Heritage Markham Committee Minutes

Meeting Number: 4

Wednesday, April 14, 2021 at 7:00 P.m. - 10:00 P.m.

Electronic Meeting

Members

• Ken Davis, Vice Chair
• Doug Denby
• Evelin Ellison
• Anthony Farr
• Shan Goel
• Councillor Keith Irish, Chair
• Councillor Reid McAlpine
• David Nesbitt
• Councillor Karen Rea
• Paul Tiefenbach
• Lake Trevelyan

Staff

• Regan Hutcheson, Manager, Heritage Planning
• Peter Wokral, Senior Heritage Planner
• Laura Gold, Council/Committee Coordinator
• Grace Lombardi, Election and Committee Coordinator

---

1.

CALL TO ORDER

Councillor Keith Irish, Chair, convened the meeting at 7:01 PM by asking for any disclosures of interest with respect to items on the agenda.

2.

DISCLOSURE OF PECUNIARY INTEREST

Anthony Farr declared a conflict of interest on Agenda Item No. 6.2 - Site Plan Control Application and Variance Applications, Proposed Reconstruction of Fire Damaged Dwelling, 32 Colborne St., Thornhill Heritage Conservation District, as he resides next door to the property.

3.

PART ONE - ADMINISTRATION

3.1

APPROVAL OF AGENDA (16.11)

A. Addendum Agenda

None.

B. New Business from Committee Members

Regan Hutcheson, Manager of Heritage Planning advised that the applicant has requested that Agenda Item No. 4.1 – 10379 and 10411 Kennedy Road, Minotar Holdings Inc and Hal-Van 5.5 Investments LTD. be deferred to the next meeting.

Committee agreed to defer the item until the May 12, 2021 Heritage Markham Committee meeting.

• Recommendation:

  That the April 14, 2021, Heritage Markham Committee agenda be approved as amended.

  Carried

3.2

MINUTES OF THE MARCH 10, 2021 HERITAGE MARKHAM COMMITTEE MEETING (16.11)

• That the minutes of the Heritage Markham Committee meeting held on March 10, 2021 be received and adopted.

  Carried

4.

PART TWO - DEPUTATIONS

4.1

PLAN OF SUBDIVISION AND ZONING BY-LAW AMENDMENT

10379 AND 10411 KENNEDY ROAD
MINOTAR HOLDINGS INC AND HAL-VAN 5.5 INVESTMENTS LTD. (16.11)

FILE NUMBER:
PLAN 20 133038

Extracts:
R.Hutcheson, Manager, Heritage Planning
D. Brutto, Senior Planner, Planning & Urban Design

 

This item was deferred to the May 12, 2021, Heritage Markham Committee Agenda.

5.

PART THREE - CONSENT

5.1

HERITAGE PERMIT APPLICATIONS

DELEGATED APPROVAL
HERITAGE PERMITS APPROVED BY HERITAGE SECTION STAFF
146 AND 185 MAIN ST., UHCD
7 HERITAGE CORNERS LANE, MARKHAM HERITAGE ESTATES
5 HERITAGE CORNERS LANE, MARKHAM HERITAGE ESTATES
12 GEORGE STREET, MVHCD (16.11)

FILE NUMBERS:
• HE 21 109127
• HE 21 111010
• HE 21 111339
• HE 21 111755

Extracts:
R.Hutcheson, Manager, Heritage Planning
P. Wokral, Senior Heritage Planner

 

• Recommendation:
  THAT Heritage Markham receive the information on heritage permits approved by Heritage Section staff under the delegated approval process.

  Carried

5.2

BUILDING OR SIGN PERMIT APPLICATIONS

DELEGATED APPROVAL BY HERITAGE SECTION STAFF
PERMITS APPROVED BY HERITAGE SECTION STAFF
2 MARIE COURT, 248 MAIN ST. U., 9899 MARKHAM RD. (16.11)

FILE NUMBERS:
• HP 21 106646
• HP 20 128457
• AL 21 110061

Extracts:
R.Hutcheson, Manager, Heritage Planning
P. Wokral, Senior Heritage Planner

 

Peter Wokral, Senior Heritage Planner, clarified that there will not be any trees removed for construction of a rear deck at 2 Marie Court.

• Recommendation:
  THAT Heritage Markham receive the information on building permits approved by Heritage Section staff under the delegated approval process.

  Carried

6.

PART FOUR - REGULAR

6.1

REQUEST FOR FEEDBACK

PROPOSED ALTERATION OF DESIGNATED INTERIOR FEATURES, STIVER HOUSE
206 MAIN STREET
UNIONVILLE HERITAGE CONSERVATION DISTRICT (16.11)

FILE NUMBER: N/A

Extracts:
R.Hutcheson, Manager, Heritage Planning
P. Wokral, Senior Heritage Planner

 

Peter Wokral, Senior Manager of Heritage Planning, presented the staff memorandum on the proposed alterations of designated interior features, Stiver House, 206 Main Street Unionville Heritage Conservation District. The applicant is requesting to remove parts of two historic plaster walls to make the space more suitable for retail purposes, and to accommodate a potential retail tenant.

Regan Hutcheson, Manager of Heritage Planning, advised that interior features of the Stiver House were designated in 2020 with the approval of the owner.

Mr. LeDonne, applicant, and property owner advised that the application to alter the designated interior features is to open up the space and make it suitable for retail purposes. A potential retail tenant has requested that the work be done, as the current compartmentalization of the house is not suitable for retail. Only personal services have demonstrated an interest in leasing the house with its current layout. The applicant believed that leasing the house to a retailer was in best interest of Main Street Unionville.

Committee provided the following feedback on the proposed alterations to the designated interior features of the Stiver House:

• Noted that the house will never be used as a residential home again as it is zoned for commercial uses, and if its current interior structure is not conducive to retail it will not help Main Street Unionville thrive;
• Supported the request as it may help revive Main Street Unionville, and to discourage more personal services business on the street;
• Noted that the key heritage features in the interior of the house are still being preserved;
• Suggested that opening up the interior of the house and making it more usable for retail purposes may help ensure the house is preserved over time;
• Suggested that the full length of the baseboards be removed and stored on site in case the house is restored, or the board is used somewhere else in the house in the future.

• Recommendation:

  THAT Heritage Markham supports the proposed removal of sections of interior plaster walls and historic baseboards of the historic Stiver House identified in the designation By-law to accommodate a potential retail occupant; and,

  The Heritage Markham recommends that the historic baseboard be removed only in complete sections and that the baseboards be protected and stored on site; and,

   That the interior alterations to the house be documented with photos.

  Carried

6.2

SITE PLAN CONTROL APPLICATION AND VARIANCE APPLICATIONS

PROPOSED RECONSTRUCTION OF FIRE DAMAGED DWELLING
32 COLBORNE ST.
THORNHILL HERITAGE CONSERVATION DISTRICT (16.11)

FILE NUMBER:
SPC 20 131842

Extracts:
R.Hutcheson, Manager, Heritage Planning
P. Wokral, Senior Heritage Planner

 

Anthony Farr declared a conflict of interest on this item and did not participate in the discussion, as he lives next door to the property.

Peter Wokral, Manager of Heritage Planning, presented the staff memorandum for the proposed reconstruction of a fired damaged dwelling on 32 Colborne Street.

Written submissions from Valerie and Dave Burke, and from the Society of Preservation of Historic Thornhill (SPHOT) with some suggested changes to the design of the proposed rebuilding of 32 Colborne St were circulated to the Committee prior to the meeting.

Barry Nelson, representing The Society of Preservation of Historic Thornhill (SPOHT) was generally supportive of the staff recommendation, but suggested the following:

• That the veranda spanning the full width of the house (including the east bay) be permitted as it is an important feature to the property owner;
• That any modern glazing address the City of Markham’s Bird Friendly Guidelines;
• That picket railing be used on the rear deck versus transparent glass.

The Committee provided the following feedback on the development proposal:

• Requested the rear balcony have picket railing rather than a tempered glass railing;
• Suggested the bay be moved forward to permit for the veranda.

Belinda Jones Architect clarified that another variance would be required if the bay was moved forward to permit for the veranda.

Mr. Wokal suggested that staff would likely be supportive of moving the bay forward to permit for the veranda even if a front-set-back variance is required.

• Recommendation:

  THAT Heritage Markham has no objection to the design of the proposed rebuilding of 32 Colborne St. from a heritage perspective and the identified variances, subject to the following:

  • that the rear balcony have picket railings instead of tempered glass railings;
  • that any modern glazing addresses the City of Markham’s Bird Friendly Guidelines; and,
  • that the 6/6/window panes/divisions treatment on the visible elevations be consistent and reflect traditional configurations, and include a sills.

  THAT the applicant enter into a Site Plan Agreement with the City containing the standard conditions regarding colours, material, windows etc.

  AND THAT final review of the site plan and any variance application in support of the proposed design reviewed by the Committee be delegated to Heritage Section staff.

  Carried

6.3

NOTICE OF INTENTION TO DEMOLISH

32 JOSEPH STREET
MARKHAM VILLAGE HERITAGE CONSERVATION DISTRICT (16.11)

FILE NUMBER: N/A

Extracts:
R.Hutcheson, Manager, Heritage Planning
P. Wokral, Senior Heritage Planner

 

Peter Wokral, Manager, Heritage Planning, presented the staff memorandum on the notice of intention to demolish 32 Joseph Street, Markham Village Heritage Conservation District.

Russ Gregory, representing the applicant, advised that the owner would like to build a new house on the property that will complement existing houses in the neighbourhood.

John Mintsopoulous, owner, noted that the house does not have a historical look or a visual appeal, and did not see how the house could be renovated to meet his needs. Mr. Mintsoupoulous suggested that a new house that complements the existing houses in the neighbourhood would add more vibrancy to the street.

Committee discussed the demolition proposal and would not support the request without seeing drawings of the proposed new dwelling to be built on the property. It also suggested that the house did not seem to be of a significant cultural heritage value.

Regan Hutcheson, Manager of Heritage Planning advised that any new dwelling on the property would be required to be in compliance with heritage policies, as the property is located within the Markham Village Heritage Conservation District.  He noted that consideration of a demolition request should be based on whether the property had cultural heritage value or not, rather than what a replacement building would look like.

Mr. Gregory agreed to prepare drawings for the May 12^th heritage meeting.

Mr. Hutcheson advised that the City will need in writing that the owner agrees to the extension of the demolition permit until July 2, 2021 to allow this matter to go to Council.

• Recommendation:

  THAT the Heritage Markham Committee defer its decision on supporting or objecting the demolition of 32 Joseph Street, a “Type B” heritage cultural resource, to the May 12, 2021 Heritage Markham meeting; and

   THAT with the owner’s agreement, the demolition review period be extended to July 2, 2021.

  Carried

6.4

SITE PLAN CONTROL APPLICATION

PROPOSED REDEVELOPMENT OF EXISTING ESSO SERVICE STATION
5965 HWY. 7 E.
MARKHAM VILLAGE HERITAGE CONSERVATION DISTRICT (16.11)

FILE NUMBER:
SPC 21 108793

Extracts:
R.Hutcheson, Manager, Heritage Planning
P. Wokral, Senior Heritage Planner

 

Peter Wokral, Senior Heritage Planner presented the staff memorandum of the proposed redevelopment of the Esso Service Station at 5965 Highway 7, East Markham Village Heritage Conservation District. The proposal includes demolishing the existing buildings on the site and replacing them with a larger convenience store, a car wash, an expanded number of fuel pumps and canopy.

Staff suggested a number of design changes. Staff are recommending reducing the entrances to the gas station on Main Street South from two to one so that that landscaping can be added to the site in this area to improve the aesthetics of the gas station and to enhance the Hwy 7/Main St intersection area.

Crystal Frazao, representing the owner advised that adding the landscaping, and having one larger entrance on Main Street South (instead of two entrances) would require a reduction in the number of parking spots at the gas station by four, and that with the reduction in parking it would not be in compliance with the City’s parking requirements. She was unsure if a reduction in the number of entrances would impact the gas stations operations.

Mr. Wokral advised that City staff will sometimes support  minor variances in the mumber of parking spaces provided if they support greater Urban Design/Planning objectives.

Committee provided the following feedback on the proposal to re-develop the gas station:

• Suggested that one larger entrance would be more pedestrian friendly, but did not support it if it will impact the gas stations operations;
• Suggested that the proposed location for the car wash may create a long line-up of cars;
• Suggested the landscaping should be easy to maintain, noting gas stations do not always maintain their landscaping;
• Suggested that warm paint colours be used, and that the surrounding neighbourhood be considered when selecting the lighting;
• Suggested having a pump for electric cars.

• Recommendation:

  THAT Heritage Markham has no objection to the demolition of the existing service station buildings and structures at 5965 Hwy. 7 E.;

  THAT Heritage Markham has no objection from a heritage perspective to the proposed forms, massing, and scale of the proposed new convenience store and carwash, but recommends the stone treatment as a foundational element with a consistent historic Markham Village colour brick used for the remainder of the buildings, and a consistent use of window treatments;

  THAT Heritage Markham does not support the proposed fuel pump canopy and recommends that it have supports clad in brick reflective of local historic brick, or have a brick base with the columns finished in a black painted finish to appear visually lighter and less stark than the proposed white finished surfaces;

  THAT Heritage Markham supports a reduction in vehicular driveway openings on Main Street South and the introduction of landscaping to replace proposed parking east of the proposed main building;

  THAT the proposed redevelopment include enhanced soft and hard landscaping similar to that found at existing ESSO Station at the south west corner of 16th Avenue and Main Street North to soften the appearance of the property, enhance the heritage character of the Markham Village Heritage Conservation District, and better reflect and complement the existing green spaces directly across Main Street South on the City owned Library and Cenotaph property;

  THAT any new proposed signage be shown on the site plan drawings and comply with Section 10.0 (Special Sign Districts) of the City of Markham’s Sign By-law;

  THAT final review of the site plan control application and any other development application required to approve the proposed redevelopment be delegated to Heritage Section staff.

  Carried

7.

PART FIVE - STUDIES/PROJECTS AFFECTING HERITAGE RESOURCES - UPDATES

a) Furniture on Main Street Unionville

Councillor Reid McAlpine advised that there is delay in putting furniture on Main Street Unionville in the small parkette at the top of the stairs due to the space being needed for outdoor patio space for a restaurant this summer if the Province permits outdoor dining.

b) Unionville Heritage Centre Secondary Plan

Regan Hutcheson, Manager of Heritage Planning advised that staff will continue their work on the Unionville Heritage Centre Secondary Plan once the Unionville Core Area Streetscape Master Plan is complete.

8.

PART SIX - NEW BUSINESS

a) Community Information Meeting

Councillor Karen Rea invited the Committee Members to attend a community information meeting she is hosting on April 28, 2021, at 6:00 PM in regards to the development proposal for 144 Main Street Markham.

Regan Hutcheson, Manager of Heritage Planning advised that a large seniors residence is being proposed on this property.

b) Reminder to Residents

Evelin Ellison suggested that a reminder be provided to residents that a permit is required to do any work on a heritage property (i.e. painting, changing a door or window, or doing any type of rennovation). Ms. Ellison also noted that the horse hitching post in Pomona Mills Park is broken and needs to be repaired.

c) Classification of Houses Built after 1920

Lake Trevelyan noted that he would like to discuss the classification of houses built after 1920 with Heritage Staff, as he did not think that houses should be classified unless they were of a significant cultural heritage value.

Mr. Hutcheson  advised that dwellings/buildings built after 1920 in a heritage district will often be classified as Class B, resources. These properties are usually of a complementary design/scale/proportion to heritage buildings in the community.

 

d) Ministry of Heritage, Sport, Tourism, and Culture Industries Ontario Volunteer Service Awards

Mr. Hutcheson advised that only members that had served five consecutive years on the Heritage Markham Committee were eligible and nominated for the Ministry of Heritage, Sport, Tourism, and Culture Industries Ontario Volunteer Service Awards.

9.

ADJOURNMENT

The Heritage Markham Committee adjourned at 9:27 PM.