The URL can be used to link to this page

Agenda - Heritage Advisory Committee - 20210913Town of Aurora Heritage Advisory Committee Meeting Agenda Date:September 13, 2021 Time:7:00 p.m. Location:Video Conference Pages 1.Procedural Notes This meeting will be held electronically as per Section 19. i) of the Town's Procedure By-law No. 6228-19, as amended, due to the COVID-19 situation. 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 June 7, 2021 1 That the Heritage Advisory Committee meeting minutes of June 7, 2021, be received for information. 5.Delegations This meeting will be live streamed at https://www.youtube.com/c/Townofaurora/videos. Anyone wishing to provide comment on an agenda item is encouraged to visit www.aurora.ca/participation for guidelines on electronic delegation. 5.1.Steve Armes, Resident; Re: Item 6.1 - Memorandum from Planner/Heritage Planning; Re: Heritage Permit Application HPA-2020-04 - 74 Centre Street 8 6.Matters for Consideration 6.1.Memorandum from Planner/Heritage Planning; Re: Heritage Permit Application HPA-2020-04 - 74 Centre Street 9 That the memorandum regarding Heritage Permit Application HPA-2020-04 be received; and 1. 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. 2. 6.2.Memorandum from Planner/Heritage Planning; Re: Heritage Permit Application File: HPA-2021-11 - 65 Spruce Street 29 That the memorandum regarding Heritage Permit Application File: HPA-2021-11 be received; and 1. That the Heritage Advisory Committee comments regarding Heritage Permit Application File: HPA-2021-11 be received and referred to staff for consideration and further action as appropriate. 2. 6.3.Memorandum from Planner/Heritage Planning; Re: Heritage Permit Application File: HPA-2021-09 - 80 George Street 40 That the memorandum regarding Heritage Permit Application File: HPA-2021-09 be received; and 1. That the Heritage Advisory Committee comments regarding Heritage Permit Application File: HPA-2021-09 be received and referred to staff for consideration and further action as appropriate. 2. 6.4.Memorandum from Manager Parks and Fleet; Re: Tree Removal Permit Application - 55 Metcalfe Street 52 That the memorandum regarding Tree Removal Permit Application – 55 Metcalfe Street be received; and 1. That the Heritage Advisory Committee comments regarding the Tree Removal Application - 55 Metcalfe Street be received and referred to staff for consideration and further action as appropriate. 2. 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 78 That the memorandum regarding the removal of 103 Gurnett Street from the Aurora Register of Properties of Cultural Heritage Value or Interest be received; and 1. That the Heritage Advisory Committee comments regarding the removal of 103 Gurnett Street from the Aurora Register of 2. Properties of Cultural Heritage Value or Interest be received and referred to staff for consideration and further action as appropriate. 6.6.Memorandum from Planner/Heritage Planning; Re: Heritage Permit Application File: HPA-2021-08 - 124 Wellington Street East 94 That the memorandum regarding Heritage Permit Application File: HPA-2021-08 be received; and 1. That the Heritage Advisory Committee comments regarding Heritage Permit Application File: HPA-2021-08 be received and referred to staff for consideration and further action as appropriate. 2. 7.Informational Items 8.Adjournment 1 Town of Aurora Heritage Advisory Committee Meeting Minutes Date: Time: Location: Monday, June 7, 2021 7 p.m. Video Conference Committee Members: Jeff Lanthier (Chair) Neil Asselin John Green Councillor Sandra Humfryes Matthew Kinsella Bob McRoberts Members Absent: Hoda Soliman (Vice Chair) Other Attendees: Doug Nadorozny, Chief Administrative Officer Phillip Rose, Manager, Library Square Shawna White, Curator, Aurora Museum & Archives Carlson Tsang, Planner Linda Bottos, Council/Committee Coordinator _____________________________________________________________________ 1. Procedural Notes This meeting was held electronically as per Section 19. i) of the Town's Procedure By-law No. 6228-19, as amended, due to the COVID-19 situation. The Chair called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m. The Committee consented to extend the hour past 9 p.m. 2. Approval of the Agenda Moved by John Green Seconded by Bob McRoberts Page 1 of 110 2 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 April 5, 2021 Moved by Neil Asselin Seconded by Councillor Humfryes That the Heritage Advisory Committee meeting minutes of April 5, 2021, be received for information. Carried 5. Delegations 5.1 Frank Pignataro, Member of Town Park Area Residents Ratepayers Association (TPARRA); Re: Item 6.4 - Memorandum from Planner; Re: Request to Remove 26, 32 and 34-38 Berczy Street from the Aurora Register of Properties of Cultural Heritage Value or Interest Frank Pignataro presented background on the T. Sisman Shoe Company and its former two original buildings at 34-38 Berczy Street, noting the rich historical heritage of the company and its buildings, having significance to both Aurora and Canada. He spoke to the preservation of Aurora's history and requested the Committee's support in preventing the removal of these two buildings from the Aurora Heritage Register until an independent heritage study to determine historical contributions has been completed. Moved by John Green Seconded by Bob McRoberts That the comments of the delegation be received and referred to Item 6.4. Carried 6. Matters for Consideration Page 2 of 110 3 The Committee consented to consider items in the following order: 6.4, 6.5, 6.6, 6.2, 6.3, 6.1, and 7.1. 6.1 Memorandum from Planner; Re: Canadian Achievements Mural: Celebrating Diversity and Inclusion Staff provided a brief overview of the memorandum and potential locations for the Canadian Achievements Mural: Celebrating Diversity and Inclusion. The Committee expressed its preferences for the mural location, inquired about mural content, and suggested that Jacqueline Stuart, former curator of the Aurora Historical Society, would be a helpful resource. Staff provided clarification regarding public consultation and final design, including a local and national scope, and invited the Committee to provide further input to staff via email. Moved by Neil Asselin Seconded by Matthew Kinsella 1. That the memorandum regarding Canadian Achievements Mural: Celebrating Diversity and Inclusion be received; and 2. That the Heritage Advisory Committee comments regarding the Canadian Achievements Mural: Celebrating Diversity and Inclusion be received and referred to staff for consideration and further action as appropriate. Carried 6.2 Memorandum from Planner; Re: Heritage Permit Application File: HPA- 2021-04, 20 Spruce Street Staff provided a brief overview of the memorandum and application proposing to construct a garage addition on the south side of the existing dwelling, noting that the owner has modified the side yard setback to 0.6 metres. The Committee commented on and inquired about several aspects including tree removal, compatibility, streetscape, and potential review of the Heritage Conservation District Plan in relation to the Official Plan Review, and staff provided clarification. Moved by Neil Asselin Seconded by Matthew Kinsella Page 3 of 110 4 1. That the memorandum regarding Heritage Permit Application File: HPA-2021-04, 20 Spruce Street, be received; and 2. That the Heritage Advisory Committee comments regarding HPA- 2021-04 be received and referred to staff for consideration and further action as appropriate. Carried 6.3 Memorandum from Planner; Re: Heritage Permit Application File: HPA- 2021-02, 63 Catherine Avenue John Smale, owner and applicant, presented an overview of the proposal to remove an existing rear addition and replace it with a new one-storey addition in the same location of the dwelling. Staff provided a brief overview of the memorandum and application. The Committee had no issues with the proposal. Moved by Neil Asselin Seconded by Matthew Kinsella 1. That the memorandum regarding Heritage Permit Application File: HPA-2021-02, 63 Catherine Avenue, be received; and 2. That the Heritage Advisory Committee comments regarding Heritage Permit Application File: HPA-2021-02 be received and referred to staff for consideration and further action as appropriate. Carried 6.4 Memorandum from Planner; Re: Request to Remove 26, 32 and 34-38 Berczy Street from the Aurora Register of Properties of Cultural Heritage Value or Interest Neil Phillips, Project Manager, ERA Architects Inc., presented background on the development application and an overview of the former T. Sisman Shoe Company factory and building complex, present conditions, and modifications made over the years. He recommended that the heritage of these buildings would be best honoured through a contemporary interpretation strategy, a combination of thorough documentation and commemoration of the site, and a financial contribution to the Heritage Reserve. Ryan Guetter, Executive Vice President, Weston Consulting, was also present to answer questions. Page 4 of 110 5 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 inquired about the March 2020 heritage evaluation working group assessment of 34 Berczy Street and expressed disappoint- ment that the building had not yet been designated as it was deemed worthy of designation despite the previous modifications. Staff provided clarification on the delay and active planning application in progress. 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. The Committee inquired about the heritage assessment criteria and staff provided clarification on the new classification system yet to be finalized, noting that the O. Reg. 9/06 criteria would be applied in the meantime. Moved by Bob McRoberts Seconded by Matthew Kinsella 1. That the memorandum regarding Request to Remove 26, 32 and 34-38 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 the removal of 26, 32 and 34-38 Berczy Street from the Aurora Register of Properties of Cultural Heritage Value or Interest be received and referred to Council and staff for consideration and further action as appropriate. Carried 6.5 Memorandum from Planner; Re: Request to Remove 103 Mosley Street from the Aurora Register of Properties of Cultural Heritage Value or Interest Mike Bennett, Planner, WND Associates Ltd., provided a brief overview of the proposed development on the property and expressed support for the staff report findings and recommendations. Neil Phillips, Project Manager, ERA Architects Inc., provided background on the auxiliary building to the main factory of the T. Sisman Shoe Company, noting its past heavy alterations, present poor condition and Page 5 of 110 6 diminished historical integrity, and expressed further support for the staff report recommendations and conditions. The Committee inquired about the evaluation process and staff provided clarification on the heritage consultant’s evaluation. The Committee expressed concern regarding the process and suggested that the current evaluation scoresheet be applied in the absence of a new system in place. The Committee stated they were not prepared to provide feedback without an evaluation by the Town. Moved by John Green Seconded by Matthew Kinsella 1. That the memorandum regarding Request to Remove 103 Mosley Street from the Aurora Register of Properties of Cultural Heritage Value or Interest be received; and 2. That the Heritage Advisory Committee comments regarding the removal of 103 Mosley 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. Carried 6.6 Round Table Discussion; Re: Heritage Permit Application File: HPA-2021-07, 28 Wellington Street West Staff presented an overview of the application for urgent replacement of the retaining walls along the frontage of 28 Wellington Street West, which was recently designated under the Ontario Heritage Act. The Committee inquired about various aspects and suggested that safety railings would be required and the existing limestone should be incorporated into the new retaining wall. Staff provided clarification regarding cost allocation, original construction and replacement materials, design standards and safety, and agreed to provide further information to the Committee prior to the final recommendation to Council. Moved by Neil Asselin Seconded by Bob McRoberts 1. That the Heritage Advisory Committee comments regarding Heritage Permit Application File: HPA-2021-07, 28 Wellington Street West be Page 6 of 110 7 received and referred to staff for consideration and further action as appropriate. Carried 7. Informational Items 7.1 Memorandum from Planner; Re: Heritage Conditions – Shining Hill Subdivision (Phase 2) Staff provided an overview of the memorandum and background on the draft plan of subdivision heritage conditions and recommendation regarding two dwellings and barn at 370 and 488 St. John’s Sideroad. The Committee inquired about various aspects and staff provided clarification regarding designating properties not already listed on the Aurora Register, the subject properties and number of buildings, the demolition permit process and penalties, tree removal, and cultural heritage landscape qualifications. It was noted that a demolition permit was issued for one of the three buildings despite a June 2020 Council motion that they be evaluated by the Heritage Advisory Committee. Staff agreed to confirm and provide further information to the Committee. Moved by Matthew Kinsella Seconded by John Green 1. That the memorandum regarding Heritage Conditions - Shining Hill Subdivision (Phase 2) be received for information. Carried 8. Adjournment Moved by Matthew Kinsella Seconded by Neil Asselin That the meeting be adjourned at 9:57 p.m. Carried Page 7 of 110 100 John West Way Aurora, Ontario L4G 6J1 (905) 727-3123 aurora.ca Delegation Request This request and any written submissions or background information for consideration by either Council or Committees of Council is being submitted to Legislative Services. Council or Committee * Heritage Advisory Committee Council or Committee Meeting Date *  2021-9-13 Subject * 74 Centre Street Full Name of Spokesperson and Name of Group or Person(s) being Represented (if applicable) * Steve Armes Brief Summary of Issue or Purpose of Delegation * On behalf of the immediate neighbours, we wish to express our concerns over the failure of the Applicant to consult with the neighbourhood, as well as the inappropriate nature of the proposed development for the Heritage area of Old North East Aurora. We believe that a fitting and appropriate proposal can be made for this redevelopment but, to date, the Applicant has failed to engage or listen to advice from the neighbours, COA and Council. Have you been in contact with a Town staff or Council member regarding your matter of interest? * Yes No Full name of the Town staff or Council member with whom you spoke Brashanthe Manoharan Date you spoke with Town staff or a Council member 2021-9-3   Page 8 of 110 100 John West Way Aurora, Ontario L4G 6J1 (905) 727-3123 aurora.ca Town of Aurora Memorandum Planning and Development Services Re: Heritage Permit Application HPA-2020-04 – 74 Centre Street To: Heritage Advisory Committee From: Brashanthe Manoharan, Planner/ Heritage Planning Date: September 13, 2021 Recommendation 1. That the memorandum regarding Heritage Permit Application HPA-2020-04 be received; and, 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. Summary The purpose of this memo is to provide the Heritage Advisory Committee (HAC) with the necessary information to review and comment on a revised Heritage Permit Application HPA-2020-04 for 74 Centre Street. The revised heritage permit application for 74 Centre Street is to permit the construction of a two-storey triplex dwelling with four (4) parking spaces at the front [three (3) spaces west of the dwelling and one (1) parking space (existing) east of the dwelling). Following the July 6, 2021 General Committee meeting, the owner revised the application and submitted to the Planning Division for consideration. Staff circulated the revised proposal to the HAC members via email for comments. It was concluded that the revised proposal be heard at the September 13, 2021 HAC meeting. Page 9 of 110 Heritage Permit Application 2020-04 – 74 Centre Street September 13, 2021 Page 2 of 6 Background Property Description The subject property is located within the Northeast Old Aurora Heritage Conservation District on the north side of Centre Street between Spruce Street and Walton Drive. There is an existing 1½ storey Arts and Crafts bungalow on the property constructed around 1873. The building has been subject to a number of renovations over the years including a front addition and siding. The original elements of the style may have been either removed or covered as a result of the alterations. There is a mature tree located at the front of the existing dwelling that is considered significant as part of the historical streetscape. Application History On November 26, 2021, the current owner submitted a Heritage Permit Application (HPA-2020-04) to permit the construction of two-storey double duplex building with four parking spaces at the rear. The proposal was presented to the HAC on April 5, 2021, whereby concerns regarding lot depth, number of windows on the front elevation, and lack of landscape in the rear yard were expressed. Staff worked with the owner to address the concerns, and revised plans were presented to General Committee on July 6, 2021 for consideration. At the time of the July 6, 2021 General Committee meeting, neighbouring property owners expressed concern regarding the scale of the development and its inconsistency with the historical character of the area, impacts of proposed rear parking, and noted their willingness to work with the owner to address their concerns. The application was deferred to a future September General Committee meeting. The owner has since consulted with the neighbouring property owners to address their concerns and has submitted a revised proposal to the Town for consideration. Further, the applicant has consented to a 90-day extension of the Heritage Permit Application (HPA-2020-04) which now expires in mid October. Revised Application On August 6, 2021, the owner submitted a revised proposal to permit the construction of a two-storey triplex dwelling with a total of four (4) parking spaces at the front [three (3) new spaces west of the dwelling and one (1) parking space (existing) east of the Page 10 of 110 Heritage Permit Application 2020-04 – 74 Centre Street September 13, 2021 Page 3 of 6 dwelling), and a cedar tree hedge along the rear property line (see Attachment 1 – Proposed Drawings). The proposed building continues the homestead architectural style of a square shaped building designed with a gable roof. The front façade features a covered porch supported by two columns. The siding will consist of horizontal vinyl. All the windows will be traditional in style with a 4/4 grid pattern. The proposed building has a total of four glazed entrances, two at the front, and one on each side elevation. The large mature tree in the front yard will remain. Heritage Designation In 2006, Town Council passed By-Law 4809-06.D to designate 74 Centre Street under Part V of the Ontario Heritage Act as part of the Northeast Old Aurora Heritage Conservation District. 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 of properties and streetscapes located within the boundaries of the District. Analysis The architectural design of the proposed dwelling is generally consistent with the guidelines set out in the Heritage District Plan As per the District Plan, 74 Center Street is described as a “renovated Cape Cod Cottage, perhaps a DVA House”. The proposed triplex dwelling maintains a homestead architectural style, which is characterized by a steep gable roof, simple details, sash windows, and clapboard finishes. This architectural style is common on Centre Street and is considered compatible with the character of the host neighbourhood. The design of the proposed triplex is similar to the double duplex that was reviewed by staff and HAC. Staff are of the opinion that the revised design of the proposed building is in keeping with the guidelines of the Northeast Old Aurora Heritage Conservation District Plan The initial proposal was for a two-storey double duplex building resulting in area residents expressing concern regarding the scale of the development and its inconsistencies with the historical character of the neighbourhood. In consulting with neighbouring properties, the owner has revised the proposal to a triplex dwelling, which Page 11 of 110 Heritage Permit Application 2020-04 – 74 Centre Street September 13, 2021 Page 4 of 6 has reduced the scale and massing of the dwelling. Staff are of the opinion that the proposed triplex dwelling is respectful to the scale and massing of the surrounding neighbourhood, maintains the historic streetscape, and provides a sufficient rear-yard amenity area in relation to the adjacent properties. The initial design proposed parking spaces in the rear yard with a pyramidal cedar hedge as a landscape buffer to mitigate potential impacts to the abutting property to the north. The parking area has since been revised to provide a total of four (4) parking spaces at the front [three (3) new spaces west of the dwelling and one (1) parking space (existing) east of the dwelling]. The District Plan does not have specific guidelines for residential parking. However, it is indicated in Section 9.1.1 that new or increased parking areas in the front yards shall maintain the existing residential character of the street. Current parking patterns along Centre Street vary. However, most parking spaces are visible from the street and are mostly located in the front or side yard (see Attachment 2). The proposal is subject to site plan control. Comments relating, but not limited to, the physical layout of the development, parking, and tree preservation will be addressed through site plan review and the site plan agreement. Advisory Committee Review Since the owner had consented to a 90-day extension of the Heritage Permit Application (HPA-2020-04) which now expires in mid October, the revised proposal was circulated by way of email to determine whether the application would have to be presented to the September 13 HAC meeting. However, concerns were raised by HAC and it was concluded that the revised proposal be presented at the September 13, 2021 HAC meeting. Below is a summary of concerns raised and the responses from Staff: Parking The revised proposal is proposing three (3) new parking spaces on the west side, while maintaining the one (1) existing parking space on the east side, for a total of four (4) parking spaces for the triplex dwelling. Please note that no rear yard parking is proposed. This revision stems from the concerns that were raised by the abutting property owner to the rear regarding the lack of landscape space/amenity area in the rear yard. Currently, 74 Centre Street provides parking on either side of the dwelling. Page 12 of 110 Heritage Permit Application 2020-04 – 74 Centre Street September 13, 2021 Page 5 of 6 The District Plan does not have specific standards for residential parking. Current parking patterns along Centre Street vary. However, most parking spaces are visible from the street and are mostly located in the front or side yard (see Attachment 2). Scale and Massing The applicant has not increased the coverage of the triplex. Both the double duplex proposal and the triplex are permitted as of right in the R7 zone provided they do not exceed 35% lot coverage. The triplex proposal has a coverage of 185.2 square metres (25.8%), which is well under the 35% coverage standard. Elevations HAC has expressed that the renderings do not reflect the importance of the Heritage District. As per the District Plan, 74 Center Street is described as a “renovated Cape Cod Cottage, perhaps a DVA House”. The proposed triplex dwelling reflects a homestead style building, characterized by a steep gable roof, simple details, square-headed openings, sash windows, and clapboard finishes. This type of architectural style is common on Centre Street and is considered compatible with the character of the neighbourhood. The design of the proposed triplex is similar to the double duplex that was reviewed by staff and HAC. Potential Additional Units in Basement Secondary units are not permitted in triplex buildings as per the Town’s Zoning By-law. In the event that one is proposed, it will require Town Planning Approval (i.e., Minor Variance or Zoning By-law Amendment). Prior to the issuance of the building permit, the applicant is required to sign an undertaking stating that the basement will not be converted into an apartment. As a precautionary measure, staff will include a clause in the Site Plan Agreement that will be registered on title to advise future owners that a secondary dwelling unit is not permitted. Front Porch/Verandah On April 5, 2021, HAC suggested the extension of the front verandah across the whole front side of the property. As such, the owner has revised the proposal with a verandah that is an arts & crafts style open porch, which is similar to the verandah at the triplex at 70-72 Centre Street. It is consistent with the open/closed porch styles that are currently within the Heritage Conservation District. As per Section 9.1.2, porches/verandahs are considered as key elements of the HCD. Page 13 of 110 Heritage Permit Application 2020-04 – 74 Centre Street September 13, 2021 Page 6 of 6 Consultation In speaking with the owner of 74 Centre Street, he confirmed that discussions took place with area neighbors regarding the revisions. Staff have requested that the owner provide written confirmation that area residents were consulted. Conclusion Staff have reviewed Heritage Permit Application HPA-2020-04 and are satisfied that the revised plan for the triplex dwelling is in keeping with the design guidelines in the Northeast Old Aurora Heritage Conservation District Plan. Attachments Attachment 1 – Proposed Drawings Attachment 2 – Parking Patterns Page 14 of 110 A2041A201A203A202111CENTRE STREET4 1/8" / 1'-0"ALLOWABLE FRONT SETBACK : 6 m PROPOSED FRONT SETBACK : 5.944 mALLOWABLE REAR SETBACK : 7.5 mPROPOSED REAR SETBACK 13.2 m ALLOWABLE LEFT SIDE SETBACK : 2.5 mPROPOSED LEFT SIDE SETBACK 2.5 m ALLOWABLE RIGHT SIDE SETBACK : 4.5 mPROPOSED RIGHT SIDE SETBACK 4.5 m MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE HEIGHT : 10 mPROPOSED HEIGHT = 7.47 mMAXIMUM ALLOWABLE COVERAGE 35% : 250 sq.mPROPOSED COVERAGE 25.8% = 185.2 sq.m(Min .6m FRONT SETBACK)(Min. 7.5 m REAR SETBACK)19' - 6 17/32"128' - 1 7/16"12323' - 11 3 /4"60' - 6 3/8"128' - 1 7/16"60' - 6 3/8"EXISTING TREE TO REMAIN36' - 7 5/8"54' - 9 1/4"EXISTING WALNUT TREE TO BE KEPT7' - 1 17/32"2.5 m SIDE SETBACK8' - 2 13/32"15' - 3 15/32"4 1/8" / 1'-0"4 1/8" / 1'-0"14' - 9 1/8"ALLOWABLE SETBACK LINEPROPERTY LINE4.5 m RADIUS AROUND TREE4.5 m RADIUS AROUND TREE13' - 0 1/2"29' - 8 9/32"42' - 8 25/32"PYRAMID CEDAR TREE HEDGE TO BE PLANTED ALONG REAR PROPERTY LINE2' - 4 21/32"9' - 0"18' - 0"GARBAGE & RECYCLINGGRASS & GREEN SPACE352-(&7129(5,),('%<'5$:1%<6&$/('$7(01517/+55+10016'52.#0561$'75'&(14%10%'26+10#0&2'4/+601661$'75'&(14%105647%6+108'4+(;#..&+/'05+105105+6'(14#0;#0&#..5647%674#.52'%+(+%#6+1054'('461'0)+0''45&4#9+0)5241,'%6&'5%4+26+10&#6' @QBGHSDBSTQ@KCDRHFM}BNMRSQTBSHNM@QBGHSDBSTQ@KCDRHFM}BNMRSQTBSHNM@QBGHSDBSTQ@KCDRHFM}BNMRSQTBSHNM@QBGHSDBSTQ@KCDRHFM}BNMRSQTBSHNM¯®³®´¬²«²¯®³®´¬²«²¯®³®´¬²«²¯®³®´¬²«²AHDKKNCDRHFM¡FL@HKBNLAHDKKNCDRHFM¡FL@HKBNLAHDKKNCDRHFM¡FL@HKBNLAHDKKNCDRHFM¡FL@HKBNL #4%*+6'%674' $$%,(//2$%,(//2SITE PLAN&(175(675((7$8525$217$5,2352326('1(:&216758&7,211/8" = 1'-0"1SiteAttachment 1Page 15 of 110 UPUPDNWasherDryerUP139 SFLIVING ROOM570 SFBEDROOM 18101 SFBEDROOM 2943 SFW/C1043 SFLAUNDRY11KITCHEN147 SFLIVING ROOM14213 SFDINING ROOM2636' - 8 5/8"4' - 9"0' - 5 7/8"11' - 10 1/2"1' - 0"13' - 3 1/2"0' - 5 7/8"3' - 4"D.F.E.D.F.E.D.F.E.D.F.E.D.F.E.11' - 0 15/32"11' - 11"32' - 1 15/32"6' - 0"55' - 0 15/16"4' - 8 7/8"9' - 0 1/32"9' - 1 11/32"9' - 0 1/32"4' - 10 11/32"12' - 6 5/16"8' - 2 1/8"8' - 6 3/4"3' - 9 7/8"6' - 0 1/16"7' - 3 7/16"1' - 0"5' - 4 1/2"7' - 11"3' - 9 7/8"5' - 7 1/2"0' - 10 3/4"9' - 7 25/32"1' - 6"1' - 6"10' - 0"10' - 10 7/32"44' - 2 23/32"3' - 4 11/32"9' - 9 3/8"8' - 0 21/32"7' - 2 29/32"5' - 11 15/16"2' - 3 15/32"UNIT 2 SIDE ENTRANCE-RIGHT: TO UNIT-LEFT: TO BASMENTUNIT 1 SIDE ENTRANCE-RIGHT: TO UNIT-LEFT: TO BASMENTENTRANCE TO UNIT 1TO 2ND FLOORENTRANCE TO UNIT 2ENTRANCE TO UNIT 2 & 3ENTRANCE TO UNIT 3 -UP STAIRSENTRANCEVSVV352-(&7129(5,),('%<'5$:1%<6&$/('$7(01517/+55+10016'52.#0561$'75'&(14%10%'26+10#0&2'4/+601661$'75'&(14%105647%6+108'4+(;#..&+/'05+105105+6'(14#0;#0&#..5647%674#.52'%+(+%#6+1054'('461'0)+0''45&4#9+0)5241,'%6&'5%4+26+10 &#6' @QBGHSDBSTQ@KCDRHFM}BNMRSQTBSHNM@QBGHSDBSTQ@KCDRHFM}BNMRSQTBSHNM@QBGHSDBSTQ@KCDRHFM}BNMRSQTBSHNM@QBGHSDBSTQ@KCDRHFM}BNMRSQTBSHNM¯®³®´¬²«²¯®³®´¬²«²¯®³®´¬²«²¯®³®´¬²«²AHDKKNCDRHFM¡FL@HKBNLAHDKKNCDRHFM¡FL@HKBNLAHDKKNCDRHFM¡FL@HKBNLAHDKKNCDRHFM¡FL@HKBNL #4%*+6'%674' $&KHFNHU$XWKRUFIRST FLOOR PLAN&(175(675((7$8525$217$5,2352326('1(:&216758&7,21Page 16 of 110 WasherDryerDNDNWasherDryer70 SFBEDROOM 117276 SFBEDROOM 218182 SFLIVING ROOM22KITCHEN230 SFDINING ROOM24170 SFLIVING ROOM253' - 2 23/32"6' - 8 7/32"12' - 11 5/16"9' - 0 1/32"4' - 10 11/32"0' - 8 15/16"17' - 1 3/8"1' - 0"17' - 1 3/8"0' - 8 15/16"36' - 8 5/8"8' - 10 1/32"0' - 4 1/2"8' - 7 1/2"1' - 0"5' - 0"55' - 0 15/16"7' - 8 15/16"4' - 9 29/32"8' - 3 15/32"8' - 0 31/32"7' - 2 29/32"8' - 3 3/8"D.F.E.D.F.E.D.F.E.D.F.E.43 SFLAUNDRY ROOM2742 SFLAUDRY ROOM2843 SFW/C2943 SFW/C30D.F.E.D.F.E.129 SFBEDROOM 3217' - 11 9/32"153 SFBEDROOM 115D.F.E.51 SFOFFICE36ENTRANCE TO UNIT 355' - 0 15/16"22' - 5 5/32"30' - 0 5/16"2' - 7 15/32"10' - 10 7/32"9' - 10 9/32"31' - 8 15/16"2' - 7 15/32"14' - 3 25/32"3' - 9 13/16"3' - 10 1/2"8' - 9"8' - 4 3/8"14' - 0 13/16"8' - 1 13/16"SVSV11' - 8 7/8"16' - 6"7' - 10 7/16"3' - 9 1/32"V12' - 4 15/32"17' - 1 3/8"9' - 0 9/16"D.F.E.39 SFMASTER CLOSET358' - 0 5/16"3' - 10"5' - 3 1/16"6' - 8"7' - 4"7' - 11 9/32"352-(&7129(5,),('%<'5$:1%<6&$/('$7(01517/+55+10016'52.#0561$'75'&(14%10%'26+10#0&2'4/+601661$'75'&(14%105647%6+108'4+(;#..&+/'05+105105+6'(14#0;#0&#..5647%674#.52'%+(+%#6+1054'('461'0)+0''45&4#9+0)5241,'%6&'5%4+26+10 &#6' @QBGHSDBSTQ@KCDRHFM}BNMRSQTBSHNM@QBGHSDBSTQ@KCDRHFM}BNMRSQTBSHNM@QBGHSDBSTQ@KCDRHFM}BNMRSQTBSHNM@QBGHSDBSTQ@KCDRHFM}BNMRSQTBSHNM¯®³®´¬²«²¯®³®´¬²«²¯®³®´¬²«²¯®³®´¬²«²AHDKKNCDRHFM¡FL@HKBNLAHDKKNCDRHFM¡FL@HKBNLAHDKKNCDRHFM¡FL@HKBNLAHDKKNCDRHFM¡FL@HKBNL #4%*+6'%674' $$%,(//2$%,(//2SECOND FLOOR PLAN&(175(675((7$8525$217$5,2352326('1(:&216758&7,21Page 17 of 110 UPUPUNFINISHED BASMENT UNFINISHED BASMENT 5' - 9 13/16"13' - 0"29' - 7 9/16"6' - 6"36' - 6"1' - 0"8' - 0"8' - 8 3/4"1' - 0"8' - 9 1/4"8' - 0"1' - 0"5' - 6"11' - 0"32' - 6"5' - 11 3/8"36' - 7 7/16"352-(&7129(5,),('%<'5$:1%<6&$/('$7(01517/+55+10016'52.#0561$'75'&(14%10%'26+10#0&2'4/+601661$'75'&(14%105647%6+108'4+(;#..&+/'05+105105+6'(14#0;#0&#..5647%674#.52'%+(+%#6+1054'('461'0)+0''45&4#9+0)5241,'%6&'5%4+26+10 &#6' @QBGHSDBSTQ@KCDRHFM}BNMRSQTBSHNM@QBGHSDBSTQ@KCDRHFM}BNMRSQTBSHNM@QBGHSDBSTQ@KCDRHFM}BNMRSQTBSHNM@QBGHSDBSTQ@KCDRHFM}BNMRSQTBSHNM¯®³®´¬²«²¯®³®´¬²«²¯®³®´¬²«²¯®³®´¬²«²AHDKKNCDRHFM¡FL@HKBNLAHDKKNCDRHFM¡FL@HKBNLAHDKKNCDRHFM¡FL@HKBNLAHDKKNCDRHFM¡FL@HKBNL #4%*+6'%674' $&KHFNHU$XWKRUBASEMENT FLOOR PLAN&(175(675((7$8525$217$5,2352326('1(:&216758&7,21Page 18 of 110 1 FIRST FLOOR0' -0"2 SECOND FLOOR10' -1 1/8"3 TOP PLATE20' -2 1/4"BASEMENT-8' -9 1/8"GRADE-3' -6 7/8"TOP OF ROOF26' -4 13/32"29' - 11 9/32"5' - 2 1/4"6' - 2 5/32"10' - 1 1/8"10' - 1 1/8"3' - 6 7/8"5' - 2 1/4"2' - 1 1/8"5' - 0"3' - 0"352-(&7129(5,),('%<'5$:1%<6&$/('$7(01517/+55+10016'52.#0561$'75'&(14%10%'26+10#0&2'4/+601661$'75'&(14%105647%6+108'4+(;#..&+/'05+105105+6'(14#0;#0&#..5647%674#.52'%+(+%#6+1054'('461'0)+0''45&4#9+0)5241,'%6&'5%4+26+10 &#6' @QBGHSDBSTQ@KCDRHFM}BNMRSQTBSHNM@QBGHSDBSTQ@KCDRHFM}BNMRSQTBSHNM@QBGHSDBSTQ@KCDRHFM}BNMRSQTBSHNM@QBGHSDBSTQ@KCDRHFM}BNMRSQTBSHNM¯®³®´¬²«²¯®³®´¬²«²¯®³®´¬²«²¯®³®´¬²«²AHDKKNCDRHFM¡FL@HKBNLAHDKKNCDRHFM¡FL@HKBNLAHDKKNCDRHFM¡FL@HKBNLAHDKKNCDRHFM¡FL@HKBNL #4%*+6'%674' $$%,(//2$%,(//2FRONT ELEVATION&(175(675((7$8525$217$5,2352326('1(:&216758&7,213/8" = 1'-0"1FRONT ELEVATION (SOUTH)Page 19 of 110 1 FIRST FLOOR0' -0"2 SECOND FLOOR10' -1 1/8"3 TOP PLATE20' -2 1/4"BASEMENT-8' -9 1/8"GRADE-3' -6 7/8"TOP OF ROOF26' -4 13/32"5' - 2 1/4"3' - 6 7/8"10' - 1 1/8"10' - 1 1/8"6' - 2 5/32"5' - 2 1/4"29' - 11 9/32"352-(&7129(5,),('%<'5$:1%<6&$/('$7(01517/+55+10016'52.#0561$'75'&(14%10%'26+10#0&2'4/+601661$'75'&(14%105647%6+108'4+(;#..&+/'05+105105+6'(14#0;#0&#..5647%674#.52'%+(+%#6+1054'('461'0)+0''45&4#9+0)5241,'%6&'5%4+26+10 &#6' @QBGHSDBSTQ@KCDRHFM}BNMRSQTBSHNM@QBGHSDBSTQ@KCDRHFM}BNMRSQTBSHNM@QBGHSDBSTQ@KCDRHFM}BNMRSQTBSHNM@QBGHSDBSTQ@KCDRHFM}BNMRSQTBSHNM¯®³®´¬²«²¯®³®´¬²«²¯®³®´¬²«²¯®³®´¬²«²AHDKKNCDRHFM¡FL@HKBNLAHDKKNCDRHFM¡FL@HKBNLAHDKKNCDRHFM¡FL@HKBNLAHDKKNCDRHFM¡FL@HKBNL #4%*+6'%674' $&KHFNHU$XWKRUBACK ELEVATION&(175(675((7$8525$217$5,2352326('1(:&216758&7,213/8" = 1'-0"1REAR ELEVATION (NORTH)Page 20 of 110 1 FIRST FLOOR0' -0"2 SECOND FLOOR10' -1 1/8"3 TOP PLATE20' -2 1/4"BASEMENT-8' -9 1/8"GRADE-3' -6 7/8"TOP OF ROOF26' -4 13/32"5' - 8"2' - 4 7/8"1' - 2"2' - 10"8' - 9 3/16"2' - 1 1/8"5' - 0"3' - 0"3' - 6 7/8"8' - 1"0' - 6"0' - 7 11/16"1' - 10 1/16"1' - 1 1/8"2' - 4 7/8"2' - 1 17/32"2' - 2 25/32"352-(&7129(5,),('%<'5$:1%<6&$/('$7(01517/+55+10016'52.#0561$'75'&(14%10%'26+10#0&2'4/+601661$'75'&(14%105647%6+108'4+(;#..&+/'05+105105+6'(14#0;#0&#..5647%674#.52'%+(+%#6+1054'('461'0)+0''45&4#9+0)5241,'%6&'5%4+26+10 &#6' @QBGHSDBSTQ@KCDRHFM}BNMRSQTBSHNM@QBGHSDBSTQ@KCDRHFM}BNMRSQTBSHNM@QBGHSDBSTQ@KCDRHFM}BNMRSQTBSHNM@QBGHSDBSTQ@KCDRHFM}BNMRSQTBSHNM¯®³®´¬²«²¯®³®´¬²«²¯®³®´¬²«²¯®³®´¬²«²AHDKKNCDRHFM¡FL@HKBNLAHDKKNCDRHFM¡FL@HKBNLAHDKKNCDRHFM¡FL@HKBNLAHDKKNCDRHFM¡FL@HKBNL #4%*+6'%674' $&KHFNHU$XWKRULEFT ELEVATION&(175(675((7$8525$217$5,2352326('1(:&216758&7,213/8" = 1'-0"1LEFT SIDE ELEVATION (WEST)Page 21 of 110 1 FIRST FLOOR0' -0"2 SECOND FLOOR10' -1 1/8"3 TOP PLATE20' -2 1/4"BASEMENT-8' -9 1/8"GRADE-3' -6 7/8"TOP OF ROOF26' -4 13/32"352-(&7129(5,),('%<'5$:1%<6&$/('$7(01517/+55+10016'52.#0561$'75'&(14%10%'26+10#0&2'4/+601661$'75'&(14%105647%6+108'4+(;#..&+/'05+105105+6'(14#0;#0&#..5647%674#.52'%+(+%#6+1054'('461'0)+0''45&4#9+0)5241,'%6&'5%4+26+10 &#6' @QBGHSDBSTQ@KCDRHFM}BNMRSQTBSHNM@QBGHSDBSTQ@KCDRHFM}BNMRSQTBSHNM@QBGHSDBSTQ@KCDRHFM}BNMRSQTBSHNM@QBGHSDBSTQ@KCDRHFM}BNMRSQTBSHNM¯®³®´¬²«²¯®³®´¬²«²¯®³®´¬²«²¯®³®´¬²«²AHDKKNCDRHFM¡FL@HKBNLAHDKKNCDRHFM¡FL@HKBNLAHDKKNCDRHFM¡FL@HKBNLAHDKKNCDRHFM¡FL@HKBNL #4%*+6'%674' $&KHFNHU$XWKRURIGHT ELEVATION&(175(675((7$8525$217$5,2352326('1(:&216758&7,213/8" = 1'-0"1RIGHT SIDE ELEVATION (EAST)Page 22 of 110 352-(&7129(5,),('%<'5$:1%<6&$/('$7(01517/+55+10016'52.#0561$'75'&(14%10%'26+10#0&2'4/+601661$'75'&(14%105647%6+108'4+(;#..&+/'05+105105+6'(14#0;#0&#..5647%674#.52'%+(+%#6+1054'('461'0)+0''45&4#9+0)5241,'%6&'5%4+26+10 &#6' @QBGHSDBSTQ@KCDRHFM}BNMRSQTBSHNM@QBGHSDBSTQ@KCDRHFM}BNMRSQTBSHNM@QBGHSDBSTQ@KCDRHFM}BNMRSQTBSHNM@QBGHSDBSTQ@KCDRHFM}BNMRSQTBSHNM¯®³®´¬²«²¯®³®´¬²«²¯®³®´¬²«²¯®³®´¬²«²AHDKKNCDRHFM¡FL@HKBNLAHDKKNCDRHFM¡FL@HKBNLAHDKKNCDRHFM¡FL@HKBNLAHDKKNCDRHFM¡FL@HKBNL #4%*+6'%674'$$%,(//2$%,(//23D PERSPECTIVE&(175(675((7$8525$217$5,2352326('1(:&216758&7,211PERSP 1Page 23 of 110 'IRXVI7XVIIXAttachment 2Page 24 of 110 8S[RLSYWI&PSGOEGVSWW'IRXVI7XVIIX Page 25 of 110 'IRXVI7XVIIXPage 26 of 110 'IRXVI7XVIIXPage 27 of 110 'IRXVI7XVIIXPage 28 of 110 100 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-2021-11 65 Spruce Street To: Heritage Advisory Committee From: Brashanthe Manoharan, Planner/ Heritage Planning Date: September 13, 2021 Recommendation 1. That the memorandum regarding Heritage Permit Application File: HPA-2021-11 be received; and, 2. That the Heritage Advisory Committee comments regarding Heritage Permit Application File: HPA-2021-11 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-2021-11. The purpose of the application is to construct a second storey rear addition, a proposed canopy over the existing porch, relocate the existing skylight to the north façade of the rear addition, and one (1) new window opening on existing north façade at 65 Spruce Street. The subject property is located within the Northeast Old Aurora Heritage Conservation District.  Staff support the second storey rear addition, proposed canopy above existing porch, proposed skylight, and the one (1) new window opening 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.  Staff support the one (1) new window opening on the existing north façade and the relocation of the skylight as it maintains an adequate proportion. Page 29 of 110 Heritage Permit HPA-2021-11 – 65 Spruce Street September 13, 2021 Page 2 of 4 Background Property Description The subject property is located on the east side of Spruce Street, north of Wellington Street East and east of Yonge Street (see Attachment 1). The property contains a two and a half (2 ½) red-brick dwelling constructed in 1911, that is approximately 230.6 m2 (2,482.15 sq.ft.) in size. The dwelling reflects a four-square Edwardian architectural style characterized by a hipped roof, front gabled-shed dormer, and a brick chimney. The front elevation features a ‘warp-around’ front verandah with an open porch and is supported by classical columns on brick piers. The dwelling has a number of tall 1 over 1 sash windows. The rear elevation contains a single storey addition (constructed in 1990) with board and batten siding, slightly recessed from the south (side) elevation. Parking is provided on the existing driveway that is located along the south side of the property. Mature vegetation exists on the property, which includes a large tree in the front yard and vegetation along the south property line. Heritage Designation In 2006, Town Council passed By-Law 4804-06.D to designate 65 Spruce 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 43.2 m2 (465 f2) second storey rear addition, proposed canopy above existing porch, a proposed relocation of the existing skylight to the north façade of the rear addition, and the one (1) new window opening on existing north façade. The proposed second storey addition will be directly above the existing single storey board and batten addition in the same colour and materials. The proposed addition is designed with a hip roof that is consistent with the slope of the existing roof, and four (4) windows [one (1) horizontal and three (3) vertical windows)] facing the rear yard. Page 30 of 110 Heritage Permit HPA-2021-11 – 65 Spruce Street September 13, 2021 Page 3 of 4 The relocated skylight is proposed to be on the north façade of the proposed second story addition. The proposed canopy over the existing porch on the south facing façade will have a slope that is consistent with the existing roof and will have asphalt shingles. No mature trees or vegetation will be removed to facilitate the proposed addition to the existing dwelling. 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. Analysis Staff support the second storey rear addition as it does not contribute to or adversely impact the heritage value of the property. Based on historical Town Records, the existing single storey addition at the rear of the dwelling was constructed in 1990. The existing single storey addition, as well as the proposed second story addition reflects a homestead-vernacular architectural style, which is common in the Northeast Old Aurora District. The proposed second storey addition will not adversely affect the heritage integrity of the existing dwelling. Further, given the single storey addition has always been located entirely behind the main building since it was constructed, there will be minimal impact 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 second storey addition is located directly above the existing single 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 and along the north and south 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 board and batten siding, Page 31 of 110 Heritage Permit HPA-2021-11 – 65 Spruce Street September 13, 2021 Page 4 of 4 asphalt shingles, proposed windows, and proposed canopy over existing porch are consistent with 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 second story addition does not exceed the peak height 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. Staff support the one (1) new window opening on the existing north façade and the relocation of the skylight as it maintains an adequate proportion. Section 9.2.3 states that the proportion of windows to walls and the proportion of individual window openings is an important aspect of composition, and shall between 15 and 20 percent of a wall. The proposed window opening on the existing north façade is for a 3’ x 1’ – 8’ window for a proposed bathroom on the second floor near the rear of the dwelling. As the proposed window is smaller than the existing windows, it meets the glazing ratio as stated in the District Plan. Further, the proposed relocation of the existing skylight to the north façade of the proposed second story addition will be placed behind the north-east hip of the existing roof. This will create a small recess that will ensure that the skylight will not be visible from the street. Conclusion Staff have reviewed Heritage Permit Application HPA-2021-11 for 65 Spruce Street and are satisfied that the proposed work complies with the design guidelines of the Northeast Old Aurora Heritage Conservation District Plan. Attachments Attachment 1 – Location Map Attachment 2 - Drawings Page 32 of 110 Ma rk Stre e t Yonge StreetSpruce StreetOak CourtCentre Street Maple Street Spruce StreetCatherine AvenueFleury StreetCatherine Avenu e CedarCrescentLEGAL DESCRIPTION: PLAN 67 LOT 7 MUNICIPAL ADDRESS: 65 Spruce Street File No.: HPA-2021-11 060120 Metres Map created by the Town of Aurora Planning Department, August 23, 2021 Base 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 Attachment 1 Page 33 of 110 PROP. 2nd FLOOR ADDITION EXIST. 2 STOREY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING TEL (416) 579-1791 FAX (416) 630-5714 TORONTO ONTARIO M2N 0B9 30 CANTERBURY PLACE UNIT 709 $DRAWING NO. $'',7,21$1' 5(129$7,21 6358&(67 $8525$21 &2175$&7256+$//&+(&.$1'9(5,)<$//',0(16,216216,7( $//'5$:,1*6$5(7+(3523(57<2)7+($5&+,7(&7$1' 0$<127%(86(':,7+287+,63(50,66,217+,6'5$:,1* ,612772%(86(')25&216758&7,21817,/&2817(56,*1(' %<7+($5&+,7(&7'5$:,1*6$5(12772%(6&$/(' JUNE 21 /20 1 : 150 DRAWN BY SCALE DATE PROJECT NO. MIB PROJECT ADDRESS DRAWING TITLE CONSTRUCTION NORTH 6,7(3/$1 6358&(675((7 .16#4'#53/ 616#.':+56)(# 53/ 241215'&#&&'&)(# 53/ 241215'&)(# 53/ 2412/1&+(+'&#4'# )4170&(.453/ 5'%10&(.114 53/ 6*+4&(.114 #66+%53/ 616#./1&+(+'&#4'# 53/ UVCVKUVKEU $XJDATE: TOWN OF AURORA PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES Development Planning Division RECEIVED Attachment 2 Page 34 of 110 $XJDATE: TOWN OF AURORA PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES Development Planning Division RECEIVED Page 35 of 110 $XJDATE: TOWN OF AURORA PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES Development Planning Division RECEIVED Page 36 of 110 $XJDATE: TOWN OF AURORA PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES Development Planning Division RECEIVED Page 37 of 110 $XJDATE: TOWN OF AURORA PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES Development Planning Division RECEIVED Page 38 of 110 $XJDATE: TOWN OF AURORA PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES Development Planning Division RECEIVED Page 39 of 110 100 John West Way Aurora, Ontario L4G 6J1 (905) 727-3123 aurora.ca Town of Aurora Memorandum Department Name Re: Heritage Permit Application File: HPA-2021-09 80 George Street To: Heritage Advisory Committee From: Brashanthe Manoharan, Planner/ Heritage Planning Date: September 13, 2021 Recommendation 1. That the memorandum regarding Heritage Permit Application File: HPA-2021-09 be received; and, 2. That the Heritage Advisory Committee comments regarding Heritage Permit Application File: HPA-2021-09 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-2021-09. The purpose of the application is to replace the stucco and gables on the existing dwelling located at 80 George Street, known as “The Benjamin Willis House’’.  Staff support replacing the existing stucco and replacing the sheet metal on the two (2) gables on the existing dwelling, as it will not adversely affect the original heritage character of the building. Page 40 of 110 Heritage Permit HPA-2021-09 - 80 George Street September 13, 2021 Page 2 of 4 Background Property Description The subject property is located on north-west corner of George Street and Hillview Road, south of Wellington Street West and west of Yonge Street (see Attachment 1). The property contains a two-storey residential dwelling constructed circa 1888, known as the “The Benjamin Willis House”, which was designated in 2008 under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act. The building is a fine example of a Gothic Revival Style farmhouse built in the 19th Century, which was updated in the early 20th Century using the influences of the Arts and Crafts style. The dwelling is a unique example of homes built in Old Aurora in the 19th Century to house workers and management in local industries like the Fleury Foundry. The dwelling can be descried as an L-shaped building, with gable roofs and overhanging eaves. The exterior materials is composed of board and batten siding, stucco on the east and south elevations with aluminum gables that were added as part of the side and rear addition constructed in the 1990s. There is a wrap-around porch covering the south east corner of the building including the main entrance facing George Street. The windows are predominately multi-paned (6/1 or 8/1) wooden sash windows with exterior trims and storm sash. There are three casement windows and two fixed windows on the south elevation that are modern in style, which were possibly installed in the 1990’s. Parking is provided on the existing driveway off of Hillview Road. Mature vegetation exists across the property, including several large mature trees in the front and side yards. Heritage Designation In 2008, Town Council passed By-law 5078-08.R to designate 80 George Street under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act. By-law 5078-08.R. identifies the following exterior elements of the building that contribute to the heritage value of the property:  Stucco Exterior  South and east gables  Arts and Crafts exterior  Gothic Revival – L Shaped form  Historic window and door openings  Multi-paned - Wood sash windows and window trim and storm sash Page 41 of 110 Heritage Permit HPA-2021-09 - 80 George Street September 13, 2021 Page 3 of 4 Heritage Permit Application The owner has submitted a heritage permit to replace the existing deteriorating stucco and the two (2) aluminium gables in the east and south facades. The owner has stated that the existing stucco is in extremely poor condition (see Attachment 2). The stucco has only been repaired over the years through patch-work, in different colours and textures (see Attachment 2). The countless cracks, missing stucco pieces, and poor repair efforts have allowed vines and other such stems and runners to grow on and through the stucco. The stucco has deteriorated over the years and cannot be salvaged, without completely replacing it. Further, the two (2) gables appear to be a sheet metal that were painted orange by the previous owners. The owner is proposing to replace the existing sheet metal with new ones in the exact same colour as they are also exhibiting degradation (see Attachment 2). The proposed restoration does not require a building permit. Analysis Staff support the replacement of the existing stucco on the east and south façade as it will help restore the heritage character of the dwelling. By-law 5078-08.R identifies “Stucco Exterior” and the “South and East Gables” as heritage attributes to be protected and conserved. The intent of the heritage permit is to restore the original character of the attributes due to poor maintenance and deterioration over the years. The owner has consulted with a stucco company to confirm that repairs through “patch- work” will not be effective and that replacing the stucco entirely will increase the longevity of the exterior. The owner is proposing to replace the existing stucco with the original yellow colour. Further, the two (2) gables (located on the east and south façades) are in poor condition as well. They are indented, chipped, and in need of restoration. As they appear to have been painted an orange colour, the owner is proposing to replace the gables with orange sheet metal to prevent further degradation and to bring back the attribute’s original appearance. No further alterations to the existing façade are proposed. Page 42 of 110 Heritage Permit HPA-2021-09 - 80 George Street September 13, 2021 Page 4 of 4 Staff are satisfied that the proposed replacement of the existing stucco and two (2) gables will help improve the overall appearance of the east and south facades and will restore the original heritage character of the building. Conclusion Staff have reviewed Heritage Permit Application HPA-2021-09 for 80 George Street and are satisfied that the proposed work is compatible with the heritage character of the existing dwelling. Attachments Attachment 1 – Location Map Attachment 2 – Photos Page 43 of 110 Wellington Street West Tyler Stre e t R e ube n Stre e tGeorge StreetMill StreetHarriman RoadHawthorne La ne Hillview Road 075150 Metres Map created by the Town of Aurora Planning Department, August 23, 2021 Base data provided by York Region. This map is for addressing purposes only and should not be used for calculations or measurements. LOCATION MAP LEGAL DESCRIPTION:PLAN 30 PT LOTS 42 & 43 MUNICIPAL ADDRESS: 80 George Street File No.: HPA-2021-0 ¯St John's Sdrd Wellington St E Vandorf SdrdHenderson Drive ^Wellington St W UV404 UV404 Subject Lands Leslie StYonge StBathurst StBayview AveBloomington Rd Attachment 1 Page 44 of 110 Regarding Heritage Permit to replace 1) Stucco & 2) Gables on 80 George Street, Aurora, ON, L4G-2S4: 2021-06-04: 1)We are sending this letter to request permission to replace the stucco on the exterior of our house so that we can maintain the original look as its at the end of its life. At the present moment, the existing stucco is in Very rough shape. There are countless cracks and chipped off pieces all over. See a few examples below: Attachment 2 Page 45 of 110 The stucco is so deteriorated that you can literally put your finger on an edge and it will chip right off. We have spoken to professional stucco companies who have come to the property to inspect it and they Page 46 of 110 wouldn’t be able to salvage this as it is at the end of its life. The only thing past owners have done is “patch-work” such as the picture below. But as you can see some are in different colours and its not the same texture and so on. It looks bad and needs to be replaced entirely to not only make the original “stucco look” come back again but also increase the life of it down the road for the property as a whole. In addition to the cracks, missing stucco pieces, and poor patch-work from previous owners, there are also lots of vines that have grown on and in the stucco over the years. They clearly have not been looked after by previous owners as many of them are dead and the vines are embedded so deep into the stucco. I have tried taking some off and as you can see in some pictures below, there is leftover markings that are impossible to take off: Page 47 of 110 It is important to note that the stucco is not on the entire house. See the picture below showing the whole house and you will see majority is board and batten (also Yellow). So what we are looking to replace is Only the stucco part of the home (middle section): Page 48 of 110 My wife and I are the type of people who LOVE the character of older homes and will do anything it takes to preserve the look and abide by the Heritage rules. Over time, things do need fixing and its also a big investment coming out of our pockets. The stucco job is an expensive cost but we feel that replacing it to give it longevity again along with keeping with the original yellow stucco colour to blend in with the board/batten pieces, is a great thing to do for this property. Lastly, we are sending some pictures from the stucco company (StarTech Stucco) on the insulation behind the stucco / materials used, along with a sample stucco piece (disregard the grey colour, it is only to show the sample piece he provided): Page 49 of 110 2)There are also 2 Gables that appear to be a sheet metal material and were painted orange by previous owners and we would like to replace with new gables at the same time as the stucco as they are directly touching each other. See pictures below as these 2 gables are also in rough shape. Parts of the gable are bent / warped / pieces missing. We are applying to again bring this heritage home back to life by keeping the same material / size so its identical but brand new. Page 50 of 110 Thank you, Justin Rosa Page 51 of 110 100 John West Way Aurora, Ontario L4G 6J1 (905) 727-3123 aurora.ca Town of Aurora Memorandum Operational Services Re: Tree Removal Permit Application – 55 Metcalfe Street To: Heritage Advisory Committee From: Sara Tienkamp, Manager Parks and Fleet Date: September 13, 2021 Recommendation 1. That the memorandum regarding Tree Removal Permit Application – 55 Metcalfe Street be received; and 2. That the Heritage Advisory Committee comments regarding the Tree Removal Application - 55 Metcalfe Street be received and referred to staff for consideration and further action as appropriate. Background The subject property is listed on the Town of Aurora’s Register of Properties of Cultural Heritage Value or Interest under Tree Protection By-law 5850-16. Section 9 (1) (b) states: If a tree subject to an application is found by the Director to be a Heritage Tree, the Director shall not issue a permit unless the injury, destruction or removal is approved by Council following a review by the Town’s Heritage Advisory Committee. In October 2019, the owners of 55 Metcalfe undertook a home addition project through a Stable Neighbourhoods Site Plan Application, including installation of a pool and extensive landscaping of the rear yard. On August 10, 2021, the Parks Division received a formal Tree Removal Application and supporting documentation for the removal of one (1), Linden tree in the rear yard of the property. Page 52 of 110 Tree Removal Application – 55 Metcalfe Street September 13, 2021 Page 2 of 3 The Heritage Advisory Committee’s comments on this application should focus on the impact on the heritage character of the neighbourhood, not the physical condition of the tree. Analysis The Arborist report recommends removal of tree based on a few factors Cinerea Urban Forestry Services was retained by resident to provide an assessment of the tree’s health, structural stability and explore the potential of removal. The proposed tree for removal is a Littleleaf Linden tree with a DBH of 67cm, in good health and fair structural condition. The main stem divides into two (2) stems above 1.4 metres in height. These two (2) stems are poorly attached together with included bark, which can lead to failure due to a poor branching union. One of the stems leans towards the house, and the other stem leans towards the pool. They also conclude, the presence of wasps/bees and recommend the removal of the tree due to its condition/potential impact on the surrounding structures, should it fail. Town Forestry staff have confirmed the information contained in the Arborist report. Linden trees are susceptible to aphid attack Aphids are a common pest in the landscape and in large populations can cause significant damage to trees and trigger secondary issues. Lindens are quite often a host to the insect. When aphids feed on trees they produce what is referred to as “honeydew” which is a substance secreted by the insect as they feed on the plant sap. The honeydew is a sugar-rich sticky liquid coats everything in proximity of the tree canopy, is difficult t o remove and attracts bees and wasps. The homeowner is constantly removing residue from the pool surround, outdoor furniture, and deck. The health and welfare of family member cited as rationale for tree removal The owners of the property have significant concerns as a family member has a severe allergy to bees and wasps. Due to the infestation of aphids/honeydew there is Page 53 of 110 Tree Removal Application – 55 Metcalfe Street September 13, 2021 Page 3 of 3 significant bee/wasp activity in their yard. So much so, the family member is not able to be in the rear yard and enjoy amenities with their family. The tree has been treated on two (2) occasions this season by a tree company for the aphid population; however, the issue has not been rectified and continues to persist. The Landscape Design of the rear yard included numerous additions of trees adding to Aurora’s Urban Canopy The application is for the removal of one (1) linden tree with a DBH of 67cm, in good health on the property. As per the Town’s Tree Removal Compensation Policy, the value of this tree $4,277. The extensive landscaping of the rear yard in 2020 included several caliper trees:  6 – 100mm DBH Armstrong Maples  2 – 400 cm high Blue Spruce  9 – 275 cm high White Cedar  10 m long white cedar hedge 250cm high The value of the trees planted as part of the landscape design exceeds the value of replacement plantings required as per the Compensation Policy, more than satisfying the expectation, should tree be removed. Attachments Attachment #1 – Tree Removal Permit Application Attachment #2 – Arborist Report Attachment #3 – Landscape Planting Plan Photos Page 54 of 110 Page 1 of 3 TREE PERMIT APPLICATION 1 Town of Aurora Application to Permit the 100 John West Way Injury or Destruction Box 1000 Of Trees on Private Property Aurora, Ontario L4G 6J1 Phone 905-727-3123 ext.3223 The personal information on this form is collected under Bylaw 5850-16 and will be used for the purposes of this application only. Questions should be directed to the Freedom of Information Co-ordinator, Office of the Town Clerk, 100 John West Way, Box 1000, Aurora, Ontario L4G 6J1, Tel. 905- 727-3123. The Owner acknowledges and agrees that nesting birds will not be harmed or disturbed, and that nests or eggs of migratory birds are not disturbed, destroyed or removed in contravention of any applicable legislation, including but not limited to the Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act, 1997, S.O., c. 41, as amended or successor thereto and the Migratory Birds Convention Act 1994, c. 22, as amended or successor thereto. THIS IS NOT A PERMIT Instructions for Completion of Application: 1. Application form to be completed by applicant. Please type or print CLEARLY. Incomplete applications will delay approval. 2. Municipal address: Street name and number must be included for applications to be considered complete. 3. Provide an Arborist Report completed by an Arborist as defined in the by-law, at the direction of the Parks Manager. 4. If replanting, provide 2 copies of the replanting plan or landscape plan. 5. Payment of the required fees: See item 12 on page 2 for fee requirements. Written consent is necessary from an adjacent property owner where the base of a tree straddles a property line. 6. If this application is signed by an applicant other than the owner, or by an agent, the written authorization of the owner is required. 7. File this application and other supporting documentation to the Operations Department, Parks Division, 100 John West Way Aurora, Ontario L4G 6J1. I am applying for a permit to remove tree/s on private property (please check one) □ Three (3) or more trees 20cm (8 inches) in diameter measured at 1.37 m in a 12 month period □ Two (2) trees have already been removed between 20cm (8 inches) in diameter measured at 1.37 m in a 12 month period and require a permit for the removal of the third (3rd) or more tree/s in the same 12 month period □One (1) or more tree/s larger than 70cm (30 inches) in diameter measured at 1.37 □One (1) or more tree/s in the designated heritage district □One (1) or more designated heritage tree/s APPLICANT INFORMATION 1. Municipal address of subject property: 2. Name of Applicant/Agent: 3. Mailing Address of Applicant: 4. Telephone: _______ E-mail:_______ 5. Name of Registered Owner (if different from above): 6. Mailing address of Owner (if different from above): 7. Existing Land Use: 9. Are the tree(s) located on or near any neighbouring property line resulting in the joint ownership of the tree(s).  Yes  No 10.If yes, do you have authorization from the neighbouring property owner to act as their representative in this application to injure or remove tree(s).  Yes  No 11. Reason why trees are being injured or removed. Please circle letter: A. trees interfere with proposed construction B. Landscaping on the property C. all trees are dead, dying or hazardous D. trees are interfering with utilities/dwelling/foundation E.installing pool F. other (please specify): Don & kim Nichols 55 Metcalfe st , Aurora Ontario L4G 1E5 416-271-4200 don@nichols-group.ca Residential X Tree is also casuing damage to decking, atrtacting beesthat my wife is allergic too. damage to pool filter from sheeding Type text here Attachment 1 Page 55 of 110 Page 2 of 3 TREE PERMIT APPLICATION 2 12 Fee Requirements: If all trees are considered dead, dying or hazardous by the Parks Manager, there is no fee but a permit must still be obtained. Please circle one of the below: Trees over 20cm in diameter 3 trees ……………………………………………………. $214.00 4 trees …………………………………………………… $320.00 5 trees …………………………………………………... $427.00 6 trees ………………………………………………….. $534.00 7 trees ………………………………………….. $640.00 8 or more trees $107.00 per additional tree to a maximum of $2,552.50 Trees over 70 centimeters in diameter $534.00 per tree (Methods of payment cheque only. Fees are non-refundable and must be remitted at the time of initial permit application) ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS □ I am the owner of the property or acting on behalf of the owner with written authorization (attached) □ The property is not a designated Heritage Property under the Town of Aurora designation □ The property is designated Heritage and the Heritage Advisory Committee has approved the injury or destruction of the tree/s as per the attached Approved Heritage Permit □ Applicable fees have been submitted DECLARATION 1 I /we hereby declare that I/we have read and understand the required procedures and provisions under the Town of Aurora’s Private Tree By-law and the statements and plans made by me upon this application are, to the best of my belief and knowledge, a true and complete representation of the purpose and intent of this application. I consent to allowing Town of Aurora employees to enter the property to conduct inspections Signed at the Town of Aurora this day of , 20 Signature of Applicant: DOES THE TRUNK OF THE TREE/S AT GROUND LEVEL BISECT OR STRADDLE A PROPERTY LINE? YES □ NO IF YOU ANSWERED YES PLEASE COMPLETE DECLARATION 2 BELOW DECLARATION 2 I /we hereby declare print name That I am the owner of the adjacent property have read and understand the required procedures and provisions under the Town of Aurora’s Private Tree By-law and I /we consent to the intentions respecting the proposed work for which this application is being made and that the statements and plans made by me upon this application are, to the best of my belief and knowledge, a true and complete. . I consent to allowing Town of Aurora employees to enter the property to conduct inspections Signed at the Town of Aurora this day of , 20 Signature of Adjacent property owner Address_ Don Nichols 10 August 21 Page 56 of 110 Page 3 of 3 TREE PERMIT APPLICATION 3 PART A Tree and Site Information TREE # TREE SPECIES TREE DIA. IN CM. MEASURED AT 1.37M DRIP LINE HEALTH STRUCTURAL INTEGRITY POOR FAIR GOOD POOR FAIR GOOD 1 2 3 4 5 (IF MORE THAN 5 ATTACH ADDITIONAL PAGES) PART B SKETCH OF PROPERTY Please show all property lines, building s, driveways and the individual tree/s that are to be removed. Tree/s shall be numbered and cross referenced to match tree # in Part A Tree and Site Information PART C ARBORIST CONFIRMATION I /WE ________________________________________________________ CERTIFY THAT THE INFORMATION IN PARTS A, B & C IS CORRECT (PLEASE PRINT) SIGNATURE__________________________________________________________ DATE_________________________________________ (INCLUDES PROFESSIONAL DESIGNATION WHERE APPLICABLE) NOTE: COMPLETION OF PARTS A, B & C WILL BE RECOGNIZED AS AN ARBORISTS REPORT Linden 67 cm see arborist report Don Nichols aug 10,2021 Page 57 of 110 Arborist Report Prepared for: Donald Nichols 55 Metcalfe St. Aurora ON L4G 1E7 don@nichols-group.ca 416-271-4200 Site Address: Same as above Modified: August 3, 2021 Prepared by: Mark Ellis ISA Board Certified Master Arborist ON-1686BM www.cinereaurbanforestryservices.ca cinerea.ufs@gmail.com 905-715-5921 ©2021 Cinerea Urban Forestry Services Attachment 2 Page 58 of 110 Cinerea Urban Forestry Services Arborist Report 55 Metcalfe St. Aurora ON Page 2 of 19 Table of Contents Summary 3 Introduction & Assignment (Nature of Work) 4 Migratory Birds Convention Act 1994 4 Assignment Limitations 4 Tree Condition Rating 4 Key Arboricultural Terms 5 Methods 7 Observations 7 Client’s Reason For Removal 7 Tree Information 7 Tree Replacement Information 7 Arborist Specifications 7 Conclusion 8 Appendix 1 – Tree Inventory 9 Appendix 2 – Photos (Trees Are Centred) 10 Appendix 3 – Map (Trees Are Numbered) 14 Appendix 4 - References 15 Appendix 5 - Arborist Qualifications 16 Page 59 of 110 Cinerea Urban Forestry Services Arborist Report 55 Metcalfe St. Aurora ON Page 3 of 19 Summary This report is in regards to the removal of one tree located within the rear yard of 55 Metcalfe St. Aurora ON. General health assessments and arboricultural recommendations have been identified within this report. Page 60 of 110 Cinerea Urban Forestry Services Arborist Report 55 Metcalfe St. Aurora ON Page 4 of 19 Introduction & Assignment (Nature of Work) Cinerea Urban Forestry Services was commissioned by the homeowner of 55 Metcalfe St., Donald Nichols, to prepare an arborist report to supplement an application to remove one littleleaf linden tree at 55 Metcalfe St. Aurora ON. An inventory and general health and structure assessment was performed for the tree included within this report. Migratory Birds Convention Act 1994 Should the permit for the tree in question be granted: The Owner acknowledges and agrees that nesting birds will not be harmed or disturbed, and that nests or eggs of migratory birds are not disturbed, destroyed or removed in contravention of any applicable legislation, including but not limited to the Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act, 1997, S.O., c. 41, as amended or successor thereto and the Migratory Birds Convention Act 1994, c. 22, as amended or successor thereto. Assignment Limitations This Arborist Report was compiled from field data collected from the ground. A basic visual assessment of the trees was performed. No level of ISA Tree Risk Assessment was performed. More data may be obtained regarding risk through a basic or advanced ISA Tree Risk Assessment. As trees change over time, this report noting conditions of health and structure of trees on site shall be void after a period of 1 year or after any significant weather event. The opinions conveyed within this report are those of Mark Ellis, ISA BCMA ON-1686BM. Another arborist or forester may look at the same tree(s) and have different opinions. Thus; opinions may be subjective. This report is in no way a guarantee for a tree removal permit. This report is also not a permit to remove a tree. Measurements taken from property lines or tree ownership may not be exact as most of the time a survey stake is not visible so a fence or arbitrary property line is used. Specifications regarding cabling of a tree is to preserve the tree and prolong its service life. A cable is in no way a guarantee that the tree shall not fail. Cables, if installed correctly, may reduce the risk of a tree splitting apart. Trees may fail at any time due to a myriad of factors including but not limited to tree vigour, severe weather events, change in tree architecture, removal of adjacent trees. Tree Condition Rating The health and structure of the tree are assessed independently of one another and then combined. Page 61 of 110 Cinerea Urban Forestry Services Arborist Report 55 Metcalfe St. Aurora ON Page 5 of 19 Excellent – 81 to 100% Good – 61-80% Fair – 41-60% Poor 21 – 40% Very Poor – 1-20% Dead 0% Adapted from the Council of Tree & Landscape Appraisers Guide for Plant Appraisal 10 th Edtition 2nd Printing © 2019 International Society of Arboriculture. Key Arboricultural Terms AirSpade – A high pressure pneumatic device that blows compressed air. Used to excavate roots of trees without damaging them. Cash-in-lieu of planting – Used a tool by municipalities when there is not sufficient space to re- establish a large growing tree on the property where a tree is being removed. Such examples include most of property being hardscape, property having significant canopy coverage, or a very small property. The payment is intended to be used by municipalities to plant a replacement tree in another location on municipal owned lands. Crown Cleaning – To remove the dead portions of a trees canopy via pruning. Crown Raising – To prune lower branches of a tree to a specified height. Most deciduous trees should be elevated to height of 2 metres (6.5 feet) once mature to allow for pedestrian access under tree. Crown Reduction – To reduce the height of a tree. Usually only performed only over mature trees or trees that are experienced dieback at the top and exterior portions of crown. Crown Thinning – To selectively remove branches from the interior of a tree canopy in efforts to allow other branches to grow larger and provide more aeration throughout canopy. DBH – Diameter at breast height. In the City of Toronto this measurement is from the ground to 1.4 metres in height. Page 62 of 110 Cinerea Urban Forestry Services Arborist Report 55 Metcalfe St. Aurora ON Page 6 of 19 EAB – Acronym for Emerald Ash Borer. An invasive insect from China that kills North American ash Fraxinus trees by eating through the trees’ cambium. ISA – International Society of Arboriculture ISA Certified Arborist – Trained and knowledgeable in all aspects of arboriculture. ISA Certified Arborist® have met all requirements to be eligible for the exam, which includes three or more years of full-time, eligible, practical work experience in arboriculture and/or a degree in the field of arboriculture, horticulture, landscape architecture, or forestry from a regionally accredited educational institute. This certification covers a large number of topics giving the candidates flexibility in the arboricultural profession. A code of ethics for ISA Certified Arborists® strengthens the credibility and reliability of the work force. This certification is accredited by the American National Standards Institute, meeting and exceeding ISO 17024. ISA Board Certified Master Arborist - The ISA Board Certified Master Arborist® credential is the highest level of certification offered by ISA. This credential recognizes ISA Certified Arborists® who have reached the pinnacle of their profession. In addition to passing an extensive scenario-based exam, candidates must abide by a Code of Ethics, which ensures quality of work. Fewer than two percent of all ISA Certified Arborists® currently hold this certification. Page 63 of 110 Cinerea Urban Forestry Services Arborist Report 55 Metcalfe St. Aurora ON Page 7 of 19 MTPZ – Minimum Tree Protection Zone. A distance defined by a local municipality that will ensure reasonable protection for a tree should construction activities occur outside of the zone. It is usually based on a multiple of six times the distance the diameter of the tree. Methods x Tools used to assess the trees included a clinometer, metric measuring tape, metric measuring wheel, binoculars, digital camera, metal probe, metric diameter tape x All diameters of trees were measured at a height of 1.4 metres Observations x Field work was completed by Mark Ellis on July 29, 2021 x Weather at time of assessment was overcast and 20°C x Tree # 1 – A previous 3rd stem has recently been removed; included bark and poor attachment of remaining 2 stems Client’s Reason For Removal The homeowners of 55 Metcalfe St. would like to remove the tree due to its structural issues and because its flower attracts lots of bees which they are allergic to. Tree Information See Appendix 1 Tree Replacement Information The Town of Aurora may require a tree to be replanted due to the removal of this tree. A replanting plan may be prepared as an update to this report upon hearing from the Town if they require a tree and what size it is to be. Also note that the homeowner replanted 8 trees recently as a part of an Integrated Vegetation Management Plan as related to construction. Arborist Specifications x Submit all documentation to Town of Aurora x Remove tree upon issuance of permit x Hire fully insured company employing ISA Certified Arborists/OCOT Qualified Arborists to remove tree Page 64 of 110 Cinerea Urban Forestry Services Arborist Report 55 Metcalfe St. Aurora ON Page 8 of 19 Conclusion I, Mark Ellis conducted a site visit on July 29, 2021 to assess a tree for health, structural stability and explore the potential of removal. The tree in question is a 67 cm dbh littleleaf linden Tilia cordata in good health and fair structural condition. The homeowners would like to remove the tree due to its existing structural issues as well it attracts a lot of bees which they are allergic to. The tree splits into 2 stems above 1.4 metres in height. These two stems are poorly attached together and have associated included bark. One of these stems leans towards the house, and the other stem leans towards the pool. A previous 3rd stem has been recently removed perhaps a few months ago. Due to the current condition of the tree, it is in my opinion that the tree should be removed. Should the Town want a replanting plan prepared as an update to this report that can be done at no cost to the client. Additionally, the Town will have to let the client know how many trees and what size minimum the tree(s) shall be for replanting. The homeowner understands that this arborist report is not a guarantee for a tree permit and that it is also not a permit to remove the tree in itself. Ultimately, all decisions regarding tree removal and the replanting of trees are those of the Town of Aurora. This arborist report is to be submitted electronically online at https://webforms.aurora.ca/Parks/Tree-Permit-Application. They will be in touch regarding the payment of application fees (if any), and issuance (or denial) of the permit for the tree. Page 65 of 110 Appendix 1 – Tree Inventory Tree # Common Name Latin dbh (cm) @ 1.4 m Height (m) Crown Spread (m) Ownership (City/Town or Private) Health Structure Overall Condition Address Location Comments Arborist Recommendation 1 Littleleaf Linden Tilia cordata 67 15 9 Private Good Fair Good 55 Metcalfe St. 5.1 metres south of south building line 7.3 metres east of west property line 2 main stems above 1.4 metres in height, a 3rd stem has been previously removed Included bark at attachment point of both stems Remove tree Page 66 of 110 Cinerea Urban Forestry Services Arborist Report 55 Metcalfe St. Aurora ON Page 10 of 19 Appendix 2 – Photos (Trees Are Centred) Page 67 of 110 Cinerea Urban Forestry Services Arborist Report 55 Metcalfe St. Aurora ON Page 11 of 19 Fig. 1 – Tree # 1 – Tilia cordata Page 68 of 110 Cinerea Urban Forestry Services Arborist Report 55 Metcalfe St. Aurora ON Page 12 of 19 Fig. 2 – Tree # 1 – Tilia cordata Page 69 of 110 Cinerea Urban Forestry Services Arborist Report 55 Metcalfe St. Aurora ON Page 13 of 19 Fig. 3 – Tree # 1 – Tilia cordata Page 70 of 110 Cinerea Urban Forestry Services Arborist Report 55 Metcalfe St. Aurora ON Page 14 of 19 Appendix 3 – Map (Trees Are Numbered) Page 71 of 110 Cinerea Urban Forestry Services Arborist Report 55 Metcalfe St. Aurora ON Page 15 of 19 Appendix 4 - References 1. A silvicultural guide to managing southern Ontario forests. (2000). [Toronto]: [Ministry of Natural Resources]. 2. Anderson, H. and Corlett, A. (2004). Ontario tree marking guide. [Toronto]: Ministry of Natural Resources. 3. Dunster, J., Smiley, E., Matheny, N. and Lilly, S. (n.d.). Tree risk assessment manual . 4. Fite, K. and Smiley, E. (2008). Best management practices - Managing trees during construction. Champaign, IL: International Society of Arboriculture. 5. Gilman, E. (2002). Best management practices – Tree Pruning . Champaign, IL: International Society of Arboriculture. 6. Matheny, N. and Clark, J. (2008). Municipal specialist certification study guide. Champaign, IL: International Society of Arboriculture. 7. Lily, Sharon. Glossary Of Arboricultural Terms. 1st ed. Champaign: International Society of Arboriculture, 2015. Print. 8. City of Toronto. (2017). Tree Protection Policy and Specifications for Construction Near Trees. [online] Available at: https://www1.toronto.ca/city_of_toronto/parks_forestry__recreation/urban_forestry/files/ pdf/TreeProtSpecs.pdf [Accessed 31 Jul. 2021] Page 72 of 110 Cinerea Urban Forestry Services Arborist Report 55 Metcalfe St. Aurora ON Page 16 of 19 Appendix 5 - Arborist Qualifications Mark Ellis is the owner/operator at Cinerea Urban Forestry Services. He has previously held positions as Senior Consulting Arborist with Davey Resource Group, Arborist Foreman with Regional Municipality of Wood Buffalo and Forest Health Care with the City of Toronto. Mark has over 10 years of experience working for not- for-profit corporations, private companies, and municipalities in arboriculture, forestry and urban forestry. His experience includes planning the urban forest, tree climbing and removal, integrated pest management, surveying for destructive forest pests, and GIS based mapping to name a few. Annually Cinerea Urban Forestry Services prepares over 250 arborist reports/tree preservation plans. Education Sir Sandford Fleming – Forest Technician Diploma Industry Related Certifications ISA Board Certified Master Arborist Municipal Specialist # ON-1686BM (2013-2022) ISA Tree Risk Assessment Qualification (TRAQ) (2013-2023) Butternut Health Assessor #532 ASCA Tree and Plant Appraisal Qualification (2019-2024) TCIA Certified Treecare Safety Professional (2020-2023 Ontario Certified Seed Collector #383 Ontario MOE Pesticide License #046418 (Forestry, Industrial Vegetation, & Landscape Exterminator) OFSWA Chainsaw Operator Certification Arboriculture Canada – Technical Tree Falling & Cutting Certified Ontario Tree Marking Course SP-102 Forest Industry Wildland Firefighting Member International Society of Arboriculture Member #221000 International Society of Arboriculture Ontario Chapter Member #221000 Tree Care Industry Association Page 73 of 110 Cinerea Urban Forestry Services Arborist Report 55 Metcalfe St. Aurora ON Page 17 of 19 Page 74 of 110 Cinerea Urban Forestry Services Arborist Report 55 Metcalfe St. Aurora ON Page 18 of 19 Page 75 of 110 Cinerea Urban Forestry Services Arborist Report 55 Metcalfe St. Aurora ON Page 19 of 19 Page 76 of 110 Attachment 3 Page 77 of 110 100 John West Way Aurora, Ontario L4G 6J1 (905) 727-3123 aurora.ca Town of Aurora Heritage Advisory Committee Planning and Development Services Re: Request to Remove 103 Gurnett Street from the Aurora Register of Properties of Cultural Heritage Value or Interest To: Heritage Advisory Committee From: Brashanthe Manoharan, Planner/Heritage Planning Date: September 13, 2021 Recommendation 1. That the memorandum regarding the removal of 103 Gurnett Street from the Aurora Register of Properties of Cultural Heritage Value or Interest be received; and, 2. That the Heritage Advisory Committee comments regarding the removal of 103 Gurnett 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 The purpose of this memorandum is to provide the Heritage Advisory Committee with the necessary information for providing comments on the request to remove 103 Gurnett Street from the Aurora Register of Properties of Cultural Heritage Value or Interest.  103 Gurnett Street is a non-designated properties listed on the Town’s Heritage Register.  The Heritage Advisory Committee’s Working Group performed an evaluation of the property on August 11, 2021 and concluded that the property is not worthy of heritage designation. Page 78 of 110 Request to Delist 103 Gurnett Street September 13, 2021 Page 2 of 4 Background Property Description The subject property is located on the east side of Gurnett Street, south of Wellington Street East and east of Yonge Street (see Attachment 1). The property is listed on the Town’s Register of Properties of Cultural Heritage Value or Interest. There is a one and a half (1 ½ ) storey dwelling on the property with a detached garage on the property (see Attachment 2). Records indicate that the dwelling was constructed in 1860. The architectural style of the dwelling can be described as a Georgian Cottage, with influences of Classic Revival, characterized by its from hip roof, centered entrance, horizontal siding, and single hung windows. Photos of the dwelling are attached herein as “Attachment 2 – Photos of building”. History of the Property The house was built in 1860 by H.M. Gurnett. The house is believed to have been associated with John T. Gurnett, who opened Gurnett Street from Victoria Street to Connaught Avenue in 1863 to provide housing for tannery workers. The house is associated with the industrial base and development of the Southeast Old Aurora neighbourhood. The house was later acquired by the Bak family, who resided in the home for over 100 years. 103 Gurnett Street is a non-designated properties listed on the Town’s Heritage Register. 103 Gurnett Street is a 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 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 property included in the register under subsection (1.2) has not been designated under Section 29, the Page 79 of 110 Request to Delist 103 Gurnett Street September 13, 2021 Page 3 of 4 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 the property and concluded that the property is not worthy of heritage designation. On August 11, 2021, the Heritage Advisory Committee’s Evaluation Working Group met with Planning Staff to perform an evaluation of the subject property based on the criteria prescribed in the Town’s Heritage Evaluation Guidelines (see Attachment 3). The property scored 32.6/100. The score places the property in Group 3, which suggests that the property is not worthy of heritage designation. Below is a summary of the comments from the Working Group:  Although the exterior of the dwelling appears to be in good condition, the interior of the dwelling is in poor condition and is need of extensive structural repair. As a result of the poor foundation and minimal maintenance and restoration over the years, the second floor appears to have dropped over 6 inches (see Attachment 2). Page 80 of 110 Request to Delist 103 Gurnett Street September 13, 2021 Page 4 of 4  Although the house was associated with the Gurnett’s Tannery in the late 1800s, the house has limited contextual value and is not considered to be of significant importance to the local community. Further, the building is not considered to be a heritage landmark in the local community.  Unique features as noted in the Town’s Register (chimney and original siding) have been removed.  While a majority of the elements of the house have remained unaltered over the years, it does not serve as a visual, historical, or cultural point of reference. Conclusions The Heritage Advisory Committee’s Working Group performed an evaluation of the existing building at 103 Gurnett Street and concludes that it does not meet the criteria for heritage designation under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act. Staff recommend that 103 Gurnett Street be removed from the Aurora Register of Properties of Cultural Heritage Value or Interest. Attachments Attachment 1 – Location Map Attachment 2 – Photos of building Attachment 3 – Working Group Evaluation Page 81 of 110 Victoria StreetMetcalfe Street Harrison Avenue Conna ught Ave nue Ke nne dy Stre e t Ea stGurnett StreetYongeStreetWells StreetKennedy Street East Church Street LEGAL DESCRIPTION: PLAN 1B LOT 4 LOT 5 MUNICIPAL ADDRESS: 103 Gurnett Street Delisting of 103 Gurnett Street 060120 Metres Map created by the Town of Aurora Planning Department, August 23, 2021 Base 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 Attachment 1 Page 82 of 110 %XXEGLQIRXPage 83 of 110 Page 84 of 110 Page 85 of 110 Page 86 of 110 Page 87 of 110 Page 88 of 110 Page 89 of 110 Page 90 of 110 Page 91 of 110 Page 92 of 110 Municipal Address: _______________________________________________ Legal Description: _____________________ Lot: ______ Cons: _______ Group: Date of Evaluation: ________________ 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 7 3 0 /10 /10 Historic Grouping (Bonus) 10 HISTORICAL TOTAL 53/100 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 22/100 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 13/100 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 20 5 103 Gurnett Street August 11, 2021 Brashanthe M 21.2 8.8 2.6 32.6 Attachment 3 Page 93 of 110 100 John West Way Aurora, Ontario L4G 6J1 (905) 727-3123 aurora.ca Town of Aurora Memorandum Planning & Development Services Re: Heritage Permit Application File: HPA-2021-08 124 Wellington Street East To: Heritage Advisory Committee From: Brashanthe Manoharan, Planner/ Heritage Planning Date: September 13, 2021 Recommendation 1. That the memorandum regarding Heritage Permit Application File: HPA-2021-08 be received; and, 2. That the Heritage Advisory Committee comments regarding Heritage Permit Application File: HPA-2021-08 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-2021-08. The purpose of the application is to replace the two (2) existing doors and seven (7) existing windows on the east façade, replace all existing windows on south façade, replace five (5) existing windows on west façade, proposed four (4) new window openings on the west façade, replacement of the existing door with window and removal of steel landing and stairs on the west façade, and proposed exterior signage on the south and east façades on the existing building located at 124 Wellington Street East.  Staff support the replacement of the existing windows, proposed window openings, and proposed exterior signage as it will not adversely affect the original heritage character of the building.  Staff support the proposed exterior signage on the south and east façades on the existing building. Page 94 of 110 Heritage Permit HPA-2021-08 – 124 Wellington Street East September 13, 2021 Page 2 of 6 Background Property Description The subject property is located on the north side of Wellington Street East, and east of Walton Drive (see Attachment 1). The property contains three storey brick building constructed circa 1920, known as the “Baldwin’s Restaurant”, which was designated in 2019 under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act. The building is an example of a building with pre-World War II Georgian Revival and Industrial architectural influence. The building features a flat roof, numerous sash windows and decorative brickwork. Historically, the building operated as a flour mill and was built by William Baldwin after the original mill further west on Wellington Street was destroyed by fire. The Baldwin building is located distinctively on the west side of the railway tracks, which was a prime location to easily transport goods and made the building an early community landmark at the busy Wellington railway intersection. The Baldwin building is an important community landmark featuring a high degree of craftsmanship in its build. It is one of the last pre-World War II industrial buildings remaining in Town, was owned by one of Aurora’s more prominent historical families, and its presence serves as a visual reminder of the early industrial and commercial growth of Aurora around the railway tracks. The 6-bay building is symmetrical and well-proportioned, with generous red brick wall space. The numerous windows are indicative of the Industrial functional style, which permitted more lighting and ventilation for the mill. The third storey belt course is juxtaposed with various vertical stone bands, which accent the six-over-six light sash windows. The south façade on Wellington also features unique 14-over-21 and 20-over- 20 light sash windows on the first floor, while the entrance is along the eastern wall facing the railway tracks. Stone window sills accent the windows against the red brick walls while the simple stone cornice helps to define the third storey height addition and brings attention to the decorative recessed brick masonry detailing. Heritage Designation In 2019, Town Council passed By-law 6164-19 to designate 124 Wellington Street East under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act. By-law 6164-19 identifies the following exterior elements of the building that contribute to the heritage value of the property:  Flat roof Page 95 of 110 Heritage Permit HPA-2021-08 – 124 Wellington Street East September 13, 2021 Page 3 of 6  Decorative brickwork including the third storey recessed half stone  Symmetrical, well proportioned design  Light sash windows and east facing entrance door  Stone window sills  High horizontal belt course juxtaposed with vertical bands  Stone cornice Heritage Permit Application The applicant has submitted a heritage permit to replace the existing deteriorating windows, proposed new window openings, and proposed exterior signage, as outlined below: Elevation Proposal West  Replace five (5) existing windows  Proposed four (4) new window openings  Replace existing door with window and removal of steel landing and stairs East  Replace seven (7) existing windows  Replace two (2) existing doors  Proposed exterior signage South  Replace all existing windows  Proposed exterior signage The applicant submitted a Justification Statement for Staff’s and Committee’s consideration (see Attachment – 3) that notes the following: “The building was renovated in the year 2000. At that time the windows on the south elevation along with the windows on the brick portion of the East and West elevations were completely replaced with Heritage approval. The windows used were Martin fixed wood windows with Simulated Divided Lites and were painted to a Heritage approved colour. Page 96 of 110 Heritage Permit HPA-2021-08 – 124 Wellington Street East September 13, 2021 Page 4 of 6 In the year 2011 the windows again started showing major deterioration especially on the upper south elevation. At that time we replaced potions of the brick mould and all of the rotted sills. Windows were all recaulked and painted at this time in 2011. The windows have further deteriorated to the point that the glass is becoming loose and SDL mouldings are rotted and falling off. It is my opinion wood aluminum clad windows with Simulated Divided lites would be more suited for the weather elements that these windows are exposed to. With these new proposed aluminum clad w/ wood interior windows we can maintain the exact same appearance and colour with SDL.” The replacement windows on the south and east elevations will match the existing windows. The frame will be wood aluminium casing on the exterior. The frame colour will be an ivory/crème to match the existing colour. The glass will be sealed double glass units. The replacement window for the existing door, the five (5) replacement widows, and the four (4) new windows on the first floor of the west elevation, will be 6 over 6 light sash windows. The frame will be thermally broken vinyl and will match the ivory/crème colour of the existing windows. The glass will be sealed double glass units. Further, the steel landing and stairs below the existing door are proposed to be removed on the west elevation, which may be subject to a building permit. The proposed exterior signage on the south and east façades will be in the same location of the former “Baldwin’s” sign. The exterior signage is proposed to be in 2” coraform lettering, that will be mounted on the existing brick wall using 1” spacer pins. The proposed signage will be 27” tall and will span 170.6” and will be painted a non- metallic gold colour. Both signs will be illuminated using the six (6) existing external shielded light sources. The four (4) new window openings will require a building permit. As the replacement of the existing windows are not proposed to be enlarged, no building permit is required. A separate sign permit is required for the proposed south and east exterior signage. Analysis Staff support the replacement of the existing windows on the west, east, and south façades, the proposed window openings, and the replacement of the existing door on the west façade to a window as it will help restore the heritage character of the dwelling. By-law 6164-19 identifies the “stone window sills”, “light sash windows”, and “symmetrical, well proportioned design” as a heritage attributes to be protected and Page 97 of 110 Heritage Permit HPA-2021-08 – 124 Wellington Street East September 13, 2021 Page 5 of 6 conserved. The elevations of the building are characterized by its well-proportioned light sash windows. The south elevation in particular features unique 14-over-21 and 20-over- 20 light sash windows on the first floor. The intent of the heritage permit is to restore the original character of the attributes due to deterioration over the years. The applicants have provided a justification that repairing the windows is not a viable option, as the glass has become loose and the mouldings are rotting. The proposed wood aluminum clad windows with Simulated Divided Lites would be more suited for the weather elements and will increase the longevity of the windows. There will be no changes to the dimension of the openings to ensure the protection of the original fenestration of the building. The existing stone window sills will not be disturbed by the proposed work. As the replacement windows will match the existing windows, staff are satisfied as it will restore the original heritage character of the building. The four (4) new proposed window openings on the first floor of the west elevation are consistent with the existing 6 over 6 light sash windows. The proposed windows will reinforce the Industrial functional style of the building, and will permit an increased flow of natural light. The window openings further maintain the “symmetrical, well proportioned design” as identified in By-law 6164-19 as they will be the same dimension and style of the existing windows on the west elevation. The replacement window for the existing door on the west elevation will be a 6 over 6 light sash window, with no change to the existing dimension of the door to maintain the original fenestration of the building. As the steel landing and stairs are not identified as an attribute to be protected in By-law 6164-19, staff have no concerns with its removal. Staff support the proposed exterior signage on the south and east façades of the existing building By-law 6164-19 identifies the “decorative brick work including the third storey recessed half stone” as an attribute to be protected. The proposed signage will be mounted using 1” spacer pins that will be minimally invasive to the recessed brick masonry detailing. No new lighting is proposed, as the signs will be illuminated using the the six (6) existing external shielded light sources. Staff are satisfied that the proposed exterior signage will not impact the recessed brick masonry detailing. Page 98 of 110 Heritage Permit HPA-2021-08 – 124 Wellington Street East September 13, 2021 Page 6 of 6 In addition to the heritage permit, a sign permit is required for the proposed south and east exterior signage. Conclusion Staff have reviewed Heritage Permit Application HPA-2021-08 for 124 Wellington Street East and are satisfied that the proposed work is compatible with the heritage character of the existing building. Attachments Attachment 1 – Location Map Attachment 2 – Drawings Attachment 3 – Existing Photos Page 99 of 110 Railway / GO Transit LineIn d u s t r i a l Parkway South Wellington Street East Larmont StreetBerczy StreetCentre CrescentWalton DriveCentre Street Mosley Street Scanlon Court BirchCourtCatherine AvenueCedarC rescentLEGAL DESCRIPTION:PLAN 107 PT LOT 1 & PT LOT 2 PLAN 246 PT LOT 109 RS65R18213 PART 1 MUNICIPAL ADDRESS: 124 Wellington Street East File No.: HPA-2021-08 075150 Metres Map created by the Town of Aurora Planning Department, August 23, 2021 Base 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 Attachment 1 Page 100 of 110 Attachment 2Page 101 of 110 Page 102 of 110 Page 103 of 110 BARRIER RIDGE CAPITALInterior & Exterior Renovations124 Wellington Street EastAurora, Ontario.Project #21.262Attachment 3Page 104 of 110 Existing Building Photos – Areas of RenovationBARRIER RIDGE CAPITAL.APRIL 29, 2021.Wellington Street (South) & East Facades, 2019.Page 105 of 110 Existing Building Photos – Areas of RenovationBARRIER RIDGE CAPITAL.APRIL 29, 2021.East (partial) & South Façades, 2021.West Façade, 2021.Page 106 of 110 Existing Building Photos – Areas of RenovationBARRIER RIDGE CAPITAL.APRIL 29, 2021.Wellington Street (South) & West Facades from interior, 2021.Wellington Street (South) & East Facades from interior, 2021.Page 107 of 110 Window Replacement – Justification StatementBARRIER RIDGE CAPITAL.APRIL 29, 2021.ChrisPretotto,Re124WellingtonStreetThebuildingwasrenovatedintheyear2000.Atthattimethewindowsonthesouthelevationalongwiththewindowsonthebrick portionoftheEastandWestelevationswerecompletelyreplacedwithHeritageapproval.ThewindowsusedwereMartinfixedwoodwindowswithSimulatedDividedLites andwerepaintedtoaHeritageapprovedcolour.Intheyear2011thewindowsagainstartedshowingmajordeteriorationespeciallyontheuppersouthelevation.Atthattimewereplacedpotionsofthebrickmouldandalloftherottedsills.Windowswereallrecalkedandpaintedatthistimein2011.Thewindowshavefurther deterioratedtothepointthattheglassisbecominglooseandSDLmouldingsarerottedandfallingoff.ItismyopinionwoodaluminumcladwindowswithSimulatedDividedlites wouldbemoresuitedfortheweatherelementsthatthesewindowsareexposedto.Withthesenewproposedaluminumcladw/woodinteriorwindowswecanmaintaintheexactsameappearanceandcolourwithSDL.BestRegardsLarryGallaugherPresidentGallaugherContractingLtd.30IndustrialPkwyS.Aurora,ON L4G3W2Page 108 of 110 Proposed Signage DetailsBARRIER RIDGE CAPITAL.AUGUST 20, 2021.Rendering - Wellington Street (South) FacadeRendering - East FacadePage 109 of 110 Proposed Signage DetailsBARRIER RIDGE CAPITAL.AUGUST 20, 2021.Page 110 of 110