Agenda - Committee of the Whole - 20260602Town of Aurora
Committee of the Whole
Meeting Revised Agenda
Date:Tuesday, June 2, 2026
Time:7 p.m.
Location:Council Chambers, Aurora Town Hall
Meetings are available to the public in person and via live stream on the Town’s YouTube channel.
To participate, please visit aurora.ca/participation.
Pages
1.Call to Order
Note: Added items are marked with an asterisk (*).
According to the Procedure By-law, the consent of a two-thirds majority vote of
Members present is required to permit the addition of Delegations items 6.5 to
6.6 to the agenda.
2.Land Acknowledgement
3.Approval of the Agenda
4.Declarations of Pecuniary Interest and General Nature Thereof
5.Community Presentations
5.1 Javed S. Khan and Rocco Morsillo, Aurora Sports Hall of Fame; Re: Class
of 2026 Inductees
1
6.Delegations
6.1 Thalia Avgousti, Resident; Re: My Ability is Stronger than my Disability 2
*6.2 Shawn Deane, Resident: Re: Item 10.2 CS26-013 - Restricted Acts During
the Election of a New Council
42
*6.3 John Hartman, Resident; Re: Item 11.1-FIN26-024 - Council Conference
Review and Reporting Framework
43
*6.4 Leta Dayfoot, Resident; Re: Item 14.2-PDS26-056 - Application for OPA
and ZBA, 16003 Yonge Street, 255 and 219 Old Yonge Street
44
*6.5 Conan Lear, Resident; Re: Item 14.2-PDS26-056 - Application for OPA and
ZBA, 16003 Yonge Street, 255 and 219 Old Yonge Street
45
*6.6 Anna Strungar, Resident; Re: Item 14.2-PDS26-056 - Application for OPA
and ZBA, 16003 Yonge Street, 255 and 219 Old Yonge Street
46
7.Advisory Committee Meeting Minutes
*7.1 Accessibility Advisory Committee Meeting Minutes of May 13, 2026 47
That the Accessibility Advisory Committee Meeting Minutes of
May 13, 2026, be received for information.
1.
8.Consent Agenda
8.1 Memorandum from Councillor Thompson; Re: Lake Simcoe Region
Conservation Authority Board Meeting Highlights of March 6, 2026
51
That the memorandum regarding Lake Simcoe Region
Conservation Authority Board Meeting Highlights of March 6,
2026, be received for information.
1.
*8.2 CS26-016 - 2026 Municipal Elections 54
(Information Report dated June 2, 2026, included on agenda per request
of Member of Council)
That Report No. CS26-016 be received for information.1.
*8.3 FIN26-021 - Long-Term Asset Management Funding Strategy 64
(Information Report dated June 2, 2026, included on agenda per request
of Member of Council)
That Report No. FIN26-021 be received for information.1.
*8.4 FIN26-022 - 2025 Grant Update 70
(Information Report dated June 2, 2026, included on agenda per request
of Member of Council)
That Report No. FIN26-022 be received for information.1.
*8.5 FIN26-023 - 2025 Year-End Development Charges Statement 77
(Information Report dated June 2, 2026, included on agenda per request
of Member of Council)
That Report No. FIN26-023 be received for information.1.
9.Community Services Committee Agenda
10.Corporate Services Committee Agenda
10.1 CS26-012 - Financial Implications of Implementing a Renoviction By-law 89
That Report No. CS26-012 be received for information.1.
10.2 CS26-013 - Restricted Acts During the Election of a New Council 97
That Report No. CS26-013 be received; and1.
That a bylaw to delegate authority in the event Council’s actions
are restricted under s. 275 of the Municipal Act, 2001, be
brought forward to a future Council meeting for approval.
2.
10.3 CS26-014 - Meeting Schedule for the Remainder of the Council Term 103
That Report No. CS26-014 be received; and1.
That the remaining months of the 2026 Meeting Schedule be
amended as follows:
2.
That the July cycle be cancelled; anda.
That one additional meeting of the Cannabis Retail Review
Task Force be scheduled in August; and
b.
That subsection 20 f) i) of the Procedural By-law be waived
to permit scheduling a Public Planning meeting in
December.
c.
11.Finance and Information Technology Committee Agenda
11.1 FIN26-024 - Council Conference Review and Reporting Framework 107
That Report No. FIN26-024 be received; and1.
That the proposed reporting framework in Attachment 1 for
Members attending Conferences, Seminars and External Events
be approved.
2.
11.2 FIN26-025 - Commercial Stormwater Charge Review 114
That Report No. FIN26-025 be received for information; and1.
That staff proceed with the next steps in the design of a
Development Intensity Stormwater Charge framework which is
2.
more equitable for all ratepayers; and
That in the interim the commercial tenants within the St.
Andrews Shopping Centre development be charged a single
commercial stormwater rate starting with the billing cycle
beginning July 1, 2026
3.
12.Administration Committee Agenda
13.Operational Services Committee Agenda
13.1 OPS26-014 - PO Increase - Compass Minerals for Salt Supply 124
That Report No. OPS26-014 be received; and 1.
That the Purchase Order No. 1664 be increased by $250,000, to
a new total amount of $2,668,856.
2.
13.2 OPS26-015 - N6 Waste Collection Contract Extension 129
That Report No. OPS26-015 be received; and1.
That the extension of the new N6 Waste Contract, as
administered through the Town of Newmarket on behalf of the
N6, be endorsed.
2.
14.Planning and Development Services Committee Agenda
14.1 PDS26-030 - Application for Zoning By-law Amendment and Draft Plan
of Subdivision, 2697331 Ontario Inc.,1289 Wellington Street East, File
Nos. ZBA-2025-07 and SUB-2025-01
136
That Report No. PDS26-030 be received; and1.
That Zoning By-law Amendment application ZBA-2025-07 be
approved, as shown in Figure 4, to remove the site-specific
Apartment zone RA2(559), and Single Detached R5(560), while
updating the site-specific development standards for
Townhouse R8(558) Exception Zone, and maintaining the
existing Environment Protection Zone; and
2.
That the Draft Plan of Subdivision application SUB-2025-01 be
approved, as shown in Figure 5, subject to the conditions
outlined in Schedule ‘A’; and
3.
That the implementing By-law for ZBA-2025-07 be brought
forward to a future Council meeting for enactment; and
4.
That 451 persons worth of servicing allocation be granted to5.
the subject lands to implement the land use permissions.
14.2 PDS26-056 - Application for Official Plan Amendment and
Zoning By-law Amendment-6768148 Canada Ltd.-16003 Yonge Street,
255 and 219 Old Yonge Street
173
Part Lots 1, 2, 3 and 4, Plan 461; File Numbers OPA-2025-03, ZBA-2025-
04, HPA-2025-04
That Report No. PDS26-056 be received; and1.
That Official Plan Amendment application OPA-2025-03 be
approved to redesignate 255 Old Yonge Street to “Stable
Neighbourhoods” and “Environmental Protection” and on 16003
Yonge Street and 219 Old Yonge Street to “Medium-High Urban
Residential” and “Environmental Protection” with a Site-Specific
Policy Area (75); and
2.
That Zoning By-law Amendment application ZBA-2025-04 be
approved to rezone 255 Old Yonge Street to Detached First
Density Residential (R1) Exception Zone (581) and
Environmental Protection (EP) and on 16003 Yonge Street and
219 Old Yonge Street to Second Density Apartment Residential
(RA2-H) Holding Exception Zone (580) and Environmental
Protection (EP); and
3.
That Heritage Permit Application HPA-2025-04 be approved to
facilitate the relocation and alteration of the Red House with
condition that a Conservation Management Plan be prepared by
the Owner to the satisfaction of the Town and Site Plan
approval is granted and development agreement is enter into
with the Town; and
4.
That the implementing by-laws for the Official Plan and Zoning
By-law Amendments be brought forward to a future Council
meeting for enactment.
5.
14.3 PDS26-057 - Zoning By-law Amendment Application - Land Services
Group Ltd. (20 Allaura Blvd. Corp.) -16, 20 and 22 Allaura Boulevard-Lots
18, 19, 20 and 21
269
Registered Plan M-51; File Numbers ZBA-2022-08 and SUB-2022-02;
Related File Number: SP-2022-13
That Report No. PDS26-057 be received; and1.
That Zoning By-law Amendment application ZBA-2022-08 be
approved to rezone the subject lands from “Service
2.
Employment (E1)(226) Exception Zone” and “General
Employment (E2)”to “Townhouse Dwelling Residential (R8-H)
Holding Exception Zone (584)”; and
That Draft Plan of Subdivision application SUB-2022-02 be
approved as shown in Figure 5, subject to the conditions
outlined in Appendix ‘A’; and
3.
That the implementing By-law for the subject application be
brought forward to a future Council meeting for enactment.
4.
14.4 PDS26-059 - Application for Remove Holding (H) Symbol from a Zoning
By-law-P.A.R.C.E.L. Inc.-14070 Yonge Street
300
Part Blocks A, B and G, Plan M42, Part 3, 65R-5870 and Parts 3, 6, 7 and
8, 65R-33710; File Number ZBA(H)-2026-01; Related File Numbers OPA-
2024-03 & ZBA-2024-03
That Report No. PDS26-059 be received; and1.
That 209 persons worth of servicing allocation be granted to
the subject lands to implement the land use permissions; and
2.
That the application ZBA(H)-2026-01 be approved to remove
the Holding (H) Symbol from the “Townhouse Dwelling
Residential Exception Zone with Holding Provision (H)R8-576”
from By-law No. 6747-25; and
3.
That the implementing By-law for the subject application be
brought forward to a future Council meeting for enactment.
4.
15.Member Motions
16.Regional Report
17.New Business
18.Public Service Announcements
19.Closed Session
20.Adjournment
100 John West Way
Aurora, Ontario
L4G 6J1
(905) 727-3123
aurora.ca
Delegation Request
This request and any written submissions or background information for consideration by either Council or
Committees of Council is being submitted to Legislative Services.
Council or Committee (Choose One) *
Committee of the Whole
Council or Committee Meeting Date *
2026-6-2
Subject *
Presentation of the 2026 Aurora Sports Hall of Fame Inductees
Full Name of Spokesperson and Name of Group or Person(s) being Represented (if applicable) *
Aurora Sports Hall of Fame- Javed Khan and Rocco Morsillo
Brief Summary of Issue or Purpose of Delegation *
We will be presenting and revealing the 2026 Inductees for the Aurora Sports Hall of Fame. We are
requesting 5 minutes per person for a total of 10minutes for this delegation.
Have you been in contact with a Town staff or Council member regarding your matter of interest? *
Yes No
I acknowledge that the Procedure By-law permits five (5) minutes for Delegations. *
Agree
I acknowledge that I understand and accept the delegate conduct expectations as outlined in Section
32(b) of the Procedure By-law 6228-19, as amended (link below) *
Agree
Click to view Procedure By-law 6228-19, as amended.
Page 1 of 308
-RKQ:HVW:D\
$XURUD2QWDULR
/*-
DXURUDFD
'HOHJDWLRQ5HTXHVW
7KLVUHTXHVWDQGDQ\ZULWWHQVXEPLVVLRQVRUEDFNJURXQGLQIRUPDWLRQIRUFRQVLGHUDWLRQE\HLWKHU&RXQFLORU
&RPPLWWHHVRI&RXQFLOLVEHLQJVXEPLWWHGWR/HJLVODWLYH6HUYLFHV
&RXQFLORU&RPPLWWHH &KRRVH2QH
$FFHVVLELOLW\$GYLVRU\&RPPLWWHH
&RXQFLORU&RPPLWWHH0HHWLQJ'DWH
a
6XEMHFW
0\$ELOLW\LVVWURQJHUWKDQP\'LVDELOLW\3UHVHQWDWLRQ
)XOO1DPHRI6SRNHVSHUVRQDQG1DPHRI*URXSRU3HUVRQ V EHLQJ5HSUHVHQWHG LIDSSOLFDEOH
7KDOLD$YJRXVWL
%ULHI6XPPDU\RI,VVXHRU3XUSRVHRI'HOHJDWLRQ
0\LQWHQWLRQZDVWRVKDUHP\PLQXWHVWRU\DW7RZQ&RXQFLOGXULQJ1DWLRQDO$FFHVVLELOLW\:HHN 0D\
-XQH DZHHNGHGLFDWHGWRUDLVLQJDZDUHQHVVDQGIRVWHULQJLQFOXVLRQLQRXUFRPPXQLWLHV+RZHYHU,DP
KDSS\WRSUHVHQWWRWKH$FFHVVLELOLW\$GYLVRU\&RPPLWWHH
+DYH\RXEHHQLQFRQWDFWZLWKD7RZQVWDIIRU&RXQFLOPHPEHUUHJDUGLQJ\RXUPDWWHURILQWHUHVW"
<HV 1R
)XOOQDPHRIWKH7RZQVWDIIRU&RXQFLOPHPEHU
ZLWKZKRP\RXVSRNH
$QQH.DQWKDUDMDK0D\RU0DUDNDV
'DWH\RXVSRNHZLWK7RZQVWDIIRUD&RXQFLO
PHPEHU
,DFNQRZOHGJHWKDWWKH3URFHGXUH%\ODZSHUPLWVILYH PLQXWHVIRU'HOHJDWLRQV
$JUHH
,DFNQRZOHGJHWKDW,XQGHUVWDQGDQGDFFHSWWKHGHOHJDWHFRQGXFWH[SHFWDWLRQVDVRXWOLQHGLQ6HFWLRQ
E RIWKH3URFHGXUH%\ODZ DVDPHQGHG OLQNEHORZ
$JUHH
&OLFNWRYLHZ3URFHGXUH%\ODZ DVDPHQGHG
y
y
Page 2 of 308
My Ability Is StrongerThan My Disability By: Thalia Avgousti Page 3 of 308
Good evening Mayor Marakas and Members of Council. Before I begin, I would respectfully request an additional five minutes for my presentation, for a total of ten minutes. Due to my speech disability, the additional time would allow me to present effectively. Thank you for your consideration.Page 4 of 308
This Presentation is about ….●Raising Awareness●Raising Inclusion●Raising Compassion…. by sharing my storyPage 5 of 308
IntroductionHi, my name is Thalia Avgousti. You are probably wondering why I talk this way. I was diagnosed with Cerebral Palsy. It affects the movement in my hands, legs and mainly my speechPage 6 of 308
Meeting someone who is Different than You•Disability does not mean inability•When you focus on someone’s disability, you will overlook their abilities•Don’t judge a disability by its visibilityPage 7 of 308
…. and sometimes Disabilities are InvisiblePage 8 of 308
I may walk, talk, and move differently than you, but on the inside I’m no different than youPage 9 of 308
The greatest barriers that persons with disabilities have to overcome are …..LIMITED EXPECTATIONSPage 10 of 308
People often underestimate capabilities, letting biases, judgments, and misconceptions shape their views of what individuals with disabilities can achievePage 11 of 308
I want the same things as you….. and to grow, learn and build skills to add value and contribute to societyPage 12 of 308
Sometimes persons with disabilities need …. an extra boost to be successfulPage 13 of 308
….through accommodation because equality sometimes is not enoughaccomodationPage 14 of 308
It can be really hard and challenging to live with my disability ...Page 15 of 308
…. and sometimes in life I have to accept that you can’t make a fish climb a tree.Page 16 of 308
…. but it won’t stop me from trying to reach my goals by working hard to reach my full potentialPage 17 of 308
What does it mean to reach one’s full Potential?To become the best one can be with hard work and perseverancePage 18 of 308
…. which turned the impossible into possibleAllowing me to integrate into a mainstream program and pursue my passion and career in Early Childhood EducationPage 19 of 308
How I Stay Positive Living with a Disability●I Surround myself with positive people●I Look for the positive not the negative in life●I Accept myself●I Have an open mind and seek new possibilities●I Believe in myselfPage 20 of 308
Staying Positive helps me to Accept me for who I amPage 21 of 308
Accepting my Disability ●I Don’t hide my disability●I Focus on self-acceptance first before self-improvement●I Don’t compare myself to others but focus on myself and my goals●Focus on what I can do ... not what I can’t do Page 22 of 308
N O L I M I T SPage 23 of 308
I Don’t Limit Myself by ….●Finding ways to go outside my comfort zone to challenge myself ●Focusing on my abilities not my disabilities●Not measuring myself against anyone else but against my own goals●Accepting failure to grow and learn from my mistakes to get better.… and Page 24 of 308
Finding the right fitPage 25 of 308
I couldn’t make the rep team …. so I played house league:●Hockey●Soccer●Basketball●Baseball….. and that’s okPage 26 of 308
I couldn’t make the competitive team …. but I still participated in:• Skiing• Snowboarding• Ballet• Gymnastics• Cross Country• Track & Field•Horse Back Riding• Theatre….. and that’s okPage 27 of 308
Then I found my passionand strengthin swimming●Competed at OFSSA and came in 5th for Para 50m & 100m freestyle in Ontario●Joined the Highschool Competitive Para Swim TeamPage 28 of 308
And I found my passionand strengthin …Page 29 of 308
Page 30 of 308
My Disability hasn’t Limited me fromExploring and Experiencing the Beauty and Diversity of our WorldPage 31 of 308
Page 32 of 308
The Beauty of Diversity in our World lies in all our Differences ….. and that includes DisabilityPage 33 of 308
After attending therapies all my life …. I want to give back to the Community to be a role model and teach people that even though we have a disability, we can have a productive and happy life with goals to achieve like anyone elsePage 34 of 308
We are all unique human beings with varying abilitiesPage 35 of 308
Everyone we meet is fighting an invisible battleWe can all be HeroesPage 36 of 308
●Inspired you to believe in yourself to reach your full potential whether you have a disability or not●Raised awareness and encouraged compassion and inclusivity to make our schools, workplaces and communities a better place. I hope through my presentation I have:Page 37 of 308
Born and raised in Aurora, this is where my journey to success beganA community that saw my abilities before my disability. Page 38 of 308
The abundance of recreational programs I participated in helped me overcome challenges, reach milestones, build resilience and achieve my full potential. Page 39 of 308
I am grateful to the Town of Aurora for believing in me and showing that with inclusion, accessibility, and support, anything is possible.Page 40 of 308
REFLECTIONPage 41 of 308
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.
Deadlines for Submission:
For Committee of the Whole meetings, no later than 9 a.m. on the scheduled meeting date.
For Council meetings, no later than 9 a.m. one business day prior to the scheduled meeting date.
Council or Committee (Choose One) *
Committee of the Whole
Council or Committee Meeting Date *
2026-6-2
Subject *
I wish to delegate on Agenda Item 10.2 CS26-013 - Restricted Acts During the Election of a New Council
Full Name of Spokesperson and Name of Group or Person(s) being Represented (if applicable) *
Shawn Deane
Brief Summary of Issue or Purpose of Delegation *
I wish to delegate on agenda item 10.2 CS26-013 - Restricted Acts During the Election of a New Council
which is a request by Staff to obtain greater Council decision making authority from August 21- November 15,
2026 or 86 days, due to the Election and Strong Mayor Power legislative changes. Currently, Staff has
authority during elections under $50,000 which Council might view as being sufficient, already.
Have you been in contact with a Town staff or Council member regarding your matter of interest? *
Yes No
I acknowledge that the Procedure By-law permits five (5) minutes for Delegations. *
Agree
I acknowledge that I understand and accept the delegate conduct expectations as outlined in Section
32 of the Procedure By-law 6228-19, as amended (link below) *
Agree
Click to view Procedure By-law 6228-19, as amended.
Page 42 of 308
-RKQ:HVW:D\
$XURUD2QWDULR
/*-
DXURUDFD
'HOHJDWLRQ5HTXHVW
7KLVUHTXHVWDQGDQ\ZULWWHQVXEPLVVLRQVRUEDFNJURXQGLQIRUPDWLRQIRUFRQVLGHUDWLRQE\HLWKHU&RXQFLORU
&RPPLWWHHVRI&RXQFLOLVEHLQJVXEPLWWHGWR/HJLVODWLYH6HUYLFHV
'HDGOLQHVIRU6XEPLVVLRQ
)RU&RPPLWWHHRIWKH:KROHPHHWLQJVQRODWHUWKDQ DPRQWKHVFKHGXOHGPHHWLQJGDWH
)RU&RXQFLOPHHWLQJVQRODWHUWKDQ DPRQHEXVLQHVVGD\SULRUWRWKHVFKHGXOHGPHHWLQJGDWH
&RXQFLORU&RPPLWWHH &KRRVH2QH
&RPPLWWHHRIWKH:KROH
&RXQFLORU&RPPLWWHH0HHWLQJ'DWH
a
6XEMHFW
&RXQFLO&RQIHUHQFH5HYLHZDQG5HSRUWLQJ)UDPHZRUN
)XOO1DPHRI6SRNHVSHUVRQDQG1DPHRI*URXSRU3HUVRQ V EHLQJ5HSUHVHQWHG LIDSSOLFDEOH
-RKQ+DUWPDQ
%ULHI6XPPDU\RI,VVXHRU3XUSRVHRI'HOHJDWLRQ
7RVHHNFODULILFDWLRQRQ5HSRUW),1VXJJHVWDPLQRUPRGLILFDWLRQRQDSSURYDOVDQGIUHTXHQF\
+DYH\RXEHHQLQFRQWDFWZLWKD7RZQVWDIIRU&RXQFLOPHPEHUUHJDUGLQJ\RXUPDWWHURILQWHUHVW"
<HV 1R
,DFNQRZOHGJHWKDWWKH3URFHGXUH%\ODZSHUPLWVILYH PLQXWHVIRU'HOHJDWLRQV
$JUHH
,DFNQRZOHGJHWKDW,XQGHUVWDQGDQGDFFHSWWKHGHOHJDWHFRQGXFWH[SHFWDWLRQVDVRXWOLQHGLQ6HFWLRQ
RIWKH3URFHGXUH%\ODZ DVDPHQGHG OLQNEHORZ
$JUHH
&OLFNWRYLHZ3URFHGXUH%\ODZ DVDPHQGHG
y
Page 43 of 308
-RKQ:HVW:D\
$XURUD2QWDULR
/*-
DXURUDFD
'HOHJDWLRQ5HTXHVW
7KLVUHTXHVWDQGDQ\ZULWWHQVXEPLVVLRQVRUEDFNJURXQGLQIRUPDWLRQIRUFRQVLGHUDWLRQE\HLWKHU&RXQFLORU
&RPPLWWHHVRI&RXQFLOLVEHLQJVXEPLWWHGWR/HJLVODWLYH6HUYLFHV
'HDGOLQHVIRU6XEPLVVLRQ
)RU&RPPLWWHHRIWKH:KROHPHHWLQJVQRODWHUWKDQ DPRQWKHVFKHGXOHGPHHWLQJGDWH
)RU&RXQFLOPHHWLQJVQRODWHUWKDQ DPRQHEXVLQHVVGD\SULRUWRWKHVFKHGXOHGPHHWLQJGDWH
&RXQFLORU&RPPLWWHH &KRRVH2QH
&RPPLWWHHRIWKH:KROH
&RXQFLORU&RPPLWWHH0HHWLQJ'DWH
a
6XEMHFW
$JHQGD,WHP $SSOLFDWLRQIRU23$PHQGPHQWDQG=RQLQJ%\ODZ$PHQGPHQW&DQDGD/WG
)XOO1DPHRI6SRNHVSHUVRQDQG1DPHRI*URXSRU3HUVRQ V EHLQJ5HSUHVHQWHG LIDSSOLFDEOH
/HWD'D\IRRW
%ULHI6XPPDU\RI,VVXHRU3XUSRVHRI'HOHJDWLRQ
7KHGHYHORSPHQWVXFFHVVIXOO\PLWLJDWHVLPSDFWVRQWKHKHULWDJHWKHHQYLURQPHQWDQGJUHHQVSDFHZKLOH
SURYLGLQJQHZKRXVLQJ+RZHYHUWKHWRZQ
VMXVWLILFDWLRQIRUDVWRU\EXLOGLQJLQDVWDEOHQHLJKERUKRRGUHO\LQJ
RQDEURDGLQWHUSUHWDWLRQRIWKH<RQJH5HJLRQDO&RUULGRUDSSHDUVWRFRQIOLFWZLWKWKHLQWHJULW\RILWVRZQ
PXQLFLSDOSODQV
+DYH\RXEHHQLQFRQWDFWZLWKD7RZQVWDIIRU&RXQFLOPHPEHUUHJDUGLQJ\RXUPDWWHURILQWHUHVW"
<HV 1R
)XOOQDPHRIWKH7RZQVWDIIRU&RXQFLOPHPEHU
ZLWKZKRP\RXVSRNH
5RQ:HHVH
'DWH\RXVSRNHZLWK7RZQVWDIIRUD&RXQFLO
PHPEHU
,DFNQRZOHGJHWKDWWKH3URFHGXUH%\ODZSHUPLWVILYH PLQXWHVIRU'HOHJDWLRQV
$JUHH
y
y
Page 44 of 308
-RKQ:HVW:D\
$XURUD2QWDULR
/*-
DXURUDFD
'HOHJDWLRQ5HTXHVW
7KLVUHTXHVWDQGDQ\ZULWWHQVXEPLVVLRQVRUEDFNJURXQGLQIRUPDWLRQIRUFRQVLGHUDWLRQE\HLWKHU&RXQFLORU
&RPPLWWHHVRI&RXQFLOLVEHLQJVXEPLWWHGWR/HJLVODWLYH6HUYLFHV
'HDGOLQHVIRU6XEPLVVLRQ
)RU&RPPLWWHHRIWKH:KROHPHHWLQJVQRODWHUWKDQ DPRQWKHVFKHGXOHGPHHWLQJGDWH
)RU&RXQFLOPHHWLQJVQRODWHUWKDQ DPRQHEXVLQHVVGD\SULRUWRWKHVFKHGXOHGPHHWLQJGDWH
&RXQFLORU&RPPLWWHH &KRRVH2QH
&RPPLWWHHRIWKH:KROH
&RXQFLORU&RPPLWWHH0HHWLQJ'DWH
a
6XEMHFW
23$=%$
)XOO1DPHRI6SRNHVSHUVRQDQG1DPHRI*URXSRU3HUVRQ V EHLQJ5HSUHVHQWHG LIDSSOLFDEOH
&RQDQ/HDU
%ULHI6XPPDU\RI,VVXHRU3XUSRVHRI'HOHJDWLRQ
:RXOGOLNHWRDGGUHVV&RXQFLORQWKHSURSRVHGGHYHORSPHQWDW DQG2OG<RQJH6WUHHWDQG
<RQJH6WUHHW
+DYH\RXEHHQLQFRQWDFWZLWKD7RZQVWDIIRU&RXQFLOPHPEHUUHJDUGLQJ\RXUPDWWHURILQWHUHVW"
<HV 1R
,DFNQRZOHGJHWKDWWKH3URFHGXUH%\ODZSHUPLWVILYH PLQXWHVIRU'HOHJDWLRQV
$JUHH
,DFNQRZOHGJHWKDW,XQGHUVWDQGDQGDFFHSWWKHGHOHJDWHFRQGXFWH[SHFWDWLRQVDVRXWOLQHGLQ6HFWLRQ
RIWKH3URFHGXUH%\ODZ DVDPHQGHG OLQNEHORZ
$JUHH
&OLFNWRYLHZ3URFHGXUH%\ODZ DVDPHQGHG
y
Page 45 of 308
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.
Deadlines for Submission:
For Committee of the Whole meetings, no later than 9 a.m. on the scheduled meeting date.
For Council meetings, no later than 9 a.m. one business day prior to the scheduled meeting date.
Council or Committee (Choose One) *
Committee of the Whole
Council or Committee Meeting Date *
2026-6-2
Subject *
219 & 255 Old Yonge Street & 16003 Yonge Street (OPA-2025-03 & ZBA-2025-04)
Full Name of Spokesperson and Name of Group or Person(s) being Represented (if applicable) *
Anna Strungar
Brief Summary of Issue or Purpose of Delegation *
To delegate in response to the modified development proposal at 219 & 255 Old Yonge Street & 16003
Yonge Street (OPA-2025-03 & ZBA-2025-04) following the initial hearing on November 18, 2025.
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
Tom Mrakas and the Council
Date you spoke with Town staff or a Council
member
2025-11-18
I acknowledge that the Procedure By-law permits five (5) minutes for Delegations. *
Agree
Page 46 of 308
Town of Aurora
Accessibility Advisory Committee
Meeting Minutes
Date:
Time:
Location:
Wednesday, May 13, 2026
7 p.m.
Holland Room, Aurora Town Hall
Committee Members: Councillor Wendy Gaertner (Chair)
Lois Davies
John Lenchak*
Elaine Martini
Jo-anne Spitzer
Marilyn Williams
Members Absent: Alison Hughes (Vice Chair)
Other Attendees: Kyle Stitt, Manager, Facilities*
Andrea Vento, Program Manager, Facility Capital Projects*
Gregory Peri, Accessibility Advisor
Linda Bottos, Council/Committee Coordinator
*Attended electronically
_____________________________________________________________________
1. Call to Order
The Chair called the meeting to order at 7:02 p.m.
2. Land Acknowledgement
The Committee acknowledged that the meeting took place on Anishinaabe lands,
the traditional and treaty territory of the Chippewas of Georgina Island,
recognizing the many other Nations whose presence here continues to this day,
the special relationship the Chippewas have with the lands and waters of this
territory, and that Aurora has shared responsibility for the stewardship of these
lands and waters. It was noted that Aurora is part of the treaty lands of the
Mississaugas and Chippewas, recognized through Treaty #13 and the Williams
Treaties of 1923.
Page 47 of 308
Accessibility Advisory Committee Meeting Minutes
May 13, 2026 2
3. Approval of the Agenda
Moved by Elaine Martini
Seconded by Jo-anne Spitzer
That the agenda as circulated by Legislative Services be approved.
Carried
4. Declarations of Pecuniary Interest and General Nature Thereof
There were no declarations of pecuniary interest under the Municipal Conflict of
Interest Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. M.50.
5. Receipt of the Minutes
5.1 Accessibility Advisory Committee Meeting Minutes of April 8, 2026
Moved by Marilyn Williams
Seconded by John Lenchak
1. That the Accessibility Advisory Committee meeting minutes of April 8,
2026, be received for information.
Carried
6. Delegations
None.
7. Matters for Consideration
7.1 Memorandum from Kyle Stitt, Manager, Facilities Management; Re: 27
Mosley Street (Victoria Hall) Refurbishment
Staff provided a brief overview of the proposed Victoria Hall refurbishment
project including the project team members, site plan, the planned
demolition of the current addition and construction of a new addition to
incorporate an accessibility ramp at the south end of the building, the floor
plan including a barrier-free washroom, elevations, and internal and
external conceptual renderings.
Page 48 of 308
Accessibility Advisory Committee Meeting Minutes
May 13, 2026 3
There were questions and discussion on various aspects including the
location of the accessibility ramp and potential safety issue of a single
ramp access from the building, occupancy load of the building, parking,
and concerns about the proximity of barrier-free parking spaces. The
Committee was generally supportive of the proposal.
Moved by Jo-anne Spitzer
Seconded by Elaine Martini
1. That the memorandum regarding 27 Mosley Street (Victoria Hall)
Refurbishment be received; and
2. That the Accessibility Advisory Committee comments regarding 27
Mosley Street (Victoria Hall) Refurbishment be received and referred to
staff for consideration and further action as appropriate.
Carried
7.2 Round Table Discussion; Re: Town of Aurora Multi-Year Accessibility Plan
2022 to 2026
(Link to Multi-Year Accessibility Plan)
Staff provided an update on the following matters:
The Town of Aurora hosted the Ontario Network of Accessibility
Professionals on April 23-24, 2026, including more than 100
professionals from across the province in a hybrid meeting.
The Ministry for Seniors and Accessibility is holding a virtual
Accessibility Advisory Committee (AAC) forum on the morning of June
11, 2026; registration is due by May 27; and topics will include
accessible employment, site plans and tips, and influencing council
and executives.
Compliance update on meeting accessibility standards under the
Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act, 2005 (AODA): Staff
confirmed that the Town is compliant—meeting and exceeding the
standards—and noted the compliance statistics of other organizations.
The Town of Aurora is hosting its celebration of National AccessAbility
Week (NAAW) during the week of May 24-30, 2026, and details are
available at aurora.ca/NAAW. Major events will include a Behaviour
Page 49 of 308
Accessibility Advisory Committee Meeting Minutes
May 13, 2026 4
Management System Training session on May 27 at the Stronach
Aurora Recreation Complex (SARC); a Brain Health with Alzheimer
Society session on May 28 at Aurora Town Square; and drop-in
programming and “Try It” activities on May 30 at the SARC. Staff
agreed to follow up on the communication schedule and ensure
Council is informed of the events.
York Region is hosting the 2026 National AccessAbility Week
Accessibility Advisory Committee Professional Development Forum on
June 3, 2026, with registration due by May 25.
Municipal Election 2026: Staff advised on the work being done to
secure voting locations and ensure the election is fully accessible.
Committee members were offered the opportunity to attend during the
inspections of potential locations. Concerns were expressed regarding
the potential influencing of voters at senior facilities. The Committee
requested that clear instructions for online voting be given to seniors.
Moved by Marilyn Williams
Seconded by John Lenchak
1. That the Accessibility Advisory Committee comments regarding the
Town of Aurora Multi-Year Accessibility Plan 2022 to 2026 be received
and referred to staff for consideration and action as appropriate.
Carried
8. Informational Items
None.
9. New Business
None.
10. Adjournment
Moved by Elaine Martini
Seconded by Marilyn Williams
That the meeting be adjourned at 7:58 p.m.
Carried
Page 50 of 308
100 John West Way
Aurora, Ontario
L4G 6J1
(905) 727-3123
aurora.ca
Town of Aurora
Memorandum
Councillor Thompson
Re: Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority Board Meeting Highlights of
March 6, 2026
To: Mayor and Members of Council
From: Councillor Michael Thompson
Date: June 2, 2026
Recommendation
1. That the memorandum regarding Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority
Board Meeting Highlights of March 6, 2026, be received for information.
Attachments
1. Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority Board Meeting Highlights of March 6,
2026
Page 51 of 308
Board Meeting Highlights
March 6, 2026
Presentations:
a) 2025 Restoration Program Accomplishments
Manager, Restoration, Christa Sharp, provided an overview of the 2025 Restoration Program
accomplishments, first outlining the Conservation Authority’s restoration assistance program,
as well as offsetting programs, which provide financial assistance to landowners for restorati on
projects. In 2025, the Conservation Authority funded 106 restoration projects on both urban
and rural landscapes. Projects included a variety of critical on-the ground improvements within
the Lake Simcoe watershed, such as low impact development feature s, community action
projects, wetland habitat creation and agricultural projects. Projects are tracked for Key
Performance Indicators, and some of these accomplishments include over 36 hectares of land
being restored, over 3,000 metres of streambank being planted/stabilized, and 75% increased
biodiversity and enhanced pollinator habitat. Ms. Sharp highlighted some of the team’s
favourite projects for 2025, as well as some exciting projects in progress for 2026. More
information on these projects and the Con servation Authority’s restoration assistance program
can be found through this link: Restoring the Lake Simcoe Watershed
To view this presentation, please click this link: 2025 Restoration Program Accomplishments
b) Lake Simcoe Conservation Foundation 2025 Preliminary Financial Results and Highlights
Lake Simcoe Conservation Foundation Executive Director, Cheryl Taylor, provided an overview of
the 2025 Preliminary Financial Results and Highlights, noting the Foundation continues to
effectively engage with its Lake Simcoe watershed donor community to encourage generous
support of the incredible work of Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority. Incorporated in
1973, the Foundation’s primary fundraising focus is its Annual Fund supporting outdoor
education, restoration and protection, science and research and conservation areas. In 2018,
the Connect Campaign was launched based on the critical need to replace the Scanlon Creek
Nature Centre. She went on to review 2025 revenue, the highest in Foundation history. Other
accomplishments include the Foundation’s re-accreditation with Imagine Canada’s Standards
Program for excellence in non-profit management for the third time. Ms. Taylor reminded Board
members of the Foundation’s two 2026 signature events: the Annual Conservation Dinner and
the Annual Golf Invitational, coming up on June 17 th and August 25th respectively. More
information on these events may be found through this link: Lake Simcoe Conservation
Foundation Events
To view this presentation, please click this link: 2025 Lake Simcoe Conservation Foundation
Accomplishments
Page 52 of 308
LSRCA Board of Directors
Meeting Highlights – March 6, 2026
Page 2 of 2
Correspondence and Staff Reports:
2025 Restoration Program Accomplishments
The Board received Staff Report No. 07-26-BOD regarding the Conservation Authority’s 2025
Restoration Program accomplishments.
Lake Simcoe Conservation Foundation 2025 Preliminary Financial Results and Highlights
The Board received Staff Report No. 08-26-BOD regarding the Lake Simcoe Conservation
Foundation’s 2025 Preliminary revenue results, accomplishments and highlights.
Planning and Development Fees and Draft Proposed Fee Schedule 2026
The Board received Staff Report No. 09-26-BOD regarding the Lake Simcoe Region Conservation
Authority Comprehensive Review of Planning and Development Fees by Watson & Associates
and approved the proposed Planning and Development Fees Policy effective April 1, 2026.
2026 Conservation Awards Program and Ceremony
The Board received Staff Report No. 10-26-BOD regarding the 2026 Conservation Awards
Program and Ceremony.
Confidential Legal Matter
The Board received Confidential Staff Report No. 11-26-BOD regarding a confidential legal
matter.
Confidential Legal Matter
The Board received Confidential Staff Report No. 12-26-BOD regarding a confidential legal
matter.
Confidential Legal Matter
The Board received an update regarding a confidential legal matter.
For more information or to see the full agenda package, visit LSRCA’s Board of Directors’
webpage.
Page 53 of 308
100 John West Way
Aurora, Ontario
L4G 6J1
(905) 727-3123
aurora.ca
Town of Aurora
Information Report
No. CS2 6 -0 1 6
Subject:
Prepared by:
Department:
Date:
2026 Municipal Elections
Anne Kantharajah
Corporate Services
June 2, 2026
In accordance with the Procedure By-law, any Member of Council may request that
this Information Report be placed on an upcoming Committee of the Whole or Council
meeting agenda for discussion.
Executive Summary
To provide an overview of the 2026 municipal elections, including legislative authority,
the Preliminary List of Electors (PLE) and Voters’ List, voting methods, periods and
locations.
•Municipal and school board elections must be held every four years and are
administered by the Clerk as the Returning Officer, pursuant to the Municipal
Elections Act, 1996.
•For the 2026 Municipal and School Board Election, there are seven members to
Town of Aurora Council and four Trustees to the local school boards to be
elected.
•Preparing for the municipal election is underway, including elector information
management, voter communication initiatives, and the selection of voting
methods, periods, and locations.
•The Clerk will recruit, train and appointment election officials to assist in
conducting the Election.
Page 54 of 308
June 2, 2026 2 of 7 Report No. CS26-016
Background
Municipal and school board elections must be held every four years and are
administered by the Clerk as the Returning Officer, pursuant to the Municipal Elections
Act, 1996 (the Act).
The next Municipal Election is Monday, October 26, 2026.
Council is responsible for meeting the following requirements under the Act:
• Approving voting methods (e.g., internet or the use of vote counting equipment)
• Reviewing and approving election sign by-laws
• Approving policies such as the Use of Corporate Resources Policy or if desired, a
recount policy
• Approving the budget
• Approving members to the Compliance Audit Committee
Council has already approved voting methods for the 2026 Municipal Elections, the
updated election sign by-law, election budget (through the budget process), and the Use
of Corporate Resources for Election Campaign Purposes Policy. The by-law to appoint
members of the compliance audit committee will be brought to the June 23, 2026
Council meeting for enactment.
The Clerk/Returning Officer (RO) has statutory and independent authority as stipulated
in the Act, including but not limited to:
• Setting dates, times and locations for the Advance Vote period
• Determining Voting Day locations, earlier opening times for select locations and
hours for institutional voting places
• Preparation of forms and procedures not otherwise prescribed
• Establishing procedures for alternate voting methods including internet and
tabulators
• Recruitment, training and appointment of election officials.
Analysis
For the 2026 Municipal and School Board Election, there are seven members to Town
of Aurora Council and four Trustees to the local school boards to be elected.
• Mayor One to be elected at-large within the Town and will also serve as a
Member of York Regional Council.
• Councillor(s) Six to be elected by Ward as follows:
o One Ward 1 Councillor to be elected by electors in Ward 1
Page 55 of 308
June 2, 2026 3 of 7 Report No. CS26-016
o One Ward 2 Councillor to be elected by electors in Ward 2
o One Ward 3 Councillor to be elected by electors in Ward 3
o One Ward 4 Councillor to be elected by electors in Ward 4
o One Ward 5 Councillor to be elected by electors in Ward 5
o One Ward 6 Councillor to be elected by electors in Ward 6
• One English Public School Board Trustee to be elected by voters in Aurora and
Whitchurch-Stouffville
• One English Catholic School Board Trustee to be elected by voters in Aurora,
King and Whitchurch-Stouffville
• One French Public School Board Trustee to be elected by voters in York Region
(Conseil scolaire Viamonde Trustee)
• One French Catholic School Board Trustee to be elected by voters in York Region
(Conseil scolaire catholique MonAvenir)
Preparing for the municipal election is underway, including elector information
management, voter communication initiatives, and the selection of voting methods,
periods, and locations.
Preliminary List of Electors
Section 19 of the Act requires the Chief Electoral Officer of Elections Ontario to prepare
and maintain a preliminary list for each local municipality and make it available to the
Clerk. Beginning in January 2024, the responsibility of preparing and maintaining the list
was assigned to Elections Ontario.
Electors need to be on the Voters' List to vote in a municipal council or school board
election. Electors can confirm, add, or update their personal information for provincial,
municipal, district social services administration board, and school board elections in
Ontario by August 12, 2026 at RegisterToVoteOn.ca. School support changes are
managed through the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC) at school-
support.mpac.ca until June 1, 2026.
Elections Ontario will provide the Preliminary List of Electors to the Clerk by August 14,
2026 to reproduce the Voters’ List. After this date, electors must add, remove, or change
their listed information through the Clerk/Returning Officer.
Voter Information Letters
The Voter Information Letters will be provided to each elector on the Voters’ List. Voter
Information Letters will be delivered to Canada Post and distributed by letter mail to all
eligible voters on a date to be determined, in advance of the Voting Period. In the event
Page 56 of 308
June 2, 2026 4 of 7 Report No. CS26-016
of a postal strike, the Clerk/RO will determine the method of distribution of the Voter
Information Letters in accordance with the principles of accessibility, privacy, security,
and election integrity, and will provide notice to the public.
The Voter Information Letter may contain some or all of the following information:
• the Elector’s PIN and the designated internet address (URL) to access the voting
system of the voter’s choice
• instructions on how to vote
• information on how to amend the Voters’ List
• dates and hours of the voting period
• contact information for the Administration Office and Voting Location
• voter eligibility criteria
• office and Candidate information
• information on illegal and corrupt practices under the Act
If the information on the Voter Information Letter is not accurate, electors can request
changes until the close of voting prior to casting their ballot up until 8 p.m. on Voting
Day.
A person cannot give his/her Voter Information Letter to another eligible Elector for the
purpose of voting. Acceptance of another person’s Voter Information Letter including
the actual voting thereof will be considered an illegal and corrupt practice and therefore
subject to the penalty provisions under the Act, specifically sections 89 and 90.
Voting Methods, Period and Locations
Electors in the Town of Aurora will have two options to vote:
1. Internet Voting - Internet Voting will be available from October 16 at 10 a.m. to
October 25 at 12 p.m. Internet voting will not be available on Voting Day.
2. Paper ballots - Paper ballot voting counted by tabulators will be available on
Voting Day, Monday October 26, 2026 from 10 a.m. to 8 p.m. at designated
locations, as well as at the Senior’s Centre during Advance Voting.
a) Regular voting locations are the standard polling places established to allow
eligible electors to cast a paper ballot requiring electors to attend the location
assigned to them. Regular voting locations are open to the public and would
be open either during the Advance Voting Period or on Voting Day as
described below:
• Saturday, October 17, 2026 – 12 p.m. – 6 p.m. – Aurora Senior’s Centre
Page 57 of 308
June 2, 2026 5 of 7 Report No. CS26-016
• Sunday, October 18, 2026 12 p.m. – 6 p.m. – Aurora Senior’s Centre
• Monday, October 19, 2026 4 p.m. – 8 p.m. – Aurora Senior’s Centre
• Tuesday, October 20, 2026 4 p.m. – 8 p.m. – Aurora Senior’s Centre
• Wednesday, October 21, 2026 4 p.m. – 8 p.m. – Aurora Senior’s Centre
• Monday, October 26, 2026 10 a.m. – 8 p.m. – various polling stations
throughout the Town to be established by the Clerk.
b) Special voting locations are designated places that meet the parameters
listed under subsection 45(7) of the Act such as long-term care homes,
retirement homes, or institutions, created to ensure that electors who live in
or are temporarily residing at those facilities can vote conveniently and
accessibly. The hours of voting is at the discretion of the Clerk in consultation
with building administrators. Notices of the date and time for voting will be
posted in the residence, and sufficient notice will be provided so that voting
information can be added to calendars that may be maintained by the home
for residents. These Special Voting Locations are provided only for residents
of the respective facilities.
In addition to regular and special voting locations, this year, staff are introducing voter
help centres which are flexible service locations established to help electors in
correcting voters’ list information and to answer questions. These locations will not
have voting capacity, and electors will be encouraged to vote remotely. Voter help
centres will be established during advanced voting only to ensure electors can swiftly
and conveniently make changes to their voter information or obtain their Voter
Information Letters.
This information is summarized in Attachment 1.
The Clerk will recruit, train and appointment election officials to assist in conducting
the Election.
Election Officials will be a combination of Town staff and members of the public.
Recruitment will begin in the summer, and a comprehensive communication plan has
been developed to notify members of the public at the commencement of recruitment
including those who have already indicated an interest in assisting. Elections Officials
must be available for mandatory training and for the entirety of the assigned workday.
Elections Officials compensation will include training, mileage and rate of pay for the
position they worked.
Advisory Committee Review
None.
Page 58 of 308
June 2, 2026 6 of 7 Report No. CS26-016
Legal Considerations
The 2026 Municipal and School Board Election will be conducted in accordance with the
Municipal Elections Act, 1996, applicable regulations, Town policies, procedures and by-
laws. The Clerk, as Returning Officer, has statutory responsibility for the administration
and conduct of the election, including voting procedures, voting locations, election
officials, voting methods, notices and election records.
Legal and operational risks include voters’ list inaccuracies, disruption in the delivery of
Voter Information Letters, confusion regarding voting methods or voting periods,
technology or tabulator issues, accessibility concerns, cybersecurity/privacy risks,
election neutrality, use of corporate resources, and public concern regarding election
integrity.
These risks are being mitigated through established election procedures, public
communications, staff training, contingency planning, voter help centres, and
compliance with the Municipal Elections Act, 1996 and Town policies and procedures.
Any complaints, recounts, compliance audit matters, or allegations of illegal or corrupt
practices will be addressed in accordance with the applicable statutory process.
Financial Implications
Financial implications were already addressed by Report No. CS25-006.
Communications Considerations
A comprehensive communication plan has been developed. In all cases, where notice is
required to be given to the public under a provision of the Act, such notice would be
placed in a Town’s local newspaper having general circulation within the Town of
Aurora, on the Town’s website, and posted at the Administration Office, unless
otherwise specified. Notices will also be posted on both official Town social media
accounts, if possible. Accommodations or alternative formats may be provided, upon
request.
Candidates will be notified via their chosen method of communication.
Notices, forms and other information provided for the 2026 Municipal Election will be
made available in English only except as otherwise provided in the Act.
Page 59 of 308
June 2, 2026 7 of 7 Report No. CS26-016
Climate Change Considerations
The information in this report does not impact greenhouse gas emissions or impact
climate change adaptation.
Link to Strategic Plan
Providing this information publicly contributes to achieving the Strategic Plan goal of
‘Supporting an exceptional quality of life for all’ through improving community outreach
to electors.
Alternative(s) to the Recommendation
None.
Conclusions
This report provides Council and the public with an update on the planning and
preparation of the upcoming Municipal and School Board Election.
Attachments
Attachment 1: Voting Period and Voting Locations
Previous Reports
Report No. CS25-006, 2026 Municipal Election – Methods of Voting, April 8, 2025
Approvals
Approved by Patricia De Sario, Director, Corporate Services/Town Solicitor
Approved by Doug Nadorozny, Chief Administrative Officer
Page 60 of 308
100 John West Way
Aurora, Ontario
L4G 6J1
(905) 727-3123
aurora.ca
Town of Aurora
Voting Period and Voting Locations
Legislative Services
Town of Aurora
April 29, 2026 Page 1 of 3
Please note this is subject to change. Electors in the Town of Aurora will have two options:
1. Internet Voting - Internet voting will be available from October 16 at 10 a.m. to October 25 at 12 p.m.
Internet voting will not be available on Voting Day.
2. Paper ballots - Paper ballot voting will be available as described in the table below:
a) Regular voting locations are the standard polling places established to allow eligible electors to
cast a paper ballot requiring electors to attend the location assigned to them. Regular voting
locations are open to the public and would be open either during Advanced Voting Period or on
Voting Day.
b) Special voting locations are designated places that meet the parameters listed under s 45(7) of the
Act—long-term care homes, retirement homes, or institutions—created to ensure that electors who
live in or are temporarily residing at those facilities can vote conveniently and accessibly. The hours
of voting at the above locations shall be held at the discretion of the Clerk in consultation with
building administrators. Notices of the date and time for voting will be posted in the residence, and
sufficient notice will be provided so that voting information can be added to calendars that may be
maintained by the home for residents. These Special Voting Locations are provided only for
residents of the respective facilities.
c) Voter help centres are flexible service locations established to help electors in correcting voters’ list
information and to answer questions. These locations will not have voting capacity, and electors
will be encouraged to vote remotely. Voter help centres will be established closer to the Voting Day.
Location
No. Location Poll Number(s) No. of
Polls
Open
to the
Public
Regular Voting Locations – Ward 1
1. Aurora Town Square
50 Victoria Street, L4G 1R2
106 1 YES
2. Lester B. Pearson Public School
15 Odin Crescent, L4G 3T3
101, 102, 103, 104, 105 5 YES
Regular Voting Locations – Ward 2
3. Aurora High School
155 Wellington Street West, L4G 2P4
201, 202, 203, 204, 205, 206 6 YES
Page 61 of 308
100 John West Way
Aurora, Ontario
L4G 6J1
(905) 727-3123
aurora.ca
Town of Aurora
Voting Period and Voting Locations
Legislative Services
Town of Aurora
April 29, 2026 Page 2 of 3
Location
No. Location Poll Number(s) No. of
Polls
Open
to the
Public
Regular Voting Locations – Ward 3
4. Regency Acres Public School
123 Murray Drive, L4G 2C7
301, 302, 303, 304, 305, 306 6 YES
Regular Voting Locations – Ward 4
5. Cardinal Carter CHS
210 Bloomington Road West, L4G 0P9
404, 405, 406 3 YES
6. Aurora Cornerstone Church
390 Industrial Pkwy S, L4G 3V7
402, 403 2 YES
Regular Voting Locations – Ward 5
7. Aurora Seniors’ Centre
90 John West Way, L4G 8A2
502, 503, 506 3 YES
8. Rick Hansen Public School
490 Mavrinac Blvd, L4G 0J6
501, 504, 505
601, 602
5 YES
Regular Voting Locations– Ward 6
9. Stronach Aurora Recreation Complex- Gym
1400 Wellington St E, L4G 7B6
401
603, 604, 605, 606
5 YES
Advance In-Person Voting Location
11. Aurora Seniors’ Centre
90 John West Way, L4G 8A2
• Saturday Oct 17 - 12 - 6 pm
• Sunday Oct 18 - 12 - 6 pm
Monday Oct 19 – 4 - 8 pm
• Tuesday October 20 – 4 - 8 pm
• Wednesday Oct 21 – 4 - 8 pm
101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106,
107, 108
201, 202, 203, 204, 205, 206,
207
301, 302, 303, 304, 305, 306,
307, 308
401, 402, 403, 404, 405, 406,
407, 408
501, 502, 503, 504, 505, 506,
507
45 YES
Page 62 of 308
100 John West Way
Aurora, Ontario
L4G 6J1
(905) 727-3123
aurora.ca
Town of Aurora
Voting Period and Voting Locations
Legislative Services
Town of Aurora
April 29, 2026 Page 3 of 3
Location
No. Location Poll Number(s) No. of
Polls
Open
to the
Public
601, 602, 603, 604, 605, 606,
607
Special Voting Locations
Special Voting Locations are subject to change in accordance with Section 45(7) of the Act and may have
reduced voting hours on Voting Day. Special Voting Locations are only for the use of residents of the
institution or retirement home.
12. Chartwell Park Place Retirement Residence
15055 Yonge Street, L4G 6T4
107 1 NO
13. Cobblestone Lodge Retirement Home
15029 Yonge St
108
1 NO
14. Amica Senior Lifestyles
15190 Yonge St
206 1 NO
15. Traditions Seniors Housing
15520 Yonge Street
206 1 NO
16. Chartwell Aurora Long-Term Care Residence
32 Mill Street, L4G 2R9 207
1 NO
17. Kingsway Place Retirement Residence
145 Murray Drive, L4G 2C7
307
1 NO
18. Sunrise of Aurora (Seniors Assisted Living)
3 Golf Links Drive, L4G 7Y4
308
1 NO
19. Delmanor Aurora
25 Butternut Ridge Trail
408 1 NO
20. Willows Estate Long-Term Care Home
13837 Yonge Street, L4G 0N9
407
1 NO
21. Hollandview Trail Retirement Residence
200 John West Way 507 1 NO
22. Meadows of Aurora
400 William Graham Drive, L4G 1L7
607 1 No
Page 63 of 308
100 John West Way
Aurora, Ontario
L4G 6J1
(905) 727-3123
aurora.ca
Town of Aurora
Information Report
No. FIN26-021
Subject: Long-Term Asset Management Funding Strategy
Prepared by: Sandy Dhillon, Senior Financial Management Advisor
Department: Finance
Date: June 2, 2026
In accordance with the Procedure By-law, any Member of Council may request that
this Information Report be placed on an upcoming Committee of the Whole or Council
meeting agenda for discussion.
Executive Summary
The operating budget includes capital reserve contributions which is part of the overall
tax levy. This reserve contribution increases on an annual basis through the one percent
tax levy increase to support the Fiscal Strategy. Most of these funds go to support asset
management reserves, while the balance supports contributions to the growth and new
and studies and other reserves. The recently approved Corporate Asset Management
Plan (AMP) identifies the gap between the annual funding to the asset management
reserves and the annual asset management infrastructure capital requirements.
• Town’s current Asset Management funding strategy of an annual one percent for
fiscal strategy has resulted in a reduced level of service for multiple asset
categories
• New assets are being added to the Asset Management Plan annually resulting in
further infrastructure deficit
• For long term infrastructure sustainability, the annual contribution increase to
asset management reserves should be aligned with the Asset Management Plan
recommendations
• Staff recommends the phase in of the required levy increase for asset
management over the next council term
Page 64 of 308
June 2, 2026 2 of 6 Report No. FIN26-021
Background
The Town’s current Asset Management funding strategy includes an annual tax rate
increase of one percent in support of the fiscal strategy. Of this increase, approximately
0.16 percent is contributed toward the growth & new and studies & other reserve. The
remaining 0.84 percent annual increase is allocated in support of asset management
reserves.
In the 2024 approved AMP, the defined level of service for most tax funded and user
rate funded asset classes did not change, reflecting their present levels of service. In
support of the defined asset levels of service, the AMP recommended that the identified
annual funding gap of $14.9 million be addressed through an annual tax rate increase of
1.63 percent over 15 years, meaning that an increase from the existing dedicated asset
management annual tax increase of 0.84 to 1.63 percent was needed. To address these
funding gaps, a short-term asset management strategy for 2025 and 2026 was
implemented as approved by Council in September of 2024.
Analysis
Town’s current Asset Management funding strategy of an annual one percent for fiscal
strategy has resulted in a reduced level of service for multiple asset categories
To ensure that the capital plan is affordable, the timing of the capital projects is
managed to ensure that the funds are available to fund the projects when planned.
While the Town has strategically contributed to reserves for asset management for
years, the timing of the projects may still be delayed until the Asset Management Plan
becomes fully funded over time.
In developing the 2026 10-year capital budget, adjustments to the service level of roads
projects were made. The level of service for roads projects was reduced from 70
Pavement Quality Index (PQI) to 65 PQI. In addition, facilities, parks and IT projects were
deferred to ensure the affordability of 10-year capital plan. These deferrals have
reduced the level of service for each respective asset category in the short-term. The
long-term strategy would be to continue to implement the annual increases to asset
management based on the recommendations of the Asset Management Plan.
New assets are being added to the Asset Management Plan annually resulting in
further infrastructure deficit
At the time of the 2024 asset management plan’s approval the estimated replacement
cost of the Town’s tax funded assets was $1.15 billion. Since that time, this cost has
grown significantly, it is now estimated to be $1.35 billion as of the end of 2025. As a
Page 65 of 308
June 2, 2026 3 of 6 Report No. FIN26-021
result, the Asset Management Plan is a dynamic document that has to be updated
regularly to include newly constructed or acquired assets. For example, in 2025 and
2026, Growth and New capital projects for $9 million have been approved. Since 2024,
the Town has also operationalized quite a few growth and new infrastructure capital
projects such as SARC Gymnasium, Aurora Town Square, construction of multi use trail
network from Bayview to Leslie, Snow storage facility at Lambert Willson Park and
many roads’ projects. It also assumed $21.9 million worth of new assets from
developers over this same time period. Any new asset addition further widens the
Town’s infrastructure tax funding deficit.
For long-term infrastructure sustainability, the annual contribution increase to asset
management reserves should be aligned with the Asset Management Plan
recommendations
The current practice of increasing the capital reserve contributions by one percent of
the annual tax levy is not enough to fund the recommendations of the Asset
Management Plan. Of the one percent annual increase, approximately 0.16 percent is
contributed toward the growth and new and studies and other reserve. The remaining
0.84 percent annual increase goes directly to asset management reserves. Table 1
presents a summary of proposed long-term tax levy funded asset management strategy
which spreads over 15 years. The identified increase is a step forward toward meeting
the recommendation outlined in the Asset Management Plan.
Page 66 of 308
June 2, 2026 4 of 6 Report No. FIN26-021
Table 1
Tax levy Asset Management Funding Plan
Tax levy funded Asset Management Plan requirements
Currently in budget:
Growth and New 0.10%
Studies and Other 0.06%
Asset Management 0.84%
1% fiscal strategy breakdown 1.00%
Proposed increase:
Gap to Asset management plan total 1.63% 0.80%
Asset Management backlog 0.20%
1.00%
Total fiscal Strategy contributions 2.00%
The identified annual increase to the levy for asset management would continue over a
period of 15 years, during this time the backlog of asset management projects will
continue to grow. To address the backlog, a further annual increase of 0.20 percent is
proposed as part of Table 1. The proposed fiscal strategy increase is a step forward
toward meeting the recommendation outlined in the Asset Management Plan.
Staff recommends the phase in of the required levy increase for asset management
over the next council term
To avoid year over year fiscal shocks as advised in the Towns fiscal strategy, staff
recommends that the proposed 1% increase to fiscal strategy funding be phased in over
4 years in annual increments of 0.25 percent. Therefore, a full fiscal strategy tax rate
increase of 1.25, 1.50, 1.75 and 2.00 percent for 2027 to 2030 should be considered as
part of the next Council term’s budget., respectively.
Advisory Committee Review
Not applicable
Legal Considerations
The budgeted contributions to the asset management reserves are endorsed during the
annual budget process.
Page 67 of 308
June 2, 2026 5 of 6 Report No. FIN26-021
Financial Implications
This report proposes a financial strategy that aligns with the Town’s Fiscal Strategy to
achieve the 2024 Asset Management Plan’s financial recommendations from 2027 and
onwards. Therefore, any tax levy implications will be included in the annual 2027 Budget
process.
Communications Considerations
The Town will inform residents of the information contained within this report by
posting it to the Town’s website.
Climate Change Considerations
None.
Link to Strategic Plan
The long-term asset management reserve balance strategy aligns with the Fiscal
Strategy objectives of managing long-term financial sustainability while maintaining the
desired service levels and asset replacement. Fiscal Strategy supports all aspects of the
strategic plan. Specifically, this report supports the Plan principles of Leadership in
Corporate and Financial Management, Leveraging Partnerships, and Progressive
Corporate Excellence and Continuous Improvement.
Alternative(s) to the Recommendation
1. None
Conclusions
Planning for asset management reserve requirements over the long-term to ensure full
life-cycle asset management is key to the Town’s overall infrastructure sustainability.
Therefore, the alignment of reserve contributions to the recommended asset
management plan requirements is a step forward toward long-term financial and
infrastructure sustainability.
Attachments
None
Page 68 of 308
June 2, 2026 6 of 6 Report No. FIN26-021
Previous Reports
Asset Management Funding Strategy for 2025 and 2026. FIN24-038
Pre-submission Review
Agenda Management Team review on May 7, 2026
Approvals
Approved by Rachel Wainwright-van Kessel, CPA, CMA, Director, Finance
Approved by Doug Nadorozny, Chief Administrative Officer
Page 69 of 308
100 John West Way
Aurora, Ontario
L4G 6J1
(905) 727-3123
aurora.ca
Town of Aurora
Information Report
No. FIN2 6 -0 22
Subject: 2025 Grant Update
Prepared by: Laura Sheardown, Financial Management Advisor
Department: Finance
Date: June 2, 2026
In accordance with the Procedure By-law, any Member of Council may request that
this Information Report be placed on an upcoming Committee of the Whole or Council
meeting agenda for discussion.
Executive Summary
The intent of this report is to provide Council with a summary of Aurora’s 2025 grant
applications, as well as some of its grant applications currently under development.
• The Town applied for $17.1M in grants during 2025 and has been successful in
obtaining approvals for $6.5M so far
• There are currently 14 grant opportunities under consideration for potential
application submission
Background
Grants are a regular source of much needed funding for the Town. Financial
Management Services has the responsibility to continually monitor and seek out grant
opportunities which would benefit the town. Staff from other departments support
Finance in this responsibility by bringing forward grant opportunities relating to
programs that they provide. Further, Financial Management plays a lead role in the
active management of most Town grant agreements, ensuring that all reporting
obligations are met as per their specific timelines.
Page 70 of 308
June 2, 2026 2 of 6 Report No. FIN26-022
Staff have the delegated authority to submit grant applications for:
• Programs that support services provided by the Town
• Currently approved capital projects
• Replacement or refurbishment of current assets that are within four years of
recommended replacement or refurbishment
The number of municipal grant opportunities has increased over the past years and
shows little sign of slowing. This increase has been experienced from all funding
sources including the federal and provincial governments, as well as the private sector.
A new dedicated grant management position was adopted as part of the 2025 operating
budget commencing on July 1, 2025. This position has now been filled and a strategic
action plan devised and commenced.
Analysis
The Town applied for $17.1M in grants during 2025 and has been successful in
obtaining approvals for $6.5M so far
During 2025, staff worked on 37 grant files at different stages of their lives. At a high
level, 30 percent of grant applied for have been completed with final reports filed and
funding received by the Town, 16 percent have been approved and are in progress; 16
percent of application submitted were not successful; 24 percent are still under review;
and 14 percent relate to 2026 projects. Please note that these numbers do not include
grant programs that were reviewed and determined to not fit the Town’s needs due to
either eligibility, funding use or timeline reasons.
Page 71 of 308
June 2, 2026 3 of 6 Report No. FIN26-022
Figure 1
Summary of Grant Status
Attachment 1 lists all the grant programs to which applications were submitted in 2025,
including any that were approved. A status of each application is also provided.
It is important to note that some grant application lifecycles can vary in timeframe from
a few months to as long as two or more years to conclude form beginning to end. There
are many steps in the life of a grant application which may include:
• Application research and development
• Application review and funding decision
• Execution of a grant agreement, if application is successful
• Completion of associated work/activity
• Ongoing reporting to grant provider on progress
• Final receipt of grant funds
Each grant program has individual eligibility requirements and funding priorities that
must be met to ensure application success.
There are currently 14 grant opportunities under consideration for potential
application submission
Staff are always searching for new grant opportunities from all sectors. Table 1
presents a summary of the current grant programs under consideration by the Town.
30%
16%24%
16%
14%
Completed
Not approved
Application under
review
In progress
Approved for
2026
Page 72 of 308
June 2, 2026 4 of 6 Report No. FIN26-022
Table 1
Grant Applications Currently Under Consideration or Development
Organization Grant Description
The Blanket Fund (Gord Downie
& Chanie Wenjack Fund)
Provides support for Indigenous cultural, artistic
and educational activities
Canadian Race Relations
Foundation
Support for communities to fight against racism
and discrimination
Canadian Trees For Life Support the planting of native trees where
Canadians live, work and play
Collections Management –
Museum Assistance Program
Provides funding to improve knowledge, skills
and practices related to key museum functions
Community Sport and
Recreation Fund
Funding to repair, upgrade or build sport and
recreation facilities
Enabling Access to Spaces for
Everyone Improving accessibility in Ontario communities
Fairways Foundation Funding to naturalize the outside of managed
turf properties
Greenbelt Foundation Eligible projects strengthen or protect the
Greenbelt’s natural and agricultural systems
Greening Action Partnership
Fund
Supports projects that enhance and rehabilitate
natural areas creating a vibrant and sustainable
York Region
Green Municipal Fund – Growing
Canada’s Community Canopies
Funding to support the expansion of tree
canopies within communities
Invasive Phragmites Control
Fund
Provides financial support for the
implementation of Phragmites prevention and
control activities in Ontario
Invasive Species Action Fund
Provides financial support for a wide range of
environmental initiatives, with a primary focus
on environmental education and green space
programs
Western Financial Group –
Community Infrastructure Grant
Funding to enhance public spaces, climate
resilience, accessibility and safety
York Region Municipal
Streetscape Partnership
Program
Funding for the implementation of streetscape
and master plans by lower tier municipalities
Staff continue to make good use of annual grants like Canada Summer jobs, Seniors
Active Living centres and Jumpstart.
Page 73 of 308
June 2, 2026 5 of 6 Report No. FIN26-022
Advisory Committee Review
Not applicable.
Legal Considerations
None.
Financial Implications
Grant revenue has become an important source of funding for multiple program areas
and asset replacement strategies. Increasing costs and declining development revenue
have placed an even greater importance on alternative funding sources such as those
offered through grant programs.
Communications Considerations
The Town of Aurora will use ‘inform’ as the level of engagement for this project. In order
to inform, this report will be posted to the Town’s website.
Climate Change Considerations
The information contained within this report does not impact greenhouse gas
emissions or impact climate change adaption.
Link to Strategic Plan
Applying for grant funding contributes to achieving the Strategic Plan guiding principle
of ‘Leadership in Corporate Management’ and providing information reports improves
transparency and accountability to the community.
Alternative(s) to the Recommendation
Not applicable.
Conclusions
The Town applied for funding from several different grant programs, successfully
obtaining approval for $6.5M. Staff continue to explore new opportunities to fund town
Page 74 of 308
June 2, 2026 6 of 6 Report No. FIN26-022
operations and special projects and to explore potential partnerships within the
community.
Attachments
Attachment 1 – Summary of Grant Applications for 2025
Previous Reports
None.
Pre-submission Review
Agenda Management Team review on May 14, 2026
Approvals
Approved by Rachel Wainwright-van Kessel, CPA, CMA, Director, Finance
Approved by Doug Nadorozny, Chief Administrative Officer
Page 75 of 308
Summary of Grant Applications for 2025
Amount Requested Amount Approved
Active Transportation Fund Separate Bike Lane on Henderson
Dr 562,800 tbd Application under review
Active Transportation Fund Sidewalk on Mary St 363,600 tbd Application under review
Canada Summer Jobs Aurora - North summer position
subsidy (2025)320,350 52,976 Completed
Canada Summer Jobs Aurora - North summer position
subsidy (2026)276,892 12,320 Approved for 2026
Canada Summer Jobs Aurora - South summer position
subsidy (2025)201,627 43,000 Completed
Canada Summer Jobs Aurora - South summer position
subsidy (2026)179,564 56,672 Approved for 2026
Canadian Race Relations
Foundation
Aurora's Multicultural Festival
10,000 0 Not approved
Celebrate Canada Canada Day Celebrations 2025 46,450 25,000 Completed
Commemorative Partnership
Program
Aurora War Memorial 100th
Anniversary 23,650 23,650 Completed
Commemorative Partnership
Program
Indigenous War Memorial
25,000 25,000 Approved for 2026
Community Emergency
Preparedness
Digital & AI Powered Emergency
Response Solutions Boost 50,000 0 Not approved
Save on Energy - Dollars to
$ense
Energy Efficiency training for
Facility Operators 8,500 8,500 Approved and in progress
Enabling Accessibility Bringing Sledge Hockey to Aurora
70,376 0
Application under
reassessment
Enbridge - Municpal Action Plan
Offer
Support of the Town's Climate
Action Plan 10,000 10,000 Completed
Enhancing Access to Spaces for
Everyone Fleury Park Accessible Playground 60,000 tbd Application under review
Experience Ontario Winter Special Event support 20,000 0 Not approved
Federal Gas Tax (Canada
Community Build Fund)
Funding calculated by formula and
applied to various Asset
Management projects 2,032,375 2,032,375
Completed
Green Municipal Fund/
Federation of Canadian
Municipalities Greener Homes Feasibility Study 174,420 174,420
Approved and in progress
Green Municipal Fund/
Federation of Canadian
Municipalities
Growing Canada's Community
Canopy 635,350 635,350
Approved and in progress
Green Municipal Fund/
Federation of Canadian
Municipalities Fleet Electrification Study 192,200 tbd
Application under review
Green and Inclusive Community
Buildings
Upgrades and imrpovements for
AFLC 6,126,817 tbd Application under review
Jumpstart Coaching in Sport Pathway 7,500 0 Not approved
Jumpstart PLF4M Leadership Course Winter
2026 15,000 15,000 Approved and in progress
Lake Simcoe Region
Conservation Authority Various storm water projects 882,880 882,880 Approved and in progress
New Horizons Connect and Learn with the Aurora
Seniors Centre 23,125 23,125 Completed
Older Adult Centres Association
of Ontario Seniors Active Living Fair 2,500 2,500 Completed
Ontario Community
Infrastructure Fund
Funding calculated by formula and
applied to various Asset
Management projects 2,283,134 2,283,134
Completed
RBC Foundation Community
Infrastructure Fund Fleury Park Accessible Playground 40,000 0 Application under review
Seniors Active Living Centres Seniors Centre Operating Grant -
2025 59,037 59,037 Completed
Seniors Active Living Centres Virtual Seniors Centre Operating
Grant - 2025 56,414 56,414 Completed
Seniors Active Living Centres Seniors Centre Operating Grant -
2026 70,000 55,000 Approved for 2026
Seniors Active Living Centres Virtual Seniors Centre Operating
Grant - 2026 68,000 55,000 Approved for 2026
Seniors Community Grant Seniors Safety Initiaitive 16,132 0 Not approved
Seniors Community Grant Living Your Best Life in Aurora 7,650 tbd Application under review
Western Financial Group -
Community Infrastructure
Program
Aurora Family Leisure Complex
Engagement Retrofit
200,000 tbd
Application under review
Wetland Conservation Program Wetland Improvements in Aurora 1,930,000 0 Not approved
York Region FDI Partnership
Fund
Economic Development
13,000 13,000 Approved and in progress
17,064,343 6,544,353
Grant Program Project Description Grant Value ($)Status
Attachment 1 to Report No. FIN26-022 Page 76 of 308
100 John West Way
Aurora, Ontario
L4G 6J1
(905) 727-3123
aurora.ca
Town of Aurora
Information Report
No. FIN26-023
Subject:
Prepared by:
Department:
Date:
2025 Year-End Development Charges Statement
Jason Gaertner
Finance
June 2, 2026
In accordance with the Procedure By-law, any Member of Council may request that
this Information Report be placed on an upcoming Committee of the Whole or Council
meeting agenda for discussion.
Executive Summary
As required under the Development Charges Act, 1997, S.O. 1997 as amended (the ‘DC
Act’), this report provides a year end summary of development charge activity and
reserve balances.
•Development charges are imposed by the Town of Aurora to recover growth-
related capital costs as determined under the Development Charges Act
•The Town of Aurora’s development charge reserves total a net balance of $19.0
million as of December 31, 2025
•The Town of Aurora collected a total of $3.5 million in development charges
during 2025
•Developers have committed to construct $6.54 million of development charge
eligible projects on the Town’s behalf as of December 31, 2025
•The Town has fully spent or allocated its opening road, water and wastewater
opening reserve balances in 2025
•The Town does not need to replace any non-legislatively exempted development
charge revenue in 2025
Page 77 of 308
June 2, 2026 2 of 7 Report No. FIN26-023
• The Town did not enter into any development charge deferral agreements under
its York Region Development Incentives Collaboration Policy in 2025
Background
Development charges are imposed to recover growth-related capital costs as
determined under the Development Charges Act
Development charges (DCs) are imposed by the Town of Aurora to recover growth-
related capital costs from both residential and non-residential developments as
determined under the Development Charges Act. More specifically, these growth-related
costs relate to investments that are necessary for the Town to maintain its existing
levels of service to a growing community. Any investments resulting in a level of service
increase are ineligible for recovery through DCs. As required under the DC Act, all
collected DCs are held in a separate reserve fund until spent.
The DC Act outlines specific reporting requirements for DC reserve funds. Section 33
and 43 of the DC Act requires that:
• A municipality that passed a DC By-law shall establish a separate reserve fund
for each service to which the DC relates and fund only eligible capital costs
• The Treasurer of the municipality shall provide Council with a financial statement
relating to the DC By-law and reserve funds established
As per the amended DC Act, municipalities are required to spend or allocate at least 60
percent of their collected but unused DC reserve funds at the beginning of each year for
its services related to a highway (roads), water, wastewater, and any other prescribed
services (the town does not have any other services of this nature).
This DC financial statement requires the identification of all other sources of funding
applied to each project that is funded by DCs and a detailed summary of the activities
relating to each DC reserve fund for the year.
On November 25, 2025, Town of Aurora Council approved a York Region Development
Incentives Collaboration Policy in response to York Region’s release of a series of
development incentive policies requiring local municipality participation as a condition
of its incentive offering. The York Region Development Incentives Collaboration Policy
provides guidance as to how the Town may participate in York Region’s development
incentive policies.
Page 78 of 308
June 2, 2026 3 of 7 Report No. FIN26-023
Analysis
The Town of Aurora’s development charge reserves total a net balance of $19.0
million as of December 31, 2025
As of December 31, 2025, Aurora’s overall consolidated DC reserve fund balance was
$19.0 million as shown under Part I of the Development Charges Reserve Fund
Statement presented under Attachment #1. Of note, the Fire Services and the Parks and
Recreation DC reserve balances are currently in an overdrawn position. If a reserve is in
an overdrawn position, it is effectively borrowing funds from DC reserves with positive
balances. Interest is charged for any internal borrowing between DC reserves in
accordance with the DC Act. For simplicity, the individual internal borrowing accounts
are not shown on Part I. These overdrawn funds will be recovered through future DC
collections.
Part II of the Development Charge Statement can be found under Attachment #2 which
details how the Town’s DC reserve fund monies were spent for both operational and
capital needs over the course of 2025.
The Town of Aurora collected a total of $3.5 million in development charges during
2025
As detailed under Attachment #1, the Town collected a total of $3.5 million in new
development charge revenues in 2025, well under the $16.9 million annual average
projected by the Town’s 2024 DC Study. Numerous legislative changes and present
economic conditions have negatively impacted the Town’s actual development charge
collections. As a result of DC fund availability, some planned growth infrastructure work
may need to be deferred or financed.
Developers have committed to construct $6.54 million of development charge eligible
projects on the Town’s behalf as of December 31, 2025
Part III of Aurora’s Development Charge Statement can be found under Attachment #3.
Part III presents a schedule of continuity for all outstanding DC credit agreements. DC
credits arise from agreements with developers to construct DC eligible infrastructure on
behalf of the town. Such projects may include the upsizing a sewer line inside a
subdivision, building a park or trail, or other eligible work outside of the subdivision
lands. Developers are required to pay the full applicable development charges payable
relating to their development. The Town will only reimburse a developer for the
provision of agreed upon works upon receipt of written confirmation of the acceptable
Page 79 of 308
June 2, 2026 4 of 7 Report No. FIN26-023
completion of previously agreed upon specified works from Engineering, Parks or
Operational Services depending upon the nature of the completed works. In some
instances, a developer’s eligible reimbursement may be partially funded from an
alternative funding source(s) as per the provided new infrastructure’s eligibility for DC
cost recovery.
The Town has fully spent or allocated its opening road, water and wastewater opening
reserve balances in 2025
Part IV of the Town of Aurora’s Development Charge Statement provides a summary of
its allocation of opening water, wastewater and road development charge reserve
balances. This schedule can be found under Attachment #4.
In the absence of further legislative direction, the town like most other Ontario
municipalities has included all of its planned eligible capital requirements for the next
10 years as part of its spent or allocated amount.
As can be seen from this schedule, the town’s present DC allocations well exceed its
established 60 percent minimum targets. Any listed allocations that do not include a
project number represent planned projects that have not yet had a project number
assigned to them. All planned allocations to developers in return for their construction
of infrastructure on the Town’s behalf is labeled as a Development Agreement.
The Town does not need to replace any non-legislatively exempted development
charge revenue in 2025
Development charge revenue losses as a result of DC exemptions, discounts, etc. may
be legislatively or Council initiated. An example of a legislatively driven DC exemption
would be the purpose-built rental apartment bedroom discount, or the exemption of DCs
for an affordable rental or institution development as defined by the DCA. An example
of a Council initiated DC revenue loss would be a Council decision to offer a DC
exemption that is not required under the DCA such as a DC rebate for first time home
buyers.
No lost revenue as a result of DC exemptions, discounts, etc. may not be made up
through higher development charges from other developments. Meaning these lost
development charges cannot be replaced by development charges collected from other
development; as a result, these replacement revenues must come from non-DC funding
sources. The Town has adopted the best practice of replacing any Council initiated DC
revenue losses with funding from non-DC funding sources. As the Town did not lose any
Page 80 of 308
June 2, 2026 5 of 7 Report No. FIN26-023
DC revenues as a result of a Council decision, it did not have a need to replace any lost
DC revenues in 2025.
The Town did not enter into any development charge deferral agreements under its
York Region Development Incentives Collaboration Policy in 2025
The York Region Development Incentives Collaboration Policy requires that staff report
back to Council annually on the Town’s usage of this policy. Staff have received multiple
expressions of developer interest in accessing York Region’s development incentive
policies and by extension of that the Town’s York Region collaboration policy. However,
as of December 31, 2025, the Town has not entered into any associated development
charge deferral agreements under this Policy.
Advisory Committee Review
Not applicable
Legal Considerations
This report fulfills the statutory reporting requirements of the Development Charges Act,
1997.
Financial Implications
In some instances, to maintain a consistent level of service to a growing community, the
Town has proactively invested in growth infrastructure ahead of recovering
development charges revenues. To do this, it uses bridge financing that is repaid
through this work’s intended development charge revenue funding source. Bridge
financing may take the form of internal or external debt. Staff will assess the most
advantageous form of debt to be used in each instance where bridge financing is
required. Staff will strive to ensure that all DC service balances reach a positive position
within five to seven years through the collection of ongoing development charges and
the prudent management of available funds. An important success factor will be the
Town staying true to its identified DC study requirements.
Communications Considerations
The Town of Aurora will inform residents about the information contained within this
report by posting it to the Town’s website.
Page 81 of 308
June 2, 2026 6 of 7 Report No. FIN26-023
Climate Change Considerations
The information contained within this report does not impact greenhouse gas
emissions or impact climate change adaptation.
Link to Strategic Plan
Reporting on Development Charge Reserve Funds contributes to achieving the Strategic
Plan guiding principle of ‘Leadership in Corporate Management’ and improves
transparency and accountability to the community.
Alternative(s) to the Recommendation
Not applicable
Conclusions
The 2025 Development Charges Reserve Fund Statement presented in this report
satisfies the Town’s reporting obligation pursuant to the Development Charges Act.
Attachments
Attachment 1 – Development Charge Balance – Part I
Attachment 2 – Development Charge Expenditures – Part II
Attachment 3 – Development Charge Credit Continuity – Part III
Attachment 4 – Development Charges Reserve Fund Balance Allocation – Part IV
Previous Reports
None
Pre-submission Review
Agenda Management Team review on May 14, 2026
Page 82 of 308
June 2, 2026 7 of 7 Report No. FIN26-023
Approvals
Approved by Rachel Wainwright-van Kessel, CPA, CMA, Director, Finance
Approved by Doug Nadorozny, Chief Administrative Officer
Page 83 of 308
Fire ServicesParks & RecreationLibraary ServicesMunicipal Parking Services* General Government (Studies) Roads and Related Wastewater Services Water Services Opening Balance - January 1st (2,060,964.72) (1,709,488.06) 68,322.88 429,466.75 355,790.08 17,837,808.92 2,301,970.55 1,802,112.07 19,025,018.47 Add: Development Charges Collected188,685.79 2,534,526.64 349,779.87 - 80,009.65 285,247.23 37,208.78 30,394.22 3,505,852.18 Less: DC Credits Paid in year- (232,383.50) - - - - - - (232,383.50) DC Refunds Issued - - - - - - - - - Add: Interest Earned (Charged)(163,220.00) (80,817.00) 19,918.00 35,618.00 32,433.00 1,484,074.00 191,527.00 149,959.00 1,669,492.00 Less: Expenditures in year (Part II)(21,648.00) (4,228,497.45) (79,201.80) (31,584.53) (129,741.58) (476,822.04) - - (4,967,495.40) Closing Development Charge Balance(2,057,146.93) (3,716,659.37) 358,818.95 433,500.22 338,491.15 19,130,308.11 2,530,706.33 1,982,465.29 19,000,483.75 * Legacy balance only, this service is no longer eligible for recovery through development charges- PART I - Development Charge BalanceTown of AuroraDevelopment Charges Reserve Fund StatementYear Ended December 31, 2025General Services Engineering Services TotalAttachment 1 to Report No. FIN26-023Page 84 of 308
Fire Services Parks & Recreation Libraary Services Municipal Parking Services General Government (Studies) Roads and Related Wastewater Services Water Services Funding Transferred to Operating Budget for Specific Purposes:Parks operating budget (115,600.00) (115,600.00) N/A (115,600.00) SARC Debenture Funding (320,544.00) (320,544.00) N/A (320,544.00) SARC Gym Debenture (315,480.63) (315,480.63) N/A (315,480.63) Town Square debenture (150,878.14) (150,878.14) N/A (150,878.14) Hallmark Debenture Funding (218,500.00) (218,500.00) N/A (218,500.00) ATS Cloc Interest (13,821.00) (13,821.00) N/A (13,821.00) ATS debt legal fee (5,461.00) (5,461.00) N/A (5,461.00) Sarc Gym debt legal fee (5,315.00) (5,315.00) N/A (5,315.00) Sarc Gym cloc interest (117,936.00) (117,936.00) N/A (117,936.00) Total Operating Budget Allocations - (1,263,535.77) - - - - - - (1,263,535.77) - (1,263,535.77) Funding Transferred to Capital Projects:GN0020 GENERAL-FIRE MASTER PLAN (21,648.00) (21,648.00) - (21,648.00) GN0085 WILDLIFE PARK PHASE 1TO4 (25,741.62) (25,741.62) - (25,741.62) GN0130 DEGRAAF CRES TRAIL (13,046.15) (13,046.15) - (13,046.15) GN0097 NON PROGRAMMED PARK IN 2C (16,939.88) (16,939.88) (1,650.78) (18,590.66) GN0129 MATTAMY PHASE 4/5 TRAIL (43,319.60) (43,319.60) - (43,319.60) GN0150 ST. ANNE'S SCHOOL PARK (2,000,000.00) (2,000,000.00) - (2,000,000.00) GN0157 MULTI USE COURTS AS PER PARKS & REC MASTER PLAN (167,621.62) (167,621.62) (111,747.74) (279,369.36) AM0178 PARKS/TRAILS SIGNAGE STRAT STUDY/IMPLMTN (9,833.11) (9,833.11) (2,556.17) (12,389.28) GN0074 SARC GYMNASIUM (688,459.70) (688,459.70) (37,094.68) (725,554.38) GN0181 NEW BOOK LOCKER AT SARC(51,379.32) (51,379.32) - (51,379.32) GN0182 LIBRARY RFID SECURITY GATE(27,822.48) (27,822.48) - (27,822.48) GN0165 ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION(31,584.53) (31,584.53) - (31,584.53) SO0061 SALT MANAGEMENT PLAN UPDATE(10,960.99) (10,960.99) (17,836.83) (28,797.82) SO0067 WATER HYDRAULIC MODEL (6,268.42) (6,268.42) - (6,268.42) SO0078 TOWN\-WIDE PARKING STUDY(112,512.17) (112,512.17) - (112,512.17) GN0046 TRAFFIC CALMING PER DC STUDY(7,535.01) (7,535.01) 885.12 (6,649.89) GN0058 STREET LIGHT POLE IDENTIFICATION(4,630.08) (4,630.08) - (4,630.08) GN0124 SIDEWALK\- EDWARD/ 100M E OF YONGE\-DUNNING(39,869.37) (39,869.37) (340.59) (40,209.96) GN0163 ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION FACILITIES \- YONGE ST \- BLOOMINGTON TO GO BRIDGE BOTH SIDES (297,335.23) (297,335.23) (31,527.42) (328,862.65) GN0170 WINTER ROAD MONITORING SYSTEM(25,752.19) (25,752.19) (25,752.19) (51,504.38) GN0172 VAN (WATER OPERATOR \- NEW)(88,648.05) (88,648.05) - (88,648.05) AM0415REHABILITATION OF SISMAN AVENUE, HOLLIDGE BOULEVARD, JOHN WEST WAYAM0415(13,052.11) (13,052.11) (1,791,977.76) (1,805,029.87) Total Capital Project Allocations (21,648.00) (2,964,961.68) (79,201.80) (31,584.53) (129,741.58) (476,822.04) - - (3,703,959.63) (2,019,599.04) (5,723,558.67) Total DC Investments (21,648.00) (4,228,497.45) (79,201.80) (31,584.53) (129,741.58) (476,822.04) - - (4,967,495.40) (2,019,599.04) (6,987,094.44) PART II - Expenditures from Development ChargesTown of AuroraDevelopment Charges Reserve Fund StatementYear Ended December 31, 2025General Services Engineering Services Total DC Funding Other Non-DC Funding Total Funding Attachment 2 to Report No. FIN26-023Page 85 of 308
DC Amount Other Sources Date Paid Ending Balance 2015 Aurora (HGD) Inc. - Highland Gate - Phase 1Development Trail system 99,900 99,900 2015 Shimvest 2C Water Supply and Distribution Watermain 136,103 136,103 Waste Water Wastewater 245,467 245,467 2017 Mattamy (Aurora) Limited Phase 5 Parks Development Trail System 23,450 23,450 2017 BG Properties res condo Yonge St. Parks Development Trail system 22,200 22,200 2020 SmartCentres Road & Related Road oversizing 493,788 493,788 2020 SmartCentres Water Supply and Distribution Watermain oversizing 124,000 124,000 2020 SmartCentres Road & Related Sidewalks, pathways, illumination 318,755 318,755 2021 Aurora (HGD) Inc. - Highland Gate - Phase 2B Parks Development Parks, Trails, Landscape Works 464,767 (232,384) (232,384) Dec, 2025 - 2023 Aurora (HGD) Inc. - Highland Gate - Phase 3 Parks Development Parks, Trails, Landscape Works 424,129 424,129 2023 Aurora (HGD) Inc. - Highland Gate - Phase 4 Parks Development Parks, Trails, Landscape Works 655,436 655,436 2024 Aurora (HGD) Inc. - Highland Gate - Phase 6 Parks Development Parks, Trails, Landscape Works 2,311,338 2,311,338 2024 Ambria (Bloomington) Ltd. (SUB-2017-03) External Sani Line Wastewater78,548 78,548 Connection to Regional Sani Line Wastewater29,973 29,973 External watermain on Old Bloomington Water1,237,575 1,237,575 Multi Use Pathway on Bloomington Rd Road, sidewalks233,347 233,347 2024 Shining Hill Estates Collection Inc. Parks Development Parks, Trails, Landscape Works107,175 107,175 Total7,005,952 - (232,384) (232,384) - - 6,541,185 Waste Water353,989 Water Supply and Distributi1,497,678 Parks & Recreation3,643,628 Roads and Related1,045,890 Total Outstanding 6,541,185 PART III - Development Charge Credits ContinuityTown of AuroraDevelopment Charges Reserve Fund StatementYear Ended December 31, 2025Year Project Type DC Credit Purpose Balance Opening New Credits Agreed DC Credit Payment Credit not used Attachment 3 to Report No. FIN26-023Page 86 of 308
Balance of Reserve at Beginning of year: 1,802,112.07
Minimum Required Allocation (60 percent): 1,081,267.24
Projects to Which Funding Will Be Allocated:
Project Number Project Name Future Funding
Current Year
Funding
Allocated to
Date
Development Agreement Watermain - Shimvest 2C 136,103.00 136,103.00
Development Agreement Watermain - Old Gloomington 1,237,575.00 1,237,575.00
Development Agreement Waterman Oversizing - SmartCentres 124,000.00 124,000.00
n/a Hallgrove/Smart Centre - North/South Collector 350,000.00 - 350,000.00
n/a Provision for Water Mains 4,875,000.00 - 4,875,000.00
Total 5,225,000.00 1,497,678.00 6,722,678.00
Balance of Reserve at Beginning of year: 2,301,970.55
Minimum Required Allocation (60 percent): 1,381,182.33
Projects to Which Funding Will Be Allocated:
Project Number Project Name Future Funding
Current Year
Funding
Allocated to
Date
Development Agreement Wastewater main - Shimvest 2C - 245,467.00 245,467.00
Development Agreement External wastewater connections to Ambria development - 108,521.00 108,521.00
n/a Yonge St. Sani Sewer Rehab & Streetscape Detailed Design 64,800.00 - 64,800.00
n/a I/I Reduction Program 1,750,000.00 - 1,750,000.00
n/a Provision for Wastewater Mains 4,800,000.00 - 4,800,000.00
n/a Old Bloomington Sanitary Sewer 672,000.00 - 672,000.00
Total 7,286,800.00 353,988.00 7,640,788.00
Balance of Reserve at Beginning of year: 17,837,808.92
Minimum Required Allocation (60 percent): 10,702,685.35
Projects to Which Funding Will be Allocated
Project Number Project Name Future Funding
Current Year
Funding
Allocated to
Date
Development Agreement Goulding Avenue oversizing - SmartCentres - 493,788.00 493,788.00
Development Agreement Sidewalks, pathways, illumination - SmartCentres - 318,755.00 318,755.00
Development Agreement Multi Use Pathway on Bloomington Rd - Ambria - 233,346.96 233,346.96
GN0046 TRAFFIC CALMING PER DC STUDY - 7,535.01 7,535.01
GN0058 STREET LIGHT POLE IDENTIFICATION - 4,630.08 4,630.08
GN0124 SIDEWALK\- EDWARD/ 100M E OF YONGE\-DUNNING - 39,869.37 39,869.37
GN0163 ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION FACILITIES \- YONGE ST \-
BLOOMINGTON TO GO BRIDGE BOTH SIDES 4,563,765.05 297,335.23 4,861,100.28
GN0170 WINTER ROAD MONITORING SYSTEM - 25,752.19 25,752.19
GN0172 VAN (WATER OPERATOR \- NEW)- 88,648.05 88,648.05
AM0415 REHABILITATION OF SISMAN AVENUE, HOLLIDGE BOULEVARD, JOHN
WEST WAYAM0415 - 13,052.11 13,052.11
GN-F-0122 SIDEWALK TRACTOR -- TRACKLESS (5 UNITS)1,500,000.00 1,500,000.00
GN-F-0123 WATER VAN 100,000.00 100,000.00
Water Development Charges
Wastewater Water Development Charges
Roads and Related Development Charges
PART IV - Development Charge Reserve Balance Allocations
Town of Aurora
Development Charges Reserve Fund Statement
Year Ended December 31, 2025
Attachment 4 to Report No. FIN26-023 Page 87 of 308
Project Number Project Name Future Funding
Current Year
Funding
Allocated to
Date
GN-F-0084 ACTIVE TRANSPORATION ROUTE DEVELOPMENT 747,500.00 747,500.00
AM-F-0408 REHABILITATION OF VANDORF SIDERD 533,000.00 533,000.00
AM-F-0407 REHAB OF BRIDGENORTH DR., RIVER RIDGE BOULEVARD, YONGE ST.
SOUTH 635,400.00 - 635,400.00
AM-F-0423 REHABILITATION OF MARK STREET, INDUSTRIAL PARKWAY SOUTH 1,594,600.00 - 1,594,600.00
AM-F-0422 REHABILITATION OF YONGE ST N 1,524,000.00 - 1,524,000.00
GN-F-0119 UTILITY VEHICLE WITH TOW BEHIND DIAMOND DRAGGER 60,000.00 60,000.00
GN-F-0121 ROADS - 3/4 TON 90,000.00 90,000.00
GN-F-0075 ELECTRIC VEHICLE INFRASTRUCTURE 105,000.00 105,000.00
GN0186 PARKS - 2 TON DUMP TRUCK W BOX AND WATER ATTACHMENTS - 150,000.00 150,000.00
GN0187 WINDROW CLEARING EQUIPMENT 70,000.00 70,000.00
GN0179 TRAIN WHISTLE CESSATION AT ST. JOHN'S SDRD SAFETY
ASSESSMENT 100,000.00 100,000.00
GN0189 MUP / S/W ON BAYVIEW AVE - FROM ST JOHN'S SDRD TO NORTH
TOWN LIMIT 437,350.00 437,350.00
GN0190 PEDESTRIAN ACTIVATED CROSSWALK ON ST JOHN'S EAST OF
BATHURST 500,000.00 500,000.00
GN-F-0024 S/W- YONGE- S OF HENDERSON TO IND. PKWY S 498,100.00 498,100.00
GN-F-0013 YONGE ST/ CHURCH ST SIGNALIZATION 206,200.00 206,200.00
SO-F-0015 SALT MANAGEMENT PLAN UPDATE - 2030 81,500.00 81,500.00
SO-F-0062 SALT MANAGEMENT PLAN UPDATE - 2035 81,500.00 81,500.00
AM-F-0406 REHABILITATION OF AURORA HEIGHTS DRIVE 140,800.00 140,800.00
AM-F-0435 REHAB OF BROOKS AVE, BILBROUGH ST, BOREALIS AVE, MAVRINAC
BOULEVARD 174,900.00 174,900.00
AM0459 REHAB OF MURDOCK AVE., SPRUCE ST., ALLENVALE DR.,
HENDERSON DR.1,301,800.00 1,301,800.00
AM-F-0414 REHAB GOLFLNKS, CADY, WHISPERINGPINETRAIL, CLUBINE,
PEDERSEN, WALTON, YONGE 50,000.00 - 50,000.00
- -
Total 12,686,265.05 4,081,862.00 16,768,127.05
Page 88 of 308
100 John West Way
Aurora, Ontario
L4G 6J1
(905) 727-3123
aurora.ca
Town of Aurora
Committee of the Whole Report
No. CS2 6 -0 12
Subject: Financial Implications of Implementing a Renoviction By-law
Prepared by: Alexander Wray
Department: Corporate Services
Date: June 2, 2026
Recommendation
1. That Report No. CS26-012 be received for information.
Executive Summary
At its meeting of March 10, 2026, Committee of the Whole received Report No.
CS26-007 respecting the implications of implementing a renovictions by-law and
referred the matter back to staff to further investigate the financial impacts associated
with implementing and administering a renovictions by-law in the Town of Aurora. This
report has been prepared in response to Council’s direction and provides additional
analysis respecting staffing requirements, inspection and enforcement considerations,
administrative processes, and implementation considerations associated with a
municipally administered renovictions program scaled to Aurora’s operational
environment and rental housing market.
Implementation of a renovictions by-law and inspection program would require
additional staffing resources and operational funding
Implementation of a renovictions by-law may have limited ability to address
certain tenant-specific circumstances that fall under provincial jurisdiction and
Landlord and Tenant Board processes
As an alternative to implementing a municipally administered renovictions
licensing and enforcement framework, staff reviewed the feasibility of a one-year
pilot program focused on resident support
Page 89 of 308
June 2, 2026 2 of 8 Report No. CS26-012
Building permit application processes could be modified to support identification
and monitoring of renovation activity involving tenanted properties
Background
At its meeting of November 25, 2025, Council directed staff to investigate the feasibility
and implications of implementing a renovictions by-law in the Town of Aurora and
report back to Council. In response, staff prepared Report No. CS26-007, Implications of
Implementing a Renoviction By-law, which was presented to Committee of the Whole on
March 10, 2026. The report included a review of proposed provincial legislative
amendments, existing enforcement mechanisms under the Residential Tenancies Act,
2006, renoviction-related data from Tribunals Ontario, and municipal benchmarking
respecting renoviction licensing programs and enforcement frameworks in other
Ontario municipalities.
At its March 10, 2026 meeting, Committee of the Whole received Report No. CS26-007
and referred the matter back to staff to further investigate the financial impacts
associated with implementing and administering a renovictions by-law specific and
scaled to the Town of Aurora, and to report back to Council in Q2 of 2026. This follow-
up report provides additional review respecting the anticipated financial and operational
implications associated with implementing and administering a municipally regulated
renovictions program within the Town of Aurora.
Analysis
Implementation of a renovictions support program would require additional staffing
resources and operational funding
Should Council wish to proceed with the implementation of a municipally administered
renovictions licensing and enforcement framework, additional staffing resources would
be required to set up the program and then support complaint intake, investigations,
inspections, licensing administration, and enforcement activities. Experience from
larger Ontario municipalities indicate that the implementation of a renovictions by-law
can result in significant increases in resident requests for inspections, investigation and
municipal involvement. Municipalities that have implemented these programs have
attributed increased service demands to heighten public awareness, misunderstood
expectations respecting municipal jurisdiction, and the escalation of landlord-tenant
disputes requiring municipal review or response.
Page 90 of 308
June 2, 2026 3 of 8 Report No. CS26-012
As a preliminary staffing model scaled to Aurora’s operational environment, staff
anticipate that implementation of an enforcement-based approach would require the
addition of one full-time contract By-Law Enforcement/Licensing Officer and one part-
time contract administrative support position within the Town’s Bylaw Services Division.
These additional staffing resources would assist in addressing anticipated increase in
complaint volumes, investigative and inspection requests, administrative coordination,
and resident inquiries associated with the renoviction program.
Recent data from the City of Toronto demonstrates the potential operational demands
associated with renovictions programs. Immediately following the implementation of a
renovictions program, the City of Toronto reported receiving more than 650 requests for
investigations relating to renoviction concerns, which ultimately resulted in only three
confirmed renovictions. This experience demonstrates that municipally administered
renovictions programs may generate substantial investigative and administrative
workloads, even when the number of validated renoviction cases remains limited.
Implementation of a renovictions by-law may have limited ability to address certain
tenant-specific circumstances that fall under provincial jurisdiction and Landlord and
Tenant Board processes
Based on the historical data reviewed through the preparation of Report No. CS26-007
and this report, and the Town’s limited number of N-13 Notices filed in recent years,
staff do not recommend the implementation of a municipally administered renovictions
by-law. In addition to the operational and financial considerations outlined in this report,
staff note that certain tenant-specific circumstances associated with renovation-related
displacement may fall outside the legislative scope of municipal renoviction programs
and remain under the jurisdiction of the Residential Tenancies Act, 2006 and the
Landlord and Tenant Board.
Municipal renovictions by-laws implemented in other Ontario municipalities are
generally limited in scope and apply specifically to situations where an N-13 Notice has
been issued pursuant to Section 50(1)(c) of the Residential Tenancies Act, 2006, which
relates to repairs or renovations that are so extensive that they require both a building
permit and vacant possession of the rental unit. However, where a property owner
intends to demolish a rental unit or convert it to a non-residential use, municipal
renoviction by-laws may have limited applicability and would not prevent those activities
from proceeding where otherwise permitted through applicable legislation and planning
processes. Examples may include the demolition of an entire residential building or the
Page 91 of 308
June 2, 2026 4 of 8 Report No. CS26-012
reconfiguration of existing units to create larger or smaller dwelling units within the
same structure.
The Residential Tenancies Act, 2006 contains separate provisions respecting
compensation and tenant protections in situations involving demolition or conversion.
Specifically, Section 52 of the Act requires landlords to provide compensation or
alternative accommodation to eligible tenants where a tenancy is terminated because
of demolition or conversion to non-residential use. Dispute resolution, interpretation,
and enforcement respecting these matters remain under the authority of Tribunals
Ontario and the Landlord and Tenant Board. As a result, implementation of a municipal
renovictions by-law may not fully address all forms of tenant displacement associated
with redevelopment, demolition, or conversion activity, particularly where such matters
are governed primarily through provincial legislation and adjudicative processes.
As an alternative to implementing a municipally administered renovictions licensing and
enforcement framework, staff reviewed the feasibility of a one-year pilot program focused
on resident support.
The intent of the pilot program would be to better understand the frequency and nature
of renoviction-related concerns within Aurora, identify resident support needs, evaluate
service demands, and collect operational data to assist in determining the long-term
feasibility and effectiveness of this type of municipal support program.
As an approach scaled to Aurora’s operational environment and historical volume of N-
13 Notices, staff recommend the recruitment of one part-time contract position within
the Town’s Bylaw Services Division for a one-year term at approximately 24 hours per
week. The proposed position would primarily serve as a liaison between residents who
have received N-13 Notices and existing provincial processes and community support
resources. Responsibilities would include assisting residents in understanding available
processes through Tribunals Ontario and the Landlord and Tenant Board, facilitating
connections with external organizations such as Legal Aid clinics, housing support
agencies, and housing providers, and providing general information respecting tenant
rights and available resources under the Residential Tenancies Act, 2006. The role
would not include adjudication, legal interpretation, or enforcement responsibilities,
which remain under provincial jurisdiction.
Page 92 of 308
June 2, 2026 5 of 8 Report No. CS26-012
Building permit application processes could be modified to support identification and
monitoring of renovation activity involving tenanted properties.
As part of this review, staff from Corporate Services and Bylaw Services worked
collaboratively with counterparts from Planning and Development Services and the
Building Division to identify opportunities to improve awareness of renovation activity
occurring within tenanted properties. Through these discussions, staff identified a
potential administrative process whereby building permit application forms could be
modified to include questions requiring applicants to confirm whether the property
subject to the permit application is currently tenanted and whether the proposed
construction activity may result in the temporary or permanent displacement of tenants.
Where applicants identify that a property is tenanted and that displacement may occur
because of the proposed work, additional information could be requested, including
tenant contact information, for the purpose of facilitating outreach and support through
the proposed administrative support position within the Bylaw Services Division. This
type of administrative process could provide the Town with improved awareness of
potential renoviction-related circumstances and assist in connecting impacted
residents with available provincial resources and community supports at an earlier
stage in the process.
It is important to note, however, that there are several circumstances where permits
may be issued for construction activity occurring on tenanted properties without
impacting existing tenants or requiring vacant possession. Examples may include
permits relating to swimming pools, decks, accessory structures, or other exterior
improvements. Conversely, there are certain renovation activities that may result in
tenant displacement concerns but may not require a building permit under the Ontario
Building Code Act. Examples may include kitchen replacements, window replacements,
roof replacements, flooring installation, or other interior finish work. As a result, while
modifications to building permit application processes may assist in identifying certain
circumstances involving tenant displacement, the process would not capture all
renovation activity occurring within rental properties.
Advisory Committee Review
Not Applicable
Page 93 of 308
June 2, 2026 6 of 8 Report No. CS26-012
Legal Considerations
A renoviction by-law or support program would operate within a tightly constrained
legislative framework. As set out in the report, substantive tenancy rights and remedies,
including termination, compensation, and reinstatement, are governed by the
Residential Tenancies Act, 2006 (RTA) and fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of
Tribunals Ontario and the Landlord and Tenant Board (LTB). Any municipal by-law or
program must therefore avoid purporting to adjudicate disputes, interpret the RTA, or
impose requirements that conflict with, duplicate, or frustrate the provincial scheme.
Amendments to building permit processes to flag tenanted properties and potential
displacement must be authorized under the Building Code Act and municipal legislation,
and must comply with access and privacy statutes when collecting and using tenant
information.
Financial Implications
Should Council direct staff to proceed with a one-year renovictions support pilot
program, the anticipated annual cost associated with the proposed part-time
administrative support position within the Town’s Bylaw Services Division is estimated
to range between approximately $58,000 and $69,000, inclusive of salary and
associated employment costs. As the position has not been formally established or
evaluated, the estimated salary range is preliminary in nature and would be subject to
further review based on the final scope of responsibilities, internal job evaluation
processes, and applicable pay equity considerations.
Should Council instead direct staff to proceed with the implementation of a municipally
administered renovictions licensing and enforcement framework, additional staffing
resources would be required as follows. Preliminary estimates indicate that the addition
of one full-time Municipal Law Enforcement/Licensing Officer would result in an
additional annual cost of approximately $97,000.00, which would be in addition to the
estimated administrative support staffing costs identified above. Collectively, the
estimated annual staffing costs associated with an enforcement-based program are
anticipated to range between approximately $155,000 and $166,000, excluding initial
setup and operational costs such as workstation furnishings, computer equipment,
software licensing, cellular phone requirements, training, uniforms, and other
administrative overhead expenses.
Page 94 of 308
June 2, 2026 7 of 8 Report No. CS26-012
Communications Considerations
There are no communication considerations as a result of this report unless an
alternative recommendation is considered.
Climate Change Considerations
The recommendations from this report does not impact greenhouse gas emissions or
impact climate change adaptation.
Link to Strategic Plan
The Implications of Implementing a Renoviction By-law report supports the Strategic
Plan goal of Strengthening the fabric of our community through its accomplishment in
satisfying requirements in the following objectives within this goal statement.
Examine the impact of increased growth and demographic diversity on municipal service
delivery. Through the review of trends, statistics, and benchmarking against other
municipalities, while also understanding the impacts on implementing a renovictions by-
law in Aurora.
Alternative(s) to the Recommendation
1. That staff be directed to implement a one-year renoviction support pilot program
within the Town’s Bylaw Services Division and take all necessary steps to implement
the program; and
That one part-time contract administrative support position to administer and
support the pilot program be approved.
2. That a by-law be brought forward to a future Council meeting to implement a
renoviction program within the Town’s Bylaw Services Division; and
That one full-time contract By-Law Enforcement/Licensing Officer and one part-time
contract administrative support position to administer and support the pilot program
be approved.
Page 95 of 308
June 2, 2026 8 of 8 Report No. CS26-012
Conclusions
Based on the information and analysis outlined in this report, staff do not recommend
proceeding with the preparation and implementation of a municipally administered
renovictions by-law or licensing framework at this time. Historical data indicates that
renoviction-related activity has been limited within the Town of Aurora, and the
implementation of a municipal regulatory program would likely result in operational and
financial impacts disproportionate to the anticipated level of community need and
program utilization. Further, many tenant-specific circumstances associated with
renovation-related displacement remain governed through the Residential Tenancies
Act, 2006 and adjudicated through the Landlord and Tenant Board, limiting the scope
and effectiveness of municipal enforcement mechanisms.
Should Council wish to consider additional municipal involvement respecting
renoviction-related matters, a measured and scalable approach in the form of a one-
year pilot program focused on resident support would be more appropriate. The
proposed pilot program would allow the Town to better understand local service
demands, collect operational data, evaluate resident support needs, and assess the
long-term feasibility and effectiveness of this type of program prior to consideration of
any permanent municipal framework. The pilot program would require dedicated
staffing resources within the Bylaw Services Division.
Attachments
None.
Previous Reports
CS26-007, Implications of Implementing a Renoviction By-law, March 10, 2026
Pre-submission Review
Agenda Management Team review on May 14, 2026
Approvals
Approved by Patricia De Sario, Director, Corporate Services/Town Solicitor
Approved by Doug Nadorozny, Chief Administrative Officer
Page 96 of 308
100 John West Way
Aurora, Ontario
L4G 6J1
(905) 727-3123
aurora.ca
Town of Aurora
Committee of the Whole Report
No. CS26 -013
Subject: Restricted Acts During the Election of a New Council
Prepared by: Anne Kantharajah
Department: Corporate Services
Date: June 2, 2026
Recommendation
1. That Report No. CS26-013 be received; and
2. That a bylaw to delegate authority in the event Council’s actions are restricted under s.
275 of the Municipal Act, 2001, be brought forward to a future Council meeting for
approval.
Executive Summary
The purpose of this report is to recommend that Council enact a bylaw to delegate
authority to staff if Council is limited by the restricted act provisions outlined in s.275 of
the Municipal Act, 2001, leading up to the election. This is commonly known as "lame
duck."
Subsection 275(1) of the Municipal Act, 2001 sets out the application of the
restricted act provisions
Subsection 275(3) of the Municipal Act, 2001 establishes the four restricted acts
in the year of a municipal election if there is a lame duck Council
The determination of whether Council is restricted under s. 275 occurs twice
during the election year
The restricted acts provisions apply to head of councils as a result of the
assignment of certain powers through the Strong Mayor Powers legislation
Staff recommend that Council enact a temporary delegation of authority bylaw to
safeguard against potential gaps
Page 97 of 308
June 2, 2026 2 of 6 Report No. CS26-013
Background
Subsection 275(1) of the Municipal Act, 2001 sets out the application of the restricted act
provisions.
For the 2026 Municipal Election, this section will apply if it is determined that the new
council will include less than three-quarters of the members of the outgoing council.
This is more commonly known as being in "lame duck." For Aurora Town Council, three-
quarters (75 per cent) of Council is six Members. Should fewer than six members of
Council run for different offices or be elected to office the restricted acts provisions will
apply.
Subsection 275(3) of the Municipal Act, 2001 establishes the four restricted acts in the
year of a municipal election if there is a lame duck Council.
If it is determined that the restricted act provisions apply, Council is prohibited from
making decisions on the following:
1. the appointment or removal from office of any officer of the municipality
2. the hiring or dismissal of any employee of the municipality
3. the disposition of any real or personal property of the municipality which has a
value exceeding $50,000 at the time of disposal
4. making any expenditures or incurring any other liability which exceeds $50,000
Items 3 and 4 above do not apply if the dispositions or expenditures were previously
approved in the budget prior to Nomination Day. Further, in accordance with subsection
275(4.1), Council is not restricted from taking all necessary and appropriate actions in
the event of an emergency.
The determination of whether Council is restricted under s. 275 occurs twice during the
election year.
A municipal Council can be in a lame duck situation during one or both of the following
time periods:
Page 98 of 308
June 2, 2026 3 of 6 Report No. CS26-013
1. After Nomination Day (August 21, 2026) at 2 p.m. until voting closes on Voting Day
(October 26, 2026), if fewer than six members of Council are certified for separate
offices or acclaimed to the new Council; or
2. After the Declaration of voting results until the start of the new term of Council
(November 15, 2026), if fewer than six members are re-elected.
There is a possibility that Council will be a lame duck Council during at least one of the
above time periods. The purpose of this report is to recommend that Council enact a by-
law to delegate authority to staff if Council is limited by the restricted act provisions
outlined in s.275 of the Municipal Act, 2001, leading up to the election.
Analysis
The restricted acts provisions apply to head of councils as a result of the assignment of
certain powers through the Strong Mayor Powers legislation
On November 1, 2023, the Town of Aurora was provided Strong Mayor Powers by the
Province of Ontario. Through the legislation, one of the restricted acts provided in
subsection 275(3) was assigned to the head of council, i.e. the power to hire and
dismiss heads of municipal divisions (subsection 284.6(2)). In addition, the other
restricted act provisions may be affected by provincial priorities, which empower a
strong mayor to make mayoral decisions and exercise other powers as listed in Part
VI.1 of the Municipal Act, 2001, such as veto powers.
The Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing has confirmed that where powers were
assigned to the heads of council through the strong mayor powers legislation, the head
of council is also subject to the restricted act provisions in relation to those powers.
Staff recommend that Council enacts a temporary delegation of authority by-law to
safeguard against potential gaps
It is common practice and prudent to prepare for the possibility of the application of the
restricted acts provisions by delegating authority to senior staff as applicable. The
delegated authority does not need to be exercised unless such an event or need arises.
If needed, this process would ensure business continuity for the Town.
In regard to the first two restricted acts related to the appointment or removal from
office of any officer of the municipality or the hiring or dismissal of any employee of the
municipality, the CAO already has delegated authority to undertake these acts, either by
Page 99 of 308
June 2, 2026 4 of 6 Report No. CS26-013
way of the CAO’s Appointment By-law, the Delegation of Authority By-law, or a Mayoral
Decision.
Regarding the restricted acts dealing with the disposition of real property, the making of
expenditures, or the incurring of liability, staff recommend that the following be
delegated to the CAO:
the acquisition and disposition of any real or personal property of the
municipality which has a value up to $50,000 at the time of disposal
the acquisition and disposition of any real or personal property of the
municipality with a value exceeding $50,000 which has previously been
considered and endorsed by Council, and which in the opinion of the CAO,
furthers the interests of the Town
authorizing procurement awards, making any expenditures and incurring
any other liability not included in any approved budget, up to $100,000 in
respect of each of any one issue, item or project
authorizing procurement awards and spending beyond an existing
approved capital budget, to a cumulative total of not more than 15 per
cent of the last Council approved budget and funding amount for each
such project
entering into and signing any agreements, which the entering into and
signing thereof is not yet delegated, that in the opinion of the CAO,
furthers the interests of the Town, including any and all documents and
ancillary documents required to give effect to same
In addition, staff recommend that the following acts be delegated to the CAO and
Treasurer:
increase capital budget authority, including increasing funding from non-
debt sources, as necessary to support the delegated acts above
the authority to approve and execute non-standard procurement contracts
which exceed $250,000
The bylaw will be temporary in nature and would contain a provision that renders the
bylaw null and void upon the commencement of the inaugural meeting of the new
Council, which is scheduled for November 17, 2026. Further, the CAO would be required
to report to Council in the first quarter of 2027 regarding any exercise of this delegated
authority.
Page 100 of 308
June 2, 2026 5 of 6 Report No. CS26-013
Advisory Committee Review
None.
Legal Considerations
With the upcoming election cycle, there is a potential that the restricted acts (lame
duck) provisions under s.275 of the Municipal Act, 2001 may be triggered, which would
limit Council’s and mayoral authority in some areas. Many of the Restricted Acts have
already been delegated to staff through the Town’s Delegation of Authority By-law or
through other bylaws. The nature and extent of these potential restrictions, and the
recommended delegations to ensure continuity of municipal operations, are outlined in
this report. If appropriate delegations are not put in place and the restricted acts
provisions are triggered, the Town may not be able to undertake certain time sensitive
measures necessary for ongoing administration and service delivery.
Financial Implications
The recommendations in this report have no immediate financial impact on the Town
and come only into effect if Council is restricted between August 21, 2026 and
November 14, 2026.
Any decisions made under subsections 275(3)(c) and (d) may create financial
implications to the Town.
Communications Considerations
The Clerk will notify Council, staff and the public after Nomination Day (August 21,
2026) and after Voting Day (October 26, 2026) whether restricted acts provisions apply.
Climate Change Considerations
The recommendations from this report do not impact greenhouse gas emissions or
impact climate change adaptation.
Link to Strategic Plan
The recommendations in this report support good, accountable governance in the Town
of Aurora.
Page 101 of 308
June 2, 2026 6 of 6 Report No. CS26-013
Alternative(s) to the Recommendation
1. Council provide direction.
Conclusions
Section 275 of the Municipal Act, 2001 determines whether the restricted act provisions
apply to individual Councils across Ontario. If less than six of the current members of
Council do not seek re-election (or multiple members run against each other in the
same ward), then Council will be restricted from the acts identified in Subsection 275(3)
of the Municipal Act, 2001 from August 21, 2026 to November 14, 2026.
If six or more current members of Council seek re-election, but less than six are re-
elected, Council would be restricted from those acts from October 26, 2026 to
November 14, 2026.
Attachments
None.
Previous Reports
None.
Pre-submission Review
Agenda Management Team review on May 22, 2026
Approvals
Approved by Patricia De Sario, Director, Corporate Services/Town Solicitor
Approved by Doug Nadorozny, Chief Administrative Officer
Page 102 of 308
100 John West Way
Aurora, Ontario
L4G 6J1
(905) 727-3123
aurora.ca
Town of Aurora
Committee of the Whole Report
No. CS2 6 -0 14
Subject: Meeting Schedule for the Remainder of the Council Term
Prepared by: Anne Kantharajah
Department: Corporate Services
Date: June 2, 2026
Recommendation
1. That Report No. CS26-014 be received; and
2. That the remaining months of the 2026 Meeting Schedule be amended as follows:
a. That the July cycle be cancelled; and
b. That one additional meeting of the Cannabis Retail Review Task Force be
scheduled in August; and
c. That subsection 20 f) i) of the Procedural By-law be waived to permit
scheduling a Public Planning meeting in December.
Executive Summary
The purpose of this report is to seek approval to amend the remaining 2026 Meeting
Schedule for Council and Committee meetings by cancelling the July cycle of meetings,
adding a Public Planning meeting in December and adding a final meeting of the
Cannabis Retail Review Task Force in August.
The proposed amendments enhance operational efficiency and support year-end
planning matters
The Cannabis Retail Review Task Force requested an additional meeting to
develop and submit their final recommendations to Council.
Page 103 of 308
June 2, 2026 2 of 4 Report No. CS26-014
Background
On October 28, 2025, Council approved the 2026 Meeting Schedule, as required by the
Procedure By-Law. The calendar included a meeting cycle in July and did not include a
Public Planning meeting in December.
At the same meeting, Council passed a motion to establish a Cannabis Retail Review
Task Force by February 2026 to review the experience of the Town since opting in to
retail cannabis stores and to report back to Council with findings and recommendations
with six months of it’s first meeting. The Task Force was established, and meetings
were scheduled in the same manner as other committee meetings, being every two
months. At the time of the writing of this report, the task force has only had two
meetings.
The purpose of this report is to seek approval to amend the remaining 2026 Meeting
Schedule for Council and Committee meetings by cancelling the July cycle of meetings,
adding a Public Planning meeting in December and adding a final meeting of the
Cannabis Retail Review Task Force in August.
Analysis
The proposed amendments enhance operational efficiency and support year-end
planning matters.
Staff do not anticipate any items for the Committee of the Whole and Council meetings
in July and therefore, staff recommend that the July meeting cycle be cancelled. In
accordance with the existing 2026 Meeting Schedule, all advisory committees, except
for those that are statutory, will no longer be meeting after June.
In addition, Planning and Development Services has requested that an additional Public
Planning meeting be scheduled for December to accommodate the increase in
development applications as a result of recent legislative changes. Section 20 f) i) of
the Procedural by-law prescribes that Public Planning Meetings be scheduled on the
third Tuesday of each month at 7 p.m. however, that might not be feasible. To ensure
flexibility, staff recommend Council waive the Procedural By-law to permit the Clerk to
work with the Director of Planning and Development Services and Council to find a
meeting date in December.
Page 104 of 308
June 2, 2026 3 of 4 Report No. CS26-014
The Cannabis Retail Review Task Force requested an additional meeting to develop and
submit their final recommendations to Council.
Meetings of the Cannabis Review Retail Task Force were scheduled in the same manner
as all other committee meetings, being every two months. The first meeting was held
on February 19, 2026 and consisted mainly of choosing the Chairs, approving the terms
of reference and outlining the roles and responsibilities of the Task Force and its
members in an orientation session. The second meeting held on April 16 provided the
Task Force with an overview of the legislative framework of cannabis retail stores, the
role of the Town, information re: complaints to Bylaw Services and to York Region
Police. According to the existing 2026 Meeting Schedule, the final meeting is scheduled
for June 18, 2026. The Task Force has requested a further meeting to continue to
review the experience of the Town.
The Clerk will work with the Task Force chairs to schedule a mutually convenient
meeting date. Further, the final recommendation report of the Task Force will be
brought to Council during the September cycle of meetings.
Advisory Committee Review
None.
Legal Considerations
None.
Financial Implications
None.
Communications Considerations
Upon Council approval, the 2026 Meeting Schedule will be updated on the Town
website.
Climate Change Considerations
The recommendations from this report do not impact greenhouse gas emissions or
impact climate change adaptation.
Page 105 of 308
June 2, 2026 4 of 4 Report No. CS26-014
Link to Strategic Plan
The updates to the 2026 schedule was developed using dates established in the
Procedure By-law and Committee Terms of Reference.
Alternative(s) to the Recommendation
1. Council may choose to approve an alternate Meeting Schedule.
Conclusions
Staff recommend that amendments be made to the remaining 2026 Meeting Schedule
for Council and Committee meetings by cancelling the July cycle of meetings, adding a
Public Planning meeting in December and adding a final meeting of the Cannabis Retail
Review Task Force in August.
Attachments
None.
Previous Reports
CS25-019, 2026 Council and Committee Meeting Schedule, October 14, 2025
Approvals
Approved by Patricia De Sario, Director, Corporate Services/Town Solicitor
Approved by Doug Nadorozny, Chief Administrative Officer
Page 106 of 308
100 John West Way
Aurora, Ontario
L4G 6J1
(905) 727-3123
aurora.ca
Town of Aurora
Committee of the Whole Report
No. FIN26 -024
Subject: Council Conference Review and Reporting Framework
Prepared by: Khan Naser
Department: Finance
Date: June 2, 2026
Recommendation
1. That Report No. FIN26-024 be received;
2. That the proposed reporting framework in Attachment 1 for Members attending
Conferences, Seminars and External Events be approved.
Executive Summary
This report outlines a comparison among Aurora and other peer municipalities on key
aspects of attended conferences along with proposing a reporting framework of
conference, convention, seminar or external events for Council’s review and
endorsement in response to the motion approved on April 28, 2026.
A comparative review using publicly available Council remuneration and expense
disclosure reports was completed for Council’s information
Members of Council attending conferences, seminars, or external events at the
Town’s expense would be required to submit a standardized written post‑event
report
All arising post event reports would be presented as part of the Town’s semi-
annual reporting of Remuneration and Expenses for Members of Council,
Committees and Local Boards
Should Council proceed with the proposed framework the greatest impact will be
the administrative burden on Council members
Page 107 of 308
June 2, 2026 2 of 6 Report No. FIN26-024
Background
On April 28, 2026, Council approved a motion which required:
Staff be directed to develop a written reporting framework requiring Members of
Council who attend a conference, convention, seminar, or external events at the
expense of the Town; and
The written report framework include, at minimum:
- The name, date, and location of the conference or event;
- Total cost incurred by the Town, including registration, travel,
accommodation, and related expenses;
- Key topics, sessions, or discussions attended;
- Summary of key learnings and takeaways;
- Any relevant best practices or ideas that could be considered for
implementation in the Town of Aurora; and
Such reports be included on a public Council or Committee of the Whole agenda
for information purposes, within a defined timeline following the conference,
seminar or external event; and
Staff report back on any administrative, financial, or procedural implications of
implementing this requirement, including potential alignment with existing
policies or expense reporting practices.
Analysis
A comparative review using publicly available Council remuneration and expense
disclosure reports was completed for Council’s information
The primary methodology involved reviewing publicly available Council remuneration
and expense disclosure reports for several municipalities. A review was conducted of
all municipalities within the York, Peel, and Durham regions; however, only the selected
municipalities, as listed below, had all of the publicly available data required to complete
the comparative analysis. As a result, the comparison reflects these eleven
municipalities rather than the full group. The level of report detail varied significantly
from one municipality to the next; for the most part the majority of municipal report
detail aligned with the Town of Aurora. A very small proportion of municipalities
reported Council member expense details at an individual conference level. As reporting
formats varied, the analysis focused on identifying expense line items specifically
related to conferences and seminars. Table 1 shows the summary of peer municipality
comparison where the data collected is from 2025.
Page 108 of 308
June 2, 2026 3 of 6 Report No. FIN26-024
Table 1
Council Conference Attendance and Expenditures – Peer Municipality Comparison
Sl Town/City Members
Members
Attending %
Total
Spend
Avg Spend
Attendees
Avg Spend
All
1 Aurora 7 4 57% $10,164 $2,541 $1,452
2 Newmarket 9 5 56% $18,347 $3,670 $2,038
3 Vaughan 10 3 30% $10,043 $3,348 $1,004
4 Markham 13 8 62% $34,540 $4,318 $2,656
5 Richmond Hill 9 2 22% $3,120 $1,560 $346
6 King 7 5 71% $7,354 $1,471 $1,050
7 Georgina 7 5 71% $6,618 $1,324 $945
8 Caledon 9 7 78% $36,556 $5,222 $4,061
9 Ajax 7 3 43% $6,502 $2,167 $928
10 Oshawa 11 2 18% $11,862 $5,931 $1,078
11 Kitchener 7 7 100% $20,279 $2,897 $2,897
Aurora has 7 Council members, of whom 4 attended conferences, representing a 57
percent participation rate. This is generally consistent with the peer‑municipality
average participation rate of 55 per cent. Aurora’s total spend on Council conferences
was $10,164, which is below the peer‑municipality average total expenditure of
$15,035. When costs are examined on a per‑attendee basis, Aurora’s average spend
per attending Council member was $2,541, compared to a peer average of $3,132. This
indicates that Aurora’s per‑participant conference costs are meaningfully lower than
the average of comparable municipalities. When assessed across all members of
Council, including those who did not attend conferences, Aurora’s average spend per
Council member was $1,452, compared to the peer‑municipality average of $1,678.
This further demonstrates that Aurora’s overall conference‑related expenditures fall
below average on a per‑member basis.
Across all municipalities, including Aurora, AMO and FCM conferences were the most
consistently attended events. Other conferences identified across the dataset included
those hosted by the Ontario Business Improvement Area Association (OBIAA), Ontario
Small Urban Municipalities (OSUM), and the Ontario Good Roads Association (OGRA).
These events reflect common areas of interest related to municipal governance,
infrastructure, and economic development.
Page 109 of 308
June 2, 2026 4 of 6 Report No. FIN26-024
Members of Council attending conferences, seminars, or external events at the Town’s
expense would be required to submit a standardized written post‑event report
Under the proposed approach, Members of Council who attend conferences, seminars,
conventions, or other external events at the Town’s expense would be required to
submit a standardized written post‑event report. The intent of this requirement is to
promote transparency, accountability, and knowledge‑sharing by documenting the
purpose of attendance, key learnings, and any potential relevance to municipal
operations, policy development, or strategic priorities. A draft reporting template
outlining the proposed content, and format for submission is provided as Attachment 1
to this report. The template is designed to be concise and practical, while ensuring
consistency in information provided.
All arising post event reports would be presented as part of the Town’s semi-annual
reporting of Remuneration and Expenses for Members of Council, Committees and Local
Boards
It is proposed that all post-event reports arising from Council attendance at
conferences, seminars, or external events would be incorporated into the Town’s
existing semi-annual reporting of Remuneration and Expenses for Members of Council,
Committees, and Local Boards. The Town provides a mid-year Council remuneration
and expense update via the Town’s web site in August. A final year end report is
presented to Council in March of the following year and then posted on the Town’s web
site.
Consolidating these reports within an established public reporting mechanism would
support transparency and consistency, while avoiding the creation of additional
standalone reports. This approach also allows Council and the public to review
conference-related activities alongside associated expenses in a single, comprehensive
report, aligned with current disclosure practices.
Should Council proceed with the proposed framework the greatest impact will be the
administrative burden on Council members
Should Council proceed with the proposed framework, the primary impact is anticipated
to be an increased administrative responsibility for Members of Council. Under the
framework, Council members would be responsible for preparing and submitting their
own post-event reports following attendance at conferences, seminars, or external
events, thereby bearing the majority of the administrative effort associated with the
requirement. Staff involvement would be limited to consolidating the submitted reports
Page 110 of 308
June 2, 2026 5 of 6 Report No. FIN26-024
on a semi-annual basis as part of the existing Council remuneration and expense
reporting process, minimizing additional staff workload and ensuring integration with
established reporting practices.
Advisory Committee Review
Not applicable.
Legal Considerations
The proposed conference reporting framework supports Council’s statutory
responsibilities under the Municipal Act, 2001 by enhancing accountability,
transparency and financial integrity in relation to Town‑funded events. Information
contained in any reports provided pursuant to the framework will form part of the
Town’s official records and will be subject to applicable access under the Municipal
Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act and related regulations. Members
of Council will remain responsible for complying with the Town’s Code of Conduct, and
any expense and gift policies, and conflict‑of‑interest requirements when participating in
and reporting on such events.
Financial Implications
No financial implications as a result of this report.
Communications Considerations
Reports would be posted on the Town’s website along with the Remuneration and
Expenses for Members of Council, Committees and Local Boards report.
Climate Change Considerations
No climate change considerations resulting from this report.
Link to Strategic Plan
The proposed reporting framework contributes to achieving the Strategic Plan guiding
principle of “Leadership in Corporate Management” and improves transparency and
accountability to the community.
Page 111 of 308
June 2, 2026 6 of 6 Report No. FIN26-024
Alternative(s) to the Recommendation
Council may provide alternate direction.
Conclusions
The comparative analysis indicates that Aurora’s approach to Council conference
attendance balances participation and fiscal prudence and provides useful context for
future consideration of Council. In addition, staff have presented a proposed reporting
framework for Council’s consideration, consistent with the direction provided through
Council’s motion approved on April 28, 2026.
Attachments
Attachment #1 – Council Conference / External Event Reporting Template
Previous Reports
None
Pre-submission Review
Agenda Management Team review on May 14, 2026
Approvals
Approved by Rachel Wainwright-van Kessel, CPA, CMA, Director, Finance
Approved by Doug Nadorozny, Chief Administrative Officer
Page 112 of 308
Town of Aurora
Council Conference / External Event Reporting Template
1. Member and Event Information
Member of Council:
Title / Ward:
Name of Conference / Event:
Hosting Organization:
Date(s) Attended:
Location:
Event Format:
2. Purpose of Attendance
3. Costs Incurred by the Town
Registration Fees:
Transportation:
Accommodation:
Meals and Incidentals:
Other:
Total Cost to the Town:
4. Sessions, Topics, and Discussions Attended
5. Key Learnings, Takeaways and Best Practices
6. Follow-Up Actions (if applicable)
7. Declaration
I confirm that the information provided in this report is accurate.
Member of Council Signature:
Date Submitted:
Attachment 1 to Report No. FIN26-024
Page 113 of 308
100 John West Way
Aurora, Ontario
L4G 6J1
(905) 727-3123
aurora.ca
Town of Aurora
Committee of the Whole Report
No. FIN 2 6 -025
Subject: Commercial Stormwater Charge Review
Prepared by: Mohamedali Kamalia
Department: Finance
Date: June 2, 2026
Recommendation
1. That Report No. FIN26-025 be received for information; and
2. That staff proceed with the next steps in the design of a Development Intensity
Stormwater Charge framework which is more equitable for all ratepayers; and
3. That in the interim the commercial tenants within the St. Andrews Shopping Centre
development be charged a single commercial stormwater rate starting with the billing
cycle beginning July 1, 2026.
Executive Summary
On February 24, 2026, Council passed a motion requesting that staff explore options to
reduce or eliminate the stormwater charges applied to the commercial tenants of St.
Andrews Shopping Centre, including any other commercial developments that are in a
similar situation.
On February 24 Council passed a motion requesting staff explore options to
reduce or eliminate the stormwater charges applied to the commercial tenants of
the St. Andrews Shopping Centre
The Town previously engaged a consultant to undertake a review of the current
stormwater infrastructure funding model to ensure that it was both sustainable
and equitable
The billing of a stormwater charge to each commercial tenant is unique to the St.
Andrews Shopping Centre
Page 114 of 308
June 2, 2026 2 of 9 Report No. FIN26-025
Council should consider that in the interim the St. Andrews Shopping Centre be
charged a single commercial stormwater charge commencing on July 1, 2026,
until a new rate structure is developed and implemented
Staff recommend that the Town proceed with the design of a Development
Intensity Stormwater Charge framework which will be more equitable for all
ratepayers
Staff will strive to have the new stormwater rate structure in place by the spring
of 2028 pending Council support
Background
On February 24 Council passed a motion requesting staff explore options to reduce or
eliminate the stormwater charges applied to the commercial tenants of the St. Andrews
Shopping Centre
The St. Andrews Shopping Centre which is located at 2 Orchard Heights Boulevard is
owned by Orchard Heights St Andrews Inc CO Davpart.
On February 24 Council passed a motion requesting staff prepare a report for Council’s
consideration that addresses the following:
Reviews the current commercial stormwater charges applied to tenants of the St.
Andrews Shopping Centre
Analyzes options to reduce or eliminate such charges, including but not limited to
alternative billing structures, exemptions, rebates, or cost-sharing arrangements
Assesses the financial, operational, and legal implications of any proposed
changes, including impacts on the Town’s stormwater rate-supported budget
Considers whether similar relief measures may apply to other comparable
commercial plazas or tenant configurations within Aurora
Provides recommendations, implementation timelines, and any required policy or
by-law amendments for Council’s consideration.
The Town previously engaged a consultant to undertake a review of the current
stormwater infrastructure funding model to ensure that it was both sustainable and
equitable
Previously, the Town engaged a consultant to undertake a review of the Town’s current
stormwater funding approach and identify, assess, and evaluate alternative funding
Page 115 of 308
June 2, 2026 3 of 9 Report No. FIN26-025
models that would enable the Town to equitably and sustainably increase stormwater
rates to meet growing stormwater infrastructure asset management cost requirements.
The Town currently employs a tiered flat fee stormwater rate structure to fund
operating, maintenance and infrastructure upgrade costs. The Town’s present
stormwater rate structure consists of two flat rates, one for residential (excluding multi-
residential apartment buildings), and another for non-residential and multi-residential
apartment buildings water/wastewater account holders. These stormwater charges are
billed as part of each account holder’s water/wastewater bills.
The consultant assessed each of their identified alternative stormwater rate structures
against a set of underlying guiding principles. These principles included fair and
equitable, dedicated funding source, ease of administration, environmental benefits,
financially sustainable, and defensible/transparent. In their evaluation, the consultant
placed a greater emphasis on the fairness and equity principal. The consultant’s
provided list of stormwater rate options and the evaluation of these options can be
found under Attachment 1.
The consultant also identified potential stormwater incentive programs that encourage
and recognize stormwater mitigation measures undertaken by property owners which
would reduce stormwater volumes and pollutants that impact the Town’s stormwater
system and the local environment. A stormwater incentive program can take one of two
forms. The first being a credit program where property owners receive a rate reduction
(credit) on their stormwater charge based on eligible stormwater mitigation measures
taken on their property. Examples include permeable pavement, parking lot storage, oil-
grit separators, rain gardens and rain barrels. The second is a rebate program where
property owners are provided with a one-time payment (subsidy) to implement
beneficial measures on their property, such as a refund of a portion of the cost of a rain
barrel.
Analysis
The billing of a stormwater charge to each commercial tenant is unique to the St.
Andrews Shopping Centre
St. Andrews Shopping Centre consists of 38 commercial units and 36 residential units.
37 of the commercial units have water meters and are being charged a stormwater fee.
This development is unique in that its individual commercial tenants each have a
separate water meter and are billed individually. Based upon the Town’s current tiered
Page 116 of 308
June 2, 2026 4 of 9 Report No. FIN26-025
flat fee stormwater rate, a flat stormwater rate is charged to each water account.
Because each individual commercial unit occupant has a water account, they are each
billed a separate commercial stormwater rate. The Town’s other commercial
developments are configured with a single water meter and water/wastewater account
and billed a single stormwater rate on one bill.
In 2025 the Town collected $95,433 in stormwater charges from the commercial units
and $6,934 from the residential units, totaling $102,367. The budgeted total stormwater
revenues for this development for 2026 was $105,662 in commercial and $7,677 in
residential stormwater revenues for a total of $113,339.
Council should consider that in the interim the St. Andrews Shopping Centre be charged a
single commercial stormwater charge commencing on July 1, 2026, until a new rate
structure is developed and implemented
Staff have identified four alternative interim stormwater rate relief options for the
commercial tenants of St Andrews Shopping Centre. It’s important to note that any rate
relief would apply only to the commercial tenants and not the residential tenants as they
are currently billed consistently with the rest of the Town’s residential properties. The
four rate relief options are summarized in Table 1.
Table 1
Alternative Interim Stormwater rate relief options for commercial tenants at St Andrews
Shopping Centre
Option Rate relief measure 2026 revenue loss
to Town (prorated)
1 Single commercial stormwater charge for all
commercial units commencing on July 1, 2026 $48,964
2 Residential stormwater charge for each individual
commercial unit commencing on July 1, 2026 $50,252
3
Maintain status quo for 2026 and move to a single
commercial stormwater rate for all commercial units
commencing on January 1, 2027
$0
4 Offer no rate relief measures $0
The first option involves the adoption of a single commercial stormwater charge for all
commercial units commencing on July 1, 2026. This option will eliminate individual
charges applied to each commercial tenant of the plaza reducing their overall bill. The
estimated revenue loss to the Town in 2026 from this option will be $48,964.
Page 117 of 308
June 2, 2026 5 of 9 Report No. FIN26-025
Any revenue losses in 2027 would be distributed across all stormwater ratepayers
through an overall rate adjustment.
The second option involves the charging each individual commercial unit the lower
residential stormwater rate. This will also result in overall lower stormwater fees paid by
each commercial tenant. The estimated revenue loss to the Town in 2026 will be
$50,252. Similarly, any revenue losses in 2027 would be distributed across all
stormwater ratepayers in 2027 through an overall rate adjustment. This option would
introduce commercial property billing inconsistencies and is not recommended.
The third option continues to bill a flat commercial stormwater rate to each commercial
tenant for the remainder of 2026 but adopts a single commercial stormwater charge for
all commercial tenants commencing on January 1, 2027. This option will ensure the
Town does not forego any stormwater revenues in 2026 and enables the Town to adjust
its 2027 stormwater rates accordingly to allow for the collection of its full required
stormwater revenues. Therefore, this option will not result in any lost revenue to the
Town.
The fourth option is to not implement any rate relief measures until a new stormwater
rate structure has been implemented in 2028. Therefore, the current billing status quo
would be maintained with no relief being offered to St. Andrews commercial tenants
until the new stormwater rate framework is in place. This option will result in no
revenue loss to the Town.
Staff recommend that the Town proceed with the design of a Development Intensity
Stormwater Charge framework which will be more equitable for all ratepayers
The Town’s current stormwater rate framework is built upon a tiered flat fee
methodology. There are a few inequities and drawbacks associated with this model.
Firstly, smaller commercial properties like St. Andrews Shopping Centre are charged the
same amount as large industrial or bulk commercial properties. Secondly, properties
that don’t have a water meter are not charged a stormwater fee. This means the Town’s
metered property owners are also paying the stormwater system cost obligations of all
non-metered property owners. Finally, a flat stormwater charge is not demand based.
Meaning, it does not measure or charge based upon how much stormwater runoff each
metered customer property produces and therefore does not motivate property owners
to reduce stormwater runoff volumes.
Alternatively, a development intensity stormwater rate model addresses these
drawbacks. This model charges properties for their proportionate share of the total
Page 118 of 308
June 2, 2026 6 of 9 Report No. FIN26-025
stormwater runoff that may be produced within the Town during a storm event. Under
this model, properties are categorized by their level of imperviousness and applied a
different user rate for each category. Each property’s stormwater charge is then
calculated by multiplying their specific property’s assigned category rate by their
property’s land area. The rationale being each property is charged for the stormwater
runoff that they produce; the greater a property’s run-off, the larger their usage
requirement for the Town’s stormwater system will be.
A property’s level of imperviousness can be measured in two ways. Firstly, properties
can be divided into multiple runoff groups. One example may include a low runoff level
group (i.e. estate residential and parks), a medium runoff level group (i.e. residential,
multi-residential and institutional) and a high runoff level group (i.e. industrial and
commercial). The defined stormwater charge is then based on each group’s runoff level
and the land area.
Alternatively, properties may be categorized based upon their respective tax class
categories. Examples of tax class categories include residential, commercial, industrial,
farms and multi-residential properties (condominiums and apartments). The assigned
stormwater charge is based on the property’s tax class category and the land area.
The Town of Newmarket implemented a development intensity stormwater model in the
early 2020s and have classified properties using three runoff groups based on property
size. Their practical application of this model will enable the Town of Aurora to learn
from their experience when refining a model for Council’s consideration.
The proposed alternative stormwater model will address other identified inequities in
the present stormwater rate model such as those experienced by the tenants of St.
Andrews Shopping Centre and unmetered properties not sharing in the cost burden of
the Town’s stormwater network.
Staff will strive to have the new stormwater rate structure in place by the spring of 2028
pending Council support
A new stormwater rate structure that is more equitable for all ratepayers will require
several steps be undertaken to achieve an implementation date of 2028. If the
development intensity or other similar model is considered, collaboration is required
between the Finance, GIS and Engineering teams to determine the feasibility of
administrating such a framework. Properties will need to be classified into multiple
runoff groups or tax class categories depending on which imperviousness
Page 119 of 308
June 2, 2026 7 of 9 Report No. FIN26-025
measurement method is used. The size of each property will also need to be verified for
completeness and accuracy.
Town staff will need to explore the possibility of billing stormwater charges through
property tax rather than water bills which will ensure all town properties are sharing in
the town’s stormwater cost burden. A special phase in of the framework will be required
as well.
A communication plan will need to be devised to adequately inform Town’s residential
and commercial property owners of the pending stormwater rate structure changes and
how it will impact them.
Finally, staff will consider the possible implementation of stormwater credit/rebate
programs as part of a second phase.
Advisory Committee Review
Nil
Legal Considerations
Council has authority under the Municipal Act, 2001 to impose stormwater fees, provided
they are linked to the provision of stormwater services and reasonably connected to the
costs incurred by the Town. Until a new model is developed and implemented, the Town’s
current flat‑rate stormwater framework is valid. Any new stormwater rate framework
should be implemented with appropriate public notice, clear communication of the
rationale and anticipated impacts, and a transparent methodology that is connected to
service costs.
Financial Implications
Should Council approve staff’s recommended interim single commercial stormwater
charge for the St. Andrews Shopping Centre commercial tenants to commence on July
1, the Town’s anticipated revenue loss of $48,964 in 2026 will be offset through an
equivalent draw from the stormwater reserve, if necessary. For 2027, this lost revenue
will be redistributed across all stormwater ratepayers with no further financial impact to
the Town.
Page 120 of 308
June 2, 2026 8 of 9 Report No. FIN26-025
Should Council be supportive, staff will proceed with the next steps in the design of a
development intensity stormwater rate model for the Town of Aurora. Staff will bring a
future report to Council that will provide greater detail on this proposed alternative
model and its implementation timelines and will seek Council’s formal approval at that
time.
Communications Considerations
The Town will inform the public about the information contained in this report by
posting it to the Town’s website.
Climate Change Considerations
Adopting a more equitable stormwater rate model will have a varying effect on the
environment depending on which model is implemented. Charges based upon runoff
levels for example will encourage property owners to consider stormwater mitigation
measures that would reduce stormwater volumes and pollutants that impact the Town’s
stormwater system and the local environment. The feasibility of stormwater incentive
programs designed to reduce stormwater runoff will be explored as part of the Town’s
alternative stormwater rate model design.
Link to Strategic Plan
Reviewing and updating the stormwater rate structure supports the Strategic Plan
guiding principle of leadership in corporate and financial management. It also supports
the Town’s climate change adaptation under the Strategic Plan goal of supporting
environmental stewardship and sustainability.
Alternative(s) to the Recommendation
1. Charge each individual commercial unit at St Andrews Shopping Centre the
residential stormwater rate commencing on July 1, 2026.
2. Continue to charge a flat commercial stormwater rate to each commercial tenant at
St Andrews Shopping Centre for the remainder of 2026 and adopt a single
commercial stormwater charge for all commercial tenants at St Andrews Shopping
Centre commencing on January 1, 2027.
Page 121 of 308
June 2, 2026 9 of 9 Report No. FIN26-025
3. Do not implement any rate relief measures to the commercial tenants at St Andrews
Shopping Centre until a new stormwater rate structure has been implemented in
2028.
Conclusions
As requested by Council, staff has prepared a report exploring options to reduce or
eliminate the stormwater charges applied to the commercial tenants of the St. Andrews
Shopping Centre. It is recommended that a single commercial stormwater charge be
adopted for all commercial units at St Andrews Shopping Centre to commence on July
1, 2026.
With Council’s endorsement, staff will begin the process of replacing the Town’s current
tiered flat fee stormwater rate structure with a development intensity model and will
strive to have the new model in place by the spring of 2028.
Attachments
Attachment 1 – Evaluation of Stormwater Funding Options
Previous Reports
PDS19-015, Municipal Stormwater Funding Approach, July 16, 2019
Pre-submission Review
Agenda Management Team review on May 14, 2026
Approvals
Approved by Rachel Wainwright-van Kessel, CPA, CMA, Director, Finance
Approved by Doug Nadorozny, Chief Administrative Officer
Page 122 of 308
EVALUATION OF STORMWATER FUNDING OPTIONS Principle Funding Option Fair and Equitable Dedicated Funding Source Ease of Administration Effectiveness Environmental Benefits Financially Sustainable Defensible Transparent Property Tax (Portion of general property tax levy allocated to fund stormwater management) Low Low High Low Low Low Dedicated Property Tax (A dedicated property tax specifically levied to fund stormwater management) Low Medium High Low Medium Low Flat Fee (User Fee or Charge) (An equal stormwater user charge imposed on all properties) Low High High Low High Low Tiered Flat Fee (A stormwater charge based on a chategorization of properties) Medium High Medium Medium High Medium Tiered SFU (Single Family Unit) (Charges based on impervious area characteristics of a typical single family property) High High Low High High Medium Development Intensity (Unique stormwater charge for each property based on area of property and runoff level group) High High Medium High High High Variable Rate (All property owners charged based on measured impervious area to reflect runoff contribution) High High Low High High High Attachment 1 to Report No. FIN26-025Page 123 of 308
100 John West Way
Aurora, Ontario
L4G 6J1
(905) 727-3123
aurora.ca
Town of Aurora
Committee of the Whole Report
No. OPS 2 6 -0 14
Subject: PO Increase - Compass Minerals for Salt Supply
Prepared by: Dan Naccarato
Department: Operational Services
Date: June 2, 2026
Recommendation
1. That Report No. OPS26-014 be received; and
2. That the Purchase Order No. 1664 be increased by $250,000, to a new total amount of
$2,668,856.
Executive Summary
This report seeks Council approval to increase Purchase Order (PO) No.1664 to
Compass Minerals Canada Corporation for the Town of Aurora’s (the Town’s) salt
supply contract.
PO Increase is required for the purchase of road salt up until September 30,
2027.
Contract expenditure will exceed the 20 per cent threshold in the Procurement
By-law, therefore requiring Council approval.
Province-wide supply shortages and winter variability require early stockpile of
de-icing material.
Salt Management Plan strategies support reduced salt usage.
Page 124 of 308
June 2, 2026 2 of 5 Report No. OPS26-014
Background
PO Increase is required for the purchase of road salt up until September 30, 2027.
The Town maintains a multi-year contract for the supply of road salt used in winter
control operations. The Procurement By-law permits staff to increase a PO by up to 20
per cent; however, current conditions have resulted in the need to exceed this threshold.
Throughout the 2025-2026 winter season, several external and operational factors have
contributed to higher-than-anticipated salt usage and the need to secure additional
inventory.
Analysis
Contract expenditure will exceed the 20 per cent threshold in the Procurement By-law,
therefore requiring Council approval.
PO No.1664 was originally issued for the Supply and Delivery of Bulk Sodium Chloride
(Highway Coarse Rock Salt) in the amount of $1,322,532 for a three-year term with two
optional one-year extensions.
The Town exercised Option Year 1 and extended the contract for the 2025-2026 winter
season, issuing an additional $710,130. On April 24, 2026, a further PO increase of
$141,500 was approved to cover outstanding invoices, bringing the total PO value to
$2,418,856.
As a result, only $87,093 remains available before the PO exceeds the 20 per cent
threshold, after which Council approval is required for any further increase.
Staff are seeking Council approval for an additional $250,000 to fund salt purchases
through to September 30, 2026.
Province-wide supply shortages and winter variability require early stockpile of de-icing
material.
A significant salt shortage occurred across Ontario during the 2025-2026 winter season,
with suppliers reducing allocations, delaying deliveries, and in some cases rationing
supply. To maintain continuity of winter maintenance operations, the Town was
required to secure additional material earlier than planned and increase stockpile levels
to avoid running out during peak winter events.
Page 125 of 308
June 2, 2026 3 of 5 Report No. OPS26-014
The Town proactively manages its salt inventory by filling the salt dome early in the
season. This approach allows the Town to take advantage of early fill rates that secures
material at a lower cost, reducing reliance on higher-priced mid-season purchases and
delays due to delivery logistics.
During the 2025-2026 winter season, many municipalities depleted salt inventories and
were unable to secure material due to the province-wide shortage. As a result of
advanced stock piling and inventory management practices by staff, the Town was able
to maintain adequate supply of de-icing material to ensure service levels were not
impacted.
Looking ahead to the 2026-2027 winter season, the Town must continue this proactive
inventory strategy. Early-season filling ensures adequate supply before demand spikes
and provides protection against further supply chain disruptions. Maintaining a full
stockpile also mitigates the risk of service interruptions, road safety impacts, and
non-compliance with provincial minimum maintenance standards should additional
shortages occur. Given the volatility of the salt supply market and the operational
necessity of maintaining safe winter road conditions, the requested $250,000 increase
is required to secure material in advance and ensure service continuity.
Salt Management Plan strategies support reduced salt usage.
In 2025, the Town undertook an update of the Salt Management Plan to enhance
current salt management practices. This plan outlines practices that reduce salt use
while maintaining safe winter road conditions. These strategies include calibrating
equipment to ensure accurate applications rates, using weather and pavement data
through our three Road Weather Information Systems (RWIS) to guide decision making,
apply anti-icing techniques to minimize material use and training staff and contractors
who perform winter maintenance. Together, these measures support environmentally
responsible operations and compliance with provincial winter maintenance standards.
Advisory Committee Review
None
Legal Considerations
In accordance with the Town’s Procurement By-law and related policy, where the total
cumulative increase (including the proposed increase) is $250,000 or more and is more
Page 126 of 308
June 2, 2026 4 of 5 Report No. OPS26-014
than 20% of the original procurement value, the Department Head is required to seek
Council approval.
Financial Implications
The PO increase will result in a $250,000 overage in the 2026 operating materials
budget. This overage will be funded by a draw from the winter management reserve as
per the winter control reserve policy, if required.
Communications Considerations
There are no communications considerations as a result of this report.
Climate Change Considerations
Winter climate can impact operations and maintenance activities including de-icing
practices. Increasing salt storage to ensure adequate supply will allow the Town to
adequately maintain its current practices.
Link to Strategic Plan
This project supports the Strategic Plan Goal of Supporting an Exceptional Quality of
Life for all by improving transportation, mobility, and connectivity. This project
maintains a well-managed and fiscally responsible municipality.
Alternative(s) to the Recommendation
1. Council may choose to not increase the PO as requested.
2. Council may provide alternative recommendation.
Conclusions
The Town’s current salt supply contract has reached the limit permitted under the
Procurement By-law due to unpredictable winter conditions, and the operation need to
maintain legislated service levels. To ensure the Town can continue its proactive
inventory strategy and secure material ahead of the 2026-2027 winter season, an
increase of $250,000 is required. Approval of this increase will allow the Town to
Page 127 of 308
June 2, 2026 5 of 5 Report No. OPS26-014
maintain adequate stockpile levels, mitigate supply chain risks, and ensure safe and
reliable winter maintenance operations for our residents.
Attachments
None.
Previous Reports
OPS25-016, Salt Management Plan Update, June 10, 2025
Pre-submission Review
Agenda Management Team review on May 14, 2026
Approvals
Approved by Sara Tienkamp, Director, Operational Services
Approved by Doug Nadorozny, Chief Administrative Officer
Page 128 of 308
100 John West Way
Aurora, Ontario
L4G 6J1
(905) 727-3123
aurora.ca
Town of Aurora
Committee of the Whole Report
No. OPS 2 6 -0 15
Subject: N6 Waste Collection Contract Extension
Prepared by: Sara Tienkamp
Department: Operational Services
Date: June 2, 2026
Recommendation
1. That Report No. OPS26-015 be received; and
2. That the extension of the new N6 Waste Contract, as administered through the Town
of Newmarket on behalf of the N6, be endorsed.
Executive Summary
Staff seek Council approval of a non-competitive extension of the current waste
collection agreement with GFL Environmental Inc. (GFL), for the period of January 1,
2028, to September 30, 2029. This will provide for service continuity until such time that
the N6 municipalities have completed a new competitive procurement process for the
provision of these services:
Ensuring a coordinated, cost-effective future for N6 Waste Collection services.
Council endorsement required to support the new N6 Waste Extension Contract
as administered through the Town of Newmarket for the period of January 1,
2028, to September 30, 2029.
Proposed extension provides operational flexibility, maintaining the current
agreement with GFL during the new RFP process, allowing sufficient lead time for
the implementation of a new long-term contract and minimizes the risk of service
disruption.
Page 129 of 308
June 2, 2026 2 of 7 Report No. OPS26-015
Contract extension pricing monitored for best value while maintaining service
levels.
Background
Ensuring a coordinated, cost‑effective future for N6 Waste Collection services.
The York Region “N6” municipalities, comprising the Town’s of Aurora, East Gwillimbury,
Georgina, Newmarket, Whitchurch-Stouffville, and the Township of King, have partnered
on a joint approach to solid waste collection since 2007. By procuring services
collectively under a single contract, the N6 has achieved economies of scale through
more competitive pricing and reduced duplication in procurement, contract
administration, and service oversight. This coordinated approach has also enabled
standardized service levels and consistent program delivery across the municipalities.
The current ten-year solid waste collection services agreement with GFL is approaching
the end of its term and is set to expire on December 31, 2027. Georgina has taken the
lead to prepare the Request for Proposal (RFP) for the next joint waste collection
contract for the N6.
In 2024, the Town of Newmarket led the procurement of a waste consultant to support
the development of the next waste collection contract RFP. As part of this work, the
consultant, in collaboration with N6 staff, conducted Public Information Centres (PICs)
in each participating municipality to gather resident feedback on current service levels
and gauge interest in automated cart-based collection.
While feedback from these PIC sessions provided insight into resident preferences,
broader market research indicates a clear industry shift toward automated collection,
with many municipalities transitioning away from manual systems. This shift is
primarily driven by labour shortages and health and safety considerations, including
improved worker safety. Transitioning to automated collection requires significant
capital investment in vehicles and carts, as well as longer implementation timelines.
The transition of municipal recycling programs to Full Producer Responsibility under
Ontario’s Blue Box Regulation has further altered the curbside collection landscape. In
the N6 communities, this has introduced automated recycling collection. As a result, the
N6 must consider how best to align garbage and organic collection services within an
evolving system that may include a mix of collection methods.
Page 130 of 308
June 2, 2026 3 of 7 Report No. OPS26-015
Maintaining flexibility through the upcoming RFP process for the next waste collection
contract will be critical to evaluating available service delivery options for the N6 and
ensuring an efficient, cost-effective, and consistent approach.
Given the range of service delivery options currently available in the market, additional
time is required to allow Georgina to develop a comprehensive joint RFP for the N6 that
accurately reflects current conditions and positions the N6 to make an informed, cost-
effective, evidence-based decision. The goal is to ensure a competitive RFP
procurement process that maximizes market participation, preserves flexibility in
evaluating collection models, and delivers best value for residents.
Accordingly, for collection services within Aurora, staff are seeking Council approval to
allow Newmarket to extend the current contract to December 31, 2028, with the option
to further extend for up to nine months to September 30, 2029. This extension will
provide a necessary bridge to ensure uninterrupted service delivery while the
municipalities complete a comprehensive RFP process and implement a new long-term
contract. Each of the N6 municipalities will be seeking similar approvals to extend the
current agreement.
Analysis
Council endorsement required to support the new N6 Waste Extension Contract as
administered through the Town of Newmarket for the period of January 1, 2028, to
September 30, 2029.
The Town of Newmarket and all N6 municipalities are seeking approval from their
respective Councils in June 2026 for the extension proposal negotiated by the Town of
Newmarket. The new contract is valid from January 1, 2028, to September 30, 2029.
Proposed extension provides operational flexibility, maintaining the current agreement
with GFL during the new RFP process, allowing sufficient lead time for the
implementation of a new long-term contract and minimizes the risk of service disruption.
As the procurement lead on behalf of the N6 for the existing agreement with GFL,
Newmarket staff have engaged in preliminary discussions with GFL regarding an
extension of the agreement beyond the current expiry date of December 31, 2027.
The objective of these discussions was to support service continuity and provide
financial certainty during the transition to the next long-term contract RFP for the N6
being prepared by Georgina.
Page 131 of 308
June 2, 2026 4 of 7 Report No. OPS26-015
To provide flexibility during Georgina’s procurement process, a two-phased extension
approach was proposed to GFL. This structure allows the municipalities to proceed to
market when the new waste collection RFP is ready to publish, which will ensure the
continuity of service should additional time be required for Georgina to complete the
RFP or if a transition period is required between service providers.
Subject to the approval of each of the N6 municipal Councils, GFL proposed the
following increases for an extension of the existing agreement as noted in Table 1
below:
Table 1: Maximum Increases for Extension of Existing Agreement
Extension
Period
Duration Fixed
Increase
Additional
Increase
Maximum
Increase
Maximum
Cost for
Aurora
Period 1:
(January 1,
2028, to
December 31,
2028)
12 months 6% *Lesser of the
Consumer
Price Index
(CPI) for
Ontario (“all
items”) or 5%
11% $237,700
Period 2:
(January 1,
2029, to
September 30,
2029)
9 months 5% *Lesser of CPI
(Ontario, “all
items”) or 5%
10% $239,800
Total: $477,500
*For budgeting purposes, the pricing outlined in the table above assumes that the
additional increase percentages for both extension periods will be five per cent, rather
than being based on the CPI.
Under the agreement with GFL, price increases for available option years were based on
a fixed one per cent increase with a further variable additional increase of the lesser of
CPI or five per cent. When the GFL contract was entered into in 2016, the average
annual amount of the cost incurred by the Town was $2,311,000 for 2016-2025. The
current 2026 annual budget for Aurora is $2,057,800 and for 2027 a budget of
$2,160,700 is needed presuming a five per cent additional increase rather than CPI.
Page 132 of 308
June 2, 2026 5 of 7 Report No. OPS26-015
Other than adjusting the pricing as outlined above for the period from January 1, 2028
onward, all service levels and other key terms of the current agreement will be
maintained for the extension periods. The extension periods are optional for each
municipality in the N6 to exercise and does not commit any of the municipalities to
proceed if approval from their respective Councils is not obtained.
The agreement with GFL can currently be terminated by the municipalities for
convenience with 180 days’ written notice and will continue for the extension periods,
providing ongoing flexibility throughout the extension period and the transition to a new
contract. GFL does not have similar termination rights in the agreement, nor will it have
that during the extension periods, ensuring service continuity regardless of the timing or
outcome of Georgina’s procurement process.
The proposed two-phase extension provides operational flexibility by maintaining the
current agreement with GFL during the new RFP process and allowing sufficient lead
time for contractor to secure vehicles (18-month lead time), equipment and supplies for
the implementation of a new long-term contract, while minimizing the risk of service
disruption.
Contract extension pricing monitored for best value while maintaining service levels.
GFL was originally retained through a competitive, qualification-based selection process
for the waste services provided under the existing agreement. GFL’s existing waste
collection routes, schedule, staffing and equipment requirements are in place to allow it
to continue providing the waste collection services for the N6 municipalities for the
further extension periods.
The pricing increases proposed by GFL for the two extension periods from January 1,
2028 to September 30, 2029, have been discussed with the consultant retained to assist
with the development of the new waste collection RFP and have been found to be
commercially reasonable, representing good value for money pending completion of the
new procurement process by Georgina. This reflects GFL’s requirement to commit to
continued service delivery to the N6 during these additional extension periods while
maintaining service levels under the Agreement with aging equipment.
Advisory Committee Review
None.
Page 133 of 308
June 2, 2026 6 of 7 Report No. OPS26-015
Legal Considerations
Councils’ previous authorisation to enter into the N6 waste collection agreement with
GFL was limited to the term and financial commitments of the current contract, which
expires on December 31, 2027. The proposed extensions require new Council approval
to continue the agreement and ensure continuity of waste collection services during the
transition to a new long-term contract. If the extension is not approved, the current
agreement could expire before replacement services are in place, increasing the risk of
service disruption and the need for emergency or sole-source procurement at a
significantly higher cost.
Financial Implications
The proposed contract extension will result in an increase to the Town’s waste
collection budgets for 2028 and 2029. The estimated budget increase for 2028 will be
$237,700 assuming an 11per cent price increase and for 2029 will be $239,800
assuming a 10 per cent price increase. The total estimated budget increase requirement
for both option years will be $477,500.
Communications Considerations
There are no communication considerations as a result of this report.
Climate Change Considerations
The recommendations from this report does not impact greenhouse gas emissions or
impact climate change adaptation.
Link to Strategic Plan
The Waste Contract Extension for the N6 reinforces the Strategic Plan goal of
Supporting Environmental Stewardship and Sustainability for all through its
accomplishment in satisfying requirements in the following key objectives within this
goal statement:
Encouraging the stewardship of Aurora’s natural resources: Assess the merits of
measuring the Town’s natural capital assets.
Page 134 of 308
June 2, 2026 7 of 7 Report No. OPS26-015
Alternative(s) to the Recommendation
1. Council may decide to not endorse the proposed Waste Contract extension as
negotiated by the Town of Newmarket for the N6.
2. Council may provide alternative recommendation.
Conclusions
Operational Services is confident that GFL has the experience, capability and equipment
to satisfactorily perform the agreement through the extension period at the proposed
pricing provided by GFL.
Attachments
None.
Previous Reports
None.
Pre-submission Review
Agenda Management Team review on May 14, 2026
Approvals
Approved by Sara Tienkamp, Director, Operational Services
Approved by Doug Nadorozny, Chief Administrative Officer
Page 135 of 308
100 John West Way
Aurora, Ontario
L4G 6J1
(905) 727-3123
aurora.ca
Town of Aurora
Committee of the Whole Report
No. PDS2 6 -030
Subject: Application for Zoning By-law Amendment and
Draft Plan of Subdivision
2697331 Ontario Inc.
1289 Wellington Street East
File Numbers: ZBA-2025-07 and SUB-2025-01
Prepared by: Peter Fan
Department: Planning and Development Services
Date: June 2, 2026
Recommendation(s)
1. That Report No. PDS26-030 be received; and
2. That Zoning By-law Amendment application ZBA-2025-07 be approved, as shown in
Figure 4, to remove the site-specific Apartment zone RA2(559), and Single Detached
R5(560), while updating the site-specific development standards for Townhouse
R8(558) Exception Zone, and maintaining the existing Environment Protection Zone;
and
3. That the Draft Plan of Subdivision application SUB-2025-01 be approved, as shown in
Figure 5, subject to the conditions outlined in Schedule ‘A’; and
4. That the implementing By-law for ZBA-2025-07 be brought forward to a future Council
meeting for enactment; and
5. That 451 persons worth of servicing allocation be granted to the subject lands to
implement the land use permissions.
Executive Summary
This report seeks Council’s approval to the application for Zoning By-law Amendment
Application and Draft Plan of Subdivision application (the “subject applications”) on the
Page 136 of 308
June 2, 2026 2 of 18 Report No. PDS26-030
lands municipally known as 1289 Wellington Street East. Approval of the applications
will facilitate the development of 171 townhouses dwellings.
The following is a summary of the development proposal:
To remove the site-specific Apartment zone RA2(559), and Single Detached
R5(560), while updating the site-specific development standards for Townhouse
R8(558) Exception Zone and maintaining the existing Environment Protection
Zone.
The proposed Draft Plan of Subdivision will divide the lands into two blocks, one
to convey to the Town for Environmental Protection purposes and the other to
permit residential development.
The conceptual site plan contemplates the construction of 171 townhouse
dwellings that will all be accessed by a private condominium road off both
Wellington Street East and Leslie Street.
The subject applications are consistent with the Provincial Planning Statement
(PPS) and the Lake Simcoe Protection Plan (LSPP).
The subject applications implement Official Plan policies related to density,
municipal servicing, financial intent and preservation of natural spaces.
The proposed standards support a more compact townhouse lotting pattern.
The updated front yard setback and encroachment permissions will support a
compact and street-oriented townhouse layout.
The height increases for Townhouse units are in keeping with the site-specific
Official Plan provision.
The revised driveway width, garage, rear yard, and side yard standards support
the compact townhouse layout.
The reduced visitor parking and internal road width is supported by the private
parking supply.
Page 137 of 308
June 2, 2026 3 of 18 Report No. PDS26-030
The reduced amenity area standard for townhouse units is supported by
parkettes distributed throughout the development and access to the future trail
network.
The conceptual development will require servicing allocation from Town Council.
The proposed Draft Plan of Subdivision is considered appropriate and represents
an orderly development.
Background
Application History
The Ontario Land Tribunal (OLT) issued a Final Order dated August 26, 2024 for an
Official Plan Amendment (OPA-2022-02) and Zoning By-law Amendment (ZBA-2022-02)
to permit a medium-high density residential redevelopment of the site. The details of the
approval are as follows:
Four apartment buildings with a maximum height of seven storeys
Forty townhouse dwelling units
Eight single detached dwellings
A total residential yield of approximately 700 dwelling units
The Tribunal did not assign servicing to the approved development; thus the approved
development still requires servicing assignment from Town Council. No site plan
application was submitted to implement the OLT decision. In contrast, a revised
proposal was submitted in July 2025. Following a change in ownership, the proposal
was further revised in April 2026, being the current subject application.
The proposed revised development proposal consists of the following:
Eliminating four apartment buildings and eight single detached dwellings;
Reducing the total residential unit count from approximately 700 dwelling units to
171 dwelling units;
Replacing the previous apartment, townhouse and single-detached dwelling
concept with a 171 unit townhouse development; and
Maintaining the Environmental Protection Lands.
Page 138 of 308
June 2, 2026 4 of 18 Report No. PDS26-030
A Community Information Meeting was held on October 27, 2025, and a Special Public
Planning meeting was held December 1, 2025.
Location / Land Use
The subject lands are located on the southwest corner of Wellington Street East and
Leslie Street (Figure 1). The subject lands are irregular in shape with frontages along
Wellington Street and Leslie Street. The subject lands have a total land area of
approximately 5.86 hectares (14.47 acres). The lands are currently vacant (no
structures); however, the lands have areas of vegetation, woodland, wetlands and a
watercourse.
Surrounding Land Uses
The surrounding land uses are as follows:
North: Wellington St E, Stronach Aurora Recreation Complex (SARC), Low Density
Residential, Medium density residential (1426 and 1452 Wellington Street East -
OPA-2025-10, ZBA-2025-09, ZBA-2022-06 – proposing 32 back-to-back
townhouses, and 42 standard townhouse units), Gas Station, High Density
Residential (Polo Club – SP-2020-06 approved for three apartment buildings
with a total of 345 units)
South: Golf course, Low density residential, Adena Meadows Way
East: Leslie Street, Gas Station, vacant employment lands, Smart Centre business
park lands
West: Low density residential subdivision
Policy Context
Provincial Policies
All Planning Act development applications are subject to provincial policies. The
Provincial Planning Statement (PPS) provides policy direction on matters of provincial
interest. These policies support the development of strong communities through the
promotion of efficient land use and development patterns and encourage the creation
of diverse housing opportunities that capitalize on proximity to goods, services, and
transit.
Page 139 of 308
June 2, 2026 5 of 18 Report No. PDS26-030
The Lake Simcoe Protection Plan (LSPP) is a provincial document that provides policies
which addresses aquatic life, water quality, water quantity, shorelines and natural
heritage, other threats and activities (including invasive species, climate change and
recreational activities) and implementation. The subject lands are partially within the
Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority (LSRCA) Regulated Area.
Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan (ORMCP)
The ORMCP provides land use and resource management planning direction on how to
protect the Moraine’s ecological and hydrological features and functions. The
southernly part of the subject lands are located within the ‘Settlement Area’ of the
ORMCP. Settlement Areas are intended for urban development, allowing for a variety of
residential uses. Their purpose is to concentrate and manage urban growth, reducing
encroachment on and impact to nearby ecological features, while aligning with the
growth objectives outlined in the Town's Official Plan.
Town of Aurora Official Plan
The subject lands are designated “Medium-High Density Residential” and
“Environmental Protection” (Figure 2) on Schedule B of the Town of Aurora Official Plan
and is located within the Bayview Northeast Area 2B Secondary Plan (OPA 30). The
Ontario Land Tribunal approved a site-specific Official Plan policy area #57 with the
following provisions:
The permitted uses shall include Townhouses, Apartments, and Detached
Dwelling Units
The maximum net residential density shall be 201 units per hectare
The maximum height shall be seven storeys for Apartment Buildings, and three
storeys for townhouse and detached dwelling units
The maximum height provisions applying to specific portions of the Subject
Lands are implemented by way of the site-specific Zoning By-law Amendment
Apartment buildings taller than four storeys are subject to side yard step-backs
and shall be implemented
The subject lands are partially within the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan Area
and are subject to the environmental designations and policies related to woodland
protection and natural heritage features. These environmental constraints, including key
natural heritage features, woodland protection were previously considered and
addressed during the OLT process. The OLT’s Final Order established the Environmental
Protection lands and development limits remains in effect today.
Page 140 of 308
June 2, 2026 6 of 18 Report No. PDS26-030
Zoning By-law 6000-17, as amended
The Ontario Lands Tribunal (OLT) approved the following site-specific zoning over the
subject lands (Figure 3):
Townhouse Dwelling Residential (R8) Exception Zone (558)
Second Density Apartment Residential (RA2) Exception Zone (559)
Detached Fifth Density Residential (R5) Exception Zone (560)
and Environmental Protection (EP) Zone
Each site-specific residential zoning provides individual site-specific development
standards including encroachment provisions, set-back requirements, parking, and
maximum height permissions, that were established to implement the previously
approved development concepts.
Reports and Studies
The Owner submitted the following documents as part of a complete application to the
proposed Zoning By-law Amendment and Draft Plan of Subdivision applications:
Report Name Report Author
Planning Justification Report Groundswell Urban Planners Inc.
Urban Design Brief Groundswell Urban Planners Inc.
Functional Servicing and Stormwater
Management Report SCS Consulting Group Ltd.
Hydrogeological Investigation Fisher Engineering Ltd.
Geotechnical Investigation Fisher Engineering Ltd.
Environmental Impact Study and
Natural Heritage Evaluation GEI Consultants Ltd.
Tree Inventory and Preservation Plan
and Edge Management Report Kuntz Forestry Consulting Inc.
Tree Inventory and Protection Plan Kuntz Forestry Consulting Inc.
Landscape Plan Wang Architects
Traffic Impact Study JD Engineering
Page 141 of 308
June 2, 2026 7 of 18 Report No. PDS26-030
Noise Feasibility Study HGC Engineering
Stage 1 & 2 Archaeological Assessment AMICK Consultants Ltd.
Phase 1 & 2 Environmental Site
Assessment Fisher Engineering Ltd.
Topographic Survey Schaeffer Dzaldov Purcell Ltd.
Proposed Applications
Proposed Zoning By-law Amendment
To remove the site-specific Apartment zone RA2(559), and Single Detached R5(560),
while updating the site-specific development standards for Townhouse R8(558)
Exception Zone, and maintaining the existing Environment Protection Zone
The following summarizes the proposed zoning by-law amendment over the subject
lands (Figure 4):
Remove Second Density Apartment Residential (RA2) Exception Zone (559)
Remove Detached Fifth Density Residential (R5) Exception Zone (560)
Update the existing development standards in the Townhouse Dwelling
Residential (R8) Exception Zone (558)
Maintain the existing Environmental Protection (EP) Zone unchanged
The proposed amendment would consolidate the residential permissions within the
updated R8(558) Exception Zone to implement the revised 171-unit townhouse
development. The updated R8(558) Zone would continue to permit townhouse
dwellings, while introducing revised site-specific standards related to lot area, lot
frontage, setbacks, and encroachments amongst other provisions.
The proposed updates to the existing Townhouse Dwelling Residential (R8) Exception
Zone (558) are as follows: (Appendix A)
Increased the maximum lot coverage from 70 percent to 74 percent and the
maximum building height from 11.0 metres to 13.0 metres;
Increased the maximum driveway width from 3.5 metres to 5.5 metres, while
reducing the minimum garage parking space width for one parking space from
2.7 metres to 2.5 metres;
Page 142 of 308
June 2, 2026 8 of 18 Report No. PDS26-030
Increased the maximum number of attached dwelling units in a row from 8 units
to 9 units;
Decreased the minimum lot area from 125 square metres to 110 square metres;
Decreased the minimum visitor parking requirement from 20 percent to 13
percent, reducing visitor parking spaces from 51 spaces to 33 spaces;
Decreased the minimum internal road width / manoeuvring space from 7.0
metres to 6.5 metres;
Decreased the minimum amenity area per unit from 18 square metres to 14
square metres;
Decreased the minimum setback for open-sided roofed porches, decks or
balconies from 2.5 metres to 0.6 metres; and,
Established site-specific front yard and rear yard setbacks, together with site-
specific encroachment permissions for steps and landings.
Proposed Draft Plan of Subdivision
The proposed Draft Plan of Subdivision will divide the lands into two blocks, one to
convey to the Town for Environmental Protection purposes and the other for residential
development.
The proposed Draft Plan of Subdivision (Figure 5) is created to facilitate an orderly
conveyance of the Environmental Protection Block 2 to the Town through the future site
plan. The detailed design of the residential development on Block 1, such as the
creation of the individual lots, internal private condominium roads, and servicing
infrastructure will be finalized through future Site Plan, Part Lot Control Exemption and
Draft Plan of Condominium applications. No public roads will be created in this
development.
The Environmental Protection Block 2 on the Draft Plan of Subdivision corresponds to
the environmental protection limits approved previously by the OLT. These boundaries
remain unchanged and are proposed to be conveyed to the Town to ensure their long-
term protection and management.
The following is a breakdown of the proposed Draft Plan of Subdivision.
Block # Purpose Size Notes
Block 1 Residential 3.70 ha (9.15 ac) Established development limits
Block 2 Environmental
Protection 2.14 ha (5.28 ac) Protecting areas with key natural
heritage features
Page 143 of 308
June 2, 2026 9 of 18 Report No. PDS26-030
Conceptual Site Plan
Conceptual site plan contemplates the construction of 171 townhouse units that will all
be accessed by a private condominium road off both Wellington Street East and Leslie
Street.
Currently, the Applicant has not submitted a corresponding site plan application. As
shown in Figure 6, the conceptual design is to develop 171 townhouse units. The
residential units would be accessed through a newly created private condominium
internal road network. The private road will connect Wellington Street East to the north
to Leslie Street to the south-east. Parking for the development is distributed across the
site through private driveways and garages associated with each dwelling. Additional
visitor parking areas are provided throughout the development, with no on-street
parking proposed. The Wellington Street East access is proposed to align with the
existing entrance to the Stronach Aurora Recreation Complex and is intended to
function as a coordinated signalized intersection to address traffic operations, access
safety, and site circulation. A future signalized access is also proposed on Leslie Street
to support site access and broader network operations but will be installed when
warranted. The Leslie Street access is proposed to align with Don Hillock Drive.
Detailed design and configuration of the internal road network and access will be
finalized through the future Site plan application.
The conceptual built form includes 3-storey buildings with lots ranging from
approximately 161 m² to 164m² (Figures 7 and 8).
Analysis
Planning Considerations
The subject applications are consistent with the Provincial Planning Statement (PPS) and
the Lake Simcoe Protection Plan (LSPP).
Provincial Planning Statement (PPS), 2024
It is Planning Staff’s opinion that the proposed Zoning By-law Amendment and Plan of
Subdivision is consistent with the PPS, as it directs development to a serviced
Settlement Area, contributes to a range of housing options, and improves compatibility
outcomes relative to the existing as-of-right development permissions. The following
provides further explanation on how the proposed amendment complies with the PPS.
Page 144 of 308
June 2, 2026 10 of 18 Report No. PDS26-030
Section 2.2(1) of the PPS requires planning authorities to provide for an appropriate
range and mix of housing options and densities. The proposed development consists of
townhouses, contributing to housing diversity within the community.
Sections 2.3.1(1) and 2.3.1(2) of the PPS directs growth to areas with existing or
planned servicing. The subject lands are located within the Town’s built-up urban area
where growth is anticipated to occur.
Section 3.5(1) of the PPS requires development to be appropriate for its context and to
minimize potential adverse impacts to adjacent land uses. Compared to the mid-rise
apartment development currently permitted on the lands, the proposed development
proposes an overall reduction in building height, massing, and residential density and
provides improved compatibility with adjacent low-density residential neighbourhoods.
Section 4.1 of the PPS promotes development patterns that minimize potential adverse
impacts on natural heritage features. The proposed development maintains the existing
Environmental Protection lands approved at the OLT and reduces development density
adjacent to these areas when compared to the previously approved development
permissions.
Conformity with the Lake Simcoe Protection Plan (LSPP)
The subject lands are located within the Lake Simcoe watershed and are designated as
a Settlement Area under the Lake Simcoe Protection Plan (LSPP). Section 4.8(a) of the
LSPP permits development within Settlement Areas, provided that impacts to water
quality and the natural environment are minimized.
Section 6.40 of the LSPP requires the protection of key natural heritage features and
associated vegetation protection zones. The proposed development continues to
maintain these features and setbacks of the Environmental Protection Zones and
developable limits approved at the Tribunal.
The Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority (LSRCA) has reviewed the subject
applications and have no objections as the OLT approved developable limits and
environmental protected land are maintained. The LSRCA advises that they will continue
to work with the applicant through Site Plan Control to address other technical matters.
LSRCA staff have no objections to the approval of the proposed applications subject to
conditions outlined in Schedule A. It is Planning Staff’s opinion that the subject
applications conform with the Lake Simcoe Protection Plan.
Page 145 of 308
June 2, 2026 11 of 18 Report No. PDS26-030
Conformity with the Town of Aurora Official Plan
The proposed applications implement Official Plan policies related to density, municipal
servicing, and preservation of natural spaces.
The existing site-specific Official Plan policies over the subject lands limits a maximum
density of 201 units per hectare. The conceptual development demonstrates a much
lower density of approximately 46 units per hectare. Therefore, the subject applications
will result in a development with a lower overall density than the existing permissions.
Furthermore, the proposed Draft Plan of Subdivision must conform to section 18.12d)
of the Town’s Official Plan. It is Planning Staff’s opinion that the proposed Draft Plan of
Subdivision complies with the intent of the Official Plan and the Planning Act by
supporting residential intensification and utilization existing infrastructure. The subject
applications are supported with adequate nearby community facilities such as the
nearby school and Fire Station on Wellington Street East. Lastly, the proposed
development also maintains the Environmental Protection lands and developable limits
established by the Tribunal and does not propose any changes.
As such, the proposed applications are considered suitable for the subject lands in
accordance with the Town’s Official Plan.
Conformity with Zoning By-law 6000-17, as amended
While the existing zoning by-law approved by the Ontario Land Tribunal (OLT) was
structured to regulate a large empty residential development block. A more detailed
conceptual plan is available to draft an implementing by-law on a per-lot basis. While
this approach results in a higher number of amendments and new provisions compared
to the original version, these changes are necessary to ensure regulations will match
the actual physical design and layout.
The proposed standards support a more compact townhouse lotting pattern.
The proposed amendment revises several standards that affect the townhouse lotting
pattern within the internal portions of the site and lots fronting Wellington Street East
and Leslie Street. The amendment would reduce the minimum lot area from 125 square
metres to 110 square metres, increase the maximum lot coverage from 70 percent to
74 percent, and increase the maximum number of attached dwelling units in a row from
8 units to 9 units.
Page 146 of 308
June 2, 2026 12 of 18 Report No. PDS26-030
Compared to the existing R8(558) standards, these changes would allow for a more
compact townhouse block layout. The reduced lot area provides flexibility for individual
townhouse lots, the increased lot coverage reflects the proposed building footprints,
and the increase in the maximum number of attached units supports the proposed
block configuration.
Planning staff are of the opinion that the revised standards are appropriate because
they implement the proposed compact lot-based townhouse layout while keeping
development within the intended residential portion of the site.
The updated front yard setback and encroachment permissions will support a compact
and street-oriented townhouse layout.
As detailed in Appendix A, the proposed amendment revises the minimum front yard
setback from 4.0 metres to 2.7 metres for the Townhouse lots fronting Wellington
Street East and Leslie Street while 1.7 metres is proposed for all other interior lots.
Given that Wellington Street East and Leslie Street are Regional arterial roads, bringing
the residential units closer to the property line creates a more defined "street wall." This
frames the streetscape more effectively, making the area an integrated local corridor.
The 1.7 metre front yard setback for all other lots supports the internal townhouse
layout by allowing units to be sited closer to the private road network. This provides
flexibility to accommodate the proposed townhouse block configuration, reduced
internal road width, and compact lotting pattern, while maintaining space for front
entrances, steps, landings, and pedestrian access.
As a result of the reduce front yard setback, additional encroachment provisions related
to steps, landings, open porches will need to be adjusted. Planning staff are of the
opinion that the proposed changes are appropriate to address the Town’s vision of a
local corridor.
The height increases for Townhouse units are in keeping with the site-specific Official
Plan provision.
Planning staff are of the opinion that the proposed height increase for the Townhouse
units from 11.0 metres to 13.0 metres is in keeping with the site-specific Official Plan
policy which permits Townhouse developments to a maximum of 3 storeys.
The proposed height standard would accommodate the built form proposed across the
updated R8(558) Zone. Although the requested height increase represents a change
Page 147 of 308
June 2, 2026 13 of 18 Report No. PDS26-030
from the existing Zoning standards, it implements the 3-storey townhouse form from
the Official Plan permissions.
Planning staff are of the opinion that the proposed height standard is appropriate, as it
provides zoning flexibility for the proposed townhouse product while remaining within
the maximum 3-storey built form established through the site-specific Official Plan
policy.
The revised driveway width, garage, rear yard, and side yard standards support the
compact townhouse layout.
While the current site-specific Zoning By-law regulated the rear yard of the developable
area as a single development block, the updated Zoning By-law proposes to regulate the
rear yard on an individual unit basis. In this context, the "rear yard" is redefined as the
specific point where each unit’s driveway meets the private road. This change ensures a
consistent standard is applied for all future units as shown in the conceptual site plan.
The proposed rear yard setback of 3.0 metres for most lots provides a compact rear
yard condition while maintaining parking functionality. For units with private driveways,
the rear yard setback provides space for driveway parking without vehicles overhanging
into the private road. For units without private driveways, the rear yard area provides
flexibility for an additional vehicle to park parallel to the two-car garage, where the
garage and lot configuration permits. This allows the zoning to support different
townhouse parking conditions while maintaining the private road for circulation rather
than vehicle storage.
The proposed increase to the maximum driveway width from 3.5 metres to 5.5 metres
supports two-car driveway and garage arrangements where provided. The amendment
also proposes to reduce the minimum garage parking space width for one required
parking space from 2.7 metres to 2.5 metres, while maintaining the minimum length of
5.3 metres. This provides flexibility for the proposed garage configuration while
maintaining two garage parking spaces within each unit. Similarly, the current side yard
standards are applied broadly across the development block. A more detailed lot-based
zoning approach is proposed to ensure precise regulation for individual townhouse lots
and end units. The proposed side yard setback of 1.2 metres for end unit townhouses
will provide a buffer that ensures adequate building separation for fire safety and
maintenance access, while facilitating an appropriate space between the townhouse
block and the adjacent common elements.
Page 148 of 308
June 2, 2026 14 of 18 Report No. PDS26-030
The reduced visitor parking and internal road width is supported by the private parking
supply.
The proposed Zoning By-law Amendment reduces the minimum visitor parking
requirement from 20 percent to 13 percent., this represents a total number of visitor
parking spaces from being reduced from 51 to 33 spaces. The amendment also
reduces the minimum internal road width / manoeuvring space for 90-degree parking
spaces from 7.0 metres to 6.5 metres.
The reduced visitor parking standard is supported by the proposed private parking
supply, as most townhouse units are intended to accommodate two vehicles in the
garage and two vehicles on the driveway. For units without private driveways, parking
would be accommodated within the garage, with visitor parking provided in designated
areas throughout the development. The reduced internal road width reflects the
compact private condominium road layout and is appropriate where parking is
accommodated on private lots and designated visitor spaces, rather than through on-
street parking.
The Town’s Traffic analyst reviewed the Transportation Impact Study have no concerns
with the proposed land use applications. Given that majority of the Townhouse units will
be able to accommodate two cars in the garage and two cars on the driveway. The
overall parking supply remains sufficient to accommodate the expected demand.
The reduced amenity area standard for townhouse units is supported by parkettes
distributed throughout the development and access to the future trail network.
The proposed amendment seeks to reduce the required amenity area for townhouses
from 18 m² to 14 m² per unit. Given that the rear yard in this development is functionally
defined by the driveway onto the private road, the primary amenity requirements will be
fulfilled through consolidated common elements. As shown in the conceptual site plan,
these include parkettes and open areas. Furthermore, a future Town owned
comprehensive trail network will be situated behind the adjacent Townhouse dwellings.
As a result, Planning staff are of the opinion that the proposed reduction in amenity area
will not result in any negative impacts on adjacent properties or the overall livability of
the townhouse development.
The conceptual development will require servicing allocation from Town Council.
The conceptual development illustrates a total of 171 townhouse units, which would
require 451 persons worth of servicing allocation. As the Tribunal did not assign
Page 149 of 308
June 2, 2026 15 of 18 Report No. PDS26-030
servicing to the approved development, servicing allocation must be assigned by Town
Council prior to development proceeding. Accordingly, the applicant will require 451
persons worth of servicing allocation to implement the proposed development.
Draft Plan of Subdivision
The proposed Draft Plan of Subdivision is considered appropriate and represents an
orderly development.
The proposed Draft Plan of Subdivision creates two blocks (developable and non-
developable lands) in a manner that is appropriate and consistent with section 18.12 of
the Town’s Official Plan. As discussed under the official plan portion of this report, the
proposed Draft Plan of Subdivision is considered appropriate and represents an orderly
development. It is Planning Staff’s opinion that the size and shape of the developable
block is appropriate to accommodate the future private internal roads and
infrastructures. More details related to lot layout, road network, and servicing design will
be review at the future Site Plan, Part Lot Control Exemption and Common Elements
Condominium application process.
The Environmental Protection (EP) block reflects not only the natural heritage features
themselves, including Marsh Creek, its associated woodland riparian corridor, and
wetland features, but also the approved environmental setbacks and buffers of 28m
established through the Ontario Land Tribunal process. As identified in the Natural
Heritage Evaluation, these lands contain fish habitat, significant woodland, and
associated vegetation protection areas. The Environmental Protection block also
supports integration with the Town’s broader trail network, and the future trail will act as
an additional buffer between the natural heritage features and the proposed
development. These boundaries remain unchanged through the current application and
will help facilitate the future conveyance of the lands to the Town for long-term
protection and management.
Department / Agency Comments
The proposed applications were circulated to all internal and external agencies for
review and comments. In general, all circulated agencies are satisfied with the
proposed development, subject to conditions outlined in Schedule A.
Page 150 of 308
June 2, 2026 16 of 18 Report No. PDS26-030
Public Comments
A Community Information Meeting (CIM) was held on October 27, 2025, at the Stronach
Aurora Recreation Complex (SARC). The meeting was attended by individuals, including
Town Planning staff, the property owner, the applicant team, local residents, and the
Councillors for Ward 4 and Ward 5. At the CIM, the applicant team explained their
proposal to the public and advised that compared to the OLT approved application, this
new proposal presents a much lower density and built form, while keeping all the
environmental features requested by the Town and Agencies. No formal comments
were received by the public at the timing of drafting of this report
Advisory Committee Review
No communication required.
Legal Considerations
Section 34(11) of the Planning Act states that if Council refuses the Zoning By-law
Amendment application or fails to make a decision on it within 90 days after the receipt
of the application, the applicant (or Minister) may appeal the application to the Ontario
Land Tribunal (OLT).
Section 51(34) of the Planning Act states that if Council fails to make a decision on the
subdivision application within 120 days after the receipt of the application, the applicant
may appeal the application to the OLT. If Council approves or refuses the application,
then the applicant may appeal to the OLT after receiving notice of Council’s decision.
The applications were received on July 22, 2025, and therefore, the applicant may
appeal to the OLT at anytime.
Financial Implications
There are no direct financial implications as a result of this report.
Communications Considerations
Notice of the Committee of the whole was emailed to all interested parties on May 26,
2026.
Page 151 of 308
June 2, 2026 17 of 18 Report No. PDS26-030
Notice of Public Planning Meeting was delivered to all addressed property owners
within 120 metres of the subject lands on November 6, 2025. In addition, the notice was
published in the Auroran on November 13, 2025. Signs are posted on both frontages of
the subject lands with information regarding the Public Meeting. In addition, notice of
Public Planning Meeting was made available at the Community Information Meeting
(CIM). Due to Canada Post strike, on September 30, 2025, notifications for CIM was
hand delivered by the applicant to property owners within 120 metres of the subject
lands.
All communication requirements as directed by the Planning Act have been satisfied.
Notices of Council’s Decision on the subject applications will also be provided
accordingly.
Climate Change Considerations
The Official Plan identifies sustainability, energy efficiency, and climate change
mitigation as important objectives for new development. Staff will continue to
encourage the applicant to include measures such as energy-efficient systems,
landscaping, and low-impact stormwater management as part of the Site Plan process.
Link to Strategic Plan
The proposed Zoning By-law Amendment and Draft Plan of Subdivision applications,
support the Strategic Plan goal of Supporting an exceptional quality of life for all
through its accomplishment in satisfying requirements in the following key objectives
within this goal statement:
Strengthening the fabric of our community: Through the review and approval of the
Zoning By-law Amendment and Plan of Subdivision applications, housing opportunities
are created that collaborates with the development community to ensure future growth
includes housing opportunities for everyone.
Alternative(s) to the Recommendation
1. Refusal of the application with an explanation for the refusal.
Conclusions
Planning and Development Services reviewed the proposed Zoning By law Amendment
(ZBA-2025-07) and Draft Plan of Subdivision (SUB-2025-01) in accordance with the
Page 152 of 308
June 2, 2026 18 of 18 Report No. PDS26-030
provisions of Provincial policies, the Town’s Official Plan, Zoning By law 6000-17, as
amended, and applicable municipal development standards respecting the subject
lands.
The proposed Zoning By-law Amendment and Draft Plan of Subdivision applications are
considered to be in keeping with the development standards of the Town. The proposal
represents good planning and staff recommend approval of the subject applications,
subject to the fulfillment of the related Draft Plan of Subdivision Conditions of Approval,
with the implementing Zoning By-law to be brought forward at a future Council meeting
Attachments
Attachment 1 - Appendix A-Amended R8(558) Zone Comparison
Attachment 2 - Schedule A - Conditions of Subdivision Approval
Attachment 3 – Figures 1-8:
Figure 1 – Location Map
Figure 2 – Existing Official Plan Designation
Figure 3 – Existing Zoning By-Law
Figure 4 – Proposed Zoning By-law
Figure 5 – Draft Plan of Subdivision
Figure 6 – Conceptual Site Plan
Figure 7 – Conceptual Elevations
Figure 8 – Conceptual Elevations
Previous Reports
PDS25-118 - 1289 Wellington St E - 2697331 ONTARIO INC (ZBA-2025-07 and SUB-
2025-01) – December 1, 2025
Pre-submission Review
Agenda Management Team review on May 14, 2026
Approvals
Approved by Marco Ramunno, Director, Planning and Development Services
Approved by Doug Nadorozny, Chief Administrative Officer
Page 153 of 308
Appendix ‘A’
Amended R8(558) Zone Comparison
Existing R8 Exception
Zone (558) Requirements
Proposed Updated R8 Exception
Zone (558) Standards
Permitted Uses
In accordance with R8
uses
Home occupation
Dwelling, Townhouse
Back-to-back, Townhouse
In accordance with R8 uses
Home occupation
Dwelling, Townhouse
Back-to-back, Townhouse
Total Property Coverage
(Maximum) 45% 45 %
Lot Area (minimum) 125 square metres 110 square metres*
Lot Frontage (minimum) 18 metres (5.5 metres per
unit) 5.5 metres*
Front Yard (minimum) 4.0 metres
For lots fronting
Wellington Street
East and Leslie
Street
2.7 metres*
For lots abutting
an EP Zone 6.1 metres*
All other lots 1.7 metres*
Rear Yard (minimum) 3.5 metres
For lots abutting
an EP Zone 5.2 metres*
All other lots 3.0 metres*
Interior side Yard (minimum) 0 metres
0.0 metres (along a common lot line)
1.2 metres (for end units) *
Lot Coverage (maximum) 70% 74%*
Setback for open-sided roofed
porches, decks or balconies,
not exceeding one storey in
height, with or without
foundation (minimum)
2.5 m
In no case shall be 4.5 m
from the Front Lot Line, 3
m from the Exterior Side
Yard Lot line.
0.6m
PDS26-030 - Attachment 1
Page 154 of 308
Existing R8 Exception
Zone (558) Requirements
Proposed Updated R8 Exception
Zone (558) Standards
Maximum number of attached
dwelling units in a row 8 dwelling units 9 dwelling units
Internal road width /
Maneuvering Space for 90-
degree spaces (minimum)
7.0 metres 6.5 metres
Minimum Parking
Requirement
1.5 spaces per dwelling
unit, minimum 20% of
spaces provided shall be
set aside for visitor
parking
1.5 spaces per dwelling unit,
minimum 13% of spaces required
shall be set aside
for visitor parking*
Maximum Driveway Width
3.5 metres if the Lot
Frontage is less than 9.0
metres.
6.0 m
In no case shall the driveway width go
beyond the interior side yard of the
dwelling*
Minimum garage parking
space dimensions
Parking Space within a
garage shall have a
dimension of 2.7 metres
by 5.3 metres
One Parking Space within a garage
shall have a dimension of 2.5 metres
by 5.3 metres
Steps, Landings
2.8 metres
In no case shall be closer
than 2.5 metres from the
Front Lot Line
For lots fronting
Wellington Steet
E and Leslie
Street
2.7 m;
Permitted to
encroach up to,
but not beyond,
the Front Lot
Line*
All other lots
1.7 m;
Permitted to
encroach up to,
but not beyond,
the Front Lot Line*
Height (maximum) 11.0 metres 13 metres*
Amenity Area
Minimum Amenity Area of
18 square metres per
dwelling unit.
Minimum Amenity Area of 14 square
metres per dwelling unit. *
Page 155 of 308
Note: The proposed bylaw exceptions are highlighted and labelled with an asterisk “*”.
Final zoning performance standards will be evaluated by Staff in detail prior to the implementing
Zoning By-law Amendment being brought forward to Council for enactment.
Page 156 of 308
Schedule “A”
CONDITIONS OF SUBDIVISION APPROVAL
Subdivision Application No.: SUB-2025-01
Owner: 2697331 Ontario Inc. (the “Owner”)
Address: 1289 Wellington Street East
Legal Description: Part Lot 20, Con. 2, designated as Part 10 on Plan 65R-36523, PIN
03642-5499 (the “Lands”)
SUBDIVISION APPROVAL AND THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL LAPSE ON APRIL 14,
2029, BEING THE EXPIRATION OF THREE (3) YEARS FROM THE DATE OF APPROVAL, unless
extended by The Corporation of The Town of Aurora (the “Town”), in its sole discretion, prior
to the lapse date. If no extension is granted by the Town prior to the lapse date, the Subdivision
Approval shall be deemed to have expired without further notice.
Prior to the release for registration of any M-plan on the Lands, the following conditions shall
be satisfied by the Owner with respect to the draft plan of subdivision prepared by
Groundswell Urban Planners Inc., dated March 24, 2026 (the “Draft Plan”), which is attached
as Schedule “B” and which forms part of these conditions with respect to the creation of two
(2)Block(s) on the Lands.
Planning Division Conditions
1.If approved or requested in writing by the Town, the Owner shall amend the Draft Plan to
the extent that minor revisions are required to implement or integrate recommendations
from studies required as part of these Conditions of Subdivision Approval, or to ensure
property alignment with existing or proposed lots, blocks, streets, and/or facilities on
lands adjacent to the Draft Plan.
2.The Owner shall submit, to the satisfaction of the Planning Division, the final Draft Plan
in the following forms:
a)both an electronic and hardcopy version of the signed white paper print, as
approved by the Land Registry Office for registration;
b)one (1) original mylar;
c)two (2) mylar duplicates; and
d)three (3) white paper prints, one (1) of which contains an A.O.L.S form.
3.The Lands shall be:
a)appropriately designated in the Official Plan by an official plan by-law that has
come into effect in accordance with the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.P.13, as
amended (the “Planning Act”); and
b)appropriately zoned by a zoning by-law that has come into effect in accordance
with the Planning Act, including any terms under which the Town’s Council will
consider the removal of a holding “H” symbol, if applicable.
PDS26-030 - Attachment 2 Page 157 of 308
2697331 Ontario Inc. SUB-2025-01 Page 2
Conditions of Subdivision Approval
Legal Services Division Conditions
4.The Owner shall provide to the satisfaction of the Town Solicitor, a Solicitor’s Title
Opinion for the Lands together with:
a)the final Draft Plan signed by the Surveyor, and the related Plan Document as
preapproved by the Land Registry Office, each in a form ready to be submitted for
registration;
b)the Surveyor’s Frontage and Area Certificate for the Draft Plan;
c)an updated copy of the title PIN(s) for the Lands; and
d)a Certificate of Corporate Status for the Owner and a Clear Certificate regarding a
Writ of Execution against the Owner.
Finance Department Conditions
5.The Owner shall pay to the Town all arrears of taxes, water rates, and other lawful rates
and levies of the Town, including all charges owing to the Town in connection with the
Lands.
External Agency Conditions
6.The Owner shall submit clearances in writing to the Planning Division from the following
external agencies with respect to the Owner’s fulfillment of their related conditions of
approval:
a)York Region Conditions of Approval attached as Schedule A.1.
Clearances
a)The Town’s Planning Division shall advise that Conditions 1-3 have been fulfilled, stating
briefly how each condition has been met, and that all External Agencies have provided
written confirmation of the Owner’s fulfilment of their respective conditions of approval
in satisfaction of Condition 6.
b)The Town’s Legal Services Division shall advise that Condition 4 has been satisfied,
stating briefly how this condition has been met.
c)The Town’s Finance Department shall advise that Condition 5 has been fulfilled, stating
briefly how this condition has been met.
Page 158 of 308
2697331 Ontario Inc. SUB-2025-01 Page 3
Conditions of Subdivision Approval
Schedule “A.1”
YORK REGION CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Page 159 of 308
Schedule of Pre-Conditions
SUB-2025-01 (SUBP.25.A.0018)
Lot 20, Con 2 (1289 Wellington St E)
Town of Aurora
Re: Groundswell Urban Planners (Drawing dated March 24, 2026)
The following pre-conditions are applicable in the event that the draft plan approval is
given prior to Council approval of adequate unrestricted servicing allocation to the
subject development:
1.Prior to or concurrent with draft plan approval for any residential units, the owner
shall enter into an agreement with the Town of Aurora, which agreement shall be
registered on title, committing the owner to:
A. Not enter into any agreements of purchase and sale with end users (*) for the
subject lands until such time as:
i. The Council of the Town of Aurora has allocated, within the limit of the
Regional capacity assignment, adequate available water and wastewater
servicing capacities to the subject development; and,
ii. York Region has advised in writing that it is no earlier than twelve (12)
months prior to the expected completion of all water and wastewater
infrastructure required to support the Region’s capacity assignment
pertaining to the Town allocation used for the subject development;
or
b. the Town approves a transfer of servicing allocation to this
development that is not dependent upon the construction of
infrastructure;
or
c. the Regional Commissioner of Public Works and the Town of Aurora
confirm servicing capacity for this development by a suitable alternative
method and the Town allocates the capacity to this development.
AND
B. Not enter into any agreements of purchase and sale with non-end users for
the subject lands unless the agreement of purchase and sale contains a condition
that requires the purchaser and any subsequent purchasers to enter into a
separate agreement with the Town. This agreement shall be registered on title,
committing the owner to the same terms as set out in item A above.
Schedule “A.1”
Page 4
Page 160 of 308
2.Prior to draft plan approval for any residential units, the owner shall enter into an
indemnity agreement with York Region, which agreement shall be registered on title,
agreeing to save harmless York Region from any claim or action as a result of York
Region releasing conditions and pre-conditions of draft approval as part of the draft
approval of this Plan of Subdivision, or any phase thereof, including, but not limited
to claims or actions resulting from, water or sanitary sewer service not being
available when anticipated. The agreement shall include a provision that requires all
subsequent purchasers of the subject lands, to enter into a separate agreement with
York Region as a condition of the agreement of purchase and sale, agreeing to
indemnify York Region on the same terms and conditions as the owner.
(*) the term 'end users' for the purpose of the above-noted pre-conditions is defined as
the eventual homeowner who is purchasing an individual lot containing a dwelling for
the purpose of occupancy.
Page 5
Page 161 of 308
Schedule of Conditions
SUB-2025-01 (SUBP.25.A.0018)
Lot 20, Con 2 (1289 Wellington St E)
Town of Aurora
Re: Groundswell Urban Planners (Drawing dated March 24, 2026)
Conditions of draft approval for the subdivision application have been updated due to Town
of Aurora’s decision to not enter into a subdivision agreement. All requirements and
clauses are to be transferred into the site plan agreement. York Region will be party to the
site plan agreement.
1.The Owner shall acknowledge to save harmless the Town of Aurora and York Region from
any claim or action as a result of water or sanitary sewer service not being available when
anticipated.
3.Prior to final approval, the Owner shall provide to the Region the following documentation
to confirm that water and wastewater services are available to the subject development and
have been allocated by the Town of Aurora:
a.A copy of the Council resolution confirming that the Town of Aurora has allocated
servicing capacity, specifying the specific source of the capacity, to the development
proposed within this draft plan of subdivision.
b.A copy of an email confirmation by Town of Aurora staff stating that the allocation to
the subject development remains valid at the time of the request for regional
clearance of this condition.
4.Prior to final approval, the Owner shall provide an electronic set of the final engineering
drawings showing plan and profile views of the water and wastewater infrastructure for the
proposed development to Development Services and Infrastructure Asset Management for
record.
5.The Regional Corporate Services Department shall advise that Conditions 1 to 4 inclusive,
have been satisfied.
Schedule “A.1”
Page 6
Page 162 of 308
2697331 Ontario Inc. SUB-2025-01 Page 7
Conditions of Subdivision Approval
Schedule “B”
DRAFT PLAN
Page 163 of 308
CONCRETE CURB AND GUTTERCONCRETE CURB AND GUTTERCONCRETE CURB AND GUTTERROAD SIGN
ROAD SIGNCONCRETE CURB AND GUTTERSIGNROAD SIGNCONCRETE CURB AND GUTTERCONCRETE CURB AND GUTTERSIGNGATE
GATESIGNGRASSROAD SIGNROAD SIGNROAD SIGNCONCRETE CURB
ROAD SIGN
EDGE OF WATER
ASPHALTCONCRETE LESLIE STREET - REGIONAL ROAD No. 12N80°07'40"E43.25N22°37'20"E17.7416.12N61°16'40"W
50.70 6.08N72°36'50"WN68°49'50"W43.53 26.11N70°26'40"WN61°53'20"W
24.92N38°35'
3
0"
W
20.48
24.17N37°01'
0
0
"
W
44.29N89°16'50"WN29°39'40"WA=26.63R=74.70C=26.48N89°32'50"WN19°21'50"W128.71N72°54'30"EN25°15'50"W
N23°23'30"W 5.84N53°33'00"
W 44.998.37N09°54'50"W46.7431.48N09°40'00"W200.81N09°57'40"W35.548.37N75°00'20"E60.00N69°55'40"E40.00N64°43'30"W28.13N71°16'10"EC=18.64R=1522.51A=18.64N72°47'20"EA=C=13.77R=2977.49N79°23'00"W12.50N17°32'50"W2.72N71°59'00"EN76°14'00"W8.46WELLINGTON STREET EAST - REGIONAL ROAD No. 15276.0
276.5
277
277.5
278278.5279279.5280280.5281281.5282
281280.5280279.5
279
278.5
275281280.52282.5283.5283.5284284.5285285.5
285
284
283
282281280
279
278
277276275286.53.2 26.732.355.91811.729.633.9 7.1A60.2 A59.3C56.9R60.2C58.7
R78.2
A13.5
C13.4
R59.82999.62.2±46.8
±42.4
±45.9
±39.7 ±38.4±36.4DON HILLOCK DR±38.5TOUCH GOLD CRES
274.0
273.0
275.0 275.0275.0274.0276.0277.0278.0278.0279.0 281.0282.0281.0279.0282.0277.0276.0280.0280.0198.619.915.8276.0277.0 278.0278.0279.0 281.0282.0281.0279.0282.0277.0 276.0280.0LLIN G T O N S T R E E T E A S TN19°21'50"W8.37N64°43'30"W28.13N69°55'40"E40.00 75°00'20"E60.00DAYLIGHTTRIANGLE21222324252627592280.0 Copyright ReservedThe Contractor shall verify and be responsible for all dimensions. DO NOT scale the drawing - any errors or omissions shall be reported to Groundswell without delay.The Copyrights to all designs and drawings are the property of Groundswell. Reproduction or use for any purpose other than that authorized by Groundswell is forbidden.BR & HPS20-19DRAWN01DRAWING No.March 24, 2026DATEAMPROJECT No.SEALAPPROVEDKey MapSCALENo. DATEREVISIONREGIONAL MUNICIPALITY YORKTOWN OF AURORA1289 WELLINGTON STREET EAST1:750%haacResidential3.7199.19 63.5PART OF LOT 20 CONCESSION 2AS SHOWNFULL MUNICIPAL SERVICESMUNICIPAL WATER AS SHOWNAS SHOWNAS SHOWNAS SHOWNNONEAS SHOWNgkjihlcdbaf1AS SHOWNOWNER'S AUTHORIZATIONDATESURVEYOR'S CERTIFICATEDATEI/WE, BEING THE REGISTERED OWNER OF THE SUBJECT LANDS, HEREBY AUTHORIZEGROUNDSWELL URBAN PLANNERS INC. TO PREPARE AND SUBMIT THIS DRAFT PLANOF SUBDIVISION FOR APPROVAL.I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THE BOUNDARIES OF THE SUBJECT LANDS AND THEIRRELATIONSHIP TO THE ADJACENT LANDS ARE ACCURATELY AND CORRECTLY SHOWNON THIS PLAN.DAN DZALDOV, O.L.S.SCHAEFFER DZALDOV PURCELL LTD.SCHOMBERG CLAY LOAMMR. CHI MA - OWNER2697331 ONTARIO INC.Scale 1 : 30,000BlocksLand Use1Units125DRAFT PLAN OF SUBDIVISIONEnvironmental Protection2.1395.2836.52-eAS SHOWNAS SHOWNfADDITIONAL INFORMATION REQUIREDUNDER SECTION 51(17) OF THE PLANNING ACTLAND USE SCHEDULE050m402010 30Wellington St EBayview AveLeslie St404Woodbine Ave Total5.85814.47100125BLOCK 1RESIDENTIAL±3.719ha (9.19ac)BLOCK 2ENVIRONMENTALPROTECTION±2.139ha (5.28ac)Lot 19 Con 2Lot 20 Con 2Lot 22 Con 2Lot 21 Con 3Lot 20 Con 3Lot 19 Con 3404Gas StationVacantVacantSWMGolf CourseResidentialGas StationOpen SpaceVacantResidentialCommunity Centre95 MURAL STREET, SUITE 402RICHMOND HILL, ONTARIO L4B 3G2T: 905.597.8204 F: 905.597.8904groundswellplan.comPage 164 of 308
PDS26-030 - Attachment 3 - Figures 1-8Page 165 of 308
Page 166 of 308
Page 167 of 308
Page 168 of 308
Page 169 of 308
Page 170 of 308
Page 171 of 308
Page 172 of 308
100 John West Way
Aurora, Ontario
L4G 6J1
(905) 727-3123
aurora.ca
Town of Aurora
Committee of the Whole Report
No. PDS2 6 -056
Subject: Application for Official Plan Amendment and
Zoning By-law Amendment
6768148 Canada Ltd.
16003 Yonge Street, 255 and 219 Old Yonge Street
Part Lots 1, 2, 3 and 4, Plan 461
File Numbers: OPA-2025-03; ZBA-2025-04; HPA-2025-04
Prepared by: Lawrence Kuk
Department: Planning and Development Services
Date: June 2, 2026
Recommendation
1. That Report No. PDS26-056 be received; and
2. That Official Plan Amendment application OPA-2025-03 be approved to redesignate
255 Old Yonge Street to “Stable Neighbourhoods” and “Environmental Protection” and
on 16003 Yonge Street and 219 Old Yonge Street to “Medium-High Urban Residential”
and “Environmental Protection” with a Site-Specific Policy Area (75); and
3. That Zoning By-law Amendment application ZBA-2025-04 be approved to rezone 255
Old Yonge Street to Detached First Density Residential (R1) Exception Zone (581) and
Environmental Protection (EP) and on 16003 Yonge Street and 219 Old Yonge Street
to Second Density Apartment Residential (RA2-H) Holding Exception Zone (580) and
Environmental Protection (EP); and
4. That Heritage Permit Application HPA-2025-04 be approved to facilitate the relocation
and alteration of the Red House with condition that a Conservation Management Plan
be prepared by the Owner to the satisfaction of the Town and Site Plan approval is
granted and development agreement is enter into with the Town; and
5. That the implementing by-laws for the Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendments be
brought forward to a future Council meeting for enactment.
Page 173 of 308
June 2, 2026 2 of 19 Report No. PDS26-056
Executive Summary
This report seeks Council approval of an Official Plan Amendment (OPA) and Zoning By-
law Amendment (ZBA) and Heritage Permit Application (HPA) for the lands municipally
known as 255, 219 Old Yonge Street and 16003 Yonge Street. The purpose of the land
use amendments (OPA and ZBA) and heritage permit application is to facilitate the
development of a five-storey apartment building containing 148 residential units and the
relocation and renovation of the heritage building known as the “Red House.”
Proposed Official Plan Amendment will recognize 255 Old Yonge Street as a
Heritage Property under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act and redesignate
portions of the lands to Environmental Protection and a site-specific Medium-High
Urban Residential.
Proposed Zoning By-law Amendment will outline the environmental protection area
while creating a site-specific residential zoning to reflect the heritage home. In
addition, a site-specific apartment zoning with holding provision to reflect the
conceptual apartment building until servicing is available.
The proposed five storey apartment building has a total of 148 units with three
storeys fronting along Old Yonge Street with setbacks and emergency access off
Old Yonge Street.
Relocate the existing heritage structure from 16003 Yonge Street to 255 Old Yonge
Street (Corner of St. John’s Sideroad and Old Yonge Street)
The subject applications are consistent with the Provincial Planning Statement
(PPS) and the Lake Simcoe Protection Plan (LSPP).
The proposed applications conform with the Town of Aurora Official Plan’s vision
for intensification and sensitive site design.
The proposed amendment for the subject lands will bring the zoning of the lands
into conformity with the designation of the lands as a “Regional Corridor” in the
Town’s Official Plan.
Heritage Advisory Committee is supportive and see it as an opportunity to restore
the Red House/ Oakland Hall.
Page 174 of 308
June 2, 2026 3 of 19 Report No. PDS26-056
Background
Application History
Previous planning approvals on the subject property were detailed in the Public Planning
Meeting Report PDS25-110. The subject Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendment
applications were received and deemed complete by the Town in May 2025. The
proposed development was presented to the Heritage Advisory Committee (HAC) on
October 6, 2025. A Community Information Meeting was held on October 22, 2025, at
the Aurora Public Library. A statutory Council Public Planning meeting was held on
November 18, 2025. At that meeting, Council received the Staff report and directed the
proposed applications to a future Committee of the Whole meeting. Since the Public
Planning Meeting, the applicant has revised the proposal with the following
amendments:
Reduced total apartment units from 152 to 148 residential units.
Increased residential parking spaces from 0.9 to 1.0 spaces per residential unit.
Increased below grade building setback from the southern property line from 1.20
metres to 4.50 metres to account and protect the existing cedar trees along the
south property line.
Increased at-grade building setback from the southern property line from 2.50
metres to 4.50 metres, to protect the existing cedars trees and provide additional
separation distance to the south.
The extent of the existing cedar trees on site has been staked and measured to
ensure that the Tree Protection Zone and the associated setbacks and sections are
accurate.
Expanded at-grade landscaped area along the southern property line from 1.20 m to
3.40 m.
Increased step back on the 4th and 5th levels building façade from 9.0 m to 13.0 m
to provide additional southern setback, with unit depth on the southern façade
adjusted accordingly to address privacy and overlook concerns.
Location / Land Use
The proposed applications cover three individual parcels: 255 Old Yonge Street, 16003
Yonge Street and 219 Old Yonge Street. In total, the three parcels have a combined lot
area of 1.72 ha (4.27 acres), with frontages of 168m (551 ft) along Yonge Street, 84m
(275 ft) along St. John’s Sideroad and 170 metres (557 metres) along Old Yonge Street.
Page 175 of 308
June 2, 2026 4 of 19 Report No. PDS26-056
(Figure 1 – Location Map). Details of the existing site conditions are reported in the
previous Public Planning Meeting report – PDS25-110.
Surrounding Land Uses
The surrounding land uses are as follows:
North: St. John’s Sideroad, inactive townhouse development applications (Biddington
Homes: OPA-2017-06 & ZBA-2017-08), followed by the 4 storey Hadley Grange
apartment.
South: Condominium complex containing 90 townhouse units surrounding Tara Hill
Circle and O’Hara Drive.
East: Old Yonge Street, the heritage designated property known as the “Bunker
House” (220 Old Yonge Street), and existing residential dwelling units that
back onto an extension of the Tom Taylor Trail and Atkinson Park.
West: Yonge Street, with a public pedestrian trail that parallels Tannery Creek on the
west side of Yonge Street and St. Andrew’s College just southwest of the
lands.
Policy Context
Provincial Policies
All Planning Act development applications are subject to provincial policies. The
Provincial Planning Statement (PPS) provides policy direction on matters of provincial
interest. These policies support the development of strong communities through the
promotion of efficient land use and development patterns and encourage the creation
of diverse housing opportunities that capitalize on proximity to goods, services, and
transit.
The Lake Simcoe Protection Plan (LSPP) is a provincial document that provides policies
which addresses aquatic life, water quality, water quantity, shorelines and natural
heritage, other threats and activities (including invasive species, climate change and
recreational activities) and overall implementation. The subject lands are partially
located within the Regulated Area by the Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority
(LSRCA).
Page 176 of 308
June 2, 2026 5 of 19 Report No. PDS26-056
Town of Aurora Official Plan 2024
As detailed in the previous Public Planning Meeting Report PDS25-110, the subject
lands are bounded by two Regional Road (Yonge Street and St. John’s Sideroad). The
subject properties are located within the Regional Corridor. The Regional Corridor
permits a maximum building height of five (5) storeys.
The following are existing Official Plan designation and site-specific policies that were
approved prior to the implementation of the above Regional Corridor policy (Figure 2).
255 Old Yonge Street: Designated as “Stable Neighbourhoods with a site-specific
Official Plan policy (OPA no.3). The general direction of this site-specific policy is to
permit medium density residential.
16003 Yonge Street: Designated as “Community Commercial Centre,” with a site-
specific Official Plan policy (OPA no.11). The general direction of this site-specific
policy is to reflect the existing designated heritage property known as the “Red House,”
being used as a restaurant or bed and breakfast use, provided that the structure meets
specific development and design policies that ensure compatibility with the surrounding
residential uses.
219 Old Yonge Street: Designated as “Stable Neighbourhoods”, the general direction
within this designation takes the form of low-density residential use and small-scale
intensification.
Section 7.3 of the Official Plan outlines policies for implementing affordable housing
within all new residential developments. In accordance with the York Region Official
Plan, a minimum of 25 percent of all new residential units developed within the Town
are required to meet the definition of affordable housing.
Zoning By-law 6000-17, as amended
As shown on Figure 3, the following is a summary of the existing zoning provisions
within the Town of Aurora Zoning By-law 6000-17, as amended.
255 Old Yonge Street is currently zoned “Rural (RU)” and “Environmental Protection
(EP).” The RU zone permits for agriculture, greenhouses, a place of worship and a
Page 177 of 308
June 2, 2026 6 of 19 Report No. PDS26-056
detached dwelling. The EP zone permits a private park, recreation centre, golf courses,
athletic fields, agricultural uses, woodlands, and stormwater management ponds.
16003 Yonge Street is currently zoned “Community Commercial (C4) Exception Zone
(295)” and Environmental Protection (EP).” The C4 (295) zone permits a 95-seat
restaurant, with a minimum of 35 parking spaces and a Bed and Breakfast as an
accessory structure, with a maximum of four rooms and floor area of 200.0 square
metres.
219 Old Yonge Street is currently zoned “Special Mixed Density Residential (R7)
Exception Zone (374)” and “Environmental Protection (EP).” The R7 (374) zone limits
the permitted use of the property to offices excluding medical offices, with the
exception that the basement shall only be used for accessory storage to the office use.
Reports and Studies
The comprehensive list of documents that forms a complete application to the proposed
Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendment applications were detailed in the Public
Planning Meeting report PDS25-110.Proposed Applications
Proposed Official Plan Amendment will recognize 255 Old Yonge Street as a Heritage
Property under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act and redesignate portions of the lands
to Environmental Protection and a site-specific Medium-high Urban Residential.
As shown in Figures 4, 5 and 6, the applicant proposes to amend the Official Plan
policies as follows:
255 Old Yonge Street:
Redesignate 255 Old Yonge Street from “Stable Neighbourhoods” to “Stable
Neighbourhoods” and “Environmental Protection”
Remove Official Plan “Site-Specific Policy Area 3”
Recognize 255 Old Yonge Street as a Heritage Properties under Part IV of the
Ontario Heritage Act
16003 Yonge Street:
Redesignate 16003 Yonge Street from “Community Commercial Centre” to
“Medium-High Urban Residential” and “Environmental Protection”
Remove Official Plan “Site-Specific Policy Area 11”
Page 178 of 308
June 2, 2026 7 of 19 Report No. PDS26-056
De-list and remove 16003 Yonge Street as a heritage property under Part IV of
the Ontario Heritage Act
Establish a new Official Plan Site Specific Policy Area with 219 Old Yonge Street
219 Old Yonge Street:
Redesignate 219 Old Yonge Street from “Stable Neighbourhoods” to “Medium-High
Urban Residential” and “Environmental Protection”
Establish a new Official Plan Site Specific Policy Area with 16003 Yonge Street
The proposed Official Plan Site Specific Policy Area over 16003 Yonge Street and 219
Old Yonge Street has the following provisions:
a) Permitted uses:
To permit a five (5) storey residential apartment building, with a maximum
density of 250 units per net residential hectare.
b) Notwithstanding any other policies in this Plan to the contrary, the maximum
permitted building height shall be 5 storeys.
c) Notwithstanding any other policies in this Plan to the contrary, the maximum
permitted residential density shall be 250 units per net residential hectare.
Proposed Zoning By-law Amendment will outline the environmental protection area while
creating a site-specific residential zoning to reflect the heritage home. In addition, a site-
specific apartment zoning with holding provision to reflect the conceptual apartment
building until servicing is available.
As shown in Figure 7, the applicant proposes the following amendments to the Zoning
By-law:
Address Existing Zoning Proposed Zoning
255 Old Yonge Street
Rural (RU) Zone and
Environmental Protection
(EP) Zone
Detached First Density
Residential (R1) Exception
Zone (581)
16003 Yonge Street
Rezone from
Environmental Protection
(EP) Zone, Community
Commercial (C4)
Exception Zone (295)
Second Density Apartment
Residential (RA2)
Exception Zone (580) with
Holding Provision and
Environmental Protection
(EP) Zone
Page 179 of 308
June 2, 2026 8 of 19 Report No. PDS26-056
219 Old Yonge Street
Rezone from Special
Mixed Density Residential
(R7) Exception Zone (374)
and Environmental
Protection Zone (EP)
Second Density Apartment
Residential (RA2)
Exception Zone (580) with
Holding Provision and
Environmental Protection
(EP) Zone
The Zoning By-law comparison table is attached as Appendix A, which provides a
detailed overview of the parent and proposed exception zones. The following is an
overview of the proposed amendments to the Zoning By-law.
Proposed (H) RA2 Holding Exception Zone (580) Standards
Old Yonge Street is deemed to the Front Lot Line.
Reduced the minimum Front Yard Setback from 9.0 metres to 3.0 metres.
Maintain the minimum Interior Side yard from 6.0 metres to 6.0 metres.
Reduce the minimum distance from the stairs to the Front Lot Line from 4.5
metres to 0.4 metres.
Increase the maximum encroachment for steps and landings into All Yards from
2.0 metres to 2.8 metres.
A minimum building setback on the 4th Storey on the North, South and East
building elevations, whereas the Zoning By-law does not require any setbacks.
The exterior walls along Old Yonge Street shall be used to establish the Average
Finished Grade.
Minimum yard setbacks shall not apply to any portion of a building or structure
located below Average Finished Grade.
Private balconies be permitted to encroach into the Environment Protection
Zone. (on the ground or above grade)
To reduce the minimum maneuvering space for 90 degree parking spots from 7.0
metres to 6.0 metres.
To reduce the number of parking spaces for Apartment Buildings from 1.5
spaces per dwelling unit with a minimum of 20% of the spaces provided shall be
set aside for Visitors parking to 1.0 space per dwelling unit with a minimum of
9% of spaces for Visitors parking.
To reduce the minimum driveway lane from 3.5 metres to 3.0 metres.
Reduce the minimum indoor amenity area from 50% of the total amenity area to
9% of the total amenity area.
Reduce the minimum width of a landscaping strip along the front lot line from 3.0
metres to 1.50 metres.
Page 180 of 308
June 2, 2026 9 of 19 Report No. PDS26-056
Redefine Landscaping Strip as any combination of trees, shrubs, flowers, grass
or other such vegetative elements, and (which) may include decorative
stonework, paving, screening, or other architectural elements, curbs, retaining
walls, stairs and any surface walk or similar area but does not include any
driveway or ramp, parking area or any area with an enclosed building or structure.
Further clarification to the term Building, Height, does not include mechanical
operations, elevator overrun, rooftop elevator access, rooftop stair access, and
ornamental landscape features.
Holding Provision to prevent development until servicing capacity is made
available.
Proposed R1(581) Exception Zone Standards
Reduce the minimum Front Yard Setback from 9.0 metres to 3.0 metres
Allow an open-sided roofed porch to encroach a maximum of 2.50 metres into a
Front Yard.
Conceptual Site Plan
The proposed 5 storey apartment building has a total of 148 units with three storeys
fronting along Old Yonge Street with setbacks and emergency access off Old Yonge
Street.
The conceptual Site Plan demonstrates a residential development consisting of a five-
storey apartment building containing 148 residential units. The applicant has not
submitted a formal site plan application with the Town. The conceptual Site Plan is
shown in Figures 8.
The proposed bedroom sizes ranges from studio to three-bedroom layouts. To
complement the adjacent existing low-density development along Old Yonge Street and
the property to the South, the proposed elevation starts at 3 storey building and then a
2.4-metre stepback at the fourth and fifth storey. (Figure 9) In response to the public
comments, the applicant expanded at-grade landscaped area along the southern
property line from 1.20 m to 3.40 m (Figure 10).
The primary vehicular access for the proposed apartment building will be a right-in and
right-out from Yonge Street. This 7.0-metre-wide driveway will accommodate resident
and visitor access to the drop-off area, underground parking garage (170 parking
spaces - 151 resident spaces, 16 visitor spaces, and three pick-up/drop-off spaces), and
Page 181 of 308
June 2, 2026 10 of 19 Report No. PDS26-056
loading facilities. In addition, an emergency access ramp from Old Yonge Street is
proposed for use only in emergency situations.
The proposed apartment building provides a total of 294 m² of indoor and 2,825 m² of
outdoor amenity space for a total of 3,119 m². Outdoor spaces are located both at
grade, in the southeast corner with access through a 62 m² indoor amenity room, and
on a large 1,094 m² rooftop patio that will be buffered by landscaping features.
Additional indoor amenity areas are located on both lower parking levels near the
elevators. The amenity areas are proposed to feature a gym, common room/lounge, and
party room. Alongside these shared spaces, most residential units will also benefit from
private balconies or terraces.
Relocate the existing heritage structure from 16003 Yonge Street to 255 Old Yonge Street
(Corner of St. John’s Sideroad and Old Yonge Street)
To accommodate the proposed residential apartment building, the existing heritage
structure (Red House) located on 16003 Yonge Street will be relocated to 255 Old
Yonge Street (Figure 8 and Attachment 1). The heritage structure will be refurbished and
expanded through a proposed two-storey, flat-roofed addition located at the rear of the
dwelling. The addition is designed to remain visually subordinate, positioned behind the
main heritage volume and preserving the north and south returns to ensure it is not
visible from the primary front view. The roofline has been designed with a perpendicular
ridge that integrates seamlessly with the existing roof form, further reducing its visual
prominence. Proposed exterior materials include dark-wood cladding or vertical board-
and-batten siding, selected to complement the red brick of the Red House while
remaining clearly identifiable as a contemporary intervention. Upon completion, the
renovated structure will operate as a single detached dwelling with private residential
parking. Vehicular access to the relocated heritage structure will be provided along Old
Yonge Street while, the existing driveway off St. John’s Sideroad will be removed and
replaced with the appropriate landscaping.
Analysis
Planning Considerations
The subject applications are consistent with the Provincial Planning Statement (PPS) and
the Lake Simcoe Protection Plan (LSPP).
It is Planning Staff’s opinion that the proposed applications is consistent with the PPS,
as it directs development to a serviced Settlement Area, contributes to a range of
Page 182 of 308
June 2, 2026 11 of 19 Report No. PDS26-056
housing options, and improves compatibility and environmental management. The
proposed applications facilitate the intensification of underutilized lands within the
Regional Corridor. The proposed density supports a "complete community" and
optimizes land use that is near a planned transit route. The development prioritizes
sustainability and heritage preservation by incorporating measures to conserving the
"Red House" heritage asset. Technical studies confirm the project's feasibility regarding
municipal servicing, stormwater management, and ecological protection, concluding
that the proposal represents a transit-supportive, compact urban form that aligns with
regional growth targets and environmental policies of the PPS.
The subject lands are situated within the Lake Simcoe watershed and designated as a
Settlement Area under the Lake Simcoe Protection Plan (LSPP). In accordance with
Sections 4.8(a) and 6.40, the proposal minimizes impacts on the natural environment by
utilizing existing municipal water and wastewater infrastructure and will not be taking
water from aquifers nor disposing of wastewater through an on-site septic system. The
Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority (LSRCA) has no objections to the approval
of these applications; more technical analysis will come at the Site Plan application
process. Planning Staff are satisfied that the proposal conforms to the policies of the
LSPP.
The proposed applications conform with the Town of Aurora Official Plan’s vision for
intensification and sensitive site design.
The proposed Official Plan Amendment to re-designate the subject lands to
accommodate the 5-storey apartment development aligns with the Town of Aurora’s
strategic vision for growth. The proposed amendments are directly supported by the
Regional Corridor Policies (Section 3.1.2), which identify Yonge Street as a primary
intensification area intended to accommodate building heights of up to five (5) storeys.
By introducing a five-storey mid-rise form, the development provides an appropriate
'missing middle' housing scale between Yonge Street and Old Yonge Street.
Furthermore, the amendment upholds the Town’s commitment to Cultural Heritage
(Section 14) by enabling the conservation and strategic relocation of the Part IV
designated 'Red House', while simultaneously respecting the natural landscape. In
accordance with Environmental Protection policies (Section 12), the development is
designed to protect the long-term stable top-of-slope on the western boundary, ensuring
that the provision of the new residential units is achieved in a manner that is both
environmentally responsible and sensitive to the site's unique topography.
The proposed development boundaries were designed to ensure the long-term
protection of the site’s environmental integrity. According to the Environmental Impact
Page 183 of 308
June 2, 2026 12 of 19 Report No. PDS26-056
Study (EIS) prepared by Birks NHC & Terrapex, the onsite marsh communities (while not
provincially significant) will be buffered by a 30.0 metre setback to successfully
mitigate any potential ecological impacts. Furthermore, the development maintains a
respectful distance from key natural heritage and hydrologic features, specifically
ensuring that the identified Butternut trees and their surrounding woodlands remain
undisturbed. By locating all activity outside of the 20-metre root protection zones and
adhering to the mitigation measures outlined in the EIS, the project fully aligns with the
Endangered Species Act (ESA) and confirms that all potential environmental impacts
are effectively mitigable.
Zoning By-law 6000-17, as amended
The proposed amendment for the subject lands will bring the zoning of the lands into
conformity with the designation of the lands as a “Regional Corridor” in the Town’s
Official Plan.
Setbacks, Encroachments, and Site Topography
Several amendments, including the reduction of the Front Yard Setback (9.0m to 3.0m)
and the reduction in stair/step distances (4.5m to 0.4m), are required as a direct result
of necessary road widening along Old Yonge Street. These adjustments are consistent
with the existing building footprint and the required grading along the southern façade.
Furthermore, the definition of Average Finished Grade and the exemption for structures
below grade are essential to account for the site’s significant western slope, allowing
for a functional underground parking garage that does not interfere with the aesthetic
massing of the building.
Urban Design and Built Form
In direct response to the comments made at the Public Meeting, a 2.0m step back is
proposed for the fourth storey along the north, south, and east walls. This ensures a
human-scale streetscape and mitigates the perceived massing of the five-storey
building. The interior side yard reduction to a fixed 6.0m provides a predictable building
envelope that maintains adequate separation from adjacent properties while
maximizing the efficiency of the "missing middle" housing form.
Page 184 of 308
June 2, 2026 13 of 19 Report No. PDS26-056
Environmental and Heritage Integration
To balance intensification with environmental stewardship, the amendment allows
private balconies to encroach into the EP Zone along the western façade. This allows
residents to engage with the natural features of the site without impacting the ground-
level ecology. Additionally, the R1 Exception standards support the relocation of the
Part IV designated 'Red House', providing flexible setbacks and porch encroachments
that allow the heritage structure to be integrated naturally into its new residential
context at 255-257 Old Yonge Street.
Parking, Access, and Amenity
The proposed reduction in the parking ratio (1.0 spaces per unit) and manoeuvring
space (6.0m) reflects modern, transit-oriented development standards suitable for a
Regional Corridor. Given the site’s proximity to transit and the constraints of the existing
Yonge Street driveway, these reductions promote a less car-dependent lifestyle. While
the indoor amenity area is reduced to 9% of the total requirement, the development
maintains the full required quantum of total amenity space, prioritizing high-quality
outdoor terraces and landscaped pedestrian pathways that enhance the public realm.
Landscape and Definitions
The revised definition of a Landscaping Strip—to include decorative stonework and
pedestrian pathways—recognizes the urban nature of the Old Yonge Street frontage. By
reducing the landscape strip width to 1.5m, the project accommodates the street
widening while still providing a lush, high-quality interface between the private terraces
and the public sidewalk. Finally, the exclusion of mechanical penthouses and elevator
overruns from the Building Height calculation ensures that essential functional
components do not count against the architectural height limit, consistent with
standard planning practices in the Region.
Holding Provision
The Town currently lacks sufficient servicing capacity to allocate to this development.
This allocation is strictly tied to the Region's ongoing infrastructure upgrades. However,
additional capacity will be reviewed later this year to determine if the Region will allow
the Town to assign servicing ahead of the physical completion of the infrastructure.
Please be advised that any future allocation must be formally assigned by Town
Council, through the processing and lifting of a Holding (H) provision when appropriate.
Page 185 of 308
June 2, 2026 14 of 19 Report No. PDS26-056
Department / Agency Comments
The proposed applications were circulated to all internal and external agencies for
review and comments. In general, all circulated agencies are satisfied with the
proposed development. Detail technical studies will be further review at the Site Plan
application process.
Department/Agency Comments
Building Division No objections.
Development Engineering No objections.
Operational Services (Parks) No objections.
Operational Services (Public Works) No objections.
Transportation/Traffic No objections.
York Region No objections.
LSRCA No objections.
Public Comments
Planning staff have received comments from the public on the proposed planning
applications through the Community Information Meeting (CIM) which was held on
October 22, 2025, by the applicant and the statutory Council Public Meeting, which was
held on November 18, 2025.
Below is a summary of comments and the respective responses:
Will entrance at Old Yonge Street serve as an additional access point for the apartment
building?
No, the Old Yonge Street driveway to the apartment building will function as an
emergency access only. The primary vehicular access for the apartment building will be
from Yonge Street. The relocated heritage house will have a standard driveway access
Page 186 of 308
June 2, 2026 15 of 19 Report No. PDS26-056
from Old Yonge Street, consistent with the existing residential driveways across the
street.
Will the Yonge Street access be signalized for full access movement?
No, the Region has confirmed that access to Yonge Street will be restricted to right‐in
right‐out.
How will waste collection be managed for the proposed apartment building?
Waste collection will be accommodated within the underground parking structure and
serviced by a garbage truck accessing the site from Yonge Street. The driveway access
from Yonge Street has been designed to ensure adequate maneuverability for garbage
trucks.
What is the planned ownership tenure for the proposed apartment building?
The planned ownership tenure for the proposed apartment building has not been
determined at this time. The ultimate tenure, whether condominium or rental, will
depend on future market conditions and the developer’s marketing strategy.
Advisory Committee Review
Heritage Advisory Committee is supportive and see it as an opportunity to restore the Red
House/ Oakland Hall.
The Town’s Accessibility Advisor reviewed the subject applications on behalf of the
Accessibility Advisory Committee and provided no comments as it pertains to these
applications. Any final review comments that need to be addressed with the
Accessibility Advisory Advisor will be done prior to the approval of any Site Plan
application.
The subject proposal was also reviewed by the Town’s Heritage Advisory Committee at
its meeting held on October 6, 2025. The Heritage Advisory Committee was generally
supportive of the proposal, noting that the development provides a unique opportunity
to restore and rehabilitate the Red House / Oakland Hall over the long term. The
Committee noted the need for a Conservation Management Plan, which has been made
a condition of heritage permit approval. The Committee also discussed the potential for
the rear of the heritage house to remain as red brick, but the current design for the
addition is recognized as complementary and a heritage design best practice. As part of
Page 187 of 308
June 2, 2026 16 of 19 Report No. PDS26-056
the Conservation Management Plan, opportunities for salvaging of any potential
materials can also be explored further to address that comment from the committee.
Staff will also continue to work with the owners through the site plan review process,
including requiring related securities and other conditions as required through the
development agreement.
Legal Considerations
Subsections 22 (7) and 22 (7.0.2) of the Planning Act states that if Council refuses the
Official Plan Amendment application or fails to make a decision on it within 120 days
after the receipt of the application, the applicant (or the Minister) may appeal the
application to the Ontario Land Tribunal (OLT).
Subsection 34 (11.0.0.0.1) of the Planning Act states that if the passing of a Zoning
Bylaw Amendment also requires an amendment to the Official Plan, and that if both
applications are made on the same day, if Council refuses the Zoning By-law
Amendment application or fails to make a decision on it within 120 days after the
receipt of the application, the applicant (or Minister) may appeal the application to the
OLT.
The applications were received on May 5, 2025, and therefore, the applicant may appeal
to the OLT at any time.
Financial Implications
The total development charge payable will be calculated at the time of first building
permit issuance but will not become due until each individual unit’s occupancy as per
recent legislative change. Depending upon the affordability of this development’s
proposed unit rental rates, multiple DC deferral alternatives are available to the
developer relating to purpose-built residential apartment developments which will be
agreed upon at a later date.
Also, the proposed development will also be subject to community benefit charges as it
will contain at least 10 residential units and be five or more storeys at or above ground
level.
In addition, the proposed development would be subject to Cash-in Lieu of Parkland.
These charges will require a land value appraisal to be completed on the subject
property and will be collected at the building permit stage. This same appraisal will be
used in the calculation of the community benefit charges relating to this development.
Page 188 of 308
June 2, 2026 17 of 19 Report No. PDS26-056
Communications Considerations
On May 5, 2025, a Notice of Complete Application respecting the subject applications
was provided and also published in the local newspaper.
On October 22, 2025, a Community Information Meeting (CIM) was held, with
appropriate notice provided to the local community. The meeting was hosted by the
Property Owner and their consultant team. Town Planning staff, the Ward Councillor and
individuals attended the CIM.
On November 18, 2025, a statutory Council Public Meeting was held, with Notices
provided through mail to all addressed property owners within a 120-metre radius of the
subject lands. The Notice was also posted in the local newspaper, and signage on the
property.
All interested parties were notified of the Committee of the Whole meeting. All
communication requirements as directed by the Planning Act have been satisfied.
Notices of Council’s Decision on the subject applications will also be provided
accordingly.
Climate Change Considerations
The Official Plan identifies sustainability, energy efficiency, and climate change
mitigation as important objectives for new development. When a formal Site Plan
application is submitted, Staff will work with the applicant to identify and implement
sustainability measures for the proposed residential development.
Link to Strategic Plan
The proposed applications support the Strategic Plan goal of Supporting an exceptional
quality of life for all through its accomplishment in satisfying requirements in the
following key objectives within this goal statement: Strengthening the fabric of our
community:
Through the review and approval of the Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law
Amendment applications, housing opportunities are created that assist in achieving
growth targets while providing housing opportunities for everyone.
Page 189 of 308
June 2, 2026 18 of 19 Report No. PDS26-056
Alternative(s) to the Recommendation
1. Refusal of the application with an explanation for the refusal.
Conclusions
Planning and Development Services reviewed the proposed Official Plan Amendment
and Zoning By-law Amendment in accordance with the provisions of Provincial and
Town policies. The proposal represents good planning and staff recommend approval
of the subject applications, with the implementing Official Plan Amendment and Zoning
By-law documents to be brought forward at a future Council meeting.
Attachments
Attachment 1 – Heritage Impact Assessment-16003 Yonge Street
Attachment 2 – Figures 1-10:
Figure 1 – Location Map
Figure 2 – Existing Official Plan Designation
Figure 3 – Existing Zoning By-Law
Figure 4 – Proposed Amendment to Schedule “B” – Land Use Plan
Figure 5 – Proposed Amendment to Schedule “H” – Site Specific Policy Areas
Figure 6 – Proposed Amendment to Schedule “E” – Cultural Heritage Resources
Figure 7 – Proposed Zoning By-law Amendment
Figure 8 – Conceptual Site Plan
Figure 9 – Conceptual Building Elevation
Figure 10 – Conceptual Rendering of the Southerly Property Line Interface
Previous Reports
Public Planning Report No. PDS25-110, dated November 18, 2025.
Pre-submission Review
Agenda Management Team review on May 14, 2026
Approvals
Approved by Marco Ramunno, Director, Planning and Development Services
Page 190 of 308
June 2, 2026 19 of 19 Report No. PDS26-056
Approved by Doug Nadorozny, Chief Administrative Officer
Page 191 of 308
HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT
16003 YONGE STREET
Aurora, ON
Issued: April 10, 2025
PDS26-056 - Attachment 1
Page 192 of 308
PREPARED FOR:PREPARED BY:
ii HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT | 16003 YONGE STREET
ERA Architects Inc.
#600-625 Church St
Toronto ON, M4Y 2G1
416-963-4497
Amian Development Group
on behalf of 6768148 Canada Ltd.
29 East Wilmot St
Richmond Hill ON, L4B 1A3
416-687-6313
Project # 23-207-01
Prepared by PE / SI / EA / EC / CH / AG
Page 193 of 308
iiiAPRIL 10, 2025
CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY IV
1 INTRODUCTION 1
2 BACKGROUND RESEARCH AND ANALYSIS 11
3 CONDITION ASSESSMENT 23
4 CULTURAL HERITAGE VALUE ASSESSMENT 27
5 HERITAGE POLICY REVIEW 32
6 DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT 34
7 IMPACT OF DEVELOPMENT 39
8 MITIGATION 44
9 CONSERVATION STRATEGY 46
10 CONCLUSION 49
11 REFERENCES 50
12 PROJECT PERSONNEL 51
APPENDIX A: 16003 YONGE STREET DESIGNATION BY-LAW 52
APPENDIX B: BUILDING RELOCATION LETTER (LAURIE MCCULLOCH BUILDING MOVING, 2024). 53
Page 194 of 308
iv HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT | 16003 YONGE STREET
͟Ͳͯͮͣ͟͝Ͱͭͯͧͧ͛ͬ͟ͳ
Background
This Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA) has been
prepared by ERA Architects Inc. (ERA) for the
proposed development of 16003 Yonge Street
(including 237 Old Yonge Street), 219 Old Yonge
Street, and 255-257 Old Yonge Street (the "Site").
The Site is located in Aurora, south of St. John’s
Sideroad, between Yonge Street to the west and
Old Yonge Street to the east, and contains three
house-form buildings and one ancillary structure.
Cultural Heritage Value
The Site includes one municipally recognized
heritage property at 16003 Yonge Street, designated
under Part IV, Section 29 of the Ontario Heritage Act
(OHA) by By-law 4361.02R, adopted on September
10, 2002.
Known as the Red House, this two-storey brick
house, constructed in the 1850s, was originally built
as a residence for Thomas Cosford, a local farmer,
blacksmith and landowner. Cosford owned several
parcels of land near the intersection of Yonge Street
and St. John’s Sideroad, and due to this, the area
became locally known as Cosford’s Corners.
As the property's designation by-law predates the
provincial requirement to identify a list of heritage
attributes, ERA has completed an evaluation of the
property in accordance with Ontario Regulation 9/06
țǽ"$ǽǞȡǕǛȜ +!% 0-/"- /"! !/ ƞ1 1"*"+1,#
&$+&Ɯ + "ǽ%"ǽ"$ǽǞȡǕǛ 00"00*"+1 ,+ )2!"0
that the Site holds:
•Historical/associative value for its direct
00, & 1&,+4&1%0"3"/ )), ))60&$+&Ɯ +1
owners; and
• Contextual value due to its connections to the
neighbouring properties of Willow Farm and
the Pargeter House, as well as its relationship
to Old Yonge and Yonge Streets.
%" + )60&0 +!!/ ƞ1 1"*"+1,#&$+&Ɯ + "Ǿ
including heritage attributes, are detailed in Section
4 of this report.
The other properties on the Site, 219 Old Yonge
Street and 255-257 Old Yonge Street, are neither
listed on the Aurora Register of Property of Cultural
Heritage Value or Interest, nor designated under
Part IV of the OHA.
Proposed Development
The proposed development envisions relocating the
Red House within the Site to the north-adjacent lot at
255-257 Old Yonge Street, where it will be reoriented
to face Old Yonge Street. The existing original rear
extension and later addition are proposed to be
removed, with a new, sympathetic addition to be
constructed at the rear.
%"!"3"),-*"+1&+1/,!2 "0 Ɯ3"Ȓ01,/"6/"0&!"+1& )
building south of the relocated Red House, stepping
down to three storeys on the side in closest proximity
to the heritage building. The proposal includes the
demolition of 219 Old Yonge Street and 255-257 Old
Yonge Street to accommodate the new construction
and relocated Red House.
The western portion of the Site, a wooded area with
a natural depression, will be retained, while a new
planting strategy will preserve the greenscaped
character at Old Yonge Street and St. John’s Sideroad,
04")) 01%"$/""+ 2ƛ"/ ),+$)! ,+$"1/""1ǽ
Impact of Proposed Development
Potential impacts associated with the proposed
&+1"/3"+1&,+0 +!+"4 ,+01/2 1&,+ /"&!"+1&Ɯ"!
below:
• The relocation of the Red House to the north-
adjacent lot will alter its historic relationship
with Yonge Street.
Page 195 of 308
vAPRIL 10, 2025
•The demolition of the one-storey rear extension
and construction of a new rear addition will
alter the Red House's built form.
•The introduction of adjacent new construction
will change the Red House's immediate context
and the Site's spatial character.
Mitigation and Conservation Strategy
The proposed development integrates design
strategies to mitigate the impacts on the cultural
heritage value of the Red House.
Although relocated to the adjacent lot to the north,
the house maintains its general position between
Yonge Street and Old Yonge Street, preserving its
location on the rise of land east of Yonge Street. The
relocation keeps the Red House within the historic
area known as Cosford’s Corners and maintains its
spatial relationship to neighbouring properties that
contribute to the broader historic agricultural and
rural residential context.
The reorientation toward Old Yonge Street enhances
public visibility while maintaining residential privacy.
A sympathetic yet distinct rear addition is tucked
behind the house, ensuring minimal visual impact.
The new residential building remains visually
0"- / 1"Ǿ01"--&+$!,4+#/,*Ɯ3"01,/"601,1%/""
on its north side to create a gradual transition to
1%"),4"/0 )",#1%""! ,20"ǽ$/""+ 2ƛ"/
reinforces this separation through the use of trees
and other landscape elements that screen the new
construction from the heritage lot. The landscape
strategy also reinforces the rural character of the Site
4&1%0,ƞ0 -"!$/""+"/6Ǿ,/$ +& #,/*0Ǿ&+#,/* )
plantings, and mature trees.
Conclusion
The proposal conserves the cultural heritage value
of the Red House by retaining its connection to
), ))60&$+&Ɯ +1,4+"/01%/,2$%/"), 1&,+4&1%&+
its historically associated property and maintaining
its physical, visual, and historical links to its context
through its relationship with the Pargeter House,
Willow Farm, and Old Yonge Street.
The development successfully balances planning
and heritage objectives in accordance with provincial
and municipal heritage policies and recognized
professional conservation standards in Canada.
Page 196 of 308
1APRIL 10, 2025
Э ͣͨͮͬͩͯͮͣͩͨ͞͝
1.1 Site Description
The site comprises three contiguous properties: 16003 Yonge Street
(including the municipal address 237 Old Yonge Street), 219 Old Yonge
Street, and 255-257 Old Yonge Street. These properties are situated
on lands that historically formed the northwest corner of Lot 85,
Concession 1, in the former Township of Whitchurch, now within the
Town of Aurora, York Region.
Located between Yonge Street to the west and Old Yonge Street to
the east, south of St. John’s Sideroad, the Site contains three house-
form buildings and one ancillary structure, separated from Yonge
1/""1 +!1ǽ
,%+Ȇ0&!"/, ! 6 !"+0"1/"" 2ƛ"/ǽ
The properties comprising the Site are:
A) 219 Old Yonge Street: A two-storey house-form building
constructed c.1980s fronting onto Old Yonge Street.
B) 16003 Yonge Street: A two-storey house-form building likely
constructed in the mid- to late-1850s, known as the "Red
House." The property is designated under Part IV, Section
29 of the Ontario Heritage Act (OHA) and was most recently
used as a restaurant. The Red House is set back from Yonge
Street, positioned closer to Old Yonge Street, with vehicular
access provided by a driveway connecting to Yonge Street and
a secondary driveway at the rear accessing Old Yonge Street.
The property also contains a detached garage built between
1978-1988.
C) 255-257 Old Yonge Street: A one-storey house-form building
constructed prior to 1954, situated on a corner lot with
driveway providing vehicular access from both St. John’s
Sideroad and Old Yonge Street.
Aerial imagery indicating the properties that make up the Site: 219 Old Yonge Street (A), 16003 Yonge Street (B),
and 255-257 Yonge Street (C) (Google Maps; annotated by ERA).
Page 197 of 308
2 HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT | 16003 YONGE STREET
1.2 Site and Context Photographs
The Red House
Primary (west) elevation (ERA, 2024).
North elevation (ERA, 2024).
Page 198 of 308
3APRIL 10, 2025
South elevation (ERA, 2024).
East elevation obscured by trees and shrubs (ERA, 2024).
Page 199 of 308
4 HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT | 16003 YONGE STREET
Detached Garage
%"!"1 %"!$ / $"ț 1/&$%1Ȝ&0), 1"!+,/1%4"01,#1%""! ,20"ț 1)"ƞȜțǾǗǕǗǙȜǽ
South elevation (ERA, 2024). East elevation (ERA, 2024).
Page 200 of 308
5APRIL 10, 2025
255-257 Old Yonge Street
Primary (north) elevation (ERA, 2024).
Partial rear (south) elevation (ERA, 2024). Partial rear (south) elevation (ERA, 2024).
Page 201 of 308
6 HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT | 16003 YONGE STREET
219 Old Yonge Street
Primary (east) elevation (ERA, 2024).
Page 202 of 308
7APRIL 10, 2025
1.3 Site Survey
;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;2+2+2+2+2+2+2+2+2+2+2+2+2+2+2+2+2+2+2+2+2+2+2+2+2+2+2+2+2+2+2+2+2+2+2+2+2+2+2+2+2+2+2+2+2+2+2+2+2+2+2+2+2+2+2+2+2+2+2+2+2+2+2+2+2+2+2+2+2+2+2+2+2+2+2+2+2+;;
;
;
;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;
;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;Existing site survey with shading to indicate structures: 219 Old Yonge Street shaded green, 16003 Yonge Street shaded
pink with its detached garage outlined in pink, and 255-257 Old Yonge Street shaded blue (R. Avis Surveying Inc., 2024;
annotated by ERA).
Page 203 of 308
8 HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT | 16003 YONGE STREET
The area bounded by Old Yonge Street, Yonge Street and St. John’s
Sideroad historically contained a small residential settlement within
a predominantly agricultural landscape. This area was part of a small
19th century settlement centered around the intersection of Yonge
Street and St. John’s Sideroad, locally known as Cosford’s Corners.
Over time, the surrounding agricultural fabric has been replaced
by residential development. Subdivision development in the 1980s
and 1990s transformed the area directly south of the Site into a
predominantly residential corridor characterized by relatively dense
single-detached dwellings between Yonge Street and the railway
tracks to the east. Residential development on Old Yonge Street in the
2000s further contributed to the area’s current character, reinforcing
its transition from a primarily agricultural to a residential landscape.
To the immediate west of the Site, across Yonge Street, Willow Farm
remains as a remnant of the area’s earlier rural character, occupying
a large, well-treed lot. Further west and southwest are the grounds
of St. Andrew’s College, a boys’ private school, and residential areas.
To the immediate north, the landscape primarily consists of green
natural spaces and farmland. An 80-unit seniors’ residence, Hadley
Grange, is situated on Yonge Street just north of its intersection with
St. John’s Sideroad. The broader context of the area also features
wetland areas to the west and northwest of the Site.
1.4 Surrounding Area Context
Aerial imagery showing the Site, outlined in red, and its surrounding context (Google maps; annotated by ERA).
St. John’s Sideroad
Yonge StreetPage 204 of 308
9APRIL 10, 2025
1.5 Heritage Status
On-Site Heritage Properties
The Site contains one municipally-recognized heritage property,
which is designated under Part IV, Section 29 of the OHA:
• 16003 Yonge Street: A two-storey brick house-form building,
known as the “Red House", constructed in the 1850s as a
residence for Thomas Cosford. The Red House is designed with
an L-shaped plan consisting of the main two-storey volume
and a contemporaneous one-storey rear extension, both set
,+ Ɯ")!01,+"#,2+! 1&,+ǽ 1#" 12/"0 -&1 %"!$ )"/,,#Ǿ
red-washed brick façade laid in Flemish bond, with the other
elevations laid in common bond.
A later addition, located south of the original rear extension
and attached to the east elevation of the main volume, rests
,+ ,+ /"1"#,2+! 1&,+ +!/"Ɲ" 10 02 0".2"+1-% 0",#
construction.
The property includes extensive paved areas, with a curved
sloping driveway connecting to Yonge Street and a shorter
driveway providing access to Old Yonge Street. A detached
garage, constructed between approximately 1978 and 1988, is
also present but is not referenced in the designation by-law.
The designation by-law was adopted by the Municipal Council of the
Corporation of the Town of Aurora on September 10, 2002 (By-law
4361.02R). The designation by-law is appended in Appendix Aof this
report.
The properties at 219 Old Yonge Street and 255-257 Old Yonge Street
are not listed on the Aurora Register of Property of Cultural Heritage
Value or Interest, nor are they designated under Part IV of the OHA.
The Site is not located in an Heritage Conservation District (HCD).
Axonometric imagery of the Red House
illustrating its evolution (Google maps;
annotated by ERA).
c. 1850s house
Original rear extension
Contemporary addition
c. 2006 porch
Page 205 of 308
10 HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT | 16003 YONGE STREET
Adjacent and Nearby Heritage Properties
There are no adjacent heritage properties. However, the Site is located
in proximity to two heritage properties to which it is contextually linked.
These properties are mentioned for context, but are not subject to
&*- 1 00"00*"+1Ǿ 01%"6!,+,1*""11%" --)& )"!"Ɯ+&1&,+
of adjacent.
The two nearby properties are:
•15900 Yonge Street: Designated under Part IV, Section 29
of the OHA through By-law 3415-92, adopted by Council on
September 16, 1992. Known as Willow Farm, it was constructed
c. mid-1860s for Thomas Cosford.
• 220 Old Yonge Street: Designated under Part IV, Section
29 of the OHA through By-law 5905-16, adopted by Council
on October 11, 2016. Known as the Pargeter House, it was
constructed c.1875.Yonge StreetOld
Yonge
Street
St. John’s
Si
d
e
r
o
a
d
1
2
Aerial imagery showing the Site, shaded blue, and the nearby heritage resources
at 15900 Yonge Street (1) and 220 Old Yonge Street (2) shaded pink (York Maps;
annotated by ERA).
Adjacent lands: means
d) for the purposes of policy 4.6.3, those
lands contiguous to a protected heritage
-/,-"/16 ,/ 0 ,1%"/4&0" !"Ɯ+"! &+
1%"*2+& &- ),ƛ& & )-) +ț/,3&+ & )
) ++&+$1 1"*"+1ǾǗǕǗǙȜǽ
,1"ǿ1%"!"Ɯ+&1&,+ ,3"&0 --)&"!
&+1%" 0"+ ",# + )1"/+ 1&3"!"Ɯ+&1&,+
#/,*1%"2/,/ ƛ& & )) +ǽ
%",+)6!"Ɯ+&1&,+,#Ȋ !' "+1ȋ&+1%"
2/,/ ƛ& & )) +țǗǕǖǕȜ --)&"01,
natural heritage and is not intended for
the cultural heritage context.
Page 206 of 308
11APRIL 10, 2025
Ю ͛ͥͬͩͯͨͬͭ͛ͬ͛ͨ͛ͨ͛ͦ͜͟͟͢͝͡͞͝͞ͳͭͣͭ
2.1 Methodology
As part of this HIA, ERA undertook primary and secondary research
to identify the Site’s history of ownership and development. The
following resources were consulted:
• Aurora Museum and Archives (in-person visit on May 16, 2024);
• Archives of Ontario (in-person visit on June 26, 2024);
• Ontario Land Registry;
• Tax collector rolls;
•Tax assessment rolls;
• Census records (Library and Archives Canada);
• The Canadian County Atlas Digital Project (McGill University);
• Ontario Historical County Maps (University of Toronto);
• Digital Archive Ontario;
• Canadian Quaker Yearly Meeting Records;
• Toronto Star Historical Newspaper Archive; and
• Ontario Community Newspapers Portal.
This section includes a written narrative describing the Site’s history,
which is organized into contextual (i.e. township and area) and site-
0-" &Ɯ %&01,/6ț&ǽ"ǽ % &+,#,4+"/0%&-Ȝǽ%" ,+1"512 )%&01,/6&0
drawn from a broad range of sources listed in Appendix I. The research
results are used as the basis for the evaluation of the Site’s cultural
heritage value (following O. Reg. 9/06) in Section 3.
2.2 Historical Context
Pre-Contact History
For millennia, the Site has been part of the traditional territory of diverse
Indigenous peoples, including the Huron-Wendat, Haudenosaunee, and
Anishinaabe. Human occupancy in the area dates back approximately
ǖǖǾǕǕǕ6" /0Ǿ0%,/1)6 ƞ"/1%"$) &"/0/" "!"!ǽ +!&$"+,20-",-)"0
established camps and settlements, created hunting and trapping
territories, and developed portage routes connecting the lower and
upper Great Lakes.
The Site is located northwest of the Rouge River watershed, which
Ɲ,400,21%#/,*& %*,+! &)) +!%&1 %2/ %Ȓ1,2ƛ3&))"&+1, ("
Ontario. This watershed contains numerous archaeological sites,
This historical summary was prepared
from a non-Indigenous perspective,
based on written and archaeological
records, and written accounts of oral
%&01,/&"0ǽ 1&0+,1&+1"+!"!1,/"Ɲ" 1
or represent the full rich history of
Indigenous peoples in this region.
Page 207 of 308
12 HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT | 16003 YONGE STREET
including an ancestral Huron-Wendat village known as the Aurora
Site or Old Ford, located at Vandorf Sideroad and Kennedy Road,
southeast of the Site.
In the 1600s, the French established a military and trading presence
throughout the watershed. French-Canadian explorer Louis Jolliet
is believed to have portaged through Whitchurch, east of the Site, in
ǖǛǛǞǽ /)62/,-" +1/ +0-,/1 1&,+/,21"0,ƞ"+#,)),4"!"5&01&+$
Indigenous trails, including one that ran parallel to today’s Yonge Street.
The “Toronto Purchase” Treaty No. 13 (1805)
ƞ"/1%"/&1&0% ,+.2"01,#"4 / + "&+ǖǜǛǘǾ1%"/,4+&002"!
royal proclamation, which established guidelines for the colonization
of Indigenous territories in North America. The proclamation stated
that Indigenous peoples held title to their territory until it was ceded
by a treaty.
0 /"02)1Ǿ1%"/&1&0%+"$,1& 1"!1%"Ɯ/01Ȋ,/,+1,2/ % 0"ȋ/" 16
with the Mississaugas at the Bay of Quinte in 1787 – although the
deed contained no accurate description of the lands purchased and
) ("!0&$+ 12/"0ǽ%&0-/,*-1"!1%"0" ,+!Ȋ,/,+1,2/ % 0"ȋ
Treaty, formally known as Treaty 13, in 1805. The Site is located within
Treaty 13 boundaries.
%"ǖǝǕǚȊ,/,+1,2/ % 0"ȋ/" 164 0) 1"/02 '" 11, 02 "00#2)
land claim by the Mississaugas of the Credit in 2010, which found
that the Crown obtained more land than originally agreed upon for
an unreasonable sum.
Yonge Street and Early European Settlement
In 1792, the colonial administrators of Upper Canada divided the
province into 19 counties, which were further subdivided into townships
for the purposes of surveying and settlement. The Site was located
in Whitchurch Township, in the County of York.
%,/1)6 ƞ"/*,3&+$1%" -&1 ),#--"/ + ! 1, ,/(ț-/"0"+1Ȓ! 6
Toronto), Lieutenant Governor John Graves Simcoe began planning
major transportation routes to support both defence and development.
In 1793, he ordered the construction of Yonge Street, a road extending
north from York to Lake Simcoe. The initial clearing of Yonge Street was
undertaken by the Queen’s Rangers, while nearby property owners
were later responsible for its maintenance and further clearing.
1805 Map of the Toronto Purchase. The
approximate location of the Site is indi-
cated with a blue arrow (City of Toronto
Archives; annotated by ERA).
Page 208 of 308
13APRIL 10, 2025
Conceived as a strategic military route to protect Upper Canada from
potential American invasion, Yonge Street was also recognized for its
potential to facilitate commercial activity and settlement. Yonge Street
,-"+"!&+ǖǜǞǛǾ-/,3&!&+$ 0&$+&Ɯ +1&*-"120#,/1%"0"11)"*"+1,#
lands north of York along its route. As a military road, Yonge Street
was designed to follow a straight route from York to Holland Landing,
deviating slightly only where topography required, such as around
+ 12/ ), 01 )"0)&("04 *-0ǽ+"0&$+&Ɯ +1!"3& 1&,+, 2//"!
at the location of the Site, where Yonge Street was originally routed
along what is now Old Yonge Street to navigate around the topography
of the Site.
Yonge Street served as the dividing line between King and Whitchurch
townships, with Whitchurch located to the east and King to the west.
Each township was surveyed into numbered concessions running south
to north, with each concession composed of a series of roughly 200
acre lots. The Site formed part of Lot 85, Concession 1 in Whitchurch
Township.
1818 Map of the Province of Upper Canada created by Surveyor General David William Smith. The approximate location of
the Site is indicated with a blue arrow (Digital Archive Ontario, annotated by ERA).
Page 209 of 308
14 HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT | 16003 YONGE STREET
Whitchurch Township
The area historically known as Whitchurch Township was surveyed
in 1800 by John Stegmann, a surveyor for the government of Upper
Canada, with partial surveys completed earlier. Settlement in the
township began in 1795, with some of the earliest landholders being
Huguenots from France. This group, led by the Comte de Puisaye,
initially settled near Oak Ridges (now part of Richmond Hill) but did
not remain in the area. Early patentees at the end of the 18th century
&+ )2!"!,6 )&010Ǿ$,3"/+*"+1,ƛ& & )0 +!*&)&1 /6-"/0,++")Ǿ
though many did not settle, opting instead to sell their grants.
%"Ɯ/010&$+&Ɯ +14 3",#-"/* +"+10"11)"*"+1, 2//"!4&1%1%"
arrival of Timothy Rogers, a Quaker from Vermont. In 1802, Rogers
was granted 1,000 acres on the condition that he bring 40 settlers
to the area, which he successfully accomplished. These settlers,
predominantly Quakers from Pennsylvania, established a community
that would eventually grow into Newmarket.
"11)"*"+1&+%&1 %2/ %,4+0%&-4 0,ƞ"+ ,+ "+1/ 1"! /,2+!
natural resources, including waterways, fertile land, and timber.
The Oak Ridges Moraine, a prominent ridge of high land running
" 011,4"01Ǿ )0,&+Ɲ2"+ "!0"11)"*"+1- 11"/+0Ǿ4&1%3&)) $"0 +!
% *)"10,ƞ"+!"3"),-&+$1,1%"+,/1%,/0,21%,#1%"*,/ &+"ǽ6
the mid-19th century, the township had evolved to include numerous
hamlets and three key villages: Newmarket (incorporated in 1858),
2/,/ țǖǝǛǘȜǾ +!1,2ƛ3&))"țǖǝǜǜȜǽ
Aurora
2/,/ ȉ0,/&$&+0/"Ɲ" 11%" /, !"/0"11)"*"+1- 11"/+0,#%&1 %2/ %
Township, with early settlers including British Loyalists and Quakers
migrating from the United States. The community, informally known
0 %"))ȉ0,/+"/0 ƞ"/& % /! %"))Ǿ $"+"/ )01,/",4+"/ 1
the Yonge and Wellington Street crossroads, began to grow in the
early 19th century.
%"Ɯ/01-,01,ƛ& "4 0"01 )&0%"!&+ǖǝǙǛ2+!"/1%"+ *"
Whitchurch. In 1854, it was renamed Aurora. The growing community
at Machell’s Corners was incorporated as a village under the name
2/,/ &+ǖǝǛǘ +!,ƛ& & ))6 " *" 1,4+&+ǖǝǝǝǽ
1860 Tremaine’s Map of the County
of York, showing Aurora with the Site
indicated by a blue arrow (University
of Toronto Map and Data Library;
annotated by ERA).
Page 210 of 308
15APRIL 10, 2025
The arrival of the railway spurred further growth. The Ontario, Simcoe,
and Huron Union Railroad reached the area in 1853, followed by
the Toronto and Nipissing Railway in 1871. While Aurora began as
an agricultural community, it increasingly industrialized in the late
ǖǞ1% "+12/6ǽ20&+"00"0 +!# 1,/&"0Ɲ,2/&0%"! ),+$1%" ,+$"
Street corridor.
$/& 2)12/"/"* &+"!0&$+&Ɯ +1&+2/,/ ȉ0" /)6" ,+,*6ǽ ),2/ +!
grist mills, built around 1827, processed grains from local farms. The
founding of Fleury’s Aurora Agricultural Works in 1859 marked an
&*-,/1 +10%&ƞ1,4 /!&+!201/& )!"3"),-*"+1ǽ%&0#,2+!/6Ǿ) 1"/
known as J. Fleury’s Sons, became the town’s largest employer,
manufacturing agricultural implements.
Aurora experienced rapid growth in the 1950s, driven by new industries
and residential developments, such as the Sterling Drug plant and the
Aurora Heights subdivision. In 1971, the town expanded its boundaries
and became part of the Regional Municipality of York.
2.3 Site History
Early Parcel History
Historically, the Site formed part of the northwestern corner of Lot 85,
Concession 1 in Whitchurch Township. This lot, which was nearly 200
acres, extended along the south side of St. John's Sideroad between
present-day Yonge Street and Bayview Avenue. In 1803, the Crown
granted Robert Wilson 190 acres that constituted the entirety of Lot
85, Concession 1.1 The reason for the lot being 10 acres smaller than
1%"01 +! /!ǗǕǕ /"04 0+,1&!"+1&Ɯ"!&+,2//"0" / %ǽ
In June 1805, Wilson sold the lot to Nathaniel Pearson,2 a Quaker
originally from Buckingham County, Pennsylvania, who divided the
parcel later that year, selling 25 acres to fellow Quaker Reuben Burr.3
In 1815, Burr sold the 25-acre parcel to James Pearson, Nathaniel’s
son.4 In 1821, James Pearson sold 1 acre of this land to James White,
who sold it to Thomas Cosford in 1823.5 It is unclear where this 1-acre
parcel was located within Lot 85, as Cosford later sold it in 1832 before
ǖ ,/("$&,+ +!"$&01/6ƛ& "Ǿ,,(Ǘǘǖǽ
2Ibid.
3Ibid.
4Ibid.
5Ibid.
Page 211 of 308
16 HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT | 16003 YONGE STREET
purchasing 12 ¾ acres within the same lot from Elisha Rush in 1835,
of which he sold 1 acre to George B. Willard in 1834.6
Cosford Years
Thomas Cosford was born around 1796 in Weedon Beck,
Northamptonshire, England and emigrated to Upper Canada in
1819. In 1821, he married Ann Nancy Pearson, Nathaniel Pearson’s
granddaughter. For marrying outside of the Quaker community, Ann
Nancy was disowned from the Society of Friends (Quakers).7 The
couple had 3 children - Mary Ann, Jane, and Thomas W. Cosford. Ann
Nancy Pearson Cosford died in 1835.
A blacksmith and carriage maker by trade, Cosford’s association with
,1ǝǚǾ,+ "00&,+ǖǾ%&1 %2/ %ǾƜ/01 "$ +&+ǖǝǗǘ4&1%1%"&+&1& )
purchase of the 1-acre parcel from James White, a fellow blacksmith.8 In
1827, he expanded his landholdings by purchasing Lot 85, Concession
1, in the Township of King, on the west side of Yonge Street.9
Meanwhile, on the east side of Yonge Street in Whitchurch Township,
he was involved in several land transactions throughout the 1830s.
As previously mentioned, Cosford sold his original 1-acre parcel to
William Doan in 1832 but acquired 12 ¾ acres from Elisha Rush in
1834. The following year, he sold 1 acre of that land to George B.
Willard.10 In 1839, Cosford purchased 2 acres from Willard, bringing
his total landholding in Whitchurch to 13 ¾ acres, with no record of
further changes.11 The Site is located within this 13 ¾-acre parcel.
While Cosford owned land in Lot 85, Concession 1, Whitchurch, during
the 1820s and 1830s, no clear evidence has been found that he resided
on these lands during this period. In 1837, he was recorded as living
on Lot 85, Concession 1 in King Township.12 He does not appear in
the 1851 or 1852 tax collector's rolls for Whitchurch, and in 1853, he is
listed as owning 16 acres in Whitchurch, described as “non-resident
) +!0ǽȋ13
Ǜ ,/("$&,+ +!"$&01/6ƛ& "Ǿ,,(Ǘǘǖǽ
7 Canadian Yearly Meeting Archives, Newmarket, Ontario, Canadian Quaker Yearly
Meeting Records, 30 Aug 1821.
8 Lot 85 Concession 1, Instrument Number 4705 Whitchurch: Cosford Nov 3 1823.
Ǟ ,/("$&,+ +!"$&01/6ƛ& "Ǿ,,(Ǜǘǽ
10 ,/("$&,+ +!"$&01/6ƛ& "Ǿ,,(Ǘǘǖǽ
11 Ibid.
12 George Walton, Toronto City and Home District Commercial Directory and Register,
1837 (Toronto), 96.
13 Whitchurch Township Collector's Rolls, 1853.
Page 212 of 308
17APRIL 10, 2025
In 1851, the census records Thomas Cosford living in King Township
with his second wife, Sarah, and their son, Thomas W. Cosford,
indicating that he was not yet residing on the Site. However, by 1861,
the census shows that he had moved to a 1½-storey brick house on
Lot 85, Concession 1, Whitchurch, which is understood to be the
house at 16003 Yonge Street, on the Site.
By this time, his son, Thomas W. Cosford, was living on the King
Township property with his wife, Isabella, and their children. The 1861
population census records the elder Cosford living at the Whitchurch
property with his daughter, Jane Goldsmith, and her three daughters,
+!%&0-/"0"+ "1%"/"&0#2/1%"/ ,+Ɯ/*"! 61%"ǖǝǛǖ $/& 2)12/ )
census. It is likely that the 1½-storey brick house was constructed
sometime between the 1851 and 1861 censuses as a residence for
1%"")!"/,0#,/!&+%&0) 1"/6" /0Ǿ ƞ"/%&00,+1,,(,3"/1%") /$"/
King Township property.
By 1871, at age 74, Thomas Cosford was still living on the Whitchurch
parcel, this time with his daughter Mary Ann Hartman (later Pearson)
and her son Henry.14 Cosford died later that year, leaving the Whitchurch
property to Mary Ann, who sold it in 1884 to Albert Sproxton.15 In
1903, the property was purchased back by Thomas W. Cosford and
14 Canada Census, 1871.
15 &)),#%,* 0,0#,/!Ǿǖǚ2$201ǖǝǜǖȀ ,/("$&,+ +!"$&01/6ƛ& "Ǿ,,(
231.
1860 Tremaine's Map of the County of York. Thomas Cosford's portion of Lot 85, Concession 1 in Whitchurch Township is
outlined in blue (University of Toronto Map and Data Library; annotated by ERA).
1878 York County Atlas, with the Site
indicated by a blue arrow (McGill
University; annotated by ERA).
Page 213 of 308
18 HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT | 16003 YONGE STREET
his wife, who passed it on to their daughters Mary Ann Cosford and
Lillian Marshall.16
While it has been suggested and repeated in secondary sources that
the house at 16003 Yonge Street may have been built by Cosford in
the 1830s or 1840s, there is little evidence in primary documentary
sources to support this claim. Some confusion may stem from the fact
that Thomas Cosford owned property on both Lot 85, Concession 1
in the Township of King and Lot 85, Concession 1 in the Township of
Whitchurch, located on opposite sides of Yonge Street. It is possible
that local knowledge regarding the Cosford properties has occasionally
,+Ɲ 1"!1%"14,), 1&,+0ǽ
The Red House presents as an Ontario vernacular farmhouse from the
1850s, built at the transition between Georgian Traditional and Gothic
"3&3 )Ǿ&+ ,/-,/ 1&+$")"*"+10,# ,1%016)"0ǽ
",/$& +&+Ɲ2"+ "0 /"
"3&!"+1&+1%"4&+!,4016)" +!-/,Ɯ)"Ǿ4&1%*2)1&Ȓ- +"!Ǿ/" 1 +$2) /
windows and paired chimneys. The roof is a side-gabled design with
a steeply pitched, centered cross gable, a feature associated with
Gothic Revival architecture. The original plan was likely L-shaped,
suggesting that the rear extension may have been part of the initial
construction. The house may have originally featured a verandah,
though this remains unclear.
Leacock Years
In 1928, Mary Ann Cosford, Lillian Marshall, and her husband sold the
13 3/4-acre property to George D.Y. Leacock for $11,000.17 Leacock,
the brother of renowned Canadian writer Stephen Leacock, lived at
the property until 1952.18
By this time, the house at 16003 Yonge Street retained its original
two-storey main volume and rear one-storey extension, as shown in
1946 aerial photography. No verandah is visible on the house at that
point, and if one had previously existed, it may have been removed
during Leacock’s ownership.19 By the 1940s, the primary entrance had
also been relocated to what had originally been a northern window on
1%"-/&+ &- )")"3 1&,+Ǿ/"-) &+$ +" /)&"/ "+1"/"!!,,/ ,+Ɯ$2/ 1&,+ǽ
16 ,/("$&,+ +!"$&01/6ƛ& "Ǿ,,(Ǘǘǖǽ
17 Ibid.
18 Ibid.
19 Handwritten note. July 1983. Aurora Museum and Archives.
1929 Topographic map with the Site
indicated by a blue arrow (Department
of National Defence; annotated by ERA).
Page 214 of 308
19APRIL 10, 2025
An avid horseman, Leacock adapted the property to accommodate
his passion for horses by constructing a stable to the north of the
house, on the site of what is now 255-257 Old Yonge Street.20 During
his time in Aurora, Leacock was closely involved with the Aurora
Horse Show, holding executive positions in the Agricultural Society,
showing horses, and donating trophies in his name.
Plan 461
In 1955, the former Cosford lands along the east side of Yonge Street
were surveyed and divided into ten lots, registered as Plan 461. The
property at 16003 Yonge Street occupies Lot 3 in Plan 461, while 291
Old Yonge Street is located on Lot 4, and 255-257 Old Yonge Street
spans Lots 1 and 2.
McClure Years
ƞ"/" , (ȉ0/"0&!"+ 6Ǿ1%"%,20"/"* &+"!&+/"0&!"+1& )20"2+!"/
several owners. In 1968, artist Dorothy Clark McClure purchased the
property with her husband.21 Passionate about architectural heritage,
she established the Red House Studio at the property, where she
produced historic note cards, plates, mugs, limited edition prints
and original art. She sketched local buildings, including her own
house, which at this time was referred to as The Red House due to its
distinctive red brick exterior. It is noted that, “Her limited edition prints
20 Ibid.
21 ,/("$&,+ +!"$&01/6ƛ& "Ǿ,,(ǚǚǙǽ
1946 Photograph showing the Red House in the foreground, with Old Yonge Street
/2++&+$ "%&+!&1ǽ0* )),21 2&)!&+$&03&0& )"'201,ƛ1%" &/ 2) /!/&3"4 6) +!&+$Ǿ
immediately north of the house (Facebook).
Historic sketch of the Red House by
Dorothy Clark McClure, drawn in 1968
(Aurora Museum and Archives).
Artistic rendering of the Red House in
1850, as envisioned by Dorothy Clark
McClure in 1970, viewed from Old Yonge
Street (Aurora Museum and Archives).
Page 215 of 308
20 HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT | 16003 YONGE STREET
and drawings, on cream paper [sic] became a trademark."22 McClure
lived and worked on the property until 1978. She was honored in 1984
with the Gold Bicentennial Medal for her contributions to preserving
architectural heritage and, in 2018, received the Lieutenant Governor’s
Ontario Heritage Award for Lifetime Achievement.
Hale Years
In 1978, the McClures sold the property to Maureen and Ken Hale.23
2/&+$1%"&/,4+"/0%&-Ǿ1%"62+!"/1,,(0&$+&Ɯ +1/"+,3 1&,+0Ǿ
including extensive interior alterations to the kitchen, adding south-
facing French doors, a bay window, and a skylight. A sagging lean-to
porch was transformed into a year-round sunroom overlooking the
garden. A swimming pool was added on the south side of the house
between 1978 and 1988, though it has since been removed. Additionally,
two small rooms were combined into one larger space.24 There may
have been a return to primary access via the centre door during this
-"/&,!Ǿ 01%""+1/6 ,+Ɯ$2/ 1&,+1% 1"5&01"! 11%"+,/1%"/+"+!
,#1%"-/&+ &- )")"3 1&,+&+1%"ǖǞǙǕ04 0/" ,+Ɯ$2/"!ǽ%" )"0
sold the property in 1989.25
In 2002, the property was rezoned to permit use as a restaurant and
B&B, and it operated as the Oakland Hall Inn from 2003 to 2016. The
property has remained vacant since the restaurant's closure.
22 Aurora Cultural Centre, ,/,1%6) /( )2/"%"+ǔ,4ǿ"1/,0-" 1&3"/1
Exhibition, 2011.
23 ,/("$&,+ +!"$&01/6ƛ& "Ǿ,,(ǚǚǙǽ
24 Toronto Star, 19 May 1985, p. C3.
25 ,/("$&,+ +!"$&01/6ƛ& "Ǿ,,(ǚǚǙǽ
Page 216 of 308
21APRIL 10, 2025
1985 Photos of the Red House published in the ,/,+1,1 /in coverage highlighting the home's participation in the Aurora
Historical Society's house tour (Toronto Star, May 19, 1985).
Page 217 of 308
22 HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT | 16003 YONGE STREET
1954 Aerial imagery showing the Red House (shaded yellow).
A pathway or driveway is visible, connecting the Red House
to the stable to the north (York Maps; annotated by ERA).
1970 Aerial imagery showing the Red House (shaded yellow).
The stable to the north has been replaced by a house, now
255-257 Old Yonge Street (York Maps; annotated by ERA).
1995 Aerial imagery showing the Red House (shaded yellow),
with substantial residential development present to the south
(York Maps; annotated by ERA).
1988 Aerial imagery showing the Red House (shaded yellow).
A swimming pool, which has since been removed, is visible
to the south of the house (York Maps; annotated by ERA).
S t . J o h n 's S i d e r o a d
St. John's S
i
d
e
r
o
a
d
S t . J o h n 's S i d e r o a d
St. John's S
i
d
e
r
o
a
d
S t . J o h n 's S id e r o a d
St. John's Si
d
e
r
o
a
d
S t . J o h n 's S i d e r o a d
St. John's S
i
d
e
r
o
a
d
Yonge StreetYonge StreetYonge StreetYonge StreetYonge StreetYonge StreetYonge StreetYonge StreetOld Yonge StreetOld Yonge StreetOld Yonge StreetOld Yonge StreetOld Yonge StreetOld Yonge StreetOld Yonge StreetOld Yonge StreetPage 218 of 308
23APRIL 10, 2025
Я ͩͨͣͮͣͩͨ͛ͭͭͭͭͧͨͮ͟͟͝͞
ERA performed a visual inspection of the property at 16003 Old Yonge
Street in May 2024. All observations were carried out from grade.
Inspections were limited to visible exterior envelope features such as
the brick façade, wood porch, wood board and batten siding, wood
# 0 & +!0,ƛ&10Ǿ4,,!4&+!,40&))0ǾƜ")!01,+"#,2+! 1&,+Ǿ ,+ /"1"
#,2+! 1&,+Ǿ4&+!,40Ǿ!,,/0ǾƝ 0%&+$0Ǿ$211"/0Ǿ!,4+0-,210 +!/,,#
shingles. Interior visual inspection was limited to accessible spaces.
, ),0"2-Ȋ% +!0Ȓ,+ȋ&+0-" 1&,+04"/" //&"!,2120&+$0 ƛ,)!&+$
,/ )&ƞǾ +!1%"/,,# /" 04"/"+,1 "00& )" 11%"1&*",#1%"
inspection. The review does not include structural, mechanical,
electrical or plumbing systems/elements.
Bricks
The bricks on the main elevation have a red wash and are tuck pointed.
Generally, the bricks appear to be in fair condition with areas of poor
condition showing delaminated bricks at the base, mortar loss, step
cracking, lintel cracking, and unsympathetic brick and mortar repairs.
The building components were graded
using the following assessment system:
Excellent:2-"/&,/ $&+$-"/#,/* + "ǽ
Functioning as intended; no deterioration
, 0"/3"!ǽ
Good: Normal Result. Functioning as in-
1"+!"!Ȁ+,/* )!"1"/&,/ 1&,+, 0"/3"!Ȁ
no maintenance anticipated within the
+"51Ɯ3"6" /0ǽ
Fair: Functioning as intended. Normal
!"1"/&,/ 1&,+ +!*&+,/!&01/"00, 0"/3"!Ȁ
maintenance will be required within the
+"511%/""1,Ɯ3"6" /01,* &+1 &+#2+ -
tionality.
Poor: Not functioning as intended; sig-
+&Ɯ +1!"1"/&,/ 1&,+ +!!&01/"00, -
0"/3"!Ȁ* &+1"+ + " +!0,*"/"- &/
required within the next year to restore
functionality.
Defective: Not functioning as intended;
0&$+&Ɯ +1!"1"/&,/ 1&,+ +!* ',/!&0-
1/"00, 0"/3"!Ǿ-,00& )"! * $"1,02--
port structure; may present a risk; must
be dealt with immediately.
Tuck-pointed red-washed bricks on
the main elevation showing areas of
unsympathetic mortar repairs (ERA,
2024).
Bricks on the north elevation with areas
of delamination, step cracking, staining,
and unsympathetic mortar repairs
visible (ERA, 2024).
Close-up of brick condition on the south
elevation showing unsympathetic brick
and mortar repairs (ERA, 2024).
Page 219 of 308
24 HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT | 16003 YONGE STREET
Wood Elements
The wood porch is a later addition and was constructed c.2006.
Generally, the wood porch appears to be in fair condition with some
/" 0,#-,,/ ,+!&1&,+0%,4&+$4,,!/,1 +!- &+1Ɲ (&+$ǽ
%"4,,!# 0 & +!0,ƛ&10 --" /1, "&+# &/ ,+!&1&,+4&1%0,*"
/" 0,#-,,/ ,+!&1&,+0%,4&+$4,,!/,1 +!- &+1Ɲ (&+$ǽ
The wood window sills appear to in fair condition with some areas
,#-,,/ ,+!&1&,+0%,4&+$4,,!/,1 +!- &+1Ɲ (&+$ǽ
The wood board and batten siding at the rear later addition appears
to be in fair condition.
Wood porch, in fair condition overall,
viewed from the north (facing south)
(ERA, 2024).
Close-up of wood window sill showing
4,,!/,1 +!- &+1Ɲ (&+$țǾǗǕǗǙȜǽ
Foundations
%",/&$&+ )#,2+! 1&,+,#1%"%,20"&0 ,+01/2 1"!4&1%Ɯ")!01,+"
and appears to be poor condition showing areas of parging, mortar
loss, and delaminated stone units. The original foundation walls
have a concrete bench constructed on the interior which appear
to be in poor to defective condition showing material cracking and
delamination.
The later addition foundation of the house is constructed of poured
concrete and appears to be in fair condition some areas of staining.
Typical condition of the original
Ɯ")!01,+"#,2+! 1&,+0%,4&+$- /$&+$
and delamination (ERA, 2024).
Wood board and batten siding at the
rear addition (ERA, 2024).
0 & +! 0,ƛ&10 $"+"/ ))6 &+ # &/
condition (ERA, 2024).
An area of poor condition showing wood
/,1 +!- &+1Ɲ (&+$țǾǗǕǗǙȜǽ
Page 220 of 308
25APRIL 10, 2025
Doors and Windows
The doors and windows are boarded up with plywood on the exterior
and only an interior review of these elements was completed. Generally,
the wood doors and windows appear to be in fair condition with some
areas of defective condition showing broken glazing lites at a couple
door and window units. The storm windows which were visible from
the interior appear to be in poor condition showing areas of wood
/,1Ǿ- &+1Ɲ (&+$ +!!"1"/&,/ 1"! 2)(&+$ǽ
Flashings, Gutters, Downspouts, and Roof Shingles
%"Ɲ 0%&+$0Ǿ$211"/0Ǿ +!!,4+0-,210 --" /1, "&+# &/ ,+!&1&,+
with some areas in poor condition showing missing and detached
downspout extenders. The roof shingles appear to be in poor condition
showing areas of cracked, blistered and curling shingles. A rear section
of the shingle roof is missing and appears to be in defective condition
showing a hole in the roof structure.
Interior
The interior is generally in fair condition, with isolated areas of defective
condition. The kitchen and bar area in the later rear addition exhibit
4 1"/! * $"&+1%" "&)&+$Ǿ4%& %% 0 ƛ" 1"!1%"&+1"/&,/Ɯ+&0% +!
Interior view of a boarded storm window.
Visible signs of poor condition include
4,,!/,1ǾƝ (&+$- &+1Ǿ +!!"1"/&,/ 1"!
caulking (ERA, 2024).
Interior view of a 6-over-6 wood sash
window in fair condition (ERA, 2024).Interior view of French doors in fair con-
dition (ERA, 2024).
Close-up of door showing broken glazing
lites (ERA, 2024).
Interior view of a hole in the roof
structure (ERA, 2024).
Page 221 of 308
26 HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT | 16003 YONGE STREET
insulation. Defective condition can be observed in the rear area of the
original footprint where a hole in the roof has caused water damage to
1%"4 ))0ǾƝ,,/0Ǿ +! "&)&+$0,+ ,1%1%"0" ,+! +!$/,2+!Ɲ,,/0ǽ
Interior hallway in the rear extension
(ERA, 2024).
Interior condition (ERA, 2024). Water damage in the ceiling and walls
(ERA, 2024).
Condition of former bar area (ERA, 2024). Kitchen area in the later addition (ERA, 2024).
Integrity
The Red House retains its integrity, continuing to convey its historical
character as a mid-19th-century rural residence. However, areas
of deterioration, particularly in the foundation, roof, and wood
components, will require conservation work to address material
degradation and support the building’s long-term use.
Page 222 of 308
27APRIL 10, 2025
а ͯͦͮͯͬ͛ͦͬͣͮ͛͢͟͟͝͡Ͱ͛ͦͯ͛ͭͭͭͭͧͨͮ͟͟͟
The Site has been evaluated using the O. Reg. 9/06 “Criteria for
"1"/*&+&+$2)12/ ) "/&1 $" )2",/ +1"/"01ȋ2+!"/1%" .
O. Reg. 9/06 was developed for the purpose of identifying and evaluating
the cultural heritage value or interest of a property proposed for
protection under Section 29 of the OHA. The purpose of the criteria
is to provide a consistent approach for the evaluation of heritage
properties.
O. Reg. 9/06 states that “the property may be designated under section
29 of the Act if it meets two or more of the criteria for determining
4%"1%"/&1&0,# 2)12/ )%"/&1 $"3 )2",/&+1"/"01ǽȋ
Based on historical research, it is our professional opinion that the
property meets two O. Reg. 9/06 criteria. It holds historical/associative
3 )2"#,/&10!&/" 1 00, & 1&,+4&1%0"3"/ )), ))60&$+&Ɯ +1,4+"/0Ǿ
including Thomas Cosford, George Leacock, and Dorothy Clark McClure.
It also holds contextual value for its connections to the neighbouring
properties of Willow Farm and the Pargeter House as remnants of the
former settlement of Cosford's Corners, as well as for its relationship
to Old Yonge Street and Yonge Street.
Page 223 of 308
28 HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT | 16003 YONGE STREET
Value (quoted from
O. Reg. 9/06)
Y/N Assessment of 16003 Yonge Street
The property has design value
or physical value because it,
&ǽ&0 / /"Ǿ2+&.2"Ǿ/"-/"0"+1 1&3"
or early example of a style,
type, expression, material or
construction method,
N
The property is not a rare, unique, representative, or early example
of a style, type, expression, material, or construction method.
Constructed in the 1850s, the Ontario vernacular farmhouse was
built at the transition between the Georgian Traditional and Gothic
Revival styles, incorporating elements of both. This blending of
styles is characteristic of Ontario vernacular farmhouses: buildings
&+Ɲ2"+ "! 6Ǿ 21+,1!"Ɯ+"! 6Ǿ 0&+$2) / / %&1" 12/ )016)"ǽ%&0
combination of styles, along with alterations over time (including its
porch), means the house is not a representative example of either a
style or its type.
The house is constructed of brick, a common mid-19th-century
building material, and laid in Flemish bond and common bond, both
standard bricklaying patterns of the period. It is not a rare, unique,
representative, or early example of brick as a material nor of a
construction method.
ii. displays a high degree of
/ ƞ0* +0%&-,/ /1&01& *"/&1Ǿ,/N %"-/,-"/16!,"0+,1!&0-) 6 %&$%!"$/"",# / ƞ0* +0%&-,/
artistic merit.
iii. demonstrates a high degree
,#1" %+& ),/0 &"+1&Ɯ
%&"3"*"+1ǽ
N
The property does not demonstrate a high degree of technical or
0 &"+1&Ɯ %&"3"*"+1ǽ
The property has historical
value or associative value
because it,
i. has direct associations with
1%"*"Ǿ"3"+1Ǿ ")&"#Ǿ-"/0,+Ǿ
1&3&16Ǿ,/$ +&7 1&,+,/
&+01&121&,+1% 1&00&$+&Ɯ +11,
community,
Y
%"-/,-"/16% 0 !&/" 1 00, & 1&,+4&1%0"3"/ )), ))60&$+&Ɯ +1
owners who contributed to the area's historical development and
cultural legacy:
•Thomas Cosford, a blacksmith and landowner, who owned several
parcels near Yonge Street and St. John's Sideroad, leading to the
area being referred to as Cosford's Corners in the late 19th and early
20th centuries. The red brick house, likely built for Cosford, served
as his residence until his death in 1871 and remained in the family
for over half a century (until 1884, and again from 1903 to 1928).
• George Leacock, an avid horseman, adapted the property to suit
his equestrian pursuits, including constructing a stable north of
the house, possibly on the site of what is now 255-257 Old Yonge
1/""1ǽ2/&+$%&0,4+"/0%&-țǖǞǗǝȔǖǞǚǗȜǾ%"-) 6"! 0&$+&Ɯ +1
role in the local Aurora Horse Show, holding executive positions,
showing horses, and donating trophies.
•Artist and conservationist Dorothy Clark McClure lived in the house
from 1968 to 1976, using it as her home and studio, known as the
Red House Studio. McClure depicted local historical buildings,
including the property, in her art.
4.1 Evaluation under Ontario Regulation 9/06
Page 224 of 308
29APRIL 10, 2025
ii. yields, or has the potential to
yield, information that contrib-
utes to an understanding of a
community or culture, or
N
%" -/,-"/16 !,"0 +,1 ,ƛ"/ (+,4)"!$" ,/ &+#,/* 1&,+ 1% 1
contributes to an understanding of a community or culture.
&&&ǽ!"*,+01/ 1"0,//"Ɲ" 101%"
work or ideas of an architect,
artist, builder, designer or
1%",/&014%,&00&$+&Ɯ +11,
community.
N
The property's architect and builder are not documented in the
historic record.
The property has contextual
value because it,
&ǽ&0&*-,/1 +1&+!"Ɯ+&+$Ǿ
maintaining or supporting the
character of an area,
N
%" -/,-"/16 &0 +,1 &*-,/1 +1 &+ !"Ɯ+&+$Ǿ * &+1 &+&+$ ,/
supporting the character of the area, which features an evolved
context with residential properties representing various styles and
time periods.
ii. is physically, functionally,
3&02 ))6,/%&01,/& ))6)&+("!1,&10
surroundings, or
Y
The property has a historic relationship with neighbouring
properties, including Willow Farm (designated in 1992) and the
Pargeter House (designated in 2016), as remnants of the former
Cosford's Corners settlement on Yonge and Old Yonge Streets.
Together, these three properties continue to convey evidence of
this historic crossroads community at the intersections of Yonge
Street, Old Yonge Street, and St. John's Sideroad.
The property also has a historical and physical relationship with
both Yonge Street and Old Yonge Street. While the house is oriented
towards and has driveway access to the main thoroughfare of
Yonge Street, it is positioned closer to Old Yonge Street, the
original route of Yonge that diverted around the marshy lowland
in the area. This positioning provided a connection to the broader
regional road network while integrating the house into the cluster
of homes along Old Yonge Street that formed a small crossroads
community.
iii. is a landmark.
Inconclusive
The Red House is not highly visible from the public realm,
particularly from the main thoroughfare of Yonge Street, such
that it could be considered a landmark for orientation. While the
property has, at times, held a prominent place in local historical
narratives, particularly during the ownership of Dorothy Clark
McClure, it is unclear whether it holds the same level of community
value today to be considered a landmark.
This evaluation may be updated should community engagement
yield a clear response that the Red House continues to be seen as
a landmark in Aurora.
Page 225 of 308
30 HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT | 16003 YONGE STREET
Description of Property - Red House, 16003 Yonge Street
The Red House is a two-storey brick house-form building, constructed
in the 1850s, with a contemporaneous one-storey rear brick extension,
and a later south addition attached to the east elevation of the main
house. The property also includes a one-storey detached garage,
constructed between approximately 1978-1988. The property is
located between Yonge Street and Old Yonge Street, south of St.
John’s Sideroad in Aurora.
Statement of Cultural Heritage Value
The property has historical and associative value through its connection
1,0"3"/ )), ))60&$+&Ɯ +1,4+"/0ǽ2&)1#,/%,* 0,0#,/!Ǿ
blacksmith and landowner, the house served as his residence until
his death in 1871 and remained in the Cosford family until 1884 and
then again from 1903 to 1928. Cosford owned several parcels of land
in the immediate area, which became known as "Cosford's Corners" in
the late 19th and early 20th centuries. From 1928 to the early 1950s,
the property was owned by George Leacock, who made several
alterations to the house and property, including constructing a stable
north of the house, possibly on the site of what is now 255-257 Old
Yonge Street. From 1968 to 1976, the house was home to artist and
conservationist Dorothy Clark McClure, who used it as her home
and studio, known as the Red House Studio. Through her artwork,
which depicted local historical buildings, including the property itself,
)2/"%")-"! /&+$ 11"+1&,+1,1%"%,20"ȉ0%&01,/& )0&$+&Ɯ + "ǽ
The Red House holds contextual value through its historic relationship
with neighbouring properties, including Willow Farm (designated in
1992) and the Pargeter House (designated in 2016), as remnants of
the former Cosford's Corners settlement on Yonge and Old Yonge
Streets at St. John's Sideroad. Together, these properties' 19th-century
character conveys a sense of a settled crossroads community at
this intersection. The Red House contributes to this historic context
via its clear presentation as a mid-19th-century Ontario vernacular
farmhouse.
The property also has contextual value through its historical and
physical relationship with both Yonge Street and Old Yonge Street.
While the house is oriented towards and has driveway access to
the main thoroughfare of Yonge Street, it is positioned closer to Old
Yonge Street, the original route of Yonge that diverted around the
marshy lowland in the area. This positioning provided a connection
to the broader regional road network while integrating the house
4.2 / ƞ1 1"*"+1,#&$+&Ɯ + "
Page 226 of 308
31APRIL 10, 2025
into the cluster of homes along Old Yonge Street that formed a small
crossroads community.
Description of Heritage Attributes
Attributes that express the property's association with Thomas Cosford:
•Location near the southeast corner of Yonge Street and St. John's
Sideroad - one of the "corners" of Cosford's Corners.
Attributes that express the property's association with the former
settlement at Cosford's Corners include:
•Location between Willow Farm to the west and the Pargeter
House to the east;
•Proximity to Old Yonge Street, serving as a reminder of the
crossroads community at Yonge Street and Old Yonge Street,
south of St. John's Sideroad; and
•The mid-19th-century Ontario vernacular farmhouse located
on the property.
Attributes that convey that property's historical relationship to Yonge
and Old Yonge Streets include:
• The siting of the property between Yonge Street and Old Yonge
Street; and
• The dual access from both Yonge Street and Old Yonge Street.
Page 227 of 308
32 HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT | 16003 YONGE STREET
б ͬͣͮ͛ͪͩͦͣ͢͟͟͡͝ͳͬ͟Ͱͣ͟ͱ
Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990
" 1&,+Ǘǽ!Ȝ,#1%") ++&+$ 1 ) /&Ɯ"0-/,3&+ & )'2/&0!& 1&,+,3"/
1%" ,+0"/3 1&,+,##" 12/"0,#0&$+&Ɯ +1 / %&1" 12/ )Ǿ 2)12/ )Ǿ
%&01,/& )Ǿ / % ",),$& ),/0 &"+1&Ɯ &+1"/"01ǽ
Provincial Planning Statement, 2024
The PPS guides the creation and implementation of planning policy
across Ontario municipalities, and provides a framework for the
conservation of heritage resources, including the following relevant
policies:
ǙǽǛǽǖ/,1" 1"!%"/&1 $"-/,-"/16ȥǾ4%& %* 6 ,+1 &+ 2&)1%"/&1 $"
/"0,2/ "0ȥ,/ 2)12/ )%"/&1 $") +!0 -"0Ǿ0% )) " ,+0"/3"!ȥǽ
ǙǽǛǽǘ) ++&+$ 21%,/&1&"00% ))+,1-"/*&1!"3"),-*"+1 +!0&1"
)1"/ 1&,+,+ !' "+1ȥ) +!01,-/,1" 1"!%"/&1 $"-/,-"/16
unless the heritage attributes of the protected heritage property
4&)) " ,+0"/3"!ǽ
,/("$&,+ƛ& & )) +ǾǗǕǗǗ
%" ,/("$&,+ƛ& & )) +0"101%"!&/" 1&,+#,/$/,41% +!
development across the nine municipalities that comprise York Region.
%"-) +&!"+1&Ɯ"02)12/ ) "/&1 $" 0- /1,#1%"#,2+! 1&,+#,/
complete communities and provides policies that “are designed
to promote and celebrate cultural heritage activities and conserve
2)12/ )%"/&1 $"/"0,2/ "0ȋǽ
The Cultural Heritage policies contained in Section 2.4 outline the
need to conserve cultural heritage, including built heritage resources
and cultural heritage landscapes, and require municipalities to adopt
policies to advance this objective.
,4+,#2/,/ ƛ& & )) +ǾǗǕǗǙ
Aurora’s long-term vision includes the conservation and enhancement
of cultural heritage resources and recognizes the important role
cultural heritage plays in fostering community identity and local
sense of place.
" 1&,+ǖǙ,#1%"ƛ& & )) +!&/" 101%" ,+0"/3 1&,+,# 2)12/ )
heritage resources, with objectives that aim towards (a) conservation,
enhancement; (b) preservation, restoration, rehabilitation; and (c)
Protected Heritage Property:means
-/,-"/16!"0&$+ 1"!2+!"/ /1 ,/
of the Ontario Heritage Act; property in-
cluded in an area designated as a herit-
$" ,+0"/3 1&,+!&01/& 12+!"/ /1,#
the Ontario Heritage Act; property subject
1, %"/&1 $" ,+0"/3 1&,+" 0"*"+1,/
,3"+ +12+!"/ /1 ,/ ,#1%"+1 /&,
"/&1 $" 1Ȁ-/,-"/16&!"+1&Ɯ"! 6 -/,-
3&+ & )*&+&01/6,/ -/"0 /& "!-2 )&
,!6 0 -/,-"/16% 3&+$ 2)12/ )%"/&1-
$"3 )2",/&+1"/"012+!"/1%"1 +! /!0
+!
2&!")&+"0#,/1%",+0"/3 1&,+,#
/,3&+ & ) "/&1 $"/,-"/1&"0Ȁ-/,-"/16
protected under federal heritage legisla-
1&,+Ȁ +!,/)! "/&1 $"&1"0
țǾǗǕǗǙȜǽ
Conserved:*" +01%"&!"+1&Ɯ 1&,+Ǿ-/,-
tection, management and use of built
heritage resources, cultural heritage
landscapes and archaeological resources
in a manner that ensures their cultural
%"/&1 $"3 )2",/&+1"/"01&0/"1 &+"!ǽ%&0
* 6 " %&"3"! 61%"&*-)"*"+1 1&,+
of recommendations set out in a conser-
3 1&,+-) +Ǿ / % ",),$& ) 00"00*"+1Ǿ
and/or heritage impact assessment that
% 0 ""+ --/,3"!Ǿ "-1"!,/ !,-1"!
61%"/")"3 +1-) ++&+$ 21%,/&16 +!ȡ,/
!" &0&,+Ȓ* ("/ǽ&1&$ 1&3"*" 02/"0 +!ȡ
,/ )1"/+ 1&3"!"3"),-*"+1 --/, %"0
should be included in these plans and
00"00*"+10țǾǗǕǗǙȜǽ
Page 228 of 308
33APRIL 10, 2025
promoting public awareness of cultural heritage and public involvement
in heritage resource decisions.
ǖǙǽǖ '" 1&3"0
Ȝ ,+0"/3" +!"+% + "/" ,$+&7"! 2)12/ )%"/&1 $"/"0,2/ "0,#
the Town for the enjoyment of existing and future generations;
Ȝ /"0"/3"Ǿ/"01,/" +!/"% &)&1 1"01/2 12/"0Ǿ 2&)!&+$0,/0&1"0
!""*"!1,% 3"0&$+&Ɯ +1%&01,/& Ǿ / % ",),$& )Ǿ / %&1" 12/ )
,/ 2)12/ )0&$+&Ɯ + " +!Ǿ-/"0"/3" 2)12/ )%"/&1 $") +!0 -"0Ȁ
&+ )2!&+$0&$+&Ɯ +1-2 )& 3&"40Ȁ +!Ǿ
Ȝ /,*,1"-2 )& 4 /"+"00,#2/,/ ȉ0 2)12/ )%"/&1 $" +!&+3,)3"
1%"-2 )& &+%"/&1 $"/"0,2/ "!" &0&,+0 ƛ" 1&+$1%"*2+& &- )&16ǽ
ǖǙǽǘ ,)& &"0#,/2&)12)12/ ) "/&1 $""0,2/ "0
&Ȝ "/&1 $"/"0,2/ "04&)) "-/,1" 1"! +! ,+0"/3"!&+ ,/! + "
4&1%1%"1 +! /!0 +!
2&!")&+"0#,/1%",+0"/3 1&,+,# &01,/&
) "0&+ + ! Ǿ1%"--)"1,+% /1"/#,/1%"/,1" 1&,+ +!
+% + "*"+1,#1%"2&)1+3&/,+*"+1 +!,1%"//" ,$+&7"!
heritage protocols and standards.
'Ȝ /,1" 1&,+Ǿ* &+1"+ + " +!01 &)&7 1&,+,#"5&01&+$ 2)12/ )
%"/&1 $" 11/& 21"0 +!#" 12/"0,3"//"*,3 ),//"-) "*"+14&))
" !,-1"! 01%" ,/"-/&+ &-)"0#,/ )) ,+0"/3 1&,+-/,'" 10ǽ
(Ȝ )1"/ 1&,+Ǿ/"*,3 ),/!"*,)&1&,+,#%"/&1 $" 11/& 21"0,+
!"0&$+ 1"!%"/&1 $"-/,-"/1&"04&)) " 3,&!"!ǽ+6-/,-,0 )
&+3,)3&+$02 %4,/(04&))/".2&/" %"/&1 $"-"/*&1 --)& 1&,+
1, "02 *&11"!#,/1%" --/,3 ),#1%",4+ǽ
n) All options for on-site retention of properties of cultural heritage
0&$+&Ɯ + "0% )) ""5% 201"! "#,/"/"0,/1&+$1,/"), 1&,+ǽ%"
#,)),4&+$ )1"/+ 1&3"00% )) "$&3"+!2" ,+0&!"/ 1&,+&+,/!"/,#
priority:
i. on-site retention in the original use and integration with the
02//,2+!&+$,/+"4!"3"),-*"+1Ȁ
&&ǽ,+Ȓ0&1"/"1"+1&,+&+ + ! -1&3"/"Ȓ20"Ȁ
&&&ǽ/"), 1&,+1, +,1%"/0&1"4&1%&+1%"0 *"!"3"),-*"+1Ȁ +!Ǿ
&3ǽ/"), 1&,+1, 06*- 1%"1& 0&1"4&1%&+1%",4+ǽ
Page 229 of 308
34 HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT | 16003 YONGE STREET
в ͭͬͣͪͮͣͩͨͩͪͬͩͪͩͭ͟͟͟͞͝͠͞͞Ͱͦͩͪͧͨͮ͟͟
6.1 Overview
%"-/,-,0"!!"3"),-*"+1 +1& &- 1"01%" ,+01/2 1&,+,# Ɯ3"Ȓ
storey residential building with 152 units and involves the retention
and relocation of the Red House approximately 60 metres north of its
current location, where it will be reoriented to face east toward Old
Yonge Street. The Red Houses’s existing rear extension and addition
will be demolished, and a contemporary and sympathetic new addition
will be constructed, connected to the retained house on its rear
(proposed west) elevation.
The existing buildings at 219 Old Yonge Street and 255-257 Old
Yonge Street are proposed to be demolished to accommodate the
development. The proposal maintains the western part of the Site
as a predominantly wooded area with a natural depression. The
greenscaped corner condition at Old Yonge Street and St. John’s
Sideroad will be retained, with a new planting strategy incorporating
native vegetation to maintain its green, natural character.
%"+"4/"0&!"+1& ) 2&)!&+$&0-/,-,0"!1, "Ɯ3"01,/"601 ))Ǿ01"--&+$
down to three storeys on its northern side, providing a gradual transition
in height to better respond to the adjacent Red House. This transition,
along with the 11.06-metre distance between the south side of the
Red House and the new building’s concrete driveway, is intended to
maintain a sense of separation between the heritage house and the
new development.
A letter from Laurie McCulloch Building Movers, supporting the
structural feasibility of the relocation and outlining the relocation
strategy, is attached in Appendix B.
Page 230 of 308
35APRIL 10, 2025
Rendering of the proposed development, looking northwest from Old Yonge Street. Note: Rendering is representational and
!,"0+,1/"Ɲ" 1!"1 &)"!!"0&$+ț,/*&ǾǗǕǗǚȜǽ
Aerial rendering of the proposed development, looking southwest from north of St. John's Sideroad. Note: Rendering is
/"-/"0"+1 1&,+ ) +!!,"0+,1/"Ɲ" 1!"1 &)"!!"0&$+ț,/*&ǾǗǕǗǚȜǽ
Page 231 of 308
36 HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT | 16003 YONGE STREET 3523(57</,1(3523(57</,1((;,67,1*3523(57</,1(3523(57</,1(352326('3523(57</,1(2/'<21*(67<21*(673523(57</,1(3523(57</,1(352326('3523(57</,1(3523(57</,1((;,67,1*3523(57</,1(Proposed east elevation along Old Yonge Street (RAW, 2025).
Proposed north elevation from St. John's Sideroad (RAW, 2025).
Proposed west elevation from Yonge Street (RAW, 2025).
Proposed south elevation (RAW, 2025).
Page 232 of 308
37APRIL 10, 2025
6.2 Building Addition Design
%"-/,-,0"! !!&1&,+1,1%""! ,20"&0 14,Ȓ01,/"6ǾƝ 1Ȓ/,,#"!
volume positioned at the rear of the house. It has been designed to
be tucked behind the main volume, which retains its north and south
returns, ensuring it is not visible from a front-on view of the house.
The roof pitch allows for a perpendicular ridgeline that integrates
with the existing roof, further minimizing visibility from the front and
reinforcing its subordination to the main volume of the Red House.
The proposed materials include dark-wood cladding or vertical board
and batten, chosen to complement the red brick of the Red House
while remaining distinguishable as a contemporary addition.
%" 14,Ȓ01,/"6 %"&$%1 )),40 1%" !!&1&,+ 1, Ɯ1 4&1%&+ 1%"
0* ))"/),1 "#,/"1%"0),-"!/,-Ȓ,ƛ 11%"/" /Ǿ ,**,! 1&+$
functional space without overwhelming the original structure.
At the rear, the addition features a ground-level walkout to a patio,
extending the living space outdoors.
6.3 Landscape Design
The landscape design is intended to maintain the natural character
of the Site while integrating new plantings that reinforce its ecological
+!%"/&1 $"0"11&+$ǽ1/""! 2ƛ"/&0-/,-,0"! "14""+1%"-/,-,0"!
new building’s driveway and the Red House lot to provide visual
0"- / 1&,+ +!0,ƞ"+1%"1/ +0&1&,+ "14""+1%"%"/&1 $"%,20"
and new construction.
The front lawn, which extends partially into the right-of-way, is 4.2
metres deep and is anticipated to slope gently upward toward the
house, accommodating the site's natural topography. To mitigate
1%"-"/ "&3"!")"3 1&,+!&ƛ"/"+ ",#1%"#/,+1-,/ % ,*- /"!1,
its historic condition, the landscape strategy incorporates trees and
0%/2 "/61,3&02 ))60,ƞ"+1%"1/ +0&1&,+ǽ
A driveway paved with stabilized aggregate is proposed on the north
side of the relocated Red House. Designed to be compatible with the
house, the aggregate surface provides a textured, natural appearance
that is in keeping with its heritage character. The driveway will widen
at the north side yard, allowing for vehicle access and pedestrian
entry at the side entrance to the house.
Rendering of the proposed addition,
looking southeast from the rear of the
property. Note: Rendering is represen-
1 1&,+ ) +!!,"0+,1/"Ɲ" 1!"1 &)"!
design (RAW, 2024).
MEADOW PLANTING MIX
UNIT PAVING TYPE 1
SLOPE STABILIZATION
NATIVE SEED MIX
ASPHALT DRIVEWAY
RETAINING WALL, REFER TO
CIVIL
STORM WATER TANK BELOW GRADE
EDGE OF UNDERGROUNDSLAB BELOW
RESIDENTIAL OUTDOOR
FURNISHINGS
RETAINING WALL,
REFER TO CIVIL
EXISTING DRIVEWAY
REMOVED AND REPLACED
WITH NATIVE SEED MIX
STABILIZED AGGREGATE
DRIVEWAY
VEHICULAR BARRICADE,
REFER TO CIVIL
DEPRESSED CURB, REFER TO CIVILDEPRESSED CURB, REFER TO CIVIL
HERITAGE
BUILDING
BUILDINGADDITION
NATIVE SHRUB/ PERENNIAL PLANTING
Excerpt of the landscape plan focusing
on the heritage lot. The full landscape
plan is provided on the following page
(Brook McIlroy, 2025).
Page 233 of 308
38 HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT | 16003 YONGE STREET
PROPERTY LINE
MANHOLE
REFER TO CIVIL
CATCHBASIN
REFER TO CIVIL
AREA DRAINREFER TO CIVIL
LEGEND
MH
CB
RETAINING WALL
REFER TO CIVIL
AD
EXISTING TREES TO REMAIN AND
TO BE PROTECTED (REFER TO
ARBORIST REPORT)
PROPOSED TREE
PROPOSED MULTISTEM TREE
UNIT PAVING TYPE 1
UNIT PAVING TYPE 2
ASPHALT PAVING
SODDING
NATIVE SEED MIX
NATIVE PERENNIAL PLANTING
BIKE PARKING
BENCH
SEATING
TABLE AND CHAIRS TYPE 2
SEATING
LOUNGE TABLE
BBQ / COOKING AREASTABILIZED AGGREGATE DRIVEWAY
SCREEN/GUARDRAIL
HANDRAIL
EXISTING LOT LINE
EXISTING MAN HOLE
LIMIT OF WORK
TABLE AND CHAIRS TYPE 1
EXISTING VEGETATION
TO REMAIN
MH
AD AD AD AD AD
MH
AD AD AD AD AD AD AD AD AD AD AD AD AD AD
AD
AD
AD
AD
AD
AD
RETAINING WALLREFER TO CIVIL
MEADOW PLANTING MIX
UNIT PAVING TYPE 1
SLOPE STABILIZATION
NATIVE SEED MIX
ASPHALT DRIVEWAY
RETAINING WALL, REFER TOCIVIL
BIKE RACK
PROPOSED DECIDUOUS TREE
ASPHALT DRIVEWAY
GLASS RAILING
DROP OFF
LOBBY ENTRANCE
EXISTING PROPERTY LINE
PROPOSED PROPERTY LINE
OLD YONGE STREET
ST. JOHN'S SIDEROAD YONGE S
T
R
E
E
T
STORM WATER TANK BELOW GRADE
REFER TO CIVIL
STORM WATER TANK HATCH - REFER TO CIVIL
EDGE OF UNDERGROUND
SLAB BELOW
RESIDENTIAL OUTDOORFURNISHINGS
RETAINING WALL,
REFER TO CIVIL
STM SEWER OUTLET
TO RIP RAP,
REFER TO CIVIL
EXISTING DRIVEWAY
REMOVED AND REPLACED
WITH NATIVE SEED MIX
STABILIZED AGGREGATEDRIVEWAY
VEHICULAR BARRICADE,
REFER TO CIVIL
BENCH SEATING
UNIT PAVING
TYPE 2
NATIVE SHRUB/ PERENNIAL PLANTING
DEPRESSED CURB, REFER TO CIVILDEPRESSED CURB, REFER TO CIVIL
HERITAGEBUILDING
BUILDING
ADDITION
EXISTING VEGETATION
TO REMAIN
NATIVE SHRUB/ PERENNIAL PLANTING
Landscape site plan, oriented east, with Old Yonge Street at the top (Brook McIlroy, 2025).
The overall Site planting strategy is designed to prioritize native
species, maintaining the site’s ecological integrity. A new Site-wide
1/"" 2ƛ"/&0-/,-,0"! ),+$)! ,+$"1/""1Ǿ/"-) &+$1%""5&01&+$
2ƛ"/4&1%%&$%Ȓ / + %&+$!" &!2,201/""0 +! !"+0"2+!"/01,/6
of shrubs and perennials. At the corner of Old Yonge Street and St.
John’s Sideroad, a new planting strategy is anticipated to retain its
greenscaped character, ensuring a continuous natural presence
within the Site.
Page 234 of 308
39APRIL 10, 2025
г ͣͧͪ͛ͮͩ͟͝͠͞Ͱͦͩͪͧͨͮ͟͟
7.1 Summary
The proposed development envisions the relocation of the Red House
to an adjacent lot, north of its current position. As part of this relocation,
the house is anticipated to be reoriented to face Old Yonge Street,
resulting in the house no longer being accessed from Yonge Street.
The one-storey rear extension and later addition are proposed to
be removed to accommodate a new contemporary addition at the
/" /,#1%" 2&)!&+$ǽƜ3"Ȓ01,/"6*2)1&Ȓ2+&1 2&)!&+$&0-/,-,0"!1,
be introduced to the Site, adjacent to the Red House to the south.
The development aims to contribute to Aurora’s goal of providing a
range and mix of housing, while conserving the heritage value of the
Red House, and allowing for its continued residential use.
7.2 Analysis of Impacts
This section examines the potential impacts of the proposed
development on the cultural heritage value of the Red House. The
analysis is informed by relevant criteria from the Ontario Heritage
Tool Kit and the Appleton Charter (see sidebar).
The proposed development involves a series of interventions related
to the Red House. Each intervention is assessed to determine whether
it results in an impact on the property’s cultural heritage value, and
4%"/" +&*- 1&0&!"+1&Ɯ"!Ǿ&10"51"+1&0!"0 /& "!ǽ
The relocation of the Red House to the north-adjacent lot will alter
its historic position and orientation, as well as its relationship with
Yonge Street.
The Red House is proposed to be relocated to accommodate
the construction of a multi-unit building on Site, responding to
contemporary housing need, while providing the Red House with
02ƛ& &"+1) +!0 -" 2ƛ"/0- "1,/"* &+)"$& )" 0 *&!ȒǖǞ1%
century rural residence.
While relocation is acknowledged as an intervention, it does not pose
a negative impact on the contextual cultural heritage value of the
Red House. It does not isolate the Red House from its surrounding
environment as the north-adjacent lot allows the property to remain
close to its original location, retaining its relationship to the surrounding
area, including its historic positioning between the Pargeter House
and Willow Farm. This proximity conserves the contextual value of
the property within its broader setting.
Negative impact on a cultural heritage
resource include, but are not limited to:
Destruction of any, or part of any, sig-
+&Ɯ +1%"/&1 $" 11/& 21"0,/#" 12/"0Ȁ
Alteration that is not sympathetic, or is
incompatible, with the historic fabric and
appearance;
Shadows created that alter the appear-
ance of a heritage attribute or change the
3& &)&16,# + 12/ )#" 12/",/-) +1&+$0Ǿ
such as a garden;
Isolation of a heritage attribute from its
02//,2+!&+$"+3&/,+*"+1Ǿ ,+1"51,/
0&$+&Ɯ +1/") 1&,+0%&-Ȁ
Direct or indirect obstruction,#0&$+&Ɯ-
+13&"40,/3&01 04&1%&+Ǿ#/,*Ǿ,/,# 2&)1
and natural features;
A change in land use02 % 0/"7,+&+$
11)"Ɯ")!#/,*,-"+0- "1,/"0&!"+1& )
20"Ǿ )),4&+$+"4!"3"),-*"+1,/0&1" )-
1"/ 1&,+1,Ɯ))&+1%"#,/*"/)6,-"+0- "0Ȁ
Land disturbances such as a change
in grade that alters soils, and drainage
- 11"/+01% 1 !3"/0")6 ƛ" 1 + / % ",-
logical resource.
ț+1 /&, "/&1 $",,)(&1Ȝǽ
+&+1"/3"+&+$ 11%"0 )"0Ǿ)"3")0 +!
1&3&1&"0!"0 /& "!Ǿ*" 02/"0&+02--,/1
of the protection and enhancement of the
2&)1"+3&/,+*"+14&))&+3,)3" !%"/"+ "
to the following principles:
Relocation: Relocation and dismantling
of an existing resource should be em-
ployed only as a last resort, if protection
++,1 " %&"3"!ǽ
Use:A property should be used for its
originally intended purpose. If this is not
#" 0& )"Ǿ"3"/6/" 0,+ )""ƛ,/10% )) "
* !"1,-/,3&!" ,*- 1& )"20"4%& %
requires minimal alteration.
Additions: "43,)2*"0Ǿ* 1"/& )0 +!
Ɯ+&0%"0* 6 "/".2&/"!1,0 1&0#6+"4
uses or requirements. They should echo
contemporary ideas but respect and
enhance the spirit of the original.
ț--)"1,+% /1"/Ȝ
Page 235 of 308
40 HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT | 16003 YONGE STREET
%"2/,/ ƛ& & )) +ț" 1&,+ǖǙǽǘț+ȜȜ,21)&+"0 -/"#"//"!%&"/ / %6
of conservation approaches for properties of cultural heritage
0&$+&Ɯ + "Ǿ "$&++&+$4&1%,+Ȓ0&1"/"1"+1&,+&+1%",/&$&+ )20"Ǿ
followed by on-site retention through adaptive re-use, relocation
within the same development, and lastly, relocation to a sympathetic
site elsewhere in the Town. Historically, the Red House’s current
lot and the adjacent lot formed part of a single parcel until their
subdivision in 1955 under Plan 461, meaning the relocation keeps
the house within its historically associated land.
Originally constructed as a residence, the Red House was most
recently used for commercial purposes. Under the current proposal,
it will be restored to its original residential use. In this context, the
-/,-,0 ) )&$+04&1%1%"2/,/ ƛ& & )) +ȉ0%&"/ / %6,# ,+0"/3 1&,+
alternatives (Section 14.3 (n)) as both on-site retention in its original
use (i) and relocation within the same development (iii). The relocation
remains within the same historically associated property and
broader development area, maintaining its contextual integrity
while accommodating new development.
The relocation does, however, impact the Red House’s historic
relationship to Yonge Street. While the relocation site has existing
driveway access to Old Yonge Street, it does not have access to
Yonge Street. Due to the site's topography and the presence of a
naturalized area at the rear, creating a new connection to Yonge
Street is impractical. However, despite the house's orientation to
Yonge Street, it historically would have had frontage on both streets,
so the reorientation to Old Yonge Street (the street to which it has
always been closest) does not fundamentally alter its functional
/") 1&,+0%&-0Ǿ,1%"/1% +1%"-%60& ) 21Ȓ,ƛ#/,* ,+$"ǽ002 %Ǿ1%"
loss of direct access to Yonge Street is considered to be a relatively
minor impact. It is recommended that the Red House’s historic
orientation and connection to Yonge Street be interpreted through
a future heritage interpretation strategy.
The demolition of the one-storey rear extension and later addition
will alter the Red House's current built form.
The relocation and repositioning of the Red House will necessitate the
demolition of its long rear extensions, as the house will be required
to sit above the top-of-bank line to the west once it is relocated.
The long rear extensions represent too large a footprint to both be
Page 236 of 308
41APRIL 10, 2025
/"1 &+"! +!-/,3&!"#,/ $/""+#/,+1Ȓ) 4+0"1 (,ƛ)! ,+$"
1/""1Ǿ4%& %&0 ,+0&!"/"! +&*-,/1 +1*&1&$ 1&3"01/ 1"$61,0,ƞ"+
its relocation.
While the removal of the rear extension results in a moderate impact on
the Red House's historic form, it does not compromise its legibility as a
mid-19th century rural residence. The main two-storey volume and its
associated elements, including red-brick construction, pitched gabled
/,,#Ǿ06**"1/& )!"0&$+Ǿ +!0 0%4&+!,40&+Ɲ 1Ȓ / %"!02//,2+!0
will be retained, ensuring it retains the key features necessary for its
legibility as a mid-19th century rural residence and its recognizability
as the "Red" House.
The construction of a new rear addition will further modify the
Red House's built form.
The addition is intended to accommodate contemporary living needs
typical of a single-detached dwelling in the 21st century. Although it
introduces a new volume, the new addition does not pose a negative
impact on the cultural heritage value of the Red House. The intervention
aligns with the Appleton Charter by facilitating the Red House’s return
to residential use, consistent with its original function. The proposed
addition is a sympathetic, contemporary addition that is physically
and visually compatible with, subordinate to and distinguishable
from the Red House, in keeping with the Charter’s guidance on new
interventions.
The introduction of adjacent new construction will change the
Red House's immediate context and the Site's spatial character.
Historically, the Red House was surrounded by open space and
+ 12/ )#" 12/"01% 1/"Ɲ" 1"!&10,/&$&+0 0 /2/ )/"0&!"+ "ǽ%&)"
development on adjacent lots has gradually eroded this rural character,
the property itself has retained a sense of openness. The introduction
,#1%"-/,-,0"!Ɯ3"Ȓ01,/"6 2&)!&+$-/"0"+10 +&*- 1,+1%"
historic setting of the Red House, however, it is ERA's opinion that
the conservation design strategy outlined in Section 8.1 of this report
appropriately mitigates the impact of the introduction of adjacent
construction.
%&0&+1"/3"+1&,+ )0,/"Ɲ" 10 /, !"/ ) + " "14""+%"/&1 $"
conservation and planning objectives. In the context of corridor
&+1"+0&Ɯ 1&,+-,)& &"0Ǿ-) ++&+$, '" 1&3"0Ǿ02 % 0-/,3&!&+$ *&5
Page 237 of 308
42 HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT | 16003 YONGE STREET
and range of housing, are better supported by introducing a new
residential building on the Site than by retaining the Red House in its
original location. The proposed relocation conserves the property’s
cultural heritage value and contextual relationships, while allowing
the Site to accommodate appropriate new development.
7.3 Considered Alternatives
Several alternatives were explored to avoid relocating the Red House
while supporting the development objectives for the Site. Ultimately,
relocation was determined to be necessary due to the Site’s topography,
4%& %-/"0"+10 + 12/ ) ,+01/ &+1ǿ1%") +!0),-"00&$+&Ɯ +1)61,
the west, limiting buildable area. The southern portion of the Site
,ƛ"/01%",+)602&1 )" /" #,/+"4 ,+01/2 1&,+ 1 0 )") /$"/
than a single-family home. Retaining the Red House in situ would
-/" )2!" +6*" +&+$#2)&+1"+0&Ɯ 1&,+ǽ%" %,0"+ --/, %0""(0
to balance the conservation of the Red House’s cultural heritage value
with broader planning objectives, including supporting the Town of
Aurora’s goal to provide a range and mix of housing.
+ ,/! + "4&1%" 1&,+ǖǙǽǘț+Ȝ,#1%"2/,/ ƛ& & )) +Ǿ )),-1&,+0
#,/,+Ȓ0&1"/"1"+1&,+,#-/,-"/1&"0,# 2)12/ )%"/&1 $"0&$+&Ɯ + "*201
be exhausted before considering relocation. The following alternatives
were considered but were not advanced due to their limitations:
•Retaining the Red House in situ: This option was found to be
&+#" 0& )" " 20"&14,2)!+,1 )),402ƛ& &"+1 2&)! )" /" 1,
accommodate new development, particularly given the need to
integrate parking within the Site.
•Relocating the Red House to the corner of Old Yonge Street and
St. John's Sideroad: This option was not pursued, as it would
% 3"!&0/2-1"!1%""5&01&+$) +!0 -"! 2ƛ"/ 11%" ,/+"/Ǿ4%& %
contributes to the area's character.
•Relocating the Red House while maintaining its original
orientation toward Yonge Street: Reorienting the house to
# ")! ,+$"1/""14 0-/"#"//"!Ǿ 0&1,ƛ"/0 *,/"02&1 )"
residential frontage and enhances the building’s visibility within
the streetscape.
Page 238 of 308
43APRIL 10, 2025
•Retaining the building in commercial use or adapting it as an
amenity space: Given the residential scale, form, and character of
the Red House and the surrounding neighbourhood, returning it to
residential use was considered the most contextually appropriate
option.
Page 239 of 308
44 HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT | 16003 YONGE STREET
д ͧͣͮͣ͛ͮͣͩͨ͡
The proposal incorporates extensive conservation design strategies,
as outlined in Section 6.2, to mitigate potential impacts on the cultural
heritage value of the Red House. These strategies are detailed below
in reference to relevant impacts:
Impacts related to the relocation and reorientation of the Red House
The relocation of the Red House from its original lot is mitigated by
positioning it on a lot that was historically part of the same property.
This location was selected to maintain the Red House’s historical
relationship with the adjacent Pargeter House and Willow Farm while
preserving its positioning between Old Yonge Street and Yonge Street.
The design of the new lot has been carefully considered to support the
heritage character of the Red House in its new location. The maintained
setback from St. John’s Sideroad, combined with the landscape plan,
creates a setting that approximates the house’s original rural context.
/$"Ȓ0 )"1/""0&+1%"#/,+1) 4+-/,3&!" /2/ )Ȓ016)"0 /""+&+$"ƛ" 1
that reinforces the house’s historic relationship with the streetscape.
The front lawn space has been maximized within site constraints, given
the lot’s western slope. Additionally, the use of stabilized aggregate
for the driveway, rather than contemporary pavers or hardscape
materials, will further support the house’s rural character, ensuring
that the landscape approach aligns with its historical setting.
While the relocation results in the loss of the Red House’s direct
access to Yonge Street, this impact cannot be fully mitigated due
to site constraints. However, the proposal strengthens the house’s
connection to Old Yonge Street, as it is reoriented to face Old Yonge
Street. This adjustment enhances public views of the Red House by
improving its visibility. In its current location, the house faces Yonge
Street but is largely screened from view from that vantage.
Impacts of the alteration of the Red Houses's form (Demolition of rear
extension and later addition, introduction of contemporary addition)
The removal of the original extension and contemporary addition
do not compromise the Red House's legibility as a mid-19th century
/2/ )/"0&!"+ "ǽ%"!"Ɯ+&+$")"*"+10,#1%""! ,20" /"-/&* /&)6
located in the main volume of the house, which is being retained.
The proposed alterations to the Red House are limited to the rear
of the structure, where changes have been carefully considered to
Page 240 of 308
45APRIL 10, 2025
minimize impact on its heritage value. The contemporary addition
is designed to be visually subordinate, positioned behind the Red
House and inset from both the north and south sides. This ensures
that the new construction remains unobtrusive in views from the
front, retaining the prominence of the original building.
*- 10/") 1"!1,1%"&+1/,!2 1&,+,# Ɯ3"Ȓ01,/"6 2&)!&+$,+
the Site
The relocation of the Red House to its north-adjacent lot serves as a
*&1&$ 1&,+*" 02/"#,/1%"&+1/,!2 1&,+,#1%"+"4Ɯ3"Ȓ01,/"6 2&)!&+$ǽ
By repositioning the house on this corner lot, with a deep setback
from St. John's Sideroad, the proposal allows for the Red House to
maintain the sense of openness that has historically characterized
its setting and contributed to its sense of place.
Additional mitigation is provided through landscape strategies
1% 10,ƞ"+1%"1/ +0&1&,+ "14""+1%""! ,20" +!1%"+"4
!"3"),-*"+1ǽ1/""! 2ƛ"/4&)) "&+1/,!2 "! "14""+1%"+"4
building’s driveway/ramp and the heritage house lot, providing visual
screening and separation from the new construction.
To further mitigate the impact of the new construction, the proposed
Ɯ3"Ȓ01,/"6 2&)!&+$01"-0!,4+1,1%/""01,/"60,+1%"0&!"&+ ),0"01
proximity to the Red House. This helps break up the overall massing,
reducing the perceived scale of the new development in relation
to the heritage building. The design approach ensures a sensitive
transition that conserves the cultural heritage value of the Red House.
Page 241 of 308
46 HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT | 16003 YONGE STREET
9.1 Overview
The primary conservation treatment proposed is rehabilitation. The
-/,-,0"!!"3"),-*"+1&+ )2!"01%"&+1/,!2 1&,+,# Ɯ3"Ȓ01,/"6
residential building and the relocation and reorientation of the Red
House to its north-adjacent lot, where it will be returned to its original
residential use.
The proposal conserves the cultural heritage value of the Red House
in the following ways:
• 10 ,++" 1&,+1,), ))60&$+&Ɯ +1) +!,4+"/0&0 ,+0"/3"! 6
relocating the building to a lot that was historically part of the
property. In cases of associative value, additional interpretation
is recommended as a component of the conservation strategy
to communicate the Site's historic associations moving forward.
•The building’s distinct red brick materiality, which contributes
1,&10-,-2) /&7"!+ *" 01%"Ȋ"! ,20"Ǿȋ4&)) "/"1 &+"! 0
part of a broader conservation scope of work. The house will be
returned to its original residential use and will undergo restoration,
including masonry repair, replacement of the roof, and installation
,#+"44&+!,40!"0&$+"!1,* 1 %1%",/&$&+ )-/,Ɯ)"0ǽ
•The Red House will remain physically, visually and historically linked
to its context, as portrayed by its relationship with the nearby
Pargeter House and Willow Farm, contributing to the remnant,
concentrated settlement of residential buildings that made up
Cosford’s Corners. It will continue to be a legible example of a
mid-19th-century rural residence, reinforcing this contextual value.
The embedded conservation design strategy, developed as part
of the proposed development, is illustrated on the following pages
and demonstrates how the design responds to and conserves the
property’s cultural heritage value.
A forthcoming Conservation Plan, to be submitted as a condition of
Site Plan Approval, should detail the scope of conservation work to
the Red House. In addition, a subsequent Interpretation Strategy is
recommended to communicate the Red House’s historic orientation
and former connection to Yonge Street.
е ͩͨͭͬ͟͝Ͱ͛ͮͣͩͨ ͭͮͬ͛ͮ͟͡ͳ
Page 242 of 308
47APRIL 10, 20259.2 Conservation Design StrategyNew ConstructionThe following conservation design strategies have been implemented to mitigate any potential visual impacts of new construction on the on-site heritage resource:%"+"4 ,+01/2 1&,+&0-%60& ))60"- / 1"!#/,*1%""! ,20"Ǿ"+02/&+$ !".2 1"0- "țȊ /" 1%&+$/,,*ȋȜ "14""+1%") /$"/* 00,#1%"+"4!"3"),-*"+1 +!1%"%"/&1 $"%,20"ǽ%&00"- / 1&,+ )),401%""! ,20"1,remain visually prominent.%"+"4 ,+01/2 1&,+01"-0!,4+#/,*Ɯ3"01,/"601,1%/""01,/"60,+1%"0&!"&+ ),0"01-/,5&*&161,1%""! ,20"Ǿ-/,3&!&+$ 1/ +0&1&,+&+0 )"1,1%"),4"/%"/&1 $"-/,-"/16ǽ%") +!0 -"01/ 1"$6/"#"/"+ "01%""! ,20"ȉ0%&01,/& /2/ )0"11&+$Ǿ#" 12/&+$,/$ +& #,/*0Ǿ&+#,/* )-) +1&+$0Ǿ +!1/""04&1%&+ $/""+Ǿ0,ƞ0 -"!) +!0 -" +!-/,3&!"0 $/""+ 2ƛ"/ "14""+1%""! ,20" +!+"4construction.Compatible contemporary materials are used for the new construction to complement, rather than replicate or compete with, the Red House’s red brick exterior.+('*(6:$036:$036:$033629%2$5')(1&(&85%&87&85%&87&85%&87&85%&87&85%&87&85%&87&85%&87 $%0(70(768%-(&772($6(0(17$6,1,167/768%-(&772'(&/$5$7,21$6,1,167/76:$036:$031
( 3 0($6 1
( 3 330($6 30 1
: 3 0($6 3 0($6 0($6 3 3 0($6 3 3 0($6 33 1
: 3 0($6 30($6 1
: 3 0($6 30($6 1
( 3 0($6 3 0($6 1
( 3 0($6 0($6 3 1
: 3 0 3&$/&0($6 0 3 0($6 0($6 53 0($6 3 0($6 0($6 3 36(7 :9:9-9:9:9:96,*1:29:29:29:29:29('*(2)75((6('*(2)75((675(($5($('*(2)75((6('*(2)75((6('*(2)75((6('*(2)75((6('*(2)75((675(($5($75(($5($75(($5($75(($5($('*(2)75((6+('*(+('*(+('*(+('*(+('*(0(7$/*8$5'5$,/0(7$/*8$5'5$,/0(7$/*8$5'5$,/0(7$/*8$5'5$,/0(7$/*8$5'5$,/65:65:(3:) (3:)(3:)(3:)(3:)75:75:75:6+(' 0 3 0 3 30 6725(<%5,&.':(//,1*6725(<%5,&.':(//,1* :,% 07& ,% 07& 6,%(6,%,% / 3 5,% 28 28 6,% 07& 6,% 07& 6,% 07& 6,% 07& 6,% 07& 6,% 28 07& 6,%,% 28 28 0:0:0:ŏŏŏŏŏ/(*$/675((7/,0,7%$6('2)&203/,(',1)250$7,21/(*$/675((7/,0,7%$6('2)&203/,(',1)250$7,21/(*$/&(17(5/,1(2)7+(675((7/,0,7%$6('2)&203/,(',1)250$7,213$573/$153$573/$1563$573/$1563$573/$1563$573/$1563$573/$153$573/$153$573/$153$573$573/$3$573/$153$573$573/$153$573/$13$573/$153$573/$153$573/$15$573/$153$573/$153$573/$13$573/$153$573/3$573/$3$573/$13$573/$13$57 3/$15 1
(1
:1
:1
:1
(1
(1
:1
:%277202)6/23(%277202)6/23(7232)6/23(7232)6/23(7232)6/23(7232)6/23(7232)6/23(7232)6/23(%2$5')(1&(%2$5')(1&(21/,1(%) (&/)(&/)&5:&5:&5:$3352;,0$7(&(17(5/,1(2)7+(3$9(0(17$3352;,0$7(&(17(5/,1(2)7+(3$9(0(17$3352;,0$7(&(17(5/,1(2)7+(3$9(0(17$3352;,0$7(&(17(5/,1(2)7+(3$9(0(17&21&5(7(6,'(:$/.&21&5(7(6,'(:$/.&21&5(7(6,'(:$/.&21&5(7(6,'(:$/.&21&5(7(6,'(:$/.&21&5(7(6,'(:$/.&21&5(7(6,'(:$/.&21&5(7(6,'(:$/.&21&5(7(6,'(:$/.$63+$/7'5,9(:$<('*(2)$63+$/7('*(2)$63+$/7&21&5(7(,6/$1'&21&&21&5(7(,6/$1'&21&5(7(&85%&21&5(7(&85%&21&5(7(&85%&21&5(7(&85%&21&5(7(&85%&21&5(7(&85%&21&5(7(&85%&21&5(7(&85%&21&&85%&21&5(7(&85%&21&5(7(&85%&21&5(7(&85%&21&5(7(&85%&21&5(7(&85%&21&5(7(&85%&21&5(7(*877(5&21&5(7(*877(5&21&5(7(*877(5&21&5(7(*877(5&21&5(7(*877(5&21&5(7(*877(5&21&*877(5&21&*877(5&21&5(7(*877(5&21&5(7(*877(5&21&5(7(*877(5&21&5(7(*877(5&21&5(7(*877(5&21&*877(53.3.3.3.3.3.3.)()()()(+*:+*:+*:+*:+*:+*:+*:+*:+*:+*:+*:+*:+*:+%+*:+*: 7 7 7 7 7 72& 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 .6)(3.)()(3.3.)(3.3.3.3.3.3.3.)()(.6.6.6.6.6.6.6.6.6292929ŏŏŏŏŏŏŏŏŏŏŏŏŏŏŏŏŏŏŏŏŏŏ0:0:0:0:0:0:0:0:0:ŏŏŏŏŏŏŏŏŏŏŏŏŏŏŏŏŏŏŏŏŏ ŏŏŏŏŏŏŏŏŏŏŏ ŏŏŏŏŏŏŏŏŏŏŏŏŏŏŏŏŏŏŏŏŏŏŏŏŏ0:29,.29:29:29:29:29:29:29,.,..26.26.26.2629.26ŏŏ29:9(6:9:9:9(6(6)()(3.3.:9:9(6.63.:29(3..263.0$,19(+,&8/$5(175$1&((0(5*(1&<9(+,&8/$5(;,70$,15(6,'(17,$/(175$1&(2/'<21*(67<21*(675((77+(.,1*
6+,*+:$<12/21*7(5067$%/(7232)6/23(/21*7(5067$%/(7232)6/23($'',7,213$5.,1*$1'/2$',1*5(6,'(17,$/(175$1&((0(5*(1&<(;,7(0(5*(1&<(;,76725(<5(6,'(17,$/%8,/',1*81,76+(5,7$*(%8,/',1*81,7 0(&+3+522)287'225$0(1,7< 352326('3523(57</,1(352326('3523(57</,1(3523(57</,1((;,67,1*3523(57</,1((;,67,1*3523(57</,1(3523(57</,1(3523(57</,1(52:aabbcccddProposed site plan (RAW, 2025; annotated by ERA)."+!"/&+$,#1%"-/,-,0"!!"3"),-*"+1Ǿ),,(&+$+,/1%4"01#/,*)! ,+$"1/""1ǽ,1"ǿ"+!"/&+$&0/"-/"0"+1 1&,+ ) +!!,"0+,1/"Ɲ" 1detailed design (Norm Li, 2025).Page 243 of 308
48HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT | 16003 YONGE STREET87&85%&87&85%&87&85%&87 %6:$031
( 3 0($6 0($6 3 1
: 3 0 3&$/&0($6 0 3 0($6 0($6 3 36(7 :975((6('*(2)75((675(($5($75(($5($75(($5($+('*(+('*(6+(',% 07& 6,%(6,% 07& ,% 28 28 ŏŏŏŏ3$573/$153$573/$155 1
(1
:7232)6/23( ((&/)&5:$3352;,0$7(&(17(5/,1(2)7+(3$9(0(17&21&5(7(6,'(:$/.&21&5(7(6,'(:$/.&21&&85%&21&5(7(&85%&21&5(7(&85%*877(5&21&*877(53.+*:+*:+*:+*: 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 )(3.)(3.3..6.6.6.6ŏŏŏŏŏŏŏŏŏŏŏŏŏŏŏŏŏŏŏŏŏŏ0:ŏŏŏŏŏŏŏŏŏŏŏŏŏŏŏŏŏŏŏ0:,..26.26ŏŏ(6(6:9(0(5*(1&<9(+,&8/$5(;,7/21*7(5067$%/(7232)6/23($'',7,21(0(5*(1&<(;,7+(5,7$*(%8,/',1*81,7 352326('3523(57</,1(352326('3523(57</,1(3523(57</,1((;,67,1*3523(57</,1(abHeritage HouseThe following conservation design strategies have been implemented to conserve the cultural heritage value of the Red House:The main building volume of the Red House is retained.The relocation enhances public views of the Red House by repositioning its frontage to face Old Yonge Street, improving its visibility. Previously, the house fronted Yonge Street but was screened from view.The proposed new addition is visibly contemporary and employs materials that are sympathetic to the original house while avoiding replication or competition with its red brick exterior.The addition is carefully massed and positioned to ensure it is unobtrusive. It is tucked behind the Red House, with returns retained on the north and south sides, reducing its visibility from the front façade and retaining the prominence of the original building.abcdProposed site plan (RAW, 2025; annotated by ERA).ccddRendering of the new addition, looking northeast (RAW, 2025; an-notated by ERA).,1"ǿ"+!"/&+$ /"/"-/"0"+1 1&,+ ) +!!,+,1/"Ɲ" 1!"1 &)"!!"0&$+ǽRendering of the new addition, looking southwest (RAW, 2025; an-notated by ERA).Rendering of the new addition, looking west (RAW, 2025; annotated by ERA).Rendering of the new addition, looking southeast (RAW, 2025; an-notated by ERA).abPage 244 of 308
49APRIL 10, 2025
ЭЬ ͩͨͦͯͭͣͩͨ͝͝
The Site contains a two-storey brick house, constructed in the 1850s
for Thomas Cosford, known as the "Red House". The property is
designated under Part IV of the OHA by By-law 4361.02R, adopted
on September 10, 2002.
ERA’s evaluation of the Site’s cultural heritage value under O. Reg. 9/06
Ɯ+!01% 11%"-/,-"/16%,)!0%&01,/& )ȡ 00, & 1&3"3 )2"#,/&10!&/" 1
00, & 1&,+4&1%0"3"/ )), ))60&$+&Ɯ +1,4+"/0 +! ,+1"512 )
value for its connections to Willow Farm and the Pargeter House
as remnants of Cosford’s Corners, as well as its relationship to Old
Yonge and Yonge Streets.
The proposed development anticipates relocating the Red House to
the north-adjacent lot at 255-257 Old Yonge Street and reorienting
it to face Old Yonge Street. Its existing original rear extension and
later addition are proposed to be removed, with a new, sympathetic,
,+1"*-,/ /6 !!&1&,+1, " ,+01/2 1"! 11%"/" /ǽƜ3"Ȓ01,/"6
multi-unit residential building is proposed south of the relocated Red
House, stepping down to three storeys on the side in closest proximity
to the heritage building to create a gradual transition in scale. The
proposal includes the demolition of the buildings at 219 and 255-257
Old Yonge Street to accommodate the new construction.
Heritage impacts associated with the proposed relocation and
introduction of new construction are mitigated through a thoughtful
!"0&$+ +!) +!0 -"01/ 1"$6ǽ%""! ,20"&0 ƛ,/!"! /" 1%&+$
space with new construction set apart from the heritage house and a
$/""+0 -"! 2ƛ"//"&+#,/ &+$1%"3&02 )0"- / 1&,+ǽ%") +!0 -"
!"0&$+-/,3&!"0 /2/ )Ȓ016)"0"11&+$Ǿ&+ ,/-,/ 1&+$0,ƞ0 -"!
greenery, organic forms, informal plantings, mature trees, and a
driveway paved with stabilized aggregate.
The proposal anticipates the return of the Red House to residential use,
conserves the cultural heritage value of the Red House by retaining its
,++" 1&,+1,), ))60&$+&Ɯ +1,4+"/01%/,2$%/"), 1&,+4&1%&+&10
historically associated property and maintaining its physical, visual,
and historical links to its context through its relationship with the
Pargeter House, Willow Farm, and Old Yonge Street.
The development successfully balances planning and heritage
objectives in accordance with provincial and municipal heritage
policies and recognized professional heritage conservation standards
in Canada.
Page 245 of 308
50 HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT | 16003 YONGE STREET
ЭЭ ͬͬͨͭ͟͟͟͟͠͝
ASI, (Archaeological Services Inc.). (2006). &01,/& ),3"/3&"4 +! 00"00*"+1,# / % ",),$& )-,1"+1& )Ǿ,+&3"/ 1"/0%"!ǾCity of Toronto.
Barkey, J. (1993). %&1 %2/ %,4+0%&-. The Whitchurch History Book Committee. https://digitalcollections.ucalgary.ca/archive/Whitchurch-Township-2R3BF1F3K8K8K.html
Gilham, E.M. (1975). Early settlements of King Township, Ontario. Published by the author.
Government of Ontario. (2024, April 23). Map of Ontario 1/" 1&"0 +! /"0"/3"0ǽ https://www.ontario.ca/page/map-ontario-treaties-and-reserves#treaties
Johnston, J. (1972). Aurora: its early beginnings. Aurora and District Historical Society.
MacLeod, R. (June 1 2024). The neighborly history of Newmarket and Aurora. History Hound. https://www.thehistoryhound.ca/the-neighborly-history-of-newmarket-and-aurora/
Magel, R. (Ed.). (1998). ǗǕǕ6" /0 ,+$"ǿ %&01,/6. Dundurn Press.
Miles & Co. (1878). Illustrated historical atlas of the county of York and 1%"1,4+0%&-,#"01
4&))&* 2/6ǔ1,4+,#/ !#,/!&+1%" ,2+16,#&* ,"Ǿ+1. The Canadian County Atlas Digital Project. https://digital.library.mcgill.ca/countyatlas/
Reed, T.A. (1925). ,+$"1/""1%&$%4 6. Reed Collection.
Tremaine, G. (1860). /"* &+"ȉ0* -,#1%" ,2+16,# ,/(. Ontario Historical County Maps. https://utoronto.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=8cc6be34f6b54992b27da17467492d2f
Page 246 of 308
ЭЮ ͪͬͩͤͮͪͬͭͩͨͨͦ͟͟͟͝
Philip Evans OAA, MRAIC, CAHP is a Principal at ERA and the founder
of Culture of Outports. Over the course of 20+ years working in the
Ɯ")!,#%"/&1 $" ,+0"/3 1&,+Ǿ%"% 0)"! 4&!"/ +$",# ,+0"/3 1&,+Ǿ
adaptive reuse, design, and feasibility planning projects.
Samantha Irvine JD, CAHP is a Senior Associate with the heritage
planning team at ERA, where she has overseen projects that impact
2)12/ ))60&$+&Ɯ +1 2&)!&+$0Ǿ+"&$% ,2/%,,!0 +!) +!0 -"00&+ "
2015. She holds a BA in History and Sociology from McGill University
(Great Distinction); MA degrees in Historical & Sustainable Architecture
(NYU) and Sustainable Urbanism (Wales); and a JD from Queen’s
University. She is a member of the Ontario Bar Association and a
former Fellow of Sustainable Urbanism with the Prince’s Foundation
in London, England.
Emma Abramowicz is a planner and Associate at ERA. She holds a
Master of Planning in Urban Development from Toronto Metropolitan
University (formerly Ryerson University), and a Bachelor of Arts
(Honours) from Queen’s University. Emma is a professional member
of CAHP.
Emma Cohlmeyer is an Associate with the heritage planning team at
ERA Architects. She is a Registered Professional Planner (RPP) and a
Member of the Canadian Institute of Planners (MCIP). Emma completed
a Bachelor of Arts Degree from the University of Guelph and a Masters
Degree in Urban Planning from the University of Toronto.
Catherine Huynh is a planner with ERA. She holds a Bachelor of Urban
and Regional Planning (BURPI) from Toronto Metropolitan University
(formerly Ryerson University).
Anna Gutkowska is a planner with the heritage planning team at ERA.
She earned a Master of Planning in Urban Development from Toronto
Metropolitan University (formerly Ryerson University) and a Bachelor
of Arts (Honours) in History, also from Toronto Metropolitan University.
Page 247 of 308
APPENDIX A: 16003 YONGE STREET DESIGNATION BY-LAW
Page 248 of 308
Page 249 of 308
Page 250 of 308
Page 251 of 308
Page 252 of 308
APPENDIX B: BUILDING RELOCATION LETTER
(LAURIE MCCULLOCH BUILDING MOVING, 2024).
Page 253 of 308
960 Taunton Rd E
Whitby, ON L1R 3L8
Phone: (905) 728-0884
Fax: (905) 743-0528
info@mccullochmovers.ca
Laurie McCulloch
Building Moving
Thursday, December 5, 2024
Emma Abramowicz
ERA
T 437.900.7825
E EmmaA@eraarch.ca
Re: Proposed heritage building relocation at located at 16003
Yonge Street, Aurora
We have reviewed the proposed project, visited the site, toured the interior of the building
and walked through the proposed route.
We propose the following relocation strategy like previous successful projects that
satisfies the site-specific requirements:
x The building is a 1 and a ½ Storey brick building approx. footprint of 30’ by 40’
with some non original additions
x The building will be loaded onto an engineered steel framework with steel beams
being grouted into place as they are individually placed under the building.
x Once all beams are installed and packed the building will be hydraulically lifted
utilising a unified hydraulic jacking system and to ensure consistent pressure to
each jack to minimise any deflection
x Once lifted the building will be placed on fully oscillating hydraulic steering
dollies in a three point zone system under the main beams
Page 254 of 308
Laurie McCulloch Building Moving 2
x A minimum six-foot-tall basement will be built to at new location to allow for
steel removal
x Steel will be removed, and the holes filled in immediately with masonry
We have successfully relocated numerous such complex heritage buildings. We have
attached photos of some of these similar masonry projects for reference. Each project has
been slightly different, and each unique site circumstance has been accommodated
Our Engineer, David Seberras with the Facet Group has worked with us on all these
projects, and we are certain that our proposed plan will relocate the building safely while
respecting its heritage attributes.
Yours Truly
GGreg Mcculloch
Greg McCulloch
Laurie McCulloch Building Moving
Page 255 of 308
Laurie McCulloch Building Moving 3
Similar Building
Page 256 of 308
Laurie McCulloch Building Moving 4
Similar building on dollies
Page 257 of 308
Laurie McCulloch Building Moving 5
Foundation built up between beams
Page 258 of 308
PDS26-056 - Attachment 2-Figures 1-10Page 259 of 308
Page 260 of 308
Page 261 of 308
Page 262 of 308
Page 263 of 308
Page 264 of 308
Page 265 of 308
Page 266 of 308
Page 267 of 308
Page 268 of 308
100 John West Way
Aurora, Ontario
L4G 6J1
(905) 727-3123
aurora.ca
Town of Aurora
Committee of the Whole Report
No. PDS2 6 -0 57
Subject: Zoning By-law Amendment Application
20 Allaura Blvd. Corp.
16, 20 and 22 Allaura Boulevard
Lots 18, 19, 20 and 21, Registered Plan M-51
File Numbers: ZBA-2022-08 and SUB-2022-02
Related File Number: SP-2022-13
Prepared by: Ally Krstajic
Department: Planning and Development Services
Date: June 2, 2026
Recommendation
1. That Report No. PDS26-057 be received; and
2. That Zoning By-law Amendment application ZBA-2022-08 be approved to rezone the
subject lands from “Service Employment (E1)(226) Exception Zone” and “General
Employment (E2)”to “Townhouse Dwelling Residential (R8-H) Holding Exception Zone
(584)”; and
3. That Draft Plan of Subdivision application SUB-2022-02 be approved as shown in
Figure 5, subject to the conditions outlined in Appendix ‘A’; and
4. That the implementing By-law for the subject application be brought forward to a
future Council meeting for enactment.
Executive Summary
The purpose of this report is to seek Council’s approval on Planning Act application over
16, 20 and 22 Allaura Boulevard (Figure 1). The purpose of the planning applications is
to facilitate the development of 221 stacked townhouse units on a private road. The
following is a summary of the report.
Page 269 of 308
June 2, 2026 2 of 14 Report No. PDS26-057
To rezone the lands at 16, 20 and 22 Allaura Boulevard to ““Townhouse Dwelling
Residential (R8-H) Holding Exception Zone (584)”.
The comprehensive residential development consists of 221 stacked townhouse
dwelling units, with access onto Allaura Boulevard.
The proposed applications are consistent with the Provincial Planning Statement
and the Lake Simcoe Protection Plan.
The proposed Zoning By-law changes are consistent with the surrounding
approved zoning by-law amendments.
The proposed Draft Plan of Subdivision is considered appropriate and represents
an orderly development.
Background
Application History
The subject applications were deemed complete on March 9, 2023. A statutory Public
Planning Meeting was held on November 14, 2023. At this meeting, Council passed a
motion to receive Report No. PDS23-126 and to have comments be addressed by
Planning and Development Services in a report to a future Committee of the Whole
Meeting.
Minor changes have been made to the plan since the November PPM meeting,
including:
An increase in building height from 3.5 storeys to 4 storeys on Buildings 2, 4, 5, 6,
and 7.
Additional noise barriers and enclosed noise buffers incorporated throughout the
site and within individual units.
Minor revisions to the proposed Zoning By-law Amendment to accommodate
design changes resulting from the enhanced noise mitigation measures.
Page 270 of 308
June 2, 2026 3 of 14 Report No. PDS26-057
Location / Land Use
The subject lands are located on the north side of Allaura Boulevard, east of Yonge
Street (Figure 1). The subject lands are currently three independent parcels (16, 20 and
22 Allaura Boulevard), but cumulatively have a total lot area of 1.38 hectares and a
frontage along Allaura Boulevard of approximately 123 metres.
The site is currently developed with two, two-storey industrial buildings. 16 Allaura
Boulevard is occupied by Diwin Canada Inc., while 20 Allaura Boulevard is occupied by
Mako Plastics Ltd. The building at 22 Allaura is currently vacant.
Surrounding Land Uses
The surrounding land uses are as follows:
North: Existing industrial building (Magna International at 245 Edward Street)
South: Allaura Boulevard, with existing industrial buildings across the road on the south
side (11 and 19 Allaura Boulevard).
East: Existing industrial buildings including 24 Allaura Boulevard to the east.
West: Yonge Street, Existing commercial plaza at the southwest (2 Allaura Boulevard),
and the Aurora War Memorial and Peace Park to the northwest.
Policy Context
Provincial Policies
All Planning Act development applications are subject to provincial policies. The
Provincial Planning Statement (PPS) provides policy direction on matters of provincial
interest. These policies support the development of strong communities through the
promotion of efficient land use and development patterns, and also encourages the
creation of diverse housing opportunities that capitalize on proximity to goods, services,
and transit.
The Lake Simcoe Protection Plan (LSPP) is a provincial document that provides policies
which addresses aquatic life, water quality, water quantity, shorelines and natural
heritage, other threats and activities (including invasive species, climate change and
recreational activities) and overall implementation. The subject lands are not within the
Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority (LSRCA) regulation area.
Page 271 of 308
June 2, 2026 4 of 14 Report No. PDS26-057
Town of Aurora Official Plan
The subject lands are currently designated as “Aurora Promenade and MTSA Mixed
Use”.
The subject lands are designated as part of the Aurora Promenade General (Figure 2).
The Promenade Focus Area permits townhouses and encourages redevelopment and
intensification to capitalize on proximity to major community amenities and transit
infrastructure. As indicated in Schedule D2 of the Official Plan, the permitted heights for
the lands are a maximum of 7 storeys. Parking is encouraged to be below grade, and
development is to be of high-quality design and materiality that enhances the
streetscape, while providing appropriate transition and scale within the neighbourhood
area. Additionally, Allaura Boulevard is recognized as a Major Collector Road, with the
site being within walking distance to Yonge Street as an Arterial Road and major
Regional Corridor.
Zoning By-law 6000-17, as amended
The subject lands consist of 3 parcels of land. The current zoning at 16 Allaura
Boulevard is Service Employment E1 (226) Exception Zone. The current zoning at 20
and 22 Allaura Boulevard is General Employment (E2) (Figure 3). This zoning reflects
the existing industrial uses in the area which is predominately offices, service shops,
warehousing, and other similar industrial/employment type uses.
The current site-specific E1(226) and E2 Zones generally permit a range of commercial,
recreational, institutional, and employment-related uses, including offices, restaurants,
fitness facilities, banquet halls, service shops, and commercial schools.
Reports and Studies
The comprehensive list of documents that forms a complete application to the subject
Planning applications were detailed in the Public Planning Meeting report PDS23-126.
Proposed Applications
Proposed Zoning By-law Amendment
To rezone the subject lands from Site Specific “Service Employment (E1)(226)” and
“General Employment (E2)”to “Townhouse Dwelling Residential (H) R8 (584) Holding
Exception Zone”
Page 272 of 308
June 2, 2026 5 of 14 Report No. PDS26-057
As shown in Figure 4, the Applicant proposes to rezone the subject lands to a uniform
“Townhouse Dwelling Residential R8 (584) Exception Zone”.
Permit Stacked Townhouse built form
Decrease in minimum front yard
Decrease in minimum rear yard
Increase in maximum height
Decrease in minimum unit parking requirements
Decrease in minimum visitor parking requirements
Decrease in steps, landing to all yards
Holding Provision to prevent development until servicing capacity is made
available.
Proposed Draft Plan of Subdivision
As illustrated on Figure 5, the Applicant is proposing to create one development block to
facilitate the future development on 16, 20 and 22 Allaura Boulevard. The purpose of the
Draft Plan is to establish the development boundaries and allow the Applicant to apply
for Part Lot Control application in the future to create individual townhouse lots.
Conceptual Site Plan
The conceptual residential development consists of 221 stacked townhouse dwelling
units with access onto Allaura Boulevard.
To date, the Applicant has not submitted a site plan application to advance the
conceptual site plan as shown on Figure 6. The conceptual site plan illustrates a
comprehensive development which consist of 221 townhouse units across 10 buildings
which range from 3.5-4 storeys on a private road over 16, 20 and 22 Allaura Boulevard.
A right-in, right-out vehicular access is proposed on Allaura Boulevard.
The conceptual development demonstrated that parking will be provided on a per-unit
basis through an underground parking structure. A total of 310 resident parking spaces
are proposed, in addition to 44 visitor parking spaces located both at grade along the
internal road network and within the underground parking structure.
The development consists of stacked townhouse units designed to provide an urban
built form and active streetscape (Figure 7). The proposed development incorporates a
variety of amenity components intended to support an attractive and functional living
environment for future residents. Outdoor amenity areas include landscaped pedestrian
Page 273 of 308
June 2, 2026 6 of 14 Report No. PDS26-057
unit paving, pedestrian walkways, seating areas throughout the site, notably a
landscaped courtyard located on the north west portion of the site in between Building 5
and 6. Additionally, there are gathering spaces with tables and umbrellas, benches,
bicycle racks, and a children’s play area located directly north of Block 7 with rubber
safety surfacing. Soft landscaping and sod are also provided throughout the
development to enhance the overall streetscape and pedestrian experience. In addition,
each unit is provided with private amenity space in the form of balconies, porches, or
enclosed noise buffer areas.
The proposed development incorporated additional noise mitigation measures to
protect future residents from noise generated by nearby industrial and commercial
operations, but also to ensure that existing industrial landowners are not restricted in
their ability to continue or potentially expand operations in the future due to the
introduction of new residential uses nearby. In addition to the sound barriers along
portions of the site, Enclosed Noise Buffers (ENBs) have been incorporated into
Buildings 2, 4, 5, 6, and 7 (Figure 6). The Ontario Ministry of the Environment’s NPC-300
Guidelines only permits ENB on buildings that are four storeys or greater. Thus, the
applicant increased the building height for certain building blocks from 3.5 storeys to 4
storeys. The proposed noise mitigations have been peer reviewed and is compliant with
the requirements of the MECP NPC-300 Guidelines.
Analysis
Planning Considerations
The proposed applications are consistent with the Provincial Planning Statement and the
Lake Simcoe Protection Plan.
The proposed Planning applications will establish the development framework to align
with the provincial mandates for compact, transit supportive growth while maintaining
adherence to the Lake Simcoe Protection Plan. By establishing planning permission to
allow for medium density housing, the subject lands align well with the criteria outlined
in Section 2.1 and 2.2 of the Provincial Planning Statement. The proposed development
supports the objectives of the Provincial Planning Statement, 2024 by promoting
intensification and the efficient use of land and existing infrastructure within the built-up
area. The redevelopment of the subject lands represents an appropriate form of
brownfield redevelopment that contributes to the revitalization of underutilized lands
while supporting compact urban form and complete communities. The proposal also
assists in achieving provincial intensification objectives by accommodating growth
Page 274 of 308
June 2, 2026 7 of 14 Report No. PDS26-057
within the existing settlement area, thereby reducing pressure for outward expansion
and promoting more sustainable patterns of development.
Simultaneously, the Lake Simcoe Conservation Authority (LSCRA) has reviewed the
proposed applications in consideration of the LSPP and has no objection to the
approval of the subject applications as presented. The subject lands are located outside
of the LSRCA regulated limits. Accordingly, no Regulation Permit is required prior to
development or site alteration taking place on the subject lands. The subject lands are
also free from any natural hazards and are outside of hazardous lands.
The proposed applications align with the Town Official Plan’s vision of the Aurora
Promenade
The development contributes to the Town’s housing supply and diversification goals by
introducing a medium density “missing middle” housing typology that provides an
appropriate land use and built form transition between the adjacent industrial and
commercial areas and the nearby low-rise residential neighbourhoods. In addition, the
proposal supports the creation of a pedestrian-oriented and walkable community
through a compact built form that is in proximity to existing transit, commercial uses,
community services, parks, and municipal infrastructure.
The proposal is also consistent with the intent of Official Plan Policy 9.5 respecting the
Aurora Promenade by promoting a compact built form and enhanced pedestrian
environment within a designated intensification area. The development incorporates
pedestrian walkways, landscaped amenity spaces, seating areas, bicycle parking, and
active unit entrances oriented toward the public realm to support walkability and
community interaction. The proposed development also provides transitions and
buffering to surrounding uses while contributing to the long-term vision of the Aurora
Promenade as a complete and vibrant community.
The proposed Zoning By-law changes are consistent with the surrounding approved
Zoning by-law amendments.
Planning Staff are of the opinion that the proposed Zoning By-law Amendment and
associated site-specific exceptions are appropriate. The proposal implements the policy
direction of the Official Plan by contributing to the Town’s housing and intensification
objectives and supporting the long-term vision for the Aurora Promenade. The
requested zoning exceptions are appropriate to accommodate the proposed built form
and site design.
Page 275 of 308
June 2, 2026 8 of 14 Report No. PDS26-057
The following is a table to compare the difference between the parent Townhouse (R8)
zoning requirements with the proposed R8 Exception Zones.
R8 Zone Requirement
Proposed (H) R8 (584) Holding
Exception Zone (Stacked
Townhouse)
Permitted
Uses Townhouse Dwelling Units Stacked Townhouse Dwelling units
Front Yard
(minimum) 7.5 m 2.00 m
Rear Yard
(minimum) 7.5 m 5.5 m
Side Yard
(minimum)
1.5 m for end units
0.0 m for internal units
3.25 m for end units
0.0 for internal units
Lot Coverage
(maximum) 50% 47%
Height
(maximum) 10 m 13 m
Parking
(minimum) 1.5 space / unit 1.4 spaces / unit
Visitor
Parking
(minimum)
Min. 20% Visitors Min 12% Visitors
Landings,
Steps
(minimum)
2.0 m 0.0 m
Amenity Area
(minimum) 18 m2 20.43 m2
Page 276 of 308
June 2, 2026 9 of 14 Report No. PDS26-057
Frontage and Setbacks
The proposed, frontage and setbacks for the exception zone is designed to create a
compact, pedestrian-friendly stacked townhouse form within and along the local
corridor. The proposed front yard setbacks create a more engaging streetscape,
encouraging walking and public realm. The minimum side yard setback which has
increased from the Parent Zone creates appropriate buffers from the adjacent
properties, increased privacy and reduces shadow impacts. The proposed setbacks for
all units are sufficient from a functional standpoint within this future condominium
complex.
Building Height
The proposed building height of 13 metres is to facilitate 3.5-storey and 4-storey
townhouse units. Given that this property is located within the Aurora Promenade the
maximum height permissible is 7-storeys. This allows the site to be reasonably
maximized for the number of dwelling units while providing appropriate living space in
each unit.
Minimum Parking Standards
The applicant proposes the following parking requirements:
1.40 spaces per residential unit;
0.20 spaces per unit for Visitors.
A total of 354 parking spaces is proposed for the site, and 44 are designated visitor
parking spaces located within the underground parking structure and above grade along
the condominium road. Supplemented with a Transportation Study, Staff are satisfied
with this proposed reduction, as sufficient parking spaces are provided to
accommodate all residents and visitors to this development.
Holding Provision
The Town currently lacks sufficient servicing capacity to allocate to this development.
This allocation is strictly tied to the Region's ongoing infrastructure upgrades. However,
additional capacity will be reviewed later this year to determine if the Region will allow
the Town to assign servicing ahead of the physical completion of the infrastructure.
Please be advised that any future allocation must be formally assigned by Town
Council, through the processing and lifting of a Holding (H) provision when appropriate.
Page 277 of 308
June 2, 2026 10 of 14 Report No. PDS26-057
The proposed Draft Plan of Subdivision is considered appropriate and represents an
orderly development.
The proposed Draft Plan of Subdivision on 16, 20 and 22 Allaura Boulevard creates one
block in a manner that is appropriate and consistent with the Town’s Official Plan. It is
Planning Staff’s opinion that the size and shape of the developable block is appropriate
to accommodate the future private internal roads and infrastructures. Additional details
related to lot layout, road network, and servicing design will be reviewed at the future
Site Plan, Part Lot Control Exemption and Common Elements Condominium application
process.
Department / Agency Comments
The proposed applications were circulated to all internal and external agencies for
review and comments. In general, all circulated agencies are satisfied with the
proposed applications. Conditions related to the proposed Draft Plan of Subdivision is
listed as Appendix A of this report. Conditions are mainly administrative to the
registration process of the Subdivision. Detail technical studies will be further review at
the Site Plan application process.
Department/Agency Comments
Building Division No objections.
Development Engineering No objections.
Operational Services (Parks) No objections.
Operational Services (Public Works) No objections.
Transportation/Traffic No objections.
York Region No objections.
LSRCA No objections.
Page 278 of 308
June 2, 2026 11 of 14 Report No. PDS26-057
Public Comments
Two parties spoke at the PPM on November 14, 2023, regarding concerns about the
proximity of the proposed development to their industrial operations and the potential
for the development to impact their obligations under the Environmental Protection Act.
The parties requested full participation in the review process and asked that all
supporting materials related to the proposed development be circulated to them for
review.
Since that time, both parties have been circulated on all submissions related to the
application.
Advisory Committee Review
The Town’s Accessibility Advisor reviewed the subject applications on behalf of the
Accessibility Advisory Committee and provided no comments as it pertains to the
application. Any final review comments that need to be addressed with the Accessibility
Advisory Advisor will be done prior to the approval of the Site Plan application.
Legal Considerations
Subsection 34 (11.0.0.0.1) of the Planning Act states that if the passing of a Zoning By-
law Amendment also requires an amendment to the Official Plan, and that if both
applications are made on the same day, if Council refuses the Zoning By-law
Amendment application or fails to make a decision on it within 120 days after the
receipt of the application, the applicant (or Minister) may appeal the application to the
OLT.
The Zoning Bylaw Amendment application was received on March 9, 2023, and
therefore, the applicant may appeal to the OLT after the date of July 7, 2023.
Subsection 51(34) of the Planning Act states that if Council fails to make a decision on
the subdivision application within 120 days after the receipt of the application, the
applicant may appeal the application to the OLT. The subdivision application was
received on April 13, 2026, and therefore, the applicant may appeal to the OLT after the
date of August 11, 2026, if no decision is made. If Council approves or refuses the
application, then the applicant may appeal to the OLT after receiving notice of Council’s
decision
Page 279 of 308
June 2, 2026 12 of 14 Report No. PDS26-057
Financial Implications
There are no direct financial implications as a result of this report.
Communications Considerations
On March 23, 2023, a Notice of Complete Application respecting the proposed Zoning
By-law Amendment application was published in the Auroran Newspaper.
On Tuesday, October 10, Notice of Public Planning Meeting was given by mail to all
addressed property owners within a 120-metre radius of the subject lands and posted
on the Town’s website. A Notice of the Public Planning meeting sign was also posted
directly on the property. On Tuesday, November 14, 2023, Notice of Public Planning
Meeting was published in the Auroran Newspaper. Public Meeting notification has been
provided in accordance with the Planning Act.
All interested parties were notified of the Committee of the Whole meeting. All
communication requirements as directed by the Planning Act have been satisfied.
Notices of Council’s Decision on the subject applications will also be provided
accordingly.
Climate Change Considerations
The Official Plan identifies sustainability, energy efficiency, and climate change
mitigation as important objectives for new development. Staff will encourage the
applicant to include measures such as energy-efficient systems, landscaping, and low-
impact stormwater management as part of a future Site Plan Application process.
Link to Strategic Plan
The proposed applications support the Strategic Plan goal of Supporting an exceptional
quality of life for all through its accomplishment in satisfying requirements in the
following key objectives within this goal statement:
Strengthening the fabric of our community: Through the review and approval of the
Zoning By-law Amendment and Plan of Subdivision applications, housing opportunities
are created that assist in achieving growth targets while providing housing
opportunities for everyone.
Page 280 of 308
June 2, 2026 13 of 14 Report No. PDS26-057
Alternative(s) to the Recommendation
1. Direct staff to report back to another Committee of the Meeting addressing any
issues that may be raised at the Committee of the Meeting.
2. Refusal of the application with an explanation for the refusal.
Conclusions
Planning and Development Services reviewed the proposed Zoning By-law Amendment
and Plan of Subdivision applications in accordance with the provisions of the Province,
the Town’s Official Plan, Zoning By-law and municipal development standards
respecting the subject lands. The proposed applications are in keeping with the
development standards of the Town. Any technical revisions to the proposed plans will
be reviewed by Town Staff prior to the execution of the site plan agreement. Staff
recommends approval of the submitted applications.
Attachments
Attachment 1 – Appendix A – Draft Plan of Subdivision Conditions
Attachment 2 – Figures 1-7:
Figure 1 – Location Map
Figure 2 – Existing Official Plan Designation
Figure 3 – Existing Zoning By-Law
Figure 4 – Proposed Zoning By-law Amendment
Figure 5 – Draft Plan of Subdivision
Figure 6 – Proposed Site Plan
Figure 7 – Proposed Elevations
Previous Reports
Report No. PDS23-126 – Public Planning Meeting (November 14, 2023)
Pre-submission Review
Reviewed by the Chief Administrative Officer and Director of Planning and Development
Services
Page 281 of 308
June 2, 2026 14 of 14 Report No. PDS26-057
Approvals
Approved by Marco Ramunno, Director, Planning and Development Services
Approved by Doug Nadorozny, Chief Administrative Officer
Page 282 of 308
1. If approved or requested in writing by the Town, the Owner shall revise the Draft Plan of
Subdivision to incorporate minor modifications required to implement or reflect the
findings or recommendations of studies required as part of these Conditions of Draft
Plan of Subdivision Approval, or to ensure appropriate coordination and alignment with
existing or planned lots, blocks, streets, services, and/or facilities on adjacent lands.
2. The Owner, at its sole expense, shall submit the following to the Town for review and
written approval by the Town’s Planning Division:
a) an electronic copy of the draft M-Plan as pre-approved by the Land Registry
Office, including one (1) original mylar, two (2) mylar duplicates; and
b) an electronic and hardcopy version of the signed white paper print as approved
by the Land Registry Office and which contains an A.O.L.S form.
If a version of the M-Plan has previously been provided to the Town, any subsequent
version provided shall also be accompanied by a description of all revisions made from
the prior version.
PDS26-057 - Attachment 1-Draft Plan of Subdivision Conditions
Schedule “A”
CONDITIONS OF DRAFT PLAN OF SUBDIVISION APPROVAL
Subdivision Application No.: SUB-2022-02
Owner: 20 Allaura Blvd Corp. (the “Owner”)
Address: 16, 20 and 22 Allaura Boulevard, Aurora
Legal Description: Lots 18, 19, 20 and 21, Plan M51, PINs 03644-0024, 03644-0026 and
03644-0027 (the “Lands”)
DRAFT PLAN OF SUBDIVISION APPROVAL AND THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS
SHALL LAPSE ON June 23, 2029, BEING THE EXPIRATION OF THREE (3) YEARS FROM
THE DATE OF APPROVAL, unless extended by The Corporation of The Town of Aurora (the
“Town”), in its sole discretion, prior to the lapse date. If no extension is granted by the Town
prior to the lapse date, the Draft Plan of Subdivision Approval shall be deemed to have
expired without further notice.
Pursuant to subsection 51(26) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.P.13, as
amended (the “Planning Act”), as a condition to the approval of the draft plan of
subdivision prepared by Altimap Land Surveyors Inc., dated November 4, 2022 attached
as Schedule “B” and forming part of these conditions for the creation of one (1) Block
on the Lands (the “Draft Plan of Subdivision”), the Owner of the Lands shall satisfy the
following requirements prior to the Town’s release of the final plan of subdivision for
registration on title to the Lands (the “M-Plan”):
Planning Division Conditions
Page 283 of 308
Owner SUB-2022-02 Page 2
Conditions of Draft Plan of Subdivision Approval
3. The Lands shall be:
a) appropriately designated in the Official Plan by an official plan by-law that is in
effect in accordance with the Planning Act; and
b) appropriately zoned by a zoning by-law that is in effect in accordance with the
Planning Act, including any terms under which the Town’s Council will consider
the removal of a holding “H” symbol, if applicable.
Legal Services Division Conditions
4. The Owner, at its sole expense, and to the satisfaction of the Town Solicitor, shall
submit the following to the Town for review and written approval by the Town’s Legal
Services Division:
a) an up-to-date title PIN(s) for the Lands;
b) a solicitor’s title opinion regarding the title of the Lands or any portions thereof to
be conveyed to the Town, and, if applicable, a solicitor’s undertaking to register a
transfer of any easements or conveyances required by the Town immediately
following the registration of the M-Plan;
c) the final executed version of the M-Plan, and the draft Plan Document as pre-
approved by the Land Registry Office;
d) the Surveyor’s Frontage and Area Certificate for the M-Plan; and
e) a Certificate of Corporate Status for the Owner, and a Clear Certificate regarding
a Writ of Execution against the Owner.
Finance Department Conditions
5. The Owner shall pay to the Town all outstanding taxes, water rates, and any other
lawful rates, levies, assessments, and charges owing to the Town in connection with
the Lands.
External Agency Conditions
6. The Owner shall submit, to the Town’s Planning Division, written confirmations from
the respective external agencies confirming the Owner’s fulfillment of the following
conditions of approval:
a) Regional Municipality of York Conditions of Approval, attached as Schedule A.1.
Clearances
x The Town’s Planning Division shall confirm in writing that Conditions 1 to 3 have been
fulfilled, stating briefly how each condition has been met, and that all External Agencies
have provided written confirmation of the Owner’s fulfilment of their respective
conditions of approval.
Page 284 of 308
Owner SUB-2022-02 Page 3
Conditions of Draft Plan of Subdivision Approval
x The Town’s Legal Services Division shall confirm in writing that Condition 4 has been
fulfilled, stating briefly how this condition has been met.
x The Town’s Finance Department shall confirm in writing that Condition 5 has been
fulfilled, stating briefly how this condition has been met.
Page 285 of 308
Owner SUB-2022-02 Page 4
Conditions of Draft Plan of Subdivision Approval
Schedule “A.1”
REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF YORK CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Page 286 of 308
Page 287 of 308
Page 288 of 308
Page 289 of 308
Page 290 of 308
Owner SUB-2022-02 Page 5
Conditions of Draft Plan of Subdivision Approval
Schedule “B”
DRAFT SUBDIVISION PLAN
Page 291 of 308
Page 292 of 308
PDS26-057 - Attachment 2-Allaura Boulevard Figures 1-7Page 293 of 308
Page 294 of 308
Page 295 of 308
Page 296 of 308
Page 297 of 308
Page 298 of 308
Page 299 of 308
100 John West Way
Aurora, Ontario
L4G 6J1
(905) 727-3123
aurora.ca
Town of Aurora
Committee of the Whole Report
No. PDS2 6 -0 5 9
Subject: Application for Remove Holding (H) Symbol from a Zoning By-law
P.A.R.C.E.L. Inc.
14070 Yonge Street
PART BLOCKS A, B and G, PLAN M42, PART 3, 65R-5870 AND PARTS
3, 6, 7 AND 8, 65R-33710
File Number: ZBA(H)-2026-01
Related File Numbers: OPA-2024-03 & ZBA-2024-03
Prepared by: Felix Chau
Department: Planning and Development Services
Date: June 2, 2026
Recommendation
1. That Report No. PDS26-059 be received; and
2. That 209 persons worth of servicing allocation be granted to the subject lands to
implement the land use permissions; and
3. That the application ZBA(H)-2026-01 be approved to remove the Holding (H) Symbol
from the “Townhouse Dwelling Residential Exception Zone with Holding Provision
(H)R8-576” from By-law No. 6747-25; and
4. That the implementing By-law for the subject application be brought forward to a
future Council meeting for enactment.
Executive Summary
This report seeks Council’s approval to allocate 209 persons worth of servicing capacity
towards the subject development and subsequently Remove the Holding (H) Symbol
from the “Townhouse Dwelling Residential Exception Zone with Holding Provision
(H)R8-576” from By-law No. 6747-25.
Page 300 of 308
June 2, 2026 2 of 6 Report No. PDS26-059
The development illustrated a total of 93 townhouse units (57 street townhouse
and 36 back-to-back townhouse).
The total 93 units would require a total of 209 persons worth of servicing
capacity.
Council had previously assigned 37 persons worth of servicing to the historically
approved applications (OPA-2008-03 & ZBA-2008-04), the Applicant will only
require an additional 209 persons worth of servicing to complete the
comprehensive development.
As Staff confirms servicing will be allocated for this development, the Holding
Provision can be removed.
Background
Application History
Zoning By-law Amendment application ZBA-2024-03 was approved by the Committee of
the Whole on November 11, 2025. The implementing By-law was subsequently enacted
by Council on December 9, 2025 to facilitate 93 townhouses units (57 street townhouse
units and 36 back-to-back townhouse units). As part of this approval, a Holding (H)
provision was implemented to ensure that no development can occur until the Town
confirms the availability of adequate servicing capacity for the development.
The property currently has 20 apartment units plus 1 single detached dwelling (37
persons worth) of servicing allocation from the historic development approval; however,
this is insufficient to address the current proposal. Town Staff have confirmed that
servicing allocation is available for the proposed development, therefore the applicant is
requesting Council to have the Holding Symbol be removed.
Location / Land Use
The subject lands are located at the southwest corner of Yonge Street and Elderberry
Trail, north of Bloomington Road. The subject lands have an approximate total area of
3.6 hectares (8.9 acres) with 140.0 metres of frontage along Yonge Street and 217.0
metres of frontage along Elderberry Trail. The site currently contains an abandoned
building previously used as a presentation centre located on the northeastern corner of
the subject lands, the balance of the subject lands remains vacant (Figure 1).
Surrounding Land Uses
The surrounding land uses are as follows:
Page 301 of 308
June 2, 2026 3 of 6 Report No. PDS26-059
North: Elderberry Trail, Single detached dwellings and environmentally protected lands
owned by the Town.
South: Crown land, used for institutional purposes such as: Ontario Provincial Police
building, Ontario Natural Resources office, and Service Ontario building.
East: Yonge Street, Single detached dwellings.
West: Single detached dwellings.
Policy Context
Provincial Policies
All Planning Act development applications are subject to provincial policies. The
Provincial Planning Statement (PPS) provides policy direction on matters of provincial
interest. These policies support the development of strong communities through the
promotion of efficient land use and development patterns and encourage the creation
of diverse housing opportunities that capitalize on proximity to goods, services, and
transit.
The Lake Simcoe Protection Plan (LSPP) is a provincial document that provides policies
which addresses aquatic life, water quality, water quantity, shorelines and natural
heritage, other threats and activities (including invasive species, climate change and
recreational activities) and overall implementation. The subject lands are not within the
Regulated Area by the Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority (LSRCA).
Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan (ORMCP)
The ORMCP provides land use and resource management planning direction on how to
protect the Moraine’s ecological and hydrological features and functions. The subject
lands are located within the ‘Settlement Area’ of the ORMCP. Settlement Areas are
intended for urban development, allowing for a variety of residential uses. Their purpose
is to concentrate and manage urban growth, reducing encroachment on and impact to
nearby ecological features, while aligning with the growth objectives outlined in the
Town's Official Plan.
Page 302 of 308
June 2, 2026 4 of 6 Report No. PDS26-059
Town of Aurora Official Plan
Through the associated Official Plan Amendment application, the property is designated
Site-Specific Policy 72. This Site-Specific Policy was approved by Council to facilitate
the subject residential development.
Zoning By-law 6000-17, as amended
Through the associated Zoning By-law Amendment application, the property is zoned
Townhouse Dwelling Residential Exception Zone with Holding Provision (H)R8-576 and
Environmental Protection (EP) Zone. These zones were approved the by Council to
facilitate the subject residential development.
Proposed Applications
Removal of the Holding (H) Provision
As part of the approval of ZBA-2024-03 approval, a Holding (H) provision was
implemented to ensure that no development can occur until the Town confirms the
availability of adequate servicing capacity for the development. Town Staff have
confirmed that servicing allocation is available for the proposed development, therefore
the applicant is requesting Council to have the Holding Symbol be removed.
Servicing Allocation
The development illustrated a total of 93 townhouse units (57 street townhouse and 36
back-to-back townhouse). The total 93 units would require a total of 246 persons worth
of servicing allocation. Since Council had previously assigned 37 persons worth of
servicing to the historically approved applications (OPA-2008-03 & ZBA-2008-04), the
Applicant will only require an additional 209 persons worth of servicing to complete the
comprehensive development.
Department / Agency Comments
The proposed applications were circulated to all internal and external agencies for
review and comments. In general, all circulated agencies are satisfied and have no
comments at this time.
Public Comments
No public comments were received as part of this application.
Page 303 of 308
June 2, 2026 5 of 6 Report No. PDS26-059
Advisory Committee Review
No communication required.
Legal Considerations
Subsection 36(3) of the Planning Act states that if Council refuses the application or
fails to make a decision on it within 90 days after the receipt of the application, the
applicant may appeal the application to the Ontario Land Tribunal (OLT). This
application was received on April 13, 2026, and therefore, the applicant may appeal to
the OLT should a decision not be made before July 12, 2026.
Financial Implications
There are no direct financial implications resulting from this report.
Communications Considerations
A Notice of Intention to Remove Holding (H) Symbol from a Zoning By-law was
published on the Town website and given by mail to all interested.
Climate Change Considerations
The Official Plan identifies sustainability, energy efficiency, and climate change
mitigation as important objectives for new development. Staff will encourage the
applicant to include measures such as energy-efficient systems, landscaping, and low-
impact stormwater management as part of a future Site Plan Application process.
Link to Strategic Plan
The proposed applications support the Strategic Plan goal of Supporting an exceptional
quality of life for all through its accomplishment in satisfying requirements in the
following key objectives within this goal statement:
Strengthening the fabric of our community: Through the review and approval of the
application to Remove the Holding (H) provision, housing opportunities are created that
assist in achieving growth targets while providing housing opportunities for everyone.
Page 304 of 308
June 2, 2026 6 of 6 Report No. PDS26-059
Alternative(s) to the Recommendation
1. Direct staff to report back to another Committee of the Whole Meeting addressing
any issues that may be raised at the Committee of the Whole Meeting.
2. Refusal of the application with an explanation for the refusal.
Conclusions
Planning and Development Services reviewed the proposed application to Remove the
Holding (H) provision is in accordance with the provisions of the Provincial policies, the
Town’s Official Plan, Zoning By-law and municipal development standards respecting
the subject lands. The proposed application considered to be in keeping with the
development standards of the Town. Any technical revisions to the proposed plans will
be reviewed by Town Staff prior to the execution of the site plan agreement. Staff
recommends approval of application ZBA(H)-2026-01.
Attachments
Attachment 1:
Figure 1 – Location Map
Figure 2 – Conceptual Site Plan
Figure 3 – Proposed Zoning Map
Previous Reports
PDS25-107 – Committee of the Whole Report (November 11, 2025)
Pre-submission Review
Agenda Management Team review on May 14, 2026
Approvals
Approved by Marco Ramunno, Director, Planning and Development Services
Approved by Doug Nadorozny, Chief Administrative Officer
Page 305 of 308
PDS26-059 - Attachment 1-Figures 1-3Page 306 of 308
Page 307 of 308
Page 308 of 308