Evan Manning, Senior Heritage Planner, provided the Committee with a summary of the application and the legislative context, advising that a demolition request for the property was previously considered by the Committee in May 2022 and December 2023 and was deferred both times. In 2022, the demolition request was withdrawn by the owner to allow further discussions. Mr. Manning explained that in response to the most recent request for demolition, Staff are currently recommending designation of the property under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act, and noted that consideration of the matter would be before Development Services Committee on January 23, 2024 prior to proceeding to Council on January 31. Mr. Manning provided an overview of the Ontario Regulation 9/06 criteria that the property met based on research undertaken by Heritage Section staff, and noted that designation of the property does not preclude future intensification of the property provided that the heritage attributes of the on-site building are conserved.
Valerie Burke, deputant, expressed support for the Staff recommendation, citing the historical significance of the property for its association with the Heintzman House. Ms. Burke noted that Thornhill has lost other heritage buildings fronting Yonge Street, and stated that the property is significant as it contains one of the relatively few extant resources along the Thornhill portion of Yonge Street. Ms. Burke stated that she believes the property could be incorporated into future development.
Jeffrey Streisfield, deputant representing the applicant, expressed confusion over the Staff recommendation and asked for clarification as to who undertook the research for the Statement of Significance as he felt that that Staff’s position regarding the cultural heritage significance of the property had fundamentally changed since May 2022. Mr. Streisfield noted that he does not believe that the property has a significant historical connection to the Heintzman House and that he believed that Staff were pressured to change their position as to the heritage significance of the property. Mr. Manning clarified that the Staff position has not fundamentally changed, noting that Staff were of the opinion that the property had contextual significance. Mr. Manning explained that the previous deferrals of the demolition request provided Staff with additional time to research and evaluate the property. Giulio Cescato, Director, Planning & Urban Design, further stated that while applicants may not always agree with the position of Staff, the reputation and professionalism of the Heritage Section Staff should not be called into question.
The Committee asked if the applicant hired their own heritage consultant to review the application. Mr. Streisfield confirmed that they did not hire a heritage consultant as they were of the opinion that Staff did not find the property to be historically significant based on the report produced for Committee consideration in May 2022.
Barry Nelson, deputant, representing the Thornhill Historical Society, noted that Staff may augment their evaluation of a property if additional historical information is provided or received, noting that requests for historical information are sometimes received and subsequently provided by the Thornhill Historical Society. Mr. Nelson expressed gratitude to the current owner of the property for conservation of the building to-date. Mr. Nelson expressed support for retaining the on-site building as a significant heritage asset and suggested an alternate motion for Committee consideration on behalf of the Thornhill Historical Society.
Evelin Ellison, deputant, thanked the Staff for the historical research undertaken, noting that the property is one of the only remaining examples in Thornhill of an Edwardian style building and as such warrants conservation. Ms. Ellison expressed support for preservation of the property, noting that it represents a gateway into the Thornhill Heritage Conservation District.
Mr. Streisfield clarified that the property is not in a heritage conservation district and noting that the applicant would be happy to work with the City on relocation of the building but that it would not make sense to incorporate the building into the development as it was not a building worth keeping.
Andrew Baldwin, deputant, agreed that the property is a gateway into Thornhill, noting that there are many more heritage properties on the Vaughan side of Yonge Street, but only four remaining on the Markham side, expressing support for the conservation of the on-site building.
The Committee provided the following feedback:
- Explained that efforts were made to explore the relocation of the building and that discussions were held between the Ward Councillor, the applicant, and City legal staff, but that these discussions were ultimately unsuccessful.
- Expressed concern regarding the absence of a development application for the property, explaining that it is difficult to support demolition without knowing what would go in its place.
- Asked if the building could still be relocated if it were designated. Mr. Cescato explained that there have been examples of designated properties being incorporated into high-density developments, noting that designation would not be a barrier to redevelopment, though it may make development become more technical, complex and costly. Mr. Manning added that the building could be relocated and that the designation by-law could be amended to reflect the legal description of its new location. Regan Hutcheson, Manager of Heritage Planning, noted that heritage buildings are occasionally relocated within development sites following designation to respond to site constraints.
- Noted that many resources are considered historically significant without being in a heritage conservation district.