Agenda (Appointed) - Heritage Advisory Committee - 20260914Town of Aurora
Heritage Advisory Committee
Meeting Agenda
Date:Monday, September 14, 2026
Time:7 p.m.
Location:Holland Room, Aurora Town Hall
Meetings are available to the public in person and via live stream on the Town’s YouTube channel.
To participate, please visit aurora.ca/participation.
Pages
1.Call to Order
2.Land Acknowledgement
3.Approval of the Agenda
4.Declarations of Pecuniary Interest and General Nature Thereof
5.Receipt of the Minutes
5.1 Heritage Advisory Committee Meeting Minutes of June 8, 2026 1
That the Heritage Advisory Committee meeting minutes of June
8, 2026, be received for information.
1.
6.Delegations
7.Matters for Consideration
7.1 Memorandum from Manager, Policy Planning and Heritage; Re: Heritage
Permit Application HPA-2026-05 - 25 Spruce Street
6
That the memorandum regarding Heritage Permit Application
HPA-2026-05 - 25 Spruce Street be received; and
1.
That the Heritage Advisory Committee comments regarding
Heritage Permit Application HPA-2026-05 - 25 Spruce Street be
received and referred to staff for consideration and further
action as appropriate.
2.
7.2 Memorandum from Manager, Policy Planning and Heritage; Re: Heritage
Permit Application HPA-2026-06 - 71 Connaught Avenue
93
That the memorandum regarding Heritage Permit Application
HPA-2026-06 - 71 Connaught Avenue be received; and
1.
That the Heritage Advisory Committee comments regarding
Heritage Permit Application HPA-2026-06 - 71 Connaught
Avenue be received and referred to staff for consideration and
further action as appropriate.
2.
8.Informational Items
9.New Business
10.Adjournment
Town of Aurora
Heritage Advisory Committee
Meeting Minutes
Date:
Time:
Location:
Monday, June 8, 2026
7 p.m.
Holland Room, Aurora Town Hall
Committee Members: Councillor Wendy Gaertner (Chair)
Cynthia Bettio
Linda Duringer
John Green, Aurora Historical Society Rep. (Vice Chair)
Bob McRoberts, Honourary Member
Rocco Morsillo
Members Absent: Chris Polsinelli
Other Attendees: Councillor Ron Weese*
Adam Robb, Manager, Policy Planning and Heritage
Linda Bottos, Council/Committee Coordinator
*Attended electronically
_____________________________________________________________________
1. Call to Order
The Chair called the meeting to order at 7:15 p.m.
2. Land Acknowledgement
The Committee acknowledged that the meeting took place on Anishinaabe lands,
the traditional and treaty territory of the Chippewas of Georgina Island,
recognizing the many other Nations whose presence here continues to this day,
the special relationship the Chippewas have with the lands and waters of this
territory, and that Aurora has shared responsibility for the stewardship of these
lands and waters. It was noted that Aurora is part of the treaty lands of the
Mississaugas and Chippewas, recognized through Treaty #13 and the Williams
Treaties of 1923.
Page 1 of 107
Heritage Advisory Committee Meeting Minutes
June 8, 2026 2
3. Approval of the Agenda
Moved by Bob McRoberts
Seconded by Linda Duringer
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 Heritage Advisory Committee Meeting Minutes of April 13, 2026
Moved by Cynthia Bettio
Seconded by Linda Duringer
1. That the Heritage Advisory Committee meeting minutes of April 13,
2026, be received for information.
Carried
6. Delegations
None.
7. Matters for Consideration
7.1 Memorandum from Manager, Policy Planning and Heritage; Re: Heritage
Permit Application HPA-2026-03 - 72 Catherine Avenue
Staff provided an overview of the memorandum and proposed addition at
the rear second storey of the dwelling to increase the existing loft space
of the designated property at 72 Catherine Avenue, located within the
Northeast Old Aurora Heritage Conservation District.
The Committee and staff discussed various aspects including visibility
from the street, neighbourhood compatibility, and the proposed siding
material and colour, and staff provided further clarification. The
Page 2 of 107
Heritage Advisory Committee Meeting Minutes
June 8, 2026 3
Committee was generally supportive of the application with no concerns
about proceeding with delegated approval.
Moved by Bob McRoberts
Seconded by Cynthia Bettio
1. That the memorandum regarding Heritage Permit Application HPA-
2026-03 - 72 Catherine Avenue be received; and
2. That the Heritage Advisory Committee comments regarding Heritage
Permit Application HPA-2026-03 be received and referred to staff for
consideration and further action as appropriate.
Carried
7.2 Memorandum from Manager, Policy Planning and Heritage; Re: Heritage
Permit Application HPA-2026-04 - 20 Mark Street
Staff provided an overview of the memorandum and proposal to replace
the front-facing windows and door, and seal the two side yard windows of
the front enclosed verandah, of the designated property at 20 Mark Street,
located within the Northeast Old Aurora Heritage Conservation District.
The Committee inquired about the proposed sealing of the side yard
windows and replacement of the front door, and staff provided further
clarification. The Committee was generally supportive of the application
with no concerns about proceeding with delegated approval.
Moved by Cynthia Bettio
Seconded by John Green
1. That the memorandum regarding Heritage Permit Application HPA-
2026-04 - 20 Mark Street be received; and
2. That the Heritage Advisory Committee comments regarding Heritage
Permit Application HPA-2026-04 be received and referred to staff for
consideration and further action as appropriate.
Carried
Page 3 of 107
Heritage Advisory Committee Meeting Minutes
June 8, 2026 4
7.3 Memorandum from Manager, Policy Planning and Heritage; Re: Custom
Street Signage for the Northeast Old Aurora Heritage Conservation District
Staff provided an overview of the memorandum and design options for the
new custom street signage to be installed throughout the Northeast Old
Aurora Heritage Conservation District in commemoration of the 20th
anniversary of the District, which was established in 2006.
The Committee and staff reviewed and discussed the proposed design
options as well as other municipal examples and mockups provided by the
Committee. The Committee provided feedback regarding the preferred
non-reflective colour scheme; text content, layout and border; heritage-
style fonts; wrought-iron framing; and finial options. Staff agreed to
provide additional sign mockups based on the Committee’s input for
further review and feedback.
The Committee further suggested to include a mechanism whereby
residents and visitors could scan and learn about the District. Staff
advised this opportunity may be better integrated with the District gateway
signage being considered as part of the Town’s ongoing wayfinding
capital project. The Committee requested that the Town’s historical crest
be included in the gateway signage. Staff noted the gateway signage
details would be submitted to the Committee for review and comment as
the project progresses.
Moved by Linda Duringer
Seconded by Cynthia Bettio
1. That the memorandum regarding Custom Street Signage for the
Northeast Old Aurora Heritage Conservation District be received; and
2. That the Heritage Advisory Committee comments regarding Custom
Street Signage for the Northeast Old Aurora Heritage Conservation
District be received and referred to staff for consideration and further
action as appropriate.
Carried
Page 4 of 107
Heritage Advisory Committee Meeting Minutes
June 8, 2026 5
8. Informational Items
None.
9. New Business
The Chair expressed appreciation to Committee members for their support
regarding Victoria Hall at the recent Council meeting.
10. Adjournment
Moved by Bob McRoberts
Seconded by Cynthia Bettio
That the meeting be adjourned at 8:11 p.m.
Carried
Page 5 of 107
100 John West Way
Aurora, Ontario
L4G 6J1
(905) 727-3123
aurora.ca
Town of Aurora
Memorandum
Planning and Development Services
Re: Heritage Permit Application HPA-2026-05 – 25 Spruce Street
To: Heritage Advisory Committee
From: Adam Robb, Manager, Policy Planning and Heritage
Date: September 14, 2026
Recommendation
1. That the memorandum regarding Heritage Permit Application HPA-2026-05 – 25
Spruce Street be received; and
2. That the Heritage Advisory Committee comments regarding Heritage Permit
Application HPA-2026-05 – 25 Spruce Street be received and referred to staff for
consideration and further action as appropriate.
Background
25 Spruce Street is a contemporary ranch style dwelling constructed circa 1963. It is
located on the east side of Spruce Street, south of Catherine Avenue and north of
Centre Street. The property is not individually recognized for its heritage value, but is
designated under Part V of the Ontario Heritage Act, being located within the Northeast
Old Aurora Heritage Conservation District boundary.
Analysis
The Northeast Old Aurora Heritage Conservation District Plan classifies the existing
dwelling as a non-heritage structure
The Northeast Old Aurora Heritage Conservation District Plan was approved in 2006.
The subject property was not identified on the Town’s Heritage Register as a property of
significance prior to the District Plan being enacted, and Section 2.1.2 of the District
Plan does not denote the subject property as being a building of historical interest.
Section 9.1.3 of the District Plan further speaks to the heritage Architectural Styles of
the District but leaves the property at 25 Spruce Street as blank, being a ‘non-heritage’
Page 6 of 107
Heritage Permit Application HPA-2026-05 – 25 Spruce Street
September 14, 2026 Page 2 of 4
(1960’s Ranch bungalow) structure. Alternatively, the properties on either side of 25
Spruce Street are both recognized as heritage properties (37 Spruce Street to the north
and 19 Spruce Street to the south). The subject property at 25 Spruce Street, although
being ‘non-heritage’ in of itself, is still part of the overall District area and therefore
subject to the heritage permit review and approval process.
Despite the existing dwelling being ‘non-heritage’, the District Plan recognizes that these
non-heritage properties serve a role in maintaining sympathy for the overall character of
the area, and that should there be a replacement of these buildings, it is important to
ensure the design remains sympathetic to the character of the District and streetscape.
Section 2.5.3, 4.4, and 9.4 of the District Plan provide policy direction regarding non-
heritage buildings and largely state that where non-heritage buildings are proposed for
demolition, replacement buildings should also support the district character. The design
of new replacement buildings, while being a product of their own time, should still
reflect one of the dominant historic architectural styles found within the district. The
District Plan also speaks to ‘contemporary’ and ‘historical conversion’ design
approaches to existing non-heritage buildings, recognizing that non-heritage buildings
can be subject to alteration and addition that allows for retention of the non-heritage
‘contemporary’ design (ex: a Ranch style house can be expanded upon using Ranch
architectural style components) or through ‘historical conversion’ that re-envisions the
structure as a new, but historically influenced architectural style.
The owner is proposing to demolish the existing non-heritage dwelling and build a new
heritage compatible dwelling influenced by the Edwardian architectural style
The owner and their architect originally submitted a draft proposed design which was
rejected by Town staff, and recommendations for improvements were provided. A focus
was made to reinforce a distinctive architectural style found within the District, attempt
to mitigate the visual presence of the garage, use appropriate materials and colours,
and maintain appropriate proportions while respecting existing property setbacks. The
owner then resubmitted a new design iteration largely incorporating the comments that
were provided, which is now being presented to the Heritage Advisory Committee for
further review and comment.
The design is influenced by the Edwardian architectural style and features brick
complemented by board and batten for the garage component. The front façade
features a gable, quoins, and porch with wood columns. The siting and building
statistics/performance standards are intended to comply with the as-of-right zoning for
Page 7 of 107
Heritage Permit Application HPA-2026-05 – 25 Spruce Street
September 14, 2026 Page 3 of 4
the property. The setbacks are being maintained or enhanced from that of the existing
structure, and the proposed height is permitted as-of-right and matches existing
dwellings on either side of the property and along the streetscape.
Staff also inquired with the owner and architect about the potential for a detached rear
garage. While a preference would be for the garage to be detached, the owner and
architect attempted to mitigate the visual impacts of the garage by having it recessed,
only a single car width (as opposed to the existing house featuring a double wide
garage), and in the softer board and batten material to encourage subordinacy. The
owner indicated that the attached garage and 2nd storey living space is necessary for
family/living needs, and staff recognize that while a detached garage would be
preferable, the design approach taken does mitigate impacts and represents an
improvement from the existing double car attached garage that is currently featured on
the existing ranch style dwelling. Staff also inquired about minor details such as the
proposed window pane arrangements and garage door style, and it is anticipated that
appropriate specification sheets for these items can be provided and reviewed through
the building permit review process, should the heritage permit for the overall design be
approved.
A Heritage Impact Assessment was also prepared by a qualified heritage firm in support
of the demolition and design of the new build
The owner retained Letourneau Heritage Consulting Inc. to prepare a Heritage Impact
Assessment report, which evaluated the potential heritage value of the existing house
as well as the design compatibility of the proposed new build. The report ultimately
concluded that the existing house is in fact ‘non-heritage’ and that demolition can be
justified in support of the new build. The report also deems the design of the new build
appropriate and compatible based on the policies of the District Plan. The report noted
similar comments as staff regarding elements like the window pane arrangement and
garage door style, which can be addressed through the building permit review process.
The owner and architect have also indicated that no trees are intended to be removed
as part of the proposed work, since the proposal is intended to respect or enhance the
existing front and side yard setbacks and only create additional lot coverage at the rear
where the existing backyard space is relatively open and non-treed. The proposed
design implements a heritage inspired and compatible Edwardian style while largely
improving upon conditions of the existing dwelling, such as by reducing the width of the
garage along the front façade to enhance the overall streetscape.
Page 8 of 107
Heritage Permit Application HPA-2026-05 – 25 Spruce Street
September 14, 2026 Page 4 of 4
Design considerations or adjustments can still be considered prior to proceeding to
Council for ultimate approval of the Heritage Permit Application
The owner and architect have worked with staff and their professional heritage
consultant and incorporated a number of design improvements thus far, and further
comments from the Heritage Advisory Committee can still be provided.
The owner will look to integrate any comments from the Heritage Advisory Committee
and then proceed to Council for review and approval under the new term in early 2027.
The owner has agreed to an extended Heritage Permit Application approval period until
February 28, 2027.
Attachments
1. Attachment 1 – Location Plan
2. Attachment 2 – Proposed New Build Elevations
3. Attachment 3 – Heritage Impact Assessment Report
Page 9 of 107
25 Spruce Street
Northeast Old Aurora Heritage
Conservation District Boundary
Page 10 of 107
Attachment 2 Page 11 of 107
Page 12 of 107
Page 13 of 107
Page 14 of 107
Page 15 of 107
Page 16 of 107
Page 17 of 107
Page 18 of 107
HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT
25 Spruce Street, Town of Aurora , ON
FINAL REPORT
Date: 14 July 2026
Project #: LHC0573
LHC Heritage Planning & Archaeology Inc.
300-837 Princess Street
Kingston, Ontario K7L 1G8
Phone: (613)507-7817
Toll Free: 1-833-210-7817
Email: info@lhcheritage.com
Web: www.lhcheritage.com
Attachment 3
Page 19 of 107
LHC0573 July 2026
ii
This page has been left blank deliberately
Page 20 of 107
LHC0573 July 2026
iii
Report prepared for: Paige Dickie
Kiraco Inc.
2189 King Road
King City, ON
L7B 1G3
Report prepared by: Lisa Coles, MPl RPP MCIP CAHP
Graphics prepared by: Jordan Greene, BA
Reviewed by: Christienne Uchiyama, MA CAHP
Other Contributors: Diego Maenza, MPl RPP MCIP CAHP-Intern
Page 21 of 107
LHC0573 July 2026
iv
RIGHT OF USE
The information, recommendations, and opinions expressed in this report are for the sole
benefit of the Owner and their agents. Any other use of this report by others without
permission is prohibited and is without responsibility to LHC Heritage Planning & Archaeology
Inc. (LHC). The report, all plans, data, drawings, and other documents as well as all electronic
media prepared by LHC are its professional work product and shall remain the copyright
property of LHC, who authorizes only the Owner, their agent, and approved users (including
municipal review and approval bodies) to make copies of the report, but only in such
quantities as are reasonably necessary for the use of the report by those parties. Unless
otherwise stated, the suggestions, recommendations, and opinions given in this report are
intended only for the guidance of the Owner, their agent, and approved users.
REPORT LIMITATIONS
The qualifications of the heritage consultants who authored this report are provided in
Appendix A.
This report reflects the professional opinion of the authors and the requirements of their
membership in various professional and licensing bodies.
All comments regarding the condition of any building on the Property are based on a
superficial visual inspection and are not a structural engineering assessment of the building
unless directly quoted from an engineering report. The findings of this report do not address
any structural or physical condition related issues associated with any buildings on the
Property or the condition of any heritage attributes.
Concerning historical research, the purpose of this report is to assess potential impacts to the
Property and the surrounding heritage properties – including the Northeast Old Aurora
Heritage Conservation District - as it relates to the proposed development. The authors are
fully aware that there may be additional historical information that has not been included.
Nevertheless, the information collected, reviewed, and analyzed is sufficient to conduct an
impact assessment.
The review of policy and legislation was limited to information directly related to cultural
heritage management and is not a comprehensive planning review.
Soundscapes, cultural identity, and sense of place analyses were not integrated into this
report.
Archaeological potential has not been assessed as part of this HIA. A separate archaeological
assessment may be required as part of a complete application.
Page 22 of 107
LHC0573 July 2026
v
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Executive Summary only provides key points from the report. The reader should examine
the complete report including background, results, as well as limitations.
LHC Heritage Planning & Archaeology Inc. (LHC) was retained on 30 April 2026 by Paige Dickie
(the Owner) to prepare a Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA) for the property at 25 Spruce
Street (the Property) in the Town of Aurora (the Town ), Ontario.
The Property is Designated under Part V Section 41 of the Ontario Heritage Act (OHA) as part of
the Northeast Old Aurora Heritage Conservation District (NOAHCD). The house on the
Property is described as a ‘Ranch House’ building and is classified as a Non-Historic
architectural style in the Northeast Old Aurora Heritage Conservation District Plan (NOAHCD
Plan).
It is LHC’s professional opinion that the demolition of the existing house and its replacement
with a new house is unlikely to yield any direct or indirect negative impacts to the property
itself, any adjacent or surrounding properties, or the NOAHCD. The proposed project is
compatible with the surrounding streetscape and will result in a construction of its time. The
proposed design is substantially compliant with the policies and guidelines identified in the
HCD Plan and, where the design is not strictly compliant – such as the attached garage – it is
compatible with the character of this section of Spruce Street and the properties in the
immediate context. Elements of the proposed design that could be considered further to
improve compatibility with the immediate physical context include the pane arrangement of
the windows on the façade, the proposed garage door, and the colour of the board and batten
siding. In addition, consideration should be given to the existing mature trees. If trees need to
be removed for the new construction, they should be replaced with new trees somewhere on
the Property.
A heritage permit application will be required before any alterations can take place as the
Property is designated under Section 41 Part V of the OHA as part of the NOAHCD.
Page 23 of 107
LHC0573 July 2026
vi
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................ 1
1.1 Property Location ........................................................................................................... 1
1.2 Property Description ...................................................................................................... 1
1.3 Adjacent Heritage Properties ......................................................................................... 1
2 Study Approach ...................................................................................................................... 5
2.1 Policy Review .................................................................................................................. 5
2.2 Historical Research ......................................................................................................... 5
2.3 Site Visit .......................................................................................................................... 6
2.4 Understandng of Cultural Heritage Value or Interest .................................................... 6
2.5 Impact Assessment ........................................................................................................ 6
2.6 Compliance with the Policies and Guidelines in the NOAHCD Plan ............................. 7
3 Policy and Legislation Context............................................................................................... 8
3.1 Ontario Heritage Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. O.18 ..................................................................... 8
3.2 2022 York Region Official Plan (2024 Consolidation) .................................................... 8
3.3 Town of Aurora Official Plan (January 2026 Consolidation) ......................................... 9
3.4 The Northeast Old Aurora Heritage Conservation District ........................................... 9
4 Brief History of the NOAHCD and the Property ................................................................... 11
5 Existing Conditions ............................................................................................................... 15
5.1 Surrounding Context .................................................................................................... 15
5.2 Surrounding and Adjacent Heritage Properties .......................................................... 17
5.3 The Property ................................................................................................................. 19
5.4 Analysis ......................................................................................................................... 23
5.4.1 Architectural Analysis ................................................................................................ 23
6 Understanding of Cultural Heritage Value or Interest ......................................................... 24
6.1.1 Spruce Streetscape.................................................................................................... 25
7 Description of Proposed Development ............................................................................... 26
8 Impact of Proposed Development ...................................................................................... 30
8.1 Potential Impacts to 25 Spruce Street ......................................................................... 30
Page 24 of 107
LHC0573 July 2026
vii
8.2 Potential Impacts to Adjacent and Surrounding Heritage Properties ....................... 30
8.3 Compliance with HCD Plan Policies and Guidelines and Potential Impacts to the
NOAHCD ....................................................................................................................... 31
8.3.1 Compliance with HCD Plan Policies ......................................................................... 31
8.3.2 Compliance with HCD Plan Guidelines ..................................................................... 38
8.3.3 Summary of Compliance with Policies and Guidelines in the HCD Plan and
Potential Impacts to the HCD .................................................................................... 47
8.4 Alternative Options, Mitigation Measures, and Conservation Methods ..................... 47
9 Conclusion and Recommendations .................................................................................... 49
10 Signatures ............................................................................................................................. 50
11 References ............................................................................................................................ 51
APPENDIX A Qualifications ............................................................................................... 52
APPENDIX B Glossary ........................................................................................................ 55
APPENDIX C Town of Aurora Heritage Impact Assessments and Conservation Plans
Guide Terms of Reference ............................................................................ 58
APPENDIX D Relevant Local Policies ................................................................................. 61
List of Tables
Table 1. Relevant Policies from the ROP ........................................................................................ 9
Table 2. Surrounding and Adjacent Heritage Properties ............................................................ 17
Table 3. Proposed Development’s Compliance with Policies Pertaining to Non-heritage
Buildings in the NOAHCD Plan ....................................................................................... 31
Table 4. Proposed Development’s Compliance with Guidelines Pertaining to New Construction
in the NOAHCD Plan ........................................................................................................ 38
Table 5. Town of Aurora HIA Requirements and their Locations in this Report ......................... 58
Table 6. Relevant Policies from the OP ........................................................................................ 62
List of Images
Image 1. View south along Spruce Street from just north of 37 Spruce Street .......................... 16
Image 2. View east along Centre Street from the south side of 11 Spruce Street ...................... 16
Image 3. View north of the Spruce Street and Catharine Street curve from the west side of
Spruce Street north of the Property .............................................................................. 17
Image 4. View east of the facade (west elevation) ...................................................................... 20
Page 25 of 107
LHC0573 July 2026
viii
Image 5. View south of the rear yard ........................................................................................... 20
Image 6. View west of the south side yard .................................................................................. 21
Image 7. View west of the north and east elevations .................................................................. 21
Image 8. View northeast of the south elevation .......................................................................... 22
Image 9. View west of the east elevation ..................................................................................... 22
Image 10. Illustration of a Ranch House. ..................................................................................... 23
List of Figures
Figure 1. Location of the Property ................................................................................................. 2
Figure 2. Current Conditions of the Property ................................................................................ 3
Figure 3. Adjacent Heritage Properties and HCD Boundary ......................................................... 4
Figure 4. Site Plan ......................................................................................................................... 27
Figure 5. East and South Elevations ............................................................................................ 28
Figure 6. North and West Elevations ............................................................................................ 29
Figure 7. First Design for the New House ..................................................................................... 48
Page 26 of 107
LHC0573 July 2026
1
1 INTRODUCTION
LHC Heritage Planning & Archaeology Inc. (LHC) was retained on 30 April 2026 by Paige Dickie
(the ‘Owner’) to prepare a Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA) for the property at 25 Spruce
Street (the ‘Property’) in the Town of Aurora (the ‘Town ’), Ontario.
The Property is Designated under Part V Section 41 of the Ontario Heritage Act (OHA) as part of
the Northeast Old Aurora Heritage Conservation District (NOAHCD). The house on the
Property is described as a ‘Ranch House’ building and is classified as a Non-Historic
architectural style in the Northeast Old Aurora Heritage Conservation District Plan (NOAHCD
Plan).
This HIA was prepared in accordance with the Town’s Heritage Impact Assessments and
Conservation Plans Guide (2017) and the Ontario Heritage Tool Kit (2025) prepared by the
Ministry of Citizenship and Multiculturalism (MCM).
1.1 PROPERTY LOCATION
The Property is located on the east side of Spruce Street between Centre Street to the south
and Catharine Avenue to the north (Figure 1). The Property is legally described as LT 117 PL
246 AURORA (PIN 03638-0098).
1.2 PROPERTY DESCRIPTION
The Property is a rectangular lot of approximately 649 square metres. A one-storey house is
located on the Property (Figure 2).
1.3 ADJACENT HERITAGE PROPERTIES
The Town of Aurora Official Plan does not have a definition for adjacent lands. The Provincial
Planning Statement (PPS) defines ‘adjacent lands’ as “for the purposes of policy 4.6.3, those
lands contiguous to a protected heritage property or as otherwise defined in the municipal
official plan.”1 Based on this definition, there are four adjacent heritage properties: 19 Spruce
Street, 37 Spruce Street, 54 Centre Street, and 55 Catharine Avenue. Nearby heritage
properties include 20 Spruce Street, 24 Spruce Street, and 39 Catharine Avenue.
1 Province of Ontario, “Provincial Planning Statement, 2024: Under the Planning Act,” last modified 20 October
2024, accessed 25 May 2026, https://www.ontario.ca/files/2024-10/mmah-provincial-planning-statement-en-
2024-10-23.pdf, 38.
Page 27 of 107
Page 28 of 107
Page 29 of 107
Page 30 of 107
LHC0573 July 2026
5
2 STUDY APPROACH
LHC follows a three-step approach to understanding and planning for cultural heritage
resources based on the understanding, planning, and intervening guidance from Canada’s
Historic Places’ Standards and Guidelines for the Conservation of Historic Places in Canada and
the Ontario Heritage Tool Kit.2 Understanding the cultural heritage resource involves:
• Understanding the significance of the cultural heritage resource (known and potential)
through research, consultation, and evaluation–when necessary.
• Understanding the setting, context, and condition of the cultural heritage resource
through research, site visit, and analysis.
• Understanding the heritage planning regulatory framework around the cultural
heritage resource.
In the context of this HIA, emphasis was placed on understanding the setting, context, and
existing condition of the Property. The heritage planning regulatory framework from the
NOAHCD Plan that applies to the Property and adjacent heritage properties was also a primary
point of focus. This approach is consistent with the Ontario Heritage Tool Kit (2025) and the
recommended methodology for an HIA outlined in Info Sheet #5 Heritage Impact Assessments
and Conservation Plans (2006)3. A glossary of relevant terms is provided in Appendix B.
2.1 POLICY REVIEW
This HIA includes review of relevant municipal policy from the Town of Aurora Official Plan and
the NOAHCD Plan directly related to the proposed development.
2.2 HISTORICAL RESEARCH
As a designated property that has been identified in the NOAHCD Plan as a Non-Historic
architecture style, the property’s cultural heritage value or interest is well established, and
additional historical research was not required by the Town of Aurora as part of this HIA. This
report does not include additional or new historical background research for the Property.
2 Canada’s Historic Places, “Standards and Guidelines for the Conservation of Historic Places in Canada,” last
modified 2010, accessed 13 May 2026, https://www.historicplaces.ca/media/18072/81468-parks-s+g-eng-
web2.pdf, 3.; Ministry of Citizenship and Multiculturalism, “Heritage Property Evaluation” in the Ontario Heritage
Tool Kit, last modified 9 May 2025, accessed 13 May 2026, https://www.ontario.ca/document/heritage-property-
evaluation.
3 Ministry of Citizenship and Multiculturalism (MCM), “Information Sheet #5: Heritage Impact Assessments and
Conservation Plans.” In Heritage Resources in the Land Use Planning Process. In the Ontario Heritage Tool Kit.
Toronto: Queen’s Printer for Ontario, 2006.
Page 31 of 107
LHC0573 July 2026
6
LHC’s understanding of the history of the Property and surrounding area is from the NOAHCD
Plan.
2.3 SITE VISIT
A site visit was conducted on 7 May 2026 by Heritage Planner, Diego Maenza. The purpose of
this site visit was to document and gain an understanding of the Property and its surrounding
context. Access to the Property was granted by the Proponent. Building interiors were not
accessed.
Unless otherwise attributed, all photographs in this HIA were taken during the site visit. A
selection of photographs from the site visit that document the Property are included in
Section 5.
2.4 UNDERSTANDNG OF CULTURAL HERITAGE VALUE OR INTEREST
A description of the heritage character of the area, cultural heritage value of the NOAHCD, and
any relevant heritage attributes of the HCE will be included in this HIA to inform the impact
assessment and design advice or mitigation measures.
The impact assessment in Section 8 specifically considers how relevant heritage attributes
derived from these sections of the NOAHCD Plan may be affected as a result of the proposed
development.
2.5 IMPACT ASSESSMENT
The impact assessment is prepared based on guidance from the Ontario Heritage Tool Kit,
Information Sheet #5: Heritage Impact Assessments and Conservation Plans (Info Sheet #5)
prepared by the Ministry of Citizenship and Multiculturalism. Info Sheet #5 outlines seven
potential negative impacts to be considered with any proposed development or site
alteration. The impacts include, but are not limited to:
1. Destruction of any part of any significant heritage attribute or features;
2. Alteration that is not sympathetic or is incompatible, with the historic fabric and
appearance;
3. Shadows created that alter the appearance of a heritage attribute or change the
viability of a natural feature or planting, such as a garden;
4. Isolation of a heritage attribute from its surrounding environment, context, or a
significant relationship;
5. Direct or indirect obstruction of significant views or vistas within, from, or built and
natural features;
Page 32 of 107
LHC0573 July 2026
7
6. A change in land use such as rezoning a battlefield from open space to residential
use, allowing new development or site alteration to fill in the formerly open spaces;
and
7. Land disturbances such as a change in grade that alters soils, drainage patterns that
adversely affect an archaeological resource.4
The impact assessment considers direct and indirect impacts to the HCD and to the adjacent
properties. The impact assessment also considers nearby properties because they are part of
the HCD and overall streetscape. See Section 1.3 for a list of adjacent and nearby heritage
properties.
2.6 COMPLIANCE WITH THE POLICIES AND GUIDELINES IN THE NOAHCD
PLAN
Section 8.3 of this HIA assesses the compliance of the proposed development with the
relevant objectives and policies in Section 4 of the NOAHCD Plan and relevant design and
architectural guidelines in Section 9 of the NOAHCD Plan.
4 Ministry of Citizenship and Multiculturalism, “Information Sheet #5: Heritage Impact Assessments and
Conservation Plans,” in Heritage Resources in the Land Use Planning Process, in Ontario Heritage Toolkit (Toronto:
Queen’s Printer for Ontario, 2006), 3.
Page 33 of 107
LHC0573 July 2026
8
3 POLICY AND LEGISLATION CONTEXT
3.1 ONTARIO HERITAGE ACT, R.S.O. 1990, C. O.18
The OHA (consolidated 1 April 2026) enables the provincial government and municipalities
with powers to conserve, protect, and preserve the heritage of Ontario. The OHA gives
municipalities power to identify and conserve individual properties, districts, or landscapes of
cultural heritage value or interest. It also requires municipalities to keep a register of
properties in the municipality that are of cultural heritage value or interest (Municipal
Heritage Register).5 There are two types of heritage properties under the OHA: Designated
properties and Listed properties. The OHA allows municipalities to designate individual
property under Section 29 Part IV and to designate heritage conservation districts (HCD)
under Section 41 Part V. Designation applies to real property and generally requires owners to
obtain written consent from municipal council before altering the heritage attributes of a
Designated property, erecting a building on the property, or removing/demolishing a building
from the property.6
3.2 2022 YORK REGION OFFICIAL PLAN (2024 CONSOLIDATION)
The 2022 York Region Official Plan (ROP) was adopted by Council June 2022 and was approved
by the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing in November 2022. It was consolidated June
2024 to reflect modifications by the Province of Ontario’s Ministry of Municipal Affairs and
Housing, and changes in Provincial Bill 150 and Bill 162. The ROP provides a decision-making
framework to help guide change in the region to 2051.7
Section 2.4 contains policies pertaining to cultural heritage. The goals and expectations for
the management and protection of the Region’s cultural heritage resources are reflected in
the chapter objective:
To recognize, conserve and promote cultural heritage resources, cultural
landscapes and built heritage of York Region and preserve their value and benefit
to the community for present and future residents.8
Policies relating to cultural heritage are included in Table 1.
5 Province of Ontario, “Ontario Heritage Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. O.18,” consolidated 1 April 2026, accessed 13 May
2026, https://www.ontario.ca/laws/statute/90o18.
6 Province of Ontario, “Ontario Heritage Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. O.18.”
7 York Region, “York Region Official Plan 2022,” consolidated June 2024, accessed 14 May 2026,
https://www.york.ca/york-region/regional-official-plan.
8 York Region, “York Region Official Plan 2022,” 30.
Page 34 of 107
LHC0573 July 2026
9
Table 1. Relevant Policies from the ROP
Policy Number Policy Text 9
2.4.1 That cultural heritage resources shall be conserved to foster a sense of
place and benefit communities.
2.4.2 To promote well-designed built form and cultural heritage planning,
and to conserve features that help define character, including built
heritage resources and cultural heritage landscapes.
3.3 TOWN OF AURORA OFFICIAL PLAN (JANUARY 2026 CONSOLIDATION)
The Town of Aurora Official Plan (OP) was adopted by Council in January 2024 and by Regional
Council in May 2024.10 The OP was most recently consolidated to January 2026.11 Relevant
policies relating to cultural heritage are found in Section 14 and are included in Appendix D.
3.4 THE NORTHEAST OLD AURORA HERITAGE CONSERVATION DISTRICT
The Northeast Old Aurora Heritage Conservation District (NOAHCD) was adopted as a heritage
conservation district on 9 November 2006, as amended by OMB Decision Order #3159.12 The
heritage conservation district plan governing the NOAHCD was prepared by architects Phillip
Carter and Paul Oberst and approved by Council on 13 June 2006.13
Section 2.5.1 of the HCD Plan defines its objectives, among them is to:
• To ensure the retention and conservation of the District’s cultural heritage resources,
heritage landscapes, and heritage character,
• To conserve the District’s heritage value and heritage attributes, as depicted and
described in the Study and Inventory, and
9 York Region, “York Region Official Plan 2022,” 30.
10 Business and Development, “Policy Planning,” Town of Aurora, n.d., accessed 13 May 2026,
https://www.aurora.ca/business-and-development/planning-and-development/policy-planning/.
11 Town of Aurora, “Town of Aurora Official Plan,” consolidated January 2026, accessed 13 May 2026,
https://www.aurora.ca/media/s2bdxvvf/consolidated-and-finalized-aurora-op-jan-2026.pdf.
12 Phillip Carter and Paul Oberst, “Northeast Old Aurora Heritage Conservation District : The Plan,” Town of
Aurora, last modified 9 November 2009, accessed 13 May 2026,
https://www.aurora.ca/media/efwdhy2q/northeast-old-aurora-hcd-plan.pdf.
13 The Corporation of the Town of Aurora, “By-law Number 4809-06.D Being A By-law to Adopt the Northeast Old
Aurora Heritage Conservation District Plan,” last modified 13 June 2006, accessed 13 May 2026,
https://www.aurora.ca/media/bnvp5vnp/by-law-4809-06d-adopt-the-northeast-old-aurora-hcd-plan.pdf.
Page 35 of 107
LHC0573 July 2026
10
• To guide change so that it harmonizes as far as possible with the District’s
architectural, historical, and contextual character.14
Section 4 identifies policies and guidelines pertaining to the NOAHCD with Section 4.4
specifically addressing non-heritage buildings. Each of the relevant policies and guidelines
from these sections of the HCD Plan are described in Section 8.3 of this HIA with commentary
on how the proposed alterations do or do not comply with HCD Plan policy.
14 Carter and Oberst, “Northeast Old Aurora Heritage Conservation District Plan,” 27.
Page 36 of 107
LHC0573 July 2026
11
4 BRIEF HISTORY OF THE NOAHCD AND THE PROPERTY
The NOAHCD Plan indicates the history of the District as follows (verbatim):
Early settlement was made difficult by a lack of reliable transportation. The
Statue of Labour required, as a condition of the land grants, that settlers clear and
maintain all roadways adjacent to their assigned property. The statute proved
difficult to enforce, as the settlers were busy building their homes and clearing the
forest from their lands, and as a result the road network was poor. It was hard for
farmers to get crops to market, and hard for suppliers to get goods to the farmers.
Yonge Street, built as a military road, was at an advantage, and by 1806 all the
land within present-day Aurora, on both sides of the road, had been claimed.
Once settlement arrived, the transportation difficulties required local production
of many essential goods. The conjunction of a road with a stream made it
possible to establish mills to cut timber for construction and grind grains for food.
A mill and the traffic it generated would attract supporting trades and
shopkeepers, and a village would grow up around it. And so it was in Aurora.
“About 1804” is given as the beginning of a hamlet at the Yonge-Wellingon [sic]
corner. The first gristmill was probably west of Yonge, near Wellington Street on
William Tyler’s property. In 1849 this became Irwin’s Mill, which gave it’s [sic]
name to the present Irwin Avenue. The village remained small through the 1820s
and 1830s. The Methodists formed their church in 1818, and the first hotel was
McLeod’s, which became the scene of an incident in the 1837 Mackenzie Rebellion
when it was taken over one night by Loyalist troops.
Richard Machell purchased an acre of land at the southeast corner of Yonge and
Wellington in 1832, and established himself as a general merchant. Over the next
decade, he bought land on two of the other three corners, and the settlement
became known as Machell’s Corners…
One of the rebels [Mackenzie Rebellion] was Charles Doan. He had lived in Hope
(now Sharon), and like many of the Children of Peace, he had joined the rebellion,
marching on Toronto with Mackenzie, for which he was arrested and imprisoned.
One striking fact about the rebellion was how quickly it was forgiven and
forgotten. By 1846, Charles Doan was able to secure appointment as the
postmaster for a new post office on Yonge Street, north of Wellington Street. It
opened on July 6, as the “Whitchurch Post Office”.
Page 37 of 107
LHC0573 July 2026
12
Doan later built an imposing store on the main corner, and moved the post office
there. Doan prospered, earning both wealth and respect, and played an
important role in the development of the Town, as we will see further on. There
seems to have been a rivalry between Charles Doan and Richard Machell. Where
Doan was a rebel turned Reform, Machell was Tory, and they were competing
merchants and landowners. Both men helped develop the lands in the Northeast
Old Aurora Study Area…
Locally, the arrival of the railway inspired the laying out of subdivisions of
farmland into building lots. It was obvious that the railway would attract factories
and businesses, whose employees would need places to live. Richard Machell was
the first off the mark, filing Plan 107, for “Matchville” in May of 1853. Centre Street
was to be the central road for his planned town, and it was the original piece of
the Northeast Old Aurora neighbourhood. In the following month, John Mosley
filed plan 68, subdividing his farm in the southeast quadrant of the Yonge-
Wellington corner. This was a substantial plan, extending from Yonge Street to
the railway, and it became the heart of the growing town.
Charles Doan felt that a new era was dawning, and he proposed that the post
office be renamed Aurora, after the Greek goddess of dawn. His advice was taken,
and on January 1, 1854, Aurora was born as a local place name, and the name
stuck. Machell’s Corners, Matchville, and Whitchurch post office became
memories.
The effect of the railway was all that had been hoped for. Aurora station became
an important shipping point for timber and grain. Hotels were built on Wellington
Street near the tracks, and industry began to arrive. In 1859 Joseph Fleury came
to Aurora as a partner to Thomas Pearson in a blacksmithing business, and
developed a cast-beam plow. After the partnership broke up, Fleury perfected his
plow, to great success. The foundry became the economic engine of early Aurora.
Joseph Fleury and his company were honoured by John McMahon, when he laid
out Fleury Street in 1912, and by the Town of Aurora, when they put a Fleury plow
on the town seal in the 1920s.
Until this time, the east side of Yonge was part of Whitchurch township, and the
west side was part of King. By 1863 the population had reached 700, and an
application for incorporation as a village was granted by the Province. The
boundaries include three farm lots north of Wellington and three south, on both
sides of Yonge. The first village council meeting was held on January 19, 1863,
and Charles Doan, the postmaster who named the village, became its first reeve.
Page 38 of 107
LHC0573 July 2026
13
In the 1850s, Charles Doan purchased almost 65 acres of land north of Machell’s
property on the east side of Yonge Street, including the first post office site. On
August 1, 1865, Charles Doan filed a plan of subdivision for 40 residential lots on
his property, north of the Matchville subdivision. He named the first street,
running east beside his house, Catherine Avenue, after his wife. The others were
named Maple and Spruce Streets…
Development was a lengthy process, with much of the construction not occurring
until the 1880s…
First owners of these buildings were mostly substantial citizens: retired farmers,
merchants, the photographer Robert Newberry (at 15 Catherine Avenue), a grain
dealer, a mill owner, and foundry owner Joseph Fleury. The Fleury house, the
grandest in old Aurora, was demolished to make way for Our Lady of Grace
Church.
In 1887, the Council applied to be made a town. A proclamation was issued on
September 30 of that year creating the Town of Aurora as of January 1, 1888. The
town boundary included the same 1200 acres that the village had occupied, but
within that area the population had grown to 2,107.
But there was a bump in the road to prosperity. Technology gives, and technology
takes away. Like many smaller Ontario towns, Aurora found that the growing
scale of industry and transportation favoured bigger enterprises in bigger cities.
The competitive advantage of early electrification in the south only intensified the
trend. Development slowed, and Aurora lost population between 1891 and 1901,
and it didn’t return to the 1891 level for thirty years.
It wasn’t until 1891 that Charles Doan’s grid began to be extended, with the
subdivision of the east side of Spruce Street.
Development mostly occurred after the turn of the century. John McMahon, a
farmer turned developer, and Michael Shulman, a builder, were responsible for
most of the development. Shulman built the rusticated concrete block houses at
77-87 Spruce Street, as well as the apartment building of the same material on
Yonge Street.
First owners were merchants, retired farmers, a high school principal and a high
school teacher. The concrete block houses were often rental properties…
In 1912, John McMahon subdivided his lands, laying out Fleury Street and
extending Catherine Avenue and Maple Street. In 1915 and 1916 he donated land
Page 39 of 107
LHC0573 July 2026
14
to the Town to create McMahon Park.
Most of the houses were built within a few years of the subdivision, the principal
developers being McMahon himself, and James Brothers, another farmer-turned-
developer. One later building is at 63 Maple, and it was built by John Bowser as
owner of the Aurora Building Company. Bowser is noted as the construction
engineer of the Empire State Building, which is memorialized by his tombstone in
the Aurora Cemetery.
First owners in the Fleury Subdivision included a mix of merchants, professional
men, and skilled blue-collar workers.
The first block of Mark Street was subdivided in 1924 from lands owned by Mark
Badger, Charles W. Badger, Mary Bolton, and Mary Steele. The Badgers were the
driving force, and Mark Badger is considered the developer. Fred Browning is
identified as the builder of the California Bungalow at 27 Mark Street, and John
Bowser is identified as building 20 Mark Street. Both men may have constructed
other houses in this subdivision
The creation of Northeast Old Aurora was a lengthy process, spanning more than
70 years, and the houses built there reflected the prevailing styles over that time.
As will be seen in the area examination below, the chronology of development can
be traced in the architecture on the ground. It’s interesting to note that in the
time between the original plan of subdivision and the construction of houses, the
lots often changed orientation at the corners.
Significant growth awaited the post-WWII era, when improved roads and common
automobile ownership began to change the way people lived and worked and
shopped. New industry and business, and new residential subdivisions began to
arrive, beginning a population torrent that has never slowed.
At 4961 hectares, the Aurora of today encompasses more than ten times the area
of the original town, and its population is now 43,500—about 20 times the
population it had when Fleury and Mark Streets were developed. Post-WWII
development has the character of the car-oriented suburban model, with curved
layouts, cul-de-sacs, and limited access to the arterial road grid. The contrasting
character of the old town centre gives it a special quality within the larger
municipality that is worth preserving.15
15 Carter and Oberst, “Northeast Old Aurora Heritage Conservation District Plan,” 26 and Appendix C.
Page 40 of 107
LHC0573 July 2026
15
5 EXISTING CONDITIONS
5.1 SURROUNDING CONTEXT
The Property is located in the Town of Aurora in York Region. The Property is in the Northeast
Old Aurora HCD located in the Town’s northwest corner (Figure 1). The Northeast Old Aurora
HCD is irregularly shaped and is primarily comprised of residential properties with some
commercial properties in specific areas (Figure 3).
The topography of the area is generally flat along Spruce Street with a gentle slope along
Centre Street to the south (Image 1 and Image 2). Settlement area sections of the Oak Ridges
Moraine are approximately 2 kilometres (km) to the south and approximately 1.5 km to the
west of the Property. The vegetation of the area consists of landscaped front yards fronting
houses with mature and young deciduous and coniferous trees and hedges interspersed
along Spruce Street (Image 1).
The Property is bound by Spruce Street to the west and residential properties to the north,
south, and east. Spruce Street is a local road that provides access between residences and
Centre Street to the south. It is a two-lane road flanked by mountable curbs and shallow
sidewalks. Streetlights are not present on this stretch of Spruce Street (Image 1). Spruce
Street curves to the east just north of the Property and becomes a section of Catharine Street.
A median separates this section of Spruce Street from the section of Spruce Street to the north
as well as separates the east and west sections of Catharine Street (Image 3).
The surrounding area includes residential properties. Lots are generally rectangular with
narrow frontages. Residential properties consist of mainly buildings of one to two storeys in
height and rectangular plans. Setbacks range from approximately 4 metres (m) to 15 m (Image
1). Building materials primarily consist of brick with some wood, stucco, and vinyl siding.
Page 41 of 107
LHC0573 July 2026
16
Image 1. View south along Spruce Street from just north of 37 Spruce Street
Image 2. View east along Centre Street from the south side of 11 Spruce Street
Page 42 of 107
LHC0573 July 2026
17
Image 3. View north of the Spruce Street and Catharine Street curve from the west side of
Spruce Street north of the Property
5.2 SURROUNDING AND ADJACENT HERITAGE PROPERTIES
Since the Property is located in a heritage conservation district, the Property is close to
several other heritage properties including: 55 Catherine Avenue, 54 Centre Street, 19 Spruce
Street, and 37 Spruce Street (Table 2). All four adjacent properties are considered heritage
buildings – also known as buildings of historical interest.
Table 2. Surrounding and Adjacent Heritage Properties
Property Description from HCD Plan Image
55
Catharine
Avenue
The property at 55 Catherine Avenue is a
rectangular lot on the south side of
Catherine Avenue. A single-detached
house with a square plan, described in
the NOAHCD Plan as an ‘Arts & Crafts’
building is the most prominent feature on
the Property.16 The house is noted as
having its original detailing obscured by
16 Carter and Oberst, Northeast Old Aurora Heritage Conservation District The Plan, 74.
Page 43 of 107
LHC0573 July 2026
18
Property Description from HCD Plan Image
stucco cladding, however, the shallow
porch pediments and the glazing suggest
Arts & Crafts influences.17
54 Centre
Street
The property at 54 Centre Street is a
rectangular lot on the north side of
Centre Street. A single-detached house
with an L-shaped plan, described in the
NOAHCD Plan as a
‘Homestead/Vernacular’ building is the
most prominent feature on the
Property.18
19 Spruce
Street
The property at 19 Spruce Street is a
rectangular lot on the east side of Spruce
Street. A single-detached house with a
rectangular plan, described in the
NOAHCD Plan as a ‘Gothic Revival'
building is the most prominent feature on
the Property.19 No. 19 is a buff brick
Ontario vernacular Victorian with an
unusual, conjoined verandah and bay
window under a hipped roof. It has a
shed-roof addition.20
37 Spruce
Street
The property at 37 Spruce Street is a
rectangular lot on the east side of Spruce
Street and the south side of Catherine
Avenue. A single-detached house with a
rectangular plan, described in the
NOAHCD Plan as a ‘Second Empire’
building is the most prominent feature on
17 Carter and Oberst, Northeast Old Aurora Heritage Conservation District The Plan, 157.
18 Carter and Oberst, Northeast Old Aurora Heritage Conservation District The Plan, 74.
19 Carter and Oberst, Northeast Old Aurora Heritage Conservation District The Plan, 165.
20 Carter and Oberst, Northeast Old Aurora Heritage Conservation District The Plan, 165.
Page 44 of 107
LHC0573 July 2026
19
Property Description from HCD Plan Image
the Property.21 It is noted as being one of
two Second Empire houses in the
NOAHCD, with a characteristic Mansard
roof, iron cresting, prominent brackets,
and elaborate pilasters at the corners of
the dormers. It was built around 1885.22
5.3 THE PROPERTY
The Property is a rectangular lot of approximately 0.16 acres (650m2) on the east side of
Spruce Street between Centre Street and Catharine Avenue in the NOAHCD. The house is
located on the west side of the lot facing Spruce Street with a setback from the street of
approximately 10 m. It has a large front yard with a grassed lawn and large hedges. The side
yards and rear yard are grassed with a large shrub in the southeast corner of the yard and a
large tree at the south property line (Image 4 to Image 6).
The house has an L-shaped plan with a hip roof, overhanging eaves, a plain soffit, and a large
centrally located chimney. It is a one-storey building clad in white glazed brick in a stretcher
bond pattern with a full below grade basement and concrete foundation. The attached one-
car garage is located on the north side of the house and in-line with the front edge of the
house’s covered porch. The porch has a concrete patio and is supported by three square
posts. The Property is accessed from a paved driveway along the northwest edge of the lot
leading from the street to the attached garage (Image 4). The NOAHCD Plan describes the
house as a “Ranch House” building.
The façade is asymmetrical and composed of a recessed entrance door with a sidelight
window in the eastmost bay and a large picture window flanked by two smaller rectangular
windows (Image 4). In addition to the main entrance, there is a large sliding door that leads to
a concrete patio on the north elevation (Image 7), a single flat-headed entrance that also leads
to the concrete patio on the east elevation (Image 7), and a single flat-headed entrance on the
south elevation (Image 8). Typical windows on the north, east, and south elevations are
contemporary construction, flat-headed, and either fixed or casement with plain white trim
and concrete lug sills (Image 8 and Image 9).
21 Carter and Oberst, Northeast Old Aurora Heritage Conservation District The Plan, 74.
22 Carter and Oberst, Northeast Old Aurora Heritage Conservation District The Plan, 165.
Page 45 of 107
LHC0573 July 2026
20
Image 4. View east of the facade (west elevation)
Image 5. View south of the rear yard
Page 46 of 107
LHC0573 July 2026
21
Image 6. View west of the south side yard
Image 7. View west of the north and east elevations
Page 47 of 107
LHC0573 July 2026
22
Image 8. View northeast of the south elevation
Image 9. View west of the east elevation
Page 48 of 107
LHC0573 July 2026
23
5.4 ANALYSIS
5.4.1 ARCHITECTURAL ANALY SIS
The building on the Property is a vernacular structure that reflects influences from the Ranch
House architectural style, which was common between 1950 and 1975. It is considered to be a
Non-Heritage Style for residential buildings in the NOAHCD Plan with 25 Spruce Street
identified as an example (Image 1).23
Typical design elements include:
• A low-slope hipped or gable roof with asphalt shingles;
• Wide overhanging eaves;
• A large chimney;
• One-storey informal plan;
• An attached garage or carport;
• Brick veneer on wood-frame construction;
• Accent bands of stone or ‘angel stone’; and,
• Large, fixed picture windows in principal rooms flanked by operable double-hung or
casement windows.24
Image 10. Illustration of a Ranch House.25
23 Carter and Oberst, Northeast Old Aurora Heritage Conservation District The Plan, Appendix B: Architectural
Styles, 9.1.2 Non-Heritage Styles Residential Buildings, 185.
24 Carter and Oberst, Northeast Old Aurora Heritage Conservation District The Plan, Appendix B: Architectural
Styles, 9.1.2 Non-Heritage Styles Residential Buildings, 185.
25 Carter and Oberst, Northeast Old Aurora Heritage Conservation District The Plan, Appendix B: Architectural
Styles, 9.1.2 Non-Heritage Styles Residential Buildings, 185.
Page 49 of 107
LHC0573 July 2026
24
6 UNDERSTANDING OF CULTURAL HERITAGE VALUE OR INTEREST
Section 2.0 of the NOAHCD Plan includes the NOAHCD’s statement of cultural heritage value or
interest and provides a description of property (heritage conservation district), statement of
cultural heritage value or interest, and list of heritage attributes. Relevant parts of the
statement of cultural heritage value or interest are included verbatim below:
Statement of Heritage Value
The Northeast Old Aurora Heritage Conservation District is a distinct community
in the Town of Aurora, characterized by a wealth of heritage buildings, historic
sites, and landscapes. The District is representative of the development and
growth of an Ontario residential district from the mid-19th through the mid-20th
centuries, in an industrializing village and town. Northeast Old Aurora is the site
of the first expansion of the Village of Aurora north of Wellington Street. It
originated in response to the prosperity promised by the arrival of Canada’s first
rail line, the Ontario Huron and Simcoe Railway. The neighbourhood developed
over more than half a century, and it contains a wealth of heritage buildings
spanning the period of 1860-1930, and including characteristics styles from
Ontario Victorian Vernacular through Craftsman Bungalows. There is a particular
wealth of late 19th century Edwardian and Queen Anne Revival houses, including a
compact grouping constructed of decorative concrete block.
Particular elements worthy of preservation are:
• A wide range of historic architectural styles within a compact area.
• A high percentage of heritage buildings that remain largely intact.
• A pattern of buildings with compatible scale and site plan characteristics in
the various areas of the District.
• Deep rear yards, providing mid-block green space, and generous spacing
of buildings in most streetscapes.
• A village-like character created by historical road profiles, mature trees,
and undisturbed topography.
• The association of historic figures with many of the houses.
• The historical lot pattern.26
26 Carter and Oberst, Northeast Old Aurora Heritage Conservation District The Plan, 26.
Page 50 of 107
LHC0573 July 2026
25
Statement of Heritage Attributes
The heritage attributes of the Northeast Old Aurora Heritage Conservation District
are embodied in its buildings and landscapes, which are shown and described in
detail in Sections 4.1 through 4.4 of the Study, and in the built form, architectural
detail, and historical associations, which are depicted and described in detail in
the Aurora Inventory of Heritage Properties. These attributes are worthy of
preservation.27
6.1.1 SPRUCE STREETSCAPE
The Spruce Streetscape from Centre Street to Catharine Street is characterized in Appendix A
of the NOAHCD Plan and is described verbatim below.
Spruce Street has the most dramatic topography of any street in the Study Area. It
rises gently from Centre to Catherine, falls gently to Maple, and slopes down a
steep 6 metres to Mark Street. The west side of the street was part of the original
plan of subdivision, and holds some of the older houses in the Study Area. No. 10,
which has the appearance of a post-WWII cottage, actually dates from 1885. No. 16
is a hipped roof bungalow, with a later angled bay window, from the 1940s. No. 20
is a buff brick Ontario vernacular house with an ell plan and a shallow square bay
window on the ground floor. No. 24 actually is a post-WWII Cape Cod Cottage. The
flank of 39 Catherine Avenue occupies the corner lot. On the east side, the block
begins with the flank of the recent Neo-Georgian building at 52 Centre Street. No.
15 is a sensitive introduction to the district No. 19 is a buff brick Ontario
vernacular Victorian with an unusual conjoined verandah and bay window under a
hipped roof. A recent shedroof addition that fills the ell on the ground floor is not
very sympathetic. No. 37, at the corner of Catherine, is one of two Second Empire
houses in the Study Area, with characteristic mansard roof, iron cresting,
prominent brackets, and elaborate pilasters at the corners of the dormers. It was
built around 1885, but according to the Inventory, the brickwork dates from the
early 1900’s. The street is curbless, with the sidewalk at the street edge. Trees are
plentiful and mature.28
27 Carter and Oberst, Northeast Old Aurora Heritage Conservation District The Plan, 27.
28 Carter and Oberst, Northeast Old Aurora Heritage Conservation District The Plan, Appendix A: Streetscapes,
9.1.1.7 Spruce Street—Centre to Catherine, 165.
Page 51 of 107
LHC0573 July 2026
26
7 DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
The owner is proposing to demolish the existing house and replace it with a new construction.
The new house is proposed to be two-storeys in height with the same setback and in the same
location as the existing house (Figure 4). The house will have a hip roof with a closed
pediment on the north side of the façade above the porch and red brick quoins. The main
entrance will be offset to the north side of the façade with a sidelight on the south side of the
flat-headed door and a shed roofed porch supported by square columns with red brick bases.
Windows on the façade will be flat-headed and have four panes in a line over one
arrangement with lug sills and red brick voussoirs. Windows on other elevations are a
combination of picture windows and flat-headed with three panes in a line over one (Figure 5
and Figure 6).
An attached one-and-a-half storey garage is proposed for the north elevation of the house. It
will be setback from the façade of the house, clad in black board and batten siding, and have
a side gable roof with returning eaves and a closed pediment on the façade (Figure 5 and
Figure 6).
Page 52 of 107
LHC0573 July 2026
27
Figure 4. Site Plan
Page 53 of 107
LHC0573 July 2026
28
Figure 5. East and South Elevations
Page 54 of 107
LHC0573 July 2026
29
Figure 6. North and West Elevations
Page 55 of 107
LHC0573 July 2026
30
8 IMPACT OF PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
8.1 POTENTIAL IMPACTS TO 25 SPRUCE STREET
The Property is classified as a non-heritage building in the HCD Plan. Therefore, the Property
does not have heritage attributes that can be affected by the proposed demolition and new
construction.
8.2 POTENTIAL IMPACTS TO ADJACENT AND SURROUNDING HERITAGE
PROPERTIES
The proposed demolition and new construction will be restricted to the Property and will not
destroy or alter the adjacent or surrounding properties identified in Section 5.2. Shadow
impacts and isolation of a heritage attribute are not anticipated. No views or vistas were
identified as heritage attributes for the adjacent and surrounding heritage properties. These
activities will not result in a change in land use or land disturbance on the adjacent and
surrounding heritage properties. Therefore, adverse impacts to the adjacent and surrounding
properties are not anticipated.
Page 56 of 107
LHC0573 July 2026
31
8.3 COMPLIANCE WITH HCD PLAN POLICIES AND GUIDELINES AND POTENTIAL IMPACTS TO THE NOAHCD
8.3.1 COMPLIANCE WITH HCD PLAN POLICIES
Table 3 assesses the proposed alterations’ compliance with the policies pertaining to non-heritage buildings, demolition, and infill
in the HCD Plan.
Table 3. Proposed Development’s Compliance with Policies Pertaining to Non-heritage Buildings in the NOAHCD Plan
Policy # Policy Text 29 Discussion
4.2 (a)
Historical
Pattern –
Building
Envelope
Most of the district was developed as
single family dwellings, which share a
basic historical pattern of scale, lot
size, and placement of houses on their
lots. New work in the residential part
of the District shall preserve this
historical pattern. Yonge Street
properties are dealt with in Section 6—
Special Policy Areas.
a) To preserve traditional spacing
of buildings, new garages for
new or existing houses shall be
separate rear or flankage yard
outbuildings and existing
sideyard driveways shall be
preserved.
The proposed development will preserve the historical pattern
of lot size and placement of the house on the lot. The scale of the
proposed new house is larger than that existing house; however,
the new scale is consistent with other houses located on this
section of Spruce Street.
The proposed garage is not separate from the house. The new
garage is proposed to be attached, setback from the façade of
the house, and clad in a different material than the rest of the
house. Although not strictly compliant, the setback and cladding
give the appearance that the garage is an addition and softens
the presence of the attached garage to serve as a mitigation
measure. Additions clad in a different material than the house is
common on this section of Spruce Street
Page 57 of 107
LHC0573 July 2026
32
Policy # Policy Text 29 Discussion
4.2 (b)
Historical
Pattern –
Building
Envelope
b) New garages for new or existing
houses will have gable or hipped roofs,
with a maximum height of 4.6 metres
(15’-11”).
The proposed garage has a gable roof. This is consistent with this
policy.
The proposed height for the garage is greater than the maximum
of 4.6 metres; however, the closed pediment paired with the
slope of the roof gives the appearance that the garage is within
the maximum height requirements. Although not strictly
compliant with this policy, it is compatible.
4.2 (c)
Historical
Pattern –
Building
Envelope
To preserve the backyard amenity in
neighbouring buildings, new
construction, whether new buildings or
additions to existing buildings should
be limited so that the basic depth of
houses will be limited to 16.8 metres,
not including a fully open front porch.
Where the existing lot is more than 20%
longer than the average lot depth in the
district (42m or 137’-6”) or the width of
the existing heritage house is less than
50% of the width of the lot, an
additional 2.1metres (6’-11” ), of depth
should be allowed.
An additional 2.1 metres (6’-11” ), of
depth should be allowed for one-storey
The depth of the proposed house is 16.57 metres. This is
compliant with this policy.
The existing lot is not more than 20% longer than the average lot
depth in the district nor is the existing house less than 50% of the
width of the lot.
A one-storey extension is not proposed.
The proposed porch projection was not included in the building
depth calculation.
Page 58 of 107
LHC0573 July 2026
33
Policy # Policy Text 29 Discussion
extensions, not higher than 4.6 metres
(15’- 1”)as:
“an enclosed room no wider
than half the width of the
widest part of the house,
not including a garage.”
A completely open porch projection is
not to be included in the calculation for
building depth.
4.2 (d)
Historical
Pattern –
Building
Envelope
To reduce the visual perception of
mass of buildings and additions in the
district it is recommended that where
feasible and reasonable there be an
inset at minimum of 1 foot and that the
roof be set down a minimum of one
foot beyond the depth of 12 metres
(39’-3”).
An inset and a set down roof are not proposed. The visual
perception of the massing of the new house is reduced through
material differentiation and detailing.
4.4.1
Non-Heritage
Buildings –
Additions and
Alterations
Non-heritage buildings are in the
minority in the Northeast Old Aurora
Heritage Conservation District are non-
heritage buildings [sic]. Most of these
properties are good neighbours to the
heritage buildings in scale, massing,
and design. A prime example is found
The existing house is considered a non-heritage building and is
in a bungalow style. It is considered a “good neighbour” to the
heritage buildings of the District. The new house is larger in scale
and massing; however, the proposed design reduces the visual
perception of the scale and massing through differentiation and
detailing making it supportive of the character of the District and
Page 59 of 107
LHC0573 July 2026
34
Policy # Policy Text 29 Discussion
in the small bungalows and “Victory”
houses.
Spruce Street.
4.4.3
Demolition of
Non-Heritage
Buildings
Generally, where non heritage
buildings are supportive of the
character of the heritage conservation
district, the replacement building
should also support the district
character.
The existing non-heritage building is supportive of the character
of the District. The proposed new building is also supportive of
the District’s character and, therefore, in compliance with this
policy.
4.5
New Residential
Buildings
New residential buildings will have
respect for and be compatible with the
heritage character of the District.
Designs for new residential buildings
will be based on the patterns and
proportions of 19th-century and early
20th-century building stock that are
currently existing or once existed in the
District. Architectural elements,
features, and decorations should be in
sympathy with those found on heritage
buildings.
The proposed new house was designed based on the patterns
and proportions of the existing 19th and 20th century building
stock. Many of the proposed architectural elements, features,
and decorations are sympathetic to the buildings in the District.
Some elements – such as the windowpane arrangement and
garage door - are a departure from traditional elements;
however, they identify the new building as a product of its own
time.
4.5.1
Design Approach
The design of new buildings will be
products of their own time, but should
reflect one of the historic architectural
styles traditionally found in the District.
The proposed new house is a product of its own time and reflects
the Edwardian architectural style, which is a style traditionally
found in the District. The proposed new house is in compliance
with this policy.
Page 60 of 107
LHC0573 July 2026
35
Policy # Policy Text 29 Discussion
4.5.1
Design Approach
New residential buildings will
complement the immediate physical
context and streetscape by: being
generally the same height, width, and
orientation of adjacent buildings;
having similar setbacks; being of like
materials and colours; and using
similarly proportioned windows, doors,
and roof shapes
The proposed new house is consistent with the heights, widths,
and orientations of adjacent buildings. The new building will
maintain the current house setback, which is similar to the
adjacent buildings. The proposed materials are complementary
to the immediate context and streetscape as is the chosen brick
colour. Proportions of the windows, doors, and roof shapes are
consistent with the surrounding area. Therefore, these elements
of the new building are consistent with this policy.
The proposed colour for the garage and closed pediment
cladding are a departure from the colours found in the
immediate context and streetscape. Black is primarily used for
roofs in the immediate context. Pane arrangement proportions
of the proposed windows are also not consistent with the
surrounding area. These elements could be considered further to
improve compatibility.
4.5.1
Design Approach
New residential building construction
will respect natural landforms,
drainage, and existing mature
vegetation.
The proposed new building will respect the natural landforms
and drainage of the site. The construction of the existing building
will require the removal of a mature tree near the existing house;
however, the mature trees and vegetation in the front and rear
yards will be retained. Therefore, the proposed is in compliance
with this policy.
Page 61 of 107
LHC0573 July 2026
36
Policy # Policy Text 29 Discussion
4.5.1
Design Approach
Larger new residential buildings will
have varied massing, to reflect the
small and varied scale of the historical
built environment.
The massing of the proposed new house is largely rectangular
with some variation. This is consistent with the Edwardian
architectural style that the proposed design takes inspiration
from. Therefore, the proposed massing is consistent with this
policy.
4.5.1
Design Approach
The height of new residential buildings
should not be less than lowest heritage
building on the same block or higher
than the highest heritage building on
the same block. Historically
appropriate heights for new residential
buildings are considered to be 1-½ to
2-½ storeys, subject to an actual height
limit of 9 metres to the mid-slope of the
roof.
The height of the proposed new house is two-storeys. The lowest
heritage building on the same block is one-storey and the
highest heritage building on the same block is two-storeys.
Therefore, the proposed new house is consistent with this policy.
The height limit in metres to the mid-slope of the roof is not
measured in the current drawings. The maximum height will
need to comply with this policy.
4.5.1
Design Approach
New residential building construction
in the District will conform with the
guidelines found in Section 9.5.2.
The new building will need to conform with the guidelines in
Section 9.5.2 of the HCD Plan. Compliance with these guidelines
is explored in Section 8.3.2 of this HIA.
4.6.3 (b)
Fences
Historically, front yard fencing does not
appear to have been a common feature
in the District apart from the vicinity of
Yonge Street where fences protected
property from the busy street.
Front yard fencing is not proposed. This is compliant with this
policy.
Page 62 of 107
LHC0573 July 2026
37
Policy # Policy Text 29 Discussion
7.9 (a)
Tree
Preservation
Mature trees should be preserved to
the greatest possible extent, except
where removal is necessary due to
disease, damage, trees which are dead
and to ensure public health and safety,
as certified by an arborist
It is unclear from the current drawings if any mature trees are
proposed to be removed. It is likely that the tree close to the
existing house may need to be removed to construct the new
house. Mature trees should be retained to the extent possible,
and removal of trees should be reviewed by a certified arborist.
7.9 (c)
Tree
Preservation
Applications for severance, minor
variance, building permit and site plan
control should clearly identify the
location and extent of canopy of all
trees. Where feasible and reasonable,
impacts on mature vegetation from
new construction should be avoided.
At minimum, the building permit application will need to clearly
identify the location and extent of the canopy of all the trees.
Construction activities should consider the existing trees and
minimize impacts on those trees.
7.9 (d)
Tree
Preservation
To maintain the tree canopy, where
trees are removed, a replacement tree
should be provided at the same
location or elsewhere on the
property/street.
Should a tree need to be removed, a replacement tree should be
provided.
Page 63 of 107
LHC0573 July 2026
38
8.3.2 COMPLIANCE WITH HCD PLAN GUIDELINES
Table 4 assesses the proposed development’s compliance with the guidelines pertaining to new construction for non-contributing
properties.
Table 4. Proposed Development’s Compliance with Guidelines Pertaining to New Construction in the NOAHCD Plan
Guideline # Guideline Text 30 Discussion
9.1.1 (1)
Streetscape
Streetscape elevations should be
provided for each street that will
be impacted by a proposed
development/new construction
As part of a complete application, streetscape elevations should
be provided for Spruce Street.
9.1.1 (2)
Streetscape
New construction should not
overwhelm the streetscape, but
harmonize with and reinforce the
existing heritage character.
The proposed new house will not overwhelm the streetscape and
will harmonize and reinforce the existing heritage character. The
height, scale, and orientation are consistent with the surrounding
buildings. The massing is consistent with the architectural style
from which the design takes its inspiration and is an accepted
historic architectural style within the District. The appearance of
the attached garage as an addition assists with the harmonization
with the streetscape as several buildings in the streetscape have
an addition in a different material from the house.
9.1.2.1 (a)
Traditional Spacing
and Driveway
Placement
To preserve traditional spacing of
buildings, new garages for new or
existing houses shall be separate
rear or flankage outbuildings.
The proposed new construction includes an attached garage.
Although this is not strictly compliant with this guideline, the
setback from the façade of the house and the cladding in a
different material from the house softens the appearance of the
Page 64 of 107
LHC0573 July 2026
39
Guideline # Guideline Text 30 Discussion
attached garage and makes it feel like an addition. Additions in a
different material from the main house are present in the
surrounding area.
9.1.2.1 (b)
Traditional Spacing
and Driveway
Placement
Existing side driveways shall be
maintained.
Although the existing driveway is not a side driveway, the existing
driveway location will be retained.
9.1.2.2 (a)
Rear Yard Spacing
and Amenity Area
To preserve the backyard amenity
in neighbouring buildings, new
construction, whether new
buildings or additions to existing
buildings should be limited so that
the basic depth of houses will be
limited to 16.8 metres, not
including a fully open front porch.
Where the existing lot is more than
20% longer than the average lot
depth in the district (42 m
or137’6”) or the width of the
existing heritage house is less than
50% of the width of the lot, an
additional 2.1 metres (6’11)” of
depth should be allowed.
The basic depth of the house is 16.57 m. This is consistent with
this guideline.
The existing lot is not more than 20% longer than the average lot
depth nor is the width of the existing house less than 50% of the
width of the lot.
A one-storey extension is not proposed.
The front porch projection was not included in the calculation for
building depth.
Page 65 of 107
LHC0573 July 2026
40
Guideline # Guideline Text 30 Discussion
An additional 2.1 (6’-11”) metres of
depth should be allowed for one-
storey extensions, not higher than
4.6 metres (15’), as:
• An enclosed room no wider
than half the width of the
widest part of the house,
not including a garage.
A completely open porch
projection is not to be included in
the calculation for building depth.
9.1.2.2 (b)
Rear Yard Spacing
and Amenity Area
To reduce the visual perception of
mass of buildings and additions in
the district it is recommended that
where feasible and reasonable,
applicants use best efforts to
include an inset at minimum of 0.3
m (1 ft) from the sideyard and that
the roof be set down a minimum of
0.3 m (1 ft) beyond the depth of 12
metres (39’ 3”)
An inset of 1.22 m from the side yard is proposed on the south
elevation. This is consistent with this guideline.
A roof set down is not proposed.
Page 66 of 107
LHC0573 July 2026
41
Guideline # Guideline Text 30 Discussion
9.1.2.3 (2)
Building Height
New buildings or modified non-
heritage buildings should be
designed to preserve the scale and
pattern of the historic District.
The proposed new building will preserve the scale and pattern of
the historic District. The scale of the new house is visually
consistent with the surrounding area from the street and
maintains the existing lot pattern.
9.1.2.3 (3)
Building Height
New houses should be no higher
than the highest building on the
same block, and no lower than the
lowest building on the same block
The proposed new house is two-storeys in height. The highest
building on the block is two-storeys and the lowest is one-storey.
This is consistent with this guideline.
9.1.2.3 (4)
Building Height
The finished first floor height of
any new house should be
consistent with the finished first
floor height of adjacent buildings.
The current drawings do not measure the finished first floor height
of the new house. The finished first floor height of the new house
should be consistent with the finished first floor house of the
adjacent buildings.
9.1.2.4 (1)
Building Placement
New construction should respect
the overall setback pattern of the
streetscape on which it is situated.
The proposed new building will maintain the existing setback,
which is consistent with the setback pattern of the streetscape.
9.1.2.4 (2)
Building Placement
New construction should be
located at an angle which is
parallel with the prevailing pattern
of the street
The proposed new building will maintain the angle of the existing
house. This is consistent with the prevailing pattern of the street.
9.1.2.6
Scale and Massing
For Garages
In order to maintain the character
and quality of the generous rear
yards, new rear-yard garages and
outbuildings should have gable or
The proposed attached garage will have a gable roof. This is
consistent with this guideline.
Height measurements are not included in the current drawings.
Page 67 of 107
LHC0573 July 2026
42
Guideline # Guideline Text 30 Discussion
hipped roofs, with a maximum
height of 4.6 metres.
New garages should consider the
character of traditional carriage
house designs.
The maximum height of the garage should be 4.6 metres.
The proposed garage takes into consideration the character of
traditional carriage house designs as evidenced through the board
and batten cladding. A carriage house style garage door or a
garage door with the appearance of a carriage house door could
improve compatibility.
9.1.3 (2)
Architectural Styles
New developments should be
designed in a style that is
consistent with the vernacular
heritage of the community.
The proposed new house was designed in a style that is consistent
with the vernacular heritage of the community. The design is
inspired by the Edwardian architectural style but is a vernacular
representation of the style. It is not a replication of another house
in the surrounding area. This is consistent with this guideline.
9.1.3 (3)
Architectural Styles
All construction should be of a
particular style, rather than a
hybrid one. Many recent
developments have tended to use
hybrid designs, with inauthentic
details and proportions; for larger
homes, the French manor or
château style (not indigenous to
Ontario) has been heavily
borrowed from. These kinds of
designs are not appropriate for the
District.
The proposed new house is a vernacular representation of the
Edwardian architectural style. This is consistent with this
guideline.
Page 68 of 107
LHC0573 July 2026
43
Guideline # Guideline Text 30 Discussion
9.2.2
Composition
The elevations of heritage
buildings, whether designed by an
architect or by a builder using a
“pattern book,” were usually laid
out using geometrical principles
and geometrically derived
proportions. Knowledge of how
heritage buildings were originally
composed can be helpful in
designing a new building that will
fit well in the heritage context. See
Section 10.2 for sources of further
information.
Geometrical principles and geometrically derived proportions
were used in the creation of the elevations for the proposed
house. This is consistent with this guideline.
9.2.3
Proportion
The proportion of windows to
walls and the proportion
individual window openings is an
important aspect of composition.
Traditionally windows are
between 15 and 20 percent of a
wall, and windows are taller than
they are wide, usually with a ratio
of 2:1.
Proposed windows for the new house are taller than they are wide
with a ratio of around 2:1. This is consistent with this guideline.
Windows appear to be more than 20% of some walls. Solid to void
ratios should be calculated for each elevation.
Windowpane arrangement for façade windows is not traditional
for the Edwardian architectural style. Consideration should be
given to a more traditional pane arrangement as it could improve
compatibility.
Page 69 of 107
LHC0573 July 2026
44
Guideline # Guideline Text 30 Discussion
9.5.1
Overview
New buildings should reflect a
suitable local heritage style. Use
of a style should be consistent in
materials, scale, detail, and
ornament.
The proposed new house is a vernacular representation of the
Edwardian architectural style, which is an approved local heritage
style. Proposed materials, scale, detail, and ornament are largely
consistent with the chosen style. This is consistent with this
guideline.
The windowpane arrangement on the façade is not traditional for
the Edwardian style and further consideration should be given to
a more traditional pane arrangement as it could improve
compatibility.
9.5.1
Overview
It is highly recommended that
owners engage design
professionals skilled in heritage
work for new buildings in the
District.
The owner’s designer is skilled in heritage work. This is consistent
with this guideline.
9.5.2.1
Site Planning
Site new houses to provide
setbacks and frontages that are
consistent with the variety of the
village pattern.
The proposed new building will maintain the existing setback and
frontage. This is consistent with this guideline.
9.5.2.1
Site Planning
Site new houses to preserve
existing mature trees
The proposed new house will be in the same location as the
existing house; however, one of the mature trees is located in the
side yard and may need to be removed to facilitate new
construction. Mature trees should be preserved to the extent
possible.
Page 70 of 107
LHC0573 July 2026
45
Guideline # Guideline Text 30 Discussion
9.5.2.2
Architectural Style
Design houses to reflect one of the
local heritage Architectural Styles.
The proposed new house is a vernacular representation of the
Edwardian architectural style. This is consistent with this
guideline.
9.5.2.2
Architectural Style
Respect the history of the
development of the District by
using a style suitable to the
immediate neighbours. The Fleury
Street subdivision uses Edwardian
and Arts and Crafts styles, for
example. West Catherine Avenue
and the west side of south Spruce
Street are predominantly
Victorian.
The proposed new house is inspired by the Edwardian
architectural style. Although Spruce Street is primarily Victorian,
the Edwardian style is suitable for the District and examples of this
style are found on Spruce Street. This is compliant with this
guideline.
9.5.2.2
Architectural Styles
Hybrid designs that mix elements
from different historical styles are
not appropriate. Historical styles
that are not indigenous to the
area, such as Tudor or French
Manor, are not appropriate.
The proposed new house is not a hybrid design, nor does it
implement a style that is not found in the area. This is compliant
with this guideline.
9.5.2.2
Architectural Styles
Use authentic detail, consistent
with the Architectural Style.
The proposed new house substantially uses authentic detail
consistent with the architectural style. However, the pane
arrangement of the windows on the façade is not consistent with
the architectural style and should be considered further as it could
improve compatibility.
Page 71 of 107
LHC0573 July 2026
46
Guideline # Guideline Text 30 Discussion
9.5.2.2
Architectural Styles
Use appropriate materials. Appropriate materials are proposed. Red brick is consistent with
the architectural style and is found throughout the District. Board
and batten siding is found throughout the District, especially for
additions. The proposed colour for the board and batten siding is
not consistent with the style nor is it found in the surrounding
area. The proposed colour of the board and batten siding could be
reconsidered to improve compatibility.
9.5.2.3
Scale and Massing
New buildings should be designed
to preserve the scale and pattern
of the historic District.
The proposed new building will preserve the scale and pattern of
the historic District. The scale of the new house is visually
consistent with the surrounding area from the street and
maintains the existing lot pattern.
9.5.2.3
Scale and Massing
New houses should be no higher
than the highest building on the
same block, and no lower than the
lowest building on the same block.
The proposed new house is two-storeys in height. The highest
building on the block is two-storeys and the lowest is one-storey.
This is consistent with this guideline.
9.7.1
Planting
Site buildings and additions to
preserve suitable mature trees.
The proposed new house will be in the same location as the
existing house; however, one of the mature trees is located in the
side yard and may need to be removed to facilitate new
construction. Mature trees should be preserved to the extent
possible.
Page 72 of 107
LHC0573 July 2026
47
8.3.3 SUMMARY OF COMPLIANCE WITH POLICIES AND GUIDELINES IN THE HCD
PLAN AND POTENTIAL IMPACTS TO THE HCD
The proposed demolition and new construction will not have a direct or indirect adverse
impact on the cultural heritage value of the HCD. The new construction is compatible with the
surrounding streetscape and will result in a construction of its time. The design is
substantially compliant with the policies and guidelines outlined in the HCD Plan. Where the
design is not strictly compliant – such as the attached garage – it is compatible with the
character of this section of Spruce Street and the properties in the immediate context.
There are elements of the proposed design that could be considered further to improve
compatibility. These elements include the pane arrangement of the windows on the façade,
the proposed garage door, and the colour of the board and batten siding. In addition,
consideration should be given to the existing mature trees. If trees need to be removed for the
new construction, they should be replaced with new trees somewhere on the Property.
8.4 ALTERNATIVE OPTIONS, MITIGATION MEASURES, AND CONSERVATION
METHODS
The design indicated in Section 7 is the second iteration of a design for the new house. The
first design for the new house (Figure 7) had a more contemporary appearance with an all-
brick construction, a two-storey attached garage, shallow hip roof for the whole house
including the garage, and shingled closed pediment above the main entrance. To improve
compatibility and better comply with the guidelines, changes to the design were
implemented including: increasing the pitch of the hip roof on the main house, changing the
roof of the garage to a side gable roof and adding a closed pediment, reducing the height of
the attached garage, changing the cladding of the attached garage and closed pediment
above the main entrance to board and batten, adding brick quoins to the main house, adding
a sidelight to the main entrance, and adding railings to the porch (Figure 5).
Page 73 of 107
LHC0573 July 2026
48
Figure 7. First Design for the New House
The proposed demolition and updated design of the new construction are substantially
compliant with design guidelines from the HCD Plan. New construction is allowable and
compatible and does not create isolation of a significant built heritage or natural feature or
vista. No alternative options are required.
Since the Property is a non-heritage building, conservation methods do not apply to this
project.
Page 74 of 107
LHC0573 July 2026
49
9 CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
LHC was retained on 30 April 2026 by the Owner to prepare a HIA for the property at 25 Spruce
Street in the Town of Aurora, Ontario.
The Property is Designated under Part V Section 41 of the Ontario Heritage Act (OHA) as part of
the Northeast Old Aurora Heritage Conservation District (NOAHCD). The house on the
Property is described as a ‘Ranch House’ building and is classified as a Non-Historic
architectural style in the Northeast Old Aurora Heritage Conservation District Plan (NOAHCD
Plan).
It is LHC’s professional opinion that the demolition of the existing house and the replacement
with a new house is unlikely to yield any direct or indirect negative impacts to the property
itself, any adjacent or surrounding properties, or the NOAHCD. The proposed project is
compatible with the surrounding streetscape and is a construction of its time. The proposed
design is substantially compliant with the policies and guidelines identified in the HCD Plan
and, where the design is not strictly compliant – such as the attached garage – it is compatible
with the character of this section of Spruce Street and the properties in the immediate
context. There are elements of the proposed design that could be considered further to
improve compatibility. These elements include the pane arrangement of the windows on the
façade, the proposed garage door, and the colour of the board and batten siding. In addition,
consideration should be given to the existing mature trees. If trees need to be removed for the
new construction, they should be replaced with new trees somewhere on the Property.
A heritage permit application will be required before any alterations can take place as the
Property is designated under Section 41 Part V of the OHA as part of the NOAHCD.
Page 75 of 107
LHC0573 July 2026
50
10 SIGNATURES
Sincerely,
Christienne Uchiyama, MA CAHP
Principal
LHC Heritage Planning & Archaeology Inc.
Page 76 of 107
LHC0573 July 2026
51
11 REFERENCES
Business and Development. N.d. “Policy Planning.” Town of Aurora. Accessed 13 May 2026.
https://www.aurora.ca/business-and-development/planning-and-
development/policy-planning/.
Canada’s Historic Places. 2010. “Standards and Guidelines for the Conservation of Historic
Places in Canada.” Accessed 13 May 2026.
https://www.historicplaces.ca/media/18072/81468-parks-s+g-eng-web2.pdf.
Carter, Phillip and Paul Oberst. 9 November 2009. "Northeast Old Aurora Heritage
Conservation District :The Plan. Accessed 13 May 2026.
https://www.aurora.ca/media/efwdhy2q/northeast-old-aurora-hcd-plan.pdf.
Ministry of Citizenship and Multiculturalism.
2025. “Heritage Property Evaluation.” In the
Ontario Heritage Tool Kit. Last modified 9 May 2025. Accessed 13 May 2026.
https://www.ontario.ca/document/heritage-property-evaluation.
2006. “Information Sheet #5: Heritage Impact Assessments and Conservation Plans.” In
Heritage Resources in the Land Use Planning Process. In the Ontario Heritage Tool Kit.
Toronto: Queen’s Printer for Ontario.
Province of Ontario. 1990. “Ontario Heritage Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. O.18.” Consolidated 1 April
2026. Accessed 13 May 2026. https://www.ontario.ca/laws/statute/90o18.
The Corporation of the Town of Aurora. 13 June 2006. By-law Number 4809-06.D Being A By-
law to Adopt the Northeast Old Aurora Heritage Conservation District Plan. Accessed 13
May 2026. https://www.aurora.ca/media/bnvp5vnp/by-law-4809-06d-adopt-the-
northeast-old-aurora-hcd-plan.pdf.
Town of Aurora. 2026. “Town of Aurora Official Plan.” Consolidated January 2026. Accessed 13
May 2026. https://www.aurora.ca/media/s2bdxvvf/consolidated-and-finalized-aurora-
op-jan-2026.pdf.
York Region. 2022. “2022 York Region Official Plan.” Consolidated June 2024.
Accessed 14 May 2026. https://www.york.ca/york-region/regional-official-plan.
Page 77 of 107
LHC0573 July 2026
52
APPENDIX A Qualifications
Lisa Coles, MPl RPP MCIP CAHP – Intermediate Heritage Planner
Lisa Coles is an Intermediate Heritage Planner with experience working in heritage consulting
and the not-for-profit museum sector. She holds a Master of Arts in Planning from the
University of Waterloo; a Graduate Certificate in Museum Management & Curatorship from
Fleming College; and a B.A. (Hons) in History and French from the University of Windsor.
Lisa has consulting experience in heritage planning, evaluation, heritage impact assessment,
cultural heritage policy review, historical research, and interpretive planning. She has been a
project manager for several cultural heritage evaluation report and heritage impact
assessment projects. Lisa has also provided heritage planning support to municipalities
including work on heritage permit applications, work with municipal heritage committees,
and review of municipal cultural heritage policy and guidance. Her work has involved a wide
range of cultural heritage resources including institutional, industrial, commercial, and
residential properties, structures, and areas in urban, suburban, and rural environments.
Lisa is experienced in museum and archive policy development, exhibit development,
interpretation, and public programming. She has written museum policy, public programs,
and interpretive plans. She is a professional member of the Canadian Association of Heritage
Professionals (CAHP), a registered professional planner (RPP) and full member with the
Ontario Professional Planning Institute (OPPI), and a full member with the Canadian Institute
of Planners (MCIP).
Diego Maenza, MPl RPP MCIP CAHP Intern – Heritage Planner
Diego Maenza is a Heritage Planner with LHC Heritage Planning & Archaeology Inc. He holds a
BA in Human Geography and Urban Studies from the University of Toronto and a Master of
Planning degree from Dalhousie University. His thesis considered the urban morphological
changes of railway infrastructure, landscapes, and neighbourhoods before and after the 1917
Halifax Explosion. Diego is a heritage professional with five years of public and private sector
experience in Alberta, Nova Scotia, and Ontario through team-based and independent roles.
Diego is a Registered Professional Planner (RPP), full member with the Ontario Professional
Planners Institute (OPPI), full member with the Canadian Institute of Planners (MCIP), and an
intern member of the Canadian Association of Heritage Professionals (CAHP).
At LHC, Diego has worked on over 45 projects dealing with all aspects of Ontario’s cultural
heritage. He has been lead author or co-author of over forty cultural heritage technical reports
for development proposals including Cultural Heritage Evaluation Reports, Heritage Impact
Page 78 of 107
LHC0573 July 2026
53
Assessments, Heritage Screens, and Heritage Documentation Reports. Diego has also
provided heritage planning advisory support for the Town of Niagara-on-the-Lake and the
Municipality of Port Hope which included work on heritage permit applications and work with
municipal heritage committees. His work has involved a wide range of cultural heritage
resources including institutional, infrastructural, industrial, agricultural. and residential sites
in urban, suburban, and rural settings.
Jordan Greene, BA (Hons) – Mapping Technician
Jordan Greene, BA joined LHC as a mapping technician following the completion of her
undergraduate degree. In addition to completing her B.A. in Geography at Queen’s University,
Jordan also completed certificates in Geographic Information Science and Urban Planning
Studies. During her work with LHC Jordan has been able to transition her academic training
into professional experience and has deepened her understanding of the applications of GIS
in the fields of heritage planning and archaeology. Jordan has contributed to over 100
technical studies and has completed mapping for projects including, but not limited to,
cultural heritage assessments and evaluations, archaeological assessments, environmental
assessments, hearings, and conservation studies. In addition to GIS work she has completed
for studies Jordan has begun developing interactive maps and online tools that contribute to
LHC’s internal data management. In 2021 Jordan began acting as the health and safety
representative for LHC.
Christienne Uchiyama, MA CAHP - Principal LHC
Christienne Uchiyama MA CAHP is a Principal with LHC. She is a Heritage Consultant and
Professional Archaeologist (P376) with more than two decades of experience working on
cultural heritage aspects of planning and development projects. She received her MA in
Heritage Conservation from Carleton University School of Canadian Studies. Her thesis
examined the identification and assessment of impacts on cultural heritage resources in the
context of Environmental Assessment.
Chris has provided archaeological and heritage conservation advice, support and expertise as
a member of numerous multi-disciplinary project teams for projects across Ontario, including
such major projects as: all phases of archaeological assessment at the Canadian War Museum
site at LeBreton Flats, Ottawa; renewable energy projects; natural gas pipeline routes; railway
lines; hydro powerline corridors; and highway/road realignments. She has completed more
than 300 cultural heritage technical reports for development proposals at all levels of
government, including cultural heritage evaluation reports, heritage impact assessments, and
archaeological licence reports and has a great deal of experience undertaking peer reviews.
Page 79 of 107
LHC0573 July 2026
54
Her specialties include the development of Cultural Heritage Evaluation Reports, under both
O. Reg. 9/06 and 10/06, and Heritage Impact Assessments.
Page 80 of 107
LHC0573 July 2026
55
APPENDIX B Glossary
Definitions are based on those provided in the Provincial Planning Statement (PPS), Ontario
Heritage Act (OHA), York Region Official Plan (ROP), and the Town of Aurora Official Plan (OP). In
some instances, documents have different definitions for the same term, all definitions have
been included and should be considered.
Adjacent lands means for the purposes of policy 4.6.3, those lands contiguous to a protected
heritage property or as otherwise defined in the municipal official plan (PPS).
Alter means to change in any manner and includes to restore, renovate, repair, or disturb.
“Alteration” has a corresponding meaning (OHA).
Built Heritage Resource means a building, structure, monument, installation or any
manufactured or constructed part or remnant that contributes to a property’s cultural
heritage value or interest as identified by a community, including an Indigenous community
(PPS).
Built Heritage Resource means a building, structure, monument, installation or any
manufactured or constructed part or remnant that contributes to a property’s cultural
heritage value or interest as identified by a community, including an Indigenous community.
Built heritage resources are located on property that may be designated under Parts IV or V of
the Ontario Heritage Act, or that may be included on local, provincial, federal and/or
international registers (ROP).
Conserved means the identification, protection, management and use of built heritage
resources, cultural heritage landscapes and archaeological resources in a manner that
ensures their cultural heritage value or interest is retained. This may be achieved by the
implementation of recommendations set out in a conservation plan, archaeological
assessment, and/or heritage impact assessment that has been approved, accepted or
adopted by the relevant planning authority and/or decision-maker. Mitigative measures
and/or alternative development approaches should be included in these plans and
assessments (PPS).
Conserved means the identification, protection, use and/or management of cultural heritage
and archaeological resources in such as [sic] way that their heritage values, attributes and
integrity are retained. This may be addressed through a Conservation Plan or Heritage Impact
Statement (OP).
Conserve means the identification, protection, management and use of built heritage
resources, cultural heritage landscapes and archaeological resources in a manner that
Page 81 of 107
LHC0573 July 2026
56
ensures their cultural heritage value or interest is retained. This may be achieved by the
implementation of recommendations set out in a conservation plan, archaeological
assessment, and/or heritage impact assessment that has been approved, accepted or
adopted by the relevant planning authority and/or decisionmaker. Mitigative measures and/or
alternative development approaches can be included in these plans and assessments (ROP).
Cultural Heritage Landscape means a defined geographical area that may have been
modified by human activity and is identified as having cultural heritage value or interest by a
community, including an Indigenous community. The area may include features such as
buildings, structures, spaces, views, archaeological sites or natural elements that are valued
together for their interrelationship, meaning or association (PPS).
Cultural Heritage Landscape means a defined geographical area that may have been
modified by human activity and is identified as having cultural heritage value or interest by a
community, including an Indigenous community. The area may include features such as
buildings, structures, spaces, views, archaeological sites or natural elements that are valued
together for their interrelationship, meaning or association. Cultural heritage landscapes may
be properties that have been determined to have cultural heritage value or interest under the
Ontario Heritage Act, or have been included on federal and/or international registers, and/or
protected through official plan, zoning by-law, or other land use planning mechanisms (ROP,
OP).
Cultural Heritage Resources means built heritage resources, cultural heritage landscapes
and archaeological resources that have been determined to have cultural heritage value or
interest for the important contribution they make to our understanding of the history of a
place, an event, or a people. While some cultural heritage resources may already be identified
and inventoried by official sources, the significance of others can only be determined after
evaluation (ROP, OP).
Heritage attributes means, in relation to real property, and to the buildings and buildings on
the real property, the attributes of the Property, buildings and buildings that contribute to
their cultural heritage value or interest (“attributs patrimoniaux”) (OHA).
Heritage attributes means, as defined under the Ontario Heritage Act, in relation to real
property, and to the buildings and structures on the real property, the attributes of the
property, buildings and structures that contribute to their cultural heritage value or interest
(PPS).
Heritage attributes means the principal features or elements that contribute to a protected
heritage property’s cultural heritage value or interest, and may include the property’s built,
constructed, or manufactured elements, as well as natural landforms, vegetation, water
Page 82 of 107
LHC0573 July 2026
57
features, and its visual setting (e.g. significant views or vistas to or from a protected heritage
property) (ROP).
Protected Heritage Property means property designated under Part IV or VI of the Ontario
Heritage Act; property included in an area designated as a heritage conservation district
under Part V of the Ontario Heritage Act; property subject to a heritage conservation
easement or covenant under Part II or IV of the Ontario Heritage Act; property identified by a
provincial ministry or a prescribed public body as a property having cultural heritage value or
interest under the Standards and Guidelines for the Conservation of Provincial Heritage
Properties; property protected under federal heritage legislation; and UNESCO World Heritage
Sites (PPS).
Protected Heritage Property means property designated under parts IV, V or VI of the
Ontario Heritage Act; property subject to a heritage conservation easement property under
Parts II or IV of the Ontario Heritage Act; property identified by the Province and prescribed
public bodies as provincial heritage property under the Standards and Guidelines for
Conservation of Provincial Heritage Properties; property protected under federal legislation
and UNESCO World Heritage Sites (ROP).
Significant means in regard to cultural heritage and archaeology, resources that have been
determined to have cultural heritage value or interest. Processes and criteria for determining
cultural heritage value or interest are established by the Province under the authority of the
Ontario Heritage Act (PPS).
Significant Built Heritage Resources, Significant Cultural Heritage Resources means, in
regard to cultural heritage and archaeology, resources that have been determined to have
cultural heritage value or interest. Process and criteria for determining cultural heritage value
or interest are established by the Province under the authority of the Ontario Heritage Act
(ROP).
Page 83 of 107
LHC0573 July 2026
58
APPENDIX C Town of Aurora Heritage
Impact Assessments and Conservation Plans
Guide Terms of Reference
Table 5. Town of Aurora HIA Requirements and their Locations in this Report
Town of Aurora HIA and Conservation Plans Guide Terms of
Reference Requirements
HIA Location
An outline of the methods employed in the study Section 2
Description of the property and context in detail including all
necessary surveys, maps, and plans
Sections 1 and 5
Description of the proposed development in detail Section 7
An outline of applicable planning and heritage policies,
guidelines and resources including (but not limited to):
a. The Planning Act;
b. Provincial Planning Statement;
c. Ontario Heritage Act;
d. York Region Official Plan;
e. Town of Aurora Official Plan;
f. Standards and Guidelines for the Conservation of Historic
Places; and
g. The Ontario Heritage Tool Kit.
Section 3
Description of the heritage status of the subject property and
adjacent properties;
Section 1
Historical research including (but not limited to):
a. Title search;
b. Tax assessment records;
c. Archival research (Aurora Historical Society);
N/A
Page 84 of 107
LHC0573 July 2026
59
Town of Aurora HIA and Conservation Plans Guide Terms of
Reference Requirements
HIA Location
d. County Atlas; and
e. Fire Insurance Plans.
Description of the subject lands with an analysis of cultural
heritage landscapes, archaeological sites, natural heritage
sites and built heritage resources noting all cultural features
(including barns, accessory structures, fences, outbuildings,
etc.) as per the definitions found in Provincial Planning
Statement
Section 5
If the proposed development or site alteration has been
determined to have no adverse impact to identified
significant heritage resources, the Heritage Impact
Assessment must outline the rationale for such a
recommendation
Section 8
description of the identified heritage resources have been
determined to be of significant cultural heritage value or
interest
Section 5.2
Evaluation of the identified significant resources in terms of
the criteria as outlined in the Ontario Heritage Act and
Ontario Regulation 9/06;
N/A
A Statement of Significance for each significant heritage
resource identified in relation to Ontario Regulation 9/06
including a description of the significant heritage attributes
N/A
A summary of the integrity and condition of identified
heritage resources
N/A
A detailed description of impacts of proposed developments
on the identified heritage resources noting the degree or
severity of the impact
Section 8
Recommendations for mitigation, conservation, and
commemoration noting how these recommendations will
address the impacts that have been identified
Section 8.4
Page 85 of 107
LHC0573 July 2026
60
Town of Aurora HIA and Conservation Plans Guide Terms of
Reference Requirements
HIA Location
Recommendations regarding additional studies (e.g.
Conservation Plans)
Section 9
Recommendations for implementation and monitoring Section 9
Addendums, Appendices and References (works cited) Section 11 and
Appendices
Digital photographs with captions (provided on a data stick or
disk)
Section 5
Page 86 of 107
LHC0573 July 2026
61
APPENDIX D Relevant Local Policies
Page 87 of 107
LHC0573 July 2026
62
Table 6. Relevant Policies from the OP
Policy Number Policy Text 31 Discussion
14.1
Objectives
Conserve and enhance recognized cultural heritage
resources of the Town for the enjoyment of existing and
future generations
Cultural heritage resources will be
conserved. The Property is considered
a non-heritage building in the
NOAHCD. The proposed project will not
adversely impact the adjacent cultural
heritage resources.
14.2 (b)
General Cultural
Heritage Policies
The Town may use the power and tools provided by the
enabling legislation, policies and programs, particularly
the Ontario Heritage Act, the Planning Act, the
Environmental Assessment Act and the Municipal Act in
implementing and enforcing the policies of this section.
These may include but not be limited to the following:
ii. The power to require a Heritage Impact Assessment and
Restoration/Conservation Plan for development
proposals and other land use planning proposals that
may potentially affect a designated or significant
heritage resource or Heritage Conservation District;
iii. Using zoning by-law provisions to protect heritage
resources by regulating such matters as use, massing,
form, design, location and setbacks
This HIA is compliant with this policy.
The Town may use other powers and
tools noted in this policy to ensure the
conservation of the cultural heritage
value of the HCD.
31 Town of Aurora, “Town of Aurora Official Plan,” 160-167.
Page 88 of 107
LHC0573 July 2026
63
Policy Number Policy Text 31 Discussion
iv. Using the site plan control by-law to ensure that new
development is compatible with heritage resources;
viii. Prepare a Term of Reference for both Cultural Heritage
Evaluation Report and Heritage Impact Assessment in
accordance with Provincial policies.
14.2 (f)
General Cultural
Heritage Policies
Financial securities from the owner may be required as part
of the conditions of site plan or other development
approvals to ensure the retention and protection of
heritage properties during and after the development
process.
Financial securities may be required for
development approvals to ensure the
conservation of heritage properties
throughout the development process.
14.3 (l)
Policies for Built
Cultural Heritage
Resources
Council may require that a heritage impact assessment be
prepared by a qualified professional to the satisfaction of
the Town, for any proposed alteration, construction, or any
development proposal, including Secondary Plans,
involving or adjacent to a designated heritage resource to
demonstrate that the heritage property and its heritage
attributes are not adversely affected. Mitigation measures
and/or alternative development approaches shall be
required as part of the approval conditions to ameliorate
any potential adverse impacts that may be caused to the
designated heritage resources and their heritage attributes.
Due consideration will be given to the following factors in
reviewing such applications:
This HIA is compliant with this policy.
Page 89 of 107
LHC0573 July 2026
64
Policy Number Policy Text 31 Discussion
i. The cultural heritage values of the property and the
specific heritage attributes that contribute to this value
as described in the register;
ii. The current condition and use of the building or structure
and its potential for future adaptive re-use;
iii. The property owner’s economic circumstances and ways
in which financial impacts of the decision could be
mitigated;
iv. Demonstrations of the community’s interest and
investment (e.g. past grants);
v. Assessment of the impact of loss of the building or
structure on the property’s cultural heritage value, as
well as on the character of the area and environment;
vi. and, Planning and other land use considerations.
14.3 (m)
Policies for Built
Cultural Heritage
Resources
A Heritage Impact Assessment may also be required for any
proposed alteration work or development activities
involving or adjacent to heritage resources to ensure that
there will be no adverse impacts caused to the resources
and their heritage attributes. Mitigation measures shall be
imposed as a condition of approval of such applications.
This HIA is compliant with this policy.
Page 90 of 107
LHC0573 July 2026
65
Policy Number Policy Text 31 Discussion
14.5 (a)
Policies for Heritage
Conservation Districts
Existing Designated Heritage Conservation Districts are
shown on Schedule ‘E’. Within these Districts, all
applications and all permits shall be reviewed in
accordance with the approved District Plan and in
accordance with Section 14.5 m) of this Plan. In addition,
new District Plans shall be shown on Schedule ‘E’; such
additions to Schedule ‘E’ will not require an amendment to
the Official Plan.
The Property is part of an existing
heritage conservation district. Any
applications for the Property will be
reviewed according to the HCD Plan.
This HIA reviews the compliance of the
proposal and the design with the HCD
Plan.
14.5 (k)
Policies for Heritage
Conservation Districts
A Permit is required for all alteration works for properties
located in the designated Heritage Conservation District.
The exceptions are interior works and minor changes that
are specified in the Plan.
A heritage permit will be required for
the proposed works.
14.5 (l)
Policies for Heritage
Conservation Districts
A Heritage Impact Assessment may be required as part of a
heritage permit application and shall provide information
as specified by the Town.
This HIA is compliant with this policy.
14.5 (m)
Policies for Heritage
Conservation Districts
In reviewing all applications and all permits, the Town shall
be guided by the applicable Heritage Conservation District
Plan and the following guiding principles:
i. Heritage buildings, cultural landscapes and
archaeological sites including their environs should be
protected from any adverse effects of the proposed
alterations, works or development;
iv. New construction and/or infilling should fit
Heritage buildings, cultural heritage
landscapes, and archaeological sites
and their environs will be conserved.
No adverse impacts were identified for
the Property, adjacent heritage
properties, or the HCD.
The proposed new construction is
consistent with the immediate physical
Page 91 of 107
LHC0573 July 2026
66
Policy Number Policy Text 31 Discussion
harmoniously with the immediate physical context and
streetscape and be consistent with the existing heritage
architecture by among other things: being generally of the
same height, width, mass, bulk and disposition; of similar
setback; of like materials and colours; and using similarly
proportioned windows, doors and roof shape.
context and existing heritage
architecture. The proposed height,
width, mass, bulk, and disposition are
consistent with the surrounding area. It
will maintain the existing setback. Red
brick and board and batten are
compatible materials for the District;
however, the colour of the board and
batten is a departure from what is
found in the District and the proposed
architectural style. Window
proportions, doors, and roof shape are
similar to the surrounding area. Pane
arrangement of the windows on the
façade is also a departure from what is
found in the District and the proposed
architectural style.
Page 92 of 107
100 John West Way
Aurora, Ontario
L4G 6J1
(905) 727-3123
aurora.ca
Town of Aurora
Memorandum
Planning and Development Services
Re: Heritage Permit Application HPA-2026-06 – 71 Connaught Avenue
To: Heritage Advisory Committee
From: Adam Robb, Manager, Policy Planning and Heritage
Date: September 14, 2026
Recommendation
1. That the memorandum regarding Heritage Permit Application HPA-2026-06 – 71
Connaught Avenue be received; and
2. That the Heritage Advisory Committee comments regarding Heritage Permit
Application HPA-2026-06 – 71 Connaught Avenue be received and referred to staff
for consideration and further action as appropriate.
Background
71 Connaught Avenue was constructed circa 1923 and is an Arts and Crafts dwelling
located on the south side of Connaught Avenue, east of Wells Street. In 2024, as part of
the Town’s designation efforts in response to Provincial Bill 23, the Heritage Advisory
Committee suggested the subject property be designated largely for its associative vale
as the home of Ada and Norman Johnson, who were prominent citizens in the
community. The owner was in favour of the designation and in turn the property was
individually designated later in 2024.
Analysis
The owner is proposing an addition to the property that maintains the Arts and Crafts
architectural style
The owner is proposing to expand the second storey and add an addition over the
garage, living area at the rear, and a recessed covered porch along the west side of the
house. The proposal is intended to provide additional living space for family needs.
Page 93 of 107
Heritage Permit Application HPA-2026-06 – 71 Connaught Avenue
September 14, 2026 Page 2 of 2
From a heritage perspective, designated building elements include the front verandah,
pedimented verandah roofline, pillars and front dormer. Only the front dormer is
proposed to be impacted by subject work. The front dormer will still retain its open
gable ridge/roofline and overall style but will be expanded to proportionally match the
scale of the roof and living space. Staff are of the opinion that this is best design
practice to maintain the proportionality and architectural merit of the dormer.
The proposed porch along the west side is significantly recessed and setback from the
main façade such that there are no negative impacts anticipated. The owner has also
indicated that no trees are anticipated to be removed or impacted. The addition over the
garage is recessed and has a slightly lower roof height to create a natural transition and
degree of subordinacy. From a materiality perspective, the addition over the garage will
also feature complementary board and batten siding and recessed window apron
panels (enframements), which are complementary and sympathetic. The owner has
indicated their intent to proceed with this work over the garage first, as an initial phase
of construction, prior to then proceeding with the rear addition later.
The proposal also underwent a zoning review exercise with the only deficiencies being
related to an existing side yard setback due to the original construction of the dwelling.
The setback deficiency is an existing condition from when the garage was originally
built, and the proposal was considered minor and received variance approval through
the Committee of Adjustment. All other building and performance standards, including
matters such as lot coverage and height, are complied with.
Staff are of the opinion that the proposed work is sympathetic and maintains the
primary architectural components and style of the dwelling. The proposal preserves the
heritage attributes of the building while ensuring its use and functionality over the long
term. Staff are seeking any additional comments from the Heritage Advisory
Committee, including on support for proceeding with delegated approval from the
Director given the generally minor impact of the proposed work on the defining heritage
attributes, and the timing/availability of meetings given the election period ahead.
Attachments
1. Attachment 1 – Location Plan
2. Attachment 2 – Proposed Elevations
Page 94 of 107
71 Connaught Avenue
Page 95 of 107
71 CONNAUGHT
AVE.
CONNAUG
H
T
A
V
E
.WELLS ST
.VICTORIA ST.GURNETT ST.YOUNG ST.WELLINGTO
N
S
T
.
E.
DRAWING NO.
DRAWN BY APPROVED DATE
SCALE PROJECT NO.
DRAWING TITLE
PROJECT
NORTH
CSPACE
ARCHITECTURE
5B-8841 GEORGE BOLTON PKWY, BOLTON, ON L7E 2X8
T: 647.588.1784 E: info@cspace.ca
IT IS THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE APPROPRIATE
CONTRACTOR TO CHECK AND VERIFY ALL
DIMENSIONS ON SITE AND REPORT ALL ERRORS
AND OR OMISSIONS TO THE ARCHITECT.
ALL CONTRACTORS MUST COMPLY WITH ALL
PERTINENT CODES AND BY-LAWS.
DO NOT SCALE DRAWINGS.
THIS DRAWING MAY NOT BE USED FOR CONSTRUCTION UNTIL SIGNED.
COPYRIGHT RESERVED.
1 : 2000
5/15/2026 8:09:08 AMA001
COVER SHEET
25-2283
RESIDENTIAL ADDITION
26.05.15SECP
71 CONNAUGHT AVE.
AURORA
No.Description Date
1 FIRST DRAFT 26.01.09
3 FOR COSTING 26.02.09
4 ISSUED FOR PZR 26.05.15
71 CONNAUGHT AVE.
RESIDENTIAL ADDITION
AURORA, ON
CONSULTING TEAM
ARCHITECT
CSPACE ARCHITECTURE
B5-8841 GEORGE BOLTON PKWY
BOLTON, ONTARIO L7E 2X8
T: 647.588.1784 | info@cspace.ca
PLANNERS
NAME OF THE FIRM
ADDRESS LINE 1
ADDRESS LINE 2
PHONE AND EMAIL
STRUCTURAL ENGINEER
NAME OF THE FIRM
ADDRESS LINE 1
ADDRESS LINE 2
PHONE AND EMAIL
MECHANICAL ENGINEER
NAME OF THE FIRM
ADDRESS LINE 1
ADDRESS LINE 2
PHONE AND EMAIL
ELECTRICAL ENGINEER
NAME OF THE FIRM
ADDRESS LINE 1
ADDRESS LINE 2
PHONE AND EMAIL
A001COVER SHEET
A002GENERAL NOTES
A004SURVEY
A005SITE PLAN
A100BASEMENT FLOOR PLAN
A101GROUND FLOOR PLAN
A102SECOND FLOOR PLAN
A104ROOF PLAN
A201ELEVATIONS
A202ELEVATIONS
A301SECTION
A9013D RENDERINGS
A9023D RENDERINGS
A9033D RENDERINGS
A9043D RENDERINGS
1 : 2000
CONTEXT PLAN
SHEET LIST
Attachment 2
Page 96 of 107
1/8" = 1'-0"
02 SITE PLAN DRAWING NO.
DRAWN BY APPROVED DATE
SCALE PROJECT NO.
DRAWING TITLE
PROJECT
NORTH
CSPACE
ARCHITECTURE
5B-8841 GEORGE BOLTON PKWY, BOLTON, ON L7E 2X8
T: 647.588.1784 E: info@cspace.ca
IT IS THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE APPROPRIATE
CONTRACTOR TO CHECK AND VERIFY ALL
DIMENSIONS ON SITE AND REPORT ALL ERRORS
AND OR OMISSIONS TO THE ARCHITECT.
ALL CONTRACTORS MUST COMPLY WITH ALL
PERTINENT CODES AND BY-LAWS.
DO NOT SCALE DRAWINGS.
THIS DRAWING MAY NOT BE USED FOR CONSTRUCTION UNTIL SIGNED.
COPYRIGHT RESERVED.
1/8" = 1'-0"5/15/2026 8:09:10 AMA005
SITE PLAN
25-2283
RESIDENTIAL ADDITION
26.05.15SECP
71 CONNAUGHT AVE.
AURORA
No.Description Date
1 FIRST DRAFT 26.01.09
2 FOR CLIENT REVIEW 26.01.15
3 FOR COSTING 26.02.09
4 ISSUED FOR PZR 26.05.15
Page 97 of 107
2
A201
1
A201FIRE PLACE
2
A202
1
A202
2
A301
3
A301 26.22 m² / 282.28 ft²
FAMILY ROOM
KITCHEN
6.52 m² / 70.13 ft²
MUD ROOM
9.62 m² / 103.58 ft²
GARAGE/WORKOUT
FIRE PLACEDINING
SITTING ROOM FOYER
2
A201
1
A201
KITCHEN
DINING
SITTING ROOMFOYER
GYM
2
A202
1
A202
1
A301
2
A301
DRAWING NO.
DRAWN BY APPROVED DATE
SCALE PROJECT NO.
DRAWING TITLE
PROJECT
NORTH
CSPACE
ARCHITECTURE
5B-8841 GEORGE BOLTON PKWY, BOLTON, ON L7E 2X8
T: 647.588.1784 E: info@cspace.ca
IT IS THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE APPROPRIATE
CONTRACTOR TO CHECK AND VERIFY ALL
DIMENSIONS ON SITE AND REPORT ALL ERRORS
AND OR OMISSIONS TO THE ARCHITECT.
ALL CONTRACTORS MUST COMPLY WITH ALL
PERTINENT CODES AND BY-LAWS.
DO NOT SCALE DRAWINGS.
THIS DRAWING MAY NOT BE USED FOR CONSTRUCTION UNTIL SIGNED.
COPYRIGHT RESERVED.
1/4" = 1'-0"5/15/2026 8:09:11 AMA101
GROUND FLOOR PLAN
25-2283
RESIDENTIAL ADDITION
26.05.15SECP
71 CONNAUGHT AVE.
AURORA
1/4" = 1'-0"
GROUND FLOOR PLAN
No.Description Date
1 FIRST DRAFT 26.01.09
2 FOR CLIENT REVIEW 26.01.15
3 FOR COSTING 26.02.09
4 ISSUED FOR PZR 26.05.15
1/4" = 1'-0"
GROUND FLOOR PLAN
Page 98 of 107
2
A201
1
A201
HOME OFFICEBEDROOM 4
BEDROOM 2
2
A202
1
A202
1
A301
2
A301
2
A201
1
A201
HOME OFFICEBEDROOM 4
BEDROOM 2
6.31 m² / 67.97 ft²
READING ROOM
12.69 m² / 136.56 ft²
BEDROOM 3
17.41 m² / 187.36 ft²
MASTER BEDROOM
9.27 m² / 99.79 ft²
WALK-IN
5.26 m² / 56.58 ft²
CLOSET
9.21 m² / 99.17 ft²
EN-SUITE
17.46 m² / 187.93 ft²
HALLWAY
2
A202
1
A202
6.06 m² / 65.27 ft²
WR4.87 m² / 52.39 ft²
CLOSET
4.21 m² / 45.33 ft²
EN-SUITE
17.46 m² / 187.93 ft²HALLWAY
6.69 m² / 72.02 ft²
FOYER
P1
P2
FL-02
P1
P2
P2
FL-02
P2
P2
P2
P2
P2
P2
P1
D3
D3
D2
D2
D3
D3
P2
W4
W4
W4
W4
W4
W4
W4
W3
R1
R1
R1
1
A301
2
A301
3
A301
1/4" = 1'-0"
SECOND FLOOR PLAN DRAWING NO.
DRAWN BY APPROVED DATE
SCALE PROJECT NO.
DRAWING TITLE
PROJECT
NORTH
CSPACE
ARCHITECTURE
5B-8841 GEORGE BOLTON PKWY, BOLTON, ON L7E 2X8
T: 647.588.1784 E: info@cspace.ca
IT IS THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE APPROPRIATE
CONTRACTOR TO CHECK AND VERIFY ALL
DIMENSIONS ON SITE AND REPORT ALL ERRORS
AND OR OMISSIONS TO THE ARCHITECT.
ALL CONTRACTORS MUST COMPLY WITH ALL
PERTINENT CODES AND BY-LAWS.
DO NOT SCALE DRAWINGS.
THIS DRAWING MAY NOT BE USED FOR CONSTRUCTION UNTIL SIGNED.
COPYRIGHT RESERVED.
1/4" = 1'-0"5/15/2026 8:09:13 AMA102
SECOND FLOOR PLAN
25-2283
RESIDENTIAL ADDITION
26.05.15SECP
71 CONNAUGHT AVE.
AURORA
No.Description Date
1 FIRST DRAFT 26.01.09
2 FOR CLIENT REVIEW 26.01.15
3 FOR COSTING 26.02.09
4 ISSUED FOR PZR 26.05.15
1/4" = 1'-0"
SECOND FLOOR PLAN
Page 99 of 107
2
A201
1
A201
2
A202
1
A202
1
A301
2
A301
2
A201
1
A201
2
A202
1
A202
1
A301
2
A301
3
A301
R1
R1
R1
R1
R1DRAWING NO.
DRAWN BY APPROVED DATE
SCALE PROJECT NO.
DRAWING TITLE
PROJECT
NORTH
CSPACE
ARCHITECTURE
5B-8841 GEORGE BOLTON PKWY, BOLTON, ON L7E 2X8
T: 647.588.1784 E: info@cspace.ca
IT IS THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE APPROPRIATE
CONTRACTOR TO CHECK AND VERIFY ALL
DIMENSIONS ON SITE AND REPORT ALL ERRORS
AND OR OMISSIONS TO THE ARCHITECT.
ALL CONTRACTORS MUST COMPLY WITH ALL
PERTINENT CODES AND BY-LAWS.
DO NOT SCALE DRAWINGS.
THIS DRAWING MAY NOT BE USED FOR CONSTRUCTION UNTIL SIGNED.
COPYRIGHT RESERVED.
1/4" = 1'-0"5/15/2026 8:09:14 AMA104
ROOF PLAN
25-2283
RESIDENTIAL ADDITION
26.05.15SECP
71 CONNAUGHT AVE.
AURORA
N
No.Description Date
1 FIRST DRAFT 26.01.09
3 FOR COSTING 26.02.09
4 ISSUED FOR PZR 26.05.15
1/4" = 1'-0"
ROOF PLAN
1/4" = 1'-0"
ROOF PLAN
Page 100 of 107
EXIST. GROUND FLOOR
266.200m
EXIST. SECOND FLOOR
268.893m
TOP OF PLATE
271.357m
EXIST. GROUND FLOOR
266.200m
EXIST. SECOND FLOOR
268.893m
TOP OF PLATE
271.357m
DRAWING NO.
DRAWN BY APPROVED DATE
SCALE PROJECT NO.
DRAWING TITLE
PROJECT
NORTH
CSPACE
ARCHITECTURE
5B-8841 GEORGE BOLTON PKWY, BOLTON, ON L7E 2X8
T: 647.588.1784 E: info@cspace.ca
IT IS THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE APPROPRIATE
CONTRACTOR TO CHECK AND VERIFY ALL
DIMENSIONS ON SITE AND REPORT ALL ERRORS
AND OR OMISSIONS TO THE ARCHITECT.
ALL CONTRACTORS MUST COMPLY WITH ALL
PERTINENT CODES AND BY-LAWS.
DO NOT SCALE DRAWINGS.
THIS DRAWING MAY NOT BE USED FOR CONSTRUCTION UNTIL SIGNED.
COPYRIGHT RESERVED.
As indicated
5/15/2026 8:09:16 AMA201
ELEVATIONS
25-2283
RESIDENTIAL ADDITION
26.05.15SECP
71 CONNAUGHT AVE.
AURORA
No.Description Date
1 FIRST DRAFT 26.01.09
3 FOR COSTING 26.02.09
4 ISSUED FOR PZR 26.05.15
1/4" = 1'-0"
REAR ELEVATION1
1/4" = 1'-0"
FRONT ELEVATION2 3/16" = 1'-0"
FRONT ELEVATION - EXIST.
Page 101 of 107
EXIST. GROUND FLOOR
266.200m
EXIST. SECOND FLOOR
268.893m
TOP OF PLATE
271.357m
EXIST. GROUND FLOOR
266.200m
EXIST. SECOND FLOOR
268.893m
TOP OF PLATE
271.357m
DRAWING NO.
DRAWN BY APPROVED DATE
SCALE PROJECT NO.
DRAWING TITLE
PROJECT
NORTH
CSPACE
ARCHITECTURE
5B-8841 GEORGE BOLTON PKWY, BOLTON, ON L7E 2X8
T: 647.588.1784 E: info@cspace.ca
IT IS THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE APPROPRIATE
CONTRACTOR TO CHECK AND VERIFY ALL
DIMENSIONS ON SITE AND REPORT ALL ERRORS
AND OR OMISSIONS TO THE ARCHITECT.
ALL CONTRACTORS MUST COMPLY WITH ALL
PERTINENT CODES AND BY-LAWS.
DO NOT SCALE DRAWINGS.
THIS DRAWING MAY NOT BE USED FOR CONSTRUCTION UNTIL SIGNED.
COPYRIGHT RESERVED.
As indicated
5/15/2026 8:09:18 AMA202
ELEVATIONS
25-2283
RESIDENTIAL ADDITION
26.05.15JKCP
71 CONNAUGHT AVE.
AURORA
No.Description Date
1 FIRST DRAFT 26.01.09
3 FOR COSTING 26.02.09
4 ISSUED FOR PZR 26.05.15
1/4" = 1'-0"
LS ELEVATION1
1/4" = 1'-0"
RS ELEVATION2
Page 102 of 107
EXIST. GROUND FLOOR
266.200m
EXIST. SECOND FLOOR
268.893m
TOP OF PLATE
271.357m
EXIST. BASEMENT T/O SLAB
263.889m
NEW BASEMENT T/O SLAB
263.432m26.22 m² / 282.21 ft²
FAMILY ROOM
25.92 m² / 279.03 ft²
DEN
17.41 m² / 187.36 ft²
MASTER BEDROOM
9.21 m² / 99.17 ft²
EN-SUITE
14.70 m² / 158.26 ft²
BEDROOM 2
13.25 m² / 142.57 ft²
BEDROOM 4
19.23 m² / 207.00 ft²
SITTING ROOM
14.66 m² / 157.80 ft²
DINING
33.08 m² / 356.06 ft²
KITCHEN
23.11 m² / 248.80 ft²
BASEMENT ROOMFL-02
FL-02
FL-01
R1
EXIST. GROUND FLOOR
266.200m
EXIST. SECOND FLOOR
268.893m
TOP OF PLATE
271.357m
12.69 m² / 136.56 ft²
BEDROOM 3
4.87 m² / 52.39 ft²
CLOSET
6.31 m² / 67.97 ft²READING ROOM9.45 m² / 101.75 ft²
GYM
8.45 m² / 90.98 ft²
MUD ROOM
EXIST. GROUND FLOOR
266.200m
EXIST. SECOND FLOOR
268.893m
TOP OF PLATE
271.357m
EXIST. BASEMENT T/O SLAB
263.889m
NEW BASEMENT T/O SLAB
263.432m
R1
W4
W1
W3
FL-01
FL-02
FL-02
DRAWING NO.
DRAWN BY APPROVED DATE
SCALE PROJECT NO.
DRAWING TITLE
PROJECT
NORTH
CSPACE
ARCHITECTURE
5B-8841 GEORGE BOLTON PKWY, BOLTON, ON L7E 2X8
T: 647.588.1784 E: info@cspace.ca
IT IS THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE APPROPRIATE
CONTRACTOR TO CHECK AND VERIFY ALL
DIMENSIONS ON SITE AND REPORT ALL ERRORS
AND OR OMISSIONS TO THE ARCHITECT.
ALL CONTRACTORS MUST COMPLY WITH ALL
PERTINENT CODES AND BY-LAWS.
DO NOT SCALE DRAWINGS.
THIS DRAWING MAY NOT BE USED FOR CONSTRUCTION UNTIL SIGNED.
COPYRIGHT RESERVED.
As indicated
5/15/2026 8:09:19 AMA301
SECTION
25-2283
RESIDENTIAL ADDITION
26.05.15SECP
71 CONNAUGHT AVE.
AURORA
No.Description Date
1 FIRST DRAFT 26.01.09
3 FOR COSTING 26.02.09
4 ISSUED FOR PZR 26.05.15
1/4" = 1'-0"
SECTION A1
1/4" = 1'-0"
SECTION B2 1/2" = 1'-0"
TYP. WALL SECTION3
Page 103 of 107
DRAWING NO.
DRAWN BY APPROVED DATE
SCALE PROJECT NO.
DRAWING TITLE
PROJECT
NORTH
CSPACE
ARCHITECTURE
5B-8841 GEORGE BOLTON PKWY, BOLTON, ON L7E 2X8
T: 647.588.1784 E: info@cspace.ca
IT IS THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE APPROPRIATE
CONTRACTOR TO CHECK AND VERIFY ALL
DIMENSIONS ON SITE AND REPORT ALL ERRORS
AND OR OMISSIONS TO THE ARCHITECT.
ALL CONTRACTORS MUST COMPLY WITH ALL
PERTINENT CODES AND BY-LAWS.
DO NOT SCALE DRAWINGS.
THIS DRAWING MAY NOT BE USED FOR CONSTRUCTION UNTIL SIGNED.
COPYRIGHT RESERVED.
12" = 1'-0"5/15/2026 8:09:19 AMA901
3D RENDERINGS
25-2283
RESIDENTIAL ADDITION
26.05.15SECCP
71 CONNAUGHT AVE.
AURORA
No.Description Date
1 FIRST DRAFT 26.01.09
3 FOR COSTING 26.02.09
4 ISSUED FOR PZR 26.05.15
Page 104 of 107
DRAWING NO.
DRAWN BY APPROVED DATE
SCALE PROJECT NO.
DRAWING TITLE
PROJECT
NORTH
CSPACE
ARCHITECTURE
5B-8841 GEORGE BOLTON PKWY, BOLTON, ON L7E 2X8
T: 647.588.1784 E: info@cspace.ca
IT IS THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE APPROPRIATE
CONTRACTOR TO CHECK AND VERIFY ALL
DIMENSIONS ON SITE AND REPORT ALL ERRORS
AND OR OMISSIONS TO THE ARCHITECT.
ALL CONTRACTORS MUST COMPLY WITH ALL
PERTINENT CODES AND BY-LAWS.
DO NOT SCALE DRAWINGS.
THIS DRAWING MAY NOT BE USED FOR CONSTRUCTION UNTIL SIGNED.
COPYRIGHT RESERVED.
12" = 1'-0"5/15/2026 8:09:20 AMA902
3D RENDERINGS
25-2283
RESIDENTIAL ADDITION
26.05.15SECCP
71 CONNAUGHT AVE.
AURORA
No.Description Date
1 FIRST DRAFT 26.01.09
3 FOR COSTING 26.02.09
4 ISSUED FOR PZR 26.05.15
Page 105 of 107
DRAWING NO.
DRAWN BY APPROVED DATE
SCALE PROJECT NO.
DRAWING TITLE
PROJECT
NORTH
CSPACE
ARCHITECTURE
5B-8841 GEORGE BOLTON PKWY, BOLTON, ON L7E 2X8
T: 647.588.1784 E: info@cspace.ca
IT IS THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE APPROPRIATE
CONTRACTOR TO CHECK AND VERIFY ALL
DIMENSIONS ON SITE AND REPORT ALL ERRORS
AND OR OMISSIONS TO THE ARCHITECT.
ALL CONTRACTORS MUST COMPLY WITH ALL
PERTINENT CODES AND BY-LAWS.
DO NOT SCALE DRAWINGS.
THIS DRAWING MAY NOT BE USED FOR CONSTRUCTION UNTIL SIGNED.
COPYRIGHT RESERVED.
12" = 1'-0"5/15/2026 8:09:20 AMA903
3D RENDERINGS
25-2283
RESIDENTIAL ADDITION
26.05.15SECCP
71 CONNAUGHT AVE.
AURORA
No.Description Date
1 FIRST DRAFT 26.01.09
3 FOR COSTING 26.02.09
4 ISSUED FOR PZR 26.05.15
Page 106 of 107
DRAWING NO.
DRAWN BY APPROVED DATE
SCALE PROJECT NO.
DRAWING TITLE
PROJECT
NORTH
CSPACE
ARCHITECTURE
5B-8841 GEORGE BOLTON PKWY, BOLTON, ON L7E 2X8
T: 647.588.1784 E: info@cspace.ca
IT IS THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE APPROPRIATE
CONTRACTOR TO CHECK AND VERIFY ALL
DIMENSIONS ON SITE AND REPORT ALL ERRORS
AND OR OMISSIONS TO THE ARCHITECT.
ALL CONTRACTORS MUST COMPLY WITH ALL
PERTINENT CODES AND BY-LAWS.
DO NOT SCALE DRAWINGS.
THIS DRAWING MAY NOT BE USED FOR CONSTRUCTION UNTIL SIGNED.
COPYRIGHT RESERVED.5/15/2026 8:09:20 AMA904
3D RENDERINGS
25-2283
RESIDENTIAL ADDITION
26.05.15SECCP
71 CONNAUGHT AVE.
AURORA
No.Description Date
1 FIRST DRAFT 26.01.09
3 FOR COSTING 26.02.09
4 ISSUED FOR PZR 26.05.15
Page 107 of 107