HERITAGE MARKHAM COMMITTEE MEETING

TOWN OF MARKHAM

Canada Room, Markham Civic Centre

Wednesday, May 10, 2006

 

 

Members

Regrets

Julie Christian, Chair

Maria Pia Adrejin

Judy Dawson-Ryan, Vice-Chair

Amar Banerjee

Ted Chisholm

Joyce Nelson-Watt

Judith Dawson

Regional Councillor Jim Jones

Evelin Ellison

Councillor John Webster

Elizabeth Plashkes

 

Nelson Torres

 

Councillor Stan Daurio

 

 

 

Staff

George Duncan, Senior Heritage Planner

Peter Wokral, Planner, Heritage and Conservation

Candy Davidovits, Committee Secretary

 

 

Disclosure of Pecuniary Interest

 

The Chair convened the meeting at 7:20 p.m. by asking for any declarations of interest with respect to items on the agenda.  Ted Chisholm disclosed a conflict on Item 27 (Addendum Agenda Item1) – Building Permit Application File No. 06 111669HP - Extension/Rebuilding of Side Deck - 22 Joseph Street – as his brother-in-law is the applicant.

 

 

1.         APPROVAL OF AGENDA (16.11)

 

HERITAGE MARKHAM RECOMMENDS:

 

THAT the Heritage Markham agenda and addendum agenda be approved.

 

CARRIED.

 

 

2.         ADOPTION OF MINUTES

FOURTH HERITAGE MARKHAM MEETING
APRIL 12, 2006 (16.11)

Extracts:           R. Hutcheson, Manager of Heritage Planning

           

HERITAGE MARKHAM RECOMMENDS:

 

THAT the Minutes of the Heritage Markham meeting held on April 12, 2006 be received and adopted.

 

CARRIED.

 

 

3.         HERITAGE UNITED CHURCH

7046 11TH LINE
PROPOSED ALTERATIONS TO MAIN ENTRANCE AND DESIGNATION UNDER THE ONTARIO HERITAGE ACT (16.11)

Extracts:           R. Hutcheson, Manager of Heritage Planning

 

The Senior Heritage Planner gave a presentation on this application and provided some background regarding the designation of this property under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act which is to be considered by the Development Services Committee on May 16, 2006.

 

The following persons addressed the Committee:

 

-           Mr. Murray Cresswell, Chair, Heritage United Church, spoke about the needs of this amalgamated congregation and requested that consideration of the designation of this property under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act be deferred to another meeting; and

-           Mr. Joe Lobko, Architect, representing the Heritage United Church, who gave a presentation to the Committee on the proposed renovations to the church, and submitted additional photographs and drawings in regard to the proposed alterations to the main entrance.  Mr. Lobko stressed that the preferred option to improve accessibility is to replace the front doors with a single door with a lowered sill level and that this would allow people with mobility problems to enter the front door of the church like everyone else.  The installation of a ramp and/or a porch lift were also considered but both options were ruled out as the ramp would be too long and the porch lift would be difficult to maintain and was deemed to be uglier than the ramp.

 

HERITAGE MARKHAM RECOMMENDS:

 

THAT Heritage Markham refer this application to the Architectural Review Sub-Committee for comment to the next meeting of the Heritage Markham Committee.

 

AND THAT Heritage Markham recommends that Council designate the Heritage United Church (formerly the Zion Cedar Grove United Church) under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act as a property of cultural heritage value or interest.

 

CARRIED.

 

 

4.         CLAYTON SCHOOLHOUSE
11172 WARDEN AVENUE
ROOF REPLACEMENT: WOOD TO ASPHALT (16.11)

Extracts:           R. Hutcheson, Manager of Heritage Planning

 

The Senior Heritage Planner gave a presentation on this application and outlined the reasons why the Heritage Section staff prefer to have the wood shingle roof repaired as opposed to replacing it with asphalt shingles.

 

Mr. John Harding, property owner, addressed the Committee requesting permission to replace the existing wood shingle roof on the Clayton Schoolhouse with asphalt shingles as the roof has one or two years life left.  Mr. Harding advised the Committee that the $40,000.00 replacement cost of a wood shingle roof is cost prohibitive.  The applicant advised that he has explored other options but that they are not cedar.

 

Ms. Christina Harding, property owner, was also in attendance at the meeting.

 

      HERITAGE MARKHAM RECOMMENDS:

 

THAT Heritage Markham recommends that the existing wood shingle roof on the Clayton Schoolhouse may be replaced with appropriately coloured asphalt shingles that are satisfactory to the Heritage Section staff.

 

CARRIED.

 

 

5.         HERITAGE PERMIT APPLICATION

            4165 19TH AVENUE

HERITAGE PERMIT TO REPLACE EXISTING CLADDING, REPOSITION WINDOW, REPAIR TRIM, PAINT (16.11)

Extracts:           R. Hutcheson, Manager of Heritage Planning;

                        P. Wokral, Heritage Planner

 

The Heritage Planner gave a presentation on this application.

 

Kira Walker, the applicant, addressed the Heritage Markham Committee.

 

The Senior Heritage Planner also provided information on methods to improve energy loss in heritage homes and offered to provide information to the applicant that would help her to improve the energy efficiency of the home.

 

HERITAGE MARKHAM RECOMMENDS:

 

THAT Heritage Markham has no objection to the removal of the existing patterned tin cladding provided it is removed in such a way that it could be re-used by the Town in future restoration projects or made available for sale, or other use on the property;

 

AND THAT the original board and batten siding beneath the tin cladding be repaired, restored and replaced as necessary;

 

AND THAT the applicant investigate alternative means to improving the energy efficiency of the house such as caulking, weather stripping and increased attic insulation;

 

AND THAT Heritage Markham has no objection to the replacement of rotted sections of soffit and fascia with new wood, the re-positioning of the gothic window within the central gable, and the repainting of the house in the existing colour scheme;

 

AND THAT in the event the applicant requires to make further changes to this property, Heritage Markham delegates authority to approve such changes to the Heritage Section staff.

 

CARRIED.

 

 

6.         DEPUTATION

2 PETER STREET
PROPOSED SEVERANCE TO PROVIDE A LOT FOR A RELOCATED HERITAGE HOUSE (16.11)

Extracts:           R. Hutcheson, Manager of Heritage Planning;
                        S. Muradali, Secretary–Treasurer, Ctte of Adjustment

 

The Senior Heritage Planner gave a presentation to the Committee on this proposal.

 

Mr. Ben Quan, agent for the owner, addressed the Committee with a view to determining the position of the Heritage Markham Committee regarding a renewed proposal to create a severed lot at 2 Peter Street. It is proposed that a threatened heritage house would be moved to the new lot.

 

Mr. Jim Boylan, property owner, also addressed the Committee:

 

The following residents also addressed the Committee in opposition to this proposal:

-           Rutherford Spraggon, 3 Beech Street;

-           Donna Wigmore, 17 Peter Street;

-           Cathy Fullarton, 9 Peter Street; and

-           Eric Green, 23 Peter Street.

 

HERITAGE MARKHAM RECOMMENDS:

 

THAT Heritage Markham receive the presentation from Mr. Ben Quan regarding the proposed relocation of a heritage building to the South portion of 2 Peter Street.

 

CARRIED.

 

 

7.         SITE PLAN APPROVAL APPLICATION
FILE NO. SC 05 021719
14 DAVID GOHN CIRCLE
REVISED GARAGE DESIGN (16.11)

Extracts:           R. Hutcheson, Manager of Heritage Planning;
                        P. Wokral, Heritage Planner

 

HERITAGE MARKHAM RECOMMENDS:

 

THAT Heritage Markham refer the new design for the garage at 14 David Gohn Circle to the Architectural Review Sub-Committee for review and comment.

 

CARRIED.

8.         COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT VARIANCE APPLICATION
FILE NO. A/73/06
8953 WOODBINE AVENUE, BUTTONVILLE
FRONT YARD SETBACK AND PARKING LOCATION (16.11)

Extracts:           R. Hutcheson, Manager of Heritage Planning;

                        S. Muradali, Secretary-Treasurer, Ctte of Adjustment

 

HERITAGE MARKHAM RECOMMENDS:

 

THAT Heritage Markham has no objection to the following variances:

 

(a)        a minimum front yard setback of 2.345 metres to the front veranda; whereas the By-law requires a minimum front yard setback of 6 metres; and

 

(b)        parking to be located 54 metres from the centreline of Woodbine Avenue; whereas the By-law requires parking to be located no further than 45 metres from Woodbine Avenue.

 

CARRIED.

 

 

9.         COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT VARIANCE APPLICATION
FILE NO. A/71/06
9221 WOODBINE AVENUE, BUTTONVILLE
ADDITIONAL USE REQUESTED – MONTESSORI (16.11)

Extracts:           R. Hutcheson, Manager of Heritage Planning;
                        S. Muradali, Secretary-Treasurer, Ctte of Adjustment

 

      HERITAGE MARKHAM RECOMMENDS:

 

THAT Heritage Markham has no objection to the additional use.

 

CARRIED.

 

 

10.       OBJECTION TO HERITAGE DESIGNATION
7265 HIGHWAY 7, THE ABRAHAM REESOR HOUSE
OBJECTION FROM MR.G RUSSELL AND MS. S. RUSSELL (16.11)

Extracts:           R. Hutcheson, Manager of Heritage Planning

 

            HERITAGE MARKHAM RECOMMENDS:

 

THAT Heritage Markham receive correspondence from Mr. G. Russell and Ms. S. Russell, objecting to the Heritage Designation of 7265 Highway 7, as information.

 

CARRIED.

 

 

11.       SITE PLAN APPROVAL APPLICATION

            FILE NO. SC 06 112438
8083 WARDEN AVENUE

BRADBURN HOUSE RELOCATION (16.11)
Extracts:           R. Hutcheson, Manager of Heritage Planning;

                        G. Duncan, Senior Heritage Planner

 

            HERITAGE MARKHAM RECOMMENDS:

 

THAT Heritage Markham has no objection to the restoration plan and site plan application for the Alexander Bradburn House, and delegates final approval authority to Heritage Section staff for any minor adjustments to the plans;

 

AND THAT the usual heritage conditions be included in the site plan agreement.

 

CARRIED.

 

 

12.       HERITAGE PERMIT APPLICATIONS
FILE NO. HE 06 109942, HE 06 112138, HE 06 112139, HE 06 112584
14 COLBORNE ST., 39 COLBORNE ST., AND 15 COLBORNE ST., THORNHILL HCD
HERITAGE PERMITS APPROVED BY STAFF ON BEHALF OF HERITAGE MARKHAM (16.11)        

Extracts:           R. Hutcheson, Manager of Heritage Planning

 

            HERITAGE MARKHAM RECOMMENDS:

 

THAT Heritage Markham receive this item as information.

 

CARRIED.

 

 

13.       SITE PLAN APPROVAL APPLICATION
FILE NO. SC 06 112177
44 CHURCH STREET, MARKHAM VILLAGE HCD
PROPOSED REAR ADDITION TO HERITAGE HOUSE (16.11)

Extracts:           R. Hutcheson, Manager of Heritage Planning;

                        G. Duncan, Senior Heritage Planner

 

HERITAGE MARKHAM RECOMMENDS:

 

THAT Heritage Markham has no objection to the plans for the proposed addition to 44 Church Street, and delegates final approval authority to Heritage Section staff for any minor design modifications;

 

AND THAT the usual heritage conditions regarding materials, colours, etc. be included in the site plan agreement.

 

CARRIED.

 

 

14.       SITE PLAN APPROVAL APPLICATION
FILE NO. SC 06 111268
26 ROUGE STREET, MARKHAM VILLAGE HCD
SITE PLAN APPLICATION, REMODELING AND ADDITIONS TO EXISTING HOUSE (16.11)

Extracts:           R. Hutcheson, Manager of Heritage Planning;

                        P. Wokral, Heritage Planner

 

HERITAGE MARKHAM RECOMMENDS:

 

THAT Heritage Markham has no objection to the proposed design for the remodeling and additions to the existing house located at 26 Rouge Street, provided that this support is not taken as a precedent for front projecting garages in heritage districts and that any future proposals for projecting garages will be dealt with on a case by case basis.

 

CARRIED.

 

 

15.       REQUEST FOR FEEDBACK
161 MAIN STREET NORTH, MARKHAM VILLAGE HCD
PROPOSED ADDITION TO HERITAGE HOUSE (16.11)

Extracts:           R. Hutcheson, Manager of Heritage Planning;

                        P. Wokral, Heritage Planner

 

HERITAGE MARKHAM RECOMMENDS:

 

THAT Heritage Markham recommends that the southern two storey bay window not be enveloped by the proposed addition and that the two most westerly walls of the bay window be retained in any future design proposal;

 

AND THAT the current vinyl replacement windows be replaced with new wood windows with true divided lights or exterior adhered muntins in a glazing pattern typical of Edwardian examples;

 

AND THAT Heritage Markham has no objection to the reconfiguration of the front porch stairs and entrance provided the existing ornamental brick railing is retained in part, and that a matching railing from reclaimed brick is constructed on the north side of the porch in the area of the former stairway and entrance.

 

CARRIED.

 

 

16.       SITE PLAN APPROVAL APPLICATION
FILE NO. SC 05 019840
22 JAMES SCOTT ROAD, MARKHAM VILLAGE HCD
SUBSITUTIONS FOR MATERIALS IN THE SITE PLAN AGREEMENT (16.11)

Extracts:           R. Hutcheson, Manager of Heritage Planning;

                        P. Wokral, Heritage Planner

 

HERITAGE MARKHAM RECOMMENDS:

 

THAT Heritage Markham has no objection to the use of “CLIMATE SHIELD PREMIUM 201 VS or 201 VSJ” vinyl clad wooden windows made by Sunrise Windows for use on 22 James Scott Road provided they are single or double hung, not casement windows; that they have true pane divisions or exterior adhered muntins; and that no exterior screens be installed on the elevation facing James Scott Road;

 

AND THAT Heritage Markham does not support the use of bricks larger than the “Ontario Size” brick specified in the Site Plan Agreement, but has no objection to the use of smaller than “Ontario Size” bricks in a size colour and texture approved by Heritage Staff;

 

AND THAT Heritage Markham does not support the use of vinyl patterned shingles for use as cladding on the dormer of 22 James Scott Road, but has no objection to substituting “Maybec” pre-finished wooden siding for natural wood, provided it is installed horizontally in a lapped fashion with a weather exposure no less than 4 inches and no more than 6 inches;

 

AND THAT Heritage Markham has no objection to the use of asphalt shingles provided they are in a neutral colour such as brown or black and not made to mimic natural wooden shingles;

 

AND THAT Heritage Markham does not support the installation of vinyl or metal shutters but recommends that the shutters be constructed of wood, with true louvers, being one half the width of the window opening and mounted so that they are operational.

 

CARRIED.

 

 

17.       SITE PLAN APPROVAL APPLICATION
FILE NO. SC 06 112362
14 PAVILLION STREET, UNIONVILLE HCD
PROPOSED REAR ADDITION TO HERITAGE HOUSE (16.11)

Extracts:           R. Hutcheson, Manager of Heritage Planning;

                        P. Wokral, Heritage Planner

 

HERITAGE MARKHAM RECOMMENDS:

 

THAT the footprint of the proposed addition be changed so that it does not project from both sides of the rear wall of the existing heritage house or that the design be revised to significantly mitigate the appearance of the proposed addition from extending out from both sides of the heritage house.

 

CARRIED.

 

 

18.       SIGN PERMIT
FILE NO. 05 023 159 00000 SP
101 MAIN STREET NORTH, MARKHAM VILLAGE HCD
PROPOSED EXTERNAL LIGHTING DEVICE (16.11)

Extracts:           R. Hutcheson, Manager of Heritage Planning;

                        P. Wokral, Heritage Planner

 

HERITAGE MARKHAM RECOMMENDS:

 

            THAT Heritage Markham has no objection to the proposed exterior illumination device for the Scotia Bank branch located at 101 Main Street North, Markham Village, provided it only directs light onto the sign, and that it is painted in a finish that matches the background material of the bank building.

 

CARRIED.

 

 

19.       SITE PLAN APPROVAL APPLICATION
BUILDING PERMIT APPLICATION
FILE NO. 05 023486 000 HP
107 JOHN STREET, THORNHILL VILLAGE HCD
PARTIAL DEMOLITION & FOUNDATION BUILDING PERMIT (16.11)

Extracts:           R. Hutcheson, Manager of Heritage Planning;

                        P. Wokral, Heritage Planner

 

HERITAGE MARKHAM RECOMMENDS:

 

THAT Heritage Markham has no objection to building permit 05 023486 000 1 HP for the construction of a new foundation and partial demolition for 107 John Street, provided the house is reconstructed according to the approved design in the Site Plan Agreement.

 

CARRIED.

 

 

20.       CORRESPONDENCE (16.11)

 

HERITAGE MARKHAM RECOMMENDS:

 

THAT the following Correspondence be received as information:

 

            (1)        The Brampton Heritage Times Newsletter, Fall 2005/Winter 2006;

 

(2)        Heritage Canada Foundation – Call for nominations to the Board of Governors;

 

(3)        Artslink Workshop on Municipal Cultural Planning – Wednesday, May 10 at Seneca College, King Campus; and

 

(4)        Heritage Canada Foundation – Federal Budget.

 

CARRIED.

 

 

21.       HERITAGE PERMIT APPLICATION

            53 JOHN STREET, THORNHILL HCD

PORCH POST REPLACEMENT (16.11)

Extracts:           R. Hutcheson, Manager of Heritage Planning

 

The Senior Heritage Planner gave a presentation on this application.

 

HERITAGE MARKHAM RECOMMENDS:

 

THAT Heritage Markham does not support the replacement of the existing simple wood posts on the porch at 53 John Street with stone piers because stone is not a permitted cladding material in the Thornhill Heritage Conservation District Plan.

 

CARRIED.

 

 

22.       OFFICIAL PLAN AMENDMENT APPLICATION

THORNHILL YONGE STREET STUDY – AMENDMENTS TO PLANNING DOCUMENTS (16.11)

Extracts:           R. Hutcheson, Manager of Heritage Planning;

                        R. Blake, Manager, West District

 

The Senior Heritage Planner gave a presentation on this matter.

 

HERITAGE MARKHAM RECOMMENDS:

 

THAT Heritage Markham has the following comments on the draft Official Plan Amendment for Thornhill Yonge Street Study:

 

-         section 12.2.4.1 – change “designated or listed heritage buildings” to “heritage buildings as identified in the Thornhill Heritage Conservation District Plan”;

-         section 12.3.4.3.c – change reference from “a listed or designated heritage building” to “a heritage building as identified in the Thornhill Heritage Conservation District Plan”;

-         section 12.3.4.6, section 12.3.5.4, and section 12.3.7.4  change reference from “Thornhill-Markham Heritage Conservation District Plan (1986)” to “Thornhill Heritage Conservation District Plan”;

-         section 12.3.8.1 –remove the word “Plan” from reference to “Thornhill Heritage Conservation District Plan”; and

-         revise Schedule C to ensure that the categories Heritage Main Street I and II are clearly identified.

 

CARRIED.

 

 

23.       POLICY
            THORNHILL HERITAGE CONSERVATION DISTRICT PLAN 2006 (16.11)

Extracts:           R. Hutcheson, Manager of Heritage Planning

 

The Senior Heritage Planner gave a presentation on this matter.

 

HERITAGE MARKHAM RECOMMENDS:

 

THAT Heritage Markham will hold a special separate Heritage Markham meeting on Wednesday, May 24, 2006, at 7:00 p.m. to discuss the draft Thornhill Heritage Conservation District Plan 2006.

 

CARRIED.

 

 

24.       POLICY
DRAFT LITTLE ROUGE CREEK CORRIDOR MANAGEMENT PLAN – REQUEST FOR COMMENTS (16.11)

Extracts:           R. Hutcheson, Manager of Heritage Planning;

                        L. Duoba, Environmental Planning and Rouge Park

 

The Senior Heritage Planner gave a presentation on this matter.

 

HERITAGE MARKHAM RECOMMENDS:

 

THAT Heritage Markham offers the following comments on the Little Rouge Corridor Management Plan – Draft March 2006.

 

·        No concerns with any of the basic Cultural Heritage Recommendation (2.1 to 2.14)

o       Support the archaeological recommendations

o       Support the consultation with recognized First Nations bands on issues related to aboriginal heritage in the Park

o       Support using a heritage building for the Archaeological Field School operated by Toronto and Region Conservation Authority

o       Support the requirement to conserve and maintain designated heritage buildings in their original locations

o       Support the requirement to maintain and restore designated heritage buildings as per the Designation Reports

o       Support conserving and maintaining the identified cultural heritage landscapes (building clusters, contextual settings, cemeteries and if possible agricultural uses) related to:

§         Christian Reesor Homestead and Reesor Family Cemetery (9035 Reesor)

§         John Wurtz House and Wurtz Family Cemetery (8847 Reesor)

§         Locust Hill Schoolhouse

§         Peter Reesor Homestead (7273 14th Ave)

§         Samual Reesor Homestead (7450 Reesor)

§         Historic Old Cedar Grove Road (assumed route of the historic Toronto Carrying Place Trail)

o       Support the Plan’s  recognition of the Town’s desire to potentially create heritage conservation districts around Cedar Grove and Locust Hill

o       Support the use by the Park of cultural heritage assistance programs

o       Support examining opportunities for lease terms on and within heritage properties that support long-term conservation initiatives

o       Support establishing a cultural heritage working committee to develop a cultural heritage programme for Rouge Park with the noted objectives.  Heritage Markham may want to actively participate on this committee

o       Support the incorporation of heritage interpretation activities and signage within the trail system.

 

·        Suggest that an additional recommendation would be to:

o       Explore the possibility of selling selected designated heritage properties within the Park with the minimum amount of land necessary and with a heritage easement agreement as a means to raise funding for other cultural heritage endeavours and to allow the private sector to maintain and restore the heritage resource.

 

·        Support the following Public Use and Recreation Recommendations related to cultural heritage:

o       Trails systems with interpretive trails promoting cultural and natural features interwoven into the system

o       Possible use of Cedarena and Locust Hill Schoolhouse as trailheads and recreation areas

o       Introducing compatible uses such as an archaeological field school, interpretive centre and demonstration farm

 

·        Support the following Economic and Financial Recommendations related to cultural heritage (with the noted addition):

o        investigating measures how to maximize revenues from the property portfolio including execution of long term leases to reduce the need for capital intensive improvements, but also explore the possibility of selling selected designated heritage properties within the Park with the minimum amount of land necessary and with a heritage easement agreement as a means to raise funding for other cultural heritage endeavours and to allow the private sector to maintain and restore the heritage resource.

o       Making use of funding and grant programs for restoration and conservation of heritage properties

 

·        Suggest reference be made in the Policy Context section ( either sub-sections 2.2.4 or 2.3) to the Provincial Policy Statement 2005 policies on Cultural Heritage and Archaeology dealing with built heritage resources, archaeological resources and development and site alteration.

 

·        Suggest that in section 3.3.2, the Nighswander Bros. Temperance Hotel and Store be mentioned in the 4th paragraph as it still exists and is owned by ORC.  Suggest that in the 9th paragraph, the sentence referring to Locust Hill be modified to state that “most” properties have been returned to private ownership

 

·        Suggest that the Plan should recommend that the Nighswander Bros. Temperance Hotel and Store be either transferred to Rouge Park (and properly maintained) or sold by ORC to the private sector with a Heritage Easement Agreement protecting the property.  There is reference in section 7.4.1 that it should be considered for Rouge Park acquisition, but it is not a formal recommendation.

 

·        Suggest that #2 issue in section 3.3.3 referring to historic farm complexes should indicate that the Agricultural context may be lost if the lands are targeted for “ecological” restoration.

 

·        Suggest that one of the issues that should have been mentioned in section 3.3.3- Cultural Heritage Issues and Opportunities is the potential sale of heritage properties to the private sector to address the need for extensive work as they have suffered significant decline during their years of public ownership and tenancy.

 

·        Suggest that in 3.5- Economic and Financial Considerations, Markham’s viewpoint on disposing of lands now under public ownership to private interests be indicated.  Only the views of Rouge Park and T.R.C.A. are mentioned.

 

·        Suggest that in section 3.5.3 –Residential Leases the reference to the cost of upgrading residential buildings and “earmarking those for demolition where costs are deemed prohibitive” not apply to heritage buildings.  If this policy is to apply to identified heritage buildings, the opportunity to sell them to the private sector with appropriate heritage easements should be explored.

 

·        Concern with the statement in section 3.5.4 Adaptive Re-use that states “the lack of public funds to undertake adaptive re-use projects and restorations may require long-term leases or potential disposition of certain properties to ensure that creative solution can be realized”.  Would this apply to heritage properties?

 

·        Section 3.5.5 Rouge Park Operating Expenses- Natural and Cultural Heritage costs of $480,000 are mentioned but it would be interesting to see a breakdown of how much is actually spend on cultural heritage projects as opposed natural heritage projects.

 

·        Support the Heritage Zones (Agricultural Reserve and Cultural Node).

 

·        Suggest amending section 6.4 Hamlets to refer to the proposed “study area boundaries” in the last paragraph and not the “proposed boundaries”.

 

·        In section 8.5.1 Execution of Long-term Leases, under the benefits of these leases it implies that conservation of built heritage is not priority in the Park:

 

o       #4 stated “The financial resources of Rouge Park and its partners can be targeted towards ecological restoration and other environmental matters of immediate importance, rather than capital improvement for private dwellings.

 

·        In section 8.6 Disposal of Land, it concludes that there is very little opportunity to sell any of the properties that were transferred in 2004 for Rouge Park purpose.  Suggest that the option for site specific private sales of heritage dwellings with Heritage Easement Agreements be further explored.

 

CARRIED.

 

 

25.       ZONING BY-LAW AMENDMENT APPLICATION

            PLAN OF SUBDIVISION

            FILE NO. ZA 06 112650, SU 06 109644

            5933 14TH AVENUE

INDUSTRIAL SUBDIVISION – HERITAGE HOUSE ISSUE (16.11)

Extracts:           R. Hutcheson, Manager of Heritage Planning;

                        N. Surti, Project Planner

 

The Senior Heritage Planner gave a presentation on this matter.

 

HERITAGE MARKHAM RECOMMENDS:

 

THAT Heritage Markham requests Heritage Section staff to undertake the necessary heritage research on the property to allow the Building Evaluation Sub-Committee to evaluate and classify the structure;

 

AND THAT the classification and possible designation of the property be referred to the June meeting of Heritage Markham.

 

CARRIED.

 

 

26.       SITE PLAN APPROVAL APPLICATION

            FILE NO. SC 05 024408

            107 JOHN STREET, THORNHILL HCD

REVISIONS TO DESIGN (16.11)

Extracts:           R. Hutcheson, Manager of Heritage Planning;

                        P. Wokral, Heritage Planner

 

The Heritage Planner gave a presentation on this application.

 

HERITAGE MARKHAM RECOMMENDS:

 

THAT the applicant consider the feedback of the Architectural Review

Sub-Committee and revise the proposal for the new stairwell;

 

AND THAT Heritage Markham does not support the proposed revisions

to the approved Site Plan Agreement drawings for the stairwell to the rear

upper deck as reviewed by the Architectural Review Sub-Committee on

May 4, 2006.

 

CARRIED.

 

 

27.       BUILDING PERMIT APPLICATION FILE NO. 06 111669HP

EXTENSION/REBUILDING OF SIDE DECK

22 JOSEPH STREET

JOHN SULLIVAN, APPLICANT (16.11)

Extracts:           Regan Hutcheson, Manager of Heritage Planning

 

HERITAGE MARKHAM RECOMMENDS:

 

THAT Heritage Markham receive this item as information.

 

CARRIED.

 

Ted Chisholm having declared a disclosure of interest with respect to Item 27, due to the fact that his brother-in-law is the applicant, did not participate in the voting with respect to this item.

 

 

28.       BUILDING PERMIT APPLICATION 06 112519HP

REPLACE HOOD FAN, ETC.

UNIONVILLE HOUSE RESTAURANT

187 MAIN STREET, UNIONVILLE HCD

GLENN EDWARDS, APPLICANT (16.11)

Extracts:           Regan Hutcheson, Manager of Heritage Planning

 

The Senior Heritage Planner gave a presentation on this application.

 

HERITAGE MARKHAM RECOMMENDS:

 

THAT Heritage Markham has no objection to the building permit application to replace the hood fan, etc. on the Unionville House Restaurant.

 

CARRIED.

 

 

29.       SITE PLAN CONTROL APPLICATION SC 05 026204

PROPOSED CHANGES TO WINDOW DESIGN

10 DEANBANK DRIVE, THORNHILL HCD

MR. O. ESCHETT, APPLICANT (16.11)

Extracts:           R.Hutcheson, Manager of Heritage Planning,

P. Wokral, Project Planner

 

HERITAGE MARKHAM RECOMMENDS:

 

THAT Heritage Markham recommends that the applicant provide samples of a “Woodwright” window and an “Integrity” window for review and comparison by the Architectural Review Sub-Committee;

 

AND THAT Heritage Marham refer the matter of the Palladian window to the Architectural Review Sub-Committee for comment.

 

CARRIED.

 

 

30.       SITE PLAN CONTROL APPLICATION SC 06 113115

TWO SINGLE FAMILY HOMES WITH A SHARED GARAGE

34-34A WASHINGTON STREET

MARKHAM VILLAGE HCD

594607 ONTARIO LIMITED (16.11)

Extracts:           Manager of Heritage Planning;

George Duncan, Project Planner

 

The Senior Heritage Planner gave a presentation on this application.

 

HERITAGE MARKHAM RECOMMENDS:

 

THAT Heritage Markham refer this application to the Architectural Review Sub-Committee with authority to approve.

 

CARRIED.

 

 

31.       BUILDING PERMIT APPLICATION 06 112597HP

ADDITION AND ALTERATION TO A HERITAGE HOUSE

10754 WOODBINE AVENUE (16.11)

Extracts:           R. Hutcheson, Manager of Heritage Planning;

P. Wokral, Project Planner

 

The Heritage Planner gave a presentation on this application.

 

HERITAGE MARKHAM RECOMMENDS:

 

THAT Heritage Markham has no objection to the proposed design for 10754 Woodbine Avenue provided the applicant deletes the eave return details on the gable above the north façade side entrance door, and that the false front door is properly recessed to appear like a real functioning door.

 

CARRIED.

 

 

32.       HERITAGE PERMIT APPLICATION

MASONRY REPOINTING AND STUCCO APPLICATION

128 MAIN STREET NORTH

MARKHAM VILLAGE HCD (16.11)

Extracts:           R. Hutcheson, Manager of Heritage Planning;

P. Wokral, Project Planner

 

The Senior Heritage Planner and the Heritage Planner gave a presentation on this application. Members of Heritage Markham had concerns about the use of stucco on the cement block portion of the building.

 

HERITAGE MARKHAM RECOMMENDS:

 

THAT Heritage Markham refer this application to the Architectural Review Sub-Committee with authority to approve.

 

CARRIED.

 

 

The meeting adjourned at 10:45 p.m.