Ontario Land Tribunal

Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire

ISSUE DATE: February 07, 2025

CASE NO(S).: OLT-24-000239

PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 29(11) of the Ontario Heritage Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. O.18

Applicant: McCowan Elgin Developments Inc.

Description: Designate the Property as a property of Cultural Heritage value or interest

Reference Number: Heritage Permit Application

Property Address: 10690 McCowan Road

Municipality/UT: Markham/York

OLT Case No.: OLT-24-000239

OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-24-000239

OLT Case Name: McCowan Elgin Developments Inc. v. Markham (City)

Heard: January 15–16, 2025 by video hearing

APPEARANCES:

Parties	Counsel
McCowan Elgin Developments Inc.	Kristie Stitt Ira Kagan (in absentia)
City of Markham	John Hart

DECISION DELIVERED By Kurtis Smith AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL

Link to Order

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1The City of Markham (“Markham”) passed By-law 2024-4 (“By-law”) which designated 10690 McCowan Road (“Subject Property”) as a property of cultural heritage value or interest, and more specifically, the 1890’s farmhouse (“Dwelling”) known as the William Henry Meyer House.

2McCowan Elgin Developments Inc. (“McCowan”) objected to the designation, stating that only one criterion has been met, whereas two or more criteria must be met for a property to be eligible to be designated under subsection 29(1) of the Ontario Heritage Act (“Act”).

3For the reasons below, the Tribunal finds that the Subject Property only meets criterion 1 of the Act as the Dwelling is representative of a Gothic Revival farmhouse. Therefore, having only met one criterion, the Tribunal Orders the By-law to be repealed.

BACKGROUND

4The Tribunal held a two-day hearing on the merits of the By-law designation of the Subject Property.

5In response to Bill 23’s deadline requirements for heritage designations, Markham staff took a streamlined approach to their typical process. The streamlined process determined which properties would and would not be considered for designation and determined the order of importance. The evaluation report, process report, and memorandum are found at Exhibit 1, Tab 15 – 17.

6A property is eligible for designation under subsection 29(1) of the Act if it meets two of the nine criteria set out in subsection 1(2) of O Reg 9/06. Markham City Council determined that three criteria were met relating to the Subject Property:

1. The property has design value or physical value because it is a rare, unique, representative or early example of a style, type, expression, material, or construction method.

• L-shaped plan;
• One-and-a-half storey height;
• Buff brick veneer with projecting brick plinth and radiating brick arches over window openings;
• Medium-pitched cross-gabled roof with overhanging open eaves and steep gabled wall dormer with a pointed-arched two-over-two single-hung window;
• Single-leaf doors within the front veranda;
• Segmentally-headed two-over-two and one-over-one single-hung windows with projecting lugsills;
• Two-storey canted bay window capped by an extension of the gable roof; and
• Hip-roofed front veranda supported on slender turned wood posts ornamented with fretwork brackets.

4. The property has historical value or associative value because it has direct associations with a theme, event, belief, person, activity, organization, or institution that is significant to a community.

• The dwelling is a tangible reminder of the Meyer family’s success in Markham’s nineteenth century agricultural economy.

8. The property has contextual value because it is physically, functionally, visually, or historically linked to its surroundings.

• The location of the building facing east, east of the historic crossroads community of Cashel, where it has stood since the early 1890s.

7McCowan agrees with criterion 1 and objects to criteria 4 and 8.

[8] Two exhibits were marked during the Hearing: I. Exhibit 1 – Joint Document Book; and II. Exhibit 2 – Extracts from O Reg 385/21.

9Two witnesses, Mr. Evan Manning, on behalf of Markham, and Ms. Christienne Uchiyama, on behalf of McCowan, were qualified as heritage planners and provided written, oral, and visual evidence to the Tribunal to support their findings on the Subject Property and By-law. Mr. Manning and Ms. Uchiyama both agree that their respective documents (research report (Exhibit 1, Tab 8) and historic context (Exhibit 1, Tab 13) are not in conflict, but rather their opinions arising out of those facts are.

SUBJECT PROPERTY AND COMMUNITY CONTEXT

10The Subject Property is a typical agricultural parcel located at the corner of McCowan Road and Elgin Mills Road East and is approximately 41.88 hectares. The current Dwelling fronts onto McCowan Road and is located close to the road and near the middle of the frontage.

11There are seven structures located on the Subject Property, the Dwelling and six small outbuildings. A wooden farm dwelling previously stood in the middle of the Subject Property but has been long demolished. In addition, a bank barn and silo were destroyed by fire in 2003 which once stood near the current structures.

12The Subject Property is located approximately 7.8 kilometres (“km”) northeast from downtown Markham and approximately 2 km from the crossroads community of Cashel. Historically, Cashel is the nearby settlement at the crossroads of Elgin Mills Road East and Kennedy Road, fulfilling local needs, for example: the post office, general store, blacksmith shoppe, sawmill, and hotel.

HERITAGE EVIDENCE

Criterion 1: The property has design value or physical value because it is a rare, unique, representative, or early example of a style, type, expression, material or construction method.

13Mr. Manning and Ms. Uchiyama both agree that criterion 1 is met because the Dwelling is representative of a Gothic Revival farmhouse.

Criterion 4: The property has historical value or associative value because it has direct associations with a theme, event, belief, person, activity, organization, or institution that is significant to a community.

14Mr. Manning and Ms. Uchiyama agreed that criterion 4 is a two-part test. The first being the direct association with a theme, event, belief, person, activity of organization and the ladder being that it must be significant to the community.

15Mr. Manning relied on the statement of significance (Exhibit 1, tab 7) and research report (Exhibit 1, tab 8) to form his opinion that farming is an activity and therefore the Dwelling being a farmhouse illustrates significant value of agriculture in the nineteenth century.

16Ms. Uchiyama agrees that farming can be considered an activity, but opined that there is no evidence that the Meyer family made any notable contributions to the community. She went on to state that the remaining physical features on the Subject Property are not directly associated with agriculture. She opined that with the loss of the bank barn in 2003 the Subject Property lacks the ability to indicate an association with agriculture in the nineteenth century.

Criterion 8: The property has contextual value because it is physically, functionally, visually, or historically linked to its surroundings.

17Mr. Manning opined that the location of the Dwelling facing east, the proximity to the crossroads community of Cashel, and the duration of time the Dwelling has been standing provides contextual value. In other words, Mr. Manning is of the opinion that there is connection between the Dwelling and Cashel as the owners would travel to and from for commerce due to the close proximity of the community. Therefore, the aforementioned is the link to the surroundings.

[18] Ms. Uchiyama provided the Tribunal with an overview of possible “linkages” that could be realized with the surroundings: a) Physical: a material connection between the Subject Property and its surroundings, for example: where built components cross property boundaries; b) Functional: a connection between the Subject Property that is necessary to fulfill a particular purpose, for example: a grain elevator in a parcel adjacent to a rail station; c) Visual: a visual connection between the Subject Property and at least one feature in the context, for example: a front door or building façade that is oriented to have views across a mill pond. It is not visually linked merely because adjacent properties can be seen from it; and d) Historical: a connection between the Subject Property and the historic context, for example: where a specific individual constructs a home and a business in close proximity, and both are still standing.

19It is the opinion of Ms. Uchiyama that the Subject Property does not have contextual value because its physical, functional, visual, or historical links to its surroundings.

FINDINGS

20The Tribunal accepts the oral and written evidence of Mr. Manning and Ms. Uchiyama and agrees that criterion 1 is met.

21Relating to criterion 4, the Tribunal accepts the evidence of Ms. Uchiyama and finds that criterion 4 is not met. Tribunal heard no evidence from either witness relating to any outstanding success of the Meyer family beyond the fact that they had lived and tilled the Subject Property which contributed to the agricultural industry during their time. The Tribunal agrees with both witnesses that farming is an activity, but finds that simply because the Dwelling is considered a farmhouse does not constitute it as being significant to the community beyond any other “common old farmhouse”.

22Concerning criterion 8, the Tribunal accepts the fulsome oral evidence of Ms. Uchiyama that criterion 8 is not met. No evidence was provided to support any notable physical, functional, visual, or historical links to the surrounding area. The Tribunal accepts that the Dwelling is located east of the crossroads community of Cashel. However, beyond the physical distance, the Tribunal heard no material evidence to prove physical, functional, visual, or historical links.

23The Tribunal finds that one criterion, as set out under subsection 29(1) of the Act, has been met.

ORDER

24THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS THAT the appeal against By-law 2024-4 of the City of Markham is allowed. By-law 2024-4 is hereby repealed.

“Kurtis Smith”

Kurtis Smith Member Ontario Land Tribunal

Website: www.olt.gov.on.ca Telephone: 416-212-6349 Toll Free: 1-866-448-2248

The Conservation Review Board, the Environmental Review Tribunal, the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal and the Mining and Lands Tribunal are amalgamated and continued as the Ontario Land Tribunal (“Tribunal”). Any reference to the preceding tribunals or the former Ontario Municipal Board is deemed to be a reference to the Tribunal.