The URL can be used to link to this page

Agenda - Heritage Advisory Committee - 20211101Town of Aurora Heritage Advisory Committee Meeting Revised Agenda Date:November 1, 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, and will be live streamed on the Town's YouTube Channel. Additional Items are marked with an asterisk (*). 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 September 13, 2021 1 That the Heritage Advisory Committee Meeting Minutes of September 13, 2021, be received for information. 5.Delegations Note: Anyone wishing to provide comment on an agenda item is encouraged to visit www.aurora.ca/participation for guidelines on electronic delegation. *5.1.Gord and Erin Heyting, Residents; Re: Item 6.5 - Memorandum from Planner/Heritage Planning; Re: Tree Removal Permit Application - 144 Temperance Street 7 6.Matters for Consideration 6.1.Memorandum from Manager, Economic Development and Policy; Re: Streetscape Needs Assessment – Heritage Consultation 8 That the memorandum regarding Streetscape Needs Assessment - Heritage Consultant be received; and 1. That the Heritage Advisory Committee comments regarding Streetscape Needs Assessment be received and referred to staff for consideration and further action as appropriate 2. 6.2.Memorandum from Heritage Planner; Re: Review of Aurora Register – Evaluation Methodology 13 (Presentation to be provided by Dan Currie and Vanessa Hicks, MHBC Planning) That the memorandum regarding Review of Aurora Register – Evaluation Methodology be received; and, 1. That the Heritage Advisory Committee comments regarding Review of Aurora Register – Evaluation Methodology 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-2021-14, 15356 Yonge Street (Knowles-Readman House) 48 (Presentation to be provided by Bruce Hall and Wayne Morgan, representing the Applicant) That the memorandum regarding Heritage Permit Application File: HPA-2021-14 be received; and 1. That the Heritage Advisory Committee comments regarding Heritage Permit Application File: HPA-2021-14 be received and referred to staff for consideration and further action as appropriate. 2. 6.4.Memorandum from Planner/Heritage Planning; Re: Amendment to Heritage Designation By-law 6182-19, De La Salle College and Pine Ridge Trail (Monk’s Walk), 50-100 Bloomington Road West 245 That the memorandum regarding a proposed Amendment to Heritage Designation By-law 6182-19 be received; and 1. That the Heritage Advisory Committee comments regarding a proposed Amendment to Heritage Designation By-law 6182-19 be received and referred to staff for consideration and further action as appropriate. 2. 6.5.Memorandum from Planner/Heritage Planning; Re: Tree Removal Permit Application – 144 Temperance Street 253 That the memorandum regarding Tree Removal Permit1. Application – 144 Temperance Street be received; and That the Heritage Advisory Committee comments regarding the Tree Removal Application – 144 Temperance Street be received and referred to staff for consideration and further action as appropriate. 2. 7.Informational Items 7.1.Memorandum from Planner/Heritage Planning; Re: Alterations to a Listed Heritage Property – 53 Metcalfe Street 290 That the memorandum regarding alterations to a listed heritage property at 53 Metcalfe Street be received for information. 1. 8.Adjournment 1 Town of Aurora Heritage Advisory Committee Meeting Minutes Date: Time: Location: Monday, September 13, 2021 7 p.m. Video Conference Committee Members: Jeff Lanthier (Chair) John Green Matthew Kinsella Bob McRoberts Councillor Sandra Humfryes (arrived 7:09 p.m.) Members Absent: Hoda Soliman (Vice Chair) Other Attendees: Mayor Tom Mrakas (ex-officio) Brashanthe Manoharan, Planner/Heritage Planning 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 7:06 p.m. 2. Approval of the Agenda Moved by John Green Seconded by Matthew Kinsella That the agenda as circulated by Legislative Services, as amended with the following addition, be approved:  Hassan Faraji, Applicant; Re: Item 6.1 - HPA-2020-04 - 74 Centre Street; in attendance to speak to item and answer questions Carried as amended Page 1 of 295 2 3. Declarations of Pecuniary Interest and General Nature Thereof Matthew Kinsella declared a pecuniary interest regarding Item 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, as he is the owner of the property; therefore, he did not take part in the discussion of, or vote on, any question in respect of the matter. 4. Receipt of the Minutes 4.1 Heritage Advisory Committee Meeting Minutes of June 7, 2021 Moved by Matthew Kinsella Seconded by John Green That the Heritage Advisory Committee meeting minutes of June 7, 2021, be received for information. Carried 5. Delegations 5.1 Steve Armes, Resident; Re: Item 6.1 - Memorandum from Planner/Heritage Planning; Re: Heritage Permit Application HPA-2020-04 - 74 Centre Street Steve Armes expressed his opposition to the redevelopment proposal for 74 Centre Street and requested that the Committee reject the proposed inappropriate redevelopment of the property and encourage the applicant to engage with the community for input on a suitable design and plan. He expressed concerns regarding the lack of design and appropriate heritage styles, lot limitations, proposed parking, and front porch. Mr. Armes expressed further concern regarding the long-term impact of unsuitable construction within the heritage district. Moved by John Green Seconded by Matthew Kinsella That the comments of the delegation be received and referred to Item 6.1. Carried Page 2 of 295 3 6. Matters for Consideration The Committee consented to consider items in the following order: 6.1, 6.6, 6.2, 6.3, 6.4, and 6.5. 6.1 Memorandum from Planner/Heritage Planning; Re: Heritage Permit Application HPA-2020-04 - 74 Centre Street Hassan Faraji, Applicant, provided an overview of his application revisions and neighbourhood consultation efforts. He spoke to the concerns regarding vegetation, parking, front porch, interior and exterior design, and compatibility. Mr. Faraji noted the need for multi-unit affordable housing and reaffirmed his willingness to work with the community and staff. Staff provided an overview of the memorandum and revised application. The Committee expressed concerns regarding the timing and extent of the applicant's community consultation, parking spaces across the front of the house, unit parking distribution and control, front porch depth and proximity/view to parking, potential basement units, and traffic. The Committee expressed further concern about setting a precedent with the first addition of a multi-unit dwelling in the heritage conservation district (HCD) since it was established, and questioned the need for intensification in the HCD. The Committee inquired about whether safeguards are included in the HCD plan to restrict multi-unit dwellings, and recommended the plan be reviewed and tightened up if needed. The Committee inquired about the disposition of comments previously provided by members on the application, and staff provided clarification on any comments received and next steps. The Committee recommended that the applicant engage an experienced heritage architect toward a good design that is compatible with the HCD prior to arranging further consultation with the neighbourhood. Moved by Matthew Kinsella Seconded by Bob McRoberts 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. Carried Page 3 of 295 4 6.2 Memorandum from Planner/Heritage Planning; Re: Heritage Permit Application File: HPA-2021-11 - 65 Spruce Street Staff provided a brief overview of the memorandum and application. The Committee expressed support and had no further comments. Moved by Matthew Kinsella Seconded by Bob McRoberts 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. Carried 6.3 Memorandum from Planner/Heritage Planning; Re: Heritage Permit Application File: HPA-2021-09 - 80 George Street Staff provided a brief overview of the memorandum and application. The Committee expressed support and had no further comments. Moved by Bob McRoberts Seconded by Matthew Kinsella 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. Carried 6.4 Memorandum from Manager Parks and Fleet; Re: Tree Removal Permit Application - 55 Metcalfe Street Staff provided a brief overview of the memorandum and application. The Committee commented on the maturity of the Linden tree and its significance to the streetscape and inquired about any replacement plans. Staff indicated that clarification would be sought from Parks staff. The Page 4 of 295 5 Committee suggested that the Linden tree be replaced with a mature tree of a different species. Moved by John Green Seconded by Bob McRoberts 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. Carried 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 Staff provided a brief overview of the memorandum and application. The Committee commented on the poor condition of the dwelling and the low score assigned to the property by the Evaluation Working Group, and expressed support for staff's recommendation to remove the property from the Register. Moved by Councillor Humfryes Seconded by John Green 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. Carried 6.6 Memorandum from Planner/Heritage Planning; Re: Heritage Permit Application File: HPA-2021-08 - 124 Wellington Street East Chris Pretotto, Architect, of cspace architecture, provided background and details about the proposed replacement windows, doors, and signage. Page 5 of 295 6 Stacy DiPasquale, Melanie Harold, and Matt Powell, of Powell Contracting, were also present to answer any questions. Staff provided a brief overview of the memorandum and application. The Committee inquired about the construction details of the windows and the applicant provided clarification. Moved by Bob McRoberts Seconded by John Green 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. Carried 7. Informational Items None. 8. Adjournment Moved by Matthew Kinsella Seconded by Bob McRoberts That the meeting be adjourned at 9:16 p.m. Carried Page 6 of 295 100 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 *  2021-11-1 Subject * Tree Replacement Full Name of Spokesperson and Name of Group or Person(s) being Represented (if applicable) * Gord and Erin Heyting Brief Summary of Issue or Purpose of Delegation * We have some problematic trees we want to replace as part of a pool and property landscape upgrade plan. 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 Sara Tienkamp Date you spoke with Town staff or a Council member 2021-9-30   Page 7 of 295 100 John West Way Aurora, Ontario L4G 6J1 (905) 727-3123 aurora.ca Town of Aurora Memorandum Planning & Development Services Re: Streetscape Needs Assessment – Heritage Consultation To: Heritage Advisory Committee From: Lisa Hausz, Manager, Economic Development & Policy Date: November 1, 2021 Recommendation 1. That the memorandum regarding Streetscape Needs Assessment be received; and, 2. That the Heritage Advisory Committee comments regarding Streetscape Needs Assessment be received and referred to staff for consideration and further action as appropriate. Purpose As outlined in the Aurora Promenade Streetscape Plan, several action items were identified to improve the public realm of the Promenade. The majority of the proposed streetscape improvements will be implemented on Yonge Street and Wellington Street. These activities also align with the initiatives planned by the Aurora Downtown BIA. The purpose of the Streetscape Needs Assessment is to validate the original proposed improvements while taking into consideration new policies, technologies and needs. It is intended that staff will solicit ideas and input from the various advisory committees as well as the public. Background The Aurora Promenade Streetscape Design & Implementation Plan was presented to Council at the Public Planning Meeting held in January 2013, where Council resolved the following: THAT report PL13-003 regarding the Aurora Promenade Streetscape Design and Implementation Plan be received; and, Page 8 of 295 Streetscape Needs Assessment November 1, 2021 Page 2 of 4 THAT staff report back with a multi-year capital project for some of the priority projects that staff will further refine and bring forward to Council for further discussion. Following the January 2013 Public Planning meeting, staff evaluated implementation options and phasing with an emphasis on maximizing the potential impact of improvements and minimizing costs and disruptions. Based on this evaluation, the several recommendations (as articulated in the Plan) were identified for implementation. Some of the recommendations were implemented, or altered to accommodate current conditions, while other recommendations were never implemented and require further investigation as to their feasibility. Examples of the 2013 public realm improvements included:  Updating all concrete sidewalks with decorative concrete paving that extend from the curb zone to building face.  Implementing hanging baskets on light poles.  Installing street furniture throughout the pedestrian street zone that is both respectful of the heritage character and the new town square.  Developing historic downtown promotional banners for area, events and seasons.  Plant street trees with 6 metre spacing (maximum) where there is adequate setback for the pedestrian zone to borrow sidewalk width from the frontage zone. Trees should be planted in appropriate tree pits, with optimum soil conditions, protective grates, and tree guards.  Relocating traffic signs from rebar poles onto street poles where possible.  Landscaping mid-block connections similar to the existing mid-block connection at the town square. In February 2014, staff presented a report recommending that the Town focus the planned improvements within the “Main Streets” area. This approach ensured that a critical mass of improvements could be completed within a relatively short timeframe in a focused geographic area. In October 2019, Council partially lifted a conditional hold on a previously approved capital project to fund some of the removable public realm streetscape elements of the 2013 plan including container landscaping, new street furniture and promotional banners that can be relocated in the event that construction occurs. Page 9 of 295 Streetscape Needs Assessment November 1, 2021 Page 3 of 4 The completion of a Streetscape Needs Assessment study will detail the design requirements for street lighting and other improvements. Several factors informed the need to evaluate and recommend the increasing the scope of the Streetscape Design and Implementation Plan including:  condition of infrastructure to accommodate future signage and lighting needs;  current developments underway in the area; connectivity and broadband availability;  parking requirements;  accessibility needs;  and the involvement of the local businesses and residents in the area. Therefore, a Streetscape Needs Assessment is being completed that will inform an updated robust design and construction plan that will include the following considerations: • Street light pole replacements along Yonge Street • Entry feature/signage/lighting infrastructure requirements • Sidewalk improvements • Crosswalk improvements/enhancements • Accessibility elements along Yonge Street • Parking improvements in the Downtown BIA catchment area • Broadband/high speed internet and cell service in the area The Town has engaged The Planning Partnership (TPP) to facilitate the Streetscape Needs Assessment project and to engage stakeholders. Due to tight timelines to inform engineering requirements in 2022, staff retained The Planning Partnership (TPP) team to facilitate the project and engage various stakeholder groups. TPP was the originator of the Aurora Promenade Plan, have worked on several projects within the Promenade and are engaged as part of the Aurora Town Square project. The Project Team consists of:  Lisa Hausz, Manager, Economic Development & Policy, Town of Aurora  Anca Mihail, Manager, Engineering, Town of Aurora  Sara Tienkamp, Manager, Parks, Town of Aurora  Janine Cik, Policy Student, Town of Aurora Page 10 of 295 Streetscape Needs Assessment November 1, 2021 Page 4 of 4  Wai Ying Di Giorgio, The Planning Partnership, was involved in the preparation of the Stable Neighbourhoods Urban Design Guidelines and will manage the development of the Streetscape Needs Assessment report;  Donna Hinde, The Planning Partnership, was responsible for managing and leading the public consultation for both The Promenade Plan and the Library Square and will be in charge of developing and leading the consultation for this exercise;  David Leinster, was responsible for the development of the Promenade Design Guidelines and is currently leading the public realm design for Library Square. Attachments Attachment 1 – Subject Area Map Reference Documents  Promenade Concept Plan, Urban Design Strategy; 3.1 Public Realm (2010)  Promenade Pamphlet (concept highlights) (2013)  Promenade Streetscape Design and Implementation Plan (2013) Page 11 of 295 Tyler Street WaltonDriveEdwardStreetSpruceStreetFleury StreetBirch CourtChurch Street Mosley Street GurnettStreetIrwin Avenue Metcalfe Street Catherine Avenue Wells StreetBerczy StreetLarmont StreetVictoria StreetConnaught Avenue Centre Street Harrison Ave nueTemperance StreetWELLINGTON STREET EAST YONGE STREETAurora BIA and Streetscape Subject Area Map created by the Town of Aurora Planning & Development Services Department, September 12, 2018. Base data provided by York Region and Aurora - GIS. ¯0 50 100 150 200 Metres Aurora Business Improvement Area Streetscape Subject AreaStreetscape Needs Assessment Subject AreaPage 12 of 295 100 John West Way Aurora, Ontario L4G 6J1 (905) 727-3123 aurora.ca Town of Aurora Memorandum Planning and Development Services Re: Review of Aurora Register – Evaluation Methodology To: Heritage Advisory Committee From: Brashanthe Manoharan, Planner/Heritage Planning Date: November 1, 2021 Recommendation 1. That the memorandum regarding Review of Aurora Register – Evaluation Methodology be received; and, 2. That the Heritage Advisory Committee comments regarding Review of Aurora Register – Evaluation Methodology be received and referred to staff for consideration and further action as appropriate. Background In November 2019, Council approved a capital budget to fund a comprehensive review of the Town’s Heritage Register. The review focuses on assessing the heritage value of the 413 properties currently listed on the Register in order for the Town better prioritize its conservation efforts and preservation programs. The findings of the study will result in the properties being recommended for designation, delisting, or continuing to be listed on the Register. The work will be undertaken based on the following four phases:  Phase 1: Data Collection, Inventory, Research  Phase 2: Cultural Heritage Evaluation Reports Preparation  Phase 3: Consultation with the Heritage Advisory Committee and Council  Phase 4: Updates to the Register by Town Staff and Council. Page 13 of 295 Review of Aurora Register – Evaluation Methodology November 1, 2021 Page 2 of 4 Phase 1 of the project is complete. Comprehensive research has been conducted to gather the necessary information to understand the heritage context of each listed property on the Town’s heritage register. Commencement of Phase 2 Phase 2 of the project is underway. This phase focuses on the evaluation of listed properties and the preparation of Cultural Heritage Evaluation Reports (CHERs) (see Attachment 2) for each listed property to assess its heritage value and to recommend the appropriate level of protection and/or preservation. The CHER will include the following information:  Site plan or survey, at an appropriate scale, indicating the context in which the heritage resource is situated  A location map with indications of existing land use, zoning, as well as the zoning and land use of adjacent properties  A detailed site history to include a listing of owners from the Land Registry Office, and a history of the site use(s)  Current legible photographs from each elevation to capture architectural features and building materials  Historical photos, drawings, or other archival material that may be relevant  Description of all the heritage resources (i.e., structures, buildings, building elements, landscaping, archaeological resources, etc.)  A recommendation as to whether the subject property is worthy of heritage designation in accordance with the criteria per Ontario Regulation 9/06. In February 2021, MHBC recommended that the Town’s current evaluation scoring system, which is based on a guiding document titled “Evaluation of Heritage Resources in the Town of Aurora (2010)”, be discontinued because it is outdated and does not appropriately place value on some criteria more than others. MHBC recommended a new classification system based on the legislated criteria of Ontario Regulation 9/06 and the guidance provided in the Ontario Heritage Toolkit. On October 1, 2021, a meeting was held with MHBC and the Steering Committee to discuss the methodology for the evaluation of cultural heritage resources as part of the Page 14 of 295 Review of Aurora Register – Evaluation Methodology November 1, 2021 Page 3 of 4 review of the Aurora Register project. Upon review of the legislative requirements of the Provincial Policy Statement (2020) and the Ontario Heritage Act, MHBC recommended that the Town use Ontario Regulation 9/06 to evaluate properties of cultural heritage interest and discontinue the use of “Evaluation of Heritage Resources in the Town of Aurora (2010)”. The study Steering committee concurred that the Town should make use of Ontario Regulation 9/06 to evaluate listed properties for cultural heritage interest. Under the Ontario Heritage Act, Ontario Regulation 9/06 provides the criteria for determining cultural heritage value or interest. Ontario Regulation 9/06 considers the following criteria: 1. The property has design value or physical value because it, i. is a rare, unique, representative or early example of a style, type, expression, material or construction method, ii. displays a high degree of craftsmanship or artistic merit, or iii. demonstrates a high degree of technical or scientific achievement. 2. The property has historical value or associative value because it, i. has direct associations with a theme, event, belief, person, activity, organization or institution that is significant to a community, ii. yields, or has the potential to yield, information that contributes to an understanding of a community or culture, or iii. demonstrates or reflects the work or ideas of an architect, artist, builder, designer or theorist who is significant to a community. 3. The property has contextual value because it, i. is important in defining, maintaining or supporting the character of an area, ii. is physically, functionally, visually or historically linked to its surroundings, or iii. is a landmark. O. Reg. 9/06, s. 1 (2). Evaluation of a property using the Provincial criteria triggers a comprehensive consideration of a wide range of potential heritage values. The outcome of evaluating listed properties using Ontario Regulation 9/06 can result in the property recommended for designation, remain on the register, or for removal. Page 15 of 295 Review of Aurora Register – Evaluation Methodology November 1, 2021 Page 4 of 4 Next Steps Following the Heritage Advisory Committee meeting, the matter will proceed to the next General Committee meeting, followed by a Council meeting for the formal adoption and recognition of a new approach for evaluating properties for cultural heritage interest within Aurora based on Ontario Regulation 9/06. Attachments Attachment 1 - Terms of Reference for the Review of the Heritage Register Attachment 2 – Samples of Cultural Heritage Evaluation Reports (CHERs) Page 16 of 295 Terms of Reference Review of Aurora Register of Properties of Cultural Heritage Value or Interest January 2020 TERMS OF REFERENCE Review of Aurora Register of Properties of Cultural Heritage Value or Interest March 2020 Attachment 1 Page 17 of 295 Terms of Reference Review of Aurora Register of Properties of Cultural Heritage Value or Interest Page 2 of 10 Table of Contents 1.0 INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................................3 2.0 PROJECT OVERVIEW ...........................................................................................................3 3.0 PROCESS .......................................................................................................................................... 4 3.1 Phase 1 - Data Collection ........................................................................................ 4 3.2 Phase 2- Cultural Heritage Evaluation Report (CHER) ...................................... 4 3.2.1 Deliverables for Phase 2 .......................................................................................... 5 3.3 Phase 3 – Consultation with Heritage Advisory Committee and Council......... 6 3.4 Phase 4 – Heritage Designation, Delisting and Update to the Register........... 6 3.4.1 Deliverables for Phase 4 .......................................................................................... 7 4.0 NORTHEAST OLD AURORA HERITAGE CONSERVATION DISTRICT ............................7 5.0 TIMING … ................................................................................................................................7 6.0 ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES ................................................................................................ 7 6.1 Steering Committee .................................................................................................. 7 6.2 Town Staff (Planning Division)................................................................................ 8 6.3 Consultant .................................................................................................................. 8 7.0 REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL ......................................................................................................... 8 7.1 Required Proposal Format ..................................................................................... 8 7.2 Interviews .................................................................................................................. 9 7.3 Selection and Awarding of Contract ...................................................................... 9 7.4 Submission Deadline ............................................................................................. 10 Page 18 of 295 Terms of Reference Review of Aurora Register of Properties of Cultural Heritage Value or Interest Page 3 of 10 1.0 INTRODUCTION The Ontario Heritage Act allows municipalities to maintain a publicly accessible register, known as the Register of Properties of Cultural Heritage Value or Interest, to help manage the conservation of local cultural heritage resources. The register includes a list of properties that are designated under Part IV (individual designation) and Part IV (within a Heritage Conservation District) of the Ontario Heritage Act, and non- designated properties that have been listed as being of potential cultural heritage value or interest to the community. The Town of Aurora’s register consists of 48 individually designated properties, 148 properties within the Northeast Old Aurora Heritage Conservation District, and 413 listed properties. The properties on the register were originally identified in the Town’s first official inventory prepared by the Local Architectural Conservation Advisory (now known as the Heritage Advisory Committee) between 1976 and 1987. The inventory was compiled through a windshield survey, which targeted buildings constructed prior to the Second World War that exhibited some degree of architectural and/or historical significance. In September 2006, Aurora Town Council officially changed the name of the Aurora Inventory of Heritage Building to the “Aurora Register of Property of Cultural Heritage Value or Interest” and all properties included in the Inventory were transferred to the Register in accordance with the 2005 Amendments to the Ontario Heritage Act. More than 400 properties had not been subject to a heritage evaluation and still remain on the register as non-designated (“listed”) without any heritage score or classification . These properties are prone to unlawful demolition and unsympathetic alteration. There is a need to undertake a comprehensive review to determine if they warrant heritage designation for a greater degree of protection. This is also a good opportunity to reorganize the register by screening out the irrelevant properties that have no heritage value to the community, which will result in a more effective register to assist the Town in managing the protection of its heritage resources. 2.0 PROJECT OVERVIEW The Town is requesting proposals from a qualified Consultant to conduct a comprehensive review of the Aurora Register of Properties of Cultural Heritage Value or Interest to ensure it maintains an accurate and informative inventory of the Town’s heritage resources. The key objectives of the project includes: Page 19 of 295 Terms of Reference Review of Aurora Register of Properties of Cultural Heritage Value or Interest Page 4 of 10  Determining the level of heritage importance of each listed property on the register in order to prioritize future conservation efforts and preservation programs.  Identifying those properties of significant cultural heritage value and pursue designation for their long-term protection under the Ontario Heritage Act.  Update the register with more complete information, and remove irrelevant properties that have no heritage value to the community 3.0 PROCESS 3.1 Phase 1 - Data Collection Conduct comprehensive research from various sources to fully understand the historical and heritage context of each listed property on the Town’s heritage register. The data gathered will be used to inform the preparation of the subsequent heritage evaluation, and also be documented in the municipal archive for the Town’s references. The source of the data may include (but not limited to):  Title Search;  Field investigation;  Tax Assessment Records;  Archival Research (Aurora Historical Society and Aurora Museum);  Relevant Provincial and Municipal documents; and  Relevant published sources 3.2 Phase 2- Cultural Heritage Evaluation Report (CHER) Prepare a Cultural Heritage Evaluation Report (CHER) for each listed property to assess its heritage value and recommend the appropriate level of protection required (i.e. designation or documentation). The CHER will include the following information:  Site plan or survey, at an appropriate scale, indicating the context in which the heritage resource is situated.  A location map with indications of existing land use, zoning, as well as the zoning and land use of adjacent properties. Page 20 of 295 Terms of Reference Review of Aurora Register of Properties of Cultural Heritage Value or Interest Page 5 of 10  A detailed site history to include a listing of owners from the Land Registry Office, and a history of the site use(s).  Current legible photographs from each elevation to capture architectural features and building materials.  Historical photos, drawings, or other archival material that may be available or Relevant.  Description of all the heritage resources on the subject property which include, but are not limited to: structures, buildings, building elements (like fences and gates), building materials, architectural and interior finishes, natural heritage elements, landscaping, and archaeological resources. The description will also include a chronological history of the structure(s) developments, such as additions, removals, conversions, alterations etc.  Score each property based on the guidelines outlined in the Town’s document titled Evaluation of Heritage Resources in the Town of Aurora (March 2010). Depending on the score, the property will be categorized under one of the priority groups to help determine its level of heritage significance.  A recommendation as to whether the subject property is worthy of heritage designation in accordance with the criteria per Ontario Regulation 9/06. Should the consultant support heritage designation, it must include the statement of cultural heritage value and description of heritage attributes. 3.2.1 Deliverables for Phase 2 The Consultant will provide the following deliverables to the satisfaction of the Planning Division at a time defined in the approved work plan. All printed materials shall be fully reproducible and all deliverables shall become the absolute property of the Town of Aurora including data developed throughout the process.  One (1) hard copy of the Cultural Heritage Evaluation Report (CHER) prepared for each property.  One (1) hard copy of a document summarizing the key findings of each property such as: a brief description of the existing building or structure including its construction date, its heritage score based on the Town’s evaluation guidelines, recommendation as to whether it meets the criteria of Ontario Regulation 9/06 for designation, and details of heritage attribute, if applicable. Page 21 of 295 Terms of Reference Review of Aurora Register of Properties of Cultural Heritage Value or Interest Page 6 of 10  A list of properties recommended to be individually designated under the Ontario Heritage Act; and delisted from the Town’s register.  Electronic copy of all the above documents, preferably in Microsoft Word and PDF format. 3.3 Phase 3 – Consultation with Heritage Advisory Committee and Council The properties will be sorted by residential neighbourhoods (i.e. Town Park, Aurora Heights) to help manage the organization of data. A separate interim staff report for each neighbourhood will be brought to the Heritage Advisory Committee and Council to present the findings of the heritage evaluation. The Consultant will be expected to attend all the necessary meetings to discuss the findings of the CHERs. 3.4 Phase 4 – Heritage Designation, Delisting and Update to the Register Staff will work with the Consultant to address any comments made by the Heritage Advisory Committee and Town Council, which may include re-examining particular properties and carrying out further heritage investigation. A final staff report will be presented to the Heritage Advisory Committee and Council to recommend the final list of properties to be designated for long-term protection, and delisted from the Aurora Register of Properties of Cultural Heritage Value or Interest, for the Heritage Committee and Council’s consideration. Following Council’s decision, the Town will proceed to designate the appropriate properties in accordance with the requirements of the Ontario Heritage Act. The irrelevant properties will be removed from the Town’s heritage register. The consultant will develop a new template for the Town’s register to include additional details about each property as required under Section 27 (1.1) of the Ontario Heritage Act and Section 13.3 b) of the Town’s Official Plan, which includes legal description, owner information, statement of cultural heritage value, description of heritage attributes and designation by-law number. Listed properties only requires a brief description about their heritage resource. Page 22 of 295 Terms of Reference Review of Aurora Register of Properties of Cultural Heritage Value or Interest Page 7 of 10 3.4.1 Deliverables for Phase 4 The Consultant will provide the following deliverables to the satisfaction of the Planning Division at a time defined in the approved work plan. All printed materials shall be fully reproducible and all deliverables shall become the absolute property of the Town.  One (1) hard copy of an updated register in a new template including all the additional information listed in Section 3.4  Electronic copy of all the document, preferably in both Microsoft Word and PDF format 4.0 NORTHEAST OLD AURORA HERITAGE CONSERVATION DISTRICT The scope of the review may be expanded in the future to include the properties located within the Northeast Old Aurora Heritage Conservation District subject to budget availability and Council’s approval. This will help determine whether the properties within the Heritage Conservation District, which is already subject to protection under Part V of the Ontario Heritage Act, is also worthy of individual designation under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act. The budget needed to undertake this task should be costed out separately for the overall review. 5.0 TIMING The estimated timeline for completing the study has not been determined, but it is estimated that the study will take a minimum of one year to complete, from when the consultant team begins work on the project to Council’s approval of the recommendations of the CHERs. Through the request for proposal (RFP) process, consultants will be asked to identify opportunities for efficiencies while still meeting the requirements of the terms of reference and all applicable requirements. 6.0 ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES 6.1 Steering Committee A five (5) person Steering Committee is being proposed by Staff to provide direction, guidance and recommendations on the project. Staff are recommending that the Committee be comprised of three (3) members of the Heritage Advisory Committee and two (2) members from Town Council. The number of meetings required will be Page 23 of 295 Terms of Reference Review of Aurora Register of Properties of Cultural Heritage Value or Interest Page 8 of 10 determined by Town Staff and the retained consultant. It is not anticipated that more than five (5) to ten (10) meetings will be required over the course of the proje ct. 6.2 Town Staff (Planning Division)  Provide supporting documents and information as required by the Consultant  Prepare staff report for the Heritage Committee and Council’s consideration  Attend Committee and Council Meetings 6.3 Consultant  Conduct all historical research associated with the project  Prepare a Cultural Heritage Evaluation Report for each listed property based on the parameters set out in the Terms of Reference  Provides the Planning division an update of the project on a bi-monthly basis  Attend pertinent Committee and Council Meetings  Develop a new template for the Town’s register to include additional information outlined in Section 3.4  Submits all deliverables indicated in the Terms of Reference 7.0 REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL 7.1 Required Proposal Format In order to receive consistent format of information from all prospective consulting firms the following should be addressed in the proposal:  Proposals should be submitted electronically only in PDF format (less than 15 MB in size) including a letter of submission signed by an authorized representative of the Consultant.  Proposals must outline the cost of completing the project listed in the Terms of Reference both as a total price, total plus HST and by a cost per task format. The Page 24 of 295 Terms of Reference Review of Aurora Register of Properties of Cultural Heritage Value or Interest Page 9 of 10 consultant shall identify sub-consultants, if required, and their fees. These cost shall be paid for and supervised by the consultant.  The proposal shall include a Work Plan and the expected time frame for the completion of the project  The Proposal will include a summary of the Consultant’s professional information and relevant experience.  A summary of past projects which will demonstrate the Consultant’s experience in the study tasks as outlined in the terms of reference.  Proposals must be submitted with a minimum of three references listed for contact respecting recent and relevant projects. 7.2 Interviews Consultants may be asked to attend an interview prior to a final decision. 7.3 Selection and Awarding of Contract The appointment of the successful consultant shall be in accordance with a selection process carried out by Town Staff, with Council authorizing final selection, if required. Consultants are advised that the lowest cost proposal will not be necessarily be awarded the contract, as the selection will be based on the following criteria and cost is only one of the criteria.  The degree to which the proposal responded to the RFP and Terms of Reference.  The demonstration of relevant experience in similar studies and the professional reputation of the consultants.  The demonstrated ability of the consultant to provide the services.  The total cost and timing of the project Page 25 of 295 Terms of Reference Review of Aurora Register of Properties of Cultural Heritage Value or Interest Page 10 of 10 7.4 Submission Deadline The proposal shall be submitted to the Town of Aurora via email at Planning@aurora.ca by 4:30 p.m. on xxxxxx, 2020 (to be determined). Proposals received after this date and time will not be considered. Page 26 of 295 Wel ls Street Mosley S t r e et Address: 57 Mosley Street AURORA HERITAGE REGISTER REVIEW PROPERTY EVALUATION SHEET Heritage Status: Listed Property Number (PIN): Map Legal Description: Plan 68 Designation By-law: Wood Plaque: Yes Ontario Regulation 9/06 Assessment General Information Property Description Date/Era Constructed: 1877 Date Listed: 1976 to 1982 Architectural Style/Influence: Gothic Revival Integrity: Fair Current Owner: Condition: Excellent Photo Documentation Date: September 2021 Page 308 of 448 Contains public sector information made available under The Regional Municipality of York's Open Data License R Heritage Attributes: Institutional or Public Building Heritage Attributes Notes: Masonic Hall Condition Notes: Risk: No Risk Notes: Design/Physical Value: Rare: Yes Early (pre-1867): No Unique: No Representative: Yes High Degree of Craftsmanship/Artistic Merit: Yes High Degree of Technical/Scientific Achievement: No Design/Physical Value Description: Major Historical/Associative Value: Significant Event: No Significant Person: No Significant Activity: Yes Significant Organization/Institution: Yes Significant Theme Description: Significant Theme: Historical/Associative Value Description: Masonic Lodge Contextual Value: Defines the Character of the Area: No Moderate Maintains the Character of the Area: No Supports the Character of the Area: Yes Is Important in its Physical Link to its Surroundings: No Is Important in its Functional Link to its Surroundings: No Is Important in its Visual Link to its Surroundings: No Is Important in its Historical Link to its Surroundings: No Is a Landmark: Yes Contextual Value Description: Part of the Southeast Old Aurora NeighbourhoodRecommendation Major Value - Major Value (and/or) at Risk, Proritize for Part IV Designation Culturally-Significant Natural Feature: Yes Neighbourhood Group: Southeast Old Aurora Page 27 of 295 AlexGardnerCircle Machell AvenueAddress: 16 Machell Avenue AURORA HERITAGE REGISTER REVIEW PROPERTY EVALUATION SHEET Heritage Status: Listed Property Number (PIN): Map Legal Description: Lot 19 Plan 36 Designation By-law: Wood Plaque: No Ontario Regulation 9/06 Assessment General Information Property Description Date/Era Constructed:Date Listed: Architectural Style/Influence: American Foursquare Integrity: Excellent Current Owner: Condition: Excellent Photo Documentation Date: September 2021 Page 142 of 448 Contains public sector information made available under The Regional Municipality of York's Open Data License R Heritage Attributes: Dwelling Heritage Attributes Notes: oriel window Condition Notes: Rear addition and garage Risk: No Risk Notes: Design/Physical Value: Rare: No Early (pre-1867): No Unique: No Representative: Yes High Degree of Craftsmanship/Artistic Merit: No High Degree of Technical/Scientific Achievement: No Design/Physical Value Description: Minimal Historical/Associative Value: Significant Event: No Significant Person: No Significant Activity: No Significant Organization/Institution: No Significant Theme Description: Associated with Plan 36, registered by Richard Wells and dwellings constructed shortly after the time Plan 36 was registered in the late 19th century Minimal Significant Theme: Yes Historical/Associative Value Description: Contextual Value: Defines the Character of the Area: No Minimal Maintains the Character of the Area: No Supports the Character of the Area: Yes Is Important in its Physical Link to its Surroundings: No Is Important in its Functional Link to its Surroundings: No Is Important in its Visual Link to its Surroundings: No Is Important in its Historical Link to its Surroundings: No Is a Landmark: No Contextual Value Description:Recommendation Moderate Value - Remain on the Register, Meets the Criteria Culturally-Significant Natural Feature: No Neighbourhood Group: Machell/Irwin Page 28 of 295 Wel ls Street Harrison A v e n u e Address: 101 Wells Street AURORA HERITAGE REGISTER REVIEW PROPERTY EVALUATION SHEET Heritage Status: Listed Property Number (PIN): Map Legal Description: Lot 61 Plan 120 Designation By-law: Wood Plaque: No Ontario Regulation 9/06 Assessment General Information Property Description Date/Era Constructed: 1940s Date Listed: Architectural Style/Influence: Altered (unknown) Integrity: Poor Current Owner: Condition: Fair Photo Documentation Date: August 2021 Page 10 of 448 Contains public sector information made available under The Regional Municipality of York's Open Data Licence R Heritage Attributes: Dwelling Heritage Attributes Notes: One and half storey cottage with open gabled roof, gabled dormer. House has a rear addition and attached open gable garage. Original window frame at rear of main house. Condition Notes: Vinyl siding covering original material, likely wood frame construction. Risk: No Risk Notes: Design/Physical Value: Rare: No Early (pre-1867): No Unique: No Representative: No High Degree of Craftsmanship/Artistic Merit: No High Degree of Technical/Scientific Achievement: No Design/Physical Value Description: None Historical/Associative Value: Significant Event: No Significant Person: No Significant Activity: No Significant Organization/Institution: No Significant Theme Description: Minimal Significant Theme: No Historical/Associative Value Description: Property is located on lands originally owned by Herman (also Hermas) E. Proctor who was Irish and a Postmaster by occupation (also lists army) although he is listed as living on Young Street not this property. Later owned between 1942-1965 by Mundell Family. Contextual Value: Defines the Character of the Area: No Moderate Maintains the Character of the Area: No Supports the Character of the Area: Yes Is Important in its Physical Link to its Surroundings: No Is Important in its Functional Link to its Surroundings: No Is Important in its Visual Link to its Surroundings: No Is Important in its Historical Link to its Surroundings: No Is a Landmark: No Contextual Value Description: Contextual value is solely in its support to the overall character of the area.Recommendation None/Minimal Value - Remove from the Register Culturally-Significant Natural Feature: Yes Neighbourhood Group: Southeast Old Aurora Page 29 of 295 REVIEW OF THE AURORA REGISTER Heritage Advisory Committee November 1, 2021 Dan Currie, MHBC Vanessa Hicks, MHBC 1 Page 30 of 295 Purpose of Presentation •Update Committee on the project’s status. •Present methodology for the evaluation of cultural heritage resources with examples. Page 31 of 295 Presentation Overview 1. Aurora Register Project Background; 2. Review Legislated requirements for heritage evaluations (PPS, OHA); 3. Review methodology for the Review of the Aurora Register project; 4. Review examples in Aurora; 5. Next Steps. Page 32 of 295 Aurora Register Project –RFP •Comprehensive review of the Aurora Register to ensure it maintains an accurate and informative inventory of the Town’s heritage resources. Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase 3 Phase 4 Research & data collection (inventory completed in July) Evaluate listed properties using methodology. Prepare final list of recommendations. Consult with HAC on recommendations. Revise reports and take final recommendation to HAC & Council. Update Register of heritage resources. We are here Page 33 of 295 Classification Systems •The current Aurora Evaluation system uses a numerical classification system •Adding up points = Group 1, Group 2, Group 3 •Example: “is it early” •Pre 1851 –1881 : (Excellent = 30) •1882 –1914 : (Good = 20) •1915 –1945 : (Fair = 10) •1947 –present : (Poor = 0) •Pre 1851 : (Bonus = 10) •Municipalities moving away from evaluation systems based on numerical scoring. •Understanding that it doesn’t need to be early to be worthy of long-term conservation Page 34 of 295 Policy Framework PPS 2020 Significant: means in regard to cultural heritage and archaeology, resources that have been determined to have cultural heritage value or interest. Processes and criteria for determining cultural heritage value or interest are established by the Province under the authority of the Ontario Heritage Act.(i.e. O-Reg 9/06) Ontario Heritage Took Kit, Heritage Evaluation Individual properties being considered for protection under section 29 must undergo a more rigorous evaluation than is required for listing. The evaluation criteria set out in Regulation 9/06 essentially form a test against which properties must be assessed. The better the characteristics of the property when the criteria are applied to it, the greater the property’s cultural heritage value or interest, and the stronger the argument for its long-term protection. Ontario Heritage Act Amendments came into effect in July of this year. With these updates, Ontario Regulation 9/06 was unchanged. Page 35 of 295 Page 36 of 295 Condition & Integrity •Condition: Decay of elements. •Integrity: Original features retained (or not). Example: Poor condition, good integrity Example: Good condition, poor integrity Page 37 of 295 General Method for the Aurora Register Project: 1.Those properties which are not good candidates for conservation are removed; •Zero to Minimal Value. 2.Those which are of major heritage value or at risk are prioritized for designation; and •Moderate Value. 3.Those other properties would remain on the register and could be designated later (i.e. “work plan”). •Major Value or At Risk. Page 38 of 295 Aurora Register –Examples of Recommendations Remove from Register Remain on Register Designate 101 Wells Street 59 Tyler Street 57 Mosley Street Page 39 of 295 Aurora Register –101 Wells Street Page 40 of 295       •1 ½ Storey Cottage with Open Gabled Roof and Attached Open Gable Garage •Original Windows at Rear of House             •Lands originally owned by Herman E. Proctor •Records show Proctor lived on Young Street and not at this property          •No important physical, functional, visual, or historic links to its surroundings. •Value solely in its support of surrounding neighbourhood. •Not a landmark.     Page 41 of 295 Aurora Register –59 Tyler Street Page 42 of 295       •1870s •Regency characteristics •Hip roof –single storey •Likely constructed of bricks from the Machell brickyard             •Property associated with the Machell family; •Existing building likely the residence of Walter Henry Machell          •Historically linked to local industry (brickyard) •Not a landmark.     Page 43 of 295 Aurora Register –57 Mosley Street Page 44 of 295       •Gothic Revival Institutional Building. •Built 1877. •Fair Integrity, Excellent Condition •At Risk due to developing neighbourhood             •Masonic Lodge. •Institutional contribution to community upon build          •Part of the Old Aurora Neighbourhood. •Landmark Status contributes greatly to contextual value.     Page 45 of 295 •Support from this Heritage Advisory Committee for the methodology and the use of O-Reg 9/06. •MHBC to continue to evaluate properties with the presented methodology. •Present to Council (November, 2021). •Request Council’s formal adoption and recognition of Ontario Regulation 9/06. •Next Presentation to HAC: Final Recommendations (Spring, 2022). Aurora Register-Next Steps Page 46 of 295 THANK-YOU Questions? Page 47 of 295 100 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-2021-14 15356 Yonge Street (Knowles-Readman House) To: Heritage Advisory Committee From: Brashanthe Manoharan, Planner/Heritage Planning Date: November 1, 2021 Recommendation 1. That the memorandum regarding Heritage Permit Application File: HPA-2021-14 be received; and, 2. That the Heritage Advisory Committee comments regarding Heritage Permit Application File: HPA-2021-14 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-2021-14. The purpose of the application is to remove the tail wing on the rear elevation to the “Knowles-Redman House”, which is located within the Northeast Old Aurora Heritage Conservation District.  Staff support the removal of the two-storey tail wing of the “Knowles-Redman House” as it will not adversely impact the heritage value of the dwelling. Background Property Description The subject property is located on the west side of Yonge Street, north of Irwin Avenue and immediately south of the Hilary House (see Attachment 1). The subject property is adjacent to two properties designated under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act – Hillary House (15372 Yonge Street) and Horton Hall (15342 Yonge Street), and across Page 48 of 295 Heritage Permit Application: HPA-2021-14 November 1, 2021 Page 2 of 6 the street from Our Lady of Grace Roman Catholic Church (15347 Yonge Street) which is also designated. In 1906, James Knowles, an Aurora area builder and politician, acquired the vacant property. In 1907, Knowles constructed the existing house and lived in it until 1913. Eventually, in 1920, the property was sold to John Readman who moved to the House in 1924 after retiring from his Vaughan farm. His estate continued to own the House until 1951. It was acquired by the current owner in 1981. The House is vacant and many of the interior finishes have been removed. The property contains a 2 ½ storey solid brick house, constructed in an Edwardian Classicism architectural style. The House a rectangular layout, with a projection towards the rear of the north side that gives the house a slight ‘L’ shape. The House has a wood clad two storey tail wing. The HIA prepared by the applicant lists the following heritage attributes of the House (see Section 6.4 of Attachment 3):   The 2 ½–storey house form building  The scale, form, height and massing on a rectangular-shaped lot  The rock-faced concrete blocks above the poured concrete foundation, the moulded concrete lintels above all openings and the moulded concrete lug window sills.  The red brick walls on the front (east) and side (north and south) elevations  Window openings on the ground and upper floors of the front and side elevations containing one over one window sashes  The front and side entrances with their paneled wood doors and the upper floor east door opening  The two storey porch with its gable roof; square, paneled wood porch posts on paneled concrete piers (ground floor) and wood piers (upper floor); balustrade with carved balusters and the rock-faced concrete block foundation  The medium pitched, asphalt clad hip roof with projecting eves, plain soffits and narrow wood frieze; the two smaller gable roofs with their wood shingle siding and decorative trim over the porch and on the north elevation; the latter gable includes a pair of small attic windows  The dormer window on the south elevation  The two red brick chimneys  The placement of the house form building on the lot Page 49 of 295 Heritage Permit Application: HPA-2021-14 November 1, 2021 Page 3 of 6  The front yard with its green space in front of the House and walkway to Yonge Street and the north and south side yards  On the interior, the staircase and remaining door and window casings and baseboards The two-storey tail wing is not listed as a heritage attribute. Although over the years, the House has experienced a few exterior modifications, which are listed below, the structure, when viewed from the street, is largely as originally constructed. The exterior modifications undertaken over time include:  loss of porch posts and piers – four on the front porch and one on the side porch;  loss of the north, ground floor balustrade on the front and side porches;  replacement of a door on the upper floor of the east elevation with a modern door;  addition of the upper floor door on the north elevation;  addition of the metal fire escape on the north elevation;  enlargement of the tail wing including addition of an upper floor;  alteration of the window opening on the west elevation of the brick part of the House;  infilling of a window opening on the south elevation; and  the possible addition of the dormer window on the roof. Application History On September 2017, a Zoning By-law Amendment and Site Plan application was submitted for the restoration of the existing Knowles-Readman House and the construction of a five (5) storey, 37 unit apartment building with below grade parking. The existing Knowles-Readman House was proposed to include one dwelling unit below grade. In November 2017, the proposal was presented to Public Planning where concerns were raised over compatibility with neighbouring properties as well as the Hilary House. Since then, the applicants have worked closely with residents, the Aurora Historical Society (AHS), as well as the Ontario Heritage Trust (OHT) to address these concerns. In April 2021, the applicants submitted a revised proposal that integrates the Knowles- Redman House and proposes the retention and restoration of most of the House (except for tail wing) as well as the construction of a four (4) storey, 35 unit apartment building with below grade parking (see Attachment 2). Page 50 of 295 Heritage Permit Application: HPA-2021-14 November 1, 2021 Page 4 of 6 The new apartment building, including balconies and canopy, will be set back between 13.2 metres (43.4 feet) and 17.4 metres (57 feet) from the House above grade. The new building is contemporary in design but uses exterior materials that relate to the heritage buildings on and adjacent to the subject property. The design of the proposed building and site layout will be reviewed further by the Town as part of site plan control. Heritage Designation In 2006, Town Council passed By-Law 4804-06.D to designate 15356 Yonge 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 is proposing to retain in situ and integrate the Knowles-Readman House into a new development for a four storey apartment building at 15356 Yonge Street. The heritage permit application is to remove the entire tail wing located at the rear of the House to permit the construction of underground parking, loading, and waste storage areas. Removal of the tail wing will enable the location of the underground parking to be close to the rear of the House. The House will be treated as a separate building with one residential unit, with parking for the House provided in the underground parking garage of the proposed development. Two large trees in front of the house along Yonge Street (tree 1 - 55cm DBH and 2 - 45cm DBH) (see Attachment 1) are being preserved. Tree 34 to the south is dead and is proposed to be removed. Trees 3-6 to the north are also being removed in order to allow the driveway widening. Three of these trees are in poor or fair/poor condition. The removal of the trees are subject to a future tree removal application. The front and the majority of the south side yards adjacent to the House will be retained as green space as will some of the rear of the property. Vehicle access to the property will be from a northern expansion of the existing driveway at Yonge Street, which will service both the subject property and the Hillary House property. Page 51 of 295 Heritage Permit Application: HPA-2021-14 November 1, 2021 Page 5 of 6 Restoration works of the exterior includes the front and side porches, windows, doors, removal of the exterior fire escape, infilling any associated openings, repairs to masonry, roof, trim, and decorative details, removal of tail wing and associated infilling, and treatment of the west wall including the foundation. Restoration of the interior includes repairs to the staircase from ground o upper floor, use or replication of original materials for doors and window casings, baseboards, and flooring. The restoration works may be subject to a future heritage permit application. The front and the majority of the south side yards adjacent to the House will be retained as green space as will some of the rear of the property. Vehicle access to the property will be from a northern expansion of the existing driveway at Yonge Street, which will service both the subject property and the Hillary House property. The Ontario Heritage Trust (OHT) holds a heritage easement agreement on the Hilary House property. As such, a heritage easement is proposed to preserve the home on the subject lands, making the OHT the final approval authority over the shared access to the Hilary House. Analysis Staff support the removal of the two-storey tail wing of the “Knowles-Redman House” as it will not adversely impact the heritage value of the dwelling. When the House was initially constructed, it had a one storey, gable roofed tail wing that extended across less than half of the rear of the House. Originally the tail wing was likely used as a pantry (ground floor) and storage (basement). It was enlarged by extending it across the entire rear of the House and adding a second floor. Other previous alterations to the tail wing included changing the cladding and a sliding glass door on the west wall. The removal of the tail wing will facilitate access, loading, and underground parking of the new four-storey apartment building that is proposed behind the House. As per Section 9.1.1 of the District Plan, the Edwardian Classicism style is described as having elaborate brick work, low-slope hipped ‘cottage’ roof with asphalt shingles, non- symmetrical plan and façade, and wide double hung windows as features to name a few. The tail wing is not a necessary or essential component of the Edwardian Classicism architectural style and was not determined to be a heritage attribute in the Heritage Impact Assessment (see Section 6.4 of Attachment 3). Further, the tail wing has been substantially altered by enlargement, changes in both cladding and roof Page 52 of 295 Heritage Permit Application: HPA-2021-14 November 1, 2021 Page 6 of 6 shape, and insertion of a sliding glass door. It is located at the back of the house, and is generally not visible from Yonge Street. For these reasons, staff are of the opinion that the removal of the tail wing will not negatively impact the heritage character of the Knowles-Readman House. Conclusion Staff have reviewed Heritage Permit Application HPA-2021-14 for 15356 Yonge Street and are satisfied that the removal of the tail wing will not impact the heritage integrity of the Knowles-Readman House. Attachments Attachment 1 – Location Map Attachment 2 – Drawings Attachment 3 – Heritage Impact Assessment Page 53 of 295 Yonge StreetMachell AvenueMaple Street Catherine Avenue Irwin Avenue LEGAL DESCRIPTION: PLAN 246 LOT 13 RP 65R31151 PART 1 MUNICIPAL ADDRESS: 15356 Yonge StreetFile No.: HPA-2021-14 0 30 60 Metres Map created by the Town of Aurora Planning Department, October 1, 2021Base data provided by York Region. This map is for addressing purposes only and should not be used for calculations or measurements. LOCATION MAP ¯St John's Sdrd Wellington St E Vandorf SdrdHenderson Drive ^Wellington St W UV404 UV404 Subject Lands Leslie StYonge StBathurst StBayview AveBloomington Rd Page 54 of 295 Page 55 of 295 (;,67,1*%$51<21*(675((7/3/3/3/3/3/3/:/:/:/:/:/%/%/%/%/%/%/%/%/%/%62412'46;««.+0'O$$(;,67,1*.12:/(65($'0$1+286(<21*(675((7Pð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Ä(#: Ä99910'52#%'70.+/+6'&%1/'$7(6&$/('5$:,1*352-(&7180%(53/277(''$7(RQHVSDFHXQOLPLWHGLQF&/,(17352-(&7$''5(66 217$5,2,1&)$,5%$,51*$7(48((169,//(217$5,2/*5(1/$5*('6,7(3/$1$+<RQJH6WUHHW$XURUD2QWDULR(1/$5*('6,7(3/$1Page 56 of 295 3523(57</,1(3523(57</,1((;,67,1*+286(3$1(/6<67(07<3(%$/&21<5$,/,1*:,1'2::$//9,6,213$1(/6<67(07<3($/7(5('7$,/:,1*72%(5(029('$//'5$:,1*6$5(7+(3523(57<2)21(63$&($1'7+(<$5(12772%(5(352'8&(',1:+2/(25,13$57:,7+287:5,77(1&216(17)52021(63$&('5$:,1*6$5(,17(1'('72&219(<6&23(2):25.$1',1',&$7(*(1(5$/$1'$3352;,0$7(/2&$7,21$55$1*(0(17$1'6,=(62)0$7(5,$/6$1'352'8&76$//&216758&7,2172%($&&25',1*72%(67&2002135$&7,&($1'&21)250727+(217$5,2%8,/',1*&2'(,1())(&7$77+(7,0(CTEJKVGEVWTG KPVGTKQTFGUKIP56''.'5#8'9'5657+6'8#7)*#0106#4+1..-6'. Ä(#: Ä99910'52#%'70.+/+6'&%1/'$7(6&$/('5$:,1*352-(&7180%(53/277(''$7(RQHVSDFHXQOLPLWHGLQF&/,(17352-(&7$''5(66 217$5,2,1&)$,5%$,51*$7(48((169,//(217$5,2/*51257+(/(9$7,219+<RQJH6WUHHW$XURUD2QWDULR1257+(/(9$7,21Page 57 of 295 $//'5$:,1*6$5(7+(3523(57<2)21(63$&($1'7+(<$5(12772%(5(352'8&(',1:+2/(25,13$57:,7+287:5,77(1&216(17)52021(63$&('5$:,1*6$5(,17(1'('72&219(<6&23(2):25.$1',1',&$7(*(1(5$/$1'$3352;,0$7(/2&$7,21$55$1*(0(17$1'6,=(62)0$7(5,$/6$1'352'8&76$//&216758&7,2172%($&&25',1*72%(67&2002135$&7,&($1'&21)250727+(217$5,2%8,/',1*&2'(,1())(&7$77+(7,0(CTEJKVGEVWTG KPVGTKQTFGUKIP56''.'5#8'9'5657+6'8#7)*#0106#4+1..-6'. Ä(#: Ä99910'52#%'70.+/+6'&%1/'$7(6&$/('5$:,1*352-(&7180%(53/277(''$7(RQHVSDFHXQOLPLWHGLQF&/,(17352-(&7$''5(66 217$5,2,1&)$,5%$,51*$7(48((169,//(217$5,2/*53(563(&7,9(6$+<RQJH6WUHHW$XURUD2QWDULR+HULWDJH%XLOGLQJDW6WUHHW+HULWDJH%XLOGLQJ)URQW+HULWDJH%XLOGLQJ1RUWK6LGH+HULWDJH%XLOGLQJ6RXWK6LGHPage 58 of 295 HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT KNOWLES / READMAN HOUSE 15356 YONGE STREET TOWN OF AURORA, ONTARIO July 2017 Prepared for: 2578461 Ontario Inc. Prepared by: WAYNE MORGAN HERITAGE PLANNER Knowles / Readman House – East and North Elevations c 1920 2016 Page 59 of 295 HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT KNOWLES / READMAN HOUSE 15356 YONGE STREET TOWN OF AURORA, ONTARIO July 2017 Prepared for: 2578461 Ontario Inc. Prepared by: Wayne Morgan, Heritage Planner PO Box 1203, 21 Land’s End Sutton West, Ontario L0E 1R0 Telephone: 905-722-5398 E-mail wayne.morgan@sympatico.ca Page 60 of 295 Heritage Impact Assessment Page i 15356 Yonge Street Town of Aurora, Ontario Wayne Morgan July 2017 Heritage Planner EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Aurora Official Plan requires a heritage impact assessment (HIA) for development proposals on or adjacent to a designated heritage property. 2578461 Ontario Inc. is submitting planning applications for the property at 15356 Yonge Street retaining the heritage resource identified as the ‘Knowles / Readman House’ in situ and constructing a five storey residential building to the rear of the House. The property is designated under Part V of the Ontario Heritage Act as part of the Northeast Old Aurora Heritage Conservation District. The applicant commissioned this HIA to identify, evaluate and assess the heritage values and impacts on and adjacent to the subject property and to recommend heritage conservation and mitigation measures. History- The 1794 Yonge Street survey laid out the Street and adjacent lots. From this survey, the subject property is part of the east half of Lot 81, Concession 1 West Yonge Street. Although the 210 acre Lot 81 was sold to Thomas Phillips and, over the years, developed for agricultural purposes, the subject half acre part of the Lot was vacant when sold by Robert Irwin to Rachel Butcher in 1874. It was still vacant when sold in 1906 to James Knowles, an Aurora area builder and politician. In 1907, Knowles constructed the existing house and lived in it until 1913. Eventually, in 1920, the property was sold to John Readman who moved to the House in 1924 after retiring from his Vaughan farm. His estate continued to own the House until 1951. It was acquired by the current owner in 1981. The House is vacant and many of the interior finishes have been removed. Evaluation - After documenting its history and inspecting and recording it, the property was evaluated for cultural heritage value using provincial criteria and examining its condition and heritage integrity. This evaluation determined that the Knowles / Readman House, which is a 2 ½ storey house form building constructed in an Edwardian Classicism architectural style, warrants conservation under the Act. The front yard is part its heritage character and is included as a heritage attribute. Adjacent Heritage Resources- The subject property is adjacent to two designated properties – Hillary House and Horton Hall (15324 and 15372 Yonge Street) and across the street from Our Lady of Grace Roman Catholic Church (15347 Yonge Street). All properties are designated under Part V of the Act; the first two are also designated under Part IV of the Act. Proposed Development and Its Impact - The development proposal, described above, will retain, restore, renovate, and incorporate the Knowles / Readman House in situ in the proposed development. The front yard will remain as green space. Vehicle access will use the existing Yonge Street driveway. It was determined that the proposed development will not adversely affect the heritage values and attributes of the subject property and the adjacent heritage properties. Recommendations - This HIA recommends that the proposed development be approved substantially as shown in drawings prepared by onespace unlimited inc. dated June 30, 2017, some of which are contained in Appendix N of this report subject to the following heritage conditions of Site Plan Approval, to be fulfilled to the satisfaction of the Town prior to issuing a building permit. The owner: 1. enter into a Heritage Easement Agreement with the Town to provide permanent protection for the heritage values of the Knowles / Readman property; 2. prepare a Conservation Plan for the heritage features of the Knowles / Readman property; 3. prepare a Protection Plan to protect the heritage resources prior to and during construction; 4. prepare a Landscape / Grading Plan for the property; 5. agree to commemorate the Knowles / Readman property’s heritage values; and 6. provide financial securities to the Town to implement the above recommendations. Page 61 of 295 Heritage Impact Assessment Page ii 15356 Yonge Street Town of Aurora, Ontario Wayne Morgan July 2017 Heritage Planner PROJECT PERSONNEL Wayne Morgan Heritage Planner Member, Canadian Association of Heritage Professionals Member, Canadian Institute of Planner Member, Ontario Professional Planners Institute President, Community Heritage Ontario Page 62 of 295 Heritage Impact Assessment Page iii 15356 Yonge Street Town of Aurora, Ontario Wayne Morgan July 2017 Heritage Planner TABLE OF CONTENTS Page 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1 2.0 DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPERTY AND ITS CONTEXT 2 2.1 Location 2 2.2 Ownership and Legal Description 3 2.3 Area Character and Physiography 3 2.4 Context – General Character 5 2.5 Context – Adjacent or Adjacent Heritage Properties 5 3.0 HERITAGE POLICIES 6 3.1 The Planning Act and Provincial Policy Statement (2014) 6 3.2 Ontario Heritage Act (OHA) 7 3.3 Places to Grow – Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe 8 3.4 York Region Official Plan 8 3.5 Aurora Official Plan and Zoning By-law 9 3.6 Northeast Old Aurora Heritage Conservation District 12 3.7 Standards and Guidelines for the Conservation of Historic Places in Canada 12 3.8 Municipal Heritage Status of the Subject and Adjacent Heritage Properties 13 4.0 HISTORICAL SUMMARY 14 4.1 Development of the Area 15 4.2 The Subject Property 20 5.0 BUILT AND LANDSCAPE RESOURCE DESCRIPTIONS 25 5.1 Knowles / Readman House Exterior 25 5.2 Knowles / Readman House Interior 29 5.3 Landscape Resources 31 6.0 HERITAGE EVALUATION OF THE RESOURCES 33 6.1 Introduction 33 6.2 Application of Provincial Criteria 33 6.2.1 House 33 6.2.2 Landscape 38 6.3 Overall Evaluation Summary 38 6.4 Statement of Cultural Heritage Value 39 6.5 Cultural Heritage Values of Adjacent/Nearby Heritage Properties 40 7.0 DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL 41 7.1 Description of the Development Proposal 41 Page 63 of 295 Heritage Impact Assessment Page iv 15356 Yonge Street Town of Aurora, Ontario Wayne Morgan July 2017 Heritage Planner TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued) Page 8.0 DEVELOMENT PROPOSAL IMPACT ON HERITAGE RESOURCES 44 8.1 Impact of Development on the Property Heritage Resources 44 8.2 Impact of Development on Adjacent Heritage Properties 45 9.0 CONSERVATION AND MITIGATION 47 9.1 Options for Conserving the Heritage Resource 47 9.2 Mitigation Measures 55 9.2.1 Heritage Easement Agreement 55 9.2.2 Conservation Plan 55 9.2.3 Protection Plan 56 9.2.4 Landscape / Grading Plan 56 9.2.5 Commemoration 56 9.2.6 Financial Securities 56 10.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 57 10.1 Conclusions 57 10.2 Recommendations 58 SOURCES CONSULTED 59 APPENDICIES A Property Survey B Photographs – Context C Maps and Insurance Plans D Aerial Photographs E Knowles / Readman House Exterior Photographs F Knowles / Readman House Floor Plan Sketches G Knowles / Readman House Interior Photographs H Knowles / Readman House Property Landscape Photographs I Knowles / Readman House Historic Photographs J Property Ownership History K Ontario Heritage Act, Regulation 9/06 L Adjacent Heritage Properties M Town of Aurora and York Region Planning Document Maps N Development Proposal O Curriculum Vitae – Wayne Morgan Page 64 of 295 Heritage Impact Assessment Page v 15356 Yonge Street Town of Aurora, Ontario Wayne Morgan July 2017 Heritage Planner LIST OF FIGURES Page Figure 2.1 Location – Streets & Properties [Source: YorkMaps, 2016]. 2 Figure 2.2 Subject Site in Context [Source: York Maps, image 2015]. 2 Figure 2.3 Figure 4.1 Figure 4.2 Figure 4.3 Figure 4.4 Figure 4.5 Figure 4.6 Figure 4.7 Figure 4.8 Figure 4.9 The Area in 1946 [Source: National Air Photo Library, Roll A10115, Photo 087]. Yonge Street Proclamation, 1798 Yonge Street, looking north to Aurora from Hutchinson’s Hill near Vandorf Sideroad [Source: McIntyre, 8] Nathaniel Gamble’s Inn at Armitage, c1910 [Source: Gilham, 7]. The Radial Railway crossing the Grand Trunk Railway near Vandorf Sideroad [Source, Stamp, 25]. Yonge Street in Aurora looking north, circa 1870 [Source: McIntyre, 14]. Historical Development of Aurora to 1971 [Source: Regional Municipality of York, Historical Development, insert]. Obituary – James Albert Knowles [Source: Newmarket Era and Express, April 28, 1949] The Knowles / Readman House, c1920 [Source: Aurora Heritage Committee] John W. and Catherine Readman [Source: Brydon website] 4 16 16 17 17 18 19 22 22 23 Figure 5.1 Figure 5.2 Figure 5.3 Figure 5.4 Figure 5.5 Figure 7.1 Figure 7.2 Figure 8.1 Figure 9.1 Figure 9.2 Figure 9.3 Figure 9.4 Figure 9.5 Figure 9.6 Figure 9.7 Figure 9.8 Knowles / Readman House, East Elevations, circa 1982 Knowles / Readman House, East and North Elevations, 2016. Edwardian Classicism, Kingston Example. [Source: Blumenson, 167]. York County Mouldings – 1910s–1920s [Source: Duncan, 159] Landscape Elements in 2015 of the Knowles / Readman property [Source: York Maps]. Site Plan, Proposed Development South Elevation, Proposed Development. The Proposed Development in Context Tail Wing – Ground Level and Underground Parking Yonge Street Sight Lines of the House and Proposed Development Panorama view of the development from the east side of Yonge Street, Drawing A500 Existing Driveway Conditions viewed from Yonge Street Existing Driveway Conditions Existing and Proposed Driveway Proposed North Side Yard Condition West of the House Proposed New Building Viewed from the Northeast 25 26 29 30 31 42 43 46 48 49 49 51 51 51 52 53 Page 65 of 295 Heritage Impact Assessment Page vi 15356 Yonge Street Town of Aurora, Ontario Wayne Morgan July 2017 Heritage Planner Table 2.1 Table 3.1 Table 4.1 Table 6.1 Table 6.2 Table 7.1 LIST OF TABLES Adjacent or Abutting Heritage Properties Heritage Status of Adjacent or Abutting Heritage Properties Historical Timelines – Knowles / Readman House, 15356 Yonge St. Application of Heritage Criteria to the Resources of the Knowles / Readman Property, 15356 Yonge Street, Aurora. Cultural Heritage Values of Adjacent Heritage Properties Site Statistics Page 5 13 20 34 40 41 Page 66 of 295 Heritage Impact Assessment Page 1 15356 Yonge Street Town of Aurora, Ontario Wayne Morgan July 2017 Heritage Planner 1.0 INTRODUCTION Policy 13.3 k) of the Aurora Official Plan provides for a Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA) where development is proposed “on or adjacent to a designated heritage resource to demonstrate that the heritage property and its heritage attributes are not adversely affected”. This HIA is for the property at 15356 Yonge Street which is in the east half of Lot 81 in the first concession west of Yonge Street. The property contains the house form structure referred to as the ‘Knowles / Readman House’ in this report. The property is included in the Aurora Heritage Register as provided under the Ontario Heritage Act and is designated by the Town under Part V of the Act as it is within the Northeast Old Aurora Heritage Conservation District. The property is 0.2659 hectares (0.657 acres). The applicant, Fusioncorp Developments Inc. has prepared a site plan application (Appendix N) proposing medium density residential development on the property. The owner is proposing to retain and incorporate the heritage resource in situ in the development. Fusioncorp Developments Inc. retained Wayne Morgan, Heritage Planner, to prepare this HIA. It was prepared in accordance with the Town’s Official Plan, other Town requirements and Provincial heritage policies. A curriculum vitae for Wayne Morgan is included as Appendix O. Page 67 of 295 Heritage Impact Assessment Page 2 15356 Yonge Street Town of Aurora, Ontario Wayne Morgan July 2017 Heritage Planner 2.0 DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPERTY AND ITS CONTEXT 2.1 Location The subject property is located in the Town of Aurora in the Regional Municipality (formerly County) of York in the east half of Lot 81 in the first concession west of Yonge Street (WYS). The property is bounded by Yonge Street on the east, the rear lot line of a property fronting on Machell Avenue on the west, the south lot line of the property containing Hillary House (15372 Yonge Street) Lot 25 and the north property lines of Horton Place (15342 Yonge Street) and three properties fronting on Irwin Avenue. The property is part of the urban community of Aurora (Figures 2.1 and 2.2). It is 0.2569 hectares (0.657 acres) in size. Figure No. 2.1 Location – Streets & Properties [Source: YorkMaps, 2016] Figure No. 2.2 Subject Site in Context [Source: YorkMaps, image 2015]. Subject Property Subject Property Page 68 of 295 Heritage Impact Assessment Page 3 15356 Yonge Street Town of Aurora, Ontario Wayne Morgan July 2017 Heritage Planner 2.2 Ownership and Legal Description The subject property is currently owned by: 1087931 Ontario Limited c/o Bruce Spragg Remax Hallmark York Group Realty Limited 15004 Yonge Street Aurora, ON L4G 1M6 The short legal description of the property is: Lot 13, Plan 246, Aurora, Part 1, 65R31151, Aurora; together with an easement over part lot 12 Plan 246, Part 4, 65R31151 as in YR1009502; together with an easement over Part Lot 12, Plan 246, Part 1 Plan 65R31604 as in YR1404149. A copy of a plan of survey of the property together with the applicable part of Plan 246, Aurora is contained in Appendix A. The property was previously addressed by the municipality as 64 Yonge Street North. Its current address is 15356 Yonge Street 2.3 Area Character and Physiography As shown on the topographic maps (Appendix C), the subject property rises slightly above the Yonge Street grade directly east of the House and then slopes down slightly immediately west of the House. Beyond that slight plateau behind the House, there is a stone retaining wall. West of that wall, the land slopes down approximately six metres to the west limit of the lot. The 1929 topographic map and Figure 2.2 show a creek west of Machell Avenue. This creek drains north ultimately reaching the Holland River which drains into Lake Simcoe. The 1946 aerial photograph (Appendix D) shows considerable forest cover on the east half of the lots on the west side of Yonge Street north of Irwin Avenue. Since then, and despite the construction of Houses prior to 1960 on the east side of Machell Avenue, the amount of forest cover on the lots on the west side of Yonge Street north of Irwin Avenue has increased. Since 1946, the urban area of Aurora has expanded with the subject and nearby properties are no longer at the north limit of the urban area (Figure 2.3). However, aerial photographs show that the character the area immediately near the subject property has remained relatively stable. Noteworthy exceptions are the construction two new buildings - a low rise apartment building north of Hillary House, built between 1970 and 1978 and, on the east side of Yonge Street between Maple Street and Catherine Avenue, a new Catholic church and associated parking areas constructed between 1978 and 1988. Although not visible in the air photos, Yonge Street has been expanded from two to four lanes since 1946. Aerial photographs of the Study Area from 1946 to 2015 are found in Appendix D. Village of Sharon Page 69 of 295 Heritage Impact Assessment Page 4 15356 Yonge Street Town of Aurora, Ontario Wayne Morgan July 2017 Heritage Planner The property is located in the Schomberg Clay Plains physiographic region1 which is described as: Located near Schomberg, Newmarket, and to the north of Lake Scugog, the three larger areas, taken together cover about 475 square miles, and are included under the name of the Schomberg clay plains. In the first two areas the surface under the clay is that of a drumlinized till plain. The smaller drumlins are completely covered, but many of the larger ones escaped complete burial although the clay may occur well up the slopes of the hills. The average depth of the clay deposit seems to be about 15 feet … Since the rolling relief of the underlying till plain has not entirely been eliminated these areas are not so flat as many lake plains. … The original vegetation was hardwood forest… 1 Chapman and Putnam, pp 296 – 299. Figure No. 2.3 The Area in 1946 [National Airphoto Library, Roll A10115, Photo 087]. Subject Property Wellington Street West Yonge Street CN Rail Page 70 of 295 Heritage Impact Assessment Page 5 15356 Yonge Street Town of Aurora, Ontario Wayne Morgan July 2017 Heritage Planner 2.4 Context - General Character The subject property is within an area that, to the south east, is changing in character from low rise residential and commercial uses to taller, mixed use buildings. Also a number of house form buildings on Yonge Street have been converted from residential to commercial use. To the north and west, the area has been relatively stable over the last thirty years. Yonge Street, which is the only road frontage for the subject property, is a municipal, four lane, arterial road with an urban character – buried storm drains and sidewalks on both sides of the road. The nearest intersection to the subject property, at Irwin Avenue and Yonge Street, is a ‘T’ intersection that is not signalized. The nearest signalized intersection is at Aurora Heights Drive / Mark Street and Yonge Street. There is frequent bus transit service on Yonge Street in front of the subject property. From 1899 to 1930 public transit service, in the form of the Metropolitan Radial Railway, ran on Yonge Street in front of the property. 2.5 Context - Adjacent or Abutting Heritage Properties There are three heritage properties that abut or are adjacent the subject property. For the purposes of this Assessment, adjacent includes properties that are directly across the street from the subject property. The properties are illustrated in Appendix L and listed in Table 2.1 below. Table 2.1 Adjacent or Abutting Heritage Properties No. Street Address Building Name 1 15342 Yonge Street Horton Place 2 15347 Yonge Street Our Lady of Grace Roman Catholic Church 3 15372 Yonge Street Hillary House No other potential heritage properties were identified adjacent to the subject site. Although 8 Irwin Avenue is listed in the Aurora Register of Heritage Properties, it does not abut the subject property. Page 71 of 295 Heritage Impact Assessment Page 6 15356 Yonge Street Town of Aurora, Ontario Wayne Morgan July 2017 Heritage Planner 3.0 HERITAGE POLICIES 3.1 The Planning Act and Provincial Policy Statement (2014) Section 2 of the Planning Act identifies, “matters of provincial interest, which includes the conservation of significant features of architectural, cultural, historical, archaeological or scientific interest.” 2 Section 3 of the Planning Act enables the Province to issue Policy Statements on matters of Provincial Interest. The Provincial Policy Statement (2014) (PPS) issued under the Planning Act applies to this Study Area. Section 2.6 of the PPS addresses Cultural Heritage. PPS Policy 2.6.1 states: Significant built heritage resources and significant cultural heritage landscapes shall be conserved. The PPS provides the following definitions to the italicized terms. Significant means in regard to cultural heritage and archaeology, “resources that have been determined to have cultural heritage value or interest for the important contribution they make to our understanding of the history of a place, an event, or a people.” Built heritage resources “means a building, structure, monument, installations or any manufactured remnant that contributes to a property’s cultural heritage value or interest as identified by a community, including Aboriginal community. Built heritage resources are generally located on property that has been designated under Parts IV or V of the Ontario Heritage Act, or included on local, provincial and/or federal registers.” Cultural heritage landscape means a defined geographical area that may have been modified by human activities and is identified as having cultural heritage value or interest by a community including an Aboriginal community. The area may involve features such as structures, spaces, archaeological sites or natural elements that are valued together for their interrelationship meaning or association. Examples may include, but are not limited to, heritage conservation districts designated under the Ontario Heritage Act; villages, parks, gardens, battlefields, mainstreets and neighbourhoods, cemeteries, trailways, viewsheds, natural areas and industrial complexes of heritage significance, and areas recognized by federal or international designation authorities (e.g., a National Historic Site or District designation, or a UNESCO World Heritage Site). conserved means “the identification, protection, management and use of built heritage resources, cultural heritage landscapes and archaeological resources in a manner that ensures their cultural heritage value or interest is retained under the 2Ontario Ministry of Culture. Heritage Resources in the Land Use Planning Process, p 1. Page 72 of 295 Heritage Impact Assessment Page 7 15356 Yonge Street Town of Aurora, Ontario Wayne Morgan July 2017 Heritage Planner Ontario Heritage Act. This may be achieved by the implementation of recommendations set out in a conservation plan, archaeological assessment and/or heritage impact assessment. Mitigative measures and/or alternative development approaches can be included in these plans and assessments.” Policy 2.6.3 of the PPS deals with development adjacent to a protected heritage property: Planning authorities shall not permit development and site alteration on adjacent lands to protected heritage property except where the proposed development and site alteration has been evaluated and it has been demonstrated that the heritage attributes of the protected heritage property will be conserved. Each of the italicized terms has the following definition in the PPS: Development means “the creation of a new lot, a change in land use, or the construction of buildings and structures, requiring approval under the Planning Act”; Site alteration means activities, such as grading, excavation and the placement of fill that would change the landform and natural vegetative characteristics of a site; Adjacent lands means “for the purposes of policy 2.6.3, those lands contiguous to a protected heritage property or as otherwise defined in the municipal official plan”; Protected heritage property means “property designated under Part IV, V or VI of the Ontario Heritage Act; property subject to a heritage conservation easement under Parts II or IV of the Ontario Heritage Act; property identified by the Province and prescribed public bodies as provincial heritage property under the Standards and Guidelines for Conservation of Provincial Heritage Properties; property protected under federal legislation, and UNESCO World Heritage Sites”. Heritage attributes means “the principal features or elements that contribute to a protected heritage property’s cultural heritage value or interest, and many included the property’s built or manufactured elements, as well as natural landforms, vegetation, water features, and its visual setting (including significant views or vistas to or from a protected heritage property)”; and Conserved is defined above. 3.2 Ontario Heritage Act (OHA) Parts IV (individual properties) and V (heritage conservation districts) of the Act enables a municipality to list and designate properties and areas of cultural value or interest after consultation with its heritage advisory committee, if one is appointed. Section 27 of the Act requires the municipal clerk to keep a register of properties of cultural heritage value or interest. Subsection 27.1 of the Act allows municipal councils to include properties of cultural Page 73 of 295 Heritage Impact Assessment Page 8 15356 Yonge Street Town of Aurora, Ontario Wayne Morgan July 2017 Heritage Planner heritage value that have not been designated (listed properties) on the register after the council has consulted with its heritage advisory committee. The Provincial Government has established criteria for determining the cultural heritage value or interest of properties under Part IV of the Act through Regulation 9/06 (Appendix K). Once a property is designated, demolition or alterations that may affect the heritage attributes may not occur without municipal council approval. Heritage conservation districts have plans that provide guidance to municipal councils and property owners on alterations, demolitions and new construction within the district. An owner may appeal Council’s decision on an application to alter or demolish to the Ontario Municipal Board. 3.3 Places to Grow – Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe In 2006, the Provincial Government approved the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe and subsequently amended it in 2013. The Growth Plan is the Government’s framework for development and the management of growth in the area to 2041. The subject site is shown as ‘Built-Up Area - Conceptual’ on Schedule 2, Places to Grow Concept. For this Area, the Plan ‘envisages increasing intensification of the existing built-up area, with a focus on urban growth centres, intensification corridors, major transit station areas, brownfield sites and greyfields.’ The Plan directs a significant portion of new growth to the built up area through intensification. Specifically, a minimum of 40% of new residential growth is required to be through intensification in the built up area. Under the new Growth Plan, this minimum requirement will increase to 50% before 2031 and 60% thereafter. Municipalities are to include policies in their official plans to support these Growth Plan policies (Section 2.2.2, policy 1 a). The Growth Plan also requires that municipalities develop and implement official plan policies and other strategies in support of cultural heritage conservation (Section 4.2.4, policy e). 3.4 York Region Official Plan The Official Plan of the Regional Municipality of York (ROP) was adopted by Regional Council on December 16, 2009 and approved by the Minister with modifications. The ROP has been appealed in part to the OMB. Parts of the Plan have been approved by the OMB. The Plan has also been amended in part by Regional Council since 2009. The consolidated ROP with OMB approvals up to and including April, 2016 has been reviewed for this report. Section 3.4 of the Regional Plan provides the following relevant cultural heritage policies: 3. To require local municipalities to adopt official plan policies to conserve significant cultural heritage resources. Page 74 of 295 Heritage Impact Assessment Page 9 15356 Yonge Street Town of Aurora, Ontario Wayne Morgan July 2017 Heritage Planner 11. To require local municipalities to adopt official plan policies to conserve significant cultural heritage resources and ensure that development and site alteration on adjacent properties will conserve the heritage attributes of that property. With respect to policy 3, the Aurora Offical Plan contains policies for the conservation of significant cultural heritage resource. With respect to policy 14, the Aurora Official Plan has policies dealing with the conservation of heritage resources which are discussed below. In addition, this report considers the impact of the proposed development on adjacent heritage resources. In the Regional Plan, the subject property is designated ‘Urban Area’ on the east and ‘Regional Greenlands System’ on the west on the Regional Structure Map (Appendix M). There are no additional policies in these land use designations regarding the conservation of cultural heritage resources. 3.5 Aurora Official Plan and Zoning By-law The Official Plan (OP) for the Town of Aurora was adopted in September 2010 and revised in 2015. The most recent version of the OP on the Town’s website was reviewed for this report. In the OP, the heritage objectives and policies are contained in Chapter 13, Conserving Cultural Heritage Resources. OP heritage objectives relevant to this project are: a. Conserve and enhance recognized cultural heritage resources of the town for the enjoyment of existing and future generations; b. Preserve, restore and rehabilitate structures, buildings or sites deemed to have significant historic, archaeological, architectural or cultural significance and, preserve cultural heritage landscapes, including significant public view; and c. Promote public awareness of Aurora’s cultural heritage and involve the public in heritage resource decision affecting the municipality. Cultural heritage conservation policies of the Aurora OP relevant to this project are: Policy 13.2 b): The Town may use the power and tools provided by the enabling legislation, policies and programs … [which] include but not be limited to the following: i. The power to stope demolition and/or alterations of designated heritage properties … as set out in Section 13.3 … Page 75 of 295 Heritage Impact Assessment Page 10 15356 Yonge Street Town of Aurora, Ontario Wayne Morgan July 2017 Heritage Planner ii. The power to require a Heritage Impact Assessment and Restoration/Conservation Plan for development proposals and other land use planning proposal that may potentially affect a designated or significant heritage resources or heritage Conservation District; iii. Using zoning by-law provision to protect heritage resources by regulating such matters as use, massing, for, design, location and setbacks; iv. Using the site plan control by-law to ensure that new development is compatible with heritage resources; Policy 13.2 c): The Town’s by-laws, regulations and standards shall be sensitive to the Town’s heritage resources and may permit non-standard solutions in order to support the Town’s objectives for heritage preservation. Specific measures may include, but are not limited to reduced lot sizes, reduced setbacks and alternative parking requirements. Policy 13.2 d): The Town shall acquire heritage easements, and enter into development agreements, as appropriate, for the preservation of heritage resources and cultural heritage landscapes. Policy 13.2 f): Financial securities from the owner may be required as part of the conditions of site plan or other development approvals to ensure the retention and protection of heritage properties during and after the development process. Policy 13.2 o): Impact on the significant heritage elements of designated and other heritage resources shall be avoided through the requirements of the Town’s sign permit application system and the heritage permit under the Ontario Heritage Act. Policy 13.2 r): Alterations made to a designated heritage property shall comply with the Town of aurora Accessibility Technical Standards except where such alterations are deemed to alter the essential nature or substantially affect the viability of the enterprise, as allowed for under the Ontario Human Rights codes, or affect the defining heritage attributes. Policy 13.3 i): Heritage resources will be protected and conserved in accordance with the Standards and Guidelines for the Conservation of Historic Places in Canada, Page 76 of 295 Heritage Impact Assessment Page 11 15356 Yonge Street Town of Aurora, Ontario Wayne Morgan July 2017 Heritage Planner … Protection, maintenance and stabilization of existing cultural heritage attributes and features over removal or replacement will be adopted as the core principles for all conservation projects. Policy 13.3 j) Alteration, removal or demolition of heritage attributes on designated heritage properties will be avoided. Any proposal involving such works will require a heritage permit application to be submitted … Policy 13.3 k) Council may require that a heritage impact assessment be prepared by a qualified professional to the satisfaction of the Town for … any development proposal .. involving or adjacent to a designated heritage resource to demonstrate that the heritage property and its heritage attributes are not adversely affect. Mitigation measures and/or alternative development approaches shall be required .. to ameliorate any potential adverse impacts that may be cause to the designated heritage resources and their heritage attributes. Policy 13.5 Policies for Heritage Conservation Districts a) Existing Designated Heritage Conservation Districts are shown on Schedule ‘D’. Within these Districts, all applications and all permits shall be reviewed in accordance with the approved District Plan and in accordance with Section 13.5m of this Plan. m) In reviewing all application and all permits the Town shall be guided by the applicable Heritage Conservation District Plan and the following guiding principles: i. Heritage buildings … including their environs should be protected from any adverse effects of the proposed alterations, works or development; ii. Original building fabric and architectural features should be retained and repaired; iii. New additions and features should generally be lower than the existing building and be placed to the rear of the building or set-back substantially from the principal façade; and iv. New construction and/or infilling should fit harmoniously with the immediate physical context and streetscape and be consistent with the existing heritage architecture by among other things, being generally of the same height, width, mass, bulk and disposition; of similar setback; of like materials and colours, and using similarly proportioned windows, doors and roof shape. Page 77 of 295 Heritage Impact Assessment Page 12 15356 Yonge Street Town of Aurora, Ontario Wayne Morgan July 2017 Heritage Planner In the Aurora OP, the majority of the subject site is designated “The Aurora Promenade”, while the rear portion is designated “Private Parkland” (Appendix M). The designation “The Aurora Promenade” is the secondary plan area for downtown Aurora. Relevant objectives of this designation are: i. Distinct Heritage and Culture - to build on the distinct heritage and culture of the area, to conserve and protect the neighbourhoods, streetscapes and significant buildings; ii. Vibrant Places - Create a mixed use urban environment; and vii. Great Design and Architecture – “new development must ‘fit’ in and enhance the character, quality and appeal” of the area. Aurora OP Schedule B1 designates the front of the subject property ‘Downtown Shoulder’ and the rear ‘Promenade General’ (Appendix M). The former designation is predominantly residential with a potential for infill development sensitive to heritage resources and adjacent neighbourhoods. The minimum and maximum building heights are two and five storeys (Schedule B2), while the maximum lot coverage is 80%. In the ‘Promenade General’ designation new development is to be mostly residential. The same building heights apply, while the maximum lot coverage is 90%. Aurora OP policy 11.9 a) permits the use of density and height incentives to achieve, among other matters, heritage preservation. The Town’s Zoning By-law 2213-78 as amended3, zones most of the subject property Row Dwelling Residential (R6-65) Exception permitting the Knowles /Readman House and five row houses to the rear (Appendix M). The balance of the property is zoned Environment Protection and Environmental Protection (EP-17) Exception permitting private open space uses. The Zoning By-law does not have any additional heritage requirements. The applicant will be seeking an amendment to the Zoning By-law to permit the proposed development. 3.6 Northeast Old Aurora Heritage Conservation District Plan On November 9, 2006, the OMB approved the Heritage Conservation District boundaries (Appendix M) and the District plan for Northeast Old Aurora. The subject property is in the District and is recognized on page 121 as having ‘Very high heritage value – to be preserved’. Policy 9.5.3.5 refers to the high value heritage properties in the Yonge Street Corridor, which includes the subject property. The plan require conservation of the existing buildings and new construction to the rear and architecturally sympathetic to the heritage buildings. It further states “The plan does not preclude the future consideration by the Town of alternate types of development for the property at 15356 Yonge Street which incorporates the heritage building.”4 3.7 Standards and Guidelines for the Conservation of Historic Places in Canada 3 Aurora By-law Number 5173-09. 4 Carter, 123. Page 78 of 295 Heritage Impact Assessment Page 13 15356 Yonge Street Town of Aurora, Ontario Wayne Morgan July 2017 Heritage Planner Parks Canada produced a set of standards and guidelines for the conservation of historic places in Canada (the Standards) in 2005 with revisions in 2010. The Standards identify best practices in the management of heritage resources which include buildings, landscapes and archaeological sites. The approach taken in developing the Standards has been informed by international charters for the conservation of heritage resources developed under the auspices of ICOMOS, the international council on historic sites and monuments, a body of heritage professionals which advises the United Nations Educational and Scientific Committee. In general the Standard seek to:  preserve the heritage attributes of the historic places;  ensure that restoration work is consistent with documentary evidence;  ensure that alterations are reversible and do not create a false sense of history; and  ensure that additions to a heritage place are distinguishable from the heritage character of the place, yet sympathetic to that character. The Town has adopted the Standards as policy through its OP (policy 13.3i, quoted above). 3.8 Municipal Heritage Status - Subject Property and Adjacent Heritage Properties The subject property listed on the Aurora Heritage Register as per section 27 of the Ontario Heritage Act (OHA). It is designated under Part V of the OHA as part of the Northeast Old Aurora Heritage Conservation District. The subject property is not designated individually under Part IV of the OHA. The heritage status of adjacent heritage properties is shown in Table 3.1. All three properties are designated as part of the Northeast Old Aurora Heritage Conservation District. In addition, 15342 and 15373 Yonge Street are designated individually under the OHA and included in the Canadian Register of Historic Places. Hillary House (15372 Yonge Street) has also been identified by the National Historic Sites and Monuments Board as a National Historic Site. Table 3.1 Heritage Status of Adjacent or Abutting Heritage Properties No. Street Address On Municipal Heritage Register Designated under Part IV OHA Designated under Part V OHA 1 15342 Yonge Street Yes Yes - By-law No. 2891-87 Yes 2 15347 Yonge Street Yes No Yes 3 15372 Yonge Street Yes Yes – 1982 designation By- law Yes Page 79 of 295 Heritage Impact Assessment Page 14 15356 Yonge Street Town of Aurora, Ontario Wayne Morgan July 2017 Heritage Planner 4.0 HISTORICAL SUMMARY In 1783, the chiefs of the Mississauga Indians agreed to sell the British government a tract of land stretching from Cataraqui near Kingston to the Etobicoke Creek along the north shore of Lake Ontario. As this purchase was improperly drawn up, in 1787 the Crown bought from the Mississaugas, the Toronto Purchase. This land acquisition was further clarified in a confirmatory treaty in an 1805 meeting with the Mississaugas5 and finally settled in 1923 with the signing of the Williams Treaty. Lands forming part of King Township (now part of Aurora) were part of that acquisition. King Township, named after Major John King, an English Under-Secretary of State from 1794 to 1801 for the Home Department in the Portland Administration6, was established as an administrative unit within the Home District and became a municipality in 1849. In 1851, the Home District was divided into York, Peel and Ontario counties with King in York County.7 In 1863 portions of the Townships of King and Whitchurch forming the settlement of Aurora separated from those Townships to create the Village of Aurora. In 1888, Aurora was incorporated as a Town. In 1971 the Regional Municipality of York was created from the then County of York and the subject lands was included in the new Town of Aurora. Aurora is bounded on the south by the Town of Richmond Hill, on the west by King Township, on the north by the Town of Newmarket and on the east by the Town of Whitchurch-Stouffville. In 1794, Augustus Jones was instructed by Lieutenant-Governor John Graves Simcoe to layout Yonge Street, as a military road to provide access, via Lake Simcoe, to Georgina Bay. Also in 1794, Abraham Iredell laid out lots on either side Yonge Street, including King Township, with the numbering of the lots starting with one at what is now Eglinton Avenue in Toronto. In Aurora, these lots start at number 71 with the subject lands in lot 81. In 1800, John Stegman surveyed the rest of King Township, with the lots abutting Yonge Street being the base for the concessions which numbered to the west of this base. The township, including the lots on Yonge Street, was laid out in the ‘Single Front System’: … two systems emerge as the basic methods of land survey from 1783 to 1829, the Single Front and Double Front systems. In the former system, the township was to be six miles square, seven concession deep and 25 lots wide. The side of the lots varied, with 120 and 200 acres the common sizes. The shape was long and narrow, 19 x 63 chains (approximately) for the small lot, 19 x 105 chains (approximately) for the larger. The system resulted in a settlement pattern consisting of single rows of farmsteads along the concession line road. Intensity of land use decreased to the back of the concession where woodlands persisted. As settlement matured many of the 200 acre lots in these townships were divided by boundaries parallel to the concession line. The result of the wide split was a new settlement patterns with houses now appearing in double rows.8 5 Champion, 5. 6 Widipedia, King Township 7 Dean, plate 98. 8 Gentilcore, 7 - 8 Page 80 of 295 Heritage Impact Assessment Page 15 15356 Yonge Street Town of Aurora, Ontario Wayne Morgan July 2017 Heritage Planner This survey system imposed a settlement grid system on the land that persists to this day. The resulting 200 acre Township lots, including those lots fronting on Yonge Street, were rectangular in shape. The subject lands are identified relative to this grid system as part of the east half of Lots 81, Concession 1 WYS (West Yonge Street). Selections from the Registry Office’s abstract index to deeds and mortgages for the development site are contained in Appendix J. 4.1 Development of the Area The Larger Geographic Area and King Township The opening of the area to early settlement was facilitated by the survey of Yonge Street and land in the adjacent townships in 1800 and earlier. Although the subject land is located in an area north of the Oak Ridges moraine, the land was so fertile that it stimulated early settlement. Chapman and Putnam, in their discussion of physiographic regions of southern Ontario, have alluded to this in their discussion of development of the area up to the 1960s. Being associated with well-drained upland soils of drumlinized areas, such as the Bondhead series, and being fairly easily accessible to colonization routes from York, these clay plains were well settled and thoroughly cleared during the first half of the nineteenth century. Little forest cover remains except in the wettest places. Mixed farming was the rule with a dominance of grain in the cropping program. … With the extension of paved roads these areas come with the range of the Toronto milk shed and some of the farms became fluid milk suppliers9. Yonge Street had the dual purpose of developing the adjacent new Townships (King and Whitchurch in this area) and serving as a military road. Initial clearling of parts of Yonge Street was undertaken in 1795 by the Queen’s Rangers. Subsequent clearing and maintenace of Yonge Street would have been the responsibility of adjacent land owners. As a result, the Government’s priority was to accelerate continuous settlement along Yonge Street. Therefore, lands intended as Crown and Clergy Reserves along Yonge Street were dispersed throughout the inner concessions of King and Whitchurch Townships so that settlement along Yonge Street was continuous. Lots bordering the Street were the amongst the earliest granted. As well, settlement duties were shortened to twelve months from the usual two years. In a 1792 proclamation, Figure 4.1, the Governor of Upper Canada, John Graves Simcoe, offered free land grants, subject to settlement conditions, along Yonge Street. 9 Chapman and Putnam, pp 298 – 299. Page 81 of 295 Heritage Impact Assessment Page 16 15356 Yonge Street Town of Aurora, Ontario Wayne Morgan July 2017 Heritage Planner Gillam has disccussed the early settlement of King Township: In 1800, when the township was first surveyed, there were twenty residents. In 1809, according to available recores, the popuation hasw increase to 160 … The first part of the township to be settled was along Yonge Street, subsequently setttlement pushed westward towards Kettleby and Lloydtown. … Settlement had to await the improvement of roads, particularly of Yonge Street. In August 1825, Lewis Rapp advertised in the Gazette and Weekly Register that he had begun to operate a light covered wagon for the accommodation of travellers on a twice –weekly service between York and Holland Landing. In 1828, the Yonge Street stage was initiated, and by 1833 daily serivce was provided. Finally, by the late eitheen-forties, Yonge Street wasmacadamized or stoned as far as Holland Landing. The first permanent settlement in King Township was established in the beginning of the nineteenth century at Armitage, on the west side of Yonge Street, southwest of the town of Newmarket, whose boudnaries have now been expanded to include it.10 10 Gillham, pp. 1 -5. Figure No. 4.2 Yonge Street, looking north to Aurora from Hutchinson’s Hill, near Vandorf Sideroad [Source, McIntyre, 8]. Figure No. 4.1 Yonge Street Proclamation, 1798. Page 82 of 295 Heritage Impact Assessment Page 17 15356 Yonge Street Town of Aurora, Ontario Wayne Morgan July 2017 Heritage Planner Smith’s Canadian Gazetteer describes King Township in 1846 as: An old settled township, and possesses some fine farms; but a portion of the township is hilly and broken, the timber being hemlock intermingled with hardwood. … King is settled by a mixed population, consisting principally of Irish, with a few English, Scotch, Candians and Americans. … There are eight grist and twelve saw mills in the township. Population in 1842, 2625.11 The community of Aurora was not mentioned in Smith’s 1846 gazetteer. On May 16, 1853, Ontario’s first railway, the Ontario, Simcoe and Huron (later Grand Trunk) Railway, connected Aurora, then called Matchell’s Corners, with Toronto. The railway route came north from Toronto through King City and then verred east to Aurora, crossing Yonge Street at Vandorf Sidroad. The station was at Wellington Street, east of Yonge Street. The railway was later extended to Newmarket and then Collingwood. It provided ready access to Toronto for area residents and farm produce and stimulated development in the village of Aurora. 11 Smith, pp. 90 – 91.. Figure No. 4.3 Nathaniel Gamble’s Inn at Armitage, c 1910 [Source: Gilllham, 7.] Figure No. 4.4 The Radial Railway crossing the Grand Trunk Railway near Vandorf Sideroad [Source, Stamp, 25]. Page 83 of 295 Heritage Impact Assessment Page 18 15356 Yonge Street Town of Aurora, Ontario Wayne Morgan July 2017 Heritage Planner In 1899, a second rail line, the Toronto and York Radial Railway (the Metropolitan), was extended through the area on Yonge Street from Richmond Hill to Aurora and north to Newmarket and Lake Simcoe. This provided additional accessibility to the Toronto area for passengers and freight. This rail line passed in front of the subject site on the east side of Yonge Street. Town of Aurora The town of Aurora had its origin as a small cross-roads settlement (Yonge and Wellington Streets) until the arrival of the railway in 1853. The town grew quickly, with new hotels springing up along Wellington Street East near the station and new industries being created by the transportation facilities. In 1859 the Aurora Agricultural Works opened its foundry on Wellington Street West, providing employment for much of Aurora’s populace for over three- quarters of a century. … Other businesses, many associated with the foundry, opened over the next few years. Millers, carriage makers, a rope walk, … a brewery, a cooperage, and potash works were all operating within a few years of the coming of rail transportation. … In 1856 the Mechanics Institute was founded and soon opened a library for the use of the public. Education was organized circa 1822, and about 1840 the first school opened on the west side of Yonge Street. … the Methodist built their new frame church in 1855 … In 1857 a brick school was built on the north side of Figure No. 4.5 Yonge Street in Aurora, looking north, circa 1870. [Source, McIntyre, 14]. [Source: Richmond Hill Public Library] Page 84 of 295 Heritage Impact Assessment Page 19 15356 Yonge Street Town of Aurora, Ontario Wayne Morgan July 2017 Heritage Planner Church Street … The first Anglican church was built in 1846 … The town also boasted a Temperance Hall and a Rising Sun Masonic Hall. In 1863 the village had been growing steadily for a decade, and the decision was made to incorporate to allow the village to elect its own municipal council and separate it from both the township of Whitchurch and King.12 After 1870, progress [in Aurora] was slower as fewer businesses opened up and by 1880 some of the small factories had closed. The population increased at a slow rate during the 1880’s with the census of 1891 establishing the population of Aurora at 1,743. … As it became more difficult to find housing in Toronto, Aurora along with other centres in the Region, experience another period of rapid growth, its population increasing from 5,000 to 11,000 during the 1960s.13 As shown in Figure 4.6, Aurora grew slowly into the 1950s. With the provision of large scale sewerage services, the construction of Highway 404 on the east boundary of Aurora and GO train service, development in Aurora during the last thirty years has accelerated. 12 Whitchurch History Book Committee, pp. 41 - 43. 13 Regional Municipality of York, Historical Development, p. 10. Figure No. 4.6 Historical Development of Aurora to 1971 [Source, Regional Municipality of York, Historical Development, insert]. Subject Site Page 85 of 295 Heritage Impact Assessment Page 20 15356 Yonge Street Town of Aurora, Ontario Wayne Morgan July 2017 Heritage Planner 4.2 The Subject Property Table 4.1 HISTORICAL TIMELINES – Knowles / Readman House, 15356 Yonge St Key Date Historical Event 1794 Yonge Street and adjacent township lots surveyed 1797 Grant of land (210 acres) by Crown to Thomas Phillips 1803 Sale of land (210 acres) to Thomas Hind & then Jacob Hollingshead 1853 Sale of 140 acres from Hollingshead to Robert P. Irwin 1874 Sales of ½ acre on Yonge Street from Irwin to Rachel Butcher ($325) 1906 Sales of ½ acre on Yonge Street from Butcher to James Knowles 1907 Estimated construction of House by James Knowles 1913 Sale of ½ acre on Yonge Street from Knowles to Hugh Wright 1919 Sale of ½ acre on Yonge Street from Wright to W’m J Buchanan 1920 Sale of ½ acre on Yonge Street from Buchanan to John A Readman 1924 John Readman and his wife move from Vaughan to the Aurora House 1951 Sale from Readman estate to Gwendolyn McArthur 1962 Sale from McArthur to W’m & Mabel Dakin 1972 Sale from Dakin to Richard & Marg Holder 1981 Sale from Holder to numbered Ontario company In 1797, the patent for all 210 acres of Lot 81 was conveyed by the Crown to Thomas Phillips14. Little information could be found about Phillips. In acquiring the patent to the land he would have had to have fulfilled, or have someone fulfill the settlement duties (Figure 4.1), which included constructing a dwelling measuring at least 16 feet by 20 feet. In 1803 Phillips conveyed ownership of Lot 81 by deed poll to Thomas Hind, an owner of a large amount of land in the area15. Hind immediately conveyed ownership of all 210 acres to Jacob Hollingshead16. Hollingshead (1776 – 1845), an American immigrant who was married to Mary Haines, was listed in the 1809 King Township roll of inhabitants as having 4 male and 3 female children. Over the succeeding years Hollingshead, in addition to being a farmer, was listed as an assessor and then overseer of roads. Both Walton’s 1837 Directory and Brown’s 1846 – 47 Directory list Hollingshead living on the subject property. 14 Land Records, York Region, Lot 13, Plan No. 246, Aurora, Patent. 15 Land Records, York Region, Lot 13, Plan No. 246, Aurora, Instru ment No. 337. 16 Ibid, Instrument No. 339. Page 86 of 295 Heritage Impact Assessment Page 21 15356 Yonge Street Town of Aurora, Ontario Wayne Morgan July 2017 Heritage Planner With the death of Jacob Hollingshead in 1845, the farm was leased to others17. In 1853, the estate of Jacob Hollingshead sold 140 acres of the original 210 acres to Robert P. Irwin18, a miller. Tremaine’s 1860 York County map (Appendix C) shows Irwin owning the 140 acres. Although some buildings are shown on the Yonge Street portion of the property, Tremaine was not consistent in depicting houses on his maps. The 1861 Census does not show Robert Irwin living on Lot 81 Concession 1 WYS or elsewhere in King Township. In 1863, part of Lot 81, Concession 1 WYS, including the subject property, was incorporated into the Village of Aurora. In 1874, from his 140 acre property, Robert Irwin sold a one half acre lot fronting on Yonge Street, the subject property, to Rachel Butcher19. The price for the lot was only $325 suggesting that, despite houses built on adjacent lots, the subject property was vacant. The 1878 map of Aurora (Appendix C) does not show any development on the property, although it only depicts non-residential structures. In 1906, Rachel Butcher sold the subject property to James Knowles20. The sale price, $425, suggests the subject property was still vacant. James Albert Knowles was born in Aurora in September 186721 to George and Sarah Knowles. On November 28, 1888 James married Annie McKinnon of Markham. They had one son, Albert Edward Knowles, born in 1901. They were members of the Methodist, later United, Church of Aurora. In the 1911 Census he was identified as a mason, although, in other sources, he was listed as a builder and a furniture and clock maker. He has been identified as a builder of houses in Aurora and probably built the Knowles / Readman House. The name of Aurora builder James Knowles is linked to many of these sturdy houses which may be found not only on Wellington Street, but on Catherine Avenue, Fleury Street, Wells Street, Kennedy Street West and here and there in other parts of town as well.22 Knowles served on the Aurora municipal council from 1922 to 1939 as a councillor and reeve. He died on April 22, 1949 and is buried with his wife in the Aurora cemetery. His obituary from the Newmarket Era and Express is reproduced in Figure 4.7. 17 1851 Census of Canada (agriculture), King Township, Schedule A, EA No.2, p. 207, line 45. 18 Land Records, York Region, Lot 13, Plan No. 246, Aurora, Instrument No. 50729. 19 Ibid, Instrument No. 597. 20 Ibid, Instrument No. 3578. 21 According to the 1911 Census. His tombstone lists the birth date as September 27, 1866. 22 McIntyre, 39. Page 87 of 295 Heritage Impact Assessment Page 22 15356 Yonge Street Town of Aurora, Ontario Wayne Morgan July 2017 Heritage Planner The Knowles / Readman House was probably constructed in 1907. Building permits records from this era do not exist and the Aurora Banner did not report construction of the House. However, the September 20, 1907 edition of the Banner reported: Mr. Robert Bret who recently purchased Mr. James Knowles residence on Yonge Street is having the residence brickclad besides several other improvements to the property. This suggests that James Knowles’ new house at 15356 Yonge Street had been finished and he had moved from his old house, also on Yonge Street, into his new house. The 1910 Aurora Assessment Roll values the subject property as $300 and the building as $1,500. No earlier Assessment Rolls were found. The 1904 Fire Insurance Plan was revised in 1913 and includes a depiction of the House (Appendix C – 1913). The 1911 Census lists James A. Knowles living in a residence on Yonge Street immediately following the entry for Charles Figure No. 4.7 Obituary - James Albert Knowles [Source: Newmarket Era and Express, April 28, 1949.] Figure No. 4.8 The Knowles / Readman House, c1920 [Source: Aurora Heritage Committee] Page 88 of 295 Heritage Impact Assessment Page 23 15356 Yonge Street Town of Aurora, Ontario Wayne Morgan July 2017 Heritage Planner Webster who owned Horton Hall23. Finally, the front porch of the House appears in a 1913 photograph of the Aurora Tennis Club taken from Hillary House (Appendix I) In 1913, Knowles sold the subject property to Hugh W. Wright for $3,895.24 Wright was also a mason. In 1919, Wright sold the property to William J. Buchanan25, who in 1920, sold it to John W. Readman26, a farmer from Vaughan Township. Readman (1861 to 1934) was married to Catherine Hall (1864 to 1950). They had one son who died when just a child. They adopted two boys, Louis and William Marwood. Although Readman acquired the property in 1920, he did not move to Aurora until he retired from his Vaughan farm in 192427. In the interim the property was leased to others. Although he died in 1934 and is buried in the King City cemetery, the property continued to be owned by his estate and was the residence of his wife until her death in 1950. The 1927 Fire insurance plan of the property (Appendix C – 1927) shows no change in the footprint of the house following purchase and occupation by the Readmans. The 1929 topographic (Appendix C) shows the Knowles / Readman House as part of in a row of four houses on the west side of Yonge Street north of Irwin Avenue. In 1933 the Town of Aurora engaged the surveyors W. S. Gibson and Son to prepare a land survey of part of the Town. The survey was registered as Plan 246 and the subject property, excluding parts to the north and south, was identified as Lot 13 (Appendix A). A 1946 aerial photograph of the property (Appendix D) shows the House and property within that context. The Yonge Street frontage of the properties north of Irwin Avenue on the west 23 1911 Census of Canada, Aurora, Schedule 1, Enumeration Area – North Ward, page 39. 24 Land Records, York Region, Lot 13, Plan No. 24 6, Aurora, Instrument No. 4784. 25 Ibid, Instrument No. 4787. 26 Ibid, Instrument No. 5721. 27 Letter, Aurora Archives, Readman family file; obituary Catherine Readman, Aurora Banner, November 30, 1950. Figure No. 4.9 John W. and Catherine Readman Date unknown [Source: Brydon website.] Page 89 of 295 Heritage Impact Assessment Page 24 15356 Yonge Street Town of Aurora, Ontario Wayne Morgan July 2017 Heritage Planner side of Yonge Street was heavily forested while the rear of those properties generally lacked trees, although the rear of the subject property had trees. Although the aerial photo lacks clarity when enlarged to show fine grained details on the subject property, the House, front walkway, garage, large trees and plantings defining the boundary are discernable. Much of the rear of the property was open, possibly being used as a vegetable garden. In 1950 Catherine Readman died and ownership of the property was transferred to Gwendolyn McArthur28. McArthur held the property until 1962 when she sold it to William and Mary Dakin29. A 1970 aerial photograph shows that the one storey tail wing had been altered creating a tail wing that extended across almost the full width of the House30. The Dakins held the property for ten years, selling it to Richard and Marg Holder in 197231. A 1978 aerial photograph of the property (Appendix D) shows little change since 1946 except that the rear portion of the property appears to be grassed and not used as a garden. In 1981, the Holders sold the property to a numbered Ontario company32. In 1982 the Aurora Heritage Committee prepared a heritage property report on 15356 Yonge Street when it was noted that the House had been divided into two several residential units. Between 2005 and 2009 the garage was demolished. A 2015 aerial photograph (Appendix D) shows little change since the 1978 aerial photograph except for the previously noted demolition of the garage. As of the June 22 2016 site visit, the House was vacant and boarded up. 28 Land Records, York Region, Lot 13, Plan 246, Aurora, Instrument No 10584. 29 Ibid, Instrument No. 56572A. 30 https://ww6.yorkmaps.ca 31 Land Records, York Region, Lot 13, Plan 246, Aurora, Instrument No. 126079. 32 Ibid, Instrument No. 275212. Page 90 of 295 Heritage Impact Assessment Page 25 15356 Yonge Street Town of Aurora, Ontario Wayne Morgan July 2017 Heritage Planner 5.0 BUILT AND LANDSCAPE RESOURCE DESCRIPTIONS In June and July 2016, on-site surveys were conducted to examine and photograph all built and landscape resources on the subject property. The resources of this property are documented in photographs and sketch plans in: - Appendix E –House Exterior Photographs; - Appendix F - House Floor Plan Sketches; - Appendix G –House Interior Photographs; and - Appendix H - Landscape Photographs. Dimensions for the House were done on-site using imperial measurements which are con- temporary to its construction. The measuring stick in the photographs is scaled in one foot intervals. 5.1. Knowles / Readman House Exterior Dating the House –1907. The construction date for the House was evident based on visual and documentary information, the latter as detailed in section 4 of this report. However, information on the designer and builder of the House could not be found. Given that Knowles was a prominent Aurora house builder, it is likely he constructed this House. The historic photographs of the House, the oldest of which appear to date from the 1920s (Appendix I), provide a record of the evolution of the front of the House through time (as illustrated in Figure 5.1). Figure 5.1 Knowles / Readman House East Elevation circa 1982. Page 91 of 295 Heritage Impact Assessment Page 26 15356 Yonge Street Town of Aurora, Ontario Wayne Morgan July 2017 Heritage Planner Overview - The House, which faces east, is setback slightly above the Yonge Street grade approximately 8.14 metres (26.7 feet) from the west edge of the Yonge Street sidewalk. The House is a single detached, two and one-half storey, solid brick structure. The plan of the House is essentially rectangular, although a projection towards the rear of the north side gives a slight ‘L’ shape to the plan. The House has a wood clad, two storey tail wing. The brick part of the House rests on a poured concrete and concrete block foundation with the poured concrete below grade and the rock-faced blocks above grade. The tail wing appears to rest on poured concrete, although the exterior is parged and decorated to resemble blocks. The bricks, which measure 8½“x 23/8 “, are laid in stretcher bond. On all elevations, except most of the rear or west, the bricks are dark red; the rear bricks are gray. The tail wing is a clad in horizontal clapboard siding. The main section of the House is capped by a medium pitched, asphalt shingle clad, hip roof that projects beyond the walls of the structure. Two smaller gable roofs are on the front porch and the north projection. On the south side of the roof there is an off-centre, gable roofed dormer window. The broad, unadorned soffits are clad in modern synthetic materials. Below the soffits, there is a plain, narrow wood frieze. There is no evidence of brackets either currently or in historic photographs. The gable ends of the roof are clad in wood shingles and a decorative treatment in the gable peak. The north gable has a pair of small windows below the decorative treatment. The tail wing is capped by an asphalt shingle clad shed roof. Two red brick chimney stacks project above the roof; one on the south side west of the dormer window and the other at the rear of the brick section of the House. The typical window opening is rectangular with a flat head. The openings have flat concrete lintels and lug sills, the facing edges of which are moulded imitating sawn stone. Most window openings have been boarded. The front windows have had two sashes – a narrow upper sash above a much larger single glazed lower sash. A smaller window opening on the south elevation still contains its one over one sash (Appendix G – 13). Figure 5.2 Knowles / Readman House East and North Elevations 2016. Page 92 of 295 Heritage Impact Assessment Page 27 15356 Yonge Street Town of Aurora, Ontario Wayne Morgan July 2017 Heritage Planner East Elevation – This is the principal or front elevation of the House. It is a two bay façade, with a north door and south window on both the ground and upper floors. The door openings have concrete lintels, similar to those over the windows, wood thresholds and plain wood surrounds with moulded edges. The ground floor door is solid wood with three sections - an upper, four paned glazed section; a middle consisting of a line of three small square panels; and a lower with one large rectangular panel. The upper floor door opening contains a modern door. The prominent feature of this elevation is the two storey porch capped by a gable roof. The porch is supported by tapered, square, paneled posts resting on square, paneled concrete piers. On the upper floor the posts are supported by wood piers. Originally there was a triple set of posts and piers on the outer corners (Appendix I – c 1920 photographs) of both levels of the porch. The balustrade has carved balusters. On the upper floor, the balustrade encloses the porch, while on the lower floor, it is limited to the north and south sides. The rock-faced concrete block porch foundation is identical to the House foundation. This elevation contains a side entrance on the north side of the House. The side door is a simpler paneled version of the front door, although the large upper panel is glazed. There is a small porch for this entrance, although the balustrade and porch post are missing. North Elevation – Excluding the front porch, this elevation has three sections – the east brick section, the centre projecting section and the tail wing. The ground floor of the east section has a small rectangular window above a basement window and the porch roof for the side entrance. The centre section contains three centrally placed and aligned windows, one on each of the basement, ground and upper floors. The upper floor of this section has a modern door opening on the east side that opens onto a modern metal fire escape that extends onto the tail wing. All window openings on the east and centre sections have typical concrete lintels and sills. The tail wing has a ground floor window and a basement door towards the west end. The ground and upper floors of the tail wing are divided by a projecting band. West Elevation – This elevation contains the rear elevation of the tail wing and a small part of the brick section of the House. The tail wing, which is much larger than the original construction, has four rectangular window openings, two on the ground floor and two on the upper floor. The north ground floor window opening is a large glass sliding door. The brick section has a ground floor window opening which, based on evidence on the interior, has been reduced in size. South Elevation – This elevation, excluding the front porch, has two sections - the brick part of the House and the tail wing. The brick part has five windows – three aligned towards the west end of this section on the basement and ground and upper floors; another basement window towards the front and the dormer window on the roof. All window openings, except the dormer, have typical concrete lintels and sills. A former window opening above the front basement window has been infilled with brick. The tail wing has only one window opening – in the basement. Page 93 of 295 Heritage Impact Assessment Page 28 15356 Yonge Street Town of Aurora, Ontario Wayne Morgan July 2017 Heritage Planner Although over the years, the House has experienced a few exterior modifications, which are listed below, the structure, when viewed from the street, is largely as originally constructed. The exterior modifications include: - loss of porch posts and piers – four on the front porch and one on the side porch; - loss of the north, ground floor balustrade on the front and side porches; - replacement of a door on the upper floor of the east elevation with a modern door; - addition of the upper floor door on the north elevation; - addition of the metal fire escape on the north elevation; - enlargement of the tail wing including addition of an upper floor; - alteration of the window opening on the west elevation of the brick part of the House; - infilling of a window opening on the south elevation; and - the possible addition of the dormer window on the roof. The architectural style of this House is a vernacular variation of ‘Edwardian Classicism’ (1900 – 1930): The simplified but formal composition of the Edwardian house with an emphasis on Classical motifs was indicative of the new direction architecture was to take in the twentieth century. In contrast to the highly colouristic, complicated and often eclectic compositions of the late nineteenth century, Edwardian Classicism, through its balanced facades, simplified but large roofs, smooth brick surfaces and generous fenestration, restored simplicity and order to domestic architecture. … Generally, the Edwardian façade is highlighted by a frontispiece or portico imaginatively derived from Classical tradition set against a monochromatic smooth exterior brick finish. Tall chimneys are not decorated with enriched terra- cotta panels. Spindles and carved brackets of verandas are minimalized in favour of short colonettes and brick piers. Dormers remained popular, but their profile reflected the simplified shape of the main roof and gone are the profusion of finials and cresting from the ridges. The extended roof eaves are supported not by carved or turned brackets but by plain elongated blocks or cantilevered brackets similar to those used in the Regency and Italian Villa styles. Flat arches made with bricks standing on end or massive but plain stone lintels span apertures. At times, oversized, Classically inspired elements, such as keystone and voussoirs, accentuate window and door surrounds. Contrasting stone trim or dressings may also be used for watertable and string courses. Rather than wood panels, the entrance door often is a full-length panel of clear glass having beveled or cut pattern. When stained glass is employed, the designs are simpler and the colours lighter than Victorian examples.33 Another source on Ontario architectural styles describes Edwardian Classicism as: Edwardian 1900-1920 Simple, classical, balanced Edwardian style is a precursor to the simplified styles of the 20th century 33 Blumenson, p 166. Page 94 of 295 Heritage Impact Assessment Page 29 15356 Yonge Street Town of Aurora, Ontario Wayne Morgan July 2017 Heritage Planner Form: Straight lines, square or rectangular Storeys: 2+ Façade: Usually smooth brick with multiple windows Roof: Flat in public and apartment buildings, hip and gable in residences, heavy cornices Windows: Sash, paned, usually 1-over-1, plain stone lintels. Key stones and voussoirs on large buildings Entrance: Usually with classic detailing, keystones, door in portico or veranda34 This source also references the American ‘Four Square’ type of house within this style. The Knowles / Redman House has most of the characteristics referenced in the architectural style sources cited above although it does have some variations including the lack of brackets supporting the eaves and the use of concrete, rather than brick, lintels. In addition, as will be shown in the interior examination of the House, it is a ‘Four Square’ house. 5.2 Knowles / Readman House Interior Although most interior finishes have been stripped, room partitions and enough decorative wood elements remain to inform the original layout and interior design of the House. Ground Floor - Originally this floor consisted of four rooms of similar size (the ‘Four Square’ plan) plus the tail wing. Room 1 contains the hall and staircase. Much of the staircase remains although part of the newel post, railing and all spinals, except one, have 34 HPI Nomination Team, 18. Figure 5.3 Edwardian Classicism – Kingston example [Source: Blumenson, 167] Page 95 of 295 Heritage Impact Assessment Page 30 15356 Yonge Street Town of Aurora, Ontario Wayne Morgan July 2017 Heritage Planner been removed. The staircase window casing remains intact, but is different from casings elsewhere on the floor. Some of the front door casing remains; the base blocks of which are identical to those remaining in Room 2 suggesting the casing is original. Room 2, the parlour, retains baseboards identical to those in the hall. The exposed bricks on the south wall of Room 2 indicate removal of an earlier window. Between Rooms 2 and 3, two paneled pocket doors remain within wall partitions; the upper two panels were once glazed. Room 3, the dining room, contains baseboards identical to Rooms 1 and 2. The plain window casings remaining in this Room are the same as the front door, supporting the originality of both. Room 3 contains remains of a fireplace on the west wall; the mantel is not extant. In Room 4, the kitchen, there is little original material, other than wall partitions. A plugged stove pipe hole in the west wall supports the kitchen use. Room 4 was later partitioned to provide a bathroom. Room 5, the original one storey tail wing used as a pantry retains remains of a stove pipe on the west wall. The original tail wing cladding, wood ship-lap siding, appears in the north wall of Room 6, which a later addition. It is possible that ground floor mouldings of the House are a variation of those shown in Figure 5.4 with the addition of corner blocks at the base of all door casings and a different profile on the top part of the baseboard. The upper floor room configuration in the brick part of the House consists of 4 rooms, including a bathroom, although, unlike the ground floor, the rooms differ substantially in dimensions. Only Room 8 retains its original baseboards, which are shorter than the ground floor baseboards, suggesting that the other rooms may have been repartitioned from the original layout. The one room in the tail wing contains evidence of the gable roof of the original one storey tail wing. The east wall of Room 11, which was originally an exterior wall, also shows that most of the bricks on the west elevation were gray rather than red. Figure 5.4 York County Mouldings – 1910s – 1920s [Source: Duncan, 159] Page 96 of 295 Heritage Impact Assessment Page 31 15356 Yonge Street Town of Aurora, Ontario Wayne Morgan July 2017 Heritage Planner The attic room partitions are relatively recent and therefore were not documented. The roof framing is relatively simple with rafters nailed into a centre ridge board and collar-beams nailed to the rafters. The basement consists of three rooms in the brick part of the House and one in the tail wing. The foundation walls visible in the basement (Appendix G – Basement – 1 & 10) show the construction with the lower part being poured concrete and the upper part concrete block with a parged finish. The basement floor is poured concrete. The east wall of Room 15 contains the poured concrete base for the ground floor fire place. 5.3 Landscape Resources: There are four distinct landscape elements to the property illustrated in Figure 5.6, below and Appendix H: o Front Yard, including the lawn, walkway and driveway; o House; o Rear Yard; and o Back Yard to the rear lot line. Figure 5.5 Landscape Elements in 2015 of the Knowles / Readman property [Source: York Maps] Front yard Rear yard House Back yard Page 97 of 295 Heritage Impact Assessment Page 32 15356 Yonge Street Town of Aurora, Ontario Wayne Morgan July 2017 Heritage Planner Front Yard - The small Front Yard consists of a lawn, a concrete walkway between the front steps and the Yonge Street sidewalk, two Norway maples on either side of the walkway, the driveway, a line of overgrown cedar trees on the south property line, trees on the north property line, foundation plantings and concrete retaining walls on the Yonge Street frontage and along the south limit of the driveway. The retaining wall is necessary because the lawn is at a higher elevation than Yonge Street and the driveway is lower – at the Yonge Street elevation. Historic photographs of the front yard (Appendix I) show that:  there were no trees immediately in front of the House until the 1970s,  the cedars on the south property line were much lower, providing a visual connection between Horton Place and this House;  the foundation plantings were modest and are currently overgrown  there were posts on either side of the walkway at Yonge Street but no fencing along the Yonge Street frontage. House Area - This area includes the House, the driveway, walkways above the retaining wall, the concrete retaining wall between the House and driveway, trees along the north boundary and a small grassed side yard with overgrown cedar trees along the south boundary. The cast iron fencing on the retaining wall top next to the driveway appears in photographs only starting in 1982 suggesting that it is not original to the property. Rear Yard – This area, immediately to the rear of the House consists of trees on the north boundary, a lawn, driveway, site of the garage (now demolished) and a rubble stone retaining wall. The retaining wall provides for a relatively level surface adjacent to the House while dealing with the drop in grade to the rear of the House. Back Yard – This area consists of trees and shrubs along the north and south boundaries and an extensive grassed area. There is no evidence in the aerial photographs of a formal planting of gardens and trees, other than the boundary trees, in this area, although part of its may have been used as a vegetable garden for a period of time. The portion of the subject property south of the original property for 15356 Yonge Street and to the rear of the Horton Place (15342 Yonge Street) property is primarily wooded. Page 98 of 295 Heritage Impact Assessment Page 33 15356 Yonge Street Town of Aurora, Ontario Wayne Morgan July 2017 Heritage Planner 6.0 HERITAGE EVALUATION OF THE RESOURCES 6.1 Introduction Criteria for determining cultural heritage value or interest of a property are specified in Ontario Regulation 9/06 made under the Ontario Heritage Act (Appendix K). The criteria, which are intended to assist municipalities in evaluating properties for designation, are grouped into three broad categories – design or physical value, historical or associative value and contextual value. A property has to meet only one of the criteria to warrant designation. Additional criteria specific to Aurora have not been adopted by Town Council; therefore the provincial criteria were used in this evaluation. The criteria are insufficient in an impact assessment to determine the merits of heritage resource conservation. Other factors that should be considered include the resource condition – that is the extent of deterioration in the attributes and fabric of a resource – and its heritage integrity – that is the extent to which significant heritage attributes (character defining features) remain in place. 6.2 Application of Provincial Criteria In this report, the application of provincial criteria, in addition to consideration of condition and heritage integrity, are based on a thorough examination of the subject property. They have been applied to the House and its landscape. Table 6.1 summarizes the evaluation. 6.2.1 House Design or Physical Value: i. Example of a style, type, expression, material or construction The Knowles / Readman House is a representative and relatively early example of its architectural style and use of poured concrete, although it is not a rare or unique example this style, type, expression, material or construction method. The architectural style of the House – a vernacular example of the ‘Four Square’ subset of Edwardian Classicism - was common in the first quarter of 20th century in Ontario. Examples survive in Aurora and the Heritage District. Therefore this House is not a rare or unique example of the style. However it is a representative example incorporating many features of the style such as smooth monochromatic brick wall surfaces, a hip roof with extended eaves, tall unadorned chimneys, 1 over 1 window sash, flat arched window and door openings with plain lintels made of concrete imitating stone, entrance in a portico (porch), porch colonettes on concrete piers and contrasting concrete block imitating stone for the watertable. Page 99 of 295 Heritage Impact Assessment Page 34 15356 Yonge Street Town of Aurora, Ontario Wayne Morgan July 2017 Heritage Planner Table 6.1 Application of Heritage Criteria to the Resources of the Knowles / Readman Property, 15356 Yonge Street, Aurora Criteria Resource Knowles / Readman House Landscape Design or Physical Value i. Rare, unique, representative or early example of a style, type, expression, material or construction method. Yes No ii. Displays a high degree of craftsmanship or artistic merit. No No iii. Demonstrates a high technical or scientific achievement No No Historical or Associative Value i. Has direct association with a theme, event, belief, person, activity, organization or institution of community significance Yes No ii. Yields, or has the potential to yield, information that contributes to an understanding of a community or culture No No iii. Demonstrates or reflects the work or ideas of an architect, artist, builder, designer or theorist significant to a community Yes No Contextual Value i. Is important in defining, maintaining, or supporting the area character. Yes Yes ii. Is physically, functionally, visually or historically linked to its surroundings. Yes Yes iii. Is a landmark * No Condition / Heritage Integrity 3 i. Significant condition problems - No N/A i. Integrity – retains much of its original built heritage character - Yes – High (exterior) N/A N/A – Not Applicable; * - Marginal This architectural style existed from roughly 1900 to 193035. The House dates from 1907, relatively early in the period when it was popular. Brick, used extensively in Ontario since the early 19th century, is the predominant material used in the construction of the House walls. However the use of poured concrete in the foundation was relatively new at the time of construction36. This House is an early example of this material in residential construction in Ontario. 35 Blumenson 37 – 51. 36 McIlwraith, 96 – 99. Page 100 of 295 Heritage Impact Assessment Page 35 15356 Yonge Street Town of Aurora, Ontario Wayne Morgan July 2017 Heritage Planner ii Craftsmanship or Artistic Merit The House, on both the exterior and interior, does not display a high degree of craftsmanship or artistic merit. The exterior of the House does not display exceptional craftsmanship or artistic merit. It is an example of well-built House that any competent builder should construct, although its execution is not exceptional. iii. Technical or Scientific Achievement The House does not demonstrate high technical or scientific achievement. There is nothing about the exterior or interior of the House that exhibits high technical or scientific achievement. Historical or Associative Value: i. The House is associated with a theme and person of community significance. No event, belief, activity, organization or institution significant to the community could be identified in association with the House or property. However, the House is associated a theme – the transition of architecture styles in the area from the complicated mid and late Victorian tradition to the much simpler designs of the 20th century. The positioning of the House between a mid-Victorian house (Hillary House) and a late-Victorian house (Horton Place) reinforces the Knowles / Readman House’s association with this theme. The House was built in 1907 for James Albert Knowles and his family. Knowles was a prominent Aurora house builder who constructed many houses during this period. Knowles also served the community on the Aurora municipal council for seventeen years as a councillor and then reeve. . ii. Potential to yield information that contributes to an understanding of the community or culture The House does not have the potential to yield information that contributes to an understanding of the community or culture. The House does not have the potential to yield any additional information about the community and the culture of the period that isn’t documented in this report. Page 101 of 295 Heritage Impact Assessment Page 36 15356 Yonge Street Town of Aurora, Ontario Wayne Morgan July 2017 Heritage Planner iii. Association with an architect, artist, builder, designer or theorist significant to a community The House is associated with a builder significant to the Aurora. Although no architect, artist, designer or theorist could be identified for the House, its likely builder, James Knowles, was a prominent Aurora area house builder. Contextual Value i. Importance in defining, maintaining or supporting the area character The House is important in defining, maintaining or supporting the area character. The House is visible from the street and centred in a group of three residential structures with expansive front yards that define the area character. Its removal would adversely affect the area streetscape; therefore it meets this criteria. ii. Physically, functionally, visually or historically linked to its surroundings The House is physically, functionally, visually and historically linked to its surroundings. The House has important linkage characteristics to its surroundings. It has existed on this site since 1907 and is the first building constructed on the property since the lot was created in 1874. It is visually, part of a line of three prominent houses with expansive front yards. It contributes to the original residential function of the area and defined the original northern limit of Aurora urban area. iii. Landmark The House has marginal value as a landmark. Although the House does not terminate a view or vista nor does is serve as a reference point in the landscape, it has considerable visual presence on this part of Yonge Street, providing a prominent visual contrast with the adjacent to Victorian residences. For this reasons it is evaluated as having marginal landmark value. Condition / Heritage Integrity i. Condition Overall, the Knowles / Readman House is in good condition. The brick walls appear to be plumb, exhibiting no bowing or failure. The roof is intact and shows Page 102 of 295 Heritage Impact Assessment Page 37 15356 Yonge Street Town of Aurora, Ontario Wayne Morgan July 2017 Heritage Planner no signs of bowing or water leakage. The foundation is generally sound and the basement dry. However, there are some minor, repairable condition issues that do not detract from the conclusion that the House should be conserved. These minor condition issues include:  Water damage on the south side: Due to the exterior grade sloping to the House, water is draining into the south side of the building (Room 15 – south wall – photo 6) causing deterioration in the foundation.  Heaving of part of the basement floor: Parts of the concrete basement floor have cracked and heaved in Room 13 (photo 1).  Cracks in the brick walls: A crack in the brick work of the south wall extends from the basement window to the upper floor window. The crack may be stable or may be related to the on-going water damage discussed above. There is also a crack on the west brick wall above the fire escape.  Soffit deterioration: On the south elevation below the chimney and dormer window, part of the soffit is missing (visible in the photo of the west and south elevations, Appendix E).  Deterioration in the tail wing siding: Some of the siding on the upper floor of the tail wing, south and north elevations has fallen off or is in the process of falling off.  Mortar failure of the side porch concrete blocks: There is a loss of mortar between concrete blocks of the side porch foundation. As a result some of the blocks have shifted.  Loss of window glazing. There is extensive loss of window glazing.  Loss of porch balustrades and post. Some of the balustrade from the front and side porches is missing as is the corner post of the side porch. ii. Heritage Integrity The Knowles / Readman House has a moderately high level of heritage integrity on the exterior and a low level on the interior. a. Exterior Based on documentary evidence, much of the exterior of the House, excluding the tail wing, is intact from its original date of construction. The following alterations are noted:  Loss of porch posts. Originally the front porch, on both the ground and upper floors, had three corner posts. Only one of each three remains. The side porch had a single post which is missing although the pier for the post is on the ground. The remaining porch posts provide a template for any replacements.  Loss of and alteration to porch balustrade. When some of the porch posts were removed, the porch balustrades were lengthened. It cannot Page 103 of 295 Heritage Impact Assessment Page 38 15356 Yonge Street Town of Aurora, Ontario Wayne Morgan July 2017 Heritage Planner be determined whether the balusters on the ‘new’ balustrades are the same design as the originals. Several of the balustrades (front porch – ground floor, north side; side porch – north side) are missing.  Removal of south wall window. A ground floor window opening on the south wall of Room 2 has been bricked in. (Photo 8, Appendix G, Ground Floor and South elevation, Appendix E). Judging by the infill area, it was infilled early in the history of the House.  Loss of one chimney. The chimney from the original kitchen has been removed. It is visible in one of the c1920 photographs (Appendix I).  Modern upper floor front door. The upper floor front door, which opens onto the porch, was similar to the ground floor front door (1982 photograph, Appendix I). It has been replaced with a modern door.  Addition of dormer window. Based on the c1920 photographs, the dormer window is a later addition.  Enlargement of the tail wing. The former small, one storey tail wing was enlarged to extend across almost all of the west elevation and to include a second storey. Evidence of the original roof line and cladding remain on the interior b. Interior The interior has a low level of heritage integrity with all of the wall and ceiling finishes and most interior doors having been removed. However a sufficient number of door and window casings and baseboards remain to provide some indication of the character of the interior as originally constructed. 6.2.1 Landscape The front yard and side yards, while not a designed landscape, are important as a green space that permits views of the House from Yonge Street. These yards also strongly relate to the green spaces on the adjacent heritage properties to the north and south. This front and side yard condition, while currently overgrown, is a reminder the area’s early, large lot residential character. The rest of the landscape, immediately to the rear of the House and in the rear yard, does not have significant cultural heritage value. It does not appear to be a designed landscape of any significance and is not important in understanding or appreciating the House. 6.3 Overall Evaluation Summary It was determined through the application of Provincial criteria and consideration of heritage integrity and building condition that the Knowles / Readman House, together with its front and side yards, warrants conservation under the Ontario Heritage Act. Page 104 of 295 Heritage Impact Assessment Page 39 15356 Yonge Street Town of Aurora, Ontario Wayne Morgan July 2017 Heritage Planner 6.4 Statement of Cultural Heritage Values and Heritage Attributes Description The property at 15356 Yonge Street warrants conservation under the Ontario Heritage Act for its cultural heritage value, and meets the criteria for municipal designation prescribed by the Province of Ontario under the three categories of design, association and contextual values. Located on the west side of Yonge Street north of Irwin Avenue, the Knowles / Readman House (1907) is a 2 ½ storey house form building. Statement of Cultural Heritage Value The Knowles / Readman House is a well preserved, representative example of a ‘Four Square’, Edwardian Classicism style house form building in the Northeast Old Aurora Heritage Conservation District. It was constructed for the prominent Aurora builder and municipal politician, James Albert Knowles. The House was likely built by James Knowles. Still in its original location facing east onto Yonge Street, the House retains much of its original exterior architectural detailing. The House, together with its front and side yards, contributes to the streetscape of this part of Yonge Street and illustrates the evolution of architectural styles from the flanking Victorian houses to the much simpler detailing of an early twentieth century House. James Knowles and family lived in the House until 1913. It was later the residence of the Readman family, a former Vaughan farm family that lived in the House from 1924 until 1950. Heritage Attributes The heritage attributes of the property at 15356 Yonge Street are:  The 2 ½–storey house form building  The scale, form, height and massing on a rectangular-shaped lot  The rock-faced concrete blocks above the poured concrete foundation, the moulded concrete lintels above all openings and the moulded concrete lug window sills.  The red brick walls on the front (east) and side (north and south) elevations  Window openings on the ground and upper floors of the front and side elevations containing one over one window sashes  The front and side entrances with their paneled wood doors and the upper floor east door opening  The two storey porch with its gable roof; square, paneled wood porch posts on paneled concrete piers (ground floor) and wood piers (upper floor); balustrade with carved balusters and the rock-faced concrete block foundation  The medium pitched, asphalt clad hip roof with projecting eves, plain soffits and narrow wood frieze; the two smaller gable roofs with their wood shingle siding and decorative trim over the porch and on the north elevation; the latter gable includes a pair of small attic windows Page 105 of 295 Heritage Impact Assessment Page 40 15356 Yonge Street Town of Aurora, Ontario Wayne Morgan July 2017 Heritage Planner  The dormer window on the south elevation  The two red brick chimneys  The placement of the house form building on the lot  The front yard with its green space in front of the House and walkway to Yonge Street and the north and south side yards  On the interior, the staircase and remaining door and window casings and baseboards The two storey tail wing is not a heritage attribute. 6.5 Cultural Heritage Values of Adjacent/Nearby Heritage Properties The cultural heritage values of these properties are specified in Appendix L and summarized in Table 6.2, below. Table 6.2 Cultural Heritage Values of Adjacent Heritage Properties No. Street Address Cultural Heritage Values 1 15342 Yonge Street (Horton Place) House & relationship to Yonge Street including fence – Heritage attributes (character defining heritage elements) listed in Appendix L. 2 15347 Yonge Street (Our Lady of Grace Roman Catholic Church) Non-heritage building – no heritage value; potential enlargement of the existing building or redevelopment of the property governed by the HCD Plan. 3 15372 Yonge Street (Hillary House) House, ancillary buildings, fencing and layout on site including trees, bushes and old creek bed– Heritage attributes (character defining heritage elements) listed in Appendix L. Page 106 of 295 Heritage Impact Assessment Page 41 15356 Yonge Street Town of Aurora, Ontario Wayne Morgan July 2017 Heritage Planner 7.0 DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL 7.1 Description of the Development Proposal The applicant, 2578461 Ontario Inc., has prepared drawings for the proposed development of 15356 Yonge Street which are included in Appendix N and Figures 7.1 and 7.2. The proposal is to construct a five storey residential structure as shown in Figures 7.1 and 7.2 and retain, restore and integrate the Knowles / Readham House, except for its tail wing, into the development. The front and south side yards adjacent to the House will be retained as green space as will some of the rear of the property which is in the flood plain. The new building will be setback approximately 1.9 metres (6.2 feet) from the north property line with the Hillary House property, west of the driveway into the building. Vehicle access to the property will be from a northern expansion of the existing driveway at Yonge Street. The driveway will be shared with the Hillary House to the north. Vehicle parking will be accessed by ramps internal to the new building. The Knowles / Readman House will be treated as a separate building with one residential unit, although vehicle parking for the House will be in the underground parking garage in the new building. Table 7.1 provides an overview of the site statistics for the proposed development. Table 7.1 Site Statistics Site Area 2,556 m2 Total Gross Floor Area 3,914.36 m2 42,134.17 sq ft Unit Count 38 including 1 in existing house 1 Bedroom & den 8 2 Bedroom 10 2 Bedroom + den 17 3 Bedroom 3 Parking 40 resident 3 visitor Bike Storage 22 The new building, including balconies and canopy, will be set back between 13.5 metres (44.3 feet) and 20 metres (65.6 feet) from the Knowles / Readman House. The materials for the new building are shown in Figure 7.2 and in Appendix N. The new building has been designed in a modern style but using exterior materials that relate to the heritage buildings on and adjacent to the subject property. Page 107 of 295 Heritage Impact Assessment Page 42 15356 Yonge Street Town of Aurora, Ontario Waye Morgan July 2017 Heritage Planner Figure 7.1 – Site Plan, Proposed Development Source: onespace unlimited inc. Drawing Date: 2017-06-30 Knowles / Readman House Yonge Street Page 108 of 295 Heritage Impact Assessment Page 43 15356 Yonge Street Town of Aurora, Ontario Waye Morgan July 2017 Heritage Planner Figure 7.2 – South Elevation, Proposed Development Part of Block 41 Development Proposal Map Knowles / Readman House Material Palette for the New Building: Yonge Street Source: onespace unlimited inc. Drawing A301, Date: 2017-06-30 Page 109 of 295 Heritage Impact Assessment Page 44 15356 Yonge Street Town of Aurora, Ontario Wayne Morgan July 2017 Heritage Planner 8.0 DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL IMACT ON HERITAGE RESOURCES 8.1 Impact of Development on the Property Heritage Resources As shown in Figures 7.1 and 7.2, it is proposed that the Knowles / Readman House, except for the tail wing, be retained in situ and integrated into a new development that involves the construction of a five storey residential building with vehicle access from Yonge Street. The potential impact of the proposed development on the heritage values of the property is contained in the following discussion. 1. Loss of the tail wing of the Knowles / Readman House The development proposal will remove all of the tail wing to permit construction of vehicle access to the underground parking, loading garbage areas. Removal of the tail wing also enables construction of underground parking close to the rear of the House. 2. Proximity of the Proposed New Building to the Knowles / Readman House The proposed new building is between 13.5 to 20 metres (44.3 to 65.6 feet) from the rear wall of the Knowles / Readman House above grade. Although the underground parking area is much closer to the rear wall of the House (Appendix N – Building Section – Drawing A400), it is not visible above grade. The proposed new building, including roof structures, is approximately 19.7 metres (64.7 feet) above the grade at the east side of the new building. Because the grade rises between Yonge Street and the House and then drops to the rear of the House, the proposed building, including roof structures, is 8.35 metres (27.4 feet) higher than the House. 3. Loss of much of the Back Yard as Green Space In the proposed development much of the back yard will be occupied by the new residential building. Most of the back yard that is in the flood plan will not be development. 4. Vehicle Access will affect the Front and North Side Yard conditions In order to provide two way vehicle access to the proposed development, the existing driveway to the property will be widen to the north removing all vegetation currently existing along the north limit of the property. The driveway to the subject site will be combined with the driveway to Hillary House at the Yonge Street entrance. 5. The Proposed Development Introduces a Building in a Modern Design to the HCD The new building in the proposed development is in a modern architectural design rather than being designed as a late nineteenth or early twentieth century structure. Page 110 of 295 Heritage Impact Assessment Page 45 15356 Yonge Street Town of Aurora, Ontario Wayne Morgan July 2017 Heritage Planner 8.2 Impact of Development on Adjacent Heritage Properties Figure 8.1 places the proposed development in its immediate context, showing its relationship to surrounding heritage properties. Although the Yonge Street frontage, with its nineteenth century single detached houses on large lots will be maintained with the construction of the proposed development, there are potential impacts on the adjacent heritage properties which are listed below. 6. Back yard overlook from the proposed five storey building The proposed five storey building is higher than any of the adjacent buildings and will be visible from the rear yards of the adjacent heritage properties – Hillary House (15372 Yonge Street) and Horton Hall (15342 Yonge Street). At its closest, the proposed building will be approximately 43.3 metres (142 feet) from Hillary House and 16.7 metres (54.8 feet) from Horton Hall. 7. Loss of back yard vegetation. The backyard of the subject property is currently a mix of trees, shrubs and grass providing a green corridor to the rear of the three Yonge Street heritage properties. The proposed development will remove much of that green corridor especially near the north property limit. There does not appear to be any impact from the proposed development on the heritage property across Yonge Street (15347 Yonge Street – Our Lady of Grace Roman Catholic Church). Page 111 of 295 Heritage Impact Assessment Page 46 15356 Yonge Street Town of Aurora, Ontario Wayne Morgan July 2017 Heritage Planner Figure 8.1 The Proposed Development in Context Hillary House Horton Hall Knowles / Readman House Proposed 5 storey building Page 112 of 295 Heritage Impact Assessment Page 47 15356 Yonge Street Town of Aurora, Ontario Wayne Morgan July 2017 Heritage Planner 9.0 CONSERVATION AND MITIGATION 9.1 Options Related to Impacts of the Proposed Development Since the applicant is proposing retention of the Knowles/ Readman House, excluding the tail wing, in situ in its original use, other broad options for the conservation of the heritage resource, such as relocation, were not considered in this Assessment. Rather the details of the proposed development and its impact on the heritage resources as discussed in Chapter 8 were reviewed and options for those aspects of the proposed development were considered. 1. Loss of the tail wing of the Knowles / Readman House When first constructed, the House had a one storey, gable roofed tail wing extending across less than half of the rear of the House (Appendices C (1913 & 1927 Insurance plans) and G (ground floor - photos 21 & 22, upper floor- photo 17)). Originally the tail wing was likely used a pantry (ground floor) and storage (basement). The tail wing was enlarged by extending it across the rear of the House and adding a second floor. Other previous alterations to the tail wing included changing the cladding and a sliding glass door on the west wall. The development proposal is to remove all of the tail wing for access, loading and underground parking. An option to retain the tail would require a reduction on the footprint and size of the proposed building reducing the economic viability of the project. Figure 9.1 shows the existing and proposed condition relative to the tail wing of the Knowles / Readman House. The tail wing has been substantially altered by enlargement, changes both in cladding and roof shape, and insertion of a sliding glass door. The tail wing generally is not visible from Yonge Street. The tail wing is not a necessary or essential component of the Edwardian Classicism architectural style of the House. Due to the previous alterations, no visibility from Yonge Street, and lack of importance to the architectural style of the House, the tail wing was not determined to be a heritage attribute when the Statement of Cultural Heritage Values (Section 6.4) was prepared. For these reasons, retention of the tail wing is not considered essential to the conservation of the Knowles / Readman House. An option that retains the tail wing was not considered warranted. Page 113 of 295 Heritage Impact Assessment Page 48 15356 Yonge Street Town of Aurora, Ontario Wayne Morgan July 2017 Heritage Planner 2. Proximity of the Proposed New Building to the Knowles / Readman House The new building is set back approximately 20 metres (65 feet) from the rear wall of the House above grade. The underground parking area is closer to the House but is not visible above grade. The proposed new building is approximately 8.35 metres (27 feet) higher than the House. Figure 9.2 shows the sight lines of the proposed development immediately in front of the Knowles / Readman House at Yonge Street , while Figure 9.3 shows an image of the proposed development from the east side of Yonge Street. Figure 9.1 Tail Wing – Ground Level and Underground Parking Underground Parking – Level P1 Site Plan 2016 Aerial Photo – York Maps Knowles / Readman House Knowles / Readman House Knowles / Readman House Tail Wing Tail Wing Tail Wing Page 114 of 295 Heritage Impact Assessment Page 49 15356 Yonge Street Town of Aurora, Ontario Wayne Morgan July 2017 Heritage Planner Figure 9.2 Yonge Street Sight Lines of the House and Proposed Development Figure 9.3 Panorama view of the development from the east side of Yonge Street Drawing A500 North Elevation – Drawing A300 Knowles / Readman House Page 115 of 295 Heritage Impact Assessment Page 50 15356 Yonge Street Town of Aurora, Ontario Wayne Morgan July 2017 Heritage Planner The approximately 20 metres separation between the proposed new building and the Knowles / Readman House is sufficient to readily show that the House is a separate structure. The sight lines in Figure 9.2 shows that a person standing on the west Yonge Street sidewalk in front of the House will not see the new building behind the House. A person standing on the east Yonge Street sidewalk in front of the House will barely see the top of the new building above the roof of the Knowles / Readman House. Figure 9.3 shows that, from different perspectives on the Yonge Street sidewalk, the new building will be partially visible, but frequently screened by vegetation. In summary, the new building proposed to the rear of the Knowles / Readman House does not overpower or dominate the House. The applicant did consider lowering the height of the proposed building by one storey to a total of four storeys. However, their analysis showed that the loss of the fifth storey jeopardized the financial viability of the project. For the above reasons, options which increased the separation between the new building and the House or which lowered the height of the building were not pursued further. 3. Loss of much of the Back Yard as Green Space Except for the rear portion of the property which is in the floor plain, much of the back yard will be occupied by the new residential building. The back yard was not evaluated as a landscape worthy of conservation. It is not a publicly accessible area that affords important view of either the Knowles / Readman House or any of the adjacent heritage buildings. The back yard is not essential to understanding or appreciating the architectural style of the House. The back yard was not identified as a heritage attribute of the property. For the above reasons, options which retained more of the back yard as green space were not considered further. New plantings should assist in mitigating the impact of the loss of this private green space area. 4. Vehicle Access will affect the North Side Yard condition The proposed development requires the widening of the existing driveway to provide two way vehicle access to the property. The widening, which is within the access easement on the property to the north, will require the removal of all existing vegetation along the north property limit north of and east of the House. Figures 9.4 and 9.5 show the existing driveway condition while Figure 9.6 shows the existing and proposed driveway on the site plan. Page 116 of 295 Heritage Impact Assessment Page 51 15356 Yonge Street Town of Aurora, Ontario Wayne Morgan July 2017 Heritage Planner Figures 9.4 and 9.5 Existing Driveway Conditions Viewed from Yonge Street and from the north, near Yonge Street, looking southwest Yonge Street Driveway Driveway Figure 9.6 Existing and Proposed Driveway Approximate width of existing driveway Widening Page 117 of 295 Heritage Impact Assessment Page 52 15356 Yonge Street Town of Aurora, Ontario Wayne Morgan July 2017 Heritage Planner However, the new driveway will combine and improve the access to both the subject property and the Hillary House property. Given the need to retain the Knowles / Readman House in situ and that the only street access to the property is from Yonge Street, there is only one option - make use of and expansion to the existing driveway. For the above reasons, no other access options were considered. West of the House, the driveway turns into the new building which is set back approximately 1.9 metres (6 feet) from the north property limit. This setback will provide a measure of protection for trees that are on the Hillary House property and provide opportunity for a native meadow planing. The sections of the Site Plan and the Landscape Concept illustrating this north side condition are shown in Figures 9.7. The applicant considered the option of an exterior vehicle ramp on the north side of the building, but rejected it as having an adverse impact on the Hillary House property. Since the rear yard landscape was not evaluated as a heritage attribute of the property, options to the proposed building were not developed. 5. The Proposed Development Introduces a Building in a Modern Design to the HCD The proposed development will result in the construction of a new building in a modern architectural design into the Heritage Conservation District, rather than being designed as a late nineteenth or early twentieth century structure. Figure 9.8 provides a view from the northeast of the new building. Figure 9.7 Proposed North Side Yard Condition West of the House Site Plan Landscape Concept Page 118 of 295 Heritage Impact Assessment Page 53 15356 Yonge Street Town of Aurora, Ontario Wayne Morgan July 2017 Heritage Planner The 19th century Yonge Street context of the subject property will be maintained by the proposed development – the Knowles / Readman House will be retained and restored in situ. The front and south side yards will be retained as green space. The new building will be to the rear of the subject property. As such, the design of the new building will have secondary importance to persons viewing the area from Yonge Street. Further new buildings designed to replicate 19th or early 20th century structures, even within a heritage conservation district, is not supported because:  It creates a false sense of history. A building designed in a historic style never existed on the rear of this property. The new building is not, and should not be viewed as, an extension of the existing House.  It creates confusion in the mind of the public. Am I looking at an old building or am I looking at a fake? Even placing a date stone on a building designed in a historic style does not resolve the confusion.  It diminishes the value of true heritage buildings by making heritage buildings appear to be more common than they really are.  It implies that we can build new ‘old’ buildings.  It creates a sense that architecture has not evolved but is frozen in time. The proposed new building incorporates a palette of materials (Appendix N) that relate to nearby heritage structures. For these reasons, options that included a new building designed to replicate historic architectural styles were not developed for this project. Figure 9.8 Proposed New Building Viewed from the Northeast Knowles / Readman House Page 119 of 295 Heritage Impact Assessment Page 54 15356 Yonge Street Town of Aurora, Ontario Wayne Morgan July 2017 Heritage Planner 6. Back yard overlook from the proposed five storey building The proposed new building is higher than any adjacent buildings and will be visible from the rear yards of the adjacent heritage properties – Hillary House and Horton Hall. As shown in Figure 8.1, the proposed new building is approximately 43.3 metres (142 feet) from Hillary House and 16.7 metres (54.8 feet) from Horton Hall. In the case of Hillary House, there will be a greater distance between the proposed new building and Hillary House than between the 24 metres that separate Hillary House from the 5 storey residential building to the north at 15390 Yonge Street. In both instances, the new building will be partially screened from the adjacent heritage structures by existing vegetation in the area. Upon a review of the heritage attributes or character defining elements of the two adjacent properties (Appendix L) the overlook that will be created by the construction of the new building on the subject property does not adversely affect the heritage attributes of the adjacent heritage properties. The proposed new building is sufficiently far enough from the heritage structures on the adjacent properties that new building will not dominate or overwhelm those adjacent heritage structures. 7. Loss of back yard vegetation. The backyard of the subject property is currently a mix of trees, shrubs and grass providing a green corridor to the rear of the three Yonge Street heritage properties. The proposed development will remove much of that green corridor although some will be retained in the flood plain. This issue is largely addressed in item 3 above. Any impact on vegetation on the adjacent heritage properties will be addressed in the landscape plan to be development for the subject property. The loss of vegetation on the subject property will not adversely affect the heritage attributes of the adjacent heritage properties. Any potential damage to trees on the adjacent properties from the construction of the proposed development should be addressed in the landscape plan for the property. 9.2 Mitigation Measures To mitigate any potential adverse impacts from the proposed development and to provide for the permanent protection of the heritage values of the of the subject property, the following mitigation measures are recommended. These recommendations are to be required as a condition of site plan approval and fulfilled prior to the issuance of any building permit. Page 120 of 295 Heritage Impact Assessment Page 55 15356 Yonge Street Town of Aurora, Ontario Wayne Morgan July 2017 Heritage Planner 9.2.1 Heritage Easement Agreement The owner enter into a Heritage Easement Agreement with the Town to provide permanent protection for the heritage values of the Knowles / Readman Property. The heritage values include not only the House, but also the front and south side yards. Section 37 of the Ontario Heritage Act enables municipalities to, by by-law, enter into heritage easement agreements for the permanent protection of the cultural heritage values of property and to enforce such easements. In general, heritage easement agreements specify: - the cultural heritage values of the property; - the alterations permitted to the property; - the property be maintained in a state of good repair; - the property be insured against damage; and - any further alterations to the property that may affect the cultural heritage values of the property requires the approval of only the municipal council. 9.2.2 Conservation Plan The owner prepare, to the satisfaction of the Town, a Conservation Plan for the heritage features of the property – the House and the front and side yards – by an appropriate qualified individual or firm with demonstrated experience in the conservation of heritage properties. A Conservation Plan sets out, in drawings, text and specifications, the ways in which heritage resources are to be conserved and adapted to the proposed use. In this instance, the Plan would detail conservation of the:  House exterior - including restoration of the front and side porches, the windows and the doors; removal of the exterior fire escape and infilling of the associated openings; repairs to masonry, roof, trim and decorative details; removal of the tail wing and associated repairs, alterations and treatment of the west wall including the foundation.  House interior – including repairs to the staircase from the ground to upper floor; use or replication of original materials for the door and window casings, baseboards and flooring.  Landscaping of the front and side yards appropriate to history of the House.  On-going maintenance of the building 9.2.3 Protection Plan The owner prepare, to the satisfaction of the Town, a Protection Plan for the Knowles / Readman House. This Plan would detail the ways in which the House will be protected while vacant and during construction. Not only should the Plan specify the means to protect the House from vandalism, but it should also address protection of the House during excavation for the new building. Excavation for underground parking will come close to the rear Page 121 of 295 Heritage Impact Assessment Page 56 15356 Yonge Street Town of Aurora, Ontario Wayne Morgan July 2017 Heritage Planner foundation of the House. In addition, Plan should require that the House be alarmed for unauthorized entrance and for the possibility of fire. 9.2.4 Landscape / Grading Plan The owner prepare, to the satisfaction of the Town, a Landscape / Grading Plan for the property. Not only should this Plan address landscaping on the subject property, but it should also address the impact of the proposed development on trees on adjacent properties. The Plan should ensure that there are no adverse grading issues created for the Knowles / Readman House by the proposed development. 9.2.5 Commemoration The owner commemorate the heritage values of the property through measures such as plaquing. This should include the erection of a plaque, in a form and location near Yonge Street acceptable to the Town, which would provide information about the House and its occupants. 9.2.6 Financial Securities As a condition of site plan approval, the owner post financial security with the Town to ensure implementation of the above recommendations including ensuring that conservation of the House is achieved consistent with the Conservation Plan. Page 122 of 295 Heritage Impact Assessment Page 57 15356 Yonge Street Town of Aurora, Ontario Wayne Morgan July 2017 Heritage Planner 10.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATION The owner of a 0.2569 hectare (0.657 acre) parcel of land at 15356 Yonge Street (Lot 81, Concession 1 WYS) northwest of the Yonge Street and Irwin Avenue intersection in Aurora proposes to develop a five storey residential building to the rear of the property. The property is designated under Part V of the Ontario Heritage Act as part of the Northeast Old Aurora Heritage Conservation District and contains the heritage resource referred to in this report as the ‘Knowles / Readman House’. The applicant is proposing to retain and restore the House as part of the residential development. The property is adjacent to two protected heritage properties – Hillary House (15372 Yonge Street) and Horton Hall (15342 Yonge Street). 10.1 Conclusions Following detailed examination of the property’s history, documentation of its built and landscape resources in June and July 2016 and evaluation using criteria established by regulation under the Act and taking into consideration the condition and heritage integrity of the resources, it was determined that the Knowles / Readman House, constructed 1907, has cultural heritage value or interest for the following reasons: 1. design value or physical value because: o the House is a representative example of a “Four Square’ vernacular interpretation of the ‘Edwardian Classicism’ architectural style; 2. historical or associative value because: o the House was built as the residence of James Albert Knowles, a prominent Aurora house builder and later Aurora municipal councillor and reeve; the House is also a good example of his work as a house builder; 3. contextual values, because: o the House is important in defining, maintaining and supporting the character of the area on the west side of Yonge Street as the central structure in a row of three nineteenth / early twentieth century houses showing the evolution of architectural styles during the period; o the House has been physically, visually and historically linked to the site since 1907. The House is in good condition but has minor issues that are repairable. It has a moderately high level of heritage integrity on the exterior and low level on the interior. The front and side yards are important not only in permitting views of the House, but also as part of part of a continuous area of green space along Yonge Street north of Irwin Avenue. Although the proposed development will have some impact on the subject property and the two properties to the north and south, it was found that, either those impacts will not Page 123 of 295 Heritage Impact Assessment Page 58 15356 Yonge Street Town of Aurora, Ontario Wayne Morgan July 2017 Heritage Planner adversely affect the heritage attributes of the properties, or that any adverse impacts can be addressed through mitigation measures such as Conservation and Landscape / Grading Plans. 10.2 Recommendation To mitigate the impacts of the proposed development on the heritage values of the property and to provide for the permanent protection of those heritage values, the following is recommended: Recommendation – Approve the proposed development subject to heritage conditions: 1. It is recommended that the Aurora Town Council approve the proposed planning applications for 15356 Yonge Street substantially in accordance with the drawings prepared by onspace unlimited inc., some of which are in Appendix N of this report, subject to the following heritage conditions of Site Plan Approval, that are to be fulfilled prior to the issuance of any building permit for the property. The owner: a. enter into a Heritage Easement Agreement with the Town of Aurora to provide permanent protection for the heritage values of the Knowles / Readman property (15356 Yonge Street) substantially as described in section 6.4, Statement of Cultural heritage Values and Heritage Attributes, of this report; b. prepare a Conservation Plan by a qualified professional with demonstrated experience in the conservation of heritage properties to the satisfaction of the Town of Aurora that provides for the conservation of the Knowles/Readman House exterior and interior and the front and side yards associated with the House substantially as described in section 9.2.2 of this report; c. prepare a Protection Plan to the satisfaction of the Town of Aurora that provides for the protection of the heritage resources of the property (15356 Yonge Street) before and during construction on the property; d. prepare a Landscape / Grading Plan to the satisfaction of the Town of Aurora for the property (15356 Yonge Street) that, among other matters, ensures that existing drainage issues associated with the House are corrected, that no new grading issues are created by the development of the property, that trees on adjacent heritage properties affected by the development are protected or replaced and that, wherever possible, new plantings on the subject property buffer the proposed development and the adjacent heritage properties; e. commemorate, to the satisfaction of the Town of Aurora, the heritage values of the Knowles / Readman property (15356 Yonge Street); and f. provide financial securities to the Town in an amount and form acceptable to the Town to implement recommendations 1a through 1e. Page 124 of 295 Heritage Impact Assessment Page 59 15356 Yonge Street Town of Aurora, Ontario Wayne Morgan July 2017 Heritage Planner SOURCES CONSULTED Publications Aurora Banner, 1905 – 1911. Aurora Heritage Committee. Heritage Property Report – 64 Yonge Street North. Written by Kathryn Anderson. Aurora. 1982. Blumenson, John. Ontario Architecture, A Guide to Styles and Building Terms 1784 to the Present. Toronto: Fitzhenry & Whiteside. 1990. Carter, Phillip H. et al. Northeast Old Aurora Heritage Conservation District, The Plan 2006. OMB approval November 9, 2006. Census Returns, Canada, Ontario, York County. Aurora, 1911 and 1921. Chapman, L. J.; Putnam, D. F. The Physiography of Southern Ontario. 2nd Edition. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. 1966. Duncan, George W. J. York County Mouldings from Historic Interiors. Architectural Conservancy of Ontario. Toronto. 2001. Fitzgibbon, Meaghan. The Mississaugas: The Treaty Period. Mississauga: Heritage Mississauga. 2007. Gentilcore, Louis; Donkin, Kate. Land Surveys of Southern Ontario, Supplement No. 2 to the Canadian Cartographer, Vol. 10, 1973. Gentilcore, R. Louis; Head, C. Grant. Ontario’s History in Maps. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. 1984. Gillham, Elizabeth McClure. Early Settlements of King Township Ontario. Published by the author. King City, Ontario. 1975. HPI Nomination Team, Ontario Architectural Styles. Heritage Resource Centre, University of Waterloo. January 2009. McIlwraith, Thomas. F. Looking for Old Ontario. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. 1997. McIntyre, W. John. Aurora A History in Pictures. The Boston Mills Press. Erin, Ontario. 1988. Ontario Regulation 9/06 made under the Ontario Heritage Act, Criteria for Determining Cultural Heritage Value or Interest, January 25, 2006. Page 125 of 295 Heritage Impact Assessment Page 60 15356 Yonge Street Town of Aurora, Ontario Wayne Morgan July 2017 Heritage Planner Ontario Heritage Act, R.S.O. Chapter 0.18. Ontario Ministry of Culture. Heritage Resources in the Land Use Planning Process. Toronto: Queen’s Printer for Ontario. 2006. Ontario Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing, Provincial Policy Statement 2014, Toronto: Queen’s Printer for Ontario. 2014. Ontario Ministry of Public Infrastructure Renewal. Places to Grow, Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe. Toronto: Queen’s Printer for Ontario. Office Consolidation, June 2013. Parks Canada. Standards and Guidelines for the Conservation of Historic Places in Canada, Second Edition. Ottawa: Queen’s Printer. 2010. Regional Municipality of York. A Summary of the Historical Development of York Region. Regional Official Plan Technical Appendix 1. Newmarket. June 1974. Regional Municipality of York. Official Plan. Office Consolidation with OMB approval up to February 3, 2014. Smith, Wm. H. Smith’s Canadian Gazetteer; comprising Statistical and General Information Respecting all parts of the Upper Province, or Canada West. Toronto: H & W. Rowsell. 1846. Stamp, Robert M. Riding the Radials, Toronto’s Suburban Electric Streetcar Lines. Boston Mills Press. Erin, Ontario. 1989. Town of Aurora. Aurora Register of Properties of Cultural Heritage Value or Interest, January 2016. Town of Aurora. Official Plan – September 2010; revised 2015. Town of Aurora. By-law 5173-09 being a By-law to amend Zoning By-law 2213-78 as amended, (15356 Yonge Street). Walton, George. City of Toronto and the Home District Commercial Directory 1837. Whitchurch History Book Committee. Whitchurch Township. Boston Mills Press. Erin, Ontario. 1993. Page 126 of 295 Heritage Impact Assessment Page 61 15356 Yonge Street Town of Aurora, Ontario Wayne Morgan July 2017 Heritage Planner Museums / Government Offices Aurora Archives, Aurora. Library and Archives Canada (LAC), Ottawa. National Airphoto Library, Ottawa. Ontario Ministry of Government Services, Land Registry Office, York Region, Service Ontario, Aurora. Maps Department of National Defense, Geographical Section, General Staff. National Topographic System. Map 30M/13. Bolton. Scale 1:63,360. 1909 reprinted with corrections 1926. Ottawa. 1926. Department of Energy, Mines and Resources. Surveys and Mapping Branch. National Topographic System. Map 30M/13a & b, Bolton. Edition 2. Scale 1:25,000. Ottawa. from airphotos – 1969, culture check – 1970, printed 1972 & 3. Department of Energy, Mines and Resources. Surveys and Mapping Branch. National Topographic System. Map 30M/13, Bolton. Edition 6. Scale 1:50,000. Ottawa. information current as of 1989, printed 1994. Miles & Co. Illustrated Historical Atlas of the County of York, Ontario. Toronto: Miles & Co. Toronto. 1878. Tremaine, George R., Tremaine’s Map of York County, Canada West. Toronto: G. C. Tremaine. 1860. Websites http://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Hollingshead-217 - biographical information about Jacob Hollingshead. http://www.brydondale.com/genealogy/tng/getperson.php?personID=i316&tree=bryd2 – biographical information about the Readman family. http://www.historicplaces.ca – Canadian Register of Historic Places Page 127 of 295 Appendix A: Property Survey Page 128 of 295 Heritage Impact Assessment Appendix A – Property Survey 15356 Yonge Street Town of Aurora, Ontario Wayne Morgan July 2017 Heritage Planner PROPERTY INDEX MAP Subject Property Page 129 of 295 Heritage Impact Assessment Appendix A – Property Survey 15356 Yonge Street Town of Aurora, Ontario Wayne Morgan July 2017 Heritage Planner PARCEL FABRIC Source: York Maps Aerial Photography - 2015 North Yonge Street Subject Property Page 130 of 295 Heritage Impact Assessment Appendix A – Property Survey 15356 Yonge Street Town of Aurora, Ontario Wayne Morgan July 2017 Heritage Planner PART OF PLAN 246, AURORA WELLINGTON STREET WEST Subject Property (approximate) Page 131 of 295 Heritage Impact Assessment Appendix A – Property Survey 15356 Yonge Street Town of Aurora, Ontario Wayne Morgan July 2017 Heritage Planner SURVEY Source: Lloyd & Purcell Ltd. Ontario Land Surveyors October 25, 2016 Page 132 of 295 Appendix B: Photographs – Context Page 133 of 295 Heritage Impact Assessment Appendix B: Photographs - Context 15356 Yonge Street Town of Aurora, Ontario Wayne Morgan July 2017 Heritage Planner View north on Yonge Street from in front of Horton Hall, 15342 Yonge Street. East side of Yonge Street opposite the driveway into 15356 Yonge Street. Our Lady of Grace Page 134 of 295 Heritage Impact Assessment Appendix B: Photographs - Context 15356 Yonge Street Town of Aurora, Ontario Wayne Morgan July 2017 Heritage Planner West side of Yonge Street, including subject proprty. View south on Yonge Street from in front of Hillary House, 15372 Yonge Street. Horton Hall Subject Property Hillary House Page 135 of 295 Heritage Impact Assessment Appendix B: Photographs - Context 15356 Yonge Street Town of Aurora, Ontario Wayne Morgan July 2017 Heritage Planner 10. View north on Weston Road. 12. View east at Weston Road. 63 – 65 Machell Avenue. 14. View west on Kirby Road. West side of Machell Avenue. Page 136 of 295 Appendix C: Maps and Insurance Plans Page 137 of 295 Heritage Impact Assessment Appendix C – Maps and Insurance Plans 15356 Yonge Street Town of Aurora, Ontario Wayne Morgan July 2017 Heritage Planner PATENT PLAN Part of the west side of the Yonge Street Survey through Aurora Subject Property North Page 138 of 295 Heritage Impact Assessment Appendix C – Maps and Insurance Plans 15356 Yonge Street Town of Aurora, Ontario Wayne Morgan July 2017 Heritage Planner 1860 – TREMAINE CONTEXT Approximate Location of Subject Property (approximate) North Yonge Street Wellington Street Bathurst Street St. John Sideroad Page 139 of 295 Heritage Impact Assessment Appendix C – Maps and Insurance Plans 15356 Yonge Street Town of Aurora, Ontario Wayne Morgan July 2017 Heritage Planner 1878– YORK COUNTY ILLUSTRATED HISTORICAL ATLAS CONTEXT Approximate Location of Subject Property (approximate) Yonge Street Page 140 of 295 Heritage Impact Assessment Appendix C – Maps and Insurance Plans 15356 Yonge Street Town of Aurora, Ontario Wayne Morgan July 2017 Heritage Planner Site of 1559 Cormack Crescent (no house) Subject Property (approximate) 1913 – FIRE INSURANCE PLAN PROPERTY AND IMMEDIATE CONTEXT Subject Property (approximate) Knowles / Readman House 15342 Yonge Street Pasted over revision Page 141 of 295 Heritage Impact Assessment Appendix C – Maps and Insurance Plans 15356 Yonge Street Town of Aurora, Ontario Wayne Morgan July 2017 Heritage Planner 1913 – FIRE INSURANCE PLAN KNOWLES / READMAN HOUSE DETAIL Number of Storeys Porch Solid Red Colour – solid brick construction Yellow Colour – frame construction, wood clad Page 142 of 295 Heritage Impact Assessment Appendix C – Maps and Insurance Plans 15356 Yonge Street Town of Aurora, Ontario Wayne Morgan July 2017 Heritage Planner 1927 – FIRE INSURANCE PLAN PROPERTY AND IMMEDIATE CONTEXT Subject Property (approximate) 15342 Yonge Street Knowles / Readman House Page 143 of 295 Heritage Impact Assessment Appendix C – Maps and Insurance Plans 15356 Yonge Street Town of Aurora, Ontario Wayne Morgan July 2017 Heritage Planner Subject Property (approximate) 1960 – FIRE INSURANCE PLAN PROPERTY AND IMMEDIATE CONTEXT Knowles / Readman House 15342 Yonge Street Page 144 of 295 Heritage Impact Assessment Appendix C – Maps and Insurance Plans 15356 Yonge Street Town of Aurora, Ontario Wayne Morgan July 2017 Heritage Planner 1929 – 1948 NATIONAL TOPOGRAPHC AURORA Knowles / Readman House Source: National Topographic Survey Sheets 30 M 14 (south) & 31 D 3 (north) Dates: 1950 (south), 1929 (north) Contour Interval - 25 feet Page 145 of 295 Heritage Impact Assessment Appendix C – Maps and Insurance Plans 15356 Yonge Street Town of Aurora, Ontario Wayne Morgan July 2017 Heritage Planner 1987 – TOPOGRAPHICAL SURVEY PROPERTY Source: R. D. Tomlinson Limited Ontario Land Surveyor July 22, 1987 Contour Interval - 0.25 metres Knowles / Readman House Page 146 of 295 Heritage Impact Assessment Appendix C – Maps and Insurance Plans 15356 Yonge Street Town of Aurora, Ontario Wayne Morgan July 2017 Heritage Planner 1987 - TOPOGRAPHICAL SURVEY DETAIL Knowles / Readman House Source: R. D. Tomlinson Limited Ontario Land Surveyor July 22, 1987 Contour Interval - 0.25 metres Page 147 of 295 Appendix D: Aerial Photographs Page 148 of 295 Heritage Impact Assessment Appendix D – Aerial Photographs 15356 Yonge Street Town of Aurora, Ontario Wayne Morgan July 2017 Heritage Planner 1946 – July 2 Source – National Airphoto Library Roll No A10115, Photo 87 Hillary House North Knowles / Readman House Yonge Street Context Irwin Avenue Machell Avenue Horton Hall Page 149 of 295 Heritage Impact Assessment Appendix D – Aerial Photographs 15356 Yonge Street Town of Aurora, Ontario Wayne Morgan July 2017 Heritage Planner ? Property Huntington Road 1946 – July 2 Source – National Airphoto Library Roll No A10115, Photo 87 Yonge Street North Knowles / Readman House garage walkway large trees boundary plantings Page 150 of 295 Heritage Impact Assessment Appendix D – Aerial Photographs 15356 Yonge Street Town of Aurora, Ontario Wayne Morgan July 2017 Heritage Planner Property Huntington Road 1978 Source: York Maps North Knowles / Readman House Yonge Street Subject Property Garage walkway Page 151 of 295 Heritage Impact Assessment Appendix D – Aerial Photographs 15356 Yonge Street Town of Aurora, Ontario Wayne Morgan July 2017 Heritage Planner 1978 Source: York Maps Huntington Road Nashville Road Rear Addition Chimneys Knowles / Readman House Front Porch Driveway Front Walkway Garage House and Immediate Area Yonge Street North Page 152 of 295 Heritage Impact Assessment Appendix D – Aerial Photographs 15356 Yonge Street Town of Aurora, Ontario Wayne Morgan July 2017 Heritage Planner 2015 Source: York Maps North Property Knowles / Readman House Subject Property Yonge Street Page 153 of 295 Heritage Impact Assessment Appendix D – Aerial Photographs 15356 Yonge Street Town of Aurora, Ontario Wayne Morgan July 2017 Heritage Planner 2015 Source: York Maps North House and Immediate Area Huntington Road Rear Addition Front Walkway Yonge Street Knowles / Readman House Chimneys Front Porch Driveway Page 154 of 295 Appendix E: Knowles / Readman House Exterior Photographs Page 155 of 295 Heritage Impact Assessment Appendix E – Knowles/ Readman House 15356 Yonge Street Exterior Photographs Town of Aurora, Ontario Wayne Morgan July 2017 Heritage Planner Aerial view of the House 2014, Source: York Maps East Elevation NORTH EAST NORTH Page 156 of 295 Heritage Impact Assessment Appendix E – Knowles/ Readman House 15356 Yonge Street Exterior Photographs Town of Aurora, Ontario Wayne Morgan July 2017 Heritage Planner North and West Elevations East and North Elevations North Elevation 19’ 1 ¼“ Page 157 of 295 Heritage Impact Assessment Appendix E – Knowles/ Readman House 15356 Yonge Street Exterior Photographs Town of Aurora, Ontario Wayne Morgan July 2017 Heritage Planner West and South Elevations 25’ 36’ North and West Elevations Page 158 of 295 Heritage Impact Assessment Appendix E – Knowles/ Readman House 15356 Yonge Street Exterior Photographs Town of Aurora, Ontario Wayne Morgan July 2017 Heritage Planner South Elevation, east end South Elevation South and East Elevations Page 159 of 295 Heritage Impact Assessment Appendix E – Knowles/ Readman House 15356 Yonge Street Exterior Photographs Town of Aurora, Ontario Wayne Morgan July 2017 Heritage Planner Detail of concrete lintel over front entrance, East Elevation Front entrance, East Elevation, Detail of front entrance threshold and wood surround, East Elevation 7’ 1¾ ” 3’ 3½“ 10 ¾ ” 3’ 11“ Page 160 of 295 Heritage Impact Assessment Appendix E – Knowles/ Readman House 15356 Yonge Street Exterior Photographs Town of Aurora, Ontario Wayne Morgan July 2017 Heritage Planner Front Entrance, West Elevation Ground Floor Window Opening, East Elevation 7’ 11” 5’ 9” Porch Post, East Elevation Porch Balustrade, East Elevation 56 ” 77½” 64 ¼” Sill Height – 4 ¾” 9 3/16” 1’ 64 ” 10 ¾ ” 1’ 9” 8 ¼” 8 ¼” Page 161 of 295 Heritage Impact Assessment Appendix E – Knowles/ Readman House 15356 Yonge Street Exterior Photographs Town of Aurora, Ontario Wayne Morgan July 2017 Heritage Planner Infill area – former window?, South Elevation Gable Detail, North Elevation. Page 162 of 295 Heritage Impact Assessment Appendix E – Knowles/ Readman House 15356 Yonge Street Exterior Photographs Town of Aurora, Ontario Wayne Morgan July 2017 Heritage Planner Typical Brickwork Rear Chimney North and West Elevations South Chimney, Dormer & Soffit Detail, South elevation 2 3/8“ 8 ½“ Concrete Blocks 10“ 18” 9“ Page 163 of 295 Appendix F: Knowles/ Readman House Floor Plan Sketches Page 164 of 295 Heritage Impact Assessment Appendix F – Knowles / Readman House 15356 Yonge3 Street Floor Plan Sketches Town of Aurora, Ontario Wayne Morgan July 2017 Heritage Planner Roof Plan Source: York Maps, 2014 North Page 165 of 295 Heritage Impact Assessment Appendix F – Knowles / Readman House 15356 Yonge3 Street Floor Plan Sketches Town of Aurora, Ontario Wayne Morgan July 2017 Heritage Planner Building Footprint 25’ 6” North 5’ 16’ 14’ 25’ 6” 14’ 3’ 7” 8 ½“ 12’ 2 ½“ 10’ 3 ½” 7’ ¼“ 11 ½“ 6’ 6” 6’ Page 166 of 295 Heritage Impact Assessment Appendix F – Knowles / Readman House 15356 Yonge3 Street Floor Plan Sketches Town of Aurora, Ontario Wayne Morgan July 2017 Heritage Planner Ground Floor 12’ 2 ½” 13’ 1” 13’ 10” 14’ 9½ “ 13’ 7½” 13’ 2½” 3’ 3” 10’ 5½” 13’ 4” 13’ 7½” 14’ ½” 13’ 7½” 9’ 8” 2’ 8¼” Page 167 of 295 Heritage Impact Assessment Appendix F – Knowles / Readman House 15356 Yonge3 Street Floor Plan Sketches Town of Aurora, Ontario Wayne Morgan July 2017 Heritage Planner Upper Floor 23’ ¾” 19’ 9” 13’ 6½” 14’ 10’ 8” 7’ 9’ 10” 13’ 8½” 9’ 4” 24’ 9¼” 13’ 6” Page 168 of 295 Heritage Impact Assessment Appendix F – Knowles / Readman House 15356 Yonge3 Street Floor Plan Sketches Town of Aurora, Ontario Wayne Morgan July 2017 Heritage Planner Attic Attic partitions were not documented as they are a relatively recent alteration. Page 169 of 295 Heritage Impact Assessment Appendix F – Knowles / Readman House 15356 Yonge3 Street Floor Plan Sketches Town of Aurora, Ontario Wayne Morgan July 2017 Heritage Planner Basement 13’ 11” 13’ 5” 13’ 1” 8’ 11” 28’ 4” 14’ 2½” 23’ 9” 13’ 2” Fire place foundation Foundation - concrete block above poured concrete Tail wing foundation - poured concrete Page 170 of 295 Appendix G: Knowles / Readman House Interior Photographs Page 171 of 295 Heritage Impact Assessment Appendix G – Knowles / Readman House 15356 Yonge Street Interior Photographs Town of Aurora, Ontario Wayne Morgan July 2017 Heritage Planner Ground Floor Room 1 – West Wall, Baseboard & Door Casing Room 1 – South and West Walls 1. Room 1 – Staircase -North & West Walls Room 2 – East Wall Photograph Locations Ground Floor Sketch Newel post – 6” square 1 2 3 4 5 6 8 9 7 10 11 12 13 14 17 15 16 18 19 21 20 22 Page 172 of 295 Heritage Impact Assessment Appendix G – Knowles / Readman House 15356 Yonge Street Interior Photographs Town of Aurora, Ontario Wayne Morgan July 2017 Heritage Planner Ground Floor Room 2 – North and West Walls 2. Room 1 – Staircase & Front Door – North & East Walls 3. Room 1 – Staircase paneling - North Wall Page 173 of 295 Heritage Impact Assessment Appendix G – Knowles / Readman House 15356 Yonge Street Interior Photographs Town of Aurora, Ontario Wayne Morgan July 2017 Heritage Planner Ground Floor Room 4 – East and South Walls 6. Room 1 – Baseboard 5. Room 1 – Front door, East Wall 4. Room 1 – Baseboard & Flooring on staircase landing 6’ 11 ¾” 2’ 11 5/8” 9 ½” Page 174 of 295 Heritage Impact Assessment Appendix G – Knowles / Readman House 15356 Yonge Street Interior Photographs Town of Aurora, Ontario Wayne Morgan July 2017 Heritage Planner Ground Floor 7. Room 2 – North & East Walls 8. Room 2 – South & West Walls Page 175 of 295 Heritage Impact Assessment Appendix G – Knowles / Readman House 15356 Yonge Street Interior Photographs Town of Aurora, Ontario Wayne Morgan July 2017 Heritage Planner Ground Floor 9. Room 2 – Baseboard, flooring & parging over brick 10. Room 2 – Pocket door on west wall 9 ½” Page 176 of 295 Heritage Impact Assessment Appendix G – Knowles / Readman House 15356 Yonge Street Interior Photographs Town of Aurora, Ontario Wayne Morgan July 2017 Heritage Planner Ground Floor 12. Room 3 – North & East Walls case 11. Room 3 – South & West Walls case Page 177 of 295 Heritage Impact Assessment Appendix G – Knowles / Readman House 15356 Yonge Street Interior Photographs Town of Aurora, Ontario Wayne Morgan July 2017 Heritage Planner Ground Floor 14. Room 3 – Baseboard, flooring and parging Room 7 – West and North Walls 13. Room 3 – Window, South Wall 9 ½” 4 ½” Page 178 of 295 Heritage Impact Assessment Appendix G – Knowles / Readman House 15356 Yonge Street Interior Photographs Town of Aurora, Ontario Wayne Morgan July 2017 Heritage Planner Ground Floor 15. Room 4 – West & North Walls 16. Room 4 – South & West Walls 7” Page 179 of 295 Heritage Impact Assessment Appendix G – Knowles / Readman House 15356 Yonge Street Interior Photographs Town of Aurora, Ontario Wayne Morgan July 2017 Heritage Planner Ground Floor 18. Room 5 – West & North walls 17. Room 4 – East & South walls Page 180 of 295 Heritage Impact Assessment Appendix G – Knowles / Readman House 15356 Yonge Street Interior Photographs Town of Aurora, Ontario Wayne Morgan July 2017 Heritage Planner Ground Floor 20. Room 6 – East and South Walls 19. Room 5 – East & South walls Page 181 of 295 Heritage Impact Assessment Appendix G – Knowles / Readman House 15356 Yonge Street Interior Photographs Town of Aurora, Ontario Wayne Morgan July 2017 Heritage Planner Ground Floor 21. Room 6 – West & North Walls 22. Room 6 – Detail, North wall, originally exterior wall Shiplap siding Page 182 of 295 Heritage Impact Assessment Appendix G – Knowles / Readman House 15356 Yonge Street Interior Photographs Town of Aurora, Ontario Wayne Morgan July 2017 Heritage Planner Upper Floor Photograph Locations Upper Floor Sketch 1. Room 7 – Newell post and spindle on staircase landing near upper floor 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 12 10 11 13 14 15 16 17 Page 183 of 295 Heritage Impact Assessment Appendix G – Knowles / Readman House 15356 Yonge Street Interior Photographs Town of Aurora, Ontario Wayne Morgan July 2017 Heritage Planner Upper Floor 2. Room 7 – Staircase opening trim at upper floor level 3. Room 7 – North wall and staircase opening Page 184 of 295 Heritage Impact Assessment Appendix G – Knowles / Readman House 15356 Yonge Street Interior Photographs Town of Aurora, Ontario Wayne Morgan July 2017 Heritage Planner Upper Floor 4. Room 7 – North and east walls 5. Room 7 – East wall Page 185 of 295 Heritage Impact Assessment Appendix G – Knowles / Readman House 15356 Yonge Street Interior Photographs Town of Aurora, Ontario Wayne Morgan July 2017 Heritage Planner Upper Floor 6. Room 7 – South & west walls 7. Room 8 – East & south walls 6” Page 186 of 295 Heritage Impact Assessment Appendix G – Knowles / Readman House 15356 Yonge Street Interior Photographs Town of Aurora, Ontario Wayne Morgan July 2017 Heritage Planner Upper Floor 8. Room 8 – West & north walls 9. Room 8 – Baseboard, parging & flooring, south wall 8” Page 187 of 295 Heritage Impact Assessment Appendix G – Knowles / Readman House 15356 Yonge Street Interior Photographs Town of Aurora, Ontario Wayne Morgan July 2017 Heritage Planner Upper Foor 10. Room 9 – West & north walls 11. Room 9 – North & east walls Page 188 of 295 Heritage Impact Assessment Appendix G – Knowles / Readman House 15356 Yonge Street Interior Photographs Town of Aurora, Ontario Wayne Morgan July 2017 Heritage Planner Upper Floor 12. Room 10 – North wall viewed from the entrance to Room 8 13. Room 10 – North & east walls Page 189 of 295 Heritage Impact Assessment Appendix G – Knowles / Readman House 15356 Yonge Street Interior Photographs Town of Aurora, Ontario Wayne Morgan July 2017 Heritage Planner Upper Floor 14. Room 10 – South & west walls 15. Room 11 – East, south & west walls Page 190 of 295 Heritage Impact Assessment Appendix G – Knowles / Readman House 15356 Yonge Street Interior Photographs Town of Aurora, Ontario Wayne Morgan July 2017 Heritage Planner Upper Floor 16. Room 11 – West, north & east walls 17. Room 11 – East wall showing roof line of original addition Roof outline of original tail wing Page 191 of 295 Heritage Impact Assessment Appendix G – Knowles / Readman House 15356 Yonge Street Interior Photographs Town of Aurora, Ontario Wayne Morgan July 2017 Heritage Planner Attic 1. Attic – The east side from near the west side 2 3 4 5 6 1 Page 192 of 295 Heritage Impact Assessment Appendix G – Knowles / Readman House 15356 Yonge Street Interior Photographs Town of Aurora, Ontario Wayne Morgan July 2017 Heritage Planner Attic 2. Attic – The south side and dormer window from near the north side 3. Attic – The west side from near the east side Page 193 of 295 Heritage Impact Assessment Appendix G – Knowles / Readman House 15356 Yonge Street Interior Photographs Town of Aurora, Ontario Wayne Morgan July 2017 Heritage Planner Attic 4. Attic – The north side, west of the staircase, from near the middle 5. Attic – The north side, east of the staircase, from near the south side Page 194 of 295 Heritage Impact Assessment Appendix G – Knowles / Readman House 15356 Yonge Street Interior Photographs Town of Aurora, Ontario Wayne Morgan July 2017 Heritage Planner Attic 6. Attic – Roof framing – view to the north side Collar-beam rafter Page 195 of 295 Heritage Impact Assessment Appendix G – Knowles / Readman House 15356 Yonge Street Interior Photographs Town of Aurora, Ontario Wayne Morgan July 2017 Heritage Planner Basement Photograph Locations Basement Sketch 1. Room 13 – Staircase, North and east walls 1 2 3 4 9 6 10 5 7 8 Poured concrete Parging over concrete block Page 196 of 295 Heritage Impact Assessment Appendix G – Knowles / Readman House 15356 Yonge Street Interior Photographs Town of Aurora, Ontario Wayne Morgan July 2017 Heritage Planner Basement 3. Room 14 – North and west walls 2. Room 13 – South and west walls Page 197 of 295 Heritage Impact Assessment Appendix G – Knowles / Readman House 15356 Yonge Street Interior Photographs Town of Aurora, Ontario Wayne Morgan July 2017 Heritage Planner Basement Attic – Tail Wing 4. Room 14 – East and south walls 5. Room 15 – West, north and east walls Page 198 of 295 Heritage Impact Assessment Appendix G – Knowles / Readman House 15356 Yonge Street Interior Photographs Town of Aurora, Ontario Wayne Morgan July 2017 Heritage Planner Basement 6. Room 15 – West, south and east walls 7. Room 11 – West and north walls Fireplace base Page 199 of 295 Heritage Impact Assessment Appendix G – Knowles / Readman House 15356 Yonge Street Interior Photographs Town of Aurora, Ontario Wayne Morgan July 2017 Heritage Planner Basement 9. Room 16 – Opening on east wall to Room 15 8. Room 16 – East, south and west walls 10. Room 16 – East wall, concrete block on poured concrete Page 200 of 295 Appendix H: Knowles / Readman House Property Landscape Photographs Building No. 2 – Shed – South Elevation. 84½’ 56½’ Page 201 of 295 Heritage Impact Assessment Appendix H – Landscape Photographs 15356 Yonge Street Town of Aurora, Ontario Wayne Morgan July 2017 Heritage Planner Location Index to Landscape Photographs 2015 Source – York Maps Yonge Street Horton Hall 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Page 202 of 295 Heritage Impact Assessment Appendix H – Landscape Photographs 15356 Yonge Street Town of Aurora, Ontario Wayne Morgan July 2017 Heritage Planner 1. View of the Front Yard and House at Yonge Street looking south west to the driveway and House. 2. View of the Front Yard and House from the east side of Yonge Street. Metal Shed – Building No.4 Pair of Shed - Building No. 3 Shed – Building No. 2 Knowles / Readman House Subject Property Driveway Driveway Page 203 of 295 Heritage Impact Assessment Appendix H – Landscape Photographs 15356 Yonge Street Town of Aurora, Ontario Wayne Morgan July 2017 Heritage Planner 4. Rear Yard - Stone retaining wall towards the rear (west side) of the House. 3. Cast iron fence on the north side of the House. ast. Driveway Page 204 of 295 Heritage Impact Assessment Appendix H – Landscape Photographs 15356 Yonge Street Town of Aurora, Ontario Wayne Morgan July 2017 Heritage Planner 6. Back Yard - Immediately to the rear of the House and the retaining wall on the south side of the lot looking east north east to the House. 5. Back Yard - Immediately to the rear (west) of the House and retaining wall looking east, south east to the House Knowles / Readman House Stone retaining wall Page 205 of 295 Heritage Impact Assessment Appendix H – Landscape Photographs 15356 Yonge Street Town of Aurora, Ontario Wayne Morgan July 2017 Heritage Planner 7. Back Yard - View from near the west end of the property looking east to the House. Shed – Building No. 3 8. Back Yard - View from near the west end of the property looking west to Machell Avenue. Knowles / Readman House Rear of 63 Machell Avenue Page 206 of 295 Appendix I: Knowles / Readman House Historic Photographs Page 207 of 295 Heritage Impact Assessment Appendix I – Knowles / Readman House 15356 Yonge Street Historic Photographs Town of Aurora, Ontario Wayne Morgan July 2017 Heritage Planner C 1920, East and North Elevations. [Source:1982 Heritage Property Report] 1913, Front porch visible from Hillary House. [Source: Aurora Archives.] Front porch of 15356 Yonge Street Page 208 of 295 Heritage Impact Assessment Appendix I – Knowles / Readman House 15356 Yonge Street Historic Photographs Town of Aurora, Ontario Wayne Morgan July 2017 Heritage Planner C 1920, East Elevation. [Source:1982 Heritage Property Report] c1970, 15342 & 15356 Yonge Street. [Source: Aurora Archives, 2002.19.426] Page 209 of 295 Heritage Impact Assessment Appendix I – Knowles / Readman House 15356 Yonge Street Historic Photographs Town of Aurora, Ontario Wayne Morgan July 2017 Heritage Planner 16. View west of the farm lane from Weston Road. 40. View south at the farm lane from the farmstead. Building No. 2 - Barn Farm Lane C 1982, East Elevation. [Source:1982 Heritage Property Report] 1974, Part of Knowles / Readman House visible from Hillary House. [Source: Aurora Archives. 2002.4.456] 15356 Yonge Street Page 210 of 295 Heritage Impact Assessment Appendix I – Knowles / Readman House 15356 Yonge Street Historic Photographs Town of Aurora, Ontario Wayne Morgan July 2017 Heritage Planner 1982, East and North Elevations. [Source:1982 Heritage Property Report] 1982, East and South Elevations. [Source:1982 Heritage Property Report] Page 211 of 295 Heritage Impact Assessment Appendix I – Knowles / Readman House 15356 Yonge Street Historic Photographs Town of Aurora, Ontario Wayne Morgan July 2017 Heritage Planner 1982, South Elevation. [Source:1982 Heritage Property Report] Page 212 of 295 Appendix J: Property Ownership History Page 213 of 295 Heritage Impact Assessment Appendix J– Property Ownership History 15356 Yonge Street Town of Aurora, Ontario Wayne Morgan July 2017 Page 1 Municipality Aurora (formerly King Twp) Part of Concession: 1 WYS Lot: 81; Plan 246 Lot 13 No. of Instrument Instrument Date of Instrument Date of Registration Grantor Grantee Amount Remarks Patent 10.02.1797 Crown Thomas Phillips 210 acres 144 Mort 05.01.1801 20.01.1801 Thomas Hind William Crooks et ux 210 acres Intal, Dis. 1595 150 B & S 09.02.1799 25.02.1801 Thomas Hind William Graham Lots 81 & 82, w. side Yonge St 337 Deed Poll 13.06.1803 25.06.1803 John Jones atty for Thomas Phillips Thomas Hind 210 acres intal 339 B & S 14.06.1803 27.06.1803 Thomas Hind Jacob Hollingshead 210 acres 50729 B & S 15.07.1853 26.08.1853 Eli Hollingshead et al Robert P. Irwin $4,200 140 acres 65465 Will 30.06.1845 27.12.1856 Jacob Hollingshead Lot 81 & certain mill property on Lot 80 577 B & S 09.10.1874 05.12.1874 Robert P. Irwin et ux Rachel Butcher $325 ½ acre 3578 B & S 31.12.1906 05.01.1907 Rachel Butcher James Knowles $450 ½ ac pt of Lot 4784 B & S 01.10.1913 02.03.1914 James A . Knowles et ux Hugh W. Wright $3,895 Pt N. E. ¼ front on Yonge St 5571 B & S 21.07.1919 31.07.1919 Hugh A. Wright William J. Buchanan $4,000 ½ ac, pt N. E. ½ 5721 B & S 01.03.1920 08.03.1920 Wm J Buchanan et ux John A. Readman $5,000 ½ ac pt lot front on Yonge St 246 Plan 11.12.1933 15.12.1933 W. S. Gibson & Son OLS Town of Aurora Pt lot 81, Con 1 King (Intal) 10584 Grant 30.12.1950 05.01.1951 Wm H Brydon ext of John W. Readman Gwendolyn G. McArthur $12,000 All 56572A Grant 18.04.1962 01.05.1962 Gwendolyn G. McArthur William & Mabel Dakin $24,000 All 126079 Grant 13.07.1972 01.09.1972 William & Mabel Dakin Richard B & Marg Holder JT V. C. & $1 All 275212 Grant 24.06.1981 30.06.1981 Richard B & Marg Holder 484226 Ontario LImited V. C. & $2 All R-Plan 65R- 17802 30.05.1995 YR462624 Ch Name Owner 03.05.2004 484226 Ontario Limited 1087931 Ontario Limited Page 214 of 295 Appendix K: Ontario Heritage Act Regulation 9/06 Page 215 of 295 Heritage Impact Assessment Appendix K – Ontario Heritage Act 15356 Yonge Street Regulation 9/06 Town of Aurora, Ontario Wayne Morgan July 2017 Heritage Planner Page 216 of 295 Appendix L: Adjacent/Nearby Heritage Properties Page 217 of 295 Heritage Impact Assessment Appendix L – Adjacent/Nearby 15356 Yonge Street ` Heritage Properties Town of Aurora, Ontario Wayne Morgan July 2017 Heritage Planner Source: Airphoto - York Maps 2015 Source: Google Earth 2005 4660 Kirby Rd Purpleville Cemetery Study Area 10733 Pine Valley Dr Study Area 3840 Kirby Rd Page 218 of 295 Heritage Impact Assessment Appendix L – Adjacent/Nearby 15356 Yonge Street ` Heritage Properties Town of Aurora, Ontario Wayne Morgan July 2017 Heritage Planner CHARACTER DEFINING ELEMENTS & Extract from HERITAGE VALUE: Horton Place – 15342 Yonge Street Character defining elements which express the heritage value of Horton Place include the: - symmetrical appearance - square plan - central entrance - two-storey brick construction - hipped roof - historic additions - original fenestration with round headed sashes - louvered shutters - wide overhanging eaves with heavy ornamental paired brackets - main entrance porch and side verandah, both with cast iron balcony railings - original entrances, including doors and sidelights - decorative trim throughout In 1968, due to the widening of the main thoroughfare, Yonge Street, through Aurora, a concrete retaining wall was constructed in front of Horton Place, which altered the relationship of the site to the street. However, bordered on top by a small iron railing Horton Place continues to be a prominent well-maintained property of the streetscape. Hillary House – 15372 Yonge Street Character defining elements that embody the heritage value of the Hillary House include the: - one-and-a-half-storey red brick walls - decorative yellow brick of the quoins and triple row coursing - cedar shingled roof with centre gable - decorative bargeboard trim - wraparound veranda with bell curved roof, clustered columns, and spring pointed wooden arch trellis - small balcony with clustered column railings - main entrance with sidelights, transom, and scrollwork - fenestration, including the pointed arch centre gable window, six over six sash windows and casement windows on the second storey - wood window labels, sills and louvered shutters - wood fence sheltering house from the street - barn itself, along with its position on the site - layout of the site including the relationship between the house, barn, fencing, and original creek course, now a dried bed The lot is covered with mature trees, bushes and tall plantings, providing a cooling effect in the summer as well privacy from traffic on Yonge Street. Source: Canadian Register of Historic Places Page 219 of 295 Appendix M: Town of Aurora and York Region Planning Document Maps Page 220 of 295 Heritage Impact Assessment Appendix M– Town of Aurora and York Region 15356 Yonge Street Planning Document Maps Town of Aurora, Ontario Wayne Morgan July 2017 Heritage Planner Regional Municipality of York Official Plan Part of Map 1 Regional Structure Subject Property (approximate) Page 221 of 295 Heritage Impact Assessment Appendix M– Town of Aurora and York Region 15356 Yonge Street Planning Document Maps Town of Aurora, Ontario Wayne Morgan July 2017 Heritage Planner Town of Aurora Official Plan Part of Schedule ‘A’ Structure Plan Subject Property (approximate) Page 222 of 295 Heritage Impact Assessment Appendix M– Town of Aurora and York Region 15356 Yonge Street Planning Document Maps Town of Aurora, Ontario Wayne Morgan July 2017 Heritage Planner Town of Aurora Official Plan Part of Schedule ‘B1’ The Aurora Promenade Secondary Plan Area Subject Property (approximate) Page 223 of 295 Heritage Impact Assessment Appendix M– Town of Aurora and York Region 15356 Yonge Street Planning Document Maps Town of Aurora, Ontario Wayne Morgan July 2017 Heritage Planner Town of Aurora Zoning By-law By-law 5173-09 amending Zoning By-law No. 2213-78, Schedule A Page 224 of 295 Heritage Impact Assessment Appendix M– Town of Aurora and York Region 15356 Yonge Street Planning Document Maps Town of Aurora, Ontario Wayne Morgan July 2017 Heritage Planner Northeast Old Aurora Heritage Conservation District District Boundaries Subject Property (red overlay) Source: Aurora By-Law No. 4804-06, Schedule A, approved by the OMB November 9, 2006. Page 225 of 295 Appendix N: Development Proposal Page 226 of 295 Heritage Impact Assessment Appendix N – Development Proposal 15356 Yonge Street Town of Aurora, Ontario Wayne Morgan July 2017 Heritage Planner Site Plan – Drawing A003 Source: onespace unlimited inc. Date: 2017-06-30 Knowles / Readman House Page 227 of 295 Heritage Impact Assessment Appendix N – Development Proposal 15356 Yonge Street Town of Aurora, Ontario Wayne Morgan July 2017 Heritage Planner Elevations – Drawing A300 Source: onespace unlimited inc. Date: 2017-06-30 Knowles / Readman House Page 228 of 295 Heritage Impact Assessment Appendix N – Development Proposal 15356 Yonge Street Town of Aurora, Ontario Wayne Morgan July 2017 Heritage Planner Elevations – Drawing A301 Source: onespace unlimited inc. Date: 2017-06-30 Knowles / Readman House Page 229 of 295 Heritage Impact Assessment Appendix N – Development Proposal 15356 Yonge Street Town of Aurora, Ontario Wayne Morgan July 2017 Heritage Planner Material Board Page 230 of 295 Heritage Impact Assessment Appendix N – Development Proposal 15356 Yonge Street Town of Aurora, Ontario Wayne Morgan July 2017 Heritage Planner Building Section – Drawing A400 Source: onespace unlimited inc. Date: 2017-06-30 Page 231 of 295 Heritage Impact Assessment Appendix N – Development Proposal 15356 Yonge Street Town of Aurora, Ontario Wayne Morgan July 2017 Heritage Planner Landscape Concept Source: Planning Partnership. Date: 2017-06-07 Knowles / Readman House Page 232 of 295 Appendix O: Curriculum Vitae Wayne Morgan Farmstead from the south-west , Date: Jan. 1944; Source: Bawden Family Photographs Farm Lane towards Leslie Street , Date: 1943; Source: Bawden Family Photographs Page 233 of 295 Heritage Impact Assessment Appendix O – Curriculum Vitae 15356 Yonge Street Wayne Morgan Town of Aurora, Ontario Wayne Morgan July 2017 Heritage Planner Page 234 of 295 15356 Yonge Street Heritage Advisory Committee Meeting November 1, 2021 Design Review Panel Page 235 of 295 15356 Yonge Street Development Timeline and Milestones: 2 Nov 2017 Presentation to Design Review Panel Nov 2017 Public Meeting July 2017 Initial Application Submission Sept 2016 Pre-Consultation Aug 2018 Presentation to Aurora Historical Society Jan & March 2020 Meeting with Residents April 2021 Application Re-Submission On going and iterative review process over a 3 year period Page 236 of 295 3 15356 Yonge Street Development: Planned Context Aurora Promenade Secondary Plan • Prepared in 2010 and incorporated into the Town’s Official Plan • Will accommodate majority of Town’s intensification •Wide-scale permission for mid-rise development in Promenade Relevant Aurora Promenade Policies • Subject Site = “Downtown Shoulder” and “Promenade General” •Downtown Shoulder: •Encourage infill development •Protection of heritage residential character •Apartment buildings permitted •Subject Site = Minimum 2-storeys/Maximum 5-storeys 15356 Yonge St 15356 Yonge St Aurora Promenade Policy Area Aurora Promenade Heights Page 237 of 295 4 15356 Yonge Street Development: Heritage Context Supporting Heritage Policy •On the west edge of the Northeast Old Aurora HCD •Heritage building objective: retain and restore identified buildings • “…design of new development to be sympathetic and compatible with the heritage resources and character of the District while providing for contemporary needs” • Yonge Street Corridor: existing “high value heritage” buildings to be conserved, new construction located to the rear, designed to be architecturally sympathetic“ NE OLD Aurora HCD Page 238 of 295 5 15356 Yonge Street Development: Site Plan Rear Tail Wing Retained and Conserved Knowles- Readman House Hillary House Horton Place Page 239 of 295 6 15356 Yonge Street Development: 2017 & 2021 Design Comparison Proposal •Conserve and restore Knowles-Readman House •Maintain historic residential use of the house •Removal of previously altered rear tail wing (not considered a heritage attribute) •4-Storey Residential Building Proposal to Rear oOriginal application for 5-storey building; revised after extensive consultation with Town, Aurora Historical Society and neighbours oSetback 20m from the Knowles-Readman House oUnderstated, contemporary design to provide appropriate contract to Knowles-Readman House oUse of similar building materials (ex: masonry) to promote sympathetic relationship oHouse fully incorporation into condo operations (ex: use of pantry, amenities Page 240 of 295 7 15356 Yonge Street Development: 2017 & 2021 Design Comparison North Elevation West Elevation Page 241 of 295 8 Key Issues Design Changes •Heritage Preservation •Support for preservation strategy; no changes required •Building Height •Reduced from 5 to 4-storeys; height reduced by 6.5 m (equalivent to 2-storeys) •GFA •Total GFA reduced by approximately 9,000ft2; about a 22% reduction •Units •Type and number of units have been reconfigured so there are 36 units including the existing house, from 38 units previously •Area Fit •Refinements to exterior massing and materials have helped the building better relate to its surroundings, particularly on the north side in relation to Hillary House •Significant on and off-site enhancements for Hillary House 15356 Yonge Street: What we’ve learned and how we’ve responded Page 242 of 295 9 15356 Yonge Street Development: 2017 & 2021 Design Comparison 6.5m Page 243 of 295 How the Knowles-Readman House will be conserved Protection / Conservation The owner will: •Prepare a Protection Plan to ensure House is protected during construction •Prepare and Implement a Conservation Plan approved by the Town •Enter into a Heritage Easement Agreement to provide permanent protection for the House •Protect and conserve the Yonge Street front yard •Post a plaque providing heritage interpretation of the site Circa 1920 Page 244 of 295 100 John West Way Aurora, Ontario L4G 6J1 (905) 727-3123 aurora.ca Town of Aurora Memorandum Planning & Development Services Re: Amendment to Heritage Designation By-law 6182-19 De La Salle College and Pine Ridge Trail (Monk’s Walk) 50-100 Bloomington Road West To: Heritage Advisory Committee From: Brashanthe Manoharan, Planner/Heritage Planning Date: November 1, 2021 Recommendation 1. That the memorandum regarding a proposed Amendment to Heritage Designation By-law 6182-19 be received; and, 2. That the Heritage Advisory Committee comments regarding a proposed Amendment to Heritage Designation By-law 6182-19 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 with the information on a proposed amendment to Heritage Designation By-law 6182-19 for 50- 100 Bloomington Road West. The subject property is designated as a property of cultural heritage value or interest under Section 29 (Part IV) of the Ontario Heritage Act. Staff are proposing an amendment to the “Historical/ Associative Value” section of Heritage Designation By-law 6182-19 for 50-100 Bloomington Road West, to acknowledge the history of the Pine Ridge institution. Background Property Description The subject property is located on the northwest corner of Yonge Street and Bloomington Road West. The property exceeds 70 acres in lot area and includes Page 245 of 295 Amendment to Heritage Designation By-law 6182-19 November 1, 2021 Page 2 of 4 heritage attributes such as the front courtyard and the Monk’s Walk trail at the northern portion of the property. The four-storey building was constructed c. 1916, designed in a Collegiate Gothic Architectural style by J.P. Haynes. The building currently serves as an office building for the Government of Ontario. There is an Ontario Provincial Police Building located to the north of the subject lands, that was constructed in 1989. It is also noted that a walking trail known locally as “The Monk’s Walk” is located in a wooded area at the northern portion of the property. History of the Property 50-100 Bloomington Road West has a unique history over the past 200 years. The lands were originally settled by Joseph Minthorn in 1808. Another notable early settler includes William Mair, who held the land until 1878. In 1914, the property was purchased by the Christian Brotherhood. By 1916, the Brotherhood built a school known as “De La Salle College” for young men destined to pursue religious services. During this time, the Brotherhood established the walking trail at the north end of the property known locally as Monk’s Walk. This trail comprises of religious carvings in trees along the route, used by the Brotherhood for meditation. The Christian Brotherhood continued to operate the school until 1949 when at that time, the school was moved back to Toronto. In 1950, the property was purchased by the Government of Ontario and the building was converted into a residential facility for males 16 years of age and older with developmental disabilities due to the overcrowding at the Huronia Regional Centre in Orillia. The facility was re-named “Pine Ridge” in 1974 and continued to operate until August 1984. During these years, it has been reported that the residents were emotionally, physically, and psychologically abused. The building housed over 170 residents, until it closed in August 1984. After the closure of Pine Ridge, the Government of Ontario retrofitted the building for offices. The building was converted into an office for the Ministry of Natural Resources and an Ontario Registry Office. An Ontario Provincial Police facility was constructed on the north end of the property in 1989. These uses continue to exist on the property to this day. Page 246 of 295 Amendment to Heritage Designation By-law 6182-19 November 1, 2021 Page 3 of 4 Heritage Designation In 2019, Town Council passed By-law 6182-19 to designate 50-100 Bloomington Road West under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act as a cultural heritage landscape. By-law 6182-19 identifies the exterior and cultural heritage landscape elements as the original key attributes that contribute to the heritage value of the property (see Attachment 1). Analysis Staff are recommending that Heritage Designation By-law 6182-19 for 50-100 Bloomington Road West be amended to include additional information about Pine Ridge During the April 5, 2021 Heritage Advisory Committee meeting, Len Bulmer and Kathy Kantel requested that the heritage designation by-law be reconsidered to acknowledge the true history of the Pine Ridge institution. Staff have since undertaken a thorough investigation to gather the facts of the events that occurred at Pine Ridge, and based on that review, are proposing an amendment to Heritage Designation By-law 6182-19. Institutions for people as we describe today as having “developmental disabilities” have existed for over 130 years in Ontario, from the opening of the first asylum in 1876 to the closing of the final three facilities in 2009. While the intention of these facilities was to promote health, support services, and other aspects of well-being, it was ultimately determined that the institutionalization of people with disabilities was not the best approach as it contributed to isolation, stigmatization, and abuse. In December 2013, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice approved a $35-million settlement between the survivors of Huronia Regional Centre (including Pine Ridge) and the Ontario government. Shortly after, the Ontario government issued a formal apology to the former residents of Huronia Regional Centre, recognizing that the residents of this institution endured forcible restraints, were stripped of their dignity, and underwent physical and emotional abuse. As such, Staff are proposing an amendment to Heritage Designation By-law 6182-19 by way of the following addition to the “Historical/ Associative Value” section: In 1950, the property was purchased by the Government of Ontario and the building was converted into a residential facility for males 16 years of age and older with developmental disabilities due to the overcrowding at the Huronia Regional Centre in Orillia. The facility was re-named “Pine Ridge” in 1974 and continued to operate until August 1984. During these years residents were victim Page 247 of 295 Amendment to Heritage Designation By-law 6182-19 November 1, 2021 Page 4 of 4 to emotional, physical, and psychological abuse instead of receiving the care that these residential institutions claimed to have provided. The building housed over 170 residents, until its closure in August of 1984. Staff will also be recommending that a commemorative plaque be erected on the site at the owner’s cost. Should the proposed amendment be approved, wording for the plaque shall be prepared by the Town. If Council decides to proceed with the amendment, a notice of intention will be served to the property owner. Once the Town issues a Notice of Intention to Amend Designation, the owner may object to the proposed amendment within 30 days of its publication. If there are no objections within the 30-day period, the amended designation by-law for the subject property will be brought forward to Council for approval. If there are objections, it will be referred to the Ontario Land Tribunal for a hearing. Conclusion Staff have reviewed and verified the information provided by the delegates from the April 5, 2021 and support the amendment to “Historical/ Associative Value” section of Heritage Designation By-law 6182-19 for 50-100 Bloomington Road West, to acknowledge the history of the Pine Ridge institution. Attachments Attachment 1 - Heritage Designation By-law 6182-19 Page 248 of 295 Page 249 of 295 Page 250 of 295 Page 251 of 295 Page 252 of 295 100 John West Way Aurora, Ontario L4G 6J1 (905) 727-3123 aurora.ca Town of Aurora Memorandum Operational Services Re: Tree Removal Permit Application – 144 Temperance Street To: Heritage Advisory Committee From: Sara Tienkamp, Manager Parks and Fleet Date: November 1, 2021 Recommendation 1. That the memorandum regarding Tree Removal Permit Application – 144 Temperance Street be received; and 2. That the Heritage Advisory Committee comments regarding the Tree Removal Application – 144 Temperance 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. On September 25, 2021, the Parks Division received a formal Tree Removal Application and supporting documentation for the removal of five (5), Norway Spruce trees that form a hedge row in the rear yard of the property, to facilitate the installation of a pool. 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. Page 253 of 295 Tree Removal Application – 144 Temperance Street November 1, 2021 Page 2 of 3 Analysis Back yard oasis planned with future pool, spa, and patio The application to remove trees is due to a future landscape plan which includes a pool and patio installation. Resident is looking to expand on the existing deck and include amenities in the rear yard to maximize the space available. Owners would like to create an inviting space to be utilized for recreation, entertaining, relaxation with family and friends. The Arborist report recommends removal of trees based on construction impacts Cinerea Urban Forestry Services was retained by resident to provide an assessment of the proposed removal tree health, structural stability, and tree protection on the property. There are five (5) Norway Spruce trees proposed for removal that form a hedge row along the western rear property line. Approximately half of the root plates of the spruce will be heavily impacted by construction/excavation of pool and patio. This will affect the long-term health of the trees and more importantly compromise the structural integrity of the tree’s root zones which support the tree in the ground when under wind load. The owners, consulting arborist, reports the trees as having Diameter at Breast Height (DBH) measurements between 43-57 centimetres. The spruce trees are rated in good overall general health. Town Forestry staff have confirmed the information contained in the Arborist report. Compensation for tree removals and replanting opportunities identified As per the Town’s Tree Removal Compensation Policy, the value of the five (5) spruce trees proposed for removal is $10,200. The initial Concept Landscape Plan sows extensive planting, including multiple caliper trees as part of pool install. At the time of this report a cost estimate had not been established for the concept landscape design. As the landscape design/pool consultants work through more detailed plans, costs and plant material sizes will be determined, allowing staff to work with resident to ensure the Towns needs are met. Based on the concept landscape plan and vegetation identified, it is clear the value of the landscape planting will exceed the value of the five (5) spruce. However, if the value of the compensation cannot be planted on site remainder of the compensation will be transferred to the Tree Page 254 of 295 Tree Removal Application – 144 Temperance Street November 1, 2021 Page 3 of 3 Compensation Reserve and utilized for future tree planting initiatives in the Town to maintain urban canopy cover. Attachments Attachment #1 – Tree Removal Permit Application Attachment #2 – Arborist Report Attachment #3 – Tree Preservation Plan Attachment #4 – Concept Landscape Plan Page 255 of 295 100 John West Way Aurora, Ontario L4G 6J1 (905) 727-3123 aurora.ca Tree Permit Application Application to Permit the Injury or Destruction of Of Trees on Private Property 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. Municipal address: Street name and number must be included for applications to be considered complete. 2. Provide an Arborist Report completed by an Arborist as defined in the by-law, at the discretion of the Parks Manager. 3. If replanting, provide 2 copies of the replanting plan or landscape plan. 4. Payment of Fees is required. 5. 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 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 greater than 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 Page 256 of 295 Applicant Information Municipal address of subject property * 144 temperance street Name of Applicant/Agent: * Gordon Heyting Mailing Address of Applicant: * 144 temperance street aurora ON L4G2R4 Telephone * ( Email Address * Name of Registered Owner (if different from above): Mailing address of Owner (if different from above): Existing Land Use * residential Are the tree(s) located on or near any neighbouring property line resulting in the joint ownership of the tree(s * Yes No Reason why trees are being injured or removed. Please select: * Trees interfere with proposed construction Landscaping on the property All trees are dead, dying or hazardous Trees are interfering with utilities/dwelling/foundation Installing pool Other (please specify) Page 257 of 295 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 choose one (1) of the below (Methods of payment cheque only. Fees are non-refundable and must be remitted at the time of initial permit application) Trees over 20cm in diameter * 3 trees - $214 4 trees - $320 5 trees - $427 6 trees - $534 7 trees - $640 8 or more trees $107 per additional tree to a maximum of $2,552.50 Trees over 70 centimeters in diameter - $534 per tree Please select * 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 Full Name * Gordon Heyting Page 258 of 295 Signature Date (MM/dd/yyyy) * 9/25/2021 Does the trunk of the tree/s at ground level bisect or straddle a property line? * Yes No Please provide the supporting documents found in the below attachment: Part A (Tree and Site Information) and Part B (Sketch of Property) Supporting documentation to amend personal information. File Name 144 Temperance St. IVM.pdf 4.7 MB 144 Temperance St - TPP.pdf 1.5 MB Part C (Arborist Confirmation) I/We certify that the information in parts A, B & C are correct. Full Name * Mark Ellis ISA Board certified master arborist ON-1686BM  Page 259 of 295 Signature (Includes professional designation where applicable) * Date (MM/dd/yyyy) * 9/25/2021  Page 260 of 295 Thank You Your form has been submitted and we will respond shortly. Page 261 of 295 Integrated Vegetation Management Plan Prepared for: Gordon Heyting Erin Bresenhuber 144 Temperance St. Aurora ON L4G 2R4 gord@pulpmouldeproducts.com erinbresenhuber@hotmail.ca 416-275-4490 Site Address: Same as above Modified: October 14, 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 Page 262 of 295 Cinerea Urban Forestry Services Arborist Report 144 Temperance St. Aurora ON Page 2 of 26 Table of Contents Summary 3 Introduction & Assignment (Nature of Work) 4 Assignment Limitations 4 Methods 4 Observations 5 Tree Replacement Information 5 Tree Maintenance Plan 6 Pruning and Root Pruning Plan 6 Arborist Recommendations 6 Conclusion 7 Appendix 1 – Tree Inventory 8 Appendix 2 – Photos (Trees Are Centred) 10 Appendix 3 - References 23 Appendix 4 - Arborist Qualifications 24 Page 263 of 295 Cinerea Urban Forestry Services Arborist Report 144 Temperance St. Aurora ON Page 3 of 26 Summary This report is in regards to construction of a pool at 144 Temperance St. Aurora ON. General health assessment and tree protection measures and practices have been identified within this report. Page 264 of 295 Cinerea Urban Forestry Services Arborist Report 144 Temperance St. Aurora ON Page 4 of 26 Introduction & Assignment (Nature of Work) Cinerea Urban Forestry Services was commissioned by Gordon Heyting and Erin Bresenhuber to complete an Arborist Report and Tree Preservation Plan known as an Integrated Vegetation Management Plan to inventory and assess the health trees 144 Temperance St. Aurora ON. The scope of construction is to construct an inground pool within the backyard area with associated hardscaping surrounding it. An inventory and general health assessment was performed for all trees: on and within 6 metres of subject property. Note: The Town of Aurora only requires trees within 4.5 metres of properties inventoried Assignment Limitations Recommendations for tree preservation have been based upon the client supplied drawings. 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. 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. 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. This report is not in any way intended to be a guarantee for tree removal permit. All decisions regarding removal of bylaw protected trees is that of the Town of Aurora. Methods  Tools used to assess the trees included a clinometer, metric measuring tape, metric measuring wheel, binoculars, digital camera, metal probe  Town owned trees of any diameter and all private trees measuring over 5 cm or greater located within 10 metres of construction limits were recorded for the purposes of this report  All diameters of trees were measured at a height of 1.4 metres Page 265 of 295 Cinerea Urban Forestry Services Arborist Report 144 Temperance St. Aurora ON Page 5 of 26  From Town of Aurora Website: “"tree diameter" means the measurement of the diameter of the trunk of a tree from outside the bark 140cm (55 inches) above existing grade of the ground adjoining its base or where there are multiple stems on a tree, means the total of the diameters of the three (3) largest stems measured approximately 140 cm (55 inches) above existing grade” Observations  Field work was completed by Mark Ellis on August 31, 2021  Weather at time of assessment was sunny and 20°C  No endangered tree species such as American chestnut Castanea dentata or butternut Juglans cinerea found on or within 6 metres of the property  Trees proposed to be removed are non-native  Trees # 3 through 7 to be removed to facilitate construction  Application fees of $427 Tree Replacement Information Tree # Common Name Latin Address dbh (cm) @ 1.4 m Nursery Replacement Size Nursery Cost Installed Cost Species Rating Condition Rating Replacement Ratio Total Replacement Cost 3 Norway Spruce Picea abies 144 Temperance St. 57 200 cm 192.1 480.25 0.71 0.8 9.5 2429.46469 4 Norway Spruce Picea abies 144 Temperance St. 43 200 cm 192.1 480.25 0.71 0.7 7.166667 1710.57046 5 Norway Spruce Picea abies 144 Temperance St. 46 200 cm 192.1 480.25 0.71 0.7 7.666667 1829.91258 6 Norway Spruce Picea abies 144 Temperance St. 56 200 cm 192.1 480.25 0.71 0.7 9.333333 2227.71967 7 Norway Spruce Picea abies 144 Temperance St. 47 200 cm 192.1 480.25 0.71 0.8 7.833333 2003.24281 Total $10,200.91 2 sugar maple Acer saccharum trees are to be replanted in the backyard of 144 Temperance St. following the completion of construction. The minimum size shall be 60mm caliper and shall Page 266 of 295 Cinerea Urban Forestry Services Arborist Report 144 Temperance St. Aurora ON Page 6 of 26 meet the minimum criteria as set forth in the latest edition of the Canadian Nursery Stock Standard. Exact planting locations may be found on the Planting Plan. The Uxbridge Nurseries 2021 price for a 60 mm caliper tree is $265 and 2.5 x the installed cost = $662.50 making the total cost $927.50 x 2 = $1855. Upon successful planting of these trees, this amount should be deducted from the total compensation amount. For reference: $8345.91 is the total compensation amount after the planting of the 2 sugar maple trees have been taken into account. Tree Maintenance Plan Tree # 8 shall be watered during and 2 years post construction. The tree should be regularly monitored by an ISA Certified Arborist (every 2 years) to ensure its continued health and prescribe any work it may need on an ongoing basis. General fertilization is not recommended in combination with root pruning. Radial trenching combined with addition of compost is recommended for continued heath of this tree. This will help to decompact the soil and to improve the health of the tree. Pruning and Root Pruning Plan No above ground pruning is required to facilitate construction. An exploratory dig will be conducted at the proposed construction limits of the MTPZs of tree # 8. This will be done to determine the amount and size of roots within those areas. From there a determination will be made by the arborist conducting the work of whether to root prune and preserve the tree, slightly alter construction or slightly alter construction or a combination of. This will be done in conjunction with the Town of Aurora Forestry Dept. as they will need to OK trees to be removed. Arborist Recommendations  Submit IVM to Town of Aurora  Install tree protection fencing and horizontal hoarding as per the tree preservation plan  Remove trees # 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Tree # 8 shall have exploratory dig done by an ISA Certified Arborist familiar with the process to determine the feasibility of preservation while doing proposed construction of hardscape; any roots found shall be root pruned upon approval from Town of Aurora  Any tree removal operations should be conducted outside of breeding/nesting seasons of Migratory Birds Page 267 of 295 Cinerea Urban Forestry Services Arborist Report 144 Temperance St. Aurora ON Page 7 of 26 Conclusion I, Mark Ellis, conducted a site visit on August 31, 2021 to inventory and assess trees for preservation, injury, or removal within the scope of proposed construction. Proposed construction is to construct a pool within the backyard area with associated hardscaping. The proposed construction will ultimately require the removal of 5 trees (# 3, 4, 5, 6, 7). Given the fact that all five trees have grown together for decades, they act together as a unit. Removing half of the trees only could lead to the failure of the remaining trees as the other trees which previously acted as a buffer, are now gone. It should be noted within this context that spruce Picea are very shallow rooted as compared to almost all other genus of trees. While proposed construction will structurally destabilize trees # 3, 4, and 5 via the removal of roots, all trees should be removed for the aforementioned reasons. Hardscaping is to be installed within the MTPZ of tree # 8. Here an exploratory dig will be done by an ISA Certified Arborist to determine if construction is feasible with minor to no injury. Root pruning will be conducted in conjunction with this work. If major structural roots are found either construction will have to be altered of the hardscaping or the tree removed. The removal of the 5 trees will require compensation. 2 sugar maple trees are to be replanted within the backyard area. Outstanding compensation value totals $8345.91 once the planting of the 2 sugar maple trees is accounted for. Planting shall be done upon the completion of construction and trees are to be planted in the spring or fall. Trees should be a minimum of 60mm caliper and meet the minimum criteria as set forth in the latest edition of the Canadian Nursery Stock Standard. Tree protection fencing shall be installed as per the Tree Preservation Plan and according to the Town of Aurora's specification. Fencing shall stall in place in good condition for the duration of construction. Horizontal hoarding shown up the east side of the house should use wood chips specifically and mulch. Mulch can be easily compacted and does not buffer heavy equipment adequately. Fencing should be constructed in a manner that it will withstand 90km/hr winds and last. Should any revisions be required to this report, please direct all communication to Mark Ellis at cinerea.ufs@gmail.com. All documentation to be submitted to the Town of Aurora Parks, Recreation and Cultural Services department, Parks Division, Town of Aurora, 100 John West Way Box 1000, Aurora, Ontario L4G 6J1. Application fees amount to $427 for the removal of 5 trees. Application fees are non-refundable once paid. Page 268 of 295 Appendix 1 – Tree Inventory Tree # Common Name Latin dbh (cm) @ 1.4 m Height (m) Crown Spread (m) Ownership (City/Town or Private) Town of Aurora Tree Protection Zone (metres) Health Structure Overall Condition Address Location Comments Arborist Recommendation 1 Crabapple Malus spp. 27 9 6 Town 3 Fair Poor Poor 144 Temperance St. 1.1 metres north of south building line 2.5 metres west of curb Tree protection fencing 2 Norway Maple Acer platanoides 'Crimson King' 47 15 9 Town 3.6 Good Fair Fair 142 Temperance St. 4.6 metres north of south property line 3 metres west of curb Exposed roots Confined rooting area due to sidewalk 3 Norway Spruce Picea abies 57 22 5 Private 4.5 Good Good Good 144 Temperance St. 1.3 metres south of north property line 1.1 metres east of west property line Growing in a windbreak/row Remove due to proposed construction 4 Norway Spruce Picea abies 43 22 3 Private 3.6 Good Good Good 144 Temperance St. 5 metres south of north property line 1.1 metres east of west property line Growing in a windbreak/row Remove due to proposed construction 5 Norway Spruce Picea abies 46 22 3 Private 3.6 Good Good Good 144 Temperance St. 6.9 metres south of north property line 1 metre east of west property line Growing in a windbreak/row Remove due to proposed construction 6 Norway Spruce Picea abies 56 22 3 Private 4.5 Good Good Good 144 Temperance St. 9.4 metres south of north property line 1 metre east of west property line Growing in a windbreak/row Remove due to proposed construction 7 Norway Spruce Picea abies 47 22 4 Private 3.6 Good Good Good 144 Temperance St. 11.5 metres south of north property line 1.1 metres east of west property line Growing in a windbreak/row Remove due to proposed construction Page 269 of 295 Cinerea Urban Forestry Services Arborist Report 144 Temperance St. Aurora ON Page 9 of 26 8 Ironwood Ostrya virginiana 38 15 8 Private 3.6 Good Fair Good 144 Temperance St. 4.3 metres north of south property line 8.3 metres east of west property line 5 main competing leaders 38 cm diameter at 1.5 metres in height Tree protection fencing Exploratory dig + potential root prune Page 270 of 295 Cinerea Urban Forestry Services Integrated Vegetation Management Plan 144 Temperance St. Aurora ON Page 10 of 26 Appendix 2 – Photos (Trees Are Centred) Page 271 of 295 Cinerea Urban Forestry Services Integrated Vegetation Management Plan 144 Temperance St. Aurora ON Page 11 of 26 Fig. 1 – Tree # 1 – Malus spp. – Tree Protection Fencing Page 272 of 295 Cinerea Urban Forestry Services Integrated Vegetation Management Plan 144 Temperance St. Aurora ON Page 12 of 26 Fig. 2 – Tree # 2 – Acer platanoides ‘ Crimson King’ - 142 Temperance St. Page 273 of 295 Cinerea Urban Forestry Services Integrated Vegetation Management Plan 144 Temperance St. Aurora ON Page 13 of 26 Fig. 3 – Tree # 2 – Acer platanoides ‘ Crimson King’ - 142 Temperance St. Page 274 of 295 Cinerea Urban Forestry Services Integrated Vegetation Management Plan 144 Temperance St. Aurora ON Page 14 of 26 Fig. 4 – Tree # 3 – Picea abies - Remove Page 275 of 295 Cinerea Urban Forestry Services Integrated Vegetation Management Plan 144 Temperance St. Aurora ON Page 15 of 26 Fig. 5 – Tree # 4 - Picea abies – Remove Page 276 of 295 Cinerea Urban Forestry Services Integrated Vegetation Management Plan 144 Temperance St. Aurora ON Page 16 of 26 Fig. 6 – Tree # 5 – Picea abies – Remove Page 277 of 295 Cinerea Urban Forestry Services Integrated Vegetation Management Plan 144 Temperance St. Aurora ON Page 17 of 26 Fig. 7 – Tree # 6 – Picea abies - Remove Page 278 of 295 Cinerea Urban Forestry Services Integrated Vegetation Management Plan 144 Temperance St. Aurora ON Page 18 of 26 Fig. 8 – Tree # 7 – Picea abies - Remove Page 279 of 295 Cinerea Urban Forestry Services Integrated Vegetation Management Plan 144 Temperance St. Aurora ON Page 19 of 26 Fig. 9 – Tree # 8 – Ostrya virginiana – Tree Protection Fencing – Exploratory Dig + Root Prune Page 280 of 295 Cinerea Urban Forestry Services Integrated Vegetation Management Plan 144 Temperance St. Aurora ON Page 20 of 26 Fig. 10 – Tree # 8 – Ostrya virginiana – Tree Protection Fencing Page 281 of 295 Cinerea Urban Forestry Services Integrated Vegetation Management Plan 144 Temperance St. Aurora ON Page 21 of 26 Fig. 11 – Tree # 9 – Thuja occidentalis – Hedge Page 282 of 295 Cinerea Urban Forestry Services Integrated Vegetation Management Plan 144 Temperance St. Aurora ON Page 22 of 26 Fig. 12 – Backyard Area Page 283 of 295 Cinerea Urban Forestry Services Integrated Vegetation Management Plan 144 Temperance St. Aurora ON Page 23 of 26 Appendix 3 - 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. Tree Protection/Preservation Policy. (2017). 1st ed. [ebook] Aurora: The Town of Aurora, p.All. Available at: https://www.aurora.ca/Thingstodo/Documents/Parks/Appendix%204%2C%20Policy%20 D%2C%20Tree%20Protection%20Preservation.pdf [Accessed 31 Aug. 2021]. Page 284 of 295 Cinerea Urban Forestry Services Integrated Vegetation Management Plan 144 Temperance St. Aurora ON Page 24 of 26 Appendix 4 - 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. More recently, he has been involved in, post-failure investigations, and providing expert witness testimony in court cases. In recent years, Cinerea Urban Forestry Services has focused heavily on Arborist reports, tree preservation plans, and AirSpading + root pruning works and reports, annually doing approximately 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)  MOECC Butternut Health Assessor #532 (2014-2024)  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) (2014-2024)  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 285 of 295 Cinerea Urban Forestry Services Integrated Vegetation Management Plan 144 Temperance St. Aurora ON Page 25 of 26 Page 286 of 295 Cinerea Urban Forestry Services Integrated Vegetation Management Plan 144 Temperance St. Aurora ON Page 26 of 26 Page 287 of 295 1456728Exploratory dig to be completed byISA Certified Arborist in conjunctionwith Town of Aurora Urban ForestryDepartment for tree #8Subsequent root pruning based onfindings from exploratory digMh23Project:144 Temperance St. Aurora Tree Preservation PlanClient:Gordon HeytingErin Bresenhuber144 Temperance St.Aurora ON L4G 2R4gord@pulpmouldeproducts.comerinbresenhuber@hotmail.ca416-275-4490Notes:1. All field data collected by Mark Ellis, ISA BCMAON-1686BM on August 31, 2021Legend:No. DATE BYREVISIONSSTAMPAPPROVALSMUNICIPALDIRECTOR OF ENGINEERINGDATEDRAWING NO.CONTRACT NO.SCALESHEETTP - 11:1001 OF 12Identification NumberApprox Crown SpreadTree Protection Fencing - Rigid HoardingExisting Tree to Remain and be ProtectedAurora Minimum Tree Protection Zone (MTPZ)Horizontal HoardingExisting Tree to be Removed to Facilitate ConstructionExisting Tree to be Removed (Unrelated to Construction)Tree to be PlantedReplant InventoryInventoryPage 288 of 295 x " m 99.77x " m 99.77x " m 99.57x " m 99.67x " m 99.09x " m 99.96x " m 99.77x " m 99.91x " m 99.68x " m 99.98x " m 99.06x " m 99.78x " m 99.80x " m 99.51EXISTING CHAIN LINK FENCE MIN. 1.22 M TALL GARDEN BED PROPOSED INGROUND SPA PROPOSED UPPER POOL PATIO: 200 SQFT PROPOSED INGROUND POOL PROPOSED MID POOL PATIO: 288 SQFT PROPOSED POOL PATIO GARDEN BED LAWN EXISTING DECK SELF LATCHING IRON GATE/IRON FENCE MIN 1.22 M TALL SELF LATCHING IRON GATE POOL LEGAL IRON FENCE MIN. 1.22 M TALL PROPOSED LOWER POOL PATIO: 687 SQFT LAWN EXISTING CHAIN LINK FENCE MIN. 1.22 M TALL WOOD FENCE 1.82 M TALL PROPERTY LINEPROPERTY LINELAWN WOOD FENCE 1.82 M TALL ELEVATIONS SHALL MATCHNEIGHBOURING PROPERTIES ATPROPERTY LINEELEVATIONS SHALL MATCHNEIGHBOURING PROPERTIES ATPROPERTY LINEEXISTING CHAIN LINK FENCE MIN. 1.22 M TALL CHAIN LINK FENCE MIN. 1.22 M TALL PROPERTY LINE 8'-4"14'15'28'14'43'-3 116" 5' 6' 6' 6' GARAGE RESIDENCEPROPERTY LINEPROPERTY LINEPROPERTYLAWN DRIVEWAY (3) 'INCREDIBALL' HYDRANGEA' (4) 'DAWYCK' GREEN BEECH (22) BABY GEM BOXWOOD (12) EMERALD CEDAR (12) PACHYSANDRA GR.COVER PROPOSED POOL EQUIP 3'2'(10) SQ. CUT NATURAL STONE (36" X 24") (2) SQ. CUT NATURAL STONE (30" X 24") 3'2'(18) HAKONE JAPANESE FOREST GRASS (5) 6" CURB/STEP @ 7'-7 3/8"-LENGTH (2) SUGAR MAPLE TREE'S (5) 'DAWYCK' GREEN BEECH TREE'S (6) EMERALD CEDAR PACHYSANDRA GR. COVER (5) GREEN GEM BOXWOOD (11) SQ. CUT NATURAL STONE (36" X 24") PEA GRAVEL BASE PEA GRAVEL BASE 9POOL PATIO x9090""PROPOSED LOWER POOL PATTIO:57m79PROPOSED MMID POOL PAATIO:74"PRROPOSED UPPEER 4L S PP E AA O MM R OO Q OO E TT P O OO P m""m9090960 RR P L T EE U EE (14) SQ. CUT NATURAL STONE (36" X 24") LAWN OPTIONAL- COVERED ARBOR/DINING AREA (5) SQ. CUT NATURAL STONE (30" X 24") BEGIN PEA GRAVEL BASE OPTIONAL: (18) SQ. CUT NATURAL STONE (30" X 24") SET INTO GRASS                   date scale drawing drawing # PROJECT ADDRESS: Bresenhuber Res. 144 TEMPERANCE ST. AURORA, ON L4G 2R4NORDLANDS 30 Alaura Blvd. Suite 6 Aurora, ON L4G 3S5 (905) 727-1644 Page 289 of 295 100 John West Way Aurora, Ontario L4G 6J1 (905) 727-3123 aurora.ca Town of Aurora Memorandum Planning and Development Services Re: Alterations to a Listed Heritage Property – 53 Metcalfe Street To: Heritage Advisory Committee From: Brashanthe Manoharan, Planner/Heritage Planning Date: November 1, 2021 Recommendation 1. That the memorandum regarding alterations to a listed heritage property at 53 Metcalfe Street be received for information. Background The purpose of this memorandum is to inform the Heritage Advisory Committee about a forthcoming building permit application for a listed property at 53 Metcalfe Street. The applicant is proposing to remove and replace the existing verandah and attached garage to perform the required repairs and waterproofing of the original foundation. The existing 9.73 m2 verandah will be replaced with a new verandah footprint of approximately 19 m2 and the existing 25.19m2 attached garage will be replaced with a new garage footprint of approximately 39.31 m2. The proposed porch can be described as a Georgian style open porch design, characterized by its traditional style wood columns, wood trims, wood tongue and groove ceiling that will be painted white. The porch is proposed to have composite decking that will be a natural wood colour with composite deck skirting that will be painted white. The proposed attached garage will be beige board and batten siding, which is consistent with the existing attached garage. The proposed garage door will be a black coach style door. Staff are satisfied that the proposed porch and attached garage are consistent and compatible with styles that exist within the Town Park Neighbourhood. The proposed work does not require a heritage permit under the Ontario Heritage Act. On September 9th, 2021, Staff met with the Heritage Working Group to evaluate the Page 290 of 295 Alterations to a Listed Heritage Property – 53 Metcalfe Street November 1, 2021 Page 2 of 2 subject property. It was determined that since the proposal is not for a complete demolition, that a scoring exercise is not required. As such, the property will remain listed pending completion of the comprehensive review of the Heritage Registry. Attachments Attachment 1 – Proposed Drawings and Photos of the Existing Dwelling Page 291 of 295 HOMES 2BDESIGN CORPORATIONDRAWING NO.:Michael Swann104 Seaton Drive,Aurora, OntarioL4G 3X1(905) 751-7792homes2bdesigncorp@gmail.comDRAWN BY:CHECKED BY:MICHAEL SWANN20300HOMES 2B DESIGN CORPORATIONAll work shall be carried out in accordance with all by-laws and codes applicable to the location. All dimensions and information shall be verified on site and any variancesreported to the designer prior to the start of the work. This drawing and the design herein are copyright of the designer and may not be reproduced, altered or reused withoutwritten consent. This drawing must not be scaled.Small Building Design Activities:The undersigned has reviewed and takes responsibility for this design, and has the qualifications and meets the requirements set out in the Ontario Building Code to be adesigner.Qualification Information: Required unless the design is exempt under 3.2.4.1.(1) of the Ontario Building Code.__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________NAME SIGNATURE BCINRegistration Information: Required unless the design is exempt under 3.2.4.2.(1) of the Ontario Building Code.__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________FIRM NAME BCINDATE:113270SHEET PRESENT IN ISSUENO. ISSUE DATEREVISIONE.M.S.M.S.Proposed Site Modifications353 Metcalfe StreetAuroraON L4G 1E5N 5.9133.433 3.3653.383 7,964 15,9811,7572,4812,8732,8828,2261,220 9,300 4,152 5,145 5,640540 7,4902,2803,58729,9105,342 1,0000 1,6643,7467,3607,654 7,585 8,047 N75°45'E 18.105m N75°45'E 18.105mN7°33'W 53.309m53 VERANDAH GARAGE METCALFE STREET NOTE:THIS DRAWING IS BASED ON REGISTERED PLAN 68, TOWN OF AURORA.IT WAS PREPARED BY JOHN C. MOORE, O.L.S. ON JULY 3, 1980.EXISTING 2-STOREY HOUSE DRIVEWAY FIRST FLOOR DECK SECOND FLOOR HABITABLE SPACE SECOND FLOOR DECK 51 FIRST FLOOR CARRIAGE ENTRANCE & SECOND FLOOR HABITABLE SPACE 55 TWO STOREY HOUSE VERANDAH 7,126N7°33'W 53.309mSTEPS SCALE: 1:2002021-07-10SP1.1APage 292 of 295 HOMES 2BDESIGN CORPORATIONDRAWING NO.:Michael Swann104 Seaton Drive,Aurora, OntarioL4G 3X1(905) 751-7792homes2bdesigncorp@gmail.comDRAWN BY:CHECKED BY:MICHAEL SWANN20300HOMES 2B DESIGN CORPORATIONAll work shall be carried out in accordance with all by-laws and codes applicable to the location. All dimensions and information shall be verified on site and any variancesreported to the designer prior to the start of the work. This drawing and the design herein are copyright of the designer and may not be reproduced, altered or reused withoutwritten consent. This drawing must not be scaled.Small Building Design Activities:The undersigned has reviewed and takes responsibility for this design, and has the qualifications and meets the requirements set out in the Ontario Building Code to be adesigner.Qualification Information: Required unless the design is exempt under 3.2.4.1.(1) of the Ontario Building Code.__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________NAME SIGNATURE BCINRegistration Information: Required unless the design is exempt under 3.2.4.2.(1) of the Ontario Building Code.__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________FIRM NAME BCINDATE:113270SHEET PRESENT IN ISSUENO. ISSUE DATEREVISIONE.M.S.M.S.North Elevation - Colored Rendering153 Metcalfe StreetAuroraON L4G 1E52034,251FIRST FLOOR0.000m GARAGE FOUNDATION-0.363mGARAGE ROOF RIDGE+3.685mTOP OF OVERHANG BELOW WINDOW+3.271mFIRST FLOOR0.000mEXISTING HOUSEAVERAGE GRADEPROPOSEDREPLACEMENTGARAGE1234657891012131415161718PROPOSED EXTENDEDVERANDAH1153 METCALFE STREET MATERIALS & FINISHES 1 Existing Black Shingles 2 Existing Board and Batten Siding, Color: Benjamin Moore CC-454 (Cobblestone) 3 Proposed Black Shingles to Match Existing 4 Proposed Wood Trim Painted White 5 Proposed Board and Batten Siding, Color: Benjamin Moore CC-454 (Cobblestone) 6 Proposed Black Coach Style Garage Door: Bridgeport 7 Existing Dormer with White Siding & Black Shingles 8 Existing Black Shutters 9 Proposed Wood Trim Painted White 10 Proposed Wood Columns, Traditional Style, Painted White 11 Proposed Wood Tongue & Groove Ceiling, Painted White 12 Existing Exterior Door Painted Black 13 Proposed Composite Decking, Natural Wood Color 14 Proposed Composite Deck Skirting, White 15 Proposed Natural Stone Steps 16 Existing Stone Path 17 Proposed Concrete Foundation & Footings 18 Existing Asphalt Driveway 2021-09-23Page 293 of 295 HOMES 2BDESIGN CORPORATIONDRAWING NO.:Michael Swann104 Seaton Drive,Aurora, OntarioL4G 3X1(905) 751-7792homes2bdesigncorp@gmail.comDRAWN BY:CHECKED BY:MICHAEL SWANN20300HOMES 2B DESIGN CORPORATIONAll work shall be carried out in accordance with all by-laws and codes applicable to the location. All dimensions and information shall be verified on site and any variancesreported to the designer prior to the start of the work. This drawing and the design herein are copyright of the designer and may not be reproduced, altered or reused withoutwritten consent. This drawing must not be scaled.Small Building Design Activities:The undersigned has reviewed and takes responsibility for this design, and has the qualifications and meets the requirements set out in the Ontario Building Code to be adesigner.Qualification Information: Required unless the design is exempt under 3.2.4.1.(1) of the Ontario Building Code.__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________NAME SIGNATURE BCINRegistration Information: Required unless the design is exempt under 3.2.4.2.(1) of the Ontario Building Code.__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________FIRM NAME BCINDATE:113270SHEET PRESENT IN ISSUENO. ISSUE DATEREVISIONE.M.S.M.S.Additional Information253 Metcalfe StreetAuroraON L4G 1E5Existing Finishes for House, Garage and VerandahExisting West Side View of Verandah Depicting FinishesFront of 53 Metcalfe Street: Existing MaterialsBenjamin Moore Paint Color CC-454Used for Existing & Proposed SidingProposed Bridgeport Coach Style Garage Door2021-09-23Page 294 of 295 Figure 5 North-West View ϯ Page 295 of 295