CONSERVATION REVIEW BOARD
RE: THE CORPORATION OF THE TOWN OF MARKHAM - INTENTION
TO DESIGNATE THE PROPERTY KNOWN AS THE MENNO RAYMER HOUSE, 9404 HIGHWAY 48, MARKHAM, ONTARIO.
Peter A.P. Zakarow, Chair September 22, 2004
Peggy Kurtin, Member
This hearing was convened under Section 29(8) of the Ontario Heritage Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. O.18, for the purpose of reporting to the Council of the Town of Markham whether, in the opinion of this Board, on the basis of the evidence it heard, the property known municipally as 9404 Highway 48, The Menno Raymer House in Markham, Ontario, should be designated by by-law under the Act.
Notice of this hearing was given under the Act and published in the Markham Economist and Sun on September 9, 2004 by the Board. An affidavit by a member of the Conservation Review Board’s (hereinafter Board or CRB) staff with respect to this notice was tabled as Exhibit #1.
The Board, in accordance with its customary practice, had the opportunity to inspect the site and view the surrounding area prior to the Hearing.
The Board met in the Canada Room, Markham Civic Centre, 101 Town Centre Boulevard, Markham, Ontario on Wednesday, September 22, 2004.
Participants: Catherine Conrad, Solicitor, Town of Markham
George Duncan, Heritage & Conservation Planner, Town of Markham
Brian Bunting, Markham, Ontario, Objector
John Blumenson, Toronto, Ontario, Heritage Consultant
In this report the structure in question is identified as the “Menno Raymer House,” which is the name used by the Town of Markham to identify the property. It is a small house sitting at the front of a residential lot. (See Land Deed at Tab 22 of Exhibit #2 and photos of the structure at Tab 23 of Exhibit #2). It will hereinafter be referred to as the Property.
The hearing commenced at 10:00 a.m.
Procedural Matter
As the Board outlined the agenda of rules and procedures that would be used for the hearing, a question was raised by Mr. Bunting asking for the Board’s indulgence as his legal representative was unable to attend the hearing and that he would be attempting to represent himself. Mr. Bunting asked whether he could speak on the procedural issues of the case while his expert witness Mr. Blumenson would speak on the heritage issues. We agreed to allow him some leniency as this hearing is to be a forum for presenting each side of the case and presenting as much relevant material to the Board as possible.
Mr. Bunting then elaborated on this point by outlining his intention to present a case that spoke directly to procedural and jurisdictional issues, involving issues of notice and the Town of Markham’s (Town) reliance on questionable information. At this point the Chair noted that, while a lot of work clearly had gone into preparing materials on such arguments, such procedural and jurisdictional issues are not within the scope and mandate of the Conservation Review Board, as is outlined in the Ontario Heritage Act. The Chair then reiterated the primary reason for holding the hearing – to assess the property’s heritage significance in determining whether a heritage designation would be appropriate – and asked each party to focus on the heritage issues. The Chair then explained to Mr. Bunting that the CRB was in no way attempting to limit his ability to present a case objecting to designation, but that there were other more appropriate venues for presenting the “non-heritage” issues, including the Divisional Court, the Ontario Municipal Board, or Town Council. The hearing of evidence then commenced after 10:30 am.
Case for the Town of Markham
Ms. Conrad introduced the case by submitting a binder of materials (Exhibit #2) and outlining the Town’s position. She then called Mr. Duncan as her first witness to present the case in support of designation of the Property and Mr. Duncan was sworn. Mr. Duncan’s CV was presented at Tab 1 of Exhibit #2. In response to a question by the Chair, Ms. Conrad identified the Property and its owner by presenting the Parcel Register and Deed of Land in Tab 22 of Exhibit #2. It was established that the Property is owned by Susan Marie Waddington (daughter of the Objector Mr. Bunting), after a transfer of deed was made for consideration of $2 by its previous owner Trevor Alan Bunting (son of the Objector Mr. Bunting). Upon a question by the Chair, it was noted that the current property owner was not present at the hearing.
Witness - George Duncan, Heritage & Conservation Planner, Town of Markham
Mr. Duncan presented a methodical analysis of the heritage aspects of the Property. Referring to numerous sources within Exhibit #2, it was asserted that the Property is of the bungalow style, designed with a measure of Arts and Crafts Movement influence. At Tab 7 of Exhibit #2, the full assessment of the property is outlined and was the basis of Mr. Duncan’s visual presentation.
Historically, it was postulated that the structure was likely built by Menno Raymer on a lot
which he purchased in 1915. Menno Raymer was a member of the founding Pennsylvania German family of the Mount Joy community and part of a well-known group of threshers who offered services to local farmers. Menno Raymer sold the property in 1925. In terms of architecture, the house was presented as a frame, one and a half storey dwelling with a regular rectangular plan that had been modified with an addition at the rear. It is a modest early twentieth century home built on a raised fieldstone foundation that remained from an older structure which is believed to have been destroyed by fire. Among the listed “Significant Heritage Attributes” are the rectangular, one and a half storey front section of the house; fieldstone foundation; narrow wood clapboard siding; wood one over one sash windows; two box bay windows on the south wall; cutaway porch with its tapered square wood columns and closed balustrade; medium pitched gable roof with its wide overhang, narrow tongue and groove soffits and shed roofed front dormer; and closed gable and pent eaves of the north and south walls. Also of note was its interior floor plan with no hall and a very practical use of space, very much in the Arts and Crafts tradition.
Stylistically, the house is labelled a “bungalow cottage” or “semi-bungalow” given that its modest second floor is housed in its broad roof space. It was noted that some of the decorative features of a “Craftsman Bungalow” are absent in this simply designed twentieth century house. Finally, the contextual analysis shows that the Property is currently zoned RR1 while surrounding properties are being rezoned to Major Commercial and road widening has been taken from properties on either side of the Property by MTO. The complete 1995 property evaluation can be found at Tab 19 of Exhibit #2.
Mr. Duncan concluded by outlining that according to the principals and procedures of evaluating heritage resources in the Town of Markham (see Tab 18 of Exhibit #2), the Property had been evaluated as a Group 2 heritage structure. The application of these principals and procedures to the Property are presented in detail at Tabs 19 & 20 of Exhibit #2. Mr. Duncan then, once again, summarized the list of Significant Heritage Attributes which were to be protected through designation, and clearly stated that Heritage Markham’s recommendation was for these exterior attributes only. Mr. Duncan outlined that while there were some significant interior attributes, they were only seeking exterior designation. As well, Mr. Duncan outlined that Markham prides itself on preserving not just “beautiful” heritage buildings, such as courthouses, churches and homes of the wealthy, but all buildings of the community, with this property being representative of a working class home. Both Mr. Duncan and Ms. Conrad asserted that the Property was one of only three buildings in the area that shared these heritage attributes, and that this was the only non-brick house of the three, thus further alluding to the importance of protecting such a property.
In summary, Ms. Conrad outlined that in response to an application received to demolish this listed heritage building, Heritage Markham recommended denial of the demolition permit and recommended designation. Ms. Conrad also clearly outlined that a significant issue was that there was (and continues to be) no development application on the property. Without such a development application, Heritage Markham was of the opinion that a request to remove the building was premature and without merit.
Mr. Bunting had some cross examination questions for Mr. Duncan, yet they all revolved around jurisdictional and procedural issues. The Chair repeatedly reminded both sides of his earlier remarks surrounding the mandate of the CRB and the scope of information that would be relevant.
Case for the Objector – Mr. Bunting
Mr. Bunting introduced his case and apologized for the brevity of his arguments, after he was made aware of the CRB’s powers under the Ontario Heritage Act, as he had intended on focusing on procedural and jurisdictional arguments. Mr. Bunting then submitted his package of evidentiary materials and they were entered as Exhibit #4. Mr. Bunting did not, however, have a copy of these materials for the Town of Markham representatives. Mr. Bunting tried to expose historical errors made by Heritage Markham in their analysis of the Property, and presented a brief case asserting that Menno Raymer never actually resided in the dwelling. He raised a few points about the lack of designation by the Town of Markham of individual buildings on the adjacent museum property as well as the granted demolition of two-thirds of the Christian Raymer Tenant House (a similar property in Mr. Bunting’s submission). Mr. Bunting then called his witness, Mr. Blumenson to the stand.
Witness - John Blumenson, Heritage Consultant, Toronto, Ontario
Mr. Blumenson was sworn in and his CV and a précis of his CV was submitted as Exhibits #5A and #5B respectively. Mr. Blumenson presented a case, based upon his own Heritage Evaluation (submitted as Exhibit #6), using the principals and procedures of the Town of Markham, that asserts that the Property should be classified as a Group 3 heritage property, which would not support designation. In his analysis Mr. Blumenson asserted that there was a strong possibility that this could actually be a ready-made house, also referred to as a ready-built, pre-fab, kit, mail-order or catalogue house, which he explained were available at the time from companies like T. Eaton Company or Sears. Mr. Blumenson indicated that ready-built homes were becoming the focus of more research and attention by heritage and architectural professionals in recent years.
Mr. Blumenson presented that the building was of lower historical significance as it was inconclusive whether Menno Raymer actually built the home or the Property’s next owner Wambolt (the history of the Wambolt name is found in Mr. Duncan’s submission of the Reesor Family in Canada as Exhibit #3). He estimates the property was built between 1915-1940. In terms of architecture, Mr. Blumenson asserted that the Property lacked many details associated with the Bungalow style, which is outlined in Chapter 19 of his book Ontario Architecture: A Guide to Styles and Building Terms 1784 to the Present. The book was referenced and was deemed to be included as an Exhibit – a photocopy of this particular chapter 19 on Bungalows was later copied by Ms. Conrad and provided to the Board and entered as Exhibit #7.
Mr. Blumenson also indicated that the exterior finishes and details are in poor condition, further diminishing any significance that any of the exterior features could have had, while the large bow window on the front significantly detracts from the original design. He also raised the point
that the current plan for road expansion would cause the demolition of the front section of the house or the need to relocate the house. In summary, Mr. Blumenson asserted that the Property should not be designated given a lack of the requisite historical, architectural, and environmental factors required to justify designation.
Ms. Conrad then cross-examined Mr. Blumenson on a number of issues. She questioned him on his use of information in undertaking his heritage analysis. She suggested that Mr. Blumenson may not have used all of the information at his disposal in undertaking his analysis of the Property, such as the existence of other properties in the area. In addition, she identified that as one individual undertaking the analysis, Mr. Blumenson did not follow the principles and procedures of the Town of Markham as the rules indicate that numerous parties must undertake such analysis and the results must be compiled. Mr. Blumenson said little in response. As well, Ms. Conrad made references to his own book and its chapter on Bungalows (see Exhibit #7) and asked him to compare characteristics of Bungalows on page 182 with pictures of the Property (found in both parties’ submissions). Mr. Blumenson’s responses were at times inconclusive and unsubstantive in relation to the question at hand. The Chair noted that Mr. Blumenson was under Oath and should answer in more of a direct manner, using his great experience and expertise in heritage planning. The Board noted that upon comparing specific attributes of the Property with those of the houses found in Figures 19-14 and 19-15 on page 182 of Exhibit #7, in order to show the Property’s connection to the Bungalow style, there were clear similarities that
Mr. Blumenson was reluctant to acknowledge.
Summation of the Objector – Mr. Bunting
In summary, Mr. Bunting asked why the Town of Markham does not want this house preserved within its own heritage estates community, yet claims that it is a one of a kind property that so significantly captures the history of an early twentieth century working farmer’s house. The Chair then asked Mr. Bunting directly about the desire to fight the designation, which he answered was because there was an encumbrance impeding the sale of this property because of the pending designation. He acknowledged that he was the original owner of both this property as well as the property directly south (adjacent), which he had transferred to his two children, and that his intention of purchasing it was as an investment property and that their desire is to sell both pieces of property combined. Asked directly by the Chair about the home’s current state of disrepair, Mr. Bunting said that they have been trying to sell the land and that the upkeep of the home was not worthy of any investment. Mr. Bunting acknowledged that he had no knowledge of the home’s heritage value when he purchased the property, and was not contacted when the Property was originally placed on Heritage Markham’s inventory list. The Chair noted that this practice by the Town of not informing the property owner was likely not a best practice,