Heritage Markham Committee Minutes

Meeting Number: 9

Wednesday, October 14, 2020 at 7:15 P.m. - 10:15 P.m.

Electronic Meeting

Members

• Councillor Keith Irish
• Councillor Reid McAlpine
• Councillor Karen Rea
• Graham Dewar
• Ken Davis
• Doug Denby
• Evelin Ellison
• Anthony Farr
• Shan Goel
• Jason McCauley
• Lake Trevelyan

Regrets

• David Nesbitt
• Paul Tiefenbach

Staff

• Regan Hutcheson, Manager, Heritage Planning
• Peter Wokral, Senior Heritage Planner
• Scott Chapman, Corporate Privacy & Records Coordinator
• Grace Lombardi, Acting Election & Committee Coordinator

---

1.

CALL TO ORDER

 

Under the authority of the COVID-19 Economic Recovery Act, 2020 (Bill 197) and the City of Markham's Council Procedural By-law 2017-5, and in consideration of the advice of public health authorities, this meeting was conducted electronically with members of the Heritage Markham Committee, staff, and guests participating remotely.

 

Graham Dewar, Chair, convened the meeting at 7:15 PM by asking for any disclosures of interest with respect to items on the agenda.

2.

DISCLOSURE OF PECUNIARY INTEREST

 

Councillor Karen Rea disclosed a conflict of interest with respect to Item #5.1 (Heritage Permit Application: 1 Thomson Court) by nature of her sitting on the Board for Thomson Court Apartments. Councillor Rea did not participate in the discussion or vote on the question of this matter.

 

Jason McCauley disclosed a conflict of interest with respect to Item #6.3 (Site Plan Control Application: 175 Main Street North) by nature of a personal and previous commercial relationship with the applicant. Mr. McCauley did not participate in the discussion or vote on the question of this matter.

3.

PART ONE - ADMINISTRATION

3.1

APPROVAL OF AGENDA (16.11)

1.  Addendum Agenda
   
   There was no addendum agenda.
   
   
2. New Business from Committee Members
   • Tree Protection Barriers: 45 John Street, Thornhill Heritage Conservation District

 

• Recommendation:

  That the October 14, 2020 Heritage Markham Committee agenda be approved, as amended.

  Carried

3.2

MINUTES OF THE SEPTEMBER 9, 2020 HERITAGE MARKHAM COMMITTEE MEETING (16.11)

• Recommendation:

  That the minutes of the Heritage Markham Committee meeting held on September 9, 2020, be received and adopted.

  Carried

4.

PART TWO - DEPUTATIONS

4.1

HERITAGE PERMIT APPLICATION

8 DAVID GOHN CIRCLE, MARKHAM HERITAGE ESTATES
THE PINGLE HOUSE
REQUEST FOR METAL ROOF ON ADDITION TO DWELLING (16.11)
FILE NUMBER: HE 20 124651
Extracts:
R. Hutcheson, Manager, Heritage Planning
P. Wokral, Senior Heritage Planner

 

Peter Wokral, Senior Heritage Planner, addressed the Committee and summarized the details outlined in the staff memorandum. Mr. Wokral advised of new information regarding the visibility of the proposed metal roof from the public realm following the Committee's previous consideration of this application on September 9, 2020.

 

Nick Minovksi, applicant, addressed the Committee and provided further background on the application. Mr. Minovski noted significant damage to the existing roof caused by the shedding of several coniferous trees in close proximity to the heritage dwelling and rear yard addition. Mr. Minovski also noted that the condition of the surrounding vegetation has resulted in his inability secure a warranty for cedar shingle roofing on a substantial portion of the building. It was requested that the Committee reconsider its previous recommendation to deny the installation of a galvanized metal roof for the rear yard addition given the lack of exposure to the public realm as well as the maintenance and financial constraints posed by the property context.

 

The Committee expressed concerns regarding the difficulties encountered by the applicant as a result of the surrounding vegetation on the property. Concerns were also expressed regarding the potential precedent that approval of this application might set for the introduction of metal roofs on additions throughout Markham Heritage Estates.

 

The Committee resolved that a one-time exception for the installation of a galvanized metal roof be granted to the applicant in consideration of the low visibility from the public realm, maintenance challenges, and hardships experienced in securing an appropriate warranty for cedar shingle roofing.

 

The Committee also discussed the potential need to reconsider and clarify the policy on metal roofs in Markham Heritage Estates as a whole. Key considerations including the costs and viability of cedar roofs, warranty issues, and public visibility of metal roofing were discussed. It was requested that Heritage Section staff report back on suggested policy options regarding the use of metal roofing to provide for an appropriate and consistent approach on any similar applications submitted in the future.

 

• Recommendation:

  That Heritage Markham has no objection to a one-time exception to the installation of a galvanized metal roof on the addition to the dwelling at 8 David Gohn Circle provided the finish and profile matches that of historical metal roofs in Markham as close as possible; and,

  That Heritage Section staff be delegated final review of the heritage permit application to install metal roofing at 8 David Gohn Circle; and further, 

  That Heritage Section staff be requested to report back on policy options regarding the use of metal roofing for properties within Markham Heritage Estates.

  Carried

5.

PART THREE - CONSENT

5.1

HERITAGE PERMIT APPLICATIONS

DELEGATED APPROVALS
HERITAGE PERMITS APPROVED BY HERITAGE SECTION STAFF
95 RUSSEL JARVIS DRIVE
1 THOMSON COURT, MV (16.11)
FILE NUMBERS:
• HE 20 126882
• HE 20 A26939
Extracts: R. Hutcheson, Manager, Heritage Planning

 

Councillor Karen Rea disclosed a conflict of interest with respect to this item by nature of her sitting on the Board for Thomson Court Apartments. Councillor Rea did not participate in the discussion or vote on the question of this matter.

 

• 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 APPLICATION

DELEGATED APPROVAL
PERMITS APPROVED BY HERITAGE SECTION STAFF
352 MAIN ST. N. MV
6163 19TH AVE.
177 MAIN ST. U.
7943 9TH LINE
60 MEADOWBROOK LANE U.
139 MAIN ST. U.
5467 19TH AVE.
33 DICKSON HILL RD.
19 PETER ST. MV
147 MAIN ST. U.
7710 KENNEDY RD.
5933 14TH AVE.
248 MAIN ST. U.
FILE NUMBERS:
• NH 17 167717
• HP 20 111543
• AL 20 110839
• HP 19 119218
• HP 20 114764
• HP 20 113669
• AL 20 118074
• HP 20 119406
• HP 20 121191
• SP 20 125840
• PP 20 126775
• NH 20 109956
• HP 20 128457
Extracts:
R. Hutcheson, Manager, Heritage Planning
P. Wokral, Senior Heritage Planner

 

Staff clarified the delegated approval process for the issuing of building and sign permits relative to properties previously reviewed by Heritage Markham at the site plan control stage.

 

• 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

HERITAGE PERMIT APPLICATION

1 CHURCH LANE, THORNHILL HERITAGE CONSERVATION DISTRICT
THORNHILL CEMETERY FENCING (16.11)
FILE NUMBER: HP 20 126092
Extracts:
R. Hutcheson, Manager, Heritage Planning
P. Wokral, Senior Heritage Planner
D. Plant, Senior Manager, Horticultural and Forestry Division

 

Peter Wokral, Senior Heritage Planner, addressed the Committee and summarized the details outlined in the staff memorandum.

 

There was discussion regarding potential mechanisms to ensure public works impacting heritage matters proceed according to the required review and consultation processes. Heritage Section staff noted that they will continue to advise staff from other departments of the requirements to secure heritage approval prior to undertaking works engaging heritage resources. 

 

There was also discussion regarding the appropriate role of Heritage Markham in advising and assisting staff and Council in matters related to heritage conservation districts and individual buildings of historical and/or architectural significance. 

 

• Recommendation:

  That Heritage Markham receive the Architectural Review Sub-Committee notes from September 24, 2020 and the update from the follow up meeting dated October 9, 2020, as information.

  Carried

6.2

SITE PLAN CONTROL APPLICATION

PROPOSED DETACHED ACCESSORY BUILDING/GARAGE
WITH 2ND FLOOR RESIDENTIAL UNIT
31 WALES AVENUE
MARKHAM VILLAGE HERITAGE CONSERVATION DISTRICT (16.11)
FILE NUMBER: SPC 20 124628
Extracts:
R. Hutcheson, Manager, Heritage Planning
P. Wokral, Senior Heritage Planner

 

Peter Wokral, Senior Heritage Planner, addressed the Committee and summarized the details outlined in the staff memorandum.

 

Shane Gregory, consultant to the applicant, was in attendance and answered questions from Committee members on the proposal.

 

There was discussion regarding compensation for the removal of the mature sugar maple tree adjacent to the proposed outdoor living area. It was advised that several replacement trees will be planted on the subject property, and that the exact number and location will be determined in consultation with the City's Urban Design Section.

 

There was also discussion regarding Heritage Markham's potential consideration of a galvanized metal roof on the proposed accessory building. Members inquired as to the original roofing material for the existing accessory building, and the feasibility of replicating a more historically authentic treatment as part of the new proposal. Members also inquired as to the relationship between the accessory building and the existing trees on the subject property, and whether this might present difficulties for more traditional cedar shingle or asphalt roofing materials. The Committee resolved to postpone further consideration on the installation of metal roofing on the accessory building pending a separate application by the owner and appropriate review by Heritage Section staff.

 

• Recommendation:

  That Heritage Markham has no objection from a heritage perspective to the proposed accessory building at 31 Wales dated August 20, 2020 and recommends that final review of the site plan application be delegated to Heritage Section staff; and,

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

  Carried

6.3

SITE PLAN CONTROL APPLICATION

175 MAIN STREET NORTH,
MARKHAM VILLAGE HERITAGE CONSERVATION DISTRICT
REVISED PARKING/HARD SURFACE AREAS (16.11)
FILE NUMBER: SPC 20 125951
Extracts:
R. Hutcheson, Manager, Heritage Planning
P. Wokral, Senior Heritage Planner

 

Jason McCauley disclosed a conflict of interest with respect to this item by nature of a personal and previous commercial relationship with the applicant. Mr. McCauley did not participate in the discussion or vote on the question of this matter.

 

Peter Wokral, Senior Heritage Planner, addressed the Committee and summarized the details outlined in the staff memorandum.

 

Russ Gregory, consultant to the applicant, addressed the Committee and provided an overview of the applicant's justification for the existing hardscaping on the subject property, including those related to a preferred style of amenity space, the provision of alternate landscaping, lack of visibility from the public realm, and safety concerns given the single site access from Main Street Markham. Stephen Tar, applicant, was in attendance and outlined steps taken to mitigate potential stormwater drainage issues, including the installation of permeable pavers, French drains, and additional vegetation around the perimeter of the property.

 

There was discussion regarding the compatibility of the existing hardscaping with the character of the Markham Village Heritage Conservation District and the desire to be consistent with the treatment of similar properties in the City. Concerns were expressed regarding potential impacts resulting from the amount of additional paving, including those related to stormwater runoff and cars parking on the rear yard pavers in close proximity to mature trees. Concerns were also expressed regarding the applicant's deviation from the approved site plan and the installation of additional hard surfacing prior to review by Heritage Section staff and Heritage Markham.

 

• Recommendation: 

  That Heritage Markham requests that the issue of rear yard pavers and their interface with existing trees be addressed to ensure protection and preservation to the satisfaction of the City’s Urban Design staff; and,

  That final review of the site plan control application be delegated to Heritage Section staff.

  Carried

6.4

BUILDING PERMIT APPLICATION

180 MAIN STREET NORTH
MARKHAM VILLAGE HERITAGE CONSERVATION DISTRICT (16.11)
FILE NUMBER: HP 20 128235
Extracts:
R. Hutcheson, Manager, Heritage Planning
P. Wokral, Senior Heritage Planner

 

Peter Wokral, Senior Heritage Planner, addressed the Committee and summarized the details outlined in the staff memorandum.

 

The Committee noted the importance of the subject property as a gateway into the Markham Village Heritage Conservation District, and discussed potential opportunities to enhance the heritage character of the proposal. There was discussion regarding the feasibility of restoring the existing historic wooden siding on the two storey frame tail of the building. There was also discussion about mitigating the appearance of the concrete block addition through appropriate landscaping. There was further discussion on the feasibility of integrating the design of the ornamental brackets proposed for the wraparound veranda to resemble that of the historic gable bracket on the south wall of the property. 

 

The Committee also inquired as to the status of the previous rezoning application submitted for the property and potential future uses which might impact public visibility of the proposed alterations. Staff advised that the previous rezoning application has been abandoned and that the property is currently proposed to be maintained for residential use only.

 

• Recommendation:

  That Heritage Markham has no objection to the proposed cladding of the 1960’s concrete block addition to 180 Main St. N. with Maibec tongue and groove siding; and,

  That Heritage Markham has no objection to the proposed wrap around veranda; and further,

  That given the lack of exposure and condition of the existing historic siding that Heritage Markham has no objection to its replacement with new vertical tongue and groove Maibec siding.

  Carried

7.

PART FIVE - STUDIES/PROJECTS AFFECTING HERITAGE RESOURCES - UPDATES

7.1

ONTARIO HERITAGE ACT

REQUEST FOR COMMENT ON PROPOSED REGULATION (16.11)
Extracts: R. Hutcheson, Manager, Heritage Planning

 

Regan Hutcheson, Manager, Heritage Planning, addressed the Committee and summarized the details outlined in the staff memorandum, providing members with an overview of the amendments made to the Ontario Heritage Act under Bill 108 and the draft Regulation released by the Province of Ontario for comment.

 

There was discussion regarding the new 90-day timeframe during which a municipality will be required to issue a Notice of Intention to Designate, and the resulting challenges in ensuring an appropriate review, consultation, and reporting process for properties of potential cultural heritage value or interest. There was also discussion regarding the potential requirements associated with the proposed regulatory principle that municipalities must consider the views of all interested persons and communities in decisions affecting the cultural heritage value or interest of a property.

 

• Recommendation:

  That Heritage Markham Committee advises Markham Council that it recommends that the matters identified by staff in the review of the proposed Regulation to the Ontario Heritage Act be forwarded to the Ministry of Heritage, Sport, Tourism and Culture Industries as feedback; and, 

  That the Ministry be advised that to proceed with implementation of these changes (proclamation of new legislation and the regulation) on January 1, 2021 which will require changes to municipal protocols and procedures during a pandemic, imposes an unfair burden on municipal stakeholders whose focus should be on responding to this unprecedented health challenge.

  Carried

7.2

REQUEST FOR FEEDBACK

STREETSCAPE FURNITURE – MAIN STREET UNIONVILLE
UNIONVILLE HERITAGE CONSERVATION DISTRICT (16.11)
Extract: R. Hutcheson, Manager, Heritage Planning

 

Regan Hutcheson, Manager, Heritage Planning, addressed the Committee and summarized the details outlined in the staff memorandum.

 

The Committee reviewed the various set options provided by Operations staff. Key considerations such as compatibility with the character of the Unionville Heritage Conservation District, accessibility to all users, durability, and security against potential theft were identified. It was suggested that staff also explore potential commercial grade options through Lancaster Table & Seating.

 

The Committee consented to delegate the decision on this matter to a sub-committee comprised of the representatives of the Unionville Heritage Conservation District and Mr. Jason McCauley for an ultimate recommendation on behalf of Heritage Markham.

 

• Recommendation:

  That authority to review and provide recommendations on behalf of Heritage Markham on preferred options for bistro-style street furniture for public areas on Main Street Unionville be delegated to a sub-committee of the following members:

  • Councillor Reid McAlpine;
  • Doug Denby;
  • David Nesbitt;
  • Lake Trevelyan; and,
  • Jason McCauley
  Carried

8.

PART SIX - NEW BUSINESS

8.1

REQUEST FOR FOLLOW-UP

TREE PROTECTION BARRIERS - 45 JOHN STREET, THORNHILL HERITAGE CONSERVATION DISTRICT (16.11)

 

Evelin Ellison addressed the Committee in regard to the recent demolition and infill construction at 45 John Street within the Thornhill Heritage Conservation District. Ms. Ellison advised of the absence of required tree protection barriers for several mature trees on the property, and expressed concerns regarding potential injury sustained to the trees as a result of the ongoing construction work.

 

The Committee inquired as to the department of the City responsible for ensuring that trees are protected during demolition, and requested that Heritage Section staff contact the appropriate department(s) to investigate this issue and ensure proper tree protection moving forward during the remaining construction phases.

 

• Recommendation:

  That Heritage Section staff be requested to contact the appropriate City department(s) to investigate and address the issue of improper tree protection at 45 John Street, Thornhill Heritage Conservation District.

  Carried

9.

ADJOURNMENT

 

The Heritage Markham Committee meeting adjourned at 10:50 PM.