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