Report to: Development Services Committee                           Report Date: December 2, 2008

 

 

 

SUBJECT:                          Proposed Replication of John Mapes House

                                            7166 14th Avenue

                                            Box Grove Hill Developments Inc.

PREPARED BY:               Regan Hutcheson, Manager-Heritage Planning, ext 2080

 

 

RECOMMENDATION:

That the proposal by Box Grove Hill Developments Inc. to replicate the John Mapes House (7166 14th Avenue), as opposed to restore the original building, not be supported;

 

That Town staff undertake all necessary actions to ensure that the owner fulfills the heritage requirements and obligations as identified in the Subdivision Agreement applicable to this property;

 

And that Staff be authorized and directed to do all things necessary to give effect to this resolution.

 

1. Purpose       2. Background         3. Discussion        4. Financial      5. Others (Strategic, Affected Units)       6. Attachment(s)

 

 

PURPOSE:

To discuss a proposal to replicate the existing John Mapes House as requested by Box Grove Hill Developments Inc.

 

BACKGROUND:

Heritage house is designated and is to be preserved in the Box Grove community

The John Mapes House is a one and a half storey, frame building designated in 2003 under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act.  It was previously owned by the Province of Ontario (Ontario Realty Corporation) and was sold to its current owners Box Grove Hill Developments Inc. in 2003.  Its present location is 7166 14th Avenue.

 

Heritage house preservation was a condition of subdivision approval

Due to the need for a storm water management pond, the John Mapes House and the adjacent John Noble Ramer House, circa 1870 were approved to be relocated from their existing sites to lots adjacent to the Box Grove hamlet (see Appendix ‘E’).  The Ramer House has been successfully relocated to a lot at the northwest corner of 14th Avenue and Ninth Line By-Pass (6890 14th Avenue), and is being converted to a daycare.  The Mapes House is to be relocated to 6888 14th Avenue.   

 

The plan of subdivision which affected the subject lands was approved by Council in August 2004, subject to conditions.  Prior to registration of the subdivision, the owner was required:

·        to provide a reference plan for each heritage lot to allow the designation by-law and easement agreement to be registered;

·        to enter into a Heritage Easement Agreement;

·        to post a $25,000 Heritage Letter of Credit;

·        to maintain the building in good and sound condition at all times prior to and during the development of the property; and

·        to enter into a Subdivision Agreement including provisions to relocate, restore and commemorate the building.

 

The Subdivision Agreement dated May 6, 2005, includes the requirement to enter into a site plan agreement with the Town, including a restoration plan and “complete the exterior restoration of the Heritage Building as per the Heritage Easement Agreement and connect all municipal services to the lot and ensure basic standards of occupancy as confirmed by Building Standards Department within one year of registration of the Plan of Subdivision”.  The date of plan registration was July 6, 2005.

 

John Mapes House is subject to a Heritage Easement Agreement

A Heritage Easement Agreement was registered on title to the property on June 2, 2004.  The Agreement details the permitted alterations and development including the relocation and restoration requirements.  The Agreement also requires the owner to keep the building insured and to “maintain the building in as good and as sound a state of repair as a prudent owner would normally do, so that no deterioration in the building’s condition and appearance shall take place, including, without limiting the generality of the foregoing, taking all reasonable measures to secure and protect the building from vandalism, fire and damage from inclement weather”.

 

Building is in poor condition

Notwithstanding the obligations the owner committed to in the Heritage Easement and Subdivision Agreement, the building continues to deteriorate and is in poor condition.  The building is not secured, animals have infiltrated the premises, the basement is filled with water and vandalism has occurred (see Appendix ‘D’ for photographs of current condition versus when tenanted).

 

Owner entered into a Site Plan Agreement for the Heritage Building

In October 2005, the owner received Site Plan Approval to relocate the house to the west, to a property at 6888 14th Avenue and to restore the existing building (see Appendix ‘C’).  This application was a requirement of the Subdivision Agreement.  The new lot is adjacent to the relocated John Ramer House.

 

Owner applied for foundation permit for the Heritage House

In February 2008, a Building Permit application was submitted for the foundation for the relocated John Mapes House.  The plans are in accordance with the approved site plan and elevation drawings, and the permit was signed off by Heritage Section staff .

 

Owner requests permission to replicate the Heritage House

In August 2008, the owner submitted correspondence detailing the condition of the John Mapes House and requesting approval of construction of a replica of the house at the new lot rather than relocation of the existing house (see Appendix ‘A’). Also included in the submission were:

·        a condition report prepared by structural engineers Uderstadt Associates Inc.

·        a condition report prepared by architectural firm Hunt Design Associates Inc.

·        a letter from Danco House Raising and Moving.

 

The conclusions contained in all submissions are that the house is not in sound condition, or of an appropriate design, to merit its relocation to the new site.  The owners are of the opinion that the house is not viable for modern use or marketability.  They noted that by the time all of the damaged or outdated material is removed and replaced, very little of the original building will remain.  Their proposal is to salvage material from the house that is of heritage value and is in sound condition, and create a reconstructed version as a residential dwelling.

 

Heritage Markham does not support the replica approach

The Architectural Review Sub-Committee of Heritage Markham recently undertook two site visits to the property.  The conclusion of those visiting the site was:

·        the John Mapes House should be relocated and restored on its new site, as per the requirements of the Subdivision Agreement;

·        it was agreed that the building could be marketable as a modestly-scaled residence, and its pre-restoration/relocation condition was not unlike other 19th century buildings that have been preserved in Markham.

·        it was agreed that any structural issues should be addressed prior to relocation to ensure the house will be moved without any problems.

·        it was acknowledged that mechanical systems, kitchen and bathroom fixtures, and awkward aspects of the interior layout are typically removed and updated when heritage buildings are restored and renovated, to bring them up to current standards of liveability.

 

Heritage Markham reviewed the proposal at its meeting of October 8, 2008.  The applicant was in attendance and presented his proposal to the committee.  Heritage Markham recommended that the house be relocated as per the original requirement of the Subdivision Agreement and that any structural issues can be addressed on-site prior to relocation. (see Appendix ‘B’)

 

OPTIONS/ DISCUSSION:

Heritage policies support preservation of the resource, not replication

Heritage resources are fragile gifts from the past generation.  They are not a renewable resource.  Once lost, they are gone forever.   Federal, Provincial and Markham heritage policies all support retention and preservation, not replication.

 

Owner has been negligent in protecting the heritage resource

The building is currently in poor condition.  A site visit undertaken in December 2003 by Heritage Section staff and the owner found the building vacant and securely boarded.  The interior was found to be in a habitable condition (it had previously been a rental property for the ORC).  Since that time the owner has failed to comply with the preservation responsibilities associated with the building.  Both the Heritage Easement Agreement from 2004 and the Subdivision Agreement from 2005 include provisions requiring the owner to “maintain the building in a good and sound condition”.

 

Further, the owner had an obligation in the Subdivision Agreement to complete the exterior restoration of the Heritage Building as per the Heritage Easement Agreement and connect all municipal services to the lot and ensure basic standards of occupancy by July 2006 (one year from registration of the Plan of Subdivision). 

 

Analysis of the owner’s professional advice

The owner has submitted three reports supporting his proposal for replication:

a) Uderstadt Associates Inc, (August 2004)

-         the letter provides a condition report describing many elements that would be removed in any proper upgrade and renovation (replacement of rotted wood joists and need for new electrical, heating and plumbing services).

-         the letter indicates that extensive work would be required to make the house suitable for residential occupancy citing layout, width of halls and stairs and clearances.  Although staff encourages the retention of interior features and layouts, most renovated heritage buildings involve a complete renewal of interior elements.  Also, people purchasing a heritage house often appreciate the ‘quirky’ features that reflect its historical origins.

 

b) Hunt Design Associates Inc.(July 2008)

-         the letter from this design firm indicates similar comments to the Uderstadt report.

-         many of comments relate to the Building Code requirements for modern construction not acknowledging that this is a heritage building (i.e. hallway and stair widths, headroom, staircase treads and risers, insulation).  These are features that can be retained as they are an as-built situation or can be repaired and/or corrected.

-         according to the letter, the practical solution is to demolish and build a replica. using certain elements of the existing house to create “a heritage feel and finish”.

 

c) Danco House Raising and Moving (August 2008)

-         this firm is rightly concerned about the poor condition of the floor joists.

-         the solution is to replace or reinforce the joists on-site before relocation.

-         the owner may also wish to consult with other building movers.

 

The condition of this structure is typical to many untenanted buildings, and not unlike buildings that staff deals with throughout Markham, including many of the buildings relocated to Markham Heritage Estates.   These problems are repairable.

 

Owner wants to replicate the house

The owner has provided the following reasons for no longer being committed to relocation of the existing house.  Staff comments follow:

  • the extensive renovations will essentially eliminate all aspects of the original house.
    • Staff: It is acknowledged that the relocated house will have new shingles, new exterior siding and a new foundation as well as new interior upgrades.  The new siding was permitted as the existing historic stucco was damaged during the installation of later sidings and the lack of maintenance over the years.  However, this is not dissimilar to houses relocated to Markham Heritage Estates which often receive new roofs, siding and are placed on a new foundation.  The original windows would be repaired and the interior framing would be that of the original house as well as any interior retained features.
  • The renovations would eliminate any historic attributes and the end result would be a poor and unmarketable layout
    • Staff: Retention of the original structure would preserve the one key historic attribute- the real heritage house that was constructed in the 1800s.  There is no objection to the modification of the interior elements to improve the layout or modernize the dwelling while recognizing that this is not a new house, but a house from the 1800s.
  • Architectural drawings have been prepared which replicate the original exterior while providing a modern interior
    • Staff: Although the owner has maintained that the new building would be a replica of the original, it appears that the new building has been designed to be somewhat larger in size than the original.
  • The building would be disassembled and reassembled at the new location salvaging heritage features that can reused.
    • Staff: Once a building is taken apart it must be reassembled in compliance with the current day Building Code.  It is unlikely that any of the existing structural elements would meet current standards once taken apart and could not be used.  However, the Building Code does not treat relocating an existing building in the same manner (e.g. Markham Heritage Estates houses).

 

Conclusion

The proposal by the owner to replicate the John Mapes House on its new lot rather than relocate and restore the original building should not be supported for the following reasons:

-         Replication is not an appropriate substitute for retention and preservation of the original heritage resource;

-         The owner has not fulfilled the heritage conservation requirements of the Subdivision Agreement regarding the house restoration within the allocated time period and has failed to adequately maintain the house which has resulted in its deteriorated condition;

-         The identified maintenance and structural issues associated with the house are not uncommon for heritage houses that were built in the 1800s and have been left vacant and not maintained.  The issues of concern can be addressed through modification and repair; and

-         Support for this initiative would set an undesirable precedent for other property owners within our community.

 

FINANCIAL TEMPLATE

Not applicable

 

ALIGNMENT WITH STRATEGIC PRIORITIES:

The protection and conservation of heritage resources is a key component of the community’s Growth Management. 

 

DEPARTMENTS CONSULTED AND AFFECTED:

Heritage Markham, Council’s heritage advisory committee was consulted on the proposal.

 

RECOMMENDED

                            BY:

 

 

 

 

 

 

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

 

 

 

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

Appendix ‘A’             Letter from Box Grove Hill Developments Inc. (August 19, 2008)

Appendix ‘B’             Heritage Markham Recommendation (October 8, 2008)

Appendix ‘C’             Approved Site Plan and Elevations (May 12, 2005)

Appendix ‘D’             Photographs of the Building (when tenanted and current)

Appendix ‘E’              Existing Location and New Lot

 

 

Q:\Development\Heritage\PROPERTY\FOURTNTH\6888 Mapes House\DSC Report Dec 2 2008.doc