HomeMy WebLinkAboutCS 61-06
Citq IJ~
REPORT TO
COUNCIL
118
Report Number: CS 61-06
Date: October 10, 2006
From:
Gillis A. Paterson
Director, Corporate Services & Treasurer
Subject:
Heritage Permit Application 002/06
- Submission under the Ontario Heritage Act
- 2390 Rosebank Road, Pickering
Recommendation:
Council Direction Required
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.
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 2000 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.
Financial Implications: Not applicable.
Background: On August 14, 2006, Paul and Janna LaFrance and Darren and
Lucie Brand submitted a heritage permit application, in accordance with the procedure
approved by Council on July 24, 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.
.. ~eport CS 61-06
· '/ ,J
___ 1.-.11,
Heritage Permit Application 002/06
Date: October 10, 2006
Page 2
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.
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
Planninq & Development Department
Comments about the applicant's proposal were solicited from Unterman McPhail
Associates Heritage Resource Management Consultants (UMA), and the Region of
Durham Health Department. We retained UMA to provide Council with Heritage
recommendations owing to the scope of the applicant's proposal and in consideration of
this being a prominently located individually designated building.
We have reviewed the applicant's proposal for compliance with other applicable law,
and provide the following comments.
General Considerations
The applicant proposes to construct a two storey addition to the existing two storey, four
bedroom dwelling. The proposal will approximately double the size of the existing
building. The proposed dwelling will be 4,570 square feet, and would include 9
bedrooms and five bathrooms. As a result, it could support a substantial number of
occupants. If the dwelling is operated as a single housekeeping unit, there are no
zoning or building code regulations which restrict the number of bedrooms or
occupants.
Planning Act
. Pickering Official Plan Designation: 'Rural Settlement - Rural Hamlet' within the
Settlement of Cherrywood and Area.
. Greenbelt Plan Designation: 'Protected Countryside - 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.
From the preliminary plans submitted, it appears as though the existing dwelling and
proposed addition 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
Report CS 61-06
Date: October 10, 2006
Heritage Permit Application 002/06
Page 3
.. r, '"
1~J.
yard (the property fronts onto Third Concession Road.), and to recognize a reduced
flankage side yard for the accessory structure along Rosebank Road.
Building Code Act [Part 8, Sewage Systems]
The Region of Durham have 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.
Heritaqe Pickerinq
As requested, the application submitted for 2390 Rosebank Road has been reviewed
by the Committee, and similar to the concerns outlined in the March 24, 2006 memo to
Council, Chief Administrative Officer and City Clerk, Heritage Pickering's comments are
as follows.
Applicant's Schedule B
1. All designated properties are not currently listed by address, the initial check did
not reveal this property on the designated listing. Subsequent investigation
shortly thereafter did show this property to be designated.
2. Designation reports sometimes list only the building and as such, the owners
were directed to obtain a copy of the report for this property (as did the Heritage
Pickering committee), in order to see what was/was not included in the
designation report. This has bearing on what can/can not be considered in a
heritage permit application.
5. Heritage Pickering, not the Heritage Board, reviewed the proposal in an informal
capacity and the chair contacted the applicants to report that the committee had
not supported the request for de-designation of the property with the exception of
the blacksmith shop. (Note: it is not possible to de-designate only part of a
designated property so the entire property would have to be de-designated and
then the blacksmith shop designated individually.) The committee also shared
concerns about the "...addition as proposed as it would alter the historical
reference and character of the original building to a large extent."
Correspondence shortly thereafter provided further detail, specifically, that the
committee's concern was with the size of the proposed addition that would alter
the historical reference and character, e.g. the contextual setting of the home by
reducing the green space surrounding it. The proposed addition significantly
increases the size of the structural footprint.
8. With respect to the additions noted to the original house by Ms. Pemberton-
Piggott, as the applicants noted, these were made prior to designation and not
subject to Ontario Heritage Act legislation.
Report CS 61-06
Date: October 10, 2006
"'nro
1. 4-reritage Permit Application 002/06
Page 4
22. Similarly to point #8, the noted addition to 494 Whitevale Road was made prior
to the Heritage Conservation District designation and therefore not subject to the
Ontario Heritage Act legislation. In addition, the proportion of the addition is
consistent with the Whitevale Heritage Conservation District Guidelines for
Alterations and Additions to Heritage Buildings (5.3.2), specifically 5.3.2.2
"Locate additions to the rear or otherwise less conspicuous side of the property
and limit the size and scale so as to complement the heritage building."
23. Noted changes allowed to the property at 480 Whitevale Road occurred prior to
Heritage Conservation District designation, as well as the recent changes to the
Ontario Heritage Act, which strengthens the ability of municipal heritage
committees to preserve heritage assets, which the committee now has at its
disposal.
25. While the photographs provided by the applicant show the addition would not be
& #26 very visible from several sight lines, the addition would still be fairly visible. In
addition, the sight lines during the late fall, winter and early spring, would allow
for significantly improved viewing from other sight line directions.
As stated previously, during the informal consultation process, Heritage Pickering has
significant concerns with the size of the proposed addition. It is not complimentary in
size or scale in relation to the existing heritage designated building, being
proportionately larger than the original structure. While located at the rear of the
property, as the building is on a corner lot, the addition is conspicuous to the
neighbourhood from various positions and during a majority of the year (October
through May) when foliage may not obstruct the view.
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 which state "Constructing a new addition
so that the character-defining features of the historic resource (original buildings and
surrounding property) are obscured, damaged or destroyed, or the heritage value is
otherwise undermined" 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 obscures,
damages or destroys character-defining features of the historic relationship to the
historic place." Based on the points referred to previously, we believe that these
guidelines are not being met.
While we sympathize with the family's need for increased space, the property was
purchased with the designation on title and limitations as to what can be constructed on
this property should not be a surprise. In addition, of note, is the concern about the
proposed construction expressed by a neighbour from the beginning of this process.
For the reasons stated above, Heritage Pickering cannot support the plans as currently
proposed and would, therefore, recommend that Council not approve the application.
Report CS 61-06
Date: October 10, 2006
Heritage Permit Application 002/06
Page 5
.et'\"
l.(.,~
Should changes be considered based on the recommendations made, we would be
happy to work with the owners for a more suitable solution.
Peer Review bv Unterman McPhail Associates
At the request of the Planning & Development Department, a peer review was
completed by Richard Unterman, Unterman McPhail Associates. The comments as
noted in UMA correspondence of September 19, 2006 has been noted below:
Further to our review of the file documents supplied by your department we offer the
following comments on the Heritage Permit Application HPA 002/06 - 2390 Rosebank
Road as requested. By-law Number 3634/91 under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act
designates the property.
The package of information supplied by the municipality contained a number of
pertinent documents including a survey plan, three floor plans and the formal Heritage
Permit Application submitted by Paul and Janna Lafrance and Darren and Lucie Brand.
The Heritage Permit Application process has been initiated by the Applicant for the
purpose of the construction of an addition to the existing structure.
The Applicant's package was reasonably comprehensive in content; however, it does
not include a photograph of the West Elevation, which is where the addition is to be
placed. I also found the drawings to be somewhat confusing. They lack in terms of
room description and in orientation of the plan/design on the site. The Applicant does
not supply a material sample list or illustrations of the proposed products.
The Applicant confirms an understanding and states an acceptance of the Ministry of
Culture 'Eight Guiding Principles of in the Conservation of Historic Properties' and
Parks Canada's Standards and Guidelines for the Conservation of Historic Places in
Canada."
The Applicant's design tries to demonstrate that it is clearly distinguishable from the
original through the use of new synthetic cladding. The addition will respect the existing
original structure roofline design, which has evolved somewhat from the 1877
Illustrative Historical Atlas rendering. The proposed linked sections are consistent in
form with the original building.
The following represents my opinion of the proposed design.
1. The height of the proposed residence is consistent with the existing building and
is acceptable in concept.
2. 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
Regort CS 61-06
.. ^ '!'
L {. L.t
Heritage Permit Application 002/06
Date: October 10, 2006
Page 6
relationship to historic place.' Pp.8. This addition is almost equal in size to the
original.
3. 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.
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.
Lastly, the Applicant should be required to present a better set of clear
architectural plans and a proper dileated site plan to understand the relationship
of the new addition to the context of the site and historic settlement.
Attachments:
1. Heritage Permit Application HPA 002/06
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 / Endorsed By:
~~
Debi A. Bentley .
City Clerk
~~
,.. ~ ''''Y --....
~illis A. Paterson
Director, Corporate Services & Treasurer
DB:ks
Attachments
Report CS 61-06
Date: October 10, 2006
4('.-
l.r..:J
Heritage Permit Application 002/06
Page 7
Copy: Chief Administrative Officer
Recommended for the consideration of
Pickering City Council
,,/
ifj' c} c(
40...
l.t.-V
I AnACHMENT , I m REPORT # C s Ibl-d,
HERITAGE PERMIT
APPLICATION
Under the Ontario Heritage Act
In Re:
Lafrance and Brand Application to alter Heritage Property at 2390
Rosebank Road, Pickering, Ontario, L1X 2R5; Lot 31
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. Application Form
2. Schedule A - Full Description of All Proposed Work
3. Drawings
4. Schedule B - Supporting Information and Documentation
a) Copy of By-Law Nwnber 3634/91
b) Copy of Sketch of Original House
c) Eight Guiding Principles in the Conservation of Historic Properties
d) Parks Canada - Standards and Guidelines for the Conservation of Historic Places in
Canada
e) Before and After Photographs of 494 Whitevale Road
f) Before and After Photographs of 480 Whitevale Road
g) Excerpt from Time Present and Time Past, A Pictorial History of Pickering
S. Current Photographs of Property
Paul and Janna Lafrance
Darren and Lucie Brand
2390 Rosebank Road
Pickering ON L 1 X 2RS
416-890-8960 (cell)
paulandjanna@rogers.com
HERITAGE PERMIT
APPLlCA liON
UNDER THE ONTARIO HERITAGE
ACT
~t)h~
.It..,l
Pickering Civic Complex
One The Esplanade
Pickering, Ontario
Canada
L 1V 6K7
Direct Access 905.420.4660
cityofpickering.com
DATE Fll..Bt APPLICATION NO:
ALAS ~ot- \ Lf ,;;tOO 6 HPA C::O-~ )o-b
--
The undersigned hereby applies to The Corporation of the City of Pickering pursuant to Section 33 and 34 of the
Ontario Heritage Act, RSO 1990, c.18 for alteration or addition to the designated property described in this
application.
1. NAME OF OWNER PI\!Il- ~ if ANN 1\ l.A:~(~ f ~ ~ Ll.JG\.E. ~ D
ADDRESS OF OWNER 2~lc r(Y~~ (2o!rt) I P\CKti-L\N~
POSTAL CODE 1-1 y,. '2t?!6 TELEPHONE NO. (d.fl..e/1~ -1'%2 (flt1l1L-)
EMAIL: pn lJI \ 0 t'\f\"Jll "'~u ~.. rl'~t"' ,..~ (.n~'Yl / tiaq'R t" (UdlLUJ ~ @_ *" Cj€ t>. {Oi")'1
2. LOCATION OF PROPERTY:
ADDRESS: 2;clD ~o&.8(tN~ ~.Ai)) PlCt.E:ltN6, ON / LIK2L6
LOT NO. ,;~l,\ REGISTERED PLAN NO.
3. NAME OF AGENT (IF ANY):
ADDRESS:
POSTAL CODE
TELEPHONE NO.
4. FULL DESCRIPTION OF ALL PROPOSED WORK
Stet.- tn1At.cl€o ~'C.'~\JLE HA"
.. Qity-of Pickering Application for Alteration or Addition to a Designated Property
1. (." I)
5. EXISTING TOTAL FLOOR AREA: ~ '3l'jc So. ' fT.
Page 2
6.
EXISTING USE OF PROPERTY:
~j ObNrl i'f\.-
7. PROPOSED AREA OF ADDITIONS ON ALL FLOORS: ~ 7'5 5 Q ,F T .
8. PROPOSED USE OF PROPERTY: (!..~ I OeN-n ffJ-
9. CONSTRUCTION DRAWINGS, SKETCH PLANS, SCALE DRAWINGS:
Please attach drawings of the proposed alterations and additions. 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
10. OTHER INFORMATION: You may provide other written information or documents supporting your
proposal for the City's consideration._ S~ S(.~uL€. "e,'. .,
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.
12. 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.
13. BUILDING CODES AND BY-LAWS: This application concerns heritage approval only. It is not a
buildina permit application. It is the applicant's responsibility to apply for and obtain a building permit
prior to undertaking any construction.
14.
OTHER APPLICATIONS:
Do you have any concurrent applications (ie: Committee of Adjustment)
YES
~
15.
IF YES, PLEASE LIST:
TO BE COMPLETED BY CITY ST A~..
Designated Property: \..Y!;>:v
Designation By-law No: ~
NO
NO
3'=-'3Y-/CX\
~
~. ~
!-iA.~'\! ..' ~
Si<3 A TURE OF OWNER(S)
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, RS.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.
., () ,'"
1(..,\1
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")
SCHEDULE A
Full Description of Work to be Done
2000 square foot addition off western portion of existing house. The new construction is to
extend off of the existing addition, which was added to the original house in the 1950's. No part
of the new construction is in direct contact with the original house. The western and northern
walls of the existing addition and the roof are to be removed. The existing floor will remain and
be extended 75 sq. ft. to the north and 325 sq. ft. to the west. New exterior walls to be built and
a second floor to be added over new 675 square foot living area. 1000 sq. ft. of living space to be
added extending further west from portion mentioned above. 6 feet of excavation for basement
under this portion. Gable end roof style to compliment ori&inal house. Vertical siding to
compliment existing board and batten finish but vinyl to be used in a different colour scheme to
distinguish between old and new. New addition will contain 6 bedrooms and 2 bathrooms. New
bathrooms to use existing septic tank on property (property has two septic tanks, second full-
sized tank currently being used for la~dry only) No portion of the new addition interferes with
the existing septic bed.
130
~
~
~-
..... =
~ ~
::: 0
tool,.C
~rJl
~ ;
--
~'"C
.!'oil ClI
't; ~
.... -
~ fr
I~
='"C
o =
~ =
.-
'"C'"C
'"C ClI
< ~
"is e
lit} ClI
O~
Q.ClI
E.o
=-..s
'fi :::
.- ~
~";:::
~ ....
~~
S~
= E
~ ClI
o .....
fl'-l
'" ClI
~~
'" ~
o =
U ._
.....
..... fl'-l
fl'-l ._
= ~
ClI~
,.C
1::
o
Z
'J'1
Q
=
......
=-
<
....
~
~
Q
~
==
Q
=
{I.l
~
~
....
......
=-
I-C
"1
Q
"C
Q
{I.l
~
c..
>
c..
c..
....
......
....
Q
=
~
~.
:::-
:::'
~
~
~
~
:::
~
.....
~
~
~
..-
>
c..
c..
....
......
....
Q
=
~
~
"1
;-
c..
--
<II 3 '"
.1 .J.
00
Q
=
....
:r
l'C
=
fI;l
....
n
o
..,
=
l'C
..,
Q
~
==
Q
=
fI;l
l'C
~
-.
....
:r
~
..,
Q
"0
Q
fI;l
~
Q.
>
Q.
Q.
-.
....
-.
Q
=
-
00-
_.
Q.
~
~
Q
fI;l
....
~
~
=
Q.
-.
q
<
-.
~
~
~
Q.
~
Q
a
~
=
0"
-
-.
t".l
~
~
=
-
a
--
\3~
rJ).
Q
=
......
=-
I
rJ).
Q
=
......
=-
~
=
rI.l
......
(j
Q
"1
=
~
.,
Q
""'"
==
Q
=
rI.l
~
~
...
...".
=-
"'C
"1
Q
"'0
Q
rI.l
~
Q.
>
Q.
Q.
...
...".
S'
=
.-
>
Q.
Q.
...
...".
...
Q
=
a:
=
.,
~
Q.
--
"3'"'
1. 0
::
134
,",!~
\J'.
(fI
.~
-.)
-'
('
V>
,~
<-,
....:~
"t ':t
, l'.
~. 1
'.~' ~
'k'l
t l'
I SFI~1'lI'l f SIOfO,) I WI'l I SIlRId f '''19idw''l I SI:lQiqO I SjOO1lWlOdl. S~II'
14"'" - oc "
'"
1 -
_ J
=i
'-9
'5'-9
f
--
c\j
c
.- L
_1_- _
12-3"
j
!
,
'"
;;, i---
.,
I
fj ---
+-=[-
r
-L t-
+-
, ,
I I-I
0'- "
~~~~I
=f
.--1
L
'"
~
-;p
cW ~
.'
~
-., f'
<liP ~
~
CD'
"I
I ~
I
CD
q
1
-8
'-8"~
3 1 "
__1____
....
Oi
1 - -
..., C4
, 1'-"u
., =t:
II
trtj~ ~~r
ti~r - \~~=F-
· ~Jflij:
r} Yml'-
I I I I I Iii I I
--1-
-
I I I I I
-----t.-- .----;-
! I I I I I
.~ rt=.*. .\l
t +~ t
I I I
.. -i-=J
1
Fr
.I
-rt+- +1
-tAt -fi 1
tttf'+=! -r
I+p-t.
b-t+, I
c*'P$L
j:l1::f1. 1.1,"
. -++-fl r-
.$-+
F++
f-:p-+
.J
..,
..J
LI
I I
r
f
1.
-- t+
t1.
I
,
I
.I
~
'l~' .'1'
~!- H-
fr
.+
.+
,~~
.-'
r:
l: -Ix'
~t I j3~
~j
.1-
.t.,
. ",
'I -I- 1
.u. I
j L ~"
\ .~, r=t, +!--f-C
U::H::'I!cH-I~
I J...li' ::r:: + c'kLlL
H-H+ +t'1 '.fl!i;j
IT I 'I i-: I
, ~:.t..tt [[ - '
1:1 H+, ?H~LI+ tb"] ."' , .'
=Bill .JH-Ft , ~i!:.
ili:tJe ;I..u::i+ '.+- ojo,'t!'
t~tiE !R~-gf I-~+:J> ~ - -
J::tH:: I ;:ib~b: =+h4:',
1 1 I .U,' 1t[:Of~ct ' 1--. ,'Ic:ccik', ~
-I..LI ILl 1 -1+ "~ 1'/
'rl-H-L: L I !
J ,~:n." u.. t4..
tJ:,"HL ;'. , CR,c ..". .
ft.:: J J"N.. L
t t w:;::-i::fG '
" +-!i' H:: '
+=c
lrnf
'i! I-j-
I'
i
'L
,,~'
'" Lp
", ,+-
"
I .
+ tH,
j::f:: +-
~ ...,
__' +,J
-Fh ..Li+
it
IF
i
+-L- ,.
-r--r -1-'
L
..1.
.~ ::~
I 1
'1 ,
.1-
+
i1
. -- 'H-
lff~~' r:1lrr -::-1
I
'f
+-
1 r
.L
+
1::1.
..J
L
. I
+
L
:t =F
1
*,
, .
"
.I
I ~
.J 1_
, 'tt"
, 1 --
L
H.'-i-l!l..!C
. 't +,+If
,~. i"ml- .,
'::li. . Jt-f+' +tt
' t~J + ~'.I=Hl~=8'i ~ 1
"'I H' o::l-'-i-t+-:t+~
,,' #1+" ,,,. I -;--'i-+.fl-:.:b::tt~ ~
-l-I+tt;l '+ f+-m~:t+-'-b~tbiH-t1
= ,).' m-t-€-ct/ I/~'- ~~1i}tt~~f+~-+
j:cj-;[+ +-, '- -t' .j.:jM,- CT'.p+
R::'f- ' ~,-t-t+=L:ll:~Efr:Ji+':U
L 1 I I-LHL-+LJr+':d"1f.tSt7I-h-tLI-I,+, +1-1-t+'I'"=it
.. '-[--, .+L i"i::r..~r'--I--HT '[-,,']
,:.hJ-t~'lill'- -t~j I~\trl-.J~-t_t~h I-~. -t~, 1__.. L1
L '+1 t+ +- -t+I~...t;J b.o~ + _- - I
I- !-- -t .~. tlitl- Tr I-lilf, -I-!Ji I - ~t, -I L
d.-I,J.. + +LL fl" + _L ", ~f- 'r
:tfJ-+L +LI- L+-I +L.' I-~m _LL
ttt!.l..l.+L".LL'-tI',LL_.L II
I[-L+j Lt+-Hj-~-u I-~'H-tr,r+, +1 =1
HJ-"t{+fa~ f f ~.8=r-t 1 d;'H=~
, [ -'- I ..l.J..t -I: L'I r 1 'L L 1- _
,. T'! 1-1-t.l L+::l.i" d
, \:Li",'.1.1 ,,+ r.Hit-lJftd.t! L-t+. L ~
'_, ~u. :-/H'hL'~,.~~.~}~,.
, .j:i::i-Fte.t-L}L-<- ~~-tl::t1-' ~ I
- f~ +mh i-t-l ltt,Krt .r~ t
' -" ' , I -j-'"'
1 ++ t ~~ [+;-1+1+ + I
-If,tl]11 i."::: I~--f L 1'--1-
, + +I',.Ihf ;t-L
~l.tti tl- ~i 1-1 oil
;l-tl -t+~ :t~ --F I
;jIJ..t+-1.i, o'::,L1+
't+~+fj...i" +1+';=1'( I I 1
-:j::l:t:~-0-1 I- I Ji~I[-Il
II L:+ -I 1+
.: i 1 -l-f +-ILl 1-1 1'1--1--1:1 1
't-t-t-rB. -t+t1:~lt
I,r .~ I
, i:t:
fll.r'-
, qJJ
.. '~,
h
i-H
-I"
...1.
.~..J'
I
I
+'J
,+
rr
, -J
j~ 1
'r
, .. r
., ~I
-- .. =t
T
-j,
::r ..
L
1
-:r
,-'
--+
=1
L ,
--I-!-
::ji'
:B
. . -I
1 !
-. 1-+
_,....J.
...I.J
4
..Ltfffil
--I- I
tl L l
_. ....1 L'
" +
I
.J
.J
CE
L
.. 4)~"
1.." l
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, LlX 2R5; Lot 31 ("the Property")
SCHEDULE B
Pursuant to Section 10 ("Other InfOlmation") of the Heritage Permit Application, the following
information is intended to support the Applicants' proposal.
1. At the end of October 2005, the Applicants contacted Heritage Pickering to inquire with
respect to the steps required to apply for a permit to build an addition on their heritage
property. At that time, the Chair, Ms. Pamela Fuselli, responded to their inquiry by
indicating that Heritage Pickering did not have the Property listed on their record of
designated properties in Pickering. She indicated she would check with other committee
members to see if they were able to find any information regarding the Property.
2. Some time later, one of the committee members did identify the Property, yet there was
uncertainty with respect to the designation report on the property or the relevant by-law,
and what type of addition would be allowed. She suggested the Applicants acquire a
copy of the relevant by-law and determine whether their proposed addition would
compromise the designation.
3. The Applicants did acquire a copy of the by-law designating the Property and were
surprised to find that the designation itself was in error with respect to its description of
the property. The Reasonsfor Designation attached to the by-law indicate that the
Blacksmith shop is located on the western portion of the lot. In actual fact, the
Blacksmith shop is located on the northeast portion of the lot. Attached hereto and
forming Exhibit A to this Schedule is a copy of By-Law Number 3634/91, including the
Reasons jar Designation.
4. The Applicants reviewed the description of the property and the reasons for designation
and put together a proposed design for the addition that would not, in their view,
compromise the designation in any way. The buildings were not to be moved and the
original structure was not to be altered even slightly.
5. The Heritage Board reviewed the proposal and contacted the Applicants to indicate that
they would not support the proposal. No altematives or suggestions for revision were
offered.
.. I)
1.0')
Page 2 of 4
6. In the reasons provided for the decision of the Heritage Board, they indicated that they
had discovered a photograph of the Property in the 1877 Atlas, which shows the back
portion of the house with the chimney. In their view, this established its extensive length
of existence in its location.
7. They also indicated their admiration for the previous owner of the home, Ms. Brenda
Pemberton-Piggott, who was active in heritage preservation and who had been the one to
initially apply for the heritage designation.
8. The Applicants submit for the Counsel's consideration that Ms. Pemberton-Piggott
herself actually had more than one addition put onto the original house before applying
for the heritage designation, including a large addition to the back of the house that
covered over the chimney referred to by the Heritage Committee.
9. She also had an addition put onto the front of the house that significantly changed the
look of the front of the house that is most visible from the public realm. Attached hereto
and forming Exhibit B to this Schedule is a copy of a historical sketch of the property
before that addition had taken place.
10. The addition proposed by the Applicants does not alter the original structure at all but
rather adds to the back portion of the building and compliments what presently exists.
] ] . The Applicants purchased the Property in the spring of 2003. Since that time, they have
spent approximately $10,000.00 and months of labour repairing the interior of the
residence, which had decayed considerably and did not appear to have been maintained
for many years. The walls in the original structure were all collapsing and the electrical
wiring was old and dangerous.
12. The Applicants have also worked diligently to preserve the exterior of the home and
property and intend to refinish that as well.
13. After having put so much into the home, the Applicants are reluctant to have to move,
however, since the time they purchased the Property, they have had three more children
and find themselves in a circumstance that requires much more space than the present
structure allows.
14. The Applicants have also had an extreme difficulty with skunks nesting under one of the
additions at the back of the house. The foundations of the existing additions are cracked
in several places and have allowed countless skunks to make their home under the house.
This has resulted in dozens of spraying incidents, several of which required the
Applicants to move out of the house for days at a time. Removing the addition at the
back of the house will solve this problem permanently.
.. 3 r..
1. J
Page 3 of 4
15. In an effort to adhere to the Heritage Act and all other guiding principles with respect to
Heritage Properties, the Applicants have reviewed the Act and have attempted to comply
with every guideline that has been made available by the Provincial and Federal
governments.
16. Although the Heritage Board had indicated that it did not have an issue with the proposed
addition's style, the Applicants noted that, both in the Eight Guiding Principles in the
Conservation of Historic Properties, provided by the Ministry of Culture for Ontario, and
in the Parks Canada - Standards and Guidelines jar the Conservation of Historic Places
in Canada, it is recommended that new work should be distinguishable from old.
17. The Ministry of Culture requires that "buildings should be recognized as products of their
own time, and new additions should not blur the distinction between old and new." Parks
Canada recommends that new additions be designed "in a manner that draws a clear
distinction between what is historic and what is new."
18. After having considered these sections of the guidelines, the Applicants have altered the
style of the addition to make it clearly distinguishable from the original building, mainly
by changing the colour and style of the siding. The addition is, however, complimentary
to and compatible with the historical building.
19. Attached hereto and forming Exhibit C to this Schedule is a copy of the Eight Guiding
Principles in the Conservation of Historic Properties. Attached hereto and forming
Exhibit D to this Schedule is a copy of the New Additions to Historic Places section of
the Parks Canada - Standards and Guidelines for the Conservation of Historic Places in
Canada. The Applicants submit that their proposal keeps with all of the principles
outlined in these guidelines.
20. As the Counsel is aware, there are only a few heritage properties in the City of Pickering,
including a Heritage Conservation District in the community of White vale.
21. There are two properties in that district in particular that have had significant additions
put onto the original structure. The first is at 494 Whitevale Road, and the second is at
480 Whitevale Road. Attached hereto and forming Exhibits E and F to this Schedule are
copies of before and after photographs of those two properties.
22. The Applicants submit that the changes allowed to the property at 494 Whitevale Road
significantly alter the look of the portion of the structure most readily viewed from the
public eye. The Applicants also note that the addition to the rear of the building is sizable
and yet quite distinguishable from the old.
..
1. I,
Page 4 of 4
23. The Applicants submit that the changes allowed to the property at 480 Whitevale Road
entirely alter the look of the original building and do not keep with the guideline that
additions and changes be distinguishable from the old.
24. The Applicants have reviewed photographs of the property that have been included in
historical records, including a work compiled and edited by John W. Sabean entitled Time
Present and Time Past, A Pictorial History of Pickering, which was published by Altona
Editions for the Pickering Township Historical Society and the City of Pickering
Millennium Committee in November of 2000. Attached and forming Exhibit G to this
Schedule is a copy of the photographs of the Property included on page 60 of this work.
25. The page displays a small duplicate of the drawing contained in Exhibit B, along with a
photograph of the southeast corner of the house, and of the southeast corner of the
Blacksmith shop. The views shown in these photographs are those most readily viewable
from the public realm, as referred to in the Parks Canada - Standards and Guidelines for
the Conservation of Historic Places in Canada.
26. The Property contains numerous aged trees, including a large grouping of trees that line
the north side of the Property. Because of the location ofthe house on the Property and
the number of mature trees, the proposed addition to the back of the house will not be
easily seen from the public view. (Please see Section 11 of the Application for current
photographs of the property from all angles.)
27. The Applicants submit that this also aids in the maintenance of the historical significance
of the property.
28. The Applicants hereby express their sincere intent to adhere to all of the Provincial and
Federal guidelines with respect to the preservation of historical properties. The
Applicants appreciate the history of their community and of their home.
29. Ms. Pemberton-Piggott, who has been noted as a respected activist and heritage defender,
added onto the property as her family and the community around her changed, with the
addition of a large concrete swimming pool, and several other additions to the home as
noted above.
30. The Applicants respectfully submit their proposal to not only protect and maintain the
historical buildings that exist on their sizable property, but also to add to those existing
structures a new addition that will represent the heritage that they are creating now in this
era, which can be looked upon and remembered in the years to corne.
THE CORPORATION OF THE TOWN OF PICKERING
BY-LAW NUMBER 3634/91
.. 4'"
.1 J.
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 (a) of secti on 29.6 of the Ontari 0 Heritage
Act. R.S.O. 1980. c~ 337 the council of a municipal ity 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 1 ands and premi ses bei ng Lot 31.
Concession 2 in Cherrywood and upon the Ontario Heritage Foundation.
notice of intention, to so designate the aforesaid real property and has
caused such noti ce "of i ntenti on to be publ i shed in the same newspaper
having general circulation in the municipality 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 in
Cherrywood more particularly described in Schedule "A" attached
hereto.
2. The munic1 pal sol i citor 1 s hereby author1 zed to cause a copy of this
by-law to be registered against the property described in Schedule
"A" hereto in the proper land registry office.
3. The C1 erk is hereby authori zed to cause a copy of thi s by-l aw to be
served on the owner of the aforesaid property and on the Ontario
Heritage Foundation and to cause notice of the passing of this by-law
to be published in the same newspaper having general circulation in
the municipality once for each of three consecutive weeks.
BY-LAW READ a first. second and third time and finally PASSED this 21st
January I 1991.
~ ~~~-'~
Wayne Art rs. Mayor
L---.
SCHEDULE "A" TO BY-LAW
... L!.'"
.i. 'lLt AND SINGULAR that certain parcel or tract of land and premises
situate, lying and being in the Town of Pickering in the Regional
Municipality of Durham (previously the Township of Pickering in the County
of Ontario) in 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 1 ess. of whi ch the descri pti on and admeasurement of the
boundaries are as follows, that is to say:
COMMENCING at the northeast angle of the said Lot;
THENCE south, sixteen degrees east. three chains eight 1 inks and
nine-tenths of a link to a certain post;
,THENCE south seventy-four degrees, west two chains and forth-three 11 nks
to a certain post;
THENCE north, sixteen degrees west. three chains eight links and
nine-tenths of a 1 ink to the allowance for road in front of ,the third
concession; ,
THENCE north seventy-four degrees east two chains and forty-three 1 inks
along the northern limit of said lot to the place of commencement.
:7'A1
I.;
REASONS FOR DESIGNATION
(By-law Number
"4""'
1- J
During 1869 and 1870. John Walkey purchased three quarters of an acre of
the original two hundred acres registered 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. is one of the few remaining residences in
the hamlet of Cherrywood from earlier times. Although altered over the
years. many of the original architectural details can still be admired.
The west end of the forge is all that remains of the original carriage
works and smithy.
The location of these two buildings comprising the Walkey property shows
the importance of business in the community and illustrates a typical
residential commercial mix still seen in older communities.
The House is painted board and batten. 1-1/2 storey. 'L' plan structure on
a rubble foundation with a single storey extension. The roof is
moderately pitched with a steeper gable facing 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 gothi c tracery on the lancet in the front gable and mou1 di ng
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
buil di ng of approximately 16 feet by 20 feet. Wi ndows 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. '
';'
i.
..., "
~ t
/",'" ",..
,,'" "..,"
" /
" ,/
/' "
./ "
./ ,/
/ ,/
,/ ,/
./ ./
" ,,'/
./" ,
,/ /'
" ,/
,/" "
" ./
" ,/
" /
"" "
,/ ,-
,.'/
"
/
{
""Y
"
/" ,"
I I ~/ ,
""'~ """,-
II ,.,"'" ~"'"
I I -" "'"
---- ".'
J I ---- ""'~'
--------...).....-- ~",.
--
THIRD CONCESSION
~
o
z
o
<(
o
0:
o
g
0:
<(
z
o
~
<(
::.::
z
<(
m
w
(f)
If
RAILWAYS
.
~45
-
J3 ~~
~ ~
~ ~
<3 ~
~ ~
~~
w ~
~Z
~~
A. ca
0.. ~
~~
~t
~
~
.. ~
(
--
Ministry of Culture: Note # 1: Eight Guiding Principles in the Conservation of Historic Pr... Page 1 of 2
.. II ...
l.t.tO
@ Ontario
\1.:lI,.tn "I
Culture
1:0:: :-,t r :~ll ;l-~ f.::.:: db :;d., ;: ,.;. ~n.:h :ib.~ map FI1n'; ~i:;
Location: Minist..y of Culture> About the Ministry> Hentage > Historical Buildings and Sites> Architectural
Conservation Notes Onlrne > Note #1: Eight Guiding Principles in the Conservation of Historic Properties
Note #1:
Eight Guiding Principles in the Conservation of Historic
Properties
The following guiding principles are ministry statements in the conservation of historic
properties and are based on international charters which have been established over the
century. These principles provide the basis for all decisions concerning good practice in
architectural conservation around the world. Principles explain the "why" of every conservation
activity and apply to all heritage properties and their surroundings.
1. RESPECT FOR DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE:
Do not base restoration on conjecture.
Conservation work should be based on historic documentation such as historic photographs,
drawings and physical evidence.
2. RESPECT FOR THE ORIGINAL Location:
Do not move buildings unless there is no other means to save them.
Site is an integral component of a building. Change in site diminishes heritage value
considerably.
3. RESPECT FOR HISTORIC MATERIAL:
Repair/conserve - rather than replace building materials and finishes, except where
absolutely necessary.
Minimal intervention maintains the historical content of the resource.
4. RESPECT FOR ORIGINAL FABRIC:
Repair with like materials.
http://www.culture.gov.on.ca/englishlculdiv/heritagc/conotel.htm
6/22/2006
Ministry of Culture: Note #1: Eight Guiding Principles in the Conservation of Historic Pr... Page 2 of2
Repair to return the resource to its prior condition, without altering its integrity.
147
5. RESPECT FOR THE BUILDING'S HISTORY:
Do not restore to one period at the expense of another period.
Do not destroy later additions to a house solely to restore to a single time period.
6. REVERSIBILlTY:
Alterations should be able to be returned to original conditions. This conserves earlier
building design and technique.
e.g. When a new door opening is put into a stone wall, the original stones are numbered,
removed and stored, allowing for future restoration.
7. LEGIBILITY:
New work should be distinguishable from old.
Buildings should be recognized as products of their own time, and new additions should not
blur the distinction between old and new.
8. MAINTENANCE:
With continuous care, future restoration will not be necessary.
With regular upkeep, major conservation projects and their high costs can be avoided.
For more information, please call the Heritage Properties Unit at (416) 314-7137.
This publication is not copyrighted and can be reproduced without penalty. Normal procedures
for credit to the author and the Ministry of Citizenship, Culture and Recreation are appreciated.
TOP
I Home I News I Contact Us I Related Sites I Text Version I
I central site I feedback I search I site map I fran;;:als I
@ Ontario
Thi s sHe i s rn~i nl ~ined b'l' I he GOVHnrn enl of Onl ari 0, C~ n,~d~.
E'demal Llnl(s Disclallner
Copyright information: @ Queen's Printer lor Ontario, 2002
Last Modified: August 2, 2002
http://www.culture.gov.on.ca/english/culdiv/heritage/conoteI.htm
6/22/2006
parKS Canada - ~tandards and Guidelines for the Conservation of Historic Places in Canada Page 1 of 2
"4-
J.. ,j
1+11
~
(' if..
,1ana( a
:T.r;j:.t';:,
[ s~;]
Title Page
Table of contents
Foreword
Preface and
Acknowledgements
Introduction
Standards
Guidelines
Other
Considerations
References
Printable Version
(PDF, 17.6 Mb)
Parks Canada
National Office
;.~C; [d(iv ~;i;'i::'~:l
(;\'ltln'.j;;lU, ()ll(;i~'t.'i
Cdlj~.Kta
1<11\ OM~,
Email:
Parks
C'..tfl.:ldn
Pones
C"nnd~
('anadri
About the Parks National Parks National National Marine
Canada Agency of Canada Historic Sites of Conservation
Canada Areas of
Canada
Cultural
Heritage
Natural
Heritage
Not Recommended
Constructing a new addition when
the proposed use could be met by
altering existing non-character-
defining spaces,
Constructing a new addition so that
the character-defining features of
the historic resource are obscured,
damaged or destroyed, or the
heritage value is otherwise
undermined.
Duplicating the exact form,
material, style and detailing of the
historic resource in a new addition
so that the new work appears to be
part of the historic place.
Replicating a historic style or period
in a new addition.
Designing and constructing new
additions that diminish or eliminate
the historic character of the
resource, including its design,
materials, workmanship, location or
setting.
Designing a new addition that
obscures, damages or destroys
character-defining features of the
http://www.pc.gc.ca/docs/pc/ guide/nldclpc-sgchpc/sec4/page4e _ e.asp
Recommended
Placing functions and services
required for the proposed use in
existing non-character-defining
spaces rather than constructing a
new addition.
Constructing a new addition to
retain as many of the historic
materials as possible and to ensure
that the character-defining features
are not obscured, damaged, or
destroyed, or the heritage value
undermined.
Designing a new addition in a
manner that draws a clear
distinction between what is historic
and what is new.
Considering the design for an
attached exterior addition in terms
of its relationship to the historic
place as well as the historic district
or neighbourhood. Design for the
new work may be contemporary or
may reference design motifs from
the historic place. In either case, it
should be compatible in terms of
mass, materials, relationship of
solids to voids, and colour, yet be
distinguishable from the historic
place.
Placing a new addition on a non-
character-defining portion and
limiting its size and scale in
6/22/2006
t'arKs canada - :standards and timdelmes tor the Conservation of Historic Places in Canada Page 2 of 2
relationship to the historic place.
historic place or undermines its
heritage value.
<II 4 "'
J '. ;j
When required for a new use of a
building, designing a rooftop
addition that is set back from the
wall plane such that it is as
inconspicuous as possible when
viewed from the public realm.
Constructing a rooftop addition to a
building so that the historic
appearance of the building is
radically changed.
Last Updated: 2004-08-09
To the top
Important Notices
http://www.pc.gc.ca/docs/pc/ guide/nldclpc-sgchpc/sec4/page4e._ e.asp
6/22/2006
YCfL\ Wltt'l~VClk~ ~oCld
(~e6{t)
150
L\qlj ~\l~;lw~e, ~. - W.(~ll. ~t\uls,Or'\ to Gvrtt ?O~1t
"5'"
J. .t.
'-\?:Yo \N V\ I \-sue-\. \ e. {2.d. .
15~
N~vJ
.-
OL.P
.'l I
..
l>~~:
..;.
.'.'j.
::t.. t. '
l"~'
11
~ \
!)..,
Hi
II
~jj
45<'"'
1 j
\
--'; "f
-~,
't}
--i
:.:
';{1...
ctl ~
>- "'" CIl ....:
-0 .J:; ~ CIl .2:: >- 0
en Q) .... .J:; +:; Qi ctl
.... 'E Q) -0 Q) en
ctl CIl M ctl ctl CIl Q) .... <..l -0 .J:; Q)
Q; Q) ...... ~ Q; en co en Q; <( .en .... Q)
c: <..l ..c. c: ::> Q) -ci +:; .... .J:; ex:
Q) :E Cl 0 0- "'" Q) 0 -0 c: .J:; Q) ....
'0; en 0 ..c. .J:; c: Cl .g' .... '~ c:
0> 0 U ..... 0- .... ::> .~ ctl c: 0
.... u Q) >- 0 Q) .... '~
-0 d Q) Q) .S: .J:; -0 en en >-
0 en .J:; Q;
0 CJ M co = en I- Q) ~ 0 ctl
0 0- ~ .... ctl c: .... :J: .... ctl '<t U
~ 0 Q) s Q) $ G ctl en ctl c: 0')
"'" CIl -' .J:; 0> 0 c: 0 >- Q) 0 ~ -0
.... .~ Cl .;:: co
Q) Q) E- c: ..c. en .J:; .... Q)
Q) .... E E ..c. CIl ctl 'Vi ctl .... en ctl .J:; 0-
..... c 'E
.J:; 0 ctl .... e 0 ctl CIl ~ Q) Q) Q) .... Qi
.... ~ ~ -'
U en ..., 'I- ..., <..l ctl a en E ,S: .J:;
N I'
,..; M .,.\. 00
o
c.o
PHOTOS OF PROPERTY
15L(
The following photographs are of the side of the house most easily seen by the public:
Northeast corner of House (will not be altered)
East Side of House (faces Rosebank Road, will not be altered)
PHOTOS OF PROPERTY - Page 2
45-
1. ~
Southeast corner of House (will not be altered)
South Side of House (will not be altered)
PHOTOS OF PROPERTY - Page 3
156
View from Concession 3 (addition would not be easily visible)
\...~-."'".'''
; .......::--:\-.,..
" '\ " . '-'.
.:-.-"
'. ~'"
1.,
View from Neighbours to the east (addition would not be easily visible)
PHOTOS OF PROPERTY - Page 4
157
View from Neighbours to the North (addition not easily visible)
View from across the Street to the North (addition would not be visible)
PHOTOS OF PROPERTY - Page 5
158
View from inside the property to the North (inside treed area)
Proposed addition to commence where noted on the photograph.
THE CORPORATION OF THE TOWN OF PICKERING
BY-lAW NUMBER 3634/91
ATTACHMENT I :z.
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 (a) of section 29.6 of the Ontario Heritage
Act, R.S.O. 1980, c. 337 the council of a municipal ity 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 1 ands and premi ses bei ng lot 31,
Concession 2 in Cherrywood and upon the Ontario Heritage Foundation,
notice of intention, to so designate the aforesaid real property and has
caused such notice 'of intention to be published in the same newspaper
having general circulation in the municipality 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 in
Cherrywood more particularly described in Schedule "A" attached
hereto.
2. The municipal, solicitor is hereby authorized to cause a copy of .this
by-law to be registered against the property described in Schedule
"A" hereto in the proper land registry office.
3. The Clerk is hereby authorized to cause a copy of this by-law to be
served on the. owner of the aforesaid property and on the Ontario
Heritage Foundation and to cause notice of the passing of this by-law
to be published in the same newspaper having general circulation in
the municfpa1i'ty once for each of three consecutive weeks.
BY-lAW READ a first, second and third time and finally PASSED this 21st
. January, 1991.
~ ~'"fO~~~
Wayne Art rs, Mayor
L---.
TO REPORT I CS
6/-0
"5"'"
J. J
SCHEDULE "A" TO BY-LAW
.. n, .
lOll
ALL AND SINGULAR that certain parcel or tract of land and premises
situate, lying and being in the Town of Pickering in the Regional
Municipality of Durham (previously the Township of Pickering in the County
of Ontario) in 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 is to say:
COMMENCING at the northeast angle of the said Lot:
THENCE south, sixteen degrees east, three chains eight links and
nine-tenths of a link to a certain post:
,THENCE south seventy-four degrees, west two chains and forth-three links
to a certain post;
THENCE north, sixteen degrees west, three chains eight links and
ni ne-tenths of a li nk to the allowance for road in front of ,the thi rd
concession; ,
THENCE north seventy-four degrees east two chains and forty-three 1 inks
along the northern limit of said Lot to the place of commencement.
,"}.,
I':.
REASONS FOR DESIGNATION
(By-law Number
.. 6.11
.l 1.
During 1869 and '1870. John Walkey purchased three quarters of an acre of
the original two hundred acres registered 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, is one of the few remaining residences in
the hamlet of Cherrywood from earl ier times. Although al tered over the
years, many of the original architectural details can still be admired.
The west end of the forge is all that remains of the original carriage
works and smithy.
The location of these two buildings comprising the Walkey property shows
the importance of business in the community and illustrates a typical
residential commercial mix still seen in older communities.
The House is painted board and batten, 1-1/2 storey, ILl plan structure on
a rubble foundation with a single storey extension. The roof is
moderately pitched with a steeper gable facing 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 1 ancet in the front gable and moul di ng
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
building 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. '
)7;
:'Ir
i~
--------
/
[
...Y
'"
"","" /'
I I ~ "
I I ..........::.... .,.-"
I I ----..-,. ..."",
J. -'-,-
.1.----- ,-,'
.....,-"'"
..".;' ,...
" ~....
"'~ .....
'" '"
"" ",'"
/' '"
/' '"
/ /'
/' '"
/' /'
'" ,,'"
,," ,.,
/' ,'"
'" /'
'" ,'"
",,,,/' /'/'
'" /
/''' ./'"
,.../
'"
... .'~
1.
THIRD CONCESSION
~
o
z
o
<5
tr
c:t
Z
o
!J
<(
:II::
Z
<(
m
w
VJ
~
RAILWAYS
1116""
;1.0
[Section 33 of the Ontario Heritage AcJATTACHMENT # 3
Council/delegate
Decision*
within 90 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
t'
Notice of Decision to Consent
(including any terms and
conditions) :
1 . Served on property owner
2. Published in newspaper [if CRB
hearing has taken place)
TO REPORT # CS I
bl~Ob
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
1. Served on property owner
2. Published in newspaper
Property cannot be altered)
* Council/delegate decision final where CRB hearing has taken place
-
Designating Heritage Properties · Appendix: Flowcharts
Council/delegate considers
CRB Report
Objection referred to
CRB for hearing
)
Notice of Decision to Consent
(including any terms and
conditions) :
1. Served on property owner
2. Published in newspaper
Property can be altered
(in accordance with any terms
and conditions)
..
The Regional
Municipality
of Durham
HEALTH
DEPARTMENT
ENVIRONMENTAL
HEALTH DIVISION
101 Consumers Dr.
2nd Floor
Whitby ON
Canada L 1 N 1 C4
Tel: 905-723-3818
1-888-777-9613
Fax: 905-666-1887
www.region.durham.on.ca
An Accredited
Public Health Agency
ATTACHMENT # 'f
164
September 11 , 2006
SEP 1 32006
CITY OF PICKERING
BUILDING SECTION
Planning and Development
City of Pickering
One The Esplanade
Pickering, ON
L 1V 6K7
~,.
.....~~....
~~ \.~..' ~'.,><
~q. ;"&~
~A...z~ ...~~~..'........
"',a:.J.-,*- . or
,.~
....,.,~
.'~O~
Attn: Tim Moore, C.B.O
Dear Sir:
Re: . pt Lot 31, Cone. #2
City of Pickering
This Department has reviewed the supplied information regarding the
above and have determined that the performance level of the sewage
system had been reduced as per 11.4.2.5. of the Ontario Building
Code.
Since the proposal will increase the number of bedrooms in the
dwelling, the ownerwill be required to install a new private sewage
disposal system. Once the owner submits an application fora permit
that is complete to install the new sewage system, it will be assessed
and if it adheres to the Ontario Building Code issued.
Pi ease feel free to contact the undersigned jf more information is
required.
"
KK/kd
CH
{;"
ATIACHMENl if :J
THIRD
,.'PORT # C5
IU her
{-Db
HYDRO
o
<!
o
0::
~
Z
<l:
CD
w
U1
o
e::
SUBJECT
PROPER
r\,,<ORO
"'6-
.L ;)
CONCESSION
CORR\DOR
City of Pickering Planning & Development Department
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION CON 2, N PT LOT 31, RP 40R-2207 PART 8
OWNER P. LAFRANCE
FILE No. HERITAGE PERMIT APPLICATION
DATE SEP. 18, 2006
SCALE 1 :5000
Q 0 oure..:
Teranet Ent.erpri... Inc. and it. suppliers. All rights R..ervod. Not Q pion of .urvo)'.
2005 MPAC and its suppliers. All ri hta Resorved. Not a pion of Survtl .
DRAWN BY JB
CHECKED BY TM
l'
PN-BUR