Agenda - General Committee - 20060606PFA'
.i . 13 '
GENERAL COMMITTEE
AGENDA
NO, 0641
TOESBAT, TUNE 6, 2006
7:00 P.M.
COUNCIL CNAMBERS
AURORA TOWN NALL
PUBLIC RELEASE
02/06/06
TOWN OFAURORA
GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING
AGENDA
NO. 06-11
Tuesday, June 6, 2006
7:00 p.m.
Councillor Vrancic in the Chair.
I DECLARATIONS OF PECUNIARY INTEREST
ll APPROVAL OF AGENDA
RECOMMENDED:
THAT the content of the Agenda as circulated by the Corporate Services
Department be approved as presented.
III DETERMINATION OF ITEMS REQUIRING SEPARATE DISCUSSION
IV ADOPTION OF ITEMS NOT REQUIRING SEPARATE DISCUSSION
V DELEGATIONS
(a) Mr. Armand LaBarge, Chief of Police, Inspector Mark (pg. D-1)
Tatz, York Regional Police and a Representative from
the Regional Municipality of York Police Services Board
Re: Update on Priorities of the York Regional Police for
the Upcoming Year
(b) Mr. Richard Roylance, 34 Rush Road (pg. D-2)
Re: Light Trespassing in Rear Yards
General Committee Meeting No. 06-11
Tuesday, June 6, 2006
Page 2 of 10
(c) Ms Valerie Fleck (pg. D-3)
Re: Item 1 - Northeast Old Aurora Heritage Conservation
District
VI CONSIDERATION OF ITEMS REQUIRING SEPARATE DISCUSSION
Vll OTHER BUSINESS, COUNCILLORS
Vlll IN -CAMERA
Legal Matter
RECOMMENDED:
THAT Committee proceed In -Camera to address a legal matter.
IX ADJOURNMENT
General Committee Meeting No. 06-11 Page 3 of 10
Tuesday, June 6, 2006
AGENDA ITEMS
1. PL06-066 — Approval of the Northeast Old Aurora Heritage (pg. 1)
Conservation District Plan and Boundary
RECOMMENDED:
THAT report PL06-066 entitled "Approval of the Northeast Old Aurora
Heritage Conservation District Plan and Boundary", dated June 6, 2006,
be received; and
THAT the proposed Northeast Old Aurora Heritage Conservation District
Boundary be endorsed; and
THAT the proposed Northeast Old Aurora Heritage Conservation District
Plan including the District Study be endorsed; and
THAT Council approve By-law 4804-06.D, being a By-law to establish a
Heritage Conservation District Boundary for Northeast Old Aurora as
defined under Part V, Section 41.0 of the Ontario Heritage Act, R.S.O.,
1990, c.0.1, as amended; and
THAT Council approve By-law 4809-06.D, being a By-law to adopt a
heritage conservation district plan for the district that is designated in By-
law 4804-06.D, as defined under Part V, Section 41.1 of the Ontario
Heritage Act, R.S.O., 1990, c.0.1, as amended; and
THAT Council shall cause notice of the passage of By-laws 4804-06.D
and 4809-06.D:
a) to be served on each owner of property located in the
heritage conservation district and on the Ontario Heritage
Trust;
b) to be published in a newspaper having general circulation in
the municipality; and
THAT applicable references in the Official Plan be addressed through a
technical amendment; and
THAT upon By-law 4804-06.D coming into effect, that a report be brought
forward to Council to repeal By-law 4776-06.D, being a By-law to establish
a Heritage Conservation District Study Area for Northeast Old Aurora; and
General Committee Meeting No. 06-11
Tuesday, June 6, 2006
Page 4 of 10
THAT upon By-law 4804-06.D, coming into effect, that a public meeting be
scheduled to consider a proposed Zoning By-law Amendment under
Section 34 of the Planning Act for the purpose of harmonizing By-law
2213-78 as amended with the District Plan; and
THAT the property owners and residents of Northeast Old Aurora be
thanked for their interest in the establishment of a heritage conservation
district in their neighbourhood; and
THAT the Northeast Old Aurora Heritage Conservation District Advisory
Sub -Committee be thanked for their efforts in support of the Northeast Old
Aurora Heritage Conservation District Study.
2. FS06-014 — Property Tax Reductions/Rebates for Heritage (pg. 38)
Properties
RECOMMENDED:
THAT report FS06-014 "Property Tax Reductions/Rebates for Heritage
Properties" be received; and
THAT Council provide direction on how they would like staff to proceed on
a Property Tax Reduction/Rebate Program for the Town of Aurora.
3. ADM06-012 — Southlake Regional Health Centre — Regional (pg. 75)
Cancer Centre
RECOMMENDED:
THAT Council supports the fundraising initiatives of Southlake Regional
Health Centre to build and equip a Regional Cancer Centre; and
THAT Council approve the insertion of Regional Cancer Centre
fundraising awareness and promotional materials in the 2006 property tax
mailings; and
THAT the CAO work with the Northern 6 CAO group and the CAO for
Bradford- West Gwillimbury to develop an appropriate funding mechanism
to raise approximately 35 million dollars over a five year time frame
(Aurora's share being approximately 6.9 million); and
THAT the CAO bring forward recommendations to the 2007 Budget
deliberations regarding the funding of the Town's share of the capital costs
of construction of the Regional Cancer Centre at Southlake Regional
Health Centre.
General Committee Meeting No. 06-11
Tuesday, June 6, 2006
!!
5.
VA
Memo from Councillor West
Re: Southlake Regional Health Centre - Cancer Centre
RECOMMENDED:
THAT Committee provide direction on this matter.
LS06-024 — Determination of Use for Library Square Facilities
RECOMMENDED:
Page 5 of 10
(pg. 84)
(pg. 87)
THAT Council provide direction to staff with regards to the disposition of
facilities within Library Square.
PL06-072 — Natural Heritage Study 2C Planning Area (pg. 114)
RECOMMENDED:
THAT Council approve the "Natural Heritage Study (2C lands)" completed
by North South Environmental Inc. dated May 2006; and
THAT the approved "Natural Heritage Study (2C lands)" policies be
incorporated into the "2C Secondary Plan" upon the completion of such
secondary plan.
FS06-017 — Schedule of Fees By-law
RECOMMENDED:
(pg. 120)
THAT all fees and charges that have GST included in the price be
increased by the amount of the reduction in the GST, effective July 1,
2006; and
THAT the Town of Aurora take necessary steps to advertise the increase
in fees pursuant to the Municipal Act.
General Committee Meeting No. 06-11 Page 6 of 10
Tuesday, June 6, 2006
8. FS06-018 — 2006 First Quarter Report (pg. 134)
RECOMMENDED:
THAT the budget adjustments as identified in Appendix "A" to Financial
Services Report FS06-018 be adopted; and
THAT a new budget category for Emergency Response Centre be
established in the budget.
9. CS06-025 — Parking By-law Amendment — Accessibility (pg. 291)
Parking Signage
RECOMMENDED:
THAT the report on the proposed amendment to the Parking By-law be
received for information; and
THAT the proposed draft By-law be circulated to the Accessibility Advisory
Committee for their review and comments.
10. . LS06-020 —Aurora Junior `A' Tigers —Rink Board Advertising (pg. 296)
RECOMMENDED:
THAT the Rink Board Advertising for ACC Rink #1 be added to the
existing contract with Boardview Advertising Inc.
11. LS06-022 — Tree Cutting Permit Application
RECOMMENDED:
(pg. 301)
THAT Council provide direction with regards to the attached application for
the removal of trees in accordance with By-law 4474-03.D being a By-law
to authorize the injury or destruction of trees (Tree Permit By-law) .
General Committee Meeting No. 06-11
Tuesday, June 6, 2006
Page 7 of 10
12. PW06-027 — Sidewalk Rehabilitation — Centre Street and (pg. 318)
Catherine Avenue
RECOMMENDED:
THAT the sidewalk rehabilitation project on Centre Street and Catherine
Avenue presented in report PW06-027, be approved in principle; and
THAT staff be requested to include the necessary funds for this sidewalk
rehabilitation project in the 2007 Capital Budget for Council's
consideration.
13. PL06-073 — Zoning By-law Amendment Application (pg. 324)
Town of Aurora
Part of Lot 19, Concession III
15059 Leslie Street
File D14-05-04
Related Subdivision File D12-05-1A
RECOMMENDED:
THAT implementing zoning by-law 4810-06.D be enacted at the June 13,
2006 Council Meeting.
14. PL06-067 — Extension to Draft Plan Approval (pg. 349-A)
Prato Estates Limited (formerly 781933 Ontario Limited)
Part of Lot 22, Concession 2, E.Y.S.
File D12-00-7A
RECOMMENDED:
THAT Council advise the Ontario Municipal Board that it has no objection
to the extension of draft plan approval of Plan of Subdivision File D12-00-
7A (Prato Estates Limited) which was approved by Board Order 1267 on
August 3, 2001, as amended by Board Order 0892 dated July 3, 2002
(OMB File PL010149).
General Committee Meeting No. 06-11
Tuesday, June 6, 2006
Page 8 of 10
15. PW06-028 — Approval to Execute a Preservicing Agreement - (pg. 355)
Phase 2 and 3 Preserve Homes Residential Subdivision
File D12-01-5A
RECOMMENDED:
THAT Council authorize the Mayor and Clerk to execute an agreement
between the Town of Aurora and Preserve Homes Corporation to permit
the servicing of the Phase 2 and 3 lands in Preserves Residential
Subdivision (D12-01-5A) subject to the following conditions:
(a) Issuance of the necessary Certificates of Approval from the Ministry of
Energy and Environment and Lake Simcoe Region Conservation
Authority for all the underground services; and
(b) Signing of the engineering plans for the construction of the municipal
services; and
(c) Receipt of proof of insurance indemnifying the Town in the amount of
$10,000,000; and
(d) Receipt of engineering fees and securities in accordance with the
standard procedures for subdivision developments in the amounts
specified.
16. PL06-063 — Extension to Draft Plan Approval (pg. 370)
St. John's Road Development Corp.
Part of Lots 24 and 25, Concession 2, E.Y.S.
East side of Bayview Avenue
File D12-00-1A
RECOMMENDED:
THAT Council advise the Ontario Municipal Board that it has no objection
to the extension of draft plan approval of Plan of Subdivision File D12-00-
1A (St. John's Road Development Corp.) which was approved by Board
Order 1266 on August 3, 2001 (OMB File PL000902).
General Committee Meeting No. 06-11
Tuesday, June 6, 2006
Page 9 of 10
17. PL06-070 — Application for Site Plan Approval (pg. 376)
Trusthouse 88 Inc. c/o Lambertus Dekkema
520 Industrial Parkway South
Part Lot 76 and Part Road Allowance between Lots 75 and 76,
Concession 1, EYS
File 1311-05-06
RECOMMENDED:
THAT report PL06-070 be received as information; and
THAT, subject to the resolution of all outstanding issues and the
submission of all fees and securities, Council authorize the Director of
Planning and Development Services to execute a Site Plan Agreement
between the Owner and the Town of Aurora to permit the construction of a
2-storey 1,369.50 sq. metre (14,741.66 sq. ft) professional office building
including a medical clinic.
18. BA06-007— Variance to Sign Bylaw 4622-04P. — (pg. 386)
KTI Limited — 33 Isaacson Crescent
RECOMMENDED:
THAT Council approve the request from KTI Limited to allow for two wall
signs whereas the Sign By-law permits only one wall sign.
19. PL06-074 — Zoning By-law Amendment Application (pg. 391)
Whitwell Developments Limited (First Professional) -
Wal-Mart
Part of Lot 21, Concession 3
File D14-09-06
RECOMMENDED:
THAT the Committee provide direction with respect to the request by
Whitwell Developments Limited to hold a Special Public Planning meeting
prior to the July 11, 2006 Council meeting.
General Committee Meeting No. 06-11 Page 10 of 10
Tuesday, June 6, 2006
20. PW06-029 — Award of Tender No. PW-2006-19 Supply and Delivery (pg. 397)
of Two 2007 Half -ton Pick-up Trucks
RECOMMENDED:
THAT Tender No. PW-2006-19, Supply and Delivery of Two Full Size,
Regular Cab, Two Wheel Drive, Long Box, 1/2 Ton Pick-up Trucks be
awarded to Proper Ford Lincoln Limited, at the tendered price of
$48,060.00.
21. Notice of Motion from Councillor Buck (pg. 401)
Re: List of Town Grants and Subsidies
RECOMMENDED:
THAT Committee provide direction on this matter.
22. Memo from the Director of Corporate Services (pg. 402)
Re: Former Aurora Hydro Building
RECOMMENDED:
THAT Committee provide direction on this matter.
23. Notice of Motion from Councillor Buck (pg. 403)
Re: Contract with the Aurora Tigers - Advertising Space
RECOMMENDED:
THAT Committee provide direction on this matter.
24. Correspondence from the Toronto and Region Conservation (pg. 404)
For the Living City
Re: Mayors' Megawatt Challenge
RECOMMENDED:
THAT Committee provide direction on this matter.
Delegation (a)
PFFPPW York Regional Police
Chief of Police 17250 Yonge Street, Newmarket, Ontario, Canada UY 4W5
Armand P. La Barge 1-866-8POLICE TTY 1-800-668-0398 Fax 905-853-5810 www.police.york.on.ca
April 18, 2006
His Worship Mayor Tim Jones
Town of Aurora
Box 1000, 1 Municipal Drive
Aurora, Ontario
L4G 6J1
Dear Mayor Jones:
I f
..
Y�t73lQeRi oi=wo3��H1
As you and council are aware, York Regional Police is committed to
making a difference in our community by working in partnership with
municipalities and other key stakeholders. In keeping with that goal, we would
like to attend an upcoming council meeting.
Inspector Mark Tatz and I and a member of the Regional Municipality of
York Police Services Board would be pleased to provide a presentation that
identifies the priorities of York Regional Police for the upcoming year. As you
and council might expect, we will continue in 2006 to focus on ensuring that
Aurora remains one of the safest communities in York Region and Canada.
During the presentation, we would like to provide you and council an opportunity
to raise issues of concern specific to your community and its residents.
This presentation is intended to provide a forum for consultation,
discussion and interaction between council members, community members, York
Regional Police and the Regional Municipality of York Police Services Board.
I want to thank you and members of council for your continued support.
Can you kindly contact Desiree Amato at 905-830-0303, extension 7955, in order
to make arrangements for a presentation.
APL:kn
Sincerely,
()�ITAI
Armand P. La Barge
Chief of Police
D - 1
"Deeds Speak"
GENERAL COMMITTEE - JUNE 6, 2006 Delegation(b)
May 17, 2006
Town of Aurora
1 Municipal Drive
Box 1000
Aurora, ON L4G 01
Attention: Mayor and Council
Re: Light Trespassing in Rear Yards
It is our hope that Council will "see the light" by helping my family and all other residents throughout the Town with similar
circumstanws, to regain full use of their property without the invasion of light trespass.
Although the Town carnally has a By4aw in place (Section 5.4 Exterior Lighting and Support) it unfortunately is not
effective in rear yards; Section 5.4.2 of the Property Standards By-law Number 4044-99T states:
No person shall keep any exterior lighting in a yard, or that part of the yard that he, she or it occupies or controls,
where it is installed and maintained in such a rruwna as to allow lighting to shine directly into any dwelling unit
windows.
However, there has been an evolving trend with homeowners to utilize the full gamut of their property with extensive
landscaping in efforts to create an outdoor living space where one can relax in comfort while enjoying the outdoors; these
spaces are referred to as an "extension as year living room" and regardless to the lack of windows surrounding them, should
be treated with the same respect
Once creating such a space (almost two years ago) we have endured the constant impertinence from one of our neighbours
who are using light as a means to effectively hinder the enjoyment of our yard. We have exhausted all other means of putting
an end to this harassment, from politely requesting that the light be hooked up to a motion samor, to the planting of cedars
(which resulted in the employment of more light by our neighbour) and the eventual construction of a pergola to block as
much light as possible (at considerable expense). After a consultation with York Regional Police (who also requested that
the light be hooded, to no avail), we were told that the Town By-law needed to be amended in order to enforce the light
restriction.
We of worse understand the need for people to feel secure on their property and by no means suggest that rear lights be
prohibited; however, those who do not desire the unwanted light should also have that option. We are therefore proposing
that another section be added to the existing By4aw that compels the user to ensure that any rear lights be contained to one's
own property; this can be accomplished by hooding that will direct the light to the desired location and could preferably be
used in conjunction with a motion sensor to conserve energy. Tbese methods will allow for security as wall as ingress and
egress onto the user's property without the blinding effects of constant light onto neighbouring yards.
Please carefully consider our request; as tax payers, we believe we've earned the right to enjoy the full potential of our
property (in accordance with all By-laws) without the limitations imposed, by the vindictive actions of others.
Thank you for our time and consideration,
Ri oylance
D-2
Richard Roylance,
GENERAL COMMITTEE - JUNE 6, 2006 Delegation (c)
Panizza, Bob
From: Steve Taylor and Valerie Fleck
Sent: Thursday, June 01, 2006 11:16 PM
To: Panizza, Bob
Cc: john.mcintyre._
Subject: Delegation Status - General Committee
Hi Bob,
I do not know the Protocol for General Committee Meetings but we would like to have some representatives from
the neighbour hood speak in support of the Proposed Heritage District at the June 6th meeting. Can you put us on
the agenda? I will confirm exactly who will be speaking after we check schedules. Will there be an Open Forum
on June 61h?
We would also like to have status at the Junel3th meeting.
Thank you
Valerie Fleck
D-3
GENERAL COMMITTEE - JUNE 6, 2006
TOWN OF AURORA
GENERAL COMMITTEE
AGENDA ITEM
No. PL06-066
SUBJECT: Approval of the Northeast Old Aurora Heritage Conservation District
Plan and Boundary
FROM: Sue Seibert, Director of Planning and Development Services
DATE: June 6, 2006
THAT report PL06-066 entitled "Approval of the Northeast Old Aurora Heritage
Conservation District Plan and Boundary", dated June 6, 2006, be received;
THAT the proposed Northeast Old Aurora Heritage Conservation District Boundary
be endorsed;
THAT the proposed Northeast Old Aurora Heritage Conservation District Plan
including the District Study be endorsed;
THAT Council approve By-law 4804-06.D, being a By-law to establish a Heritage
Conservation District Boundary for Northeast Old Aurora as defined under, Part V
Section 41.0 of the Ontario Heritage Act, R.S.O., 1990, c.0.1, as amended;
THAT Council approve By-law 4809-06.D,. being a by-law to adopt a heritage
conservation district plan for the district that is designated in the by-law4804-06.D,
as defined under Part V, Section 41.1 of the Ontario Heritage Act, R.S.O., 1990, c.0.1,
as amended.
THAT Council shall cause notice of the passage of By-laws 4804-06.D and 4809-06.D:
a) to be served on each owner of property located in the heritage
conservation district and on the Ontario Heritage Trust;
b) to be published in a newspaper having general circulation in the
municipality;
THAT applicable references in the Official Plan be addressed through a technical
amendment;
THAT upon By4aw4804-06.D, coming into effect, that report be brought forward to
Council to repeal By-law 4776-06.D, being a By-law to establish a Heritage
Conservation District Study Area for Northeast Old Aurora;
-1-
GENERAL COMMITTEE - JUNE 6, 2006
June 6, 2006 - 2 - Report No. PL06-066
THAT upon By-law 4804-O6.D, coming into effect, thata public meeting be scheduled
to considera proposed Zoning By-law Amendment under Section 34 ofthe Planning
Act for the purpose of harmonizing By-law 2213-78 as amended with the District
Plan;
THAT the property owners and residents of Northeast Old Aurora be thanked for
their interest in establishment of a heritage conservation district in their
neighbourhood;
THAT the Northeast Old Aurora Heritage Conservation District Advisory Sub -
Committee be thanked for their efforts in support of the Northeast Old Aurora
Heritage Conservation District Study.
BACKGROUND
The purpose of this report is to endorse the Northeast Old Aurora Heritage Conservation
District Boundary (Figure 1), Study (Appendix A) and Plan (Appendix B) (and to
recommend approval of By-law 4804-06.D, To establish a Heritage Conservation District
Boundary for Northeast Old Aurora as defined under Part V of the Ontario Heritage Act,
R.S.O., 1990, c.0.1, as amended (Appendix C) and By-law 4809-06.D to Adopt the
Heritage Conservation District Plan for the Northeast Old Aurora Heritage Conservation
District (Appendix D).
ntti- Ld Lit! %,U I IbUFVa UV I I. V IS aI I%AA — VIILal IV "WII60_WW nu a, I-=Ia v
Part V of the Ontario Heritage Act allows municipalities to identify those areas in the
community which are considered to be of special heritage significance as heritage
conservation districts. A Heritage conservation district is an area of special historical
significance to the community, made up of a collection of buildings, streets and open
spaces. These areas are unique places that are different from others in the community.
Heritage conservation district status, under Part V of the Ontario Heritage Act, is the only
tool available which provides the municipality with the legal authority to protect the
character and culturally significant heritage features of these areas against demolition and
unsympathetic construction and alteration. Heritage Conservation District status does not
prevent change; rather it provides a framework whereby the Municipality can work with
applicants to guide change so that it harmonizes as much as possible with the district
character.
In reviewing proposals for change in the neighbourhood, the municipality is guided by the
District Plan, created through extensive consultation with the local community. The Plan
contains a series of achievable goals, objectives, policies and guidelines, to help ensure
that the special aspects of an historical neighbourhood are protected, and any proposed
changes are sympathetic to the overall character.
—2—
GENERAL COMMITTEE — JUNE 6, 2006
June 6, 2006 -3- Report No. PL06-066
Heritage Conservation Districts — Examples
The concept of heritage conservation districts protected through legislation was initiated in
Ontario with the passing of the Ontario Heritage Act in 1975. Ontario's first heritage district
was established by the City of Mississauga in 1980 and covered the historic village of
Meadowvale. Since that time over 75 other heritage conservation districts have been
established in Ontario and a number of others are currently under study. Heritage
Conservation Districts may comprise an area with a group or complex of buildings, or a
larger area with many buildings and properties. Heritage conservation districts can take
various forms and sizes including streets, farmsteads, fortifications, neighbourhoods,
villages, and entire municipalities. Some relevant statistics for heritage conservation
districts in Ontario are attached as Appendix'E'.
1-1C1I LA Lit: L+UFIbWFV4LIU1 t LJI*LI IR %1WI ILt;IJL— LIRRA III LtPTt!St/ %,UI l 11 I I U I I I LV t1U I IDLI I Ld LHJ IF
The Town of Aurora contains a number of historically significant neighbourhoods in the
historic core which are worthy of consideration to become a heritage conservation district.
One of these areas is in the northeast quadrant of the downtown core, a picturesque
neighbourhood of 19th and early 20th Century heritage homes on streets lined with mature
trees.
The concept of a proposed Heritage Conservation District for the area of Northeast Old
Aurora was initiated by residents of the area in 2001. At its April 23, 2001 meeting, the
Town of Aurora Heritage Advisory Committee established a sub -committee to work with
local residents to discuss the feasibility of establishing a heritage conservation district and
address any questions that local residents may have had concerning the concept. The
pre -consultation process involved consultation with other municipalities which have
heritage conservation districts, three public meetings, a survey for local property owners to
complete as well as door-to-door consultation by the local ratepayers association. The first
pre -consultation public meeting took place on September 29, 2003 at Hillary House. A
second was held at Lynette Hall on September 27, 2004.
On April 11, 2005, the last of 3 pre -consultation public meetings was held to seek input
from the community of Northeast Old Aurora concerning the proposed heritage
conservation district study. The response from the community with respect to the district
designation was positive and as a result a letter was received from the Olde Aurora
Ratepayers Association requesting that the Town proceed with the study.
Heritage Conservation District Study - Budget / Consultant Selection / Committees
The Town of Aurora allocated funding within its budget to proceed with the study. The
Northeast Old Aurora Heritage Conservation District Study Area, was defined in the study
terms of reference as approved by Council at its meeting of June 28, 2005.
The consulting team of Philip Carter, Architect in association with Paul Oberst, Architect
was hired to complete the study. The study was initiated in the fall of 2005.
The District Study and Plan were prepared by the consultant under the coordination of the
Community Planner between October 2005 and May 2006 and included consultation with
the public, town departments and Council. The Heritage Advisory Committee of Aurora in
its role as Council's advisory committee on matters related to Cultural Heritage
—3—
GENERAL COMMITTEE — JUNE 6, 2006
June 6, 2006 .4- Report No. PL06-066
Preservation was consulted throughout the study process. As its meetings are open to the
public, the Heritage Advisory Committee represented an additional venue for the public to
provide input throughout the study process. The Heritage Advisory Committee also had a
key role in testing the draft plan as it reviewed applications for construction in the district
through the study process.
To assist the Heritage Advisory Committee in the study process an advisory sub -committee
was created. The sub -committee consisted of 2 members of Council; 2 members of the
Heritage Advisory Committee; 3 members of the Community; 1 member of the Aurora
Historical Society. All citizen members of the committee are residents of the Northeast Old
Aurora Neighbourhood. The advisory sub -committee met during the study process to
review the plan and advise staff and the consultants on local matters, provide a community
perspective and assist during the public consultation component of the study.
The public participation process through heritage conservation district study and pre -
consultation has included the following:
• 3 Pre Consultation Meetings
■ September 29, 2003, September 27, 2004 and April 11, 2005 (meetings
included presentations, a survey, question and answer sessions)
• Creation of a Heritage District Advisory Sub -Committee to provide
neighbourhood points of contact in the neighbourhood about the study;
• 3 Public Meetings
■ November 2, 2005, January 19, 2006 and April 19, 2006 (meetings
included Presentations, Display Boards, Question and Answersessions)
• 3 surveys — district boundary and plan;
• Heritage Advisory Committee meetings open to the public;
• Heritage District Advisory Sub -Committee meetings open to the public;
• Heritage Conservation District Website;
• 4 public notices about the study and plan circulated to property owners and
posted in the newspaper;
• Old House Restoration Workshop;
• Providing the draft plan for review and comment by the community both online
and in hard copy form (over 110 were distributed through the Town Office, the
Aurora Library and by the local residents);
• Direct consultation with the public— staff & advisory sub -committee;
• Circulation of notice of general committee meeting;
A detailed outline of the Public Meetings is attached as Appendix'F'.
Old House Restoration Workshop — February 18, 2006
One of the recurring responses from members of the public with respect to the future
heritage district plan and guidelines was the desire for additional information with respect to
—4—
GENERAL COMMITTEE — JUNE 6, 2006
June 6. 2006 - 5 - Report No. PL06-066
the basis of heritage conservation district guidelines. In response to this, and in celebration
of Ontario Heritage Week, the Heritage Advisory Committee hosted an Old House
Restoration Workshop on Saturday, February 18, 2006. Presented by Dr. Christopher
Cooper, Editor in Chief of Edifice Magazine, and formerly of the PBS television program
"This Old House", the workshop consisted of 7 hours of practical advice for heritage
homeowners. All heritage property owners in the Town of Aurora were invited to attend the
workshop, however, it was particularly applicable to residents of Northeast Old Aurora, as
through providing information about heritage conservation techniques, it presented the
practical basis for heritage conservation guidelines. The workshop was a success. All 150
spaces were filled, approximately one third of which were property owners in Northeast Old
Aurora.
The District Plan and Amendments to the Ontario Heritage Acf
Through February and March 2006, the Draft Heritage Conservation District Plan was
created with much consideration of the responses from the public. A key consideration in
drafting the plan was the recent amendments to the Ontario Heritage Act which had come
into effect on April 28, 2005. Changes to the act impacted the development of the plan in a
number of areas. The most significant change was with respect to the protection afforded
to heritage resources. Prior to changes to the Act, designation could give Council the
ability to delay but not prevent demolition. Under the new act, Council can prohibit
demolition.
Another significant change is while earlier versions of the Ontario Heritage Act were
primarily focussed on the preservation of historical architecture, the current act defines
heritage much more broadly in terms of "Cultural Heritage Value". This definition takes into
account not only architecture but also such aspects as trees, topography, streetscapes,
sidewalks, etc.. This change has an impact on the district plan by allowing consideration of
a broader range of elements that contribute to the district character in addition to
architecture.
A third major change is found in Section 41.2 (2) of the Ontario Heritage Actwhich states
that "in the event of a conflict between a heritage conservation district plan and a municipal
by-law that affects the designated district, the plan prevails to the extent of the conflict, but
in all other respects the by-law remains in full force. Prior to April 28, 2005, municipal by-
laws such as Zoning prevailed over the district plan. The impact of this would be that if the
district plan recommended a restriction that was not covered by zoning, the zoning by-law
would need to be amended to implement the restriction. Under the new Act, the plan
prevails. Amendments to the zoning by-law continues to be recommended however, for
the purpose of providing consistency and clarity for the public, staff and Council. A further
public meeting would be required under the Planning Act for the purpose of amending the
zoning by-law.
Heritage Conservation District Study Area By-law
On February 28, 2006, in anticipation of the imminent completion of the district study,
Council passed a heritage conservation district study area by-law under Section 40.1 of the
Ontario Heritage Act. The purpose of this by-law was to provide the municipality with the
opportunity to review potential applications for construction in the study area in the week
leading up to completion of the study to help guide new proposals to be harmony with the
—5—
GENERAL COMMITTEE — JUNE 6, 2006
June 6, 2006 - 6 - Report No. PL06-066
character of the neighbourhood. The by-law was necessitated by changes to the Ontario
Building Code Act, which came into effect on January 1, 2006, which limited municipal
authority to consider architectural design of property which had not yet been designated
under the Ontario Heritage Act
Distribution of the District Plan
On April 7, 2006, the draft heritage conservation district plan was released. Property
owners of Northeast Old Aurora were notified and copies were made available for
members of the public to obtain at the Town Hall, Aurora Library and through the Heritage
District Advisory Sub -Committee. The plan was also available for viewing in its entirety on
from the Town of Aurora website. Approximately 110 copies of the Draft Heritage
Conservation District Plan were distributed to the neighbourhood. Copies were also
distributed to Council and all Department Heads.
Public Meeting #3 — April 19, 2006
On April 19, 2006 a public information meeting was held at the Aurora Seniors Centre to
present a draft boundary and initiate development of the district plan. Approximately 50
people were in attendance. The purpose of the public meeting was to present the
proposed Heritage Conservation District Plan and the revised boundary based on public
consultation. The response the district plan was overwhelmingly positive. A survey was
also distributed at the meeting to gauge public support for the Heritage, Conservation
District and the district plan. All responses were positive.
RUF l LU94V MUVISVrV LiV1MI11 MR2 — CIIUVISCI I R711L VI UMLIIL L ell 1U rlalI
Following the public meeting, the draft plan was further refined based on input from the
public and staff. The Heritage Advisory Committee of Aurora considered the revised district
plan and study at its meeting of May 15, 2006. It was recommended that the proposed
Heritage Conservation District Plan and Boundary be endorsed and that as per the
requirements of the Ontario Heritage Act, a by-law be brought forward to Council to adopt
the proposed heritage district boundary and plan.
Provincial Policy Statement
The identification and designation of heritage conservation districts is consistent with the
policies of the Provincial Policy Statement (2005). A primary purpose of Heritage
Conservation District Designation under Part V of the Ontario Heritage Act is to assist
municipalities in the implementation of the Provincial Policy Statement with respect to the
conservation of heritage resources which states that "Significant built and cultural heritage
resources shall be conserved." Heritage Conservation District Designation is the only tool
available to municipalities to prevent the demolition of significant heritage resources and to
enable it to guide the design of alterations and new construction to heritage buildings and
in heritage districts to harmonize as much as possible with their surroundings.
Official Plan
The identification and designation of heritage conservation districts is consistent with the
GENERAL COMMITTEE — JUNE 6, 2006
June 6, 2006 - 7 - Report No. PL06-066
Goals, Objectives and Policies of the Official Plan ((1991), January 2005 Office
Consolidation)) (see Appendix G for further details of the Official Plan as it relates to
heritage conservation).
Community Participation / Support
Throughout both the pre -consultation and formal study process, support for the Heritage
Conservation District has been very strong.
The concept of establishing Aurora's first Heritage Conservation District in Northeast Old
Aurora was initiated by area residents in early 2001. With the assistance of the Heritage
Advisory Committee of Aurora, three pre -consultation public meetings were held to
introduce and discuss the concept (September 29, 2003, September 27, 2004 and April 11,
2005). Neighbourhood residents also conducted door-to-door surveys in the
neighbourhood to gauge the level of support for undertaking a heritage conservation district
study.
The initial area of focus for a proposed heritage conservation district consisted of 85
properties in an area bounded by Maple Street, Fleury Street and most of Catherine
Avenue, as well as properties on either side of Yonge Street. The results of the surveys
conducted by area residents through May, 2005, demonstrated a significant level of
support for the heritage conservation district concept in the neighbourhood. Of the 85
properties surveyed 62 property owners or 73% were in favour of the proposed district
study. Only 2 property owners (or 2%) were opposed.
Consultation also took place elsewhere in the northeast old Aurora neighbourhood. The
level of interest in these areas which included Mark Street and Centre Street resulted in the
expansion of the study area boundary to take in all of the northeast old Aurora
neighbourhood. Wellington Street and lands on Yonge Street immediately north of the
Wellington Street intersection were the only part of the historical northeast old Aurora
neighbourhood not included in the study. Although worthy of heritage district status, itwas
determined that heritage features of Wellington Street and the Yonge Street Commercial
Core could best be addressed in a future area specific study which would consider the
distinctive zoning, official plan and land -use conditions in this part of Old Aurora.
Community consultation is a fundamental element of the heritage conservation district
process. While unanimous support for a heritage conservation district designation is not
required for Council to recommend designation, a successfully implemented heritage
conservation district is one where almost all of the area property owners understand and
agree with the district, its goals, policies and guidelines. Through the formal heritage
conservation district study process extensive efforts have been made to involve the
community, to solicit input and to address any noted concerns or comments received.
Key principles in the public participation process have been to facilitate informed decision
making by providing the public with sufficient education and information about the
proposed district; and to encourage constructive commentary so that concerns were noted
and understood and that the plan could be tailored to be consistent with the goals and
objectives of its principle users, the public.
—7—
GENERAL COMMITTEE — JUNE 6, 2006
June 6, 2006 - 8 - Report No. PL06-066
Consultation with the public has resulted in refinement of the plan and boundary in a
number of areas to create a document that is acceptable to the boarder community of
Northeast Old Aurora. The majority of the changes made to the plan resulted in the
inclusion of additional flexibility. Restrictions and requirements for review have been
limited to those areas which involve permanent and visible change. Changes to items that
are considered reversible such as paint colours, etc. has been included in the plan for
educational purposes only but are not restricted.
Cooperation with the community has also involved the practical testing of the draft policies
and guidelines of the plan against actual applications for development in the area. Over
the course of the study a number of applications for alterations, additions, etc. were
received and reviewed. In reviewing these applications it was determined that in most
cases the proposed guidelines were fair and reasonable. Where potential problems were
noted, in a number of cases modifications were made to the final plan.
The extensive public consultation process has resulted in a district plan that reflects the
goals and objectives of the community, the Town and sound heritage conservation
practice. Public support for the district plan was tested through both a facilitated question
and answer session and survey that was made available at the public meeting and through
the internet. Property owners were asked what they liked about the district plan, what they
didn't like and what they would change. The results of the survey and question and answer
session were very positive. Where some changes were suggested, these were largely
minor in nature and all were able to be accommodated.
Consultation with Town Departments and Council
The Heritage District Study is intended to create a comprehensive neighbourhood plan for
conservation and development. Therefore, in addition to planning and heritage principles
the heritage district designation process also considered matters relevant to a number of
other departments who were consulted throughout the study. These include: permit
issuance
• Building Department
- Permit issuance and the Building Code Act.
• Works Department
- roads, streetscape and sidewalks
• Parks Department
-Tree preservation and landscape guidelines
• Treasury Department
- Financial Assistance and property values.
• Legal Department
- processes under the Ontario Heritage Act
• Corporate Services Department — Notices, By-law and Compliance with the
district plan.
• Planning Department - Coordinating department: Review of Activities in the
district, delegation of authority approve non -controversial items.
Communication with internal departments included the following:
• Circulation of study notices and relevant materials;
• Circulation of public commentary to relevant departments;
GENERAL COMMITTEE — JUNE 6, 2006
June 6, 2006 - 9 - Report No. PL06-066
• Interdepartmental meetings and discussions with Commissioner of Planning
and Development, Community Planner and Consultant;
• Circulation of draft plans and invitation to comment;
• Circulation of revisions to plan based on feedback received.
In addition to municipal staff, Council has also been apprised of the ongoing Heritage
Conservation District Study throughout the process and has been circulated notices and
the draft of the heritage conservation district plan. In addition, two members of Council
served on the Heritage Conservation District Advisory Sub -Committee.
Consultation with the various departments has resulted in refinement of the document to
address any issues that were raised. Examples are outlined in Appendix'H'.
All departments that have participated in the development of the heritage conservation
district plan have indicated that the proposed plan is supported. and that the document
as proposed would not trigger any unforeseen staffing, financial or other implications.
District Boundary
The Province of Ontario in its guidance to municipalities in concerning heritage
conservation districts, prescribes four criteria for municipalities to use to determine a
heritage conservation district boundary. These are: historic factors; visual factors; physical
features and legal or planning factors.
Public support is also an important factor in final boundary delineation. Although
unanimous public support is not a requirement of the Act, it is desirable for the long-term
success of a district to achieve a significant level of public understanding of the process
and support for the establishment of the heritage district.
As a result of the extensive public consultation process, support for the district is strong
throughout the proposed final boundary. A factor in success of any district is a contiguous
and perceivable boundary. Where public has expressed concerns, efforts have been
made to address particular concerns through such areas as increasing flexibility and
addressing specific concerns in the plan.
PROPERTIES THAT HAVE REQUESTED REMOVAL
For the most part this has been achieved. The primary exception has been in the area of
north Spruce Street, where early on in the process residents expressed their intention
through petition not to be active participants in the study process. Although efforts were
made on the part of staff and the Advisory Sub -Committee to communicate with the parties
to understand the nature of concern with the heritage conservation district, and to discuss
how the district plan might be modified to address such concerns, little or no interest was
expressed in discussing the heritage district study any further. Since this area is a
concentrated block, and is not geographically crucial to the integrity of the district, this
particular block has been removed.
Of the 165 remaining properties, only 3 requests for removal from the district have been
received. These are as follows:
GENERAL COMMITTEE — JUNE 6, 2006
June 6. 2006 - 10 - Report No. PL06-066
• 74 Wellington Street (although this property contains the Morrison House,
a significant heritage building, designated under Part IV of the Ontario
Heritage Act, only the rear portion of the property is included to provide
continuity of streetscape along Centre Street. A site plan control
application was recently approved for the subject property that facilitated
its conversion to its current business and Professional Office use and
provided for direct access from Wellington Street to Centre Street.
• 70-72 Centre Street —A property located mid -way along the north side of
Centre Street containing two connected heritage resources, which are
significant contributors to the Centre Street streetscape.
• 53 Fleury Street (Requested by proxy from a family member) —A property
containing a large, well maintained, 2 Y2 storey, Edwardian era brick
home. The house is a major contributor to the character of Fleury Street;
Efforts have been made to reasonably address any concerns that owners of these
properties may have through adding flexibility to the district plan. Although requests for
removal have not been withdrawn, it is the position of the Heritage Advisory Committee,
and concurred by staff and removal of these properties from the final boundary could
disrupt the integrity of the district as a whole, it is therefore the recommendation of the
Heritage Advisory Committee that the properties be included in the district and that staff
should continue to work with the subject properties in the event of applications being
received to communicate goals, objectives and overall flexibility of the district plan and to
achieve an outcome which is acceptable to the owner/applicant.
OUR LADY OF GRACE CHURCH
Although no formal request for removal from the district was received, possible concerns
about the heritage conservation district were expressed by the Catholic Archdiocese
representing Our Lady of Grace Church at 15347 Yonge Street and 9 Maple Street; and
from the owner of two investment properties on Yonge Street north of Maple, (15417 and
15411). The owners of both properties are considering potential redevelopment options in
the near future. The nature of particular concerns was clearly expressed by both parties,
which was a desire to maintain flexibility in the event of future redevelopment of the
properties. Efforts were made to adequately address these issues by providing a number
of design and re -development alternatives for Yonge Street and confirming that provision
for reasonable flexibility is included within the proposed district plan. The Draft District Plan
was made available to and discussed with the Archdiocese immediately upon release of
the document (April 7, 2006). No further concerns have been received.
OTHER COMMENTARY RECEIVED
Although no formal request for removal from the district has been received, concerns about
the proposed heritage conservation district have been expressed by the owner of the
property at 68 Spruce Street. Concerns from the owner have largely been focussed on a
request that the district plan to not include regulation under the Ontario Heritage Act, but
instead focus on education. Efforts have been made to address these particular concerns
through:
a) The drafting of the plan to contain significant flexibility and limiting the number
of activities regulated by the plan;
—10—
GENERAL COMMITTEE - JUNE 6, 2006
June 6, 2006 -11 - Report No. PL06-066
b) The inclusion in the District Plan of extensive educational material on the
basis of good heritage conservation practices;
c) Hosting of the Old House Restoration Workshop on February 18, 2006 to provide
information on the technical basis for heritage conservation district policies and
guidelines it is recommended in the plan that other similar educational activities
be considered in the future.
The removal of regulation entirely from the district plan is not recommended. While most
property owners in Northeast Old Aurora have demonstrated a commitment to preserve
heritage resources and provide sensitive additions, alterations and new construction
without the protection of the Ontario Heritage Act, this is not something that can be relied
on indefinitely. Without designation there is no applicable law that would enable the
municipality to withhold a permit to demolish or significantly alter a heritage property or to
construct a new building. As noted above in the example of 72 Kennedy Street, although
the building was a significant heritage resource, because it was not designated, the
municipality was unable to prevent its demolition. The building appears to have been
demolished for speculative reasons and is now a vacant lot for sale. The destruction of
this resource has had a significant negative impact on the character of the historic Kennedy
Street neighbourhood. Had this property been designated the building at 72 Kennedy
Street would continue to exist.
The proposed district boundary can be justified according to the criteria prescribed by the
Ministry of Culture, for its high concentration of heritage resources, historically and visually,
connected streetscapes, and overall neighbourhood linkages and character. Public
awareness and support for the heritage conservation district is strong. Where concerns
have been addressed, reasonable efforts have been made to address particular concerns
through modifying the district plan, e.g. Our Lady of Grace Catholic Church. Where
concerns have not been able to be resolved, and the particular property is not essential to
the connectivity of the district (i.e. North Spruce Street), these properties have been
removed from the final boundary. A limited number of properties (3 out oi'1165 or 1.8%)
have expressed a desire to be removed from the district, but due to their central location
and importance to the connectivity of streetscapes, have been recommended to be
retained within the district.
Although it is always desirable to obtain the permission of property owners prior to a
municipality designating a property under the Ontario Heritage Act, no such permission is
required by the Act. The principle reason for the Ontario Heritage Act is to provide
municipalities with the tools to protect heritage resources or neighbourhoods. In cases
where protection of heritage resources is not a priority of an owner, it is unlikely that owner
permission to designate the property under the Ontario Heritage Act would be granted. In
all 3 cases, and others where issues have been raised, significant efforts have been made
to address owners' concerns through modifying the district plan to limit regulation and
include significant flexibility. In giving the subject properties the protection of the Ontario
Heritage Act, Council would facilitate the continuation of constructive discussion and
cooperation with the owners leading to a positive and practical solution that would meet the
owners investment and property objectives while ensuring compatibility with the
neighbourhood's heritage character.
—11—
GENERAL COMMITTEE — JUNE 6, 2006
June 6, 2006 -12 - Report No. PL06-066
Approval of the District Boundary and Plan
It is recommended that the Northeast Old Aurora Heritage Conservation District be
approved and that The District Plan and the District Study be endorsed. By-laws to allow
Council to adopt the District Boundary and Plan are attached as Appendix 'B' and
Appendix 'C'.
Although the Ontario Heritage Act enables a municipality to designate by by-law an area as
a heritage conservation district, the designation by-law only comes into force when there is
no appeal received or it is approved by the Ontario Municipal Board (OMB). Once Council
approves the by-law, there is a 30 day period in which appeals may be submitted. In the
event of either no appeal being received or dismissal of the appeal by the Ontario
Municipal Board, the heritage conservation district and district plan comes into effect.
Actions to be Undertaken in the event of Approval
In the event that the Northeast Old Aurora Heritage Conservation District Boundary and
Plan are approved, a number of actions should be undertaken to implement the new
district to inform Town staff, the general public and property owners of the designation.
These are as follows:
Immediate Actions
• All town staff involved in municipal work that could potentially impact
the District should be informed of the boundaries and the policies of
the District.
• a press release should be issued to the local media.
• All property owners and tenants should receive notice of the district
designation and informed where a copy of the District Plan can be
reviewed, purchased or obtained on-line. The use of the Heritage Permit
should be explained.
• The Olde Aurora Ratepayers Association and the Aurora Historical
Society should be notified by letter and sent a copy of the District Plan.
• All local real estate offices should be sent notice of the new District and
should be requested to indicated this heritage status on any listingswithin
the District Boundary.
• The Aurora Public Library should act as a repository for reference copies
of the District Plan and Heritage Permit application forms.
• The Town of Aurora Planning and Development Services Department
should act as the repository for members of the public to obtain copies of
the District Plan and Heritage Permit application forms.
Future Actions
• Consider requesting a report from staff on the feasibility, costing and
staffing implications of establishing a program for special district entry,
identification and street name signage in the district.
—12—
GENERAL COMMITTEE — JUNE 6, 2006
June 6, 2006 - 13 - Report No. PL06-066
• The creation of a bi-annual Heritage District Newsletter (potentially
available through mail -out or on-line) directed to owners and tenants
located in the heritage district, to provide education and information about
the district should be pursued.
• Consider requesting a report from staff on the feasibility of implementing
an award program for works in the Town's Heritage District(s) to
recognize those individuals who have undertaken outstanding restoration
works on heritage buildings and good examples of sympathetic infill
construction in the districts.
Amendments to Municipal Documents
The following municipal documents should be amended to recognize the boundary of the
District and to facilitate the objectives of the District Plan: Town of Aurora Official Plan,
Site Plan Control By-law, Zoning By-law and Heritage Conservation District Study Area By-
law.
Official Plan
A technical amendment should be made to the Official plan to reference the Northeast
Old Aurora Heritage Conservation District.
Site Plan Control By-law
The site plan control by-law should be revised to reflect the boundaries of the district and
to remove the exemption from site plan control of new dwellings within the district.
Zoning By-law
Section 41.2 of the Ontario Heritage Act, which was included in the recent revisions to the
Act, states that: "in the event of a conflict between a heritage conservation district plan and
a municipal by-law that affects the designated district, the plan prevails to the extent of the
conflict. The Northeast Old Aurora Heritage Conservation District Plan would prevail over
the Town of Aurora Zoning By-law in areas where the two documents are in conflict.
Based on extensive public input, mostly with respect to the scale and massing of additions
and new construction in the district, The Northeast Old Aurora Heritage Conservation
District Plan contains a number of provisions related to building height, depth, garage
placement, etc. which may be in conflict with the requirements of the zoning by-law. In
order to provide clarity and ensure that municipal documents are consistent, it is
recommended that upon enactment of the District Plan that Council initiate a process for
amendment of the Zoning by-law to bring it into conformity with the District Plan, and that a
public meeting be held.
Heritaqe Conservation District Study Area By-law
On February 28, 2006, Council passed By-law 4776-06.D to establish a Heritage
Conservation District Study Area By-law for the Northeast Old Aurora Heritage
Conservation District Study Area for a period of 6 months ending August 28, 2006. The
purpose of the by-law was to provide interim control over demolition, alteration and new
construction in the neighbourhood to enable review and ensure compatibility with the
objectives of the Heritage Conservation District Study. Since the District Study Area by-law
—13—
GENERAL COMMITTEE — JUNE 6, 2006
June 6, 2006 -14 - Report No. PL06-066
covers a boundary which differs from the final heritage district and contains more restrictive
policies than the proposed district plan, it is recommended that in the event that the
Heritage Conservation District and Plan come into effect prior to August 28, 2006, that the
Heritage Conservation District Study Area by-law be repealed.
OPTIONS
Council has the option of not approving the recommendation for endorsement of the
Northeast Old Aurora Heritage Conservation District and Plan orthe Heritage Conservation
District By-law as prepared by staff.
In the event that Council requires further information or modification of the proposed district
boundary and plan, the report can be referred to a future meeting of Council.
PROVINCIAL POLICY STATEMENT
The proposal is consistent with the provisions of the Provincial Policy,Statement
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS
Funds in the amount of $45,000 to carry out the heritage conservation district study and
plan were provided in the budget. Philip Carter Architect was contracted to complete the
study for the above amount.
In drafting the Heritage Conservation District Plan efforts have been made to ensure that
while heritage conservation district designation may lead the municipality to consider other
initiatives in the future, such as tax rebate programs for heritage property owners, or
special street signs, the municipality is not bound to provide such incentives or programs
by approval of the heritage district boundary and plan and implementation of such
initiatives would require extensive study, budgeting and a further decision of Council.
In considering the financial implications of providing sufficient staffing to implement the
heritage conservation district, the district plan has been designed so that the plan as
proposed requires no additional staffing requirements not already contemplated by the
municipality. Areas which were considered, such as an enhanced tree preservation by-law
governing single trees on private property, which may have staffing implications have not
been included in the final plan.. With respect to this initiative, while the district plan
supports the implementation of enhanced tree protection for the neighbourhood, in order
for it to be implemented, it would require a further study, including consideration of financial
and staffing implications and a separate decision of Council.
In considering the financial implications of ensuring compliance with the objectives of the
heritage conservation district plan, experiences documented in other municipalities where
75 heritage conservation districts have been established over the 31 years that the Ontario
Heritage Act,show that there has been only 3 instances where property owners in heritage
conservation districts have been prosecuted under the Ontario Heritage Act. On this basis
it is evident that the need for legal enforcement of heritage district requirements is rare and
—14—
GENERAL COMMITTEE — JUNE 6, 2006
June 6, 2006 -15 - Report No. PL06-066
that where district plans are fair and clear in their goals and objectives, as is the case with
the proposed Northeast Old Aurora Plan, achieving compliance has not been a serious
concern.
CONCLUSIONS
The proposed Northeast Old Aurora Heritage Conservation District Boundary and Plan has
been developed in accordance with the requirements of the Ontario Heritage Act and
through extensive consultation with the local community. Establishment of Northeast Old
Aurora as the Town's first heritage conservation district is also consistent with the Policies
of the Provincial Policy Statement and the Official Plan with respect to heritage
conservation. The District study demonstrates that the Northeast Old Aurora
neighbourhood is worthy of designation as a heritage conservation district. The consulting
team has noted that of all the district studies they have completed, Northeast Old Aurora
has the highest concentration of heritage resources. The District Study and Plan are
supported by the community and have been completed with extensive public involvement
and consultation. Prior to undertaking the formal study, three public meetings were held
and a door-to-door survey conducted. The formal district study has involved a further three
public meetings and surveys as well as other forms of communication such as public
notices and websites.
The Town also hosted An Old House Restoration Workshop during the study to
demonstrate the practical basis for heritage conservation district policies and guidelines.
Responses from surveys and public discussions have been consistently and
overwhelmingly positive. Where concerns have been expressed from a limited number of
properties, significant efforts have been made to address concerns through modification of
the plan and boundary. In all but three instances (1.8% of properties) concerns have been
resolved. Heritage Conservation District Designation does not prohibit Council from
resolving outstanding concerns in the future (i.e. when a development application is
submitted to the Town).
The Ontario Heritage Act is a tool made available to municipalities to achieve the
objectives of the Provincial Policy Statement with respect to heritage Conservation, which
states that "Significant Built and Cultural Heritage Resources shall be conserved".
Registration of a Heritage Conservation District Designation by-law and endorsement of a
Heritage Conservation District Plan under Part V of the Ontario Heritage Act is consistent
with the goals and objectives of the municipality as expressed through the strategic plan
and Official Plan and of the neighbourhood as expressed through the extensive public
consultation process.
All Town departments have been consulted through the Heritage Conservation District
Study process. It is noted that implementation of the heritage district designation would not
pose any additional financial or staffing implications not already contemplated by the
municipality.
All area property owners have been consulted extensively through the Heritage
Conservation District Study process. Public input has been significant in guiding the form
—15—
GENERAL COMMITTEE — JUNE 6, 2006
June 6, 2006 -16 - Report No. PL06-066
of the district and plan to achieve its current form. As discussed at Council at its meeting
of May 23, 2006, all property owners in the district were notified of the consideration of the
Heritage Conservation District Boundary and Plan by the General Committee of Council on
June 6, 2006. Property owners resident in the district were requested to sign receipt of
notice of the meeting of the General Committee.
Heritage conservation district designation is not intended to permanently prohibit change in
the neighbourhood, rather it is intended to provide the municipality with the legal authority
to review and guide change so that it harmonizes as much as possible with the heritage
character of the neighbourhood.
LINK TO STRATEGIC PLAN
Aurora's Strategic Plan calls for continued well planned growth and conservation of the
built and natural heritage. The establishment of a heritage conservation district is
consistent with these goals.
ATTACHMENTS
Figure 1 District Boundary
Figure 2 Aerial Photograph of District Boundary
Appendix A
Northeast Old Aurora Heritage Conservation District Study
(Distributed under Separate Cover and Available Online)
Appendix B
Northeast Old Aurora Heritage Conservation District Plan
(Distributed under Separate Cover and Available Online)
Appendix C
By-law 4804-06.D to adopt the District Boundary;
Appendix D
By-law 4809-06.D to adopt the District Plan;
Appendix E
Heritage Conservation District Statistics
Appendix F
Public Meetings Details
Appendix G
Town of Aurora Official Plan — Heritage
Appendix H
Departmental Commentary
PRE -SUBMISSION REVIEW
Management Team Meeting — May 30, 2006
Prepared by. Michael Seaman, Community Planner
ension 4351
2a,
:e� eibe M.C.r.P., R.P.P.
ID;ector of Planning and Development Services
John S. Rogers
C.A.O
-16-
—
a
FIGURE 1
0
iE
our
rsu
a
_
a
1
OJ aM/raa feu pg uarp
ua
J
a
s
G
ao
v
v"
as uo}leM
oz4
z
m
UoJ18
"
944
fO
Z44
�
0
N
v v V
M
V9ot
604
Q
•
N N N
p
LW
O
�
Cedar Cres
W
a
m
O m
�
LoPD
E
___■'
�//
cRS
G
O
N
m
0
O
O
Oak Crt
un
n
m n
n
n
Z
h
m
■ n
n
n
n
;S
d o
o
J
m
na
n
O
ti
a
N t00 O N V V
n o
o
m
�
U
m - M m—
m
ME
w
■�
N
�
a
M
m ■
rn V'
v v
�S aona
n w
m N
m N�
0
N
2 7
-p O
l°
C
N
U) m
k
0 .-
C
N
.N-
W
m
n
O
M
m
N O
d
n
N
� O
C/)
■
t0
N
O (O
m a
N
N
,
1 ■
N
(a
C
•�
■�
N
•^-
�
C
ON
N
m
N
. O
U�j
� c
■
p
W
0.
• t. •
]�
133E
m
n
N r�
N
�
�
'a
0
•'�„•
1S
3�Np,t
'-
m
£9Z94
LU
�t0
;
X
QQO MO
W
Lij
! I
L
w
w 1
a
Z 0—�C
wo
a(L)o