Evan Manning, Senior Heritage Planner, introduced this item, reminding members that this has been before the Committee twice previously. Mr. Manning advised that since this item was last before the Committee, the application has been revised in a number of ways. Mr. Manning provided an overview of the revisions to the application and advised that Staff feel that the Applicant has, in good faith, attempted to respond to concerns raised by the Committee.
Darryl Simmons, deputant and Owner, explained that they are seeking to expand their living space as they wish to provide an accessible living space for an elderly family member and eventually for others in the family. Mr. Simmons noted that they have worked diligently to protect the trees on their property and have considered this through the application and revisions.
Francis Lapointe, deputant and architect, Lapointe Architects, representing the adjacent owner at 4 Leahill Drive, expressed opposition to the application, regardless of the view of the addition from the street or sidewalk. Mr. Lapointe noted that there are homes behind and next to this property and stressed the importance of adhering to the guildines in the Thornhill Heritage Conservation District Plan regarding the scale and siting of additions. Mr. Lapointe expressed concerns with the proximity of the addition to 4 Leahill Drive. Mr. Lapointe expressed concern that the addition would not conform with the building code, noting that laundry facilities are not available to each unit. Mr. Lapointe expressed concerns with emergency services accessing the addition. Mr. Lapointe also provided a written submission summarizing the identified issues and concerns.
Valerie Burke, deputant, expressed support for the application being further revised, noting continued concern with the massing and height of the addition. Ms. Burke indicated concern about the three mature trees which would be removed to build the addition and the possibility that other trees on the property could be damaged during construction
Evelin Ellison, deputant, expressed appreciation for the efforts of the Owner in returning to the Heritage Committee, but expressed continued concerns with the application and the size of the proposed addition. Ms. Ellison expressed concern that the Owner of 86 John Street was not adhering to the conditions of the Heritage Easement Agreement (HEA) in relation to proper maintenance of the existing detached garage.
Regan Hutcheson, Manager, Heritage, commented that monitoring HEAs are handled in different ways depending on if the Owner is taking part in the tax rebate program in which case photos would be reviewed every two years to ensure that the conditions of the HEA are being complied with. In this case, the existing garage noted in the HEA is proposed to be removed.
Darryl Simmons responded that the garage has been greatly improved once signing the HEA, acknowledging that the garage was not in good condition when they purchased the home. Mr. Simmons confirmed that they have not taken part in the property tax rebate program.
Scott Rushlow, designer, noted that the brief from the client was to create three separate suites. Mr. Rushlow advised that the proper siting and massing of the addition relative to the existing heritage building were paramount considerations and that concerns from the Committee were taken into account and incorporated into the revised proposal, noting that the building was also pulled back from the rear property line to reduce visual impact and address the concerns of the Owner of 4 Leahill Drive. Mr. Rushlow advised that the building depth and length of the link were also reduced and expressed his opinion that the Applicant has taken steps in good faith to address community concerns.
The Committee provided the following feedback:
- Thanked the Applicant for making some changes to the application.
- Requested a Staff response to the report submitted by Francis Lapointe. Mr. Manning responded that from a massing perspective, the proposed addition is optimal in its siting. Mr. Manning noted that items outlined in Mr. Lapointe’s report are guidelines rather than policies within the District Plan and Staff consider them on a case-by-case basis. Mr. Manning expressed Staff's view that the addition being brought closer to the existing building would cause visual confusion between the heritage building and the addition, noting a preference for separation between the two volumes. Mr. Manning also noted that privacy issues are land use issues which are more appropriately dealt with through the Committee of Adjustment but observed that the rear yard of 4 Leahill Drive is quite vegetated.
- Questioned the addition’s visibility from the street, asking if there is a rendering which shows the visibility from Leahill Drive. Mr. Manning explained that the visibility from John Street has been considered a higher priority as John Street is one of the primary streets within the District.
- Asked if the configuration suggested by Mr. Lapointe could be adopted. Mr. Manning confirmed that any configuration which brings the addition closer to the heritage resource would be considered less desirable by Heritage Section Staff as it would diminish the promince of the heritage building as viewed from John Street.
- Asked if the application has gone to the Committee of Adjustment at this point. Mr. Manning confirmed that the application has not gone to the Committee of Adjustment as the Applicant and Staff are first seeking Heritage Markham support before proceeding.
- Expressed that Heritage Markham's decision could be influenced by what the Committee of Adjustment is willing to allow.
- Asked if the size of the garage could be reduced to provide more of a setback. Mr. Rushlow noted that one of the Owners requests was for a large garage to accommodate vehicles and yard maintenance equipment, adding that the Owners were willing to concede a four-car garage.
- Sought clarification on the original length of the link. Mr. Rushlow advised that the link was originally 25 ft. and was reduced by 8 ft.