Stratford council denies heritage-alteration permit after doors removed from former ‘White House’

Stratford council denies heritage alteration permit after doors removed from former

Stratford council has denied a heritage-alteration permit to the owner of 265 St. David Street that would have retroactively approved the removal of two upper-level, exterior doors from the heritage home and their replacement with vinyl windows.

Larson Properties Partnership Corp., the company that owns the 265 St. David Street home formerly known as the Stratford White House, will need to work with Stratford’s heritage advisory committee and city staff to remove two second-storey windows that were installed earlier this year without the proper heritage permit.

At Monday’s council meeting, every councilor except Deputy Mayor Martin Ritsma and Coun. Bonnie Henderson voted to deny a heritage alteration permit application submitted by Larson Properties at the end of January. If it had been granted, that permit would have retroactively approved the removal of two second-storey doors – identified as heritage features when the property was designated under the Ontario Heritage Act in the fall of 2020 – and their replacement with vinyl-framed windows earlier that same month.

“I understand the issue is the non-original, wood doors that used to be on the exterior of the building,” said Jory Beer, a representative of Larson Properties who spoke at Monday’s meeting. “The issue that we run into is one – the exterior doors, we can’t have them be opening … due to safety concerns. Issue two, if we were to seal those doors off, that prevents having an open window in a bedroom and, being that these units all have people living in them, I can’t justify doing something that goes against building code and would cause a fire hazard. … We did find out the doors are not original. We could mount them on the outside, but then we are covering up the detailed, original brickwork of the building.

“So I’m hoping we can come to an agreement for something that will suit both us and (the city) best while keeping the look of the heritage property.”

The company representatives’ request to work with the city on a solution that would meet heritage standards and allow for the installation of upper-level windows, however, came a little too late.

After the city was alerted to the changes made to the building in January, city planning staff told the owner a permit was needed. The owner quickly submitted an application for the permit on Jan. 31 that was put before the Heritage Stratford permit review committee, which ultimately recommended that council deny that application.

According to the committee chair, Cambria Ravenhill, the new vinyl windows do not fit the home’s facade and do not match the materials that would have been used when it was built in 1910.

While Ravenhill said at a recent planning and heritage subcommittee meeting that Heritage Stratford would have worked with the owner on finding an appropriate solution – potentially the installation of wooden windows instead of vinyl – if a proper permit had been obtained, the committee did not get that opportunity.

Ravenhill also said Heritage Stratford tried to meet with representatives from Larson Properties after the permit application was submitted, but a meeting was never arranged. According to Larson Properties property manager Nancy Ruston, company owner Kevin Larson was out of town at the time.

“The issue is that this was part of the (heritage) designation bylaw and the designation approval, which was negotiated as part of the (Local Planning Appeal Tribunal) decision that was rendered on the property,” Coun. Danielle Ingram said Monday, referring to one of the conditions from an agreement with the city that allowed Larson Properties to sever a new residential lot fronting Shrewsbury Street from the property in 2020.

While Henderson moved to have the application referred back to the planning and heritage subcommittee for further consideration, her motion was defeated by an overwhelming majority.

“The … subcommittee has already reviewed this. … We had a representative for the owner come and tell us why they didn’t think they needed a heritage permit, which is, on its face, unbelievable given the process they went through. … There was (also) an opportunity for the owner to meet with staff and Heritage Stratford to discuss possibilities and the owner chose not to take that opportunity, but to come directly to the … subcommittee with a request that we override Heritage Stratford’s recommendation … so I don’t know why we’re considering this,” Coun. Kathy Vassilakos said before Henderson’s motion went to the floor for a vote.

[email protected]

    Comments

    Postmedia is committed to maintaining a lively but civil forum for discussion and encourages all readers to share their views on our articles. Comments may take up to an hour for moderation before appearing on the site. We ask you to keep your comments relevant and respectful. We have enabled email notifications—you will now receive an email if you receive a reply to your comment, there is an update to a comment thread you follow or if a user you follow comments. Visit our Community Guidelines for more information and details on how to adjust your E-mail settings.

    pso1