HERITAGE MARKHAM COMMITTEE

TOWN OF MARKHAM

Canada Room, Markham Civic Centre

Wednesday, May 11, 2005

Members Absent

Julie Christian, Chair Judy Dawson-Ryan, Vice-Chair (Regrets)

Elizabeth Plashkes Amar Banerjee (Regrets)

Maria Pia Andrejin Joan Natoli (Regrets)

Susan Casella Councillor John Webster (Regrets)

Evelin Ellison

Rosemary Lamon

Marie Jones

Regional Councillor Jim Jones

Staff

R. Hutcheson, Manager of Heritage Planning

G. Duncan, Heritage & Conservation Planner

Yvonne Hurst – Committee Secretary

The Chair convened the meeting at the hour of 7:15 p.m. by reading an outline of the structure of Heritage Markham meetings including how delegations are received by the Committee.

The Chair asked if any member had a disclosure of pecuniary interest. No member indicated an interest.

1. APPROVAL OF AGENDA (16.11)

HERITAGE MARKHAM RECOMMENDS:

THAT the Heritage Markham agenda and addendum agenda be approved as circulated.

CARRIED.

2. HERITAGE MARKHAM MINUTES, MARCH 9, 2005 (16.11)
Extracts: R. Hutcheson, Manager of Heritage Planning_________________

HERITAGE MARKHAM RECOMMENDS:

THAT the Minutes of the Heritage Markham meeting held on April 25, 2005 be received and adopted.

CARRIED.

3. STUDY
UNIONVILLE HIGHWAY 7 STREETSCAPE STUDY
DRAFT FINAL CONCEPTS – HERITAGE REVIEW (16.11)

Extracts: R. Hutcheson, Manager of Heritage Planning
E. Wimmer, Senior Planner

N. Volpe, Senior Planner________________________________

Ms. Elizabeth Wimmer, Senior Planner, was in attendance to provide details on the Unionville Highway 7 Streetscape Study. Ms. Wimmer noted that the study has two phases; Unionville Main Street South and Highway 7 through the heritage district between the GO line and the Rouge River Valley. The aim of these studies is to improve the character of the area. A number of issues are addressed including greening the streetscape (tree plantings, vegetation); creating gateways to the heritage area; sidewalks and lighting. Details such as traffic, the commercial area, median plantings, banner poles, street signage, façade improvements, pedestrian crossings (interlocking brick) and heritage light standards are items that are addressed in the studies.

Ms. Wimmer noted that plantings in the proposed medians may be difficult due to space limitations, however, other types of vegetation may be used. She provided an outline of the two options that have been developed by the consultants with feedback from residents, property and business owners. Both options address gateway features, intersection delineation, boulevard trees on the north side, expended public parking, and a rear parking lot with a 4m wide service lane. Option 1 provides for a raised 3m median with trees, banners and lighting fixtures while Option 2 provides for a raised 2m median no trees only banners and lighting fixtures. On the South side of Highway 7, Option 1 provides for angled parking while Option 2 provides for parallel parking. Option 1 allows pedestrian access along storefronts but no sidewalk along Highway 7. Option 2 provides for a sidewalk along Highway 7 in front of the parallel parking.

It has been noted that parking is a concern in this area and in Option 2 parallel parking would reduce the amount of available parking.

Community open houses were held on March 31 and April 27. The final report is targeted for presentation to Council in the Fall for consideration in the 2006 budget.

In response to questions from the Committee, Ms. Wimmer provided the following information:

- bicycle lanes have not been considered on Highway 7, however, there are plans for bicycle lanes on less travelled roads and in Markham Centre;

- residents requested that improvements be considered to improve the Unionville gateway area;

- merchant support is split, some merchants say yes and some say no;

- the proposals are guidelines and changes would have to be on a co-operative basis with area businesses;

HERITAGE MARKHAM RECOMMENDS:

THAT Heritage Markham has no objection to either proposed option for streetscape improvements to Highway 7 in the Unionville Heritage Conservation District;

THAT the Town should be guided by the policies in the Unionville Heritage Conservation District concerning fencing treatment, colours, street furniture, sidewalk treatment, trees and vegetation;

THAT any proposed street furniture (benches, poles, light standards, waste receptacles, public signage, etc) should be reviewed by Heritage Markham;

AND THAT Heritage Markham would like to review any recommended design guidelines for façade improvements.

CARRIED.

4. SPECIAL PROJECT
NORTHEAST CORNER OF HIGHWAY 7 &

MAIN STREET UNIONVILLE (16.11)

Extracts: R. Hutcheson, Manager of Heritage Planning_________________

Ms. Tracy Mckinnon was in attendance to outline the request of the Unionville B.I.A. for the installation of gateway signage at the corner of Main Street Unionville and Highway 7. The project is part of an “Adopt a Corner” program. Ms. Mckinnon noted that the Unionville B.I.A. is working with the Communities in Bloom Committee to include perennial plantings around the signage. She suggested that the proposed signage would be preferable to the unsightly A-frame signs that have been used. Colours of the sign would be burgundy and cream with a hand and finger directing people to the heritage area. The proposed signage is 6’ x 3’.

The Manager of Heritage Planning advised that comments have been received from Town departments. Corporate Communications have commented: if the signage and plantings are part of the Communities in Bloom program then the Communities in Bloom logo should be used. Concerns were expressed about the pointing finger. Zoning have commented that the signage would have to comply with the Sign By-law with respect to size and height. Heritage Section staff have indicated that the plantings should be reflective of an historic garden and signage should be consistent with the existing heritage signs with respect to colour and design.

A revised drawing was presented by Ms. Mckinnon showing a hand design more in keeping with heritage characteristics. Heritage Section staff recommended that an arrow replace the hand and finger, however, the Committee felt that the revised drawing was acceptable and that either the hand or arrow could be supported. It was noted that the signage would be temporary and that the issue of signage will be addressed in the Unionville Highway 7 Streetscape Study.

HERITAGE MARKHAM RECOMMENDS:

THAT Heritage Markham has no objection to the proposed temporary signage at the northeast corner of Highway 7 and Main Street, Unionville subject to the following:

- landscape treatment (gardens) should be reflective of historic garden/plant materials and should be reviewed by Urban Design Department;

- sign should have traditional posts and decorative caps;

- sign should use the same colours as design treatment (shape, border, etc.) as heritage entry signage;

- sign should comply with Sign By-law size and heights requirements.

CARRIED.

5. REQUEST FOR FEED BACK
RESTORATION PLAN FOR JOSEPH MARR HOUSE
3 HERITAGE CORNERS LANE (8992 REESOR ROAD) (16.11)

Extracts: R. Hutcheson, Manager of Heritage Planning

____________David and Melissa Loney_________________________________

HERITAGE MARKHAM RECOMMENDS:

THAT Heritage Markham supports the Restoration Plan for the Joseph Marr House to be relocated to 3 Heritage Corners Lane in Markham Heritage Estates, with the following modifications:

· front steps to be widened;

· main floor height to match existing conditions;

· rear dormer window to have one over one glazing pattern;

· rear wing to have a cedar shingle roof;

· rear wing to have false chimney in original position, applicant to look into structural options for its support;

· garage doors to be simplified through removal of windows;

· garage roof design to be simplified with the removal of the eaves returns;

· garage size may require Minor Variance (supported by Heritage Markham).

CARRIED.

6. SITE PLAN APPROVAL APPLICATION
FILE NO. SC 05 010032

PROPOSED HOTEL/RETAIL BUILDING

159A MAIN STREET, UNIONVILLE (16.11)
Extracts: R. Hutcheson, Manager of Heritage Planning

G. Duncan, Senior Heritage Planner
Marlene Slopak, Architect________________________________

HERITAGE MARKHAM RECOMMENDS:

THAT Heritage Markham recommends that the architect consider revising the design for the proposed hotel/retail building at 159A Main Street Unionville, addressing the following issues:

· the new building seems high in comparison to neighbouring structures;

· the recessed north section should be treated to look like an addition to the main brick building, meeting the main building at a right angle rather than having an angled corner entrance and sided in wood rather than brick;

· a porch feature could be considered to emphasize the entrance;

· the detailing of the building generally needs to be simplified;

· the storefronts look compressed, their layout needs to be modified to a more traditional form;

· the front balcony treatment is too ornate, railings need to be simplified, possibly reduced in size, or possibly eliminated altogether;

· the replacement of the second storey French doors with windows should be considered;

· consider cladding the mansard roof in cedar shingles;

· the rear deck railing should be redesigned in wood (the proposed stone finish is not appropriate);

· the pool area should be screened;

· the overall development plan should address the restoration of the exterior of the heritage building on the north part of the same property (wood siding, window restoration, etc.).

CARRIED.

7. SITE PLAN APPROVAL APPLICATION
FILE NO. SC 05 011975

PROPOSED PRIVATE SCHOOL
2 VALLEYWOOD DRIVE (16.11)

Extracts: R. Hutcheson, Manager of Heritage Planning

________ T. Williams, Project Planner_________________________________

HERITAGE MARKHAM RECOMMENDS:

THAT Heritage Markham is concerned that the proposed school building for 2 Valleywood Drive is sited too close to the heritage schoolhouse, and that its architecture does not complement the heritage building;

AND THAT the following revisions are suggested for the site plan and building elevations:

the new building should be moved further away from the heritage building, possibly reconfigured in a different shape to provide more open area in the vicinity of the existing heritage building;
the new building should be designed in an older, traditional school motif;
the driveway and parking access to the Heritage Schoolhouse needs to be improved to facilitate school bus use.

CARRIED.

8. REQUEST FOR FEEDBACK

10754 WOODBINE AVENUE

ASSESSMENT OF HERITAGE BUILDING (16.11)

Extracts: R. Hutcheson, Manager of Heritage Planning___________

HERITAGE MARKHAM RECOMMENDS:

THAT Heritage Markham recommends that the listed heritage house at 10754 Woodbine Avenue, Victoria Square, is a significant early building and should be retained on its original site;

AND THAT because the addition (a rear lean-to) is in fair to poor condition, Heritage Markham would consider its removal and replacement with an architecturally compatible new addition in any future development proposal for the property.

CARRIED.

9.         REQUEST FOR FEEDBACK
            260 MAIN STREET, UNIONVILLE
            ASSESSMENT OF HERITAGE BUILDING (16.11)

Extracts: R. Hutcheson, Manager of Heritage Planning

________ Mrs. J. Briand _________________________________________

HERITAGE MARKHAM RECOMMENDS:

THAT Heritage Markham recommends that the heritage house at 260 Main Street, Unionville, be preserved within the context of any future development of the property, and recommends that if the owner intends to sell, to engage a qualified realtor experienced in marketing heritage buildings.

CARRIED.

10.       BUILDING PERMIT APPLICATION
            FILE NO. HP 05 011 644
            NEW BRICK CHIMNEY

16 ALBERT STREET, MARKHAM VILLAGE HCD (16.11)
Extracts: R. Hutcheson, Manager of Heritage Planning_________________

HERITAGE MARKHAM RECOMMENDS:

THAT Building Permit Application HP 05 011 644 – new brick chimney – 16 Albert Street, Markham Village HCD be received as information.

CARRIED.

11. HERITAGE PERMIT APPLICATIONS APPROVED BY STAFF
FILE NOS. HE 05 012183, HE 05 011274, & HE 05 011854

132 ROBINSON STREET, 180 MAIN STREET NORTH,

& 27 VICTORIA AVE. (16.11)

Extracts: R. Hutcheson, Manager of Heritage Planning_________________

HERITAGE MARKHAM RECOMMENDS:

THAT Heritage Permit applications HE 05 012183, HE 05 011274 and HE 05 011854, approved by staff, be received as information.

CARRIED.

12. CORRESPONDENCE (16.11)

Extracts: R. Hutcheson, Manager of Heritage Planning_________________

HERITAGE MARKHAM RECOMMENDS:

THAT the following Correspondence be received as information:

Ministry of Culture – Proclamation of the new Ontario Heritage Act, Bill 60.
Built Heritage News – Special Bulletin highlighting the passing of Bill 60.
Heritage Canada Media Review, April 2005
Heritage Toronto: Notice regarding delay in passing of Bill 60.
Heritage Toronto: Annual Heritage Toronto Awards.
Heritage Toronto: Heritage Columns Newsletter, Spring 2005 Issue.
Doors Open Ontario 2005: Official Guide Book.
Ontario Historical Society : OHS Bulletin, April 2005 Issue,
Old House Journal, June 2005 issue. Articles on window restoration and garage doors
Heritage Toronto Walks 2005: Brochure.

CARRIED.

13. QUORUM
QUORUM AT HERITAGE MARKHAM MEETINGS (16.11)

Extracts: R. Hutcheson, Manager of Heritage Planning

J. Kee, Committee Clerk_________________________________

The Manager of Heritage Planning noted that, at a recent Heritage Markham meeting, there was no quorum and a second meeting had to be held. This has occasionally happened in the past. He advised that an advisory committee can establish their own quorum, however, the Ontario Heritage Act provides that a municipal heritage committee must be composed of not fewer than five members.

The committee discussed the issue of quorum reviewing the possibility of a 5 or 6 person quorum for future meetings. Staff recommended that the quorum for Heritage Markham meetings be set at 5 members. The committee expressed concerns with a quorum of 5 members noting that less than 50% of the committee would be making decisions for the entire committee.

HERITAGE MARKHAM RECOMMENDS:

THAT the quorum for Heritage Markham meetings be set at six (6) members;

AND THAT By-law 54-91 (Terms of Reference for Heritage Markham) be amended to reflect the new quorum.

CARRIED.

14. PRESERVATION OPTIONS

JOSHUA MILLER HOUSE
10192 NINTH LINE (16.11)

Extracts: R. Hutcheson, Manager of Heritage Planning

________ G. Phillips, Museum, Manager_____________________________

The Manager of Heritage Planning reviewed the issue of the Joshua Miller House and its preservation. On April 6^th, Friends of the Joshua Miller House requested the Museum Advisory Board to support a motion that the Museum would accept the Joshua Miller House subject to the Friends group providing complete financial responsibility for the relocation, the required restoration and ongoing stewardship of the dwelling. The Museum did not support this proposal. However, the Museum did, in February, allow the Friends group four months to return with a plan including funding that would be reviewed by the Board. The issue is scheduled to be placed on the June agenda of the Museum Board.

HERITAGE MARKHAM RECOMMENDS:

THAT although Heritage Markham would prefer to see the Joshua Miller House retained, restored and tenanted on its original site, given the deteriorated state of the building and its significance as one of the oldest heritage resources in the Town, and that rehabilitation work on the dwelling needs to be undertaken in a timely manner, in the event that the Markham Museum does not agree to accept the Miller House at its June Advisory Committee meeting, Heritage Markham recommends that Council declare the Joshua Miller House eligible for Markham Heritage Estates.

CARRIED.

HERITAGE MARKHAM RECOMMENDS:

THAT the resolution regarding the Joshua Miller House be reopened for further consideration.

CARRIED BY TWO/THIRDS MAJORITY

HERITAGE MARKHAM RECOMMENDS:

THAT although Heritage Markham would prefer to see the Joshua Miller House retained, restored and tenanted on its original site or located and restored at the Markham Museum, given the deteriorated state of the building and its significance as one of the oldest heritage resources in the Town, and that rehabilitation work on the dwelling needs to be undertaken in a timely manner, in the event that the Markham Museum does not agree to accept the Miller House at its June Advisory Committee meeting, Heritage Markham recommends that Council declare the Joshua Miller House eligible for Markham Heritage Estates subject to a professional architectural assessment that results in a restoration plan that would be faithful to the unique character of the building and form.

CARRIED AS AMENDED.

15.       SITE PLAN APPROVAL APPLICATION FILE NO. SC 05 012214
            22 DEANBANK DRIVE
            SECOND STOREY ADDITION (16.11)

Extracts: R. Hutcheson, Manager of Heritage Planning

________ G. Duncan, Senior Heritage Planner_________________________

The Senior Heritage Planner advised of a Site Plan Control Application for 22 Deanbank Drive, Thornhill. The proposal would provide for a second storey on the existing footprint of the house. The house is minimally visible from the street as it is well set back on the property. An appropriate heritage colour scheme will be selected and submitted for approval of Town (Heritage Section) staff.

It was moved and seconded that::

THAT Heritage Markham has no objection to the proposed two storey addition to the existing non-heritage house at 22 Deanbank Drive.

FAILED TO CARRY.

HERITAGE MARKHAM RECOMMENDS:

THAT Site Plan Control Application SC 05 012214 – 22 Deanbank Drive, Thornhill, be referred to the Architectural Review Sub-Committee for a report to the June meeting of Heritage Markham.

CARRIED.

16. POLICY (HERITAGE MARKHAM)

DOCUMENT AND SALVAGING POLICY (16.11)
Extracts: R. Hutcheson, Manager of Heritage Planning_________________

Susan Casella indicated that her request concerning Habitat for Humanity was to implement a system whereby Habitat for Humanity could be made aware of the availability of materials for reuse in building homes for the poor.

The Manager of Heritage Planning provided a proposed revised policy for the Committee’s consideration.

HERITAGE MARKHAM RECOMMENDS:

THAT the revised Heritage Markham Documentation and Salvaging Policy be referred to the Architectural Review Sub-Committee with authority to approve.

CARRIED.

17. REQUEST FOR FEEDBACK

93 ELGIN STREET, THORNHILL (16.11)

Extracts: R. Hutcheson, Manager of Heritage Planning

The Senior Heritage Planner advised that the owners of 93 Elgin Street, Thornhill are planning to renovate and construct an addition to their one and a half storey brick house. Demolition is not planned.

HERITAGE MARKHAM RECOMMENDS:

THAT the research on 93 Elgin Street, Thornhill, be received as information.

CARRIED.

18. CORRESPONDENCE FROM SPOHT

YORK FARMER’S MARKET

7509 YONGE STREET, THORNHILL (16.11)

Extracts: R. Hutcheson, Manager of Heritage Planning

The Senior Heritage Planner noted that the York Farmer’s Market at 7509 Yonge Street is not in the Heritage Conservation District, however, it is generally considered to be a local landmark. The Society for the Preservation of Historic Thornhill (SPOHT) has requested advice on how the building can be recognized as a cultural heritage property and protected in any future development proposals.

HERITAGE MARKHAM RECOMMENDS:

THAT Heritage Markham recommends Heritage Section staff to undertake background research to determine the cultural heritage value of the York Farmer’s Market and report back to the committee on its suitability for designation under the

Ontario Heritage Act.

CARRIED.

19. BRIDGE REPLACEMENT

JOHN STREET OVER THE DON

THORNHILL HERITAGE CONSERVATION DISTRICT (16.11)

Extracts: R. Hutcheson, Manager of Heritage Planning
S. Lau, Senior Project Manager Capital Works ROW __

The Manager of Heritage Planning advised that the Society for the Preservation of Historic Thornhill (SPOHT) has written regarding future work on the John Street Bridge over the Don. The existing bridge is not a heritage structure, however, SPOHT would like to see the reconstructed or new bridge treated as a gateway to the heritage area and designed in a manner that reflects the historic character of old Thornhill. Town (Heritage Section) staff confirmed that the Town’s engineers will forward preliminary designs to Heritage Markham for comment. The design work is scheduled for 2005. No construction is to proceed at this time.

HERITAGE MARKHAM RECOMMENDS:

THAT Heritage Section staff be requested to look into the matter of future work on the John Street bridge and ensure that any proposals to change the bridge come to Heritage Markham for review and comments;

AND that Heritage Section staff be requested to look into the feasibility of an archaeological assessment of the site;

AND FURTHER THAT the natural environment be retained as much as possible in the proposed design.

CARRIED.

20. REVISED ELEVATIONS FOR THE LYNZEY INN

159A MAIN STREET, UNIONVILLE (16.11)

Extracts: R. Hutcheson, Manager of Heritage Planning

G. Duncan, Senior Heritage Planner___________________________

The Senior Heritage Planner noted that the Architectural Review Sub-Committee met with the architect for the Lynzey Inn on April 20, 2005. Following this meeting the architect has revised the elevations to create a simplified building design with widened, traditional storefronts for the retail portions. The idea of an entrance porch was not pursued as it would add to the coverage of the building and increase the requirements for parking.

Marlene Slopack, Architect for the Lynzey Inn, 159A Main Street, Unionville, was in attendance with respect to the revised elevations for the Inn. She advised that the building will have 8 rooms on the second floor with shops on the main floor.

HERITAGE MARKHAM RECOMMENDS:

THAT Heritage Markham support the revised design for the Lynzey Inn subject to the Site Plan Agreement containing the usual heritage conditions;

AND THAT Heritage Section staff pre-approve the colours and types of exterior materials to ensure they are appropriate to the Unionville Heritage Conservation District.

CARRIED.

21. HERITAGE STATUS

7 VICTORIA AVENUE

UNIONVILLE HERITAGE CONSERVATION DISTRICT (16.11)

Extracts: R. Hutcheson, Manager of Heritage Planning

The Manager of Heritage Planning noted that the owner of 7 Victoria Avenue has contacted staff with a request that a site visit be arranged. The owner had previously indicated, after the Heritage Markham meeting held on July 14, 2005 that a site visit was not necessary.

HERITAGE MARKHAM RECOMMENDS:

THAT Heritage Section staff and the Architectural Review Sub-Committee arrange a site visit to better understand the condition of the house, and report back to the main Heritage Markham committee at its June, 2005 meeting.

CARRIED.

22. HERITAGE PERMIT APPLICATION

STORAGE SHED

151 MAIN STREET, UNIONVILLE (16.11)

Extracts: R. Hutcheson, Manager of Heritage Planning ________

The Senior Heritage Planner advised that the proposed commercial storage shed would be set back about 6 feet from the front wall of the existing building and would be in a traditional heritage design with wood cladding.

HERITAGE MARKHAM RECOMMENDS:

THAT Heritage Markham has no objection to the heritage permit for a wooden storage shed at 151 Main Street, Unionville, with the condition that the applicant is to meet with Town (Heritage Section) staff to determine a suitable paint colour scheme prior to painting the shed.

CARRIED

23. PROPOSED NEW SITE FOR HAWKINS HOUSE

(FORMERLY 7149 SIXTEENTH AVENUE)

CORNELL-MATTAMY COMMUNITY (16.11)

Extracts: R. Hutcheson, Manager of Heritage Planning

The Senior Heritage Planner noted that Mattamy Homes have agreed to preserve the Hawkins House, originally located at 7149 Sixteenth Avenue. Mattamy is now requested that an alternate site be approved for this house. The alternate site is outside of the currently approved phase of the subdivision. Town (Heritage Section) staff are concerned that further delays in restoring the house will put the vacant building at risk.

HERITAGE MARKHAM RECOMMENDS:

THAT Heritage Markham does not support Mattamy Homes proposal for an alternate site for the Hawkins House, and recommends that the house be relocated to the approved location and restored as soon as possible.

CARRIED.

24. REQUEST FOR FEEDBACK

POTENTIAL FOR DEMOLITION OR ADDITIONS TO

257 MAIN STREET NORTH, MARKHAM VILLAGE (16.11)

Extracts: R. Hutcheson, Manager of Heritage Planning

The Senior Heritage Planner advised that the owner of 257 Main Street North, Markham Village has inquired about the development potential of this property. The owner would like to either demolish the existing house or add a second storey and possibly an addition to the side or sides of the house. He noted that the house was originally graded a “C” building (does not relate to the historical character) in the Markham Village Heritage Conservation District Plan, however, in a recent staff review, the building was recommended to be re-graded as a “B” building (important in terms of contextual value).

HERITAGE MARKHAM RECOMMENDS:

THAT Heritage Markham would support appropriately designed additions to the existing 1942 period house at 257 Main Street North, including a second storey, but does not support demolition and replacement with a new house because of the building’s contextual value to the Main Street North streetscape.

CARRIED.

25. REQUEST FOR FEEDBACK

POTENTIAL FOR DEMOLITION AND REPLACEMENT

43 ALBERT STREET, MARKHAM VILLAGE (16.11)

Extracts: R. Hutcheson, Manager of Heritage Planning

Carole Danard, Associate Broker for Royal LePage, was in attendance with respect to the potential for demolition and replacement of 43 Albert Street, Markham Village. Ms. Danard provided the following information: the house has been listed for three weeks; the lot size is 64’ x 168’; inquiries have been made with respect to demolition of the existing house.

The Manager of Heritage Planning advised that the house at 43 Albert Street was originally listed as a “C” building that denotes no heritage value to the district. If a demolition were to occur the new structure would be subject to the District Plan Guidelines and the Infill By-law (1991) that was enacted by Council to ensure that new construction is in keeping with the existing streetscape. He noted that there are many different styles on this street including semi-detached, townhouses and heritage homes with additions.

The committee expressed concerns that any new construction may be massive in comparison to the other homes on the street. The committee also stated that it would not be appropriate to comment on a demolition when an application to demolish has not been submitted to the Town nor had the Committee had the opportunity to visit the site.

HERITAGE MARKHAM RECOMMENDS:

THAT a site visit to 43 Albert Street be arranged for the Architectural Review Sub-Committee;

AND THAT Town (Heritage Section) staff re-evaluate the building and provide a report to Heritage Markham.

CARRIED.

26. ESTATE LOT DESIGN – CALIBER HOMES

JAMES WALKER COURT

MARKHAM VILLAGE (16.11)

Extracts: R. Hutcheson, Manager of Heritage Planning

It was noted that four of the homes to be built by Caliber Homes on the south end of James Walker Court will not be visible from the public road (these houses would be located on a private laneway). The proposed elevations include the use of stone and stucco cladding. The applicant has indicated that he is willing to work with the window and door design to make them more compatible to the heritage guidelines. The Committee expressed concerns that these homes do not follow the heritage guidelines and the development is in the heritage area.

HERITAGE MARKHAM RECOMMENDS:

THAT Heritage Markham refers the proposed design for one of the lots at the south end of James Walker Court – Markham Village to the Architectural Review Sub-Committee for review of the architectural details including but not limited to the massing, window design and exterior cladding;

AND THAT the applicant be requested to provide designs for the four lots at the south end of James Walker Court that are more respectful of the Markham Heritage District Guidelines.

CARRIED.

27. ADDITIONAL CORRESPONDENCE ITEMS

CONCERNING THE NEW ONTARIO HERITAGE ACT (16.11)

Extracts: R. Hutcheson, Manager of Heritage Planning

HERITAGE MARKHAM RECOMMENDS:

THAT Heritage Markham receive the additional correspondence items concerning the new Ontario Heritage Act as information.

CARRIED.

The meeting adjourned at 10.40 p.m.

Heritage Minutes 2005-05-11