Ontario Land Tribunal

Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire

ISSUE DATE: January 5, 2026 CASE NO(S).: OLT-25-000268

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

Appellants: John Deciantis Subject: Objection to Designation By-law 2-25 Property Address: 13 Church Street South Municipality/Upper Tier: City of Richmond Hill OLT Case No.: OLT-25-000268 OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-25-000268 OLT Case Name: Deciantis v. Richmond Hill (City)

Heard: November 28, 2025 by Video Hearing

APPEARANCES:

Parties	Counsel
John Deciantis (the “Appellant”)	Meaghan Barrett
City of Richmond Hill (the “City”)	Carlton Thorne

MEMORANDUM OF ORAL DECISION DELIVERED BY D. ARNOLD ON NOVEMBER 28, 2025 AND FINAL ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL

INTRODUCTION

1These proceedings pertain to an appeal filed by the Appellant pursuant to subsection 29(11) of the Ontario Heritage Act, R.S.O. 1990, as amended, (the “Heritage Act”) of the City’s By-law 2-25 (the “By-law”) passed under the Heritage Act designating the property municipally known as 13 Church Street South in the City of Richmond Hill (the “Subject Property”) as being of cultural heritage value or interest (the “Appeal”).

2Following the first Case Management Conference concerning this matter, the Parties informed the Tribunal that a settlement of the Appeal had been reached between the Parties. The Parties requested that a settlement hearing be scheduled in order to present the proposed amendments to the By-law for the Tribunal’s consideration. The Tribunal converted the scheduled second Case Management Conference to a settlement hearing that took place on November 28, 2025.

3At the conclusion of the settlement hearing, the Tribunal rendered an oral decision allowing the Appeal in part and amending the By-law in accordance with the Proposed Amending By-law and this is the written Memorandum of that Oral Decision and Order of the Tribunal.

EVIDENCE

4At the hearing, the City called one witness, Julia Smith, who was qualified by the Tribunal to provide expert opinion heritage planning evidence. Ms. Smith’s Curriculum Vitae and Acknowledgement of Expert’s Duty are found in Appendix 1 and 2 respectively of Ms. Smith’s Witness Statement dated November 24, 2025. This Witness Statement was entered into evidence as Exhibit 1 (the “Smith Witness Statement”).

5The Tribunal heard Ms. Smith’s oral testimony and also considered the evidence contained in the Smith Witness Statement and the Visual Evidence Document (v. 2), the latter Document being entered into evidence as Exhibit 2 (the “Visual Evidence”).

6Ms. Smith provided expert professional heritage planning opinion evidence at the Hearing as set out below.

7The Subject Property is located on the east side of Church Street South, south of Centre Street East, and within the historical centre of Richmond Hill village. There is a two-and a half storey brick veneer residential building with an irregular plan and complex roof profile built in 1917 and known as the Graham-Young House located on the Subject Property (the “Graham-Young House”).

8Pursuant to the Heritage Act and Regulation 9/06 as amended by Regulation 569/22 under the Heritage Act (the “Heritage Regulation”), a municipality may pass a by-law designating a property as being of cultural heritage value or interest if at least two of the criteria prescribed by the Heritage Regulation are met. Ms. Smith adopted the contents of the Smith Witness Statement including her professional expert opinion that the Subject Property meets four of the criteria for designation set out in the Heritage Regulation.

9Specifically, Ms. Smith opined that the Subject Property meets the following four criteria prescribed under the Heritage Regulation for designation under the Heritage Act:

(a) The Subject 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” as set out in Paragraph 1 of Subsection 1(2) of the Heritage Regulation. In this regard, Ms. Smith opined that in her professional expert opinion the Subject Property is a representative example of Edwardian residential architecture featuring Queen Anne Revival stylistic influences. Ms. Smith provided evidence that features of the Graham-Young House that express this architectural style “include (but are not limited to) the building’s irregular plan, complex form and roof composition, mottled rugged brick cladding, shingle-clad west and south gables with pent eaves, the plain cornice below the roofline, flat-and segmental-headed windows and doors with stone sills and lintels, and the large curved wraparound verandah on the west and south elevations, featuring tapered squared columns and a dentilated cornice.” (see Paragraph 49 of the Smith Witness Statement);

(b) The Subject 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” as set out in Paragraph 4 of Subsection 1(2) of the Heritage Regulation. Ms. Smith opined that the Graham-Young House has historical value for its “direct association with significant Richmond Hill developer and builder William Graham, who built the subject building in 1917 and resided there with his wife…until his death.” Ms. Smith provided evidence that Mr. Graham constructed many public buildings as well as approximately 30 homes in the Richmond Hill village and “the grand scale and complex architectural style of the house reflect Graham’s success as a builder at the time of its construction in 1917. (see Paragraph 51 of the Smith Witness Statement). Moreover, Ms. Smith opined that the Graham-Young House has a direct association with the “significant Canadian astronomer Reynold Kenneth Young” who lived there from 1936 to 1964. Ms. Smith provided evidence that Mr. Young was “instrumental in designing and constructing the David Dunlap Observatory’s 74-inch reflecting telescope and its dome” as well as undertaking significant research in the area of astronomy including “publishing 23 spectroscopic-binary orbits on his own” and determining the radial velocities and absolute magnitudes of thousands of stars over the course of his career and in collaboration with others. (see Paragraph 52 of the Smith Witness Statement)

(c) The Subject Property has “historical value or associative value because it demonstrates or reflects the work or ideas of an architect, artist, builder, designer or theorist who is significant to a community” as set out in Paragraph 6 of Subsection 1(2) of the Heritage Regulation. Ms. Smith opined that Mr. Graham was a “prolific builder” during the period of rapid development in the village from the “booming flower industry” in the early 20th century and his buildings “have made an enduring impact on the built form character of Richmond Hill village, particularly on residential streets.” Ms. Smith provided evidence that the Graham-Young House reflects the “Edwardian architectural style popular in the early 20th century, often combined with Queen Anne Revival stylistic influences.” (see Paragraph 53 of the Smith Witness Statement)

(d) The Subject Property has “contextual value because it is important in defining, maintaining or supporting the character of an area” as set out in Subsection 1(2) Paragraph 7 of the Heritage Regulation. In this regard, Ms. Smith opined that the Graham-Young House is “a high-quality representative expression of early 20th century design and materials” and is “important in defining, maintaining and supporting the predominantly late-19th and early 20th century residential character of the surrounding streetscape on Church Street, as well as that of the larger residential neighbourhood east of Yonge Street and north of Major Mackenzie Drive, which was largely developed during the early 20th century.” (see Paragraphs 55 and 56 of the Smith Witness Statement)

10With regard to the Description, Reasons for Designation, Statement of Significance and Heritage Attributes of the Subject Property set out at Schedule “A” to the By-law, Ms. Smith provided evidence in support of certain proposed amendments set out in Appendix 6 of the Smith Witness Statement (the “Proposed Amended Designation By-law”). Specifically, Ms. Smith described and opined with respect to the proposed amendments to the By-law as follows:

(a) A proposed amendment to the architectural description of the Graham-Young House from “a representative example of a vernacular early-20th century residential architectural style that incorporates elements of both Queen Anne Revival and Edwardian design” to “a representative example of Edwardian residential architecture featuring Queen Anne Revival stylistic influences” is appropriate and does not affect satisfaction of the criteria under the Heritage Regulation in Ms. Smith’s opinion as it is a “minor adjustment” to the description and “does not diminish the Subject Property’s design value as a representative example of early-20th century residential architecture combining Edwardian and Queen Anne Revival stylistic influences.” (see Paragraph 57(a) of the Smith Witness Statement);

(b) A proposed amendment to delete the Graham-Young House’s side (north) elevation from the list of identified heritage attributes is appropriate in Ms. Smith’s opinion as the north elevation does not possess any architectural features that “uniquely contribute to the House’s stylistic expression or integrity”. Ms. Smith opined that the “important features (such as the wraparound verandah and shingle-clad roof gables)” with respect to meeting the criteria of the Heritage Regulation are concentrated on the west and south elevations of the House. Ms. Smith opined that the removal of the north elevation from the list of identified heritage attributes “does not diminish the Subject Property’s architectural integrity or design value as a representative example of Edwardian residential architecture featuring Queen Anne Revival stylistic influences.” (see Paragraph 57(b) of the Smith Witness Statement);

(c) A proposed amendment to delete the words “scale, form and massing” from the list of identified heritage attributes in the Reasons for Designation of the By-law does not, in Ms. Smith’s opinion, affect the satisfaction of the specific criteria under the Heritage Regulation identified earlier in Ms. Smith’s evidence as the Graham-Young House’s “legibility and design value as a representative example of Edwardian residential architecture featuring Queen Anne Revival stylistic influences will continue to be conserved through the [remaining list] of identified heritage attributes in the By-law including “the 2.5 storey building with an irregular plan and the complex multi-pitched roof profile, comprised of a steep central mansard-roofed component and lower cross gables with pent eaves facing west and south.” (see Paragraph 57(c) of the Smith Witness Statement);

(d) The proposed amendment to “more accurately reflect that some first-floor openings are segmental-headed, not flat-headed as originally described” is appropriate and does not affect satisfaction of the criteria under the Heritage Regulation in Ms. Smith’s opinion (see Paragraph 57(d) of the Smith Witness Statement); and

(e) Other “minor wording” proposed amendments for “accuracy, consistency and clarity” (including describing the Appeal and Tribunal proceedings in the recitals of the Proposed Amended Designation By-law) do not affect satisfaction of the criteria under the Heritage Regulation in Ms. Smith’s opinion. (see Paragraph 57(e) of the Smith Witness Statement)

11In conclusion, Ms. Smith opined that the Subject Property, as described in the Reasons for Designation of the Proposed Amended Designation By-law “continues to meet the same four (4) of nine (9) [Heritage Regulation] criteria previously included in the [By-law] and thus continues to exceed the threshold for designation under the [Ontario Heritage Act].” (See Paragraph 59 of the Smith Witness Statement).

FINDINGS

12Upon consideration of the evidence set forth in the Smith Witness Statement and the oral evidence of Ms. Smith at the Hearing, all of which was uncontroverted, the Tribunal finds that the prescribed criteria of Paragraphs 1, 4, 6 and 7 of Subsection 1(2) the Heritage Regulation have been satisfied such that the Subject Property is of cultural heritage value or interest within the meaning of the Heritage Act. Further, the Tribunal finds that the proposed amendments (as shown in the marked-up version of the By-law set out in Appendix 6 to the Smith Witness Statement) are supported by the evidence and consistent with the requirements of the Heritage Act and the Heritage Regulation. As such, the Tribunal finds that the Proposed Amended Designation By-law (as set out in Appendix 5 of the Smith Witness Statement) meets the requirements of the Heritage Act including in particular Section 29 of the Heritage Act.

ORDER

13THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS that the Appeal against By-law 2-25 of the City of Richmond Hill is allowed, in part, and the said By-law is amended as set out in Appendix “A” to this Order and this Order is effective November 28, 2025. In all other respects, the Tribunal orders that the Appeal is dismissed.

“D. Arnold”

D. ARNOLD 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

Appendix “A” to OLT-25-000268 Decision of November 28, 2025

The Corporation of the City of Richmond Hill By-Law 2-25

A By-Law to Designate 13 Church Street South (Graham-Young House) Under the Ontario Heritage Act

Whereas Section 29 of the Ontario Heritage Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.O.18 authorizes the Council of a municipality to enact by-laws to designate property to be of cultural heritage value or interest;

And Whereas the Council of The Corporation of the City of Richmond Hill (“City Council”) has consulted with Heritage Richmond Hill concerning this matter;

And Whereas City Council thereafter caused the City Clerk to serve on the owner(s) of the property known as 13 Church Street South, Richmond Hill, as well as upon the Ontario Heritage Trust, a Notice of Intention to Designate the aforesaid property and has also caused the City Clerk to publish the Notice of Intention to Designate on the City’s website in accordance with subsection 26(4) of the Ontario Heritage Act and City by-law 12-20, as amended;

And Whereas a Notice of Objection was served upon the City Clerk under subsection 29(5) of the Ontario Heritage Act;

And Whereas in accordance with subsection 29(6) of the Ontario Heritage Act, City Council considered the Notice of Objection and decided not to withdraw the Notice of Intention to Designate;

And Whereas in accordance with subsection 29(8) of the Ontario Heritage Act, City Council passed By-law 2-25 to designate the property at 13 Church Street South to be of cultural heritage value or interest;

And Whereas the owner appealed By-law 2-25 to the Ontario Land Tribunal (the “Tribunal”) pursuant to subsection 29(11) of the Ontario Heritage Act (the “Appeal”);

And Whereas the Tribunal held a settlement hearing on November 28, 2025 with respect to the Appeal;

And Whereas the Tribunal in accordance with subsection 29(15)(b)(ii) of the Ontario Heritage Act, rendered a decision and order effective November 28, 2025 allowing the Appeal, in part, and approving By-law 2-25 with certain amendments;

And Whereas the Statement of Cultural Heritage Value or Interest, the Description of Heritage Attributes, and a scaled drawing identifying the location of the property’s cultural heritage value or interest are set out in Schedule “A” to this By-law 2-25;

Now Therefore, in accordance with the decision and order of The Ontario Land Tribunal issued orally and effective on November 28, 2025:

The property located at 13 Church Street South, being Part of Lot 47, Concession 1 (Markham) as in RH29617, Except RH30172, Except Part 2, Plan 65R-31744; Richmond Hill; Regional Municipality of York [PIN 03172-0783 (LT)], is hereby designated under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.O.18, as being of cultural heritage value or interest.
Schedule “A” attached to this By-law 2-25 is declared to form a part of this by-law.

SCHEDULE “A” TO BY-LAW 2-25

REASONS FOR DESIGNATION

13 Church Street South Graham-Young House

Description of Property

The Graham-Young House at 13 Church Street South is a 2 ½-storey brick veneer building with an irregular plan and complex roof profile, located on the east side of Church Street South, south of Centre Street East. The property is located within the historic village of Richmond Hill.

Area of Cultural Heritage Value or Interest

Statement of Significance

Design and Physical Value

Dating to 1917, the Graham-Young House at 13 Church Street South has design and physical value as a representative example of Edwardian residential architecture featuring Queen Anne Revival stylistic influences. Features that express this architectural style include the building’s irregular plan, complex form and roof composition, mottled rugged brick cladding, west and south shingle-clad gables with pent eaves, the plain cornice below the roofline, flat- and segmental-headed windows and doors with stone sills and lintels, and the large curved wraparound verandah extending from the front (west) elevation to the side (south) elevation, and featuring tapered squared columns and a dentilated cornice.

Historical and Associative Value

The Graham-Young House at 13 Church Street South has historical value for its direct association with significant Richmond Hill developer and builder William Graham, who built the subject building in 1917, and resided there with his wife Amy Gertrude (née Phillips) and four children until his untimely death in 1924. William H. Graham started his own contracting and building company in Richmond Hill in 1910. He bought a substantial amount of vacant land on Centre Street East and Church Street South during the 1910s and 1920s, which he subdivided, developed, and then resold to accommodate the village’s rapid growth resulting from the booming flower industry during this time. During his relatively short time as a land developer and builder in the boom years of Richmond Hill’s flower industry of the 1910s and 1920s, he constructed many public buildings, as well as around 30 homes in the village. As a testament to the influence that Graham had on the growing village in the early 20th century, the William H. Graham Parkette now stands at 43 Church Street South. The grand scale and complex architectural style of the house reflect Graham’s success as a builder at the time of its construction in 1917.

The Graham-Young House has further historical value for its direct associations with significant Canadian astronomer Reynold Kenneth Young, who used the house as his private residence from 1936 to 1964. Young was a pioneer in stellar spectroscopy who worked at each of Canada’s three most important observatories for optical astronomy in the early 20th century. Young was a Professor of Astronomy at the University of Toronto under C. A. Chant and was instrumental in designing and constructing the David Dunlap Observatory’s 74-inch reflecting telescope and its dome. Young also served as Director of the David Dunlap Observatory from its opening in 1935 until his retirement in 1946. Over the course of his career, Young published 23 spectroscopic-binary orbits on his own and determined the radial velocities of some 2,150 stars and the absolute magnitudes of over 1,100 stars in collaboration with others. Young married Amy Gertrude Graham (nee Phillips) in 1936, and the couple resided together at 13 Church Street South until 1964.

The Graham-Young House also has historical value because its early-20th-century residential architectural style reflects the work of prolific Richmond Hill builder William Graham during a period of rapid growth in the village resulting from the booming flower industry during the 1910s and 1920s. Graham’s residential buildings generally reflect the Edwardian architectural style popular in the early 20th century, often combined with Queen Anne Revival stylistic influences. Graham’s buildings have made an enduring impact on the built form character of Richmond Hill village, particularly on residential streets that were largely built out in the 1910s and 1920s, including Church Street South, Centre Street East, Roseview Avenue, and Arnold Crescent.

Contextual Value

The Graham-Young House at 13 Church Street South has contextual value because its early 20th-century architectural style is important in defining and maintaining the predominantly late-19th and early-20th-century residential character of the surrounding streetscape on Church Street South, as well as that of the surrounding residential area east of Yonge Street and north of Major Mackenzie Drive, which was largely developed in the early 20th century.

Heritage Attributes

Design and Physical Value

The heritage attributes that contribute to the value of the property as a representative example of Edwardian residential architecture featuring Queen Anne Revival stylistic influences are:

The 2 ½-storey building with an irregular plan;
The complex multi-pitched roof profile, comprised of a steep central mansard-roofed component and lower cross gables with pent eaves facing west and south;
The building’s exterior materials on the west and south elevations, including the concrete foundation, mottled rugged-brick cladding, and shingle siding in the west and south gable ends;
The plain cornice located below the eaves on the west and south elevations;
The window openings on the west and south elevations, including: o Flat- and segmental-headed window openings with stone sills and/or lintels at basement, first floor, and second floor levels; o Paired flat-headed window openings with wood surrounds in the west and south gable ends;
The doors on the west elevation, including: o Two segmental-headed door openings on the west elevation at first-floor level, featuring period wood door units with glazing;
The wraparound front verandah on the west and south elevations, including: o The shed-roof, which curves around the southwest corner of the building; o The plain frieze and dentilated cornice below the eaves; o The tapered squared columns on stone bases and brick pedestals.

Historical and Associative Value

The heritage attributes that contribute to the value of the property for its associations with significant Richmond Hill builder William Graham are:

The house’s siting and orientation on the east side of Church Street South; and
The house’s early-20th-century architectural style and material palette, which reflect both the work of William Graham and his success as a builder and developer in the 1910s.