The URL can be used to link to this page

Agenda (Appointed) - Heritage Advisory Committee - 20250414Town of Aurora Heritage Advisory Committee Meeting Revised Agenda Date:Monday, April 14, 2025 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 February 3, 2025 1 That the Heritage Advisory Committee meeting minutes of February 3, 2025, be received for information. 1. 6.Delegations *6.1 Christopher Watts, The Aurora Heritage Authority; Re: Wooden Plaque Program 6 7.Matters for Consideration 7.1 Memorandum from Manager, Policy Planning and Heritage; Re: Heritage Permit Application HPA-2025-03 – 10-12 Spruce Street 32 (Presentation to be provided by consultant, Emma Cohlmeyer, Associate, ERA Architects Inc.) That the memorandum regarding Heritage Permit Application HPA-2025-03 - 10-12 Spruce Street be received; and 1. That the Heritage Advisory Committee comments regarding2. Heritage Permit Application HPA-2025-03 be received and referred to staff for consideration and further action as appropriate. 8.Informational Items 9.New Business 10.Adjournment Town of Aurora Heritage Advisory Committee Meeting Minutes Date: Time: Location: Monday, February 3, 2025 7 p.m. Holland Room, Aurora Town Hall Committee Members: Councillor Wendy Gaertner (Chair) Cynthia Bettio* John Green, Aurora Historical Society Representative (Vice Chair) Bob McRoberts, Honourary Member Rocco Morsillo Chris Polsinelli Members Absent: Linda Duringer Other Attendees: Councillor Ron Weese* Jeremy Hood, Museum Collections Technician Michelle Johnson, Collections and Exhibitions Coordinator Adam Robb, Manager, Policy Planning and Heritage Ishita Soneji, Deputy Town Clerk Linda Bottos, Council/Committee Coordinator *Attended electronically _____________________________________________________________________ 1. Call to Order The Chair called the meeting to order at 7 p.m. 1.1 Appointment of Committee Vice Chair Moved by Bob McRoberts Seconded by Rocco Morsillo 1. That John Green be appointed as Vice Chair of the Heritage Advisory Committee for a one-year term (2025). Carried Page 1 of 112 Heritage Advisory Committee Meeting Minutes February 3, 2025 2 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. 3. Approval of the Agenda Moved by Bob McRoberts Seconded by Rocco Morsillo 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 December 9, 2024 Moved by Rocco Morsillo Seconded by Bob McRoberts 1. That the Heritage Advisory Committee meeting minutes of December 9, 2024, be received for information. Carried 6. Delegations 6.1 Christopher Watts, The Aurora Heritage Authority; Re: The Aurora Armoury Provincial Plaque Page 2 of 112 Heritage Advisory Committee Meeting Minutes February 3, 2025 3 Christopher Watts presented background on the Aurora Armoury Provincial plaque erected in 2007, noting the outdated plaque wording does not accurately reflect the current use of the Armoury, and requested that consideration be given to ordering a replacement plaque, the correction of any digital footprints, and communication of the results. Staff confirmed this matter is being addressed through Ontario Heritage Trust and updates would be reported back to the Committee. Moved by Cynthia Bettio Seconded by Bob McRoberts That the comments of the delegation be received for information. Carried 7. Matters for Consideration 7.1 Memorandum from Manager, Policy Planning and Heritage; Re: Heritage Permit Application HPA-2025-01 - Happy Woodland Pet Cemetery (14314- 14378 Yonge Street) Staff provided a brief overview of the memorandum and introductions. Michelle Johnson, Collections and Exhibitions Coordinator, accompanied by Jeremy Hood, Museum Collections Technician, presented a summary of the application including a site overview and items requiring alteration including pathways; monument relocation and restoration; problematic monuments; and landscape maintenance and design enhancements. The Committee and staff discussed the uniqueness of the inactive Cemetery, requirements for starting an active cemetery, the proposed permeable pathway and accessible options, and the handling of inappropriate inscriptions on monuments. The Committee expressed support for the work being done and the preference to retain the original form of any monument to preserve historical accuracy, and suggested that an understanding of why certain language is no longer used be provided through a central interpretative/disclaimer plaque or QR codes. Moved by John Green Seconded by Cynthia Bettio Page 3 of 112 Heritage Advisory Committee Meeting Minutes February 3, 2025 4 1. That the memorandum regarding Heritage Permit Application HPA- 2025-01 - Happy Woodland Pet Cemetery (14314-14378 Yonge Street) be received; and 2. That the Heritage Advisory Committee comments regarding Heritage Permit Application HPA-2025-01 be received and referred to staff for consideration and further action as appropriate. Carried 7.2 Memorandum from Manager, Policy Planning and Heritage; Re: Heritage Permit Application HPA-2025-02 - Aurora War Memorial and Cenotaph (14659 Yonge Street) Staff provided a brief overview of the memorandum and application for the restoration and remedial work to be performed at the Aurora War Memorial Peace Park and Cenotaph. The Committee expressed appreciation for the research done and inquired about whether the spelling of the Luxton Avenue street sign would also be corrected to “Luxon”, which staff confirmed would be addressed. The Committee further inquired about the status of the fence surrounding the Park and staff provided clarification regarding the buffer requirements of any adjacent development application. Moved by Bob McRoberts Seconded by John Green 1. That the memorandum regarding Heritage Permit Application HPA- 2025-02 - Aurora War Memorial and Cenotaph (14659 Yonge Street) be received; and 2. That the Heritage Advisory Committee comments regarding Heritage Permit Application HPA-2025-02 be received and referred to staff for consideration and further action as appropriate. Carried 8. Informational Items None. Page 4 of 112 Heritage Advisory Committee Meeting Minutes February 3, 2025 5 9. New Business As two new members were present for the 2025-2026 term of the Committee, introductions were made around the table. Staff provided an update on the student co-op pilot project now commencing and the Committee provided background information. The Committee inquired about the status of the Petch House upgrades and staff agreed to provide an update at the next meeting. The Committee further inquired about the viability of relocating the Petch House to the Hillary House property and it was agreed to discuss this matter at a future meeting. The Committee inquired about the viability of using a storage container to store Salvage Program items, and staff provided a response noting the priority is to salvage and re-use onsite. Staff advised that a wooden plaque was recently presented to the Johnson family and installed at 71 Connaught Avenue. Staff advised that an additional screening of the Pet Cemetery documentary is planned for Sunday, March 23, 2025, at 2 p.m. in the Performance Hall at Aurora Town Square. It was noted that seats would be set aside for Heritage Advisory Committee members and their families. 10. Adjournment Moved by Rocco Morsillo Seconded by Chris Polsinelli That the meeting be adjourned at 8:23 p.m. Carried Page 5 of 112 100 John West Way Aurora, Ontario L4G 6J1 (905) 727-3123 aurora.ca Delegation Request This request and any written submissions or background information for consideration by either Council or Committees of Council is being submitted to Legislative Services. Council or Committee (Choose One) * Heritage Advisory Committee Council or Committee Meeting Date *  2025-4-14 Subject * Wooden Plaque Program Full Name of Spokesperson and Name of Group or Person(s) being Represented (if applicable) * Christopher Watts, The Aurora Heritage Authority Brief Summary of Issue or Purpose of Delegation * To review with committee several deficiencies with the operation of the program so that an action plan is arrived at for council to approve and direct staff to amend changes to the program. Have you been in contact with a Town staff or Council member regarding your matter of interest? * Yes No Full name of the Town staff or Council member with whom you spoke Manager of Heritage Planning Date you spoke with Town staff or a Council member 2025-1-31 I acknowledge that the Procedure By-law permits five (5) minutes for Delegations. * Agree   Page 6 of 112 I acknowledge that I understand and accept the delegate conduct expectations as outlined in Section 32(b) of the Procedure By-law 6228-19, as amended (link below) * Agree Click to view Procedure By-law 6228-19, as amended. Page 7 of 112 FROM RESPECT TO NEGLECT 40 years of the Town of Aurora’s Wooden Plaque ProgramDelegation to the Heritage Advisory CommitteeApril 14th, 2025Page 8 of 112 The Wooden Plaque Program is aann importantt programm inn Aurora, as it publiclyy identifiess the Town's heritage properties and commemoratess eachh identifiedd buildingg as having unique heritage value. PROGRAM OVERVIEW : ObjectivesThe Program is an excellent opportunityy too increasee ourr sensee off communityand identify the rich heritage built by those who founded and developed our town. It is aa testimonyy too thee propertyy owner'ss pridein their unique heritage site.Page 9 of 112 Photo taken April 7th2025 of Town of Aurora ownedwooden plaque affixed to former Doors Open site PROGRAM OVERVIEW : What is a wooden plaque?Page 10 of 112 Town of Aurora’s Wooden Plaque Program has been iinn operationn sincee 1985.As 2025 marks its 40thyear of operation it is long overdue to review the program’s effectiveness in achieving its stated goals.To do so we will explore the following 4 areas:PROGRAM OVERVIEW : Measuring Efforts1. STATUS2.MAINTENANCE3.COMMUNICATION4.OVERSIGHTPage 11 of 112 1. STATUS : Locating Program Details Page 12 of 112 1. STATUS : Outdated Program Guide Page 13 of 112 The crudely assembled spreadsheet provided by staff reveals similar flaws observed with the methodology behind records kept for the town’s now shuttered architectural salvage program. Given the following deficiencies there is significant doubt that this control system is adequate for maintaining accurate records needed to operate the program:11.)) Theree iss noo formm off datee // versionn controll withh thiss document2.)) Thee listt iss missingg severall fields,, withh mistakess beingg madee inn enteringg dataa inn incorrectt fieldsCurrent fields are:1. street number2. street name 3. year plaque received * note multiple date entries in singular field4. Wooden Plaque - Yes or N/A If N/A why on list? 5. Notes This filed is used to capture details of construction year and name on plaque common to all plaques and should be in their own respective fields. Note the redundancy of dates entered when there is a field for this purposeExample : 85 Connaught ave1. STATUS : Flawed Inventory Control System Page 14 of 112 33.. Thee inventoryy listt doesn'tt evenn providee somethingg ass basicc ass aa tallyy off thee numberr off plaquess inn thee program.The accompanying table has been compiled in lieu of what staff has provided to illustrate a breakdown of the total 136 plaques by year issued. From this exercise we learn that over past decade only 16 plaques have been issued. Ann averagee off 1.66 perr year.1. STATUS : Missing MetricsA more pressing question is :exactlyy howw manyy off thesee 1366 issuedd plaquess aree stilll affixedd too theirr sites?Page 15 of 112 1. Status : 85 Wellington St. E – Charles Anderson HousePPlaquee shownn affixedd inn 20144 Missingg sincee 2024Page 16 of 112 1. Status : 15037 Yonge St. – Joseph Fleury HousePlaque shown affixed in 2017 MMissingg sincee 2020Page 17 of 112 1. Status : 15048 Yonge St. – N/A ?PPlaquee shownn affixedd inn 20199 Missingg sincee 2020Page 18 of 112 How many of the 136 inventoried plaques are either missingor damagedand in need of replacement? If this answer is unknown then an audit is required.1. STATUS : Audit & Inventory Control System RevisionAs the program’s current inventory control and monitoring does not reflect reality efforts need to be made to bring it in line with best practices. 1.) Enter the data from the spreadsheet into a database capable of producing reports complete with version control. 2.) Incorporate the following additional fields for monitoring:A – Name on plaqueB – Year of Construction on PlaqueC - Heritage recognition (listed / designated)D - Photo of plaque installed * A condition of the program was for recipients to provide proof by way of a digital photo that the plaque had been installed. Has this been occurring for the entire time of the program run? If so there would be an archive of photos that for whatever reason are not attachedE - Plaque confirmed attached (date)F – Date plaque removed (date)G - Plaque condition (good, worn but acceptable, needs replacing)H – Date Plaque replaced (date)3.) Document metrics and trends.Page 19 of 112 2. MAINTENANCE : CostingSome municipalities fund their programs through full cost recovery (Markham @ $450) , others are subsidized in part (Bradford @ $144) or whole (Melancthon @ $300 ).AAuroraa subsidizess thee wholee amount,, approx.. $1000 funded through an operating budget.Itt iss understoodd thatt thee townn producedd aa quantityy off woodd blankss andd iss stilll usingg thiss upp thiss inventoryy accountingg forr thee loww productionn cost.. When this inventory runs out the production cost will likely jump upwards. Page 20 of 112 2. MAINTENANCE : Scheduled ReplacementFrom the inventory list the Keepers House plaque was in place from 1991 – 2019. 30 years appears to be the lifespan for these plaques, perhaps even less depending on exposure to elements.From this assertion we can extrapolate that 5511 plaquess aree duee forr replacementt inn thee nextt 100 years( 51 x $100 = $5,100 )322 off thosee plaquess inn thee nextt 55 yearss ( 32 x $100 = $3,200 )This projection does not include replacement of plaques that have been removed.Page 21 of 112 2. MAINTENANCE : Maintenance Roles & Responsibilities Photo taken April 7th2025 of Town of Aurora owned wooden plaque on display in historic downtown coreRRelyingg uponn sitee ownerss too reportt damagee too townn ownedd plaquess ass thee solee methodd off determiningg plaquee conditionn iss ann unreasonablee expectationn andd hass resultedd inn compromisedd plaquess beingg affixedd forr extendedd periodss off time.Program documentation needs to be revised to definitively state the town’s responsibility in maintaining their own plaques, and the set interval the town checks on plaque condition.The memorandum of understanding places maintenance of the Town owned plaque on the site owner.Page 22 of 112 2. MAINTENANCE : Site Ownership TransitionWho is responsible for overseeing the transition? The past and new owners, or the town?If the town is not taking the lead role here then it may explain why so many sites have seen the disappearance of plaques.The Memorandum of Understanding expects that when a site changes hands that the current Memorandum of Understanding will be brought to the attention of the new Owner/Agent:Page 23 of 112 3. Maintenance : 15114 Yonge St. – N/A ?PPlaque shown affixed in 2020 Missing since 2023Page 24 of 112 3. COMMUNICATION : Absence Of Communication Strategy WWheree iss thee abilityy forr thee publicc too bee educatedd aboutt thesee plaquedpropertiess outsidee off contactingg staff?Outdatedd programm brochuree containingg importantt detailss noo longerr referencedd inn programm applicationn orr formPage 25 of 112 3. COMMUNICATION : Inaccessible Program InventoryA request to staff had to be made to obtain the inventory of plaques as this information is nnott foundd inn anyy stafff reportss orr onn thee town’ss website.The entire purpose of these plaques are for public recognition so whyy iss thiss inventoryy beingg gatekeptt when it contains no records of owners or names that would require privacy controls?Contrast the restricted access to plaque inventory by the town to that of open data repositories that document plaques around the globe:Page 26 of 112 WWhyy hass thiss expectationn nott beenn actionedd onn andd delivered?Whatt is preventing the town’s website for being used for this purpose?3. COMMUNICATION : Absence Of Web Presence1. Brochure clearly states the expectation that plaqued properties will be identified on the town's website:2. Memorandum of understanding clearly states the expectation that plaqued properties may be identified on the town's website, going as far as seeking consent:Page 27 of 112 Is the town content in operating this program in isolation?WWheree aree stafff reportss showingg SWOTT analysiss comparing programs run by other municipalities such as: Markham, Thornhill, Stouffville, Essex, Loyalist Township, Uxbridge, Barrie, Brockville, Erin, King Township, Oshawa, Guelph, Brampton, Brock, Midland, Bradford, Melancthon, Hamilton & TorontoNote that just by maintaining their plaque inventory thesee municipalitiess aree surpassingg thee Townn off Aurora’ss efforts.4. OVERSIGHT : Operating Programs In A VacuumMunicipalities like Calgary have already taken theirinventories online and mapped them for the public to access:Page 28 of 112 Properties that fail to be designated by the extended JJanuaryy 1stt 2027deadline of Bill 200 will therefore fail to meet the criteria for this program.Are the issued plaques then reclaimed?Wheree iss thee impactt off Billl 2000 onn thiss programm byy stafff too committee,, council,, andd plaquedpropertyy owners?The stipulation in the program application form is that wooden plaques are onlyy forr listed/designatedd properties: 4. OVERSIGHT : Impacts Of Pending LegislationPage 29 of 112 For a program that has been operating since 1985 hhoww iss thiss programm objectivelyy evaluatedd byy thee committeee andd community,, andd att whatt intervals?When I inquired with staff as to the set interval for evaluating the program I was informed there wasn't one, and that there have been no concerns with how the program is running.Iff thiss programm iss nott communicatedd effectivelyy withh thee public,, andd noo regularr stafff reportss aree broughtt beforee thiss committeee andd councill howw wouldd anyonee inn thee communityy knoww who,, when,, wheree orr howw too raisee anyy concerns?You can't manage what you don't measure. You can't measure what you don't record.4. OVERSIGHT : Committee InvolvementPage 30 of 112 4. OVERSIGHT : Accountability & Action PlanSuggest that the committee consider and recommend that ccouncill providee directionn too stafff to conduct a fulsome review of the programand return report for committee/councilinput and approval that addresses the following:-Updatee too thee programm guidecurrent guide is 9 years out of date-Sett formall intervall forr programm revieww periodd noo greaterr thann 55 yearss Suggested every 4 years to align with new term of council and committee-Conductt auditt off alll issuedd plaquess confirm accurate totals and document irregularities such as condition or missing plaques -Reworkk off inventoryy fromm aa spreadsheett listt too aa databasee too accuratelyy reflectt programm inventory-SWOTT analysiss off programm deliverabless too comparablee programss inn otherr municipalities-Createe casee studiess off issuedd plaquess coordinate with corporate communications for profiling online and sharing on social media-Bringg websitee presencee forr programm inlinee withh recentlyy adoptedd Communicationss Strategicc Planinclude comprehensive program details including sections for FAQs, links to reports, program inventory - Staff explore uploading inventory to Open Data site OpenPlaques- Staff coordinate with GIS division to outline requirements to integrate plaque inventory into online map for public use.- Propose alternate names for program that do not focus on material of plaquePage 31 of 112 100 John West Way Aurora, Ontario L4G 6J1 (905) 727-3123 aurora.ca Town of Aurora Memorandum Select D epartment Re: Heritage Permit Application HPA-2025-03 – 10-12 Spruce Street To: Heritage Advisory Committee From: Adam Robb, MPL, MCIP, RPP, CAHP, PLE Manager, Policy Planning and Heritage Date: April 14, 2025 Recommendation 1. That the memorandum regarding Heritage Permit Application HPA-2025-03 – 10-12 Spruce Street be received; and 2. That the Heritage Advisory Committee comments regarding Heritage Permit Application HPA-2025-03 be received and referred to staff for consideration and further action as appropriate. Background The subject property is designated under Part V of the Ontario Heritage Act, being located within the Northeast Old Aurora Heritage Conservation District 10-12 Spruce Street is a corner lot property located at the northwest intersection of Spruce Street and Centre Street. The property currently contains a dwelling that functions as a two-unit semi. The existing structure represents a cottage-type structure that was built circa the 1880s. The property is designated under Part V of the Ontario Heritage Act as part of the Town’s Northeast Old Aurora Heritage Conservation District but is not designated individually. The property is located at the general southern edge of the District, which features a varied streetscape with some contemporary construction in the vicinity. Page 32 of 112 Heritage Permit Application HPA-2025-03 April 14, 2025 Page 2 of 3 Analysis The owner has prepared a Heritage Impact Assessment in support of their application to demolish the existing structure and build a new semi-detached dwelling The owner proposes to demolish the existing structure on site and construct a new semi-detached dwelling. The owner retained ERA architects to prepare a Heritage Impact Assessment for the subject property and development proposal. The purpose of the Heritage Impact Assessment is to evaluate the significance of the existing structure and assess the impact of the new proposed development of the site. The existing structure was evaluated against Ontario Regulation 9/06 of the Ontario Heritage Act and was determined that the property does not contain significant cultural heritage value as it did not meet any of the criteria under historical, contextual or design value. The property has been altered significantly and was determined to not contribute positively to the streetscape. Further, the Heritage Impact Assessment evaluated the proposed new build against the guidelines of the Heritage Conservation District Plan as part of a conformity analysis. The assessment determined that the proposed building has been sensitively designed and that the design, materiality, and proportions of the proposal are consistent within the neighbouring context. Staff specifically inquired about the opportunity to have the proposal feature a detached garage. The owner and consultant have indicated that due to siting constraints, attached garages are more appropriate and that to mitigate any impacts, they have been recessed from the main elevation and a sympathetic wood material is to be provided. The required rear yard setback is being provided as well to ensure conformity with the built form of the area. Staff also inquired about the potential of there being any salvageable materials or architectural features. The Heritage Impact Assessment did not identify the property as having significant architectural features, nor are any items recommended for salvage and reuse as part of the new build. Per the evaluation against Ontario Regulation 9/06, the property was determined to not have any design/architectural value. A complete conformity analysis has been provided under Appendix B of the Heritage Impact Assessment. Ultimately, the Heritage Impact Assessment determined that the Page 33 of 112 Heritage Permit Application HPA-2025-03 April 14, 2025 Page 3 of 3 proposed demolition and design of the new build meets the recognized professional standards and best practices in the field of heritage conservation. Comments from the Heritage Advisory Committee will be included in a future report to Council for ultimate review of the Heritage Permit Application. Attachments 1. Attachment 1 – Property Location Map 2. Attachment 2 – Heritage Impact Assessment 3. Attachment 3 – New Build Rendering 4. Attachment 4 – Site Plan Page 34 of 112 10-12 Spruce StreetNortheast Old Aurora Heritage Conservation District BoundaryAttachment #1Page 35 of 112 ͬͣͮ͛ͣͧͪ͛ͮ͛ͭͭͭͭͧͨͮ͢͟͟͟͟͡͝ 10-12 SPRUCE STREET Aurora, ON March 10, 2025 Attachment 2 Page 36 of 112 PREPARED BY: ii HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT | 10-12 SPRUCE STREET ERA Architects Inc. #600-625 Church St Toronto ON, M4Y 2G1 416-963-4497 PREPARED FOR: Blair Boston Project #24-276-01 Prepared by PE / SI / EC / MS Page 37 of 112 iiiISSUED/RE vISED: 10 MARCh 2025 CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY IV 1 INTRODUCTION 1 2 SUBJECT PROPERTY AND CONTEXT 3 3 HISTORICAL BACKGROUND 20 4 CULTURAL HERITAGE EVALUATION 33 5 CONDITION ASSESSMENT 36 6 DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT 39 7 HERITAGE POLICY REVIEW 41 8 ANALYSIS OF IMPACT & MITIGATION 44 9 CONCLUSION 46 10 REFERENCES 47 APPENDIX A: NORTHEAST OLD AURORA HERITAGE CONSERVATION DISTRICT PLAN - 49 STATEMENT OF HERITAGE VALUE AND DESCRIPTION OF HERITAGE ATTRIBUTES APPENDIX B: HCD CONFORMITY ANALYSIS 50 Page 38 of 112 iv HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT | 10-12 SPRUCE STREET ExEcutivE Summary Proposed Development The proposed development anticipates the removal of the existing structures on the Site to allow for the construction of a two-storey, semi-detached residential building. The proposed building has been sensitively designed to respond to the character of the hCD. Impact Assessment and Mitigation While the proposed development introduces a contemporary building to the hCD, design strategies have been incorporated to mitigate impact on the District and the historic residential character of the area. The Site is located at the south end of the hCD which is characterized by a varied streetscape particularly along Centre and Wellington Streets. The proposed development fits in with this evolving area of the hCD. In response to the design guidelines in the hCD, the proposed new building provides a consistent setback, permitted two-storey height, and sympathetic new materials including red brick and wood garage doors. Front porches are provided and window and door proportions are consistent with the neighbouring context. Conclusion This HIA finds that the impacts of the proposed development on the overall character of the District have been appropriately mitigated. The proposed new construction conserves the cultural heritage value of the hCD while introducing a new residential building. Background This heritage Impact Assessment (“hIA”) has been prepared by ERA Architects Inc. (“ERA”) to assess the impact of the proposed development of 10-12 Spruce Street (the “Site”) on the Northeast Old Aurora heritage Conservation District (“hCD”; “District”). The Site contains a circa 1880s one-and-a-half-storey house-form building. Heritage Status The Site is designated under Part v of the Ontario Heritage Act (“OhA”) as it is located within the hCD. In the HCD Plan, the Site is identified as a building of historical interest. Prior to the creation of the hCD, the Site was included on the Aurora Inventory of heritage Buildings. Cultural Heritage Value The statement of value for the hCD recognizes the development and growth in the neighbourhood from the mid-19th through mid-20th century. The District is characterized by a collection of buildings with a compatible scale, historic architectural style, mature streetscape, and lot patterning. While the existing building at 10-12 Spruce Street was constructed in the late 19th-century, substantial alterations over time have reduced its ability to communicate historical associations to the Site’s history and its overall contribution to the District’s cultural heritage value. As directed by Heritage Planning Staff, ERA evaluated the Site using Ontario Regulation 9/06 (“O.Reg. 9/06”) Criteria for Determining Cultural Heritage Value or Interest under the OhA. This assessment concludes that the Site does not contain sufficient cultural heritage value to meet the threshold for designation under Part Iv, Section 29 of the OhA. Page 39 of 112 1ISSUED/RE vISED: 10 MARCh 2025 1 introduction 1.1 Report Scope ERA Architects Inc. (“ERA”) has been retained to provide a heritage Impact Assessment (“hIA”) for the proposed redevelopment of the property known municipally as 10-12 Spruce Street (the “Site”) in the Town of Aurora, Ontario. This hIA was prepared to accompany a demolition permit application for the property. This report was prepared with reference to the following: •Town of Aurora heritage Impact Assessment Terms of Refer- ence (Scoped per email from Staff in December, 2024); •Provincial Planning Statement (2024); •Region of York Official Plan (2022); •Town of Aurora Official Plan (2024); •Northeast Old Aurora heritage Conservation District Plan (2006); •Ontario Regulation 9/06 Criteria for Determining Cultural heri- tage value or Interest; and, •The Ontario Ministry of Culture’s Ontario heritage Tool Kit (2005). Page 40 of 112 2 HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT | 10-12 SPRUCE STREET ERA specializes in heritage conservation, architecture, planning and landscape as they relate to historical places. This work is driven by our core interest in connecting heritage issues to wider considerations of urban design and city building, and to broader set of cultural values that provide perspective to our work at different scales. In our 30 years of work, we’ve provided the highest level of professional services to our clients in both the public and private sector out of offices in Toronto, Montreal and Ottawa. We have a staff of more than 100, and our Principals and Associates are members of associations that include: the Ontario Association of Architects (OAA), the Canadian Association of heritage Professionals (CAhP) and the Royal Architectural Institute of Canada (RAIC). Philip Evans OAA, MRAIC, CAHP is a principal at ERA and the founder of Culture of Outports and small. Over the course of 17 years working in the field of heritage conservation, he has led a wide range of conservation, adaptive reuse, design, and feasibility planning projects. Samantha Irvine JD, CAHP is a Senior Associate with the heritage planning team at ERA, where she has overseen projects that impact culturally significant buildings, neighbourhoods and landscapes since 2015. She holds a BA in history and Sociology from McGill University (Great Distinction); MA degrees in historical & Sustainable Architecture (NYU) and Sustainable Urbanism (Wales); and a JD from Queen’s University. She is a member of the Ontario Bar Association and a former Fellow of Sustainable Urbanism with the Prince’s Foundation in London, England. Emma Cohlmeyer, RPP, MCIP is an Associate with the heritage planning team at ERA Architects. She is a Registered Professional Planner (RPP) and a Member of the Canadian Institute of Planners (MCIP). Emma completed a Bachelor of Arts Degree from the University of Guelph and a Masters Degree in Urban Planning from the University of Toronto. Marina Smirnova is a Planner at ERA Architects. She holds a Bachelor of Arts in Political Science from the University of British Columbia, and a Master of Planning from Toronto Metropolitan University (formerly Ryerson University). 1.2 Statement of Professional Qualifications Page 41 of 112 3ISSUED/RE vISED: 10 MARCh 2025 2 SuBJEct ProPErty and contE x t 2.1 Site Location and Description The Site is situated at the corner of Centre and Spruce Streets, east of Yonge Street and north of Wellington Street in Aurora’s downtown. It is bounded by Centre Street to the south, and Spruce Street to the east. Within its block, the Site is adjacent to a one-storey mid-20th- century residential house-form building to the north, and a one-storey mid-20th-century residential house-form building to the west. The area surrounding the Site is predominately low-scale residential, with some mixed-use commercial buildings to the south. The Site contains a one-and-a-half-storey detached house-form building, constructed circa the 1880s. There is a one-storey garage located behind the building. The Site is designated under Part v of the Ontario Heritage Act (“OhA”), as it is located within the Northeast Old Aurora heritage Conservation District (“hCD”; “District”). The District comprises the northeast quadrant of Aurora’s historic downtown, built up primarily between the 1860s and the 1930s (see Appendix A for an excerpt from the hCD Plan containing a Statement of heritage value and description of heritage attributes).SPRUCE STREETSPRUCE STREETCENTRE STREETCENTRE STREETYONGE STREETYONGE STREETWELLINGTON STREETWELLINGTON STREET CATHERINE STREETCATHERINE STREET Aerial image showing the Site, shaded blue (YorkMaps, 2024; annotated by ERA). Page 42 of 112 4 HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT | 10-12 SPRUCE STREET 2.2 Site and Context Photos Photographs were taken by ERA in January 2025, unless otherwise noted. This Section provides photographs of the Site and surrounding context. Principal (east) elevation of 10-12 Spruce Street (ERA, 2025). Side (south) elevation of 10-12 Spruce Street. The main entrance to one of the two units in the dwelling is located at this elevation (ERA, 2025). 2.2.1 Site Photos Page 43 of 112 5ISSUED/RE vISED: 10 MARCh 2025 Rear (west) elevation of 10-12 Spruce Street (ERA, 2025). Side (north) elevation of 10-12 Spruce Street. The main entrance to the smaller of the two units in the dwelling is located at this elevation (ERA, 2025). Page 44 of 112 6 HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT | 10-12 SPRUCE STREET Looking northwestward towards the main and side elevations of 10-12 Spruce Street (ERA, 2025). The one-storey garage on the Site, located behind the dwelling (ERA, 2025). Page 45 of 112 7ISSUED/RE vISED: 10 MARCh 2025 Close-up photo of the side (north) elevation with masonry chimney (ERA, 2025). Close-up photo of the side (south) elevation showing the main entrance door to one of the two units in the building (ERA, 2025). Covered porch at the rear (west) elevation (ERA, 2025).An entrance to the basement, located at the rear (west) elevation (ERA, 2025). Page 46 of 112 8 HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT | 10-12 SPRUCE STREET Interior photo of the smaller unit at 12 Spruce Street (ERA, 2025). Interior photo of the smaller unit at 12 Spruce Street (ERA, 2025). Entrance to the smaller unit at 12 Spruce Street; door sill, jamb, baseboard, and baseboard plinth block provide evidence of an older structure (ERA, 2025). Page 47 of 112 9ISSUED/RE vISED: 10 MARCh 2025 Interior photo of dining and living room at 10 Spruce Street (ERA, 2025). Page 48 of 112 10 HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT | 10-12 SPRUCE STREET Exposed floor joists and floorboards in the basement pro- vide evidence of an older structure (ERA, 2025). Stone foundation wall underneath cement parging (ERA, 2025). Entrance to basement located at the rear (west) elevation (ERA, 2025). Timber lintel over the basement door at the rear (west) el- evation provides evidence of an older structure (ERA, 2025). Page 49 of 112 11ISSUED/RE vISED: 10 MARCh 2025 2.2.2 Context Photos Looking westward towards the Site and Yonge Street from the northeast corner of Spruce and Centre Streets (ERA, 2025). Looking southwestward along Spruce Street towards the Site and south side of Centre Street (ERA, 2025). Page 50 of 112 12 HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT | 10-12 SPRUCE STREET Looking southwestward along Spruce Street towards the Site and west side of Spruce Street (ERA, 2025). Looking southeastward along Spruce Street towards Centre Street (ERA, 2025). Page 51 of 112 13ISSUED/RE vISED: 10 MARCh 2025 Looking westward towards Yonge Street from the corner of Spruce and Catherine Streets (ERA, 2025). Looking southward along Spruce Street from the corner of Spruce and Catherine Streets (ERA, 2025). Page 52 of 112 14 HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT | 10-12 SPRUCE STREET Looking northeastward along Spruce Street towards Catherine Street (ERA, 2025). Looking eastward from the corner of Catherine and Spruce Streets towards 37 Spruce Street on the east side of Spruce Street (ERA, 2025). Page 53 of 112 15ISSUED/RE vISED: 10 MARCh 2025 Looking northeastward along Centre Street towards the Site (indicated with an arrow) (ERA, 2025). Looking northeastward along Centre Street towards the Site (not visible here; location of the Site indicated with an arrow) (ERA, 2025). Page 54 of 112 16 HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT | 10-12 SPRUCE STREET Looking westward along Centre Street towards Yonge Street (ERA, 2025). Looking northwards from the southeast corner of Yonge and Centre Streets (ERA, 2025). Looking northeastward along Yonge Street towards Centre Street (ERA, 2025). Page 55 of 112 17ISSUED/RE vISED: 10 MARCh 2025 2.3 Description of Surrounding Neighbourhood Contextually, the Site forms part of a residential neighbourhood at the northeast end of the old Town of Aurora. The Site’s immediate context includes low-rise buildings used for residential purposes to the north, east, and west. The character of the area to the south is varied, with examples of detached house- form buildings, a commercial building at 38 Wellington Street, which has frontage on both Wellington and Centre Streets, as well as surface parking lots for the commercial buildings along Wellington Street. Directly east of the Site, there is a two-storey apartment building constructed between 1978 and 1988 at the southeast corner of Centre and Spruce Streets (municipally known as 52 Centre Street), and a two-storey house-form building at 15 Spruce Street. The Site is located at the southern end of the hCD. The hCD contains a mix of built fabric from various periods and styles, though it is composed predominantly of single-detached residential buildings, constructed approximately between the second half of the 19th century and the first half of the 20th century. Ranging primarily from one to two storeys (exceptions include the Our Lady of Grace Church at 15347 Yonge Street), these buildings contribute to the 19th- and early 20th-century village and residential character of the historic downtown. The southern end of the hCD features a more varied streetscape with contemporary construction dating from the late 20th and early 21st centuries (for instance, at 38 and 41 Centre Street). The Site forms part of this “transition zone” at the south end of the hCD, characterized by the varied character found along Centre and Wellington Streets.YONGE STREETYONGE STREETSPRUCE STREETSPRUCE STREETCENTRE STR E E T CENTRE STR E E T WELLINGT O N S T R E E T E A S T WELLINGT O N S T R E E T E A S TC.N.R/GO LINEC.N.R/GO LINE* SITE hCD* Aerial image showing the Northeast Old Aurora hCD in yellow and the Site with a blue star (YorkMaps, 2024; annotated by ERA). Page 56 of 112 18 HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT | 10-12 SPRUCE STREET 2.4 heritage Status The Site is designated under Part v of the OhA as part of the hCD. In the HCD Plan, it is identified as a building of historical interest. Prior to the creation of the hCD, the Site was included on the Aurora Inventory of heritage Buildings. As directed by Heritage Planning Staff, ERA evaluated the Site using the O.Reg. 9/06 (“O.Reg. 9/06”) Criteria for Determining Cultural Heritage Value or Interest under the OhA . This assessment concludes that the Site does not contain sufficient cultural heritage value to meet the threshold for designation under Part Iv of the OhA. The results of this evaluation are summarized and discussed in Section 4 of this report. Page 57 of 112 19ISSUED/RE vISED: 10 MARCh 2025 2.5 Adjacent and Nearby heritage Resources *Adjacent lands (PPS, 2024): for the pur- poses of policy 4.6.3, those lands contigu- ous to a protected heritage property or as otherwise defined in the municipal official plan (Provincial Planning State- ment, 2024). The PPS definition above is used in the absence of an alternative definition from the Town of Aurora Official Plan. The definition provided for “adjacent” in the Town of Aurora Official Plan is not in- tended to apply to the context of cultural heritage resources. The Site is not considered adjacent* to any heritage resources designated under Part Iv of the OhA . Due to its location within the hCD, the Site is contiguous, and therefore considered adjacent based on the PPS definition (refer to sidebar), to two properties designated under Part v of the OhA. In the hCD Plan, the dwelling at 16 Spruce Street, constructed circa the late 1940s, is identified as a building of historical interest. 28 Centre Street, which was constructed in the second half of the 20th century, is not considered a building of historical interest. The two adjacent properties to the Site are numbered, and pictured below. (YorkMaps, 2024; annotated by ERA). SITE DESIGNATED PART Iv LISTED Legend DESIGNATED PART v 16 SPRUCE STREET28 CENTRE STREET1 2 2 Constructed in the second half of the 20th century, 28 Cen- tre Street is not identified as a building of historical interest in the hCD Plan (Google, 2025). 16 Spruce Street is identified as a building of historical interest in the hCD Plan (Google, 2025). CENTRE STREETCENTRE STREET SPRUCE STREETSPRUCE STREETWELLINGTON STREET EASTWELLINGTON STREET EASTYONGE STREETYONGE STREETCATHERINE STREETCATHERINE STREET WELLS STREET NWELLS STREET N1 Page 58 of 112 20 HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT | 10-12 SPRUCE STREET 3 HiS torica L B acKGround This historical summary was prepared from a non-Indigenous perspective, based on written and archaeological records, and written accounts of oral histories. It is not intended to reflect or represent the full rich history of Indig- enous peoples in this region. 3.1 Methodology As part of this hIA, ERA undertook primary and secondary research to identify the Site’s history of ownership and development. The following resources were consulted: • Aurora Museum and Archives; • Ontario Land Registry; • Tax assessment rolls; • Census records (Library and Archives Canada); • The Canadian County Atlas Digital Project (McGill University); • Ontario historical County Maps (University of Toronto); • Digital Archive Ontario; • Toronto Star historical Newspaper Archive; and • Ontario Community Newspapers Portal. This section includes a written narrative describing the Site’s history, which is organized into contextual (i.e. township and area) and site- specific history (i.e. chain of ownership). The contextual history is drawn from a broad range of sources listed in Section 9. 3.2 historical Context Pre-Contact history For millennia, the Site has been part of the traditional territory of diverse Indigenous peoples, including the huron-Wendat, haudenosaunee, and Anishinaabe. human occupancy in the area dates back approximately 11,000 years, shortly after the glaciers receded. Indigenous peoples established camps and settlements, created hunting and trapping territories, and developed portage routes connecting the lower and upper Great Lakes. The Site is located northwest of the Rouge River watershed, which flows south from Richmond Hill and Whitchurch-Stouffville into Lake Ontario. This watershed contains numerous archaeological sites, including an ancestral huron-Wendat village known as the Aurora Site or Old Ford, located at vandorf Sideroad and Kennedy Road, southeast of the Site. In the 1600s, the French established a military and trading presence throughout the watershed. French-Canadian explorer Louis Jolliet is believed to have portaged through Whitchurch, east of the Site, in Page 59 of 112 21ISSUED/RE vISED: 10 MARCh 2025 1669. Early European transportation routes often followed existing Indigenous trails, including one that ran parallel to today’s Yonge Street. The “Toronto Purchase” Treaty No. 13 (1805) After the British conquest of New France in 1763, the Crown issued a royal proclamation, which established guidelines for the colonization of Indigenous territories in North America. The proclamation stated that Indigenous peoples held title to their territory until it was ceded by a treaty. As a result, the British negotiated the first “Toronto Purchase” Treaty with the Mississaugas at the Bay of Quinte in 1787 – although the deed contained no accurate description of the lands purchased and lacked signatures. This prompted the second “Toronto Purchase” Treaty in 1805. The Site is located within Treaty 13 boundaries. The 1805 “Toronto Purchase” Treaty was later subject to a successful land claim by the Mississaugas of the Credit in 2010, which found that the Crown obtained more land than originally agreed upon for an unreasonable sum. Yonge Street and Early European Settlement In 1792, the colonial administrators of Upper Canada divided the province into 19 counties, which were further subdivided into townships for the purposes of surveying and settlement. The Site was located in Whitchurch Township, in the County of York. Shortly after moving the capital of Upper Canada to York (present-day Toronto), Lieutenant Governor John Graves Simcoe began planning major transportation routes to support both defence and development. In 1793, he ordered the construction of Yonge Street, a road extending north from York to Lake Simcoe. The initial clearing of Yonge Street was undertaken by the Queen’s Rangers, while nearby property owners were later responsible for its maintenance and further clearing. Conceived as a strategic military route to protect Upper Canada from potential American invasion, Yonge Street was also recognized for its potential to facilitate commercial activity and settlement. As a military road, Yonge Street was designed to follow a straight route from York to holland Landing, deviating slightly only where topography required. Yonge Street opened in 1796, providing a significant impetus for settlement of lands north of York along its route. 1805, Map of the Toronto Purchase. The approximate location of the Site is indi- cated with a blue arrow (City of Toronto Archives; annotated by ERA). 1878 county atlas showing the ances- tral huron village known as Old Fort, or the Aurora Site, indicated with a blue arrow (McGill University; anno- tated by ERA). Page 60 of 112 22 HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT | 10-12 SPRUCE STREET Yonge Street served as the dividing line between King and Whitchurch townships, with Whitchurch located to the east and King to the west. Each township was surveyed into numbered concessions running south to north, with each concession composed of a series of roughly 200 acre lots. The Site formed part of Lot 81, Concession 1 in Whitchurch Township. Whitchurch Township The area historically known as Whitchurch Township was surveyed in 1800 by John Stegmann, a surveyor for the government of Upper Canada, with partial surveys completed earlier. Settlement in the township began in 1795, with some of the earliest landholders being huguenots from France. This group, led by the Comte de Puisaye, initially settled near Oak Ridges (now part of Richmond hill) but did not remain in the area. Early patentees at the end of the 18th century 1818, Map of the Province of Upper Canada created by Surveyor General David William Smith. The approximate location of the Site is indicated with a blue arrow (Digital Archive Ontario; annotated by ERA). Page 61 of 112 23ISSUED/RE vISED: 10 MARCh 2025 included Loyalists, government officials and military personnel, though many did not settle, opting instead to sell their grants. The first significant wave of permanent settlement occurred with the arrival of Timothy Rogers, a Quaker from vermont. In 1802, Rogers was granted 1,000 acres on the condition that he bring 40 settlers to the area, which he successfully accomplished. These settlers, predominantly Quakers from Pennsylvania, established a community that would eventually grow into Newmarket. Settlement in Whitchurch Township was often concentrated around natural resources, including waterways, fertile land, and timber. The Oak Ridges Moraine, a prominent ridge of high land running east to west, also influenced settlement patterns, with villages and hamlets often developing to the north or south of the moraine. By the mid-19th century, the township had evolved to include numerous hamlets and three key villages: Newmarket (incorporated in 1858), Aurora (1863), and Stouffville (1877). Early history of the Town of Aurora Aurora’s origins reflect the broader settlement patterns of Whitchurch Township. The community, informally known as Machell’s Corners after Richard Machell, a general store owner at the Yonge and Wellington Street crossroads, began to grow in the early 19th century. The first post office was established in 1846 under the name Whitchurch. In 1854, it was renamed Aurora. The growing community at Machell’s Corners was incorporated as a village under the name Aurora in 1863 and officially became a town in 1888. The arrival of the railway spurred further growth. The Ontario, Simcoe, and huron Union Railroad reached the area in 1853, followed by the Toronto and Nipissing Railway in 1871. While Aurora began as an agricultural community, it increasingly industrialized in the late 19th century. Businesses and factories flourished along the Yonge Street corridor. Agriculture remained significant in Aurora’s early economy. Flour and grist mills, built around 1827, processed grains from local farms. The founding of Fleury’s Aurora Agricultural Works in 1859 marked an important shift toward industrial development. This foundry, Page 62 of 112 24 HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT | 10-12 SPRUCE STREET Circa 1870 looking north on Yonge Street from Tyler Street (McIntyre, 1988). later known as J. Fleury’s Sons, became the town’s largest employer, manufacturing agricultural implements. Aurora experienced rapid growth in the 1950s, driven by new industries and residential developments, such as the Sterling Drug plant and the Aurora heights subdivision. In 1971, the town expanded its boundaries and became part of the Regional Municipality of York. 3.3 Site history Early Parcel history historically, the Site formed part of the southwestern corner of Lot 81, Concession 1 in Whitchurch Township. In 1803, Abner Miles was granted the 190 acres of land that constituted the entirety of Lot 81, Concession 1 in the Township of Whitchurch by the Crown. Upon his death in 1806, son James Miles inherited the land, which he sold in 1827 to hannah Playter, his mother and the widow of Abner Miles. Between 1834 and 1836, hannah Playter divided the parcel, selling portions of the 190 acres to Clayton Webb, Weldon Playter, and Richard Machell. The two transactions with Richard Machell took place in 1834 and in 1836, amounting to approximately 30 acres of land at the western portion of Lot 81. Page 63 of 112 25ISSUED/RE vISED: 10 MARCh 2025 1854 plan of subdivision of John Mosley's farm south of Wellington Street, with a blue arrow indicating the Site (McIntyre, 1988; annotated by ERA). 1853 plan of subdivision of Richard Machell’s land north of Wellington Street, with the Site outlined in blue (McIntyre, 1988; annotated by ERA). Page 64 of 112 26 HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT | 10-12 SPRUCE STREET 1860 Tremaine's map of the County of York. The location of the Site is indicated with a blue arrow (University of Toronto Map and Data Library; annotated by ERA). 1878 County Atlas. The location of the Site is indicated with a blue arrow (McIntyre, 1988; annotated by ERA). Page 65 of 112 27ISSUED/RE vISED: 10 MARCh 2025 In 1853, Richard Machell subdivided the land he had purchased north of Wellington Street into building lots, calling the area “Match-ville”, presumably after the original hamlet’s name as Machell Corners. In contrast, when John Mosley subdivided his farm south of Wellington Street into building lots in 1854, the plan of subdivision adopted the new name for the community, “Aurora”, as proposed by the postmaster Charles Doan. On the 1853 Plan for Match-ville, the Site comprises part of a larger lot to which a lot number is not assigned. It is not clear whether there were structures on the Site at this time. In 1854, Richard Machell sold the parcel of land containing the Site to John Thomas Gurnett, along with three other building lots in the subdivision. In 1856, John Gurnett sold the land to Robert P. Irwin. In 1871, Robert Irwin sold a portion of the land, amounting to 156 perches and including the Site, to Franklin Wixson, who sold it the following year to Thomas Telfer. In 1873, Thomas Telfer sold the land to George Russell. George Russell sold the land to harriet A. Irwin in March 1880, who in September sold the land to John Johnson. Site history Post-1880 In 1882, tax assessment roll records show John Johnson as residing on the corner of Spruce and Centre Streets, with 1 acre in his possession. It is not clear whether the dwelling he was residing in is the same as the dwelling on the property now. In 1886, John’s son Charles Johnson sold the property to John C. Davis, a carpenter born in King Township. In both the 1891 and 1901 census, John Davis was listed as living with his daughter Sarah Eade and son-in-law David Eade in a wooden house on Spruce Street. In the 1891 census, the house was described as a two-storey, wooden structure with seven rooms, while in the 1901 census it was described as a one-and-a-half-storey wooden house with six rooms. In 1901, there was an outbuilding on the property. David Eade died in 1904, leaving behind Sarah Eade, and children Elinora, aged 23, and Norman, aged 25. In 1907, John Davis passed away as well. Upon John’s death, the property was transferred to his daughter, Sarah Jane Eade. By the time of the tax assessment for 1910, Mrs. Eade had moved from the property, which she had owned since 1908, and the house was occupied by tenant A.E.D. Bruce, his wife In September 1907, John C. Davis passed away, at which point his daughter, Sarah Eade, purchased the property, keeping it until 1910 (Aurora Banner, 20 September 1907). Page 66 of 112 28 HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT | 10-12 SPRUCE STREET 1890 fire insurance plan of Aurora. The location of the Site is indicated with a blue arrow (Library and Archives Canada; annotated by ERA). Page 67 of 112 29ISSUED/RE vISED: 10 MARCh 2025 Eliza Bruce, and their three children. By September 1910, Mrs. Eade sold the property to Robert hoiles. Within weeks of the purchase, Mr. hoiles sold the property to his daughter Merab, and her husband Wilmot Watson, a dairyman. An article published in the Aurora Banner in October 1910 details Wilmot Watson’s sale of his farm on Lot 82, Concession 1, though it does not mention Mr. hoiles. The Watson family, including Mr. hoiles and his wife, moved to the property sometime between late 1910 and early 1911. The 1911 census lists Robert hoiles and his wife Martha Anne, as well as Merab and Wilmot and their three-month-old son Wentworth, residing on Kennedy Street. Tax assessment roll records from 1911, however, list Wilmot Watson as a resident at the property on Spruce Street. In December of 1910, an advertisement in the Aurora Banner lists Mr. Watson’s address as Spruce Street. In March 1910, prior to the move, Wilmot Wilson had purchased a milk business from Mr. Lorne A. hartman. The article in the Aurora Banner read: “Mr. Lorne A. hartman has sold his milk business to Mr. Wilmot Watson, who commenced delivering on Monday.” An advertisement for Mr. Watson’s dairy appeared in the Aurora Banner in December 1910. Left: advertisement for Wilmot Watson’s dairy, here called “Elm Leaf Dairy”, two years after the first advertisement appeared for Watson’s business in the Aurora Banner (Aurora Banner, 25 October 1912). Page 68 of 112 30 HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT | 10-12 SPRUCE STREET The 1913 revision to the 1904 Fire Insurance Plan for the Town of Aurora shows a frame building on the Site with a one-and-a-half- storey southern portion, and a one-storey northern portion. A series of outbuildings ranging in height from one to two storeys are located at the northwestern corner of the property, including a carpentry shop nearest to the street, with a stable and a two-storey structure behind that, and a one-storey shed at the rear. Advertisements for Watson’s dairy continued until November 1912, when the dairy business, along with the property, was sold to Mr. William Osborne. Over the next few years, the property changed hands several times: first to William Osborne, then to Thomas Spaulding in 1913, before being purchased back by Mr. Watson. Between 1912 and 1913, Mr. Watson, Merab, and Mr. hoiles were living in Barrie, where Mr. Watson had purchased a business. In February of 1913, Mr. hoiles passed away in Barrie, and in October of that year, the family moved back to Aurora. 1913 fire insurance plan of Aurora, with the Site dashed in blue (Aurora Museum and Archives; annotated by ERA). 1919 aerial photograph of the Site, dashed in blue. The dwelling and several outbuildings, are visible. The new dairy build- ing present on the 1927 fire insurance plan has not yet been constructed (Aurora Museum and Archives; annotated by ERA). Page 69 of 112 31ISSUED/RE vISED: 10 MARCh 2025 Back in Aurora, Wilmot Watson continued running Watson’s Dairy. In the 1921 census, Wilmot and Merab were listed as living at the house on Spruce Street with their three children Lloyd, Mary, and Wentworth. The property was mortgaged in 1921 and 1925, though advertisements for the dairy continued to appear in the newspaper until at least 1926. The 1927 Fire Insurance Plan shows evidence of a dairy operation. By this point, the house had been rough-cast, and the northern portion, potentially rebuilt or renovated after 1913, turned into a shop. A dairy Aurora Dairy building, constructed 1938 on the northeast corner of Yonge and Centre Streets and demolished in 1984 (McIntyre, 1988). Two years prior to Watson’s foreclo - sure on the property and business, Mr. D. Cameron of Cousins Dairy begins leasing the dairy buildings on the Site (Aurora Banner, 28 September 1928). By October 1928, Mr. Cameron is running the dairy business on the Site (Aurora Banner, 5 October 1928). The dairy on the corner went as Markle’s Dairy beginning in 1930, after William Markle came to an agreement with the new owner of the property following the foreclosure by Watson (Aurora Banner, 4 April 1930). 1927 fire insurance plan of Aurora, with the Site dashed in blue (Aurora Museum and Archives; annotated by ERA). Page 70 of 112 32 HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT | 10-12 SPRUCE STREET building had been added close to Spruce Street at the northern edge of the property, and the two-storey outbuilding converted into an ice-house. In 1925, Merab Watson died, and two years later, Mr. Watson had remarried. By September of 1928, Mr. Watson was no longer running the dairy, and the Aurora Banner reported that Mr. Cameron has leased the dairy buildings on the property and was installing new equipment. An article from December of that year mentioned the improvements that had taken place at the dairy. Foreclosure on the property occurred in 1930, and by the 1931 census, Mr. Watson was living in Mount Albert in East Gwillimbury Township with his new wife and three children, where we worked as a hotel keeper. In 1930, William Markle came to an agreement with William Ough, the new owner of the property, and the name “Markle’s Dairy” began to appear in the newspaper. A series of changes in ownership took place before 1934, when the property was purchased by Charles E. Sparks and his wife Annie. Charles, Annie, and their adult son Charles Lyle Sparks operated the dairy and lived on the property. In 1938, the elder Sparks also purchased a parcel of land on the northeast corner of Centre and Yonge Streets, building a new Aurora Dairy Building. Mr. Sparks entered municipal service in 1935, serving as reeve of Aurora between 1941 and 1947. The Sparks continued to live on the property and operate the business until the early 1940s. By the 1944 tax assessment, the house was occupied by tenants. In 1946, the year before Mr. Sparks’ retirement, the property was severed twice, creating two new lots with frontage on Spruce and Centre Streets respectively, which were sold. It is likely that the dairy buildings were demolished following the severance and sale of the northern portion of the lot. The dwelling at 16 Spruce Street is currently located where the former dairy stood. After the deaths of Mrs. Sparks in 1950 and Mr. Sparks in 1951, the property passed into the hands of the their three children, who entered a legal battle with John Banbury over the property. A Certificate of Judgment was issued by the Supreme Court of Ontario in 1955, when the property settled into long-term ownership by James Wood. (Toronto Star, 29 September, 1948). (Toronto Star, 29 September, 1948). Page 71 of 112 33ISSUED/RE vISED: 10 MARCh 2025 4 cuLturaL HEritaGE EvaLuation The Site is included in the Northeast Old Aurora hCD. In summary, the statement of value for the hCD recognizes the development and growth in the area from the mid-19th through mid-20th century as an industrializing village. The development patterns originated in response to the prosperity promised by the arrival of Canada’s first railway line, the Ontario huron and Simcoe Railway. Currently, the District contains a compact collection of (residential) buildings from this period with a wide range of styles from Edwardian Classical, Queen Anne Revival to Ontario victorian, many largely intact. The District is characterized by buildings with a compatible scale, mature streetscape, and historic lot patterning. While the existing building at 10-12 Spruce Street was built during this time period, the design/physical, historical/associative, and contextual value of the building on the Site has been significantly diminished through substantial alterations over time, reducing its legibility as a late 19th-century dwelling. Though the existing building exhibits some of the hCD’s heritage attributes pertaining to its historic lot patterning, the substantial alterations have reduced its ability to communicate the historical associations to the Site’s history and overall contribution to the District’s cultural heritage value. As directed by Heritage Planning Staff, ERA evaluated the Site for potential cultural heritage value against O.Reg. 9/06 criteria under the OhA . This assessment is provided on the following pages. Page 72 of 112 34 HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT | 10-12 SPRUCE STREET Value (quoted from Ontario Reg. 9/06) Meets Criteria? (Y/N) Assessment of 10-12 Spruce Street 1. The property has design value or physical value because it is a rare, unique, representative or early example of a style, type, ex- pression, material or construction method. N 10-12 Spruce Street is not a rare, unique, representative, or early example of a style, type, expression, material, or construction method. While the dwelling on the property was constructed in the late 19th century, substantial alterations over time, including the removal of chimneys, extensions and additions, and the complete overcladding of all exterior eleva- tions, have reduced its architectural integrity and legibility to the point where it is scarcely recognizable as a 19th-century structure. 2. The property has design value or physical value because it displays a high degree of crafts- manship or artistic merit. N 10-12 Spruce Street displays modest craftsmanship and design typical of the industry standard of its time. 3. The property has design value or physical value because it dem- onstrates a high degree of techni- cal or scientific achievement. N 10-12 Spruce Street does not demonstrate a high degree of technical or scientific achievement. 4. The property has histori- cal value or associative value because it has direct associa- tions with a theme, event, belief, person, activity, organization or institution that is significant to a community. N 10-12 Spruce Street does not have direct associations with a theme, event, belief, person, activity, organiza- tion, or institution that is significant to a community. There is some associative value with the dairy located on the lands including the Site between approximately 1912 and 1946. however, while several of its operators owned and resided in the existing dwelling at 10-12 Spruce Street, there is no direct evidence that the extant building directly supported the dairy operation. While there is some evidence that there was a storefront on the Site that may have supported the op- eration, archival documentation does is not definitive and this cannot be confirmed. No evidence of the storefront remains. Additionally, the severance of the northern portion of the Site, known today as 16 Spruce Street, separated 10-12 Spruce Street from the former dairy buildings. Therefore, the Site no longer exemplifies any physical evidence of the former dairy on the lands that included the Site, or the dairy industry in Aurora more generally. Page 73 of 112 35ISSUED/RE vISED: 10 MARCh 2025 5. The property has histori- cal value or associative value because it yields, or has the po- tential to yield, information that contributes to an understanding of a community or culture. N 10-12 Spruce Street does not offer new knowledge or informa- tion that contributes a greater understanding of particular aspects of the community’s history or culture. 6. The property has histori- cal value or associative value because it demonstrates or reflects the work or ideas of an architect, artist, builder, designer or theorist who is significant to a community. N Archival research did not reveal an architect or builder for 10-12 Spruce Street, and building records do not exist for the property. At this time, 10-12 Spruce Street is not known to directly demonstrate or reflect the work or ideas of an archi- tect, artist, builder, designer, or theorist who is significant to a community. 7. The property has contextual value because it is important in defining, maintaining or support- ing the character of an area. N 10-12 Spruce Street supports the mature streetscape of Spruce Street and the character of the surrounding area within the Northeast Old Aurora hCD. While it does, like the majority of the District’s buildings, exhibit elements identified in the HCD Plan’s Statement of heritage value, including its low-scale, single-detached character with a consistent setback, it can no longer be read as a building in an historical architectural style prevalent between 1865 and 1930, as articulated in the hCD Plan. 8. The property has contex- tual value because it is physically, functionally, visually or historically linked to its surroundings. N Like all properties, 10-12 Spruce Street is physically, visually and historically linked to its surroundings; however, it does not exhibit a relationship to its broader context that is important to understand the meaning of the property and/or its context. 9. The property has contextual value because it is a landmark. N While 10-12 Spruce Street is prominently sited by virtue of being located on a larger lot at the corner of two streets where it is visible from the public realm, it is not more visually promi- nent than other buildings in the vicinity. As such, 10-12 Spruce Street is not considered to be a landmark. In conclusion, the above evaluation for 10-12 Spruce Street under O.Reg. 9/06 indicates that the property does not meet two or more criteria to warrant designation under Part Iv, Section 29 of the OhA. Page 74 of 112 36 HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT | 10-12 SPRUCE STREET 5 condition a S SESSmEnt DEFINITION OF TERMS The building components were graded using the following assessment system: Excellent: Superior aging performance. Functioning as intended; no deterioration observed. Good: Normal Result. Functioning as in- tended; normal deterioration observed; no maintenance anticipated within the next five years. Fair: Functioning as intended. Normal deterioration and minor distress observed; maintenance will be required within the next three to five years to maintain func- tionality. Poor: Not functioning as intended; sig- nificant deterioration and distress ob- served; maintenance and some repair required within the next year to restore functionality. Defective: Not functioning as intended; significant deterioration and major dis- tress observed, possible damage to sup- port structure; may present a risk; must be dealt with immediately. ERA performed a visual inspection of 10-12 Spruce Street in January 2025. Architectural features including but not limited to the visible exterior masonry (a single chimney), vinyl siding and trim details, vinyl windows and doors, roof details, and the flashings and rainwater management systems (gutters and downspouts) were reviewed on each elevation. The interior spaces were not included in the review and the condition assessment did not include the structural, mechanical, electrical, or plumbing systems or elements for the building. Scaffolding or mechanical lift access was not available for a close-up inspection of the areas above the first storey. Overall, the main elevations appeared to be in fair condition with some areas in poor condition. • The vinyl siding on each elevation appeared to be in fair condition in most areas with some open joints and separa- tion of the siding from the substrate behind it. Soiling and/ or organic growth on the vinyl surfaces was present in most areas. • The windows and doors appear to be modern vinyl inserts which appeared to largely be functioning as intended. The typical lifespan of vinyl windows is approximately 20–40 years; it’s unknown when the modern windows were installed. They generally appeared to be in fair condition with usual signs of wear. • Metal awnings have been installed over the windows and doors in most locations. They appeared to be in fair condi- tion, functioning as intended with some soiling and minimal rusting. The black metal window shutters adjacent to the windows appeared to be in similar condition. • The painted wood details on the rear porch appeared to be in fair to poor condition, with peeling paint and some wood rot present, along with some open joints between the vari- ous wood components. • The modern, light grey brick chimney appeared to be in fair condition with minimal open mortar joints and some spall- ing of the unit bricks at the top of the chimney. Page 75 of 112 37ISSUED/RE vISED: 10 MARCh 2025 • The asphalt shingles on the roof were largely obscured by snow, but where visible they appeared to be in fair condition and they have not yet reached the end of their serviceable lifespan. The metal soffits, facias and flashings appeared to be in good condition. • Roof vents are present and appeared to be functioning on both sides of the gable roof. • The gutters and downspouts appeared to be intact and functioning as intended, without any obvious areas of discon- nection or damage. vinyl siding at the north (side) elevation in fair condition, with some soiling and organic growth visible (ERA, 2025). Vinyl siding and metal soffits, fascia, and flashing in fair condition (ERA, 2025). Page 76 of 112 38 HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT | 10-12 SPRUCE STREET Modern vinyl window inserts, contemporary door, and metal awnings in fair condition (ERA, 2025). Modern vinyl windows and metal awnings and shutters at the north (side) elevation in fair condition. Modern brick chimney in fair condition with minor deterioration towards the top (ERA, 2025). Close-up photo of the unusual downspout configuration at the principal (east) elevation (ERA, 2025). Painted wood on the rear porch in fair to poor condition (ERA, 2025). Page 77 of 112 39ISSUED/RE vISED: 10 MARCh 2025 6 dEScriPtion oF ProPoSEd dE vELoPmEnt The proposed development anticipates the construction of a two-storey, semi-detached residential building with a shared driveway off of Spruce Street. The proposed building complements the immediate physical context and streetscape, with a similar height, width, orientation, and setback. The varied massing and articulation of each semi-detached unit reflects the varied scale of the District. The existing structures on the Site are proposed to be demolished.SPRUCE STREETC E N T R E S T R E E TN1°78'W48'-11 1/2" [14.92m]N83°55'E 105.00' [32.00m]N2°55'W4.00' [1.22m]N83°50'E 65.01' [19.82m] N83°50'E 37.89' [11.55m] EXIST. 2 STY. DWELLING (TO BE REMOVED) EX. DETACHED GARAGE EX. ASPHALT DRIVEWAY EX. ASPHALT DRIVEWAY (TBR)EX. CONC. SIDEWALKEX. CONC. SIDEWALKEX. WALKWAY (TBR) PROPOSED GARAGE (3.12mx6.10m) PROPOSED GARAGE (3.12mx6.10m)4'-11" [1.50]19'-8 1/2" [6.00] 24'-7 1/2" [7.50]4'-11" [1.50]19'-9" [6.02]PROPOSED DRIVEWAY PROPOSED SEMI-DETACHED No. 10 REQ. INT.SIDE YARDSETBACKREQ. REAR YARD SETBACK REQ. FRONT YARD SETBACK LOT 1 COVERAGE 113.78m² PROPOSED SEMI-DETACHED No. 12 PROPOSED DRIVEWAYN1°78'W35'-0 1/2" [10.68m]N2°56'W37'- 5" [11.41m]N2°56'W42'-7" [12.98m]8'-10 1/2" [2.70]17'-4 1/2" [5.30]MIN. PARKING SPACE LOT 2 COVERAGE 113.78m²48'-11 1/2" [14.92]42'-7" [12.98]24'-0" [7.31]23'-4" [7.11]23'-4" [7.11]REQ. EXT. SIDEYARD SETBACK24'-9" [7.54] 52'-6" [16.00] 27'-8" [8.43]35'-0 1/2" [10.68]37'-5" [11.41]Site Plan Site PlanScale: 1/16" = 1'-0"DATEISSUE DESCRIPTIONDRAWN BY:DATE & TIME PLOTTED:Mar. 6, 2025 2:2 PMSP.1CLIENT:PROJECT:SHEET TITLE:Mr. Blair BostonAs Shown2024-15DV10 & 12 Spruce Street, AuroraSCALE:PROJECT NO:SHEET NO:2024-09-251ISSUED TO CLIENT FOR REVIEW/COMMENTS2025-03-062ISSUED FOR HERITAGE APPLICATION PROCESSSP.1 1 Town of Aurora Zoning By-law #6000-17 Residential Zones Permitted Uses Dwelling, Semi-Detached or Duplex X Residential Minimum Zone Requirements Dwelling Unit Lot Area Lot Frontage Front Yard Rear Yard Interior Side Yard Exterior Side Yard Lot Coverage (maximum) Height (maximum) Interior Garage Length Interior Garage Width R7 Special Mixed Density Residential Semi-Detached & Duplex 650 m2 20 m 6 m 7.5 m 1.5 m 6 m 35 % 10 m N/A N/A SECTION 5 PARKING & STACKING REQUIREMENTS 5.2 PARKING SPACE DIMENSION REQUIREMENTS One single and tandem Parking Space shall have a dimension of 2.7 metres by 5.3 metres. 5.4 PARKING STANDARDS The following Parking Standards shall apply to the total Gross Floor Area (GFA) related to the use, unless otherwise specified in this By-law. Type of Use Minimum Parking Standards Dwelling unit- detached, semi-detached 2.0 spaces per dwelling unit REQ'D. LOT 1 LOT 2 445.72 m2348.02 m2 13.73 m 10.66 m 6 m 6 m 7.5 m 6 m 7.5 m 1.5 mN/A N/A 25.79 % 32.69 % 10 m 10 m 6.10 m 3.12 m 3.12 m 6.10 m ZONING - R7 Special Mixed Density Residential Proposed site plan with the footprint of the existing dwelling and detached garage on the Site dashed in blue, with new construction shaded in orange (ICR Associates Inc., 2025; annotated by ERA). Page 78 of 112 40 HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT | 10-12 SPRUCE STREET 6.1 Design Approach 10 and 12 Spruce St., Aurora, Option-2 The proposed development incorporates a number of design considerations that respond to the varied character along Spruce and Centre Streets, as well as the historic residential character of the District more broadly. The design of the new building references the Edwardian Classical style through its materiality, proportions, and detailing. A full conformity analysis of the proposal against the applicable hCD Plan’s policies and guidelines is provided in Appendix B. Rendering of the proposed principal (east) elevation, with a portion of the south elevation visible (ICR Associates Inc.; an- notated by ERA). 6 metre front yard setback, consistent with the neighbour- ing buildings on the west side of Spruce Street. Two-storey height (10m), consistent with the building heights in the District. Front porch at the main en- trance to each dwelling, con- tributing to a more active and varied streetscape. A C D B E Use of an appropriate material palette including red brick and wood garage doors, consistent with materiality found in the District. varied massing and articula- tion of each semi-detached unit to reflect the varied scale of the District. varied articulation, window and side door openings along the south elevation facing Cen- tre Street, providing animation along this more commercially active frontage. F A B C D E F Page 79 of 112 41ISSUED/RE vISED: 10 MARCh 2025 7 HEritaGE PoLicy rE viEW Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990 Section 2. d) of the Planning Act clarifies provincial jurisdiction over the conservation of features of significant architectural, cultural, historical, archaeological or scientific interest. Provincial Planning Statement, 2024 The PPS guides the creation and implementation of planning policy across Ontario municipalities, and provides a framework for the conservation of heritage resources, including the following relevant policies: 4.6.1 Protected heritage property*, which may contain built heritage resources* or cultural heritage landscapes, shall be conserved*. 4.6.3 Planning authorities shall not permit development and site alteration on adjacent* lands to protected heritage property unless the heritage attributes of the protected heritage prop- erty will be conserved. York Region Official Plan, 2022 The York Region Official Plan sets the direction for growth and development across the nine municipalities that comprise York Region. The plan identifies Cultural Heritage as part of the foundation for complete communities and provides policies that “are designed to promote and celebrate cultural heritage activities and conserve cultural heritage resources”. The Cultural heritage policies contained in Section 2.4 outline the need to conserve cultural heritage, including built heritage resources and cultural heritage landscapes, and require municipalities to adopt policies to advance this objective. Town of Aurora Official Plan, 2024 Aurora’s long-term vision includes the conservation and enhancement of cultural heritage resources and recognizes the important role cultural heritage plays in fostering community identity and local sense of place. Section 13 of the Official Plan directs the conservation of cultural heritage resources, with objectives that aim towards (a) conservation, enhancement; (b) preservation, restoration, rehabilitation; and (c) Protected Heritage Property: means property designated under Part IV or VI of the Ontario Heritage Act; property in- cluded in an area designated as a herit- age conservation district under Part V of the Ontario Heritage Act; property subject to a heritage conservation easement or covenant under Part II or IV of the Ontario Heritage Act; property identified by a pro - vincial ministry or a prescribed public body as a property having cultural herit- age value or interest under the Standards and Guidelines for the Conservation of Provincial Heritage Properties; property protected under federal heritage legisla- tion; and UNESCO World Heritage Sites (PPS, 2024). Conserved: means the identification, pro- tection, 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 conser- vation 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 should be included in these plans and assessments. (PPS, 2024). Page 80 of 112 42 HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT | 10-12 SPRUCE STREET promotion of, and public involvement in, managing cultural heritage resources. 13.1 Objectives a) Conserve and enhance recognized cultural heritage resources of the Town for the enjoyment of existing and future genera- tions; b) Preserve, restore and rehabilitate structures, buildings or sites deemed to have significant historic, archaeological, architec- tural or cultural significance and, preserve cultural heritage landscapes; including significant public views; and, c) Promote public awareness of Aurora’s cultural heritage and involve the public in heritage resource decisions affecting the municipality. 13.3 Policies for Built Cultural Heritage Resources i) Heritage resources will be protected and conserved in accord- ance with the Standards and Guidelines for the Conservation of Historic Places in Canada, the Appleton Charter for the Pro- tection and Enhancement of the Built Environment and other recognized heritage protocols and standards. Protection, main- tenance and stabilization of existing cultural heritage attributes and features over removal or replacement will be adopted as the core principles for all conservation projects. j) Alteration, removal or demolition of heritage attributes on designated heritage properties will be avoided. Any proposal involving such works will require a heritage permit application to be submitted for the approval of the Town. Town of Aurora Northeast Old Aurora Heritage Conservation District Plan, 2006 4.4.3 Demolition of Non-Heritage Buildings Generally, where non heritage buildings are supportive of the character of the heritage conservation district, the replacement building should also support the district character. 4.5 New Residential Buildings New residential buildings will have respect for and be compatible with the heritage character of the District. Designs for new residential buildings Page 81 of 112 43ISSUED/RE vISED: 10 MARCh 2025 will be based on the patterns and proportions of 19th-century and early 20th-century building stock that are currently existing or once existed in the District. Architectural elements, features, and decorations should be in sympathy with those found on heritage buildings. 4.5.1 Design Approach • The design of new buildings will be products of their own time, but should reflect one of the historic architectural styles tradi- tionally found in the District. • New residential buildings will complement the immediate physi- cal context and streetscape by: being generally the same height, width, and orientation of adjacent buildings; having similar setbacks; being of like materials and colours; and using similarly proportioned windows, doors, and roof shapes. • New residential building construction will respect natural land- forms, drainage, and existing mature vegetation. • Larger new residential buildings will have varied massing, to reflect the small and varied scale of the historical built environ- ment. • The height of new residential buildings should not be less than lowest heritage building on the same block or higher than the highest heritage building on the same block. Historically appro- priate heights for new residential buildings are considered to be 1-½ to 2-½ storeys, subject to an actual height limit of 9 metres to the mid-slope of the roof. • New residential building construction in the District will conform with the guidelines found in Section 9.5.2. Page 82 of 112 44 HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT | 10-12 SPRUCE STREET 8 anaLySiS oF imPact & mitiGation This section evaluates the impacts of the proposed development on the Site and the hCD as a whole, with reference to the applicable criteria in the Ontario heritage Toolkit (refer to sidebar). On-Site Cultural heritage Resources The Site is designated under Part v of the OhA as it is located within the hCD. The assessment in Section 4 of this report concluded that the Site no longer significantly contibutes to the District and does not carry sufficient cultural heritage value to meet the O.Reg. 9/06 criteria for designation under Part Iv, Section 29 of the OhA. The removal of the existing building on the Site will not present a negative impact. Northeast Old Aurora hCD This section evaluates the impacts of the proposed development on the hCD. A full conformity analysis of the proposal against the hCD Plan’s policies and guidelines is provided in Appendix B. The proposed development will remove the building (and existing garage) on the Site, replacing them with a semi-detached residential building. The residential use of the Site will be maintained. While the removal of the existing building constitutes a change to the immediate street context, the proposed new building is sympathetic to and compatible with the District. The Site is located at the south end of the hCD which is characterized by a varied streetscape, particularly along Centre and Wellington Streets. The proposed development fits in with this evolving area of the hCD. 8.1 Impact Assessment 15 Spruce Street (ERA, 2025). 52 Centre Street (ERA, 2025). 20 Spruce Street (ERA, 2025). Negative impact on a cultural heritage resource include, but are not limited to: Destruction of any, or part of any, sig- nificant heritage attributes or features; Alteration that is not sympathetic, or is incompatible, with the historic fabric and appearance; Shadows created that alter the appear- ance of a heritage attribute or change the viability of a natural feature or plantings, such as a garden; Isolation of a heritage attribute from its surrounding environment, context or a significant relationship; Direct or indirect obstruction of signifi- cant views or vistas within, from, or of built and natural features; A change in land use such as rezoning a battlefield from open space to residential use, allowing new development or site al- teration to fill in the formerly open spaces; Land disturbances such as a change in grade that alters soils, and drainage patterns that adversely affect an archaeo- logical resource. (Ontario Heritage Toolkit). Page 83 of 112 45ISSUED/RE vISED: 10 MARCh 2025 The replacement of the existing building on the Site with a semi- detached residence will have minimal impact on the character of the District. The proposed new building is in keeping with the historically low-scale and residential streetscape in the hCD. While the proposed building is taller than the adjacent properties at 28 Spruce Street and 16 Centre Street, these structures are examples of small, one-storey infill buildings in an area where one-and-a-half to two-and-a-half-storey buildings are more common. Other properties located in proximity, but not considered adjacent to the Site as per the PPS definition of adjacency, contain buildings that are closer in height and massing to the proposed building, including 15 Spruce Street, 52 Centre Street, and 20 Spruce Street. The proposed development will not have a negative impact on the District due to changes in land use or disturbance. The proposed development will not involve the removal or alteration of heritage resources in the District, nor will it contribute to their isolation from significant relationships. Additionally, the proposed development does not obstruct any prominent buildings or views associated with the heritage resources in the hCD. 8.2 Impact Mitigation Measures As outlined in Section 6.1 of this report, the proposed development provides an urban design approach that ensures the proposal appropriately responds to its context and does not negatively impact the hCD. For this reason, further mitigation measures are not warranted. Page 84 of 112 46 HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT | 10-12 SPRUCE STREET 9 concLuSion This HIA finds that the impacts of the proposed development on the overall character of the District have been appropriately mitigated. The proposed new construction conserves the cultural heritage value of the hCD while introducing a new residential building. In our professional opinion, the proposed development complies with all relevant municipal and provincial heritage policies, and meets the recognized professional standards and best practices in the field of heritage conservation in Canada. Page 85 of 112 47ISSUED/RE vISED: 10 MARCh 2025 10 rEFErEncES Aurora Museum and Archives. (n.d.). Fire Insurance Plans. Town of Aurora. Barkey, J. (1993). Whitchurch Township. The Whitchurch history Book Committee. https://digitalcollections.ucalgary.ca/archive/ Whitchurch-Township-2R3BF1F3K8K8K.html Government of Ontario. (2024, April 23). Map of Ontario treaties and reserves. https://www.ontario.ca/page/ map-ontario-treaties-and-reserves#treaties Johnston, J. (1972). Aurora: its early beginnings. Aurora and District historical Society. Library and Archives Canada. (n.d.). Collection Search. https:// www. bac-lac.gc.ca/eng/collectionsearch/Pages/collec- tionsearch. aspx McGill University. (n.d.). The Canadian County Atlas Digital Project. Digital Collections and Exhibitions. https://digital.library. mcgill. ca/countyatlas/default.htm 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. The Canadian County Atlas Digital Project. https://digital.library.mcgill.ca/countyatlas/ McIntyre, J. W. (1988). Aurora: A history in Pictures. The Boston Mills Press. Ontario Community Newspapers Portal. (n.d.). The Newmarket Era. https://news.ourontario.ca/ Ontario Land Registry. (n.d.). Abstract/Parcel Register Book. https:// www.onland.ca/ui/lro/books/search Reed, T.A. (1925). Yonge Street highway. Reed Collection. Toronto Public Library. (n.d.). Globe and Mail historical Newspa- per Archive. https://www.torontopubliclibrary.ca/detail. jsp?R=EDB0057 Tremaine, G. (1860). Tremaine’s map of the county of York. Ontario historical County Maps. https://utoronto.maps.arcgis.com/ apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=8cc6be34f6b54992b27 da17467492d2f Page 86 of 112 48 HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT | 10-12 SPRUCE STREET University of Toronto. (n.d.). Map and Data Library. https://mdl. library. utoronto.ca/ York Region. (n.d.). Archival Aerial Imagery. York Region Interactive Maps and Spatial Data. https://ww6.yorkmaps.ca/htm- l5Viewer24/ Index.html?configBase=https://ww6.york- maps.ca/Geocortex/ Essentials/Essentials43/REST/sites/ CommunityServices/ viewers/YorkMaps/virtualdirectory/ Resources/Config/Default Page 87 of 112 ͛ͪͪͨͣ͟͞Ͳ ͛ǿͨͩͬͮ͛ͭͮ͢͟ ͩͦ͞ ͛ͯͬͩͬ͛ͬͣͮ͛͢͟͟͡ ͩͨͭͬ͟͝Ͱ͛ͮͣͩͨͣͭͮͬͣͮͪͦ͛ͨ͞͝жͭͮ͛ͮͧͨͮͩ͟͟͠ ͬͣͮ͛͢͟͟͡Ͱ͛ͦͯ͛ͨͭͬͣͪͮͣͩͨͩͬͣͮ͛͟͟͢͟͟͞͞͝͠͡ ͛ͮͮͬͣͯͮͭ͜͟ Page 88 of 112 22 Northeast Old Aurora Heritage Conservation District Plan 2.1 ExaminationThe consultants undertook an examination of the Study Area, as part of the Northeast Old Aurora Heritage Conservation District Study, which has been published in a separate volume.The Study Area, shown in the map to the right, is very rich in heritage resources. Of the 173 properties, 117 are listed in the Town of Aurora Inventory of Heritage Buildings. This is an unusually high proportion for Heritage Districts. The inventoried properties include examples of architectural styles ranging from Victorian Gothic through the early 20thcentury Arts and Crafts style. Many of these properties are worthy of designation under Part IV. Note: Refer to the Inventory, published in a separate volume, for detailed descriptions of individual properties. Three properties are designated under part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act:x Horton Place, 15342 Yonge Street x Hillary House, 15372 Yonge Street x Morrison House, 74 Wellington Street East Hillary House is also designated federally, as a National Historic Site. The rear portion only of the property at 74 Wellington Street is included in the heritage district boundary. The Morrison House itself is not within this area and is therefore not included in the heritage conservation district. 2.0 Heritage Character and Heritage StatementsProperties shaded in grey are on the Town of Aurora Inventory of Heritage Buildings. In this Plan, they are all considered heritage properties. Page 89 of 112 Northeast Old Aurora Heritage Conservation District Plan 232.0 Heritage Character and Heritage Statements2.1.1 Determining the Boundary In determining the final boundary, the following factors were considered: Historic Factors Factors such as the boundary of an historic settlement or an early planned community, concentrations of early buildings and sites are considered when determining the district boundary. In Northeast Old Aurora, the boundary incorporated as much as feasible the boundary of the historic community of Aurora in its Northeast Quadrant. Part of Yonge Street, established in the 1790s and the lotting patterns established by Historical plans of subdivision from the 1850s through the 1920s in this quadrant are a key factor in defining the appearance of the neighbourhood and distinctiveness from adjoining areas. Visual Factors Visual factors, determined through an survey of the neighbourhood considering architectural factors, mature vegetation and topography were another factor used in defining the district boundary In considering architecture, while not every building in a heritage district must be of heritage significance, there should be a significant concentration of cultural heritage features which influences the neighbourhood character. In comparing Northeast Old Aurora to other studies they had completed, the consulting Team of Philip Carter, Architect and Paul Oberst, Architect noted that Northeast Old Aurora has the highest concentration of heritage resources they had encountered. Established in an era where new residential developments worked with the existing grades, rather than change it, the heritage district has a distinctive undulating topography that distinguishes it from other surrounding area. Physical Features Physical features are also used in district boundary delineation. These include aspects such as man-made features as transportation corridors (Railways and roadways), major open spaces, natural (rivers, treelines, marshland), existing boundaries (Walls, fences and embankments, gateways, entrances and vistas to and from a potential district.In considering landscape factors, Northeast Old Aurora contains a significant concentration of mature, and visually appealing tree cover, which also distinguishes it from the surrounding area. The extent of the 19th and early 20th Century grid-like road pattern which distinguishes the area from the post war sub-divisions is also a key distinguishing feature of the area. Legal or Planning Factors Legal or planning factors which include less visible elements such as property or lot-lines, land use designations in the Official Plan and boundaries of particular uses in the zoning by-law have also been considered in determining the district boundary. Community Input Public support is an important factor in final boundary delineation. It is always desirable to achieve a significant level of public understanding of the process and support for establishment of the heritage district. As a result of the extensive public consultation process, as noted in Section 1.3, public awareness and support for the district is strong. A factor in success of the district is a contiguous and perceivable boundary. Where the public have expressed concerns, efforts have been to address particular concerns through increasing the flexibility provided in the plan. For the most part this has been a success. In the area of North Spruce Street, residents have expressed a desire from the outset not to be part of the district and have generally not been active participants in the study process. 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. Removal of these properties could disrupt the integrity of the district, it is therefore recommended that these properties be included in the district. Page 90 of 112 24 Northeast Old Aurora Heritage Conservation District Plan 2.1.2 Buildings of Historical InterestThe following properties are listed in the Aurora Inventory of Heritage Buildings and have been identified as part of this study as having historical interest. Buildings may be added or deleted from the list without amendment to the plan, based on a full research report and evaluation according to the Town of Aurora Heritage Building Evaluation System. An altered building that has been accurately restored for example may be added to the list. CATHERINE AVENUE #3, 7, 11, 15, 16, 19, 20, 23, 24, 27, 30, 31, 34, 55, 58, 59, 60, 61, 63, 64, 67, 70, 71, 72, 73, 76, 77, 80, 81, 82, 93 CENTRE STREET #22, 26, 54, 58, 64, 68, 69, 70, 71, 74, 75, 77, 78, 82, 90, 92, 96,98, 108, 112 FLEURY STREET #44, 48, 49, 52, 53, 56, 57, 60, 61, 64,65 MAPLE STREET #12, 16, 24, 28, 32, 36, 40, 44, 63 MARK STREET # 11, 15, 19, 20, 23, 24, 27 SPRUCE STREET #10, 16, 19, 20, 37, 40, 41, 48, 49, 52, 53, 56, 57, 60, 61, 65, 68, 69 WELLINGTON STREET (Note: Buildings on Wellington Street are located on through lots extending to Centre Street and are included to provide a continuation of the Centre Street Streetscape. The buildings located on Wellington Street may be of heritage significance but are Not included in the district plan. YONGE STREET Buildings of Significance: # 15297, 15342, 15356, 15372, 15375, 15381, 15387, 15393, 15403, 15407, 15411, 15417, 15243, 15435, 15441Note: Buildings on Yonge Street are subject to the Guidelines outlined in Section 9.5.3 of this document In accordance with Section 2.6.3 of the Provincial Policy Statement (2005), Development and site alteration on lands located adjacent to the District should conserve the heritage attributes of the district as outlined in the District Plan. Mitigative measures or alternative development approaches may be required to conserve the heritage attributes of the district that may be affected by the proposed development or site alteration. 2.0 Heritage Character and Heritage StatementsPage 91 of 112 Northeast Old Aurora Heritage Conservation District Plan 252.1.3 ConclusionThe consultants’ examination concluded that a Heritage Conservation District, under the authority of Part V of the Ontario Heritage Act, is warranted. The District Boundary is shown on the map below. 2.0 Heritage Character and Heritage StatementsHERITAGE CONSERVATION DISTRICT BOUNDARYPage 92 of 112 26 Northeast Old Aurora Heritage Conservation District Plan 2.0 Heritage Character and Heritage Statements2.2 Heritage Character The heritage character of the proposed Northeast Old Aurora Heritage Conservation District reflects the built and natural heritage of the growth of Aurora in response to the coming of the railway in 1853, and the development of local industry that followed. The residential subdivisions north of Wellington Street closely followed the success of the Fleury Implement Works, and the subsequent population growth and the achievement of village status in 1863. The topographical character of the District reflects the geological history of the Oak Ridges Moraine formation, little altered by development that was constructed in the pre-bulldozer age. The topography is a heritage asset that lends considerable charm to the streetscapes in the neighbourhood. The development of Northeast Old Aurora was a lengthy process, running from the 1860s through the 1930s. A few infill projects have been built since, but the vast majority of buildings are those originally constructed on the lots. The chronology of development is spelled out in the architectural styles which reflect the prevailing tastes over those eight decades. As a result, Northeast Old Aurora has an unusually rich variety of architectural styles within a compact area of about 20 hectares. The stylistic contrast is particularly evident on Spruce Street, south of Maple, where 26 years separates the development of the west side (1865) and the east (1891). A brief history of Northeast Old Aurora is included as an appendix to this Plan. 2.3 Statement of Heritage Value The Northeast Old Aurora Heritage Conservation District is a distinct community in the Town of Aurora, characterized by a wealth of heritage buildings, historic sites, and landscapes. The District is representative of the development and growth of an Ontario residential district from the mid-19th through the mid-20thcenturies, in an industrializing village and town. Northeast Old Aurora is the site of the first expansion of the Village of Aurora north of Wellington Street. It originated in response to the prosperity promised by the arrival of Canada’s first rail line, the Ontario Huron and Simcoe Railway. The neighbourhood developed over more than half a century, and it contains a wealth of heritage buildings spanning the period of 1860-1930, and including characteristics styles from Ontario Victorian Vernacular through Craftsman Bungalows. There is a particular wealth of late 19th century Edwardian and Queen Anne Revival houses, including a compact grouping constructed of decorative concrete block. Particular elements worthy of preservation are: xA wide range of historic architectural styles within a compact area. x A high percentage of heritage buildings that remain largely intact.xA pattern of buildings with compatible scale and site plan characteristics in the various areas of the District. x Deep rear yards, providing mid-block green space, and generous spacing of buildings in most streetscapes. x A village-like character created by historical road profiles, mature trees, and undisturbed topography.x The association of historic figures with many of the houses. x The historical lot pattern. Page 93 of 112 Northeast Old Aurora Heritage Conservation District Plan 272.0 Heritage Character and Heritage Statements2.5.2 Heritage Buildings x To retain and conserve the heritage buildings as identified by inclusion in the Aurora Inventory of Heritage Buildings.x To conserve heritage attributes and distinguishing qualities of heritage buildings, and to avoid the removal or alteration of any historic or distinctive architectural feature. x To encourage the correction of unsympathetic alterations to heritage buildings. x To facilitate the restoration of heritage buildings based on a thorough examination of archival and pictorial evidence, physical evidence, and an understanding of the history of the local community. 2.5.3 Non- Heritage Buildings x To retain non-heritage buildings that are sympathetic to the District character. x To encourage improvements to non-heritage buildings which will further enhance the District character.x To ensure that renovations to non-heritage buildings or replacement buildings are sympathetic to the character of the district and streetscape of which the building is part. 2.4 Statement of Heritage Attributes The heritage attributes of the Northeast Old Aurora Heritage Conservation District are embodied in its buildings and landscapes, which are shown and described in detail in Sections 4.1 through 4.4 of the Study, and in the built form, architectural detail, and historical associations, which are depicted and described in detail in the Aurora Inventory of Heritage Properties. These attributes are worthy of preservation.2.5 Statement of Objectives in Designating the District2.5.1 Overall Objective The overall objectives in designating the Northeast Old Aurora Heritage Conservation District are: x To ensure the retention and conservation of the District’s cultural heritage resources, heritage landscapes, and heritage character, x To conserve the District’s heritage value and heritage attributes, as depicted and described in the Study and Inventory, and x To guide change so that it harmonizes as far as possible with the District’s architectural, historical, and contextual character.Page 94 of 112 28 Northeast Old Aurora Heritage Conservation District Plan 2.0 Heritage Character and Heritage Statements2.5.6 Demolitionx To promote retention and reuse of heritage buildings and take exceptional measures to prevent their demolition.2.5.7 Community Supportx To foster community support, pride and appreciation of the heritage buildings, landscapes, and character of the District, and promote the need to conserve these resources for future generations. x To facilitate public participation and involvement in the conservation of heritage resources and further development of the District. x In recognition of the boarder community value of the preservation of historic neighbourhoods to consider the feasibility of implementation of assistance and incentive programs for individual heritage property owners to encourage the use of proper conservation approaches when undertaking improvement projects. 2.5.4 Landscape/StreetscapexTo facilitate the introduction of, as well as conservation of, historic landscape treatments in both the public and private realm. x To preserve trees and mature vegetation, and encourage the planting of species characteristic of the District. x To preserve the existing street pattern, village likecross-sections and refrain from widening existing pavement and road allowances. x To introduce landscape, streetscape, and infrastructure improvements that will enhance the heritage character of the District. 2.5.5 New Developmentx To ensure compatible infill construction that will enhance the District’s heritage character and complement the area’s village-like, human scale of development. x To guide the design of new development to be sympathetic and compatible with the heritage resources and character of the District while providing for contemporary needs. Page 95 of 112 ͛ͪͪͨͣ͟͞Ͳ͜ǿͩͨͩͬͧͣͮ͢͝͞͝͠ͳ͛ͨ͛ͦͳͭͣͭ Page 96 of 112 10-12 SPRUCE STREET – NORTHEAST OLD AURORA HCD CONFORMITY ANALYSIS 1 Appendix B Policy / Guideline Conforms? (Y/N) Analysis 4.0 District Policies – Buildings and Sites 1 4.2 Most of the [District] was developed as single-family dwellings, which share a basic historical pattern of scale, lot size, and placement of houses on their lots. New work in the residential part of the District shall preserve this historical pattern. (a) To preserve traditional spacing of buildings, new garages for new or existing houses shall be separate rear or flankage yard outbuildings and existing side yard driveways shall be preserved. (b) New garages for new or existing houses will have gable or hipped roofs, with a maximum height of 4.6 meters (15’-11”). (c) To preserve the backyard amenity in neighbouring buildings, new construction, whether new buildings or additions to existing buildings should be limited so that the basic depth of the houses will be limited to 16.8 meters, not including a fully open front porch. (d) To reduce the visual perception of mass or building or additions in the [District], it is recommended that where feasible and reasonable there be an inset at minimum of 1 foot and that the roof be set down a minimum of 1 foot beyond a depth of 12 meters (39’-3”). N Due to siting constraints, detached garages are not provided. An attached garage is provided for each of the two semi-detached units. The garages are recessed from the main elevation and a sympathetic wood material is provided. The required rear yard setback (7.5m) is provided. 2 4.4.3 Generally, where non-heritage buildings are supportive of the character of the [HCD], the replacement building shall also support the [District] character. Y The proposed building has been sensitively designed to respond to the character of the HCD, including the varied character of the south end of the HCD, which consists of a mix of historic buildings, one- to two-storey mid-20th century dwellings, and low- scale contemporary infill. Page 97 of 112 10-12 SPRUCE STREET – NORTHEAST OLD AURORA HCD CONFORMITY ANALYSIS 2 Appendix B Policy / Guideline Conforms? (Y/N) Analysis 4.5 New Residential Buildings 3 New Residential Buildings 4.5.1 Design Approach (a) The design of new buildings will be products of their own time, but should reflect one of the historic architectural styles traditionally found in the District. (b) New residential buildings will complement the immediate physical context and streetscape by: being generally the same height, width, and orientation of adjacent buildings; having similar setbacks; being of like materials and colours; and using similarly proportioned windows, doors, and roof shapes. (c) New residential building construction will respect natural landforms, drainage, and existing mature vegetation. (d) Larger new residential buildings will have varied massing, to reflect the small and varied scale of the historical built environment. (e) The height of new residential buildings should not be less than the lowest heritage building on the same block or higher than the highest heritage building on the same block. Historically appropriate heights for new residential buildings are considered to be 1 ½ to 2 ½ storeys, subject to an actual height limit of 9 meters to the mid-slope of the roof. (f) New residential building construction in the District will conform with the guidelines found in Section 9.5.2. Y The design of the new building references the Edwardian Classical style through its materiality, proportions, and detailing. The proposed building complements the immediate physical context and streetscape, with a similar height, width, orientation, and setback. The varied massing and articulation of each semi-detached unit reflects the varied scale of the District. The proposed new construction, including the semi-detached form, two-storey height, setbacks and coverage complies with existing Zoning standards. The proposal has been intentionally designed to conserve the cultural heritage value of the District. 9.0 Guidelines for Buildings and Surroundings 4 9.1.1.1 Street Specific Guidelines – Centre Street (Yonge to Spruce) (a) New development should be respectful of the scale, massing, and rear-yard amenity area of adjoining properties. Y See response to #3. Page 98 of 112 10-12 SPRUCE STREET – NORTHEAST OLD AURORA HCD CONFORMITY ANALYSIS 3 Appendix B Policy / Guideline Conforms? (Y/N) Analysis (b) New construction should facilitate the establishment of a high-quality streetscape in keeping with the architectural character of the district. 9.1.2 Overall Site and Scale Conditions 5 9.1.2 Key elements of scale, massing and site which predominate in the HCD and should be maintained are as follows: (a) Predominant single-detached dwelling form; (b) Side yard driveways and rear or side yard garages which result in generous side yard spacing between buildings; (c) Generous rear-yard amenity space; (d) Front yard porches and verandahs; (e) A compatible range of building heights and styles; and, (f) Consistent alignment of buildings in the streetscape. Y The proposed building features a front-yard porch and rear-yard amenity space, and is compatible in height, style, and alignment with surrounding buildings. The proposed design includes attached garages with recessed garage doors at the principal (east) elevation with a front yard driveway. A substantial side yard amenity space is preserved along the Centre Street frontage. The proposed new construction, including the semi-detached form, two-storey height, setbacks and coverage complies with existing Zoning standards. 6 9.1.2.1 Traditional Spacing and Driveway Placement Guidelines: (a) To preserve traditional spacing of buildings, new garages for new or existing houses shall be separate rear or flankage outbuildings. (b) Existing side driveways shall be maintained. N See response to #1. Page 99 of 112 10-12 SPRUCE STREET – NORTHEAST OLD AURORA HCD CONFORMITY ANALYSIS 4 Appendix B Policy / Guideline Conforms? (Y/N) Analysis 7 9.1.2.2 Rear Yard Spacing and Amenity Area Guidelines: (a) To preserve the backyard amenity in neighbouring buildings, new construction, whether new buildings or additions to existing buildings should be limited so that the basic depth of houses will be limited to 16.8 metres, not including a fully open front porch. (b) To reduce the visual perception of mass of buildings and additions in the [District], it is recommended that where feasible and reasonable, applicants use best efforts to include an inset at minimum of 0.3 meters (1 foot) from the side yard and that the roof be set down a minimum of 0.3 meters (1 foot) beyond the depth of 12 meters (39’3”). Y The proposed built form including building height, setbacks and coverage complies with existing Zoning standards. The required rear yard setback (7.5m) is provided. 8 9.1.2.3 Building Height Guidelines: (a) The height of existing heritage buildings and additions should be maintained. (b) New buildings or modified non-heritage buildings should be designed to preserve the scale and pattern of the historic District. (c) New houses should be no higher than the highest building on the same block, and no lower than the lowest building on the same block. (d) The finished first floor height of any new house should be consistent with the finished first floor height of adjacent buildings. Y The proposed two-storey height preserves the scale and pattern of the District. The proposed building aligns with the taller buildings on the same block (15 Spruce Street; 52 Centre Street) and the proposed 10m height complies with existing Zoning standards. 9 9.1.2.4 Building Placement Guidelines: (a) New construction should respect the overall setback pattern of the streetscape on which it is situated. Y The proposed building respects the overall setback pattern and prevailing pattern of the streetscape in the District. Page 100 of 112 10-12 SPRUCE STREET – NORTHEAST OLD AURORA HCD CONFORMITY ANALYSIS 5 Appendix B Policy / Guideline Conforms? (Y/N) Analysis (b) New construction should be located at an angle which is parallel with the prevailing pattern of the street. 10 9.1.2.6 Scale and Massing for Garages In order to maintain the character and quality of the generous rear yards, new rear-yard garages and outbuildings should have gable or hipped roofs, with a maximum height of 4.6 meters. New garages should consider the character of traditional carriage house designs. Guidelines: (a) New [garages] for new or existing houses will have gable or hipped roofs, with a maximum height of 4.6 meters. N See response to #1. 9.1.3 Architectural Styles 11 9.1.3 Architectural Styles Guidelines: (a) New developments should be designed in a style that is consistent with the vernacular heritage of the community. (b) All construction should be of a particular style, rather than a hybrid one. Many recent developments have tended to use hybrid designs, with inauthentic details and proportions; for larger hoes, the French manor or chateau style (not indigenous to Ontario) has been heavily borrowed from. These kinds of designs are not appropriate for the District. Y The design of the new building references the Edwardian Classical style through its materiality, proportions, and detailing. 9.5 New Development Page 101 of 112 10-12 SPRUCE STREET – NORTHEAST OLD AURORA HCD CONFORMITY ANALYSIS 6 Appendix B Policy / Guideline Conforms? (Y/N) Analysis 12 9.5.1 New development within the District should conform to qualities established by neighbouring heritage buildings, and the overall character of the setting. Designs should reflect a suitable local heritage precedent style. Research should be conducted so that the chosen style is executed properly, with suitable proportions, decoration, and detail. Guidelines: (a) New buildings should reflect a suitable local heritage style. Use of a style should be consistent in materials, scale, detail, and ornament. Y See response to #11. 9.5.2 New Development – Residential Area 13 9.5.2.1 Site Planning Guidelines: (a) Site new houses to provide setbacks and frontages that are consistent with the variety of the village pattern. (b) In siting garages and new houses, follow the policies in Section 4. (c) Site new houses to preserve existing mature trees. Y See response to #9. Landscape requirements will be confirmed at the site plan stage. 14 9.5.2.2 Architectural Styles Guidelines: (a) Design houses to reflect one of the local heritage Architectural Styles. See Section 9.2. (b) Respect the history of the development of the District by using a style suitable to the immediate neighbours. The Fleury Street subdivision uses Edwardian Arts and Crafts styles, for example. West Catherine Avenue and the west side of south Spruce Street are predominantly Victorian. (c) Hybrid designs that mix elements from different historical styles are not appropriate. Historical styles that are not indigenous to the area, such as Tudor or French Manor, are not appropriate. (d) Use authentic detail, consistent with the Architectural Style. See Section 9.2.1. Y See response to #11. While the west side of south Spruce Street is largely Victorian in character, the proposed design references the Edwardian Classical style, which is common in the District. It is compatible with the varied architectural character of the southern end of the District, including the contemporary buildings at 15 Spruce Street and 52 Centre Street. Page 102 of 112 10-12 SPRUCE STREET – NORTHEAST OLD AURORA HCD CONFORMITY ANALYSIS 7 Appendix B Policy / Guideline Conforms? (Y/N) Analysis (e) Research the chosen Architectural Style. (f) Use appropriate materials. 15 9.5.2.3 Scale and Massing Guidelines: (a) New buildings should be designed to preserve the scale and pattern of the historic District. (b) New houses should be no higher than the highest building on the same block, and no lower than the lowest building on the same block. (c) Follow the policies in Section 4.2 of this Plan concerning height and depth of buildings and garages. Y See response to #8. Page 103 of 112 !"# $ %&'()* %+,-.('/'!- 0&+1/"Note - Soffits and Fascia are not to be white. They will be a compatible neutral colour, however that was the default colour in the architect renderAttachment 3Page 104 of 112 SPRUCESTREETCENTRE STREETN1°78'W48'-11 1/2" [14.92m]N83°55'E105.00' [32.00m]N2°55'W4.00' [1.22m]N83°50'E65.01' [19.82m]N83°50'E37.89' [11.55m]EX. CONC. SIDEWALKEX. CONC. SIDEWALKPROPOSED GARAGE(3.12mx6.10m)PROPOSED GARAGE(3.12mx6.10m)4'-11" [1.50]19'-8 1/2" [6.00]24'-7 1/2" [7.50]4'-11" [1.50]19'-9" [6.02]PROPOSEDDRIVEWAYPROPOSEDSEMI-DETACHEDNo. 10REQ. INT.SIDE YARDSETBACKREQ. REAR YARD SETBACKREQ. FRONT YARD SETBACKLOT 1COVERAGE113.78m²PROPOSEDSEMI-DETACHEDNo. 12PROPOSEDDRIVEWAYN1°78'W35'-0 1/2" [10.68m]N2°56'W37'- 5" [11.41m]N2°56'W42'-7" [12.98m]8'-10 1/2" [2.70]17'-4 1/2" [5.30]MIN.PARKINGSPACELOT 2COVERAGE113.78m²48'-11 1/2" [14.92]42'-7" [12.98]24'-0" [7.31]23'-4" [7.11]23'-4" [7.11]REQ. EXT. SIDEYARD SETBACK24'-9" [7.54]52'-6" [16.00]27'-8" [8.43]35'-0 1/2" [10.68]37'-5" [11.41]Site PlanSite PlanScale: 1/16" = 1'-0"DATEISSUE DESCRIPTIONDRAWN BY:DATE & TIME PLOTTED:Mar. 6, 2025 2:2 PMSP.1CLIENT:PROJECT:SHEET TITLE:Mr. Blair BostonAs Shown2024-15DV10 & 12 Spruce Street, AuroraSCALE:PROJECT NO:SHEET NO:2024-09-251ISSUED TO CLIENT FOR REVIEW/COMMENTS2025-03-062ISSUED FOR HERITAGE APPLICATION PROCESSSP.11Town of AuroraZoning By-law #6000-17Residential ZonesPermitted UsesDwelling,Semi-Detachedor DuplexXResidentialMinimum ZoneRequirementsDwelling UnitLot AreaLot FrontageFront YardRear YardInterior Side YardExterior Side YardLot Coverage(maximum)Height(maximum)Interior GarageLengthInterior GarageWidthR7Special MixedDensity ResidentialSemi-Detached& Duplex650 m220 m6 m7.5 m1.5 m6 m35 %10 mN/AN/ASECTION 5PARKING & STACKING REQUIREMENTS5.2 PARKING SPACE DIMENSION REQUIREMENTSOne single and tandem Parking Space shall havea dimension of 2.7 metres by 5.3 metres.5.4 PARKING STANDARDSThe following Parking Standards shall apply to thetotal Gross Floor Area (GFA) related to the use,unless otherwise specified in this By-law.Type of Use Minimum Parking StandardsDwelling unit-detached,semi-detached2.0 spaces perdwelling unitREQ'D. LOT 1 LOT 2445.72 m2348.02 m213.73 m 10.66 m6 m 6 m7.5 m6 m7.5 m1.5 mN/AN/A25.79 % 32.69 %10 m 10 m6.10 m3.12 m 3.12 m6.10 mZONING - R7Special MixedDensity ResidentialAttachment 4Page 105 of 112 10-12 Spruce Street | Town of Aurora Heritage Advisory Committee10-12 SPRUCE STREETHeritage Advisory CommitteeApril 14, 2025Applicant PresentationPage 106 of 112 10-12 Spruce Street | Town of Aurora Heritage Advisory CommitteeThe Site10-12SPRUCE STREETSPRUCE STREETCENTRE STREETCENTRE STREETYONGE STREETYONGE STREETWELLINGTON STREETWELLINGTON STREETCATHERINE STREETCATHERINE STREETPage 107 of 112 10-12 Spruce Street | Town of Aurora Heritage Advisory CommitteeThe Site•Constructed c.1880 and changing ownership several times before 1910, when it was purchased by Robert Hoiles for his daughter Merab and son-in-law, Wilmot Watson, a dairyman• For several decades in the 20th century, the surrounding lands including 10-12 Spruce supported a dairy business, with several of its operators residing at the property•2)12/)%"/&1$"3)2"0&$+&Ɯ +1)6!&*&+&0%"!through removal of evidence of former dairy and substantial alterations over time, reducing the building’s legibility as a late 19th-century dwellingPage 108 of 112 10-12 Spruce Street | Town of Aurora Heritage Advisory Committee*Northeast Old Aurora HCDSiteNortheast Old Aurora Heritage Conservation DistrictC.N.R/GO LINEC.N.R/GO LINE*SPRUCE STREETSPRUCE STREETCENTRE STREETCENTRE STREETYONGE STREETYONGE STREETWELLINGTON STREETWELLINGTON STREETCATHERINE STREETCATHERINE STREETMAPLE STREETMAPLE STREETPage 109 of 112 10-12 Spruce Street | Town of Aurora Heritage Advisory CommitteeProposed DevelopmentN1°78'W48'-11 1/2" [14.92m]N83°55'E105.00' [32.00m]N2°55'W4.00' [1.22m]N83°50'E65.01' [19.82m]N83°50'E37.89' [11.55m]EXIST. 2 STY.DWELLING(TO BE REMOVED)EX. DETACHEDGARAGEEX. ASPHALTDRIVEWAYEX. ASPHALTDRIVEWAY (TBR)EX. CONC. SIDEWALKEX. WALKWAY(TBR)PROPOSED GARAGE(3.12mx6.10m)PROPOSED GARAGE(3.12mx6.10m)4'-11" [1.50]19'-8 1/2" [6.00]24'-7 1/2" [7.50]4'-11" [1.50]19'-9" [6.02]PROPOSEDDRIVEWAYPROPOSEDSEMI-DETACHEDNo. 10REQ. INT.SIDE YARDSETBACKREQ. REAR YARD SETBACKREQ. FRONT YARD SETBACKLOT 1COVERAGE113.78m²PROPOSEDSEMI-DETACHEDNo. 12PROPOSEDDRIVEWAYN1°78'W35'-0 1/2" [10.68m]N2°56'W37'- 5" [11.41m]N2°56'W42'-7" [12.98m]1/2" [5.30]N.INGCELOT 2COVERAGE113.78m²42'-7" [12.98]24'-0" [7.31]23'-4" [7.11]23'-4" [7.11]REQ. EXT. SIDEYARD SETBACK24'-9" [7.54]52'-6" [16.00]27'-8" [8.43]/ [ 0.68]37'-5" [11.41]PROPOSED GARAGE(3.12mx6.10m)PROPOSED GARAGE(3.12mx6.10m)PROPOSEDSEMI-DETACHEDNo. 10LOT 1COVERAGE113.78m²PROPOSEDSEMI-DETACHEDNo. 12LOT 2COVERAGE113.78m²23'-4" [7.11]23'-4" [7.11] !"# $ %&'()* .('/'!- 0&+1/"2$CENTRE STREETCENTRE STREETSPRUCE STREETSPRUCE STREETFootprint of proposed buildingFootprint of buildings currently located on sitePerspective rendering - Southeast viewPage 110 of 112 10-12 Spruce Street | Town of Aurora Heritage Advisory Committee•&1" +, ),+$"/ 0&$+&Ɯ +1)6 ,+1/&21"0 1,character of HCD; removal of the existing buildings will not present negative impact• Low-scale residential use of site will be maintained• Site located at southwestern boundary of HCD, characterized by a varied streetscape; proposed new building ,*-1&)"4&1%"3,)3&+$ ,+1"51ImpactView southeast from Spruce Street towards Centre StreetView east from Centre Street towards the sitePage 111 of 112 10-12 Spruce Street | Town of Aurora Heritage Advisory CommitteeMitigation6-metre front yard setback, con-sistent with neighbouring buildings2-storey height (10m), consistent with heights in HCDFront porch contributing to active and varied streetscapeAppropriate material paletteVaried massing and articulation of each semi-detached unitVaried articulation along side (south) elevationAPerspective rendering - Southeast viewBCEDFABCDEF• Through the following design measures the proposed building appropriately responds to its context and does not negatively impact the HCDPage 112 of 112