RECOMMENDATION:
THAT Council deny the Heritage Permit application for replacement of the
original door;
And that the applicant be requested to return
the original door, windows, transom window and chimneys to the dwelling by
August 31, 2003;
And that Council deny an application for
replacement of the historic wood siding on the premises.
PURPOSE:
To
recommend denial of an application for a Heritage Permit to replace an original
front door on a significant property in the Thornhill-Markham Heritage Conservation
District and to require the owner to return the original front door, historic
windows, transom and chimneys to the property and restore the elements to the
condition which existed prior to their removal, by August 31, 2003. In the event that the owner does not comply
with the Council recommendation, the Legal Services Department would initiate
the prosecution of the owner of the property and the occupant for violations
under the Ontario Heritage Act.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
This
report is regarding works undertaken without prior approval, on the house at 22
John Street, Thornhill, in violation of the Ontario Heritage Act. Historic features have been removed from the
dwelling. The house at 22 John Street
is a significant heritage building in the Thornhill-Markham Heritage District.
Heritage Markham is recommending denial of the Heritage Permit application by
the applicant and requesting that the owner and occupant be required to return
the historic architectural features to the dwelling.
BACKGROUND:
Heritage Building – Identified as significant in the District Plan
The house at 22 John Street,
Thornhill is a significant heritage building.
The building is an excellent example of a Georgian cottage from the
mid-19th Century (See Appendix ‘A’). At one time, the house was home to Arthur Lismer, one of the
founding members of the Group of Seven.
The house was also home to Doris Fitzgerald, a prominent local historian
and author. The importance of the building was recognized by the Town in 1986
when it was designated under Part V of the Ontario Heritage Act as part
of the Thornhill-Markham Heritage Conservation District and identified as a
significant building in the Thornhill-Markham Heritage Conservation District
Plan.
Complaint received
– windows removed from significant building in heritage conservation district
On March 10, 2003 a
complaint was received from a member of the public by the Heritage Section of
the Development Services Commission, that the original historic windows on the
heritage building located at 22 John Street had been removed without
approval. The owner of the premises is
Mr. Alexander Medwecky. Mr. Medwecky’s
son, Steven Medwecky is the current occupant of the dwelling.
Inspection by Town (Heritage Section) staff confirms changes
to windows, door and other features
In response to the
complaint, on March 12, and 13, 2003 Town (Heritage Section) staff notified the
occupant of the property by telephone regarding the violation and conducted
site visits to 22 John Street to review the works undertaken on the
premises. Town staff noted that the
following changes had been undertaken at the premises without prior approval:
·
Removal
and replacement of all historic windows on the front (south), east and west
elevations, with non-traditional windows;
·
Removal
of the original door and decorative transom window replacement with a larger
door and elimination of transom altogether; and
·
Removal
of the brick chimneys from the east and west gables on the original house.
Heritage Permit Required for Alterations to building
Given that the building is
designated under Part V of the Ontario Heritage Act, the owner of the property
is required to obtain a Heritage Permit from the Town for any alterations to
the building.
Applicant is familiar with the heritage permit process. Permit Application filed.
The current owner and occupants of the property are familiar with
the Heritage Permit process. On
November 10, 1999, Mr. Steven Medwecky submitted, and received approval for a
Heritage Permit application to replace a wood picket fence at the front of the
premises. In addition, on November 26,
1999, the applicant entered into a Site Plan Agreement with the Town to permit
a second storey addition to the rear of the existing dwelling. The site plan agreement included clauses
with respect to the preservation of existing chimneys, wood windows, and
original front door. In addition, the
site plan agreement contained a statement advising that the property is located
in the Thornhill-Markham Heritage Conservation District and that any deviation
from the approved elevations and site plan must be reviewed and approved by the
Town Heritage Section staff.
Since 1994, Town (Heritage
Section and Building Department) staff has responded to a number of violations
carried out by the current occupant of the premises regarding the undertaking
of construction without required permits (see Appendix – ‘B’ attached for a
chronology of activity on the premises).
As part of its review of violations at 22 John Street, Town staff has
repeatedly advised the owner and occupant of the need for permits to be applied
for and issued by the Town prior to commencement of any works on the premises.
On March 6, 2003, a
Heritage Permit application was received from Mr. Steven Medwecky to “replace
the existing front door with a 6-panel oak door with natural finish and antique
bronze lock set”. Town (Heritage
Section) staff subsequently had a telephone conversation with Mr. Medwecky and
advised him that Heritage Markham would consider his permit application at its
March 12, 2003 meeting.
Removal of historic architectural features is not a permitted
alteration
The removal of historic
windows, chimneys, transom windows and doors from significant heritage building
and replacement of historic features with new features which are not
consistent, in material or design, with the original does not conform to the
District Plan Guidelines or standard heritage principles and cannot be
supported by staff. A review of
Heritage Permit files has indicated that Heritage Markham has consistently
denied requests for removal of historic features from significant heritage
dwellings. As well, the Committee has
not authorized their replacement with features of modern materials and designs,
for significant heritage properties or in the heritage district.
Heritage Markham recommends denial of Heritage Permit application and
return of historic features by the end of March 2003.
On March 12, 2003, Heritage
Markham reviewed the application for heritage permit and reviewed the
additional changes to the windows on the premises and made the following
recommendation:
“THAT the application for a heritage permit to
replace the original front door at 22 John Street not be supported;
AND THAT the applicant be required
to return and restore the original front door to the residence as per its
original configuration by the end of March 2003;
AND
THAT the applicant be required to return and restore the original wood, double
hung, divided windows and sills to the residence at 22 John Street as per their
original configuration by the end of
March 2003;
AND THAT given that the
removal and replacement of original historic building fabric, the installation
of new windows, which do not conform to the specifications of the original and
installation on a new door would not normally be approved for significant
heritage buildings and would not conform with the Thornhill-Markham Heritage
Conservation District Plan, and in the event that the applicant has not
complied with requests by the Town to return the building to its original
appearance by the end of March 2003, Heritage Markham requests that
Council authorize the following:
· Denial of the subject
Heritage Permit application for replacement of the front door and any subsequent
application for replacement of the windows;
· Request the return and
restoration of the original building components
·
If
the applicant refuses to return and restore the original building components,
the initiation of a formal prosecution of the property owner for violations
under the Ontario Heritage Act;”
Further site visit to premises reveals
additional changes
On March 13, 2003, following
the Heritage Markham meeting Town (Heritage Section) staff made a further site
visit to the premises and noted that in addition to the changes to the windows
and the door, that the applicant had also removed an original transom window
over the door and had removed original chimneys on the gable ends.
Occupant requests meeting with
Architectural Review Sub-Committee
Upon receipt of the recommendation from Heritage Markham, Mr. Steven
Medwecky requested a meeting with the Heritage Markham Architectural Review
Sub-Committee of Heritage Markham to discuss the changes to the premises. The Sub-committee meeting was held on March
27, 2003. Mr. Medwecky noted that a
number of features were in poor condition. Concern was expressed by the
Architectural Review Sub-Committee that the door was in poor condition because
it appeared to have not been taken care of during the past four years that
construction has occurred at the house, and that the replacement door did not
match the original in terms of finish, size, and design. Concern was also expressed with respect to
the removal of the historic windows and the transom window over the front
entrance door.
Sub-committee confirmed previous recommendation, extends deadline
for return of features to end of April 2003
The Architectural Review Sub-Committee confirmed the previous
Heritage Markham recommendation that all historic features be returned to the
dwelling and included in the recommendation reference to the return of the
transom window over the door and the historic chimneys, which Heritage Markham
was not aware of at the March 12, 2003 meeting. Since Mr. Medwecky received the March 12, Heritage Markham
recommendation only shortly before the March 27, 2003 meeting, the
sub-committee recommended that Mr. Medwecky be given until the end of April
2003 to complete the required works and return the missing material. At the conclusion of the Sub-Committee’s
discussion, the owner of the property, Mr. Alexander Medwecky and the occupant,
Mr. Steven Medwecky, indicated to the sub-committee that they understood what
was required.
The recommendation of the Architectural Review Sub-Committee was
endorsed by the full committee of Heritage Markham at its April 9, 2003
meeting. The following recommendation
was passed:
“THAT
the time limit outlined by Heritage Markham for return and restoration of
historic features on the building at 22 John Street to their original
configuration as outlined in the Site Plan agreement be extended to April 30,
2003;
And
that the features to be returned to the building and restored include the
following:
·
Two gable end chimneys on the original
dwelling;
·
All wood, double hung, multi-paned
windows from the south, east and west elevations;
·
The original transom window over the
front (south elevation) door;
·
The front door (south elevation);”
Owner
and occupant submit a letter indicating “desire to follow district plan
guidelines”, and requesting relief from requirements
In response to the April 9, 2003 recommendation of
Heritage Markham, Mr. Steven Medwecky submitted a letter to the
Manager-Heritage Planning outlining the desire of he and his father, Mr. Alexander
Medwecky to “follow the intent of the guidelines documented within the
Thornhill-Markham Heritage Conservation District Plan” (see appendix ‘C’). The letter was received on April 22, 2003. The letter does not however, provide a
timeline for completion of the required works; the letter also requested a
further meeting with the Architectural Review Sub-Committee to discuss the
windows, front door and chimneys. Mr.
Steven Medwecky also contacted Town (Heritage Section) staff to express his
desire to meet with the Architectural Review Sub-Committee to request relief
from certain requirements of the committee recommendation.
Architectural Review
Sub-Committee reaffirms original recommendation – and recommends that the
applicant be given until August 31, 2003 to complete the works
On April 28, 2003, the Architectural Review Sub-Committee
of Heritage Markham met with Mr. Medwecky on-site at 22 John Street to discuss
his request for relief from the Heritage Markham requirements with respect to
the return of all historic elements that had been removed and the timing to
complete the work. Mr. Medwecky
requested permission to restore only the front windows on the dwelling and to
raise the level of the door surround on the existing building so that the
recently installed front door, which is taller than the original door could be
accommodated along with the transom.
The Architectural Review Sub-Committee did not support any
of Mr. Medwecky’s requests for relief with respect to the scope of the work to
be undertaken. It was reaffirmed that the owner and occupant are to return and
restore all windows, the original door, the original transom and the original
chimneys.
Sub-Committee did recommend that the owner and occupant be
given until the end of August 2003 to complete the required works.
Applicant requests permission to remove historic wood
siding from building
At the April 28, 2003 meeting of the Architectural Review
Sub-Committee, Mr. Steven Medwecky requested the permission of Heritage Markham
to remove and replace the existing wood siding on the historic part of the
building. The Architectural Review
Sub-Committee recommended that it did not support the removal of the existing
wood siding on the building.
Alteration of
Designated Property without permission is in contravention of the Ontario
Heritage Act
Under Part V of the Ontario
Heritage Act, no owner of a designated property shall alter the property or
permit the alteration of the exterior portions of the building unless Council
gives consent to such alteration. The
original windows, chimneys, transom window and door are significant features of
the dwelling.
Where a property is
designated under Part V of the Ontario Heritage Act, any person who
contravenes this Act or the regulations is liable to a fine of not more than
$50,000 or to imprisonment for a term of not more that one year, or to both.
Where a property is altered
without the consent of Council and prosecution is successful, in addition to
any other penalty imposed under this Act, where it is practicable, the
property may be restored as nearly as possible to its previous condition and
Council may recover the cost of such restoration from the owner of the
designated property. Council may also
authorize any person in writing, to enter on the designated property to carry
out the restoration.
Council
response required within 90 Days
Since
a Heritage Permit Application has been received, under the Act, Council must notify the applicant of its decision
within 90 days after the notice of receipt of the application has been served
on the applicant, otherwise the Town is deemed to have consented to the
application. Council must therefore
make a decision with respect to the permit application for the front door
replacement by June 6, 2003.
OPTIONS/DISCUSSION:
Inaction may set an undesirable precedent
The act of removing historic features from this significant heritage
building does not conform to the Heritage District Plan Guidelines or standard
heritage conservation principles and cannot be supported by staff from a
heritage perspective.
The subject property is a landmark feature of the Heritage District
and is in a visible location. The house at 22 John Street is of major
architectural significance to the Town, by virtue of it being an outstanding
example of a Georgian Style cottage, it has been occupied during its history by
individuals of importance locally and to the nation, and it occupies a
prominent location within one of the most intact 19th Century
streetscapes in the Town. The removal
of significant architectural features from this building undermines its
architectural integrity and significance of the building, as well as the
historic John Street streetscape and the district as a whole.
If the historic features are
not returned, it may set an undesirable precedent, encourage other similar
contraventions of the Act, and could undermine the authority of the Town
in regard to protection of designated buildings located within the municipal
boundary.
Recommend Denial of the Heritage Permit Application and prosecution if
the original features are not returned and restored
Staff recommends that the subject Heritage Permit
application for replacement of the front door be denied and that the applicant
be requested to return and restore all historic features to the dwelling. If the applicant refuses to return the
features by August 31, 2003, the Town should prosecute the property owner and
occupant for violation of the Ontario Heritage Act.
FINANCIAL CONSIDERATIONS:
None
BUSINESS UNITS CONSULTED AND AFFECTED:
The Legal Services Department has been
consulted.
ATTACHMENTS:
Figure
1 – Owner/Occupant and Location Map
Appendix
‘A’ – Photographs of the Property at 22 John Street
Appendix
‘B’ – Chronology of the Property
Appendix
‘C’ – Letter from Mr. Steven Medwecky and Mr. Alexander Medwecky dated April
15, 2003
|
|
|
|
|
Valerie Shuttleworth, M.C.I.P., R.P.P.
Director of Planning & Urban Design
|
|
Jim Baird, M.C.I.P., R.P.P.
Commissioner of Development Services
|
FIGURE 1
DOCUMENT #: Q:\Development\Heritage\PROPERTY\JOHN\022\PMS
0520.doc
OWNER: Mr.
Alexander Medwecky
7825
Bayview Avenue
Markham,
ON
L3T
7N2
OCCUPANT: Mr.
Steven Medwecky
22
John Street
Thornhill,
ON
LOCATION MAP:
