Note: this agenda item was dealt with after item 6.1 on the agenda.
Note: Councillor Keith Irish, Chair, departed at 7:49 p.m. and returned at 7:56 p.m. due an internet connection issue. Ken Davis, Vice Chair, stepped in as Chair during Councillor Irish’s absence.
Regan Hutcheson, Manager, Heritage Planning addressed the Committee and provided a summary of the staff memorandum. He advised that under the Planning Act, the City can impose conditions that are reasonable, having regard to the nature of the development proposed for the subdivision. If the nature of the development affects heritage resources, then it may be reasonable to impose heritage conditions of approval related to the subject lands and adjacent lands owned by the applicant. Mr Hutcheson noted that in this case, the plan of subdivision is in support of the larger development parcel and that there are heritage assets within the plan of subdivision boundaries. . Mr. Hutcheson commented that a letter from the applicant’s lawyer was received on August 11, 2021 stating that the applicant will address the heritage matters as part of a site plan application for future development. Mr. Hutcheson recommended pursuing the heritage requirement as part of the plan of the subdivision.
Valerie Burke presented her written submission and expressed that she would like to see the historic gateway features along Bayview Avenue reinstated in the future. She emphasized that the City pursue immediate designation of the property to conserve its cultural heritage value and secure a heritage easement agreement.
Evelin Ellison stated that the stone entrance features are an important part of the Bayview Avenue streetscape. She noted that the submitted plan indicates a widening on the west side of Bayview Avenue but that the York Region report recommendation was not to widen the west side of Bayview Avenue. Ms. Ellison noted there could be potential archaeological findings in the development area. She expressed support for the Staff recommendation.
Barry Nelson, as a representative of the Society for the Preservation of Historic Thornhill (SPOHT) expressed support for the Staff recommendation. He also recommended that the greenhouse structure be remediated as it was an integral part of the horticultural plants grown in the past. He stated that the heritage assets should be considered for inclusion in a potential future expansion of the boundaries of the Thornhill Heritage Conservation District, and noted that the stone gates could be reinstated, with some effort. Mr. Nelson advised that in 1936 part of the area was a plowed field and the waterways around the property could have been used by Indigenous groups in the past for fishing and as a resting place, making it a potential location for artifacts.
The Committee provided the following feedback:
- Questioned whether the applicant provided any technical drawings showing the configuration of the proposed new right of way, including lanes and intersections;
- Expressed interest in reviewing the entry features on the plan to determine tie-in;
- Commented that the Archeological report was reasonably thorough and that it was unlikely that heritage assets were present if the report indicated none;
- Supported the staff recommendation with the friendly amendment to explore the restoration of the entry feature in the future.
Staff advised that the only drawings submitted by the applicant related to the plan of subdivision application were included in the agenda, and that Staff would review the Committee’s concerns and explore whether the entry feature could be reintroduced in future.