Heritage Permit Application for 255 Mill Street (Town File #D )

Transcription

1 Agenda Item 2 Staff Report for the Heritage Richmond Hill Committee Meeting Date of Meeting: September 20, 2018 Report Number: SRPRS Department: Division: Planning and Regulatory Services Subject: Heritage Permit Application for 255 Mill Street (Town File #D ) Policy Planning - Heritage and Urban Design Purpose: To seek Heritage Richmond Hill s recommendations to Council regarding the Heritage Permit Application to construct a garage and a rear two storey addition to the John Langstaff Jr. House located at 255 Mill Street. Recommendation(s): a) That the Heritage Permit Application to construct a garage and rear two storey addition to the structure at 255 Mill Street as provided in SRPRS be approved. Contact Person: Pamela Vega, Urban Design/Heritage Planner, phone number and/or Joanne Leung, Manager of Heritage and Urban Design, phone number Submitted by: "Signed version on file in the Office of the Clerk" Kelvin Kwan Commissioner of Planning and Regulatory Services Approved by: "Signed version on file in the Office of the Clerk" Neil Garbe Chief Administrative Officer 1

2 Town of Richmond Hill Heritage Richmond Hill Meeting Date of Meeting: September 20, 2018 Report Number: SRPRS Page 2 Location Map: Below is a map displaying the property location. Should you require an alternative format, call the Contact person listed above. Background: The 0.1 acre property located at 255 Mill Street is designated under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act enacted through Designating By-law (attached as Appendix A). The John Langstaff Jr. House is identified as the heritage attribute on this property fronting Mill Street. The owner is proposing to replace the existing small rear addition and garage with a larger two storey addition and garage. Development Proposal A heritage permit is required for any alterations to a designated property that may affect its identified heritage attributes. This process is to ensure that alterations are compatible with the existing heritage resources and that its impact on heritage attributes is minimized. In July 2018, the property owner submitted a Heritage Permit Application (see Appendix B), supported by a Cultural Heritage Impact Assessment (see Appendix C) to demolish the existing garage and circa1950s rear addition in order to permit the construction of a large two storey addition with garage to the rear of the property. This new addition will be connected by a one storey structure to the rear of the John Langstaff Jr. House. The existing garage and addition proposed for demolition are not identified as heritage attributes in the Designating By-law. No changes are being proposed for the front of the house. Should Council, as advised by Heritage Richmond Hill, approve the proposed alterations to the house, the proposed addition will be reviewed through the Town s Site Plan approval review process. If approved, securities/construction insurance to protect the heritage attributes of the property will be required as a condition of Site Plan 2

3 Town of Richmond Hill Heritage Richmond Hill Meeting Date of Meeting: September 20, 2018 Report Number: SRPRS Page 3 approval, and shall be incorporated into the Site Plan Agreement to ensure that the extensive changes do not affect the structural integrity of the historic house. Impact to the John Langstaff Jr. House The Cultural Heritage Impact Assessment for the property submitted by the owner (see Appendix C) concludes that the proposed addition will not negatively affect the heritage attributes of the property. The physical impact on the John Langstaff Jr. House will be minimized by using a narrow one storey link to join the two storey addition to the rear of the historic house, rather than constructing the two storey addition directly against the historic house, which would require a larger portion of the rear wall to be removed. The 4.15 metre distance between the John Langstaff Jr. House and the two storey addition will provide a visual buffer between the historic house and the modern structure, and will minimize the view of the modern addition from Mill Street. In the areas where it will be visible from the street, the addition will incorporate materials and features that complement the existing heritage fabric (see drawings and plans in Appendix B). No work is proposed for the front of the house; accordingly, the historic street-facing facade will remain unchanged. Significant changes are also being proposed for the interior of the house. As the Designating By-law has not identified any attributes from the interior of the house, this work will not require a heritage permit. While the massing of the proposed addition is large and will double the house s gross floor area, its location at the rear of the property, its setback from the historic house, and its height will, in staff s opinion, minimize its visual and physical impact to the heritage resource and to the surrounding streetscape. Its style and exterior material are complementary to yet distinct from the historic structure, which visually separates the new construction from the old. Its high quality design will also contribute to the protection and restoration of the John Langstaff Jr. House. Staff have reviewed the submitted Heritage Permit Application for the subject property, and support the works proposed by the owner. Financial/Staffing/Other Implications: There are no financial or staffing implications at this time. Relationship to the Strategic Plan: A detailed consideration of the heritage merits of the subject property is in keeping with Goal 3 Outcome 1 of the Strategic Plan which is to Respect the past through promoting the awareness of the Town s heritage. It further implements the direction to achieve Goal 3, A More Vibrant Richmond Hill specifically, by stewarding Richmond Hill s heritage resources. 3

4 Town of Richmond Hill Heritage Richmond Hill Meeting Date of Meeting: September 20, 2018 Report Number: SRPRS Page 4 Conclusion: The owner of the property has worked with the Town to conserve and protect the designated John Langstaff Jr. House. Having reviewed the permit drawings and materials submitted by the owner, staff recommends that the Heritage Permit be approved. Appendix Contents: The following attached documents may include scanned images of appendices, with maps and photographs. If you require an alternative format, please call the contact person listed in this document. Appendix A Designation By-law for 255 Mill Street Appendix B Heritage Permit Application Drawings for 255 Mill Street Appendix C Cultural Heritage Impact Assessment, 255 Mill Street, Richmond Hill by Somerville Heritage Planning Services (December 30, 2017) 4

5 5

6 6

7 7

8 8

9 Appendix B SRPRS File D

10 10

11 11

12 12

13 13 Site Plan

14 14 Basement Plan

15 15 Ground Floor Plan

16 16 Second Floor Plan

17 17 Roof Plan

18 18 Elevations

19 19 Colour Elevations

20 20 Sections

21 Cultural Heritage Impact Assessment Mill Street Cultural Heritage Impact Assessment 255 Mill Street, Richmond Hill Prepared for: Mr. Neil Banerjee and Ms. Haruko Utsuki 255 Mill Street, Richmond Hill, Ontario Prepared By: Matthew Somerville Somerville Heritage Planning Services 126 Sinnott Road, Unit B Toronto, Ontario Issue Date: Decmber 30, 2017

22 Cultural Heritage Impact Assessment Mill Street 22

23 Cultural Heritage Impact Assessment Mill Street Contents Executive Summary 1 Introductuion 3 Site Location and Description 4 Current Owners 4 Background Research and Anayslsis 5 Historical Context 5 Description of Heritage Attribute 7 Previous Alterations 8 Current Heritage Status 9 Description of Existing Conditions 10 Exterior 10 Interior 13 Proposed Development 15 Impact on the Designated Structure 18 Conclusion 20 Bibliography 22 Appendices 23 Appendix A DTAH Mill Street, January 2017 Appendix B By-law A By-law to Authorize the Designation of 255 Mill Street (John Langstaff Jr. House) under the Ontario Heritage Act Appendix C Town of Richmond Hill Terms of Reference for Cultural Heritage Impact Assessments Appendix D Appleton Charter for the Protection and Enhancement of the Built Environment, August

24 Cultural Heritage Impact Assessment Mill Street 24

25 Cultural Heritage Impact Assessment Mill Street Executive Summary Somerville Heritage Planning has been retained by the owners of 255 Mill Street to undertake a Cultural Heritage Impact Assessment (CHIA) for their heritage designated property, the John Langstaff Jr. House. The Town requires that a CHIA be provided for consideration by staff, Heritage Richmond Hill and Council if a planning application may affect a property that is either listed on the Town of Richmond Hill s Inventory of Buildings of Architectural and Historical Importance, or any Part IV or V designated property. The subject property is designated under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act. The owners of the property are proposing that the existing 1950s era rear addition be removed in order to permit the construction of a new addition that will provide room for their growing family (see Appendix A ). In preparation for this report the consultant has reviewed relevant property information contained in the Town of Richmond Hill Public Library as well as the Town of Richmond Hill. In May 2016, the consultant conducted a physical and visual survey of the property. Based on the information gathered from the archival information and site visits, this report finds that the proposed change to the designated structure will not affect the heritage value of the property as defined in By-law and will provide for the continued evolution of the John Langstaff Jr. House in a manner that respects its original character. 25 Page 1

26 Cultural Heritage Impact Assessment Mill Street 26 Page 2

27 Cultural Heritage Impact Assessment Mill Street Introduction Somerville Heritage Planning has been retained by Neil Banerjee and Haruko Utsuki to undertake a Cultural Heritage Impact Assessment (CHIA) for their property located at 255 Mill Street, the c.1847 John Langstaff Jr. House. The property is designated under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act (By-law ) (see Appendix B ). The property was designated in 2014 and at the time was found to meet all three of the primary reasons for designation, as described in Regulation 9/06 Criteria for Determining Cultural Heritage Value. A CHIA is required anytime a change is proposed that may affect a property that is contained on the Town of Richmond Hill s Inventory of Buildings of Architectural and Historical Importance. The Town provides a Terms of Reference for the preparation of a CHIA (see Appendix C ), and this report is based on the document. The owners are in the process of preparing a planning application that, if successful will result in the removal of a 1950s era addition and replace the structure with a modern, architecturally sympathetic new addition that will accommodate their growing family. Mill Pond Wood Lane Mill Street Context Image of 255 Mill Street, Highlighted in Red (Goodle Earth) 27 Page 3

28 Cultural Heritage Impact Assessment Mill Street Site Location and Description The subject property is located on the north side of Mill Street, slightly east of the intersection of Mill Street and Wood Street. The house is located just east of the historically significant Mill Pond area. Originally the property was contained within the boundaries of Vaughan Township, but later became a part of the Town of Richmond Hill after its incorporation in Today, the house is considered to be contained within the boundaries of the original village area of Richmond Hill and falls under the Village Core Urban Design Guidelines. The property contains two structures; the first is a c.1847 one-storey wood frame residence (the John Langstaff Jr. House). The second structure is a one-storey, one car garage that was constructed in the 1950s. The garage is not included in the current by-law description and has been assessed as not containing significant cultural heritage merit. The John Langstaff Jr. House is the primary focus of this CHIA report. Current Owners Neil Banerjee neilbanerjee@yahoo.com and Haruko Utsuki haruko_utsuki@hotmail.com 28 Page 4

29 Cultural Heritage Impact Assessment Mill Street Background Research and Analysis Historical Context The initial development of the area began in 1830 when Miles Langstaff dammed a tributary of the Don River and created the Mill Pond. Langstaff was one of the earliest settlers in the area and created the pond in order to power his sawmill business. Soon after the creation of the Mill Pond the area experienced a boom in development, first through the establishment of new industries including a foundry and edge tool factory. The industrial development was followed by residential development to provide nearby housing for workers. In 1847, Miles Langstaff declared bankruptcy and John Langstaff Jr. purchased the interest in the sawmill from his creditors. It is generally understood in local historical documentation that 255 Mill Street was constructed soon after to serve as his nearby residence. 159 Mill Street Source: Richmond Hill Inventory of Buildings of Architectural and Historical Importance Today, there are only a few examples remaining of this first wave of mid-nineteenth century development, these properties includez: 159 Mill Street - Prefab House, c Mill Street - Nicholas Johnson House, c.1845; and 249 Mill Street Langstaff Millworker s Cottage, c Mill Street Source: Richmond Hill Inventory of Buildings of Architectural and Historical Importance Mill Street Source: Richmond Hill Inventory of Buildings of Architectural and Historical Importance Page 5

30 Cultural Heritage Impact Assessment Mill Street These properties are currently listed in the Town of Richmond Hill s Inventory of Buildings of Architectural and Historical Importance, but are not designated under the Ontario Heritage Act. Within the context of Mill Street there are four clear phases of development that have affected the character area of the area. The first is a concentration of nineteenth century properties in close proximity to the Mill Pond. The second is a concentration of early twentieth century properties located between the Mill Pond and Hall Street. To the west of the Mill Pond area the character changes, first to mid-century bungalows and then large late 20th century homes are located past Sugar Maple Lane. Currently, the area between the Mill Pond and Hall Street is experiencing a high level of redevelopment pressure. The Mill Pond North Sugar Maple Lane Subject Property 249 Mill Street 159 Mill Street Late-20th Century Development Mid-20th Century Development 19th Century Development 164 Mill Street Early-20th Century Development and Recent Redevelopment 30 Page 6

31 Cultural Heritage Impact Assessment Mill Street Description of the Heritage Attribute A detailed description of the heritage value of the subject property is contained in the current Statement of Cultural Heritage Value or Interest, which is attached to By-law In order to be considered a property of potential cultural heritage value at least one of the three main criteria must be met. In the case of the John Langstaff Jr. House all three of the Criteria for Determining Cultural Heritage Value; a) physical/design; b) historical/associative; and c) contextual as defined under Regulation 9/06 have been met. From a physical/design perspective, the John Langstaff Jr. House considered a modest yet well-executed vernacular example of the Georgian Style, which originated in England. The style was adopted by the United Empire Loyalist during the first half of the nineteenth century and is one of the earliest recognized styles in Ontario. The style was is recognized as a design response to the more opulent neo-classical Federal Style that was became popular in the United States after the American Revolutionary War. Both styles are based in Palladian geometry and characterized by an overall symmetry, however the vernacular Ontario style is noted for its simplicity and restrained use of detailing. Example of Vernacular Ontario Georgian Design Source: ontarioarchitecture.com 31 Page 7

32 Cultural Heritage Impact Assessment Mill Street In the By-law description, the primary street (south) elevation is identified as having a balanced appearance. The design of the main elevation is characterized by a five-bay design that contains two six-over-six windows flanking either side of the central door with a classical surround. As noted earlier, the historical associative value rest on its relationship with John Langstaff Jr. who owned the lumber mill at the heart of the Mill Pond employment node. Lastly, the property is identified as containing contextual heritage value through its proximity to the historic Mill Pond. Previous Alterations In 1990, the subject property was assessed by the local historian Janet Fayle. The report was prepared for the Local Architectural Conservation Advisory Committee (LACAC) and provided to George Duncan, who was the Heritage Planner with the Town of Richmond Hill at the time. The assessment includes a detailed architectural description and identifies a number of alterations that occurred to the property, the majority of which occurred after Mr. and Ms. Y.J. Lepper purchased the property in Prior to the Lepper s purchase in 1950 the house was supported by heavy wooden timbers. Soon after the purchase, the original supports were removed and a new cinderblock foundation installed. At the same time the foundation was replaced the original siding was also replaced with wood lapboard siding. The Fayle report suggested that the house was originally clad in roughcast stucco, however no material investigation was undertaken at the time. Additional changes include the removal of the three internal chimneystacks, which were equally spaced along the central roof gable. The Lepper s had two new chimneys constructed, one located on the east elevation which services the oil furnace in the basement and the other at the rear of the house and is a flue for the fireplace in the Living/Dining Room. The most significant change that occurred to the struc- 32 Page 8

33 Cultural Heritage Impact Assessment Mill Street ture - and the most relevant in relation to this report, was the removal of the original rear wing of the house and replacement with new addition. The Fayle assessment notes that the Lepper s removed the original large shed structure and replaced it with a one-storey addition. The new addition is attached to the rear of the house and offset towards the east. It is constructed in a manner that generally matches the original structure in scale and material, but lacks the exterior cornice detailing found on the main house. The 1950s era addition is not included in the Description of Heritage Attributes that accompanies By-law It is this the wish of the owners that the existing addition be removed in order to provide space to construct a larger, more modern addition that will provide space for their family. Current Heritage Status In March 2014, the Town of Richmond Hill brought forward a Staff Report SRPRS , which recommended designation of 255 Mill Street. The report was grounded in a 2013 Heritage Impact Assessment undertaken by ERA Architects. The report found that the subject property met all three of the key criteria established under Regulation 9/06 of the Ontario Heritage Act, specifically: Physical Value The property is an early example of a Loyalist/ Georgian style vernacular residential structure in Richmond Hill. Associative Value The property relates to the early development of Mill Street and is one of the last vestiges relating to this early node of development; and The property contains associative value in relation to John Langstaff Jr. who was a significant member of the early Richmond Hill community. 33 Page 9

34 Cultural Heritage Impact Assessment Mill Street Contextual Value The property supports the character of Mill Street; and The property contains contextual value as a recognized historical landmark in local publications. The Staff report was supported by the Heritage Richmond Hill Committee and was unopposed by the owners. On September 8, 2014, By-law was approved by Council and the designation came into effect. Description of Existing Conditions A detailed description of the exterior of the house is included both in the Fayle assessment as well as the ERA Cultural Heritage Evaluation. As the property has already been described in detail in both of these assessments, the current CHIA will focus on the areas that are to be impacted by the owner s proposed changes. These areas are isolated to the rear (north elevation) of the house. No changes are proposed to the historically significant street frontage (south elevation). Exterior The house can be divided into two primary volumes; the first is the c.1847 Langstaff Jr. residence, which is visible from the street with its low-pitched east/west gable roof. The overall dimensions of this structure are 40 x The second volume is the rectangular 1950s era addition located at the rear of the house, not visibile from the street. The roof of the addition is oriented north/ south and has an overall dimension of 18 x 15. The foundation of the north addition is constructed of cinderblock, but unlike full height foundation located under the original structure, the north addition only contains a crawlspace. A transition between the cinderblock and the wooden lapboard siding is provided via a 10 wooden water table board. The exterior walls are completed in 3 lapboard with 2 corner detailing. 34 Page 10

35 Cultural Heritage Impact Assessment Mill Street 15 North 18 North (c1950) Addition South (c1847) Structure The addition contains two vinyl six-over-six windows one located on the west elevation and one on the north elevation. The primary entry to the house is located on the east elevation of the addition via a recessed entry door containing a transom window. The addition is completed with a low-pitched gable roof that contains simple boxed projecting return eaves. The roof is finished in asphalt shingles that match the original structure. View of Northwest Corner of addition View of the Main Entry to the House Located in the North Addition 35 Page 11

36 Cultural Heritage Impact Assessment Mill Street Photos of North Addition 1. North Elevation 2. North Elevation (continued) 3. East Perspective 4. West Elevati 5. Detail of Wooden Lapboad Siding Page 12

37 Cultural Heritage Impact Assessment Mill Street Interior The crawlspace located in the foundation of the north addition is accessed via a small hatch located in the laundry/furnace room of the original house. The consultant was only able to view the interior from this hatch, but noted that the floor joists are wood 2 x 10 laid east/west. Similar 2 x 10 members are found in the basement of the original structure and were used to support the earlier 4 x 10 rough sawn wood joists. View Into Crawlspace Under North Addition View of Floor Joist Under Main House 37 Page 13

38 Cultural Heritage Impact Assessment Mill Street Above the crawlspace, the interior of the rear addition is divided into three rooms: a 4 x 8 entry foyer, a 4 x 4 closet and a 14 x 11 6 bedroom. All of doors frames are completed with a simple beaded frame and a projecting header completed with a cornice molding. The attic to the north addition is access via a small hatch located in a closet. The roof is constructed of 2 x 6 joists and finished with 1 x 10 sheeting. A small vent is located at the north end of the attic space. North 14 x x 8 Interior Layout of North Addition Door Trim Detail 38 Bedroom Interior Page 14

39 Cultural Heritage Impact Assessment Mill Street Proposed Development The owners have retained the architectural services of Toronto-based DTAH (Du Toit, Allsopp, Hillier) with Brian Brownlie as the lead Architect to design a new addition for the John Langstaff Jr. House. The Architect drew inspiration from the pioneering work undertaken in the Toronto neighbourhood of Cabbagetown in the mid-1970s. The Victorian Cabbagetown neighhourhood contains a unique mix of larger two-storey Toronto-style homes along with smaller one-storey worker cottages. These cottages were considered small even at the time of their construction, but provided affordable housing within walking distance to local industry. By the 1970s the Cabbagetown neighbourhood began to be repopulated by young professionals who were drawn by the heritage character and proximity to the downtown core. However, the 1-storey workers cottages provided limited opportunities for new additions without adding a second floor which would significantly alter the character of these homes and as a result the heritage streetscape. The design impasse led to a new approach in which additional space could be accommodated through the extension of the building envelope and use of flat-roofs. This approach has been utilized for virtually all of the one-storey worker cottages in Cabbagetown without impacting the designated street character. The one concern regarding this approach is that it results in a loss of integrity or clear separation between the original structure and the new addition as new space extends to the rear from the gable peak, resulting is the loss of half of the original structure. The proposed addition to the John Langstaff Jr. House utilizes some of the techniques pioneered in Cabbagetown, but goes further to protect the integrity of the original heritage structure. First, the overall height of the second storey has been calculated so not as to be visible from Mill Street. The protection of this designated view requires the use of a flat-roof. While this approach is not specifically recommended in the Village Core Urban Design Guidelines, a 39 Page 15

40 Cultural Heritage Impact Assessment Mill Street 55 Spruce Street, Street View Source: Google Earth 55 Sprice Street, Rear View Source: Sustainable Toronto Extent of Original Structure Removal 55 Sprice Street, Before and After View Source: Google Earth 40 Page 16

41 Cultural Heritage Impact Assessment Mill Street traditional peaked roof design would result in an altered view from Mill Street. Secondly, the proposed addition is been configured to respect the physical integrity of the structure by clearly separating the original designated portion from the new addition. While the two volumes are clearly separate, a visual relationship is established though the extension of the soffit datum line which defines the height of the first floor addition. Lastly, the Architect selected a range of colours and materials to complement the existing grey/blue colour palette established by the John Langstaff Jr. House. Proposed Street Elevation (Source: DTAH) Proposed East Elevation (Source: DTAH) 41 Proposed West Elevation (Source: DTAH)

42 Cultural Heritage Impact Assessment Mill Street The proposed design is in line with heritage architectural principles adopted in the 1983 Appleton Charter and later by the International Council on Monuments and Sites (ICOMOS) (see Appendix D ). ICOMOS is the primary global built heritage conservation body that is an advisory body to the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO). The Appleton Charter specifically recommends that if an addition to a heritage structure is proposed, that it should; echo contemporary ideas but respect and enhance the spirit of the original. The proposed addition implements the Appleton Charter through careful consideration of the following: Protection of the designated views of the John Langstaff Jr. House from Mill Street; Creating a clearly defined building volumes, while respecting established geometries; Maintaining the character of the original structure through careful colour and material selection. Rendering of New Addition (Source: DTAH) 42 Page 17

43 Cultural Heritage Impact Assessment Mill Street The new addition is an excellent example of the challenges proposed by the Appleton Charter that require a careful balancing of the need to protect heritage resources while allowing a continued evolution. The proposed structure does so by respecting the integrity of the designated attribute while permitting the new addition to clearly speak its own contemporary design language. Impact on the Designated Structure The proposed alteration will result in the removal of the non-heritage rear (north) addition including the removal of the single-car garage. These structures are not specifically identified in the existing heritage designating by-law (By-law ) as containing heritage value. The heritage consultant is able to confirm that the By-law is not in error. From a street perspective, the proposed addition will not negatively affect the character defining features of the John Langstaff Jr. House, specifically the main street elevation which is specifically identified in the designating By-law. The heritage consultant has reviewed the proposed design and is of the opinion that it is an appropriate design response to the original John Langstaff Jr. House in its scale, massing, volume and material. In addition the proposed changes will contribute positively to the character of Mill Street by maintaining the views to the house while permitting its continued occupation. 43 Page 18

44 Cultural Heritage Impact Assessment Mill Street 44 Page 19

45 Cultural Heritage Impact Assessment Mill Street Conclusion This Cultural Heritage Impact Assessment (CHIA) was prepared to assist the heritage staff with the Town of Richmond Hill to assess the impact of proposed addition to the designated John Langstaff Jr. House located at 255 Mill Street. The CHIA has examined the current condition of the subject property and confirmed existing information that the rear (north) addition is not original to the main structure and does not contain significant heritage value. The consultant has reviewed the proposed addition in terms of scale, massing, height and material. While the proposed approach varies from that recommendations included in the Village Core Urban Design Guidelines, it is an appropriate heritage response that both respects the heritage value as contained in By-law and is in keeping with current international best practices regarding additions to heritage structures. The proposed changes will permit the house to evolve to meet the needs of its current occupants while retaining the significant heritage components that led to its initial designation. As a result of this review the heritage consultant supports the propose changes and confirms that they will not negatively affect the designated heritage character of the structure. 45 Page 20

46 Cultural Heritage Impact Assessment Mill Street 46 Page 21

47 Cultural Heritage Impact Assessment Mill Street Biblography 1. ERA Cultural Heritage Evaluation, 255 Mill Street April Janet Fayle and George Duncan Assessment Mill Street, June Village Core Neighbourhood Deisgn Guidlines, Town of Richmond Hill, Page 22

48 Cultural Heritage Impact Assessment Mill Street 48 Page 23

49 Cultural Heritage Impact Assessment Mill Street Appendices 49 Page 24

50 Cultural Heritage Impact Assessment Mill Street Appendix A DTAH Mill Street, December

51 MO MO B A MO A A301 FIRE LIVING ROOM UP GARAGE DN KITCHEN DINING ROOM DN COURTYARD ENTRY MO UP 7490 W/C W/C SHOWER MUD ROOM CLOSET MASTER BEDROOM MASTER BATH CLOSET A A301 B A ISSUED FOR REVIEW NO. DATE DESCRIPTION ISSUE RECORD THE CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY AND BE RESPONSIBLE FOR ALL DIMENSIONS AND CONDITIONS ON THE JOB SITE AND SHALL INFORM THE ARCHITECTS IMMEDIATELY OF ANY DISCREPANCY OR VARIATION FROM THE DRAWINGS. DO NOT SCALE THE DRAWINGS. DRAWINGS ARE NOT TO BE USED FOR CONSTRUCTION UNTIL SIGNED BY THE ARCHITECT. ALL DRAWINGS, SPECIFICATIONS AND RELATED DOCUMENTS ARE THE COPYRIGHT PROPERTY OF THE ARCHITECT AND MUST BE RETURNED UPON REQUEST. REPRODUCTION OF DRAWINGS, SPECIFICATIONS AND RELATED DOCUMENTS IN PART OR IN WHOLE IS FORBIDDEN WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION. DTAH Architects Limited 50 Park Road Toronto, Ontario M4W 2N5 T F MILLSTREET RESIDENCE RICHMONDHILL, ON DRAWING TITLE: GROUNDFLOOR PLAN PRINT DATE: SCALE: PROJECT NO. DRAWN BY: CHECKED BY: 1: B BB/STSL BB A-202

52 B A A A301 BATH ENSUITE BEDROOM BEDROOM BEDROOM DN HALL A A301 B A301 NO. DATE DESCRIPTION ISSUE RECORD THE CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY AND BE RESPONSIBLE FOR ALL DIMENSIONS AND CONDITIONS ON THE JOB SITE AND SHALL INFORM THE ARCHITECTS IMMEDIATELY OF ANY DISCREPANCY OR VARIATION FROM THE DRAWINGS. DO NOT SCALE THE DRAWINGS. DRAWINGS ARE NOT TO BE USED FOR CONSTRUCTION UNTIL SIGNED BY THE ARCHITECT. ALL DRAWINGS, SPECIFICATIONS AND RELATED DOCUMENTS ARE THE COPYRIGHT PROPERTY OF THE ARCHITECT AND MUST BE RETURNED UPON REQUEST. REPRODUCTION OF DRAWINGS, SPECIFICATIONS AND RELATED DOCUMENTS IN PART OR IN WHOLE IS FORBIDDEN WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION. DTAH Architects Limited 50 Park Road Toronto, Ontario M4W 2N5 T F MILLSTREET RESIDENCE RICHMONDHILL, ON DRAWING TITLE: SECONDFLOOR PLAN PRINT DATE: SCALE: PROJECT NO. DRAWN BY: CHECKED BY: : B BB/STSL BB A

53 PARAPET FFE PARAPET FFE FFE RIDGE FFE FFE PARAPET FFE PARAPET FFE FFE BEDROOM LIVING ROOM EXISTING HOUSE BASEMENT BASEMENT EXISTING BASEMENT SECTION B-B EXISTING PROPOSED ADDITION RAISED CONCRETE PLANTER SOLID WOOD ENTRANCE DOOR EAST ELEVATION PROPOSED ADDITION EXISTING WEST ELEVATION FFE FFE 3355 FFE 3200 PARAPET PARAPET RIDGE FFE FFE RIDGE FFE FFE PARAPET FFE PARAPET FFE FFE FFE RIDGE FFE FFE PARAPET FFE FFE FFE FFE FFE FFE PARAPET PREFINISHED METAL FLASHING PARAPET METAL GARAGE DOOR SANDBLASTED EXPOSED CONCRETE FOUNDATION WALL 5060 BEDROOM BEDROOM BEDROOM LIVING ROOM BASEMENT RIDGE FFE FFE PARAPET GARAGE FFE FFE PARAPET SECTION A-A NORTH ELEVATION SOUTH ELEVATION LEGEND 1. EXISTING WOOD SIDING 2. PREFINISHED METAL CLADDING 3. BRICK VENEER 4. NEW ALUMINUM CLAD WINDOW ISSUED FOR REVIEW NO. DATE DESCRIPTION ISSUE RECORD THE CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY AND BE RESPONSIBLE FOR ALL DIMENSIONS AND CONDITIONS ON THE JOB SITE AND SHALL INFORM THE ARCHITECTS IMMEDIATELY OF ANY DISCREPANCY OR VARIATION FROM THE DRAWINGS. DO NOT SCALE THE DRAWINGS. DRAWINGS ARE NOT TO BE USED FOR CONSTRUCTION UNTIL SIGNED BY THE ARCHITECT. ALL DRAWINGS, SPECIFICATIONS AND RELATED DOCUMENTS ARE THE COPYRIGHT PROPERTY OF THE ARCHITECT AND MUST BE RETURNED UPON REQUEST. REPRODUCTION OF DRAWINGS, SPECIFICATIONS AND RELATED DOCUMENTS IN PART OR IN WHOLE IS FORBIDDEN WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION. DTAH Architects Limited 50 Park Road Toronto, Ontario M4W 2N5 T F MILLSTREET RESIDENCE RICHMONDHILL, ON DRAWING TITLE: ELEVATIONS / SECTION PRINT DATE: SCALE: PROJECT NO. DRAWN BY: CHECKED BY: : B BB/STSL BB A-301

54 Cultural Heritage Impact Assessment Mill Street Appendix B By-law A By-law to Authorize the Designation of 255 Mill Street (John Langstaff Jr. House) under the Ontario Heritage Act 54

55 55

56 56

57 Cultural Heritage Impact Assessment Mill Street Appendix C Town of Richmond Hill Terms of Reference for Cultural Heritage Impact Assessments 57

58 Updated May 2, 2017 Town of Richmond Hill Cultural Heritage Impact Assessment Terms of Reference When is a Cultural Heritage Impact Assessment Required? A CHIA is required for the following application types if the application is adjacent to or contains a property that is included on the Town of Richmond Hill s Inventory of Buildings of Architectural and Historical Importance: Notice of Intent to Demolish Section 27(3) of the Ontario Heritage Act Application to Demolish Section 34(1) of the Ontario Heritage Act Official Plan Amendment; Zoning By-aw Amendment; Plans of Subdivision; and Site Plan Control. A HIA may be required by staff for the following additional application types: Consent and/or Minor Variance and Building Permit applications for any property included on the Town of Richmond Hill s Inventory of Buildings of Architectural and Historical Importance; and Where properties adjacent to a cultural heritage resource are subject to Official Plan Amendment, Zoning By-law Amendment, Plans of Subdivision, Site Plan Control and/or Consent and/or Minor Variance applications. Purpose of a Cultural Heritage Impact Assessment Heritage conservation involves identifying, protecting and promoting the elements that our society values. A Cultural Heritage Impact Assessment (CHIA) is the primary heritage planning vehicle to assess and review the potential cultural heritage significance of a particular resource, consider the impact of any proposed site development or alteration and recommend an overall approach that best conserves any identified cultural heritage resources. A CHIA forms an integral part of the municipal planning framework. Its rationale emerges from a range of Provincial and Municipal policies including the: Provincial Policy Statement, 2005 Section Ontario Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, Part I, 2(d) Ontario Heritage Act, R.S.O. 1990, Part IV, Section 29 and Section 34 Richmond Hill Official Plan, Section If the property is deemed to contain cultural heritage value, a Cultural Heritage Conservation Plan (CHCP) is required as part of the CHIA. The CHCP shall be informed by established conservation principles and must provide a recommended conservation approach that mitigates negative impacts to the cultural heritage resources in question. The conservation principles contained in the Parks Canada Standards and Guidelines for the Conservation of Historic Places in Canada and the Appleton Charter, published by the International Council on Monuments and 58

59 Updated May 2, 2017 Sites must be utilized to inform the recommended conservation strategy. The CHCP must also contain recommendations and provide sufficient detail to make informed decisions regarding any proposed changes or impacts to identified cultural heritage resources. Where there is the potential of impacting archaeological resources an archaeological assessment must be undertaken by a licensed archaeologist as an additional study. Please refer to the Town of Richmond Hill s Archaeological Master Plan and the Ontario Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport for the triggers and stages of an archaeological assessment. Who Can Prepare a Cultural Heritage Impact Assessment? All CHIAs and other related documents including: CHCP reports, adaptive reuse plans and security plans must be prepared by a qualified heritage professional such as a heritage planner, heritage architect and/or heritage landscape architect with demonstrated knowledge of accepted heritage conservation standards, and who has undertaken historical research and identification/evaluation of cultural heritage value. All heritage consultants submitting Cultural Heritage Impact Assessments must be members in good standing of the Canadian Association of Heritage Professionals (CAHP). In addition, under Provincial law only a licensed, professional archaeologist may carry out an Archaeological Assessment using specific provincial standards and guidelines. What Should a Cultural Heritage Impact Assessment Contain and in What Format? The CHIA will include, but is not limited to the following information: (1) Introduction to Development Site A location plan indicating subject property (Property Data Map and aerial photo); A concise written and visual description of the property identifying significant features, buildings, landscape and vistas; A concise written and visual description of the cultural heritage resource(s) contained within the development site identifying significant features, buildings, landscape, vistas and including any heritage recognition of the property (see the Town of Richmond Hill s Inventory of Buildings of Architectural and Historical Importance, Ontario Heritage Properties Database, Parks Canada National Historic Sites of Canada, and/or Canadian Register of Historic Places) with existing heritage descriptions as available; A concise written and visual description of the surrounding context including adjacent heritage properties, their landscapes and any potential undesignated cultural heritage resource(s); and Present owner contact information. (2) Background Research and Analysis Comprehensive written and visual research and analysis related to all potential cultural heritage value or interest of the site (both identified and unidentified) including: physical or design, historical or associative, and contextual values; A development history of the site including original construction, additions and alterations with substantiated dates of construction; and Research material to include relevant historic maps and atlases, drawings, photographs, sketches/renderings, permit records, land records, assessment rolls, Town of Richmond Hill directories, etc. 59

60 Updated May 2, 2017 (3) Statement of Significance A statement of significance identifying the cultural heritage value and heritage attributes of the cultural heritage resource(s). This statement will be informed by current research and analysis of the site as well as pre-existing heritage descriptions. This statement is to follow the provincial guidelines set out in the Ontario Heritage Tool Kit; The statement of significance will be written in a way that does not respond to or anticipate any current or proposed interventions. The Town may, at its discretion and upon review, reject or use the statement of significance, in whole or in part, in crafting its own statement of significance (Reasons for Listing or Designation) for the subject property; and Professional quality record photographs of the cultural heritage resource in its present state. (4) Assessment of Existing Condition A comprehensive written description accompanied with high quality color photographic documentation of the cultural heritage resource(s) in its current condition and physical context (location, streetscape, etc). (5) Description of the Proposed Development or Site Alteration A written and visual description of the proposed development or site alteration. (6) Impact of Development or Site Alteration An assessment identifying any impact(s) the proposed development or site alteration may have on the cultural heritage resource(s). Impacts on a cultural heritage resource(s) as stated in the Ontario Heritage Tool Kit and Appleton Charter include, but are not limited to: - Removal of any, or part of any, significant heritage attributes or features; - Alteration that impact on the historic fabric and appearance; - Shadow impacts that alter the appearance and/or setting of a heritage attribute, or change the viability of an associated natural feature or plantings, such as a garden; - Isolation of a heritage attribute from its surrounding environment, context or a significant relationship; - Direct or indirect obstruction of significant views or vistas within, from, or of built and natural features; - A change in land use (such as rezoning a church to a multi-unit residence) where the change in use negates the property s cultural heritage value; - Land disturbances such as a change in grade that alters soils, and drainage patterns that adversely affect a cultural heritage resource, including archaeological resources; and - Relocation (to be considered under the conditions described in the Appleton Charter). 60

61 Updated May 2, 2017 (7) Considered Alternatives and Mitigation Strategies An assessment of alternative options, mitigation measures, and conservation methods that may be considered in order to avoid or limit the negative impact on the cultural heritage resource(s). Methods of minimizing or avoiding a negative impact on a cultural heritage resource(s) as stated in the Ontario Heritage Tool Kit include, but are not limited to: - Alternative development approaches; - Isolating development and site alteration from significant built and natural features and vistas; - Design guidelines that harmonize mass, setback, setting, and materials; - Limiting height and density; - Allowing only compatible infill and additions; - Reversible alterations; and - Relocation (to be considered under the conditions described in the Appleton Charter). (8) Conservation Strategy The preferred strategy based on best-practice conservation principles that protect and enhance the cultural heritage value and heritage attributes of the cultural heritage resource(s) including, but not limited to: - A mitigation strategy including the proposed methods; - A conservation scope of work including the proposed methods; - An implementation and monitoring plan; - Recommendations for additional studies/plans related to, but not limited to: conservation, interpretation and/or commemoration. If removal of the Cultural Heritage Resource was recommended, the CHIA must provide site specific design guidelines to address: lighting, signage, landscaping, site stabilization/sedimentation, and photographic documentation prior to demolition. Referenced conservation principles and precedents. (9) Appendices A bibliography listing research materials used and sources consulted in preparing the HIA. How Many Copies of a CHIA are to be Provided to The Town of Richmond Hill? Please provide the following to the Town of Richmond Hill Heritage and Urban Design Planner: Two (2) bound hard copies; and One (1) CD copy in PDF Format. 61

62 Updated May 2, 2017 Links Local Resources Town of Richmond Hill s Inventory of Buildings of Architectural and Historical Significance Town of Richmond Hill s Gormley Heritage Conservation Study and Plan Town of Richmond Hill s Archaeological Master Plan Provincial Standards and Resources Ontario Heritage Tool Kit Ontario Ministry of Culture, Tourism and Sport: Heritage Conservation Principle s for Land Use Planning tm Ontario Ministry of Culture, Tourism and Sport: Eight Guiding Principles in the Conservation of Historic Properties Ontario Ministry of Culture, Tourism and Sport: Archaeological Assessments National and International Standards and Resources Parks Canada Standards and Guidelines for the Conservation of Historic Places in Canada Canadian Register of Historic Places Parks Canada National Historic Sites of Canada International Council of Monuments and Sites (ICOMOS): Appleton Charter Contact Information Isa James, BArch, MCIP, RPP Heritage and Urban Design Planner, Planning and Regulatory Services Town of Richmond Hill T F isajames@richmondhill.ca 62

63 Cultural Heritage Impact Assessment Mill Street Appendix D Appleton Charter for the Protection and Enhancement of the Built Environment, August

64 (français) Index Cover The Appleton Charter Appleton Charter for the Protection and Enhancement of the Built Environment Published by ICOMOS Canada under the auspices of the English-Speaking Committee, Ottawa, Canada, August 1983 A. Preamble This charter acknowledges The International Charter for the Conservation & Restoration of Monuments & Sites (Venice, 1964), the Australia ICOMOS Charter for the Conservation of Places of Cultural Significance (the Burra Charter of February 23, 1981), and the Charter for the Preservation of Quebec's Heritage (Declaration of Deschambault), without which it could not exist. It further recognizes that the sound management of the built environment is an important cultural activity; and that conservation is an essential component of the management process. B. Framework Intervention within the built environment may occur at many levels (from preservation to redevelopment), at many scales (from individual building elements to entire sites), and will be characterized by one or more activities, ranging from maintenance to addition. Though any given project may combine intervention scales, levels and activities, projects should be characterized by a clearly stated goal against which small scale decisions may be 64