be received; and 2. That staff be directed to review and approve or deny the Community Craft Beer Festival Aurora application in accordance with the Third Party Events in Outdoor Town Facilities Policy; and 3. That if the Community Craft Beer Festival Aurora third-party event is approved, that it be designated as an event of Town significance for the purpose of attaining a Special Occasion Permit in accordance with the Municipal Alcohol Policy. Executive Summary The applicant has requested a permit for Machell Park on June 17 - 19, 2022 for the purpose of holding a three-day special event: Community Craft Beer Festival Aurora. Community Craft Beer Festival Aurora features Ontario breweries, cideries and distilleries, as well as local restaurants, catering companies and food trucks. Council direction is requested in accordance with section 5.7 of the Third Party Events in Outdoor Town Facilities Policy. Designation as an event of Town significance is required in order for the applicant to receive a Special Occasion Permit for the sale of alcohol. Page 138 of 185 April 5, 2022 2 of 4 Report No. CMS22-018 Background Community Craft Beer Festival Aurora features Ontario breweries, cideries and distilleries, as well as local restaurants, catering companies and food trucks. Previously operated as the Newmarket Craft Beer Festival, the event location is not available in Newmarket this year, and the organizers have requested a permit for Machell Park in order to relocate the event. As part of an annual series, this event is planned for Father’s Day weekend each year. As per the application, the Community Craft Beer Festival in partnership with the Canadian Food and Wine Institute features a variety of food and beverage vendors, culinary artisans, Ontario producers, workshops, demos, activities, and entertainment. Analysis Council direction is requested in accordance with section 5.7 of the Third Party Events in Outdoor Town Facilities Policy. Section 5.7 of this policy states: Applications for any Event permit, excluding sporting events and tournaments, that meet any of the following criteria, will be referred to Council for consideration: a) restricts public access to the Outdoor Facility; b) requires any fencing of an Outdoor Facility (however, fencing required for an Event where alcohol will be served shall be approved in accordance with the Municipal Alcohol Policy); c) is for an Event that is planned to be held over more than one (1) consecutive day; or d) requires the support of Employees or resources not currently budgeted for or available within normal operating procedures. As this event meets criteria a), b) and c) Council direction is requested in accordance with section 5.9 of this policy, which states: Town Council, upon review and consideration of an application received in accordance with section 5.7 shall provide the Director with direction to: a) Review the application and approve or deny it in accordance with this Policy; b) Deny the application without further review; or Page 139 of 185 April 5, 2022 3 of 4 Report No. CMS22-018 c) Approve the application and administer/issue the Facility Permit in accordance with this and other applicable Town Policies. Designation as an event of Town significance is required in order for the applicant to receive a Special Occasion Permit for the sale of alcohol. As the applicant wishes to serve alcohol, they must apply to the AGCO for a Special Occasion permit. In accordance with section 6.2.1 of the Municipal Alcohol Policy, the event must be designated as an event of Town significance in order to be eligible for a Special Occasion Permit. Advisory Committee Review Not applicable Legal Considerations If Council directs staff to review the application and staff approve it, a facility permit will be issued, which includes insurance and indemnification clauses. Financial Implications Permit fees will be charged in accordance with the Fees & Charges Bylaw, and any additional support required would be charged back to the applicant. This event is cost neutral for the Town. Communications Considerations There are no communications considerations for this event. Climate Change Considerations The recommendations from this report does not impact greenhouse gas emissions or impact climate change adaptation. Link to Strategic Plan This application supports the Strategic Plan goal of supporting an exceptional quality of life for all through its accomplishment in celebrating and promoting our culture in the following key objectives within this goal statement: Page 140 of 185 April 5, 2022 4 of 4 Report No. CMS22-018 Expand opportunities and partnerships that contribute to the celebration of culture in the community. Alternative(s) to the Recommendation 1. Council may direct staff to deny the application without further review. 2. Council may direct staff to approve the application and administer/issue the Facility Permit in accordance with this and other applicable Town Policies. 3. Council may decline to designate this as an event of Town significance, resulting in no alcohol being served. 4. Council may provide other direction. Conclusions That staff be directed to review and approve or decline the application in accordance with the Third Party Events in Outdoor Town Facilities Policy, and that the Community Craft Beer Festival Aurora event be designated as an event of Town significance for the purpose of attaining a Special Occasion Permit. Attachments Not applicable Previous Reports Not applicable Pre-submission Review Agenda Management Team review on March 17, 2022 Approvals Approved by Robin McDougall, Director, Community Services Approved by Doug Nadorozny, Chief Administrative Officer Page 141 of 185 100 John West Way Aurora, Ontario L4G 6J1 (905) 727-3123 aurora.ca Town of Aurora General Committee Report No. CMS22 -021 Subject: Sport Tourism Strategy 2022-2026 Prepared by: Erin Hamilton, Sport & Community Development Specialist Department: Community Services Date: April 5, 2022 Recommendation 1. That Report No. CMS22-021 be received; and 2. That the recommendations in the Town of Aurora Sport Tourism Strategy 2022 – 2026 be endorsed in principle, subject to Council approval of budgetary implications. Executive Summary The purpose of this report is to provide Council with an update and to seek endorsement of the first Town of Aurora Sport Tourism Strategy 2022 – 2026. The Sport Tourism Strategy identifies a coordinated and collaborative approach to enhance the visitor experience for existing events hosted annually by local sport organizations. New hosting opportunities under consideration will be evaluated against the Triple Bottom Line Impacts and the ability to host with the current assets. A communication plan will increase awareness of events that are taking place in Aurora while showcasing local talent. Additional resources would be required to successfully implement and sustain a Sport Tourism Strategy Page 142 of 185 April 5, 2022 2 of 8 Report No. CMS22-021 Background Sport Tourism Strategy The Sport Plan and Economic Development Strategic Plan identified the development of a Sport Tourism Strategy as a priority. In March 2021, Council participated in a Sport Tourism workshop facilitated by Sport Tourism Canada. An information report was submitted to Council on June 15, 2021, providing a summary of the information collected through the workshop in March. Based on the information outlined in the summary report, staff presented a report to Council on November 2, 2021, on the research that had taken place, stakeholder engagement and options for future direction. Analysis The Sport Tourism Strategy identifies a coordinated and collaborative approach to enhance the visitor experience for existing events hosted annually by local sport organizations. The Sport Tourism Strategy is based on providing an optimal experience for each visitor that comes to Aurora. Through a coordinated and collaborative approach, visitors can experience what Aurora has to offer through the annual sporting events that take place while the local business community can benefit from the economic impact. A number of sporting events are hosted in Aurora annually including but not limited to: International Silver Stick Tournament hosted by Central York Girls Hockey Association Annual Aurora 9U Father’s Day Baseball Tournament hosted by Aurora King Baseball Association Ontario Cup Soccer Tournament hosted by Aurora Youth Soccer Club / Aurora Football Club Annual U14 and U15 Rep Hockey Tournament hosted by Aurora Minor Hockey Association In addition to annual events, local sport organizations have hosted one-time sporting events such as the LPGA CP Women’s Open hosted by Magna Golf Club and Provincial qualifying tournaments hosted by Aurora Diggers Softball Association. One-time events generally move around to different host locations and provide an opportunity to bring in sport tourism without a major impact on regular user groups. Page 143 of 185 April 5, 2022 3 of 8 Report No. CMS22-021 Through a collaboration with the Aurora Chamber of Commerce, a Sport Visitor Experience Package will be added to the Explore Aurora website. This platform will be a one stop shop for everything outside of the field of play and be available to all visitors to plan well in advance of arriving in Town. The Sport Visitor Experience Package will provide visitors with a reason to stay in and experience Aurora when not on the field of play. The Sport Visitor Experience Package will include: Information about accommodation locations in Aurora A list of restaurants including information about locations that accommodate large groups, provide discounts or special menus Experience and attractions visitors can take in while visiting Aurora. This could include team building activities, Town of Aurora events, local trails and much more Sporting good stores they can visit for any emergency needs Town of Aurora facilities which can provide additional opportunities to fill their time when available A temporary page will be set up in 2022 with the full launch of the Sport Visitor Experience Package in 2023. New hosting opportunities under consideration will be evaluated against the Triple Bottom Line Impacts and the ability to host with the current assets. Through the consultation process with Sport Tourism Canada, the Triple Bottom Line Impacts were introduced as an avenue to guide municipalities in making decisions about sport tourism. The three impact areas include economic, social / cultural and sustainability. A Sport Tourism Strategy will allow Aurora to identify new sport event hosting opportunities within the current assets of the community. It is critical that the Town understands why new events would be supported in the community. Each sporting event brings different value under the Triple Bottom Line Impact areas. In evaluating future hosting opportunities, the “why” in each of these categories must be considered. Determining whether an event will contribute to the goals of the sport tourism strategy should streamline and guide decisions about proceeding with a bid, communication initiatives and collaboration opportunities. It will also allow for effective evaluation post event. Page 144 of 185 April 5, 2022 4 of 8 Report No. CMS22-021 Currently several events are hosted annually on the ice, fields, and diamonds. The Sport Visitor Experience Package will support these events and the participants. Through initial discussions, some of the private facilities are interested in exploring event hosting opportunities where the Town can provide support as outlined in the strategy. A communication plan will increase awareness of events that are taking place in Aurora while showcasing local talent. Building awareness within the community of upcoming sport tourism events through a Communications Plan that will be developed to support the Sport Tourism Strategy, host organizations, local business community and members of the community. Outcomes of a sport tourism communications plan will include: Strengthened partnership with local sport organizations Engage the local community through volunteerism, engaging in new sport opportunities and support hometown athletes Prepare local businesses for an influx of visitors Celebrate local athletes and make them proud to represent Aurora Collaboration with other sectors to enhance the visitor experience Make Aurora a sought-after destination for future events and visitors Revenue for the Town of Aurora through additional facility permits Additional resources would be required to successfully implement and sustain a Sport Tourism Strategy To be successful in the implementation of a Sport Tourism Strategy additional funding and staff resource support would be required. Staffing resources support would focus on partnership development with the business community including restaurants and hotels; communication efforts to build awareness among Town staff, Council and the general community of the sport events taking place on an annual basis; and a coordinated approach to volunteer recruitment and training. Furthermore, the position would support and lead efforts to bid on events to bring into the community and support the development of a transfer of knowledge program where a coordinated effort to share resources can take place. Immediate funding needs could be addressed within the operating budget while future projected incremental funding would include a 0.5 FTE at $40,000 and less than $15,000 in other costs annually for strategy implementation. These noted funding requirements will be presented to Council for its consideration as part of future budget deliberations. Page 145 of 185 April 5, 2022 5 of 8 Report No. CMS22-021 In 2022, existing Sport Plan funding would be used to develop a temporary Sport Visitor Experience Package on the Explore Aurora site, membership with Sport Tourism Canada and marketing / communication efforts to promote events taking place in 2022. In addition to staffing resources, if future requested financial resources are approved, they would be used for: Event bidding Economic impact assessments of events hosted in the community Sport Tourism Canada membership and annual conference Training volunteers that can fulfill roles across multiple sporting events. Training would include but not limited to safety, diversity, equity and inclusion, and issue management / scenarios. Marketing and communication materials to build awareness of sport events in the community Visitor experience initiatives that would contribute to making Aurora a sought- after destination Sport hosting grant program for Local Sport Organizations If future requested Sport Tourism funding is not approved, limited support would continue, but additional sport tourism events and the coordinated promotion of opportunities would be limited. Alternatively, funding sources would be sought through sponsorship and grants. Advisory Committee Review N/A Legal Considerations None. Financial Implications Should Council endorse the attached 2022-26 Sports Tourism strategy, staff will further refine this strategy’s supporting action plan, including its proposed action timing and financial implications. This action plan, including its resultant financial requirements, will be presented to Council for its review and approval once available. Page 146 of 185 April 5, 2022 6 of 8 Report No. CMS22-021 Communications Considerations A communications plan will be developed to increase awareness of events that are taking place in Aurora while showcasing local talent. Climate Change Considerations The recommendations from this report does not impact the Town's ability to adapt to a changing climate, however a changing climate may impact sports tourism in the future. Climate change increases the risk of hot, dry weather, which is likely to lead to more heatwaves and fuel wildfires. A warming atmosphere also makes extreme rainfall and flooding more likely. Town staff will need to consider the impacts of changing climate on outdoor event hosting. Town staff recognize the importance of climate change adaptations. A review of the climate change impacts will be evaluated on a project-by-project basis with considerations on ways to adjust and reduce the impact. With the objective to bring more visitors to the Town of the Aurora, greenhouse gas emissions are likely to increase due to increased vehicles and use of resources within the Town's boundary. The Town's new electric vehicle charging stations will be promoted through this strategy, encouraging electric vehicle use to sports events and is an initiative that reduces emission impacts. The Sport Visitor Experience Package on Explore Aurora will identify the location of all electronic vehicle charging stations at Town facilities. In doing so, visitors are more likely to drive their electronic vehicle to the event. Projects from this strategy will work with Town staff to address potential climate change impacts, and work on mitigation measures. Link to Strategic Plan The development of a Sport Tourism Strategy supports the following Strategic Plan goals and objectives: Supporting an exceptional quality of life for all in its accomplishment in satisfying requirements in the following key objectives within these goal statements: Celebrating and promoting our culture Page 147 of 185 April 5, 2022 7 of 8 Report No. CMS22-021 Encouraging an active and healthy lifestyle Promoting service accountability, excellence and innovation Enabling a diverse, creative, and resilient community in its accomplishment in satisfying requirements in the following key objectives within these goal statements: Promote economic opportunities that facilitate the growth of Aurora as a desirable place to do business Supporting small business and encouraging a more sustainable business environment Alternative(s) to the Recommendation 1. Council provide direction. Conclusions This report provides Council with a detailed outline of the strategic direction to have a formalized approach to sport tourism as outlined in the Sport Plan and the Economic Development plan. Our local sport community has already brought significant sport tourism into the community and this strategy will provide an opportunity to provide a memorable experience, provide benefits to the local businesses and bring new events into the community. Attachments Attachment #1 – Sport Tourism Strategy Previous Reports CMS21-023, Sport Tourism Summary Report, June 15, 2021 CMS21-035, Sport Tourism Strategy Update 1, November 2, 2021 Pre-submission Review Agenda Management Team review on March 17, 2022 Page 148 of 185 April 5, 2022 8 of 8 Report No. CMS22-021 Approvals Approved by Robin McDougall, Director, Community Services Approved by Doug Nadorozny, Chief Administrative Officer Page 149 of 185 Sport Tourism Strategy 2022-2026 TOWN OF AURORA Page 150 of 185 1 Contents Introduction to Sport Tourism ................................................................................................................. 2 Why Sport Tourism in Aurora: ................................................................................................................. 2 Economic Outcomes .............................................................................................................................. 2 • Supporting long economic growth ............................................................................................... 2 Social / Cultural Outcomes ................................................................................................................... 3 • Supporting equity, diversity, and good quality / healthy lives .................................................. 3 Sustainability Outcomes ....................................................................................................................... 4 • Interacting in a responsible way with natural resources for future generations ................... 4 What is Already Happening? .................................................................................................................... 4 Moving Forward from Here: ..................................................................................................................... 5 Recommendations for What Comes Next: ............................................................................................ 5 Marketing and Communications: ............................................................................................................ 6 What Aurora Has to Offer: ........................................................................................................................ 7 Conclusion: ................................................................................................................................................. 7 Page 151 of 185 2 Town of Aurora Sport Tourism Strategy 2022 - 2026 March 2022 Introduction to Sport Tourism As the fastest growing segment of the tourism industry, sport tourism can provide endless opportunities for Aurora to be a destination people want to visit. Sport tourism can have a positive impact on community partnership, support businesses, attract future visitors and celebrate health and well-being. Sport Tourism provides an opportunity for local athletes to compete in their hometown, celebrate and highlight the achievements of local athletes who are role models for future athletes. The Sport Tourism Strategy has been developed to provide an intentional and collaborative approach to making Aurora a destination for new and repeat sport participants and their families. Although sporting events have been hosted in Aurora for many years, no formal approach has been taken to understand the impact of those events and how the community can enhance the experience of those that visit. The Aurora sport community is strong and the local sport organizations have been leaders in providing positive sport experiences for participants from across the Province and beyond. The Sport Tourism Strategy will provide local sport organizations with additional support to focus on the visitor experience off the field of play. Why Sport Tourism in Aurora: Strategically evaluating current events and identifying new events will contribute to achieving outcomes in the three bottom line impact areas of sport tourism. The use of the three bottom line impact areas will assist in evaluating the success of events and future direction of sport tourism. New events that achieve a greater number of impacts will be considered for hosting with a minimum of two impacts required to host. The three bottom line impact areas include: Economic Outcomes, Social/Cultural Outcomes and Sustainability Outcomes. Economic Outcomes • Supporting long economic growth Bottom Line Impact Area Impacts Economic Outcomes Event Indicators • 8 – 12 events hosted by local sport organizations annually (further detail in What Comes Next) o Home grown o Bid to host • Up to a maximum of two additional events every five years to be led by the Town in collaboration with community partnerships Page 152 of 185 3 Bottom Line Impact Area Impacts Economic Outcomes Tourism • Increase the number of hotels stays by 100 nights annually • Additional bookings during shoulder season based on hotel availability including weekdays and spring / summer • Increase in local spending when sports teams are hosted in Aurora (restaurants, retail, gas, convenience, other services) • Ability to report on economic impact of known events that are hosted in Aurora, especially those that require hotel stays Economic Outcomes Brand • A comprehensive Sport Tourism Communication Plan will be developed and include branding Economic Outcomes Volunteers • Increase new volunteer engagement by 5% every two years • Opportunity to support high school community hours and providing youth with valuable volunteer experiences Social / Cultural Outcomes • Supporting equity, diversity, and good quality / healthy lives Bottom Line Impact Area Impacts Social Cultural Outcomes Community Pride • Host events across all levels of sport to demonstrate the value and commitment to participating and growing through sport • Initiatives to allow younger athletes and community members to meet their role models and leaders of tomorrow • Stories about local athletes through local media to build a connection with the community Social Cultural Outcomes Cultural Inclusion • Sport events that deliver and achieve the following o Try-it events to engage new participants o Opportunities to incorporate arts and culture into events such as entertainment, opening acts, art pieces • New events that are not currently offered in the community that would be of interest to the diverse Aurora community Social Cultural Outcomes Local Leadership • Create a Transfer of Knowledge program to increase knowledge and support across multiple sports o Engage 1 – 2 new community members to event organization committees annually to enhance knowledge depth of volunteer base Page 153 of 185 4 Sustainability Outcomes • Interacting in a responsible way with natural resources for future generations Bottom Line Impact Area Impacts Sustainability Outcomes Venues • Events that can be hosted within current venues • Diverse facility uses; rotation around various facilities (not all in the same facility) • Consideration for impact on user groups and community Sustainability Outcomes Legacy Provide opportunity to create legacy initiatives that will provide: • New equipment and programs to reach more members of the community • Invest in hosting future events • Provide training and education for the community that will provide a safe space for all to participate in sport Sustainability Outcomes Environmental • Climate change impacts will be reviewed, and adjustments identified to reduce impact on a project- by-project basis • Actively promote electronic vehicle charging stations located at Town facilities. What is Already Happening? There are several local sport organizations that host events in Aurora on an annual basis. These events are a valuable part of our community and driving sport tourism. Local sport organizations commit several hours to make the competition experience for the participants a memorable one. The following lists several events already taking place under the leadership of local sport organizations. • Annual Father’s Day Baseball Tournament (June) • Annual International Silver Stick Hockey Tournament (February) • Annual League 1 / Reserve League for Soccer (April – November) • Annual Provincial House League Hockey Tournament (March) • Annual Provincial Rep Hockey Tournament (December) • Annual Ontario Cup for Soccer (August) • LPGA CP Women’s Open (August 2019) • Provincial Softball Qualifier Tournaments (July 2022) Page 154 of 185 5 Moving Forward from Here: The implementation of this strategy will be successful through the following key steps: • Develop a Sport Experience Package in partnership with the Aurora Chamber of Commerce on the Explore Aurora platform. This resource will direct visitors to places to eat, experiences to enjoy with family and teammates, sites they don’t want to miss and much more. • Communications Strategy that will increase awareness among the public and businesses about events taking place in the community, celebration of local athletes competing and highlighting successful events that have a positive impact on the community. • Coordinated effort with Neighbourhood Network to promote and recruit volunteers to support the execution of sporting events in the community. • Supporting current events hosted by the local sport organizations through tools and resources outlined in the Sport Tourism Strategy. • Coordination among local sport organizations looking to bring more annual events into the community taking into consideration the impact on user groups and community members as well as cross over among other sports. • Actively seeking opportunities to bring new events into the community with the current assets available and that contribute to achieving identified economic, cultural and sustainability outcomes. • Investing and/or leveraging in opportunities to evaluate the impact of events in the community through economic assessment tools. Recommendations for What Comes Next: Execution of this recommended strategy will be done in a collaborative manner with multiple community partnerships but may be dependent on additional human and financial resources. Aurora has an opportunity to elevate sport tourism in the community, provide visitors with an experience to remember and profile many sectors in the community through sporting events. • Seek the additional human and financial resources required to execute the strategy • Develop the Sport Visitor Experience Package through the Explore Aurora platform including: o Outreach to local restaurants owners to support large group bookings, discounted meals, and pre-set menus o Develop list of events taking place annually throughout Aurora o Engage with businesses that can provide experiences for teams and families, where interested at discounted rates and accommodating larger groups o Identify list of attractions (parks, trails, Town Square, skate parks) to encourage visitors to experience • Create a volunteer recruitment campaign in partnership with Neighbourhood Network to engage community members as sport volunteers for sport tourism events Page 155 of 185 6 • Meet with Local Sport Organizations to develop a coordinated and collaborative effort on events they are hosting in the community o Provide information to their participants through Sport Visitor Experience Package o Incorporate opportunities for community members to try sport during the events, building awareness and engaging more people in sport and physical activity o Coordinate efforts to welcome participants through signage and electronic boards, stories sharing through social media and the local newspapers • Attend Sport Tourism Canada annual congress to meet with rights holders and attend educational workshops to attract more sporting events into the community • Meet with arts and cultural groups to identify opportunities to collaborate on providing experiences for visitors to the community • In collaboration with sport organizations, community partners and neighbouring municipalities new event hosting opportunities. This would include a two-prong approach: o Home grown events – which are new events created and delivered by the local community. Example would include a house league or rep sport tournament. o Bid to host events – which are owned by a rights holder that seeks communities to host the event. Example would include a provincial championship which is the responsibility of a Provincial Sport Organization. Bidding to host an event requires human resource time to write the bid, identify community partners, allocate funds if a fee is associated with the bid, and coordinate a site visit if required. • Identify one multi-sport event to bid on over the next five years and partner with neighbouring municipalities to coordinate the potential opportunity • Identify events that align with the shoulder season and low bookings at local hotels and the opportunity to bring them into the community. Marketing and Communications: • Create a webpage on the Town of Aurora website to communicate information about the sport tourism strategy, promote upcoming events, provide one location for visitors and local sport organizations to obtain the information they need • Build community awareness of sport tourism events through social media campaigns, news releases and information to local businesses that can be impacted by the influx of visitors. Utilize the Explore Aurora and Aurora Chamber of Commerce partnership to reach local businesses. • Celebrate local athletes and good news stories of participants for the community to connect with and learn more about sport • Highlight stories of positive environmental, cultural, and economic impacts of the sporting events to our community Page 156 of 185 7 What Aurora Has to Offer: Aurora has much to offer new and returning visitors to the community. Located in the heart of York Region, Aurora can provide a unique opportunity for visitors near and far. • Small town charm • Ease of moving around the community with all amenities in proximity • Dedicated sport community ready to welcome visitors and provide a first-class experience • Local sport organizations with a strong volunteer base to deliver quality sport experiences for participants • Enthusiastic and welcoming business community • Multiple unique events throughout the year to enhance the visitor experience package • A strong combination of nature, art and culture that can be incorporated into sporting events in the future • The addition of Aurora Town Square will provide a gathering space for activities off the field of play • Proximity to two major highways for each of access in and out of the community • Addition of two new hotels now open and a proposed 3rd hotel on the way Conclusion: Aurora is ready to support the local sport organizations to the extent possible with current human and financial resources. Several sport organizations are already hosting events on a regular basis and there is an opportunity to enhance the visitor experience while identifying new opportunities to bring other events into the community. Aurora is a warm and welcoming community that can provide the optimal experience for any visitor. Page 157 of 185 100 John West Way Aurora, Ontario L4G 6J1 (905) 727-3123 aurora.ca Town of Aurora General Committee Report No. CS2 2 -0 19 Subject: Updates to the Proclamation Policy Prepared by: Michael de Rond, Town Clerk Department: Corporate Services Date: April 5, 2022 Recommendation 1. That Report No. CS22-019 be received; and 2. That the updated Proclamation Policy (Attachment 1) be approved. Executive Summary This report seeks approval of staff recommended updates to the Town’s Proclamation Policy Staff are recommending minor changes to the Proclamation Policy Staff are not recommending that the Town proclaim religious commemorations, celebrations, or beliefs Background During the May 25, 2021 Council meeting, the following motion was carried; “Now Therefore Be It Hereby Resolved that staff review the Proclamations Policy and report back to Council with recommendations for a less restrictive policy.” The motion, as well as the discussion at the Council table that evening, mostly centred on staff coming back to Council with a policy that includes expanded criteria that allows for a broader range of matters that can be proclaimed by the Town. Page 158 of 185 April 5, 2022 2 of 4 Report No. CS22-019 Analysis Staff are recommending minor changes to the Proclamation Policy When reviewing the manner in which the Town issues proclamations, staff did not find many areas of concern with regards to process. Further to that, staff have not received any complaints from proclamation requesters with regards to process or timing of the proclamations. The one issue staff were made aware of by a requester between the approval of the Proclamations Policy in 2016 and this report was a perceived lack of legitimacy of a proclamation if it was not proclaimed and signed by the Mayor. It is more common, in other municipalities that issue proclamations, that the Mayor proclaims on behalf of the municipality. The updated policy attached to this report reflects this minor change in process. The Proclamations Policy approved in 2016 could be seen as contradictory in that the wording promoted arts and cultural celebrations throughout the policy, but also did not allow proclamations related to other countries that cultural celebrations may be tied to (ex, Italian Heritage Month). The updated policy removes the previous ambiguity, and should it be approved, would allow all arts, heritage, and cultural celebrations to be recognized in a proclamation, provided they meet the other criteria in the policy. Staff are not recommending that the Town proclaim religious commemorations, celebrations or beliefs As mentioned earlier, the discussion when the motion that initiated this review was carried seemed to be in favour of a policy that allowed more types of proclamations, possibly including those linked to religion. During the review of the policy, staff could not locate a municipality that permits any proclamations related to religion. For this reason, staff are recommending that these types of proclamations continue to be disallowed. Should members of Council wish to allow proclamations pertaining to religion, the following is a draft amendment that could be moved; “That the Proclamation Policy be amended to permit religious commemorations, celebrations or beliefs provided the request does not contravene other aspects of the policy.” Advisory Committee Review Not Applicable Page 159 of 185 April 5, 2022 3 of 4 Report No. CS22-019 Legal Considerations None. Financial Implications None. Communications Considerations Communications will ensure any policy revisions are posted and clearly communicated on the Town’s website. Climate Change Considerations The recommendations from this report does not impact greenhouse gas emissions or impact climate change adaptation. Link to Strategic Plan Reviewing and updating the Proclamations Policy reflects Progressive corporate excellence, innovation and continuous improvement that is noted throughout the Town’s Strategic Plan. Alternative(s) to the Recommendation 1. Council provide direction Conclusions This report and attachment provide Council with staff’s recommendations regarding updates to the Proclamation Policy. Attachments Attachment 1 – Updated Proclamation Policy Page 160 of 185 April 5, 2022 4 of 4 Report No. CS22-019 Previous Reports CS16-012 – Proclamation Policy – November 16, 2016 Pre-submission Review Agenda Management Team review on March 17, 2022 Approvals Approved by Techa van Leeuwen, Director, Corporate Services Approved by Doug Nadorozny, Chief Administrative Officer Page 161 of 185 100 John West Way Aurora, Ontario L4G 6J1 (905) 727-3123 aurora.ca Town of Aurora Proclamation Policy Contact: Town Clerk Approval Authority: Council Effective: April 26, 2022 ______________________________________________________________________________________ 1. Objective This Policy establishes a framework for the approval of Proclamation requests received by the Town. 2.Scope This Policy applies to all requests for Proclamations sent to the Clerk’s Office. The Policy does not apply to Notices of Motion submitted by Members of Council pursuant to the Procedure By-law that may result in Council proclaiming a particular event, day, week or month. 3.Definitions “Clerk” means the Clerk appointed by Council pursuant to requirements of section 228 of the Municipal Act, 2001, S.O. 2001, c. 25, as amended, or his/her designate. “Council” means the Aurora Town Council. “Procedure By-law” means the by-law that governs the calling, place and procedures of meetings of the Town, and that is enacted by Council in accordance with the requirements of subsection 238(2) of the Municipal Act, 2001, S.O. 2001, c.25, as amended.’ “Town” means The Corporation of the Town of Aurora. 4.General Principles and Rules of the Policy a)Proclamations are issued to acknowledge the efforts, commitment and achievement of individuals and organizations that enhance the community of Aurora. Page 162 of 185 2 b)Proclamations are issued to recognize public awareness campaigns, charitable fundraising campaigns, and arts and cultural celebrations of significance to the Town. c)A proclamation may recognize a particular event, day, week or month. d)An organization does not have exclusive rights to the day, week or month of its proclamation. e)All proclamation requests will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis and no individual or organization has the right to a proclamation. f)The declaration of a proclamation is at the discretion of the Town, and the Town reserves the right to decline any request. g)Where the Town issues a proclamation in accordance with this policy such proclamation does not constitute a personal or civic endorsement by the Town or approving official. h)The Town of Aurora will not incur any expenses relating to the advertising and promotion of a proclamation. 5.Proclamation Criteria a)Proclamations may be issued by the Town to acknowledge the efforts, commitment and achievement of individuals and organizations that enhance the community of Aurora. b)Proclamations may be issued by the Town to recognize public awareness campaigns, charitable fundraising campaigns, and arts and cultural celebrations of significance to the Town. c)A Proclamation may be issued by the Town if it pertains to one of the following matters: i.Civic promotions; ii.Public awareness campaigns; iii.Charitable fundraising campaigns; iv.Awareness or celebration that promotes interfaith and/or intercultural dialogue; v.Arts, heritage and cultural celebrations; and vi.Special honours for individuals or organizations for special achievements. d)A Proclamation will not be issued by the Town when the request pertains to any of the following: i.Individuals, events, organizations or community groups with no demonstrated interest or direct relationship to the Town; Page 163 of 185 3 i.Matters of political controversy, political parties or political organizations; ii.Religious commemorations, celebrations or beliefs iii.Religious organizations whose intent is to claim a recognition, or imposition, of religious doctrine and/or particular portions of religious doctrine; iv.iii. Individual conviction; v.iv. Businesses or commercial enterprises, and celebrations, campaigns or events intended for profit making purposes; vi.v. Discriminatory or inflammatory matters; vii.vi. Attempting to influence Town policy; viii.National, Independence or Republic Days; ix.vii. Celebrations, campaigns or events contrary to Town Policies or by-laws; x.viii. Illegal matters; xi.ix. Matters which defame the integrity of the Town; xii.x. Matters designed to incite hatred or disorder; and, xiii.xi. Matters which are untruthful 6.Application Procedures a)Requests for proclamations shall be submitted in writing and include: i.A brief summary and background of the individual or organization requesting a proclamation; ii.A brief summary and background of the subject matter of the requested proclamation; iii.The name and date(s) of the day, week, month, or event to be proclaimed; iv.The proposed text for the proclamation, which the Clerk may request and make amendments to the proclamation, which in the Clerk’s opinion improves the structure and/or overall intent of the requested proclamation; v.Contact person's name, address, telephone number and email; and vi.A date when the proclamation is required. b)Requests for proclamation must be submitted at least one month prior to the first day of the event day, week, or month for which a proclamation is requested. c)Any request to raise a flag associated with the proclamation, will be required to meet the criteria set out in the Flag Protocol and Flag Raising Policy. 7.Approval Procedures Page 164 of 185 4 a)Proclamation requests that comply with this Policy will be approved at the discretion of the Clerk. b)The Clerk may refer any request for a proclamation to the Mayor or any other Town staff for comment on the request. b)c)Once the Clerk has approved a proclamation request, the proclamation will be forwarded to the Mayor’s office for signature. c)d)The Clerk will notify the requestor of the Town’s decision in relation to any request received within five (5) business days. 8.Communication of the Proclamation a)The individual, organization or community group will be responsible for disseminating the proclamation to the media and making arrangements for the attendance of the Mayor and/or Councillors at the specific function or event, if any, at which the proclamation is to be made. b)Notice of proclamations approved by the Clerk will be posted on the Town’s website or by other means at the discretion of the Town. c)Certificates of proclamations are available from the Clerk’s Office upon request. 9. Delegation a)The authority to approve or deny proclamations under this Policy is delegated to the Clerk or his/her designate. b)The Clerk may refer any request for proclamation for Council’s consideration when deemed appropriate by the Clerk. 10.Responsibility a)Council will be responsible for; i.approving and amending this Policy; and ii.deciding on any matter referred by the Clerk to Council. b)The Clerk will be responsible for; i.exercising any authority delegated to the Clerk by this Policy; ii.administering the operation of this Policy; iii.interpreting this Policy; and iv.creating any procedure that the Clerk deems necessary for the effective and efficient implementation of this Policy. Page 165 of 185 100 John West Way Aurora, Ontario L4G 6J1 (905) 727-3123 aurora.ca Town of Aurora General Committee Report No. PDS 2 2 -0 45 Subject: Anti-Idling Policy Update Prepared by: Natalie Kehle, Energy and Climate Change Analyst Department: Planning and Development Services Date: April 5, 2022 Recommendation 1. That Report No. PDS22-045 be received; and 2. That the Anti-Idling Policy be revised to reflect changes to the enforcement mechanism and to reduce idling time from 5 minutes to two minutes, to align with surrounding municipalities. Executive Summary The purpose of this report is to update the General Committee on the implementation of the Anti-Idling Policy and approve the proposed changes to the Policy (see Attachment 1). The Policy establishes general guidance on limiting unnecessary idling of vehicles and equipment within the Town of Aurora. The Town’s initial Anti-Idling Policy education campaign ran in the Fall 2021 and targeted Town staff and the public; Recent changes to the Noise-By-Law further challenge enforcement of the Anti- Idling Policy; Limiting idling requires extensive, continuous education; Based on the experience in implementing the Anti-Idling Policy (through the education campaign and enforcement), staff recommend that the Policy be revised, as per Attachment 1. Background Council Motion Page 166 of 185 April 5, 2022 2 of 10 Report No. PDS22-045 Staff have been tackling vehicle idling over the last year and half through the implementation of the Anti-Idling Policy, which was approved by Council on October 27, 2020. In addition to approving the Policy, staff were directed to report back to Council after one year with a policy review. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the initial anti-idling education campaign was delayed to the Fall 2021. Staff are reporting back to Council having completed the education campaign and receiving comments from the Environmental Advisory Committee. Local Municipal Idling By-Laws Based on a municipal scan of neighboring jurisdictions, including Newmarket, East Gwillimbury, King, Markham and Richmond Hill, Aurora and King are the only municipalities that utilize a Noise By-law to limit vehicle idling. Standalone anti-idling by- laws are the most common mechanism municipalities in Ontario use to regulate vehicle idling (over 35 Ontario municipalities have adopted stand-alone by-laws). Aurora and King both limit idling to five minutes, while other area municipalities in York Region limit to two to three minutes. The trend in anti-idling policy in Ontario is to further reduce the number of minutes a vehicle is allowed to idle, not only to reduce greenhouse gases emitted from vehicles, but also to support the enforcement of the by-laws. Based on the City of Toronto’s experience with anti-idling since the 1990s, they lowered the allowable idling time from 3 minutes to one minute because it enabled enforcement of the by-law. Natural Resources Canada promotes a 1 minute limit as a national guideline for limiting vehicle idling time. Vehicle trends and technology changes Compared with unregulated vehicles 30 years ago, today’s new cars generate 98 percent fewer hydrocarbons, 96 percent less carbon monoxide and 90 percent fewer nitrous oxides. Unfortunately, carbon dioxide is one tailpipe emission that cannot be cleaned. This is the principal greenhouse gas linked to climate change. Every litre of fuel that is burned produces about 2.4 kilo grams of carbon dioxide. The bottom line: the more fuel burned, the more carbon dioxide is produced. Many newer cars, especially hybrids and low-emission vehicles (LEVs), already boast an anti-idling feature, stop-start systems that automatically shut the engine down when the car is in gear but not moving, to save gas. However, these systems can be disabled by the vehicle owner. There is a shift in car ownership occurring with more electric vehicles (battery and Page 167 of 185 April 5, 2022 3 of 10 Report No. PDS22-045 hybrid) being bought in Canada in the last two years (2019-2021) than the previous eight combined. These vehicles still only make up three per cent of new car registrations. In 2020, 1.8% of new vehicles registered in Ontario were Zero Emission Vehicles (ZEV), up from 1.2% in 2019. This trend is expected to continue with the federal government having set an aggressive target of half of all new passenger cars sold in Canada to be zero-emission vehicles by 2030, and reach 100 per cent by 2035. Research indicates that many Canadian motorists idle their vehicles an average of six to eight minutes a day. Emissions from idling cars, though difficult to quantify, is estimated to amount to less than 5% of the Town’s total emissions, and more likely between 1-2% of emissions. Analysis The Town’s initial Anti-Idling Policy education campaign ran in the Fall 2021 and targeted Town staff and the public; The “Every Second Counts” public education campaign was kicked-off in the Fall 2021 and raises awareness about vehicle idling. The campaign supports critical changes in idling behaviour as residents and businesses get back to their regular schedules (due to COVID-19 and the lack of drivers on the roads and children going to school). The 2021 campaign consisted of: Temporary mobile signs were strategically placed on high traffic roads and in school zones advertising the new idling restrictions and providing education on the importance of idling reduction; By-Law education, including handing out slips when dealing with idle vehicles in school zones and investigating idling complaints received by the Town; Completion of a Town Webpage dedicated to anti-idling with educational material on anti-idling, reporting mechanism for idling complaints to By-Law Services, FAQ, Idling facts, and an idling Test your Knowledge Quiz; Idling challenges were included in the Fall Go Green Challenge; Developed anti-idling resources for local schools and businesses including: Free Anti-Idling posters, Anti-Idling brochure, Anti-Idling Toolkit Guide for Schools to use in their curriculum and free printable resources; Installation of anti-idling signs at Town facilities parking; Page 168 of 185 April 5, 2022 4 of 10 Report No. PDS22-045 “Every Second Counts” Social Media Campaign that ran from September to November, 2021(see Attachment 2 – Town of Aurora Anti-Idling Social Media Campaign Stats). Bylaw Services played and continues to play a crucial role in the education first strategy for non-compliance of the Town's Anti Idle Policy. A total of five formal complaints were filed for idling in 2021 out of the total 3,405 complaints received (excludes Animal Services complaints) compared to one in 2020. Town staff operating fleet vehicles received anti-idling education and are expected to reduce their idling. Limiting vehicle idling from municipal vehicles is an action item from the Council-approved Green Fleet Action Plan. The Town Fleet Anti-Idling Education Campaign consisted of: Creating an Anti-Idling Training Presentation for all operators outlining procedures and requirements; Affixing Anti-Idling signs on all Town Vehicles and Equipment; Ordering Anti-Idling signs to be installed at operations facilities reminding drivers; Including specifications in all new Fleet Tenders that states vehicles must come equipped with “Automatic Engine Idle Shutdown Software” that can be set on idling timers; Installation of GPS and Telematics in Fleet vehicles that report on idling of equipment to support monitoring and staff education. The rest of Town staff were provided with resources, reminders and education material on the Anti-Idling Policy, as it impacted driving their personal vehicles, with the support from Town leadership. Recent changes to the Noise By-Law further challenge enforcement of the Anti-Idling Policy; Anti-idling enforcement continues to be a challenge for municipalities across Canada with anti-idling initiatives often depending on an education-first strategy instead. Most municipalities with idling control by-laws take a complaints-based approach to enforcement. Municipalities face similar enforcement challenges including; staff shortages, addressing higher priority complaints, ability for officers to witness idling due Page 169 of 185 April 5, 2022 5 of 10 Report No. PDS22-045 to lag time from telephone complaints, etc. In cases of non-compliance, most municipalities, like Aurora, implement an education-first approach. In order to provide an enforcement mechanism in the Anti-Idling Policy, a 5-minute idling limit was used to align with existing Town By-laws limiting idling; the Noise By-law and the Park By-law, though enforcement was still a challenge. The Noise By-Law provisions are based on the generation of noise from a vehicle, not from idling itself and the air pollution being generated. For a driver to be non-compliant, enough audible noise needed to be generated for a person on a premises other than the premises from which the noise was originating. Therefore, the idling provisions were basically non- enforceable. Due to recent changes in the Noise By-Law, the Anti-Idling Policy can no longer fall on it for enforcing limitations on idling in relation to vehicle air pollution. The new Noise By- Law has a broad provision that speaks to unreasonable and persistent noise on site, not idling itself or the air pollution from the vehicle. Though not without its own challenges, another mechanism would be to implement a standalone by-law that is specific to emitting greenhouse gas emissions and other exhaust products from idling, rather than based on noise generation. Though the Anti-Idling Policy no longer has an enforcement mechanism, Aurora By-Law Officers continue with an education-based approach and work with the Communications team for a continued effective public education campaign, as originally outlined in the Policy. Recent changes to the Noise By-Law further challenge enforcement of the Anti-Idling Policy; Anti-idling enforcement continues to be a challenge for municipalities across Canada with anti-idling initiatives often depending on an education-first strategy instead. Most municipalities with idling control by-laws take a complaints-based approach to enforcement. Municipalities face similar enforcement challenges including; staff shortages, addressing higher priority complaints, ability for officers to witness idling due to lag time from telephone complaints, etc. In cases of non-compliance, most municipalities, like Aurora, implement an education-first approach. In order to provide an enforcement mechanism in the Anti-Idling Policy, a 5-minute idling limit was used to align with existing Town By-laws limiting idling; the Noise By-law and the Park By-law, though enforcement was still a challenge. The Noise By-Law provisions are based on the generation of noise from a vehicle, not from idling itself and the air pollution being generated. For a driver to be non-compliant, enough audible noise Page 170 of 185 April 5, 2022 6 of 10 Report No. PDS22-045 needed to be generated for a person on a premises other than the premises from which the noise was originating. Therefore, the idling provisions were basically non- enforceable. The Anti-Idling Policy cannot fall on the Noise Bylaw to enforce limitations on idling in relation to vehicle air pollution. The new Noise By-Law has a broad provision that speaks to unreasonable and persistent noise on site, not idling itself or the air pollution from the vehicle. Though not without its own challenges, a more effective mechanism would be to implement a standalone by-law that is specific to emitting greenhouse gas emissions and other exhaust products from idling, rather than based on noise generation. Though the Anti-Idling Policy no longer does not have an enforcement mechanism, Aurora By-Law Officers continue with an education-based approach and work with the Communications team for a continued effective public education campaign, as originally outlined in the Policy. Limiting idling requires extensive, continuous education; As outlined in the Policy, the anti-idling education campaign requires ongoing implementation and resources. The Policy outlines, in addition to the initial education campaign, two other types of education campaigns: a seasonal reminder and periodic/ targeted campaigns. Proposed ongoing public education activities from the Town include: Seasonal reminder campaigns occurring in the Fall and Spring times, starting in 2022; By-Law Services continue to investigate complaints, while using an education first approach; Distribution of anti-idling education material; By-Law Service identifying of areas where idling compliance may be a problem so that education efforts are appropriately targeted; Using mobile signs to inform and educate the public about the restrictions and encourage voluntary compliance, especially in idling “hotspots”; Social media to encourage the commitment of individuals not to idle; Page 171 of 185 April 5, 2022 7 of 10 Report No. PDS22-045 Periodic and targeted Anti-Idling Campaigns, which consist of educating a focused group based on needs, such as GO station users, school zones, Town recreation centres and bus stations and carpool parking lots; Public anti-idling signage at Town Facilities; and Tracking idling complaints to the Town. Ongoing education activities for Town Staff include: Anti-idling education as part of the new hire onboarding process; Staff reminders to all operators, including resources; Increasing use of the telematics data to support continued education, driver behaviour and addressing any excessive idling trends; and Monitoring trends in electrification or low emission light duty trucks as they become commercially available and the infrastructure supports them. Fleet staff are monitoring commercial availability of electric trucks, as they become more affordable and technically sufficient for Town needs. Based on the experience in implementing the Anti-Idling Policy (through the education campaign and enforcement), staff recommend that the Policy be revised as per Attachment 1. Attachment 1 – Proposed Revision to the Anti-Idling Policy reflects two main revisions: First, due to the continued enforcement challenges falling on the Noise By-Law for limiting air pollution from idling vehicles, the Anti-Idling Policy no longer follows the By- Law for enforcement. Any reference to that existing By-Law is removed from the revised Policy, as well at the Parks and Public Spaces Bylaw as it is limited to idling that causes nuisances, not necessarily air pollution. Town staff, including By-Law Services will continue with an education-based approach to idling offences, and investigating any idling complaints received by the Town. Second, the Policy is revised to limit idling to two minutes, rather the five minutes. This better aligns with neighboring municipalities. The original five-minute limit was to support enforcement activities as it aligned with the Noise By-Law. Without having the restriction of the Noise By-Law, the Policy is updated to reflect best practices in anti- idling provisions, found in the GTA. Page 172 of 185 April 5, 2022 8 of 10 Report No. PDS22-045 Based on experience across Canada in limiting vehicle idling, the key to success is education. Due to the challenges in enforcing idling limitations, both as a policy and as a by-law with penalties, staff recommend continuing focus on education at this point and review the Policy in two years. Advisory Committee Review Staff sought comments from the Environmental Advisory Committee on February 23rd 2022. Staff provided an overview of the memorandum and sought Committee input on the proposed policy changes and seasonal and targeted education campaigns. The Committee expressed support for the policy changes, including the reduced idling limit, and provided input on various aspects including background, education, signage, and decals. The Committee inquired about opportunities to address institutionalized idling and pollution, and staff provided a response. Legal Considerations Education is the preferred course of action when dealing with anti-idling non- compliance. Although by-laws have enforcement mechanisms that could result in penalties, as mentioned above in this report, there are challenges in enforcing an anti- idling by-law and therefore, a policy with an education campaign would increase awareness and likely result in less air pollution. Financial Implications Should Council support staff’s recommendation to continue with the Town’s Anti-Idling Policy education campaign, more permanent funding should be identified within the Town’s ongoing operating budget moving forward. The estimated cost for the continued implementation of the Town’s Anti-Idling Policy is $1,900 for 2022, which is covered existing budget. Furthermore, in a typical year, the Town also performs regular in-person outreach activities offering another opportunity to promote the education campaign at no additional cost (excluding any printing needs for additional handouts). In-person outreach opportunities will also be re-evaluated for next year. Communications Considerations Ongoing education will be important to bring attention to community and staff idling habits and to underscore the importance of changing these practices for the better of Page 173 of 185 April 5, 2022 9 of 10 Report No. PDS22-045 the environment, our community health and to save money as well. To be successful, budget will need to be allocated to ensure we are able to utilize a variety of communications tactics to reach our various audiences. Climate Change Considerations The recommendations from this report will decrease greenhouse gas emissions by limiting excessive vehicle idling from the community and Town fleet vehicles, thus reducing greenhouse gas emissions and avoiding ever increasing energy costs. The recommendations from this report will not impact the Town’s ability to adapt to a changing climate. The report supports the goals under the Community Energy Plan, the Corporate Environmental Action Plan, the Energy Conservation Demand Management Plan and the Green Fleet Plan by describe reducing greenhouse gas emissions being released into the atmosphere and by reducing Town energy expenditure associated with unnecessary idling from Town Fleet vehicles. Link to Strategic Plan This project supports the Strategic Plan goal of supporting environmental stewardship and sustainability, Objective 2: Continue to invest in green initiatives and infrastructure to promote environmentalism locally. Alternative(s) to the Recommendation 1. That Council direct staff on next steps; or 2. That Council direct staff to implement an Anti-idling By-law that aligns with other Anti-idling By-Laws in York Region, including a list of exemptions and an enforcement mechanism that enables the public to file a complaint. Page 174 of 185 April 5, 2022 10 of 10 Report No. PDS22-045 Conclusions Staff, having considered the mechanisms available to limit the unnecessary idling of vehicles in the Town, are of the opinion that the Town should continue focusing on public and staff education on the benefits of reducing idling. Staff therefore request that Council endorse the attached revised Anti-Idling Policy to limit idling from five minutes to two. The revised Policy addresses important Town goals in reducing greenhouse gas emissions in the atmosphere within Town limits through a robust education campaign and aligns with neighboring municipalities in limiting idling to two minutes. Attachments 1. Proposed Revision Town of Aurora Anti-Idling Policy 2. Town of Aurora Anti-Idling Education Campaign Stats. Previous Reports Report No. PDS20-044, Town of Aurora Proposed Anti-Idling Policy, October 6, 2020. Pre-submission Review Agenda Management Team review on March 17, 2022 Approvals Approved by Marco Ramunno, Director Planning and Development Services Approved by Doug Nadorozny, Chief Administrative Officer Page 175 of 185 1 Topic: Anti-Idling Policy Affects: Vehicles Operating in the Town of Aurora Section: Insert section based on numbering system Replaces: N/A Original Policy Date: October 27, 2020 Revision Date: N/A Effective Date: Insert effective date of current revision Proposed Revision Date: 2024 Prepared By: PDS-Engineering, By-Law Services, Communications Approval Authority: Council 1.0 Purpose The purpose of this policy is to establish guidelines for unnecessary idling of vehicles. 2.0 Scope This policy applies to all unnecessarily vehicle idling within the Town boundary. 3.0 Responsibilities Bylaw Services: Municipal By-law Officers are responsible for responding to complaints related to non-compliance of the Policy by the general public and for implementing an education first campaign in cases of failure to comply. Town Communications: Corporate Communications, in collaboration with By-law Services, is responsible for providing information and public education on this policy and more specifically about the adverse effects of unnecessary idling on our environment. In alignment with The Town of Aurora Community Engagement Policy, Communications will be informing the public of this new policy, providing timely, accurate and accessible information, as well as subsequent periodic campaigns. This will be achieved through an education campaign that will include website updates, signage, social media, and mention on the Town Notice Board. Administrative Policies & Procedures Policy No. CORP XX – Anti-Idling Policy Page 176 of 185 Policy No. XX – Anti-Idling Policy 2 Town Fleet Manager The Town’s Fleet Manager is responsible for training Town Staff on the provisions of the Policy. 4.0 Policy No person shall cause or permit a vehicle to idle continuously for more than two (2) consecutive minutes in the Town of Aurora. 5.0 Exemptions The following exemptions exists for idling in the Town: (a) where continuous operation of the engine or motor is essential to the basic function of the vehicle or equipment; (b) where weather conditions justify the use of heating or refrigeration system powered by the engine or motor for the safety or welfare of the operator, passengers or animals or the preservation of perishable cargo. 6.0 Non Compliance In cases where voluntary compliance is not successful, the Bylaw Services will implement an education based response. 7.0 Implementation Municipal Staff: Municipal staff that operate Town vehicles shall adhere to the provisions from this Policy and the Town shall be responsible for staff training. General Public: Education will be the main strategy with the general public in implementing the provisions in this Policy. The Town’s Communications Team will lead three types of education campaigns: (1) An Initial Anti-Idling Town-wide Campaign, which consists of a onetime promotion of the Policy, over the course of a Season, once the Policy is approved by Council. The campaign’s main focus is on the environmental and health benefits of limiting idling and on the existing Town By-laws that Page 177 of 185 Policy No. XX – Anti-Idling Policy 3 limit idling in the Town. (2) Periodic and Targeted Anti-Idling Campaigns, which consists of educating a focused group based on needs. Periodic focus groups may include, but not limited to: a. GO station users b. School zones c. Town recreation centres d. Bus stations and carpool parking lots (3) Seasonal Reminder Campaign, which consists of an annual reminder of the Policy to the general public. Campaign strategies may include, but not limited to, social media announcements, Town Notice Board, the use of signage, handing out flyers, etc. Page 178 of 185 TOWN OF AURORA Anti-Idling Education Campaign: Social Media Results Page 179 of 185 Promotion of Policy and School Toolkit: September 15, 2021- Facebook, Instagram Did you know that Town of Aurora is now idle-free? Our anti- idling policy states that as a motorist you MUST turn your vehicle off after 5 consecutive mins of idling, unless in traffic. But why not take it one step further and turn your vehicle off if you are going to be stopped for more than 30 seconds. This will help in our goal to reduce 80% of Aurora’s greenhouse gas emissions by 2050. Learn more at aurora.ca/idlefreeaurora September 15, 2021- Twitter ��� Did you know that Town of Aurora is now idle-free ? Our anti-idling policy states that as a motorist you MUST turn your vehicle off after 5 consecutive mins of idling, unless in traffic. But why not shut off sooner? Learn more at http://aurora.ca/idlefreeaurora Facebook Instagram Twitter Impressions 1,862 Reach 1,820 Engagements 125 Impressions 1,584 Reach 1,510 Engagements 27 Impressions 641 Potential Reach 10,702 Engagements 19 September 21, 2021- Facebook, Instagram Help raise awareness about an Idle Free Aurora! Help us tackle #airpollution by getting involved with your own anti- idling campaign: aurora.ca/idlefreeaurora September 20, 2021- Twitter Attention Aurora schools: help raise awareness about an Idle Free Aurora! Help us tackle #airpollution by getting involved with your own anti-idling campaign: http://aurora.ca/idlefreeaurora TOWN OF AURORA Anti-Idling Social Media Campaign Page 180 of 185 Facebook Instagram Twitter Impressions 554 Reach 542 Engagements 7 Impressions 1,121 Reach 1,028 Engagements 10 Impressions 5,706 Potential Reach 41,895 Engagements 25 Anti-Idling Education: September 23, 2021- Facebook, Instagram Did you know that idling for just 10 seconds wastes more gas than restarting the engine? However, the break-even time to offset any potential incremental maintenance costs to the starter or battery is approximately 30 seconds. So when stopping for more than 30 seconds, whether picking up the kids, sitting in a drive-thru or waiting for a train to go by, turn off your engine! For more anti-idling tips, visit: aurora.ca/IdleFreeAurora Facebook Instagram Impressions 2,409 Reach 2,279 Engagements 70 Impressions 1,297 Reach 1,164 Engagements 15 Page 181 of 185 September 29, 2021- Facebook, Instagram The next time you’re thinking of grabbing food or a coffee, don’t wait in the drive-thru line with your car running. Instead, choose to park and stretch your legs by going inside to order. Or consider turning off your vehicle as you wait—remember the exhaust fumes can go right into your vehicle. Learn more about what you can do to support an Idle Free Aurora at: aurora.ca/IdleFreeAurora Facebook Instagram Impressions 1,925 Reach 1,860 Engagements 125 Impressions 1,096 Reach 1,028 Engagements 13 October 27, 2021- Facebook, Instagram Fact: Idling is polluting. It’s not good for the environment, it’s not good for our health and it’s not good for our wallets. Need more reasons to ditch this bad habit? Visit: aurora.ca/IdleFreeAurora Facebook Instagram Impressions 770 Reach 723 Engagements 10 Impressions 1,083 Reach 995 Engagements 14 Page 182 of 185 November 5, 2021- Facebook, Instagram It’s cold, we get it. No one likes to get into a freezing cold car, but the best way to warm up your car is not to leave it idling in the driveway, but instead to drive it. Unless you’re driving a 20-year old car or a diesel, your vehicle needs less than a minute- even in the dead of winter- before it’s road ready. By reducing unnecessary idling to just thirty seconds, we are helping to improve the quality of the air and reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Learn more at aurora.ca/IdleFreeAurora Facebook Instagram Impressions 626 Reach 601 Engagements 4 Impressions 1,002 Reach 945 Engagements 11 October 5, 2021- Facebook, Instagram Have you ever had to wade through clouds of smelly exhaust in the school parking lot or kiss and ride? As most kids can tell you, it’s not fun. Unnecessary idling can be extremely dangerous to children’s health. Over time, breathing exhaust fumes can damage brain cells (contributing to lower IQs) and is linked to asthma and other serious health conditions. Good rule of thumb: If you are going to be waiting for more than 30 seconds, turn off your engine. Learn more at: aurora.ca/IdleFreeAurora Facebook Instagram Impressions 675 Impressions 1,224 Page 183 of 185 Reach 649 Engagements 7 Reach 1,095 Engagements 18 October 11, 2021- Facebook, Instagram Did you know that idling affects your car? Yes, overtime idling can damage your engine’s components, including spark plugs, cylinders and exhaust systems. Because your vehicle’s engine is not operating at its peak temperature when idling, fuel is only partially combusted, leading to a fuel residue buildup on cylinder walls. Plus, your engine isn’t the only thing negatively affected by excessive idling. Learn more at: aurora.ca/IdleFreeAurora Facebook Instagram Impressions 1,166 Reach 1,134 Engagements 33 Impressions 1,317 Reach 1,232 Engagements 15 Page 184 of 185 100 John West Way Aurora, Ontario L4G 6J1 (905) 727-3123 aurora.ca Town of Aurora Notice of Motion Mayor’s Office _______________________________________________________________________________________ Re: Addition of Sunset Clauses to Site-Specific Zoning By-law Amendments To: Members of Council From: Mayor Tom Mrakas Date: April 5, 2022 _______________________________________________________________________________________ Whereas municipal sewage servicing allocation is becoming more limited in the Town of Aurora based on the approved growth projections and lands designated in the Official Plan for residential use; and Whereas the Town of Aurora has granted approval to a number of residential development applications, including the appropriate amount of servicing allocation to allow the developments to proceed to construction; and Whereas some of these approved developments are not being constructed in a timely manner; 1. Now Therefore Be It Hereby Resolved That staff be directed to add the appropriate sunset clauses to all future site-specific zoning by-law amendments passed by Council to stipulate the following: i. If a building permit has not been issued under the Building Code for any building or structure so authorized within a specified time frame from enactment of the Zoning By-law Amendment that is appropriate for the development, then the by- law will automatically repeal and if so repealed, the zoning of the property will revert to the original zoning; and ii. In addition, staff be directed to include existing Official Plan Servicing Allocation “Use it or Redistribute It” policies in all future residential draft plan of subdivision and site plan application approvals that will stipulate the applicant shall proceed to register the appropriate development agreement within a given time frame or receive an extension from Council and obtain a building permit within a specified time frame for said project. If the applicant does not satisfy the time frame requirements of the agreement or receive an extension from Council, the development approvals and servicing allocation may be revoked. Page 185 of 185