APPENDIX ‘A’

Requested Changes to Draft Thornhill Heritage Conservation District Plan

(Based on draft released on May 30, 2006)

Source: HMC (Heritage Markham), SAC (Study Advisory Committee), PUB (Public), TS (Town Staff)

Page	Section	Source	Requested Change	Town Response
	throughout	HMC	Consistent use of hyphen in name “Thornhill-Markham”	Changed
	throughout	HMC	Correct spelling of church “St. Volodymyr’s Ukrainian Catholic Church”	Changed
	throughout	TS	Each section (Part A, Part B) should start on right side page	Changed
	throughout	PUB	Less ambiguity and more precise language. Find the words ‘should’ and ‘may’ to vague,	Attempts have been made to achieve this goal. However, every possible situation cannot be contemplated or addressed, and in some cases, flexibility is appropriate.
	Front end	PUB, TS	Need table of contents. Also Definitions of terms: compatible, sympathetic, complementary, controversial.	Added Table of Contents Acknowledgements User Guide Definitions Compatible- that which is well suited; a harmonious relationship; consistent or in-keeping with, without a jarring contrast. Incompatible- that which is mismatched or unsuited; incapable of coexisting harmoniously. Complementary- that which is balanced or harmonizing. Sympathetic - that which is designed in sensitive or fitting way. Controversial – a project or design that is not consistent with or compliant with the Heritage District Plan’s policies and guidelines or where the Plan does not address the issue.
4	1.3	HMC	Change 19 to 20 years	Changed
6	1.6	HMC	Add street name at top and bottom of district and modify boundary to include river at John St	Changed
9	2.2.1	HMC	Change reference to “David Chapman House”	Changed
11	2.2.2	HMC	Reference that a B building could become an A building	Changed. Added “Over time, a Class B building could be reclassified as a Class A as certain styles become more significant with age or restoration work is undertaken”
11	2.2.2	PUB	Desire to better understand classifications and challenge the classification	Classification was undertaken by consultant, checked by staff and based on criteria. Classifications can change as more information become available.
12	2.2.3	TS	Correct classification symbols on specific properties.	Changed as follows; 31 Colborne Street to have Class A and Class B symbol as it contains heritage building and infill behind 33 Colborne Street changed to Class A 15 Church Lane- church is also designated and should have star symbol 23 John Street is Class A 25 John Street is Class A 27 John Street is Class A 34 John Street is Class A 75 John Street address was missing on map 77 John Street – add Class B symbol 82 John Street is Class A 84 John Street address was missing on map 94 John Street is Class A 10 Deanbank address is missing on map
12	2.2.3	SAC	Question as to why 7 Eliza was a B. Who did the classification	The classification was undertaken on all properties by the consultants, a check of the date of construction using Assessment data and a review by Heritage Section staff. As more information becomes available, buildings can be reclassified (See above)
13	2.2.3	HMC	Revise map boundaries to include river at John	Changed
14	2.4.2	HMC	Change word “avoid” to “prevent”	Changed to “To conserve heritage attributes and distinguishing qualities of heritage buildings, and prevent the removal or alteration…”
15	2.4.6	SAC	Remove 2.4.6 and put demolition objectives in 2.4.2 and 2.4.3	Removed 2.4.6 and renumbered section. Added to 2.4.2 “To promote retention and reuse of heritage buildings and take exceptional measures to prevent their demolition” Added to 2.4.3 “To discourage the demolition of Class B buildings and encourage their retention especially if the building is supportive of the overall heritage character of the area.”
15	2.4.8	SAC	Reference tourism appreciation in second objective	Concept is accommodated in current objective
16	3.1.1	HMC	First paragraph correct spelling “Exempted”	Changed
16	3.1.2	HMC	Last bullet: change “readily visible” to “visible from the public realm” and consider adding definition of term.	Changed reference. Term is already defined in 3.1.1
19	4.0	SAC	Discussed use of “will” as opposed to “shall”.	The policies use the term “will”. “Shall and will are used interchangeably to express determination, , compulsion, obligation and necessity” (Webster’s Dictionary)
20	4.2	HMC	Second Paragraph - Remove reference to relocation and salvage	Changed to “…prevent their demolition, and take extraordinary measures to ensure their protection.”
22	4.2.4 (a)	HMC, PUB	Discussed if the reference to demolition not being supported was strong enough. Checked the Provincial Policy Statement (Heritage) and it states that heritage resources shall be conserved. Member of public suggested stronger wording (“will not be permitted unless building is unsafe and cannot be repaired”) Consensus of HMC – no change	No Change. It is clear that demolition is not supported.
22	4.2.4 (b)	HMC	Include the word “heritage” in front of building	Changed to “... or a heritage building within the District”
23	4.4	SAC	Clarify that this section applies to residential neighbourhood and not Yonge Street	Changed first sentence to “New residential buildings on local streets (i.e. single detached dwellings) will have respect for ….”
24	4.4.1	TS	Concern about lot coverage, and size of new infill buildings on lots.	Added new policy “On a lot that includes land that is not permissible for development (ie. valleylands), only the developable portion will be used to calculate lot coverage and Net Lot Area (which is used to determine the Floor Area Ratio of a building) to ensure that the size of the dwelling corresponds to the developable portion of the lot.”
24	4.5.2	PUB	Change ‘should’ to ‘will’ in policy section. Lost trees must be replaced	Changed “a) Mature trees…The replacement of lost trees will be strongly encouraged.” “b) New trees and shrubs will be native or historical, non-invasive species….” “c) Planting will not obscure heritage buildings. Planting can be used to screen…”
25	4.5.4	TS	Fencing driveways	Modified a) Driveways are to be kept to a narrow width in oder to preserve the expanse of the front yard. b) Circular driveways are not permitted. c) Driveway entrances will not be gated. d) Residential driveways will conform to the guidelines in Section 9.6.6
25	4.6	SAC	Clarify that “Yonge Street Commercial” can include mixed use development (commercial and residential)	Changed title to “Yonge Street Commercial Area” Reference to mixed use development already in text.
25	4.6.1 (a)	SAC	Clarify traditional commercial architecture	Changed to “…or reflective of traditional commercial architecture in a typical historic Ontario downtown setting.”
25	4.6.1 (c)	SAC	Clarify 3 storeys with bonus storeys in (c)	Changed to “The maximum height for mixed use commercial properties on Yonge Street is 3 storeys with the opportunity for up to 2 additional storeys if specific development requirements are accommodated to the satisfaction of the Town. Height will be reduced as new buildings transition down to heights of adjacent buildings of cultural heritage value or interest as well as heights of adjacent low density residential properties.”
25	4.6.1	PUB	Questioned why church steeple no longer used for height of new commercial on Yonge Street. Suggested that 12 m be retained as in current Heritage Plan. Support for 3 storeys on Yonge.	Height reflects the Council resolution of April 2006 endorsing the Thornhill Yonge Street Study.
25	4.6.2	TS	Duplicate numbering for Commercial Signage and Commercial Awnings	Changed numbering
27	5.2	HMC	Correct alpha letters In d) remove “if possible” In a), change “should” to “shall not be increased”	Changed
27	5.2	PUB	Widening of John St should not be permitted,	No change. Policy objective is clear.
27	5.3 (a)	HMC	Reference “poured concrete”	Changed
27	5.3 (a)	PUB	Desire to see brick or cobblestone sidewalks for village atmosphere.	No change. Poured concrete is a traditional material.
27	5.3(b)	PUB	Sidewalks in poor repair	Added to (b) Boulevards will remain grassed and sidewalks will be kept in good repair including the repair of those that have sunken lower than the surrounding ground.”
28	5.4 (a)	TS	No section 9.5.5	Changed by removing “and will conform to the guidelines in section 9.5.5”
28	5.4 (b)	TS	Street furniture to be coordinated	Changed to “Street furniture and related pedestrian amenities will be coordinated for the Vaughan and Markham heritage districts.”
28	5.5 (a)	TS	Modify policy	Changed to “A consistent street light will be used throughout the District to enhance and unify…”
28	5.5(b)	TS	Add comment about uplighting	Changed by adding sentence “Consideration will be given to the height, spacing and the minimization of uplighting in the neighbourhood.”
28	5.5(c)	TS	Add comment about uplighting	Changed by adding sentence “Consideration will be given to the height, spacing and the minimization of uplighting in the neighbourhood.”
30	5,7	PUB	Concern about historically appropriate plants since not all were native	No change. Historically appropriate plants were brought by pioneers and used in the new land. They should continue to be allowed (i.e. lilac bushes are not native).
30	5.8 (c)	HMC,SAC	Issue of supporting trail system or path under the bridge.	Removed (c)
31	5.9	HMC	Discussed the value of including the illustrations of streetscape treatments prepared for Yonge Street Study Add captions to each photo	Retained illustrations but changed caption to “Conceptual illustrations of potential streetscape treatments from the Thornhill Yonge Street Study, 2005 as prepared by Urban Strategies Inc. Added caption to top photo “Interface with parking lot” Added caption to bottom photo “Interface with built form”
32	5.9	HMC	Correct alpha letters	Changed
32	5.9 (g)	TS	Comment by Urban Design on urban street parks	Added to end of sentence “Careful consideration will be given to their context, use of hard surface materials, vegetation selection and street furniture to ensure compatibility with the Heritage Distirct.”
32	5.9 (b)	PUB	Heritage Art Walk is vague, need to protect trees	Changed (b) to “The general concept of a Heritage Art Walk area on John Street right-of-way (south from the southwest corner) to highlight art and historical aspects of the district is supported in principle. It will be important to retain existing trees and some permeable ground cover.”
33	Map	TS	Move map to next page after the first page of text (6.1)	Changed
33	Map	HMC	Correct spelling of Pomona in #2 and #3, In #3, change to Pomona Mills Park- Thornhill Meadow	Changed
34	6.1-6.3	TS	Correct order of numbers	Changed
34	6.1	HMC	Pomona Mills Park- change “Little Don River” to “Don River-East Branch”	Changed
34	6.1	PUB	Pomona Mills Park Conservationists Inc. requested addition of reference to native plant materials	Changed by adding new bullet f) The introduction of native planting materials such as wildflowers, trees and shrubs is supported.”
34	6,1	PUB	Does not support new paths in park	No change.
35	6.4	HMC	Correct spelling of church name. Change title to Pomona Mills Park – Thornhill Meadow	Changed
35	6.5	HMC	Discussed the policy of no lighted paths. Consensus was that appropriate lighting was fine as this is a well traveled area	Changed (b) to “the introduction of appropriate lighting along the paths in the park in supported”
37	6.10 (a-c)	SAC, TS	Strengthen wording in (a) Correct wording in (b) Add requirement to conform to guidelines and policies	Changed (a) to “The redevelopment of older commercial strip plaza development, such as that found at 7681-7689 and 7710-7725 Yonge Street will present a design approach compatible with the heritage character of the District.” Changed (b) to “All redevelopment proposals will ensure that the architectural design enhances and protects buildings of cultural heritage value and interest.” Added (d) New commercial building construction in the District will conform with the policies found in Section 4.6.1 and the guidelines found in Section 9.4.3.
40	7.3	PUB	Support the existing Infill By-law	Added a new (c) “The use of the Infill By-law with its cap on size of dwellings in the older core area of the Heritage District and the use of Floor Area Ratio in the remainder of the District is supported.” Changed (c) to (d) and added additional bullet “the need to delete any lands situated below top-of-bank from coverage calculations to ensure that the size of the dwelling corresponds to the usable portion of the lot.”
41	7.4	HMC, SAC	Suggested that first paragraph be simplified. Change (b) to make it clearer and to reflect that different lots sizes should be retained.	Changed by removing second sentence in first paragraph. Change b) to “The retention of the variety of different lot sizes in the district is important and is supported as this is part of the unique character of the heritage district.”
41	7.5	HMC	Change second paragraph to indicate that the Town “is able to require” rather than “can” require drawings to be submitted	Changed
43	7.9	HMC	The Ontario Heritage Act should be referenced as the authority to control tree removal	Changed (b) to indicate “The Ontario Heritage Act provides the authority to control tree removal”
43	7.11	PUB	Need better enforcement to require maintenance of buildings (17 Colborne St) and signage	Town uses Property Standards By-law to require minimum maintenance, and the District Plan supports amending the above to bring in standards for heritage properties. Town also prosecutes under the Sign By-law for illegal signs
44	Part C	TS	Put on right hand page	Changed
45	8.2	HMC	Remove reference to composition of Heritage Markham	Changed to “Heritage Markham is the Town’s heritage advisory committee comprised of property owners and Town councillors.” Removed reference to numbers and area of the Town.
45	8.2	PUB	Some interest expressed in having a local district review committee for changes to heritage and non-heritage buildings and for new construction. Also suggested that determining appropriate alterations could be done by asking neighbour on each side and across road Concern that HM is pro-heritage, outside people who don’t live in the district.	No Change Official Plan policies indicate that all applications in heritage areas are to be reviewed by Heritage Markham. Limiting number of committees is more efficient use of staff time, promotes consistent decision-making across the Town, allows a more diverse and objective viewpoint during debates for what is appropriate and what is not
45	8.2	PUB	Desire to have permits issued quickly and not have to go through Heritage Markham. What is the definition of controversial?	Controversial projects would be those that are not consistent with or compliant with the Heritage District Plan’s policies and guidelines or where the Plan does not address the issue. Changed by adding this definition of controversial project as a Note at bottom of page.
46	8.3.1	HMC, TS	Remove first bullet point as this requires a Building Permit Correct third last bullet to 200 mm	Changed
46	8.3.1	TS	Cladding change may trigger a building code requirement. Move to Building Permit. New Chimneys need Building Permit Re-shingling in a different material needs Building Permit.	Moved to 8.3.2
46	8.3.1	TS	Re-shingling in same material	Added new bullet “re-shingling roof in same material”
46	8.3.1	TS	New buildings that are less than 10 sq m	Added new bullet “New buildings that are less than 10 sq m and visible from the public realm.”
46	8.3.1	TS	Building permit required for skylights that require structural alteration and for commercial awnings.	Added to bullet “introduction of skylights (that do not require structural alteration to existing roof) and awnings on dwellings.”
46	8.3.1	PUB	Satellite dishes in backyard should not need permit	Changed bullet “television satellite dishes that can be viewed from the streetscape.”
46	8.3.1	TS	Commercial mechanical equipment needs a Building Permit	Added to bullet “Mechanical equipment on dwellings such as air conditioners and heat pumps that can be viewed from the streetscape.”
46	8.3.1	SAC	Suggested that bullet point dealing with removal of trees should indicate “living trees” and that dead trees would not need a Heritage Permit	No change. Staff should confirm that the tree is dead as part of a Heritage Permit.
46	8.3.1	PUB	Doesn’t agree with having to get permit for masonry cleaning.	No change. Permit required to ensure proper cleaning techniques are employed so as to not damage masonry.
46	8.3.1	PUB	Confusion regarding the term “the public realm”	Changed bullet “planting or removal of trees in the public/municipal right-of-way”
46	8.3.1	PUB	Confusion regarding above ground public works as member of public thought it applies to private property	Changed bullet “all above-ground works in the public/municipal right-of-way.”
47	8.3.1	PUB	Under permit not required, property owner thinks that interlocking bricks and cement should not require a permit.	No change. Permit allows colour to be checked. Cement not approved treatment.
47	8.3.2	TS	Clarify introduction based on wording from Building Department.	Changed introduction “A Building Permit issued for construction, demolition or signage in a heritage conservation district is considered to satisfy the requirements for a permit required under Section 42 of the Ontario Heritage Act. In addition to new construction, building permits are required for projects that usually involve structural changes and require compliance with the Ontario Building Code. Types of projects that require a Building Permit include:”
47	8.3.2	TS, PUB	Need Building Permit for new chimneys, major cladding material, commercial awnings, commercial mechanical equipment, skylights, changes to roof cladding, buildings over 10 sq m in size. Remove last two bullet points (remove 50 sq m reference) Member of public confused about chimneys.	Changed bullets New construction (additions and new buildings may also require Site Plan Approval- see Section 8.3.3); Any building over 10 sq m in size; Structural alterations to a building or part thereof (i.e. veranda and porches); Changes to roof cladding Full replacement of an entire wall cladding or complete building recladding; New chimneys Skylights requiring structural alteration to the roof Awnings on commercial buildings Mechanical equipment on commercial buildings; Demolition; Commercial signage.”
48	8.3.2	HMC	Remove the word “simply” from the first paragraph on the page	Changed
48	8.3.2	TS	Clarify that it is a permit application form under Applicant	Changed to “Applies to the Building Standards Department and completes the standard permit application form.”
48	8.3.2	TS	Heritage staff does not approve or refuse permits. Add bullet indicating that comments go back to Building Dept.	Changed Heritage Staff section: Reviews application and either: Supports permit (with or without comments) or does not support permit Added before last bullet Advises Building Standards Department
52	Part D	TS	Put on right hand page	Changed
53	9.0	HMC	Title font not consistent with sections 1-8	Changed
56	9.1.1	HMC	Spelling “Some examples are gable-fronted…”	Changed
57	9.1.1	HMC	In Regency section, correct address from 39 Colborne St to “Yonge Street”	Changed
63	9.1.1	HMC	Remove photo of 33 Deanbank Drive as it is not a good example	Removed
66,67	9.2.3	TS	Correct numbering. There are two 9.2.3s. The reference on page 66 could be eliminated and the text incorporated into 9.2.2	Changed
67	9.2.3	HMC	Add Guideline recommending the owners should seek professional assistance when undertaking maintenance on and alterations to heritage buildings.	Changed
68	9.2.4.1	HMC	Discussed whether the term “should” or “shall” is to be used.	The policy section of the Plan indicates that work must conform to the guidelines. The consultant indicated that guidelines should have some flexibility and that “should” is generally appropriate.
68	9.2.4.1	HMC	Don’t use the term “recommended” for dormers placed at back of heritage building	Changed from “Recommended” to “Potential Solution”
70, 71	9.2.4.2	HMC	Concern about reference to abrasive cleaning methods (#9 and #19)	Changed “19. The use of abrasive cleaning methods such as sandblasting or water-blasting to clean or strip wood of existing finishes is not acceptable.”
70	9.2.4.2	TS	Clarify sentence	Changed “#4 The removal of siding material (i.e. aluminium and vinyl siding, asbestos tile, angelstone, etc.) considered to be unsympathetic to the heritage building is encouraged.”
73	9.2.4.3	HMC	Improve clarity of #7 (Double Glazed Windows) Correct spelling of uncomplimentary and remove double period in illustration	Changed “7. Original heritage windows in good condition should not be replaced with double glazed units. If the heritage window is completely deteriorated or an inappropriate newer window is to be replaced, it is preferable that an accurate replica window with true divided lites be used. If this is not to be pursued, the use of a double glazed replacement window is an option. The unit should be made of wood, and be of the same size and proportion and possess the correct pane division (with externally perceivable muntin bars) as the original window.”
75	9.2.4.4	TS	Remove double period from illustration text	Changed
77	9.2.4.6	HMC	Suggest that wording in #3 be improved for clarity regarding replacing newer porches	Changed #3. “New or modern porches that are considered unsympathetic to the heritage building should be replaced over time. The design of the restoration of the porch or veranda should be based on available physical and archival evidence. If the original design is unknown, a porch or veranda design appropriate to the style of the building and District may be considered.”
79	9.2.4.7	HMC	Remove the word “considered”	Changed to “…although fluorescent or luminous colours are not acceptable.”
81	9.2.4.9	HMC	Use a photo of Thornhill Library ramp	Change if photo available
81	9.2.4.9	TS	Change ‘preferably’ to preferable	Changed if caption modified
82	9.2.4.10	HMC	Remove the words “where feasible” from first paragraph	Changed
83	9.2.5	HMC, TS	Modify top illustration –rear addition is Good, rear/side is appropriate. Change order to lower illustration to correspond with order to top illustration (as is presented in Unionville Plan)	Changed
87	9.2.5.5	HMC, PUB	Discussed the issue of appropriate materials for additions to heritage buildings and the proposal for non-traditional materials.	This issue of more flexibility in material selection for new construction was one of the issues raised at the public consultation sessions. In the Issue Identification Report (May 2005), it was recommended that “on new additions to heritage buildings, these materials (modern materials of suitable quality) may be used, where they are not detrimental to the historic character of the heritage building” Provincial or federal heritage polices/guidelines that have been reviewed indicate that the materials should be complementary. Changed #1. “The use of traditional materials and products, such as wood sidings and windows, on additions to heritage buildings is always preferable and should be used when the addition is readily visible in the public realm.” Changed #2. “ Non-traditional materials and products, such as fibre-cement board, vinyl and aluminium, in historical configurations and profiles that provide the appearance of traditional materials may be used on a new addition in the following cases: a) where the products and their appearance are not detrimental to the historic character of the original heritage building; b) where the addition is not readily visible from the public realm (i.e. located in the rear yard or a distance from the public streetscape). Consultation with staff will be required to review the appropriateness of proposed non-traditional material. Staff will review the material based on criteria such as traditional profile, colour, sheen, colour fastness, durability, and texture.
88	9.3.1.1	HMC	Add “wood” in front of windows in 3^rd bullet
88	9.3.1.1	HMC	Reference to appropriate colours for contemporary non-heritage buildings	Added bullet “The use of paint colours complementary to character of the contemporary style of architecture or from a heritage palette (available from most paint companies) are considered appropriate”
88	9.3.1.1	SAC	As most properties are classified B or C, should ensure that this section is comprehensive. Staff should re-examine to ensure all common issues are captured.	Revised guidelines prepared to provide more clarity. See attached.
88-89	9.3	PUB	Desire for more clarity of what can be done and what can’t be done. Less subjectivity. Definitive list of modern materials, flexibility. Avoid vague and unreasonable conditions. Treat Class B and C buildings the same.	Revised guidelines prepared to provide more clarity. See attached.
89	9.3.1.2	HMC	Reference to appropriate colours for historical conversion non-heritage buildings	Added bullet
88-89	9.3.1	PUB	More encouragement for additions and alterations to non-heritage buildings to conform with Historical Conversion approach	No change. Approach at property owners discretion.
92-98	9.4.2.1	TS	Remove brackets from numbers	Removed brackets
92, 93, 95	9.4.2.1	HMC	Reference fence guidelines on each page	Changed by adding “See section 9.6.4 for further details on fencing.”
93	9.4.2.1	HMC	First paragraph- remove “dead-end” from cul-de-sac reference. Second paragraph- change to “2-storey”	Changed
93	9.4.2.1	TS	Interface with Yonge Street redevelopment	Added “4. The interface of any new development on Yonge Street properties should screen views from Eliza Street into the new development.”
93	9.4.	PUB	Want Eliza under same guidelines as Colborne	No change. Encourages new construction to continue existing pattern.
93-98	9.4.2.1	TS	Indicate that 9.4.2.1 Streetscapes is continued	Changed to “9.4.2.1 Streetscapes Cont’d”
95	9.4.2.1	HMC	Confirm “complementarity” is a word	No Change
97	9.4.2.1	HMC	Re-phrase guideline	Changed to “The use of modern renditions of Thornhill historical styles is recommended for new infill”.
100	9.4.2.3	HMC	Change illustration to remove the large townhouse block in #2 and replace with two new building not in scale and too massive, Remove connection shown behind houses in #3	Changed
100	9.4.2.3	PUB	Concern with lot coverage and ratio of green space to building	Added new guideline “2. The ratio of green space to building mass and the sideyard setbacks should be generally consistent with the character of adjacent properties.” Renumber #2 to #3
105	9.4.2.8	HMC	No to rooftop residential patios	Changed #4 to Rooftop patios are not appropriate and are not supported in the District.”
121	9.4.2.23	TS	Change caption from ‘disrodered’ to disordered	Changed
143	9.4.3.2	TS	Guidelines – change alpha to numeric and left justify like rest of guidelines in document	Changed
143	9.4.3.1 (f)	TS	Spelling – fonting to fronting	Changed
144	9.4.3.3	TS	Guidelines – change alpha to numeric and left justify like rest of guidelines in document	Changed
145	9.4.3.4	TS	Guidelines – change alpha to numeric and left justify like rest of guidelines in document	Changed
145	9.4.3.4 (b)	TS	Spelling – foe to for	Changed
146 to 151	9.4.3.5 to 9.4.3.11	TS	Guidelines – change alpha to numeric and left justify like rest of guidelines in document	Changed
148	9.4.3.6	TS	Building Top or Cornice (c) Add to end of sentence “(i.e. Mansard roof)”	Changed
156	9.5.3	TS	Commercial awning need Building Permit	Added “5. Commercial awnings are subject to Building Permits and the requirements of the Ontario Building Code.”
157	9.5.4	TS	Umbrellas and advertising	Added “4. Umbrellas which have advertising are not permitted.”
157	9.5.4	TS	Building Code requirements	Added “5. Outdoor patios that include structural elements such as a raised floor or roofs, require permits under the Building Code Act,”
163	9.6.1	HMC	Clarify that Russian olive is bad	Changed last bullet “Shrubs included Japanese maples, barberries, smoke tree and Russian olive (now considered an invasive plant species).”
163	9.6.1	TS	Add reference to walkways	Added above Guidelines “Walkways Traditonally, walkways were not usually of a hard surface, but as technology has evolved and walkways need to be functional, alternative materials can be considered such as flagstone and random tumbled unit pavers in earth tone colours.”
168	9.6.5	TS	Fence by-law	Added “4. All backyard fence heights to conform to the Town Fence By-law.”
169	9.6.6	TS	Width of driveways 3.0 m	Changed to “1. Driveways are to be kept narrow on residential properties (i.e. 3.0m in width) in order to preserve the expanse of the front yard.”
169	9.6.6	TS	Reference to fencing driveways	Added “5. Driveway entrances are not to be gated.”
	Inventory	TS	15 Church Lane (church)– add Designated Part IV 15 Church Lane (rectory) – add Designated Part IV	Changed
	Inventory	TS	27 John Street- change Classification to A	Changed
	Inventory	TS	34 John Street – change Classification to A	Changed
	Inventory	TS	82 John Street -change Classification to A	Changed
	Inventory	TS	94 John Street – change Classification to A	Changed
	Inventory	TS	111 John Street – add Designated Part IV	Changed
	Inventory	TS	148 John Street – add Designated Part IV	Changed

Q:\Development\Heritage\SUBJECT\thornhill\District Plan Review 2004\Discussion Paper and Reports\Change Table June 12 2006 .doc