SIXTH MEETING OF THE
HERITAGE
TOWN OF
York Room,
Members Regrets
Joan Natoli, Chair Rosemary Lamon
Ted Chisholm, Vice-Chair Regional Councillor Jim Jones Julie Christian Councillor JohnWebster
Judy Dawson-Ryan
Marie Jones
Elizabeth Plashkes
Susan Casella
Maria Pia Andrejin
Evelyn Ellison
R. Hutcheson, Manager, Heritage Planning
G. Duncan, Heritage Planner
Yvonne Hurst – Committee Secretary
The Chair convened the meeting at the hour of
Declarations
Susan Casella disclosed a conflict with Items #4 (Heritage Easement Agreements) and #9 as relatives are involved with these items.
Julie Christian disclosed a conflict with Item #4 (Heritage Easement Agreements) as she is the owner of one of the properties.
1. APPROVAL OF AGENDA (16.11)
HERITAGE
THAT the Heritage Markham agenda and addendum agenda, dated
CARRIED.
2. REQUEST FOR FEEDBACK
PROPOSED ADDITION
Extracts: Manager, Heritage Planning
Project Coordinator,
Planning Dept. (Ron Blake)
Town (Heritage Section) staff advised that the applicant was unable to attend the June 9th meeting to speak to this item.
HERITAGE
THAT discussions regarding the request for
feedback, proposed addition at
CARRIED.
3. ADOPTION OF THE MINUTES
FIFTH
HERITAGE
Extracts: Manager, Heritage Planning
HERITAGE
THAT the minutes of the fifth Heritage
Markham meeting held on
CARRIED.
Susan Casella, having disclosed a conflict with Item #4 (Heritage Easement Agreements), did not participate in the discussion or voting related to this item.
Julie Christian, having disclosed a conflict with Item #4 (Heritage Easement Agreements), did not participate in the discussion or voting related to this item.
4. HERITAGE EASEMENT AGREEMENTS
HERITAGE TAX REDUCTION PROGRAM (16.11)
Extracts: Manager, Heritage Planning
HERITAGE
THAT Heritage Markham has no objection to the heritage easements for identified properties under the Heritage Tax Reduction Program.
CARRIED.
5. STAFF-APPROVED HERITAGE PERMIT APPLICATIONS
HE
HE
HE
HE
Extracts: Manager,
Heritage Planning
HERITAGE
THAT the memorandum
and material regarding HE
CARRIED.
6. HERITAGE PERMIT APPLICATION
NEW VERANDAH RAILING AND TRIM
Extracts: Manager, Heritage Planning
Heritage Planner
The Committee reviewed the
Heritage Permit Application for the new verandah railing and trim at
The Heritage and Conservation
Planner advised that when he met on site with the owners the work was
substantially finished. For safety, the
railing was completed. The Manager,
Heritage Planning, noted that the design of the spindles was taken from a
Victorian Trim book. All posts were
hand-hewed and installed by the owner.
The Committee indicated
that the owner should be made aware that any further changes or renovations on
the exterior of the home would require a Heritage Permit. It was suggested that the railing could be
used elsewhere on the property and that removal of the scalloped corner
brackets and a neutral colour paint would lessen the
impact of the overall design.
HERITAGE
THAT Heritage Markham does
not support the Heritage Permit application for new verandah railing and trim
at
AND THAT the railing,
brackets, and trim below the eaves be removed and possibly used elsewhere on the property;
AND
FURTHER THAT the owner should apply for a new design more in keeping with the style and period of the house,
based on local
CARRIED.
7. SITE PLAN APPROVAL
APPLICATION SC 04 016329
NEW
104678 ONTARIO LIMITED -
Extracts: Manager, Heritage Planning
Heritage
Planner
The Heritage and
Conservation Planner advised that the design of the new office building would
mirror many of the characteristics of the old woollen mill that used to sit
near this site. He noted that a minor
variance has been granted by the Committee of Adjustment with respect to the
height of the tower. The applicant has
been working with Town staff to refine the design and address a number of
issues including resident concerns.
Overall changes include a
shortened tower height, the window design has been simplified; windows have
been removed from the west wall and the building has been moved further
east.
The project architect, Mr.
Szeto, representing the applicant, noted that he has been working to address
all issues from neighbours and Town staff.
He advised that the tower is now 6 ft. shorter; the building has been
moved 6 ft. to the east; additional landscaping will be included; there are no
windows on the west elevation; and the ground floor has been redesigned to have
a more open appearance similar to store fronts found on
Bill Pickering and Eloise
Fisher, residents of the area, concurred that the architect has met with area
homeowners and, although not pleased with the overall concept of this
development of the site, realize that the property is zoned commercial and are
pleased with the changes that the architect has made.
The Committee noted the
improvements made to the overall design but expressed concerns with the brick
wall on the east side of the building.
The Committee asked if there were other options for maintaining privacy
for the adjacent homeowner without having a solid brick wall.
It was noted that the
brick will be indented on the third floor to give the ‘appearance’ of
windows. Mr. Szeto suggested another option
would be to include indented bricked windows on the second floor main level and
real windows on the upper part of the second floor. These windows will be too high for anyone in
the building too see out.
Bill Pickering and Eloise
Fisher, residents of the area, indicated that this could possibly be a solution
to the Committee’s concerns but could not speak for the adjacent owner (John
Craig) who was not in attendance.
With respect to the colour
of brick for the building, Mr. Szeto indicated that he would obtain samples of
brick and then meet with area residents and Town (Heritage Section) staff to
determine the final colour.
HERITAGE
THAT Heritage Markham has no
objection to the application for Site Plan Approval for
AND THAT Heritage Section staff be authorized to approve any minor changes to the plans prior to approval;
AND FURTHER THAT the applicant be required to provide a “Markham Remembered” interpretive plaque to tell the story of the Maple Leaf Woolen Mill.
CARRIED.
8. POT LIGHTS IN SOFFITS
MANNY AND TERESA PAPADIMITROPOULOS
Extracts: Manager, Heritage Planning
Heritage Planner
HERITAGE
THAT the correspondence from Mr. Papadimitropoulos be received and the issue of pot lights in soffits at 8 Eckardt be deferred to the July 14, 2004 meeting of Heritage Markham, when the applicant is available to appear as a deputation.
CARRIED.
Susan Casella, having disclosed a
conflict with Item #9 (
9. REQUEST FOR FEEDBACK
PROPOSED REAR ADDITION
MR. SAM NAFFAA
Extracts: Manager, Heritage Planning
HERITAGE
THAT Heritage Markham supports the design
concept for relocating the Cobbler’s Cottage to the rear of the existing house
at
AND THAT when an application for Site Plan Approval is submitted, detailed plans and elevations be included to show measurements, materials and architectural details.
CARRIED.
10. MODIFICATIONS TO LANDSCAPE PLAN
REPRODUCTION ANTHONY FORSTER HOUSE
BEATRICE IP
CORNELL SUBDIVISION (16.11)
Extracts: Manager, Heritage Planning
HERITAGE
THAT Heritage Markham has no objection to
the proposed modifications to the landscaping at
CARRIED.
11. HERITAGE PERMIT APPLICATION HE 04 016439
REPLACEMENT OF HEATING AND COOLING SYSTEM
TOWN
OF
UNIONVILLE TRAIN STATION
UNIONVILLE HERITAGE CONSERVATION DISTRICT (16.11)
Extracts: Manager, Heritage Planning
Senior Planner, Heritage
Recreation
Supervisor (Kevin McGuklin)
The Committee expressed concerns that there were a number of unresolved items relating to the Unionville Train Station (door, window, porch and railing).
HERITAGE
THAT Heritage Markham has no objection to
the Heritage Permit application for the replacement of the heating and cooling
system at the Unionville Train Station,
AND THAT Town (Heritage Section) staff be requested to report on the unresolved issues relating to the Unionville Train Station at the July meeting of Heritage Markham.
CARRIED.
12.
Extracts: Manager, Heritage Planning
Planning Department (Gary Sellars)
HERITAGE
THAT a site visit be arranged to
CARRIED.
13. CORRESPONDENCE PACKAGE (16.11)
Extracts: Manager, Heritage Planning
a)
Architectural Conservancy of
b)
c)
Heritage
d)
Sharon Temple – “Passion for Fashion” Event
e)
Heritage
f)
g)
Transportation Committee Extract –
HERITAGE
THAT the correspondence
list, dated
CARRIED.
14. THORNHILL HERITAGE CONSERVATION DISTRICT
PLAN REVIEW, TERMS OF REFERENCE (10.8)
Extracts: Manager, Heritage Planning
Regional Couincillor Bill O’ Donnell
Councillor
Stan Daurio
The Manager, Heritage Planning, advised that Council has approved the Thornhill Heritage Conservation District Plan review. A Thornhill Heritage Conservation District Plan Review Advisory Committee has been created to assist in the Study and two members of Heritage Markham will sit on this Committee.
HERITAGE
THAT the material
concerning the Thornhill Heritage Conservation District Plan Review be received as information;
AND THAT the following
names be recommended as Heritage Markham
representatives to serve on the Advisory Committee:
Judy Dawson-Ryan
Evelyn Ellison
Joan Natoli – back-up
Rosemary Lamon – back-up
AND THAT Heritage Markham
requests that the two members of the local community to be appointed by Council
be residents of the heritage district.
CARRIED.
15. SITE PLAN APPROVAL
SC 04 011475 AND SC 04 011491
75 AND
Extracts: Manager, Heritage Planning
Heritage
Planner
The Planner, Heritage and
Conservation, advised that applications has been received for two new detached
homes at 75 and
Mr. Sam Barsketis and Mr.
Amir Charmchi were in attendance with respect to the two dwellings at 75 and
The Committee reviewed the
drawings and provided the following comments:
-
copper roofing on the bay windows was not found in
the Thornhill heritage district (applicant indicated that he would provide for
cedar shingles);
-
concern that casement windows found on the sides and
rear of the house could be viewed from the street;
-
the upper floor
railing on
-
suggested 2/2 windows
for
With regard to the
casement windows on the sides and rear of the house, the applicant indicated
that the house is set back 75 feet from the street and there are any
trees surrounding
the house. He indicated that he would
consider changing the side windows but would leave the back windows the same.
HERITAGE
THAT Heritage
Markham has no objection to the applications for 75 and
- the plans conforming to all applicable by-law requirements;
-
cedar shingles be used for roofing on the bay
windows;
-
use of double hung style windows on the side of the
houses;
-
simplified design for the
upper floor railing at
-
the size of the window panes on
AND THAT the Site Plan Approval be subject to the standard heritage conditions.
CARRIED.
16. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT
VARIANCE APPLICATION
Extracts: Manager, Heritage Planning
Committee
of Adjustment
The Manager, Heritage Planning,
reviewed the variance application for
- a lot frontage of 46.68 feet on the retained parcel. The By-law requires a minimum lot frontage of 60 feet;
- a lot frontage of 46.32 feet on the severed parcel. The By-law requires a minimum lot frontage of 60 feet;
- a lot area of 5393 square feet on the retained parcel (By-law requires a minimum lot area of 6600 square feet);
- a lot area of 5197 feet on the severed parcel (By-law requires a minimum of 6600 square feet);
- a minimum rear yard setback on the retained parcel of 18.5 feet (By-law requires a minimum rear yard setback of 25 feet).
HERITAGE
THAT Heritage Markham has no
objections to the Committee of Adjustment Variance Application for
CARRIED.
17. NEW PROGRAMS
COMMERCIAL FACADE
IMPROVEMENT GRANT PROGRAM
COMMERCIAL SIGNAGE REPLACEMENT GRANT PROGRAM
Extracts: Manager, Heritage Planning
The Manager, Heritage
Planning, noted that two new programs have been approved by Council. There is approximately $26,000 in the façade
program and $6,000 in the commercial sign program.
The Committee requested
that staff investigate to ensure that advertising for this program reaches all
of the Thornhill Heritage District businesses.
The Manager of Heritage Planning indicated he would consult with
Corporate Communications to ensure that notice was provided on a Thornhill newspaper.
HERITAGE
THAT the materials regarding the new programs for commercial façade; improvement grant program and commercial signage replacement grant program, be received as information.
CARRIED.
18. STUDIES
REVIEW OF CANADIAN MUNICIPAL
INCENTIVE PROGRAM FOR HERITAGE
PRESERVATION AND DOWNTOWN RENEWAL
Extracts: Manager, Heritage Planning
HERITAGE
THAT the consideration of the document, entitled: “Review of Canadian Programs for Heritage Preservation and Downtown Renewal.” be deferred to the July meeting of Heritage Markham.
CARRIED.
19. SITE PLAN APPLICATION
REVISED DRAWINGS
ROSE & FIRKIN PUB
The Manager, Heritage Planning, noted that concerns had been raised by local residents with respect to the proposed upper floor outdoor patio.
Maria Gatzios, Planning Consultant for the Rose & Firkin Pub, was in attendance with respect to the outdoor patios at the Pub. She noted that the rear patio required a minor variance. The variance was appealed, however, after addressing resident concerns the appeal was withdrawn. The front patio will have a fence with wood pickets. It is proposed that the pickets be stained white. Lighting will be goose-neck lamps.
Glass panels across the top of the railing have been proposed for the rear patio to help with noise attenuation. The conditions have been approved by Council and will be included in the Site Plan Agreement.
The Manager, Heritage Planning, also noted that conditions of the Site Plan Agreement will also include a prohibition on the use of banners, advertising or flags on the patios.
Mr. Bannerjee, a nearby resident, expressed concerns with respect to noise emanating from the rear patio. He reiterated Council’s requirement that the barrier on the rear patio be approved by a qualified sound engineer.
Ms. Gatzios advised that fixed flower boxes and glass panels on the rear patio picket fence have been included for sound attenuation. She noted that the use of benches around the perimeter would provide better sound absorption than stand alone seating (the proposed benches were not just a seating surface but would be closed-in both above the seat and under the seat). She suggested that the sound technician could look at both options (glass/acrylic with benches, glass/acrylic with stand-alone seating) and determine what would be the best scenario for sound attenuation. It was also noted that the plants in the flower boxes will grow and provide a measure of noise attenuation. With respect to lighting, Ms. Gatzios indicated that all lights will be goose-neck and the light from these types of lamps is directed downwards. In response to a question regarding the accessibility of the plants for watering and maintenance, the Committee was advised that there would be no problem in providing maintenance for the plants in the flower boxes.
A member of the Unionville BIA was also in attendance and requested that whatever conditions were imposed on the Rose & Firkin with respect to flags, advertising and banners be applied uniformly to all business in the BIA area.
Richard Talbot, representing the Unionville Ratepayers Association, asked if the capacity of the patios had been approved by the Fire Department (ans: capacity is determined by the square footage of the patio). Mr. Talbot suggested that the picket fence and flower boxes would be in keeping with features of the heritage area and should be kept providing they meet the sound attenuation requirements. He noted that the Unionville Ratepayers, the BIA and area residents are willing to meet with the applicant to discuss any concerns.
HERITAGE
THAT Heritage Markham has no
objection to the revised elevations for the rear, roof-top patio at
- the design of the door to the patio being reviewed and approved by Heritage Section Staff;
- the use of stand-alone seating along the perimeter of the rear patio;
- glass/acrylic be used to supplement sound control;
- panels in the rear patio be removable to provide for maintenance of plants in the flower boxes;
AND THAT the railing around the patio be painted the same colour as the building.
CARRIED.
20. SITE PLAN APPROVAL APPLICATIONS
BUILDING RELOCATION AND ADDITIONS
DAVID HICKS
Extracts: Manager, Heritage Planning
The Planner, Heritage and Conservation, advised that to proceed with the Site Plan, as submitted for 15 Station Lane, Unionville, a minor variance is required to expand a legal non-conforming use (property is zoned for offices, but used as a single detached residence). When the minor variance was reviewed, it was noted that the west side yard abuts an existing residence and mature cedar hedge. Usually a six foot setback is required for a two-story building (the applicant is proposing two feet). The neighbouring property owner has expressed concerns with this issue. Town Planning staff support the minor variance subject to:
- provide a six foot west side yard to accommodate tree preservation;
- applicant obtain Site Plan Approval and enter into a Site Plan Agreement;
- owner enter into a Heritage Easement Agreement;
- applicant provide a Tree Preservation Plan.
HERITAGE
THAT Heritage Markham has no
objection to the Site Plan Application for
o that the issue of the west side yard setback be resolved to the satisfaction of Town staff and the neighbouring property owner;
o that the minor variance application be approved;
o that the owner enter into a Heritage Easement agreement
o that minor adjustment to design details be delegated to Heritage Section staff.
CARRIED.
21.
CORRESPONDENCE CONCERNING BIG BOX MALLS
Extracts: Manager, Heritage Planning
Elizabeth Plashkes spoke to the
contents of the letter provided to the Mayor and Council from the Markham
Village Conservancy that outlined a number of concerns related to the Major
Commercial (Big Box Mall) designated for the Markham Road/Bur Oak/Major
Mackenzie area. Ms. Plashkes noted that
this area is very close to
Ms. Plashkes advised that the
proposed Major Commercial provides for up to 1,800,000 square feet of box mall
retail operations. Markham Conservancy
is asking for Council to review other options with respect to this land. She noted that with a GO transit station at
HERITAGE
THAT Council, through its process of planning review, consider other uses for the Markham Road/Bur Oak/Major Mackenzie area (other than Major Commercial);
THAT Heritage Markham strongly urges Council to consider the negative impact on the numerous heritage resources immediately south of this planning area;
AND THAT the present designation for this area is counter productive to many of the other initiatives supported by Council such as the Markham Farmer’s Market, Doors Open Markham and traffic calming measures for Main Street;
AND FURTHER THAT Heritage Markham requests that Council reconsider the Official Plan designation of Major Commercial as the box mall model is not suitable for this area.
CARRIED.
22. REQUEST FOR FEEDBACK
PROPOSED GARAGE AND PORCH
Extracts: Manager, Heritage Planning
The Planner, Heritage and
Conservation, advised that a concept plan has been received for a new garage
and porch for
The Committee reviewed the concept plans and provided the following comments:
o the dimensions are required to determine if a two car garage can be accommodated;
o the garage should be recessed from the front of the house or flush with the front of the house;
o the preferred design for the front porch is found on the drawing labeled ‘Porch 4’;
o removal of aluminum siding on bay window and installation of a wood finish;
o garage design with the gable end is more appropriate for the area;
o garage roof and porch roof should be independent to give the appearance that the garage is an addition; porch should look like part of original house;
o a 1.6” set back is requested while the by-law provides for a 4 ft. setback;
o if width will not accommodate a two-car garage, have applicant consider other options such as a ‘tandem’ garage (one car wide and two cars deep);
HERITAGE
THAT Heritage Markham provides the
following feedback with respect to the concept plans for a new garage and porch
at
o dimensions are required to determine if a two car garage can be accommodated;
o garage should be recessed from the front of the house or flush with the front of the house;
o removal of aluminum siding on bay window and installation of a wood finish would be appropriate;
o garage design with the gable end is more appropriate for the area;
o garage roof and porch roof should be independent to give the appearance that the garage is an addition; porch should look like part of original house;
o a 1.6” set back is requested while the by-law provides for a 4 ft. setback;
o if width will not accommodate a two-car garage, have applicant consider other options such as a ‘tandem’ garage (one car wide and two cars deep);
AND THAT the preferred design for the front porch is found on the drawing labeled ‘Porch 4’ where the front porch extends across the front of the house;
AND THAT Town (Heritage Section) staff work with the applicant to ameliorate the affect of the garage at the front of the house;
AND FURTHER THAT the applicant meet with Town (Heritage Section) Staff to further develop the plans prior to a formal application for Site Plan Approval being submitted to Heritage Markham for review and comments.
CARRIED.
23. DEMOLITION OF BARN
MARY GROVE
6330
HERITAGE
THAT Heritage Markham has no
objection to the demolition application for the barn at
CARRIED.
24. WONCH HOUSE RESTORATION PLAN
MINOR MODIFICATIONS
DAVID WYLIE RESTORATIONS LTD.
Extracts: Manager, Heritage and Planning
HERITAGE
THAT Heritage Markham has no
objection to the proposed modifications to the Wonch House restoration plan, as
show in the drawings submitted on
CARRIED.
The meeting adjourned at