The URL can be used to link to this page

Agenda (Appointed) - Heritage Advisory Committee - 20250609Town of Aurora Heritage Advisory Committee Meeting Revised Agenda Date:Monday, June 9, 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 Note: Added items are marked with an asterisk (*). 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 April 14, 2025 1 That the Heritage Advisory Committee meeting minutes of April 14, 2025, be received for information. 1. 6.Delegations *6.1 Christopher Watts, The Aurora Heritage Authority; Re: Ontario Heritage Week 5 7.Matters for Consideration 7.1 Memorandum from Manager, Policy Planning and Heritage; Re: Request to Remove a Listed Property from the Town’s Heritage Register - 8 Kennedy Street East 19 (Presentation to be provided by owner's consultant Ben Daub, Intermediate Heritage Planner, LHC Heritage Planning & Archaeology Inc.) That the memorandum regarding Request to Remove a Listed Property from the Town’s Heritage Register - 8 Kennedy Street East be received; and 1. That the Heritage Advisory Committee comments regarding Request to Remove a Listed Property from the Town’s Heritage Register - 8 Kennedy Street East be received and referred to staff for consideration and further action as appropriate. 2. 8.Informational Items 8.1 Verbal Update from Heritage Co-op Student; Re: Heritage Research Project That the Verbal Update from Heritage Co-op Student; Re: Heritage Research Project be received for information. 1. 9.New Business 10.Adjournment Town of Aurora Heritage Advisory Committee Meeting Minutes Date: Time: Location: Monday, April 14, 2025 7 p.m. Holland Room, Aurora Town Hall Committee Members: Councillor Wendy Gaertner (Chair) Cynthia Bettio Linda Duringer John Green, Aurora Historical Society Representative Bob McRoberts, Honourary Member Rocco Morsillo Chris Polsinelli Other Attendees: Councillor Ron Weese* Adam Robb, Manager, Policy Planning and Heritage Ishita Soneji, Deputy Town Clerk *Attended electronically _____________________________________________________________________ 1. Call to Order The Chair called the meeting to order at 7 p.m. 2. Land Acknowledgement The Committee acknowledged that the meeting took place on Anishinaabe lands, the traditional and treaty territory of the Chippewas of Georgina Island, recognizing the many other Nations whose presence here continues to this day, the special relationship the Chippewas have with the lands and waters of this territory, and that Aurora has shared responsibility for the stewardship of these lands and waters. It was noted that Aurora is part of the treaty lands of the Mississaugas and Chippewas, recognized through Treaty #13 and the Williams Treaties of 1923. Page 1 of 141 Heritage Advisory Committee Meeting Minutes April 14, 2025 2 3. Approval of the Agenda Moved by Cynthia Bettio Seconded by Linda Duringer 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 February 3, 2025 Moved by John Green Seconded by Cynthia Bettio 1. That the Heritage Advisory Committee meeting minutes of February 3, 2025, be received for information. Carried 6. Delegations 6.1 Christopher Watts, The Aurora Heritage Authority; Re: Wooden Plaque Program The Committee consented to allow additional time for the delegate's presentation. Christopher Watts presented information on the Town's Wooden Plaque Program and offered suggestions for improvements to the Program. Moved by Cynthia Bettio Seconded by Linda Duringer That the comments of the delegation be received for information. Carried Page 2 of 141 Heritage Advisory Committee Meeting Minutes April 14, 2025 3 7. Matters for Consideration 7.1 Memorandum from Manager, Policy Planning and Heritage; Re: Heritage Permit Application HPA-2025-03 – 10-12 Spruce Street Staff provided an overview of the memorandum noting that the Heritage Impact Assessment determined the property is not of significant cultural heritage value and the design of the proposed new building is consistent within the neighbouring context. Emma Cohlmeyer, Associate, ERA Architects Inc., on behalf of the applicant, presented an overview of the property background, Assessment findings, and proposed development. The Committee expressed concern regarding the Assessment evaluation of the property respecting its historical or associative value and significance to the community, and suggested the property may meet the required criteria to not warrant demolition. Further areas of concern included the front yard setback; design of the proposed semi-detached dwelling and attached recessed garages; design not in keeping with the character of the area; building size; brick colour; loss of historical home; and potential loss of affordable housing. The Committee suggested to consider detached rear yard garages and access off Centre Street for one of the units. The Committee supported the option that, in the event of demolition, the owner be required to install an interpretive plaque to commemorate the dairy business history of the property. Moved by Rocco Morsillo Seconded by Chris Polsinelli 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. Carried 8. Informational Items None. Page 3 of 141 Heritage Advisory Committee Meeting Minutes April 14, 2025 4 9. New Business The Committee provided an update on the student co-op pilot project now in progress. Staff provided an update on discussions with Ontario Heritage Trust (OHT) regarding the possible replacement of the Aurora Armoury provincial plaque and advised that OHT deemed there was not sufficient grounds for replacement. Staff provided an update on the Petch House renovations noting the expected completion timeline of June/July 2025. The Committee suggested participating in the Town's booth at the annual Aurora Chamber of Commerce Street Festival on June 1, 2025, in order to share information on the Town's Heritage programs and initiatives. 10. Adjournment Moved by Cynthia Bettio Seconded by Linda Duringer That the meeting be adjourned at 7:55 p.m. Carried Page 4 of 141 Town of Aurora Logo 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 *  2025-6-9 Subject * Ontario Heritage Week 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 * Receive feedback from committee to explore opportunities for participating in Ontario Heritage Week for 2026 and future years. 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 Clr. Gaertner Date you spoke with Town staff or a Council member 2025-5-1 I acknowledge that the Procedure By-law permits five (5) minutes for Delegations. * Agree 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 5 of 141 ###!#%"!'## $ 6) 3134Page 6 of 141 !#%"!'## '" !#!#"!%##!$ "$"# Page 7 of 141 2654)# #!%!#"###!&!$!'" #!!#*#Page 8 of 141 " #Page 9 of 141 $!!"!#!#!''!"(%Page 10 of 141 Page 11 of 141 !$!' !%" #5#"#!#&! *"!!"$###%!"#"##%*%###$!#$#''#"%!'#!#)#""$##$###!##"#"$! ! ###%"#'"#!*)% Page 12 of 141 !##"#!$#$!!%" %#""$# # !#&#!#"#'!#&!"#!%!&*! !##' #!"#!##!" &#$#'!"!(#"**% Page 13 of 141 $#)"!#!" ,/4+/21-$"#"!$ !##"##%+% Page 14 of 141 ,% Page 15 of 141 -% Page 16 of 141 !$ Page 17 of 141 )')- # Page 18 of 141 100 John West Way Aurora, Ontario L4G 6J1 (905) 727-3123 aurora.ca Town of Aurora Memorandum Planning and Development Services Re: Request to Remove a Listed Property from the Town’s Heritage Register – 8 Kennedy Street East To: Heritage Advisory Committee From: Adam Robb, MPL, MCIP, RPP, CAHP, PLE Manager, Policy Planning and Heritage Date: June 9, 2025 Recommendation 1. That the memorandum regarding Request to Remove a Listed Property from the Town’s Heritage Register – 8 Kennedy Street East be received; and 2. That the Heritage Advisory Committee comments regarding Request to Remove a Listed Property from the Town’s Heritage Register – 8 Kennedy Street East be received and referred to staff for consideration and further action as appropriate. Background 8 Kennedy Street East is currently a listed but non-designated property, which is set to automatically be removed from the Town’s Heritage Register on January 1, 2027. The subject property is located on the north side of Kennedy Street East, east of Yonge Street. The property contains a 1.5 storey single detached dwelling that is a vernacular structure without clear influence of a specific architectural style. The central gable feature is consistent with the Gothic Revival style, however this is believed to be a later, non-original addition to the house. Provincial Bill 23 and Bill 200 amended the Ontario Heritage Act to implement a new approach aimed at preventing listed properties from indefinitely remaining on heritage registers. All currently listed properties throughout the Province are required to be automatically removed from municipal heritage registers on January 1, 2027, unless they are designated in advance of that date. Page 19 of 141 Request to Remove a Listed Property – 8 Kennedy Street East June 9, 2025 Page 2 of 3 In 2022, the Town conducted a comprehensive Heritage Register Review, with priority properties having already been pursued for designation. As part of this review, 8 Kennedy Street E was not identified as a priority property recommended for designation, but was elected to remain listed. The owner is seeking to remove the subject property in advance of the January 1, 2027, provincial deadline to facilitate the development of four townhouse units on the lands. Analysis The Owner retained a heritage consultant and prepared a Cultural Heritage Evaluation Report which determined the property did not meet any of the required criteria of Ontario Regulation 9/06 to warrant becoming designated. Ontario Regulation 9/06 outlines the criteria for a property to warrant becoming designated. If a property meets two or more of the criteria, it can be considered for designation. The criteria are as follows: 1. The property has design value or physical value because it is a rare, unique, representative or early example of a style, type, expression, material or construction method. 2. The property has design value or physical value because it displays a high degree of craftsmanship or artistic merit. 3. The property has design value or physical value because it demonstrates a high degree of technical or scientific achievement. 4. The property has historical value or associative value because it has direct associations with a theme, event, belief, person, activity, organization or institution that is significant to a community. 5. The property has historical value or associative value because it yields, or has the potential to yield, information that contributes to an understanding of a community or culture. 6. The property has historical value or associative value because it demonstrates or reflects the work or ideas of an architect, artist, builder, designer or theorist who is significant to a community. 7. The property has contextual value because it is important in defining, maintaining or supporting the character of an area. 8. The property has contextual value because it is physically, functionally, visually or historically linked to its surroundings. Page 20 of 141 Request to Remove a Listed Property – 8 Kennedy Street East June 9, 2025 Page 3 of 3 9. The property has contextual value because it is a landmark. The submitted Cultural Heritage Evaluation Report was prepared by LHC Heritage Consulting and determined that none of the required criteria under Ontario Regulation 9/06 were met. It is possible that parts of the house were constructed in the early to mid 19th century, however multiple unsympathetic alterations since that time have obscured much of the original historical fabric. The consultant has also indicated that no heritage items/features were considered appropriate for salvage or re-use. A complete evaluation against Ontario Regulation 9/06 is provided under section 6 of the attached Cultural Heritage Evaluation Report, which provides justification for the proposed removal (delisting) due to the necessary criteria not being met. Comments from the Committee will be included in a future report to Council for an ultimate decision on the removal request. Concurrent to this delisting request, the owner has also applied for a Zoning By-law Amendment application to rezone the subject lands to facilitate a proposed townhouse development. Council may consider the delisting request and Zoning By-law Amendment concurrently through a future report to Committee of the Whole and Council. Attachments 1. Attachment #1 – Location Map 2. Attachment #2 – Cultural Heritage Evaluation Report – 8 Kennedy Street East 3. Attachment #3 – Proposed Townhouse Development Rendering and Site Plan Page 21 of 141 Yonge StreetKennedy Street EastGurnett StreetKennedy Street WestReuben StreetGurnett StreetYonge StreetKennedy Street EastConnaught Avenue15074311011911318161503216108150481212115054150402081171506415010143815150001498072013914988161219150041113721150184439371591119136150174753143321351035614034107515144150371021444331147120144291505514993481301484550104474114113811847139409912411611741150291421223510648364011614987137101418435213311812615005149811225017135105LOCATION MAPMap created by the Town of Aurora Planning and Building Services Department, 2025-05-20. Base data provided by York Region & the Town of Aurora. Air Photos taken Spring 2024, © First Base Solutions Inc., 2024 Orthophotography.kSt John's SdrdWellington St EVandorf SdrdHendersonDriveWellington St W6740467404Leslie StYonge StBathurst StBayview AveBloomington Rd8 KENNEDY STREET EASTSUBJECT LANDSDocument Path: J:\data\data\Planning Maps\Notice Map - 8 Kennedy Street East\V2\Location Map 8_Kennedy_St_E.aprx01020MetresAttachment 1Page 22 of 141 CULTURAL HERITAGE EVALUATION REPORT 8 Kennedy Street East, Town of Aurora, ON FINAL REPORT Date: 1 May 2025 Project #: LHC0516 LHC Heritage Planning & Archaeology Inc. 400-837 Princess Street Kingston, Ontario K7L 1G8 Phone: (613)507-7817 Toll Free: 1-833-210-7817 Email: info@lhcheritage.com Web: www.lhcheritage.com Attachment 2 Page 23 of 141 Project # LHC516 May 2025 ii This page has been left blank deliberately Page 24 of 141 Project # LHC516 May 2025 iii Report prepared for: Vito Froio Stellar Homes Inc. 125 Don Hillock Drive, Unit 88 Aurora, ON L4G 0H8 Report prepared by: Ben Daub, MA RPP MCIP CAHP-Intern Graphics prepared by: Jordan Greene, BA Reviewed by: Benjamin Holthof, MPl MMA RPP MCIP CAHP Christienne Uchiyama, MA CAHP Page 25 of 141 Project # LHC516 May 2025 iv RIGHT OF USE The information, recommendations, and opinions expressed in this report are for the sole benefit of the Owner. Any other use of this report by others without permission is prohibited and is without responsibility to LHC. The report, all plans, data, drawings, and other documents as well as all electronic media prepared by LHC are considered its professional work product and shall remain the copyright property of LHC, who authorizes only the Owner and approved users (including municipal review and approval bodies) to make copies of the report, but only in such quantities as are reasonably necessary for the use of the report by those parties. REPORT LIMITATIONS The qualifications of the heritage consultants who authored this report are provided in Appendix A. This report reflects the professional opinion of the authors and the requirements of their membership in various professional and licensing bodies. All comments regarding the condition of any buildings on the Property are based on a superficial visual inspection and are not structural engineering assessments unless directly quoted from an engineering report. The findings of this report do not address any structural or physical condition related issues associated with any buildings on the Property or the condition of any heritage attributes. Concerning historical research, the purpose of this report is to evaluate the Property for cultural heritage value or interest. The authors are fully aware that there may be additional historical information that has not been included. Nevertheless, the information collected, reviewed, and analyzed is sufficient to assess the Property for cultural heritage value or interest using Ontario Regulation 9/06 under the Ontario Heritage Act. The review of policy and legislation was limited to information directly related to cultural heritage management and is not a comprehensive planning review. Additionally, soundscapes, cultural identity, and sense of place analyses were not integrated into this report. Page 26 of 141 Project # LHC516 May 2025 v EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Executive Summary only provides key points from the report. The reader should examine the complete report including background, results, as well as limitations. LHC Heritage Planning & Archaeology Inc. (LHC) was retained on 17 March 2025 by Stellar Homes Inc. (the ‘Owner’) to prepare a Cultural Heritage Evaluation Report (CHER) for the property at 8 Kennedy Street East (the ‘Property’) in the Town of Aurora (the ‘Town ’), Ontario. This CHER evaluates the Property for Cultural Heritage Value or Interest (CHVI) using Ontario Regulation 9/06 (O. Reg. 9/06) under the Ontario Heritage Act (OHA). It has been prepared as part of the process to remove the Property from the Town’s Register of Properties of Cultural Heritage Value or Interest. In LHC’s professional opinion, the Property at 8 Kennedy Street East does not meet any of the criteria defined in O. Reg. 9/06 and is therefore not eligible for individual designation under Section 29 Part IV of the OHA. Page 27 of 141 Project # LHC516 May 2025 vi TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 Introduction............................................................................................................................ 1 1.1 Location of the Property ................................................................................................ 1 1.2 Description of the Property............................................................................................ 1 1.3 Heritage Recognition...................................................................................................... 1 2 Study Approach ...................................................................................................................... 4 2.1 Legislation and Policy Context Review .......................................................................... 4 2.2 Historical Research ......................................................................................................... 4 2.3 Site Visit .......................................................................................................................... 5 2.4 Heritage Integrity Assessment ....................................................................................... 5 2.5 Understanding of Cultural Heritage Value or Interest ................................................... 7 2.6 Statement of Cultural Heritage Value or Interest .......................................................... 8 3 Legislative and Policy Context ............................................................................................... 9 3.1 Provincial Context .......................................................................................................... 9 3.1.1 Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13 ............................................................................... 9 3.1.2 Provincial Planning Statement ................................................................................ 10 3.1.3 Ontario Heritage Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. O.18 ............................................................... 11 3.2 Local Context ................................................................................................................ 12 3.2.1 York Region Official Plan (2022, Consolidated June 2024) ..................................... 12 3.2.2 Town of Aurora Official Plan (January 2024) ........................................................... 12 4 Historic Context .................................................................................................................... 14 4.1 Pre -Contact Historic Context ....................................................................................... 14 4.2 Toronto Purchase (Treaty 13) ....................................................................................... 15 4.3 Survey and European Settlement of King Township and Whitchurch Township ...... 16 4.4 Town of Aurora History................................................................................................. 18 4.5 Property History ........................................................................................................... 19 4.5.1 Lot 1 Concession 79 .................................................................................................. 20 4.5.2 Lot 162 Registered Plan 246 ..................................................................................... 23 5 Assessment of Existing Conditions ...................................................................................... 29 Page 28 of 141 Project # LHC516 May 2025 vii 5.1 Surrounding Context .................................................................................................... 29 5.2 Adjacent and Nearby Heritage Properties ................................................................... 37 5.3 The Property ................................................................................................................. 44 5.4 House Exterior .............................................................................................................. 49 5.5 House Interior ............................................................................................................... 57 5.5.1 Main House, First Storey .......................................................................................... 57 5.5.2 Main House, Upper Half Storey ................................................................................ 59 5.5.3 Main House, Basement ............................................................................................ 63 5.5.4 Rear Wing Addition ................................................................................................... 66 5.6 Architectural, Morphological, and Integrity Assessment ............................................ 68 5.6.1 Architectural Assessment ........................................................................................ 68 5.6.2 Morphological Assessment ...................................................................................... 68 5.6.3 Integrity Assessment ................................................................................................ 69 6 Evaluation of Cultural Heritage Value or Interest ................................................................ 73 6.1 Summary of Evaluation ................................................................................................ 76 7 Conclusion ............................................................................................................................ 77 8 Signatures ............................................................................................................................. 78 9 References ............................................................................................................................ 79 APPENDIX A Qualifications ....................................................................................................... 84 APPENDIX B Glossary ............................................................................................................ 87 List of Tables Table 1. Relevant Policies from the Official Plan ......................................................................... 13 Table 2. Adjacent and Nearby Heritage Properties ..................................................................... 37 Table 3. Integrity Assessment of 8 Kennedy Street East ............................................................. 69 Table 4. Ontario Regulation 9/06 Evaluation for 8 Kennedy Street East .................................... 73 List of Photos Photo 1. View northwest showing Kennedy Street East in front of the Property ...................... 31 Photo 2. View southwest showing Kennedy Street East in front of the Property ...................... 32 Photo 3. View northeast showing the adjacent property at 15029 Yonge Street ....................... 32 Photo 4. View northeast showing the adjacent property at 15037 Yonge Street ....................... 33 Page 29 of 141 Project # LHC516 May 2025 viii Photo 5. View northwest showing the adjacent property at 116 Gurnett Street ....................... 33 Photo 6. View southwest showing the adjacent properties at 118, 120, and 122 Gurnett Street ...................................................................................................................................... 34 Photo 7. View southeast showing townhouses on Kennedy Street East ................................... 34 Photo 8. View east showing the nearby commercial property at 15017 Yonge Street .............. 35 Photo 9. View east showing residential properties on Connaught Avenue ............................... 35 Photo 10. View southeast showing residential properties on Gurnett Street ............................ 36 Photo 11. View southwest showing repurposed single detached houses that now served a commercial purpose on Yonge Street ......................................................................... 36 Photo 12. View northwest showing the southeast elevation of the house on the Property ..... 45 Photo 13. View northeast showing the southwest elevation of the house on the Property ..... 45 Photo 14. View southeast showing the northwest elevation of the house on the property and the southwest and northwest elevations of the rear wing addition .......................... 46 Photo 15. View southwest showing the northeast elevation of the house on the property and the northwest and northeast elevations of the rear wing addition ........................... 46 Photo 16. View northwest showing the asphalt driveway providing access to the Property ... 47 Photo 17. View southeast showing southwest side yard ............................................................ 47 Photo 18. View northwest showing the backyard ....................................................................... 48 Photo 19. View southeast showing the northeast side yard ....................................................... 48 Photo 20. View southwest showing brick and cedar shake cladding ......................................... 50 Photo 21. View northwest showing brick and asphalt shingle cladding.................................... 51 Photo 22. View southwest showing the vinyl siding on the rear wing addition ........................ 51 Photo 23. View northeast showing the roof on the main house ................................................ 52 Photo 24. View southeast showing a first storey window with concrete lug sill ........................ 52 Photo 25. View southwest showing a first storey window with rowlock slip sill ....................... 53 Photo 26. View northeast showing the boarded window on the southeast elevation .............. 53 Photo 27. View northwest showing the stained-glass window on the southeast elevation ..... 54 Photo 28. View southwest showing the boxed bay window on the northeast elevation .......... 54 Photo 29. View northwest showing windows on the enclosed porch ........................................ 55 Photo 30. View northeast showing the main entrance ............................................................... 55 Photo 31. View northeast showing the basement door .............................................................. 56 Photo 32. View southwest showing the entrance to the rear wing addition ............................. 56 Photo 33. View southwest showing the living room ................................................................... 57 Photo 34. View northeast showing the dining room ................................................................... 58 Photo 35. View northeast showing the kitchen ........................................................................... 58 Photo 36. View northwest showing the first storey bathroom ................................................... 59 Photo 37. View west showing the stairway leading to the upper half storey ............................. 60 Page 30 of 141 Project # LHC516 May 2025 ix Photo 38. View southeast showing the stairway leading to the upper half storey .................... 60 Photo 39. View east showing the southeast bedroom ................................................................ 61 Photo 40. View southwest showing the southwest bedroom .................................................... 61 Photo 41. View northwest showing the northwest bedroom ..................................................... 62 Photo 42. View northeast showing the upper half storey bathroom ......................................... 62 Photo 43. View southeast showing the basement stairway ....................................................... 63 Photo 44. View northwest showing the basement bathroom .................................................... 64 Photo 45. View southwest showing the rubblestone foundation wall ....................................... 64 Photo 46. View northeast showing structural timber and lumber ............................................. 65 Photo 47. View northwest showing timber and square lumber columns .................................. 65 Photo 48. View northwest showing square lumber and steel jack post..................................... 66 Photo 49. View southwest showing the living room/kitchen in the rear wing addition ............ 66 Photo 50. View northwest showing the bedroom in the rear wing addition ............................. 67 Photo 51. View northwest showing the bathroom in the rear wing addition ............................ 67 List of Figures Figure 1. Location of the Property ................................................................................................. 2 Figure 2. Current Conditions of the Property ................................................................................ 3 Figure 3. Undated Photograph of the Wells’ Farmhouse ............................................................ 23 Figure 4. 1802, 1860, and 1878 Historic Maps Showing the Property ........................................ 25 Figure 5. 1904 Rev. 1913 and 1960 Fire Insurance Plans Showing the Property ........................ 26 Figure 6. 1914, 1917, 1922, 1936 Topographic Maps Showing the Property .............................. 27 Figure 7. 1954, 1970, 1977, 1988, 1999, 2002, 2005, and 2024 Air Photos Showing the Property ........................................................................................................................................ 28 Page 31 of 141 Project # LHC516 May 2025 x This page has been left blank deliberately Page 32 of 141 Project # LHC516 May 2025 1 1 INTRODUCTION LHC Heritage Planning & Archaeology Inc. (LHC) was retained on 17 March 2025 by Stellar Homes Inc. (the ‘Owner’) to prepare a Cultural Heritage Evaluation Report (CHER) for the property at 8 Kennedy Street East (the ‘Property’) in the Town of Aurora (the ‘Town ’), Ontario. This CHER evaluates the Property for Cultural Heritage Value or Interest (CHVI) using Ontario Regulation 9/06 (O. Reg. 9/06) under the Ontario Heritage Act (OHA). It has been prepared as part of the process to remove the Property from the Town’s Register of Properties of Cultural Heritage Value or Interest. The Town does not have Terms of Reference for CHERs. Relevant guidance has been adopted from the Town’s Heritage Impact Assessments and Conservation Plans Guide (2017). This CHER also follows cultural heritage best practices drawing upon applicable frameworks, such as the Ministry of Citizenship and Multiculturalism’s (MCM) Ontario Heritage Tool Kit, Heritage Property Evaluation (2006). 1.1 LOCATION OF THE PROPERTY The Property is in the geographic Township of Whitchurch in the Town of Aurora. It is near an ‘Old Town’/‘Village Street’ section of the Aurora Promenade near the Town’s historic downtown. The Property is on the northwest side of Kennedy Street (Figure 1). The legal description of the Property is PT LT 162 PL 246 AURORA AS IN R481161 ; AURORA. 1.2 DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPERTY The Property is a rectangular lot of 1,219 square metres. It is occupied by a single detached, one-and-a-half storey rectangular house clad in red brick with a one storey front wing addition and a one storey rear wing addition (Figure 2). It is bound by Kennedy Street East to the southeast, commercial properties at 15029 Yonge Street and 15037 Yonge Street to the southwest, 116 Gurnett Street to the northwest, and residential properties at 118 Gurnett Avenue, 120 Gurnett Avenue, and 122 Gurnett Avenue to the northeast. 1.3 HERITAGE RECOGNITION The Property is Listed on the Town’s Register of Properties of Cultural Heritage Value or Interest under Section 27 Part IV of the OHA. Page 33 of 141 ƵůƚƵƌĂů,ĞƌŝƚĂŐĞǀĂůƵĂƟŽŶZĞƉŽƌƚ͕ ϴ<ĞŶŶĞĚǇ^ƚƌĞĞƚĂƐƚ͕dŽǁŶŽĨƵƌŽƌĂ͕KE WZK:d ϮϬϮϱͲϬϰͲϬϵzzzzͲDDͲ d/d> >ŽĐĂƟŽŶŽĨƚŚĞWƌŽƉĞƌƚǇ ϭ&/'hZη ^ƚĞůůĂƌ,ŽŵĞƐ/ŶĐ͘ >/Ed >,ϬϱϭϲWZK:dEK͘ Z&ZE;^Ϳϭ͘Ɛƌŝ͕E^͕E'͕h^'^͕&D͕Ɛƌŝ͕'/Z͕h^'^͕^ŽƵƌĐĞƐ͗Ɛƌŝ͕dŽŵdŽŵ͕'ĂƌŵŝŶ͕&K͕EK͕ h^'^͕ΞKƉĞŶ^ƚƌĞĞƚDĂƉĐŽŶƚƌŝďƵƚŽƌƐ͕ĂŶĚƚŚĞ'/^hƐĞƌŽŵŵƵŶŝƚǇ WŽƌƟŽŶƐŽĨƚŚŝƐĚŽĐƵŵĞŶƚŝŶĐůƵĚĞŝŶƚĞůůĞĐƚƵĂůƉƌŽƉĞƌƚǇŽĨƐƌŝĂŶĚŝƚƐůŝĐĞŶƐŽƌƐĂŶĚĂƌĞƵƐĞĚƵŶĚĞƌůŝĐĞŶƐĞ͘ ŽƉǇƌŝŐŚƚ;ĐͿƐƌŝĂŶĚŝƚƐůŝĐĞŶƐŽƌƐ͘ůůƌŝŐŚƚƐƌĞƐĞƌǀĞĚ͘ EKd;^Ϳϭ͘ůůůŽĐĂƟŽŶƐĂƌĞĂƉƉƌŽǆŝŵĂƚĞ͘ >ĞŐĞŶĚ 3URSHUW\ k .LORPHWHUV k.(<0$3 .LORPHWHUV 3URSHUW\ Page 34 of 141 ƵůƚƵƌĂů,ĞƌŝƚĂŐĞǀĂůƵĂƟŽŶZĞƉŽƌƚ͕ ϴ<ĞŶŶĞĚǇ^ƚƌĞĞƚĂƐƚ͕dŽǁŶŽĨƵƌŽƌĂ͕KE WZK:d ϮϬϮϱͲϬϰͲϬϵzzzzͲDDͲ d/d> ƵƌƌĞŶƚŽŶĚŝƟŽŶƐŽĨƚŚĞWƌŽƉĞƌƚǇ Ϯ&/'hZη ^ƚĞůůĂƌ,ŽŵĞƐ/ŶĐ͘ >/Ed >,ϬϱϭϲWZK:dEK͘ Z&ZE;^Ϳϭ͘DĂǆĂƌ͕DŝĐƌŽƐŽŌ WŽƌƟŽŶƐŽĨƚŚŝƐĚŽĐƵŵĞŶƚŝŶĐůƵĚĞŝŶƚĞůůĞĐƚƵĂůƉƌŽƉĞƌƚǇŽĨƐƌŝĂŶĚŝƚƐůŝĐĞŶƐŽƌƐĂŶĚĂƌĞƵƐĞĚƵŶĚĞƌůŝĐĞŶƐĞ͘ ŽƉǇƌŝŐŚƚ;ĐͿƐƌŝĂŶĚŝƚƐůŝĐĞŶƐŽƌƐ͘ůůƌŝŐŚƚƐƌĞƐĞƌǀĞĚ͘ EKd;^Ϳϭ͘ůůůŽĐĂƟŽŶƐĂƌĞĂƉƉƌŽǆŝŵĂƚĞ͘ >ĞŐĞŶĚ 3URSHUW\ &211$8* + 7 $ 9 ( 1 8 (<21*(675((7*851(77675((7.(11('< 6 7 5 ( ( 7 ( $ 6 7 k 0HWHUV Page 35 of 141 Project # LHC516 May 2025 4 2 STUDY APPROACH LHC follows a three-step approach to understanding and planning for cultural heritage resources based on the understanding, planning, and intervening guidance from the Canada’s Historic Places Standards and Guidelines for the Conservation of Historic Places in Canada and the Ontario Heritage Tool Kit.0F 1 Understanding the cultural heritage resource involves: • Understanding the significance of the cultural heritage resource (known and potential) through research, consultation, and evaluation–when necessary. • Understanding the setting, context, and condition of the cultural heritage resource through research, site visit, and analysis. • Understanding the heritage planning regulatory framework around the cultural heritage resource. This CHER is guided by the Ontario Heritage Tool Kit, Heritage Property Evaluation. The evaluation considers the Property against the Criteria for Determining Cultural Heritage Value or Interest from O. Reg. 9/06 under the OHA. Evaluation is based on research conducted into the history of the area and the Property along with a site visit to understand the design, construction, and current condition of the buildings on the Property. A glossary of terms used in this CHER is provided in Appendix B. 2.1 LEGISLATION AND POLICY CONTEXT REVIEW This CHER includes a review of provincial legislation, plans and cultural heritage guidance, and relevant municipal policy and plans. This review outlines the cultural heritage legislative and policy context that applies to the Property (Section 3). 2.2 HISTORICAL RESEARCH Historical research for this CHER included local history research. LHC consulted primary and secondary research sources including: • Local histories; • Historic maps; 1 Canada’s Historic Places, “Standards and Guidelines for the Conservation of Historic Places in Canada”, 2010, accessed 24 February 2025, https://www.historicplaces.ca/media/18072/81468-parks-s+g-eng-web2.pdf, 3; Ministry of Citizenship and Multiculturalism, “Heritage Property Evaluation, Ontario Heritage Tool Kit,” 2006, prepared by the Ministry of Culture, (Ottawa: Queen’s Printer for Ontario), 18. Page 36 of 141 Project # LHC516 May 2025 5 • Aerial photographs; and, • Online sources about local history. Online sources consulted included (but were not limited to): • The Archives of Ontario; • Library and Archives Canada; • The Ontario Council of University Libraries, Historical Topographic Map Digitization Project; • The Canadian County Atlas Digital Project; • Western University Archives and Research Collections Centre; • Ancestry; • FamilySearch; and, • The Internet Archive. 2.3 SITE VISIT A site visit was conducted on 10 April 2025 by Intermediate Heritage Planner, Ben Daub. The purpose of this site visit was to document the current conditions of the Property, adjacent properties, and their surrounding context. Unless otherwise attributed all photographs in this CHER were taken during the site visit. A selection of photographs from the site visit are included in Section 5. 2.4 HERITAGE INTEGRITY ASSESSMENT In a heritage conservation and evaluation context, the concept of integrity is associated with the ability of the physical features of a property to represent or support its cultural heritage value or interest or to covey its heritage significance.1F 2 It is understood as the ‘wholeness’ or ‘honesty’ of a place2F 3 or if the heritage attributes continue to represent or 2 MCM, “Heritage Property Evaluation: A Guide to Listing, Researching, and Evaluating Cultural Heritage Property in Ontario Communities,” 2006, prepared by the Ministry of Culture, (Ottawa: Queen’s Printer for Ontario), 26.; MCM, “Heritage Property Evaluation: A Guide to Listing, Researching, and Evaluating Cultural Heritage Property in Ontario Communities,” 2021 draft, prepared by the Ministry of Culture, (Ottawa: Queen’s Printer for Ontario), https://prod-environmental-registry.s3.amazonaws.com/2021-05/HPE_FINAL%20DRAFT-compressed.pdf, 30-31; National Park Service, “How to Evaluate the Integrity of a Property,” Chapter VIII in National Register Bulletin, How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation, U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Cultural Resources, 1997, 44. 3 English Heritage, “Conservation Principles: Policies and Guidance for the Sustainable Management of the Historic Environment,” 2008, https://historicengland.org.uk/images-books/publications/conservation- principles-sustainable-management-historic-environment/., 45. Page 37 of 141 Project # LHC516 May 2025 6 support the cultural heritage value or interest of the property.3F 4 It is described as a measure of the wholeness or intactness of the cultural heritage and its attributes.4F 5 Heritage integrity can be understood through how much of the resource is ‘whole’, ‘complete’, changed or unchanged from its original or ‘valued subsequent configuration’.5F 6 Changes or evolution to a place that have become part of its cultural heritage value become part of the heritage integrity; however, if the cultural heritage value of a place is linked to another structure or environment that is gone the heritage integrity is diminished.6F 7 Heritage integrity is not necessarily related to physical condition or structural stability. Understanding and assessing heritage integrity is an iterative process. Preliminary assessment of the wholeness, or completeness of the place will inform evaluation for cultural heritage value or interest while an understanding of a place’s cultural heritage value or interest will inform a more detailed assessment of heritage integrity. There are few tools describing a methodology to assess historic integrity. One of the tools comes from the U.S. National Park Service (NPS). The NPS states that “Heritage properties either retain integrity or they do not.”7F 8 They identify seven aspects of integrity, degrees, and combinations of which can be used to determine if a site has heritage integrity. The seven aspects include: Location; Design; Setting; Materials; Workmanship; Feeling; and Association.8F 9 Detailed understanding of heritage integrity is based on understanding the CHVI of the place. The draft Ontario Heritage Tool Kit describes a building with value for its association with a significant architect and if surviving features of the building no longer represent that architect’s design the integrity is lost.9F 10 Guidance from Alberta outlines a three step process for evaluating historic places that are; determining if the place is eligible for 4 MCM, “Heritage Property Evaluation: A Guide to Listing, Researching, and Evaluating Cultural Heritage Property in Ontario Communities,” 26; MCM, “Heritage Property Evaluation: A Guide to Listing, Researching, and Evaluating Cultural Heritage Property in Ontario Communities,” 30-31. 5 UNESCO, 2024, “Operational Guidelines for the Implementation of the World Heritage Convention,” 2024, section 88. Pdf, 31. 6 English Heritage, “Conservation Principles: Policies and Guidance for the Sustainable Management of the Historic Environment,” p. 45.; Kalman, H. and Marcus R. Létourneau, 2021. Heritage Planning: Principles and Process. 2nd Ed, Routledge, New York, 314. 7 MCM, “Heritage Property Evaluation: A Guide to Listing, Researching, and Evaluating Cultural Heritage Property in Ontario Communities,” 26; MCM, “Heritage Property Evaluation: A Guide to Listing, Researching, and Evaluating Cultural Heritage Property in Ontario Communities,” 30-31. 8 National Park Service, “How to Evaluate the Integrity of a Property,” 44. 9 National Park Service, “How to Evaluate the Integrity of a Property,” 44. 10 MCM, “Heritage Property Evaluation: A Guide to Listing, Researching, and Evaluating Cultural Heritage Property in Ontario Communities,” 31 Page 38 of 141 Project # LHC516 May 2025 7 designation, followed by evaluating its significance and then assessing its integrity.10F 11 These guidance documents demonstrate that assessing integrity is based on first understanding the historic significance of the place. Assessing heritage integrity includes review of the existing conditions for the feeling of intactness, completeness or wholeness of the known or potential historic place followed by evaluation or a detailed understanding of its CHVI then further assessment for heritage integrity. 2.5 UNDERSTANDING OF CULTURAL HERITAGE VALUE OR INTEREST This CHER evaluates the Property against the criteria described in O. Reg. 9/06 under the OHA. O. Reg. 9/06 has nine criteria. They are: 1. The property has design value or physical value because it is a rare, unique, representative or early example of a style, type, expression, material or construction method. 2. The property has design value or physical value because it displays a high degree of craftsmanship or artistic merit. 3. The property has design value or physical value because it demonstrates a high degree of technical or scientific achievement. 4. The property has historical value or associative value because it has direct associations with a theme, event, belief, person, activity, organization or institution that is significant to a community. 5. The property has historical value or associative value because it yields, or has the potential to yield, information that contributes to an understanding of a community or culture. 6. The property has historical value or associative value because it demonstrates or reflects the work or ideas of an architect, artist, builder, designer or theorist who is significant to a community. 7. The property has contextual value because it is important in defining, maintaining or supporting the character of an area. 8. The property has contextual value because it is physically, functionally, visually or historically linked to its surroundings. 11 Government of Alberta, “Evaluating Historic Places; Eligibility, Significance and Integrity,” 2010, Pdf, 4 and 9. Page 39 of 141 Project # LHC516 May 2025 8 9. The property has contextual value because it is a landmark.11F 12 2.6 STATEMENT OF CULTURAL HERITAGE VALUE OR INTEREST If the evaluation finds that the Property meets any of the criteria from O. Reg. 9/06 a Statement of Cultural Heritage Value or Interest (SCHVI) is prepared. The SCHVI follows guidance from the Ontario Heritage Tool Kit, Designating Heritage Properties and will include information required by the OHA and Ontario Regulation 385/21. 12 Province of Ontario, “Ontario Regulation 9/06: Criteria for Determining Cultural Heritage Value or Interest,” last modified 1 January 2023, accessed 24 February 2025, https://www.ontario.ca/laws/regulation/060009. Page 40 of 141 Project # LHC516 May 2025 9 3 LEGISLATIVE AND POLICY CONTEXT 3.1 PROVINCIAL CONTEXT In Ontario, cultural heritage is established as a matter of provincial interest directly through the provisions of the Planning Act, Provincial Planning Statement12F 13, and the OHA. Cultural heritage resources are managed under Provincial legislation, policy, regulations, and guidelines. Other provincial legislation applies to cultural heritage indirectly or in specific cases. The Environmental Assessment Act and Environmental Protection Act use a definition of “environment” that includes cultural heritage resources, and the Funeral, Burial and Cremation Services Act addresses historic cemeteries and processes for identifying graves that may be prehistoric or historic. The Greenbelt Act, Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Act, and Niagara Escarpment Planning and Development Act enact provincial plans that include intentions and policy to protect and/or conserve cultural heritage. These various acts and the policies and plans under these acts indicate broad support for the protection of cultural heritage by the Province. 3.1.1 PLANNING ACT, R.S.O. 1990, C. P.13 The Planning Act is the primary document for municipal and provincial land use planning in Ontario and was most recently revised on 31 March 2025. This Act sets the context for provincial interest in heritage. It states under Part I (2, d): The Minister, the council of a municipality, a local board, a planning board and the Municipal Board, in carrying out their responsibilities under this Act, shall have regard to, among other matters, matters of provincial interest such as…the conservation of features of significant architectural, cultural, historical, archaeological or scientific interest.13F 14 Details about provincial interest as it relates to land use planning and development in the province are outlined in the Provincial Planning Statement, which is used under the authority of Section 3. 13 The Provincial Planning Statement came into force on 20 October 2024 and replaced the Provincial Policy Statement and the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe. 14 Province of Ontario, “Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13,” last revised 31 March 2025, accessed 17 April 2025, https://www.ontario.ca/laws/statute/90p13, Part I (2, d). Page 41 of 141 Project # LHC516 May 2025 10 3.1.2 PROVINCIAL PLANNING STATEMENT The Provincial Planning Statement (PPS) provides further direction for municipalities regarding provincial requirements. The PPS addresses cultural heritage in Section 4.6.14F 15 Section 4.6 of the PPS articulates provincial policy regarding cultural heritage and archaeology. The subsections state: 4.6.1. Protected heritage property, which may contain built heritage resources or cultural heritage landscapes, shall be conserved. 4.6.2. Planning authorities shall not permit development and site alteration on lands containing archaeological resources or areas of archaeological potential unless the significant archaeological resources have been 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 property will be conserved. 4.6.4. Planning authorities are encouraged to develop and implement: a) archaeological management plans for conserving archaeological resources; and b) proactive strategies for conserving significant built heritage resources and cultural heritage landscapes. 4.6.5. Planning authorities shall engage early with Indigenous communities and ensure their interests are considered when identifying, protecting and managing archaeological resources, built heritage resources and cultural heritage landscapes.15F 16 Land use planning decisions made by municipalities, planning boards, the Province, or a commission or agency of the government must be consistent with the PPS. The PPS makes the consideration of cultural heritage equal to all other considerations in relation to planning and development within the province. A CHER may be required by a municipality in response to Section 4.6.1 and 4.6.3 of the PPS. The Property is Listed under Section 27 Part IV of the OHA and is therefore not considered a ‘Protected Heritage Property’ under the PPS. This CHER has been prepared to satisfy 15 Province of Ontario, “Provincial Planning Statement,” October 2024, accessed 17 April 2025, https://www.ontario.ca/files/2024-10/mmah-provincial-planning-statement-en-2024-10-23.pdf. 16 Province of Ontario, “Provincial Planning Statement,” 28. Page 42 of 141 Project # LHC516 May 2025 11 cultural heritage planning measures implemented by the Town . 3.1.3 ONTARIO HERITAGE ACT, R.S.O. 1990, C. O.18 The OHA (revised on 4 December 2024) enables the provincial government and municipalities with powers to conserve, protect, and preserve the heritage of Ontario. The OHA gives municipalities power to identify and conserve individual properties, districts, or landscapes of cultural heritage value or interest.16F 17 It also requires municipalities to keep a register of properties in the municipality that are of cultural heritage value or interest (Municipal Heritage Register). There are two types of heritage properties under the OHA, Designated properties and Listed properties. Conditions surrounding Liste d properties are relevant to this CHER. Properties can be Listed on a Municipal Heritage Register. Listing applies to real property. The original OHA – from 1975 to 2005 – only allowed Designated properties to be included on a Municipal Heritage Register. In 2005 the OHA was amended to allow Listed or non- designated properties to be added. This allowed any property that municipal council believed to have cultural heritage value or interest to be added as a Listed property. On 1 January 2023 amendments to the OHA required a Listed property to meet at least one of the criteria from O. Reg. 9/06 before the property can be included on the Municipal Heritage Register. These amendments also require a municipality to Designate the property under Section 29 or remove it from the Municipal Heritage Register within a period of two years of listing, or by 1 January 2025 for properties on the Register on 31 December 2022. In 2024 this was extended to 1 January 2027. Property owners are allowed to make changes to a Listed property—generally—without obtaining written consent from Municipal Council with one exception. Section 27(9) prohibits an owner of a Listed property from demolishing or removing a building or structure or permitting the removal or demolition of a building or structure from the property unless they give municipal council at least 60 days’ notice in writing of their intention to demolish or remove or permit the demolition or removal of a building or structure from the property. The municipality has until 1 January 2027 to decide whether to Designate currently Listed properties under Section 29 of the OHA or to remove them from the Municipal Heritage Register. Designation would require the municipality to demonstrate that the Property meets at least two criteria from O. Reg. 9/06. 17 Province of Ontario, “Ontario Heritage Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. O.18.,” last revised 4 December 2024, 17 March 2025, https://www.ontario.ca/laws/statute/90o18. Page 43 of 141 Project # LHC516 May 2025 12 3.2 LOCAL CONTEXT 3.2.1 YORK REGION OFFICIAL PLAN (2022, CONSOLIDATED JUNE 2024) The York Region Official Plan (YROP) was adopted by Regional Council in June 2022, approved by the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing in November 2022, and consolidated in June 2024. In general, the management of cultural heritage resources is the responsibility of local area municipalities. On 1 July 2024, the YROP became the responsibility of the local municipalities.17F 18 3.2.2 TOWN OF AURORA OFFICIAL PLAN (JANUARY 2024) The Town of Aurora Official Plan (OP) was adopted by Council in January 2024. Among the fundamental principles of the OP is to: Conserv[e] Cultural Heritage Resources - To promote the conservation and enhancement of Aurora’s cultural heritage resources. Cultural heritage resources, whether they are buildings, monuments, landscapes, archeological sites, or districts, tell the story of a community’s evolution and provide important visual reminders that can help to define a sense of place. This Plan seeks to ensure that Aurora’s cultural heritage resources are conserved and enhanced to the long term benefit of the community.18F 19 Policies pertaining to heritage planning are in Section 14 of the OP, which establishes the following objectives: 1. Conserve and enhance recognized cultural heritage resources of the Town for the enjoyment of existing and future generations; 2. Preserve, restore and rehabilitate structures, buildings or sites deemed to have significant historic, archaeological, architectural or cultural significance and, preserve cultural heritage landscapes; including significant public views; and, 3. Promote public awareness of Aurora’s cultural heritage and involve the public in heritage resource decisions affecting the municipality.19F 20 Relevant policies from Section 14 are in Table 1. 18 York Region, “York Region Official Plan,” last consolidated June 2024, accessed 16 April 2025, https://www.york.ca/york-region/regional-official-plan. 19 Town of Aurora, “Town of Aurora Official Plan,” las consolidated January 2024, accessed 16 April 2025, https://www.aurora.ca/en/your-government/resources/development-planning/Combined-OP_Jan-19-2024--- Clean_Version.pdf, 7. 20 Town of Aurora, “Town of Aurora Official Plan,” 159. Page 44 of 141 Project # LHC516 May 2025 13 Table 1. Relevant Policies from the Official Plan20F 21 Policy # Policy 14.3.f) The Town will give immediate consideration to the designation of any heritage resource under the Ontario Heritage Act if that resource is threatened with demolition, significant alterations or other potentially adverse impacts. 14.3.i) Heritage resources will be protected and conserved in accordance with the Standards and Guidelines for the Conservation of Historic Places in Canada, the Appleton Charter for the Protection and Enhancement of the Built Environment and other recognized heritage protocols and standards. 21 Town of Aurora, “Town of Aurora Official Plan,” 163-164. Page 45 of 141 Project # LHC516 May 2025 14 4 HISTORIC CONTEXT 4.1 PRE-CONTACT HISTORIC CONTEXT The pre-European contact (pre-contact) history of this area is long and diverse. Archaeologists generally divide the chronology of pre-European contact land use in Southern Ontario into three primary periods based on characteristics of settlement patterns and material culture: Paleo, Archaic, and Woodland. Southern Ontario became open to settlement following the final retreat of the Laurentide Ice Sheet, which had covered much of the Great Lakes area until approximately 12,000 B.P. The earliest human occupation of Southern Ontario dates to 11,000 B.P. During this archaeological period, known as the Paleo period (9500-8000 BCE), the climate was similar to the modern sub-arctic; and vegetation was dominated by spruce and pine forests. The initial occupants of the province, distinctive in the archaeological record for their stone tool assemblage, were nomadic big-game hunters (i.e., caribou, mastodon, and mammoth) living in small groups and travelling over vast areas of land, possibly migrating hundreds of kilometers in a single year.21F 22 During the Archaic archaeological period (8000-1000 BCE) the occupants of southern Ontario continued to be migratory in nature, although living in larger groups and transitioning towards a preference for smaller territories of land – possibly remaining within specific watersheds. The stone tool assemblage was refined during this period and grew to include polished or ground stone tool technologies.22F 23 The Woodland period in southern Ontario (1000 BCE–CE 1650) represents a marked change in subsistence patterns, burial customs and tool technologies, as well as the introduction of pottery making. The Woodland period is sub-divided into the Early Woodland (1000–400 BCE), Middle Woodland (400 BCE–CE 500) and Late Woodland (500- 1650 CE). During the Early and Middle Woodland, communities grew in size and were organized at a band level. Subsistence patterns continued to be focused on foraging and hunting. There is evidence for incipient horticulture in the Middle Woodland as well as the development of long-distance trade networks. The Late Woodland period (ca. 500-1650 CE) is marked by the establishment of larger village sites, sometimes containing dozens of 22 Ellis, C. and Deller, D.B. “Paleo-Indians,” in The Archaeology of Southern Ontario to A.D. 1650, ed. Christopher Ellis and Neal Ferris (London, ON: Ontario Archaeological Society, London Chapter, 1990). 23 Toronto Region Conservation Authority. “Chapter 3: First Nations,” in Greening Our Watersheds: Revitalization Strategies for Etobicoke and Mimico Creeks. prepared by the Toronto Region Conservation Authority (Toronto, ON, 2001); Watson, G., “Prehistoric Peoples of the Rideau Waterway,” in Archaeological Historical Symposium: October 2-3, 1982, Rideau Ferry, Ontario, edited by F.C.L. Wyght, pp. 24–55. Lombardy, Ontario. Page 46 of 141 Project # LHC516 May 2025 15 longhouses and fortified with palisade walls. Agriculture increased during this period, as did regional warfare.23F 24 It should be noted that historical documentation related to the location and movement of Indigenous peoples in present-day Southern Ontario is based on the documentary record of the experiences and biases of early European explorers, traders, and settlers. This record provides only a brief account of the long and varied occupation and use of the area by various Indigenous groups known, through oral histories and the archaeological record, to have been highly mobile over vast territories which transcend prevailing modern understandings of geographical boundaries. 4.2 TORONTO PURCHASE (TREATY 13) In the 1780s, the Crown wished to secure a communication and supply line along Lake Ontario from Kingston to Niagara. Superintendent General of the Indian Department, Sir John Johnston, met with the Mississaugas of the Credit in 1787 and purportedly acquired lands as part of the Toronto Purchase. The legitimacy of the original agreement was questioned and when the land was surveyed in 1788 the Mississauga opposed the boundaries.24F 25 By this time much of the land had already been granted to settlers. This treaty was known as the Toronto Purchase Treaty (Treaty No. 13). The Treaty’s legality was questioned in 1794 when John Graves Simcoe requested a review.25F 26 General Dorchester reviewed the documents and replied to Simcoe with the following: …a Plan (Copy of which I believe was given to you) has been found in the Surveyor General’s Office, to which is attached a blank deed, with the names or devices of three Chiefs of the Mississauga Nation, on separate pieces of paper annexed thereto, and witnessed by Mr. Collins, Mr. Kotte, a Surveyor, since dead, and Mr. Lines, Indian Interpreter, but not being filled up, is of no validity, or may be applied to all the Land they possess; no Fraud has been committed or seems to have been intended. It has, however, an omission which will set aside the whole transaction, and throw us entirely on the good faith of the Indians for just so much Land as they are willing to allow, and what may be further necessary must be 24 Jackson, L., “Dawson Creek: An Early Woodland Site in South-Central Ontario,” Ontario Archaeology 33:12–32; Parker, L.R.B. The Fitzgerald Site: A Non-Meadowood Early Woodland Site in Southwestern Ontario. Canadian Journal of Archaeology 21(2):121–148; Toronto Region Conservation Authority. “Chapter 3: First Nations.” 25 Mississaugas of the Credit First Nation, “The Toronto Purchase Treaty No. 13 (1805),” 2020, accessed 16 April 2025, https://mncfn.ca/the-toronto-purchase-treaty-no-13-1805/. 26 Bellegarde, D., “Indian Claims Commission - Mississaugas of the New Credit First Nation Inquiry Toronto Purchase Claim,” 2003, accessed 16 April 2025, https://publications.gc.ca/collections/collection_2007/icc- cri/RC21-1-9-2E.pdf, 250. Page 47 of 141 Project # LHC516 May 2025 16 purchased anew, but it will be best not to press that matter or show any anxiety about it.26F 27 On 1 August 1805, the Crown purchased 250,830 acres of land for the sum of 10 shillings while the Mississauga reserved for themselves the right to exclusively fish on Etobicoke Creek.27F 28 4.3 SURVEY AND EUROPEAN SETTLEMENT OF KING TOWNSHIP AND WHITCHURCH TOWNSHIP In 1788, the Government of the Province of Quebec began creating administrative districts and counties. Four districts were created west of the Ottawa River called Lunenburg, Mecklenburg, Nassau and Hesse. In 1792, the districts were renamed Eastern, Midland, Home and Western. In 1792, Lieutenant-Governor Simcoe divided Upper Canada into 19 counties. The County of York was created as part of the Home District on 16 July 1792. York served as a territorial unit and electoral division and had its own militia.28F 29 The portion of the County containing King Township and Whitchurch Township was surveyed beginning in 1800 by John Stegmann. Additional surveys of King Township occurred in 1836-1838, 1852, and 1859; and an additional survey for concessions eight and nine (date unknown) and a revised survey in 1869 were prepared for Whitchurch Township.29F 30 Settlement began around 1797 in King Township and around 1795 in Whitchurch Township.30F 31 Early settlers in both Townships included United Empire Loyalists and French Royalist emigrants as well as religious groups including Quakers, Mennonites, and Tunkers. There were few transportation routes in King Township and Whitchurch Township in the early 19th century, and Euro-Canadian settlement was slow.31F 32 King Township and Whitchurch Township had a varied landscape composed of the Oak Ridges Moraine; rivers, including the East Humber River in King and the Don, Rouge, and Holland Rivers in Whitchurch; and lakes. Varied soil conditions were also present, though land in both Townships was generally well adapted for agricultural use. Grain farming and 27 Bellegarde, D. “Indian Claims Commission - Mississaugas of the New Credit First Nation Inquiry Toronto Purchase Claim.” 250. 28 Bellegarde, D. “Indian Claims Commission - Mississaugas of the New Credit First Nation Inquiry Toronto Purchase Claim.” 250. 29 Mitchell, J., “The Settlement of York County,” Toronto, ON: Charters Publishing, 1950. 30 McClure Gillham, E., “Early Settlement of King Township, Ontario,” Published by Author, King City, ON. 1975, https://digitalcollections.ucalgary.ca/archive/Early-settlements-of-King-Township--Ontario- 2R3BF1FJI1ASO.html; Johnston, J. “Aurora: Its Early Beginnings,” Aurora Centennial Committee, 1972. https://digitalcollections.ucalgary.ca/asset-management/2R3BF1ODFPN9L?&WS=SearchResults&Flat=FP. 31 Johnston, J. “Aurora: Its Early Beginnings.” 32 McClure Gillham, E., “Early Settlement of King Township, Ontario,”; Johnston, J. “Aurora: Its Early Beginnings.” Page 48 of 141 Project # LHC516 May 2025 17 forestry/logging were the primary economic drivers in both Townships.32F 33 Stock-raising was more common in King Township.33F 34 Settlement of both Townships through the mid-19th century generally occurred at roadway intersections, which allowed for ease of access to transportation routes, or alongside rivers and streams, which allowed for the operation of mills.34F 35 King Township and Whitchurch Township reach populations of 2,625 and 3,836, respectively, by 1849. By this time, King had eight grist, and twelve saw mills and Whitchurch had four grist and thirteen saw mills.35F 36 Arrival of the ‘Ontario, Simcoe, and Huron Railway’ (OS&H) in 1853 further stimulated economic development, primarily in King City, King Township and Aurora, in King and Whitchurch Townships, where stations were built.36F 37 During the mid- to late -19th century, King and Whitchurch Townships remained primarily rural, agricultural land. Larger commercial and industrial centres in King Township included Aurora, Kettleby, King City, Lloyd Town, Nobleton, and Schomberg; and in Whitchurch Township, Aurora, Newmarket, and Stouffville were the major centres. By 1871 King Township had a population of 7,482 and Whitchurch Township had a population of 5,014.37F 38 Two additional railways, the Toronto and Nipissing (opened 1871) and Lake Simcoe Junction (a branch of the Toronto and Nipissing, opened 1877) stationed at Stouffville in Whitchurch Township.38F 39 The population of both Townships declined through the latter part of the 19th, and early part of the 20th centuries. This was likely caused, in part, by younger people moving to larger cities for improved living conditions and job prospects.39F 40 In 1970, Bill 102 entitled ‘An Act to Establish the Regional Municipality of York’ was adopted and it came into force on 1 January 1971. Nine local area municipalities were created, including the Town of Aurora, Town of Newmarket, Town of Whitchurch Stouffville, and Township of King.40F 41 33 McClure Gillham, E., “Early Settlement of King Township, Ontario,”; Johnston, J. “Aurora: Its Early Beginnings.” 34 McClure Gillham, E., “Early Settlement of King Township, Ontario.” 35 McClure Gillham, E., “Early Settlement of King Township, Ontario. 36 Smith, G.H., “Smith’s Canadian Gazetteer,” Published by Henry Rowsell, Toronto, ON. 1849. https://www.canadiana.ca/view/oocihm.49861/6. 37 Toronto Railway Historical Association, “Northern Railway of Canada,” n.d., accessed 15 April 2025, https://www.trha.ca/trha/history/railways/northern-railway-of-canada/. 38 Mulvany, P.V., “History of Toronto and County of York, Ontario,” C. Blackett Robinson, Toronto, ON. 1885. 39 Lavallee, O., “Narrow Gauge Railways of Canada,” Fitzhenry & Whiteside, Markham, ON. 2005. 40 McClure Gillham, E., “Early Settlement of King Township, Ontario. 41 Ontario, “c 50 The Regional Municipality of York Act, 1970," Ontario: Annual Statutes: Vol. 1970, Article 52. https://digitalcommons.osgoode.yorku.ca/ontario_statutes/vol1970/iss1/52. Page 49 of 141 Project # LHC516 May 2025 18 4.4 TOWN OF AURORA HISTORY Euro-Canadian settlement of what would become Aurora began around 1795, when the first settler, whose name is unknown, built a house near the corner of Yonge Street and Catherine Street on Concession 1 Lot 81 in Whitchurch Township. Shortly thereafter in 1797, Concession 1 Lot 81 and Lot 82 in King Township were acquired by Thomas Phillips and William McClellan, respectively; and Concession 1 Lot 78 and Lot 79 in Whitchurch Township were acquired by Frederic Smith and Charles Fathers, respectively.41F 42 By 1804, Crown Patents for Concession 1 Lot 76, Lot 77, Lot 79, and Lot 83 in King Township; and Concession 1 Lot 82 and Lot 83 in Whitchurch Township had been issued. It was around this time that a hamlet – first known as ‘Machell’s Corners’ – formed at the corner of Yonge Street and Wellington Street.42F 43 The hamlet was named after Richard Machell, the first merchant in the area who operated a general store and trading centre at this intersection. The ongoing settlement and development of Machell’s Corners was slow. Aside from the construction of a Methodist church in 1818 and the opening of a post office in 1842, few other changes took place; the area remained primarily farmland.43F 44 By 1843, Richard Machell owned three of four corners surrounding the intersection of Yonge Street and Wellington Street (all but the northeast corner)44F 45, and Charles Doan – the postmaster – built a store (of unknown purpose) and house. The population of Machell’s Corners reached approximately 100 by 1851.45F 46 On 1 January 1854, the hamlet was renamed ‘Aurora’ after the Greek goddess of the dawn.46F 47 Upper Canada’s first railway, the OS&H, was completed in 1853 and a station was built in Aurora. The OS&H connected Aurora with the City of Toronto, opening an important shipping route for merchants and farmers.47F 48 By 15 June 1853 the OS&H reached Bradford (Gwillimbuy West Township, Simcoe County) and by 1 January 1855 it reached Collingwood (Nottawasaga Township, Simcoe County). To support the railway, freight sheds, coal yards, and lumberyards, in addition to hotels, were developed near the Aurora station.48F 49 42 Johnston, J. “Aurora: Its Early Beginnings.” 43 McClure Gillham, E., “Early Settlement of King Township, Ontario,”; Johnston, J. “Aurora: Its Early Beginnings.” 44 Johnston, J. “Aurora: Its Early Beginnings.” 45 Town of Aurora, “IN Aurora: Historic Aurora Business Owners,” n.d., accessed 16 April 2025, https://www.aurora.ca/en/business-and-development/in-aurora.aspx#Richard-Machell-1793-1868-. 46 Johnston, J. “Aurora: Its Early Beginnings.” 47 Johnston, J. “Aurora: Its Early Beginnings.” 48 Johnston, J. “Aurora: Its Early Beginnings.” 49 Johnston, J. “Aurora: Its Early Beginnings.” Page 50 of 141 Project # LHC516 May 2025 19 Aurora became an industrial centre during the mid-19th century. Among the notable businesses were the Fleury Implement Works/Fleury Agricultural Works, McNally’s Ashery, Brodie’s Cooperage, Daville’s Tannery, Campbell & Sons Ropemakers, Wilkinson’s Foundry, Irwin’s Mill, and Baldwin’s Mill. Aurora also had carriagemakers, a shoemaker, and a sash, door, blind and flour barrel maker by 1860. In addition to the growing industrial sector, agriculture remained important to the hamlet’s economy.49F 50 Aurora was incorporated as a village in 1863 with a population of 700. Charles Doan served as the first reeve, and the councilors were Robert Boyd, Goerge L. Stevenson, Charles York (clerk), Seth Ashton, and James Holliday. The village included the east halves of lots 78 through 83 in the first concession of King Township and the west halves of lots 78 through 83 in the first concession of Whitchurch Township. The intersection of Yonge Street and Wellington Street remained the centre of commercial development in the village, with residential development surrounding the core.50F 51 Aurora reached a population of 1,132 by 1871 and 1,540 by 1881. In 1888, Aurora was incorporated as a town. J.R. Rutherford was elected mayor, Andrew Yule was reeve, and C.C. Robinson was deputy-reeve. The councilors were H.W. Fleury, D. McLeod, W.R. Richardson, G.D. Patterson, J.T. Davis, J.W. Lloyd, J.C. Querrie, W.G. Lloyd, and H.G. Wells. The population reached 1,922 by 1891, and commercial growth remained steady. In 1899, Aurora was connected to the City of Toronto by the Metropolitan Street Railway and the first automobiles arrived in the town.51F 52 The population of Aurora declined to 1,561 by 1901 as industries began to close and young people migrated towards larger cities. In the early 20th century, a small industrial boom occurred leading to a matching expansion of local subdivisions. The population reached 2,205 by 1921 and 2,726 by 1941. Steady growth prevailed after the war. The population reached 3,356 by 1951, 3,988 by 1957, and just under 10,000 by 1963.52F 53 In 1971, Aurora became part of the newly formed Regional Municipality of York.53F 54 4.5 PROPERTY HISTORY The Property is located on part Concession 1 Lot 79 in the historic Township of Whitchurch. It comprises part Lot 162, Registered Plan 246. 50 Johnston, J. “Aurora: Its Early Beginnings.” 51 Johnston, J. “Aurora: Its Early Beginnings.” 52 Johnston, J. “Aurora: Its Early Beginnings.” 53 Johnston, J. “Aurora: Its Early Beginnings.” 54 McClure Gillham, E., “Early Settlement of King Township, Ontario.” Page 51 of 141 Project # LHC516 May 2025 20 4.5.1 LOT 1 CONCESSION 79 The Crown Patent for Lot 1 Concession 79 in Whitchurch Township – a 190-acre lot – was issued to Charles Fathers on 10 February 1797.54F 55 On 27 February 1799, Fathers sold all 190 acres to William Weeks.55F 56 Weeks owned the lot until 30 October 1802 when he sold it to Thomas Forfar et al.56F 57 Despite Forfar’s ownership, a map from 1802 continues to identify Fathers as the owner of the lot (Figure 3). Forfar then sold the lot to Colin Drummond on 29 October 1806.57F 58 On 17 July 1817, Drummond sold the 190-acre lot to William Wells for 800 (unidentified currency) and provided Wells with a 1,400 mortgage (unidentified currency).58F 59 Wells, along with his son Jacob who is also identified as a grantor in land registry abstracts, sold numerous sections of the lot during his ownership beginning in 1827. The size of partitioned lots sold by Wells ranged from 60-acres to ¼-acre. Notable sections of land sold by Wells include a 60-acre parcel sold to Job Wells on 16 March 1827 and a 30-acre parcel sold to James Lloyd on 2 January 1828.59F 60 The sale of these lots divided Concession 1 Lot 79 into distinct sides. The west side, which remained primarily owned by Wells, comprised 100-acres to the east of Yonge Street, and the east side comprised the remaining 90-acres. A brief history of the Property prepared by Jacqueline Stuart in 2014 references a family history – Wells of Wantage – identifying that the original farmhouse on the Wells property burned down around 1832 and that Jacob Wells built a new house. The history recounts that the house built by Jacob Wells is the current house on the Property.60F 61 A photograph from the family history displays a building with similar form and massing characteristics to the existing house, notably a covered porch or enclosed one storey wing on the east side of the house’s southeast elevation (Figure 3). No centre gable peak is visible in the image. The division of Concession 1 Lot 79 is depicted on an 1860 map showing Aurora. Jacob Wells (William Wells’ son) is depicted as the owner of most of the west part of the lot. Three buildings are depicted on Wells’ property, including a workshop. The northwest corner of the lot is depicted under separate ownership, and several individual buildings are depicted along Yonge Street. In addition, the Northern Railway (Ontario, Simcoe, and Huron 55 York Region Land Registry Office (LRO 65), “YORK REGION (65), WHITCHURCH; STOUFFVILLE; AURORA, Book 231; CONCESSION 1; LOT 71 TO 86,” n.d., accessed April 9, 2025, https://www.onland.ca/ui/65/books/72148/viewer/3189504?page=1, Instrument No. Patent. 56 LRO 65, Book 231, Instrument No. 59. 57 LRO 65, Book 231, Instrument No. 301. 58 LRO 65, Book 231, Instrument No. 870. 59 LRO 65, Book 231, Instrument No. 3040; 5116. 60 LRO 65, Book 231, Instrument No. 6149; 33892. 61 Stuart, J. “8 Kennedy Street East, Aurora: Some Notes on History,” August 2014, pdf file. Page 52 of 141 Project # LHC516 May 2025 21 Railway), a driveway, and a river/stream are depicted (Figure 4). The 1864 tax assessment roll for the Village of Aurora identifies Jacob Wells as the freeholder of ½-acre and Henry G. Wells61F 62 (Jacob’s son) as the freeholder of 82½-acres of Concession 1 Lot 79 on the east side of Yonge Street. The 82½-acre lot was valued at 1,880, and Henry G. Wells’ occupation is listed as ‘yeoman’, suggesting that he was a farmer.62F 63 Land registry abstracts do not indicate that the land had been transferred to Henry G. Wells. The 1873 tax assessment roll for the Village of Aurora identified Jacob Wells and Henry Wells as the freeholders of 82-acres of Concession 1 Lot 79 on the east side of Yonge Street. The lot was valued at 2,460.63F 64 The 1874 tax assessment roll valued the lot at 2,250.64F 65 William Wells’ will, which was entered in the land registry abstract index on 20 June 1828, transferred the property described as ‘100 ac. W. Part’ to Jacob Wells on 28 May 1878.65F 66 Tax assessment records and earlier bargain and sale instruments for the property suggest that the lot was not 100-acres at this point. Miles & Co.’s 1878 Historical Atlas of the County of York does not depict the name of owners or the exact location of any building on the west part of Concession 1 Lot 79 (Figure 4). The 1882 tax assessment roll identified Jacob Wells and Henry Wells as the freeholders of 82-acres of Concession 1 Lot 79 on the east side of Yonge Street. The lot was valued at 3,275.66F 67 Jacob Wells’ will, which was entered in the land registry abstract index on 4 September 1874, transferred the property described as ‘West ½’ to Henry G. Wells on 29 September 1887.67F 68 The 1888 tax assessment roll continues to list Henry G. Wells as the freeholder of 82-acres of Concession 1 Lot 79 on the east side of Yonge Street. This tax assessment divided the Aurora – which was incorporated as a Town in 1888 – into different wards. Wells’ property was partially in the centre and south wards. The part in the centre ward included 32-acres to the east of the railway and the part in the south ward included 50-acres to the east of Yonge Street. Collectively, the lot was valued at 5,500 (1,500 centre ward, 4,000 southward).68F 69 Wells’ retained ownership of his 82-acre property in 1889; however, the 62 Henry G. Wells was a councillor when Aurora was incorporated as a Town in 1888. 63 Family Search, “Aurora. Tax Assessment Records , Tax Collector's Rolls,” Film Number/Image Group Number: 008661907, https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/3:1:3QHV-F3CK- S6L5?view=index&action=view&cc=4130007&lang=en, Page 12. 64 Family Search, “Aurora. Tax Assessment Records , Tax Collector's Rolls,” Page 59. 65 Family Search, “Aurora. Tax Assessment Records , Tax Collector's Rolls,” Page 90. 66 LRO 65, Book 231, Instrument No. 2612. 67 Family Search, “Aurora. Tax Assessment Records , Tax Collector's Rolls,” Page 117. 68 LRO 65, Book 231, Instrument No. 4711. 69 Family Search, “Aurora. Tax Assessment Records , Tax Collector's Rolls,” Page 136; 165. Page 53 of 141 Project # LHC516 May 2025 22 value of the lot decreased to 3,530 (1,280 centre ward, 2,250 southward).69F 70 The valuation dropped to 3,280 in 1894 and to 2,725 in 1899.70F 71 It is unclear what caused the change in valuation. Henry G. Wells sold 93-acres of Concession 1 Lot 79 to Frank Staples on 1 February 1910 for $6,750.71F 72 Staples owned the lot until 1 April 1912 when he sold it to William B. O’Leary for $9,535.72F 73 O’Leary’s sold the lot to William G. Fischer and Walter Callis on 4 May 1912 for $10,535.73F 74 On 1 June 1912, Walter Callis sold 70¼-acres to Walter E. and Wilbert F. Pratt for $6,250.74F 75 The specific part of the lot that was sold is not identified in land registry abstracts. The 1913 fire insurance plan (revised from 1904) shows the house that is currently on the Property. It is identified as a one-and-a-half storey square building with a frame structure. It has a one storey frame addition on the east side of its southeast elevation, a one storey frame addition on the south side of its northeast elevation, and a one story attached shed on the southeast side of the northeast addition. A two-storey shed is located to the west of the house; however, it is unclear if it is associated with the Property. A farming complex composed of a one-and-a-half to two storey barn, concrete silo, one storey icehouse, one two storey shed, and three one storey sheds were present to the south of the house. Kennedy Street East had not yet been developed at the time (Figure 5). Topographic maps from 1914 and 1917 depict one frame building and one brick/stone building in the approximate location of the property (Figure 6). On 1 December 1919, Walter E. and Wilbert F. Pratt sold 33 acres west of the railway to William Hodgkinson for $6,300.75F 76 On 22 August 1921, Hodgkinson sold the property described as ‘pt. S. Plan 1B 142’ x 200’ Rt of way’ to George Mair for $800.76F 77 This property description matches that of Lot 162 Registered Plan 146. The 1922 topographic map only depicts one building in the approximate location of the Property (Figure 6). 70 Family Search, “Aurora. Tax Assessment Records , Tax Collector's Rolls,” Page 183; 213. 71 Family Search, “Aurora. Tax Assessment Records , Tax Collector's Rolls,” Page 395; 411; 448; 464. 72 LRO 65, Book 231, Instrument No. 9604. 73 LRO 65, Book 231, Instrument No. 10118. 74 LRO 65, Book 231, Instrument No. 10119. 75 LRO 65, Book 231, Instrument No. 10162. 76 LRO 65, Book 231, Instrument No. 5733. 77 LRO 65, Book 231, Instrument No. 6208. Page 54 of 141 Project # LHC516 May 2025 23 Figure 3. Undated Photograph of the Wells’ Farmhouse77F 78 4.5.2 LOT 162 REGISTERED PLAN 246 Plan 246 was registered on 15 December 1933.78F 79 No major changes to the lot are depicted on a 1936 topographic map (Figure 6). On 30 March 1937, Alexander D. Bruce, Walter S. Murphy, Elena B. Murphy – executors of George Mair – granted the lot to George Mair’s wife, Ellen Mair.79F 80 Ellen Mair owned the Property until 10 May 1938, when she sold it to John and Ida Elizabeth Dodd for $1,700 and provided them with a $1,700 mortgage.80F 81 John and Ida Elizabeth Dodd subdivided Lot 162 into several parcels during their ownership. On 23 January 1948, they granted the property described as ‘pt. Lot 161 & 163; 46’ front x 120’ Com. 46’ S. from S.E.L Lot 1 Plan 1B’ to Joseph and Elva Stephenson; on 10 March 1948, they granted the property described as ‘pt. Lot 161 & 162; 46’ [illegible] N x 100’ Com 46’ [illegible]’ to James M. Dodd; on 6 April 1949, they granted the property described as ‘pt. Lot 161 &162; 46’ x 100’ Com. At S.E.L. Lot 1 Pl 1B’ to Howard O. and Mary Irene Stoutt; and on 28 April 1949, they granted the property described as ‘Pt. Lot 161 & 78 Stuart, J. “8 Kennedy Street East, Aurora: Some Notes on History.” 79 LRO 65, Book 231, Instrument No. Plan 246. 80 York Region Land Registry Office (LRO 65), “YORK REGION (65), AURORA, Book 450,” n.d., accessed April 9, 2025, https://www.onland.ca/ui/65/books/71458/viewer/17869346?page=1, Instrument No. 8137. 81 LRO 65, Book 450, Instrument No. Plan 8212; 8213. Page 55 of 141 Project # LHC516 May 2025 24 162; 47’11” front x 120’ to James M. Dodd.81F 82 The Property in its present form took shape following the sale of these individual parts of Lot 162. An air photo from 1954 shows a house and shed on the Property. The house is rectangular, has a side gable roof, and has a rear wing addition on the east side of its northwest elevation (Figure 7). A fire insurance plan from 1960 identifies the house as a one-and-a- half storey frame building with a brick veneer. Since 1913, the brick veneer was added, the northeast side wing addition was removed, and the attached shed was removed (Figure 5). Stuart’s history of the property suggests that the brick cladding may have been added during George Mair’s ownership (1921- 1937), and the porch was enclosed during the Dodds’ ownership (1938-1948).82F 83 An air photo from 1970 more clearly shows the house on the Property. A centre gable and verandah are present on its southeast elevation (Figure 7). No major changes to the Property were made by 1978 (Figure 7). On 12 January 1982, the estate of Ida Dodd granted the Property to Charles C. and Donna D. Bergin.83F 84 On 20 May 1983, the property was granted to Timothy and Helen Hewlett, and on 2 September 1988, it was granted to Helen Mae Macmillan.84F 85 The shed to the east of the house was removed from the Property, and a new shed to the north of the previous shed was built (Figure 7). The Property remained largely unchanged through the late 20th and early 21st centuries (Figure 7). 82 LRO 65, Book 450, Instrument No. Plan 9721; 9755; 10010; 10033. 83 Stuart, J. “8 Kennedy Street East, Aurora: Some Notes on History.” 84 LRO 65, Book 450, Instrument No. Plan 286511. 85 LRO 65, Book 450, Instrument No. Plan 316610; 481161. Page 56 of 141 ƵůƚƵƌĂů,ĞƌŝƚĂŐĞǀĂůƵĂƟŽŶZĞƉŽƌƚ͕ ϴ<ĞŶŶĞĚǇ^ƚƌĞĞƚĂƐƚ͕dŽǁŶŽĨƵƌŽƌĂ͕KE WZK:d ϮϬϮϱͲϬϰͲϭϲzzzzͲDDͲ d/d> ϭϴϬϮ͕ϭϴϲϬĂŶĚϭϴϳϴ,ŝƐƚŽƌŝĐDĂƉƐ^ŚŽǁŝŶŐƚŚĞWƌŽƉĞƌƚǇ ϰ&/'hZη ^ƚĞůůĂƌ,ŽŵĞƐ/ŶĐ͘ >/Ed >,ϬϱϭϲWZK:dEK͘ Z&ZE;^Ϳ DŝůĞƐΘŽ͘ϭϴϳϴ͘tŚŝƚĐŚƵƌĐŚ͘^ĐĂůĞϲϬĐŚĂŝŶƐƚŽϭŝŶĐŚ͘͞dŚĞĂŶĂĚŝĂŶŽƵŶƚǇƚůĂƐŝŐŝƚĂůWƌŽũĞĐƚ͘͟ŝŐŝƟǌĞĚ ŵĂƉ͘ĐĐĞƐƐĞĚϵƉƌŝů͕ϮϬϮϱ͘ф>/E<хŚƩƉƐ͗ͬͬĚŝŐŝƚĂů͘ůŝďƌĂƌǇ͘ŵĐŐŝůů͘ĐĂͬĐŽƵŶƚǇĂƚůĂƐͬ/ŵĂŐĞƐͬDĂƉƐͬdŽǁŶƐŚŝƉDĂƉƐͬǇŽƌͲ ŵͲǁŚŝƚĐŚƵƌĐŚ͘ũƉŐфͬ>/E<х ^ƚĞŐŵĂŶŶ͘ϭϴϬϮ͘tŚŝƚĐŚƵƌĐŚ͘^ĐĂůĞϰϬĐŚĂŝŶƐʹϭŝŶĐŚ͘ŝŐŝƟǌĞĚŵĂƉ͘ dƌĞŵĂŝŶĞ͕'͘Z͘ϭϴϲϬ͘dƌĞŵĂŝŶĞ͛ƐDĂƉŽĨƚŚĞŽƵŶƚǇŽĨzŽƌŬĂŶĂĚĂtĞƐƚ͘͞KŶƚĂƌŝŽ,ŝƐƚŽƌŝĐĂůŽƵŶƚǇDĂƉƐ͘͟ ŝŐŝƟǌĞĚŵĂƉ͘ĐĐĞƐƐĞĚϵƉƌŝů͕ϮϬϮϱ͘ф>/E<хŚƩƉƐ͗ͬͬŵĂƉƐ͘ůŝďƌĂƌǇ͘ƵƚŽƌŽŶƚŽ͘ĐĂͬŚŐŝƐͬĐŽƵŶƚǇŵĂƉƐͬǇŽƌŬͬϬϬϬϱ͘ũƉŐфͬ >/E<х WŽƌƟŽŶƐŽĨƚŚŝƐĚŽĐƵŵĞŶƚŝŶĐůƵĚĞŝŶƚĞůůĞĐƚƵĂůƉƌŽƉĞƌƚǇŽĨƐƌŝĂŶĚŝƚƐůŝĐĞŶƐŽƌƐĂŶĚĂƌĞƵƐĞĚƵŶĚĞƌůŝĐĞŶƐĞ͘ ŽƉǇƌŝŐŚƚ;ĐͿƐƌŝĂŶĚŝƚƐůŝĐĞŶƐŽƌƐ͘ůůƌŝŐŚƚƐƌĞƐĞƌǀĞĚ͘ EKd;^Ϳϭ͘ůůůŽĐĂƟŽŶƐĂƌĞĂƉƉƌŽǆŝŵĂƚĞ͘ >ĞŐĞŶĚ 3URSHUW\ 0HWHUV kϭϴϳϴ 0HWHUV kϭϴϲϬ 0HWHUV kϭϴϬϮ Page 57 of 141 ƵůƚƵƌĂů,ĞƌŝƚĂŐĞǀĂůƵĂƟŽŶZĞƉŽƌƚ͕ ϴ<ĞŶŶĞĚǇ^ƚƌĞĞƚĂƐƚ͕dŽǁŶŽĨƵƌŽƌĂ͕KE WZK:d ϮϬϮϱͲϬϰͲϭϲzzzzͲDDͲ d/d> ϭϵϬϰZĞǀ͘ϭϵϭϯĂŶĚϭϵϲϬ&ŝƌĞ/ŶƐƵƌĂŶĐĞWůĂŶƐ^ŚŽǁŝŶŐƚŚĞWƌŽƉĞƌƚǇ ϱ&/'hZη ^ƚĞůůĂƌ,ŽŵĞƐ/ŶĐ͘ >/Ed >,ϬϱϭϲWZK:dEK͘ Z&ZE;^Ϳ 'ŽĂĚ͕ŚĂƐ͘͘ϭϵϬϰƌĞǀ͘ϭϵϭϯ͘ƵƌŽƌĂKŶƚ͘^ŚĞĞƚϲ͘^ĐĂůĞϭ͗ϲϬϬ͘ hŶĚĞƌǁƌŝƚĞƌƐ͛^ƵƌǀĞǇƵƌĞĂƵ͘ϭϵϲϬ͘ƵƌŽƌĂKŶƚ͘^ŚĞĞƚϵ͘ WŽƌƟŽŶƐŽĨƚŚŝƐĚŽĐƵŵĞŶƚŝŶĐůƵĚĞŝŶƚĞůůĞĐƚƵĂůƉƌŽƉĞƌƚǇŽĨƐƌŝĂŶĚŝƚƐůŝĐĞŶƐŽƌƐĂŶĚĂƌĞƵƐĞĚƵŶĚĞƌůŝĐĞŶƐĞ͘ ŽƉǇƌŝŐŚƚ;ĐͿƐƌŝĂŶĚŝƚƐůŝĐĞŶƐŽƌƐ͘ůůƌŝŐŚƚƐƌĞƐĞƌǀĞĚ͘ EKd;^Ϳϭ͘ůůůŽĐĂƟŽŶƐĂƌĞĂƉƉƌŽǆŝŵĂƚĞ͘ >ĞŐĞŶĚ 3URSHUW\ k 0HWHUV ϭϵϲϬ k 0HWHUV ϭϵϬϰƌĞǀ͘ϭϵϭϯ Page 58 of 141 ϮϬϮϱͲϬϰͲϭϲzzzzͲDDͲd/d>ϭϵϭϰ͕ϭϵϭϳ͕ϭϵϮϮ͕ĂŶĚϭϵϯϲdŽƉŽŐƌĂƉŚŝĐDĂƉƐ^ŚŽǁŝŶŐƚŚĞWƌŽƉĞƌƚǇϲ&/'hZη^ƚĞůůĂƌ,ŽŵĞƐ/ŶĐ͘>/EdƵůƚƵƌĂů,ĞƌŝƚĂŐĞǀĂůƵĂƟŽŶZĞƉŽƌƚ͕ϴ<ĞŶŶĞĚǇ^ƚƌĞĞƚĂƐƚ͕dŽǁŶŽĨƵƌŽƌĂ͕KEWZK:d>,ϬϱϭϲWZK:dEK͘Z&ZE;^ͿĞƉĂƌƚŵĞŶƚŽĨDŝůŝƟĂĂŶĚĞĨĞŶĐĞ͘ϭϵϭϰ͘dŽƉŽŐƌĂƉŚŝĐDĂƉKŶƚĂƌŝŽDĂƌŬŚĂŵ^ŚĞĞƚ͘^ŚĞĞƚϯϬDͬϭϰ͘ĚŝƟŽŶϭ͘^ĐĂůĞϭ͗ϲϯ͕ϯϲϬ͘͞^ĐŚŽůĂƌƐ'ĞŽƉŽƌƚĂů͘͟ŝŐŝƟǌĞĚŵĂƉ͘ĐĐĞƐƐĞĚϭϲƉƌŝů͕ϮϬϮϱ͘ŚƩƉƐ͗ͬͬŐĞŽ͘ƐĐŚŽůĂƌƐƉŽƌƚĂů͘ŝŶĨŽͬηƌͬĚĞƚĂŝůƐͬͺƵƌŝΛс,dWϲϯϯϲϬ<ϬϯϬDϭϰͺϭϵϭϰd/&&ΘͺĂĚĚ͗ƚƌƵĞͺŶŽǌŽŽŵ͗ƚƌƵĞϭϵϭϳ͘dŽƉŽŐƌĂƉŚŝĐDĂƉKŶƚĂƌŝŽDĂƌŬŚĂŵ^ŚĞĞƚ͘^ŚĞĞƚϯϬDͬϭϰ͘ĚŝƟŽŶϮ͘^ĐĂůĞϭ͗ϲϯ͕ϯϲϬ͘͞^ĐŚŽůĂƌƐ'ĞŽƉŽƌƚĂů͘͟ŝŐŝƟǌĞĚŵĂƉ͘ĐĐĞƐƐĞĚϭϲƉƌŝů͕ϮϬϮϱ͘ŚƩƉƐ͗ͬͬŐĞŽ͘ƐĐŚŽůĂƌƐƉŽƌƚĂů͘ŝŶĨŽͬηƌͬĚĞƚĂŝůƐͬͺƵƌŝΛс,dWϲϯϯϲϬ<ϬϯϬDϭϰͺϭϵϭϳd/&&ΘͺĂĚĚ͗ƚƌƵĞͺŶŽǌŽŽŵ͗ƚƌƵĞϭϵϮϮ͘dŽƉŽŐƌĂƉŚŝĐDĂƉKŶƚĂƌŝŽDĂƌŬŚĂŵ^ŚĞĞƚ͘^ŚĞĞƚϯϬDͬϭϰ͘ĚŝƟŽŶϯ͘^ĐĂůĞϭ͗ϲϯ͕ϯϲϬ͘͞^ĐŚŽůĂƌƐ'ĞŽƉŽƌƚĂů͘͟ŝŐŝƟǌĞĚŵĂƉ͘ĐĐĞƐƐĞĚϭϲƉƌŝů͕ϮϬϮϱ͘ŚƩƉƐ͗ͬͬŐĞŽ͘ƐĐŚŽůĂƌƐƉŽƌƚĂů͘ŝŶĨŽͬηƌͬĚĞƚĂŝůƐͬͺƵƌŝΛс,dWϲϯϯϲϬ<ϬϯϬDϭϰͺϭϵϮϮd/&&ΘͺĂĚĚ͗ƚƌƵĞͺŶŽǌŽŽŵ͗ƚƌƵĞĞƉĂƌƚŵĞŶƚŽĨEĂƟŽŶĂůĞĨĞŶĐĞ͘ϭϵϯϲ͘DĂƌŬŚĂŵKŶƚĂƌŝŽ͘^ŚĞĞƚϯϬDͬϭϰ͘ĚŝƟŽŶϲ͘^ĐĂůĞϭ͗ϲϯ͕ϯϲϬ͘͞^ĐŚŽůĂƌƐ'ĞŽƉŽƌƚĂů͘͟ŝŐŝƟǌĞĚŵĂƉ͘ĐĐĞƐƐĞĚϭϲƉƌŝů͕ϮϬϮϱ͘ŚƩƉƐ͗ͬͬŐĞŽ͘ƐĐŚŽůĂƌƐƉŽƌƚĂů͘ŝŶĨŽͬηƌͬĚĞƚĂŝůƐͬͺƵƌŝΛс,dWϲϯϯϲϬ<ϬϯϬDϭϰͺϭϵϯϲͺDd/&&ΘͺĂĚĚ͗ƚƌƵĞͺŶŽǌŽŽŵ͗ƚƌƵĞWŽƌƟŽŶƐŽĨƚŚŝƐĚŽĐƵŵĞŶƚŝŶĐůƵĚĞŝŶƚĞůůĞĐƚƵĂůƉƌŽƉĞƌƚǇŽĨƐƌŝĂŶĚŝƚƐůŝĐĞŶƐŽƌƐĂŶĚĂƌĞƵƐĞĚƵŶĚĞƌůŝĐĞŶƐĞ͘ŽƉǇƌŝŐŚƚ;ĐͿƐƌŝĂŶĚŝƚƐůŝĐĞŶƐŽƌƐ͘ůůƌŝŐŚƚƐƌĞƐĞƌǀĞĚ͘EKd;^Ϳϭ͘ůůůŽĐĂƟŽŶƐĂƌĞĂƉƉƌŽǆŝŵĂƚĞ͘>ĞŐĞŶĚ3URSHUW\k0HWHUVϭϵϯϲk0HWHUVϭϵϮϮk0HWHUVϭϵϭϳk0HWHUVϭϵϭϰPage 59 of 141 ϮϬϮϱͲϬϰͲϭϲzzzzͲDDͲd/d>ϭϵϱϰ͕ϭϵϳϬ͕ϭϵϳϴ͕ϭϵϴϴ͕ϭϵϵϵ͕ϮϬϬϮ͕ϮϬϬϱ͕ĂŶĚϮϬϮϰŝƌWŚŽƚŽƐ^ŚŽǁŝŶŐƚŚĞWƌŽƉĞƌƚǇϳ&/'hZη^ƚĞůůĂƌ,ŽŵĞƐ/ŶĐ͘>/EdƵůƚƵƌĂů,ĞƌŝƚĂŐĞǀĂůƵĂƟŽŶZĞƉŽƌƚ͕ϴ<ĞŶŶĞĚǇ^ƚƌĞĞƚĂƐƚ͕dŽǁŶŽĨƵƌŽƌĂ͕KEWZK:d>,ϬϱϭϲWZK:dEK͘Z&ZE;^ͿzŽƌŬZĞŐŝŽŶ͘ϭϵϱϰ͘zŽƌŬZĞŐŝŽŶ,ŝƐƚŽƌŝĐĂů/ŵĂŐĞƌǇ;ϭϵϱϰͿ͘͞ŝƐĐŽǀĞƌzŽƌŬ͘͟tĞďŵĂƉ͘ĐĐĞƐƐĞĚϵƉƌŝů͕ϮϬϮϱ͘ŚƩƉƐ͗ͬͬĂƉƉƐ͘ǇŽƌŬŵĂƉƐ͘ĐĂͬǀĞƌƟŐŝƐƐƚƵĚŝŽͬǁĞď͍ͬĂƉƉсϴϲĞĞϳĐϭϴĐĂϯĂϰϬϭϲϴϭϰĞϵϲϲϵϬϴĂϴďϳĂϵϭϵϳϬ͘zŽƌŬZĞŐŝŽŶ,ŝƐƚŽƌŝĐĂů/ŵĂŐĞƌǇ;ϭϵϳϬͿ͘͞ŝƐĐŽǀĞƌzŽƌŬ͘͟tĞďŵĂƉ͘ĐĐĞƐƐĞĚϵƉƌŝů͕ϮϬϮϱ͘ŚƩƉƐ͗ͬͬĂƉƉƐ͘ǇŽƌŬŵĂƉƐ͘ĐĂͬǀĞƌƟŐŝƐƐƚƵĚŝŽͬǁĞď͍ͬĂƉƉсϴϲĞĞϳĐϭϴĐĂϯĂϰϬϭϲϴϭϰĞϵϲϲϵϬϴĂϴďϳĂϵϭϵϳϴ͘zŽƌŬZĞŐŝŽŶ,ŝƐƚŽƌŝĐĂů/ŵĂŐĞƌǇ;ϭϵϳϴͿ͘͞ŝƐĐŽǀĞƌzŽƌŬ͘͟tĞďŵĂƉ͘ĐĐĞƐƐĞĚϵƉƌŝů͕ϮϬϮϱ͘ŚƩƉƐ͗ͬͬĂƉƉƐ͘ǇŽƌŬŵĂƉƐ͘ĐĂͬǀĞƌƟŐŝƐƐƚƵĚŝŽͬǁĞď͍ͬĂƉƉсϴϲĞĞϳĐϭϴĐĂϯĂϰϬϭϲϴϭϰĞϵϲϲϵϬϴĂϴďϳĂϵϭϵϴϴ͘zŽƌŬZĞŐŝŽŶ,ŝƐƚŽƌŝĐĂů/ŵĂŐĞƌǇ;ϭϵϴϴͿ͘͞ŝƐĐŽǀĞƌzŽƌŬ͘͟tĞďŵĂƉ͘ĐĐĞƐƐĞĚϵƉƌŝů͕ϮϬϮϱ͘ŚƩƉƐ͗ͬͬĂƉƉƐ͘ǇŽƌŬŵĂƉƐ͘ĐĂͬǀĞƌƟŐŝƐƐƚƵĚŝŽͬǁĞď͍ͬĂƉƉсϴϲĞĞϳĐϭϴĐĂϯĂϰϬϭϲϴϭϰĞϵϲϲϵϬϴĂϴďϳĂϵϭϵϵϵ͘zŽƌŬZĞŐŝŽŶ,ŝƐƚŽƌŝĐĂů/ŵĂŐĞƌǇ;ϭϵϵϵͿ͘͞ŝƐĐŽǀĞƌzŽƌŬ͘͟tĞďŵĂƉ͘ĐĐĞƐƐĞĚϵƉƌŝů͕ϮϬϮϱ͘ŚƩƉƐ͗ͬͬĂƉƉƐ͘ǇŽƌŬŵĂƉƐ͘ĐĂͬǀĞƌƟŐŝƐƐƚƵĚŝŽͬǁĞď͍ͬĂƉƉсϴϲĞĞϳĐϭϴĐĂϯĂϰϬϭϲϴϭϰĞϵϲϲϵϬϴĂϴďϳĂϵϮϬϬϮ͘zŽƌŬZĞŐŝŽŶ,ŝƐƚŽƌŝĐĂů/ŵĂŐĞƌǇ;ϮϬϬϮͿ͘͞ŝƐĐŽǀĞƌzŽƌŬ͘͟tĞďŵĂƉ͘ĐĐĞƐƐĞĚϵƉƌŝů͕ϮϬϮϱ͘ŚƩƉƐ͗ͬͬĂƉƉƐ͘ǇŽƌŬŵĂƉƐ͘ĐĂͬǀĞƌƟŐŝƐƐƚƵĚŝŽͬǁĞď͍ͬĂƉƉсϴϲĞĞϳĐϭϴĐĂϯĂϰϬϭϲϴϭϰĞϵϲϲϵϬϴĂϴďϳĂϵϮϬϬϱ͘zŽƌŬZĞŐŝŽŶ,ŝƐƚŽƌŝĐĂů/ŵĂŐĞƌǇ;ϮϬϬϱͿ͘͞ŝƐĐŽǀĞƌzŽƌŬ͘͟tĞďŵĂƉ͘ĐĐĞƐƐĞĚϵƉƌŝů͕ϮϬϮϱ͘ŚƩƉƐ͗ͬͬĂƉƉƐ͘ǇŽƌŬŵĂƉƐ͘ĐĂͬǀĞƌƟŐŝƐƐƚƵĚŝŽͬǁĞď͍ͬĂƉƉсϴϲĞĞϳĐϭϴĐĂϯĂϰϬϭϲϴϭϰĞϵϲϲϵϬϴĂϴďϳĂϵϮϬϮϰ͘zŽƌŬZĞŐŝŽŶ,ŝƐƚŽƌŝĐĂů/ŵĂŐĞƌǇ;ϮϬϮϰͿ͘͞ŝƐĐŽǀĞƌzŽƌŬ͘͟tĞďŵĂƉ͘ĐĐĞƐƐĞĚϵƉƌŝů͕ϮϬϮϱ͘ŚƩƉƐ͗ͬͬĂƉƉƐ͘ǇŽƌŬŵĂƉƐ͘ĐĂͬǀĞƌƟŐŝƐƐƚƵĚŝŽͬǁĞď͍ͬĂƉƉсϴϲĞĞϳĐϭϴĐĂϯĂϰϬϭϲϴϭϰĞϵϲϲϵϬϴĂϴďϳĂϵWŽƌƟŽŶƐŽĨƚŚŝƐĚŽĐƵŵĞŶƚŝŶĐůƵĚĞŝŶƚĞůůĞĐƚƵĂůƉƌŽƉĞƌƚǇŽĨƐƌŝĂŶĚŝƚƐůŝĐĞŶƐŽƌƐĂŶĚĂƌĞƵƐĞĚƵŶĚĞƌůŝĐĞŶƐĞ͘ŽƉǇƌŝŐŚƚ;ĐͿƐƌŝĂŶĚŝƚƐůŝĐĞŶƐŽƌƐ͘ůůƌŝŐŚƚƐƌĞƐĞƌǀĞĚ͘EKd;^Ϳϭ͘ůůůŽĐĂƟŽŶƐĂƌĞĂƉƉƌŽǆŝŵĂƚĞ͘>ĞŐĞŶĚ3URSHUW\k0HWHUVϮϬϮϰk0HWHUVϮϬϬϱk0HWHUVϮϬϬϮk0HWHUVϭϵϵϵk0HWHUVϭϵϴϴk0HWHUVϭϵϳϴk0HWHUVϭϵϳϬk0HWHUVϭϵϱϰPage 60 of 141 Project # LHC516 May 2025 29 5 ASSESSMENT OF EXISTING CONDITIONS 5.1 SURROUNDING CONTEXT The Property is in the geographic Township of Whitchurch in the Town of Aurora. It is near an ‘Old Town’/‘Village Street’ section of the Aurora Promenade near the Town’s historic downtown. The Property is on the northwest side of Kennedy Street and is bound by Kennedy Street East to the southeast, commercial properties at 15029 Yonge Street and 15037 Yonge Street to the southwest, 116 Gurnett Street to the northwest, and residential properties at 118 Gurnett Avenue, 120 Gurnett Avenue, and 122 Gurnett Avenue to the northeast. Kennedy Street East is a local road providing access between Edward Street to the northeast and Yonge Street to the southwest. Near the Property, it has one northeast- and one southwest-bound lane (Photo 1). Concrete curbs are present on the northwest side of the street and concrete curbs, concrete sidewalk, and wood utility poles with streetlights are present on the southeast side of the street (Photo 2). The property at 15029 Yonge Street is a rectangular lot of approximately 980 square metres. It is occupied by a single detached two-storey house clad in brick, stone, stucco, and vertical board siding that is used for commercial purposes (Photo 3). The property at 15037 Yonge Street is a rectangular lot of approximately 1,100 square metres. It is occupied by a single detached two-storey house clad in brick with a clapboard rear addition that is used for commercial purposes (Photo 4). The property at 116 Gurnett Avenue is an irregularly shaped parcel of approximately 5,900 square metres. It is an undeveloped open space occupied by manicured grass, mature deciduous and coniferous trees, and a stream (Photo 5). The property at 118 Gurnett Avenue is a rectangular lot of approximately 570 square metres. It is occupied by a single detached one-and-a-half-storey house clad in clapboard siding. The property at 120 Gurnett Avenue is a rectangular lot of approximately 570 square metres. It is occupied by a single detached two-storey house clad in clapboard siding. The property at 122 Gurnett Avenue is a rectangular lot of approximately 460 square metres. It is occupied by a single detached one-and-a-half-storey house clad in clapboard siding (Photo 6). The topography to the north and east of the Property is hilly. Kennedy Street East slopes downward as it travels northeast from Yonge Street. Gurnett Avenue slopes downward as it travels northwest from its intersection with Kennedy Street East, and it slopes upward as it travels southeast from its intersection with Kennedy Street East. The topography to the west and south of the property is relatively flat. Page 61 of 141 Project # LHC516 May 2025 30 The Property’s immediate context, including adjacent properties and the properties on the southeast side of Kennedy Street North, is composed of residential, commercial, and open space. Residential properties in the Property’s immediate context include the properties at 118 Gurnett Street, 120 Gurnett Street, 122 Gurnett Street, 9-11 Kennedy Street East, 13-15 Kennedy Street East, and 19 Kennedy Street East . The properties at 118 Gurnett Street, 120 Gurnett Street, 122 Gurnett Street, and 19 Kennedy Street East are occupied by single- detached houses constructed in the mid-20th century. Houses on these properties share similar front and side yard setback distances and landscaping features (e.g., manicured lawn and flowerbeds); however, their shape in plan, massing pattern, height, and cladding materials differ (Photo 6). The properties at 9-11 Kennedy Street East and 13-15 Kennedy Street East are occupied by attached townhouses constructed between 2018-2019. The buildings on these properties have similar front yard setbacks to the other nearby residential properties; however, they have narrower side yards and more hardscaped surfaces – primarily asphalted driveways. In addition, the buildings are three storeys, are clad in stone veneer, and have mansard roofs (Photo 7). Commercial properties in the Property’s immediate context include the properties at 15017 Yonge Street, 15029 Yonge Street, and 15037 Yonge Street. The property at 15017 Yonge Street was developed between 1978 and 1988. It is occupied by a two-storey multi- suite commercial building (Photo 8). The properties at 15029 Yonge Street and 15037 Yonge Street are occupied by repurposed single detached houses. They share similar front yard setback distances; however, their architectural influences including their heir shape in plan, massing pattern, height, and cladding materials differ. These properties are similar in size to the Property; however, extensive hardscaping – primarily through the construction of driveways and parking lots – and additions to the former houses have altered the legibility of their former residential use (Photo 3 and Photo 4). The Property’s wider context remains primarily composed of residential and commercial observed uses. Residential uses are most common along Connaught Avenue and Gurnett Street, where single detached houses are most common. They range from one to two storeys and use a range of building materials including brick, board and batten siding, clapboard siding, and vertical board siding. Properties on Connaught Avenue and Gurnett Street north of Kennedy Street East are typically narrow, long lots. Houses typically have narrow front yard setbacks and narrow side yard setbacks (Photo 9 and Photo 10). Properties on Gurnett Street to the south of Kennedy Street East are typically wider than those to the north. Most houses appear to have been built during the mid-20th century. One nearby residential property, located at 15055 Yonge Street, is occupied by a six-storey multi-suite building. Commercial properties in the Property’s wider context are Page 62 of 141 Project # LHC516 May 2025 31 concentrated along Yonge Street and are either occupied by repurposed single-detached houses or purpose-built commercial buildings constructed in the mid- to late-20th century or early 21st century (Photo 11). Photo 1. View northwest showing Kennedy Street East in front of the Property Page 63 of 141 Project # LHC516 May 2025 32 Photo 2. View southwest showing Kennedy Street East in front of the Property Photo 3. View northeast showing the adjacent property at 15029 Yonge Street Page 64 of 141 Project # LHC516 May 2025 33 Photo 4. View northeast showing the adjacent property at 15037 Yonge Street Photo 5. View northwest showing the adjacent property at 116 Gurnett Street Page 65 of 141 Project # LHC516 May 2025 34 Photo 6. View southwest showing the adjacent properties at 118, 120, and 122 Gurnett Street Photo 7. View southeast showing townhouses on Kennedy Street East Page 66 of 141 Project # LHC516 May 2025 35 Photo 8. View east showing the nearby commercial property at 15017 Yonge Street Photo 9. View east showing residential properties on Connaught Avenue Page 67 of 141 Project # LHC516 May 2025 36 Photo 10. View southeast showing residential properties on Gurnett Street Photo 11. View southwest showing repurposed single detached houses that now served a commercial purpose on Yonge Street Page 68 of 141 Project # LHC516 May 2025 37 5.2 ADJACENT AND NEARBY HERITAGE PROPERTIES The Town of Aurora Official Plan (2024) does not provide a specific definition of ‘adjacent’ as it pertains to cultural heritage resources; however, it provides a generic definition that states: “generally, adjacent lands are considered to be within 120m from any part of the feature.”85F 86 Table 2. Adjacent and Nearby Heritage Properties Address Heritage Recognition Photo 35 Connaught Avenue Section 27 Part IV 36 Connaught Avenue Section 27 Part IV 86 233 Page 69 of 141 Project # LHC516 May 2025 38 Address Heritage Recognition Photo 37 Connaught Avenue Section 27 Part IV 96 Gurnett Street Section 27 Part IV 97 Gurnett Street Section 27 Part IV Page 70 of 141 Project # LHC516 May 2025 39 Address Heritage Recognition Photo 99 Gurnett Street Section 27 Part IV 100 Gurnett Street Section 27 Part IV 101 Gurnett Street Section 27 Part IV Page 71 of 141 Project # LHC516 May 2025 40 Address Heritage Recognition Photo 102 Gurnett Street Section 27 Part IV 107 Gurnett Street Section 27 Part IV 15000 Yonge Street Section 27 Part IV Page 72 of 141 Project # LHC516 May 2025 41 Address Heritage Recognition Photo 15004 Yonge Street Section 27 Part IV 15010 Yonge Street Section 27 Part IV 15018 Yonge Street Section 27 Part IV Page 73 of 141 Project # LHC516 May 2025 42 Address Heritage Recognition Photo 15029 Yonge Street Section 27 Part IV 15032 Yonge Street Section 29 Part IV 15037 Yonge Street Section 27 Part IV Page 74 of 141 Project # LHC516 May 2025 43 Address Heritage Recognition Photo 15040 Yonge Street Section 27 Part IV 15048 Yonge Street Section 27 Part IV 15054 Yonge Street Section 27 Part IV Page 75 of 141 Project # LHC516 May 2025 44 Address Heritage Recognition Photo 15074 Yonge Street Section 29 Part IV 5.3 THE PROPERTY The Property is a rectangular lot of 1,219 square metres. It is occupied by a single detached, one-and-a-half storey rectangular house clad in red brick with one storey front wing addition and one storey rear wing addition. An asphalted driveway that extends along the northeast elevation of the house provides access to the Property. The Property’s front, side, and rear yards each have manicured grass. Gardens with shrubs are located along the southeast and part of the southwest elevations of the house. Mature deciduous trees are present along the southwest, northwest, and northeast property lines. Page 76 of 141 Project # LHC516 May 2025 45 Photo 12. View northwest showing the southeast elevation of the house on the Property Photo 13. View northeast showing the southwest elevation of the house on the Property Page 77 of 141 Project # LHC516 May 2025 46 Photo 14. View southeast showing the northwest elevation of the house on the property and the southwest and northwest elevations of the rear wing addition Photo 15. View southwest showing the northeast elevation of the house on the property and the northwest and northeast elevations of the rear wing addition Page 78 of 141 Project # LHC516 May 2025 47 Photo 16. View northwest showing the asphalt driveway providing access to the Property Photo 17. View southeast showing southwest side yard Page 79 of 141 Project # LHC516 May 2025 48 Photo 18. View northwest showing the backyard Photo 19. View southeast showing the northeast side yard Page 80 of 141 Project # LHC516 May 2025 49 5.4 HOUSE EXTERIOR The house is a single detached, rectangular building with a front wing addition on the east side of its southeast elevation and a rear wing addition on the east side of its northwest elevation. The main house is one-and-a-half storeys and has a three-bay façade composed of a central entrance with windows on both sides. The three-bay façade is obscured by the main house’s enclosed porch. A full below grade foundation composed of rubblestone is present beneath the main house, and a cast-in-place concrete foundation is present beneath the front wing addition. The main exterior wall of the main house and front wing addition is clad in red brick set in stretcher bond. The gable ends on the main house’s northeast and southwest elevations are clad in painted cedar shakes, and the centre gable on the main house’s southeast elevation is clad in asphalt shingles (Photo 20 and Photo 21). The rear wing addition is clad in vinyl siding (Photo 22). The main house has a medium side gable roof with a centre gable on its southeast elevation and the rear wing addition has a low-gable roof. The gable ends on the main house all have ventilators near their respective peaks. All roofs have projecting eaves and verges, vented metal soffits, and are clad in black asphalt shingles (Photo 20, Photo 21, and Photo 23). Various window styles are present. Typical first storey windows on the main house have segmentally arched openings, a voussoir composed of one row of soldier course brick topped with one row of header course brick, and plain trim inside the structural opening. These windows either have a concrete lug sill or rowlock slip sill (Photo 24 and Photo 25). The header of the first storey windows on the southeast elevation have been modified. The east window has been boarded, and the west window has been replaced with stained- glass (Photo 26 and Photo 27). Boxed bay windows are present on the south side of the first storey on the northeast and southwest elevations (Photo 28). These windows have flatheaded openings with hipped roofs, plain trim, and plain lug sills. The windows on the southeast and southwest sides of the enclosed porch have flatheaded openings, plain wood trim, and plain sills. They are organized into rows of mulled units (Photo 29). Windows in the upper half storey of the main house and rear wing addition have flatheaded openings and plain trim (Photo 15, Photo 21, and Photo 22). The upper half storey windows on the northeast and northwest elevations on the main house have concrete lug sills (Photo 20). Most windows have a vinyl frame and casement or double- hung mechanism. Page 81 of 141 Project # LHC516 May 2025 50 The house’s main entrance is offset to the west of centre on the southeast elevation. It has a flatheaded opening, plain trim inside the structural opening, and has a single leaf door with a shaped multi-pane light (Photo 30). The main entrance is accessed from an enclosed porch accessed from concrete walkway with two risers connected to the driveway. The enclosed porch has a flatheaded opening, plain trim inside the structural opening, and a single leaf door with a shaped multi-pane light (Photo 12). It is framed by the brick exterior of the house on its northeast side, brick exterior of the front wing addition on its northwest side, and by wood framed walls on the southeast and southwest sides. It has a shed roof, painted wood lath ceiling and vinyl tile floors. The main house’s basement is accessed from the front wing addition (Photo 31). The rear wing addition’s entrance is near the southmost edge of its northeast elevation. It has a flatheaded opening, plain trim inside the structural opening, and has a single leaf door with a shaped multi-pane light (Photo 32). It is accessed from a concrete and wood stairway with three risers. Photo 20. View southwest showing brick and cedar shake cladding Page 82 of 141 Project # LHC516 May 2025 51 Photo 21. View northwest showing brick and asphalt shingle cladding Photo 22. View southwest showing the vinyl siding on the rear wing addition Page 83 of 141 Project # LHC516 May 2025 52 Photo 23. View northeast showing the roof on the main house Photo 24. View southeast showing a first storey window with concrete lug sill Page 84 of 141 Project # LHC516 May 2025 53 Photo 25. View southwest showing a first storey window with rowlock slip sill Photo 26. View northeast showing the boarded window on the southeast elevation Page 85 of 141 Project # LHC516 May 2025 54 Photo 27. View northwest showing the stained-glass window on the southeast elevation Photo 28. View southwest showing the boxed bay window on the northeast elevation Page 86 of 141 Project # LHC516 May 2025 55 Photo 29. View northwest showing windows on the enclosed porch Photo 30. View northeast showing the main entrance Page 87 of 141 Project # LHC516 May 2025 56 Photo 31. View northeast showing the basement door Photo 32. View southwest showing the entrance to the rear wing addition Page 88 of 141 Project # LHC516 May 2025 57 5.5 HOUSE INTERIOR 5.5.1 MAIN HOUSE, FIRST STOREY The first storey of the main house comprises a living room, dining room, kitchen, bedroom, and bathroom. The living room is accessed from the main house’s main entrance. The dining room and first storey bedroom are located to the northeast and northwest of the living room, respectively. The kitchen is located to the northwest of dining room, and the bathroom is located to the northwest of the kitchen. All rooms have vinyl floors, moulded baseboards, smooth painted walls, and smooth painted or popcorn ceilings (Photo 33 through Photo 36). The first storey bedroom was locked during LHC’s site visit. Photo 33. View southwest showing the living room Page 89 of 141 Project # LHC516 May 2025 58 Photo 34. View northeast showing the dining room Photo 35. View northeast showing the kitchen Page 90 of 141 Project # LHC516 May 2025 59 Photo 36. View northwest showing the first storey bathroom 5.5.2 MAIN HOUSE, UPPER HALF STOREY An “L” shaped stairway to the northwest of the living room provides access to the upper half storey. The stairway has painted wood treads, wood stringers, and wood handrails (Photo 37 and Photo 38). The upper half storey is composed of a central hallway, three bedrooms located in the building’s southeast, southwest, and northwest corners, and a bathroom in its northeast corner (Photo 39 through Photo 42). All rooms had vinyl floors, moulded baseboards, smooth painted walls and ceilings. Page 91 of 141 Project # LHC516 May 2025 60 Photo 37. View west showing the stairway leading to the upper half storey Photo 38. View southeast showing the stairway leading to the upper half storey Page 92 of 141 Project # LHC516 May 2025 61 Photo 39. View east showing the southeast bedroom Photo 40. View southwest showing the southwest bedroom Page 93 of 141 Project # LHC516 May 2025 62 Photo 41. View northwest showing the northwest bedroom Photo 42. View northeast showing the upper half storey bathroom Page 94 of 141 Project # LHC516 May 2025 63 5.5.3 MAIN HOUSE, BASEMENT The main house’s basement is accessed from the front wing addition. The basement doorway has a segmentally arched opening, voussoir composed of one row of soldier course brick topped with one row of header course brick, and plain trim inside the structural opening. The basement door provides access to an enclosed area with a cast-in- place concrete floor and walls and stairway composed of concrete and wood (Photo 43). The basement is unfinished; however, a bathroom is present near its centre (Photo 44). The basement has a concrete floor and rubblestone walls (Photo 45). The structure of the ceiling/first storey floor is primarily composed of a combination of rough sawn/hand hewn timber and sawn lumber. Some rough sawn/hand hewn timber structural members appear to show signs of burning and some have bark still attached (Photo 45 and Photo 46).86F 87 Vertical structural members in the basement include timber columns, square lumber columns, and steel jack posts (Photo 47 and Photo 48). Photo 43. View southeast showing the basement stairway 87 Some timber beams appear to be burnt. It is possible that burnt beams were reused from the previous farmhouse described in Stuart’s history of the Property. Page 95 of 141 Project # LHC516 May 2025 64 Photo 44. View northwest showing the basement bathroom Photo 45. View southwest showing the rubblestone foundation wall Page 96 of 141 Project # LHC516 May 2025 65 Photo 46. View northeast showing structural timber and lumber Photo 47. View northwest showing timber and square lumber columns Page 97 of 141 Project # LHC516 May 2025 66 Photo 48. View northwest showing square lumber and steel jack post 5.5.4 REAR WING ADDITION The rear wing addition comprises a living room/kitchen, bedroom, and bathroom. All rooms have tiled floors, moulded baseboards, smooth painted walls and ceilings (Photo 49 through Photo 51). Photo 49. View southwest showing the living room/kitchen in the rear wing addition Page 98 of 141 Project # LHC516 May 2025 67 Photo 50. View northwest showing the bedroom in the rear wing addition Photo 51. View northwest showing the bathroom in the rear wing addition Page 99 of 141 Project # LHC516 May 2025 68 5.6 ARCHITECTURAL, MORPHOLOGICAL, AND INTEGRITY ASSESSMENT 5.6.1 ARCHITECTURAL ASSESSMENT The house on the Property is a vernacular structure without clear influences of a specific architectural style. The general massing pattern of the house, including its rectangular floor plan and one-and-a-half storey height, and the steep central gable on its primary façade of the house are consistent with the Gothic Revival/Ontario Cottage style; however, this massing pattern was commonly used among various architectural styles in the early- to mid-19th century. Additionally, Stuart’s history suggests that the central gable was a later addition to the house. Accordingly, the house is not a clear, representative portrayal or symbol of one particular style. 5.6.2 MORPHOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT Observation of the Property’s existing conditions verifies the extensive alterations made to the house described in Section 4.5. The rubblestone foundation wall and rough sawn/hand hewn timber structure visible in the basement of the house are consistent with early- to mid-19th century construction practices. Evidence of burning on some of the timber members suggests that they may have been reclaimed and reused from the farmhouse that burned down on the Property. The presence of sawn lumber beams and square lumber columns is also indicative of early- to mid-19th century construction practices; however, their presence among the timber members suggests that they were added later. This is also true of the steel jack posts, which may have been added to correct setting or sagging of the house. The brick cladding also represents a major alteration to the house on the Property’s exterior appearance. The brick veneer was added at some point between 1913 and 1960, likely during the ownership of George Mair (1921-1937). The size, shape, and appearance of the brick in addition to brick detailing including the voussoirs are consistent with early 20th century development. Other modifications to the house’s exterior appearance include enclosing the front porch, addition of a central gable and rear wing addition, and replacement of windows. Overall, extensive alterations to the house’s structural systems and external appearance have been made. It is possible that parts of the house were constructed/assembled in the early- to mid-19th century; however, ongoing and consistent alterations have been made and obscure much of the potential historical fabric. Page 100 of 141 Project # LHC516 May 2025 69 5.6.3 INTEGRITY ASSESSMENT Table 3 assesses the Property for integrity using the seven criteria described in Section 2.4. Table 3. Integrity Assessment of 8 Kennedy Street East Aspect of Integrity and Description Discussion Location: Location is the place where the historic property was constructed or the place where the historic event occurred. The actual location of a historic property, complemented by its setting, is particularly important in recapturing the sense of historic events and persons. This aspect of integrity does not remain. The house on the Property appears to have remained in the same location since its construction; however, the former farming landscape that is historically connected with the house no longer remains. There is no longer a discernable sense of historic events or persons. Setting: Setting is the physical environment of a historic property. It refers to the historic character of the place in which the property played its historical role. It involves how, not just where, the property is situated and its historical relationship to surrounding features and open space. The physical features that constitute the historic setting of a historic property can be either natural or manmade and include such elements as topographic features, vegetation, simple manmade paths or fences, and the relationships between buildings and other features or open spaces. This aspect of integrity does not remain. The Property comprised part of a farm in the 19th and early 20th centuries. Over time as parts of the property were sold and the current lot was created the historic setting of the property was changed. The organization of space changed from a farm complex to a residential lot. The former farm was gradually partitioned and sold beginning in early 20th century. The shape and size of the Property has remained unchanged since 1949. Design: Design is the combination of elements that create the historic form, plan, space, structure, and style of a property. This includes such elements as organization of space, proportion, scale, technology, ornamentation, and materials. Design can also apply to districts and to the historic way in which the buildings, This aspect of integrity does not remain. Over time as parts of the property were sold and the current lot was created the historic form of the property was changed. The organization of space changed from a farm complex to a residential lot. Extensive modifications have been made to the exterior of the house, including the Page 101 of 141 Project # LHC516 May 2025 70 Aspect of Integrity and Description Discussion sites, or structures are related. Examples include spatial relationships between major features; visual rhythms in a streetscape or landscape plantings; the layout and materials of walkways and roads; and the relationship of other features, such as statues, water fountains, and archeological sites. addition of brick cladding, enclosing the front porch, addition of a central gable and rear wing addition, and replacement of windows. These changes have obscured much of the potential historical fabric and have completely changed the house’s exterior materials. At present, the house is not clearly reflective of a particular architectural style, building type, or time period. Materials: Materials are the physical elements that were combined or deposited during a particular period of time and in a particular pattern or configuration to form a historic property. If the property has been rehabilitated, the historic materials and significant features must have been preserved. The property must also be an actual historic resource, not a re-creation; a property whose historic features have been lost and then reconstructed is usually not eligible. This aspect of integrity does not remain. Modifications to the house on the Property’s materials are extensive. Extensive modifications have been made to the exterior of the house, including the addition of brick cladding, enclosing the front porch, addition of a central gable and rear wing addition, and replacement of windows. These changes have obscured much of the potential historical fabric and have completely changed the house’s exterior materials. At present, potential historical fabric that is visible is limited to the house’s basement. The readily observable materials (i.e., from the public realm) are not reflective of a particular period in time or pattern or configuration. Workmanship: Workmanship is the physical evidence of the crafts of a particular culture or people during any given period in history. It is the evidence of artisans' labor and skill in constructing or altering a building, structure, object, or site. It may be This aspect of integrity does not remain; however, there is no evidence to suggest that the house on the Property was built with greater than normal quality or at an intensity well above a late 19th century standard to begin with. Page 102 of 141 Project # LHC516 May 2025 71 Aspect of Integrity and Description Discussion expressed in vernacular methods of construction and plain finishes or in highly sophisticated configurations and ornamental detailing. Examples of workmanship in historic buildings include tooling, carving, painting, graining, turning, and joinery. Examples of workmanship in precontact contexts include Paleo-Indian Clovis points, Archaic period beveled adzes, Hopewellian worked bone pendants, and Iroquoian effigy pipes. Feeling: Feeling is a property's expression of the aesthetic or historic sense of a particular period of time. It results from the presence of physical features that, taken together, convey the property's historic character. For example, a rural historic district which retains its original design, materials, workmanship, and setting will relate the feeling of agricultural life in the nineteenth century. This aspect of integrity does not remain. The Property comprised part of a farm in the 19th and early 20th centuries. Over time as parts of the property were sold and the current lot was created the historic setting of the property was changed. The organization of space changed from a farm complex to a residential lot. At present, the property’s historic character as a rural farming complex is not ascertainable. Association: Association is the direct link between an important historic event or person and a historic property. A property retains association if it is the place where the event or activity occurred and is sufficiently intact to convey that relationship to an observer. Therefore, a property where a nationally significant person carried out the action or work for which they are nationally significant is preferable to the place where they returned to only sleep, eat, or spend their leisure time. Like feeling, association This aspect of integrity does not remain. There are no tangible, physical characteristics that associate the house on the Property with any of its owners. Page 103 of 141 Project # LHC516 May 2025 72 Aspect of Integrity and Description Discussion requires the presence of physical features that convey a property's historic character. Page 104 of 141 Project # LHC516 May 2025 73 6 EVALUATION OF CULTURAL HERITAGE VALUE OR INTEREST The Property was evaluated against O. Reg. 9/06 under the OHA using research and analysis presented in Section 4 and Section 5 of this CHER. The findings are presented in Table 4. Table 4. Ontario Regulation 9/06 Evaluation for 8 Kennedy Street East Criteria Criteria Met Justification 1. The property has design value or physical value because it is a rare, unique, representative or early example of a style, type, expression, material or construction method. No This criterion is not met. The Property does not have design value or physical value because it is a rare, unique, representative, or early example of a style, type, expression, material, or construction method. The house is a vernacular structure and parts of it were possibly built c. 1832, but an exact build date cannot be determined. This is primarily due to the extensive alterations that have been made, including to the house’s exterior appearance and structural system. Alterations to the exterior of the house have obscured much of the potential historical fabric on the exterior of the building (i.e., cladding materials), and alterations to the structural system (as observed in the basement) include a range of structural member types (e.g., timber and jack posts) that suggest change/replacement over time. Therefore, it is possible that parts of the house were constructed/assembled in the early- to mid- 19th century; however, much of the house was regularly modified throughout the 19th and 20th centuries, so a built date cannot be determined conclusively. The regular modifications have also affected the heritage integrity of the building (see Section 5.6.3). Page 105 of 141 Project # LHC516 May 2025 74 Criteria Criteria Met Justification At present, the house does not clearly represent a specific style, type, expression, material, or construction method (see Section 4.5, Section 5.3, and Section 5.6). 2. The property has design value or physical value because it displays a high degree of craftsmanship or artistic merit. No This criterion is not met. The Property does not have design value or physical value because it displays a high degree of craftsmanship or artistic merit. There is no evidence to suggest that the Property meets this criterion (see Section 5.3). 3. The property has design value or physical value because it demonstrates a high degree of technical or scientific achievement. No This criterion is not met. The Property does not have design value or physical value because it demonstrates a high degree of technical or scientific achievement. There is no evidence to suggest that the Property meets this criterion (see Section 5.3). 4. The property has historical value or associative value because it has direct associations with a theme, event, belief, person, activity, organization or institution that is significant to a community. No This criterion is not met. The Property does not have historical or associative value because it has direct associations with a theme, event, belief, person, activity, organization, or institution that is significant to a community. The Property is most closely associated with the Wells family, notably William (1760-1835), Jacob (1797-1887), and Henry (1839-1919), who owned it from 1817 until 1910. During their ownership, the Property was used as a farm. There is no evidence to suggest that these owners were involved in anything other than farming on the Property, in the Village/Town of Aurora, or in Whitchurch Township. Additionally, although farming was a historically relevant activity in Whitchurch Township, it was widespread and common (see Section 4.3, Section 4.4, and Section 4.5). Page 106 of 141 Project # LHC516 May 2025 75 Criteria Criteria Met Justification 5. The property has historical value or associative value because it yields, or has the potential to yield, information that contributes to an understanding of a community or culture. No This criterion is not met. The Property does not have historical value or associative value because it yields, or has the potential to yield, information that contributes to an understanding of a community or culture. There is no evidence to suggest that the Property meets this criterion (see Section 4.5). 6. The property has historical value or associative value because it demonstrates or reflects the work or ideas of an architect, artist, builder, designer or theorist who is significant to a community. No This criterion is not met. The Property does not have historical 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. It I most likely that the house was built by Jacob Wells. There is no evidence to suggest that he was an architect, artist, builder, designer, or theorist who was significant to a community (see Section 4.5). 7. The property has contextual value because it is important in defining, maintaining or supporting the character of an area. No This criterion is not met. The Property does not have contextual value because it is important in defining, maintaining, or supporting the character of an area. The Property’s immediate and wider contexts are composed of residential, commercial, and open space and they lack a cohesive, uniform character. Accordingly, there is no discernable character that the Property supports (see Section 5.1). 8. The property has contextual value because it is physically, functionally, visually or historically linked to its surroundings. No This criterion is not met. The Property does not have contextual value because it is physically, functionally, visually, or historically linked to its surroundings. The Property comprised part of a farm in the 19th and early 20th centuries. Over time as parts of the property were sold and the current lot was created the historic setting of the property was changed. The organization of space changed Page 107 of 141 Project # LHC516 May 2025 76 Criteria Criteria Met Justification from a farm complex to a residential lot. At present, there is no evidence to suggest that it is linked to its surrounding (see Section 4.5 and Section 5.3). 9. The property has contextual value because it is a landmark. No This criterion is not met. The building on the Property is not a landmark, which is defined by the MCM as being: “…a recognizable natural or human-made feature used for a point of reference that helps orienting in a familiar or unfamiliar environment; it may mark an event or development; it may be conspicuous.”87F 88 The Property is a vernacular house on a short local road. There is no evidence to suggest that this criterion is met (see Section 5.3). 6.1 SUMMARY OF EVALUATION In LHC’s professional opinion, the Property at 8 Kennedy Street East does not meet any of the criteria defined in O. Reg. 9/06 and is therefore not eligible for individual designation under Section 29 Part IV of the OHA. 88 Ministry of Citizenship and Multiculturalism, “Standards & Guidelines for Conservation of Provincial Heritage properties, Heritage Identification & Evaluation Process,” 17. Page 108 of 141 Project # LHC516 May 2025 77 7 CONCLUSION LHC was retained on 17 March 2025 by Stellar Homes Inc. to prepare a CHER for the property at 8 Kennedy Street East in the Town of Aurora, Ontario. This CHER evaluates the Property for CHVI using O. Reg. 9/06 under the OHA. It has been prepared as part of the process to remove the Property from the Town’s Register of Properties of Cultural Heritage Value or Interest. In LHC’s professional opinion, the Property at 8 Kennedy Street East does not meet any of the criteria defined in O. Reg. 9/06 and is therefore not eligible for individual designation under Section 29 Part IV of the OHA. Page 109 of 141 Project # LHC516 May 2025 78 8 SIGNATURES Sincerely, Ben Daub, MA RPP MCIP CAHP Intern Intermediate Heritage Planner Benjamin Holthof, MPl MMA RPP MCIP CAHP Senior Heritage Planner Page 110 of 141 Project # LHC516 May 2025 79 9 REFERENCES Bellegarde, D., 2003, “Indian Claims Commission - Mississaugas of the New Credit First Nation Inquiry Toronto Purchase Claim,” accessed 16 April 2025, https://publications.gc.ca/collections/collection_2007/icc-cri/RC21-1-9-2E.pdf. Canada’s Historic Places, 2010, “Standards and Guidelines for the Conservation of Historic Places in Canada,” accessed 24 February 2025, https://www.historicplaces.ca/media/18072/81468-parks-s+g-eng-web2.pdf. Department of Militia and Defence, 1914, Topographic Map Ontario Markham Sheet. Sheet 30 M/14. Edition 1. Scale 1:63,360, “Scholars Geoportal”. Digitized map accessed 16 April 2025. https://geo.scholarsportal.info/#r/details/_uri@=HTDP63360K030M14_1914TIFF&_ add:true_nozoom:true. Department of Militia and Defence, 1917, Topographic Map Ontario Markham Sheet. Sheet 30 M/14. Edition 2. Scale 1:63,360, “Scholars Geoportal”. Digitized map accessed 16 April 2025. https://geo.scholarsportal.info/#r/details/_uri@=HTDP63360K030M14_1917TIFF&_ add:true _nozoom:true. Department of Militia and Defence, 1922, Topographic Map Ontario Markham Sheet. Sheet 30 M/14. Edition 3. Scale 1:63,360. “Scholars Geoportal”. Digitized map accessed 16 April 2025. https://geo.scholarsportal.info/#r/details/_uri@=HTDP63360K030M14_1922TIFF&_ add:true_nozoom:true. Department of National Defence, 1936, Markham Ontario. Sheet 30 M/14. Edition 6. Scale 1:63,360. “Scholars Geoportal”. Digitized map accessed 16 April 2025. https://geo.scholarsportal.info/#r/details/_uri@=HTDP63360K030M14_1936_MBTIF F&_add:true_nozoom:true. Ellis, C. and Deller, D.B. 1990, “Paleo-Indians,” in The Archaeology of Southern Ontario to A.D. 1650, ed. Christopher Ellis and Neal Ferris (London, ON: Ontario Archaeological Society, London Chapter, 1990). English Heritage, 2008, “Conservation Principles: Policies and Guidance for the Sustainable Management of the Historic Environment,” https://historicengland.org.uk/images- books/publications/conservation-principles-sustainable-management-historic- environment/. Page 111 of 141 Project # LHC516 May 2025 80 Family Search, n.d., “Aurora. Tax Assessment Records , Tax Collector's Rolls,” Film Number/Image Group Number: 008661907, https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/3:1:3QHV-F3CK- S6L5?view=index&action=view&cc=4130007&lang=en. Goad, Chas. E. 1904 rev. 1913. Aurora Ont. Sheet 6. Scale 1:600. Government of Alberta, 2010, “Evaluating Historic Places; Eligibility, Significance and Integrity,” pdf. Jackson, L., “Dawson Creek: An Early Woodland Site in South-Central Ontario,” Ontario Archaeology 33:12–32; Parker, L.R.B. The Fitzgerald Site: A Non-Meadowood Early Woodland Site in Southwestern Ontario. Canadian Journal of Archaeology 21(2):121–148. Johnston, J. 1972, “Aurora: Its Early Beginnings,” Aurora Centennial Committee. Lavallee, O., 2005, “Narrow Gauge Railways of Canada,” Fitzhenry & Whiteside, Markham, ON. McClure Gillham, E., 1975, “Early Settlement of King Township, Ontario,” Published by Author, King City, ON. https://digitalcollections.ucalgary.ca/archive/Early- settlements-of-King-Township --Ontario-2R3BF1FJI1ASO.html. Miles & Co. 1878. Whitchurch. Scale 60 chains to 1 inch. “The Canadian County Atlas Digital Project”. Digitized map. Accessed 9 April 2025. Ministry of Citizenship and Multiculturalism, 2006, “Heritage Property Evaluation, Ontario Heritage Tool Kit,” prepared by the Ministry of Culture, (Ottawa: Queen’s Printer for Ontario). Ministry of Citizenship and Multiculturalism, 2006, “Heritage Property Evaluation: A Guide to Listing, Researching, and Evaluating Cultural Heritage Property in Ontario Communities,” 2006, prepared by the Ministry of Culture, (Ottawa: Queen’s Printer for Ontario). Ministry of Citizenship and Multiculturalism, 2021 draft, “Heritage Property Evaluation: A Guide to Listing, Researching, and Evaluating Cultural Heritage Property in Ontario Communities,” prepared by the Ministry of Culture, (Ottawa: Queen’s Printer for Ontario), https://prod-environmental-registry.s3.amazonaws.com/2021- 05/HPE_FINAL%20DRAFT-compressed.pdf. Mississaugas of the Credit First Nation, 2020, “The Toronto Purchase Treaty No. 13 (1805),” accessed 16 April 2025, https://mncfn.ca/the-toronto-purchase-treaty-no-13-1805/. Page 112 of 141 Project # LHC516 May 2025 81 Mitchell, J., 1950, “The Settlement of York County,” Toronto, ON: Charters Publishing. Mulvany, P.V., 1885, “History of Toronto and County of York, Ontario,” C. Blackett Robinson, Toronto, ON. National Park Service, 1997, “How to Evaluate the Integrity of a Property,” Chapter VIII in National Register Bulletin, How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation, U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Cultural Resources. Ontario, 1970, “c 50 The Regional Municipality of York Act, 1970," Ontario: Annual Statutes: Vol. 1970, Article 52. https://digitalcommons.osgoode.yorku.ca/ontario_statutes/vol1970/iss1/52. Province of Ontario, 1 January 2023, “Ontario Regulation 9/06: Criteria for Determining Cultural Heritage Value or Interest,” accessed 24 February 2025, https://www.ontario.ca/laws/regulation/060009. Province of Ontario, 31 March 2025, “Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13,” accessed 17 April 2025, https://www.ontario.ca/laws/statute/90p13. Province of Ontario, 4 December 2024, “Ontario Heritage Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. O.18.,” accessed 17 March 2025, https://www.ontario.ca/laws/statute/90o18. Province of Ontario, October 2024, “Provincial Planning Statement,” accessed 17 April 2025, https://www.ontario.ca/files/2024-10/mmah-provincial-planning-statement- en-2024-10-23.pdf. Smith, G.H., 1849, “Smith’s Canadian Gazetteer,” Published by Henry Rowsell, Toronto, ON. https://www.canadiana.ca/view/oocihm.49861/6. Stegmann. 1802. Whitchurch. Scale 40 chains – 1 inch. Digitized map. Toronto Railway Historical Association, n.d., “Northern Railway of Canada,” accessed 15 April 2025, https://www.trha.ca/trha/history/railways/northern-railway-of-canada/. Toronto Region Conservation Authority, 2001, “Chapter 3: First Nations,” in Greening Our Watersheds: Revitalization Strategies for Etobicoke and Mimico Creeks, prepared by the Toronto Region Conservation Authority (Toronto, ON). Town of Aurora, January 2024, “Town of Aurora Official Plan,” accessed 16 April 2025, https://www.aurora.ca/en/your-government/resources/development- planning/Combined-OP_Jan-19-2024---Clean_Version.pdf. Page 113 of 141 Project # LHC516 May 2025 82 Town of Aurora, n.d., “IN Aurora: Historic Aurora Business Owners,” accessed 16 April 2025, https://www.aurora.ca/en/business-and-development/in-aurora.aspx#Richard- Machell-1793-1868-. Tremaine, G.R. 1860. Tremaine’s Map of the County of York Canada West. “Ontario Historical County Maps”. Digitized map. Accessed 9 April 2025. https://maps.library.utoronto.ca/hgis/countymaps/york/0005.jpg. Underwriters’ Survey Bureau. 1960. Aurora Ont. Sheet 9. Watson, G., 1982, “Prehistoric Peoples of the Rideau Waterway,” in Archaeological Historical Symposium: October 2-3, Rideau Ferry, Ontario, edited by F.C.L. Wyght, pp. 24–55. Lombardy, Ontario. York Region Land Registry Office, n.d., “YORK REGION (65), AURORA, Book 450,” accessed April 9, 2025, https://www.onland.ca/ui/65/books/71458/viewer/17869346?page=1. York Region Land Registry Office, n.d., “YORK REGION (65), WHITCHURCH; STOUFFVILLE; AURORA, Book 231; CONCESSION 1; LOT 71 TO 86,” accessed April 9, 2025, https://www.onland.ca/ui/65/books/72148/viewer/3189504?page=1. York Region, 1954. York Region Historical Imagery (1954). “Discover York”. Web map. Accessed 9 April 2025. https://apps.yorkmaps.ca/vertigisstudio/web/?app=86ee7c18ca3a4016814e966908 a8b7a9. York Region, 1978. York Region Historical Imagery (1978). “Discover York”. Web map. Accessed 9 April 2025. https://apps.yorkmaps.ca/vertigisstudio/web/?app=86ee7c18ca3a4016814e966908 a8b7a9. York Region, 1988. York Region Historical Imagery (1988). “Discover York”. Web map. Accessed 9 April 2025. https://apps.yorkmaps.ca/vertigisstudio/web/?app=86ee7c18ca3a4016814e966908 a8b7a9. York Region, 1999. York Region Historical Imagery (1999). “Discover York”. Web map. Accessed 9 April 2025. https://apps.yorkmaps.ca/vertigisstudio/web/?app=86ee7c18ca3a4016814e966908 a8b7a9. York Region, 2002. York Region Historical Imagery (2002). “Discover York”. Web map. Accessed 9 April 2025. https://apps.yorkmaps.ca/vertigisstudio/web/?app=86ee7c18ca3a4016814e966908 Page 114 of 141 Project # LHC516 May 2025 83 a8b7a9. York Region, 2005. York Region Historical Imagery (2005). “Discover York”. Web map. Accessed 9 April 2025. https://apps.yorkmaps.ca/vertigisstudio/web/?app=86ee7c18ca3a4016814e966908 a8b7a9. York Region, 2024. York Region Historical Imagery (2024). “Discover York”. Web map. Accessed 9 April 2025. https://apps.yorkmaps.ca/vertigisstudio/web/?app=86ee7c18ca3a4016814e966908 a8b7a9. York Region, June 2024, “York Region Official Plan,” accessed 16 April 2025, https://www.york.ca/york-region/regional-official-plan. York Region, York Region Historical Imagery (1970). “Discover York”. Web map. Accessed 9 April 2025. https://apps.yorkmaps.ca/vertigisstudio/web/?app=86ee7c18ca3a4016814e966908 a8b7a9. Page 115 of 141 Project # LHC516 May 2025 84 APPENDIX A Qualifications Ben Daub, MA RPP MCIP CAHP Intern – Intermediate Heritage Planner Ben Daub is an intermediate heritage planner with LHC. He holds a Bachelor of Applied Technology in Architecture – Project and Facility Management from Conestoga College and a Master of Arts in Planning from the University of Waterloo. His master’s thesis analyzed the relationship between urban intensification and the ongoing management of built heritage resources using a mixed methods approach. During his academic career, Ben gained a detailed understanding of the built environment through exposure to architectural, engineering, and urban planning principles and processes. His understanding of the built environment ranges from building specific materials and methods to large scale planning initiatives. Ben has been the primary or contributing author of over 60 technical cultural heritage reports with LHC. He has worked on Heritage Impact Assessments, Cultural Heritage Evaluation Reports, Environmental Assessments, Heritage Conservation District Studies, and Municipal Heritage Register Reviews. He has worked with properties with cultural heritage value recognized at the municipal, regional, provincial, and federal levels and has prepared reports for urban, suburban, and rural sites. In addition to his work at LHC, Ben instructs the Urban and Community Planning course in Conestoga College’s Architecture – Project and Facility Management degree program and has presented his master’s thesis research at ICOMOS Canada’s Next Generation: Research from Canadian Emerging Professionals event. Ben is a Registered Professional Planner (RPP), full member with the Ontario Professional Planners Institute (OPPI), full member with the Canadian Institute of Planners (MCIP), and an intern member of the Canadian Association of Heritage Professionals (CAHP). Christienne Uchiyama, MA CAHP - Principal LHC Christienne Uchiyama MA CAHP is Principal and Manager of Heritage Consulting Services with LHC. She is a Heritage Consultant and Professional Archaeologist (P376) with more than two decades of experience working on cultural heritage aspects of planning and development projects. She received her MA in Heritage Conservation from Carleton University School of Canadian Studies. Her thesis examined the identification and assessment of impacts on cultural heritage resources in the context of Environmental Assessment. Page 116 of 141 Project # LHC516 May 2025 85 Chris has provided archaeological and heritage conservation advice, support and expertise as a member of numerous multi-disciplinary project teams for projects across Ontario, including such major projects as: all phases of archaeological assessment at the Canadian War Museum site at LeBreton Flats, Ottawa; renewable energy projects; natural gas pipeline routes; railway lines; hydro powerline corridors; and highway/road realignments. She has completed more than 300 cultural heritage technical reports for development proposals at all levels of government, including cultural heritage evaluation reports, heritage impact assessments, and archaeological licence reports and has a great deal of experience undertaking peer reviews. Her specialties include the development of Cultural Heritage Evaluation Reports, under both O. Reg. 9/06 and 10/06, and Heritage Impact Assessments. Benjamin Holthof, MPl MMA RPP MCIP CAHP – Senior Heritage Planner Ben Holthof is a heritage consultant, planner and marine archaeologist with experience working in heritage consulting, archaeology and not-for-profit museum sectors. He holds a Master of Urban and Regional Planning degree from Queens University; a Master of Maritime Archaeology degree from Flinders University of South Australia; a Bachelor of Arts degree in Archaeology from Wilfrid Laurier University; and a certificate in Museum Management and Curatorship from Fleming College. Ben has consulting experience in heritage planning, cultural heritage screening, evaluation, heritage impact assessment, cultural strategic planning, cultural heritage policy review, historic research and interpretive planning. He has been a project manager for heritage consulting projects including archaeological management plans and heritage conservation district studies. Ben has also provided heritage planning support to municipalities including work on heritage permit applications, work with municipal heritage committees, along with review and advice on municipal cultural heritage policy and process. His work has involved a wide range of cultural heritage resources including on cultural landscapes, institutional, industrial, commercial, and residential sites as well as infrastructure such as wharves, bridges and dams. Ben was previously a Cultural Heritage Specialist with Golder Associates Ltd. from 2014-2020. Ben is experienced in museum and archive collections management, policy development, exhibit development and public interpretation. He has written museum policy, strategic plans, interpretive plans and disaster management plans. He has been curator at the Marine Museum of the Great Lakes at Kingston, the Billy Bishop Home and Museum, and the Owen Sound Marine and Rail Museum. These sites are in historic buildings, and he is knowledgeable with extensive collections that include large artifacts including ships, boats, railway cars, and large artifacts in unique conditions with specialized conservation Page 117 of 141 Project # LHC516 May 2025 86 concerns. Ben is also a maritime archaeologist having worked on terrestrial and underwater sites in Ontario and Australia. He has an Applied Research archaeology license from the Government of Ontario (R1062). He is a professional member of the Canadian Association of Heritage Professionals (CAHP). Jordan Greene, BA (Hons) – Mapping Technician Jordan Greene, BA joined LHC as a mapping technician following the completion of her undergraduate degree. In addition to completing her B.A. in Geography at Queen’s University, Jordan also completed certificates in Geographic Information Science and Urban Planning Studies. During her work with LHC Jordan has been able to transition her academic training into professional experience and has deepened her understanding of the applications of GIS in the fields of heritage planning and archaeology. Jordan has contributed to over 100 technical studies and has completed mapping for projects including, but not limited to, cultural heritage assessments and evaluations, archaeological assessments, environmental assessments, hearings, and conservation studies. In addition to GIS work she has completed for studies Jordan has begun developing interactive maps and online tools that contribute to LHC’s internal data management. In 2021 Jordan began acting as the health and safety representative for LHC. Page 118 of 141 Project # LHC516 May 2025 87 APPENDIX B Glossary Definitions are based on those provided in the Provincial Planning Statement (PPS), Ontario Heritage Act (OHA), the York Region Official Plan (YROP), and the Town of Aurora Official Plan (OP). Adjacent means those lands contiguous to a protected heritage property or as otherwise defined in the municipal official plan (PPS). Adjacent means lands contiguous to cultural heritage resources. The extent of the adjacent lands may be recommended by the Province or based on municipal approaches which achieve the same objective (YROP). Adjacent generally, adjacent lands are considered to be within 120m from any part of the feature (OP). Alter means to change in any manner and includes to restore, renovate, repair, or disturb. “Alteration” has a corresponding meaning (OHA). Archaeological Assessment A survey undertaken by a provincially licensed archaeologist to identify an archaeological site and, to the extent required, the cultural heritage value or interest of the site and applicable mitigation measures. There are four levels of specialty crop areas that are specific to the circumstances, a Stage 1, Stage 2, Stage 3 or Stage 4 archaeological assessment, each of which is required as completed by a provincially licensed archaeologist in accordance with the current Provincial requirements, standards and guidelines applicable to provincially licensed archaeologists (YROP). Archaeological Fieldwork Any activity carried out on, above or under land or water for the purpose of obtaining and documenting data, recovering artifacts and remains or altering an archaeological site and includes monitoring, assessing, exploring, surveying, recovering and excavating (YROP). Archaeological Resources includes artifacts, archaeological sites and marine archaeological sites, as defined under the Ontario Heritage Act. The identification and evaluation of such resources are based upon archaeological assessments carried out by archaeologists licensed under the Ontario Heritage Act (PPS). Archaeological Resources includes artifacts, archaeological sites, marine archaeological sites, as defined under the Ontario Heritage Act. The identification and evaluation of such resources are based upon archaeological fieldwork undertaken in accordance with the Ontario Heritage Act (YROP). Page 119 of 141 Project # LHC516 May 2025 88 Archaeological Resources means includes artifacts, archaeological sites and marine archaeological sites. The identification and evaluation of such resources are based upon archaeological fieldwork undertaken in accordance with the Ontario Heritage Act. (OP). Archaeological Sites means any property that contains an artifact or any other physical evidence of past human use or activity that is of cultural heritage value or interest (YROP). Areas of Archaeological Potential means areas with the likelihood to contain archaeological resources, as evaluated using the processes and criteria that are established under the Ontario Heritage Act (PPS). Areas of Archaeological Potential means areas with the likelihood to contain archaeological resources. Criteria for determining archaeological potential are established by the Province, but municipal approaches which achieve the same objectives may also be used. Archaeological potential is confirmed through archaeological fieldwork undertaken in accordance with the Ontario Heritage Act (OP). Built Heritage Resource means a building, structure, monument, installation or any manufactured or constructed part or remnant that contributes to a property’s cultural heritage value or interest as identified by a community, including an Indigenous community (PPS). Built Heritage Resource means a building, structure, monument, installation or any manufactured or constructed part or remnant that contributes to a property’s cultural heritage value or interest as identified by a community, including an Indigenous community. Built heritage resources are located on property that may be designated under Parts IV or V of the Ontario Heritage Act, or that may be included on local, provincial, federal and/or international registers (YROP). Conserved means the identification, protection, management and use of built heritage resources, cultural heritage landscapes and archaeological resources in a manner that ensures their cultural heritage value or interest is retained. This may be achieved by the implementation of recommendations set out in a conservation plan, archaeological assessment, and/or heritage impact assessment that has been approved, accepted or adopted by the relevant planning authority and/or decision- maker. Mitigative measures and/or alternative development approaches can be included in these plans and assessments (PPS, YROP). Conserved means the identification, protection, use and/or management of cultural heritage and archaeological resources in such as way that their heritage values, attributes and integrity are retained. This may be addressed through a Conservation Plan or Heritage Impact Statement (OP). Page 120 of 141 Project # LHC516 May 2025 89 Cultural Heritage Landscape means a defined geographical area that may have been modified by human activity and is identified as having cultural heritage value or interest by a community, including an Indigenous community. The area may include features such as buildings, structures, spaces, views, archaeological sites or natural elements that are valued together for their interrelationship, meaning or association. Cultural heritage landscapes may be properties that have been determined to have cultural heritage value or interest under the Ontario Heritage Act, or have been included on federal and/or international registers, and/or protected through official plan, zoning by-law, or other land use planning mechanisms (YROP). Cultural Heritage Landscape means defined geographical area that may have been modified by human activity and is identified as having cultural heritage value or interest by a community, including an Indigenous community. The area may include features such as buildings, structures, spaces, views, archaeological sites or natural elements that are valued together for their interrelationship, meaning or association. Cultural heritage landscapes may be properties that have been determined to have cultural heritage value or interest under the Ontario Heritage Act, or have been included on federal and/or international registers, and/or protected through official plan, zoning by-law, or other land use planning mechanisms (OP). Cultural Heritage Resources means built heritage resources, cultural heritage landscapes and archaeological resources that have been determined to have cultural heritage value or interest for the important contribution they make to our understanding of the history of a place, an event, or a people. While some cultural heritage resources may already be identified and inventoried by official sources, the significance of others can only be determined after evaluation (YROP). Cultural Heritage Resources means built heritage resources, cultural heritage landscapes and archaeological resources that have been determined to have cultural heritage value or interest for the important contribution they make to our understanding of the history of a place, an event, or a people. While some cultural heritage resources may already be identified and inventoried by official sources, the significance of others can only be determined after evaluation (OP). Heritage Attributes means, as defined under the Ontario Heritage Act, in relation to real property, and to the buildings and structures on the real property, the attributes of the property, buildings and structures that contribute to their cultural heritage value or interest (PPS). Page 121 of 141 Project # LHC516 May 2025 90 Heritage Attributes means the principal features or elements that contribute to a protected heritage property’s cultural heritage value or interest, and may include the property’s built, constructed, or manufactured elements, as well as natural landforms, vegetation, water features, and its visual setting (e.g. significant views or vistas to or from a protected heritage property) (YROP). Protected Heritage Property means property designated under Part IV or VI of the Ontario Heritage Act; property included in an area designated as a heritage 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 provincial ministry or a prescribed public body as a property having cultural heritage value or interest under the Standards and Guidelines for the Conservation of Provincial Heritage Properties; property protected under federal heritage legislation; and UNESCO World Heritage Sites (PPS). Protected Heritage Property means property designated under Parts IV, V or VI of the Ontario Heritage Act; heritage conservation easement under Parts II or IV of the Ontario Heritage Act;. property identified by the Province and prescribed public bodies as provincial heritage property under the Standards and Guidelines for Conservation of Provincial Heritage Properties; property protected under federal legislation, and UNESCO World Heritage Sites (YROP). Significant Archaeological Resources means resources that, in the opinion of a licensed archaeologist (and confirmed by the Province through acceptance of the archaeological assessment report in the Ontario Public Register of Archaeological Reports) meet the criteria for determining cultural heritage value or interest set out in the Standards and Guidelines for Consultant Archaeologists, as amended, and are to be protected from impacts of any sort (YROP). Significant Built Heritage Resources / Significant Cultural Heritage Resources means in regard to cultural heritage and archaeology, resources that have been determined to have cultural heritage value or interest. Process and criteria for determining cultural heritage value or interest are established by the Province under the authority of the Ontario Heritage Act (YROP). Significant means, in regard to cultural heritage and archaeology, resources that have been determined to have cultural heritage value or interest. Processes and criteria for determining cultural heritage value or interest are established by the Province under the authority of the Ontario Heritage Act (PPS) Page 122 of 141 VIEW 001Attachment 3Page 123 of 141 VIEW 002Page 124 of 141 VIEW 003Page 125 of 141 VIEW 004Page 126 of 141 VIEW 005Page 127 of 141 Page 128 of 141 CULTURAL HERITAGE EVALUATION8 KENNEDY STREET EASTPage 129 of 141 CULTURAL HERITAGE EVALUATIONPROJECT BACKGROUND•LHC was retained on 17 March 2025 by Stellar Homes Inc. to prepare a Cultural Heritage Evaluation Report (CHER) for the property.•At the time of writing, the property was Listedon the Town’s Register of Properties of Cultural Heritage Value or Interest under Section 27 Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act.•The CHER was prepared to evaluate the property for Cultural Heritage Value or Interest using Ontario Regulation 9/06 as part of the process to remove the Property from the Town’s Register of Properties of Cultural Heritage Value or Interest.Page 130 of 141 CULTURAL HERITAGE EVALUATIONPROPERTY LOCATIONPage 131 of 141 CULTURAL HERITAGE EVALUATIONPROPERTY HISTORY: OWNERSHIP•The property (Lot 1 Concession 79, 190 acres) was purchased by William Wells on 17 July 1817 and was used as a farm.•Wells subdivided the lot in the late 1820s, retaining ~100 acres.•Frank Staples purchased the property (Lot 1 Concession 79, 93 acres) on 1 February 1910.•George Mair purchased the property (Plan 1B 142’ x 200’, 0.65 acres) on 1 December 1919.•John and Ida Dodd purchased the property (R. Plan 246 Lot 162) on 10 May 1938. The property was subdivided between 1948-1949. Following subdivision, the property was 0.3 acres.Page 132 of 141 CULTURAL HERITAGE EVALUATIONPROPERTY HISTORY: ALTERATIONS•190-acre agricultural property to 0.3-acre residential property.•The original farmhouse burned in 1832 and is believed to have been replaced with the house on the property.•In 1913:•one-and-a-half storey, square, frame building•one storey frame addition on S-E elevation•one storey frame addition on N-E elevation•one storey attached shed on S-E elevation•Farming complex (barn, silo, icehouse, sheds)•In 1960:•one-and-a-half storey, square, brick clad building•one storey frame addition on S-E elevationPage 133 of 141 CULTURAL HERITAGE EVALUATIONEVALUATION: CRITERION 1•Not met.•The house is a vernacular structure and parts of it were possibly built c. 1832, but an exact build date cannot be confirmed. •Extensive alterations have been made, including to the house’s exterior appearance and structural system. •Alterations to the exterior of the house have obscured much of the potential historical fabric on the exterior of the building (i.e., cladding materials), and alterations to the structural system (as observed in the basement) include a range of structural member types (e.g., timber and jack posts) that suggest change/replacement over time.Page 134 of 141 CULTURAL HERITAGE EVALUATIONEVALUATION: CRITERIA 2 & 3•Neither met.•The Property does not display a high degree of craftsmanship or artistic merit (Criterion 2).•The Property does not demonstrate a high degree of technical or scientific achievement (Criterion 3).Page 135 of 141 CULTURAL HERITAGE EVALUATIONEVALUATION: CRITERION 4•Not met.•The Property is most closely associated with the Wells family, notably William (1760-1835), Jacob (1797-1887), and Henry (1839-1919), who owned it from 1817 until 1910. During their ownership, the Property was used as a farm. Page 136 of 141 CULTURAL HERITAGE EVALUATIONEVALUATION: CRITERIA 5 & 6•Neither met.•The Property does not contribute to an understanding of a community or culture (Criterion 5).•It is most likely that the house was built by Jacob Wells. There is no evidence to suggest that he was an architect, artist, builder, designer, or theorist who was significant to a community (Criterion 6).Page 137 of 141 CULTURAL HERITAGE EVALUATIONEVALUATION: CRITERION 7•Not met.•The Property’s immediate and wider contexts are composed of residential, commercial, and open space and they lack a cohesive, uniform character. •There is no discernable character that the Property supports.Page 138 of 141 CULTURAL HERITAGE EVALUATIONEVALUATION: CRITERION 8•Not met.•The Property comprised part of a farm in the 19thand early 20thcenturies. Over time as parts of the property were sold and the current lot was created the historic setting of the property was changed. •The organization of space changed from a farm complex to a residential lot.Page 139 of 141 CULTURAL HERITAGE EVALUATIONEVALUATION: CRITERION 9•Not met.•The Property is occupied by a vernacular house on a short local road. There is no evidence to suggest that it is a landmark.Page 140 of 141 CULTURAL HERITAGE EVALUATIONCONCLUSION•It is LHC’s professional opinion that the Property at 8 Kennedy Road East does not meet any of the criteria defined in Ontario Regulation 9/06 and is therefore not eligible for individual designation under Section 29 Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act.•No salvageable materials are associated with the property’s cultural heritage value or interest.Page 141 of 141