Evan Manning, Senior Heritage Planner, introduced this item, reminding the Committee that this variance application was before them at the July meeting and was deferred on the recommendation of the Committee.
Scott Rushlow, representative of the applicant, advised that meetings had been held with the adjacent neighbours to discuss concerns, noting that the Ward Councillor, Councillor Irish, was in attendance to assist in mediating the discussions. Mr. Rushlow advised that the proposed height and floor area had been reduced and the building has been brought forward from the rear property line in response to feedback received.
Francis Lapointe, representing the adjacent homeowner at 4 Leahill Drive, expressed concerns with the revised proposal, noting that the proposed changes only appeared to be minor in nature. Mr. Lapointe cited concerns with the relationship between the proposed addition and existing heritage dwelling at 86 John Street, namely that the scale and siting of the addition did not strictly adhere to the guidelines in the Thornhill HCD Plan. Further, he questioned why the proposed addition could not be sited within the building envelope permitted by the applicable zoning by-law;
Tony Farr, deputant, expressed concerns with the size of the proposed addition, noting that it is the size of a house, not a coach house. Mr. Farr expressed support for an addition with a secondary unit to support intensification, but noted that the scale of the proposal was excessive.
Evelin Ellison, deputant, echoed comments from previous deputants and noted that heritage properties surrounding the subject property may be adversely impacted by the proposal.
Barry Nelson, deputant, encouraged Heritage Markham members to consider the personal reasons behind the applicant’s decision to build the addition, and displayed images of the proposed addition superimposed onto an image of the existing home as seen from John Street. The purpose of this was to demonstrate that the addition would have a neglible impact on the heritage dwelling at 86 John Street as viewed from the street.
The Committee provided the following feedback:
- Asked to clarify the parking requirement for the additional unit. Regan Hutcheson, Manager, Heritage, confirmed that it was his understanding that two parking spaces are required for a main unit, but noted that an additional parking space is not required for a second unit, but would be required for a third unit.
- Expressed concerns regarding tree preservation on the property, expressing support for an increased setback from the western property line.
- Supported reducing the length of the connection between the existing heritage dwelling and the addition to reduce its visual impact on 4 Leahill Drive.
- Asked for a response to Mr. Lapointe's deputation and concerns that the addition will adversely impact the adjacent property at 4 Leahill Drive, Mr. Manning advised that Heritage Section Staff examined the impact of the proposed addition on the heritage character of 4 Leahill and were of the opinion that the impact was minimal. Mr. Manning noted that a fence and landscaping screen were to be recommended by Heritage Section staff as approval conditions associated with the Minor Variance and future Major Heritage Permit applications, respectively. Further, Mr. Manning noted that he conducted a site visit to both 86 John Street and 4 Leahill Drive to substantiate the Staff position that there would be minimal impact from a heritage perspective.
- Commented that the addition is too large, noting that siting it within the permitted building envelope is preferred.
- Inquired if the property owners are able to proceed to the Committee of Adjustment without the support of Heritage Markham. Mr. Manning confirmed that the property owners have the option to proceed to the Committee of Adjustment and noted that the Staff report submitted for Committee of Adjustment consideration would indicate that Heritage Markham was not in support of the proposal.
Darryl Simmons, deputant and property owner, advised that he and his wife plan to use the proposed addition for their elderly mother to live in as it would be planned to be more accessible than the existing building. Mr. Simmons noted that their efforts have been to create something complementary to the existing structure.