The URL can be used to link to this page

Agenda - Heritage Advisory Committee - 20220207Town of Aurora Heritage Advisory Committee Meeting Agenda Date:February 7, 2022 Time:7:00 p.m. Location:Video Conference Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, meetings will be available to the public via live stream only on the Town’s YouTube Channel. To participate electronically please visit aurora.ca/participation. Pages 1.Call to Order 1.1.Appointment of Chair and Vice Chair That a Committee member be elected as Chair for Year 2022 of the Heritage Advisory Committee (2018-2022 Term); and 1. That a Committee member be elected as Vice Chair for Year 2022 of the Heritage Advisory Committee (2018-2022 Term). 2. 2.Approval of the Agenda 3.Declarations of Pecuniary Interest and General Nature Thereof 4.Receipt of the Minutes 4.1.Heritage Advisory Committee Meeting Minutes of January 12, 2022 1 That the Heritage Advisory Committee Meeting Minutes of January 12, 2022, be received for information. 5.Delegations 6.Matters for Consideration 6.1.Memorandum from Planner/Heritage Planning; Re: Heritage Permit Application, File: HPA-2021-16, 82 Centre Street 6 That the memorandum regarding Heritage Permit Application File: HPA-2021-16 be received; and 1. That the Heritage Advisory Committee comments regarding2. Heritage Permit Application File: HPA-2021-16 be received and referred to staff for consideration and further action as appropriate. 6.2.Memorandum from Planner/Heritage Planning; Re: Report to Designate 34-38 Berczy Street under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act and to Delist 26 & 32 Berczy Street from the Aurora Register of Properties of Cultural Heritage Value or Interest 13 That the memorandum regarding the designation of 34-38 Berczy Street under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act as a property of Cultural Heritage Value or Interest and the removal of 26 and 32 Berczy Street from the Aurora Register of Properties of Cultural Heritage Value or Interest be received; and 1. That the Heritage Advisory Committee comments regarding designation of 34-38 Berczy Street under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act be received and referred to staff for consideration and further action as appropriate; and 2. That the Heritage Advisory Committee comments regarding the removal of 26 and 32 Berczy Street from the Aurora Register of Properties of Cultural Heritage Value or Interest be received and referred to staff for consideration and further action as appropriate. 3. 7.Informational Items 7.1.Memorandum from Planner/Heritage Planning; Re: Report on 2021 Minor Heritage Permit Approvals 79 That the memorandum regarding Report on 2021 Minor Heritage Permit Approvals be received for information. 1. 7.2.Memorandum from Planner/Heritage Planning; Re: Heritage Advisory Committee Update List 82 That the memorandum regarding Heritage Advisory Committee Update List be received for information. 1. 8.Adjournment 1 Town of Aurora Heritage Advisory Committee Meeting Minutes Date: Time: Location: Wednesday, January 12, 2022 7:00 p.m. Video Conference Committee Members: Councillor Sandra Humfryes (Chair) John Green Matthew Kinsella Robert Lounds Bob McRoberts Members Absent: Jeff Lanthier (Chair) Hoda Soliman (Vice Chair) Other Attendees: Mayor Tom Mrakas (ex-officio) Robin McDougall, Director, Community Services Alicia Cherayil, Collections and Exhibitions Coordinator Jeremy Hood, Museum Assistant Brashanthe Manoharan, Planner/Heritage Planning Ishita Soneji, Council/Committee Coordinator _____________________________________________________________________ 1. Call to Order The Committee consented to appoint Councillor Humfryes as Chair of the meeting. The Chair called the meeting to order at 7:04 p.m. 1.1 Appointment of Committee Chair and Vice Chair The Committee consented to defer the Appointment of Chair and Vice Chair to the Heritage Advisory Committee meeting of February 7, 2022. Page 1 of 84 2 2. Approval of the Agenda Moved by Bob McRoberts Seconded by John Green That the revised agenda as circulated by Legislative Services, be approved. Carried 3. 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. 4. Receipt of the Minutes 4.1 Heritage Advisory Committee Meeting Minutes of November 1, 2021 Moved by John Green Seconded by Matthew Kinsella That the Heritage Advisory Committee Meeting Minutes of November 1, 2021 be received for information. Carried 5. Delegations 5.1 Steve Armes, Resident; Re: Item 6.2 - Memorandum from Planner/Heritage Planning; Re: Heritage Permit Application, Faraji, 74 Centre St Steve Armes expressed concerns regarding the proposed development at 74 Centre Street noting the impacts on the trees, vegetation, and drainage on property. He further referred to the concerns expressed at previous meeting regarding the overall size, increase in traffic, verandah depth, and the proposed garage type noting the long-term impact of the redevelopment to the heritage district. That the comments of the delegation be received and referred to Item 6.2. 6. Matters for Consideration The Committee consented to consider item 6.2 prior to item 6.1. Page 2 of 84 3 6.1 Memorandum from Director, Community Services; Re: Pet Cemetery – Project Update Robin McDougall, Director, Community Services, presented an overview of the Pet Cemetery Project highlighting the focus of the on-site work for the next few years including site restoration involving debris removal, stone restoration, entrance design, and restoring internal pathways. She further provided details regarding the temporary and permanent perimeter fencing options, security of the site, future heritage designation options, and future programming initiatives which include obtaining names, dates, details of each stone and the respective archival and historical context. A video outlining details of the overall project and work conducted on site was presented. Jeremy Hood and Alicia Cherayil were also present to respond to any questions. The Committee sought clarification on the available options and process for designating the site. Staff advised that the site could be designated under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act, Ontario Heritage Trust Easement, or through the National Historic Site Designation, and advised that Council direction would be required to pursue the heritage designation. The Committee expressed support for pursuing a future designation for the site. The Committee further sought clarification regarding the available permanent fencing options and associated costs. The Committee suggested that any temporary fencing could be converted to permanent fencing in the future to ensure security of the property in addition to the proposed security features. The Committee and staff further discussed about the available funding options to help facilitate the project initiatives and future maintenance of the property. The Committee expressed appreciation to staff for their efforts on the project and expressed support for the initiatives presented by staff. Moved by Matthew Kinsella Seconded by John Green 1. That the memorandum regarding Pet Cemetery – Project Update be received; and Page 3 of 84 4 2. That the Heritage Advisory Committee comments regarding Pet Cemetery – Project Update be received and referred to staff for consideration and further action as appropriate. Carried 6.2 Memorandum from Planner/Heritage Planning; Re: Heritage Permit Application, Faraji, 74 Centre Street, File Number: HPA-2020-04 David Eqbal, Architect, presented an overview of the proposed revised design highlighting the reduction in gross floor area, reduction in height, revised elevations, design layout, and floor plans. Mr. Eqbal noted that all comments and concerns to date have been taken into consideration in the revised proposal. Hassan Faraji, Owner, was present to respond to any questions. Staff provided an overview of the memorandum and provided a summary of the revisions noting that the proposal aligns with the guidelines in the Northeast Old Aurora Heritage Conservation District Plan. The Committee referred to the comments and concerns expressed at previous meetings and suggested that review of the Heritage Conservation District Plans in the future would be beneficial to ensure conformity to heritage aspects and safeguard heritage features. The Committee sought clarification regarding the storm water management, proposed parking and driveway layout, impacts to the trees and vegetation on the property, need for variances, and the applicant and staff provided clarification. The Committee expressed support for the detached garage as it conforms to the character of the neighbourhood. The Committee expressed appreciation to the applicant and owner for considering the comments provided by the Committee to date and submitting a revised proposal. Staff noted that the application and report will be brought for Council's consideration to the Council meeting of January 25, 2022. Moved by Matthew Kinsella Seconded by Bob McRoberts 1. That the memorandum regarding Heritage Permit Application HPA- 2020-04 be received; and Page 4 of 84 5 2. That the Heritage Advisory Committee comments regarding Heritage Permit Application HPA-2020-04 be received and referred to staff for consideration and further action as appropriate. Carried 7. Informational Items None. 8. Adjournment Moved by Matthew Kinsella Seconded by Robert Lounds That the meeting be adjourned at 9:01 p.m. Carried Page 5 of 84 100 John West Way Aurora, Ontario L4G 6J1 (905) 727-3123 aurora.ca Town of Aurora Memorandum Planning and Development Services Re: Heritage Permit Application File: HPA-2021-16 82 Centre Street To: Heritage Advisory Committee From: Brashanthe Manoharan, Planner/ Heritage Planning Date: February 7, 2022 Recommendation 1. That the memorandum regarding Heritage Permit Application File: HPA-2021-16 be received; and 2. That the Heritage Advisory Committee comments regarding Heritage Permit Application File: HPA-2021-16 be received and referred to staff for consideration and further action as appropriate. Summary This memo provides the Heritage Advisory Committee with the necessary information to comment on Heritage Permit Application HPA-2021-16. The purpose of the application is to construct a one-storey rear addition to the existing dwelling at 82 Centre Street. The subject property is located within the Northeast Old Aurora Heritage Conservation District.  Staff support the one-storey rear addition as it does not contribute to or adversely impact the heritage value of the property.  Staff are satisfied that the proposal generally meets the design guidelines of the Northeast Old Aurora Heritage Conservation District Plan. Background Property Description Page 6 of 84 Heritage Permit HPA-2021-16 – 82 Centre Street February 7, 2022 Page 2 of 4 The subject property is located on the north side of Centre Street, north of Wellington Street East and east of Yonge Street (see Attachment 1). The property contains a one and a half (1 ½) storey brick dwelling that was constructed c1925. The dwelling reflects an Arts and Crafts architecture style characterized by its side gable roof with long front slopes, wide front-gable dormer, verandah, and double hung windows. The rear elevation currently contains a wide rear-gable dormer and 2 patio style sliding doors. Parking is provided on the existing driveway that is located along the west side of the property. Mature vegetation exists on the property, which includes a two (2) large tree in the front yard, large trees in the rear yard, and vegetation along the west property line. The dwelling originally exhibited many attributes of the original Arts and Crafts style (i.e., divided over single-pane glazing). On December 12, 2016, Council consented to Heritage Permit Application No. NE-HCD-HPA-16-10, with conditions for alteration to the front verandah, removal of chimney, and modified roofline on the rear elevation. Heritage Designation In 2006, Town Council passed By-Law 4804-06.D to designate 82 Centre Street under Part V of the Ontario Heritage Act as part of the Northeast Old Aurora Heritage Conservation District. Town Council also passed By-Law 4809-06.D to adopt the “Northeast Old Aurora Heritage Conservation District Plan” as the document to guide the preservation, redevelopment and alteration of the properties and streetscapes located within the boundaries of the District. Heritage Permit Application The applicant submitted a heritage permit to construct a 36.78 m2 396 (ft2) one-storey rear addition to the existing dwelling. The proposed addition is designed with a flat roof, two (2) single pane windows, and horizonal siding dark-grey vinyl to match existing trim of the second storey. The proposed development will be subject to a zoning review to confirm compliance with the Zoning By-law prior to the issuance of a building permit. Page 7 of 84 Heritage Permit HPA-2021-16 – 82 Centre Street February 7, 2022 Page 3 of 4 Analysis Staff support the one-storey rear addition as it does not contribute to or adversely impact the heritage value of the property. The proposed one-storey addition will not adversely affect the heritage integrity of the existing dwelling as it is located entirely behind the main building. Further, the proposed rear yard addition is not visible from the streetscape. As such, there will be minimal impacts on the streetscape. Staff are satisfied that the proposed addition generally meets the design guidelines in the Northeast Old Aurora Heritage Conservation District Plan. As indicated in Section 9.1.2.5 of the District Plan, exterior additions are to be located at the rear or an inconspicuous side of the historic building. The proposed one-storey addition is located directly behind the existing dwelling in the rear yard. The proposed addition will not be visible from the street and will not adversely impact the streetscape. Further, the existing mature trees in the front yard, as well as the vegetation along the west property line will provide screening to mitigate any visual impacts to the streetscape. Section 9.1.3 of the District Plan states that additions and alterations to an existing heritage building should be consistent with the style of the original buildings. Staff consider the overall design of the proposed addition to be compatible with the original architectural character of the main building. The proposed horizontal siding and proposed windows are consistent with the style of the dwelling as well as the guidelines of the Heritage District Plan. Section 9.3 of the District Plan provides that new addition should not have a greater height or scale than the original building. The proposed one-storey addition will maintain the height of the first storey of the existing dwelling. The floor area of the proposed addition is less than 20% of the footprint of the existing house. The proposed second story addition is considered subordinate to the existing house and will not detract from the property or reduce its heritage value. Page 8 of 84 Heritage Permit HPA-2021-16 – 82 Centre Street February 7, 2022 Page 4 of 4 Conclusion Staff have reviewed Heritage Permit Application HPA-2021-16 for 82 Centre Street and are satisfied that the proposed work is consistent with the design guidelines of the Northeast Old Aurora Heritage Conservation District Plan. Attachments Attachment 1 – Location Map Attachment 2 - Drawings Page 9 of 84 Wellington Street East Walton DriveCentre Street Wells Street NorthCeda r Cre scent Wells StreetLarmont StreetCatherine AvenueFleuryStreet Birch CourtLEGAL DESCRIPTION: PLAN 107 PT LOT 11 MUNICIPAL ADDRESS: 82 Centre StreetFile No.: HPA-2021-16 0 40 80 Metres Map created by the Town of Aurora Planning Department, February 7, 2022Base data provided by York Region. This map is for addressing purposes only and should not be used for calculations or measurements. LOCATION MAP ¯St John's Sdrd Wellington St E Vandorf SdrdHenderson Drive ^Wellington St W UV404 UV404 Subject Lands Leslie StYonge StBathurst StBayview AveBloomington Rd Page 10 of 84 Page 11 of 84 Page 12 of 84 100 John West Way Aurora, Ontario L4G 6J1 (905) 727-3123 aurora.ca Town of Aurora Memorandum Planning and Development Services Re: Report to Designate 34-38 Berczy Street under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act and to Delist 26 & 32 Berczy Street from the Aurora Register of Properties of Cultural Heritage Value or Interest To: Heritage Advisory Committee From: Brashanthe Manoharan, Planner/Heritage Planning Date: February 7, 2022 Recommendation 1. That the memorandum regarding the designation of 34-38 Berczy Street under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act as a property of Cultural Heritage Value or Interest and the removal of 26 & 32 Berczy Street from the Aurora Register of Properties of Cultural Heritage Value or Interest be received; and 2. That the Heritage Advisory Committee comments regarding designation of 34-38 Berczy Street under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act be received and referred to staff for consideration and further action as appropriate. 3. That the Heritage Advisory Committee comments regarding the removal of 26 & 32 Berczy Street from the Aurora Register of Properties of Cultural Heritage Value or Interest be received and referred to staff for consideration and further action as appropriate. Summary This memo provides the Heritage Advisory Committee with the necessary information to comment on the heritage designation for 34-38 Berczy Street as a property of Cultural Heritage Value or Interest under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act and the removal of 26 & 32 Berczy Street from the Aurora Register of Properties of Cultural Heritage Value or Interest. Page 13 of 84 26, 32, 34-38 Berczy Street February 7, 2022 Page 2 of 8  The Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA) prepared by ERA Architects, which has been peer-reviewed by a third-party consultant concludes that the heritage integrity of the two buildings at 26 and 32 Berczy Street have been compromised and therefore they do not have sufficient merits to warrant heritage designation under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act.  The Heritage Advisory Committee’s Working Group and the Heritage Advisory Committee is of the opinion that 34-38 Berczy Street is of significant heritage value and is worthy of designation. Background Property Description 26, 32 & 34-38 Berczy Street are located on the west side of Berczy Street, south of Wellington Street East and east of Yonge Street (see Attachment 1). Surrounding uses include manufacturing to the south, low-rise residential to the west, the GO Transit Station to the east and offices to the north. 26 Berczy Street contains a 1 ½ storey detached dwellings constructed 1865. The building can be described as a Gothic Revival Cottage style building characterized by pitched roof and centre gable with windows. The building exterior is clad with modern siding and the basement level is covered with stone veneer. There is a verandah on the east elevation which has been enclosed. The south elevation features a brick chimney and a single-storey addition with a small sliding window. Roof cladding on the building is comprised of contemporary asphalt shingles. 32 Berczy Street contains a two-storey detached dwelling constructed circa 1865. The building exhibits elements of a vernacular Georgian House characterized by gable roof and proportion based on classical architecture. The building exterior is clad with stucco. The window openings are horizontal in orientation instead of vertical in a traditional style. The window frames, gutters and flashings are considered contemporary in style. Roof cladding is comprised of contemporary asphalt shingles. There is a porch added to the front of the building in the 1950s. 34 Berczy Street contains a two-storey building which was formerly part of the Sisman Shoe Factory. The original brick building underwent an extensive renovation and was Page 14 of 84 26, 32, 34-38 Berczy Street February 7, 2022 Page 3 of 8 converted from a single-use industrial factory to a multi-unit building. The building exterior is now clad with stucco. The building is rectangular in shape with a flat roof. The main entrance is located on the east facing wall with three vertical bay windows. Three more entrances into various offices are located at the south elevation. The fenestration is articulated at all elevation with two rows of arched windows. The west half of the north elevation has a simple top cornice with dentils. 38 Berczy Street contains a single storey office building constructed circa 1954, and was also formerly part of the Sisman Shoe Factory complex. The building is rectangular in shape with a flat roof. The east elevation contains the front main entrance and two large square windows at the sides. Two additional entrances are located at the south elevation facing the parking lot. The building features several rectangular windows with horizontal strip. The south and north elevations are divided four pilasters. History The subject properties were historically part of the Geographic Township of Whitchurch (presently Aurora). In 1805, Ebenezer Britton acquired all 190 acres of lands in LOT 80 EYS from the Crown. In 1836, John Mosley purchased 79 acres of lands on the western portion of lands adjacent to the hamlet of Machell’s Corners. In 1854, Mosley subdivided his lands into built lots which created the Southeast Old Aurora neighbourhood bounded by Wellington Street to the north, Berczy Street to the east, Metcalfe Street to the south and Yonge Street to the west. In 1901, the T.Sisman Shoe Company acquired 34 & 38 Berczy Street from the Spence family and contracted George Thomas Browning, a local architect and builder, to construct the shoe factory building at 34 Berczy. In 1910, the company constructed a second factory to the south at 103 Mosley Street. Thomas Sisman, the founder of the company, resided in a house at 38 Berczy Street between the two factories. The new factory on Mosley Street became the principal production facility and was known as Factory No.1 of the complex. The factory at 34 Berczy Street was known as Factory No.2 and was mainly used as a storage facility. In 1941, the company constructed a third building for sole cutting at 103 Mosley Street, known as Factory No.3. In 1950, the Sisman’s residence was demolished, and a one-storey concrete building was constructed in its place in 1951, referred to as Factory No.4 of the complex. Starting in the 1960s, the Canadian shoe industry saw rising competition from import products. The Sisman Shoe Company announced its closure in 1976. Factory No.1 at 103 Mosley Street was demolished between 1978 and 1988. Factory No. 2 at 34 Berczy Page 15 of 84 26, 32, 34-38 Berczy Street February 7, 2022 Page 4 of 8 Street remained vacant until it was purchased by the Newell family who undertook extensive interior and exterior renovations to the building. Further renovations were completed to the buildings at 34 and Berczy Street in 2002 to accommodate new offices. The buildings are currently being used as an Autism Service Centre. Application History On March 5th, 2020, the Heritage Advisory Committee’s Evaluation Working Group met with Planning Staff to perform an evaluation of the subject properties based on the Town’s Heritage Evaluation Guidelines. 26, 32 and 38 Berczy Street were scored between 45 to 69 out of 100, which suggested they may be worthy of heritage designation. 34 Berczy Street was scored 85 out of 100, which suggested the property is worthy of designation. On June 7, 2021, the Heritage Advisory Committee (HAC) considered a request to remove 26, 32, 34-38 Berczy Street from the Town’s Heritage Register. This request was submitted by the owner following submission of applications for Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendments (File no.: OPA-2020-01 & ZBA-2020-01) proposing to demolish the existing buildings to accommodate the development of an eight (8) storey mixed use apartment and 18 townhouses. The application was under review by the Town and subsequently appealed to the Ontario Land Tribunal. During the June 7, 2021 meeting, the Committee expressed concerns about the heritage evaluation process and several references in the staff report. The Committee provided historical background on the T. Sisman Shoe Company, noting that much of the historical value was missing from the report. The Committee further inquired about the March 2020 heritage evaluation working group assessment of 34 Berczy Street and expressed disappointment that the building had not yet been designated as it was deemed worthy of designation despite the previous modifications. The Committee suggested that, rather than be demolished, the building at 34 Berczy Street be rehabilitated and integrated into the proposed new development, in addition to robust documentation and commemoration. Delisting Provisions in the Ontario Heritage Act 26 and 32 Berczy Street are non-designated properties listed on the Town’s Heritage Register. According to Section 27 of the Ontario Heritage Act, a Municipal Register of Cultural Heritage Value or Interest may include properties that have not been Page 16 of 84 26, 32, 34-38 Berczy Street February 7, 2022 Page 5 of 8 designated under the Ontario Heritage Act, but that the Council of a Municipality believes to be of cultural heritage value or interest. The principal implication of properties non-designated and listed on the Aurora Register pertains to subsection 27. (3) of the Ontario Heritage Act where, if a property included in the register under subsection (1.2) has not been designated under Section 29, the owner of the property shall not demolish a building or structure on the property or permit the demolition or removal of the building or structure unless the owner gives the council of the municipality at least 60 days notice in writing of the owner’s intention to demolish or remove the building or structure or to permit the demolition or removal of the building or structure. 2006, c. 11, Sched. B, s. 11 (2). The purpose of providing Council with 60 days is to determine whether or not the property should be designated under the Ontario Heritage Act. According to subsection 27(1.3) of the Ontario Heritage Act, the Council of a Municipality shall, before removing the reference to such a property from the Register, consult with its Municipal Heritage Committee. Individual properties being considered for heritage designation must meet one or more of the following prescribed criteria from the Ontario Regulation 9/06: 1. The property has design value or physical value 2. The property has historical value or associative value 3. The property has contextual value Analysis The Heritage Advisory Committee’s Working Group performed an evaluation of 26 & 32 Berczy Street and concludes that the properties are not worthy of heritage designation. On March 5th, 2020, the Heritage Advisory Committee’s Evaluation Working Group met with Planning Staff to perform an evaluation of the subject properties based on the Town’s Heritage Evaluation Guidelines. 26 Berczy Street scored 58.6/100 and 32 Berczy Street scored 42.6/100, which places the property in Group 2, suggesting the following:  The designation of the building pursuant to the Ontario Heritage Act will be encouraged.  The retention of the structure in its existing location is encouraged. Page 17 of 84 26, 32, 34-38 Berczy Street February 7, 2022 Page 6 of 8  Any development application affecting such a structure should incorporate the identified building.  Appropriate alternative uses for the building will be encouraged when necessary to ensure its preservation.  A Letter of Credit may be required to ensure the protection and preservation of the building in connection with a redevelopment application. The applicant submitted a Heritage Impact Assessment to support the delisting of the subject properties (see Attachment 2). The Heritage Impact Assessment has been peer- reviewed by a third-party consultant. Below is a summary of the findings of the evaluation of subject properties:  26 Berczy Street: The building exhibits basic elements of the Gothic Revival Cottage architectural style such as a one and a half storey massing and a single gable above the front entrance in the centre of the building. However, the building does not present any decorative elements such as ornamentation and bargeboard which give Gothic Revival building the trademark “gingerbread” appearance. The gutters and flashing are all contemporary in style. The prominent verandah had also been entirely enclosed which completely changed the architectural character of the façade. While the building displays the Gothic Revival Cottage style, there are many better examples in Aurora that possess greater heritage and architectural integrity.  32 Berczy Street: The building had also been subject to extensive renovations. The two original chimneys on the two sides of the building had been removed. The original rectangular window including its fenestration above the front entrance is no longer present. The other remaining windows have been converted from traditional double hung windows to sliding windows with a reduced sized opening. The original clapboard siding on the exterior of the walls have been replaced by stucco. The shingles have been replaced by contemporary materials. Due to the modifications to the building, the property has lost its ability to present or support its cultural heritage value or interest. Both properties have little potential to yield information that contribute to the understanding of the history and culture of the community. The HIA prepared by ERA Architects, which has been peer-reviewed by a third-party consultant concludes that 26 and 32 Berczy Street do not have sufficient merits to warrant heritage designation under the Ontario Heritage Act. Page 18 of 84 26, 32, 34-38 Berczy Street February 7, 2022 Page 7 of 8 The Heritage Advisory Committee’s Working Group performed an evaluation of the property and concludes that 34-38 Berczy Street is worthy of heritage designation, following discussions on June 7, 2021 Heritage Advisory Committee meeting. The Heritage Advisory Committee’s Evaluation Working Group scored 34 Berczy Street as 85/100, which places the building in Group 1, suggesting that the building is worthy of designation. 38 Berczy Street scored 53.8/100, which places the building in Group 2, suggesting that the building may be worthy of designation. The buildings on the property had been significantly altered over the years and converted into commercial buildings. The alteration includes but not limited to the removal of the tall chimney stack and the broiler room connection between the two buildings and the loss of original stone and brick construction have been covered with cream-coloured stucco. Although the architecture integrity may have been compromised over the years, HAC is of the opinion that 34-38 Berczy Street are of significant historical and contextual value due the direct association with the Sisman Shoe Company and its notable contributions to Aurora’s history. HAC stated that the industrialist nature and location of the site and proximity to rail corridor speaks to the significance property, as it facilitated the shipment of Sisman shoes and boots across Canada and beyond. HAC expressed disappointment that the building had not yet been designated as it is worthy of designation despite the previous modifications. The Committee suggested that, rather than be demolished, the building at 34-38 Berczy Street be rehabilitated and integrated into the proposed new development, in addition to robust documentation and commemoration. Conclusion The HIA prepared by ERA Architects, which has been peer-reviewed by a third-party consultant concludes that 26 and 32 Berczy Street do not meet the criteria for heritage designation under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act, and that the respective properties be removed from the Aurora Register of Properties of Cultural Heritage Value or Interest. Page 19 of 84 26, 32, 34-38 Berczy Street February 7, 2022 Page 8 of 8 Following discussions from the June ,7, 2021 meeting, HAC is of the opinion that 34-38 Berczy Street is of significant historical and contextual value and is worthy of designation under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act. Attachments Attachment 1 – Location Map Attachment 2 – Heritage Impact Assessment Attachment 3 – 34-38 Berczy Street Heritage Score Attachment 4 - 26 & 32 Berczy Street Heritage Score Page 20 of 84 Walton DriveWellington Street East Mosley Street Berczy StreetLarmont StreetI n d ustrial Parkway South Wellington Street East Railway / GO Transit LineLOCATION MAP Map created by the Town of Aurora Corporate Services Department, 1/12/2022. B ase data provided by York Region & the Town of Aurora. Air Photos taken Spring 2021, © First Base Solutions Inc., 2021 Orthophotography. ¯ St John's Sdrd Wellington St E Vandorf SdrdHenderson Drive ^Wellington St W UV404 UV404Leslie StYonge StBathurst StBayview AveBloomington Rd 0 40 80 Metres34-38 BERCZY STREET SUBJECT LANDS Document Path: J:\data\data\Other Various Projects\Maps for Planning & Development\Maps For Brashanthe Manoharan\34-38 Berczy Street\Location_Map_34_38_Berczy_St.mxd Page 21 of 84 HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT ISSUED: APRIL 15, 2021 26-38 Berczy Street Town of Aurora "UUBDINFOU2 Page 22 of 84 PREPARED FOR: PREPARED BY: ii HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT | 26-38 BERCZY STREET, AURORA ERA Architects Inc. 625 Church Street Toronto, Ontario M4Y 2G1 416-963-4497 Project 19-020-01 Cover Image: Aerial image of the Site (Google Earth, 2021) Steven Lee & Wook Chung 300-3000 Steeles Avenue East Markham, ON L3R 4T9 T: 416.410.2188 ext. 111 E: slee@newbridgecanada.com Page 23 of 84 iiiISSUED: APRIL 15, 2021 CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY V 1 INTRODUCTION 1 1.1 Scope of the Report 1 1.2 Present Owner 1 1.3 Site Location and Description 2 1.7 Site Photos 3 1.4 Current Context 6 1.5 Context Photographs 7 1.6 Existing Heritage Recognition 8 1.8 Adjacent and Nearby Heritage Properties 10 2 HISTORICAL BACKGROUND 8 2.1 Pre-Contact & Colonial Context 8 2.2 Early History of the Town of Aurora 9 2.3 Site History 12 3 HERITAGEPOLICY CONTEXT 18 4 ASSESSMENT OF CULTURAL HERITAGE VALUE 24 4.1 Ontario Regulation 9/06 Analysis 24 5 CONDITION ASSESSMENT 26 6 DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT 33 7 IMPACT ASSESSMENT 36 7.2 Impacts on Adjacent Heritage Resources 37 8 CONSERVATION AND MITIGATION STRATEGY 38 8.1 Conservation Strategy 38 8.2 Mitigation Strategies 38 9 CONCLUSION 40 10 PROJECT PERSONNEL 41 11 REFERENCES 42 12 APPENDICES 43 Page 24 of 84 vISSUED: APRIL 15, 2021 Proposed Development The proposed development anticipates the de-listing and removal of the existing buildings on-Site to allow for the construction of a seven-storey, primarily residential, mixed-use development. The proposal features a seven-storey block of residential apartments with townhouses and commercial use at grade fronting onto Berczy Street, and a segment of two-storey townhouses fronting onto the west boundary of the site. Impacts This report finds that the de-listing and removal of these buildings from the Site will impact the cultural heritage value of the Site and adjacent heritage properties. Mitigation The proposed development mitigates these impacts by incorporating design strategies such as setbacks, stepbacks, site arrangement, and architectural expression are sympathetic to the area’s 20th century industrial heritage character. This report also notes commemorative strategies that could be used to further mitigate impacts of the development by communicating historical narratives of the Site through means such as plaques, signage, art. Conclusion This report finds that the proposed development appropriately mitigates negative impacts to the Site and adjacent properties’s cultural heritage value, by introducing contemporary development that interprets the Site’s industrial history and is sensitive to adjacent properties. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Project Background This Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA) was prepared by ERA Architects Inc. (“ERA”) on behalf of Steven Lee & Wook Chung with regards to the proposed redevelopment of 26-38 Berczy Street (the “Site”), including the removal of 26, 32, and 34-36 Berczy Street from the Town of Aurora’s Heritage Register, as well as impact to adjacent cultural heritage resources. Heritage Status The Site contains three properties listed on the Town of Aurora’s Municipal Heritage Register: • 26 Berczy Street: A one and a half storey single- detached dwelling (c.1865); • 32 Berczy Street: A two-storey single-detached dwelling (c.1856); • 34-38 Berczy Street: (34) A two-storey commercial building (c.1901); (38) A one-storey commercial building (c.1954) The Site does not contain any properties designated under Part IV or Part V of the Ontario Heritage Act (OHA). The Site is adjacent to multiple listed properties and one property designated under Part IV of the OHA. Cultural Heritage Value An evaluation of the properties on Site, using O. Reg. 9/06 Criteria for Determining Cultural Heritage Value or Interest concluded that the properties do not have significant heritage value. Further these buildings are not good candidates for conservation as their design/ physical, historical/associative, and contextual value are diminished, and have limited ability to convey historical associations or connections to the Site’s former industrial and supporting residential heritage. Page 25 of 84 1ISSUED: APRIL 15, 2021 1 INTRODUCTION 1.1 Scope of the Report ERA Architects Inc. (“ERA”) was retained by Steven Lee and Wook Chung to prepare a Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA) for the properties at 26, 30, 32, and 34-38 Berczy Street, Aurora (the “Site”). The purpose of an HIA, according to the Town of Aurora’s Heritage Impact Assessments and Conservation Plans Guide (2017), is to “determine if any cultural heritage resources may be adversely impacted by a specific proposed development or site alteration.” This report was prepared with reference to the following; • Provincial Policy Statement (2020); • A Place to Grow: Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horse- shoe, (2019); • The Ontario Heritage Act, R.S.O. 1990; • Ontario Regulation 9/06 Criteria for Determining Cultural Heri- tage Value or Interest; • Parks Canada Standards and Guidelines (2010); • Ontario Heritage Tool Kit; • Region of York Official Plan, (2019 Consolidation); • Town of Aurora Official Plan, (2015 Consolidation); • Aurora Promenade Secondary Plan, (2010); and • The Aurora Promenade Concept Plan Urban Design Strategy, (2010). 1.2 Present Owner Steven Lee & Wook Chung 300-3000 Steeles Avenue East Markham, ON L3R 4T9 T: 416.410.2188 ext. 111 E: slee@newbridgecanada.com Page 26 of 84 2 HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT | 26-38 BERCZY STREET, AURORA 1.3 Site Location and Description The Site comprises of four parcels, municipally known as 26, 30, 32, and 34-38 Berczy Street (Lot 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, ,9, and Part Lot 10, Registered Plan 68), Aurora. The Site is located within a block bounded by Berczy Street to the West, Wellington Street East to the North, Larmont Street to the West and Mosley Street to the South. The Site comprises four parcels, with five municipal addresses: • 26 Berczy Street: Listed on the Municipal Heritage Register; • 30 Berczy Street; No heritage status; • 32 Berczy Street: Listed on the Municipal Heritage Register; and • 34-38 Berczy Street: Listed on the Municipal Heritage Register. The Site is presently occupied by a cluster of low-rise residential and commercial buildings, with surface parking lots interspersed. The commercial buildings located at 34–38 Berczy Street historically formed part of the Underhill-Sisman Shoe Factory and later, the T. Sisman Shoe Factory. The building at 34 Berczy Street (c.1901) was the first building constructed for the shoe company, with an addition being added in 1954 at 38 Berczy Street. Aerial view of the Site. The site is highlighted in blue and the parcel fabric in white (Google Maps, 2021; Annotated by ERA). MOSLEY S TBERCZY STWELLING T O N S T E LARMONT ST26 30 32 34 38 Page 27 of 84 3ISSUED: APRIL 15, 2021 26 Berczy St (c. 1865) (ERA, 2021)30 Berczy St (c.1950) (ERA, 2021) 34 Berczy St (c.1901) (ERA, 2021) 38 Berczy St (c.1954) (ERA, 2021) 32 Berczy St (c.1856) (ERA, 2021) 34-38 Berczy St (ERA, 2021) 1.7 Site Photos Page 28 of 84 4 HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT | 26-38 BERCZY STREET, AURORA Looking south on Berczy Street towards Mosley Street. Pictured is 26 Berczy St (right) (ERA, 2021) Looking east on Berczy Street towards Wellington Street East. Pictured is 38 Berczy Street (left) and 34 Berczy Street (right) (ERA, 2021) Page 29 of 84 5ISSUED: APRIL 15, 2021 Looking north on Berczy Street towards Wellington Street East. Pictured is 38 Berczy St (left) and 34 Berczy St (right) (Google Maps, 2021) Looking south on Berczy Street towards Mosley Street. Pictured is 26 Berczy Street (right) (Google Maps, 2021) Page 30 of 84 6 HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT | 26-38 BERCZY STREET, AURORA 1.4 Current Context The Site is situated near the centre of Aurora’s Village Neighbourhood. The Site context is broadly characterized by diverse mix of employment, commercial and residential uses ranging in density and style to the north and east of the site, while the south and west of the site are characterized by established, low-rise, detached residential. More directly, the site is bounded by the following context: • North: A commercial plaza and parking lot, municipally known as 117 Wellington Street East. • South: A low-rise former industrial site with manufacturing and storage buildings are located directly south of the Site, opposite Mosley Street. • East: The GO transit corridor, associated surface parking, and parkade are the predominant uses on the east side of Berczy Street. Aurora GO station is located approximately 60 metres from the northeast edge of the Site; and • West: Established low-rise residential neighbourhood, The Aurora Town Park is southwest of the Site. At the Park’s western edge, the Wells Street School has been rehabilitated as a multi-unit residential building. Aerial view, looking east towards the Site. The Site is indicated by a blue arrow (Google Maps, 2021; Annotated by ERA). MOSLEY ST BER C Z Y S T WELLI N G T O N S T LAR M O N T S T AURORA GO STATION Page 31 of 84 7ISSUED: APRIL 15, 2021 1.5 Context Photographs Aurora GO Station, directly east of the Site (Google Maps, 2021). Looking west on Wellington Street. 117 Wellington St (left) is directly north of the Site (Google Maps, 2021). Looking towards 103 Mosley Street, listed in the Town of Aurora’s Register of Properties of Cultural Heritage value or Interest. Pictured is the 1-storey portion of the T.Sisman Shoe Company factory complex (c.1941-1942) (Google Maps, 2021). Houses along Mosley Street, directly west of the Site (Google Maps, 2021). 120 Metcalfe Street, 1-storey warehouse and 2-storey office located south of the Site (Google Maps, 2021). Auto-repair shops located at the southern end of Berczy Street (Google Maps, 2021). Page 32 of 84 8 HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT | 26-38 BERCZY STREET, AURORA 1.6 Existing Heritage Recognition The Site does not contain any properties designated under Part IV or Part V of the OHA. The Site contains three properties included on the Town of Aurora’s Municipal Heritage Register: • 26 Berczy Street: A one and a half storey single-detached dwelling (c. 1865); • 32 Berczy Street: A two-storey single-detached dwelling (c.1856); • 34-38 Berczy Street: (34) two-storey commercial building. The first factory as part of the former Underhill-Sisman Shoe Factory, later named ‘Building No.2’ as part of the T.Sisman Shoe Factory (c.1901); and (38) one-storey commercial building and former addition to the Building No.2 (c.1954), known as “Building No. 4”. The building has since been separated from 34 Berczy Street and is now a detached structure . An exact date of construction of the above-noted buildings cannot be ,+Ɯ/*"!11%&01&*"03/&,20/ %&3)/"0,2/ "0/"2+3&))" due to COVID-19). Page 33 of 84 9ISSUED: APRIL 15, 2021 Google Earth 2020, Annotated by ERA.LEGEND Site Listed Property on the Site 26 32 34 38 29 31 33 35 41 45 105 99 98 25 Page 34 of 84 10 HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT | 26-38 BERCZY STREET, AURORA 1.8 Adjacent and Nearby Heritage Properties The Site is considered adjacent* to nine properties listed on the Town of Aurora Municipal Heritage Register, and one property designated under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act. These properties are as follows: • 99 Wellington Street East, Listed • 105 Wellington Street East, Listed • 121 Wellington Street East, Listed • 29 Larmont Street, known as the “Oliver Judd House” (c. 1912), Designated under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act by By-law 5353-11. • 31 Larmont Street , Listed • 33 Larmont Street, known as the “George H. Phillips House”, Listed • 35 Larmont Street, known as the “Quantz-McMahon House”, Listed • 41 Larmont Street , Listed • 45 Larmont Street, known as the “Cockerhill-McMahon House”, Listed • 98 Mosley Street, Listed In addition, the Site is within the Heritage Resource area as identified in Schedule ‘D’ in the Town of Aurora’s Official Plan. *Adjacent means: for the purposes of policy 2.6.3, those lands contiguous to a protected heritage property or as oth- "/4&0"!"Ɯ+"!&+1%"*2+& &-),ƛ& &) plan (Provincial Policy Statement, 2020). ,1"ǿ1%"!"Ɯ+&1&,+,3"&020"!&+ 1%"0"+ ",#+)1"/+1&3"!"Ɯ+&1&,+ #/,*1%"2/,/ƛ& &))+ǽ %",+)6!"Ɯ+&1&,+-/,3&!"!#,/Ȋ!'- "+1ȋ&+1%"2/,/ƛ& &))+&0+,1 intended to be applicable to the heritage context, rather it is in reference to natural heritage: adjacent means: a) Those lands contigu- ous to a key natural heritage feature or key hydrologic feature where it is likely that development or site alteration can reasonably be expected to have an im- - 1,+1%"#"12/"ǽ "+"/))6Ǿ!' "+1 lands are considered to be within 120m from any part of the feature (Aurora Of- Ɯ &))+ǾǗǕǖǕȜǽ Page 35 of 84 11ISSUED: APRIL 15, 2021 LEGEND Site Listed Property on the Site Adjacent* Listed Properties Adjacent* Designated Properties under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act *Refer to PPS definition of ‘adjacent’ on the previous page. Aurora Interactive Mapping, Annotated by ERA. 26 32 34 38 29 31 33 35 41 45 105 99 98 25 121 Page 36 of 84 12 HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT | 26-38 BERCZY STREET, AURORA 98 Mosley Street (ERA, 2021)45 Larmont Street (ERA, 2021) 41 Larmont Street (ERA, 2021)33 Larmont Street (ERA, 2021) 29 (left) and 31 (right) Larmont Street (ERA, 2021) 99 Wellington Street East (ERA, 2021)105 Wellington Street East (ERA, 2021) 35 Larmont Street (ERA, 2021) Page 37 of 84 13ISSUED: APRIL 15, 2021 121 Wellington Street East (ERA, 2021) 103 Mosley Street (ERA, 2021) 121 Wellington Street East (ERA, 2021)121 Wellington Street East (ERA, 2021) 103 Mosley Street (ERA, 2021) Page 38 of 84 8 HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT | 26-38 BERCZY STREET, AURORA For millennia, the Site has formed part of the territory of diverse indigenous peoples, including the Huron- Wendat, Haudenosaunee and the Anishinaabe. For each of these groups, Toronto's regional watershed has been used for transportation, fishing, and adjacent settlement and agriculture. The Site is situated to the northwest of the Rouge River watershed, which flows south from Richmond Hill and Whitchurch-Stouffville to Lake Ontario. The watershed contains numerous archaeological sites, including an ancestral Huron village known as the Aurora Site or Old Ford – located at Vandorf Sideroad and Kennedy Road to the east of the Site. The French colonized the Toronto region during the 1600s, establishing a military and trading presence throughout the regional watershed. The French- Canadian explorer Louis Jolliet is said to have portaged through Whitchurch to the east of the Site in 1669. After the British conquest of New France in 1763, the Crown issued a royal proclamation, which established guidelines for the colonization of indigenous territories in North America. The proclamation stated that indigenous peoples held title to their territory until it was ceded by a treaty. The Site was not subject to a treaty until 1923, after the area had been settled by Euro-Canadians. The Williams Treaties were signed in 1923 by seven Anishnaabe First Nations and the Crown, addressing territories that had not previously been surrendered with a treaty, including the Site. Map of Toronto's regional watershed. The Site is indicated with a blue arrow (Toronto and Region Conservation Au- thority, 2016; annotated by ERA). 1878 county atlas showing the ancestral Huron village known as Old Fort, or the Aurora Site, indicated with a pink arrow (McGill University; annotated by ERA). 2.1 Pre-Contact & Colonial Context 2 HISTORICAL BACKGROUND Page 39 of 84 9ISSUED: APRIL 15, 2021 2.2 Early History of the Town of Aurora In 1792, the colonial administrators of Upper Canada created the province’s first counties, which were subdivided into townships for the purposes of surveying and settlement. The area that would later become the Town of Aurora was split between two townships, King and Whitchurch. In 1793, Lieutenant Governor John Graves Simcoe ordered the construction of a new road known as Yonge Street extending north from York to Lake Simcoe, intended for military and commercial use. Yonge Street served as the dividing line between King and Whitchurch townships, with Whitchurch located to the east and King to the west. Each township was surveyed into numbered concessions running south to north, with each concession comprised of a series of roughly 200 acre lots. The Site formed part of Lot 80 in the 1st Concession of the Township of Whitchurch, granted by the Crown to Ebenezer Britton in 1805. During the early 19th century, a small hamlet known as Machell’s Corners was established by merchant Richard Machell at the intersection of Yonge Street and Wellington Street. The hamlet would serve as the foundation for the future Town of Aurora. Land records indicate that Lot 80 in 1st Concession remained in the possession of Ebenezer Britton until 1816, after which point it was sold and subdivided into smaller parcels to accommodate multiple farms. In 1836, John Mosley purchased 79 acres on the western portion of Lot 80 encompassing the Site, adjacent to the hamlet of Machell’s Corners. The arrival of the Ontario Simcoe & Huron railway in Aurora in 1853 situated John Mosley’s farm between the hamlet and the new railway line – the station was located immediately to northeast of the Site. In anticipation of the Town’s expansion, Mosley subdivided his farm into building lots in 1854. The Site was formed at this time and consisted of a series of Town lots. The plan of subdivision also laid out the current network of streets bounded by: • Wellington Street to the north; • Berczy Street to the east; • Metcalfe Street to the south; and • Yonge Street to the east. After the completion of the railway, a number of industries were established in Aurora, mostly to produce goods for nearby farms. Throughout the mid-to-late 19th century, the Town expanded beyond the original hamlet, with Yonge Street serving as a commercial main street. It is unclear whether there were any buildings or structures on the Site during this period, as the fire insurance plans of Aurora from 1880 and 1890 excluded the Site. Given that the fire insurance plans identified industrial sites across the Town, it is unlikely that the Site contained any notable industries. c.1890 looking south on Yonge Street in Aurora (McIntyre, 1988). c.1870 looking north on Yonge Street from Tyler Street (McIntyre, 1988). Page 40 of 84 10 HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT | 26-38 BERCZY STREET, AURORA 1854 plan of subdivision of John Mosley's farm, the Site is outlined with a dashed blue line (McIntyre, 1988; annotated by ERA). 1860 Tremaine's map of the County of York. The location of the Site is indicated with a blue arrow (University of Toronto; annotated by ERA). 1878 County Atlas. The location of the Site is indicated with a blue arrow (McIntyre, 1988; annotated by ERA). Page 41 of 84 11ISSUED: APRIL 15, 2021 1890 fire insurance plan of Aurora. The location of the Site is indicated with a blue arrow. Note that the plan identified industrial Sites outside the centre of town and excluded the Site (Library and Archives Canada; annotated by ERA). Page 42 of 84 12 HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT | 26-38 BERCZY STREET, AURORA 2.3 Site History T. Sisman Shoe Company In 1901, The Town of Aurora provided the Underhill- Sisman Shoe Manufacturing Company a tax exception, enticing the company to relocate their operations from Markham to the north-west corner of Mosley Street and Berczy Street. The company completed construction of a 2-storey factory on the Site at 34 Berczy Street (later to be known as “Factory No. 2”) within the same year. In 1903, an addition was erected to its south to accommodate a broiler house. After the Underhill-Sisman partnership dissolved in 1910, the Underhill Shoe Company assumed ownership of Factory No.2, and by 1913, the T. Sisman Shoe Factory began its independent operations south of its former location in a three- storey factory building was constructed at the north- west corner of Berczy and Mosley Street, known as “Factory No.1”. Thomas Sisman, founder of T. Sisman Shoe Company lived in a two-storey house between the two factory buildings. The Aurora Museum notes that the property was regarded for its landscaping. The house was constructed prior to 1911. In 1927, T. Sisman acquired the former Underhill Shoe Factory building, after the Underhills relocated to Barrie. The factory was known as “Factory No.2”. The company manufactured various shoes and boots, including for fashion, work and sport. Factory No.1 served as the principal production facility, while Factory No.2, was used primarily for storage. Beginning in 1940, the company received the first in a series of contracts from the federal government to manufacture shoes for the war effort. That same year, the company announced the construction of a new single-storey factory building south of the Site, known as “Factory No. 3”. 1911 postcard showing the Thomas Sisman House (left) and the Underhill-Sisman Shoe factory (right). The factory constructed in 1901 and its addition is outlined in white (Heather Sisman; annotated by ERA). 1913 fire insurance plan. The Site is indicated in a dashed blue line. Note the later 3-storey factory, known as “Fac- tory No. 1” south of the Site, across from Mosley Street. At this time, dwellings start to line Larmont Street (Aurora Museum; annotated by ERA). After 1940, looking southwest from the corner of Berczy and Mosley Streets towards the T. Sisman Shoe Factory No. 1 (left) and No.3 (right) on the Site (Heather Sisman). Page 43 of 84 13ISSUED: APRIL 15, 2021 Diagram illustrating the evolution of the T. Sisman Shoe Company complex on the Site (Google, 2021; Annotated by ERA). No. 3 1940-1 Mosley S t A Site. T. Sisman Factory No 1. Completed c. 1913 (demolished). T. Sisman Factory No 3. Completed 1940-1 (remaining at 103 Mosley Street on the Site). T. Sisman Factory No 2. Former Underhill-Sisman fac- tory. Completed c.1901 (remaining) Thomas Sisman House (demolished). Factory No 4. Completed by 1954 (remaining).Berczy StA No. 1 c.1913 No. 4 c.1954 No. 2 c.1901 Page 44 of 84 14 HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT | 26-38 BERCZY STREET, AURORA The Thomas Sisman House was demolished in the 1950, and a one-storey concrete building was constructed in its place in 1951. Referred to as “Factory No. 4”, the concrete building was built as an addition to Factory No. 1. The 1960 fire insurance plan indicates that Factory No. 1 was primarily used for storage with a sample room occupying the front portion of the building, while Factory No. 4 was used for shoe manufacturing. At its height, the T. Sisman Shoe Company was one of Town’s largest employers, with surrounding dwellings constructed to house its workers, and competing with the nearby Collis Tannery, west of Yonge Street. During the 1940s, the T. Sisman shoe company shifted from producing retail goods to produce supplies for the war ef- fort (Heather Sisman, n.d.). 1960 Fire Insurance Plan indicates that Factory No. 1 (34 Berczy Street) was primarily used for storage, while manufacturing took place inside Factory No. 4 (38 Berczy Street) (Aurora Museum, 1960). 34 38 Page 45 of 84 15ISSUED: APRIL 15, 2021 Advertisement showing the Factory No. 1 & No. 3 to the south of the Site (top and middle) and Factory No. 2 on the site (lower), exact date unknown, c. 1939-1945. The extant building on the Site at 34 Berczy Street is highlighted in blue (Heather Sisman, Annotated by ERA). Page 46 of 84 16 HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT | 26-38 BERCZY STREET, AURORA End of the Shoe Era Starting in the 1960s, the Canadian shoe industry saw rising competition from imports of non-leather footwear and the T.Sisman Shoe Factory was purchased by Kinney Shoes, an American Company. By the 1970s, the Sisman Shoe company was no longer occupying the Site as Factory No. 1 and Factory No.4 ceased operations and all manufacturing took place in the larger building, Factory No. 2 located south of the Site. The closure of the Shoe Factory was announced later in 1976. The factory buildings on the Site remained vacant until 1980s, when interior and exterior renovations were completed by its new owners, the Newell family. The buildings re-opened as a flea market and storage warehouse. Further renovations were completed to 34 and 38 Berczy Street in 2002 to accommodate offices. Aerial images during this period show that the broiler room which would have connected the two factories, and a walkway were removed, most likely to accommodate additional parking spaces for the businesses. The Berczy St. Flea Market opened in the 1980s (Newmar- ket Era, 1984. p.B6) 1970 Aerial Image of the Site. The broiler room and walkway is shown connecting the buildings at 34 and 38 Berczy Street (York Region; annotated by ERA). 2002 Aerial image of the Site. The buildings at 34 and 38 Berczy Street are no longer connected and Factory No.2, located south of the Site, has been demolished (Google Earth; an- notated by ERA). 2020 Looking west towards the sur- face parking area between 34 and 38 Berczy Street (Google Earth). Page 47 of 84 17ISSUED: APRIL 15, 2021 Residential Development on Berczy Street From the mid 19th to early 20th century, the segment of Berczy Street between Mosley Street and Wellington Street was at one time, owned by Rosanna Spence, a resident of York Township. Land registry and census records suggest that the dwellings in the area were often used as a rental investment, with owners’ holding several properties. The York directories indicates that the Spence family never resided on the Site, rather the homes were of rental tenure. After Mosley’s Plan of Subdivision was completed in 1954, a one and a half storey dwelling at 32 Berczy Street was the first to be constructed in 1856 under the ownership of George Coles. By 1865, a two storey dwelling was constructed at 26 Berczy Street, while the adjacent lot to the north is recorded to be vacant. In the 1960 fire insurance plan, the three dwellings municipally known as 26, 30, and 32 Berczy Street are visible. 32 Berczy Street, one of the early dwellings to be con- structed as part of the Mosley subdivision (c.1856) (Aurora Museum, 1981). In 1960, the three dwellings on the Site are recorded in the Fire Insurance Plan. 26 and 32 Berczy Street are listed in the Municipal Heritage Register (Aurora Museum). 26 30 32 Page 48 of 84 18 HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT | 26-38 BERCZY STREET, AURORA 3 HERITAGE POLICY CONTEXT The following policy documents were reviewed in the preparation of this HIA, as they provide the framework for the property with respect to the properties on Site and adjacent heritage resources: • Provincial Policy Statement, 2020 (the “PPS”); • A Place to Grow: Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horse- shoe, 2019 (the “Growth Plan”); • Region of York Official Plan, 2019 Consolidation (the “Regional Official Plan”); • Town of Aurora Official Plan, 2015 Consolidation (the “Official Plan”); • Aurora Promenade Secondary Plan, 2010 (the “Secondary Plan”) • The Aurora Promenade Concept Plan Urban Design Strategy, 2010 (The “Urban Design Strategy”). Provincial Policy Statement, 2020 The PPS directs land use planning in Ontario and identifies the importance of balancing growth demands with the conservation of significant built heritage resources and cultural heritage landscapes: 2.6.1 Significant built heritage resources and significant cultural heritage landscapes shall be conserved. 2.6.3 Planning authorities shall not permit development and site alteration on adjacent lands to protected heritage property except where the proposed development and site alteration has been evaluated and it has been demonstrated that the heritage attributes of the protected heritage property will be conserved. A Place to Grow: Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe, 2020 The Growth Plan supports the development of prosperous and complete communities across the Greater Golden Horseshoe Region. This approach includes the recognition and conservation of cultural heritage resources and identifies the importance of built heritage and cultural landscapes to local identity, the tourist sector and the investment potential of communities. 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 On- tario Heritage Act (PPS 2020). Built heritage resource: means a build- ing, structure, monument, installation or any manufactured or constructed part or remnant that contributes to a property’s cultural heritage value or interest as &!"+1&Ɯ"!6 ,**2+&16Ǿ&+ )2!&+$+ Indigenous community. Built heritage resources are located on property that may be designated under Parts IV or V of the Ontario Heritage Act, or that may be included on local, provincial, federal and/or international registers (PPS 2020). Adjacent Lands: means for the purposes of policy 2.6.3, those lands contiguous to a protected heritage property or as ,1%"/4&0"!"Ɯ+"!&+1%"*2+& &-),ƛ& &) plan (PPS 2020). Heritage attributes: means the principal features or elements that contribute to a protected heritage property’s cultural heritage value or interest, and may include the property’s built, constructed, or manufactured elements, as well as natural landforms, vegetation, water features, and its visual setting (e.g. 0&$+&Ɯ +13&"40,/3&0101,,/#/,* protected heritage property). (PPS 2020). Page 49 of 84 19ISSUED: APRIL 15, 2021 Cultural Heritage Resources: Built heritage resources, cultural herit- age 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 "&!"+1&Ɯ"!+!&+3"+1,/&"!6,ƛ& &) 0,2/ "0Ǿ1%"0&$+&Ɯ + ",#,1%"/0 +,+)6 "!"1"/*&+"!ƞ"/"3)21&,+ț /""+")1 Plan, as referenced in Growth Plan 2019). Under 4.2.7 Cultural Heritage Resources, the Growth Plan directs the following: 1. Cultural heritage resources will be conserved in order to #,01"/0"+0",#-) "+!"+"Ɯ1 ,**2+&1&"0Ǿ-/1& 2)/)6 in strategic growth areas. 2. Municipalities will work with stakeholders, as well as First Nations and Métis communities, in developing and &*-)"*"+1&+$,ƛ& &)-)+-,)& &"0+!01/1"$&"0#,/1%" &!"+1&Ɯ 1&,+Ǿ4&0"20"+!*+$"*"+1,# 2)12/)%"/&1$" resources. 3. Municipalities are encouraged to prepare archaeological management plans and municipal cultural plans and consider them in their decision-making. Region of York Official Plan, 2010 The primary objectives of Section 3.4 Cultural Heritage of the Regional Official Plan are: To recognize, conserve and promote cultural heritage and its value and benefit to the community. Policies under Section 5.5 identify the importance of preserving “Local Centres” and existing heritage streetscapes and place emphasis on urban design guidelines as a measure to ensure that forms and scale complement the existing character of surrounding communities. Aurora Official Plan, 2010 Aurora’s long-term vision includes the conservation and enhancement of cultural heritage resources and recognizes the important role cultural heritage plays in fostering community identity and local sense of place. Section 13 of the Official Plan directs the conservation of cultural heritage resources, with objectives that aim towards (a) conservation, enhancement; (b) preservation, restoration, rehabilitation; and (c) promotion of, and public involvement in, managing cultural heritage resources. Cultural Heritage Resources: a) Resources that contribute to our under- standing of our past, including: ii. built heritage resources, which means ,+" ,/ *,/" 0&$+&Ɯ +1 2&)!&+$0Ǿ structures, monuments, installations or remains associated with architectural, cultural, social, political, economic or *&)&1/6%&01,/6+!&!"+1&Ɯ"!0"&+$ &*-,/1+11, ,**2+&16ț2/,/ƛ& &) Plan, 2015). Page 50 of 84 20 HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT | 26-38 BERCZY STREET, AURORA The Site is located within the town’s identified “Heritage Resource Area” as per Schedule D which is considered to be of primary significant to the Town’s heritage (13.2.s). Evaluation of cultural heritage is based on “i. aesthetic, design or physical value; ii. historical or associative value; and/or, iii. contextual value” (s.13.3d) and protection and conservation practices are based on “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” with “protection, maintenance and stabilization for all conservation projects” as a core guiding principle (s.13.3.i). With respect to development adjacent to heritage resources, the following policies set out under s.13.3 apply: l) A Heritage Impact Assessment may also be required for any proposed alteration work or development activities &+3,)3&+$,/!' "+11,%"/&1$"/"0,2/ "01,"+02/"1%1 there will be no adverse impacts caused to the resources and their heritage attributes. Mitigation measures shall be imposed as a condition of approval of such applications. All options for on-site retention of properties of cultural %"/&1$"0&$+&Ɯ + "0%))""5%201"!"#,/"/"0,/1&+$ to relocation. The following alternatives shall be given due consideration in order of priority: i. on-site retention in the original use and integration with the surrounding or new development; ii. on site retention in an adaptive re-use; iii. relocation to another site within the same development; and, iv. relocation to a sympathetic site within the Town. n) In the event that demolition, salvage, dismantling or relocation of a built heritage resource or cultural heritage landscape is found to be necessary as determined by Council, thorough archival documentation of the heritage resources is required to be undertaken by the proponent, at no cost to the Town. The information shall be made available to the Town for archival purposes. Page 51 of 84 21ISSUED: APRIL 15, 2021tttttttttttttRailway/GO Transit TREET WEST YOSchedule D of the Town of Aurora’s Official Plan. The Site identified by blue arrow (2010; annotated by ERA). LEGEND Municipal Boundary Road Oak Ridges Moraine Boundary Proposed Road Built Boundary Heritage Resources Designated Heritage Properties Part IV - OHA Heritage Resource Areas Boundary of Oak Ridges Moraine Area Ontario Regulation 01/02 "Boundary of Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan Area Ontario Regulation 140/02 " Northeast Old Aurora Heritage Conservation District Part V - OHA Section 4 provides further guidance for new development, with regards to its interface with cultural heritage resources: 4.2. General Urban Design and Architectural Policies: f) To achieve human scale, attractive and safe public "+3&/,+*"+10Ǿ&+"+1/6460Ǿ%"/&1$"/"0Ǿ&++!!' "+1 to streets and open spaces, the following urban design approaches should be implemented: i. Development should encourage: access to historic areas by walking, cycling and transit; iv. Upper storeys of larger buildings may require stepbacks to achieve: vistas to heritage sites. Page 52 of 84 22 HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT | 26-38 BERCZY STREET, AURORA The Aurora Promenade Concept Plan Urban Design Strategy, 2010 The purpose of the Urban Design Strategy is to guide and manage growth in Aurora. It provides guidance on public realm and private development and informs the Aurora Promenade Secondary Plan, 2010 policies set out under the Official Plan, 2010. . The Site is located within the Wellington Street Promenade Character Area, one of the Aurora Promenade’s four distinct character areas, as identified by the Urban Design Strategy. The Wellington Street Promenade is noted for having an inconsistent built character. It includes the Aurora Go Station Focus Area and is bounded by large open green spaces. Built form is comprised of a mix of employment, commercial and residential uses and made up of buildings that range in density and style. The design strategy for the Wellington Street Promenade aims to take advantage of intensification targets set by the proximity to public transport while scaling appropriately between an intensified area around the Aurora Go Station and the heritage neighbourhoods to the west. With respect to adjacent listed heritage buildings the following guidelines are set out under Section 4: • New development proposed in The Aurora Promenade !' "+11,+&!"+1&Ɯ"!Ǿ)&01"!,/!"0&$+1"!%"/&1$" -/,-"/16,/&!"+1&Ɯ"!)+!*/(2&)!&+$0%,2)!%3" design that is sensitive and complementary. ș%"/"2&)!&+$&0"&+$!"0&$+"!1,/"Ɲ" 1%&01,/& architectural style, it should be consistent and true to all aspects of that era. It should appear to be architecturally authentic (e.g., Victorian or Edwardian). • New buildings should consider and respect the scale, *1"/&)+!*00&+$,#!' "+1%"/&1$"0&$+&Ɯ +1 buildings. • Setbacks of new buildings will be permitted in certain conditions where such placement will enhance the -/,*&+"+ ",#1%"!' "+1%"/&1$"2&)!&+$Ǿ+!-/,3&!" +,--,/12+&161, /"1""+"Ɯ11,20&+"00ț#,/"5*-)"Ǿ a restaurant seating area). WELLINGTON STREET PROMENADE ge Aurora GO Station Aurora GO Station Armoury Saint Maximilian Kolbe C.S. n Park Sheppard’s Bush Conservation AreaEDWARD STMARY STREETI NDUSTRY STHARRISO N A V E NEDY ST E CENTRE S T R E E T JOHN WEST WAYROSS STCONNAU G H T A V EBERCZY ST MA RY S TR EET B I RCH CRTWALTON DRIVE CENTRE CRES SCANLON C R T R T H LARMONT STREETINDUSTRIAL PARKWA Y S O UTH The Aurora Promenade Character Areas. Blue arrow identifying Site ( The Aurora Promenade Concept Plan Urban Design Strategy 2010, anno- tated by ERA). Page 53 of 84 23ISSUED: APRIL 15, 2021 Aurora Promenade Secondary Plan, 2010 The Site is located within the boundaries of the Aurora Promenade as identified on Schedule B1 under the Official Plan (see map on following page). The Promenade includes Aurora’s historic town centre and aims to encourage growth and development that preserves local cultural heritage while building upon existing assets to establish a vibrant and walkable “main street” or “downtown” character. With respect to cultural heritage resources, the following Objectives (11.1) of the Secondary Plan guide decision making in the area and aim to achieve: i. Distinct Heritage and Culture – This Plan builds on the distinct %"/&1$"+! 2)12/",#1%"2/,//,*"+!"ǽ1!"Ɯ+"0 the heritage resources and provides guidance on methods to conserve, protect and reinforce the neighbourhoods, 01/""10 -"0+!0&$+&Ɯ +12&)!&+$0Ȁ vii. Great Design and Architecture – This Plan is focused on ensuring a vibrant, inviting and appealing environment that will attract residents and new businesses, enhance the vitality of retail uses, encourage walking and resonate with visitors. To %&"3"1%&0Ǿ+"4!"3"),-*"+1*201ȊƜ1ȋ&++!"+%+ "1%" character, quality and appeal of The Aurora Promenade; and viii. Towards a Sustainable Town - This Plan promotes a sustainable Aurora Promenade that respects its historic culture and character and embraces diverse cultural development and renewal in harmony with sound environmental management and business development activity. Policies under Section 11 include guidance on built form, including direction on height, as well as compatibility of design with the existing character and community context, and encouraging architectural variety. According to Schedule B3, the Site is located on streetscapes identified as “Village Street” along Berczy Street and “Residential Heritage Street” along Mosley Street (s.11.12). Village Streets are noted for their “small- town, village-like atmosphere and character” and are characterized by their older house form buildings, with a mix of residential, office and retail, while Heritage Residential Streets are intended to remain residential in character, with primarily house form buildings. CedarCresHarrison Ave Engelhard Dr Mary St TemperanceStIndustSSpruce StWalton DrRoyal Rd Connaught Ave Larmont StIrwin Ave Mosley St St Catherine Ave Kennedy St E WenderlyDrDunning Ave Maple St Mark St EdwardStWellsStCentre St Cousins Dr dust r i al PkwyNGurnettStCousins Dr EBerczyStVictoriaStYONGE STHeig h t s DrMark St W Edward StIndustrialPkwy S I n dustrialPkwySCentre St WELLINGTON ST EST W RailwSite identified by blue arrow (Aurora Official Plan 2010; annotated by ERA). LEGEND Secondary Plan Boundary Downtown Shoulder Promenade General Promenade Focus Area Special Design Areas Downtown Upper Downtown Promenade General Site Specific Policy Area Page 54 of 84 24 HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT | 26-38 BERCZY STREET, AURORA 4.1 Ontario Regulation 9/06 Analysis The Site has been evaluated against the “Criteria For Determining Cultural Heritage Value or Interest” as found in Ontario Reg. 9/06 under the Ontario Heritage Act (the “OHA”). O. Reg. 9/06 states that “a property may be designated under section 29 of the Act if it meets one or more of the following criteria for determining whether it is of cultural heritage value or interest”, as identified in the following pages. Meeting one or more of these criteria does not necessarily mandate designation. This report finds that the de-listing and removal of 26, 32, and 34-38 Berczy Street from the Site will have an impact on cultural heritage value of the site. These buildings however, do not have significant heritage value, and are not good candidates for conservation as their design/physical, historical/associative, and contextual value are diminished, and have limited ability to convey historical associations or connections to the Site’s former industrial and supporting residential heritage. 4 ASSESSMENT OF CULTURAL HERITAGE VALUE Page 55 of 84 25ISSUED: APRIL 15, 2021 Value (quoted from Ontario Reg. 9/06) Assessment of 26 Berczy Street The property has design value or physical value because it, i. is a rare, unique, representative or early example of a style, type, expression, material or construction method, &&ǽ!&0-)60%&$%!"$/"",# /ƞ0*+0%&-,/ artistic merit, or iii. demonstrates a high degree of technical or 0 &"+1&Ɯ %&"3"*"+1ǽ The property at 26 Berczy Street is a one and a half storey detached dwelling, with an estimated construction date of 1865. 1913 fire insurance plans and early photographs suggests that the building was constructed with brick. Presently, the exterior has been modified with siding and the porch has been enclosed. The building is reflective of the Gothic Revival Cottage-style but is not a particularly rare or representative example of mid-to-late 19th century residen- tial architecture. The property does not reflect a high degree of craftsmanship, artistic merit, or technical achievement. The property has historical value or associative value because it, i. has direct associations with a theme, event, belief, person, activity, organization or institu- 1&,+1%1&00&$+&Ɯ +11, ,**2+&16Ǿ ii. yields, or has the potential to yield, informa- tion that contributes to an understanding of a community or culture, or &&&ǽ!"*,+01/1"0,//"Ɲ" 101%"4,/(,/&!"0,# an architect, artist, builder, designer or theorist 4%,&00&$+&Ɯ +11, ,**2+&16ǽ A review of directories, land registry records and census records indicate that the property has contained residential uses since the mid 19th century. The property was originally under the ownership of Matthew Lepper, a general merchant and later Reeve of Aurora Village, it does not appear that a dwelling was constructed under Lepper’s ownership. Rosanna Spence, of York Township, owned the property along with several other parcels surrounding the Aurora Station. Lepper’s and Spence’s historical significance is limited. The property has little potential to yield information that contributes to an understanding of community or culture. The architect or builder is unknown. The property has contextual value because it, &ǽ&0&*-,/1+1&+!"Ɯ+&+$Ǿ*&+1&+&+$,/02-- porting the character of an area, ii. is physically, functionally, visually or histori- cally linked to its surroundings, or iii. is a landmark. 26 Berczy Street is located in an evolving context, where there is a fragment of uses. The character of Berczy Street is not overwhelmingly prevalent. Like all properties, the property at 26 Berczy Street is physically, functionally, visually and historically linked to its surroundings. However it does not exhibit such significant relationships to its sur- roundings to merit conservation under the Ontario Heritage Act. The property is not considered a landmark. Page 56 of 84 26 HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT | 26-38 BERCZY STREET, AURORA ERA conducted a site visit to for the purpose of completing a preliminary review of the properties at 26, 30, 32, and 34-38 Berczy Street. Due to provincially mandated lock-down restrictions in place at the time due to COVID-19, a complete condition assessment was not completed. A full condition assessment and thorough documentation of the site will be completed upon lifting of restrictions. 5 CONDITION ASSESSMENT Page 57 of 84 27ISSUED: APRIL 15, 2021 30 Berczy Street (ERA, 2021) 30 Berczy Street (ERA, 2021) 32 Berczy Street (ERA, 2021) 32 Berczy Street (ERA, 2021) 32 Berczy Street (ERA, 2021) 32 Berczy Street (ERA, 2021) 26 Berczy Street (ERA, 2021) 26 Berczy Street (ERA, 2021) Page 58 of 84 28 HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT | 26-38 BERCZY STREET, AURORA 34 Berczy Street (ERA, 2021) 34 Berczy Street (ERA, 2021) 34 Berczy Street (ERA, 2021) 34 Berczy Street (ERA, 2021) 34 Berczy Street (ERA, 2021) 34 Berczy Street (ERA, 2021) 34 Berczy Street (ERA, 2021) Page 59 of 84 29ISSUED: APRIL 15, 2021 38 Berczy Street (ERA, 2021) 38 Berczy Street (ERA, 2021) 38 Berczy Street (ERA, 2021) 38 Berczy Street (ERA, 2021) 38 Berczy Street (ERA, 2021) 38 Berczy Street (ERA, 2021) 38 Berczy Street (ERA, 2021) Page 60 of 84 30 HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT | 26-38 BERCZY STREET, AURORA Value (quoted from Ontario Reg. 9/06)Assessment of 32 Berczy Street The property has design value or physical value because it, i. is a rare, unique, representative or early example of a style, type, expression, material or construction method, &&ǽ!&0-)60%&$%!"$/"",# /ƞ0*+0%&-,//1&01& merit, or iii. demonstrates a high degree of technical or 0 &"+1&Ɯ %&"3"*"+1ǽ The property at 32 Berczy Street contains a two storey detached dwelling, with an estimated date of construc- tion of 1856 under the ownership of George Coles. The directories do not suggest that Coles was a resident of the Town of Aurora. The dwelling is not representative of any recognized architectural style. The property does not reflect a high degree of craftsman- ship, artistic merit, or technical achievement. The property has historical value or associative value because it, i. has direct associations with a theme, event, belief, person, activity, organization or institution that is 0&$+&Ɯ +11, ,**2+&16Ǿ ii. yields, or has the potential to yield, information that contributes to an understanding of a commu- nity or culture, or &&&ǽ!"*,+01/1"0,//"Ɲ" 101%"4,/(,/&!"0,#+ architect, artist, builder, designer or theorist who is 0&$+&Ɯ +11, ,**2+&16ǽ Similar to 26 Berczy Street, 32 Berczy Street was later owned by Rosanna Spence, suggesting the building was occupied by rental tenure. Cole’s and Spence’s historical significance is limited. The property has little potential to yield information that contributes to an understanding of community or culture. The architect or builder is unknown. The property has contextual value because it, &ǽ&0&*-,/1+1&+!"Ɯ+&+$Ǿ*&+1&+&+$,/02--,/1&+$ the character of an area, ii. is physically, functionally, visually or historically linked to its surroundings, or iii. is a landmark. 32 Berczy Street is located in an evolving context, where there is a fragment of uses. The character of Berczy Street is not overwhelmingly prevalent. Like all properties, the property at 32 Berczy Street is physically, function- ally, visually and historically linked to its surroundings. However it does not exhibit such significant relation- ships to its surroundings to merit conservation under the Ontario Heritage Act. The property is not considered a landmark. Page 61 of 84 31ISSUED: APRIL 15, 2021 Value (quoted from Ontario Reg. 9/06) Assessment of 34-38 Berczy Street The property has design value or physical value because it, i. is a rare, unique, representative or early example of a style, type, expression, material or construction method, &&ǽ!&0-)60%&$%!"$/"",# /ƞ0*+0%&-,/ artistic merit, or iii. demonstrates a high degree of technical ,/0 &"+1&Ɯ %&"3"*"+1ǽ The integrity of the buildings are limited due to the extensive renovations completed to the buildings in converting the use from industrial to commercial. Alterations to the buildings include the following: • removal of the adjoining components (broiler room and walkway) between 34 and 38 Berczy Street; • removal of the second entrance on 34 Berczy Street’s front elevation; • removal of the side entrance and steps on 34 Berczy Street’s south elevation; and • the original stone and brick construction on 34 Berczy Street and concrete block construction on 38 Berczy Street have been covered with cream-coloured stucco. The property has historical value or associa- tive value because it, i. has direct associations with a theme, event, belief, person, activity, organization or &+01&121&,+1%1&00&$+&Ɯ +11, ,**2+&16Ǿ ii. yields, or has the potential to yield, infor- mation that contributes to an understanding of a community or culture, or &&&ǽ!"*,+01/1"0,//"Ɲ" 101%"4,/(,/&!"0 of an architect, artist, builder, designer or 1%",/&014%,&00&$+&Ɯ +11, ,**2+&16ǽ The building at 34 to 38 Berczy Street formed part of the larger T. Sisman Shoe Factory, one of the largest employers in the Town of Aurora in the 20th century. Many of its workers were recorded to live in adjacent streets, such as Larmont and Mosley Street. The factory has contributed to the early industrial landscape of Berczy Street, supported by the Aurora Train Station. The buildings were used as a secondary spaces for the T.Sisman Shoe Factory, with Factory No. 2 (34 Berczy Street) used pri- marily for storage and Factory No. 4 (38 Berczy Street) shortly used for manufacturing. The T. Sisman Shoe Factory primarily operated in Factory No. 1, south of the Site, that has since been demolished. The integrity of the building is diminished due to the extensive alterations completed in late 20th century. The property has little potential to yield information that contributes to an under- standing of community or culture. The architect or builder is unknown. The property has contextual value because it, &ǽ&0&*-,/1+1&+!"Ɯ+&+$Ǿ*&+1&+&+$,/ supporting the character of an area, ii. is physically, functionally, visually or historically linked to its surroundings, or iii. is a landmark. 34-38 Berczy Street is located in an evolving context, where there is a fragment of uses. The character of Berczy Street is not overwhelmingly prevalent. Like all properties, the property at 34-38 Berczy Street is physically, functionally, visually and historically linked to its surroundings. However it does not exhibit such significant relationships to its surroundings to merit conservation under the Ontario Heritage Act. The main factory building, being Factory No. 1, and the Thomas Sisman House has been demolished. The buildings on the Site was secondary to the demolished buildings, and its tie to the T.Sisman Shoe Factory is not apparent. The property is not considered a landmark. Page 62 of 84 32 HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT | 26-38 BERCZY STREET, AURORA East elevation render of the proposed development (Studio JCI, 2021) East elevation render of the proposed development (Studio JCI, 2021) Page 63 of 84 33ISSUED: APRIL 15, 2021 The proposed development anticipates the removal of the existing buildings on the Site to allow for the construction of a seven-storey mixed-use development. The proposed design is the result of close collaboration between ERA and Studio JCI. Preliminary heritage design direction provided included the following parameters: • Focus of density along Berczy Street, furthest from adjacent listed house-form buildings; • Reference to the elongated, rectilinear, industrial buildings which are primarily oriented perpendicular to the streets they front onto such as at 103 Mosley and 38 Berczy; • Reveals that break up the Berczy streetwall giving the appearance of the perpendicular orientation noted above; • Integration of progressive stepbacks on the west elevation to create a gradual transition of massing towards the residential neighbourhood; • Integration of stepbacks above the 4th and 6th storey of the east elevation to minimize the visual impact of the increased density; • Integration of glazing along upper storeys (5th- 8th storeys on west elevation), to mitigate the visual weight of increased height; • Integration of smaller, stepbacks along the north and south elevations; • Siting of lower-scale townhouses at the Site’s western extents, set back from the west property line to provide buffer between the development and residential neighbourhood to the west; • Articulation of distinct masonry building base elements, to visually divide the building into smaller units and integrate new construction with the existing and historic context. This collaborative effort resulted in a design that is responsive to the Site’s former industrial character, and is sensitive to its heritage context. The proposed development is primarily composed of two segments; • a seven-storey block consisting of townhouses and commercial use at grade, fronting onto Berczy Street; and, • a segment of two-storey townhouses fronting the west boundary of the site, and accessed via a new, pedestrian-oriented laneway located along the western boundary of the site. The two building segments share underground parking , with vehicular access off Mosley Street. The development features a shared outdoor amenity space, situated in the interior of the site. The first-four storeys of the development are detailed in brick masonry, with industrial-inspired windows and doors. Storeys five and above feature progressive stepbacks, residential terraces, and design that is more contemporary in expression, articulation and material. 6 DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT Page 64 of 84 34 HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT | 26-38 BERCZY STREET, AURORA East elevation render view of the proposed development (Studio JCI, 2021) Southeast render view of the proposed development (Studio JCI, 2021) Page 65 of 84 35ISSUED: APRIL 15, 2021 Southwest render view of the proposed development (Studio JCI, 2021) Render of the proposed shared amenity space (Studio JCI, 2021) Page 66 of 84 36 HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT | 26-38 BERCZY STREET, AURORA 7.1 Impacts on Site The development proposes to remove all properties on Site, including the following buildings which are listed on the Municipal Heritage Register; • 26 Berczy Street, Listed • 32 Berczy Street, Listed • 34-38 Berczy Street, Listed This report finds that the de-listing and removal of these buildings from the Site will have negative impacts on the Site as identified by the Ontario Heritage Toolkit. As noted in the Assessment of Cultural Heritage Value section of this report, these buildings however, are not good candidates for conservation. The proposed development mitigates impacts by incorporating design that is informed by the Site’s industrial past, most notably the former T. Sisman Shoe brick-and-beam Factory buildings that occupied the site. Design considerations that mitigate impacts to adjacent heritage resources have also be incorporated, as described later in this report. The Ontario Heritage Toolkit is a series of guides designed to help understand the heritage conservation process in +1/&,ǽ%",,)(&1&!"+1&Ɯ"0-,1"+1&)negative impacts on a cultural heritage resource from new development. Negative impacts include, but are not limited to: Destruction of any, or part of any, sig-+&Ɯ +1%"/&1$"11/&21"0,/#"12/"0Ȁ Alteration that is not sympathetic, or is incompatible, with the historic fabric and appearance; Shadows created that alter the appear-ance of a heritage attribute or change the viability of a natural feature or plantings, such as a garden; Isolation of a heritage attribute from its surrounding environment, context or a 0&$+&Ɯ +1/")1&,+0%&-Ȁ Direct or indirect obstruction ,#0&$+&ƜȒcant views or vistas within, from, or of built and natural features; A change in land use such as /"7,+&+$ 11)"Ɯ")! #/,* ,-"+space to residential use, allowing new !"3"),-*"+1,/0&1")1"/1&,+1,Ɯ))&+the formerly open spaces; Land disturbances such as a change in grade that alters soils, and drainage -11"/+0 1%1 !3"/0")6 ƛ" 1 +archaeo logical resource. (Ontario Heritage Toolkit). 7 IMPACT ASSESSMENT Page 67 of 84 37ISSUED: APRIL 15, 2021 7.2 Impacts on Adjacent Heritage Resources The proposed development is not anticipated to have any negative impacts, as identified by the Ontario Heritage Toolkit, on the cultural heritage value of the adjacent heritage resources. Development of the Site will have impacts on the adjacent heritage properties inherent to any form of intensification, including increased pedestrian and vehicular activity, and change of use. While the majority of proposed massing is distributed along the Site’s eastern edge, the development will visually impact the context of this historically low-rise area, when viewed from the listed properties to the west. A pedestrian laneway situated on the east edge of the site creates a buffer between the properties, and a two-storey townhouses mitigate this visual impact by providing a gentle transition to the neighbouring sites. This report finds that the proposed development appropriately mitigates these impacts by introducing contemporary mixed-use development that interprets the Site’s industrial history and employs a number of heritage designs strategies , as detailed in the following section of the report. Adjacent Heritage Properties • 99 Wellington Street East, Listed • 121 Wellington Street East, Listed • 105 Wellington Street East, Listed • 25 Larmont Street, Listed • 29 Larmont Street, Designated un- der Part IV, OHA • 31 Larmont Street, Listed • 33 Larmont Street, Listed • 35 Larmont Street, Listed • 41 Larmont Street, Listed • 45 Larmont Street, Listed • 98 Mosley Street, Listed Page 68 of 84 38 HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT | 26-38 BERCZY STREET, AURORA • Integration of glazing along upper storeys (5th-7th storeys on east elevation), to miti- gate the visual weight of increased height; • Progressive stepbacks of the 4th, 5th, 6th and 7th storeys of the building on both the east and west elevations; • Siting of lower-scale townhouses at the Site’s western extents, set back from the west property line by approximately 9 m; • The use of materials that are distinct from, and sympathetic to, the adjacent heritage resources; • Glazing pattern that references the articu- lation and gridded fenestration patterns found on the surrounding industrial heritage resources; • Arched brick window details consistent with heritage context; and • Fine-grain ground-floor activation consis- tent with the evolving Berczy Street context. Additional commemorative strategies may be explored to further mitigate impacts of the development by communicating the historical narratives of the Site, using interpretive media. This approach would complement the interpretive architectural elements discussed above and include themes such as the history of the T. Sisman Shoe Company, and the development of railside industry in early Aurora, and the evolution of the Berczy Street corridor. Both on-and off-Site strategies are proposed to be explored. Preliminary approaches may include plaques, signage, art and off-site contributions to historic understanding of the area (books, articles, videos, exhibits). 8.1 Conservation Strategy ERA has evaluated the Site against the Criteria For Determining Cultural Heritage Value for Interest, Ontario Reg. 9/06, under the OHA, and concluded that the buildings presently on-Site do not possess significant cultural heritage value. Further, the proposal described in Section 6 of this report considers the removal of the buildings on Site. Therefore, a conservation strategy has not been provided, rather a mitigation strategy that responds to the heritage character of adjacent heritage context is proposed. 8.2 Mitigation Strategies The proposed development interprets features inspired by the former brick-and-beam T. Sisman Shoe Factory buildings. Design considerations with regard to the Site’s heritage character and relationships to adjacent properties on the Municipal Heritage Register have been incorporated as follows: • Focus of density along Berczy Street, furthest from adjacent listed house-form buildings; • Reference to the elongated, rectilinear, industrial buildings which are primarily oriented perpendicular to the streets they front onto such as at 103 Mosley and 38 Berczy; • Reveals that break up the Berczy streetwall giving the appearance of the perpendicular orientation noted above; • Distinct yet compatible architectural expression to further give the appearance of distinct volumes; • Varied masonry palette applied to break up visual mass and integrate new construction with the existing and historic context; 8 CONSERVATION AND MITIGATION STRATEGY Page 69 of 84 39ISSUED: APRIL 15, 2021 West Elevation (Studio JCI, 2021) East Elevation (Studio JCI, 2021) South Elevation (Studio JCI, 2021) North Elevation (Studio JCI, 2021) Page 70 of 84 40 HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT | 26-38 BERCZY STREET, AURORA This report finds that the de-listing and removal of 26, 32, and 34-38 Berczy Street from the Site will have an impact on cultural heritage value of the site. These buildings however, do not have significant heritage value, and are not good candidates for conservation as their design/ physical, historical/associative, and contextual value are diminished, and have limited ability to convey historical associations or connections to the Site’s former industrial and supporting residential heritage. The proposed development proposes to interpret the cultural heritage value of the Site by introducing contemporary development which uses materiality and architectural expression consistent with the former main T. Sisman factory building on the Site. The proposed design responds to the criteria set out in heritage policy applicable to this site, such as those set out in Section 4 of The Aurora Promenade Concept Plan Urban Design Strategy, 2010, and Section 11 Aurora Promenade Secondary Plan, 2010. The proposal achieves this by incorporating design strategies such as setbacks, stepbacks, and site arrangement, and architectural expression are sympathetic to the area’s 20th century industrial heritage character. Additional commemorative strategies may be explored to further mitigate impacts of the development by communicating the historical narratives of the Site, using interpretive media, such as plaques, signage, art and off-site contributions to historic understanding of the area (books, articles, videos, exhibits). In conclusion, this report finds that the proposed development appropriately mitigates negative impacts to the Site and adjacent properties’s cultural heritage value. 9 CONCLUSION Page 71 of 84 41ISSUED: APRIL 15, 2021 Philip Evans Philip Evans is a registered architect with the OAA, principal of ERA Architects and the founder of small. In the course of his career, he has led a range of conservation, adaptive reuse, design, and feasibility planning projects. Philip is a professional member of CAHP and RAIC. Janice Quieta Janice Quieta is an associate with the heritage architecture team at ERA Architects. She received her Master of Architecture degree from Dalhousie University after completing a Bachelor of Architectural Science degree at Ryerson University. Her graduate thesis examined the feasibility of retrofitting post-war residential towers Toronto’s St. Jamestown using a socially and ecologically sustainable program. She has studied and worked in Toronto, Halifax, Dusseldorf, and Koln. Neil Phillips Neil Phillips is a Project Manager with the heritage team at ERA Architects. He holds a Master of Landscape Architecture from the University of Toronto, a certificate in Urban Design from Harvard University, a Bachelor of Urban and Regional Planning from Ryerson University, and a Bachelor of Public Administration from the University of Ottawa. Catherine Huynh Catherine Huynh is a planner with ERA Architects. She holds a Bachelor of Urban and Regional Planning (BURPI) from Ryerson University. 10 PROJECT PERSONNEL Page 72 of 84 42 HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT | 26-38 BERCZY STREET, AURORA Aurora Museum and Archives. (n.d.). Fire Insurance Plans. Town of Aurora. Toronto Public Library. (1960). Insurance Plan of the Town of Aurora, Ont. : Popu- lation 6,000: plan dated May 1960. https://www.torontopubliclibrary.ca/detail. jsp?Entt=RDM1633775&R=1633775 Johnston, J. (1963). Aurora: Its Early Beginnings. Aurora Centennial Committee. Library and Archives Canada. (n.d.). Collection Search. https://www. bac-lac.gc.ca/ eng/collectionsearch/Pages/collectionsearch. aspx McGill University. (n.d.). The Canadian County Atlas Digital Project. Digital Collec- tions and Exhibitions. https://digital.library.mcgill. ca/countyatlas/default.htm McIntyre, J. W. (1988). Aurora: A History in Pictures. The Boston Mills Press. Ontario Community Newspapers Portal. (n.d.). The Newmarket Era. https://news. ourontario.ca/ Ontario Land Registry. (n.d.). Abstract/Parcel Register Book. https:// www.onland.ca/ ui/lro/books/search Sisman, H. [@sismanshoes]. (n.d.). The T. Sisman shoe Co. Ltd [Facebook Page]. https://www.facebook.com/sisman shoes/ Toronto Public Library. (n.d.). Globe and Mail Historical Newspaper Archive. https:// www.torontopubliclibrary.ca/detail. jsp?R=EDB0057 University of Toronto. (n.d.). Map and Data Library. https://mdl.library. utoronto.ca/ York Region. (n.d.). Archival Aerial Imagery. York Region Interactive Maps and Spatial Data. https://ww6.yorkmaps.ca/Html5Viewer24/ Index.html?configBase=https:// ww6.yorkmaps.ca/Geocortex/ Essentials/Essentials43/REST/sites/CommunitySer- vices/ viewers/YorkMaps/virtualdirectory/Resources/Config/Default 11 REFERENCES Page 73 of 84 43ISSUED: APRIL 15, 2021 12 APPENDICES Page 74 of 84 Municipal Address: _______________________________________________ Legal Description: _____________________ Lot: ______ Cons: _______ Group: Name of Recorder: _____________ HISTORICAL E G F P TOTAL Date of Construction 30 20 10 0 /30 Trends/Patterns/Themes 40 27 14 0 /40 Events 15 10 5 0 /15 Persons/Groups 15 10 5 0 /15 Archaeological (Bonus) 10 7 3 0 /10 Historic Grouping (Bonus) 10 7 3 0 /10 Construction Date (Bonus) 10 /10 HISTORICAL TOTAL /100 ARCHITECTURAL E G F P TOTAL Design 20 13 7 0 /20 Style 30 20 10 0 /30 Architectural Integrity 20 13 7 0 /20 Physical Condition 20 13 7 0 /20 Design/Builder 10 7 3 0 /10 Interior (Bonus) 10 7 3 0 /10 ARCHITECTURAL TOTAL /100 ENVIRONMENTAL/CONTEXTUAL TOTAL Design Compatibility 40 27 14 0 /40 Community Context 20 13 7 0 /20 Landmark 20 13 7 0 /20 Site 20 13 7 0 /20 ENVIRONMENTAL/CONTEXTUAL TOTAL /100 SCORE INDIVIDUAL OLD AURORA Historical Score X 40% = _______ X 20% = _______ Architectural Score X 40% = _______ X 35% = _______ Enviro/Contextual Score X 20% = _______ X 45% = _______ TOTAL SCORE HERITAGE BUILDING EVALUATION: SCORESHEET GROUP 1 = 70-100 GROUP 2 = 45-69 GROUP 3 = 44 or less 34 Berczy Street (Sisman Shoe Factory) Date of Evaluation: March 5, 2020 Carlson Tsang 25 98 8.5 74.5 80 39.2 29.8 16 85 1 Page 75 of 84 Page 76 of 84 Page 77 of 84 Page 78 of 84 100 John West Way Aurora, Ontario L4G 6J1 (905) 727-3123 aurora.ca Town of Aurora Memorandum Planning and Development Services Re: Report on 2021 Minor Heritage Permit Approvals To: Heritage Advisory Committee From: Brashanthe Manoharan, Planner/ Heritage Planning Date: February 7, 2022 Recommendation 1. That the memorandum regarding Report on 2021 Minor Heritage Permit Approvals be received for information. Background The purpose of this memorandum is to provide the Heritage Advisory Committee with a summary of Minor Heritage Permit Approvals that have been processed by the Planning and Development Services since January 2021. On November 22, 2011, Council adopted By-Law 5365-11 granting delegated approval authority to the Director of Planning and Development Services to consent to or refuse alterations to properties that are located within a heritage conservation district pursuant to Part V of the Ontario Heritage Act, including the authority to attach terms and conditions. The definition of “minor alteration(s)” in the By-law shall include:  Replacement of siding;  Cleaning or re-pointing of masonry;  Replacement of windows or doors;  Replacement/removal or minor architectural building elements including, without limiting the generality of the foregoing, shutters, door trims/frames, window trims/frames, soffits, and fascia;  Structural repairs to existing structures and structural elements including, without limiting the generality of the foregoing, porches, chimneys, roofs, and exterior walls; Page 79 of 84 Report on 2021 Minor Heritage Permit Approvals February 7, 2022 Page 2 of 3  Repairs and replacement of non-heritage structures on the property which can be seen from the street including, without limiting the generality of the foregoing, fences, patios, gardens, sheds, and gazebos; and  Installation, replacement, or removal of commercial signage. Planning and Development Services updates the Heritage Advisory Committee on an annual basis, advising on the number of Minor Heritage Permit Approvals that were granted where the approval authority is not Council. Analysis Since January 2021, Planning and Development Services consented to seven (7) Minor Heritage Permits in accordance with the By-Law 5365-11. The seven (7) Minor Heritage Permits are summarized in the following table: File No. Address Description Date Approved HPA-2021-01 20 Spruce Street Construction of carport March 12, 2021 HPA-2021-03 28 Wellington Street West Replacement of window trims for the dormers April 1, 2021 HPA-2021-06 19 Mark Street Convert an existing window to a French door July 7, 2021 HPA-2021-10 28 Wellington Street West Ground sign July 5, 2021 HPA-2021-12 27 Mark Street - Replacement of front door - Re-point/repair existing brick work - Change brick knee walls on front porch to open rail system (due to water damage to knee walls and columns) - Replacement of siding with vinyl - Replacement of shutters - Remove existing decorative trim work at roofline (porch and main roof) - Re-paint exterior brick to light beige/gray colour September 7, 2021 HPA-2021-13 41 Centre Street - Proposed ground floor exterior door - Ground floor wood deck (rear yard) September 7, 2021 HPA-2021-15 160 Degraaf Crescent - Accessory structure in rear yard October 15, 2021 Page 80 of 84 Report on 2021 Minor Heritage Permit Approvals February 7, 2022 Page 3 of 3 For Minor Heritage Permits approved by the Director of Planning and Development Services, Staff was satisfied with each of the proposal’s massing, design, and building materials and that the proposals were in keeping with the general intent the Northeast Old Aurora Heritage Conservation District Plan. Conclusions Since January 2021, Planning and Development Services consented to seven (7) Minor Heritage Permits in accordance with the By-Law 5365-11. Planning and Development Services updates the Heritage Advisory Committee on an annual basis, advising of the number of Minor Heritage Permit Approvals were granted where the approval authority is not Council. Page 81 of 84 100 John West Way Aurora, Ontario L4G 6J1 (905) 727-3123 aurora.ca Town of Aurora Memorandum Planning and Development Services Re: Heritage Advisory Committee Update List To: Heritage Advisory Committee From: Brashanthe Manoharan, Planner/ Heritage Planning Date: February 7, 2022 Recommendation 1. That the memorandum regarding Heritage Advisory Committee Update List be received for information. Background The purpose of this memorandum is to provide an update to items which were brought to the Heritage Advisory Committee at the September 13, 2021, November 1, 2021, and January 12, 2022 meetings. See Attachment 1 for the Heritage Advisory Committee Update List. Committee contributions can be found in the meeting minutes and the “Advisory Committee Review” section of Council reports. This list will be updated and provided at regularly scheduled meetings. Completed items may be removed. Agendas, reports, and minutes can be found at www.aurora.ca/agendas Attachments Attachment 1 - Heritage Advisory Committee Update List – as of January 25, 2022 Page 82 of 84 Heritage Advisory Committee Update List – as of January 25, 2022 This list provides an update to items which were brought to the September 13, 2021, November 1, 2021, and January 12, 2022 Heritage Advisory Committee meetings. Meeting Date Item Update September 13, 2021 (minutes) 6.1 Memorandum from Planner/Heritage Planning; Re: Heritage Permit Application HPA-2020-04 - 74 Centre Street 6.2 Memorandum from Planner/Heritage Planning; Re: Heritage Permit Application File: HPA- 2021-11 - 65 Spruce Street 6.3 Memorandum from Planner/Heritage Planning; Re: Heritage Permit Application File: HPA- 2021-09 - 80 George Street 6.4 Memorandum from Manager Parks and Fleet; Re: Tree Removal Permit Application - 55 Metcalfe Street 6.5 Memorandum from Planner/Heritage Planning; Re: Request to Remove 103 Gurnett Street from the Aurora Register of Properties of Cultural Heritage Value or Interest 6.6 Memorandum from Planner/Heritage Planning; Re: Heritage Permit Application File: HPA- 2021-08 - 124 Wellington Street East Report brought to Council on November 23, 2021. Item was referred back to staff. Report brought to Council on September 28, 2021. Approval was granted by Council. Report brought to Council on October 26, 2021. Approval was granted by Council. Report brought to Council on October 26, 2021. Approval was granted by Council. Report brought to Council on October 26, 2021. Approval was granted by Council. Report brought to Council on October 26, 2021. Approval was granted by Council Page 83 of 84 November 1, 2021 (minutes) 6.1 Memorandum from Manager, Economic Development and Policy; Re: Streetscape Needs Assessment – Heritage Consultation 6.2 Memorandum from Heritage Planner; Re: Review of Aurora Register – Evaluation Methodology 6.3 Memorandum from Planner/Heritage Planning; Re: Heritage Permit Application, File: HPA- 2021-14, 15356 Yonge Street (Knowles-Readman House) 6.4 Memorandum from Planner/Heritage Planning; Re: Amendment to Heritage Designation By- law 6182-19, De La Salle College and Pine Ridge Trail (Monk’s Walk), 50-100 Bloomington Road West 6.5 Memorandum from Manager Parks and Fleet; Re: Tree Removal Permit Application – 144 Temperance Street Item referred back to staff for further consideration. Report brought to Council on November 23, 2021. Approval was granted by Council. Report brought to Council on November 23, 2021. Approval was granted by Council. Report brought to Council on November 23, 2021. Council directed staff to issue a Notice of Intent to amend Heritage Designation By- law Number 6182-19 for 50-100 Bloomington Road West. Council direct staff to bring forward the amending by-law should there be no objections to the proposed amendment to By-law Number 6182-19. Report brought to Council on December 14, 2021. Approval was granted by Council. January 12, 2022 (minutes) 6.1 Memorandum from Director, Community Services; Re: Pet Cemetery – Project Update 6.2 Memorandum from Planner/Heritage Planning; Re: Heritage Permit Application, Faraji, 74 Centre Street, File Number: HPA-2020-04 Report to be brought forward to February 15, 2022 General Committee meeting. Report brought to Council on January 25, 2022. Approval was granted by Council. Page 84 of 84