Agenda - Heritage Advisory Committee - 20231106Town of Aurora
Heritage Advisory Committee
Meeting Agenda
Date:Monday, November 6, 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
2.Land Acknowledgement
3.Approval of the Agenda
4.Declarations of Pecuniary Interest and General Nature Thereof
5.Receipt of the Minutes
5.1 Heritage Advisory Committee Meeting Minutes of September 11, 2023 1
That the Heritage Advisory Committee Meeting Minutes of
September 11, 2023, be received for information.
1.
6.Delegations
7.Matters for Consideration
7.1 Memorandum from Associate Manager of Development Planning; Re:
Heritage Permit Application File: HPA-2023-07, 53 Spruce Street
5
That the memorandum regarding Heritage Permit Application
File: HPA-2023-07, 53 Spruce Street, be received; and
1.
That the Heritage Advisory Committee comments regarding
Heritage Permit Application File: HPA-2023-07, 53 Spruce Street,
be received and referred to staff for consideration and further
action as appropriate.
2.
7.2 Memorandum from Associate Manager of Development Planning; Re:
Requested Heritage Impact Assessment, 16, 20, and 22 Allaura
14
Boulevard
That the memorandum regarding Requested Heritage Impact
Assessment, 16, 20, and 22 Allaura Boulevard, be received; and
1.
That the Heritage Advisory Committee comments regarding
Requested Heritage Impact Assessment, 16, 20, and 22 Allaura
Boulevard, and development proposal be received and referred
to staff for consideration and further action as appropriate.
2.
8.Informational Items
9.New Business
10.Adjournment
Town of Aurora
Heritage Advisory Committee
Meeting Minutes
Date:
Time:
Location:
Monday, September 11, 2023
7 p.m.
Holland Room, Aurora Town Hall
Committee Members: Councillor John Gallo (Chair)
Cynthia Bettio*
David Heard
Kevin Hughes*
John Green
Jeff Lanthier (Vice Chair)*
Bob McRoberts
Other Attendees: Adam Robb, Senior Planner, Development/Heritage
Linda Bottos, Council/Committee Coordinator
*Attended electronically
_____________________________________________________________________
1. Call to Order
The Chair called the meeting to order at 7:01 p.m.
2. Land Acknowledgement
The Committee acknowledged that the meeting took place on Anishinaabe lands,
the traditional and treaty territory of the Chippewas of Georgina Island,
recognizing the many other Nations whose presence here continues to this day,
the special relationship the Chippewas have with the lands and waters of this
territory, and that Aurora has shared responsibility for the stewardship of these
lands and waters. It was noted that Aurora is part of the treaty lands of the
Mississaugas and Chippewas, recognized through Treaty #13 and the Williams
Treaties of 1923.
Page 1 of 107
Heritage Advisory Committee Meeting Minutes
Monday, September 11, 2023 2
3. Approval of the Agenda
Moved by Bob McRoberts
Seconded by John Green
That the revised agenda as circulated by Legislative Services be approved.
Carried
4. Declarations of Pecuniary Interest and General Nature Thereof
There were no declarations of pecuniary interest under the Municipal Conflict of
Interest Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. M.50.
5. Receipt of the Minutes
5.1 Heritage Advisory Committee Meeting Minutes of July 31, 2023
Moved by John Green
Seconded by David Heard
1. That the Heritage Advisory Committee meeting minutes of July 31,
2023, be received for information.
Carried
6. Delegations
6.1 Christopher Watts, Resident; Re: Irregularities with 2006 Town of Aurora
Street Naming Policy
Christopher Watts presented an overview of the Town of Aurora Street
Naming Policy and identified concerns including: a number of names from
the cenotaphs and Alter of Sacrifice not being included in the policy,
current street name recognition being unclear, inconsistency with poppy
emblems missing from streets names, needing repair, and being included
on streets not named after those individuals included on the cenotaphs.
They further provided recommended next steps. The Committee provided
comments regarding their role as an advisory committee, some of the
missing names from the policy, next steps regarding both current sign
amendments and the addition of future signage. They further discussed
Councillor Gallo bringing forward a Notice of Motion to a future General
Page 2 of 107
Heritage Advisory Committee Meeting Minutes
Monday, September 11, 2023 3
Committee meeting regarding the identified amendments and policy
revisions. Staff advised that some of the recommended next steps could
be implemented internally as well.
Moved by John Green
Seconded by Bob McRoberts
That the comments of the delegation be received for information.
Carried
7. Matters for Consideration
7.1 Memorandum from Senior Planner; Re: Heritage Permit Application File:
HPA-2023-06, 56 Spruce Street
The applicant, Rocco Morsillo, presented an overview of the subject
property, the proposed scope of work including an addition and a deck.
They further reviewed the project elevations, colour selections, and
comparable properties within the Town of Aurora. The Committee and the
applicant discussed the lot coverage of the existing structure and the
renovation, and demolition plans for the existing addition structure.
Moved by Bob McRoberts
Seconded by Jeff Lanthier
1. That the memorandum regarding Heritage Permit Application File:
HPA-2023-06, 56 Spruce Street be received; and
2. That the Heritage Advisory Committee comments regarding Heritage
Permit Application File: HPA-2023-06, 56 Spruce Street be received
and referred to staff for consideration and further action as
appropriate.
Carried
8. Informational Items
None.
Page 3 of 107
Heritage Advisory Committee Meeting Minutes
Monday, September 11, 2023 4
9. New Business
David Heard provided an overview of Victrolia Hall, being an analog research
library, including background information, past installation of mobile units, the
need for space to allow public viewing, financial support, and recognition of
community partnerships. The Committee discussed opportunities for access to
the public, tourism impacts, digitization options, and outreach to the Aurora
Public Library.
Moved by Bob McRoberts
Seconded by John Green
New Business Motion No. 1
1. That the presentation regarding Victrolia Hall be received for information.
Carried
The Committee also recognized that David Tomlinson passed away on
September 8, 2023, and acknowledged all his heritage and environmental efforts
in the Town of Aurora.
10. Adjournment
Moved by John Green
Seconded by Bob McRoberts
That the meeting be adjourned at 8:24 p.m.
Carried
Page 4 of 107
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-2023-07
53 Spruce Street
To: Heritage Advisory Committee
From: Adam Robb, MPL, MCIP, RPP, CAHP
Associate Manager of Development Planning
Date: November 6, 2023
Recommendation
1. That the memorandum regarding Heritage Permit Application File: HPA-2023-07, 53
Spruce Street, be received; and
2. That the Heritage Advisory Committee comments regarding Heritage Permit
Application File: HPA-2023-07, 53 Spruce Street, 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-2023-07 regarding
proposed alterations at 53 Spruce Street, including window replacements, trim details,
fencing, roof and entrance treatments, and a new chimney and skylight as shown in
Attachment 2 and 3. The property is located within the Town’s Northeast Old Aurora
Heritage Conservation District and designated under Part V of the Ontario Heritage Act.
Background
Property Description
The subject property is located on the east side of Spruce Street, between Maple Street
to the north and Catherine Avenue to the south. The property contains a two-storey
brick dwelling constructed circa 1912. The dwelling is representative of the
Page 5 of 107
Heritage Permit Application – 53 Spruce Street
November 6, 2023 Page 2 of 3
Edwardian/Four Square architectural style, featuring a low-slope hipped roof, central
dormer, and front verandah with columns.
Heritage Designation
In 2006, Town Council passed By-law 4804-06.D designating 53 Spruce Street 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 – Proposed Work
The submitted Heritage Permit is to replace windows on the dwelling including the side
bay window, re-shingle and re-colour the roof and eaves with a grey/darker tone,
construct a picket fence, and add a chimney and skylight as well as replace an existing
side window with a door. A complete overview of the Heritage Permit scope of work is
provide in Attachment 2 and 3, including conceptual renderings which have been
provided.
The proposed work will not be increasing the gross floor area of the building nor result
in any major reconstruction or alteration of primary architectural elements. The front
windows are proposed to be replaced with wood trim in line with the Heritage
Conservation District guidelines, the skylight is to be modest and have minimal to no
impact on the streetscape, and the colour adjustments to the roof, eaves and accents
are in line with the character of the Heritage District.
The subject Heritage Permit application was issued a Notice of Receipt on November 1,
2023, with the 90-day timeline to make a decision under the Ontario Heritage Act lasting
until February 1, 2024. Staff anticipate comments from the Heritage Advisory
Committee can be addressed and incorporated as needed prior to a decision being
made on the application in advance of the legislative timeline.
Analysis
The proposal generally meets the guidelines of the Northeast Old Aurora Heritage
Conservation District Plan, with additional comments and input being sought from the
Heritage Advisory Committee prior to proceeding with a decision
Page 6 of 107
Heritage Permit Application – 53 Spruce Street
November 6, 2023 Page 3 of 3
Staff are of the opinion that the proposed work generally meets the intent of the design
guidelines for the Northeast Old Aurora Heritage Conservation District Plan. Staff have
consulted with the owners for several months on implementing the guidelines. The
proposed work is considered appropriate in that it will improve certain conditions of the
dwelling, such as the window trims which are in need of replacement, and not result in
major impacts to any primary architectural components. Staff are however seeking
input and comments from the Heritage Advisory Committee including but not limited to
the following elements:
The colour tone of the roof, trim and other accent features
The alterations to the bay window
The addition of the side door
The introduction of the skylight and chimney
The applicant has been supportive of working with staff, neighbours, and the Heritage
Advisory Committee and can look to address any comments received. As no primary
architectural elements are being significantly altered, staff are also considering and still
reviewing the application for delegated approval, pending comment and review from the
Heritage Advisory Committee and incorporation of any revisions as needed.
Conclusion
Heritage Permit Application HPA-2023-07 regarding alterations at 53 Spruce Street is
being presented to the Heritage Advisory Committee for review and comments. The
applicant can look to address comments received prior to any decision being made on
the application.
Attachments
Attachment 1 – Location Map
Attachment 2 – Elevations
Attachment 3 – Conceptual Rendering
Page 7 of 107
5 Spruce Street –HPA-2023-0Attachment#15 Spruce StreetNortheast Old Aurora HeritageConservation District BoundaryPage 8 of 107
Sheet No.ScaleProject IDDateCAD File NameA1.41/4" = 1'-0"8472021-02-1253 Spruce Street Pricing (Rev 1).vwx23ofSheet TitleProject TitleRoof Plan53 Spruce StreetAuroraConsultantDesign Firm No. DateRevision NotesByNot for ConstructionIRONSIDEA R C H I T E C TN E I Li r o n s i d e a r c h i t e c t . ca416.761.9691425 Durie Street, Toronto, ONM6S 3G5W-31Roof PlanScale: 1/4" = 1'-0"1048121620 FT3URSRVHG6N\OLJKW3URSRVHGZRRGEXUQLQJILUHSODFHIOXHAttachment 2Page 9 of 107
Sheet No.ScaleProject IDDateCAD File NameA2.11/4" = 1'-0"8472021-02-1253 Spruce Street Pricing (Rev 1).vwx23ofSheet TitleProject TitleFront / Rear Elevations53 Spruce StreetAuroraConsultantDesign Firm No. DateRevision NotesByNot for ConstructionIRONSIDEA R C H I T E C TN E I Li r o n s i d e a r c h i t e c t . ca416.761.9691425 Durie Street, Toronto, ONM6S 3G5W-31E-1W-1W-22W-212'-10 1/2"4'-11 1/2"E-3W-53URSRVHGZRRGEXUQLQJILUHSODFHIOXHDWUHDU3URSRVHGVN\OLJKW3URSRVHGPRGLILFDWLRQRIED\ZLQGRZW-27([LVWLQJERDUG EDWWHQWREHSDLQWHGZKLWH1RWH :RRGIUDPHGZLQGRZVRQIURQWRIKRXVHPage 10 of 107
Sheet No.ScaleProject IDDateCAD File NameA2.21/4" = 1'-0"8472021-02-1253 Spruce Street Pricing (Rev 1).vwx23ofSheet TitleProject TitleNorth Side Elevation53 Spruce StreetAuroraConsultantDesign Firm No. DateRevision NotesByNot for ConstructionIRONSIDEA R C H I T E C TN E I Li r o n s i d e a r c h i t e c t . ca416.761.9691425 Durie Street, Toronto, ONM6S 3G5W-4W-3W-2E-2RemoveRemoveW-25W-23W-245HSODFHZLQGRZZLWKGRRU5HSODFHGRRUZLWKZLQGRZ:LQGRZVL]HFKDQJH([LVWLQJERDUG EDWWHQWREHSDLQWHGZKLWH3URSRVHGVN\OLJKWPage 11 of 107
Sheet No.ScaleProject IDDateCAD File NameA2.31/4" = 1'-0"8472021-02-1253 Spruce Street Pricing (Rev 1).vwx23ofSheet TitleProject TitleSouth Side Elevation53 Spruce StreetAuroraConsultantDesign Firm No. DateRevision NotesByNot for ConstructionIRONSIDEA R C H I T E C TN E I Li r o n s i d e a r c h i t e c t . ca416.761.9691425 Durie Street, Toronto, ONM6S 3G5W-26W-6W-04W-27W-03:LQGRZVL]HFKDQJHW-273URSRVHGPRGLILFDWLRQWRED\ZLQGRZ([LVWLQJERDUG EDWWHQWREHSDLQWHGZKLWH1RWH :RRGIUDPHGZLQGRZVRQDOOVLGHVRIED\ZLQGRZPage 12 of 107
Proposed colour scheme for the exterior:Replace brown colour tones in roof, windows and siding with cream and dark gray to match existing column colour and bay window roofcolour.Proposed changes to exterior:- Replace all windows (due to age) with new wood frame, double hung windows in dark gray colour- Replace shingles (due to age) with gray shingles, replace downspouts and soffits in cream/white- Replace bay window (due to age) with taller bay window. Maintain roof style and colour (black), match bay window colour to front porch.Reusesupport corbels and paint cream/white. Cladding to mimic front columns. Note: wood cladding appears to have been previouslypainted white.- Refresh paint on front porch to lighter colour to match columns- Refresh paint on board & batten siding on existing exterior addition to lighter colour to match porch columns- Front door to remain and be re-stained similar colour to existing- Proposed white picket fence in side yard and removal of existing wood privacy fence (due to age)- Refer to floor plans for the following changes to exterior:- wood burning chimney flue at rear- skylight on north facing roof- window on north side changed to side entry door- rear entry door changed to window- modifications to window sizes in existing rear brick addition and existing rear board & batten addition to suit new interior layoutPROPOSED EXTERIOREXISTING EXTERIOREXISTING EXTERIOR53 Spruce Street Exterior RenderingSeptember 2023wood or vinyl frame, double hung windows in dark gray colourAttachment 3Page 13 of 107
100 John West Way
Aurora, Ontario
L4G 6J1
(905) 727-3123
aurora.ca
Town of Aurora
Memorandum
Planning and Development Services
Re: Requested Heritage Impact Assessment
16, 20 and 22 Allaura Boulevard
To: Heritage Advisory Committee
From: Adam Robb, MPL, MCIP, RPP, CAHP
Associate Manager of Development Planning
Date: November 6, 2023
Recommendation
1. That the memorandum regarding Requested Heritage Impact Assessment, 16, 20 and
22 Allaura Boulevard, be received; and
2. That the Heritage Advisory Committee comments regarding Requested Heritage
Impact Assessment, 16, 20 and 22 Allaura Boulevard, and development proposal be
received and referred to staff for consideration and further action as appropriate.
Summary
The proposal at 16, 20 and 22 Allaura Boulevard is to facilitate the development of 225
stacked townhouses on the north side of Allaura Boulevard, east of Yonge Street. The
owner has applied for a Zoning By-law Amendment (ZBA-2022-08), Plan of Subdivision
(SUB-2022-02), and Site Plan application (SP-2022-13) to enable the residential built
form as part of the existing Aurora Promenade area. The proposal is adjacent to the
Part IV designated Aurora War Memorial and Peace Park, and therefore subject to
heritage review.
Background
The proposed development was initially presented to the Heritage Advisory Committee
for review on July 31, 2023. Comments received from the Committee specifically
included ensuring no access between the proposed development and the Aurora War
Memorial and Peace Park, the installation of a fence and screening, and the need for the
Page 14 of 107
Heritage Impact Assessment – 16, 20 and 22 Allaura Boulevard
November 6, 2023 Page 2 of 3
application to complete a Heritage Impact Assessment and return to the Heritage
Advisory Committee for review.
Analysis
The applicant retained TMHC Inc. to complete a Heritage Impact Assessment for the
subject proposal. The Heritage Impact Assessment is attached to this report for review
by the Heritage Advisory Committee. Overall, the Heritage Impact Assessment
maintains that the proposed development will have minimal impact on the Aurora War
Memorial and Peace Park, with a general summary of recommendations and mitigation
measures to be incorporated as part of the proposed development outlined below,
which will be required to be implemented:
Potential Impact of Proposed
Development
Required Response/Mitigation Measure
1) Visual presence of the
development at the southeast of
the Peace Park
The Heritage Impact Assessment does
not anticipate major visual impacts from
the development, but in line with the
recommendations of the report, Staff will
be requiring the applicant to provide
updated Landscape Plans that show
further enhanced coniferous landscaping
along the shared property boundary. A
fence will also be required to be installed
as a condition of approval.
2) Potential impact to a boundary
tree
Staff will not support any negative impact
or removal of any boundary trees. All
existing trees on the Peace Park are to
remain, with the appropriate tree
protection fencing and buffering
measures to also be included as part of
updated revised drawings and as a
condition of approval.
3) Location of Waste Pickup Staff will be requiring the applicant to
revise the proposed plans with a new
waste pickup location further east on the
site and away from the Peace Park.
Page 15 of 107
Heritage Impact Assessment – 16, 20 and 22 Allaura Boulevard
November 6, 2023 Page 3 of 3
As part of the continued review of the subject application staff will ensure the
recommendations are implemented as part of future revisions to the proposal as well
as through any future conditions of approval. Based on the comments of the Heritage
Advisory Committee from July 31, 2023, there will also be no access provided to the
Peace Park from the proposed development. Any further comments from the Heritage
Advisory Committee can also be considered at this time.
Attachments
Attachment 1 – Site Plan and Drawings
Attachment 2 – Heritage Impact Assessment
Page 16 of 107
Attachment 1
Page 17 of 107
STREET 'B'STREET 'A'
STREET 'A
'
STREET 'A'1.50 m. SIDEWALK1.50 m. SIDEWALK1.50 m. SID
E
W
A
L
K
1.50 m. SIDE
W
A
L
K
CROSSWALKLOT BOUND
A
R
YLOT BOUNDARY1.50 m. SIDE
W
A
L
K
1.50 m. SIDE
W
A
L
KRAMP DOWNWASTE Open SpaceLandscaped courtyardLandscaped 406.87 sq mCROSSWALKCROSSWALKCROSSWALK MUNICIPAL SIDEWALKMUNICIPAL SIDEWALK18 UNITS
3.5 STOREY
S
T
A
C
K
E
D
BUILDING
#
8
16 UNITS
3.5 STORE
Y
S
T
A
C
K
E
D
BUILDING
#
9
UPUPUP
UP UPUPUPUP16 UNITS
3.5 STORE
Y
S
T
A
C
K
E
D
BUILDING
#
1
0
UPUPUP
UP UPUPUPUP3.5 STOREY STACKED16 UNITSBUILDING #1UPUPUPUPUPUPUPUP3.5 STOREY STACKED32 UNITSBUILDING #23.5 STOREY STACKED28 UNITSBUILDING #426 UNITS3.5 STORE
Y
S
T
A
C
K
E
D
BUILDING #
33.5 STOREY STACKED25 UNITSBUILDING #53.5 STOREY STACKED30 UNITSBUILDING #6UP UPUPUP
UPUPUPUP18 UNITS3.5 STOREY STACKED
BUILDING #7 Courtyard CROSSW
A
L
K
CROSSWA
L
K
1.50 m.
SI
D
E
W
A
L
K
1.50 m.
SI
D
E
W
A
L
K
1.50 m. SIDEWALK1.50 m. SIDEWALK1.50 m. SIDEWALK1.50 m. SIDEWALK1.50 m. SIDEWALKMUNICIPAL SIDEWALK1.50 m. SIDE
W
A
L
K52.04m FIRE ACCESStͲϮϱϵϬ;EKs D ZϮϰ͕ϮϬϮϮͿ>>hZ>/D/d WZdE Z^,/WϮϰϴ< EE z^dZ dt ^dϭϲ͕ϮϬ͕ϮϮ>>hZ>s͘hZKZ͕KE>ϰ'ϲ^ϰ^/d W>EͲϬϭZ s/^/KE ^h: d d ^> ͗ϭ͗Ϭ͘ϲZ>/D/d WZdE Z^,/WEE z^dZ dt ^dϬ͕ϮϮ>>hZ>s͘KE>ϰ'ϲ^ϰtͲϮϱϵϬhZKZ^/d WͲϬϭ>>hZϮϰϴ< Eϭϲ͕ϮϬhZKZEKd/^^h &KZKE^dZhd/KEPage 18 of 107
W
D
FURNACEBEDROOM 28'8" X 11'2"MASTER BEDROOM10'2" X 14'8"MASTERENSUITEMAINBATH RM.LNDRY.KITCHEN7'2 X 8'10"LIVING/DININGROOM11'0" X 18'0"FOYERBALCONY9'6" X 6'0"BALCONY ABOVEHWTFOYERUPW
DFURNACE UPBEDROOM 28'8" X 11'2"MASTER BEDROOM10'2" X 14'8"MASTERENSUITEMAINBATH RM.LNDRY.KITCHEN7'2 X 8'10"LIVING/DININGROOM11'0" X 18'0"FOYERBALCONY9'6" X 6'0"BALCONY ABOVEHWTFOYERUPUPUPUPUPUPW
DFURNACE
BEDROOM 28'8" X 11'2"MASTER BEDROOM10'2" X 14'8"MASTERENSUITEMAINBATH RM.LNDRY.KITCHEN7'2 X 8'10"LIVING/DININGROOM11'0" X 18'0"FOYERBALCONY9'6" X 6'0"BALCONY ABOVEHWTFOYERUPW
D
FURNACEUPBEDROOM 28'8" X 11'2"MASTER BEDROOM10'2" X 14'8"MASTERENSUITEMAINBATH RM.LNDRY.KITCHEN7'2 X 8'10"LIVING/DININGROOM11'0" X 18'0"FOYERBALCONY9'6" X 6'0"BALCONY ABOVEHWTFOYERUPUPUPUPUPUPtͲϮϱϵϬ;EKs D ZϮϰ͕ϮϬϮϮͿ>>hZ>/D/d WZdE Z^,/WϮϰϴ< EE z^dZ dt ^dϭϲ͕ϮϬ͕ϮϮ>>hZ>s͘hZKZ͕KE>ϰ'ϲ^ϰͲϬϰ^> ͗ϭ͗ϭϬϬϬZ>/D/d WZdE Z^,/WEE z^dZ dt ^dϬ͕ϮϮ>>hZ>s͘ KE >ϰ' ϲ^ϰtͲϮϱϵϬhZKZͲϬϰ>>hZϮϰϴ< Eϭϲ͕ϮϬhZKZZ s/^/KE ^h: d d EKd/^^h &KZKE^dZhd/KE>K<W>EE > sd/KE^h/>/E'ϭ͕ϳ͕ϴ͕ϵ͕ϭϬPage 19 of 107
Page 20 of 107
Page 21 of 107
Heritage Impact Assessment
16, 20, and 22 Allaura Boulevard, Aurora
Regional Municipality of York, Ontario
Final Report
October 13, 2023
Prepared for:
Allaura Limited Partnership
248 Kennedy Street West
Aurora, ON
l4G 6S4
Attachment 2
Page 22 of 107
Heritage Impact Assessment
16, 20, and 22 Allaura Boulevard, Aurora
Regional Municipality of York, Ontario
Prepared for:
Allaura Limited Partnership
248 Kennedy Street West
Aurora, ON
l4G 6S4
Prepared by:
TMHC Inc.
1108 Dundas Street
Unit 105
London, ON N5W 3A7
519-641-7222
tmhc.ca
Project No: 2023-422
Final Report: October 13, 2023
Page 23 of 107
Heritage Impact Assessment
16, 20, and 22 Allaura Boulevard, Aurora, ON
ii
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Land Services Group (LSG), on behalf of Allaura Limited Partnership, has engaged TMHC Inc. (TMHC) to
produce a Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA) for the properties at 16, 20, and 22 Allaura Boulevard in the
Town of Aurora, Ontario (the “Subject Property”). The HIA is being undertaken as part of the pre-
consultation process with the Town of Aurora for the proposed construction of 225 condominium
townhouses. The requirement for the HIA stems from the Subject Property’s adjacency to 14659 Yonge
Street (Aurora War Memorial and Peace Park), a designated property under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage
Act (OHA).
The Subject Property is an approximately 3-acre (ac) parcel of land situated on the north side of Allaura
Boulevard, east of Yonge Street, and south of Edward Street. The property contains two one-storey
commercial/industrial buildings encompassed by a hardscaped area. It is characterized by stands of mature
trees located along the north, south, and west lot lines, and grassed and open areas to the east.
Section 13.2 of the Town of Aurora Official Plan outlines specific reference to properties included on the
Register of Cultural Heritage Resources:
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;
iii. Using zoning by-law provisions to protect heritage resources by regulating such matters as
use, massing, form, design, location and setbacks;
iv. Using the site plan control by-law to ensure that new development is compatible with
heritage resources.
Pursuant to the direction provided by the Town of Aurora in the record of pre-consultation, this HIA is
intended to provide an evaluation of the proposed development’s potential impacts on the heritage attributes
of the adjacent designated property at 14659 Yonge Street, to provide strategies for mitigating that impact,
and recommendations for future study, if necessary. As no heritage concerns have been raised for the Subj ect
Property, a heritage evaluation against O. Reg. 9/06 (as amended by O. Reg. 569/22) has not been
undertaken. There are no National Historic Sites, Ontario Heritage Trust (OHT) owned properties,
conservation easements, or Provincial Heritage Properties present on, or adjacent to, the Subject Property as
verified by the OHT and the MCM.
This report follows the general format set out in MCM’s InfoSheet #5: Heritage Impact Assessments and
Conservation Plans, which is included in the Heritage Resources in the Land Use Planning Process with the
Page 24 of 107
Heritage Impact Assessment
16, 20, and 22 Allaura Boulevard, Aurora, ON
iii
Ontario Heritage Toolkit. In addition, the contents of this report conform to the Heritage Impact Assessments
and Conservation Plans Guide provided by the Town of Aurora.
The research and analysis of this HIA have found that the proposed development, as outlined in the most up
to date site concepts, will have indirect impacts and a potential direct impact on the heritage attributes of the
adjacent property, a memorial park designated under Part IV of the OHA. While a potential direct impact
involving the removal of a tree from the park property presently exists within the site concepts, it is required
that these plans be revised to eliminate this impact outright. Indirect impacts of the proposed development
include the partial obstruction of significant southeastern vistas within the park by a wall associated with a
parking garage, the 3.5 storey townhouses, and a waste storage/disposal area. Accordingly, the following
mitigation strategies are recommended:
1. As per the Tree Inventory & Preservation Plan completed by Kuntz Forestry Consulting Inc., one
mature tree in the Aurora War Memorial and Peace Park was identified for possible removal to
facilitate the construction of a parking garage. As the trees within the park are identified as heritage
attributes within the designation by-law, all relevant plans and site concepts for the proposed
development must be revised to demonstrate that no trees on 14659 Yonge Street will be removed.
2. An underground parking garage is proposed for the Subject Property. It is expected that the wall of
the garage will be exposed in the northwestern portion of the Subject Property, with a possible height
of up to nine metres, adjacent to the southeastern boundary of the Aurora War Memorial and Peace
Park. As the wall will indirectly impact sightlines from the park to the southeast, it is recommended
that mature coniferous plantings, compatible with the native environment, be installed along the
perimeter of the Subject Property where it abuts the adjacent park, wrapping around and extending
along the northern perimeter. This screening will also help obfuscate any protective railing system at
the top of the wall as well as provide a natural transition to any visible elements of the 3.5 storey
townhouses. Conifers are recommended to provide screening year-round.
3. The waste storage and disposal area for the proposed development is situated in the northwestern
corner of the Subject Property, directly adjacent to the park. While this area will be concealed by
mature trees in the summer, it will be visible during the fall and winter seasons, including during
Remembrance Day services in November. It is recommended that the waste storage/disposal area be
relocated elsewhere within the proposed development, ideally to the northern, eastern, or southern
perimeters of the property. If this relocation is not possible, plantings of conifers and deciduous trees
are recommended to reduce visibility and noise associated with its operations. Furthermore, garbage
collection schedules should prohibit any collection on November 11 annually. Notices about the
Remembrance Day ceremonies should also be posted in the complex annually.
As the direct and indirect impacts to the heritage attributes of the adjacent property at 14659 Yonge Street
are expected to be well managed by the recommended mitigation measures outlined above, no future studies
or conservation plans are recommended. This mitigation strategy should be confirmed with the Town of
Aurora prior to the commencement of any construction activity.
Page 25 of 107
Heritage Impact Assessment
16, 20, and 22 Allaura Boulevard, Aurora, ON
iv
Table of Contents
Executive Summary ............................................................................................................................... ii
List of Images ......................................................................................................................................... vi
List of Maps ........................................................................................................................................... vii
List of Tables ......................................................................................................................................... vii
List of Acronyms .................................................................................................................................. vii
Project Personnel ................................................................................................................................ viii
Acknowledgements ............................................................................................................................. viii
Territorial Acknowledgement ............................................................................................................. ix
About TMHC .......................................................................................................................................... x
Key Staff Bios .......................................................................................................................................... x
Statement of Qualifications and Limitations ................................................................................... xiii
Quality Information ............................................................................................................................ xiv
1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................... 1
1.1 Report Scope and Purpose ...................................................................................................................................... 1
1.2 Methodology ............................................................................................................................................................... 2
1.3 Client Contact Information ..................................................................................................................................... 2
2 Site description .......................................................................................................................... 3
2.1 Location and Physical Description ......................................................................................................................... 3
2.2 Heritage Status ........................................................................................................................................................... 3
3 Historical Research & Analysis ................................................................................................ 7
3.1 Historic Context: Indigenous Settlement and Treaties .................................................................................... 7
3.1.1 Early Indigenous Settlement ........................................................................................................................... 7
3.1.2 Treaty History ................................................................................................................................................... 8
3.2 Historic Context: Early Municipal Settlement .................................................................................................... 8
3.2.1 York County ...................................................................................................................................................... 8
3.2.2 Township of Whitchurch .............................................................................................................................. 10
3.2.3 Town of Aurora .............................................................................................................................................. 10
3.2.4 Yonge Street .................................................................................................................................................... 11
3.3 16, 20, and 22 Allaura Boulevard: History of the Subject Property ............................................................. 14
3.4 Adjacent Property: 14659 Yonge Street ............................................................................................................ 20
4 Existing Conditions ................................................................................................................. 23
4.1 16, 20, and 22 Allaura Boulevard ......................................................................................................................... 23
4.2 Aurora War Memorial and Peace Park- 14659 Yonge Street....................................................................... 26
4.3 Contextual Landscape ............................................................................................................................................ 31
5 Policy Context ......................................................................................................................... 33
5.1 The Town of Aurora Official Plan (2021) .......................................................................................................... 33
5.2 York Region Official Plan (2022) .......................................................................................................................... 34
5.3 The Planning Act (1990) ........................................................................................................................................ 35
5.4 Provincial Policy Statement (PPS 2020) .............................................................................................................. 36
5.5 Ontario Heritage Act (2005) ................................................................................................................................ 37
5.6 Standards and Guidelines for the Conservation of Historic Places ............................................................. 38
6 Description of Proposed Development ................................................................................ 39
7 Impact Assessment ................................................................................................................. 44
Page 26 of 107
Heritage Impact Assessment
16, 20, and 22 Allaura Boulevard, Aurora, ON
v
8 Mitigation Strategies and Recommendations ...................................................................... 49
8.1 Mitigation Strategies for Potential Impacts ........................................................................................................ 49
8.1.1 Tree Preservation and Screening ................................................................................................................ 50
8.1.2 Relocation of Designated Waste Storage or Additional Screening..................................................... 50
8.2 Recommendations for Implementation and Monitoring ................................................................................. 52
8.3 Recommendations for Future Studies ................................................................................................................ 53
9 Conclusion ................................................................................................................................ 54
10 Bibliography ............................................................................................................................. 56
Appendix A: Designation By-law (By-law 4977-07.D) ...................................................................... 59
Appendix B: Staff CVs .......................................................................................................................... 65
Page 27 of 107
Heritage Impact Assessment
16, 20, and 22 Allaura Boulevard, Aurora, ON
vi
LIST OF IMAGES
Image 1: John Graves Simcoe Supervises the Construction of Yonge Street, 1795 .............................................. 13
Image 2: Construction of the Memorial Tower 1925................................................................................................... 20
Image 3: Industrial Building on the Subject Property (16 Allaura Boulevard) ......................................................... 24
Image 4: Industrial Building on the Subject Property (20 Allaura Boulevard) ......................................................... 24
Image 5: Driveway Between Industrial Buildings ............................................................................................................ 24
Image 6: Laneway Between Industrial Buildings ............................................................................................................. 24
Image 7: Retaining Wall on the West Side of Industrial Building at 16 Allaura Boulevard .................................. 24
Image 8: Vacant Grassed Area (22 Allaura Boulevard) ................................................................................................ 24
Image 9: Northwestern Corner of the Subject Property ............................................................................................ 25
Image 10: Dense Tree Coverage Between Subject Property and the Park ............................................................... 25
Image 11: Memorial Tower ................................................................................................................................................... 28
Image 12: Walkway Leading to the Memorial Tower and Altar of Sacrifice .............................................................. 28
Image 13: Close-up of the Memorial Tower Inscriptions............................................................................................... 28
Image 14: Battlemented Parapet Details ............................................................................................................................ 28
Image 15: Altar of Sacrifice .................................................................................................................................................... 28
Image 16: LAV lll Afghanistan Memorial ............................................................................................................................. 28
Image 17: Korean War Memorial ........................................................................................................................................ 29
Image 18: War Memorial and Peace Park Plaque ............................................................................................................. 29
Image 19: Walkway from Yonge Street .............................................................................................................................. 29
Image 20: Landscape from the Memorial Tower .............................................................................................................. 29
Image 21: War Memorial and Peace Park from Yonge Street ...................................................................................... 29
Image 22: Densely Treed Interior Portions of the Property ......................................................................................... 29
Image 23: Crimson King Maple ............................................................................................................................................. 30
Image 24: Rise of Land and Memorial Tower.................................................................................................................... 30
Image 25: Allaura Boulevard .................................................................................................................................................. 32
Image 26: Allaura Boulevard and Intersection with Yonge Street ................................................................................ 32
Image 27: Yonge Street .......................................................................................................................................................... 32
Image 28: Industrial Properties Across the Road from the Subject Property ........................................................... 32
Image 29: Industrial Buildings Along Allaura Boulevard .................................................................................................. 32
Image 30: Industrial Buildings Adjacent to Subject Property ......................................................................................... 32
Image 31: Proposed Site Development .............................................................................................................................. 40
Image 32: Underground Parking Concept .......................................................................................................................... 41
Image 33: Example Elevations for Proposed Townhouses ............................................................................................. 42
Image 34: Comprehensive Block Plan for the Subject Property ................................................................................... 43
Image 35: Location of Features Associated with Anticipated Indirect Impacts ......................................................... 48
Page 28 of 107
Heritage Impact Assessment
16, 20, and 22 Allaura Boulevard, Aurora, ON
vii
LIST OF MAPS
Map 1: Location of the Subject Property and Adjacent Property at 14659 Yonge Street........................................ 4
Map 2: Subject Property and Adjacent Property ................................................................................................................ 5
Map 3: Contextual Landscape Surrounding the Subject Property.................................................................................. 6
Map 4: Subject Property on the 1860 Historical County Map ...................................................................................... 16
Map 5: Subject Property on the 1878 Historical Atlas Map .......................................................................................... 17
Map 6: 1954 and 1970 Aerial Imagery of the Subject Property .................................................................................... 18
Map 7: 1978 and 1988 Aerial Imagery of the Subject Property .................................................................................... 19
Map 8: Existing Features for the Property at 14659 Yonge Street .............................................................................. 27
Map 9: Proposed Conifer Screening .................................................................................................................................... 51
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: Impact Assessment .................................................................................................................................................. 46
Table 2: Recommendations for Implementation and Monitoring ................................................................................. 52
LIST OF ACRONYMS
HIA Heritage Impact Assessment
LSG Land Services Group
MCM Ministry of Citizenship and Multiculturalism
OHA Ontario Heritage Act
OHT Ontario Heritage Trust
Page 29 of 107
Heritage Impact Assessment
16, 20, and 22 Allaura Boulevard, Aurora, ON
viii
PROJECT PERSONNEL
Principal Holly Martelle, PhD
Senior Reviewer Joshua Dent, PhD, CAHP
Project Manager Joan Crosbie, MA, CAHP
Cultural Heritage Specialist Elise Geschiere, MSc, CAHP Intern
Project Administrator s Kellie Theaker, CHRP
Sara Harvey
Health and Safety Coordinator Wendi Jakob, CTech, CAPM
GIS Technicians Andrew Turner, BA
John Moody, PhD
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Ministry of Citizenship and Karla Barboza & Joseph Harvey
Multiculturalism
Ontario Heritage Trust Samuel Bayefsky
Town of Aurora Adam Robb
Page 30 of 107
Heritage Impact Assessment
16, 20, and 22 Allaura Boulevard, Aurora, ON
ix
TERRITORIAL ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
The subject property is located on the traditional lands of the Chippewa, Anishinaabeg, the Haudenosaunee
(Ho-den-no-show-nee), and the Huron-Wendat Nation, on lands connected with the Williams Treaties of
1923. This land continues to be home to diverse Indigenous peoples (e.g., First Nations, Métis and Inuit) who
are contemporary stewards of the land.
Page 31 of 107
Heritage Impact Assessment
16, 20, and 22 Allaura Boulevard, Aurora, ON
x
ABOUT TMHC
Established in 2003 with a head office in London, Ontario, TMHC Inc. (TMHC) provides a broad range of
archaeological assessment, heritage planning and interpretation, cemetery, and community consultation
services throughout the Province of Ontario. We specialize in providing heritage solutions that suit the past
and present for a range of clients and intended audiences, while meeting the demands of the regulatory
environment. Over the past two decades, TMHC has grown to become one of the largest privately-owned
heritage consulting firms in Ontario and is today the largest predominately woman-owned CRM business in
Canada.
Since 2004, TMHC has held retainers with Infrastructure Ontario, Hydro One, the Ministry of
Transportation, Metrolinx, the City of Hamilton, City of Barrie, and Niagara Parks Commission. In 2013,
TMHC earned the Ontario Archaeological Society’s award for Excellence in Cultural Resource Management.
Our seasoned expertise and practical approach have allowed us to manage a wide variety of large, complex,
and highly sensitive projects to successful completion. Through this work, we have gained corporate
experience in helping our clients work through difficult issues to achieve resolution.
TMHC is skilled at meeting established deadlines and budgets, maintaining a healthy and safe work
environment, and carrying out quality heritage activities to ensure that all projects are completed diligently
and safely. Additionally, we have developed long-standing relationships of trust with Indigenous and
descendent communities across Ontario and a good understanding of community interests and concerns in
heritage matters, which assists in successful project completion.
TMHC is a Living Wage certified employer with the Ontario Living Wage Network and a member of the
Canadian Federation for Independent Business.
KEY STAFF BIOS
Holly Martelle, PhD – Principal
Holly Martelle earned a PhD from the University of Toronto based on her research on Iroquoian populations
in southern Ontario. In addition to 16 years of experience in the road building and aggregate industries, Dr.
Martelle has worked as a Heritage Planner at the now MCM and has taught at several universities throughout
the province. In 2003, she founded TMHC with Dr. Peter Timmins and in 2013 the firm was honored with
the Ontario Archaeological Society’s award for Excellence in Cultural Resource Management.
Holly is an experienced Project Manager and has demonstrated throughout her career the ability to manage
complex projects, meeting project deliverables cost effectively and to the highest standard of quality. Under
her leadership, TMHC has made a commitment to innovation, creating solutions that meet the project
specific goals and also address the long-term needs of our clients.
Holly is a skilled relationship builder with longstanding relationships with the Indigenous communities
throughout Ontario, and other Descendant communities and organizations including the Ontario Black
History Society. Ongoing and sustained communication with communities has proven an effective means of
ensuring participation from Descendant communities in meeting and exceeding consultation requirements.
Through her work on several high level and sensitive provincial projects she has developed an understanding
Page 32 of 107
Heritage Impact Assessment
16, 20, and 22 Allaura Boulevard, Aurora, ON
xi
of what works in the consultation process to ensure that it is effective in providing the client and the project
with the information needed to be successful.
Holly is a Past-President of the Ontario Archaeological Society, and is also an active member of the Canadian
Archaeological Association, the Society for Historic Archaeology, the Ontario Association for Impact
Assessment, and the Council for Northeastern Historical Society.
Joshua Dent, PhD, CAHP – Manager – Community Engagement & Heritage Division
Joshua (Josh) has worked extensively on cultural heritage and archaeological assessments in Ontario and
Western Canada. Josh’s role at TMHC has involved background research, community consultation, report
production, and project management. Josh specializes in multi-faceted heritage studies including large-scale
inventories, environmental assessments, and complex institutional assessments. In his role at TMHC, he
regularly communicates with Indigenous communities and a variety of heritage stakeholders. These efforts
were recently recognized as part of the Oakville Harbour Cultural Heritage Landscape Strategy
Implementation which received the Canadian Association of Heritage Professionals’ 2021 Award of Merit for
Documentation & Planning. He has volunteered extensively with the heritage community in London, Ontario,
in both municipal and not-for-profit roles. Josh is professional member of the Canadian Association of
Heritage Professionals (CAHP).
Joan Crosbie, MA, CAHP – Manager – Cultural Heritage
Joan has extensive cultural heritage management experience in both the private and public sectors with a
strong background in preservation services, built and landscape heritage assessment, archival/historical
research, and Museums services. She earned her MA in Architectural History from York University. In her
role in Preservation Services with the Toronto Historical Board (City of Toronto), Joan was part of a small
team of professionals who advised City Council on a broad range of heritage preservation and planning
matters. Later, as Curator of Casa Loma, she gained extensive experience as part of the Senior Management
team and honed her skills in cultural and community engagement and was a key staff liaison with the
restoration architects and skilled trades as the Casa Loma Estate underwent a major exterior restoration
program. More recently, as Manager of Culture and Community Services, Town of Whitchurch-Stouffville,
Joan managed the Cultural Heritage and Museums services portfolios and has widened her experience in
cultural planning to include the adaptive reuse of heritage buildings and historic main street revitalization.
She has published articles on architecture and architectural preservation for a wide range of organiz ations,
including the Canadian Society for Industrial Heritage, the City of Toronto and the Society for the Study of
Architecture in Canada. Joan is professional member of the Canadian Association of Heritage Professionals
(CAHP).
Elise Geschiere, MSc – Cultural Heritage Specialist
Elise Geschiere received a BA in Sociology with a minor in Public History from Western University in 2019
and went on to complete an MSc in Planning and Development with a concentration in Indigenous
Community Planning at the University of Guelph in 2021. Elise’s research background is multidisciplinary and
involves projects related to affordable housing and social development, the role of planning in the historical
production of underserved communities, and municipal capacity to support rural industries. Recently, Elise’s
research interests have focused on Indigenous perspectives of cultural heritage and opportunities for
decolonization and empowering Indigenous voices in the heritage sector.
Page 33 of 107
Heritage Impact Assessment
16, 20, and 22 Allaura Boulevard, Aurora, ON
xii
Elise also worked as the heritage research and planning student for the Corporation of the Town of Essex for
four consecutive summer terms and gained experience in archival and community-based research, public
engagement, and policy development and review. Elise joined TMHC in 2021 as a Cultural Heritage Specialist
and is involved in heritage evaluation, impact assessment, background research, community consultation, and
report production. She is an Intern member with CAHP and a volunteer on ACO’s provincial policy committee.
Elise is also pursuing her RPP designation with OPPI.
Page 34 of 107
Heritage Impact Assessment
16, 20, and 22 Allaura Boulevard, Aurora, ON
xiii
STATEMENT OF QUALIFICATIONS AND LIMITATIONS
The attached Report (the “Report”) has been prepared by TMHC Inc. (TMHC) for the benefit of the Client
(the “Client”) in accordance with the agreement between TMHC and the Client, including the scope of work
detailed therein (the “Agreement”).
The information, data, recommendations and conclusions contained in the Report (collectively, the
“Information”):
• is subject to the scope, schedule, and other constraints and limitations in the Agreement and the
qualifications contained in the Report (the “Limitations”);
• represents TMHC’s professional judgment in light of the Limitation and industry standards for the
preparation of similar reports;
• may be based on information provided to TMHC which has not been independently verified;
• has not been updated since the date of issuance of the Report and its accuracy is limited to the time
period and circumstances in which it was collected, processed, made or issued;
• must be read as a whole and section thereof should not be read out of such context;
• was prepared for the specific purposes described in the Report and the Agreement.
TMHC shall be entitled to rely upon the accuracy and completeness of information that was provided to it
and has no obligation to update such information. TMHC accepts no responsibility for any events or
circumstances that may have occurred since the date on which the Report was prepared and, in the case of
subsurface, environmental or geotechnical conditions, is not responsible for any variability in such conditions,
geographically or over time.
TMHC agrees that the Report represents its professional judgement as described above and that the
Information has been prepared for the specific purpose and use described in the Report and the Agreement,
but TMHC makes no other representations, or any guarantees or warranties whatsoever, whether express
or implied, with respect to the Report, the Information or any part thereof.
Except (1) as agreed to in writing by TMHC and Client; (2) as required by-law; or (3) to the extent used by
governmental reviewing agencies for the purpose of obtaining permits or approvals, the Report and the
Information may be used and relied upon only by Client.
TMHC accepts no responsibility, and denies any liability whatsoever, to parties other than Client who may
obtain access to the Report or the Information for any injury, loss or damage suffered by such parties arising
from their use of, reliance upon, or decisions or actions based on the Report or any of the Information
(“improper use of the Report”), except to the extent those parties have obtained the prior written consent
of TMHC to use and rely upon the Report and the Information. Any injury, loss or damages arising from
improper use of the Report shall be borne by the party making such use.
This Statement of Qualifications and Limitations is attached to and forms part of the Report a nd any use of
the Report is subject to the terms hereof.
Page 35 of 107
Heritage Impact Assessment
16, 20, and 22 Allaura Boulevard, Aurora, ON
xiv
QUALITY INFORMATION
Report prepared by: ______________________
Elise Geschiere, MSc, CAHP Intern
Cultural Heritage Specialist
Report reviewed by: _______________________
Joshua Dent, PhD, CAHP
Senior Reviewer
Report reviewed by: _______________________
Holly Martelle, PhD
Principal
Page 36 of 107
Heritage Impact Assessment
16, 20, and 22 Allaura Boulevard, Aurora, ON
1
1 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Report Scope and Purpose
Land Services Group (LSG), on behalf of Allaura Limited Partnership, has engaged TMHC Inc. (TMHC) to
produce a Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA) for the properties at 16, 20, and 22 Allaura Boulevard in the
Town of Aurora, Ontario (the “Subject Property”). The HIA is being undertaken as part of the pre-
consultation process with the Town of Aurora for the proposed construction of 225 condominium
townhouses. The requirement for the HIA stems from the Subject Property’s adjacency to 14659 Yonge
Street (Aurora War Memorial and Peace Park), a designated property under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act
(OHA).
The Subject Property is an approximately 3-acre (ac) parcel of land situated on the north side of Allaura
Boulevard, east of Yonge Street, and south of Edward Street. The property contains two one-storey
commercial/industrial buildings encompassed by a hardscaped area. It is characterized by stands of mature
trees located along the north, south, and west lot lines, and grassed and open areas to the east.
Section 13.2 of the Town of Aurora Official Plan outlines specific reference to properties included on the
Register of Cultural Heritage Resources:
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;
iii. Using zoning by-law provisions to protect heritage resources by regulating such matters as
use, massing, form, design, location and setbacks;
iv. Using the site plan control by-law to ensure that new development is compatible with
heritage resources.
Pursuant to the direction provided by the Town of Aurora in the record of pre-consultation, this HIA is
intended to provide an evaluation of the proposed development’s potential impacts on the heritage attributes
of the adjacent designated property at 14659 Yonge Street, to provide strategies for mitigating that impact,
and recommendations for future study, if necessary. As no heritage concerns have been raised for the Subject
Property, a heritage evaluation against O. Reg. 9/06 (as amended by O. Reg. 569/22) has not been undertaken.
Page 37 of 107
Heritage Impact Assessment
16, 20, and 22 Allaura Boulevard, Aurora, ON
2
1.2 Methodology
This HIA was prepared in accordance with the general format set out in the MCM’s InfoSheet #5: Heritage
Impact Assessments and Conservation Plans, which is included in the resource Heritage Resources in the Land
Use Planning Process within the Ontario Heritage Toolkit. This HIA also adheres to the guidelines of the
Heritage Impact Assessments and Conservation Plans Guide provided by the Town of Aurora as well as the
designation by-law (By-law 4977-07.D) for the Statement of Cultural Heritage Value or Interest and list of
heritage attributes for the adjacent property at 14659 Yonge Street.
For the purposes of preparing this report, TMHC staff visited the Subject Property on September 15, 2023.
A full list of referenced sources is included in Section 10.0 of this HIA.
1.3 Client Contact Information
Allaura Limited Partnership
Mr. Reza Nazeran and Mr. Tony Amir Khani
248 Kennedy Street West
Aurora, ON, l4G 6S4
Rnazeran@workplatinum.com; tonytheagent@gmail.com
Page 38 of 107
Heritage Impact Assessment
16, 20, and 22 Allaura Boulevard, Aurora, ON
3
2 SITE DESCRIPTION
2.1 Location and Physical Description
The Subject Property is an irregularly shaped parcel of land comprising approximately 3 ac. It is situated on the
north side of Allaura Boulevard, east of Yonge Street, and south of Edward Street (Maps 1-2). The Subject
Property contains two one-storey commercial/industrial buildings encompassed by a hardscaped area. Several
mature trees are located along the north, south, and west lot lines of the property and a grassed and open
area is located east of the commercial/industrial buildings.
The property is located within a mixed-land use context, with significant commercial areas to the north, west,
and south, and industrial lands to the east. Low-rise residential suburbs are located to the west of Yonge
Street and several institutional buildings are scattered throughout the area (Map 3).
2.2 Heritage Status
The Subject Property is not identified as listed or designated on the Town of Aurora Register of Properties of
Cultural Heritage Value or Interest, as confirmed by the Town of Aurora. There are no National Historic Sites
or Provincial Heritage Properties present on the Subject Property, as confirmed by the OHT and the MCM.
The Subject Property is adjacent to 14659 Yonge Street (Aurora War Memorial and Peace Park), a designated
property under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act (OHA).1 Another property at 95 Allaura Boulevard, located
to the northeast of the Subject Property, is listed on the City of Aurora’s Register of Properties of Cultural
Heritage Value or Interest.
1 Town of Aurora By-law 4977-07.D
Page 39 of 107
Heritage Impact Assessment
16, 20, and 22 Allaura Boulevard, Aurora, ON
4
Map 1: Location of the Subject Property and Adjacent Property at 14659 Yonge Street
Page 40 of 107
Heritage Impact Assessment
16, 20, and 22 Allaura Boulevard, Aurora, ON
5
Map 2: Subject Property and Adjacent Property
Page 41 of 107
Heritage Impact Assessment
16, 20, and 22 Allaura Boulevard, Aurora, ON
6
Map 3: Contextual Landscape Surrounding the Subject Property
Page 42 of 107
Heritage Impact Assessment
16, 20, and 22 Allaura Boulevard, Aurora, ON
7
3 HISTORICAL RESEARCH & ANALYSIS
3.1 Historic Context: Indigenous Settlement and Treaties
3.1.1 Early Indigenous Settlement
There is archaeological evidence of Indigenous settlement in York Region since the time of glacial retreat
some 12,000 years ago through to the modern era.
Since time immemorial, Indigenous peoples use and management of land differed greatly from the much more
recent era of colonial development. Instead of roads and highways cut through the landscape, Indigenous
travel, especially in this region, focused on waterways and the portages between them. What is now known as
the Oak Ridges Moraine, was a significant landscape for Indigenous communities dividing watercourses flowing
north into Lake Simcoe from those flowing south into Lake Ontario. The region was crossed by portages,
such as the Carrying Place Trail, from the Don and Humber rivers’ watersheds to the Holland River and
beyond.
In addition to fish and other animals, Indigenous communities harvested wild rice, and actively managed and
maintained nut and berry resources for food.2 They maintained fields of corn, beans, and squash. Far from the
pristine wilderness often characterized in popular culture, Indigenous landscapes included actively managed
meadows (Mishkodeh) and forests (such as Black Oak Savannas) shaped and maintained by controlled burns
and other interventions.3 This system of land management is often framed in terms of kinship between people
and landscape, a mutual responsibility for each to promote and maintain the health of the other.
Indigenous responsibility to and kinship with the land contrasted strongly with subsequent colonial treatment
of these landscapes. Early colonial development typically looked to impose, rather than embed, itself on the
landscape. As a result, colonial activities often displaced, interrupted, or destroyed Indigenous land
management and subsistence activities. Waterways were dammed for mills or canalized with locks, blocking
Indigenous highways and interrupting trade routes and fisheries. Meadows and fields maintained by Indigenous
communities for generations were occupied by colonial settlements and farms. When these spaces were no
longer sufficient or convenient, forests were cleared. The systems and relationships between Indigenous
people and landscapes that had been refined over thousands of years were increasingly being broken d uring
the height colonization, often within a single generation. Treaties isolated Indigenous communities to relatively
small reserves and colonial land development including the privatization of property increasingly limited the
accessibility of lands outside of these reserves for subsistence activities. Residential schools further damaged
these traditional lifeways by systematically preventing the transfer of Indigenous knowledge from one
generation to the next. Despite all these challenges, contemporary Indigenous communities are increasing
undertaking to revitalize their traditional histories and systems of land management including their
relationships and responsibility to the landscape.4
2 Williams 2018
3 Miskokdeh Centre for Indigenous Knowledge n.d.
4 Miskokdeh Centre for Indigenous Knowledge n.d.
Page 43 of 107
Heritage Impact Assessment
16, 20, and 22 Allaura Boulevard, Aurora, ON
8
Several contemporary communities are associated with Indigenous settlement in this area including Wendat,
Anishinaabe, and Haudenosaunee peoples.
3.1.2 Treaty History
The former York County that encompasses the Subject Property lies at the intersection of a complex history
of treaties. In 1787-88, the Johnson-Butler Purchases sought to acquire the territory occupied by the
Mississauga nations along the north shore of Lake Ontario and further inland. Also known as the Gunshot
Treaty, these purchases proved difficult to uphold due to unclear records and poorly defined boundaries.5 It
was not until the Williams Treaties of 1923 that these claims were revisited with the Anishinaabe nations now
affiliated with that treaty, the Williams Treaties Nations of the Mississaugas of Alderville First Nation, Curve
Lake First Nation, Hiawatha First Nation, Scugog Island First Nation and the Chippewas of Beausoleil First
Nation, Georgina Island First Nation and Rama First Nation.6 However, the Williams Treaties were also
contentious, having been interpreted by Canada to have extinguished the First Nations’ rights to hunt, fish, and
harvest on the territory. As soon as these communities were made aware of this policy, they began formally
challenging the interpretation as they depended on these activities for survival.
In 2018, Canada, Ontario, and Williams Treaties First Nations ratified the Williams Treaties First Nations
Settlement Agreement, which confirms that the Crown did not act honourably when making and implementing
the Williams Treaties.7 Specifically, the Crown never provided proper compensation or additional lands as
promised, and that First Nations’ harvesting rights had been unjustly denied. The negotiated settlement
agreement recognizes pre-existing treaty harvesting rights for First Nations members in Treaties 5, 16, 18, 20,
27, 27 ¼, Crawford Purchase and Gunshot Treaty, provides for the acquisition of additional reserve lands,
includes financial compensation, and resulted in both federal and provincial apologies for the negative impacts
of the Williams Treaties on First Nations.
3.2 Historic Context: Early Municipal Settlement
Historically, the Subject Property is composed of part of Lot 76, Concession 1 East in the Geographic
Township of Whitchurch in the former County of York. A brief discussion of 19th century settlement and land
use is provided below to illustrate the historical context of the property.
3.2.1 York County
Colonial histories project a vision of the pre-European landscape as “untamed wilderness,” a view that helped
legitimize colonial settlement and the displacement of Indigenous populations. By the 17th century, the
Indigenous landscape in the vicinity of the Subject Property included extensive water- and land-based
transportation networks connecting communities, settlements, and resource zones. Indigenous agricultural
populations had cut extensive tree stands and established wide-sweeping agricultural fields in proximity to
major settlements, within which staple crops of corn, beans, and squash were cultivated on an in tensive basis.
Colonial settlement would alter the physical landscape of this area as settlers cleared additional land, built
homes, barns, businesses, dammed and redirected water at mill sites, and built roads above former Indigenous
trails. Crown surveys artificially divided the landscape into private ownership parcels of standard sizes and
5 Surtees 1984
6 Surtees 1986
7 Canada 2018
Page 44 of 107
Heritage Impact Assessment
16, 20, and 22 Allaura Boulevard, Aurora, ON
9
shapes, providing formal access only by roads arranged in a grid pattern and serving Lieutenant Governor
Simcoe’s Plan for ‘law and order.’8 New systems of land organization and use broke up Indigenous landscapes,
creating barriers to traditional uses of the land and seasonal networks of resource procurement, travel, and
trade.
Prior to the beginning of colonial settlement in what is now the York Region, the area was inhabited by a
series of Indigenous communities affiliated with the various nations that occupied the north shore of Lake
Ontario. The Wendat, Haudenosaunee, and Mississauga Anishinaabe understood the importance of the
Toronto area as the southern portal to the Carrying Place, an ancient trading throughfare connecting Lake
Ontario with Georgian Bay. Even when one or another nation occupied the area, their communities were
cosmopolitan trading centres for many groups, including Europeans. This was the case at the village of
Ganatsekwyagon as documented between 1669-71 by Sulpician priests, Father d’Urfé and Abbé Fenelon. The
major waterways, including the Humber, the Don, and the Rouge, provided passageways to and from Lake
Ontario through the interior. Recognizing the importance of the area, by the mid-18th century, the French had
established trading operations on the Humber at Magasin Royal and Fort Rouille (Fort Toronto). The Fort was
abandoned in 1759 around the time when French Canada fell to the British during the Seven Years’ War.9
The area of what became York County was known initially as the Toronto Region. After British conquest of
the area, it was known as the District of Nassau and later the Home District. In 1791, York consisted of an
East and West Riding extending from the County of Durham in the east to the La Trench River (now Thames
River) in the west and Lake Geneva (now Burlington Bay) in the south.10 The County was created in 1791
when the government split the Province of Ontario into four districts and nineteen counties to accommodate
more local administration. Governor Simcoe was among the first to settle in the newly established county.
Accompanied by the Queen’s Rangers, he occupied the cleared area around former French Fort Rouille and
began to lay the foundations of York, his new capital of Upper Canada11.
Other early settlers included the Pennsylvania Quakers, Germans from Genesee Valley, Pennsyl vania Dutch
and French Royalists. The County grew quickly due to three factors: first, it included the capital of Upper
Canada; second was the construction of Yonge Street from Lake Ontario to Holland Landing in the north; and
third, Simcoe established Dundas Street from Lake Ontario to London in the West. Both of these roads were
major transportation routes and avenues for settlement.12 The boundaries of the County of York changed
over the years. In 1851, the County of York encompassed the townships of Etobicoke, Vaughan, Markham,
Scarborough, York, King, Whitchurch, Gwillimbury East and Gwillimbury North. The County of York was
briefly united with the County of Peel from 1853 to 1866. Municipalities including the Township of Georgina,
City of Toronto and villages of Aurora, Holland Landing, Newmarket, Richmond Hill and Yorkville were added
to the boundaries of the county of York after 1866.13
In 1953, the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto was created, and the Townships of York, Etobicoke and
Scarborough were separated from the remainder of York County.14 By 1970, the county consisted of the
townships of Georgina, Gwillimbury East, Gwillimbury North, King, Markham, Vaughan and Whitchurch. It
8 Champion 1979:7
9 Arthur 1964:6-7
10 Mika & Mika 1983:681
11 Mika & Mika 1983:681
12 Mika & Mika 1983:682
13 Mika & Mika 1983:682
14 Mika & Mika 1983:682
Page 45 of 107
Heritage Impact Assessment
16, 20, and 22 Allaura Boulevard, Aurora, ON
10
also included the villages of Stouffville, Sutton and Woodbridge and the towns of Aurora, Markham,
Newmarket and Richmond Hill. In 1970, the County of York was re-organized into the Regional Municipality
of York. While the boundaries remained the same, the municipality included the towns of Aurora, East
Gwillimbury, Markham, Newmarket, Richmond Hill, Vaughan and Whitchurch-Stouffville. Markham, Richmond
Hill and Vaughan later became cities. Georgina and King remained as townships.
3.2.2 Township of Whitchurch
The Township of Whitchurch was surveyed over the course of several years. John Stegman began laying out
the township in 1800 and his work was followed by Samuel Wilmot who completed the 8th and 9th
concessions.15 The earliest settlers in the township arrived prior to the surveys, as early as 1794.16 Following
the completion of Stegman’s survey in 1802, the Crown offered free land grants to individuals who could
attract families to the area. One such individual, Timothy Rogers, was responsible for bringing 40 Quaker
families to Whitchurch and was given 1,000 free acres of land in payment.17 In addition to Quakers, some of
the first settlers were French Huguenots, Mennonites and Hessian soldiers, some of whom were rewarded
with free land grants by the British for their loyalty during the Revolutionary War.18 Many families settled close
to waterways with attractive milling sites as well as open and passable thoroughfares, like Yonge Street and
Main Street (Plank Road) in Stouffville. The Township prospered and by 1878 there were just over 700
landowners in Whitchurch.19
By 1877, Whitchurch Township had grown to encompass three villages: Newmarket, Aurora, and Stouffville.
The introduction of the Toronto and Nipissing Railway in 1871 also helped to bolster the growth of the
township and its thriving lumber and manufacturing industries. Soon, Stouffville Junction serviced 30 trains a
day. However, extreme deforestation from the lumber industry drastically changed the landscape in the early
20th century, creating sand deserts akin to “barren wastelands”.20 The Rouge River and the Holland River also
lost their ability to act as water storage areas during this time, giving way to severe flooding in the spring
followed by weeks of drought in the summer.21 Efforts to reforest the area began in the 1920s which was a
major success, leading to the stabilization of existing forests and the recovery of blowsand fields into lush
areas populated with conifers.22
Whitchurch Township and the Village of Stouffville were amalgamated in 1971 to form the Town of
Whitchurch-Stouffville in response to the formation of the Regional Municipality of York the same year.23
3.2.3 Town of Aurora
The Village of Aurora was founded in 1854 and incorporated as a town in 1888, however the earliest
development of Aurora coincided with the construction of Yonge Street in the 1790s. The first merchant in
the area was Richard Machall, who opened a business at the intersection of Yonge and Wellington Streets in
15 Miles & Co. 1878: xv
16 WHBC 1993:12
17 WHBC 1993:14
18 WHBC 1993:14
19 Miles & Co. 1878: xvi
20 WHBC 1993:29, 33
21 WHBC 1993:29
22 WHBC 1993:33
23 Town of Stouffville n.d.
Page 46 of 107
Heritage Impact Assessment
16, 20, and 22 Allaura Boulevard, Aurora, ON
11
1804; these crossroads became known as Machall’s Corners.24 Charles Doan, another business leader, became
the town’s first postmaster and in 1854 he changed the name to Aurora after the Greek goddess of dawn.25 In
1853, the Northern Railway arrived in the village. It provided a direct link to Toronto and encouraged growth
and industry in Aurora. At that time, the population of Aurora numbered 100 people. By 1878, that number
had risen to 1,500.
Aurora became an important industrial town, with two farming implement factories, three sawmills, two
cabinet factories, and numerous other business enterprises.26 However, at the start of the 20th century many
industries had moved outside of Aurora in favour of larger communities and agriculture became the dominant
economy. Following the Second World War, Aurora’s population flourished once more as it became more
akin to a suburb due to its proximity and easy transit to Toronto – this same dynamic continues today.
Despite ongoing modern developments, Aurora has maintained much of its historic downtown including the
designation of Northeast Old Aurora as a Heritage Conservation District under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage
Act in 2006.
The Village of Aurora was founded in 1854 and incorporated as a town in 1888, however the earliest
development of Aurora coincided with the construction of Yonge Street in the 1790s. The first merchant in
the area was Richard Machall, who opened a business at the intersection of Yonge and Wellington Streets in
1804; these crossroads became known as Machall’s Corners.27 Charles Doan, another business leader, became
the town’s first postmaster and in 1854 he changed the name to Aurora after the Greek goddess of dawn.28 In
1853, the Northern Railway arrived in the village. It provided a direct link to Toronto and encouraged growth
and industry in Aurora. At that time, the population of Aurora numbered 100 people. By 1878, that number
had risen to 1,500.
Aurora became an important industrial town, with two farming implement factories, three sawmills, two
cabinet factories, and numerous other business enterprises.29 However, at the start of the 20th century many
industries had moved outside of Aurora in favour of larger communities and agriculture became the dominant
economy. Following the Second World War, Aurora’s population flourished once more as it became more
akin to a suburb due to its proximity and easy transit to Toronto – this same dynamic continues today.
Despite ongoing modern developments, Aurora has maintained much of its historic downtown including the
designation of Northeast Old Aurora as a Heritage Conservation District under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage
Act in 2006.
3.2.4 Yonge Street
Yonge Street is an approximately 86-kilometre-long roadway which begins at the Toronto Harbor Front on
Lake Ontario and extends northwards, stopping short of the conjuncture of the Holland River and Lake
Simcoe. The road was originally part of the Carrying Place Trail, a significant thoroughfare in a network of
trails used by Indigenous peoples to travel throughout southern Ontario.
24 WHBC 1993:41
25 Stortz 2015
26 York Region 2007
27 WHBC 1993:41
28 Stortz 2015
29 York Region 2007
Page 47 of 107
Heritage Impact Assessment
16, 20, and 22 Allaura Boulevard, Aurora, ON
12
In 1793, Lieutenant Governor of Upper Canada John Graves Simcoe contracted Augustus Jones to survey a
route which would stretch from York Township to Lake Simcoe. The route was originally a trail identified to
Simcoe from an Anishinaabe man as his party passed through the Holland Marsh area. By the following year,
the construction of a “bush road” began along the route surveyed by Jones. This road was to be called Yonge
Street after Sir George Yonge, Secretary of War in the British Cabinet in the late 18th century. Lots were laid
out in 200-acre parcels along the road, which were soon inhabited by small, remote cabins as settlers arrived
in the area.30
30 Myers 1977:22
Page 48 of 107
Heritage Impact Assessment
16, 20, and 22 Allaura Boulevard, Aurora, ON
13
Image 1: John Graves Simcoe Supervises the Construction of Yonge Street, 1795
Source: Charles William Jeffreys, Library and Archives Canada
Yonge Street played an important role in the War of 1812, providing safe travel for citizens travelling
throughout the township while also serving as an important military transport route for local militia. The
street was also a major site during the Upper Canada Rebellion – a short-lived uprising against British rule in
Upper Canada. Throughout the 1820s and 1830s, Toronto’s population continued to grow yet Yonge Street
remained an unpaved, dirt trail which made travel by wagon during the autumn and spring nearly impossible. In
1833, the Upper Canada Legislature voted to macadamize portions of Yonge Street – an early method of
paving which used broken stones and gravel.31 This initial “test” portion of the road was paved to determine
whether the macadam could survive harsh Canadian winters. The paving, though extremely costly, was
ultimately a success, triggering a large fundraising initiative which used road tolls to help finance the paving of
the remaining portions of Yonge Street.32
As more settlers arrived in the area, land surrounding Yonge Street was subdivided into large blocks. These
lots were further subdivided to accommodate the County of York’s growing population. Yonge Street was
also redeveloped as the population grew, including the addition of a horse-drawn streetcar line in 1861. The
Toronto and York Radial Railway followed the streetcar in the late 19th century, providing expedited travel
between Toronto and other communities throughout York County. The Radial Railway was closed by 1930
and was followed by the subway system which began construction following the Second World War. The
subway originally travelled north and south along Yonge Street between Union Station and Eglington Av enue
in downtown Toronto. The subway, now operated by the Toronto Transit Commission (TTC) only extends
as far north as Vaughan. Yonge Street remains a vital artery which connects the many towns and villages
within the region geographically, historically, and contextually.
31 Stamp 1991:121
32 Stamp 1991:122
Page 49 of 107
Heritage Impact Assessment
16, 20, and 22 Allaura Boulevard, Aurora, ON
14
3.3 16, 20, and 22 Allaura Boulevard: History of the Subject Property
The Subject Property is situated at 16, 20, and 22 Allaura Boulevard, as part Lot 76, Concession 1 East of
Yonge Street Whitchurch Township. The lot, comprising 190 ac, was first patented to Captain William
Graham in 1788. Graham was born in Perthshire, Scotland in 1746, and served for the British during the
American Revolutionary War.33 Upon arriving in York c.1788, he worked as a master carpenter, later serving
as Magistrate and Justice of the Peace in 1800, and as Captain and Lieutenant Colonel of the 1st Regiment York
Militia during the War of 1812.34 Graham and his wife Eunice had five children: William, twins Adam and Peter,
Margaret, and Jane.35
In 1848, that Graham’s son Adam granted all 190 ac of Lot 76 to his brother Peter.36 This grant suggests that
upon Captain Graham’s death in 1814, his son Adam inherited the lot – however this is not represented in the
land registry records. Peter Graham sold a portion of Lot 76 to the “O.S. & H.R.R. Company” in 1855,
however little information remains about the company or the sale. Graham was granted the 190-ac parcel
again in 1857 by James Mustard. Again, the nature of this transaction remains unclear. Peter Graham is
depicted on Lot 76 on Tremaine’s Map of the County of York dated 1860 (Map 4), while Adam Graham is
located on Lot 77 to the north. A portion of the railway runs through both properties. A building is depicted
in the northwest corner of Lot 76.
In 1864, Peter Graham mortgaged 100 ac from the east half of Lot 76 to Eliza Harrington and, in 1868, he sold
all but five acres of Lot 76 to William Lappetal. In the spring of 1870, 185 ac were sold to Walter Scott by
William Lappetal, although it is not known how Lappetal came to be the grantor of the property.37 The Scott
family were affiliated with the property for several decades, and Scott is depicted on Lot 76 in the 1878
Historical Atlas Map (Map 5). A larger residence and small outbuildings are situated in the northwest corner of
the parcel. A sawmill with a mill pond is depicted at the east half of Lot 78 directly north of the Subject
Property.
Scott mortgaged the property several times to various local landowners including John Ferguson and John
Hutchinson. Following Scott’s death in 1887, it appears that his son Walter Jr. inherited ownership of Lot 76.38
In 1892, Walter Jr. sold all 185 ac to his younger brothers John and Hugh Scott.39 The Scott brothers
mortgaged Lot 76 to their brother Thomas around the same time they assumed ownership of the property. In
1899, the Scott brothers sold “1 9/10 ac” from the southwest quarter of the parcel to Charles Warren. The
following year, Hugh Scott handed over his stake in the property to his brother John. A small portion of the
west half of Lot 76 was sold to the Metropolitan Railway Co. and the Toronto and York Radial Railway Co. in
1904. In 1907, John Scott sold 182 ac of Lot 76 Charles Wood.
By the 1920s, several small parcels were sold to the Crown to be used for hydro-electric easements. Wood’s
son Charles Reginald Wood appears on the land registry records in 1922, after his father’s death. In 1925, the
Aurora Cenotaph was constructed. The cenotaph was funded by Sir William Mulock who, following the end of
33 Find a Grave 2013
34 Find a Grave 2013
35 Jost 2009:362
36 Find a Grave 2020a; Find a Grave 2020b
37 Find a Grave 2020c
38 Find a Grave 2015
39 Find a Grave 2020d; Ancestry.ca
Page 50 of 107
Heritage Impact Assessment
16, 20, and 22 Allaura Boulevard, Aurora, ON
15
the First World War in 1919, donated $25,000 for a war memorial on 6 ac of Lot 76.40 Another $25,000 was
raised by the communities of King, Whitchurch, and Aurora.
In 1939, the Wood family sold the property to William Sisman, who granted part of the lot from the “south
front on east limit of Yonge Street, 35’3 ½ south from Aurora War Memorial” to Wallace Rankine Nesbitt, a
prominent Toronto lawyer, in 1944.
Nesbitt granted 188 ac of land to the Alliance Building Corporation in 1973 for $230,000. Three years later,
Alliance Building Corp. mortgaged the entire parcel to Ontario Limited. These two companies are likely
affiliated with the late-20th century commercial and industrial structures which are present within the lot along
Allaura Boulevard including the Subject Property (Map 7). The final transaction recorded in the land registry
records is a transfer of a small portion of the lot from the Aurora War Memorial Association to the Town of
Aurora.
40 Town of Aurora By-law 4977-07.D
Page 51 of 107
Heritage Impact Assessment
16, 20, and 22 Allaura Boulevard, Aurora, ON
16
Map 4: Subject Property on the 1860 Historical County Map
Page 52 of 107
Heritage Impact Assessment
16, 20, and 22 Allaura Boulevard, Aurora, ON
17
Map 5: Subject Property on the 1878 Historical Atlas Map
Page 53 of 107
Heritage Impact Assessment 16, 20, and 22 Allaura Boulevard, Aurora, ON 18 Map 6: 1954 and 1970 Aerial Imagery of the Subject Property Page 54 of 107
Heritage Impact Assessment 16, 20, and 22 Allaura Boulevard, Aurora, ON 19 Map 7: 1978 and 1988 Aerial Imagery of the Subject Property Page 55 of 107
Heritage Impact Assessment
16, 20, and 22 Allaura Boulevard, Aurora, ON
20
3.4 Adjacent Property: 14659 Yonge Street
The property at 14659 Yonge Street is known as the Aurora War Memorial and Peace Park. The 6-ac park is
situated on the east side of Yonge Street, north of Allaura Boulevard. The Memorial Tower (Image 2) and
Altar of Sacrifice are flanked by flagpoles and are located on a rise of land in the center of the property. The
memorials are directly accessed by a pathway connecting to Yonge Street. A LAV III Memorial for the
Afghanistan War is located north of the Memorial Tower and a Korean War Memorial is located to the
southeast of the Memorial Tower. The grassy property is densely treed with a variety of deciduous and
coniferous species.
Image 2: Construction of the Memorial Tower 1925
Source: Aurora Historical Society
The property at 14659 Yonge Street was designated under Part IV of the OHA in 2008 (By-law 4977-07.D).
The following Statement of Significance and associated heritage attributes are derived verbatim from the
designation by-law for the property (see Appendix A).
Page 56 of 107
Heritage Impact Assessment
16, 20, and 22 Allaura Boulevard, Aurora, ON
21
3.4.1.1 Statement of Significance
The Aurora War Memorial and Peace Park has excellent cultural heritage value. The Cenotaph is Aurora's
only memorial tower, built to recognize the local soldiers from Aurora, King and Whitchurch who served and
fell in the Great War. The Altar of Sacrifice at the base of the Cenotaph was dedicated in 1960 to those who
died in World· War II. Both monuments are set in the Peace Park, dedicated in 1992 as part of Canada's
125th anniversary and the Peace Park Across Canada Project.
Historical Value
Built in 1925, the Aurora Cenotaph is constructed on land once owned to military leader William Graham,
who fought in the American Revolution, and also in the War of 1812. Shortly after the end of the Great War
in 1919, Sir William Mulock donated $25,000 for a war memorial on 6 acres of land in south Aurora, on the
east side of Yonge Street. Another $25,000 was raised by the communities of King, Whitchurch, and Aurora.
The memorial tower recognizes the sacrifice made by 77 local men who did not return home after the First
World War. In 1960, the Altar of Sacrifice was erected to honour the 55 local men who died in the Second
World War.
Architectural Value
The Aurora War Memorial has strong architectural value as Aurora's only memorial tower. It stands 73 feet
high and was constructed of granite by the Mcintosh Granite Company of Toronto. The lantern at the top of
the tower is solid bronze, and the names of the fallen soldiers are engraved in lead.
Contextual Value
The Aurora War Memorial and Peace Park has important contextual value as one of Aurora's best known
landmarks. The only remaining piece of parkland fronting onto Yonge Street in south Aurora, the War
Memorial and Peace Park provides a green space and respite from the busy traffic of Yonge Street and the
surrounding commercial developments. It is the site of Remembrance Day and other memorial services.
Located on Yonge Street, the site of the War Memorial and Peace Park was deliberately placed on the main
thoroughfare in Aurora, looking over the town.
Description of Heritage Attributes
The Description of Heritage Attributes includes the following heritage attributes and applies to all elevations
and the roof including all facades, entrances, windows, chimneys, and trim, together with construction
materials of wood, brick, stone, plaster parging, metal and glazing, their related building techniques and
landscape features:
Exterior Elements:
• Cenotaph Memorial Tower, including:
o Overall tapered square tower form with buttresses at each corner of the base and battlement
o All inscriptions and engravings; and
o Bronze lantern;
Altar of Sacrifice, including:
• Overall rectangular form testing on a granite base;
• All inscriptions and engravings;
Page 57 of 107
Heritage Impact Assessment
16, 20, and 22 Allaura Boulevard, Aurora, ON
22
• Granite stairs to monument;
• Flag poles to the north and south of cenotaph; and
• Peace Park plaque mounted on stone;
Park landscape, including:
• Pathway from Yonge Street, and ‘Veteran’s Way’ signage; and
• Mature trees and plantings.
Page 58 of 107
Heritage Impact Assessment
16, 20, and 22 Allaura Boulevard, Aurora, ON
23
4 EXISTING CONDITIONS
A visit to the Subject Property was undertaken by TMHC staff on September 15, 2023. Staff documented the
existing conditions of the Subject Property and nearby properties, features of interest, and surrounding
contextual landscape.
4.1 16, 20, and 22 Allaura Boulevard
The Subject Property is situated on the north side of Allaura Boulevard, east of Yonge Street and south of
Edward Street and contains two commercial/industrial buildings (Images 3-6). A retaining wall separates the
Subject Property and the adjacent property to the west (Image 7). A vacant grassed area is located east of the
commercial/industrial buildings (Image 8). The northwestern portion of the property is adjacent to the War
Memorial and Peace Park and is composed of a hardscaped area. Dense brush and trees separate the Subject
Property and adjacent park (Images 9-10).
Page 59 of 107
Heritage Impact Assessment 16, 20, and 22 Allaura Boulevard, Aurora, ON 24 Image 3: Industrial Building on the Subject Property (16 Allaura Boulevard) Looking Northwest Image 4: Industrial Building on the Subject Property (20 Allaura Boulevard) Looking Northeast Image 5: Driveway Between Industrial Buildings Looking West Image 6: Laneway Between Industrial Buildings Looking Northeast Image 7: Retaining Wall on the West Side of Industrial Building at 16 Allaura Boulevard Looking North Image 8: Vacant Grassed Area (22 Allaura Boulevard) Looking South Page 60 of 107
Heritage Impact Assessment
16, 20, and 22 Allaura Boulevard, Aurora, ON
25
Image 9: Northwestern Corner of the Subject Property
Looking Northeast
Image 10: Dense Tree Coverage Between Subject Property and the Park
Looking West
Page 61 of 107
Heritage Impact Assessment
16, 20, and 22 Allaura Boulevard, Aurora, ON
26
4.2 Aurora War Memorial and Peace Park- 14659 Yonge Street
The property at 14659 Yonge Street appears to have a high degree of heritage integrity with the original
monuments and later additions maintained in good condition. As the property is a public park, a site visit was
possible as conducted as part of this report and confirmed the conditions described here (Map 8).
The memorial tower is in good condition, with no apparent deterioration or visible damage (Images 11-14).
The Altar of Sacrifice is also in good condition with no visible deterioration or damage (Image 15). The LAV lll
monument shows no signs of damage and appears well preserved (Image 16). The newly installed Korean War
memorial is in good condition (Image 17). The War Memorial and Peace Park plaque is in good condition
(Image 10). The Veterans Way signage is intact and visible and the pathway from Yonge Street to the
memorial is in good condition (Image 18). The grassed lawns throughout the property are well -maintained and
mature trees appear healthy (Images 19-24).
Page 62 of 107
Heritage Impact Assessment
16, 20, and 22 Allaura Boulevard, Aurora, ON
27
Map 8: Existing Features for the Property at 14659 Yonge Street
Page 63 of 107
Heritage Impact Assessment 16, 20, and 22 Allaura Boulevard, Aurora, ON 28 Image 11: Memorial Tower Looking Southeast Image 12: Walkway Leading to the Memorial Tower and Altar of Sacrifice Looking East Image 13: Close-up of the Memorial Tower Inscriptions Looking East Image 14: Battlemented Parapet Details Looking Southeast Image 15: Altar of Sacrifice Looking Southeast Image 16: LAV lll Afghanistan Memorial Looking East Page 64 of 107
Heritage Impact Assessment 16, 20, and 22 Allaura Boulevard, Aurora, ON 29 Image 17: Korean War Memorial Looking East Image 18: War Memorial and Peace Park Plaque Looking East Image 19: Walkway from Yonge Street Looking East Image 20: Landscape from the Memorial Tower Looking Southwest Image 21: War Memorial and Peace Park from Yonge Street Looking East Image 22: Densely Treed Interior Portions of the Property Looking Northwest Page 65 of 107
Heritage Impact Assessment
16, 20, and 22 Allaura Boulevard, Aurora, ON
30
Image 23: Crimson King Maple
Looking East
Image 24: Rise of Land and Memorial Tower
Looking Northwest
Page 66 of 107
Heritage Impact Assessment
16, 20, and 22 Allaura Boulevard, Aurora, ON
31
4.3 Contextual Landscape
The Subject Property is located on the north side of Allaura Boulevard, east of Yonge Street and south of
Edward Street (Maps 1-2). Comprising approximately 3 ac, the irregularly shaped parcel contains two one-
storey commercial/industrial buildings encompassed by a hardscaped area. The immediate surroundings of the
Subject Property are primarily industrial (Images 25-30) with significant commercial areas to the north, west,
and south. Low-rise residential suburbs are located to the west of Yonge Street and several institutional
buildings are situated throughout the area (Map 3).
Page 67 of 107
Heritage Impact Assessment 16, 20, and 22 Allaura Boulevard, Aurora, ON 32 Image 25: Allaura Boulevard Looking West Image 26: Allaura Boulevard and Intersection with Yonge Street Looking Southwest Image 27: Yonge Street Looking North Image 28: Industrial Properties Across the Road from the Subject Property Looking Southwest Image 29: Industrial Buildings Along Allaura Boulevard Looking Northwest Image 30: Industrial Buildings Adjacent to Subject Property Looking Northeast Page 68 of 107
Heritage Impact Assessment
16, 20, and 22 Allaura Boulevard, Aurora, ON
33
5 POLICY CONTEXT
5.1 The Town of Aurora Official Plan (2021)
The Town of Aurora Official Plan (OP) was last consolidated in June 2021. The following policies under
Section 13 regarding cultural heritage conservation are relevant to the context of the Study Area:
13.2 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;
iii. Using zoning by-law provisions to protect heritage resources by regulating such matters as
use, massing, form, design, location and setbacks;
iv. Using the site plan control by-law to ensure that new development is compatible with
heritage resources;
v. Using parkland dedication requirements to conserve significant heritage resources;
vi. Identifying, documenting and designating cultural heritage resources as appropriate in the
secondary and block plans and including measures to protect and enhance any significant
heritage resources identified as part of the approval conditions; and,
vii. Using fiscal tools and incentives to facilitate heritage conservation including but not limited
to the Community Improvement Plan and Façade Improvement Program pursuant to the
Planning Act, grants and loans pursuant to the Ontario Heritage Act, and heritage property tax
reduction/rebate program pursuant to the Municipal Act.
13.3 f) The Town will give immediate consideration to the designation of any heritage resource
under the Ontario Heritage Act if that resource is threatened with demolition, significant
alterations or other potentially adverse impacts; and
g) Council may adopt a Demolition Control By-Law to prevent the demolition, destruction or
inappropriate alteration of residential heritage buildings.
In addition, the City of Toronto’s OP provides specific policy statements with regard to the preparation and
necessity of Heritage Impact Assessments, relevant to the Subject Property. They are:
k) Council may require that a heritage impact assessment be prepared by a qualified
professional to the satisfaction of the Town, for any proposed alteration, construction, or any
Page 69 of 107
Heritage Impact Assessment
16, 20, and 22 Allaura Boulevard, Aurora, ON
34
development proposal, including Secondary Plans, involving or adjacent to a designated heritage
resource to demonstrate that the heritage property and its heritage attributes are not
adversely affected. Mitigation measures and/or alternative development approaches shall be
required as part of the approval conditions to ameliorate any potential adverse impacts that
may be caused to the designated heritage resources and their heritage attributes;
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;
o) The above-noted archival documentation must be prepared by a qualified person and include
at least the following as appropriate, or additional matters as specified by the Town:
i. architectural measured drawings;
ii. land use history;
iii. photographs, maps and other available material about the cultural heritage resource
in its surrounding context; and
s) Guidelines for Securing Vacant and Neglected Heritage Buildings shall be developed by the
Town to ensure proper protection of these buildings, and the stability and integrity of their
heritage attributes and character defining elements.
Section 13.4 also outlines policies related to cultural heritage landscapes:
a) The Town shall identify and maintain an inventory of cultural heritage landscapes as part of
the Town’s Cultural Heritage Register to ensure that they are accorded with the same
attention and protection as the other types of cultural heritage resources;
b) Significant cultural heritage landscapes shall be designated under the Ontario Heritage Act,
or established as Areas of Cultural Heritage Character as appropriate;
c) The Town may use parkland dedication provisions to secure a cultural heritage landscape;
and
d) Owing to the spatial characteristics of some cultural heritage landscapes that may span
across several geographical and political jurisdictions, the Town shall cooperate with
neighbouring municipalities, other levels of government, conservation authorities and the
private sector in managing and conserving these resources.
5.2 York Region Official Plan (2022)
Section 2.4 of York Region’s recently updated Official Plan provides policy direction regarding cultural heritage
in the Region:
2.4.1 That cultural heritage resources shall be conserved to foster a sense of place and benefit
communities;
Page 70 of 107
Heritage Impact Assessment
16, 20, and 22 Allaura Boulevard, Aurora, ON
35
2.4.2 To promote well-designed built form and cultural heritage planning, and to conserve
features that help define character, including built heritage resources and cultural
heritage landscapes;
2.4.3 To ensure that cultural heritage resources under York Region’s ownership are
conserved;
2.4.4 To require that cultural heritage resources within secondary plan study areas be
identified, and any significant resources be conserved; and
2.4.12 To recognize and celebrate the rich cultural heritage of York Region’s ethnic and
cultural groups.
The Official Plan also provides specific direction to local municipalities regarding heritage:
2.4.5 To require local municipalities to adopt official plan policies to conserve cultural
heritage resources, including significant built heritage resources and significant cultural
heritage landscapes, to ensure that development and site alteration on adjacent lands to
protected heritage properties will conserve the heritage attributes of the protected
heritage property;
2.4.6 To support local municipal efforts in promoting heritage awareness, establishing heritage
conservation districts and integrating identified cultural heritage landscapes into official
plans and engaging with Indigenous communities in these efforts, where appropriate;
2.4.7 That local municipalities shall compile and maintain a register of significant cultural
heritage resources protected under the Ontario Heritage Act and other significant
heritage resources, in consultation with heritage experts, local heritage committees, and
other levels of government;
2.4.9 To encourage local municipalities to use community improvement plans and programs
to conserve cultural heritage resources; and
2.4.10 To encourage local municipalities to consider urban design standards or guidelines in
core historic areas that reflect the areas’ heritage, character and streetscape.
Of particular relevance to the Project are specific policies regarding public works projects and infrastructure:
2.4.8 To ensure that identified cultural heritage resources are evaluated and conserved in
capital public works projects; and
2.4.11 To encourage access to core historic areas by walking, cycling and transit, and to ensure
that the design of roads, vehicular access and parking complements the historic built
form.
5.3 The Planning Act (1990)
The Planning Act is a piece of provincial legislation that provides stipulations for the land use planning process
in Ontario, such as the identification of provincial interests and tools for the responsible management of
resources including cultural heritage and archaeological resources:
Page 71 of 107
Heritage Impact Assessment
16, 20, and 22 Allaura Boulevard, Aurora, ON
36
2. The minister, the council of a municipality, a local board, a planning board and the Tribunal, in
carrying out their responsibilities under this Act, shall have regard to, among other matters, matters of
provincial interest such as:
(d) the conservation of features of significant architectural, cultural, historical, archaeological or
scientific interest.
Section 3 of the Planning Act indicates that all decisions affecting land use planning matters “shall be consistent
with” the Provincial Policy Statement (PPS), a document that identifies matters of provincial interest to be
considered during land use planning.
5.4 Provincial Policy Statement (PPS 2020)
Deriving authority from the Planning Act, the PPS 2020 guides planning decisions related to or affecting cultural
heritage resources in several sections:
1.7.1 Long-term economic prosperity should be supported by:
e) encouraging a sense of place, by promoting well-designed built form and cultural planning and
by conserving features that help define character, including 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.
2.6.5 Planning authorities shall engage with Indigenous communities and consider their interests when
identifying, protecting and managing cultural heritage and archaeological resources.
Section 6.0 of the PPS also provides important definitions:
Conserved: means the identification, protection, management and use of built heritage resources,
cultural heritage landscapes and archaeological resources in a manner that ensures their cultural
heritage value or interest is retained. This may be achieved by the implementation of recommendations
set out in a conservation plan, archaeological assessment, and/or heritage impact assessment that has
been approved, accepted or adopted by the relevant planning authority and/or decision-maker.
Mitigative measures and/or alternative development approaches can be included in these plans and
assessments.
Significant: means in regard to cultural heritage and archaeology, resources that have been
determined to have cultural heritage value or interest for the important contribution they make to our
understanding of the history of a place, an event, or a people.
Cultural Heritage Landscape: means a defined geographical area that may have been modified by
human activity and is identified as having cultural heritage value or interest by a community, including
an Indigenous community. The area may include features such as buildings, structures, spaces, views,
archeological sites, or natural elements that are valued together for their interrelationship, meaning or
association. Cultural heritage landscapes may be properties that have been determined to have cultural
Page 72 of 107
Heritage Impact Assessment
16, 20, and 22 Allaura Boulevard, Aurora, ON
37
heritage value or interest under the Ontario Heritage Act, or have been included on federal and/or
international registers, and/or protected through official plan, zoning by-law, or other land use planning
mechanisms.
5.5 Ontario Heritage Act (2005)
The OHA provides a framework for municipalities in Ontario to ensure the conservation of properties with
cultural heritage value or interest, including through the capacity to designate heritage properties:
29 (1) The council of a municipality may, by by-law, designate a property within the municipality
to be of cultural heritage value or interest if:
(a) where criteria for determining whether property is of cultural heritage value or
interest have been prescribed, the property meets the prescribed criteria; and
(b) the designation is made in accordance with the process set out in this section.
Under the OHA, O.Reg. 9/06 (as amended by O.Reg. 596/22) provides the criteria for determining a property's
cultural heritage value or interest:
(3) In respect of a property for which a notice of intention to designate it is given under
subsection 29 (1.1) of the Act on or after the day subsection 3 (2) of Schedule 6 to the More
Homes Built Faster Act, 2022 comes into force, the property may be designated under section 29
of the Act if it meets two or more of the criteria for determining whether it is of cultural
heritage value or interest set out in paragraphs 1 to 9 of subsection 1 (2).
Designated properties appear on a municipality’s register of heritage properties:
27 (1) The clerk of a municipality shall keep a register of property situated in the municipality
that is of cultural heritage value or interest.
This register also may include so-called listed properties:
27(3) In addition to the property listed in the register under subsection (2) [designated
properties], the register may include property that has not been designated under this Part if,
(a) the council of the municipality believes the property to be of cultural heritage value
or interest; and
(b) where criteria for determining whether property is of cultural heritage value or
interest have been prescribed for the purposes of this subsection, the property meets
the prescribed criteria.
According to Part V of the OHA, a municipality may also undertake studies regarding (OHA s.40), designate
(OHA s.40), and develop plans for (OHA s.41) heritage conservation districts (HCDs). These are areas of
heritage significance composed of multiple properties.
Part VI of the OHA addresses the protection of archaeological resources.
As of January 2023, at least 25% of properties within the proposed HCD must meet two or more of the
O.Reg. 9/06 criteria (as amended under O.Reg. 569/22).
Page 73 of 107
Heritage Impact Assessment
16, 20, and 22 Allaura Boulevard, Aurora, ON
38
Under the OHA, O.Reg. 10/06 provides the criteria for determining if a property has provincial heritage
significance:
(2) A property may be designated under Section 34.5 of the Act if it meets one or more of the
following criteria for determining whether it is of cultural heritage value or interest of provincial
significance.
5.6 Standards and Guidelines for the Conservation of Historic Places
Parks Canada produced the Standards & Guidelines for the Conservation of Historic Places in Canada (SGCHPC) to
provide guidance to governments, property owners, developers, and heritage pra ctitioners across the country.
This document outlines the conservation decision-making process and establishes pan-Canadian conservation
principles. As the proposed development is confined to the Subject Property and does not involve direct
interventions with the adjacent heritage property at 14659 Yonge Street, the conservation principles outlined
in this document are not applicable, however, are included here for reference purposes:
1. Conserve the heritage value of an historic place. Do not remove, replace or substantially alter
its intact or repairable character defining elements. Do not move a part of an historic place if its
current location is a character-defining element.
2. Conserve changes to an historic place that, over time, have become character-defining elements
in their own right.
3. Conserve heritage value by adopting an approach calling for minimal intervention.
4. Recognize each historic place as a physical record of its time, place and use. Do not create a
false sense of historical development by adding elements from other historic places or other
properties, or by combining features of the same property that never coexisted.
5. Find a use for an historic place that requires minimal or no change to its character-defining
elements.
6. Protect and, if necessary, stabilize an historic place until any subsequent intervention is
undertaken. Protect and preserve archaeological resources in place. Where there is potential
for disturbing archaeological resources, take mitigation measures to limit damage and loss of
information.
7. Evaluate the existing condition of character-defining elements to determine the appropriate
intervention needed. Use the gentlest means possible for any intervention. Respect heritage
value when undertaking an intervention.
8. Maintain character-defining elements on an ongoing basis. Repair character-defining elements by
reinforcing their materials using recognized conservation methods. Replace in kind any
extensively deteriorated or missing parts of character-defining elements, where there are
surviving prototypes.
9. Make any intervention needed to preserve character-defining elements physically and visually
compatible with the historic place and identifiable on close inspection. Document any
intervention for future reference.
Page 74 of 107
Heritage Impact Assessment
16, 20, and 22 Allaura Boulevard, Aurora, ON
39
6 DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
The proposed development on the Subject Property involves the demolition of two existing
commercial/industrial buildings and the construction of ten 3.5 storey condominium townhouse complexes,
containing a total of 225 residential units (Images 31-34). The townhouse complexes front onto an internal
road system with the primary road (running in a north-south alignment) connecting to Allaura Boulevard.
A waste storage/disposal area is located in the northwest portion of the complex, between Buildings #7 and
#8. Landscaped spaces, pedestrian crosswalks, open areas, and an underground parking garage are also
proposed as part of this development.
Page 75 of 107
Heritage Impact Assessment 16, 20, and 22 Allaura Boulevard, Aurora, ON 40 Image 31: Proposed Site Development Source: John G. Williams Limited and Land Services Group Page 76 of 107
Heritage Impact Assessment 16, 20, and 22 Allaura Boulevard, Aurora, ON 41 Image 32: Underground Parking Concept Source: John G. Williams Limited and Land Services Group Page 77 of 107
Heritage Impact Assessment 16, 20, and 22 Allaura Boulevard, Aurora, ON 42 Image 33: Example Elevations for Proposed Townhouses Source: John G. Williams Limited and Land Services Group Page 78 of 107
Heritage Impact Assessment
16, 20, and 22 Allaura Boulevard, Aurora, ON
43
Image 34: Comprehensive Block Plan for the Subject Property
Source: John G. Williams Limited
Page 79 of 107
Heritage Impact Assessment
16, 20, and 22 Allaura Boulevard, Aurora, ON
44
7 IMPACT ASSESSMENT
According to the MCM’s InfoSheet #5: Heritage Impact Assessments and Conservation Plans:
Any impact (direct or indirect, physical or aesthetic) of the proposed development or site alteration on
a cultural heritage resource must be identified. The effectiveness of any proposed conservation or
mitigative or avoidance measures must be evaluated on the basis of established principles, standards and
guidelines for heritage conservation.
As the Town of Aurora has not identified any heritage concerns for the Subject Property at 16, 20, and 22
Allaura Boulevard, this HIA intends to provide an assessment of the potential impacts of the proposed
development on the Subject Property to the cultural heritage value and heritage attributes of the adjacent
designated property at 14659 Yonge Street. In response to any identified impacts, this HIA will also provide
strategies for mitigation and recommendations for future study, if necessary. The heritage attributes on the
property at 14659 Yonge Street that are of primary concern during this HIA include the following:
• Cenotaph Memorial Tower, including:
o Overall tapered square tower form with buttresses at each corner of the base and battlement;
o All inscriptions and engravings; and
o Bronze lantern.
• Altar of Sacrifice, including:
o Overall rectangular form testing on a granite base; and
o All inscriptions and engravings.
• Granite stairs to monument;
• Flag poles to the north and south of cenotaph;
• Peace Park plaque mounted on stone;
• Park landscape, including:
o Pathway from Yonge Street, and ‘Veteran’s Way’ signage; and
o Mature trees and plantings.
The following table includes an assessment of the proposed development against the types of potential impacts
identified in InfoSheet #5.
The following types of potential impacts are outlined in InfoSheet #5:
• Destruction of any, or part of any, significant heritage attributes or features;
• Alteration that is not sympathetic, or is incompatible, with the historic fabric and appearance;
• Shadows created that alter the appearance 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 significant 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 alteration to fill in the formerly open spaces;
Page 80 of 107
Heritage Impact Assessment
16, 20, and 22 Allaura Boulevard, Aurora, ON
45
• Land disturbances such as a change in grade that alters soils, and drainage patterns that adversely
affect an archaeological resource; and
• Other potential impacts
Page 81 of 107
Heritage Impact Assessment 16, 20, and 22 Allaura Boulevard, Aurora, ON 46 Table 1: Impact Assessment Negative impact on a heritage resource Proposed Development Destruction of any, or part of any, significant heritage attributes or features Potential; at present, the site concepts for the proposed development on the Subject Property consider the removal of one tree from a stand of mature trees located on the southeast corner of the adjacent Part IV designated property at 14659 Yonge Street. As the mature trees and plantings are identified as heritage attributes that contribute to the cultural heritage value of the adjacent property, the removal of any trees would have a direct negative impact on that property. Therefore, the plans and site concepts for the proposed development must be revised to demonstrate that no trees on 14659 Yonge Street will be removed. Alteration that is not sympathetic, or is incompatible, with the historic fabric and appearance No; the proposed development will be confined to the Subject Property and will not directly interfere with the historic fabric or appearance of the heritage attributes of the adjacent property at 14659 Yonge Street. Shadows created that alter the appearance of a heritage attribute or change the viability of a natural feature or plantings, such as a garden; No; the proposed development on the Subject Property will not result in shadows that alter the appearance of a heritage attribute or change the viability of a natural feature or plantings. Isolation of a heritage attribute from its surrounding environment, context or a significant relationship No; the proposed development on the Subject Property will not isolate any heritage attribute from its surrounding environment, context or significant relationship. The adjacent property at 14659 Yonge Street has historically and contemporarily existed independently of its surroundings and has retained its function as a commemorative and memorial space that is separate from the commercial, industrial, and institutional environs that encompass it. Direct or indirect obstruction of significant views or vistas within, from, or of built and natural features Yes; the proposed development on the Subject Property involves the construction of an underground parking garage with possible above-grade portions and 3.5 storey townhouses which will be seasonally visible from the adjacent 14659 Yonge Street. The 3.5 storeys proposed is a relatively modest height and scales well with the park, compared with the seven storeys permittable for the Subject Property through zoning. However, this proposed parking garage wall will be directly adjacent to the designated property at 14659 Yonge Street (Aurora War Memorial and Peace Park). Elements of the Subject Property have long been visible from inside the Aurora War Memorial and Peace Park, due to an existing grade change along their shared border. The proposed construction of an underground parking lot, with above ground portions, will introduce a more intentional and visible component into the landscape of the southeastern portion of the park. It should be noted that while viewsheds were not specifically identified as heritage attributes for 14659 Yonge Street, that the proposed development indirectly affects the “park landscape” setting. Additionally, the waste storage/disposal location for the development is proposed to be situated in the northwest corner of the Subject Property, adjacent to the park. This location may be visible from areas within the Aurora War Memorial and Peace Park, which also may be impacted by noise from the operations of the storage/disposal area. Regardless of the material compositions of the exposed portions of the parking garage and waste storage/disposal area, they will form a backdrop to the southeastern boundary of the park and will impact the southeastern viewshed’s contribution to the park landscape from key points within the park (Image 36). Page 82 of 107
Heritage Impact Assessment 16, 20, and 22 Allaura Boulevard, Aurora, ON 47 Negative impact on a heritage resource Proposed Development A change in land use such as rezoning a battlefield from open space to residential use, allowing new development or site alteration to fill in the formerly open spaces No; no change in land use will occur as a result of the proposed development on the Subject Property. The proposed development is confined to the Subject Property. Land disturbances such as a change in grade that alters soils, and drainage patterns that adversely affect an archaeological resource No; an archaeological assessment was not required as part of the pre-consultation process with the Town of Aurora. The property owner is cautioned that during development activities, should archaeological materials be found on the property, the Ministry of Citizenship and Multiculturalism should be notified immediately. Other potential impacts No; no other impacts are anticipated from the proposed construction activities for the Subject Property. Page 83 of 107
Heritage Impact Assessment 16, 20, and 22 Allaura Boulevard, Aurora, ON 48 Image 35: Location of Features Associated with Anticipated Indirect Impacts Source: Landscape Planning Limited (Annotated by TMHC) Page 84 of 107
Heritage Impact Assessment
16, 20, and 22 Allaura Boulevard, Aurora, ON
49
8 MITIGATION STRATEGIES AND RECOMMENDATIONS
8.1 Mitigation Strategies for Potential Impacts
The proposed development for 16, 20, and 22 Allaura Boulevard will involve the construction of a 225-unit
townhouse complex adjacent to the Part IV designated property at 14659 Yonge Street (Aurora War
Memorial and Peace Park). Based upon the available and latest renderings for the proposed development,
there are potential direct and indirect impacts to the heritage attributes of the adjacent property as a result of
construction activities.
1. While a potential direct impact of the proposed development on the adjacent heritage property
was derived from the intended removal of a mature tree to facilitate the construction of an
underground parking garage, all relevant plans and site concepts for the proposed development
are required to be revised to retain the identified tree. No direct impacts are expected after
this update.
2. The indirect impacts of the proposed development on the adjacent property are derived from
the visual incompatibility of the above-ground portions of the development, specifically the
western wall of the parking garage and the 3.5 storey townhouses which will be visible in the
northwest portion of the Subject Property. While its height above grade has not yet been
determined, the wall’s maximum potential height is nine metres. As such, this wall will impact
the southeastern views from key points on the property at 14659 Yonge Street. The visibility of
the 3.5 storey townhouses, which is a relatively modest scale compared with the permitted
seven storey zoning for the property, will vary according to the above-grade height of the
parking garage.
3. The indirect impacts of the proposed waste storage/disposal location, situated in the
northwestern portion of the Subject Property, will impact the southeastern views from key
points on the adjacent property at 14659 Yonge Street. In addition, by the nature of its
operations, the waste storage/disposal location has the potential to impact the peaceful qualities
of the memorial park with noise.
Proposed mitigation measures are outlined below.
Page 85 of 107
Heritage Impact Assessment
16, 20, and 22 Allaura Boulevard, Aurora, ON
50
8.1.1 Tree Preservation and Screening
As per the Tree Inventory & Preservation Plan completed by Kuntz Forestry Consul ting Inc., one mature tree
is proposed for removal from the Part IV designated property at 14659 Yonge Street in order to facilitate the
construction of the underground parking garage on the Subject Property. As the mature trees within the park
are identified as heritage attributes under the designation by-law, the removal of this tree is considered a
direct impact. As the trees within the park are identified as heritage attributes within the designation by-law, it
is required that all relevant plans and site concepts for the proposed development be revised to retain this
tree.
Natural screening is also recommended to address one of the indirect impacts derived from the
incompatibility of the exposed west elevation of the above-ground portion of the parking garage. Facing into
the park at a possible height of up to nine metres, it is recommended that evergreen or coniferous trees be
planted to screen the above-grade portion of the parking garage from sightlines within the adjacent park. This
screening will also help obfuscate any protective railing system at the top of the wall as well as provide a
natural transition to any visible elements of the 3.5 storey townhouses. These elements would likely only be
visible, if they are ever visible – again depending on the above-grade height of the parking garage, when the
leaves are off trees in the park. The screening conifers should be native to the environment and installed along
the perimeter of the Subject Property where it abuts the adjacent park, wrapping around and extending along
the northern perimeter (Map 9). Conifers will provide screening throughout the year, including during
Remembrance Day activities.
8.1.2 Relocation of Designated Waste Storage or Additional Screening
The waste storage/disposal area is currently proposed for a location in the northwestern corner of the
Subject Property, directly adjacent to the park. This portion of the property, while screened by the fullness of
mature trees in the summer season, will likely be visible during the fall/winter season, and importantly, during
the Remembrance Day ceremonies held in the park. This component of the development could indirectly
affect the commemorative character of the adjacent memorial park.
Not only is the waste storage/disposal area visually incompatible with the memorial park, but the noise of its
operations may also interfere with the commemorative experience of park visitors throughout the year. It is
recommended that the waste storage/disposal be relocated elsewhere within the Subject Property, ideally on
the northern, eastern, or southern perimeters of the property, away from the adjacent park. If relocating the
waste storage/disposal area is not possible, additional evergreen screening should be implemented to minimize
noise and sightlines from within the park. Garbage collection schedules should prohibit any collection on
November 11 annually. Notices about the Remembrance Day ceremonies should also be posted in the
complex annually. It should also be noted that the majority of noise pollution in the area during this period will
come from traffic on Yonge Street.
Page 86 of 107
Heritage Impact Assessment
16, 20, and 22 Allaura Boulevard, Aurora, ON
51
Map 9: Proposed Conifer Screening
Page 87 of 107
Heritage Impact Assessment
16, 20, and 22 Allaura Boulevard, Aurora, ON
52
8.2 Recommendations for Implementation and Monitoring
Recommendations for the scheduled implementation and general reporting structure for the proposed
mitigations are provided in the table below (Table 2).
Table 2: Recommendations for Implementation and Monitoring
Proposed Mitigation Measure Schedule for Completion Reporting Structure
Tree Preservation and Conifer
Screening
all relevant plans and site
concepts for the proposed
development will be revised to
reflect the preservation of all
trees on 14659 Yonge Street.
If required, conifer screening
should be planted after the
completion of construction in
the vicinity of the western
property line of the Subject
Property, adjacent to the
property at 14659 Yonge
Street.
All relevant plans and site concepts for
the proposed development (those
indicating the removal of a mature tree
from 14659 Yonge Street) will be revised
to demonstrate there will be no impacts
to trees on that property.
The arborist and other project leaders
should collaboratively plan for the
selection and planting of appropriate
conifers to provide effective screening.
Relocation of Designated
Waste Pickup or Additional
Screening
During the preparation of the
final site plans.
Garbage collection schedules
and public notices regarding
Remembrance Day ceremonies
will be a part of ongoing
property maintenance.
Project leads should consider relocating
the waste storage/disposal location or
provide additional coniferous screening as
part of the final site concept.
When available, property management
should notify the town staff that the
scheduling and notification measures have
been incorporated into the site’s
maintenance procedures.
Page 88 of 107
Heritage Impact Assessment
16, 20, and 22 Allaura Boulevard, Aurora, ON
53
8.3 Recommendations for Future Studies
As the indirect impacts to the heritage attributes of the adjacent property at 14659 Yonge Street are expected
to be well managed by the recommended mitigation measures outlined above and the potential direct impact
is going to be avoided altogether, no future studies or conservation plans are recommended for the heritage
attributes of 14659 Yonge Street.
Page 89 of 107
Heritage Impact Assessment
16, 20, and 22 Allaura Boulevard, Aurora, ON
54
9 CONCLUSION
Land Services Group (LSG) on behalf of Allaura Limited Partnership has engaged TMHC Inc. (TMHC) to
produce a Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA) for the property at 16, 20, and 22 Allaura Boulevard in the
Town of Aurora, Ontario (the “Subject Property”). The HIA is being undertaken as part of the pre-
consultation process with the Town of Aurora for the proposed construction of 225 condominium
townhouses. The requirement for the HIA stems from the Subject Property’s adjacency to 14659 Yonge
Street, known as the Aurora War Memorial and Peace Park. The property contains a Memorial Tower, an
Altar of Sacrifice, and memorials to the Afghanistan and Korean Wars within an expansive grassed landscape
featuring stands of deciduous and coniferous trees.
As the Town of Aurora has not identified any heritage concerns for 16, 20, 22 Allaura Boulevard, this HIA has
provided an assessment of the potential impacts of the proposed development to the cultural heritage value
and heritage attributes of the adjacent designated property at 14659 Yonge Street. The heritage attributes on
the property at 14659 Yonge Street that are of primary concern include the following:
• Cenotaph Memorial Tower, including:
o Overall tapered square tower form with buttresses at each corner of the base and battlement;
o All inscriptions and engravings; and
o Bronze lantern.
• Altar of Sacrifice, including:
o Overall rectangular form testing on a granite base; and
o All inscriptions and engravings.
• Granite stairs to monument;
• Flag poles to the north and south of cenotaph;
• Peace Park plaque mounted on stone;
• Park landscape, including:
o Pathway from Yonge Street, and ‘Veteran’s Way’ signage; and
o Mature trees and plantings.
The research and analysis of this HIA have found that the proposed development, as outlined in the most up
to date site concepts, will have direct and indirect impacts on the heritage attributes of the adjacent property,
a memorial park designated under Part IV of the OHA. While a potential direct impact involving the removal of
a tree from the park property presently exists within the site concepts, it is required that these plans be
revised to eliminate this impact outright. Indirect impacts of the proposed development include the partial
obstruction of significant southeastern vistas within the park by a wall associated with a parking garage, the 3.5
storey townhouses, and a waste storage/disposal area. Accordingly, the following mitigation strategies ar e
recommended:
1. As per the Tree Inventory & Preservation Plan completed by Kuntz Forestry Consulting Inc., one
mature tree in the Aurora War Memorial and Peace Park was identified for possible removal to
facilitate the construction of a parking garage. As the trees within the park are identified as heritage
attributes within the designation by-law, all relevant plans and site concepts for the proposed
development must be revised to demonstrate that no trees on 14659 Yonge Street will be removed.
Page 90 of 107
Heritage Impact Assessment
16, 20, and 22 Allaura Boulevard, Aurora, ON
55
2. An underground parking garage is proposed for the Subject Property. It is expected that the wall of the
garage will be exposed in the northwestern portion of the Subject Property, with a possible height of
up to nine metres, adjacent to the southeastern boundary of the Aurora War Memorial and Peace
Park. As the wall will indirectly impact sightlines from the park to the southeast, it is recommended
that mature coniferous plantings, compatible with the native environment, be installed along the
perimeter of the Subject Property where it abuts the adjacent park, wrapping around and extending
along the northern perimeter. This screening will also help obfuscate any protective railing system at
the top of the wall as well as provide a natural transition to any visible elements of the 3.5 storey
townhouses. Conifers are recommended to provide screening year-round.
3. The waste storage and disposal area for the proposed development is situated in the northwestern
corner of the Subject Property, directly adjacent to the park. While this area will be concealed by
mature trees in the summer, it will be visible during the fall and winter seasons, including during
Remembrance Day services in November. It is recommended that the waste storage/disposal area be
relocated elsewhere within the proposed development, ideally to the northern, eastern, or southern
perimeters of the property. If this relocation is not possible, plantings of conifers and deciduous trees
are recommended to reduce visibility and noise associated with its operations. Furthermore, garbage
collection schedules should prohibit any collection on November 11 annually. Notices about the
Remembrance Day ceremonies should also be posted in the complex annually.
As the direct and indirect impacts to the heritage attributes of the adjacent property at 14659 Yonge Street
are expected to be well managed by the recommended mitigation measures outlined above, no future studies
or conservation plans are recommended for the heritage attributes of 14659 Yonge Street.
These mitigation measures should be confirmed with the Town of Aurora prior to the commencement of any
construction activity.
Page 91 of 107
Heritage Impact Assessment
16, 20, and 22 Allaura Boulevard, Aurora, ON
56
10 BIBLIOGRAPHY
Ancestry.ca
1870 Ontario, Canada Births, 1832-1917 for Hugh Scott. Available online:
https://www.ancestry.ca/discoveryui-
content/view/1971076:8838?tid=&pid=&queryId=f7c3b0f34445304d929f6230c6ffdca9&_phsrc=Qem15
01&_phstart=successSource. Accessed September 12, 2023.
Canada
2018 Williams Treaties First Nations Settlement Agreement. Available online: https://www.rcaanc-
cirnac.gc.ca/eng/1542370282768/1542370308434. Accessed October 9, 2021.
Champion, I. (ed)
1979 Markham 1793-1900. Markham: Markham Historical Society. Available online:
https://archive.org/details/markham179319000000comm. Accessed May 11, 2022.
Find a Grave
2013 Colonel William Graham. Available online: https://www.findagrave.com/memorial/115629925/william-
graham. Accessed September 12, 2023.
2015 Walter Scott. Available online: https://www.findagrave.com/memorial/148291738/walter-scott.
Accessed September 12, 2023.
2020a Adam Graham. Available online: https://www.findagrave.com/memorial/217868974/adam-graham.
Accessed September 12, 2023.
2020b Peter Graham Sr. Available online: https://www.findagrave.com/memorial/219754656/peter-graham.
Accessed September 12, 2023.
2020c Walter Scott. Available online: https://www.findagrave.com/memorial/216930580/walter-scott.
Accessed September 12, 2023.
2020d John Scott. Available online: https://www.findagrave.com/memorial/216930486/john-scott. Accessed
September 12, 2023.
Gillham, Elizabeth McClure
1975 Early Settlements of King Township, Ontario. Toronto: The Hunter Rose Company.
Johnston, James
1972 Aurora: It’s Early Beginnings. Aurora: Aurora and District Historical Society.
Jost, A. C.
2009 Guysborough Sketches and Essays, (3rd Revised edition). Indiana: Trafford Publishing.
Page 92 of 107
Heritage Impact Assessment
16, 20, and 22 Allaura Boulevard, Aurora, ON
57
Markham Historical Society
1979 Markham, 1793-1900. Markham: Markham Historical Society.
Matthews, Kelly
2015 Eaton Hall: Pride of King Township. Charleston, South Carolina: The History Press.
Mika, N. & H. Mika
1983 Places in Ontario, Their Name Origins and History, Part II N-Z. Belleville, ON: Mika Publishing Company.
Mississaugas of the New Credit First Nation (MNCFN; now Mississaugas of the Credit First Nation)
2001 Toronto Purchase Specific Claim: Arriving at an agreement. Hagersville: Mississaugas of the New Credit
First Nation.
Mississaugas of the New Credit First Nation (MNCFN; now Mississaugas of the Credit First Nation)
2001 Toronto Purchase Specific Claim: Arriving at an agreement. Hagersville: Mississaugas of the New Credit
First Nation.
Mishkodeh Centre for Indigenous Knowledge
n.d. History. Available online: https://mishkodeh.org/history/. Accessed October 27, 2022.
Miskokomon, Joe
2013 Affidavit of Joe Miskokomon, Chief of Chippewas of the Thames First Nation. Application Pursuant to
Section 58 of the National Energy Board (NEB) Act, Line 9B Reversal and Line 9 Capacity Expansion
Project. Enbridge Pipelines Inc.
Miles & Co.
1878 Illustrated Historical Atlas of the County of York and the Township of West Gwillimbury & town of Bradford in
the County of Simcoe, Ont.. Toronto: Miles & Co.
Myers, Jay
1977 The Great Canadian Road: A History of Yonge Street. Toronto: Red Rock Pub. Co. Available online:
https://archive.org/details/greatcanadianroa0000myer/page/n11/mode/2up. Accessed July 6, 2023.
Nobleton Women’s Institute
n.d. Tweedsmuir History of Nobleton, Book 2: Early History of Nobleton. Available online:
https://www.kinglibrary.ca/discover-our-collections/digital-local-history/tweedsmuir-history. Accessed
July 26, 2023.
Regional Municipality of York
2022 York Region Official Plan. Available online: https://www.york.ca/york-region/regional-official-plan.
Accessed June 15, 2023.
Page 93 of 107
Heritage Impact Assessment
16, 20, and 22 Allaura Boulevard, Aurora, ON
58
Surtees, R.J.
1984 Indian Land Surrenders in Ontario 1763-1867. [Indigenous] Affairs and Northern Development,
Government of Canada, Ottawa.
Surtees, R.J.
1986 Treaty Research Report: The Williams Treaties. [Indigenous] and Northern Affairs, Government of
Canada, Ottawa.
Stamp, Robert M.
1991 Early Days in Richmond Hill: A History of the Community to 1930. Richmond Hill: Richmond Hill Public
Library Board. Available online:
https://archive.org/details/earlydaysinrichm0000stam/page/60/mode/2up. Accessed July 7, 2023.
Stortz, Gerald J.
2015 “Aurora.” The Canadian Encyclopedia, June 10, 2015. Available online:
https://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/aurora. Accessed July 11, 2023.
Town of Aurora
2008 By-law 4977-07.D 2008 (The Aurora-Whitchurch-King War Memorial and Peace Park). Available
online: https://www.heritagetrust.on.ca/oha/details/file?id=628. Accessed August 22, 2023.
2017 Heritage Impact Assessments and Conservation Plans Guide. Town of Aurora: Planning and
Development Services. Available online: https://www.aurora.ca/en/business-and-
development/resources/development-planning/Heritage-Planning/Heritage-Impact-Assessments-and-
Conservation-Plans-Guide-2.pdf. Accessed August 22, 2023.
Town of Whitchurch-Stouffville
n.d. Our History. Available online: https://www.townofws.ca/about-us/our-history/. Accessed August 22,
2023.
Williams, Doug (Gidigaa Migizi)
2018 Michi Saagiig: This is Our Territory. Winnipeg, MN: ARP Books.
York Region
2007 “History of Aurora,” Newmarket Era. Available online: https://www.yorkregion.com/life/history-of-
aurora/article_6728685e-a241-56ff-a41e-da33b493af04.html. Accessed July 13, 2023.
Page 94 of 107
Heritage Impact Assessment
16, 20, and 22 Allaura Boulevard, Aurora, ON
59
APPENDIX A: DESIGNATION BY-LAW (BY-LAW 4977-07.D)
Page 95 of 107
Heritage Impact Assessment
16, 20, and 22 Allaura Boulevard, Aurora, ON
60
Page 96 of 107
Heritage Impact Assessment
16, 20, and 22 Allaura Boulevard, Aurora, ON
61
Page 97 of 107
Heritage Impact Assessment
16, 20, and 22 Allaura Boulevard, Aurora, ON
62
Page 98 of 107
Heritage Impact Assessment
16, 20, and 22 Allaura Boulevard, Aurora, ON
63
Page 99 of 107
Heritage Impact Assessment
16, 20, and 22 Allaura Boulevard, Aurora, ON
64
Page 100 of 107
Heritage Impact Assessment
16, 20, and 22 Allaura Boulevard, Aurora, ON
65
APPENDIX B: STAFF CVS
Page 101 of 107
Heritage Impact Assessment
16, 20, and 22 Allaura Boulevard, Aurora, ON
66
Page 102 of 107
Heritage Impact Assessment
16, 20, and 22 Allaura Boulevard, Aurora, ON
67
Page 103 of 107
Heritage Impact Assessment
16, 20, and 22 Allaura Boulevard, Aurora, ON
68
Page 104 of 107
Heritage Impact Assessment
16, 20, and 22 Allaura Boulevard, Aurora, ON
69
Page 105 of 107
Heritage Impact Assessment
16, 20, and 22 Allaura Boulevard, Aurora, ON
70
Page 106 of 107
Heritage Impact Assessment
16, 20, and 22 Allaura Boulevard, Aurora, ON
71
Page 107 of 107