The URL can be used to link to this page

Agenda - Heritage Advisory Committee - 20230501Town of Aurora Heritage Advisory Committee Meeting Agenda Date:Monday, May 1, 2023 Time:7 p.m. Location:Holland Room, Aurora Town Hall Meetings are available to the public in person and via live stream on the Town’s YouTube channel. To participate, please visit aurora.ca/participation. Pages 1.Call to Order 1.1 Appointment of Committee Vice Chair That a Committee Member be elected as Vice Chair of the Heritage Advisory Committee for a two-year term (2023-2024). 1. 2.Land Acknowledgement 3.Approval of the Agenda 4.Declarations of Pecuniary Interest and General Nature Thereof 5.Receipt of the Minutes 6.Delegations 7.Matters for Consideration 7.1 Memorandum from Senior Planner; Re: Heritage Permit Application File: HPA-2023-04, 19 Catherine Avenue 1 (Presentation to be provided by Jonathan Wong Sin Wai, Architect, and Peter Hillar, Contractor) That the memorandum regarding Heritage Permit Application File: HPA-2023-04, 19 Catherine Avenue, be received; and 1. That the Heritage Advisory Committee comments regarding Heritage Permit Application File: HPA-2023-04, 19 Catherine Avenue, be received and referred to staff for consideration and further action as appropriate. 2. 7.2 Memorandum from Senior Planner; Re: Request to Remove 28 Wells Street from the Aurora Register of Properties of Cultural Heritage Value or Interest 12 (Presentation to be provided by Paul Oberst, Heritage Consultant) That the memorandum regarding Request to Remove 28 Wells Street from the Aurora Register of Properties of Cultural Heritage Value or Interest be received; and 1. That the Heritage Advisory Committee comments regarding Request to Remove 28 Wells Street from the Aurora Register of Properties of Cultural Heritage Value or Interest be received and referred to staff for consideration and further action as appropriate. 2. 8.Informational Items 9.Adjournment 100 John West Way Aurora, Ontario L4G 6J1 (905) 727-3123 aurora.ca Town of Aurora Memorandum Planning and Development Services Re: Heritage Permit Application File: HPA-2023-04 19 Catherine Avenue To: Heritage Advisory Committee From: Adam Robb, MCIP, RPP, CAHP, Senior Planner Date: May 1, 2023 Recommendation 1. That the memorandum regarding Heritage Permit Application File: HPA-2023-04, 19 Catherine Avenue, be received; and 2. That the Heritage Advisory Committee comments regarding Heritage Permit Application File: HPA-2023-04, 19 Catherine Avenue, be received and referred to staff for consideration and further action as appropriate. Summary This memorandum provides the Heritage Advisory Committee with the necessary information to comment on Heritage Permit Application HPA-2023-04 regarding a proposed two-storey rear yard addition at 19 Catherine Avenue. The property is located within the Town’s Northeast Old Aurora Heritage Conservation District and is designated under Part V of the Ontario Heritage Act. Background Property Description The subject property is located on the south side of Catherine Avenue, east of Yonge Street. The property contains a two-storey brick dwelling constructed circa 1886 as well as a detached accessory garage. The dwelling is representative of an L-shaped house in the Victorian architectural style, featuring dichromatic brickwork and a side gabled roof with a front facing gable peak. Mature vegetation also exists on the property, which enhances the overall streetscape. Page 1 of 48 Heritage Permit Application HPA-2023-04 - 19 Catherine Avenue May 1, 2023 Page 2 of 3 Heritage Designation In 2006, Town Council passed By-law 4804-06.D designating 19 Catherine Avenue as part of the Northeast Old Aurora Heritage Conservation District. The Northeast Old Aurora Heritage Conservation District Plan is available here, and is used to help guide development and alterations within the District area. Heritage Permit Application and proposed addition The submitted heritage permit is intended to replace the existing rear additions on the property and add a new, two-storey addition and deck space at the rear. The proposed rear addition is 1,012 square feet in size with additional upper and lower deck components totalling 1,038 square feet. This deck area provides appropriate access to the rear yard while specifically accounting for changes in grade on the property. The proposed addition will feature vertical cladding and brick, and decorative dormers are included on both the east and west elevations. The addition will also be further setback than the side yards of the main building, and lower in height. The applicant has also confirmed that no trees are proposed to be removed from the property. A complete architectural package and elevations have been included as Attachment 2 to this memorandum. The subject Heritage Permit Application was issued a Notice of Receipt on April 5, 2023, with the 90-day timeline for Council to make a decision under the Ontario Heritage Act lasting until July 4, 2023. Staff anticipate that comments from the Heritage Advisory Committee can be addressed and incorporated into a decision report to General Committee and then Council in June of 2023 to meet this statutory timeline. Analysis The proposal generally meets the design guidelines of the Northeast Old Aurora Heritage Conservation District Plan, with additional comments and input being sought from the Heritage Advisory Committee Staff are of the opinion that the proposal generally meets the design guidelines of the Northeast Old Aurora Heritage Conservation District Plan, as the existing façade of the property is to remain unaltered, the addition is located at the rear of the property with minimal impacts to the streetscape, and the design complements that of the main building. Additionally, no impacts to any of the mature vegetation is anticipated, with the Page 2 of 48 Heritage Permit Application HPA-2023-04 - 19 Catherine Avenue May 1, 2023 Page 3 of 3 existing trees also able to provide enhanced landscape screening. Staff are however seeking input and comments from the Heritage Advisory Committee including but not limited to the following elements of the proposal:  The west elevation bay window roof alteration and new balcony component  The height and location of the new proposed chimney, recognizing that the Building Code requires a 900 mm height above the roof  The general massing and materiality of the addition The applicant can look to address the comments that are received by the Heritage Advisory Committee, and these comments will also be incorporated into future reporting to General Committee and Council for consideration. Conclusion Heritage Permit Application HPA-2023-04 regarding a two-storey rear addition at 19 Catherine Avenue is being presented to the Heritage Advisory Committee for review and comment. Attachments Attachment 1 – Location Map Attachment 2 – Architectural Set and Elevations Page 3 of 48 Yonge StreetCentre StreetMachell AvenueMaple StreetWellington Street EastIrwin AvenueSpruce StreetCatherine AvenueWellington Street WestAlex Gardner CircleWells Street NorthSpruce StreetCatherine Avenue¯02550MetersLOCATION PLANHPA-2023-0419 CATHERINE AVENUESUBJECT LANDSMap by the Town of Aurora Financial Services Department, 06/04/2023. Base data provided by York Region & the Town of Aurora.Document Path: J:\data\data\Manager of Heritage Planning and Urban Design Maps\Report Maps\2023\HPA23-004_19_Catherine_Ave.mxdAttachment 1Page 4 of 48 ISSUED FOR REVIEW (NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION)ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. © 2022ARCHITECTCONSULTANT CONSULTANTCONTRACTOR CONSULTANT CONSULTANTNoNone9 Beach View Crescent, Toronto. ON647.700.5122jonathan@nonone.infoGREYFIELD CONSTRUCTION CO. LTD.15185 YONGE STREET, SUITE 200AURORA, ON905 713 0999nameaddressphonenameaddressphonenameaddressphonenameaddressphoneMAR 07, 2023PROPOSED EXTERIOR MATERIALS PALETTE FOR THE REAR YARD ADDITIONCOMPUTER GENERATED 3D MODEL OF THE FRONT FACADE (LOOKING SOUTH WEST)COMPUTER GENERATED 3D MODEL OF THE FRONT FACADE (LOOKING SOUTH EAST)PHOTOGRAPH OF THE EXISTING FRONT FACADE (LOOKING SOUTH WEST)3D FRONT VIEW WITH PROPOSED DEMOLITION IN RED COLOUR3D REAR VIEW WITH PROPOSED DEMOLITION IN RED COLOUR3D FRONT VIEW WITH PROPOSED REAR YARD ADDITION3D REAR VIEW WITH PROPOSED REAR YARD ADDITIONROOF SHINGLES - REDBRICK - COLOUR TO MATCH EXISTING BRICK(ALTERNATE COLOUR FOR HARDIE BOARD SIDING)(HARDIE BOARD SIDING)NOTE: THE EXISTING FRONT STRUCTURE INCLUDING ITS BRICK DETAILING AT THE CORNERS AND ABOVE THE WINDOWS IS TO REMAIN UNALTERED. THE 3D MODEL ABOVE SERVES TO CAPTURE THE OVERALL MASSING OF THE EXISTING FRONT STRUCTURE PRIMARILY. EXISTING FRONT STRUCTURE TO REMAIN UNALTERED.Attachment 2Page 5 of 48 Wall Tag (see wall type schedule)A31A101W1AROOM150 SF150 SF101BCL+2345Door Tag (see door schedule)Window Tag (see window schedule)Building Section1A101Wall Section1A101Detail NumberBuilding Elevation1A101A1011Interior ElevationElevation MarkRoom Name / NumberColumn LineCenterlineRevision TagR @±190.5mm20Stairs1NoteConstruction, Demolition or Drawing Note90 00' 00"DistanceNEProperty Line BearingArea Name100m²100ft²Area TagF1Floor Tag (see floor type schedule)C1Ceiling Tag (see ceiling type schedule)HiddenDemolished1 Hour Fire Resistance Rating2 Hour Fire Resistance RatingOverhead3/4 Hour Fire Resistance RatingAir BarrierVapour BarrierProperty LineBatt InsulationConcreteConcrete Masonry UnitConcrete Masonry Unit (Solid Filled)BrickGypsum Wall BoardSteelAluminumPlywoodEarth / SoilGrassGravel / AggregateStoneRigid InsulationPaversSpray Foam InsulationWoodExisting Element to RemainSheet No. ©2021ScaleProject NorthCopyright reserved. This design and drawings are the exclusive property of NoNone and cannot be used for any purpose without the written consent of the Architect. This drawing is not to be used for construction until issued for that purpose by the Architect. Issue / RevisionProject No.9 Beach View CrescentToronto, ON M4E 2L4t> 647.700.5122e> jonathan@nonone.infoStampAs indicatedA0.2SYMBOLS & MATERIALLEGEND19 Catherine AveAurora, Ontario221419 CATHSYMBOLS & MATERIAL LEGENDS7 Heritage Permit Application 230307Page 6 of 48 '1'1'1 1( 1: 1( 1 :1 STOREYDETACHED RESIDENTIAL2 STOREYDETACHED RESIDENTIALEX. 2 STOREY DETACHED RESIDENTIAL753 SFPROPOSED LOWER DECK796 SFPROPOSED 2 STOREY ADDITION1012 SFEX. AREA HOUSE TO BE DEMO'D601 SFCATHERINE AVENUEEXISTING1 STOREYGARAGE518 SFTRUE NORTHSIDEWALKEX. DRIVEWAY(;6(7%$&.P(;6(7%$&.PPP6 (7%$&. P PPPPPP(;6(7%$&.PPPPPPEX. TREE TO REMAINNOTE:ALL TREES ON THE PROPERTY ARE EXISTING AND TO REMAIN.WOOD POSTS BELOWCONC. RETAINING WALL BELOWPROPOSED UPPER BALCONY242 SFEX. FRONT STRUCTURE TO REMAINSheet No. ©2021ScaleProject NorthCopyright reserved. This design and drawings are the exclusive property of NoNone and cannot be used for any purpose without the written consent of the Architect. This drawing is not to be used for construction until issued for that purpose by the Architect. Issue / RevisionProject No.9 Beach View CrescentToronto, ON M4E 2L4t> 647.700.5122e> jonathan@nonone.infoStamp1 : 125A1.1SITE PLAN19 Catherine AveAurora, Ontario221419 CATH6,7(3/$1SITE STATISTICSSite plan based on land survey of Registered Plan No.246, Lot 18 by R.G. McKibbon Ontario Land Surveyor, Dated November 4, 1975.Zoning Designation: R7 - Special Mixed Density ResidentialDwelling UnitLot AreaLot FrontageFront YardRear YardInterior Side YardLot Coverage(Maximum)Height(Maximum)Zoning By-law #6000-17Single Detached460m215m6m7.5m1.5m (2 Storey buildings)35%10mProposed Single Detached1180m2(Existing)22.24m (Existing)4.87m (Existing)25.60m 4.39m (Existing)14%6.86m (Existing)7 Heritage Permit Application 230307Page 7 of 48 $$$$%$%$$$&$&$$%&')(FIRE BLOCK BELOW5/8" TYPE 'X' GYPSUM BOARD ON BOTH SIDES OF2X4 WOOD STUDS @ 16" o.c.)/$7522)6(&7,21 % )/$7522)6(&7,21 $ RDRDROOF VENT CALCULATION (O.B.C. 9.19.1.2.):FOR FLAT ROOF SECTION 'A':REQUIRED (AREA/150) = 48/150 = 0.32FOR FLAT ROOF SECTION 'B':REQUIRED (AREA/150) = 60/150 = 0.42SLOPES LO P ESLOPESLOPESLO P ESLOPESLOPESLOPESCUPPER DRAIN (TYP. OF 3) DECORATIVE DORMERS EX. ASPHALT SHINGLES ON WOOD FRAME TO BE DEMO'DEX. ROOF TO REMAINSheet No. ©2021ScaleProject NorthCopyright reserved. This design and drawings are the exclusive property of NoNone and cannot be used for any purpose without the written consent of the Architect. This drawing is not to be used for construction until issued for that purpose by the Architect. Issue / RevisionProject No.9 Beach View CrescentToronto, ON M4E 2L4t> 647.700.5122e> jonathan@nonone.infoStamp1/4" = 1'-0"A1.5ROOF PLANS19 Catherine AveAurora, Ontario221419 CATH 5RRI3ODQ3URSRVHG 5RRI3ODQ([LVWLQJ 'HPROLWLRQPage 8 of 48 )LUVW)ORRU 6HFRQG)ORRU 6HFRQG)ORRU&HLOLQJ $$1HZ%DVHPHQW &$$%&')( NEW BALCONY GLASS GUARDWN1WN3WN3WN3WN3WN1WN1WN2)LUVW)ORRU 6HFRQG)ORRU 6HFRQG)ORRU&HLOLQJ $$1HZ%DVHPHQW &$Pð:1Pð:1Pð:1$%&')( 0,1HARDIE BOARD SIDING:FACE BRICK:ICF BRICK LEDGE c/w CEMENT PARGINGGLASS GUARDRAILSTONE CAPCHIMMEY POTGLASS GUARDRAIL WOOD DECKWN1EXHAUST LOUVREPð:1Pð:1010WOOD BALCONY)LUVW)ORRU 6HFRQG)ORRU 6HFRQG)ORRU&HLOLQJ ([%DVHPHQW EX. ROOF TO REMAINREMOVE EX. ROOF OVER EX. BAY WINDOW)LUVW)ORRU 6HFRQG)ORRU 6HFRQG)ORRU&HLOLQJ ([%DVHPHQW Sheet No. ©2021ScaleProject NorthCopyright reserved. This design and drawings are the exclusive property of NoNone and cannot be used for any purpose without the written consent of the Architect. This drawing is not to be used for construction until issued for that purpose by the Architect. Issue / RevisionProject No.9 Beach View CrescentToronto, ON M4E 2L4t> 647.700.5122e> jonathan@nonone.infoStamp3/16" = 1'-0"A2.1NORTH & SOUTHELEVATIONS19 Catherine AveAurora, Ontario221419 CATH 1257+352326(' 6287+352326(' 1257+(;,67,1* 6287+(;,67,1*7 Heritage Permit Application 230307Page 9 of 48 )LUVW)ORRU 6HFRQG)ORRU 6HFRQG)ORRU&HLOLQJ 1HZ%DVHPHQW ASPHALT SHINGLES ON MANSARD ROOFFIBRE CEMENT BOARD VERTICAL CLADDING ON ICF CONCRETE WALL (COLOR TO MATCH EX BRICK)FACE BRICK ON ICF CONCRETE WALL(COLOR TO MATCH EX. BRICK)DOUBLE CASEMENT WINDOWS (TYP.)REPLACE WINDOWS IN ALL EXISTING WINDOW OPENINGSWOOD DECK w/ 42" CONT. GLASS GUARDRAIL %$$5'(H) RETAINING WALL108EX. GARAGE BEHIND(%) (%) (%) (%) Pð:1Pð:1Pð:1Pð:1WINDOW WELLCONC. LEDGE c/w CEMENT PARGING WN5STEPPED FOOTINGREFER TO STRUCT.CONC. STAIR BEHIND WN3WN1WN3WOOD DECK w/ 42" CONT. GLASS GUARDRAILDECORATIVE DORMER)LUVW)ORRU )LUVW)ORRU 6HFRQG)ORRU 6HFRQG)ORRU&HLOLQJ ([%DVHPHQW ([5HDU)LUVW)ORRU EXISTING BRICK & SIDING WOOD FRAME ON CMU FOUNDATION BUILDING ADDITIONS TO BE DEMOLISHED EXISTING HERITAGE BUILDING TO REMAINEXISTING WINDOWS TO BE REPLACEDEXISTING FASCIA BOARD & GUTTER TO BE REPLACEDEXISTING ASPHALT SHINGLES TO BE REPLACEDEXISTING SOFFIT TO BE REPAIRED/ REPLACEDSheet No. ©2021ScaleProject NorthCopyright reserved. This design and drawings are the exclusive property of NoNone and cannot be used for any purpose without the written consent of the Architect. This drawing is not to be used for construction until issued for that purpose by the Architect. Issue / RevisionProject No.9 Beach View CrescentToronto, ON M4E 2L4t> 647.700.5122e> jonathan@nonone.infoStamp3/16" = 1'-0"A2.2EAST ELEVATIONS19 Catherine AveAurora, Ontario221419 CATH ($67352326(' ($67(;,67,1*SPATIAL SEPARATION CALCULATION:(WORK IN PROGRESS)7 Heritage Permit Application 230307Page 10 of 48 PROPOSED EXTERIOR MATERIALS PALETTE FOR THE REAR YARD ADDITIONCOMPUTER GENERATED 3D MODEL OF THE FRONT FACADE (LOOKING SOUTH WEST)COMPUTER GENERATED 3D MODEL OF THE FRONT FACADE (LOOKING SOUTH EAST)PHOTOGRAPH OF THE EXISTING FRONT FACADE (LOOKING SOUTH WEST)3D FRONT VIEW WITH PROPOSED DEMOLITION IN RED COLOUR3D REAR VIEW WITH PROPOSED DEMOLITION IN RED COLOUR3D FRONT VIEW WITH PROPOSED REAR YARD ADDITION3D REAR VIEW WITH PROPOSED REAR YARD ADDITIONROOF SHINGLES - REDBRICK - COLOUR TO MATCH EXISTING BRICK(ALTERNATE COLOUR FOR HARDIE BOARD SIDING)(HARDIE BOARD SIDING)NOTE: THE EXISTING FRONT STRUCTURE INCLUDING ITS BRICK DETAILING AT THE CORNERS AND ABOVE THE WINDOWS IS TO REMAIN UNALTERED. THE 3D MODEL ABOVE SERVES TO CAPTURE THE OVERALL MASSING OF THE EXISTING FRONT STRUCTURE PRIMARILY. EXISTING FRONT STRUCTURE TO REMAIN UNALTERED.19 CATHERINE AVENUEEXISTING SOUTH EAST VIEWS WITH BAY WINDOWApplicant PresentationPage 11 of 48 100 John West Way Aurora, Ontario L4G 6J1 (905) 727-3123 aurora.ca Town of Aurora Memorandum Planning and Development Services Re: Request to Remove 28 Wells Street from the Aurora Register of Properties of Cultural Heritage Value or Interest To: Heritage Advisory Committee From: Adam Robb, MCIP, RPP, CAHP, Senior Planner Date: May 1, 2023 Recommendation 1. That the memorandum regarding Request to Remove 28 Wells Street from the Aurora Register of Properties of Cultural Heritage Value or Interest be received; and 2. That the Heritage Advisory Committee comments regarding Request to Remove 28 Wells Street from the Aurora Register of Properties of Cultural Heritage Value or Interest be received and referred to staff for consideration and further action as appropriate. Summary This memorandum provides the Heritage Advisory Committee with information to comment on the request received by the Town to remove 28 Wells Street from the Register of Properties of Cultural Heritage Value or Interest (Heritage Register). The property is currently considered listed and non-designated. Background Property Description 28 Wells Street is located on the west side of Wells Street, north of Mosley Street and south of Wellington Street East. The property contains an existing 2 storey brick Edwardian home as well as a derelict and non-heritage accessory garage. The existing dwelling was constructed circa 1920 and features a hipped roof, central dormer, and verandah. Alterations to the structure include the verandah enclosure, front steps, and a rear addition that is visible from the southern side. Page 12 of 48 Request to Remove 28 Wells Street from the Heritage Register May 1, 2023 Page 2 of 5 Neighbourhood Context 28 Wells Street is considered part of the southeast old Aurora and Town Park community area. The majority of properties on the street in and around the subject property are listed and non-designated, with there also being instances of infill development. The adjacent property to the south at 32 Wells Street previously contained an Ontario Gothic style cottage that was listed on the Town’s Heritage Register but was approved for demolition in 2017, and now contains a newly built single detached home. Heritage Status 28 Wells Street is a listed and non-designated property on the Town’s Heritage Register. As a listed property, the owner is not permitted to demolish or remove a building or structure on the property without providing Council with at least 60 days written notice. This gives Council time to determine whether the property should be designated or not. Currently, no demolition permit has been applied for and there is no timeline for Council to make a decision. The owner has chosen to work with the Town and Heritage Advisory Committee on this process instead of actively applying for a demolition permit and triggering the 60-day timeline. Should the property be removed from the Heritage Register, the owner would then be permitted to apply for and obtain a demolition permit. Reason for Request to Remove the Property The owner is requesting that the property be removed from the Heritage Register in order to replace the existing structures on site with a new residential build. The owner has indicated a desire to pursue one set of semi-detached units, which would be subject to further zoning and planning review and approval as well prior to any potential building permit issuance. A thorough review of any such proposal would ensure design conformity with the area and compliance with the requirements of the Zoning By-law in terms of height, setbacks and massing. The owner has been requested to present preliminary conceptual elevations to the Heritage Advisory Committee for initial comment as well (through a presentation at the meeting), with the intent being that should the property be approved for removal, the new structure be designed in a complementary manner that respects the policies of the Urban Design Guidelines for the Town Park Neighbourhood, linked here. A comprehensive design and zoning review would also still be undertaken, and comments provided by the Heritage Advisory Committee can also be addressed and incorporated through the design process, should the delisting request ultimately be granted. Page 13 of 48 Request to Remove 28 Wells Street from the Heritage Register May 1, 2023 Page 3 of 5 Analysis There are set criteria for determining cultural heritage value or interest under the Ontario Heritage Act, with two of nine criteria to be met to qualify for designation The Ontario Heritage Act provides criteria for determining cultural heritage value or interest through Ontario Regulation 9/06. This Regulation requires that a building must exhibit design/physical, historical/associative, or contextual value to warrant designation. The criteria under Ontario Regulation 9/06 are as follows: Design or Physical Value 1. Property is a rare, unique, representative or early example of a style, expression, material or construction method. 2. Property displays a high degree of craftmanship or artistic merit. 3. Property demonstrates a high degree of technical or scientific achievement. Historical or Associative Value 4. Property has direct associations with a theme, event, belief, person, activity, organization or institution that is significant to the community. 5. Property yields, or has the potential to yield, information that contributes to an understanding of a community or culture. 6. Property demonstrates or reflects the work or ideas of an architect, artist, builder, designer or theorist who is significant to a community. Contextual Value 7. Property is important in defining, maintaining, or supporting the character of an area. 8. Property is physically, functionally, visually or historically linked to its surroundings. 9. Property is a landmark. Page 14 of 48 Request to Remove 28 Wells Street from the Heritage Register May 1, 2023 Page 4 of 5 In order to qualify for designation, a property must substantially meet two (2) of the nine (9) criteria. This is the result of Provincial changes under Bill 23, as previously only one (1) criteria needed to be met for a property to be designated. Through Bill 23, the Province has heightened the “test” for properties to be able to qualify for designation, and designations are also now appealable by owners to the Ontario Land Tribunal. In 2022, the Town retained MHBC Planning Inc. to conduct a Heritage Register Review, and 28 Wells Street was not recommended to be prioritized for designation The Town completed a Heritage Register Review in 2022, which evaluated the 374 listed properties in Town based on Ontario Regulation 9/06. The consultant for this project was MHBC Planning Inc., and alongside consultation with the Heritage Advisory Committee and Council, the review ultimately recommended that 28 Wells Street did not warrant prioritization for designation. It was determined that the property could remain listed on the Register on the basis that it contains moderate value, largely related to supporting the neighbourhood character. The property was also determined to be generally representative of the Edwardian style, but not rare or unique, such that it was not prioritized for designation. The owner also submitted a third-party Cultural Heritage Evaluation Report that recommends the property be removed from the Heritage Register A Cultural Heritage Evaluation Report has been prepared by Paul Obsert, Heritage Consultant and Architect (Ret.) and is attached to this memorandum for consideration by the Heritage Advisory Committee. Paul Obsert is a recognized professional in the field of heritage planning and has been qualified by the Ontario Municipal Board (now Ontario Land Tribunal) as an expert witness on architecture and heritage planning. The Cultural Heritage Evaluation Report provides property photos and imagery and ultimately makes the conclusion that the property at 28 Wells Street “does not rise to the standard that would merit designation”. An evaluation of the criteria under Ontario Regulation 9/06 is also provided. Provincial Bill 23 has significantly altered the “listed” status of heritage properties Provincial Bill 23 has drastically changed the heritage planning process and specifically the status of listed properties across the Province. The Bill amended the Ontario Heritage Act to have all properties that are currently listed (non-designated) on a municipal Heritage Register automatically be removed effective January 1, 2025. This would apply to 28 Wells Street as well. The intent of this legislation from the Province is Page 15 of 48 Request to Remove 28 Wells Street from the Heritage Register May 1, 2023 Page 5 of 5 to prevent properties from remaining as listed for extended periods of time. This new legislation will ultimately result in municipal Heritage Registers across the Province being limited to properties that are designated, or those actively in the process of seeking designation. Further, and as stated previously, the criteria for qualifying for designation has been heightened, and designations are also now appealable to the Ontario Land Tribunal, where successful appeals would result in the property automatically being removed from the Heritage Register. As the Heritage Advisory Committee and Council consider this and future requests for removals from the Town’s Heritage Register, consideration will have to be had as to whether the property satisfies the Province’s new test for designation, and if that evaluation would be upheld at the level of the Ontario Land Tribunal, as otherwise the property will be automatically removed regardless of the Town’s intent to designate. Conclusion The request to remove 28 Wells Street from the Town’s Heritage Register is being presented to the Heritage Advisory Committee for review and comment. Comments received by the Heritage Advisory Committee will be incorporated into a future report to General Committee for ultimate consideration by Council. Attachments Attachment 1 – Location Map Attachment 2 – Cultural Heritage Evaluation Report Page 16 of 48 Centre StreetMosley StreetWellington Street EastWells StreetBerczy StreetVictoria StreetLarmont StreetWalton DriveWells Street NorthLOCATION PLAN¯02550MetersDELISTING APPLICATION28 WELLS STREETSUBJECT LANDSMap by the Town of Aurora Financial Services Department, 06/04/2023. Base data provided by York Region & the Town of Aurora.Document Path: J:\data\data\Manager of Heritage Planning and Urban Design Maps\Report Maps\2023\Delisting_28_Wells_St.mxdAttachment 1Page 17 of 48 28 Wells Street Aurora Heritage Evaluation for de-listing Page 1 of 22 Heritage Evaluation for de-listing 28 Wells Street, Aurora, ON March 2023 Scarborough Centre Branch Toronto Public Library Paul Oberst, Heritage Consultant and Architect (Ret.) View of east front of the house from Wells St. March 19, 2023 Photos by author unless otherwise noted. Attachment 2 Page 18 of 48 28 Wells Street Aurora Heritage Evaluation for de-listing Page 2 of 22 Heritage Resource Owner: Maple Lane Lands & Development 83 Industrial Parkway S Aurora, ON, L4G 3V5 Heritage Consultant: Paul Oberst 152 Kensington Avenue South Hamilton ON, L8M 3H5 pauldurfeeoberst@gmail.com Table of Contents 1. Executive Summary 3 2. Engagement 3 3. Introduction to the Site 4 4. Introduction to the Buildings 5 4.1 Exterior 5 4.2 Interiors 7 4.3 Design, Integrity and Condition 8 5. Heritage Evaluation of the House 9 5.1 Ontario Regulation 9/06 9 5.2 Applying the Criteria in Ontario Regulation 9/06 11 6. Conclusions 12 7. Bibliography 12 Appendix: Heritage Consultants’s CV 13 Page 19 of 48 28 Wells Street Aurora Heritage Evaluation for de-listing Page 3 of 22 1. Executive Summary The house at 28 Wells Street in Aurora is an unadorned brick dwelling of two storeys. It is listed in the Aurora Register of Properties of Cultural Heritage Value or Interest , as are many of its neighbours. It is within the Town Park Neighbourhood and is subject to the Town’s Urban Design Guidelines for that area. The Aurora Heritage Register Review of 2022 lists its Neighbourhood Group as Southeast Old Aurora—the northern part of the Town Park Neighbourhood, and one of the older parts of the Town of Aurora. The Heritage Register Review lists its style as Edwardian, dates it 1913-1927 and rates its value as “moderate” recommending that it remain on the Register. My comments and my own evaluation are detailed in the body of the report, below. The owners request that the property be removed from the Register in order that they might remove the existing buildings, sever the lot into two properties, and erect a new pair of semi- detached dwellings, designed to be compatible and complementary with their neighbours, in keeping with the Urban Design Guidelines for the Town Park Neighbourhood . It is my professional opinion that the buildings on the property do not merit designation under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act, and that their removal and replacement with compatible new buildings will not harmfully impact the heritage character of the neighbourhood. I therefore recommend that the request to remove the property from the Register be granted. 2. Engagement I was engaged by the owner, Maple Lane Lands & Development, to produce a Heritage Evaluation for de-listing the property at 28 Wells Street in Aurora. I made a site visit on 19 March, 2023 to examine the existing buildings, and document them with photographs. I spoke with Adam Robb, Senior Planner with the Town, and we agreed that my evaluation should be a “light version”—my words, not Adam’s—of a Cultural Heritage Impact Assessment, and that it should particularly reference Ontario Regulation 9/06. More on this regulation in Section 5, below. My assessment of the heritage impact relies on my own expertise, taking guidance from accepted standards for heritage conservation in Ontario. I am an architect and a professional member of the Canadian Association of Heritage Professionals. The Ontario Municipal Board has qualified me as a opinion witness on architecture and heritage. I co-authored the Northeast Old Aurora Heritage Conservation District Study and Plan. My CV is included as an appendix. Page 20 of 48 28 Wells Street Aurora Heritage Evaluation for de-listing Page 4 of 22 3. Introduction to the Site The property is located on the west side of Wells Street in the first block south of Wellington Street. Wells is the second street east of Yonge. This area, along with Northeast Old Aurora, are the oldest areas of the Town, and both areas took decades to build out. As a result, there is quite a medley of architectural styles. The house at 28 Wells Street, built around 1920, is much younger than many of its neighbours. The character of the neighbourhood is residential, and includes a great many churches, a public park, and a school, now converted to condominiums. Figure 1. John Moseley’s subdivision plan of 1853. Note that the built lots that we see today differ from the original plan. Page 21 of 48 28 Wells Street Aurora Heritage Evaluation for de-listing Page 5 of 22 4. Introduction to the Buildings 4.1 Exterior The house is a 2 storey, unadorned, Edwardian residence of solid brick construction. The masonry is of smooth red brick, laid in a running bond. There is a full width front verandah, with a shallow shed roof, and supported on three substantial square wood columns which sit on stone-capped brick piers. The verandah is enclosed—a later alteration. As is typical of the style, the living room window is wider than others and has a short stained glass upper sash. On the front of the moderately sloped hipped roof there is a triangular aluminum siding dormer with a small paired window. This window is ‘blind’—the attic is not occupied. On the left (south) façade there is a side entry door at grade, two small window lighting the staircase at bottom and top, and one plain window on the ground floor rear at the kitchen. On the north façade there is a small stained glass window in the living room and a very shallow square bay window in the dining room to the rear. There is a bedroom window near the front on the second floor. There are two one-storey additions at the rear, one directly behind the main house (perhaps original) and a fairly recent one extending to the left (south) into the wide side yard. It is not in keeping with the style of the main house. At the right rear there is a frame garage that is derelict and leaning. Figure 2. View from the southeast. Porch enclosure is probably not original Figure 3. Addition at left rear is visible Image from Google StreetView. Figure 4. View from northeast. Very derelict garage is visible at the rear. Figure 5. View from back yard. Earlier addition is to the left, newer one is to the right. Page 22 of 48 28 Wells Street Aurora Heritage Evaluation for de-listing Page 6 of 22 4.2 Interior Figure 9. Old (north) part of rear addition. Again, the previous owner started a renovation but did not get very far before selling to current owner. Figure 10. New part of the rear addition look out toward back yard. Again, the renovation barely begun. Figure 11. Bottom of stairs. Stair rail/ guard is not original. Figure 6. Living room in northeast corner of ground floor, showing the two stained glass pieces. Figure 7. Dining room in northwest corner of ground floor showing three windows of the shallow square bay window.. Figure 8. Kitchen in southwest corner of ground floor. It appears work was started here by previous owner but not completed. Page 23 of 48 28 Wells Street Aurora Heritage Evaluation for de-listing Page 7 of 22 4.2 Interior Figure 15. Northwest bedroom. Figure 16.Bathroom in southwest corner of second floor . Figure 17. Another view of the bathroom. Figure 12. Top of Stair looking north—stair has two turns. Figure 13. Southeast bedroom, looking across the street. Figure 14. Northeast bedroom. Page 24 of 48 28 Wells Street Aurora Heritage Evaluation for de-listing Page 8 of 22 4.2 Interior 4.3 Design, Integrity and Condition The house is a small, modest and basic example of a two-storey brick Edwardian Classic dwelling. The type is represented in the neighbourhood, but is not predominant. The main body of the exterior of the house is little changed since construction, but the enclosure of the front verandah is almost certainly of a later date, and most of the windows are modern replacements. The rear addition extending into the south side yard does not reflect the original style of the house—it would not have been constructed as part of the original design. Interior door and window frames are intact Edwardian style with plain jambs and lintels with lower beads and upper cornices. Lower stair guard is a later alteration. Bathroom and kitchen were updated many decades ago, and are in mid-reconstruction currently—work started but not finished by previous owners. Both of the rear additions and part of the basement are is similar incomplete condition. There is some rot in the verandah floor near the outer door which may indicate problems underneath. The garage is unsound. Figure 18. Front porch looking north. Window to the right is in the living room. Figure 19. Front porch looking southeast. Figure 20. Wood rot in porch floor at entry door. Page 25 of 48 28 Wells Street Aurora Heritage Evaluation for de-listing Page 9 of 22 5. Heritage Evaluation of the House. 5.1 Ontario Regulation 9/06 (O.Reg. 9/06) This regulation was part of a suite of legislative and regulatory measures regarding natural and cultural heritage enacted in 2006. The meat of the regulation is quoted in its entirety below: 1. (1) The criteria set out in subsection (2) are prescribed for the purposes of clause 27 (3) (b) of the Act. O. Reg. 569/22, s. 1. (2) Property that has not been designated under Part IV of the Act may be included in the register referred to in subsection 27 (1) of the Act on and after the day subsection 3 (2) of Schedule 6 to the More Homes Built Faster Act, 2022 comes into force if the property meets one or more of the following criteria for determining whether it is of cultural heritage value or interest. 1. The property has design value or physical value because it is a rare, unique, representative or early example of a style, type, expression, material or construction method. 2. The property has design value or physical value because it displays a high degree of craftsmanship or artistic merit. 3. The property has design value or physical value because it demonstrates a high degree of technical or scientific achievement. 4. The property has historical value or associative value because it has direct associations with a theme, event, belief, person, activity, organization or institution that is significant to a community. 5. The property has historical value or associative value because it yields, or has the potential to yield, information that contributes to an understanding of a community or culture. 6. The property has historical value or associative value because it demonstrates or reflects the work or ideas of an architect, artist, builder, designer or theorist who is significant to a community. 7. The property has contextual value because it is important in defining, maintaining or supporting the character of an area. 8. The property has contextual value because it is physically, functionally, visually or historically linked to its surroundings. 9. The property has contextual value because it is a landmark. O. Reg. 569/22, s. 1. [Author’s note—Converting the legalese in the opening two clauses into plain speech— Properties that meet one or more of the nine criteria listed may be Designated under Part IV.] These criteria were used by The Aurora Heritage Register Review of 2022 in evaluating the house at 28 Wells Street. (See copy on the next page.) Key points are highlighted. Page 26 of 48 28 Wells Street Aurora Heritage Evaluation for de-listing Page 10 of 22 Page 27 of 48 28 Wells Street Aurora Heritage Evaluation for de-listing Page 11 of 22 I generally concur with the findings in the Aurora Heritage Register Review, but make the comments below (in bold italics).  The house has fair integrity,  The house is in fair condition,  The house has moderate (less than good) heritage value. The house meets one of the items listed under each of criteria 1 and 7 of O.Reg. 9/06:  It is a representative example of example of an Edwardian style house: neither rare, unique, nor early.  It supports the character of the area, but does not define or maintain it. These items, in each case, are the weakest under each criterion. Under design or physical value, just about any building is a “Representative example” of something—it’s not much of a distinction. It’s the mulligan of heritage valuation. Likewise, “supporting the character of the area” only gets the bronze medal after “defining” and “maintaining”. 5.2 Applying the Criteria in Ontario Regulation 9/06 The Ministry offers the following advice on applying O.Reg. 9/06 in its Heritage Toolkit volume titled Heritage Property Evaluation (with my emphasis in bold): “Section 29 of the Ontario Heritage Act enables municipalities to pass bylaws for the protection (designation) of individual real properties that have cultural heritage value or interest to the municipality. Heritage designation is a protection mechanism with long- term implications for the alteration and demolition of a cultural heritage property. Individual properties being considered for protection under section 29 must undergo a more rigorous evaluation than is required for listing. The evaluation criteria set out in Regulation 9/06 essentially form a test against which properties must be assessed. The better the characteristics of the property when the criteria are applied to it, the greater the property’s cultural heritage value or interest, and the stronger the argument for its long-term protection…. Regulation 9/06 prescribes the criteria for determining property of cultural heritage value or interest in a municipality. The regulation requires that, to be designated, a property must meet “one or more” of the criteria grouped into the categories of Design/Physical Value, Historical/ Associative Value and Contextual Value. This does not mean that the property is only evaluated within “one” category or must meet a criterion in each category in order to allow for protection. When more categories are applied, more is learned about the property and its relative cultural heritage value or interest. As a result, a more valid decision regarding heritage conservation measures can be made. Council must be satisfied that the property meets at least one of the criteria set out in Regulation 9/06 before it can be designated under section 29. (This is now two criteria under Bill 23.) Page 28 of 48 28 Wells Street Aurora Heritage Evaluation for de-listing Page 12 of 22 6. Conclusions Ontario Regulation 9/06 is not a mandate, but a minimal criteria. Meeting two criteria is a necessary, but not sufficient condition for designation. The verb in the first clause is “may”, not “must” or even “should”. Based on the criteria in Ontario Regulation 9/06, the Ministry’s advice, and my experience in cultural heritage work it is my professional opinion, that the property at 28 Wells Street in the Town of Aurora does not rise to the standard that would merit designation under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act. In view of Bill 23, I believe it should be removed from the Aurora Register of Properties of Cultural Heritage Value or Interest . Note: The Owner and their Architect are working on drawings for the replacement buildings. They will have them ready to present at the May 1 meeting of the Heritage Committee. 7. Bibliography Historic Architecture: Environment Canada, Parks Service. The Buildings of Canada. Ottawa McRae, Marion and Adamson, Anthony. The Ancestral Roof: Domestic Architecture of Upper Canada. Toronto: Clarke Irwin & Company, 1963 Mikel, Robert. Ontario House Styles. Toronto: James Lorimer & Company Limited, 2004 Heritage Conservation: Fram, Mark. Well Preserved, The Ontario Heritage Foundation’s Manual of Principles and Practice for Architectural Conservation. Erin, Ontario: The Boston Mills Press, 1988 Ontario Ministry of Culture, Tourism and Recreation. Architectural Conservation Notes. Parks Canada. Standards and Guidelines for the Conservation of Historic Places in Canada. Ottawa: Queens Printer, Official Documents: Ontario. Ontario Heritage Act, RSO, 1980, chapter o.18, as amended. Toronto: Queen’s Printer for Ontario, 2005 Ontario Ministry of Culture, Tourism and Recreation. Heritage Property Evaluation. Queen’s Printer for Ontario, 2006 Phillip H. Carter Architect and Planner in association with Paul Oberst Architect. Northeast Old Aurora Heritage Conservation District Study and Plan. Aurora: Town of Aurora, 2006 The Planning Partnership, Urban Design Guidelines, Town Park Neighbourhood. Aurora: Town of Aurora, 2020 Town of Aurora, Aurora Heritage Register Review. Aurora: Town of Aurora, 2022 Page 29 of 48 28 Wells Street Aurora Heritage Evaluation for de-listing Page 13 of 22 Appendix: Heritage Consultant’s CV Page 30 of 48 28 Wells Street Aurora Heritage Evaluation for de-listing Page 14 of 22 PAUL OBERST, OAA, B.Arch, CAHP CURRICULUM VITAE EDUCATION 1970 B. ARCH (WITH DISTINCTION) University of Michigan PROFESSIONAL HISTORY 1993 – 2020 Paul Oberst Architect, Principal 1995-2020 Consultant to: Phillip H. Carter Architect 1994-1996 Consultant to: R. E. Barnett Architect 1989 - 1993 Designer Gordon Cheney Architect Inc. 1984 - 1989 Paul Oberst Design, Principal 1981-1984 Designer Lloyd Alter Architect 1973-1981 Major Works Building, Principal SELECTED PROJECT EXPERIENCE: HERITAGE PROJECTS For Lloyd Alter Architect Contact Lloyd Alter, 416-656-8683 Beverley Street Row, Toronto, Renovation and preservation, 1982 This project was part of the redevelopment of a largely vacant city block. The developer chose to preserve this 16-house Victorian row, an enlightened attitude for the time. Mr. Oberst worked on several of the houses in the project, with responsibilities including design, construction documents, and field review . McCabe Houses, 174-178 St.George Street, Toronto restoration for adaptive re-use, 1982 Mr. Oberst assisted in working drawings and field review. The Beverley Street project preserved a large Victorian row of 16 houses, maintaining their original use as single-family dwellings. It was nominated for an Ontario Renews Award. Page 31 of 48 28 Wells Street Aurora Heritage Evaluation for de-listing Page 15 of 22 For Lloyd Alter Architect Fulton-Vanderburgh House, Richmond Hill, exterior restoration, 1984 This project was part of a development agreement for farmland south of Richmond Hill. CAPHC member David Fayle was the LACAC liaison. Mr. Oberst handled the project, having full responsibility for design, construction documents, and field review. For Phillip H. Carter Architect and Planner Contact Phillip Carter, 416-504-6497 Woodstock Public Library, Restoration, addition, and renovations, 1996 Mr. Oberst assisted in the production of working drawings and wrote the specifications. Port Hope Public Library, restoration, addition and renovations, 2000 Mr. Oberst wrote the specifications. The Fulton-Vanderburgh House in Richmond Hill, after its restoration. Built around 1810, this is the oldest house in York Region Woodstock Public Library. Phillip Carter’s project combined sensitive alterations and an addition with the restoration of one of Ontario’s finest Carnegie libraries. Page 32 of 48 28 Wells Street Aurora Heritage Evaluation for de-listing Page 16 of 22 For Paul Oberst Architect The Dominion Bank 2945 Dundas Street W., Toronto Restoration, addition, and renovation, 2002 This 1915 bank by John M. Lyle Architect was converted to a commercial residential building with a penthouse addition, set back 2.3m from the building line, and following the curve of the façade. The original structure was restored under a local façade improvement program, including cleaning and installation of replacement 1-over-1 double hung windows on the second floor. Medland Lofts 2925 Dundas Street W., Toronto Restoration, addition, and renovation, 2005 This Art Deco building was in extreme disrepair following an uncompleted renovation. The completed project provided 10 residential and 3 commercial condominium units. It contributes to the revitalization of the Junction commercial area. Setting back the third-floor addition allowed the restored bank building to retain its street presence, and maintain the detail significance of the cornice and entry-bay decoration. Preservation Services provided oversight for work under the façade improvement program. This building has a set-back addition similar to the one at the Dominion Bank across the street. In this case the penthouse has a Moderne design, reflecting the Art Deco style of the original building. Page 33 of 48 28 Wells Street Aurora Heritage Evaluation for de-listing Page 17 of 22 For Paul Oberst Architect Victora Lofts 152 Annette Street, Toronto Residential Conversion, Occupied 2011 The 1890 Victoria-Royce Presbyterian Church was designed by Knox and Elliot, who were also the architects for the Confederation Life building on Yonge Street. In 2005, the parish ceased operation, no longer having sufficient members to maintain this large and important heritage building. The project preserves and restore the building envelope and many of the interior features, and will provide 34 residential condominiums. Significant elements that were not used in the project, like the 1908 Casavant organ, and the enormous stained glass windows have been preserved intact in new homes at other churches. This project received the William H. Greer Award of Excellence at the Heritage Toronto Awards 2013. Balconies behind the original arches double the window area to meet the requirements of residential use, without cutting new openings in the historic masonry structure. Page 34 of 48 28 Wells Street Aurora Heritage Evaluation for de-listing Page 18 of 22 HERITAGE DISTRICTS In association with Phillip H. Carter Architect and Planner Collingwood Downtown Heritage Conservation District Study and Plan, 2001-2002 Kleinburg-Nashville Heritage Conservation District Study and Plan, 2002-2003 Old Burlington Village Heritage Conservation District Study, 2004-2005. Resulted in our Urban Design Guidelines for the downtown. Northeast Old Aurora Heritage Conservation District Study and Plan, 2005-2006. Received Honourable Mention (2nd place nationally) in the Neighbourhood Plans category—Canadian Institute of Planning, 2007. Village of Maple Heritage Conservation District Study and Plan, 2006-2007. Buttonville Heritage Conservation District Study and Plan, underway. Thornhill Markham Heritage Conservation District Study and Plan, 2007. Thornhill Vaughan Heritage Conservation District Study and Plan, 2007. Gormley Heritage Conservation District Study and Plan, 2008 Kettleby Heritage Conservation District Study and Plan, suspended by Council. Paul Oberst has worked on all but two of the Heritage District Plans that are in place or underway in York Region. Page 35 of 48 28 Wells Street Aurora Heritage Evaluation for de-listing Page 19 of 22 CITIZEN ADVOCACY Mr. Oberst was the “Party”, before the Ontario Municipal Board, opposing an application for rezoning and Official Plan Amendment on Spadina Avenue in Toronto in 2001. Rezoning threatened 113 heritage properties on one kilometre of street frontage. He organized and presented the case to the OMB, with the assistance of residents and many heritage activists. Joe Fiorito’s column, to the left, provides a succinct narration. Mr. Oberst continues to work on heritage issues in the neighbourhood, being involved in the designation of Kensington Market as a National Historic Site, and the preservation of the historic parish of Saint Stephen-in-the-Fields. Contact: Catherine Nasmith 416-598-4144 Page 36 of 48 28 Wells Street Aurora Heritage Evaluation for de-listing Page 20 of 22 OTHER ARCHITECTURAL WORK RESIDENTIAL Kensington Market Lofts Condominium Conversion, George Brown College Kensington Campus, $13,000,000 Design partner, in joint venture with R.E. Barnett Architect. At the Toronto Architecture and Urban Design Awards 2000 the jury created the new category of ‘Adaptive Re-use’ to recognize this project and the Roundhouse. Since it was a new category, we received an honourable mention rather than an award. St John’s Lofts Condominium Conversion, 1 St. John’s Road, Toronto, $1,000,000 Design partner, in joint venture with R.E. Barnett Architect COMMERCIAL Retail/Apartment Building, 80 Kensington Avenue, Toronto, $400,000 Designer for Paul Oberst Architect Kings Tower, 393 King Street West Toronto, 12 Storey mixed use building, $10M Designer for Gordon Cheney Architect Inc Office Building, 2026 Yonge Street Toronto, 3 Storey mixed use building, $3M Designer for Lloyd Alter Architect THEATRE WORK Set designer, A Ride Across Lake Constance, by Peter Handke New Theatre, Toronto 1975 Set and Costume designer, The Curse of the Starving Class, by Sam Shepard New Theatre, Toronto, 1979 The building on the left was originally a 1927 elementary school. The building on the right was the 1952 Provincial Institute of Trades. Although this is not a restoration project, it retained the main aspects of these traditionalist and early-modern buildings. This contrasts with the advice of a City consultant that they be demolished and replaced with an 8-storey tower. Page 37 of 48 28 Wells Street Aurora Heritage Evaluation for de-listing Page 21 of 22 COMMUNITY WORK Kensington Market Working Group -Board Member 1994-97& 2000-2001. -Secretary 1994-97. Kensington Market Action Committee, -Board Member 2001-2002. WRITINGS Founding Editor of A.S. A student architecture journal University of Michigan, 1968-70 Founding Co-editor of FILE Megazine Toronto, 1972 Originator and author of Rear Elevation essay series Toronto Society of Architects Journal, 1994-1996 Author of articles and reviews in: Globe & Mail, NOW magazine File megazine PUBLICATION OF WORK Kensington Market Lofts is listed in: East/West: A Guide to Where People Live In Downtown Toronto Edited by Nancy Byrtus, Mark Fram, Michael McClelland. Toronto: Coach House Books, 2000 Class Acts, by John Ota, Toronto Star, May 20, 2001, describes a Kensington unit in the old elementary school. Urban Arcadia, By Merike Weiler, City & Country Home, April 1990 Customizing your Condo, by Kathleen M. Smith Canadian House and Home, October 1989 A Place of Your Own, by Charles Oberdorf and Mechtilde Hoppenrath, Homemaker’s Magazine, November 1980 The Invention of Queen Street West , by Debra Sharpe The Globe & Mail Fanfare section, January 10, 1980 Alternatives, by Charles Oberdorf and Mechtilde Hoppenrath, Homemaker’s Magazine, April 1979 Various accounts, reviews and/or photographs of heritage work, furniture designs, theatre design work, and exhibitions. Page 38 of 48 28 Wells Street in Aurora The neighbourhood streets were laid out as shown in this 1852 survey, but the lots were changed. It took a long time for the area to be built out. 28 Wells was built about 70 years after the streets were plotted. I used this image in the Northeast Old Aurora Heritage Conservation District plan, of which I was the co-author. Applicant Presentation Page 39 of 48 Neighbourhood Variety Page 40 of 48 Ontario Regulation 9/06 O.Reg 9/06 sets the minimum requirements for heritage designation under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act using 9 criteria. The Town has recently evaluated all its listed properties using these criteria. The evaluation of 28 Wells Street is shown on the right. It is evaluated as meeting 2 of the 9 criteria, and having moderate overall value. I generally agree, but I say “terms and conditions apply”. Page 41 of 48 Examining the House Page 42 of 48 Interior Photos-ground floor Page 43 of 48 Interior Photos-rear addition & second floor Page 44 of 48 Interior Photos-basement Page 45 of 48 Terms and Conditions •The house has fair integrity, and is in fair condition. •The house has moderate (less than good)heritage value. •The house meets only one of the items listed under each of criteria 1 and 7 of O.Reg. 9/06: •It is a representative example of example of an Edwardian style house: neither rare, unique, nor early. •It supports the character of the area, but does not define or maintain it. •These items, in each case, are the weakest under their criteria. Under design or physical value, just about any building is a “Representative example” of something—it’s not much of a distinction. It’s the mulligan of heritage valuation. Likewise, “supporting the character of the area” only gets the bronze medal after “defining” and “maintaining”. Page 46 of 48 Conclusions The Ministry offers the following advice on applying O.Reg. 9/06 in its Heritage Toolkit volume titled Heritage Property Evaluation (with my emphasis in bold): “Individual properties being considered for protection under section 29 must undergo a more rigorous evaluation than is required for listing.” Ontario Regulation 9/06 is not a mandate, but a minimal criteria. Meeting two criteria is a necessary, but not sufficient condition for designation. The verb in the first clause is “may”, not “must” or even “should”. Based on the criteria in Ontario Regulation 9/06, the Ministry’s advice, and my experience in cultural heritage work it is my professional opinion, that the property at 28 Wells Street in the Town of Aurora does not rise to the standard that would merit designation under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act.In view of Bill 23, I believe it should be removed from the Aurora Register of Properties of Cultural Heritage Value or Interest. Page 47 of 48 Proposed Replacement Buildings Page 48 of 48