Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCS 37-07 Calf (J~ REPORT TO COUNCIL Report Number: CS 37-07 Date: September 17, 2007 ~ From: Gillis A. Paterson Director, Corporate Services & Treasurer Subject: Heritage Permit Application 002/07 Submission under the Ontario Heritage Act - 2390 Rosebank Road, Pickering Recommendation: [Council is the delegated authority to consent or deny the application] Option 1 1. That the Heritage Permit Application 002/07 as submitted by Paul and Janna Lafrance and Darren and Lucie Brand, for property municipally known as 2390 Rosebank Road, Pickering, be approved; -' 2. That the Heritage Pickering Advisory Committee be consulted for approval with respect to the fa9ade of the addition, including the windows and doors; 3. That the Director of Planning & Development be the delegated authority for determining compliance, if necessary; and 4. That the City Clerk be authorized to finalize the notice provisions in accordance with the Ontario Heritage Act. OR- Option 2 That the Heritage Permit Application 002/07 as submitted by Paul and Janna Lafrance and Darren and Lucie Brand, for property municipally known as 2390 Rosebank Road, Pickering, be denied. Executive Summary: On July 24, 2006 Council approved a formal application process for alterations, additions or demolitions to heritage buildings. Paul and Janna Lafrance and Darren and Lucie Brand submitted Heritage Permit Application #002/06 for property known as Part 8, 40R-2207, municipally known as 2390 Rosebank Road. ~ Upon presentation to Council of the report, outlining comments from Heritage Pickering and the Planning & Development Committee, the application as submitted was denied. Report CS 37-07 Date: September 17, 2007 1 43 ,- Heritage Permit Application 002/07 Page 2 Subsequently, in July 2007, the applicants submitted a further application, of which is now being presented to Council. A copy of the Heritage Permit Application has been included as Attachment #1 to this report. The purpose of the application is to permit a 1400 square foot addition off the western portion of the existing house. 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 and therefore should choose Option 1 or Option 2. Financial Implications: Not applicable. Sustainability Implications: We are supporting a healthy society through the preservation of our heritage properties, in consultation with our community partners. Background: On July 6, 2007, Paul and Janna LaFrance and Darren and Lucie Brand submitted a heritage permit application, in accordance with the procedure _ approved by Council in 2006. 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. The property municipally known as 2390 Rosebank Road was designated by By-law No. 3634/91 as being of architectural and historical value or interest. A copy of the designation by-law is included as Attachment #2 to this report. Alteration of a designated property is governed by the Ontario Heritage Act and the City has established formal procedures to be followed as part of the Heritage Permit application process. With respect to this application, the owners had previously been before Council in October 2006 and the application was subsequently denied by Council. It was denied in part due to Heritage Pickering's concerns that the addition as proposed would alter the historical reference and character of the original building to a large extent. The applicants at that time were encouraged to work with Heritage Pickering to come to an equitable solution. - Since that time, the applicants have working with Heritage Pickering and a new application was filed with the City after the applicants had appeared before the Heritage Pickering Advisory Committee with their new proposal. As per the legislative and internal policy and procedure, the City Clerk obtained comments from the Planning & Development Department and the Heritage Pickering Advisory Committee. Report CS 37-07 Date: September 17, 2007 Heritage Permit Application 002/07 Page 3 -..../ 1 44 It should be noted that after the applicants appeared before Heritage Pickering, the Committee did approve the application, noting how agreeable the applicants were to work with Heritage Pickering to alleviate any concerns. The comments in this regard are noted further in the report. Depending on Council's position to approve or deny, there is a detailed notice and appeal process to be followed. A flowchart of this process has been included as Attachment #3 to this report. . Comments Planning & Development Department We have reviewed the applicant's amended proposal for compliance with other applicable law, and provide the following comments. General Considerations The applicant proposes to construct an addition to the existing two storey, four bedroom dwelling. The applicant indicates that the revised plans describe a significantly smaller addition than previously proposed. ---' The footprint of the amended proposal appears identical to the previous design. The centre portion, however, has been amended from a two storey gable roof, to a design incorporating one storey facing north, with a two storey wall facing south beneath a shed dormer. This amendment reduces the scale and visual impact of the north facing portion of the addition. It isn't clear whether the area housed under the south facing shed dormer is designed to accommodate second storey living space. The floor plans provided with the amended documents are limited and somewhat confusing. The additional area proposed by the previous design was 1975 square feet (184 square metres). The amended floor area is not specified. Elevation drawing and renderings supplied by the applicant clearly describe the proposed exterior treatment and window design. Council is required, after consultation with its heritage committee, to either; i. consent to this application, ii. consent to the application on terms and conditions, or iii. refuse the application In the event Council consents to this application but applies conditions, thl~Y should specifically state the final design requirements, and the delegated authority for determining compliance, if necessary. It is not recommended that any conditions be applied which involve further review, studies or design development in the absence of a ---' specifically stated heritage related objective. Report CS 37-07 Date: September 17, 2007 - Heritage Permit Application 002/07 Page 4 T45 Planninq Act & Buildinq Code Act rPart 8, Sewaoe Svstemsl . Pickering Official Plan Designation: 'Rural Settlement - Rural Hamlet' within the Settlement of Cherrywood and Area. . Central Pickering Development Plan Designation: - Hamlet'. . Zoning: 'HMR2' - Hamlet Residential by Zoning By-law 3037, as amended by By-law 2675/88. This zoning permits a detached dwelling with accessory structures. The amended plans appear to comply with the required building height, setback and lot coverage requirements in the applicable zoning by-law. A minor variance was previously approved in 1970 (PICA 51/70) to allow the existing accessory structure in the front yard (the property fronts onto Third Concession Road.), and to recognize a reduced flankage side yard for the accessory structure along Rosebank Road. The Region of Durham previously advised that the proposed addition will require that a new sewage system be designed and constructed according to building code regulations. The system design must be approved by the Region of Durham Health - Department. In summary, the applicant's proposal meets planning and zoning requirements, and a building permit may be issued provided the applicant obtains this heritage permit from Council, sewage system approval is obtained from the Region of Durham, and final construction documents meet minimum building code standards. Peer Review bv Unterman McPhail Associates Unterman McPhail Associates Heritage Resource Management Consultants (UMA) were consulted about the applicant's previous proposal, in order to assist Council in its consideration of this heritage permit application. UMA provided the following opinions on the design previouslv proposed by the owner: 1. The height of the proposed residence is consistent with the existing building and is acceptable in concept. The size of the proposed addition however is much too large and overwhelms the original building even if it is located on the side least visible to the public view. The Applicant has not applied the fourth statement of 'Other Considerations' in the Standards and Guidelines in their approach, which states that in placing a new addition it should be 'limiting its size and scale in relationship to historic place.' Pp.8. This addition is almost equal in size to the original. While the other additions completed by the previous owner may not be consistent with proper conservation principles, they form part of the evolution of the building. A new owner could choose to reverse the unsympathetic design. 2. - 3. Report CS 37-07 Date: September '17, 2007 I tI Hiri~ge Permit Application 002/07 Page 5 --- 4. The use of synthetic siding while different from the original must be selected carefully. There are many new types of the siding in the marketplace and some will be better suited to a new addition on the west elevation. 5. No mention of the roofing material type or colour is mentioned in the permit application. 6. No samples of windows or door types have been supplied for review. Fenestration type and material is an important consideration. 7. Other examples of additions to designated properties provide a comparative analysis. However, poor additions do not merit duplication 8. The applicant should be required to present a better set of clear architectural plans and a proper site plan to understand the relationship of the new addition to the context of the site and historic settlement. Heritage Pickering Advisory Committee Excerpt of the minutes of April 17, 2007 a) Paul and Janna Lafrance Heritage Permit Application HPA 002/07 2390 Rosebank Road --- Paul Lafrance gave an overview of his heritage permit application and the subsequent changes that had been made, along with a brief history of his home. He stated that they are quite willing to work with the Committee on this, and indicated their willingness to implement any recommendations the Committee may make. They love the history of the house, and also stated how dedicated they are to staying in the community. He indicated there were no issues with permits or zoning and also indicated that it had been designated as a heritage property when purchased. He also confirmed that this will be a single dwelling residence, and they are proposing to add approximately 1,400 square feet to the existing 2,200 square feet. Discussion ensued with respect to the application. Debbie Shields explained the process for the heritage permit application and noted that it would be presented at the Planning & Development Committee meeting, and subsequently to Council for approval. At that time area residents would have the opportunity to attend and be heard if they wanted to make comments on the application. Jim noted to Mr. Lafrance that the Whitevale District Conservation Guidelines listed guidelines for heritage properties and that this information would assist --- them in the process. Mr. Lafrance noted that he had not looked at the guidelines and stated that at this point the information was not pertinent but, they would like to have this information available to them for future planning. Report CS 37-07 Date: September 17, 2007 - Heritage Permit Application 002/07 Page 6 147 Discussion continued with respect to the application. Items discussed were as follows: ' . Confirmed it would be one kitchen and one common area and would not be a duplex . Issue with being on the corner of the 3rd Concession, very visible most of the year . Concerns it may dwarf other homes in Cherrywood . Applicant is most willing to comply with Committee recommendations and have a real interest in the community . Size was an issue - height, width and length of residence discussed . Clarification required on guidelines pertaining to the general appearance - a lot is dependent on the architect chosen for the job . It was suggested the Committee approve this application with conditions . It was suggested the applicants have a Heritage Impact Study completed on the property, with a City approved company (cost and timeframe for this is unknown at this point) . the addition would be an approximate 63.3% increase in size. - Councillor Johnson explained to the applicants the majority of the Committee is not denying the application, but not approving as presented. The consensus was to approve with conditions. Excerpt of the minutes of Mav 15. 2007 Heritage Pickering Application 02/06 2390 Rosebank Road Debi provided an update with respect to 2390 Rosebank Road. She indicated she would like to get a resolution from the Committee in order to have a report prepared to forward onto Council. Based on the discussion at the last meeting, Debi advised that she followed up with respect to the cost implications of requesting the owner to complete a heritage Impact Study. She informed the Committee the cost for the Heritage Impact Study would be approximately $3,055.00 and the timeframe would depend on availability of the agencies involved. Moved by Richard Fleming Seconded by Gordon Zimmerman That the Heritage Pickering Advisory Committee recommend to Council: _. That Heritage Permit Application 02/06 be approved, subject to the applicants submitting a Heritage Impact Study and further, that the fa9ade of the addition, including the windows and doors, be subject to review and approval by the Heritage Pickering Advisory Committee, in consultation with the Chief Building Official. Report CS 37-07 Date: September 17,2007 Heritage Permit Application 002/07 4-48 Page 7 ~.. Since that time, the formal application was submitted on July 6, 2007 and the City Clerk proceeded to finalize in accordance with the Heritage Permit Application process and the Ontario Heritage Act guidelines. The application was submitted to the Chair, Heritage Pickering to review and provide any further comments in relation to the presentation and approval by the Committee. Upon further consultation with the Vice-Chair of Heritage Pickering, the condition of requiring a Heritage Impact Study was waived by the Committee due to the length of time the applicants have endured coming to a resolution, along with the applicants desire to work with Heritage Pickering to come up with an acceptable design. Summary Based on the comments received by the Heritage Pickering Advisory Committee and the Planning & Development Department, it would be the recommendation of staff that this application be approved. However, in accordance with the Ontario Heritage Act, Council is the delegated authority to consent or refuse the application. It should be noted that in accordance with the Ontario Heritage Act, Council is required to make a decision on the application within 90 days and upon approval and/or denial, the City Clerk is required to follow a further notice procedure, as outlined in Attachment 3 to this report. ~ Attachments: 1. Heritage Permit Application HPA 002/07 2. Heritage Designation By-law 3634/91 3. Ontario Heritage Act - Flowchart of process 4. Correspondence from the Region of Durham, Health Department 5. Location Map for 2390 Rosebank Road Prepared By: Approved I Endorsed By: ~'ci1-:r\~ Debi A. Bentley City Clerk ~~~-e:, Gillis A. Paterson Director, Corporate Services & Treasurer DB:ks Attachments -.--". Report CS 37-07 Heritage Permit Application 002/07 Date: September 17, 2007 Page 8 .,.,....... 149 Copy: Chief Administrative Officer // Y#7 - - 150 JATTACHMENT # AMENDE HERITAGE PERMIT APPLICA TION Under the Ontario Heritage Act "............ t-;;c:c" d JG..1'l to 10 1 J TO REPORT # C:5 I 37 -o-;~. In Re: Lafrance and Brand Application to alter Heritage Property at 2390 Rosebank Road, Pickering, Ontario, L1X 2R5; Lot 31 TABLE OF CONTENTS A. Addendum to original Application, filed August 14, 2006 B. Revised Drawings C. Precedents for proposed addition: 1) Example A from City of Mississauga 2) Example B from City of Mississauga 3) Example from City of London ---- Paul and Janna Lafrance Darren and Lucie Brand 2390 Roslebank Road Pickering ON L 1 X 2R5 416-890-8960 (cell) paulandjanna@rogers.com '-' 1 51 - AMENDED HERITAGE PERMIT APPLICATION Under the Ontario Heritage Act In Re: Lafrance and Brand ("the Applicants") Application to alter Heritage Property at 2390 Rosebank Road, Pickering, Ontario, LIX 2R5; Lot 31 ("the Property") ADDENDUM The avvlicants relv on all sUVlJortiml information and documentation included in the avvlication filed Aus:ust 14. 2006. with the excevtion of the revised drawin~s. as attached to this Amended Application. 1. Subsequent to the October 10, 2006 Executive Council meeting, the applicants revised the proposed plans for an addition to their home at 2390 Rosebank Road. - 2. Upon completion of the revised plans, the applicants met with Councilor Johnson and with Councilor Pickles in order to arrive at some decision that would be more likely supported by the Heritage Advisory Committee. 3. On April 17, 2007, the applicants attended at the meeting of the Heritage Advisory Committee in order to review the revised plans. 4. At that time, after discussion, the Committee indicated they would be prepared to support the Application, with the condition that the applicants consult with them with respect to the building materials used for the addition. They also indicated that a heritage impact study might be appropriate. 5. The Committee also indicated at that time that the applicants would be contacted by the Planning and Development department in order to obtain further information with respect to whether a heritage impact study would indeed be recommended and what further .- 152 Page 2 of 3 -' action would be required on behalf of the applicants at that time. The Committee estimated that the applicants would most likely hear from someone within one week. 6. After not having heard anything from the Planning and Development department, on April 24, 2007, the applicants contacted the department, along with Councillor Johnson, and City Clerk, Debi Bentley, outlining their understanding of the next course of action and requesting confirmation of that understanding. 7. After not having received a response from anyone at the City office, the applicants attempted to telephone Planning and Development and left a voice mail message and followed up with a further email on May 25, 2007. 8. The applicants were contacted by Tim Moore, at the Planning and Development department, on May 31,2007 and informed that he had not received any information at all from the Committee. He advised that they contact Debi Bentley again. -.-' 9. The applicants telephoned Debi Bentley and left a voice mail message on May 31,2007. Since Ms. Bentley was off work on vacation and then ill, she was not able to return their call until June 7, 2007. 10. On June 7, 2007, Ms. Bentley was able to inform the applicants that, after they had been dismissed from the April 17, 2007 heritage committee meeting, the Committee had decided that they would wait for another month in order to make enquiries with respect to the procurement of a heritage impact study. At the following meeting, on May 15, 2007, the Committee decided they would recommend to Council that the applicants obtain a heritage impact study. The Committee did not contact the applicants or inform them of this decision and no instructions were forwarded to the applicants. - 153 - Page 3 of 3 11. The applicants have been informed by the city clerk that a heritage impact study would cost approximately $3,000.00. They have contacted the Canadian Association of Professional Heritage Consultants but have not received a reply with respect to the time and costs involved in order to arrange for a heritage impact study. 12. The applicants are not in a financial position to fund a costly heritage impact study. 13. The applicants are not in a position to await further indefinite time frames for a heritage impact study to be completed. Paul and Janna Lafrance have been living, with their four children, at the residence of Mrs. Lafrance's father and mother for over a year while they have been going through this application process, which commenced in early 2006. 14. The revised plans indicate a significantly smaller addition to the home from the original plans, which will be hidden by several dozen trees to the north, and buildings to the west of the property. The exterior front facade will not be altered even remotely. - 15. Attached as precedents to this Amended Application are three examples of heritage residences that were allowed to be altered considerably by their respective municipalities. DATED this 5th day of July, 2007. - .1..Y'"'......r-lwwu ...~] "1'] ~ ... t,;i;;J [SIJ 0; S F';~'r;::~!. ~,~ ;'~<:r.;"~r ":'!I: iL - -lit ., i . ! ,I ;; I' l 11 J " 0 II f II f I ~ - I r t f j E~":f'~~ ~:::" (""''':-! ;';' ':;'lI;h~ -- f , I t t I ~i ; :~~ ,~\,,;::7~:~::'~~~~o ~ l:~ , r -.. --- idlI~121~~ - 1 55 - / if I /; /~ti'$ II" " /.1 Iff " - 156 , f1. Ii' ./~.t/ ,// .(/ 0 ~ \ ~ ,.~ \~.[D \, .~ ~ ~ .----- 157 - - m \\. OJ.. \\ \ ..Y.. ~.~ - 1 58 ",-' mm --' -- ;i '" -- ~ ~ ~ 159 1 · 160 ~ -./ ----./ - 1 61 .- - 1 6 '-- '--" Rp!"" 12 0: ~2~3Sp Darren Brand .~.)I:. ,L.. L.~Uf 'j! 'U~!'\lll rL.'illllll'''' or VCV. "Vii Ui\) J~/O 905-831-2656 NO .ur L p. 1 ,.. I -;;'( '" "'I' ro il'OVt:t:t' SL nnt .::. ~.- ~v ...... - 2.!~ - City of MJsstssauga 300 City C.tre Drive, lad Floor 'MISSISSAOO~ ON LSB 3el Tel: ~537I or 90S-896-SJ82 163 . - COMMUNl'JY S&R.VlCJ'.S DEPARTMENT l'1anninK ...... AdmilljstntioD 1>iYi1io... rlaJUliag and Heritage Sc:ctiOD FAX: "5-615-3"6 Pleas;e deli~'er the followiD I Namt:: LUCIE BRAND Date: April 12,2007 FAX N1IJIIber: 1-905-492-0934 . I Co:m~!:'.ylDcpartmcnt: ! ! j :t':rc~ l\-urk Wsrrack I TelepboJle Number: v- . Lu.c!e: Please .!mQ &~hcd two examples of heritage buildings, each a single family residence, that aTe designated structures, but were allowed to expand to over twice their original size. In each case the cri?;ina 1 structure was slightly modified by raising the roo1lin.e one foot to better align with ilie rrew add:!tion. For eacb I have shown a site plan and elevation. I have bJoc;ked out the mUl1icipal address and owner's infonna~on to protect their privacy. - If you have a..'1y questions you caD give me: a calL Mark Warrack Ecritag~ Coordinator Planning ~....d Heri1.age~ Commw,ily Services 905~615-3900. ext. 5070 . Nrnnber of!"ages Including cover sheet: 5 Traumitted By: !f ye;u did net n:ct:ive all paga. Or if the de<tcomcnts is not legible., pla_ colUaCf as in-m-M!tiate!y at 905-89~S371 or 905-896-5382 Leading today for tomorrow - l\.:OO::COM\."~(;l'!OMCROIll'\2fH17\P&H\TOn'LA TES\P '" n FAX roRM..DOC Darren Brand nANN1NlJ (;i uev. ~ ! ~ ~ .. ~ e Apr 12 07 12:37p A P r . 1 2. 2007 11: U 0 AM 164 I 1J ~ .. la ;; ~ ... ~ ~ D Co U U .. fi fi co ~ ~ ~\SiI UIIl ,);J/V , . J ." ".0" .. .: .:.... 0''''' ..': '.,"". ': ..- -n I ! II 1 t II II II II II II 1/ II II 1\ I~ -{:i --~-L-111 ,I I t I II II II - - - - - ml: ; II I I II I 11 I I II II III I I j I II I J 1.11 j:l I f I II 1'1 'j t --- -~i" I .." .. '. . . - .. "." ,. r" . ~ l :,.: . .." to i . ..... . -.11. r. '..Jor~ L.::JI n u : ... .'. ~. . ... . . o. , . . . " " '; 11m)}"' ,,' 't ,;.:.. .:. I: " '~if' ' <:~;:.:. ....:.llT~: :. ~! : "'.:".:: "l~:i.~ ,~"" 'r .' .' ' .' .... .~" '. . . . . :. -: ".:-: ::. ~ ~ , =.. f' . ;:. :. ::-,,';'::.1 5t14J I .. ..... '. ..' . ___I .,...~\~: ,"; .::..=t:=:~~; I ~~ l~' . C ", U . ~C .. ~ ..., :1 if1ji ~ ,It, Jill :Lf='~ - __I p.2 .\ ~ T I , _\ ""i:; ~ .... .J, .... ~ ~ i t' ! I i I I ! I ! , i '-"" < ..t> t ~ /j A ~ I I I ! ~ c1S7 .,,-. ,;.. ," ( ,.. 165 IJ == ~A5C ~ N1YI ro:JI-nNr fI'X) !'I'. JIt)Od"ION .. ----- ---..----- CX/!!lf1N6 ~~ .... I ~ , , ! ! i , - ! i I I I -. .~ ~ =:t;:;: ..dzi;.)...-.4'" c;:, .,: ~ -- r;~ \Y .... ... Rft. ..~~ a n~'~~V'J - lo'l':{cn:ll 1007. 'il'Jd'v' "... !*"!pr i? r)"i ..... : !lr, r II) r\~~.!L. I ; I I I I i I I i I I I j i ! ! ! I I , I i I I ! I T I i I I l o -- -I.. \:) J..- .4 ~: 't' r ! ~ r I j I I ! I I , I i I I i I I I ~ 2. ~ c:lJ ~ I j i ~ 1?:38 2 DO i : t U~AM Darren B nAI'I'IIIH.l r(\(aG~v ' V..JfU 905-831-2656 ;'U II U I II 166 I ~I I ( II I I I P I I I I ~ 3-- ~~ ~i5 ~9 ~~ ~ '. /:: i oS' ~~ Gi~ ~- L , '. , ' ..;"t'i -;.:w:{ II I .'. ~, I I , ---- [ [ p.4 1 ~ i i i ! I i I i I 1 I --.,;" --./ 12 0'7 I ~ r . j [ 90S-831-2SSS .JUIJ VI" ""IU r..~... ~1I!~llJi:J 11\1''''\11''' I . .. p.S ., ~:,. 167 ~ - -lr.. ....~, <)~ " ~"" .~ ! i i ! ! ~ 'S1I'fJ ~_,'" ~ \ \ i I \ \ \ ~I;o, : ~ N'Od , ~ ~ ... ~ /i 1 ;~~ )!v::' .:: 1.010 - ~I '1I:f"d C 10',. "lIr ''f~~ .......s '~ .......... ----... -. ---..... /'" r-~_"\. ~, I!:! !:I il\C 71~ 0'" "8 ~5 S~ "j;J ':II i!~ I: 9i~" ~ .. Eb~~ I ~ I'i! 9 ~ I\?~Q ~ It!~ ~ g ~~~,- ~ : 11;:= ~ ~ U~~ ~ Q :i .~ :::J ~ ~ ~ !i ,,~ ... i:;'~ll ao~~~le ~~!~~ I. i2~i~i'lsB ~itl!ei~~ ::~~~!lb9~ ...o~o~::,.- d I 5- I U :1. I : fl. - 168 Aoenda Item # Pa e # ] --' R. W. PANZER FROM: GENERAL MANAGER OF PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT SUBJECT: APPLICATION BY: C. AMYOT 294 GROSVENOR STREET II RECOMMENDATION II That, on the recommendation of the General Manager of Planning and Development, with the advice of the Heritage Planner, the Heritage Alteration Permit Application of C. Amyot requesting permission for an addition to the designated heritage property located at 294 Grosvenor Street.~E APPROVED; it being noted that the Heritage Planner has reviewed the proposed addition and has advised that the impact of such alteration on the heritage features of the property identified in the reasons for desianation is negliaible. PREVIOUS REPORTS PERTINENT TO THIS MATTER i -.-/ None It BACKGROUND II 294 Grosvenor is a two storey buff brick residence constructed in 1903. The building is .located in the Bishop Hellmuth Heritage Conservation District. The planned alteration is the construction of a 19' x 19' addition to be centred on the rear of the existing building and the replacement of an existing garage with a 20' x 20' new garage at the rear of the property. The exterior of the rear addition will be finished in reclaimed buff brick to match the current building. A small dormer on the west side will match similar dormers on the main structure. The garage will have an exterior finished with board and batten siding. . Neith~rtt'ler~~idential addition, nor the garage, will have a major impact on the ext~rio~fr;~( facade and the finishing details planned will complement the existing heritage character of the '. streetscape. '. .' . .... .... ",',. ., -c PREPARED BY: SUBMITTED BY: D.MENARD G.BARRETT HERITAGE PLANNER MANAGER - LAND USE PLANNING, POLICY , RECOMMENDED BY: I ---" .,...... - - 169 R. W. PANZER GENERAL MANAGER OF PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT April 12, 2007 OMI Attach: photo; application; drawings Y:\Shared\POLlCY\HERIT AGE\Heritage Alteration Reports\294 Grosvenor Sept. 13, 2006 Report to LACH.doc 1 THE' CORPORATION OF THE TOWN OF PICKERING BY-LAW NUMBER 3634/91 ATTACHMENT I ;z. I . 170 Being a by-law to designate property owned by Brenda Pemberton-Pigott in Cherrywood as being of architectural and historical value or interest WHEREAS pursuant to:paragraph ea) of section 29.6 of the Ontario Heritage Act, R.S.O. 1980, c. 337 the council of a municipality Is authorized to enact by-laws to designate real property, including all buildings and structures thereon, to be of architectural and historic value or interest; and WHEREAS the. Council of the Corporation of the Town of Pickering has caused to be served on the owners of the lands and premises being Lot 31, Concession 2 in Cherrywood and upon the Ont~rio Herit.age Foundation, notice of intention, to so designate the aforesaid real property and has caused such noti ce 'of i ntenti on to be publi shed in the same newspaper having general circulation in the municipalfty once for' each of three consecutive weeks; and WHEREAS no notice of objection to the proposed designation has been served on the clerk of the municipality; NOW THEREFORE the Council of the Corporation of the Town of Pickering HEREBY ENACTS as follows: 1. There is designated as being of architectural and historical value or interest the real property owned by Brenda Pemberton-Pigott 1n Cherrywood more particularly described 1n Schedule "A" attached hereto. 2. The municipal: solicitor is hereby authorfzed to cause a copy of . this by-l aw to be' regf stered agai nst the property descrf bed in Schedul e "A" hereto in- the proper land registry office. 3. The CT erk is hereby authorized to cause a copy of this by-l aw to be served on the. owner of the aforesaid property and on the Ontarfo Herftage Foundation and to cause notice of the passing of this by-law to be published in the same newspaper having general circulation in the municfpalfty once for each of three consecutive weeks. BY-lAW READ a first, second and third time and finally PASSED this 21st . January, 1991. . ~ ~~~~~ Wayne Art rs, Mayor <..--- . TO REPORT I c.s 31 ' 1'1'7 ...../. .~......... "~ ...... ---- ~ l I ,-. - SCHEDULE uA" TO BY-LAW - -, ALL AND SINGULAR that certai n parcel or tract of 1 and and premi ses situate. lying and being in the Town of Pickering in the Regional Municipality of Durham (previously the Township of Pickering in the County of Ontarfo) 1n the Province of Ontario and being composed of the northeast corner of Lot Number Thirty-one (31) in the Second Concession of the :Said Town of Pickering containing by admeasurement three-fourths of an acre. by the same more .or less. of which the description and admeasurement of the boundaries are as follows, that fs to say: COMMENCING at the northeast angle of the said Lotj THENCE south, sixteen degrees east. three chains eight links and nfne-tenths of a link to a certain post; . THENCE south seventy-four degrees, west two cha f ns and forth-three 11 nks to a certain post; THENCE north, sixteen degrees west, three chains eight links and nfne-tenths of a lfnk to the allowance for road in front of .the third concession; . THENCE north seventy-four degrees east two chains and forty-three links along the northern limit of said Lot to the place of commencement. 1 71 ....... ..... ..... REASONS FOR DESIGNATION 172 (By-law Number Durfng 1869 and '1870. John Walkey purchased three quarters of an acre of the original two hundred acres regfstered to Michael and Elizabeth Davy in 1816. The Ontario County Atlas of 1877 shows a substantial residence and prosperous forge and carriage works. . The Walkey House. dated to 1869. fs one of the few remaining residences in the hamlet of Cherrywood from earlier tfmes. Although altered over the years. many of the original architectural details can still be admired. The west end of the forge is all that remafnsof the 01'igina1 carriage works and smithy. The location of these two bUildings comprising the Walkey property shows the importance of business in the cOlIIDunfta' and illustrates a typical residential commercial mix still seen in older communities. The House is painted board and batten. 1-1/2 storey, III plan structure on a rubbl e foundation wi th a single storey extension. The roof is moderately pitched with a steeper gable facfng the road. A :1956 photograph shows a wood shingle roof. Original windows are 6/6 with many relocated on the north side during renovations ,in the 1960s. There is graceful gothic tracery on the lancet in the front gable and moulding running under the soffit with plain facia and frieze. 1877 Atlas and 1956 photographs show decorative bargeboard" pendant and finial above the lancet window. ..........--....... The Blacksmith shop is located on the western portion of the lot. All that remains of the structure is a single storey board and 'batten sided bun ding of approximately 16 feet by 20 feet. Windows are 6/6 with a large double door facing the Concession Road. It is. of wood frame construction with no discernible foundation and has been extensively repaired over the years. The hinges. latches and work bench are said to be original. The. floor is comprised of wide heavy planks. Windows in both structures contain a lot of original glass. ' -../. .....-....-.... '-'" ---' L "".,,- ." '" ,-" ,,"" "", " ", / " / '" ", '" / ", ", ", ", ", '" ",,'" ",,'" "" ", ,'" '" ", '" ~oI' /'" ",'" ",,// / ", // ",'" / / ) /' .... ,/ ... I I ............;.......-" 'I -' .... ...---.... .",-' J. I ------ ,'--- --------.).-- ~.,. - THIRD CONCESSION ~ o z o g a: o 8 0: ) c:r z o !J c:r ~ c:r ill ~ RAILWAYS 173 .... ". ~ ......... TO REPORT # C$ j 37 -a 7 174 [Section 33 . . ~ ' .. ATTACHMENT # 3 of the Ontario Heritage Ac ~ --- ~ Council/delegate Decision. within SO days: Consent to application? Notice of Decision to Refuse 1 < Served on property owner 2. Published in newspaper [if CRB hearing has taken place) Property owner objection within 30 days? .~ Property cannot be altered) -~~ Notice of Decision to Consent !including any terms and conditions) : 1 . Served on property owner 2. Published in newspaper [if CAB hearing has taken place! Council/delegatB considers CAB Report Objection referred to CRB for hearing Notice of Decision to Consent [including any terms end conditions] : 1. Served on property owner 2. Published in newspaper ~ Property can be altered [in accordance with any terms and conditions! Property can be altered [in accordance with any terms and conditions) ~ Property owner objection to terms and conditions within 30 days? CRB hearing and report Council/delegate considers CRB Report Notice of Decision to Refuse j 1. Served on property owner 2. Published in newspaper Property cannot be altered ) ~ · Council/delegate decision final where CRB hearing has taken place iiii~;~~t:~I., >:;'Y":: :j~~~~..}\~~!:W': -.,..../' }1 {ii :::: ~fi :j~ {~ :;;:r. J ~~:' ni:1 i;Jii ':-'1' ;':.pl ;-..,.1 rill 111 :,:!i,1 ;.I.jl :.J ~~! I :,f y .. ...:;.:.... i...\. '~:I , ~~.l" . jl :1\ The Regional Municipality of Durham HEALTH DEPARTMENT ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH DIVISION 101 Consumers Dr. 2nd Floor " Whitby ON ' . Canada L 1N 1C4 ATTACHMENT # 'f ,Y .... September 11, 2006 S E P -132006 ' CITY OF PICKERING BUILDING SECTION 175 Planning and Development City of Pickering One The Esplanade Pickering, ON L 1 V 6K7 ~'" , ',~, ~\>. ~c~ ~\ 'li~ V 4-~:' ~q. tcJ ~~ '~'~"~" ~~~~ W' :~G' ' Attn: Tim Moore, C.8.0 Dear Sir:: Re: ' ,Pt Lot 31 ,Cone. #2 City of Pickering '~ 905-723-3818 " -888-777-9613 . .. 905-666-1887 This Department has reviewed the soppliedinformationregarding the " above and have determined' that the performance level of th~ sewage www.region.durham.on.ca system ~ad, been reduced as per 11.4.2.5., of the Ontario Buil9in'g " An Accredited " ' , , Code. ' ,',' Public Health Age'ncy , , , ' Since the 'proposal Will increase the number 9f bedrooms in the dwelling"the owriervvill be required to, install a new priva.te sewage, , disposal system., Once the owner submits an application for a permit. ~hatis complete 'to install the new sewage system, it will be, assessed and if it adhe~es to the Ontario Building qode issued. ' .- "'~';'l~t;:~:~":?;'" , ' ' "$eiViii'.~~lIence ' for'd{J'/ti6fiio;;;."iiities" ' . -t't'. .~I~._," !~,.. . . . . Pleasejeel free to coniact the undersigned .if mor~ inforniaiion is r~quired. ' ' '- , KK/kd 176 HYDRO _-- 1 . ,<'-'ORT # rc.s:3"7'vD7 i U i-ll..r- - r;. ATTACHMENl ~f J ~ " o ~ o cr: .L :.: z <( CD W Vl o 0::: CONCESSION THIRD --...--. O'R\DOR CO" 0,<ORO --...-- City of Pickering Planning & Development Department PROPERlY DESCRIPTION CON 2, N PT LOT 31, RP 40R-2207 PART 8 OWNER P.I.AFRANCE DATE SEP.18,2006 DRAWN BY JB FILENo. HERITAGE PERMIT APPLICATION SCALE 1:5000 . l' CHECKED BY TM