RECOMMENDATION
That the report entitled “Application by
Canadawide Development Inc. for Secondary Plan and Zoning By-Law Amendments and
Site Plan Approval to Permit a Block of 7 Townhouses at 7070 Bayview Avenue,
(OP.02-119201, ZA.02-116764 and SC.02-116777)” be received;
And That the Secondary Plan, Zoning
By-Law Amendment and Site Plan Approval applications be denied.
PURPOSE
This report provides background
information and makes recommendations about proposed amendments to the
Thornhill Secondary Plan and Zoning By-law 1767, as amended and an application
for Site Plan approval. If approved the
application would permit development of 7 townhouse units and result in the
demolition of a designated heritage dwelling.
The report concludes that the development as proposed is not acceptable
and that the applications should be denied.
BACKGROUND
Location and Property
The 0.468 hectare (1.156 acre) property
is located on the west side of Bayview Avenue, north of Steeles Avenue
East. (See Figure 1) The site is comprised of approximately 0.253
hectares (0.625 acres) of table land and 0.215 hectares (0.531 acres) of valley
land. There is an existing single
detached heritage dwelling on the property.
This building is a heritage resource, built in the late 1930’s,
identified as the “Aldebarron”. This
heritage dwelling is an excellent example of a Colonial Revival styled estate
home. The style of the house and period
of construction, during the Great Depression, make the home particularly rare
for Markham. It represents the
beginning of a trend of wealthy Toronto families building estate homes in the
“countryside” that was Markham in the 1930’s.
The property was designated under the Ontario Heritage Act on October
29, 2002.
Area Context
To the north, on Whitelaw Court, is an
existing low density residential neighbourhood, comprised of single detached
dwellings on lots with average frontages of approximately 28.61 m (93.86 feet)
and average areas of approximately 1,183 m2 (12,741.1 ft2). The gross density of this 20 lot
subdivision is estimated to be 5.68 units per hectare (2.30 units per acre).
To the immediate south, at 7050 Bayview
Avenue, is an existing single detached dwelling fronting onto Bayview
Avenue. Further south, 7006 and 7030
Bayview are vacant. At the northwest
corner of Bayview Avenue and Steeles Avenue East, is a municipal bus loop. To the west is valley land and to the east,
across Bayview Avenue, is the Tridel development site, where a 7-storey, 93
unit condominium apartment building (approved by the Ontario Municipal Board)
is currently being built.
The applications submitted include an
application to demolish the existing designated heritage dwelling
On June 5, 2002 the owner applied for a
demolition permit to remove the existing heritage dwelling and the associated
accessory building (DP.02-109119). At
its meeting of September 3, 2002 Council adopted Heritage Markham’s
recommendation that the application for demolition be denied. (See Appendix
‘B’.) In October of 2002 the owner
submitted Site Plan and Zoning By-Law amendment applications. A complete
application to amend the Town’s Official Plan was submitted to the Town in
December 2002. (A copy of the Draft
Official Plan amendment submitted by the applicant is attached, see Appendix
‘A’.) The owner has appealed the
Official Plan, Zoning and Site Plan applications to the Ontario Municipal
Board.
The existing heritage dwelling would be
replaced with a 7 unit townhouse block
The owner proposes to “remove” the
existing heritage dwelling and to construct a 7 unit 3-storey townhouse
block. The new building would be
approximately 11 m (36 feet) high. The
garages would be partially below grade and access to them would be from driveways
with reverse slopes. (See Figures 4 and
5) The units would range in size from
269.41 m2 (2,900 square feet) to 387.85 m2 (4,175 square
feet). These figures do not include the
basements and the garages. The proposed
setback to Bayview Avenue would range from approximately 17.5 m (57.4 feet) at
the south end to approximately 35 m (114.8 feet) at the north end. The north and south side yards would be
approximately 1.2 metres (3.9 feet) and the buildings would be located
approximately 10 m (32.8 feet) from the top of bank.
The existing driveway, onto Bayview
Avenue, would be retained as the sole access to the site. Each dwelling would have an attached garage,
which would provide parking for one car.
The second required parking space would be on the driveway in front of
each dwelling. Three visitor parking
spaces are also proposed. (See Figure
4).
Heritage Markham comments
On
June 21, 2002 Heritage Markham resolved not to support the demolition of the
“Alderbarron” house and recommended that it be designated under Part IV of the
Ontario Heritage Act. In a subsequent
report dated August 26, 2002 to Development Services Committee, staff recommended that Council deny the
application for the demolition and that a By-law be prepared to designate the
“Alderbarron” house. On September 3,
2002 Council adopted these recommendations.
The By-law to designate the house was passed by Council on October 29,
2002. (A copy of By-Law 2002-36 is
attached, see Appendix ‘D’)
The York Region Official Plan
The York Region
Official Plan contains policies designed to conserve cultural heritage
resources. Where properties may have a
heritage resource, the Region’s policies require the development proponent to
have an evaluation of the building done and, in co-operation with the area
municipality and the Region, prepare a strategy for conserving the
resource. The proponent’s evaluation
and strategy have not yet been submitted to the Region or the Town. Consequently, the Region can not finalize
their comments on this proposal.
Town
staff have not requested the Official Plan amendment be exempt from Regional
approval. Consequently, the Region is
still the approval authority for the Official Plan amendment application.
Markham Official Plan and Secondary Plan designations
The Official
Plan designates the table land portion of the site “Urban Residential” and the
valley lands portion as “Hazard Lands”.
It states that the predominant use in “Urban Residential” areas shall be
for housing and related purposes and that “Hazard Lands” are intended primarily
for preservation and conservation of lands in their natural state. The Thornhill Secondary Plan designates the
valley lands and a portion of the table lands as “Hazard Land and Buffer Area”,
The “Hazard Land” component refers to the lands located below the top of bank
or regulatory flood line. The “Buffer
Area” is located on the adjacent table land.
The remainder of the table land is designated as “Low Density Housing”.
“Low Density
Housing” consists of single detached, semi-detached and single-attached
dwellings with direct frontage on a public street (i.e. street
townhouses). The Low Density housing
mix shall generally not exceed a gross residential density of 14.8 units per
hectare (6 units per acre). Gross density
calculations do not include the hazard lands.
Since the gross
residential density of the proposed development is approximately 27.64 units
per hectare (11.18 units per acre) and the townhouses’ don’t have direct
frontage on a public street, an amendment to the Thornhill Secondary Plan to
redesignate the lands to Medium Density Housing is necessary. The Medium Density Housing provisions of the Thornhill
Secondary Plan provide densities generally less than 35 units per hectare
(14.16 units per acre). The applicant’s draft Official Plan Amendment
(see Appendix ‘A’) does not propose to redesignate the lands but seeks to
permit the higher density within the Low Density Designation.
The Thornhill Secondary Plan
identifies areas where re-development and intensification are considered
feasible and appropriate. This site is
not located within an area where residential intensification was previously
contemplated. Consequently, the owner’s
request represents a substantive change to the secondary plan policies. Therefore, in evaluating the proposal
Council should consider the merits of the proposed change within the broader
context of established development patterns and the secondary plans vision of
where re-development should occur in Thornhill.
The Markham
Official Plan contains specific policies regarding heritage conservation. The
expressed goal of the conservation policies is to preserve and continue the
distinctive tradition, history and heritage of Markham’s communities in
co-ordination with the comprehensive planning needs and requirements of the
Town. One of the objectives of this
goal is to ensure historically and architecturally significant buildings and
properties are protected and preserved.
The
Thornhill Secondary Plan contains criteria for evaluating residential
intensification proposals
The Thornhill Secondary Plan recognizes
that additions to the housing stock in Thornhill will primarily be in the form
of multiple housing through intensification of underutilized sites or
areas. In addition to the density
policy outlined earlier, the Thornhill Secondary Plan sets out specific
criteria for evaluating residential intensification proposals. Where new development is proposed near
existing low density housing, it should be regulated so as to avoid any
significant adverse impact on the nearby low density areas. Consequently, Council should consider both
the on-site and off-site effects of the proposal, including:
·
The
capacity of the site for additional units;
·
The
effect upon landscaping, setbacks and other amenities in terms of both site
development and separation or buffering from adjacent lands;
·
The
effect of the height and form of development so that there are no undue adverse
effects in terms of overshadowing or loss of amenity;
·
The
relationship with lower density areas, in order to provide a gradual transition
in height and density, and other buffering measures; and
·
The
effect of increased traffic and parking so that there are no undue adverse
impacts on local residential streets serving the low density area. (The applicant has submitted a traffic
study, which is currently under review).
Hazard Land and Buffer Areas
Existing Zoning
The
property is currently zoned “First Density Residential” (R1) under by-law 1767
as amended, which permits the following uses:
“(a) One
single family detached dwelling on each registered lot;
(b) Park,
playgrounds and other recreational areas under the control of a Municipality or
public authority;
(c) Schools
under the jurisdiction of a Public School Board or a Separate School Board.”
Townhouse dwellings are not
permitted. Therefore, a rezoning is
required if the proposal is to proceed.
DISCUSSION
The Official
Plan recognizes that at times re-development proposals and heritage
conservation objectives may be in competition.
Consequently, the Plan supports a reasonable compromise that allows
re-development provided the proposed building alterations do not affect the
reasons for preserving heritage building.
The development, as currently proposed, requires the demolition of the “Aldebarron” house or its
removal from the site which severely compromises the heritage home’s benefit to
the community. The applicant has not
presented any re-development proposals that incorporate the heritage dwelling
into the proposed development. At one
time the applicant did suggest moving the central wing forward on the property
and preserving it as a separate residential unit. However, this option has not been formally submitted by the
applicant.
Although staffs’ immediate concern centres on
the removal of the heritage dwelling from the site, there are a number of other
unresolved issues that also need to be dealt with prior to any re-development
occurring on the site.
·
confirmation of the location of the stable top of
bank and dedication of the hazard lands to the Town or the Toronto and Region
Conservation Authority;
·
provision of a 10 metre environmental buffer
adjacent to the hazard lands;
·
re-vegetation of the buffer area;
·
density,
land use, urban design and streetscape issues;
·
site and building layout, including issues such as
setbacks and the provision of an appropriately sized outdoor amenity area in an
suitable location (i.e. not coincident with the environmental buffer area);
·
tree and vegetation preservation (a comprehensive tree
inventory and preservation plan is required); and
·
traffic and parking.
Site Plan Application
The owner has also submitted a site plan
application for the proposal (SC.02-116777).
Site Plan approval for townhouses has been delegated by Council to the
Director of Planning and Urban Design.
However, staff recommend that the site plan application also be denied
by Council as it not only fails to incorporate the “Aldebarron” heritage dwelling into the proposal, but also fails
to address staffs’ other concerns.
FINANCIAL CONSIDERATIONS
None
BUSINESS UNITS CONSULTED AND AFFECTED
The proposal
has been circulated to other Town Departments and public agencies.
CONCLUSION
Staff recommend that the Official Plan
and Zoning By-law amendments and the Site Plan applications be refused because
the proposal does not incorporate the heritage dwelling into the re-development
and also fails to deal with other issues such as density, land use, site layout
and the provision of an adequate environmental buffer. Should a re-development proposal,
incorporating the heritage dwelling be submitted, the other issues, as outlined
in this report would require resolution.
ATTACHMENTS
Figure 1 – Applicant/Agent + Location Map
Figure 2 – Area Context/Zoning
Figure 3 – Aerial Photo
Figure 4 – Proposed Site Plan
Figure 5 – Proposed Building Elevations
Appendix ‘A’ - Draft Secondary Plan Amendment
Appendix ‘B’ - Extract for the Minutes of the Council Meeting
held on September 3, 2002
Appendix ‘C’ - August 26, 2002 Report to Development Services
Committee meeting
Appendix ‘D’ - October 29, 2002 Designation By-Law 2002-36
Appendix ‘E’ - November
21, 2002 Heritage Markham extract
|
|
|
|
|
Valerie Shuttleworth, MCIP, RPP
Director of Planning and Urban Design
|
|
Jim Baird, MCIP, RPP
Commissioner of Development Services
|
