AGENDA - General Committee - 20190402General Committee
Meeting Agenda
Tuesday, April 2, 2019
7 p.m.
Council Chambers
Aurora Town Hall
Public Release
March 26, 2019
Town of Aurora
General Committee
Meeting Agenda
Tuesday, April 2, 2019
7 p.m., Council Chambers
Councillor Humfryes in the Chair
1. Approval of the Agenda
Recommended:
That the agenda as circulated by Legislative Services be approved.
2. Declarations of Pecuniary Interest and General Nature Thereof
3. Community Presentations
(a) Jim Thomson, representing Aurora Tigers Junior A Hockey Club
Re: Aurora Tigers Jr. A Commitment to our Town
4. Delegations
5. Consent Agenda
6. Advisory Committee Meeting Minutes
General Committee Meeting Agenda
Tuesday, April 2, 2019 Page 2 of 3
A1. Heritage Advisory Committee Meeting Minutes of March 5, 2019
Recommended:
1. That the Heritage Advisory Committee meeting minutes of March 5,
2019, be received for information.
A2. Accessibility Advisory Committee Meeting Minutes of March 6, 2019
Recommended:
1. That the Accessibility Advisory Committee meeting minutes of March 6,
2019, be received for information.
7. Consideration of Items Requiring Discussion (Regular Agenda)
R1. CS19-014 – Council-Staff Relations Policy
Recommended:
1. That Report No. CS19-014 be received; and
2. That Attachment 1, Council-Staff Relations Policy, be approved; and
3. That Attachment 2, Council/Staff Communications Policy, be repealed.
R2. CS19-016 – Emergency Management Program Annual Compliance
Review
Recommended:
1. That Report No. CS19-016 be received; and
2. That the Emergency Management Program and Emergency Response
Plan By-law be brought forward to a future Council meeting for
enactment.
General Committee Meeting Agenda
Tuesday, April 2, 2019 Page 3 of 3
R3. PDS19-022 – Update on the Corporate and Community Energy Plans
Recommended:
1. That Report No. PDS19-022 be received for information.
R4. PDS19-023 – Heritage Permit Application
70-72 Centre Street
File: NE-HCD-HPA-19-02
Recommended:
1. That Report No. PDS19-023 be received; and
2. That the following recommendations be approved:
(a) That Heritage Permit Application NE-HCD-HPA-19-02 be approved
to permit the restoration of the subject property and removal of the
frame garage as shown on the submitted plans;
(b) That the property owner photodocument any original construction
revealed during the proposed restoration of the property; and
(c) That the property owner continue to seek guidance from Town Staff
and the Heritage Conservation District Plan on the final selection of
detail elements visible from the street
8. Notices of Motion
9. New Business
10. Closed Session
11. Adjournment
Town of Aurora
Heritage Advisory Committee
Meeting Minutes
Date: Tuesday, March 5, 2019
Time and Location: 7 p.m., Holland Room, Aurora Town Hall
Committee Members: Neil Asselin, John Green, Matthew Kinsella, Jeff Lanthier,
Hoda Soliman, Councillor Sandra Humfryes, Mayor Tom
Mrakas (ex-officio)
Members Absent: Bob McRoberts
Other Attendees: Councillor Wendy Gaertner, Councillor Rachel Gilliland,
Councillor Michael Thompson, Robin McDougall, Director of
Community Services, Adam Robb, Planner, and Linda
Bottos, Council/Committee Coordinator
Appointment of Committee Chair and Vice Chair
It was agreed that Councillor Humfryes act as Chair for the meeting, and that the Chair
and Vice Chair of the Committee would be discussed and appointed at the next meeting
on April 1, 2019.
The Chair called the meeting to order at 7:03 p.m.
Introductions were made around the table.
1. Approval of the Agenda
Moved by Neil Asselin
Seconded by Jeff Lanthier
That the agenda as circulated by Legislative Services be approved.
Carried
General Committee Meeting Agenda
Tuesday, April 2, 2019
Item A1
Page 1 of 7
Heritage Advisory Committee Meeting Minutes
Tuesday, March 5, 2019 Page 2 of 7
2. 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.
3. Receipt of the Minutes
None
4. Delegations
(a) Michael de Rond, Town Clerk
Re: Advisory Committee Member Education and Training
Mr. de Rond presented an overview of the roles and responsibilities of an
advisory committee, committee members, the chair, and staff. He noted the
importance of an advisory committee as a tool for civic engagement and
highlighted various aspects of procedure, including the Town’s Procedure By-
law and the new Code of Conduct for Local Boards.
Moved by Neil Asselin
Seconded by John Green
That the comments of the delegation be received for information.
Carried
(b) Adam Robb, Planner
Re: Heritage Advisory Committee Update
Mr. Robb presented an update including the Committee’s role in preserving
the Town’s heritage resources, matters under the Ontario Heritage Act, 1990,
other research and advisory duties, and ongoing heritage projects in Town.
Moved by John Green
Seconded by Neil Asselin
That the comments of the delegation be received for information.
Carried
General Committee Meeting Agenda
Tuesday, April 2, 2019
Item A1
Page 2 of 7
Heritage Advisory Committee Meeting Minutes
Tuesday, March 5, 2019 Page 3 of 7
5. Matters for Consideration
1. HAC19-001 – Request to Remove a Property from the Aurora Register of
Properties of Cultural Heritage Value or Interest, 97
Wellington Street East
Staff introduced the consultant, Mr. Chris Pretotto of Cspace Architecture, who
presented a brief overview of the intent of the delisting request including the
demolition of the existing structure and construction of a new, two-storey office
building, designed sympathetically to the adjacent properties.
The Committee consented on a two-thirds vote to allow a member of the public to speak
to the item.
Mr. David Heard provided some historical background connected to previous
owners of the property and requested that the Committee consider ways to
incorporate elements of the existing structure, including the stained glass
transom, into the proposed new building.
The Committee expressed concerns regarding the Cultural Heritage
Assessment attached to the staff report and suggested that the Town perform
its own assessment. The Committee further suggested that there might be an
opportunity to incorporate the existing building into the proposed design. Staff
noted that the recommendation includes salvaging the stained glass window
and woodwork from the main interior staircase.
Motion to refer
Moved by Neil Asselin
Seconded by Matthew Kinsella
1. That Report No. HAC19-001 – Request to Remove a Property from the
Aurora Register of Properties of Cultural Heritage Value or Interest, 97
Wellington Street East, be referred back to staff for further assessment of
the property by the Heritage Evaluation Working Group and a report back
to the Committee at the April 1, 2019 meeting.
Motion to refer
Carried
General Committee Meeting Agenda
Tuesday, April 2, 2019
Item A1
Page 3 of 7
Heritage Advisory Committee Meeting Minutes
Tuesday, March 5, 2019 Page 4 of 7
2. HAC19-002 – Heritage Permit Application, 70-72 Centre Street East, File:
NE-HCD-HPA-19-02
Staff provided a brief overview of the report and background, noting that the
architectural features would be retained and the proposal is in keeping with the
Northeast Old Aurora Heritage Conservation District Plan.
The Committee inquired about various aspects of the proposed restoration and
materials, and expressed general support for the staff recommendations.
Moved by John Green
Seconded by Jeff Lanthier
1. That Report No. HAC19-002 be received; and
2. That the comments from the Heritage Advisory Committee regarding the
following recommendations be incorporated into a report to General
Committee:
(a) That Heritage Permit Application NE-HCD-HPA-19-02 be approved to
permit the restoration of the subject property and removal of the frame
garage as shown on the submitted plans; and
(b) That the property owner photodocument any original construction
revealed during the proposed restoration of the property; and
(c) That the property owner continue to seek guidance from Town staff
and the Heritage Conservation District Plan on the final selection of
detail elements visible from the street.
Carried
3. HAC19-003 – Request to Remove a Property from the Aurora Register of
Properties of Cultural Heritage Value or Interest, 1625-1675
St. John’s Sideroad
Staff provided a brief overview of the report and background, noting that a
Heritage Evaluation Working Group scoresheet had not been completed and
the heritage impact assessment determined that the property does not meet
the criteria for designation.
General Committee Meeting Agenda
Tuesday, April 2, 2019
Item A1
Page 4 of 7
Heritage Advisory Committee Meeting Minutes
Tuesday, March 5, 2019 Page 5 of 7
The Committee discussed and inquired about various aspects of the property
including any options to designate the wood lot as a cultural landscape,
salvage the fieldstones and barn foundation, and pay homage to its pastoral
and equestrian history through the future design of buildings, fencing and
landscaping on the property.
Motion to refer
Moved by Matthew Kinsella
Seconded by Neil Asselin
1. That Report No. HAC19-003 – Request to Remove a Property from the
Aurora Register of Properties of Cultural Heritage Value or Interest, 1625-
1675 St. John’s Sideroad, be referred back to staff for further assessment
of the property by the Heritage Evaluation Working Group and a report
back to the Committee at the April 1, 2019 meeting.
Motion to refer
Carried
4. HAC19-004 – Heritage Permit Application, 22 Church Street, File: HPA-
19-03
The Committee consented to consider Item 4 prior to consideration of Item 1.
Staff introduced members of the project team for the Library Square and
Church Street School House Addition project, including: David Leinster of The
Planning Partnership; Roland Colthoff and Thomas Nemeskeri of RAW Design
Inc.; and Philip Evans of ERA Architects Inc., who provided an overview of the
proposed Church Street School addition as part of the Library Square
redevelopment, and answered questions.
Moved by Neil Asselin
Seconded by John Green
That the consultants’ presentation be received for information.
Carried
General Committee Meeting Agenda
Tuesday, April 2, 2019
Item A1
Page 5 of 7
Heritage Advisory Committee Meeting Minutes
Tuesday, March 5, 2019 Page 6 of 7
The Committee inquired about various aspects of the proposed addition and
expressed concerns and suggestions regarding the roofline height and style,
external patina and massing of the building veil, building depth and stability,
water table, visual impact of all four sides, shadowing, and design of addition
more sympathetic to the existing building. The consultants acknowledged the
comments of the Committee and noted they will be taken into consideration.
Moved by Neil Asselin
Seconded by Matthew Kinsella
1. That Report No. HAC19-004 be received; and
2. That the comments from the Heritage Advisory Committee regarding the
following recommendations be incorporated into a report to General
Committee:
(a) That Heritage Permit Application HPA-19-03 be approved to permit the
addition to the subject property as shown on the submitted plans; and
(b) That the property owner photodocument any original construction
revealed during the proposed addition to the property; and
(c) That Planning staff continue to liaise with the Ontario Heritage Trust
and ensure the addition remains sympathetic of the heritage resource
through all phases of the development.
Carried
6. Informational Items
None
7. New Business
Staff advised that the process of establishing a Design Review Panel (DRP) is
underway, noting that DRP meetings will also be held bi-monthly, alternating with
the Heritage Advisory Committee meetings.
General Committee Meeting Agenda
Tuesday, April 2, 2019
Item A1
Page 6 of 7
Heritage Advisory Committee Meeting Minutes
Tuesday, March 5, 2019 Page 7 of 7
8. Adjournment
Moved by John Green
Seconded by Neil Asselin
That the meeting be adjourned at 9:16 p.m.
Carried
General Committee Meeting Agenda
Tuesday, April 2, 2019
Item A1
Page 7 of 7
Town of Aurora
Accessibility Advisory Committee
Meeting Minutes
Date: Wednesday, March 6, 2019
Time and Location: 4 p.m., Holland Room, Aurora Town Hall
Committee Members: John Lenchak (Chair) (arrived 4:15 p.m.), Hailey Reiss (Vice
Chair), Matthew Abas, Gordon Barnes, Max Le Moine, Jo-
anne Spitzer, Councillor Rachel Gilliland, and Mayor Tom
Mrakas (ex-officio)
Members Absent: None
Other Attendees: Ivy Henriksen, Manager of Customer Service, Robin
McDougall, Director of Community Services, Techa van
Leeuwen, Director of Corporate Services, Matt Zawada,
Accessibility Advisor, Michael de Rond, Town Clerk, and
Nicole Trudeau, Committee Coordinator
The Town Clerk called the meeting to order at 4:05 p.m.
1. Appointment of Committee Chair and Vice Chair
The Town Clerk opened the floor to nominations for the Chair and Vice Chair of
the Accessibility Advisory Committee for the 2018-2022 Term.
Jo-anne Spitzer nominated John Lenchak as Chair. There being no other
nominations, John Lenchak was appointed Chair of the Committee.
Matthew Abas nominated Hailey Reiss as Vice Chair. There being no other
nominations, Hailey Reiss was appointed Vice Chair of the Committee.
John Lenchak assumed the Chair at 4:25 p.m.
General Committee Meeting Agenda
Tuesday, April 2, 2019
Item A2
Page 1 of 6
Accessibility Advisory Committee Meeting Minutes
Wednesday, March 6, 2019 Page 2 of 6
2. Approval of the Agenda
Moved by Councillor Gilliland
Seconded by Jo-anne Spitzer
That the agenda as circulated by Legislative Services be approved.
Carried
3. Declarations of Pecuniary Interest and General Nature Thereof
There were no declarations of pecuniary interest under the Municipal Conflict of
Interest Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. M.50.
4. Receipt of the Minutes
None
5. Delegations
(a) Michael de Rond, Town Clerk
Re: Advisory Committee Member Education and Training
Mr. de Rond provided an overview of advisory committees to educate and train
members of the Committee on roles and responsibilities, procedural matters,
accountability and transparency.
During the presentation, Mr. de Rond discussed the Town’s Procedure By-law
respecting the proceedings of meetings, and changes made to the local
accountability and transparency framework with the Town’s Code of Conduct
for Local Boards.
Moved by Councillor Gilliland
Seconded by Jo-anne Spitzer
That the comments of the delegation be received for information.
Carried
General Committee Meeting Agenda
Tuesday, April 2, 2019
Item A2
Page 2 of 6
Accessibility Advisory Committee Meeting Minutes
Wednesday, March 6, 2019 Page 3 of 6
(b) Matt Zawada, Accessibility Advisor
Re: Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act (AODA) and Site Plan
Training
Mr. Zawada provided the Committee with accessibility standards, policies and
procedures including the provincial statute and regulation for accessibility, the
annual Accessibility Plan for the Town, Accessibility Standards for Customer
Service for Persons with Disabilities – Town Policy No. 63 and Integrated
Accessibility Standards Policy – Town Policy No. 69.
In addition to the training materials, Mr. Zawada also provided available dates
for the Committee to attend accessibility training in March.
Moved by Councillor Gilliland
Seconded by Jo-anne Spitzer
That the comments of the delegation be received for information.
Carried
6. Matters for Consideration
1. Memorandum from Director, Community Services
Re: Library Square Design
Staff introduced the consultants, David Leinster of The Planning Partnership,
and Thomas Nemeskeri of RAW Design Inc., who presented an overview of the
interior and exterior features of the Library Square Design including the addition
to the Church Street School, section elevations, programming (skating rink and
water feature), accessible parking (off-street and on-street parking) and the
current project schedule.
The consultants, staff and the Committee discussed revisions made to the
Library Square Design, to address comments made by the Committee at the
Accessibility Advisory Committee on May 9, 2018, including accessible
pedestrian routes, and the number and location of accessible parking spaces.
The Committee made new comments concerned with increasing parking
overall, including a more finalized parking strategy in future submissions, as
General Committee Meeting Agenda
Tuesday, April 2, 2019
Item A2
Page 3 of 6
Accessibility Advisory Committee Meeting Minutes
Wednesday, March 6, 2019 Page 4 of 6
well as future submissions with greater detail on exterior paths of travel through
green spaces next to proposed accessible parking and drop off areas.
Moved by Gordon Barnes
Seconded by Councillor Gilliland
1. That the memorandum regarding Library Square Design be received for
information.
Carried
7. Informational Items
2. Memorandum from Accessibility Advisor
Re: Sidewalk on Kitimat Crescent
Staff provided an overview of the design, construction and installation of a
sidewalk on Kitimat Crescent, including school travel planning, traffic
management, accessible public spaces, public consultation and feedback, and
the location of the proposed sidewalk with regard to existing sidewalks and
Aurora Heights Public School.
The Committee expressed support and encouraged the construction and
installation of a sidewalk on Kitimat Crescent, as a safe and accessible exterior
path of travel for pedestrians.
Moved by Jo-anne Spitzer
Seconded by Councillor Gilliland
1. That the memorandum regarding Sidewalk on Kitimat Crescent be received
for information.
Carried
3. Memorandum from Accessibility Advisor
Re: Municipal Diversity and Inclusion Charter
Staff provided an overview of the Inclusion Charter for York Region, including
endorsing organizations, international recognition and annual updates, as the
Town joined The Regional Municipality of York in endorsing the Inclusion
Charter for York Region on October 2, 2018.
General Committee Meeting Agenda
Tuesday, April 2, 2019
Item A2
Page 4 of 6
Accessibility Advisory Committee Meeting Minutes
Wednesday, March 6, 2019 Page 5 of 6
The Committee was encouraged to visit www.york.ca/inclusiveyr for more
information on the Inclusion Charter of York Region including a full list of
endorsing organizations and the Inclusion Charter Progress Report, an annual
update that highlights the progress of the Inclusion Charter for York Region.
Moved by Councillor Gilliland
Seconded by Jo-anne Spitzer
1. That the memorandum regarding Municipal Diversity and Inclusion Charter
be received for information.
Carried
4. Memorandum from Accessibility Advisor
Re: Wildlife Parks Trail
Staff provided an overview of the technical requirements of the Wildlife Park
Trail including the need for ramps on the trail, the average and maximum
running slope of the trail, the surface of the trail and ramps, and the
construction access plan.
The Committee requested more information including the location and design
of rest areas or a dedicated level area that is intended for public use to allow
persons to stop or sit, a topography map to see the natural features of the area,
and the average and minimum trail and ramp width for an accessible exterior
path of travel.
Moved by Councillor Gilliland
Seconded by Max Le Moine
1. That the memorandum regarding Wildlife Parks Trail be received for
information.
Carried
8. Adjournment
The Committee agreed to change the time of the Accessibility Advisory
Committee, from 4-6 p.m. to 7-9 p.m., beginning with the next Accessibility
Advisory Committee meeting on April 3, 2019.
General Committee Meeting Agenda
Tuesday, April 2, 2019
Item A2
Page 5 of 6
Accessibility Advisory Committee Meeting Minutes
Wednesday, March 6, 2019 Page 6 of 6
Moved by Max Le Moine
Seconded by Jo-anne Spitzer
That the meeting be adjourned at 5:55 p.m.
Carried
General Committee Meeting Agenda
Tuesday, April 2, 2019
Item A2
Page 6 of 6
Town of Aurora
General Committee Report No. CS19-014
Subject: Council-Staff Relations Policy
Prepared by: Michael de Rond, Town Clerk
Department: Corporate Services
Date: April 2, 2019
Recommendation
1.That Report No. CS19-014 be received; and
2.That Attachment 1, Council-Staff Relations Policy, be approved; and
3.That Attachment 2, Council/Staff Communications Policy, be repealed.
Executive Summary
This report seeks adoption of the attached Council-Staff Relations Policy. The Town is
currently compliant with the Provincial statute requiring this policy be in place. The
proposed policy drills further into the relationship between Council and Staff and
provides more standards around areas such as communication.
•A detailed and separate Council-Staff Relations Policy provides more structure
and defined processes in the relationship between Council and Staff
•The investigative powers of the Integrity Commissioner do not extend to a
Council-Staff Relations Policy
•Staff are recommending that the current policy regarding Council/Staff
communications be repealed
Background
The Modernizing Ontario’s Municipal Legislation Act, 2017, amended the Municipal Act,
2001 to mandate that all municipalities in Ontario must have a policy respecting “the
relationship between members of council and the officers and employees of the
municipality,” on or before March 1, 2019. The Town is currently compliant with this
legislation as both the Council Code of Conduct and the Code of Ethics contain
provisions regarding the Council-staff relationship.
General Committee Meeting Agenda
Tuesday, April 2, 2019
Item R1
Page 1 of 15
April 2, 2019 Page 2 of 5 Report No. CS19-014
Sections 224 and 227 of the Municipal Act, 2001 formally define the roles and
responsibilities of Council and the municipal administration. In addition to these
definitions and in-line with the requirement for a policy, there is merit in adopting a
policy that more clearly outlines these roles and responsibilities and the formal
relationship between staff and Members of Council.
Analysis
A detailed and separate Council-Staff Relations Policy provides more structure
and defined processes in the relationship between Council and Staff
The following are excerpts from the Council Code of Conduct (By-law No. 6155-19) and
the Code of Ethics (By-law No. 5532-13) regarding Council’s relations with Staff.
Council Code of Conduct - Rule No. 13: Conduct Respecting Staff
1. No Member shall compel staff to engage in partisan political activities or be
subjected to threats or discrimination for refusing to engage in such activities
2. No Member shall use, or attempt to use, their authority for the purpose of
intimidating, threatening, coercing, commanding or influencing any staff member
with the intent of interfering in staff’s duties, including the duty to disclose
improper activity.
3. Members shall be respectful of the role of staff to advise based on political
neutrality and objectivity and without undue influence from any individual Member
or faction of the Council.
4. No Member shall maliciously or falsely impugn or injure the professional or
ethical reputation or the prospects or practice of staff, and all Members shall
show respect for the professional capacities of the staff of the Town
Code of Ethics – Section 4 – Relationships with Staff and Other Members of Council
Members of Council will;
• Acknowledge that only Council as a whole has the capacity to direct staff
members to carry out specific tasks or functions;
• Refrain from using their position to improperly influence members of staff in their
duties or functions or to gain an advantage for themselves or others;
• Refrain from publicly criticizing individual members of staff in a way that casts
aspersions on their professional competence or credibility
General Committee Meeting Agenda
Tuesday, April 2, 2019
Item R1
Page 2 of 15
April 2, 2019 Page 3 of 5 Report No. CS19-014
The proposed Council-Staff Relations Policy supplements the Council Code of Conduct
and Code of Ethics by providing a more robust framework for business interactions
between Council and staff. This Policy is intended to provide detailed processes around
Council-staff communications to ensure that standards and expectations are clear and
understood.
For example, one feature of the Policy is the differentiation between requests that could
be considered ‘routine’ or ‘non-routine’, an example of a routine request would be
asking staff to contact a resident regarding a delegation to Council. A non-routine
request could include requesting staff to provide information where significant research
is required.
As a guideline, Staff are recommending that a matter is considered non-routine when
the request requires more than two (2) hours of staff time to complete. All non-routine
requests require Council or CAO direction.
The investigative powers of the Integrity Commissioner do not extend to a
Council-Staff Relations Policy
Recent amendments to the Municipal Act did not contain an extension of the
investigation powers of the Integrity Commissioner to include mandated Council-Staff
Relations Policies.
Staff are recommending that the current policy regarding Council/Staff
communications be repealed
Many of the guidelines included in the draft Council-Staff Relations policy speak to how
Council and Staff should communicate. This makes an additional policy regarding
communication unnecessary.
Advisory Committee Review
None
General Committee Meeting Agenda
Tuesday, April 2, 2019
Item R1
Page 3 of 15
April 2, 2019 Page 4 of 5 Report No. CS19-014
Legal Considerations
The Town is currently in compliance with legislative requirements as set out in the
Municipal Act, 2001. The proposed Council-Staff Relations Policy will supplement
existing Town policies.
Financial Implications
None
Communications Considerations
Staff were provided an opportunity to comment on the draft Policy. If approved,
Legislative Services will work with Communications to provide internal communications
about the Policy.
Link to Strategic Plan
Adopting the Council-Staff Relations Policy promote progressive corporate
excellence and continuous improvement by implementing policy and processes that
reflect sound and accountable governance.
Alternative(s) to the Recommendation
1. Council may refer the report and Policy back to staff for further work.
2. Council may take no action.
Conclusions
Recent amendments to the Municipal Act, 2001 mandated that municipalities must have
a policy that deals with Council-Staff relations. In addition to the Council Code of
Conduct and the Code of Ethics, the proposed Council-Staff Relations Policy provides a
defined framework for how Council and Staff should communicate and work together.
Attachments
Attachment 1 – Draft Council-Staff Relations Policy
General Committee Meeting Agenda
Tuesday, April 2, 2019
Item R1
Page 4 of 15
General Committee Meeting Agenda Tuesday, April 2, 2019Item R1 Page 5 of 15
Attachment 1
(DRAFT) Page 1 of 8
Administrative Policies & Procedures
Policy No. CORP XX – Council-Staff Relations Policy
Topic: Council-Staff Relations Affects: All Members of Council and
Staff
Section: Insert section based on
numbering system Replaces: N/A
Original Policy
Date: April 23, 2019 Revision
Date: January 1, 2023
Effective Date: April 23, 2019 Proposed
Revision Date: April 23, 2021
Prepared By: Corporate Services Approval
Authority: Council
1.0 Policy Statement
The Town of Aurora is committed to a respectful and productive relationship
between and amongst Council, Members of Council, and the officers and
employees of the municipality, in furtherance of their respective roles established
by statute, municipal by-laws and policies, corporate administrative direction, and
operating conventions.
2.0 Purpose
The purpose of this Policy is to guide the nature of business interactions between
members of Council and Town Staff.
3.0 Scope
This Policy applies to all Staff and elected officials of the Town of Aurora.
4.0 Definitions
Corporate Management Team means all Managers of the Town, consisting of
the Town’s Managers and additional staff members appointed by the CAO.
Executive Leadership Team means the Senior Management Team of the
Town, consisting of the Chief Administrative Officer (CAO), Directors and
Manager of Communications.
General Committee Meeting Agenda
Tuesday, April 2, 2019
Item R1
Page 6 of 15
Policy No. xx – Council-Staff Relations Policy
(DRAFT) Page 2 of 8
Member(s) of Council means the individuals elected or appointed to the Council
for the Town of Aurora who have taken the declaration of office for the current
term. For the purpose of this Policy and as applicable in the circumstances,
Member of Council includes an individual who is supervised by a Member of
Council and who purports to represent or undertake an activity covered by this
Policy on behalf of the Member of Council.
Member of the Public means a person or entity residing and/or having a
business, or other interest in the Town of Aurora.
Routine Matter means a communication by a Member of Council with a Member
of Staff, in person, in writing, by phone, by text, or by other electronic means,
which:
a) in the ordinary course of business constitutes a type of communication that
would typically occur between a Member of the Public and Staff;
b) constitutes a request for information that is routinely produced by the
member of Staff in the course of their duties; or
c) constitutes a request for a service that is routinely done by Staff in the course
of their duties; and which requires no expenditure of unbudgeted resources.
Non-Routine Matter means a communication, request for information or service
that is not typically undertaken in the ordinary course of business, and/or for
which there is no routine process, procedure, guideline or convention to guide
members of Staff. For the purpose of this Policy, any request that requires more
than two (2) hours of staff time to complete requires Council or CAO direction.
Staff or Member of Staff means all Town employees, including probationary
and temporary employees, and volunteers of the Town or of a local board of the
Town, as the case may be.
5.0 Guiding Principles
Interpretation of this Policy is to be guided by the statutory and policy framework within
which the Town is governed. This framework includes the Municipal Act, 2001, Council
Code of Conduct, Code of Ethics, and Town Policy No. HR-01 - Staff Code of Conduct,
Town Policy No. HS-03 – Harassment Free Workplace, Town Policy No. HS-02 –
Violence Free Workplace.
General Committee Meeting Agenda
Tuesday, April 2, 2019
Item R1
Page 7 of 15
Policy No. xx – Council-Staff Relations Policy
(DRAFT) Page 3 of 8
A. Municipal Act, 2001 provisions which provide that:
1. It is the role of Council:
a) to represent the public and to consider the well-being and interests of the
municipality;
b) to develop and evaluate the policies and programs of the municipality;
c) to determine which services the municipality provides;
d) to ensure that administrative policies, practices and procedures and
controllership policies, practices and procedures are in place to
implement the decisions of council;
e) to ensure the accountability and transparency of the operations of the
municipality, including the activities of the senior management of the
municipality;
f) to maintain the financial integrity of the municipality; and
g) to carry out the duties of council under this or any other Act.
2. It is the role of the Head of Council to:
a) to act as chief executive officer of the municipality;
b) to preside over council meetings so that its business can be carried out
efficiently and effectively;
c) to provide leadership to the council;
d) without limiting clause (c), to provide information and recommendations
to the council with respect to the role of council described in clauses [(d)
and (e) above];
e) to represent the municipality at official functions; and
f) to carry out the duties of the head of council under this or any other Act.”
2(a). As Chief Executive Officer of a municipality, the Head of Council shall:
a) uphold and promote the purposes of the municipality;
b) promote public involvement in the municipality’s activities;
c) act as the representative of the municipality both within and outside the
municipality, and promote the municipality locally, nationally and
internationally; and
General Committee Meeting Agenda
Tuesday, April 2, 2019
Item R1
Page 8 of 15
Policy No. xx – Council-Staff Relations Policy
(DRAFT) Page 4 of 8
d) participate in and foster activities that enhance the economic, social and
environmental well-being of the municipality and its residents.”
3. It is the role of the officers and employees of the municipality:
a) to implement council’s decisions and establish administrative practices
and procedures to carry out council’s decisions;
b) to undertake research and provide advice to council on the policies and
programs of the municipality; and
c) to carry out other duties required under this or any Act and other duties
assigned by the municipality.”
B. Town of Aurora Policy No. HR-01 - Staff Code of Conduct provisions which
provide that:
• Employees of The Town of Aurora must be independent, impartial and
responsible to the public in carrying out their duties. The public must have
confidence in the integrity of employees and in their dedication to the Town's
best interests.
• The Code of Conduct sets out broad principles and establishes expected
standards of behaviour for Town employees. The purpose of this policy is to
promote a high level of ethical conduct by employees and to ensure
confidence in the public service.
C. Town of Aurora Policy No. HS-03 – Harassment Free Workplace, the purpose of
which is:
• The Town of Aurora is committed to providing a safe and harassment free
working environment for our employees. In pursuit of this goal, the Town
maintains a zero tolerance policy towards harassment and discrimination and
will not tolerate, ignore or condone such acts against or made by any Town
employee or elected official.
• All employees at all levels must work in compliance with this policy and
supporting program. Everyone is expected to raise any concerns about
workplace harassment and to report any incidents of harassment with the
assurance there will be no negative consequences for reports made in good
faith.
General Committee Meeting Agenda
Tuesday, April 2, 2019
Item R1
Page 9 of 15
Policy No. xx – Council-Staff Relations Policy
(DRAFT) Page 5 of 8
D. Town of Aurora Policy No. HS-02 – Violence Free Workplace the purpose of
which is:
• The Town of Aurora is committed to providing and maintaining a safe working
environment for our employees. In pursuit of this goal, the Town maintains a
zero tolerance policy towards violence and will not tolerate, ignore or
condone such acts or made by any Town employee of elected official.
• All employees at all levels must work in compliance with this policy and
supporting program. Everyone is expected to raise any concerns about
workplace violence and to report violent incidents or threats of violence with
the assurance that there will be no negative consequences for reports made
in good faith.
E. Town Code of Conduct For Members of Council, which provides in Rule No. 13
(Conduct Respecting Staff) that:
1. No Member shall compel staff to engage in partisan political activities or be
subjected to threats or discrimination for refusing to engage in such activities.
2. No Member shall use, or attempt to use, their authority for the purpose of
intimidating, threatening, coercing, commanding or influencing any staff
member with the intent of interfering in staff’s duties, including the duty to
disclose improper activity.
3. Members shall be respectful of the role of staff to advise based on political
neutrality and objectivity and without undue influence from any individual
Member or faction of the Council.
4. No Member shall maliciously or falsely impugn or injure the professional or
ethical reputation or the prospects or practice of staff, and all Members shall
show respect for the professional capacities of the staff of the Town
6.0 Policy Framework
General Relationship between Staff and Members of Council
Council is the policy and decision-making authority for the municipality, and only Council
as a whole can direct Staff.
Individual Members of Council have a responsibility to support Council’s role to represent
the public and to consider the well-being and interests of the municipality, and in that
regard have a representative relationship with the citizens and businesses they serve.
General Committee Meeting Agenda
Tuesday, April 2, 2019
Item R1
Page 10 of 15
Policy No. xx – Council-Staff Relations Policy
(DRAFT) Page 6 of 8
Members of Council require advice and information from Staff on a need-to-know basis
in order to fulfil their constituent, decision-making and oversight responsibilities.
Communications between Staff and Members of Council, and between Members of
Council and Staff, must be courteous and professional. All communications should
take into account:
• The author’s and the recipient’s responsibilities under the respective provision,
policy, procedure or code of conduct applicable to the person;
• The impact upon any Member of the Public involved;
• The legitimate corporate or departmental priority of the matter; and
• The anticipated length of time it would take to properly comply with a request.
Communications, especially communications shared with Members of the Public,
should not be disparaging of any person. Legitimately held criticisms shall be stated
directly and professionally, clearly identified as the author’s own opinion. This Policy
does not condone the making of defamatory statements or statements based on
conjecture.
Communications made in the course of a matter before a committee or local board, or
before Town Council, shall be done in compliance with the applicable Procedure By-law.
Members of Council Communications with Staff on Behalf of a Member of the
Public
When a Member of Council desires to bring a matter to the attention of Staff on behalf
of a Member of the Public, such as to ask a question or to act in a representative
capacity for a constituent, the Member of Council shall communicate only with a
Member of the Executive Leadership Team or a Manager except in respect of Routine
Matters.
When a Member of Council is uncertain or requires assistance to determine which
member of Staff would be most appropriate to address a Routine Matter or a Non-
Routine Matter, the Member of Council should contact a member of the Executive
Leadership Team or the Town Clerk for advice.
Members of Council shall respect the role of staff and shall refrain from engaging in
administrative matters. When a Routine Matter or Non-Routine Matter has been
forwarded to Staff, the Member of Council shall refrain from interfering with Staff’s
carriage of the matter.
General Committee Meeting Agenda
Tuesday, April 2, 2019
Item R1
Page 11 of 15
Policy No. xx – Council-Staff Relations Policy
(DRAFT) Page 7 of 8
This Policy is not intended to inhibit a Member of Council from carrying out their duties.
It does require however that prior to communicating directly with a member of Staff on
behalf of a Member of the Public, the Member of Council give consideration to the
following preferred courses of action:
• It is preferred that the Member of the Public be referred to the appropriate
department or member of staff by providing contact information or reference to
established corporate or departmental procedures.
• For Routine Matters, where it is necessary to do so in order to provide an
appropriate level of customer service to a Member of the Public, the Member of
Council may attend at a public counter or provide a personal introduction to a
department or a member of Staff normally accessible to Members of the Public. In
so doing, The Member of Council should not interfere with Staff nor attempt to
influence an outcome.
• For matters that have been referred to an appropriate department or member of
Staff, the Member of Council may request, having obtained the written consent of
the Member of the Public involved, to receive status updates for tracking purposes
and for communicating with the Member of the Public.
• For matters that involve the administration of justice, such as by-law enforcement,
claims, litigation, Local Planning Appeal Tribunal (LPAT), and quasi-judicial
committees, Members shall refrain from making requests or statements or taking
actions which may be construed as an attempt to influence the independent
administration of justice.
Staff Communications with Members of Council
Routine Matters referred to Staff by a Member of Council should be responded to in
accordance with the department’s standard operating procedures or conventions. For
matters which have been referred to a department or member of Staff by a Member of
Council, Staff may, where the consent of the Member of the Public involved has been
obtained, provide status updates to the Member of Council for tracking purposes and for
communicating with the Member of the Public. This Policy however does not override
confidentiality or privacy requirements that may otherwise apply.
When the estimated time to complete the matter is over 2 hours, the direction must
come from Council as a whole, rather than an individual member. Non-Routine matters
which have been approved by Council will be referred to the appropriate member of the
Executive Leadership Team or Corporate Management Team for investigation and/or
action, with the Member of Council being so advised.
General Committee Meeting Agenda
Tuesday, April 2, 2019
Item R1
Page 12 of 15
Policy No. xx – Council-Staff Relations Policy
(DRAFT) Page 8 of 8
When a request involving a Routine or Non-Routine Matter is received by staff from a
Member of Council, the member of Council should be advised of the approximate time
for resolution based on the type of response required and operational priorities.
Meetings with Staff
Requests for Staff attendance at meetings organized by a Member of Council shall be
made to the appropriate member of the Executive Leadership Team. Notice of at least
24 hours should be provided except in urgent circumstances.
Members of Council shall not attend a Staff meeting, or a meeting involving Staff and
Members of the Public, without first seeking permission to attend from the appropriate
member of the Executive Leadership Team
Policy Management
Staff are authorized and directed to take the necessary action to give effect to this
policy.
The Town Clerk is delegated the authority to make administrative changes to this
Policy that may be required from time to time due to legislative changes or if, in the
opinion of the Town Clerk, the amendments do not change the intent of the policy.
Legislative Reference
This Policy is made pursuant to s. 270(1)(2.1) of the Municipal Act, 2001.
General Committee Meeting Agenda
Tuesday, April 2, 2019
Item R1
Page 13 of 15
Attachment 2
General Committee Meeting Agenda
Tuesday, April 2, 2019
Item R1
Page 14 of 15
General Committee Meeting Agenda
Tuesday, April 2, 2019
Item R1
Page 15 of 15
Town of Aurora
General Committee Report No. CS19-016
Subject: Emergency Management Program Annual Compliance Review
Prepared by: Martin Stefanczyk, Program Manager, Corporate Initiatives
Department: Corporate Services
Date: April 2, 2019
Recommendation
1. That Report No. CS19-016 be received; and
2. That the Emergency Management Program and Emergency Response Plan
By-law be brought forward to a future Council meeting for enactment.
Executive Summary
The purpose of this report is to seek Council’s approval of the updates to the Town of
Aurora’s Emergency Management Program which includes the Emergency Response
Plan to reflect organizational changes meeting legislative requirements of the
Emergency Management and Civil protection Act.
• A review of the Emergency Response Plan has identified the need to update the
plan to reflect organizational changes
• The Office of the Fire Marshall and Emergency Management (OFMEM) provided
direction to all municipalities in Ontario to appoint members to both the
Emergency Management Program Committee (EMPC) and Municipal
Emergency Control Group (MECG).
• The Town of Aurora’s Emergency Management Program has been and is
expected to be compliant with the Emergency Management and Civil Protection
Act as all annual reporting obligations to the Province have been completed.
Background
The Emergency Management and Civil Protection Act (EMCPA) requires municipalities
to develop and implement an Emergency Management Program and an Emergency
Plan and further states that the Council of the Municipality shall by by-law adopt both
General Committee Meeting Agenda
Tuesday, April 2, 2019
Item R2
Page 1 of 5
April 2, 2019 Page 2 of 5 Report No.CS19-016
the Emergency Management Program and the Emergency Response Plan. The
Emergency Management Program must consist of:
• An Emergency Plan
• Hazard identification and risk assessment
• Identification of critical infrastructure
• Public education
• Training and exercises
Ontario Regulation 380/04 passed under the authority of the EMCPA sets standards for
the development and implementation of emergency programs and for the formulation
and implementation of Emergency Response Plans.
The regulation requires each municipality to;
• designate an Community Emergency Management Coordinator (CEMC)
• establish an Emergency Management Program Committee (EMPC)
• establish a Municipal Emergency Control Group (MECG)
• establish an Emergency Operations Centre
• designate an Emergency Information Officer
• establish an Emergency Response Plan (ERP) assigning responsibilities to
municipal employees by position and setting out procedures for notifying the
MECP
Analysis
A review of the Emergency Response Plan has identified the need to update the
plan to reflect organizational changes
In accordance with the Emergency Management and Civil Protection Act, the Town is
required to review and if necessary, revise its Emergency Plan every year. The
Emergency Response Plan assigns roles and responsibilities to municipal employees,
by position, respecting the implementation of the plan. Organizational changes to the
Departments of Corporate Services, Operations, Community Services and Planning and
Development Services necessitated revisions and updates to the roles and
responsibilities in the Emergency Response Plan specifically;
General Committee Meeting Agenda
Tuesday, April 2, 2019
Item R2
Page 2 of 5
April 2, 2019 Page 3 of 5 Report No.CS19-016
• The Emergency Operations Center (EOC) Organizational Chart was updated to
reflect structural changes in the Operations, Planning, Logistics and
Financial/Administrative sections
• The roles and responsibility sections corresponding to the EOC Organizational
Chart were updated to reflect the current Town of Aurora organizational
structure.
The Office of the Fire Marshall and Emergency Management (OFMEM) provided
direction to all municipalities in Ontario to appoint members to both the EMPC
and MECG.
The updated Town of Aurora ERP specifies members of both the EMPC and MECG
and adds additional language allowing for the delegations of roles and responsibilities
during emergencies. The revisions to the roles and responsibilities sections and
appointment by council to the committees through the passing of this by-law will allow
the Town of Aurora to improve its coordination and response during a declared
emergency.
The Town of Aurora’s Emergency Management Program has been and is
expected to be compliant with the Emergency Management and Civil Protection
Act as all annual reporting obligations to the Province have been completed.
The Province requires compliance reporting and provides direction to municipalities to
ensure they fulfill their annual obligation under the EMCPA with respect to their
Emergency Management program
Upon passing of the by-law, being a by-law to adopt an Emergency Management
Program and to establish an Emergency Response Plan and completion of the required
Emergency Management Program activities for 2019 the Community Emergency
Management Coordinator (CEMC) will submit a Compliance Report to the Office of the
Fire Marshal and Emergency Management (OFMEM). Upon verification of the
Compliance Report, the OFMEM will provide a letter of compliance to the office of the
Mayor.
The Town of Aurora received its last compliance letter from OFMEM on August 29,
2018 for compliance with the EMCPA in 2017. The 2018 compliance documentation
was submitted to OFMEM by the CEMC in December 2018 and the Town of Aurora is
expected to receive the OFMEM compliance letter by the summer of 2019.
General Committee Meeting Agenda
Tuesday, April 2, 2019
Item R2
Page 3 of 5
April 2, 2019 Page 4 of 5 Report No.CS19-016
Advisory Committee Review
NA
Legal Considerations
By enacting a by-law to adopt the Emergency Management Program and the
Emergency Plan, Council would be complying with the requirements of the EMCPA and
the regulation made thereunder, as detailed in the report.
Financial Implications
N/A
Communications Considerations
The Emergency Response Plan is posted to the Town of Aurora website and the
Central York Fire Services Website. Education regarding emergency preparedness is
ongoing and done through social media, on the website and through in-person
education opportunities.
Link to Strategic Plan
This report supports the Town of Aurora Strategic Plan (2011-2031) goal of “supporting
an exceptional quality of life for all” by ensuring that the Town of Aurora through its
Emergency Response Plan is able to respond effectively during a declared emergency.
Alternative(s) to the Recommendation
1. Council could choose not to enact the updated Emergency Management Program
and Emergency Response Plan. This could result in the Town being found non-
compliant with the Emergency Management and Civil Protection Act.
Conclusions
The Town of Aurora has completed updates to its Emergency Response Plan as they
relate to organizational changes, provincial direction as well as revising roles and
responsibilities regarding emergency response. The updates to the plan support
General Committee Meeting Agenda
Tuesday, April 2, 2019
Item R2
Page 4 of 5
General Committee Meeting Agenda Tuesday, April 2, 2019Item R2 Page 5 of 5
Town of Aurora
General Committee Report No. PDS19-022
Subject: Update on the Corporate and Community Energy Plans
Prepared by: Anca Mihail, Manager of Engineering and Capital Delivery
Department: Planning and Development Services
Date: April 2, 2019
Recommendation
1. That Report No. PDS19-022 be received for information.
Executive Summary
The purpose of this report is to present Council with an update on the status of the
Community Energy Plan (CEP) and the Corporate Energy Management Plan (CEMP).
• Staff have prepared the Terms of Reference for the CEP and secured Provincial
and Federal funding under the Ontario’s Municipal Energy Program (MEP) and
Canada’s Municipalities for Climate Innovation Program (MCIP).
• The CEP will be completed by February 28, 2021.
• Staff have prepared the Terms of Reference for the CEMP and awarded the
project.
• The CEMP will be completed and posted on the Town’s web site by July 1, 2019.
Background
Community Energy Plan (CEP)
On April 25, 2017, Council passed the following resolution:
Whereas municipalities around the world are taking the lead on climate change
with sustainable and responsible policies that will reduce their Carbon Footprint;
and
General Committee Meeting Agenda
Tuesday, April 2, 2019
Item R3
Page 1 of 7
April 2, 2019 Page 2 of 7 Report No. PDS19-022
Whereas municipalities are developing Energy Plans that are both
environmentally progressive and economically viable; and
Whereas Aurora’s Infrastructure and Environmental Services (IES) Project 10-
year Plan has already allocated $100,000 for such a potential project, for future
budget consideration; and
Whereas the Provincial Ministry of Energy has established, and is funding
through the Ministry of Environment, a Municipal Energy Plan Program, which
may offer municipalities matching funds of up to $90,000 to support the
development of a Community Energy Plan; and
Whereas Newmarket’s Community Energy Plan received $90,000, Markham
received $90,000, and Vaughan’s received $54,000;
1. Now Therefore Be It Hereby Resolved That staff be directed to prepare a
Terms of reference and a budget for a Community Energy Plan for
Council’s consideration as part of the 2018 budget.
Corporate Energy Management Plan (CEMP)
The Town’s current CEMP was created in 2014 and will expire on July 1, 2019. This
Plan was developed under the Ontario Regulation 397/11, made under the Green
Energy Act 2009, which required that on July 1, 2014 and on or before every fifth
anniversary thereafter, every public agency shall prepare, publically report, and
implement energy conservation and demand management (CDM) measures.
The Green Energy Act, 2009 and its regulations were repealed on January 1, 2019,
however the requirements for energy plans and reporting still exist since they were re-
enacted under the Electricity Act, 1998 and Ontario Regulation 507/18. The current
CEMP created in 2014 will be updated and posted on the Town’s website on July 1,
2019 to meet the above-mentioned Ontario Regulation.
General Committee Meeting Agenda
Tuesday, April 2, 2019
Item R3
Page 2 of 7
April 2, 2019 Page 3 of 7 Report No. PDS19-022
Analysis
Staff have prepared the Terms of Reference for the CEP and secured Provincial
and Federal funding under the Ontario’s Municipal Energy Plan Program and
Canada’s Municipalities for Climate Innovation Program
A CEP is a comprehensive long-term plan to improve energy efficiency, reduce energy
consumption and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, foster green energy solutions and
support economic development.
Aurora’s CEP will:
• look at energy use across the entire municipality and includes a municipality’s
residential, commercial, industrial and public-sector energy use, including
municipal operations and energy and water infrastructure;
• identify energy conservation and green energy opportunities for all sectors within
the broader context of the built environment, land use planning and growth;
• help to articulate municipal priorities for other energy planning initiatives, such as
regional and provincial energy plans;
• include energy mapping to visually represent energy intensity and conservation
opportunities.
Ontario’s Municipal Energy Plan Program provides grants for the creation of Community
Energy Plans for up to $90,000 or 50% of the total project cost whichever is less.
To obtain Provincial and Federal funding the Plan must include the following:
• stakeholders consultation and engagement,
• gathering and analyzing of baseline energy data, which may include energy
mapping,
• creation of the Plan and approval by Municipal Council.
Ontario Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks provided detailed Program
Guidelines on how to develop the Terms of Reference for the CEP, with the purpose of
having a well-developed Plan, which provides key energy-use information and identifies
General Committee Meeting Agenda
Tuesday, April 2, 2019
Item R3
Page 3 of 7
April 2, 2019 Page 4 of 7 Report No. PDS19-022
a broad range of energy conservation opportunities to help local governments in their
long-term decision-making and planning.
Staff has prepared the Terms of Reference for the CEP as per the Ministry’s Program
Guidelines and has secured matching funds of up to $90,000 for the plan. In addition,
staff sought funding from other levels of government and was successful in securing a
grant of $81,900 from the Federation of Canadian Municipalities (FCM), Municipalities
for Climate Innovation Program (MCIP).
At present staff from the Finance and Legal Divisions are in the process of reviewing
and signing the Provincial and Federal agreements for the above-mentioned grants.
The government agencies’ obligation to fund the Town’s CEP will only become binding
once the agreements are executed.
The CEP will be completed by February 28, 2021
To obtain full funding, the CEP will have to be completed by February 28, 2021 since
the 5-year FCM’s MCIP funding is closing at the beginning of 2021.
To ensure we meet this deadline, the project has a very tight delivery timeline as
presented in Table No. 1:
Table No. 1
Stage CEP Stage Deliverable Start Date Finish Date
1 Stakeholders Consultation and Engagement May 1, 2019 September
30, 2019
2 Gathering baseline data and energy mapping October 1,
2019
January 31,
2020
3 Creation of the Plan and approval by Council February 1,
2020
February 1,
2021
After Council endorsement, the Town will submit the final report and the request for
contribution to the FCM and the Ontario’s Ministry of Environment, Conservation and
Parks by the deadline of February 28, 2021.
General Committee Meeting Agenda
Tuesday, April 2, 2019
Item R3
Page 4 of 7
April 2, 2019 Page 5 of 7 Report No. PDS19-022
Staff have prepared the Terms of Reference for the CEMP and awarded the
project
The current CEMP expires on July 1, 2019 and has to be updated to meet Ontario
legislation.
The scope of the CEMP is specific to the Town’s operations and service delivery and
does not include activities by the broader community within Aurora’s municipal
boundary. The Town will update the current initiatives and targets for Town’s buildings
and include water/wastewater and fleet using opportunities that may have been created
by changes in technology. The plan will also include resource requirements and
implementation timeframes along with best practices and benchmarks.
The CEMP has been awarded, at the beginning of March, to WalterFedy, a consulting
company specialized in energy conservation projects aimed at reducing the energy
consumption and carbon footprint.
The CEMP will be completed and posted on the Town’s web site by July 1, 2019
As required by the current Ontario legislation, the CEMP will be posted on the Town’s
web site on July 1, 2019, after being presented to Council for endorsement in June of
2019.
Advisory Committee Review
Not Applicable.
Legal Considerations
The Green Energy Act, 2009 and its regulations were repealed on January 1, 2019,
however the requirements for energy plans and reporting still exist since they were re-
enacted under the Electricity Act, 1998.
The Legal Division will review all legal agreements between the Town and the Ontario
and Federal Governments to secure the necessary CEP’s funding.
General Committee Meeting Agenda
Tuesday, April 2, 2019
Item R3
Page 5 of 7
April 2, 2019 Page 6 of 7 Report No. PDS19-022
Financial Implications
At this time there are no financial implications regarding the delivery of the CEP and the
CEMP.
Council approved $180,000 in the 2018 budget for the CEP, with the request that staff
obtain grants to cover the entire cost of the Plan. Presently, the Town had secured a
grant of $90,000 from the Provincial Government, and a grant of $81,900 from the
Federal Government (FCM) to a total of $171,900 and it is expected that this amount
will cover the entire cost of the CEP.
Council pre-approved $50,000 for the CEMP in the 2019 budget to cover the entire cost
of this study.
Communications Considerations
Not Applicable.
Link to Strategic Plan
This report supports the Strategic Plan goal of Supporting an Exceptional Quality of
Life for All through its accomplishment in satisfying requirements in the following key
objective within this goal statement:
Invest in sustainable infrastructure: Maintain and expand infrastructure to support
forecasted population growth through technology, waste management, roads,
emergency services and accessibility.
Alternative(s) to the Recommendation
Not Applicable.
Conclusions
Staff presented an update on the status of the CEP and CEMP. Staff had secured
Provincial and Federal grants to cover the cost of the CEP. The CEP will be completed
by February 28, 2021 and the CEMP will be completed and posted on the Town’s web
site by July 1, 2019.
General Committee Meeting Agenda
Tuesday, April 2, 2019
Item R3
Page 6 of 7
General Committee Meeting Agenda Tuesday, April 2, 2019Item R3 Page 7 of 7
Town of Aurora
General Committee Report No. PDS19-023
Subject: Heritage Permit Application
70-72 Centre Street
File: NE-HCD-HPA-19-02
Prepared by: Adam Robb, Planner
Department: Planning and Development Services
Date: April 2, 2019
Recommendation
1. That Report No. PDS19-023 be received; and
2. That the following recommendations be approved:
a) That Heritage Permit Application NE-HCD-HPA-19-02 be approved to permit
the restoration of the subject property and removal of the frame garage as
shown on the submitted plans;
b) That the property owner photodocument any original construction revealed
during the proposed restoration of the property; and
c) That the property owner continue to seek guidance from Town Staff and
the Heritage Conservation District Plan on the final selection of detail
elements visible from the street.
Executive Summary
The purpose of this report is to provide Council with direction from the Heritage Advisory
Committee regarding Heritage Permit Application NE-HCD-HPA-19-02 for the
restoration of the property at 70-72 Centre Street, designated under Part V of the
Ontario Heritage Act as part of the Northeast Old Aurora Heritage Conservation District.
• The house on the subject lands was constructed circa 1858 and continues to be
an important contributing property to the HCD and the Centre Street streetscape.
• The proposed restoration is found to be in keeping with the policies of the
Northeast Old Aurora Heritage Conservation District Plan
• The final composition of the property as proposed through the conceptual
elevations and plan is in fact a better balance of the property, offering more
General Committee Meeting Agenda
Tuesday, April 2, 2019
Item R4
Page 1 of 54
April 2, 2019 Page 2 of 5 Report No. PDS19-023
historic character to the neighbourhood and streetscape than what currently
exists.
Background
The agent on behalf of the owner of the property located at 70-72 Centre Street
submitted Heritage Permit Application NE-HCD-HPA-19-02 on January 11, 2019.
Location
The subject property is located on the north side of Centre Street, between Spruce
Street and Walton Drive (See Attachment 1). The property is approximately 325 metres
east of Yonge Street and is designated under Part V of the Ontario Heritage Act as part
of the Northeast Heritage Conservation District (By-law 4804-06.D).
Analysis
History of the Property
The Lot was registered in 1853 as Plan 107, all of which was owned by Richard
Machell. The individual Lot was sold and the property was associated with the Adam
and Margaret Kaiser family, which held intermittent ownership from 1858 to 1971. While
the west part of the dwelling may have been built circa 1858, the east part may have
been erected after 1884, which is the year George Kaiser bought the adjacent parcel.
Heritage Evaluation of the Existing Building
70 Centre and 72 Centre are joined as a duplex, however their styles are noticeably
different, with both having also been altered significantly.
The west part of the house (70 Centre Street) can be best described as a Gothic
Revival style “cottage”, with frame construction, a pointed centre gable, 2 storey
massing and rear tail wing layout. The structure may have been built with a 3-bay front
façade (centre door with flanking window openings), but has been significantly altered
and unmaintained in recent years.
The east part of the house (72 Centre Street) is a gable ended frame structure with a
medium pitched gable roof. This style and massing was popular from the early 19th
Century as commercial storefronts with second level accommodation, but again has
been significantly altered and generally unmaintained.
General Committee Meeting Agenda
Tuesday, April 2, 2019
Item R4
Page 2 of 54
April 2, 2019 Page 3 of 5 Report No. PDS19-023
According to the Heritage Impact Assessment, local builders Knowles and Preston may
have been hired in 1905 to change the placement of the exterior doors and windows on
the property, and since the arched opening on the upper level with a wood door remains
unusual in its design, suggests that a verandah was also removed as part of this
process.
Neighbourhood Context as part of the Northeast Heritage Conservation District
The property at 70-72 Centre Street continues to be an important contributing element
in the Northeast Old Aurora Heritage Conservation District and the Centre Street
streetscape. Dating back to 1858 as part of the earliest plan of subdivision within
Machell’s Corners (Aurora) and then evolving to a duplex structure in the early 20th
Century, the subject property helps contribute to part of the story of the continuing
residential use of this part of the HCD. Its evolved style, gable roof, and setback are in
keeping with the overall character of the streetscape.
The south and west facades of the dwelling are the most visible along the streetscape,
and are in need of repair. Their integrity as an evolved historic component of this
streetscape will be preserved as part of the restoration process.
Proposed Restoration
After a review of the conceptual proposal, the Heritage Impact Assessment has
determined that the restoration will not negatively impact the heritage character or
streetscape, and that the designs are in keeping with the HCD Plan. The removal of the
(non-heritage) garage has no visual impact on the historic ambience of the streetscape,
and the removal of the upper doorway on the east side is to rectify the balance resulting
from the full verandah already being lost. Ultimately, the final composition of the
property outlined by the conceptual proposal (See Attachment 3) is in fact a better
balance of the property, offering more historic character than what is currently existing.
The restoration is much needed to maintain the integrity of the structure and will add
significant value to the area.
Advisory Committee Review
The Heritage Advisory Committee reviewed Heritage Permit Application NE-HCD-HPA-
19-02 on March 5, 2019 and approved the recommendations made by staff. The
Heritage Advisory Committee was very supportive towards the proposed restoration
plans and believe it will contribute positively to the HCD neighbourhood character.
General Committee Meeting Agenda
Tuesday, April 2, 2019
Item R4
Page 3 of 54
April 2, 2019 Page 4 of 5 Report No. PDS19-023
Legal Considerations
Heritage Permits
The subject property was designated in 2006 under Part V of the Ontario Heritage Act
as part of the Northeast Old Aurora Heritage Conservation District. The Heritage Permit
application was deemed complete by staff on February 8, 2019 and is being processed
pursuant to section 33(1) of the Act. Within 90 days of receiving notice of the
application and after consultation with HAC, Council may approve the permit
application, with or without conditions, or may refuse the application. Only the owner
may appeal Council’s decision to the Conservation Review Board. Council must make a
decision by Thursday, May 9, 2019.
Financial Implications
There is no financial impact associated with this report.
Communications Considerations
No communication required.
Link to Strategic Plan
The conservation of heritage resources supports the Strategic Plan goal of Supporting
an Exceptional Quality of Life for All through its accomplishment in satisfying
requirements in objective Celebrating and Promoting our Culture.
Alternative to the Recommendation
1. Refuse the Heritage Permit Application
Conclusions
It is recommended that the Heritage Permit Application for the restoration of 70-72
Centre Street be approved, which follows the recommendations made by the Heritage
Advisory Committee. According to the Heritage Impact Assessment provided, the works
will not negatively impact the heritage character of the building and will be in keeping
with the principles of the Heritage Conservation District Plan. The proposed sympathetic
General Committee Meeting Agenda
Tuesday, April 2, 2019
Item R4
Page 4 of 54
General Committee Meeting Agenda Tuesday, April 2, 2019Item R4 Page 5 of 54
Centre StreetWellington Street EastCatherine AvenueWalton DriveSpruce StreetWells StreetVictoria StreetLarmont StreetWells Street NorthCatherine AvenueMap created by the Town of Aurora Planning and Development Department, February 11, 2019. Base Data Provided by York Region.¯01020304050MetresLOCATION PLAN3'6 70-72 CENTRE STREETATTACHMENT 1SUBJECT LANDSGeneral Committee Meeting Agenda Tuesday, April 2, 2019 Item R4 Page 6 of 54
HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT
70-72 CENTRE STREET
TOWN OF AURORA
SU MURDOCH HISTORICAL CONSULTING
BARRIE,ON
JANUARY 2019
General Committee Meeting Agenda
Tuesday, April 2, 2019
Item R4
Page 7 of 54
SUMMARY
The property at 70-72 Centre Street continues to be an important contributing element in the
Northeast Old Aurora Heritage Conservation District and the Centre Street streetscape. Part of the
dwelling may date to 1857 and the earliest development of this plan of subdivision (Plan 107) within
Machell’s Corners (Aurora). Its physical evolution to a duplex structure is part of the story of the
continuing residential use of this part of the HCD. The property was associated with the Adam and
Margaret Kaiser family, which held intermittent ownership from 1858 to 1971. Its evolved style,
gable roof, and setback are in keeping with the overall character of the streetscape.
The south (street) and west facades of this dwelling are the most visible along the streetscape.
Their integrity as an evolved historic component of this streetscape should be preserved.
RECOMMENDATIONS
1. That the property owner photodocument any original construction revealed during the proposed
alterations to the interior and exterior. The intent is to find evidence of the likely dates of
construction of the west vs.east halves of the dwelling. Any observations on major changes, such
as the original configuration of the verandah and window/door locations are also important to
understanding the evolution of this structure. Minor changes do not need to be documented. This
documentation could be shared with the Town of Aurora.
2. That permission be granted to demolish or remove the frame garage without further
documentation.
3. That the property owner have regard for the design cautions in 7.0 of this Heritage Impact
Assessment.
4. Assuming the proposal is approved, that the property owner continue to seek guidance from the
Heritage Conservation District Plan on the final selection of detail elements such as window sash
and door types, paint colours, etc., for those facades visible from the street.
General Committee Meeting Agenda
Tuesday, April 2, 2019
Item R4
Page 8 of 54
CONTENTS
SUMMARY
1.0 PROPERTY DESCRIPTION
2.0 REPORT OBJECTIVE
2.1 TERMS OF REFERENCE
2.2 METHODOLOGY
3.0 HERITAGE STATUS
3.1 NORTHEAST OLD AURORA HERITAGE CONSERVATION DISTRICT
3.2 CATEGORY OF 70-72 CENTRE STREET IN THE HCD PLAN
4.0 HISTORY AND CHRONOLOGY OF THE PROPERTY
4.1 TOWN OF AURORA HISTORY
4.2 EARLY OWNERS OF LOT 14, PLAN 107 (1853-1858)
4.3 MARAIT KAISER/HARMAN (OWNER 1858-1884)
4.4 GEORGE KAISER (1884-1897)
4.5 STEPHEN KAISER (OWNER 1897-1903)
4.6 HERBERT HAIGHT (OWNER 1903-1905)
4.7 JOHN H. UNDERHILL (OWNER 1905-1926)
4.8 MARY ELLEN UNDERHILL (OWNER 1926-1954)
4.9 GEORGE DOUGLAS CASE AND ETHEL VERNA CASE (OWNERS 1954-1971)
4.10 JOHANNES M. VAN ROOYEN (OWNER 1971-1974)
4.11 DAVID JAMES GILHOOLY AND SHEILA GILHOOLY (OWNERS 1974-1977)
4.12 JAMES PRESTON JOHN THOMPSON (OWNER 1977-1982)
4.13 SUBSEQUENT AND CURRENT OWNERS
4.14 SUMMARY
5.0 ARCHITECTURE
5.1 DATE OF CONSTRUCTION
5.2 ARCHITECTURE
6.0 HCD CONTRIBUTING PROPERTY ANALYSIS
7.0 PROPOSED ALTERATIONS
7.1 SITE PLAN
7.2 FRONT ELEVATION
7.3 REAR ELEVATION
7.4 WEST ELEVATION
7.5 EAST ELEVATION
7.6 ROOF PLAN
General Committee Meeting Agenda
Tuesday, April 2, 2019
Item R4
Page 9 of 54
8.0 CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
DISCLAIMER
SOURCES
SUMMARY OF HERITAGE CONSULTING CREDENTIALS AND EXPERIENCE
General Committee Meeting Agenda
Tuesday, April 2, 2019
Item R4
Page 10 of 54
HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT, 70-72 CENTRE STREET,TOWN OF AURORA
SU MURDOCH HISTORICAL CONSULTING JANUARY 2019 7
HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT
70-72 CENTRE STREET,TOWN OF AURORA
PART LOT 14, SECOND RANGE,NORTH OF CENTRE STREET,WEST OF RAILROAD,PLAN 107, TOWN OF AURORA
1.0 PROPERTY DESCRIPTION
The legal description of this property is Part Lot 14, Second Range, North of Centre Street,
West of Railroad, Plan 107, Town of Aurora. This location (Figure 1) is a residential property
within the Northeast Old Aurora Heritage Conservation District (“HCD”), which is protected by
bylaw under Part 5 of the Ontario Heritage Act (“OHA”). It contains a dwelling fronting on the
north side of Centre Street that appears to be two structures built at different dates and merged
as a duplex now known as 70-72 Centre Street. No. 70 is the west part; No. 72 is the east part.
There is a vintage garage northwest of the dwelling. The property is unoccupied.
Figure 1:Property location indicated by arrow within the Northeast Old Aurora HCD
General Committee Meeting Agenda
Tuesday, April 2, 2019
Item R4
Page 11 of 54
HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT, 70-72 CENTRE STREET,TOWN OF AURORA
SU MURDOCH HISTORICAL CONSULTING JANUARY 2019 8
2.0 REPORT OBJECTIVE
2.1 TERMS OF REFERENCE
The property owner is proposing to alter the dwelling to expand its use as rental
accommodation. As this property is within the Northeast Old Aurora HCD, this proposal involves
applying for a permit to alter the property under 42(1)1 of the OHA:
Erection, demolition, etc.
42 (1) No owner of property situated in a heritage conservation district that has been designated
by a municipality under this Part shall do any of the following, unless the owner obtains a permit
from the municipality to do so:
1. Alter, or permit the alteration of, any part of the property, other than the interior of any
structure or building on the property.
2. Erect, demolish or remove any building or structure on the property or permit the erection,
demolition or removal of such a building or structure.
The property is subject to the requirements of the HCD Plan, which contains design parameters
for acceptable alterations and new construction.
To ensure compliance with the HCD Plan, the Town of Aurora (“Town”) requires a Heritage
Impact Assessment and Conservation Plan (“HIA”). This is to be compiled by a qualified
heritage consultant according to the Town’s HIA Guide, August 2016 (“Guide”).
Su Murdoch is a member of the Canadian Association of Heritage Professionals and has
experience in this type of study in Aurora and elsewhere in Ontario. This HIA has been compiled
within the parameters of the Guide.
2.2 METHODOLOGY
As the property is protected under Part 5 of the OHA, its contributing role within the HCD was
evaluated in this HIA without reference to Ontario Regulation 9/06: Criteria for Determining
Cultural Heritage Value or Interest as this only applies to individual property being considered
for designation under s. 29 of the OHA.
The findings of this HIA are based on documentary research, a property title search at the York
Region Land Registry Office, information provided by the Town of Aurora Museum and
Archives, and a site visit to the property and neighbourhood on November 26, 2018. Conceptual
drawings of proposed alterations to the dwelling were provided by the owner in December 2018.
No structural assessment or physical condition analyses of the dwelling was undertaken.
General Committee Meeting Agenda
Tuesday, April 2, 2019
Item R4
Page 12 of 54
HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT, 70-72 CENTRE STREET,TOWN OF AURORA
SU MURDOCH HISTORICAL CONSULTING JANUARY 2019 9
This HIA does not include the identification of archaeological resources or areas of
archaeological potential. That fieldwork, if required by the Town, can only be undertaken by an
archaeologist licensed under the OHA.
3.0 HERITAGE STATUS
3.1 NORTHEAST OLD AURORA HERITAGE CONSERVATION DISTRICT
Part 5 of the OHA permits a municipality to protect a geographic area deemed collectively to
hold cultural heritage value or interest as a Heritage Conservation District. The Northeast Old
Aurora HCD was established by bylaw in 2006.
The following is the Statement of Heritage Value that identifies why this area holds cultural
significance; and the Statement of Objectives in Designating the District. Every proposal for
change within the HCD must be considered in the context of these statements:
2.3 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.
General Committee Meeting Agenda
Tuesday, April 2, 2019
Item R4
Page 13 of 54
HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT, 70-72 CENTRE STREET,TOWN OF AURORA
SU MURDOCH HISTORICAL CONSULTING JANUARY 2019 10
• 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.
2.5 Statement of Objectives in Designating the District
2.5.1 Overall Objective
The overall objectives in designating the Northeast Old Aurora Heritage Conservation
District are:
• 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
• To guide change so that it harmonizes as far as possible with the District’s
architectural, historical, and contextual character.
3.2 CATEGORY OF 70-72 CENTRE STREET IN THE HCD PLAN
The property at 70-72 Centre Street is categorized in the HCD Plan as a “Heritage Building.”
This makes it a contributing property that has a role in supporting the Statement of Heritage
Value and the Overall Objective of the HCD. The HCD Plan states the following objectives for
Heritage Buildings and the acceptable approach to their conservation:
2.5.2 Heritage Buildings
• To retain and conserve the heritage buildings as identified by inclusion in the Aurora
Inventory of Heritage Buildings.
• To conserve heritage attributes and distinguishing qualities of heritage buildings, and to
avoid the removal or alteration of any historic or distinctive architectural feature.
• To encourage the correction of unsympathetic alterations to heritage buildings.
General Committee Meeting Agenda
Tuesday, April 2, 2019
Item R4
Page 14 of 54
HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT, 70-72 CENTRE STREET,TOWN OF AURORA
SU MURDOCH HISTORICAL CONSULTING JANUARY 2019 11
• To facilitate the restoration of heritage buildings based on a thorough examination of
archival and pictorial evidence, physical evidence, and an understanding of the history of
the local community.
4.0 HISTORY AND CHRONOLOGY OF THE PROPERTY
4.1 TOWN OF AURORA HISTORY
“About 1804” is the beginning date of settlement at Aurora’s major intersection of Yonge and
Wellington streets, with Concession 1, Whitchurch Township, on the east side of Yonge and
Concession 1, King Township, on the west side. The first gristmill in the area may have been
west of Yonge, near Wellington, on property patented from the Crown by William Tyler in 1805.
The mill was a draw for tradespeople, labourers, and their families.
Another landowner at the Yonge and Wellington intersection was John Richard Machell. The
crossroads that became Aurora was first known as Match-Ville or Machell’s Corners. “Richard
Machell, Esq., Merchant” had surveyor Robert Lynn draw a “Plan of Building Lots in the Village
of Match-Ville” as a subdivision of part of Lot 81, Concession 1, Whitchurch Township (Figure
2). It was registered in May 1853 as Plan 107. The property at 70-72 Centre Street is within
Plan 107.
Settlement of the area transformed when the first train on the newly built Ontario, Simcoe &
Huron Union Railroad line arrived on May 16, 1853. A railway station was built near the
intersection of Yonge and Wellington and the frontages of the township lots were further
surveyed into building lots. The railway right of way crossed Centre Street, north/south, to the
east of the subject property now known as 70-72 Centre Street.
On January 1, 1854, Machell’s Corners was renamed Aurora. More industries and shops lined
Yonge Street and the adjoining streets. By 1863, the population reached 700, sufficient to
incorporate as a village. On January 1, 1888, it was incorporated as a Town. On January 1,
1971, the regional Town of Aurora was founded incorporating the historic town core and the
bordering township lands.
4.2 EARLY OWNERS OF LOT 14, PLAN 107 (1853-1858)
Plan 107 was registered in 1853. On September 30, 1854, Whitchurch Township merchant
Richard Machell (who commissioned Plan 107) and his spouse Martha Ann sold the quarter
acre of Lot 14, 2nd Range, North of Centre Street, West of Railroad, to Enoch Srigley for £17.10.
This value indicates the lot was vacant. Srigley was a carpenter in Whitchurch.
On February 6, 1857, Srigley and his spouse [Mahaley] sold Lot 14 to Samuel Machell and Seth
Ashton of Aurora for £95. By then, Srigley was living in Newmarket but still a carpenter. Machell
General Committee Meeting Agenda
Tuesday, April 2, 2019
Item R4
Page 15 of 54
HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT, 70-72 CENTRE STREET,TOWN OF AURORA
SU MURDOCH HISTORICAL CONSULTING JANUARY 2019 12
and Ashton were auctioneers.
The 1851 census for King Township places Samuel Machell, 29, and his spouse Eliza, 20, with
their two year old son, living next to Richard Machell, 58, and Martha Ann, 38. Presumably, they
were family relations.
4.3 MARAIT KAISER/HARMAN (OWNER 1858-1884)
On January 20, 1858, Samuel and Eliza Machell and Seth Ashton sold Lot 14 to Marait Kiser.
The purchase price was £113. Marait Kiser is identified on the deed (Instrument 71673) as a
spinster living in Whitchurch Township. This actually may be Margaret Kaiser, a widow, with
seven children.
Margaret was born in Pennsylvania about 1809, the daughter of Peter and Mary More. On
December 24, 1832, she married Adam Erlin Kizer (Kaiser) in a Christian Congregationalist
Church in Vaughan Township. Adam Kaiser was born in 1808 in York County, the son of Peter
Erlin Kaiser (1750-1820) and Anna Margaretta Delabo (1771-1812).
Margaret and Adam Kaiser’s first child, Sara Ann, was born in York Township about 1833. Their
subsequent children were Mary, born about 1838 in York Township; George, 1840, York
Township; Frances, 1845, Aurora; Elizabeth Betsy, about 1848, Whitchurch Township; Lavina,
about 1853, King Township; James, about 1855, “York”; and Peter, about 1857, “York.”
Adam Kaiser died in 1856.
Margaret Kaiser married William Harman on March 9, 1858, in Haldimand County. William was
born May 17, 1798, the son of Henry Ludwig and Esther Harman. He married Mary Woodrow
Figure 2:Extract of Plan 107 dated 1853 indicating Lot 14. Lot 16 is to the west.
General Committee Meeting Agenda
Tuesday, April 2, 2019
Item R4
Page 16 of 54
HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT, 70-72 CENTRE STREET,TOWN OF AURORA
SU MURDOCH HISTORICAL CONSULTING JANUARY 2019 13
(born 1791). They had the following children: Esther (1818-1887); William Woodrow (1821-
1892); Henry (1822-1854); James (1825-1900); Obediah (1828-1927); Caroline (1829-1929);
George (1843-1853); and Samuel (1840-1940). Mary Harman died in 1856.
The 1861 census enumerated William and Margaret Harman in King Township. William is
described as 63, a Quaker, and Margaret, 58, also Quaker. In their household were blended
family members George Kaiser, 19; Fanny Harman, 17; Elizabeth Kaiser, 14; Lavina Kaiser, 10;
and James Kaiser, 6.
The 1861 census for Whitchurch also enumerated Charles Case and his spouse Sarah Ann,
who may be the eldest daughter of Margaret and Adam Kaiser. In the Case household were
their children Henry, 6; Betsy, 3; and Mary Ann, 2. Living with them was Mary “Kizer,” 19, a
servant. Mary could be the second eldest daughter of Adam and Mary Kaiser. Case was an
innkeeper on Concession 1, Whitchurch, likely at Aurora. They lived in a two storey, frame
dwelling.
The 1871 census enumerated William Harman, 72; Margaret, 63; and Levina Kaiser, 19, as
farmers living in one household in King Township. William and Margaret were by then of
Wesleyan Methodist faith. They both had German ancestry.
William Harman died on February 7, 1879, in King Township. His death certificate has the
following notation: “The above named is said to be the first child born of white parents in the
Township of King. Born on Lot Number 77, 1st Concession and resided there on until his death.”
This suggests that Margaret Kaiser moved to Lot 77, Concession 1, King, at her marriage to
William in March 1858 and did not occupy Lot 14 before his death in 1879. As she retained
ownership of Lot 14, any of the Harman/Kaiser children could have been the occupants.
The 1881 census lists a Margaret Harman, 72, widow, living in the King Township household of
Henry and Elizabeth Case and their children. Elizabeth may have been a daughter of Margaret
and Adam Kaiser.
The 1891 census for Aurora lists Mary Harman, 54, as a widow of Methodist faith. In the
household were her children Henry, 20; and Wilmington, 19. The sons were labourers and of
Free Church faith. Also in the household was Margaret Harman, 87, a widow. Their dwelling is
described as wood, two storeys, with five rooms. It is not known if this is describing a dwelling
on Lot 14. Also in 1891, a Margaret Harman, widow, 85, is in the Henry and Elizabeth Case
household in King Township. It is possible that Margaret was enumerated in both locations, if
staying temporarily with one household.
4.4 GEORGE KAISER (1884-1897)
Margaret Harman was living in Aurora and a widow when she sold the easterly part of Lot 14 to
King Township farmer George Kaiser. This is believed to be her son with Adam Kaiser. The sale
General Committee Meeting Agenda
Tuesday, April 2, 2019
Item R4
Page 17 of 54
HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT, 70-72 CENTRE STREET,TOWN OF AURORA
SU MURDOCH HISTORICAL CONSULTING JANUARY 2019 14
was on May 16, 1884, for the price of $100. This easterly part is described as follows:
Being in the form of a parallelogram extending the whole length of said Lot and twenty
four feet more or less in width, being such portion of said Lot lying between the dwelling
now erected thereon, and the Eastern boundary. Together with a right of way to enter
said described portion by the roadway on the West side of said dwelling. But save and
except the full use of the Well and Pump situate on said described portion which are and
shall continue to be for the free and uninterrupted use of the whole of said Lot Number
Fourteen.
Of note in this deed (Instrument 1577) is that it was originally written as Lot 16, Plan 107, and
then overwritten with Lot 14. There is no road allowance on the west side of Lot 14. There is a
lot marked “B” on Plan 107, on the west boundary of Lot 16, opposite a road allowance on the
south side of Centre Street (Figure 2). “B” may have been reserved as a roadway. Alternatively,
“roadway” may refer to the lane or driveway that exists on the west side of the dwelling.
George Kaiser was born in 1840 and married Claista Crandle in Haldimand County on May 26,
1868. The 1871 census for Aurora lists George, 30, with Claista, 24; and their daughter Emma,
2. They had four children in total: Emma, born in King City in 1869; George born in 1872;
Stephen born in 1876; and Frank born in 1880. The 1871 Aurora directory lists George Kaiser
as a farmer. The 1876 King Township directory has George on Concession 1, Lots 72 and 73,
King, south of Aurora. In 1881, the family was enumerated in the King Township census. This
suggests they were not living on Lot 14.
Margaret Harman sold the balance of Lot 14 to George Kaiser on May 11, 1895. At that date,
Margaret was still a widow living in Aurora and George was a farmer living in King Township.
The purchase price was $100.
4.5 STEPHEN KAISER (OWNER 1897-1903)
George Kaiser was still a farmer in King Township when he committed suicide on December 23,
1896. Henry Bennett and George Kaiser (Jr.), described as “Administrators of George Kaiser,”
sold for $100 all of Lot 14 to Stephen Kaiser on December 13, 1897. All were King Township
residents. George and Stephen were the sons of George and Claista.
Margaret Kaiser died on January 19, 1899, at Whitchurch (likely while living with one of her
children).
General Committee Meeting Agenda
Tuesday, April 2, 2019
Item R4
Page 18 of 54
HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT, 70-72 CENTRE STREET,TOWN OF AURORA
SU MURDOCH HISTORICAL CONSULTING JANUARY 2019 15
4.6 HERBERT HAIGHT (OWNER 1903-1905)
Stephen Kaiser was an unmarried farmer living in King Township when he sold the property for
$250 to Herbert Haight. This was on April 1, 1903. Haight was a labourer living in Aurora.
4.7 JOHN H. UNDERHILL (OWNER 1905-1926)
John H. Underhill was a shoemaker in Aurora when on April 8, 1905, he purchased Lot 14 from
Herbert Haight for $500. The Town report for “70 Centre Street” provides the following
information:
Mr. Underhill had come to Aurora with the Underhill and Sisman shoe manufacturing
company which started operations on Berczy Street in 1901; he was a cousin of one of
the co-founders. He later worked at the Fleury agricultural works, possibly after Underhill
and Sisman parted company and Underhill moved all its operations to Barrie.
John Underhill and his wife Mary raised five children in the house, four boys and a girl.
The oldest, Frank, would serve as Aurora’s mayor from 1941 until 1943. Another son,
Eugene, also stayed in Aurora and was a successful dentist and popular athlete; he died
in his early forties.
John Underhill contracted James Knowles and James Preston of the firm “Knowles & Preston”
to undertake construction work. On January 19, 1906, Knowles and Preston filed a Mechanics
and Wage Earners Lien “upon the estate of John Underhill,” securing the lien against Lot 14.
This was for a claim of $40.25 in wages and $30.85 in materials, including “lime for plastering
and lathe which materials were furnished for the said John Underhill of the Town of Aurora in
the County of York on or before the Twenty seventh day of December 1905.”
The 1911 census for Aurora lists a John Henry Underhill as a teamster for a livery. He was born
about December 1859 in Canada, and was of English ancestry and Methodist faith. His spouse
Mary Ellen was born in November 1872, also English, born in Canada, and Methodist. Their
children were Frank Roy, born 1893; George Errol, 1895; Ethel Verna, 1895; Eugene Vanholt,
1897; and Fred William, 1900.
The 1921 census for Aurora places the Underhill family on Centre Street living in a wood, single
family dwelling, with six rooms. In the household were John Henry, Mary Ellen, Frank, Earl,
Jean, and Fred.
4.8 MARY ELLEN UNDERHILL (OWNER 1926-1954)
John H. Underhill died July 23, 1925, without a Last Will and Testament. The administrator and
General Committee Meeting Agenda
Tuesday, April 2, 2019
Item R4
Page 19 of 54
HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT, 70-72 CENTRE STREET,TOWN OF AURORA
SU MURDOCH HISTORICAL CONSULTING JANUARY 2019 16
Figure 3:This Goad’s Fire Insurance Plan dated 1904/updated to 1927 plots Nos. 31 and 33 Centre
Street (now 70-72), as a frame structure, 1.5 storeys on the west and 2 storeys on the east. The
solid wall between the two halves suggests that they were separate units but could be entered from
the shared, one storey rear section, much like a duplex. Note the pasted overlay indicating there
were changes along this stretch of Center Street between 1904 and 1927. Visible under this overlay
is what appears to be a full verandah along the east and south (street) facades, and a minor
reconfiguration in the one storey section. (Source of insurance plan, Town of Aurora Museum and
Archives)
General Committee Meeting Agenda
Tuesday, April 2, 2019
Item R4
Page 20 of 54
HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT, 70-72 CENTRE STREET,TOWN OF AURORA
SU MURDOCH HISTORICAL CONSULTING JANUARY 2019 17
an heir was his son Frank R. Underhill, an accountant in Aurora, married to Wilhemine. The
other heirs were George E. Underhill and Eugene V. Underhill, both of Aurora; Ethel Verna
Case, wife of Douglas G. Case of the City of Toronto; Frederick W. Underhill of the City of Erie,
Pennsylvania; and Mary Ellen Underhill, widow of John H. The ownership of Lot 14 was
transferred to Mary Ellen.
Mary Ellen married Joseph Stephenson in 1930. On May 7, 1936, Mary Ellen Stephenson was
again a widow living in Aurora when she sold the northerly 25 feet of Lot 14, to Charles A.
Malloy of Aurora. He was a “gentleman” (retired). The purchase price was $25. Figure 1
indicates how the northerly 25 feet of Lot 14 became the rear of the corresponding lot on the
south side of Catherine Street.
4.9 GEORGE DOUGLAS CASE AND ETHEL VERNA CASE (OWNERS 1954-1971)
Mary Ellen (Underhill) Stephenson died on August 29, 1953. On May 5, 1954, her son and
executor, Aurora insurance agent Frank Roy Underhill, sold the property to George Douglas
Case and Ethel Verna Case. Ethel was a daughter of John H. Underhill and Mary Ellen
(Underhill) Stephenson and sister to Frank. The sale appears to be the full quarter acre, without
reference to the north 25 feet sold in 1936 to Charles Malloy (later corrected). The Town report
for “70 Centre Street” provides the following information:
The Underhills’ only daughter, Ethel, married Douglas Case in 1917. He was part of an
old family in the area and a great-grandson of the Margaret Kaiser (later Harman) who
had owned number 70 Centre from 1858 until 1897.
The property remained in the hands of the Underhill family until 1954. John Underhill
died in 1925, and in 1930 his widow married Joseph Stephenson. Following Mary
Underhill Stephenson’s death at home in 1953 the property once again came into the
hands of a Kaiser, more or less: it was acquired by Mary’s daughter Ethel and her
husband, Douglas Case. Mr. Case was a retired banker who later did some work as a
bookkeeper.
During much of the Case tenure of ownership part of the house was rented by Harold
and Hilda Billing; Mr. Billing was a plumber who lived for most of his adult life on Centre
Street, at various addresses.
Ethel Case died on July 9, 1962. Ownership of Lot 14 transferred to her spouse, George Case.
4.10 JOHANNES M. VAN ROOYEN (OWNER 1971-1974)
George Douglas Case sold the property to Johannes M. Van Rooyen on August 11, 1971. Both
were living in Aurora. The description of that part of Lot 14 sold exempts the northerly 25 feet
General Committee Meeting Agenda
Tuesday, April 2, 2019
Item R4
Page 21 of 54
HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT, 70-72 CENTRE STREET,TOWN OF AURORA
SU MURDOCH HISTORICAL CONSULTING JANUARY 2019 18
sold to Charles Malloy in 1936.
4.11 DAVID JAMES GILHOOLY AND SHEILA GILHOOLY (OWNERS 1974-1977)
Johannes M. Van Rooyen, by then formerly of Aurora, sold the property to Aurora teacher David
James Gilhooly and his spouse Sheila Gilhooly. This was on January 22, 1974. In 1977, they
transferred ownership to the same David James Gilhooly. An online biography of Gilhooly
provides the following information:
David Gilhooly was born in Auburn, California in 1943, but his family moved often,
spending time in the Virgin Islands and Puerto Rico, where he graduated from high
school. He had developed an interest in biology and archeology, and registered at the
University of California at Davis as a biology major. He changed to an art major after
taking a ceramics class with Robert Arneson and received his MA in 1967. Together with
other ceramic artists, Robert Arneson, Peter Vandenberge, Chris Unterseher and
Margaret Dodd, he established what would come to be known as California Funk
Ceramic Movement. He was not exclusively working in ceramics at the time, but
experimented with a variety of sculpture media. His interest in biology was evident in his
full-size sculptures of animals, his elephant foot stools and, later, his frogs.
He was hired by the art department at the University of Saskatchewan where he had a
considerable influence on a developing Regina ceramic art scene. He moved to Toronto
and began teaching at York University. While in Ontario, he had a touring exhibition
entitled “With David Gilhooly in the Frog World” and was featured on the cover of Arts
Canada.
He would move to Calgary and then return to California where he departed from his
figurative frog ceramics. His new medium of choice was plexiglass. The following year,
he completed his giant Dagwood Sandwiches, which were then considered to be his last
ceramic works. Over the years, he continued to create sculptures in plexiglass and clay.
4.12 JAMES PRESTON JOHN THOMPSON (OWNER 1977-1982)
David James Gilhooly and his spouse Sheila sold the property to James Preston John
Thompson on August 4, 1977. Thompson is described as an Aurora businessman. David
Gilhooly died in Newport, Oregon, in 2013.
4.13 SUBSEQUENT AND CURRENT OWNERS
James Preston John Thompson and his spouse Shirley Lynne Thompson sold part of Lot 14 to
Cameron Henry Duncan and his spouse Carol Alice Duncan. Both residents of Aurora,
Cameron was a municipal clerk. This was on January 13, 1982.
General Committee Meeting Agenda
Tuesday, April 2, 2019
Item R4
Page 22 of 54
HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT, 70-72 CENTRE STREET,TOWN OF AURORA
SU MURDOCH HISTORICAL CONSULTING JANUARY 2019 19
The Duncans sold to Carl and Christine Kenwell in 1998. The property was purchased by the
current owner in 2017.
4.14 SUMMARY
On January 20, 1858, Samuel Machell and Seth Ashton sold Lot 14, 2nd Range, North of Centre
Street, West of Railroad, Plan 107, to Margaret Kaiser. She had been widowed in 1856 with
seven children between the ages of a few months and 23 years. The following March 1858,
Margaret married William Harman, a widower with eight children.William Harman owned a
homestead farm on Lot 77, Concession 1, King Township, where he is known to have resided
for his lifetime. Margaret may have purchased Lot 14 for the use of one or more of her elder
children. William died in 1879, at which time Margaret may have moved full or part time to
Aurora to live in the household of a married daughter, possibly on Centre Street.
The legal ownership of Lot 14 remained with Margaret (Kaiser) Harman until she sold to her son
George Kaiser in 1884 (easterly 24 feet) and the balance in 1895. George was a resident of
Aurora in 1871 but was farming in King Township by 1881. Ownership transferred to his son
Stephen in 1897. Stephen sold in 1903 to Herbert Haight who sold in 1905 to John Henry
Underhill. John’s spouse Mary Ellen, followed by their daughter Ethel Verna Case, owned the
property until 1971. Ethel’s spouse, George Douglas Case, was a great-grandson of Margaret
Kaiser.
5.0 ARCHITECTURE
5.1 DATE OF CONSTRUCTION
Lot 14 was created when Plan 107 was registered in 1853. The original owner of all the lots
within Plan 107 was Richard Machell. He sold the vacant Lot 14 (and possibly other lots) to local
carpenter Enoch Srigley who resold it in 1857 at a higher value. The purchasers, Samuel
Machell and Seth Ashton of Aurora, were auctioneers. This arrangement from Richard Machell
to Srigley to Machell and Ashton may have been a means of developing the lots with dwellings
for resale.
As stated in the Town of Aurora’s report “70 Centre Street,” the Municipal Property Assessment
Corporation file notes that the dwelling was first fully assessed for property taxes in 1858.
Although MPAC records are often in error, the documentary research could support 1857 as the
date of construction for the first dwelling.
The east and west halves of this dwelling each appear to be a standalone structure with full
width, front facades. This is not typical of a dwelling built in an L-plan, where one section of the
General Committee Meeting Agenda
Tuesday, April 2, 2019
Item R4
Page 23 of 54
HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT, 70-72 CENTRE STREET,TOWN OF AURORA
SU MURDOCH HISTORICAL CONSULTING JANUARY 2019 20
Figure 4: Above: South façade, about 1916 following renovations by John Underhill.
The segmental shaped window in the pointed gable may be original. The lower west
window appears enlarged and moved east and the door was added, changing the
typical 3-bay façade design. The upper door on the east part suggests the removal
of a verandah. The siding may have been replaced to accommodate the changes.
Figure 5: Below:South façade, 2018. Note the changes from 1916.
General Committee Meeting Agenda
Tuesday, April 2, 2019
Item R4
Page 24 of 54
HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT, 70-72 CENTRE STREET,TOWN OF AURORA
SU MURDOCH HISTORICAL CONSULTING JANUARY 2019 21
Figure 6: Above: South façade, 2018. The east end of the roof of the west part has been
extended to lap into the roof of the east part.
Figure 7: Below: North façade, 2018. The joint where the west and east parts meet is not well
aligned. It is possible that a second storey was added to the rear tail of the west part.
General Committee Meeting Agenda
Tuesday, April 2, 2019
Item R4
Page 25 of 54
HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT, 70-72 CENTRE STREET,TOWN OF AURORA
SU MURDOCH HISTORICAL CONSULTING JANUARY 2019 22
Figure 8: Above: North façade, 2018. Multiple finishes and enclosures indicate this
section has been repeatedly altered.
Figure 9: Below: East façade, 2018.
General Committee Meeting Agenda
Tuesday, April 2, 2019
Item R4
Page 26 of 54
HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT, 70-72 CENTRE STREET,TOWN OF AURORA
SU MURDOCH HISTORICAL CONSULTING JANUARY 2019 23
Figure 10: Above: South and west
facades, 2018. The verandah and
portico are not original.
Figure 11: Left:North part of west
façade, 2018, with evidence of changes
in door and window openings. The
recessed area on left may be the
original kitchen tail or wing, possibly
enlarged with a second storey.
General Committee Meeting Agenda
Tuesday, April 2, 2019
Item R4
Page 27 of 54
HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT, 70-72 CENTRE STREET,TOWN OF AURORA
SU MURDOCH HISTORICAL CONSULTING JANUARY 2019 24
façade is proportionate in size to the other. The east part of the dwelling may have been erected
by George Kaiser after 1884 when he bought “the 25 foot, parallelogram, between the dwelling
and the east boundary of the property” from his mother Margaret (Kaiser) Harman. The east
part of the dwelling measures 20 feet in width (see conceptual Site Plan).
John Underhill may have hired builders Knowles & Preston in 1905 to change the placement of
the exterior doors and windows; remove the full east and south verandah; reconfigure the rear,
one storey section; and reclad the exterior to accommodate the changes (Figures 3 and 4). He
may have added a second storey to the kitchen tail of the west part.
These theories on dates of construction and alterations are based on the documentary
research. Physical evidence such as the types of materials, building technology, visible
renovations, and other clues revealed during the proposed alteration may provide definitive
proof.
5.2 ARCHITECTURE
The west part of this dwelling is an example of the economical, Gothic Revival style “cottage”
promoted by 19th century academics such as J.C. Loudon and A.J. Downing and popularized by
The Canada Farmer publication in 1865. The frame construction, pointed centre gable, 1.5/2
storey massing, and rear tail (kitchen) wing are characteristic of this style and massing. It may
have been built with a 3-bay front façade (centre door with flanking window openings). The
upper part of the window within the pointed gable was segmental in shape (Figure 4). Other
examples of this dwelling type are evident along this streetscape, notably at 68 and 78 Centre
Street (Figure 12).
The east part is a gable end, frame structure with a medium pitched gable roof. This style and
massing was popular from the early 19th century as commercial storefronts with second level
accommodation. Its popularity continued into the 20th century as urban dwellings. This example
appears to be late 19th century but a physical examination may provide proof of its date. There
are other examples along the streetscape (Figure 13).
The arched opening on the upper level, with a wood door (possibly a storm door) (Figure 4) is
unusual in its design. It suggests that a verandah was removed, the roof of which was the
landing for this door.
6.0 HCD CONTRIBUTING PROPERTY ANALYSIS
Based on the findings of this HIA, it is evident that this continues to be an important contributing
property to the HCD and the Centre Street streetscape. Part of the dwelling may date to the
earliest development of this plan of subdivision (Plan 107) within Machell’s Corners. Its physical
evolution to a duplex structure is part of the story of the residential use of this part of the HCD.
General Committee Meeting Agenda
Tuesday, April 2, 2019
Item R4
Page 28 of 54
HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT, 70-72 CENTRE STREET,TOWN OF AURORA
SU MURDOCH HISTORICAL CONSULTING JANUARY 2019 25
Figure 12:No. 68 (above right) and No. 78 (below) Centre Street are examples of a
1.5/ 2 storey, frame dwelling with a pointed centre gable and 3-bay front façade.
Both have been modified.
General Committee Meeting Agenda
Tuesday, April 2, 2019
Item R4
Page 29 of 54
HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT, 70-72 CENTRE STREET,TOWN OF AURORA
SU MURDOCH HISTORICAL CONSULTING JANUARY 2019 26
Figure 13: Above and Below:The 1.5/ 2 storey, gable end form with a medium pitched gable roof is a
timeless design spanning the 19th and 20th centuries..
General Committee Meeting Agenda
Tuesday, April 2, 2019
Item R4
Page 30 of 54
HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT, 70-72 CENTRE STREET,TOWN OF AURORA
SU MURDOCH HISTORICAL CONSULTING JANUARY 2019 27
Figure 14:Nos. 70-72 Centre Street is the mid dwelling. Although erected at different dates,
there is a uniformity in the setbacks and gable roofs along the street.
General Committee Meeting Agenda
Tuesday, April 2, 2019
Item R4
Page 31 of 54
HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT, 70-72 CENTRE STREET,TOWN OF AURORA
SU MURDOCH HISTORICAL CONSULTING JANUARY 2019 28
General Committee Meeting Agenda
Tuesday, April 2, 2019
Item R4
Page 32 of 54
HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT, 70-72 CENTRE STREET,TOWN OF AURORA
SU MURDOCH HISTORICAL CONSULTING JANUARY 2019 29
General Committee Meeting Agenda
Tuesday, April 2, 2019
Item R4
Page 33 of 54
HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT, 70-72 CENTRE STREET,TOWN OF AURORA
SU MURDOCH HISTORICAL CONSULTING JANUARY 2019 30
General Committee Meeting Agenda
Tuesday, April 2, 2019
Item R4
Page 34 of 54
HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT, 70-72 CENTRE STREET,TOWN OF AURORA
SU MURDOCH HISTORICAL CONSULTING JANUARY 2019 31
General Committee Meeting Agenda
Tuesday, April 2, 2019
Item R4
Page 35 of 54
HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT, 70-72 CENTRE STREET,TOWN OF AURORA
SU MURDOCH HISTORICAL CONSULTING JANUARY 2019 32
General Committee Meeting Agenda
Tuesday, April 2, 2019
Item R4
Page 36 of 54
HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT, 70-72 CENTRE STREET,TOWN OF AURORA
SU MURDOCH HISTORICAL CONSULTING JANUARY 2019 33
General Committee Meeting Agenda
Tuesday, April 2, 2019
Item R4
Page 37 of 54
HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT, 70-72 CENTRE STREET,TOWN OF AURORA
SU MURDOCH HISTORICAL CONSULTING JANUARY 2019 34
The property was associated with the Adam and Margaret Kaiser family, which held intermittent
ownership from 1858 to 1971. Its style, height, setback, gable roof, and other elements are in
keeping with the overall character of the streetscape (Figure 14).
7.0 PROPOSED ALTERATIONS
The conceptual drawings provided in this HIA indicate the extent of the alterations being
proposed by the property owner.
7.1 SITE PLAN
The Site Plan indicates that the garage will be removed and the vacant northeast corner at the
dwelling will be infilled with a two storey addition. The balance of the footprint of the existing
dwelling will be retained.
COMMENT
The vintage garage is setback from the street at a sufficient distance that it is not integral to the
streetscape. Its loss should have no impact. Its removal will give better access to out of sight
parking at the rear.
The proposed two storey addition at the northeast corner should have no visual impact on the
historic ambience of the streetscape.
7.2 FRONT ELEVATION
West Half
It is likely that the west part of this dwelling began as a symmetrical, 3-bay façade, with a centre
door and flanking window openings. As shown in Figure 4, by 1916 the window within the
pointed gable was segmental in shape; and the ground level west window appears to have been
enlarged and shifted east. What may have been an east window became a door opening (or the
east window was removed and a door added). A verandah that may have spanned the east and
south facades has been removed. Subsequently the segmental window within the gable
became a doorway, opening onto the roof of a replacement (partial) verandah.
The owner’s intent is to rebalance the façade by reinstating a window opening in the gable. The
ground level will have two windows (left and near centre), with the door opening on the right
retained. A panelled door is proposed. The verandah is unchanged.
General Committee Meeting Agenda
Tuesday, April 2, 2019
Item R4
Page 38 of 54
HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT, 70-72 CENTRE STREET,TOWN OF AURORA
SU MURDOCH HISTORICAL CONSULTING JANUARY 2019 35
East Half
The east part is shown in Figure 4 with two ground level window openings and two smaller
dimension but proportioned upper windows flanking a door opening. The upper door opening
indicates the past existence of a verandah with its roof serving as a landing. Subsequently, the
upper door was replaced and now has a landing onto the west end of a replacement portico
(verandah); and the ground level east window has become a doorway.
The owner’s intent is to replace the upper doorway with a window and retain the flanking
window openings. The ground level will be similar to as proposed for the west half: two window
openings (left and centre) and the existing doorway on the right. A panelled door is proposed.
The portico is unchanged.
COMMENT
The proposed alteration captures the traditional distinction between the west and east halves of
this dwelling and retains some of the evolved changes, notably the placement of the doorways
for use as a duplex. The final composition is better balanced than existing and has a more
historic character.
Although the proposed loss of the historic element of an upper doorway on the east is
unfortunate, the door is a replacement and its landing onto a full verandah already lost.
The Hardi Board horizontal type clapboard siding is acceptable. Colour recommendations are
provided in section 9.3.4.8 of the HCD Plan.
7.3 REAR ELEVATION AND ROOF PLAN
The rear elevation of this structure has undergone several reconfigurations.
The intent of the owner is to infill the vacant northeast corner with a two storey addition,
integrating it with the existing two storey rear sections. To raise the existing interior ceiling
height and accommodate the two storey addition, one overall flat roof is proposed for the rear
section. This will remove the rear slope of the gable roof of the west half of the dwelling, except
at the west end; and remove the rear section of the west face of the roof of the east half of the
dwelling.
COMMENT
The visual impact of the proposed flat roofed section is minimized, as discussed under West
Elevation.
General Committee Meeting Agenda
Tuesday, April 2, 2019
Item R4
Page 39 of 54
HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT, 70-72 CENTRE STREET,TOWN OF AURORA
SU MURDOCH HISTORICAL CONSULTING JANUARY 2019 36
It is recommended that the flat roof and any servicing such as air conditioning units, stack pipes,
etc., not be visible above the existing gable roof when viewing the front façade from the street.
7.4 WEST ELEVATION
The owner’s intent for the south part of the west façade is to retain two upper window openings
and introduce two similar openings on the ground level.
The existing (non original) ground level window opening and doorway on the north part of the
west façade will be removed.
As noted under Rear Elevation and Roof Plan, the proposed flat roof of the altered rear section
will cut away most of the rear slope of the historic gable roof, and meet the front slope at the
existing ridgeline. A rear section of the gable roof will be maintained on the south part of the
west façade roof to give the illusion of a gable end to the roof.
COMMENT
The two upper/two lower window openings is a traditional 19th century treatment of an end
façade.
As the north part of the west facade is slightly recessed and not visible from the street, its lack
of openings is of no consequence.
Maintaining a rear slope for the gable end on the south part of the west façade will visually
complete the historic roof when viewed from the street. This treatment, combined with the
recess of the north end of this façade, should minimize the visual impact of the flat roofed
section.
7.5 EAST ELEVATION
The east elevation has two window and one door opening that may not be original and have
been boarded closed. The intent of the owner is to eliminate these openings.
A two storey addition with a flat roof will be infilled at the vacant northeast corner. The rear part
of the west slope of the gable roof of the east half of the dwelling will be removed as this area is
integrated into the proposed flat roof.
COMMENT
There is no negative impact from the loss of the window and door openings on this façade.
General Committee Meeting Agenda
Tuesday, April 2, 2019
Item R4
Page 40 of 54
HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT, 70-72 CENTRE STREET,TOWN OF AURORA
SU MURDOCH HISTORICAL CONSULTING JANUARY 2019 37
The loss of the rear section of the west slope of the gable roof and the proposed flat roof at the
northeast corner should not be visible from the street. As noted, it is recommended that the flat
roof and any servicing such as air conditioning units, stack pipes, etc., not be visible above the
existing gable roof when viewing the front façade from the street.
8.0 CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The property at 70-72 Centre Street continues to be an important contributing element in the
Northeast Old Aurora Heritage Conservation District and the Centre Street streetscape. Part of
the dwelling may date to 1857 and the earliest development of this plan of subdivision (Plan
107) within Machell’s Corners (Aurora). Its physical evolution to a duplex structure is part of the
story of the continuing residential use of this part of the HCD. The property was associated with
the Adam and Margaret Kaiser family, which held intermittent ownership from 1858 to 1971. Its
evolved style, gable roof, and setback are in keeping with the overall character of the
streetscape.
The south (street) and west facades of this dwelling are the most visible along the streetscape.
Their integrity as an evolved historic component of this streetscape should be preserved.
RECOMMENDATIONS
1. That the property owner photodocument any original construction revealed during the
proposed alterations to the interior and exterior. The intent is to find evidence of the likely dates
of construction of the west vs.east halves of the dwelling. Any observations on major changes,
such as the original configuration of the verandah and window/door locations are also important
to understanding the evolution of this structure. Minor changes do not need to be documented.
This documentation could be shared with the Town of Aurora.
2. That permission be granted to demolish or remove the frame garage without further
documentation.
3. That the property owner have regard for the design cautions in 7.0 of this Heritage Impact
Assessment.
4. Assuming the proposal is approved, that the property owner continue to seek guidance from
the Heritage Conservation District Plan on the final selection of detail elements such as window
sash and door types, paint colours, etc., for those facades visible from the street.
General Committee Meeting Agenda
Tuesday, April 2, 2019
Item R4
Page 41 of 54
HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT, 70-72 CENTRE STREET,TOWN OF AURORA
SU MURDOCH HISTORICAL CONSULTING JANUARY 2019 38
DISCLAIMER
Overall, professional judgment was exercised in gathering and analyzing the information obtained and in
the formulation of the conclusions and recommendations. Like all professional persons rendering advice,
the consultant does not act as absolute insurer of the conclusions reached, but is committed to care and
competence in reaching those conclusions.
SOURCES
Abstract of Title and related documents for Lot 14, Plan 107, Town of Aurora. York Region Land
Registry Office.
Personal census enumerations, 1851-1921. Ancestry.ca.
Online genealogical records of related families. Ancestry.ca.
York County Directories Collection. Online and private collection.
Goad’s Fire Insurance Plan, 1927. Town of Aurora Museum/Archives.
Northeast Old Aurora Heritage Conservation District: The Plan, 2006.
Town of Aurora. “70 Centre Street, Aurora: Some Notes on Its History.” Typescript. Town of
Aurora property files.
The assistance of Shawna White at the Town of Aurora Museum and Archives is appreciated.
General Committee Meeting Agenda
Tuesday, April 2, 2019
Item R4
Page 42 of 54
HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT, 70-72 CENTRE STREET,TOWN OF AURORA
SU MURDOCH HISTORICAL CONSULTING JANUARY 2019 39
SU MURDOCH HISTORICAL CONSULTING
47 RODNEY STREET,BARRIE,ON L4M4B6
705.728.5342 MOBILE 705.737.7600 SUMURDOC@SYMPATICO.CA
SU MURDOCH
SUMMARY OF HERITAGE CONSULTING CREDENTIALS AND EXPERIENCE
Founded in 1990, projects have been completed by SU MURDOCH HISTORICAL CONSULTING for
individual, corporate, and public clients across Ontario. Much of this work has involved the
determination of the cultural heritage value or interest of properties and heritage impact
statements.
From 2005 to 2017, Su Murdoch served part time as Vice Chair for the Conservation Review
Board. This is a provincial adjudicative tribunal that hears appeals under the Ontario Heritage
Act.
SU MURDOCH is a professional member in good standing of the Canadian Association of
Heritage Professionals.
EDUCATION
Bachelor of Arts (McMaster University)
Certificate in Cultural Landscape Theory and Practice (Willowbank Centre)
Certificate in Adjudication for Administrative Agencies, Boards and Tribunals (Osgoode Hall
Law School)
Archival Principles and Administration certification (Ottawa University and National Archives
Canada)
Related research skills training
AWARDS
Canadian Association of Heritage Professionals, Conservation Project Award “Small and
Lovely” for the Oro African Church, National Historic Site
Town of Markham Heritage Award of Excellence
Ontario Historical Society Fred Landon Award for Best Regional History Publication
(Beautiful Barrie: The City and Its People: An Illustrated History)
Ontario Heritage Trust Community Heritage Achievement Award
Ontario Historical Society Special Award of Merit
City of Barrie Heritage Conservation Awards
RELEVANT PROJECTS
AVAILABLE ON REQUEST
General Committee Meeting Agenda
Tuesday, April 2, 2019
Item R4
Page 43 of 54
SITE PLANSCALE: 1/16" = 1'-0"NPROPERTY LINEPROPERTY LINEPROPERTY LINEPROPERTY LINEEX. 2-STOREYFRAME DWELLINGw/ EXTERIORALTERATIONNo. 70EX. 2-STOREYFRAME DWELLINGNo. 72CENTRE STREETPROPOSED2-STOREYADDITIONREMOVE EX.GARAGE154'-7"[47.12]154'-834"[47.16]60'-712"[18.48]60'-1"[18.31]9'-534"[2.89]3'-912" [1.15]9'-734"[2.94]PARKING PADSITE STATISTICS:ZONING: R7LOT AREA: 864.74m²EXISTING COVERAGE: 131.80m²PROPOSED ADDITION: 23.38m²TOTAL PROPOSED COVERAGE: 155.18m²PERMITTED COVERAGE: 35%PROPOSED COVERAGE: 17.9%5'-6"[1.68]SOFT LANDSCAPE AREADRIVEWAYDRIVEWAY40'-0" [12.19]42'-634"[12.98]12'-7"[3.83]6'-234"[1.90]19'-1134"[6.09]21'-1134"[6.70]3'-0" [.91]20'-0"[6.10]25'-0"[7.62]16'-0"[4.88]18'-8"[5.69]7'-11"[2.41]LANDSCAPE AREANO EXISTING TREESTO BE REMOVEDPLANNING&DESIGNCONSULTANTS8 WELLESLEY ST. EASTSUITE 702TORONTO, ONTARIOM4Y 3B2Firm NameBCINset out in the Ontario Building Code to be a designer.design, and has the qualifications and meets the requirementsThe undersigned has reviewed and takes responsibility for this28858REGISTRATION INFORMATIONRequired unless design is exempt under 2.17.4.1 building code.DateSignatureTONY VALENTIN DESIGNDRAWING NO.DRAWN BY: RKCHECKED BY:DATE: DEC. 17, 2018SCALE: AS NOTED DATENO.REVISIONBYA-120917TONY VALENTINNameRequired unless design is exempt under 2.17.5.1 of the building code.QUALIFICATION INFORMATIONBCINPROJECT:PROPOSED 2-STOREY ADDITION70-72 CENTRE STREETAURORAGeneral Committee Meeting Agenda Tuesday, April 2, 2019 Item R4 Page 44 of 54
PROPOSEDFIRST FLOOR PLANSCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"UPBEDROOMBEDROOMBEDROOMBEDROOMKITCHENKITCHENDININGROOMLIVINGROOMUPDININGROOMLIVINGROOMW/DW/DWASHROOMCLOCLOCLOCLO11'-0"[3.35]11'-0"[3.35]10'-0"[3.05]10'-0"[3.05]12'-7"[3.84]16'-0"[4.88]18'-8"[5.69]30'-0"[9.14]25'-0"[7.62]20'-0"[6.10]42'-0"[12.80]45'-0"[13.72]7'-11"[2.41]42'-7"[12.98]PORCH7'-5"[2.26]7'-5"[2.26]8" Ø8" Ø8" ØPROPOSED ADDITIONWASHROOMPLANNING&DESIGNCONSULTANTS8 WELLESLEY ST. EASTSUITE 702TORONTO, ONTARIOM4Y 3B2Firm NameBCINset out in the Ontario Building Code to be a designer.design, and has the qualifications and meets the requirementsThe undersigned has reviewed and takes responsibility for this28858REGISTRATION INFORMATIONRequired unless design is exempt under 2.17.4.1 building code.DateSignatureTONY VALENTIN DESIGNDRAWING NO.DRAWN BY: RKCHECKED BY:DATE: DEC. 17, 2018SCALE: AS NOTED DATENO.REVISIONBYA-220917TONY VALENTINNameRequired unless design is exempt under 2.17.5.1 of the building code.QUALIFICATION INFORMATIONBCINPROJECT:PROPOSED 2-STOREY ADDITION70-72 CENTRE STREETAURORAGeneral Committee Meeting Agenda Tuesday, April 2, 2019 Item R4 Page 45 of 54
PROPOSEDSECOND FLOOR PLANSCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"DNBEDROOMBEDROOMBEDROOMBEDROOMKITCHENKITCHENDININGROOMLIVINGROOMDININGROOMLIVINGROOMWASHROOMW/DCLOCLOCLOCLO11'-0"[3.35]11'-0"[3.35]10'-0"[3.05]10'-0"[3.05]12'-7"[3.84]16'-0"[4.88]18'-8"[5.69]30'-0"[9.14]25'-0"[7.62]20'-0"[6.10]42'-0"[12.80]45'-0"[13.72]7'-11"[2.41]42'-7"[12.98]ROOF OFPORCHDNWASHROOMW/DPROPOSED ADDITIONPLANNING&DESIGNCONSULTANTS8 WELLESLEY ST. EASTSUITE 702TORONTO, ONTARIOM4Y 3B2Firm NameBCINset out in the Ontario Building Code to be a designer.design, and has the qualifications and meets the requirementsThe undersigned has reviewed and takes responsibility for this28858REGISTRATION INFORMATIONRequired unless design is exempt under 2.17.4.1 building code.DateSignatureTONY VALENTIN DESIGNDRAWING NO.DRAWN BY: RKCHECKED BY:DATE: DEC. 17, 2018SCALE: AS NOTED DATENO.REVISIONBYA-320917TONY VALENTINNameRequired unless design is exempt under 2.17.5.1 of the building code.QUALIFICATION INFORMATIONBCINPROJECT:PROPOSED 2-STOREY ADDITION70-72 CENTRE STREETAURORAGeneral Committee Meeting Agenda Tuesday, April 2, 2019 Item R4 Page 46 of 54
EXISTING ROOF PLANSCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"SLOPESLOPESLOPESLOPESLOPE
SLOPESLOPESLOPESLOPESLOPESLOPE
PROPOSED ROOF PLANSCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"SLOPESLOPESLOPE SLOPESLOPESLOPE
PROPOSED FLAT ROOFEXISTING ROOF TO REMAINSLOPESLOPESLOPESLOPESLOPEPROPOSED FAUX GABLEPLANNING&DESIGNCONSULTANTS8 WELLESLEY ST. EASTSUITE 702TORONTO, ONTARIOM4Y 3B2Firm NameBCINset out in the Ontario Building Code to be a designer.design, and has the qualifications and meets the requirementsThe undersigned has reviewed and takes responsibility for this28858REGISTRATION INFORMATIONRequired unless design is exempt under 2.17.4.1 building code.DateSignatureTONY VALENTIN DESIGNDRAWING NO.DRAWN BY: RKCHECKED BY:DATE: DEC. 17, 2018SCALE: AS NOTED DATENO.REVISIONBYA-420917TONY VALENTINNameRequired unless design is exempt under 2.17.5.1 of the building code.QUALIFICATION INFORMATIONBCINPROJECT:PROPOSED 2-STOREY ADDITION70-72 CENTRE STREETAURORAGeneral Committee Meeting Agenda Tuesday, April 2, 2019 Item R4 Page 47 of 54
20'-0"[6.10]25'-0"[7.62]21'-7"[6.58]8'-7"[2.62]2'-0"[.61]14'-6"[4.42]PROPOSEDFRONT ELEVATIONSCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"20'-0"[6.10]25'-0"[7.62]21'-7"[6.58]8'-7"[2.62]2'-0"[.61]14'-6"[4.42]EXISTINGFRONT ELEVATIONSCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"HARDIE BD.FINISHHARDIE BD.FINISHPLANNING&DESIGNCONSULTANTS8 WELLESLEY ST. EASTSUITE 702TORONTO, ONTARIOM4Y 3B2Firm NameBCINset out in the Ontario Building Code to be a designer.design, and has the qualifications and meets the requirementsThe undersigned has reviewed and takes responsibility for this28858REGISTRATION INFORMATIONRequired unless design is exempt under 2.17.4.1 building code.DateSignatureTONY VALENTIN DESIGNDRAWING NO.DRAWN BY: RKCHECKED BY:DATE: DEC. 17, 2018SCALE: AS NOTED DATENO.REVISIONBYA-520917TONY VALENTINNameRequired unless design is exempt under 2.17.5.1 of the building code.QUALIFICATION INFORMATIONBCINPROJECT:PROPOSED 2-STOREY ADDITION70-72 CENTRE STREETAURORAGeneral Committee Meeting Agenda Tuesday, April 2, 2019 Item R4 Page 48 of 54
21'-7"[6.58]8'-7"[2.62]14'-6"[4.42]21'-7"[6.58]14'-6"[4.42]25'-0"[7.62]PROPOSEDREAR ELEVATIONSCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"EXISTINGREAR ELEVATIONSCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"HARDIE BD.FINISHHARDIE BD.FINISHPLANNING&DESIGNCONSULTANTS8 WELLESLEY ST. EASTSUITE 702TORONTO, ONTARIOM4Y 3B2Firm NameBCINset out in the Ontario Building Code to be a designer.design, and has the qualifications and meets the requirementsThe undersigned has reviewed and takes responsibility for this28858REGISTRATION INFORMATIONRequired unless design is exempt under 2.17.4.1 building code.DateSignatureTONY VALENTIN DESIGNDRAWING NO.DRAWN BY: RKCHECKED BY:DATE: DEC. 17, 2018SCALE: AS NOTED DATENO.REVISIONBYA-620917TONY VALENTINNameRequired unless design is exempt under 2.17.5.1 of the building code.QUALIFICATION INFORMATIONBCINPROJECT:PROPOSED 2-STOREY ADDITION70-72 CENTRE STREETAURORAGeneral Committee Meeting Agenda Tuesday, April 2, 2019 Item R4 Page 49 of 54
PROPOSEDWEST ELEVATIONSCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"EXISTINGWEST ELEVATIONSCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"HARDIE BD.FINISHHARDIE BD.FINISHHARDIE BD.FINISHPLANNING&DESIGNCONSULTANTS8 WELLESLEY ST. EASTSUITE 702TORONTO, ONTARIOM4Y 3B2Firm NameBCINset out in the Ontario Building Code to be a designer.design, and has the qualifications and meets the requirementsThe undersigned has reviewed and takes responsibility for this28858REGISTRATION INFORMATIONRequired unless design is exempt under 2.17.4.1 building code.DateSignatureTONY VALENTIN DESIGNDRAWING NO.DRAWN BY: RKCHECKED BY:DATE: DEC. 17, 2018SCALE: AS NOTED DATENO.REVISIONBYA-720917TONY VALENTINNameRequired unless design is exempt under 2.17.5.1 of the building code.QUALIFICATION INFORMATIONBCINPROJECT:PROPOSED 2-STOREY ADDITION70-72 CENTRE STREETAURORAGeneral Committee Meeting Agenda Tuesday, April 2, 2019 Item R4 Page 50 of 54
PROPOSEDEAST ELEVATIONSCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"EXISTINGEAST ELEVATIONSCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"HARDIE BD.FINISHPLANNING&DESIGNCONSULTANTS8 WELLESLEY ST. EASTSUITE 702TORONTO, ONTARIOM4Y 3B2Firm NameBCINset out in the Ontario Building Code to be a designer.design, and has the qualifications and meets the requirementsThe undersigned has reviewed and takes responsibility for this28858REGISTRATION INFORMATIONRequired unless design is exempt under 2.17.4.1 building code.DateSignatureTONY VALENTIN DESIGNDRAWING NO.DRAWN BY: RKCHECKED BY:DATE: DEC. 17, 2018SCALE: AS NOTED DATENO.REVISIONBYA-820917TONY VALENTINNameRequired unless design is exempt under 2.17.5.1 of the building code.QUALIFICATION INFORMATIONBCINPROJECT:PROPOSED 2-STOREY ADDITION70-72 CENTRE STREETAURORAGeneral Committee Meeting Agenda Tuesday, April 2, 2019 Item R4 Page 51 of 54
$8525$5(*,67(52)3523(57,(62)&8/785$/
+(5,7$*(9$/8(25,17(5(67 8SGDWHG 6,7($GGUHVV &HQWUH6WUHHW
)RUPHU$GGUHVV
/HJDO'HVFULSWLRQ 3/$1 /27 67$786&XUUHQW8VH 5HVLGHQFH2ULJLQDOXVH 5HVLGHQFH
+HULWDJH6WDWXV /LVWHG 'HVLJQDWHG3W9%\ODZ1R 'DWH '
2IILFLDO3ODQ 6WDEOH1HLJKERXUKRRG
5HVLGHQWLDO
=RQLQJ 5 6SHFLDOPL[HGGHQVLW\
+&' 1(2OG$XURUD3ODTXHV
3+272*5$3+.(<0$3
General Committee Meeting Agenda
Tuesday, April 2, 2019
Item R4
Page 52 of 54
$8525$5(*,67(52)3523(57,(62)&8/785$/
+(5,7$*(9$/8(25,17(5(67 8SGDWHG $5&+,7(&785(
*(1(5$/,1)250$7,21
$GGUHVV &HQWUH6WUHHW%XLOGHU
&RQVWUXFWLRQ'DWH F$UFKLWHFW
$UFKLWHFWXUDO6W\OH 2QWDULR+RXVH2ULJLQDO2ZQHU 0UV0DUJDUHW.DLVHU
+HULWDJH(DVHPHQW +LVWRULFDO1DPH
*(1(5$/'(6&5,37,21
)ORRU3ODQ 6WRUH\ ò
)RXQGDWLRQ0DWHULDOV
([WHULRU:DOO0DWHULDOV :RRGVLGLQJ
5RRI7\SH *DEOH FHQWUHJDEOHZLWK
GRRU
:LQGRZV 2ULJLQDO³SDQH´ZLQGRZV
(QWUDQFH %D\V
81,48()($785(6
&KLPQH\ V (YLGHQFHRI³EUDFNHWFKLPQH\V´IRU
VWRYHSLSHV
6SHFLDO:LQGRZV
'RUPHUV 3RUFK9HUDQGDK )URQWYHUDQGDKZLWKQG
VWRUH\GRRURQWRURRIRI
SRUFK
5RRI7ULP 'RRU7ULP
:LQGRZ7ULP 2WKHU LVMRLQHGZLWK
+RZHYHUWKHLUVW\OHVDUH
QRWLFHDEO\GLIIHUHQW
General Committee Meeting Agenda
Tuesday, April 2, 2019
Item R4
Page 53 of 54
$8525$5(*,67(52)3523(57,(62)&8/785$/
+(5,7$*(9$/8(25,17(5(67 8SGDWHG +,6725<+LVWRULFDO6RFLHW\ILOHVLQFOXGH
7RZQRI$XURUDILOHVLQFOXGH
3+2726
+,6725,&$/3+272,19(1725<3+272
3KRWRGDWH
3KRWRGDWH
3KRWRGDWH
7KH$XURUD,QYHQWRU\RI+HULWDJH%XLOGLQJVZDVFRPSLOHGE\WKH$XURUD+HULWDJH$GYLVRU\&RPPLWWHH /$&$& EHWZHHQ DQG
7KHFRPSOHWHGLQYHQWRU\ZDVDGRSWHGE\&RXQFLODQGUHOHDVHGLQ 2Q6HSWHPEHU$XURUD&RXQFLODWLWVPHHWLQJ1R
KDVRIILFLDOO\FKDQJHGWKHQDPHRIWKH$XURUD,QYHQWRU\RI+HULWDJH%XLOGLQJWRWKH“Aurora Register of Property of Cultural
Heritage Value or Interest”DQGDOOSURSHUW\LQFOXGHGLQWKH,QYHQWRU\ZHUHWUDQVIHUUHGWRWKH5HJLVWHU
General Committee Meeting Agenda
Tuesday, April 2, 2019
Item R4
Page 54 of 54