HomeMy WebLinkAboutCS 04-07
CiUI c~
REPORT TO
EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE
Report Number: CS 04-07
Date: January 22, 2007
{':- ,/'
ti \j.1..
From:
Gillis A. Paterson
Director, Corporate Services & Treasurer
Subject:
Heritage Permit Application 001/06
- Submission under the Ontario Heritage Act
- 325 Whitevale Road, Pickering
Recommendation:
Council Direction Required
Executive Summary: On July 24, 2006 Council approved a formal application
process for alterations, additions or demolitions or erection of a building in a Heritage
Conservation District. Cimas Construction submitted Heritage Permit Application
#001/06 for property municipally known as 325 Whitevale Road. The purpose of the
application is to permit the new construction of a single-family residential dwelling within
the Whitevale Heritage District. In accordance with the heritage permit application
procedure established under the Ontario Heritage Act, Council is the delegated
authority to consent or refuse the application.
Financial Implications: Not applicable.
Background: On July 10, 2006, Cimas Construction Ltd. submitted a heritage
permit application, pending approval of the process by Council on July 24, 2006. A
copy of the application is included as Attachment #1 to this report. It should be noted
that the Applicant has been in discussions with Heritage Pickering since the beginning
of the year, prior to final plans being drawn up. As part of the City's goal for process
improvements, the heritage permit application process was implemented in order to
facilitate decisions with respect to heritage properties. As part of the heritage permit
application process, comments are solicited from the Planning & Development
Department and Heritage Pickering. If deemed necessary, at the discretion of the Chief
Building Official, Planning & Development will also seek a peer review from a qualified
heritage consultant on the subject application.
Report CS 04-07
Heritage Permit Application HPA 001/06
January 22,2007
Page 2
(~ r.......
I.J v (;.,
Comments
Planninq & Development Department:
After careful review, the Planning & Development Department is recommending
approval of Heritage Permit Application HPA 001/06. The proposal generally conforms
to established guidelines for new buildings that the applicant can reasonably be
expected to comply with, given the background, context and the lot to which this
application applies. It is noted by the Planning & ,Development Department that the
applicant's architect prepared the final design documents after consultation with
Heritage Pickering.
The Whitevale Heritage District Guidelines includes some general recommendations for
new buildings, and were intended to provide for some flexibility and accommodation in
their design. The guidelines state that:
new buildings should respect the prevailing character of adjacent buildings,
streetscape and district through compatible location, height, setback, orientation,
materials, fenestration, scale and proportion.
The applicant's proposal is for a two storey detached dwelling of about 3400 square
feet on a 2/3 acre vacant corner lot at the western edge of the hamlet. The location,
height, setback, orientation, materials and fenestration are in general accordance with
the District Guidelines. The dwelling is somewhat larger than some adjacent heritage
dwellings. It is probably unreasonable and impractical, however, to mandate that the
applicant match the proposed building to the scale of the immediately adjacent
dwelling, which is located on a much smaller lot. The proposed building conforms to all
zoning requirements and the applicant has incorporated significant setbacks to the
neighbouring heritage dwellings that are much in excess of permitted minimums.
The June 1, 2006 comments provided by the Chair, Heritage Pickering, are
understandably advocating a high level of heritage design compliance. When
measured against this new building proposal, they reflect a more particular and
restrictive approach to architectural control in the District than has been the case in the
past.
In considering whether to apply greater heritage obligations in this case, Council should
consider that:
a uniquely liberal approach to implementing a conservation District was applied
by Council in Whitevale. At the time of implementation, any owner wishing to be
exempt was allowed to do so. As a result, the District today contains
approximately 20 lots whose owners are not obliged to comply with any heritage
requirements.
Report CS 04-07
Heritage Permit Application HPA 001/06
January 22, 2007
Page 3
r
r~n"
~_.' u ,~'j
the 1990 Whitevale Heritage Conservation District Plan, prepared by the City by
Unterman McPhail Heritage Resource Consultants, recommended that the
introduction of new buildings into Whitevale be accepted as part of the
continuing change that all communities experience. It was not intended that the
Conservation District limit new building forms to only those that exist.
the application of more prescriptive and restrictive architectural criteria has
generally been reserved for construction directly associated with existing
heritage buildings, in order to protect their integrity.
a contemporary new building design using traditional elements is acceptable and
consistent with the established District Guidelines.
It is considered desirable to apply more prescriptive control to all applications, the
current District exemptions and Guidelines should first be re-examined. Prior to City
application of these standards, it is essential that more descriptive information and
consultation be available for applicants before they proceed with detailed construction
plans. If it is decided to move in this direction, it is recommended that:
1. The District Plan Guidelines be reviewed, and more detailed information
incorporated, prior to being considered for adoption by Council;
2. Commentary and recommendations be obtained from a qualified heritage
consultant on the revised guidelines; and
3. The District boundaries be amended to incorporate currently exempt properties,
in order to further District integrity and ensure consistency of heritage control.
Heritaqe Pickerinq Comments
As requested, the plans submitted for 325 Whitevale Road have been reviewed by the
Committee. Heritage Pickering has used section 5.4 New Buildings in the Whitevale
Heritage Conservation District Guide to provide guidance for our recommendations.
Heritage Pickering is disappointed to see that none of the feedback provided to the
owners in our June 2006 memo, during informal consultation, have been incorporated
into this formal application. In light of this fact, Heritage Pickering maintains its
concerns previously expressed and has listed the recommended changes to the
application based on the Whitevale Heritage Conservation District Guide:
5.4. 1 New buildings should be visually compatible with adjacent properties and the
streetscape.
5.4.3 Maintain the rural settlement pattern to protect the integrity of this area, and to
reinforce the distinct character of the hamlet...
The proposed dwelling is significantly larger in size as well as design than any adjacent
property. While we do not advocate that the dwelling must match the scale of adjacent
Report CS 04-07
Heritage Permit Application HPA 001/06
- ('.'. n ;'
· \J "1
January 22, 2007
Page 4
properties, it is reasonable to expect that it would be closer in proportion than in the
current application. The site of this property is in a very visible location, and therefore,
will have a significant impact on the consistency of the settlement pattern. Located on
property at the west end gateway of the Hamlet, the proposed dwelling does not
maintain the rural settlement pattern. This type of building is more consistent with new
subdivisions, not a rural Hamlet that is a designated Heritage Conservation District.
5.4.6 A building form which is proportionately greater in width than depth and of a side
gable design is encouraged. Extended rear sections to form the traditional T
shape is encouraged where additional floor space. is needed.
The owner was encouraged to redesign the plans to fit more closely to the above
description instead of the current, very modern, design in order for this dwelling to fit
more consistently in with the surrounding neighbourhood.
5.4.7 Roofs of new buildings should - match those of neighbouring buildings in shape
and pitch; be a side or end gable design; be tow to medium pitch; utilize cedar or
asphalt shingles. Steep pitches, cross-gable, flat and mono-pitch roofs, and
polygonal towers should be avoided...
It appears from the drawings that the roof lines may not follow some of the above
guidelines, namely not being a side or end gable design and the tower-like portion of
the west end of the building is not consistent with rural hamlet structures.
5.4.9 Windows and doors in new buildings should - be generally vertical and
rectangular; be limited in size so as to be similar to heritage buildings in the
proportion of openings to solid wall; avoid the use of snap in muntins, decorative
shapes such as bulls-eyes, keystones, quoins and other decorative surrounds.
While the majority of windows are vertical and rectangular, there are a large number of
windows in proportion to the solid walls. In addition, there are a number of half circle
windows and one fully round window that should be removed or replaced.
5.4. 12 Garages should not form a part of the front fac;ade. A less conspicuous location
is recommended.
Although the garage doors do not face the street, the garage does form a part of the
front facade, significantly increasing the overall size of the structure. 5.5.4
recommends garages be located to the rear of the property.
The proposed design does follow guidelines 5.4.2 (maximum structure height), 5.4.4
(setbacks), 5.4.5 (street facing walls parallel to the road), 5.4.11 (exterior wall finish).
It has been noted that Heritage Pickering's comments represent a shift to a more
particular and restrictive approach that has been the case in the past. With the recent
passing of the revisions to the Ontario Heritage Act, we now have a better foundation
on which to protect heritage assets that was not afforded in the past. While not
Report CS 04-07
Heritage Permit Application HPA 001/06
January 22,2007
Page 5
"" "'-
UUJ
necessarily popular, recommendations that preserve the heritage of this area are
needed.
With respect to the liberal approach to implementing the conservation district,
specifically that owners were allowed to be exempt, Heritage Pickering is currently
working with the Whitevale and District Residents' Association to remove these
exemptions. In addition, it should be noted that the current property in the application is
not exempt from the heritage district and subject to the guidelines. In fact, the new
legislation affords some protection to those exempted properties in Whitevale though
policy 2.6.3 which states that "Development and site alteration may b~ permitted on
adjacent lands to protected heritage property where the proposed development and site
alteration has been evaluated and it has been demonstrated that the heritage attributes
of the protected heritage property will be conserved. Mitigative measurers and/or
alternative development approaches may be required in order to conserve the heritage
attributes of the protected heritage property affected by the adjacent development or
site alteration."
Heritage Pickering has attempted to implement and use guidelines available to us in
considering this application. The provincial Ministry of Culture refers to Parks Canada -
Standards and Guidelines for the Conservation of Historic Places in Canada - New
Additions to Historic Places recommendations of "Placing a new addition on a non-
character-defining portion and limiting its size and scale in relationship to the historic
place (Whitevale Heritage Conservation District)."
They do not recommend "constructing a new addition so that the character-defining
features of the historic resource (Whitevale Heritage Conservation District) are
obscured, damaged or destroyed, or the heritage value is otherwise underminded" and
"Designing and constructing new additions that diminish or eliminate the historic
character of the resource, including its design, materials, workmanship, location or
setting" and "Designing a new addition that obscured, damages or destroys character-
defining features of the historic place or undermines its heritage value." Based on the
points referred to previously, Heritage Pickering believes that guidelines are not being
met.
In addition, as noted, a review of the current heritage conservation district guidelines so
that they may be provided to applicants before they proceed with detailed plans is
needed and Heritage Pickering has identified this as a responsibility. In the absence of
this, Heritage Pickering has been involved with informal consultations, including with the
applicants, in order to provide comments, suggestions and/or recommendations. In this
case, the applicants did not see fit to incorporate any of Heritage Pickering's comments
into the final plans.
While the position of Heritage Pickering may represent a shift from previous positions, it
also represents the opportunity to preserve the heritage assets of the City of Pickering.
Property owners are aware of restrictions on heritage property, either in a district or
individual designations, when it is purchased and it is incumbent on our committee to
uphold the protection that designation affords to properties and districts.
Report CS 04-07
Heritage Permit Application HPA 001/06
January 22, 2007
Page 6
U" (., '.
.." j ...
_ }1 U
For the reasons stated above, Heritage Pickering cannot support the plans as currently
proposed and would, therefore, recommend that Council not approve the application.
Should changes be considered based on the recommendations made in our memo, the
owners will achieve a better balance of integration of a new structure onto a
prime/gateway location within the Heritage Conservation District.
Attachments:
1. Heritage Permit Application HPA 001/06
(Correspondence included as part of the application)
2. Location Map for 325 Whitevale Road
Prepared By:
Approved I Endorsed By:
~~~
Debi A. Bentley
City Clerk
(;/~~
~:=~,
Gillis A. Paterson
Director, Corporate Services & Treasurer
GAP:db:ks
Attachments
Copy: Chief Administrative Officer
;'/
ATTACHMENT #
I c\,) 'Q'f -0 '7
TO REPORio1lerina C ic Complex
Esplanade
. . - Pickering, Ontario
Canada
L1 V 6K7
Direct Access 99905.420.4660
Cityofpickering .com
RECEIVED
CITY OF PICKERING
.JUL 1 02006
:ORPORATE SERVICES DEPARTMENT
:Ierk's Division
livision 905.420.4611
:ascimile 905.420.9685
lerks@citv.pickerina,on.ca
CLERK'S DlVISI0N
nn "'J
lJ-'J- (
DATER
:fl.A-\1 IO,2-0D.6
APPLICATION NO:
HPA- 0:)1/010
BH Q6-2c40
The undersigned hereby applies to The Corporation of the City of Pickering pursuant to Section 42 of the Ontario
Heritage Act, RSO 1990, c.18 for alteration, addition, demolition or erection of a building in a Heritage
Conservation District.
1.
NAME OF OWNER Cim'aS Cons'truct,on Ltd.
ADDRESS OF OWNER 37 Gr(~n6er AVei '~CQr., Ontario
POSTAL CODE "'1 i Ie: 3 K Cf TELEPHONE NO. 4 t b '... 261- b 77 q
EMAIL: d.mdlon i si@ bell net .CCl
2.
LOCATION OF PROPERTY:
ADDRESS: 325 Whltevcde
LOT NO.
REGISTERED PLAN NO.
3. NAME OF AGENT (IF ANY):
ADDRESS:
POSTAL CODE
TELEPHONE NO.
4. FULL DESCRIPTION OF ALL PROPOSED WORK
New oon!;:tructlon of . ~ln9\e .-fdrr)l\j V'e$idc:ntla\ .
12.
13.
14.
(~9tyO ~~ Pickering Application for Alteration or Addition to a Designated propert~
Page 2
5.
6.
.E)(ISTING.iUliB PROPOSED TOTAL FLOOR AREA:
DeliTING USE OF PROPERTY: VaCC\ n t
PROPOSED USE OF PROPERTY: 're~ldet1tlcll
7.
CONSTRUCTION DRAWINGS, SKETCH PLANS, SCALE DRAWINGS:
Please attach drawings of the proposed construction. The applicant may also submit a
sketch of any alterations made over a photograph.
Drawings must be to scale and indicate the existing building and proposed additions, including:
a) overall dimensions;
b) specific sizes of building elements (signs, windows, awnings etc.)
c) . detail information including trim," siding, mouldings, etc.
d) materials to be used
8.
10.
OTHER INFORMATION: You may provide other written information or documents
supporting your proposal for the City's ~onsideration.
11.
PHOTOGRAPHS: Photographs of the building including general photos of the property,
the streetscape in which the property is located, the facing streetscape, and if the
property is located at an intersection, all four corners. Photos of the specific areas that
may be affected by the proposed change or alteration assist the City with the review of
the application.
PROFESSIONAL ASSISTANCE: Although it is not a requirement to obtain professional
assistance in the preparation of this information, the applicant may wish to seek such
assistance from an architect, architectural technologist, preservation specialist, or others
familiar with the unique requirements of designated heritage buildings.
BUILDING CODES AND BY-LAWS: This application concerns heritage approval only.
It is not a buildinopermit application. It is the applicant's responsibility to apply for and
obtain a building permit prior to undertaking any construction.
OTHER APPLICATIONS:
Do you have any concurrent applications (ie: Committee of Adjustment) YES @
IF YES, PLEASE LIST:
~~
SIGNATURE OWNER(S)
I\i).
;J(k , .
d/~' D'/'--'-:;>
SIGNATURE OF AGENT
Please note: Notice of Receipt will be forwarded to you by the City Clerk. Notice of Collection:
Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Personal Privacy Act Personal Information is
collected under the authority of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990 as amended, and will be used to assist in
making a decision on this matter. All names, addresses, opinions and comments will be made available
for public disclosure. Questions regarding this collection should be forwarded to the City Clerk, Civic
Complex, One the Esplanade, Pickering, L 1V 6K7, 905.420.4660, ext. 2153.
CIMAS CONSTRUCTION LTD.
f\.~;"
t; V ;:)
37 GRANGER AVE.
SCARBOROUGH, ONTARIO MIK 3K9
TEL 416-261-6779
FAX 416-261-8687
July 5,2006
Attention Debbie Bentley,
City Clerk's Office,
My experience with the Pickering Heritage Committee has been confusing and anything but
helpful. At the beginning of the year, before final plans were drawn up and the information for
the pennit was collected ie: engineered truss and floor designs, we submitted a
preliminary/possible arch. 'dwg to the Heritage Committee for a new residential home at 325
Whitevale Rd. This was circulated to them through Tim Moore of the Planning Department. In
February 2006 two e-mails were sent to us with comments about the new structure (again via
Tim Moore).
At best these comments/ suggestions were vague and unclear and seemed to promote some
architect called BarnOwl, which we are not familiar with?? It was clear that very little time or
effort went into the feedback given at this time. In any case, in an effort to comply with the
comments/ suggestions and work with the committee, we altered various aspects of the design
to comply with the few issues pointed out by them.
We were quite happy to make the changes that were suggested at this time. We changed the
exterior from brick to batten board, we replaced the metal railings to wood, we altered the
palladium windows to a more traditional square design,... We believed that the resulting
design would be acceptable because, after all, we had already cleared it through Heritage,
thinking that they had given it thorough attention.
My question to the committee is why did we not get more detailed feedback at this stage????
Confidently, we submitted all our documents for pennit review with the building department at
City of Pickering ie: revised architectural drawings, engineered truss and floor designs. . . . We
have lined up the well and septic tank contractor who will put in the most modem and space
efficient model available.
On June 1,2006 when we were told that the Heritage Committee would not support our
proposed plan we were quite frankly surprised and shocked. After reading the new, very
detailed comments about the design we felt as though we had been misled.
_.. . ,,"~
010
I attempted to contact Pamela Fuselli many times to raise my concerns. She said she would pass
my questions along to the committee but I was not allowed to address them myself. We were
told that Pickering Heritage would 'be happy to work' with us and I was more than willing to
talk to the committee but I was told I could not attend the June 14 meeting as it was called 'ad
hoc'(you know, not scheduled). Finally, I e-mailed her to tell her what I had already changed
and what could be altered with respect to their comments. No further discussion was initiated.
I was tmder the impression that the Whitevale Heritage Conservation District Guide is a
document which offers guidelines not dictates laws. Section 5.4 of the New Buildings in
Whitevale Heritage Conservation District Guide uses tenninology such as "should" or
"should be avoided" or "is recommended". We have shown a willingness to comply with the
suggestions given by the committee and feel that the Heritage Committee has been given too
much power in this regard (as to be able to freeze my permit application).
They wrote the following in an e-mail,
"Their architect should not put any architectural feature on the exterior if they can't find
an example of it in the village".
Upon travelling through the village, we have found various examples of non-compliance
according to these guidelines, such as, brick and stucco exterior fmishes, round and palladium
style windows, attached garages, ...
At this time it will be costly and structurally difficult to address 5.4.6 and 5.4.7 as altering the
roof and floor designs require going through the architect and the engineer again and I have
already spent over $ 15,000.00 dollars on architecture revisions and engineering fees.
Although, in the spirit to show that we are co-operative and in addition to the changes we have
already made, we propose the following:
In reference to 5.4.9, we are willing to change the windows size and shape by removing all half
circle and rotmd windows.
We hope this is agreeable to the council and city clerk's office.
Regards,
Deborah Dionisi
Cimas Construction Ltd.
37 Granger Ave
Scarborough, Ontario
MIK 3K9
Tel: (416)261-6779
Fax: (416)261-868
u;:.. :.:Ji 200ti THt 10
5 420 i6H
PICKERING PLANNING & DEV
[4]OO,J
Moore, Tim
From:
Sent:
To: ..
Subject: .
.
Pamela Fuselli [heritagepickering@hotmail.com] .
February 22. 2006 5:19 PM
Moore. Tim
Altona/Whitevale
011
ni Tim,
One of tha c~~~i::e= merr~ers
had an additional sU9gestion ~ could 10U
9ass
:hi$ ~lcn; as well?
,.
",' .5U~~:S: t~ c~~ b~ilder that they take a closer look at particular.
~e~:~=e! ~n 6~i5~i~c architecture within Whitevale and draw from those ie.
.~;;-:hi..= '.;:':-.d='.:::. :.,:,,~tlines, typical mid-late 1600 architecture. The Shingle
.: ::.-'':',:;;::t.:'?~: ~::.! ~dian-style and cape cod windol-ls, metal railing etc,
a:a cut of p':'&ce. Thei: architect should not put any architectural feacu:e
~~ t~e ex~erior if they can't find an example of it in the village itself.
__ c~ey n~~~ a ~u3gR~tion for an architect who understands a bit better how
t~ make S~~6:~!n; leok old check out Barn Owl designs. She still uses a bi~
~: a m:'::.f1::-.Z!5:-. .:f features but she I s .better than most. There are a rev!
~=c tr~~!:ic~al- l~ke ~he ~Rosseau. House" and ~Oxford House".
h:':p; I h,:.:::. t':::-:-l.:.;:l::esigns. com/inde:-:l. htm "
d;3.~,:in;s :r.~:
~
:':-~.;:1i:;:
:; ~~~
:cn't :;;st. $6%::C::. Find! http://search.sympatico.msn.ca/default,asp:< The new
NS~ Searc~! :hsc~ it out!
"
02/2J/2006..JHV' ~.O.; 905:.420..7648 ,
. "l~'~~'I~~{~~'~~I~ft'~f~;.'
Moore,)4m '. '.i/"...'.'.........:./,'
'7
PIC~RIN.G,~WNli'iG " pEV
. .. ". .
:~ 'I;~:' :;,j~~i~',;:::.< _~ ;~,.,>::-' ~...~. ~ ~,
From:
Sent:
To: ".
Subj ect:
::;:'<P~rii~;~ F~selli [heritageplckering@hotmail,com]
February 21,20069:19 PM
Moore, Tim .
Heritage Pickering
llj)"
Z,H Tim
. ~;" ~.';./': , . .;:::
Gst::,!,nq back'\.;:'YOUabout the Altona/Whitevde Road propo:led house plan - I
apologize for .tha:delay in getting feedback to you. 'While th~ corrunittee
TfIerr~'ie=s 1 i ked' :'iome.,ofthe .details, there..wet'ti .some ,co,Qcerns:
.".,. ~,
. '.
1. r;"lis corner is 'the ;qa1:.e~ayi:ti:) the Whitevale Heritage Conservation
District ~any ~uildinq ~hould reflect the characteristics ot this' area.
Given the majorityo! the homes are, at most 1 1/2 ~toreysl this is what
:.:~ I d rac:clT:I!'.end !.:>r thc$e lot:!.
2. So~e ot the materials they are proposing to u~~ar~n't consistent with
hed~aqe hotr,QS, e.9."met~1 railings. .
. "'.
3. '~ave they:cons1dered that the house would be supported by a well and
se?tic:
t,
Reg:t:ds
?arr:
. .
Take advantage.ofpo~erful junk e-mail filters built o~ patented Microsoft$.
Sm<\rl;Sr.:rAC'lr, Technology," . .
M:;:: / /joln ~m$n~ co.ml,?pgmarket-en-cupage;.byoa/prem&xAPID:o:1994&DI=1034
:; SU"'htl.:p: 1 1:.~otmf,iL cOlll/enca&HL-Market..MSlU5_Taglines;
S:a;t e~joyi~9 allth~ benefits or MSN~ premium" right now and get the
fi r;;t two months .r~EE"".. ....
.g2
....
.::. ",' ."..
"
,." ".
1
,
~
..
.,
i
,
,1
il
I
, 1
I. ,
!
l' I
F j
~ t
" I
&.~.II
~
i~ J
j't'
, ,
~ 1
, .
~;
I
ii.
~
,. . .
..
h
I
,
l
!
I
\JOI \J;JI ~\Jvo lUUi"i ,LU: .U. t.'\.\. ~U;) 4~U '
, 'CUlJ "I
?"\;:~5!Lt
.,"
(\1 r...)
L ,-,
.
~
"
'..\
. .
June 1, 2006.
.4o II
~. t;~';';
'j im Moore
Chief Building OfficIal
. '. City of Pickering
, .,' ~:
~..' .
/,.~..:.'~
, .
.,
,~.. '. - :. .. ..
,..'
" .'
~~. '. ~. " ~
. ~,
.... ..
Subject:
325 Whitevale, Road
", ",
AS requested, I've reviewed the plans submitted for 325 Whltevale Road and compared them
" 'Nith'sectlon 5.4 New Buildings in the Whitevale Heritage Conservation District Guide. Below
are my comments:' "
;"1,.
5.4.1 New buJldings should be vlJuaHy ~ompatible with adjacent properties and the
streets cape.
Given the significant difference In size and design between the proposed building and any
adjacent property, these plans do not meet this guideline.
.'
5.4.3 Maintain the rural settlement pattern to protect the Integrity of this area, and to
reInforce the dIstinct character of the hamlet....
This structure, located at the west end gateway of the Hamlet, does not maintain the rural
settlement pattern, This is the type of building you'd expect to find In new subdivisions, not a
rural Hamlet that is a heritage conservation distrIct.
,f
5.4.6 A building form which is proportionately greater In width than depth and of a side
'., gable design Is encouraged. Extended rear sectIons to form the traditional T shape is
encouraged where additional floor space Is needed.
The owner Is' encouraged to redesign the plans to fit the above description instead of the
current. very modern, design.
,..,
p, ,
,5.4.7 Roofs of new buildings should. match those of neighbouring buildings in shape
and pitch; be a side or end gable design; be low to medium pitch; utilize cedar or asphalt
shingles. Steep pitches, cross-gable, flat and mono-pitch roofs, and polygonal towers
should be avoided.... , . .
It appears from the drawings that the roof lines may not follow some of the above guidelines,
namely not being a side or end gable desIgn and the tower-like portion of the west end of the
building.
5.4.9 Windows and doors in new buildings should. be generally vertical and rectangular;
be limIted in size so as to be similar to heritage buildings In the proportron of openIngs
to solid wall; avoid the use of snap In muntlns, decorative shapes such as bulls-eyes,
. . keystones, quoins and other decorative surrounds.
",,' 'Whlle the majority of windows are vertical and rectangular. there are a large number of windows
. ..... in proportion to the solid walls. In addition, there are a number of half circle windows and one
fully round window.
06 MON 10:32 FAX 905 420 7648
PICKERING PLANNING & DEY
~(I0J
". '..11"
t, 't
5.4.12 Garages should not form a part of the front facade. A less conspicuous location
is recommended. '.
Although the garage doors do not face the street, the garage does form a part of the front '.
facade, significantly increasing the overall size of the structure. -5,5.4 recommends garages be
located to the rear of the property.
';.
.
.
The proposed desIgn does foll~~ guidelines 5.4.2 (maximum structure height), 5.4.4 (setbacks),
5.4.5 (street facing walls paralrei to the road), 5.4.11 (exterior wall finish).
While Heritage Pickering can not support the plans as currently proposed, we would be happy
to work with the owner to achieve a better balance of integration of a new structure onto a
prime/gateway location with the Heritage Conse/Vation District.
Regards
I.
.-';0
Q~
Pamela ~uselli "
Chair, Heritage Pickering
Copy: City Clerk
."
~
Read Message
Page 1 of2
heme
..'1.""'... I
l: : ;
rra.fl.;als
Inbox .comp..,,,;e
C(;~i.e f;1,)kfer's
Addl~s~e:$
Pr.efer,en.ces S,e;ztrcl1 Help
Read Message
Back to: COJlgLI.L~l2n...E9MeI
F'rom:"Pamela Fuselli" <heritagepickering@hotmail.com> I~
Date:2006/06/15 Thu PM 03:35:38 GMT.04:00
To: dmd ion isi@bellnet.ca
Subject:Re: 325 Whitevale Road
Hello Deborah,
I'm getting back in touch to let you know that the committee's decision was
to uphold our recommendations from June 2006. In response to your
request to attend, as the meeting was ad hoc (not a regularly scheduled
meeting), it was not open to the public but for committee discussion
purposes.
Please get in touch with Tim Moore, who 1 have already advised of our
decision, for the next steps.
Regards
Pamela Fuselli
Chair, Heritage Pickering
>From: <gmQiQ.ni~.@R~Jl[J~L~!p
> To: "Pamela Fuselli" <heLiti!K~Qi~~.~rln.g@'hQ.tm~ti1~9m>
>Subject: Re: 325 Whitevale Road
>Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2006 15:54:39.0400
>
>Good Afternoon
>1 have not heard back from you regarding whether it is possible to attend
>the meeting scheduled for tonight. Do you have a time and location for me?
>Regards,
>Deborah Dionisi
>Cimas Construction Ltd.
>
>
>>
> > From: "Pamela Fuselli" <!wri.t~g~Q.i.ck~IiJJg@11Qlmg.iLcom>
> > Date: 2006/06/12 Mon PM 03:29:21 GMT.04:00
> > To: gmgj.Qnl~I@R~J!!J~t~E!.
> > Subject: 325 Whitevale Road
>>
> > Hello,
>>
> > I have scheduled an ad hoc meeting of Heritage Pickering for this
>Wednesday,
> > June 14. If you could send your questions to me via email, we can
>discuss
> > them at this meeting and then get back to you by the end of the week.
>After .
> > you've had an opportunity to review the information, we can schedule a
> > meeting if needed.
>>
Read Message
DiB
> > As I do most of the committee work on evenings and weekends, you can use
> > this email address or my home telephone number to reach me.
>>
> > Regards
> > Pamela Fuselli
> > Chair, Heritage Pickering
>>
>>
> > Fashion, food, romance in Sympatico / MSN Lifestyle
> > .http-i 11.if~s.b@...:~l!JJLtttl~~.m~IJ..:...Ga/H9JJ1e/
>>
>
Movies, Music & More! Visit Sympatico I MSN Entertainment
h tmJ I enl~tqio.m.il.I].L$.Ymp-ati~o. m~:!l~~qL
Priv<1!l:\' PoHq
Wireless fmail
eC3fe
Mt~
SCD..[~~(F()lg2 .'
Page 2 of2
Back to: .c..Q.!l~tructlcm.. F 01 Q..fll:
R~<Mt~.W .. '- !~J/::>6G86 [[GSSav86Za:GLSZS66GaS [vva::> r $P!UO!SsQs$~:nauIIQq'uQ' I~~fdUq
iHJ m.g
nl'''1
C t
fran~aj5
Inbc)( t.:,'mlpOSp.
CI'&I~e folders
Addresses
Prefer'<l~ces Search Help
Read Message
Back to: Cons t(-'J.!;lLlH\..EQ.kter
From:"Pamela Fuselli" <heritagepickering@hotmail.com> Q
Date:2006/06/10 Sat AM 09:18:04 GMT.04:00
To:dmdion isi@bellnet.ca
Subject:RE: 325 Whitevale
Thank you for your email and telephone messages. I have been away on
business so was not able to respond to your messages.
Some information that may help you understand our role. Heritage Pickering
is an advisory committee to the City and our committee members are appointed
volunteers. While I am the Chair, committee business is conducted by the
entire membership.
I have forwarded your request to the committee and will be in touch this
coming week to let you know the next steps.
Regards,
Pamela Fuselli
Chair, Heritage Pickering
>From: <9mqJ.QJ1i~1@J2_~.L!J~J;".Q.9.>
> T 0: <.b~rlt~~Qjfk?ring@hQ.t.!Th![L.fQm>
>Subject: 325 Whitevale
>Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2006 12:31:06.0400
>
>Good Afternoon Ms. Fuselli,
>1 am one of the officers of Cimas Construction Ltd. who is waiting on a
>permit to construct a single family dwelling at the above address.
>1 would like to met with you to discuss your comments regarding this
>project. I have various questions for you and your attention to this
>matter.
>Please contact me to set up an appointment ASAP,
>we can cannot afford further delay in this matter.
>Regards,
>Deborah Dionisi
>Cimas Construction Ltd.
>
Auto news & advice -check out Sympatico / MSN Autos
htt.g;.LL~!J"jH.l to s,1lymrt9..tif9. rn.~n,J~gL.Qgtill,-ltg.~p'~
Back to: !:;QnsJr..y.(:Jion-E.2lq~r
l>',iV<-H;Y Pnlicy
V'Jh'e!ess Ern\tli~
eCar:e
fAQ.
Read Message
Page 1 of 1
P1Q
-_u
homa
fr,tln;:ais
Inhox Compose
Creah: Fo~d>o;r$
Addresses
Prefefem:es S@rch Help
Read Message
Backto:~~eSSqg~~
From: <dmdionisi@bellnet.ca:> G:J
Date:2006/06/14 Wed PM 03:54:39 GMT.04:00
To:"Pamela Fuse"i" <heritagepickering@hotmail.com:>
Subject:Re: 325 Whitevale Road
Good Afternoon
I have not heard back from you regarding whether it is possible to attend the
meeting scheduled for tonight. Do you have a time and location for me?
Regards,
Deborah Dionisi
Cimas Construction ltd.
:>
:> From: "Pamela Fuselli" <l1erltM?-PJ.~.!<ering@.b..Qtm~jLcom:>
:> Date: 2006/06/12 Moo. PM 03:29:21 GMT.04:00
:> To: Q.mdionis.i@J~.~U!l~L~!l
:> Subject: 325 Whitevale Road
:>
> Hello,
>
:> I have scheduled an ad hoc meeting of Heritage Pickering for this Wednesday,
> June 14. If you could send your questions to me via email, we can discuss
:> them at this meeting and then get back to you by the end of the week. After
> you've had an opportunity to review the information, we can schedule a
:> meeting if needed.
>
> As I do most of the committee work on evenings and weekends, you can use
:> this email address or my home telephone number to reach me.
>
:> Regards
:> Pamela Fuse"i
> Chair, Heritage Pickering
>
:>
> Fashion, food, romance in Sympatico 1 MSN Lifestyle
> ):lttQ;lllife~tY-!!l.:..$.Y.m[LcUkQ.,msn.C:;fl/t!.Q..m~
>
Backto:S~ut]fless~g~~
prhlt'lq. poliqr
Wkeless Em,)i!
eCmil'('l
FAQ
Read Message
Page 1 of2
home
{, 1 ~
f;nm;:i:lls
Inbo,tCornpose
(r''late Fcl.::k;,s
AddreatleS . Prderences Search Help
Read Message
Back to: ~e.n~illg~
From:<dmdionisi@bellnet.ca> bl
Date:2006/06/12 Mon PM 05:48:29 GMT-04:00
To:"Pamela Fuselli" <heritagepickering@hotmail.com>
Subject:Re: 325 Whitevale Road
11SD.g9~~E91q~t)g@;.t.~.
Good Afternoon,
We at Cimas Construction Ltd. have accommodated your previous requests/comments
made February 21 & 22,2006 ie we changed metal railings to wood, we changed
brick to batten board, we have moved the garage from front facing to side
facing.. I think this design has a distinctly heritage feel. In fact, it is
compatible with the homes found at the eastern end of the village.
r am willing to change the circular and semi.circular windows on the front
facade. Conversely I am not willing to change the floor plan or roof
design.
Is there any way for me and my associate to attend the Wednesday meeting??
Regards,
Deborah Dion isi
Cimas Construction Ltd.
>
> From: .Pamela Fuselli" <l1~ritBg.~l?.tc;:1<~rln&.@llQ.tm<!lL~.Qnp
> Date: 2006/06/12 Mon PM 03:29:21 GMT.04:00
> To: dr:ngiQ!JisL@Q~JJ.D~.LGg
> Subject: 325 Whitevale Road
>
> Hello,
>
> I have scheduled an ad hoc meeting of Heritage Pickering for this Wednesday,
> June 14. If you could send your questions to me via emaH, we can discuss
> them at this meeting and then get back to you by the end of the week. After
> you've had an opportunity to review the information, we can schedule a
> meeting if needed.
>
> As I do most of the committee work on evenings and weekends, you can use
> this email address or my home telephone number to reach me.
>
> Regards
> Pamela Fuselli
> Chair, Heritage Pickering
>
>
> Fashion, food, romance in Sympatico / MSN Lifestyle
> !ltlP~{ / I ife ill!.~~?Y.mQ9.tikQ...IJ1!i.l1.J;i1j Hgme /
>
..~~J~~&FgJ;fJ
Back to: Sen1.1l'lJ1Ssag~
Privacy Policy
V-JireterliS EmaH
eCan.~
FA!,!
IATTACHMENT# Z TO REPORT# C5~O-Ob
r'r. >""'.
l,l f::'U
~T
[
\ \
r11 ,.- "1-1 IIR HWIN
WHITEV ALE \
\
....J \
....J
::2
WHITEVALE ROAD
I WHITEVALE ROAD
~ U I ~
(/)
(/)
>- i----
Z cc.
0
~ Q r
\ rn w
\ ....... ,.-
\1 ~
\
I~
PROPERTY
/j
~
0
~
0 '---
n:::
~
z
0
~ ~
~
~
City of Pickering Planning & Development Department
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION CON 4, N PT LOT 32, PLAN 21 LOT 1, 2 & PT LOT 3, RP 40R-9543 PART 1,2 l'
OWNER CIMAS CONSTRUCTION LTD. DATE OCT 2, 2006 DRAWN BY JB
FILE No. HPA 001/06 SCALE 1 :5000 CHECKED BY TM
eta ~Durcell: PN-RUR
;t ~cr8ge~p~nJe~;~a~~s '~~"op~~~.:t~,t:r:~~~"sRe-:'~"':~d~taN~e~er;~:~ ~rlS~r~I:.n of survey.