The Chair, Councillor Reid McAlpine, disclosed a pecuniary interest with respect to item 6.3, 27 Victoria Avenue, UHCD, by nature of being the owner of the property. He vacated the position of Chair and excused himself from the meeting for the discussion and voting of this item.
In accordance with the Committee’s Terms of Reference, as the Chair and Vice Chair were not present, Regan Hutcheson, Manager, Heritage Planning, presided over the selection of an Acting Chair. Councillor Keith Irish nominated Elizabeth Wimmer as Acting Chair, which she accepted. As there was no opposition, Elizabeth Wimmer assumed the role of Acting Chair for item 6.3.
Councillor Keith Irish and Councillor Karen Rea recused themselves from the discussion and abstained from voting on this item, due to their relationship as friends and colleagues of Councillor Reid McAlpine, but did not leave the meeting.
Peter Wokral, Senior Heritage Planner, addressed the Committee and provided a summary of the Staff comments and recommendations from the memorandum.
Andrew McAlpine, the Applicant’s representative and architect of the project, was present. He addressed the Committee and provided a few comments:
- Regarding the Staff comment to reduce the roof height of the addition, Andrew McAlpine noted that the design intent was to retain the visual simplicity of the dwelling and that lowering the roof height would require an adjustment to some of the window heights. Mr. McAlpine commented that the trees on the property limited the visibility of the extension from the roadway, with minimal impact as viewed from Victoria Avenue, and noted that the heritage house continued to be the visual focus of the property.
The Committee provided the following feedback:
- Acknowledged that typically the Committee preferred the height of the addition to be lower than the heritage house, but noted that lowering the roof line to mitigate its visual impact from the street was not necessary due to the limited visibility of the addition from the most significant view of the house from Victoria Avenue:
- Expressed understanding for the Applicant’s desire for the floor heights to be consistent with newer homes, as it could affect the value of the house.
- Questioned the concern by staff with the upper balcony railings.
- Andrew McAlpine commented that the heritage design was for railings to be 3 feet high or less, but current Ontario Building Code required that railings be nearly 4 feet high, causing it to be more obvious that the balcony was not part of the original building.
- Staff commented that there was an example in Markham Heritage Estates where a balcony with OBC compliant railings was installed and was frequently commented on negatively by visitors. Staff also noted that the new railing height and spacing impacted the homeowners use of the balcony when seated as the view would be limited.
- Inquired whether the balcony (as revised) was decorative or functional:
- The applicant’s representative advised that the door to the balcony would be operational and allow one or two persons to step out onto the balcony, but the space was fairly restricted.
- Inquired whether the roof pitch could be maintained if the roof height was lowered:
- The applicant’s representative advised it was a possibility, but believed the current roof pitch complemented the heritage house better.
- Inquired about the room heights in the addition.
- The applicant’s representative advised that the first and second floor were just under 9 feet high.
- Inquired whether dormers were considered to maintain some of the ceiling height.
- The applicant’s representative advised that sketches were done, but the addition of dormers did not suit the house design, and did not improve the look of the house.
Staff noted that if a Committee member abstains from voting, the member’s vote is considered in the negative.