►
Description
Heritage Kingston meeting from September 13, 2017. For the full meeting agenda visit https://goo.gl/xYsrty
A
Special
meeting
it
was
not.
You
only
had
a
few
days
notice,
I'm
hoping
today
when
it's
only
one
agenda
item,
it's
the
motion
that
was
deferred
and
it
it
includes
a
wholesome,
hopefully
discussion
and
I'm,
hoping
everyone
will
participate
about
what
we
can
do
to
function
as
well
as
well
as
we
can
and
still
cover
off
all
the
parts
of
our
mandate
and
I.
Just
like
everyone
to
be
conscious
of
the
fact,
the
the
legal
standing
of
this
committee
and
composition.
A
So
we
are
a
group
of
community
members,
including
councillors,
Allen
died
or
I
mean
that's
what
councillors
are
or
community
members
who
are
elected
to
represent.
You
are
appointed
by
the
nominations
committee
as
community
members
to
discuss
all
the
aspects
of
the
committee
mandate,
which
is
in
your
package
right
and
the
committee
mandate
was
updated
with
the
transition
that
we
went
through
in
2015,
and
that
is
also
in
your
package.
That's
the
first
five
pages,
so
schedule
B
for
advisory
committees.
It
lays
it
all
out.
A
These
are.
This
is
the
the
language
that
staff
follows
when
we,
when
workers
brought
to
us-
and
the
motion
essentially
is-
is
asking
us
to
examine
certain
aspects
of
not
only
our
mandate
but
our
procedures.
So
that's
what
the
discussion
is
about
and
I'll
just
read
out
the
motion.
So,
let's
move
right.
A
Oh
yes,
sorry,
I
forgot!
We
saw
have
to
follow
the
regular
proceeding.
So
the
approval
of
the
agenda
with
the
one
item
I
need
a
mover
and
seconder
moved
by
Councillor
Schell
seconded
by
Paul,
and
he
proposed
changes.
I
mean
the
agenda
is
essentially
a
result
of
the
motion
by
Paul
at
the
last
meeting
to
have
the
special
meeting
for
this
purpose.
So
we
can't
really
alter
it
all
right,
all
those
in
favor
and
that
carries.
Thank
you
no
minute.
There's
no
minutes
to
confirm
any
disclosure
of
canary
interest
see
none.
A
There
are
no
presentations,
delegations
or
briefings.
You've
heard
my
little
introductory
frame
framing
remarks
about
how
it
is
that
we
come
to
be
here
and
now.
I'm
gonna
read
the
motion
so
moved
by
dawn
and
seconded
by
Peter,
whereas
the
Harwich
Kingston
committee
has
been
operational
for
more
than
a
year
and
it's
appropriate
to
review
its
functioning
and
effectiveness
and,
whereas,
essentially,
all
of
the
business
of
the
committee
since
inception
has
been
concerned
with
applications
for
built
heritage.
Alteration
permits.
A
Therefore,
be
it
resolved
that
heritage
Kingston
recommends
that
City
Council
direct
staff
to
undertake
a
review
of
the
composition,
mandated
procedures
of
heritage
Kingston.
And
for
this
purpose
to
strike
a
working
group
to
be
recommended
by
the
nominations
committee
comprising
of
a
member
of
heritage,
Kingston
a
heritage
planner,
a
former
member
of
Kingston's
municipal
heritage
committee,
a
member
with
experience
of
heritage
committee
operation
in
different
municipality,
a
member
with
experience
of
civic
museums
and
collections
and
a
member
of
the
public
to
review
the
review
to
include
the
following
components.
A
One
to
hold
one
or
more
open
meetings
where
members
of
the
public
and
representatives
of
interested
community
groups
are
invited
to
make
presentations
and
provide
input
to
to
evaluate
the
city's
current
procedures
relating
to
applications
for
built
heritage.
Alteration
permits
under
the
Ontario
Heritage
Act,
for
effectiveness
and
for
consistency
with
provincial
and
federal
guidelines
and
with
procedures
in
other,
miss
Patty's.
Three
to
recommend
committee
restructuring
and
mandates
to
allow
the
provision
of
advice
more
effectively
to
counsel
on
matters
relating
to
the
protection
of
the
city's
built
heritage.
A
In
accordance
with
the
requirements
of
the
Ontario
Heritage
Act
to
the
city's
museums
and
civic
collections
and
to
general
cultural
heritage.
Issues
of
interest
to
the
city
for
to
recommend
procedures
for
dealing
with
heritage.
Permit
applications
for
properties
designated
under
part
four
and
five,
the
Ontario
Heritage
Act,
including
procedures
for
approval
under
delegated
authority
that
allow
more
efficient
time
utilization
for
both
heritage
staff
and
committee
members.
A
A
B
Counselor
so
yes,
I
did
ask
the
clerk.
Thank
you.
I
asked
the
clerk
about
how
we
would
proceed
on
this
and
normally
under
our
agenda.
Its
delegations
and
briefings
and
I
understand
that.
Procedurally,
we
could
allow
delegations
but
Mike,
and
my
question
had
been
good
members
of
the
public
address
the
motion
so
I
understand.
Maybe
the
clerk
could.
C
A
A
D
A
Think
the
answer
is
yes,
yes
and
that's.
If
you're
asking
me
as
chair
that,
like
I
said,
I
only
want
I
wanted
us
to
restrict
our
conversation
to
exactly
what's
in
front
of
us,
but
if
anyone
has
any
legal
questions
or
procedural
questions
that
are
for
staff
now
would
be
the
time
before
we
get
started.
Yes,
Patricia.
E
A
B
You
it
does,
it
relates
to
the
motion,
but
it
also
I
understand
is
something
that
we
have
done,
so
maybe
it
should
be
when
we
have
the
discussion
or
now
when
it
discusses
evaluating
the
city's
current
procedures
relating
to
applications.
So
this
is
part
two
under
result.
I
believe
that
City
has
already
done
that
when
we
created
the
mandate
for
this
new
committee,
we
had
already
evaluated
what
other
cities
do
in
quite
a
long
report.
If
I
remember.
A
C
Council
has
made
that
decision
council
has
directed
how
this
committee
should
operate
so
to
put
something
like
that
in
there
almost
makes
that
guys
that
that
work
hasn't
happened
and
that
work
did
occur
so
just
to
get
back
to
a
bit
of
process
on
here
as
I
understand
the
committee's
been
going
to
discuss
the
merits
of
the
motion.
That's
within
the
agenda.
C
Anything
that's
in
the
recommendation
is
basically
something
that
can
be
discussed
at
the
end
of
the
day,
we'll
see
where
we're
gonna
go
with
this,
but
the
idea
that
council
has
made
the
decision
on
how
they
want
heritage
Kingston
to
operate.
It's
been
just
over
a
year
to
then
go
back
in
time
to
review
that,
in
my
mind,
isn't
going
to
change
the
way
this
committee
is
going
to
operate.
C
If
there's,
if
there
are
some
people
that
are
thinking
that
to
vote
in
support
of
this
motion,
is
going
to
move
the
agenda
for
whether
it
be
for
cultural
built
heritage.
That
is
not
going
to
happen,
and
so
the
debate
should
focus
on,
what's
in
the
recommendation
and
solely
on
the
recommendation
to
presuppose
that
there's
going
to
be
a
working
group
composed
of
individuals
as
outlined
in
the
motion,
that's
not
going
to
happen
unless
Council
makes
that
decision.
So
today's
today's
meeting
is
really
to
take
a
look
at
the
motion
which
was
properly
put
together.
C
However,
the
ramifications
of
what
might
come
out
of
the
motion
may
not
be
what
the
committee
thinks
is
going
to
happen.
Council
is
not
going
to
separate
culture
from
built
heritage
and
the
two
counselors
can
speak
to
that.
But
it
is
my
view
based
on
the
report
which
went
forward
and
the
council
debate,
that
that
isn't
something
that
is
going
to
happen.
C
E
Just
like
to
add
a
point
of
clarification
now
as
an
evaluator
for
many
years
myself,
whenever
you
have
a
new
initiative
or
two
you're
you're
doing
something
different,
you
want
to
stop
and
say:
okay,
how
are
we
doing
so
I
would
say
I
think
number
three.
According
to
Liz
and
the
gentleman
back
there
is
correct
in
that.
E
What
we
should
be
evaluating
is
not
the
community
structure
and
mandate
which
has
been
done
and
set
already.
What
we
should
be
evaluating
is,
is
it
achieving
its
objectives
and
so
I
think
I
think
it's
a
question
of
not
seeing
when
an
evaluation
is,
and
so
you
wouldn't
evaluate,
which
is
already
done,
but
you
want
to
evaluate.
Is
it
up
check,
you
know
achieving
the
objectives
it
achieved.
What
kind
of
results
are
we
producing?
That's
what
from
a
technical,
evaluators
point
of
view,
that's
what
you'd
be
looking
at
I.
A
Understand
what
you
mean,
because
we
have
that
in
the
nursing
process,
the
valuation
stage
before
we
go
any
further,
though
that
was
borderline
getting
into
their
debate,
so
I
think
it
really
should
should
start
the
debate
now,
unless
you
have
direct
question
to
a
staff
member
about
the
language
or
the
legislation,
or
anything
like
that.
That's
the
only
thing
all
out
at
this
point.
Yes
Paul
when.
D
I
was
looking
at
this
motion.
I
I
agree
that
a
review
after
a
year
is
a
good
thing,
but
one
thing
that
really
stood
out
to
me
was
in
the
fourth,
whereas
it
says
we're
not
protecting
cities
built
heritage,
as
required
by
the
Heritage
Act.
Are
we
not
legally
following
what
we're
supposed
to
do?
Consider
clarify
that
staff
so.
A
F
You
and
through
you,
mr.
chair,
so
just
in
terms
of
we
put
together
some
summarizing
information
and
I
owe
some
of
this
came
forward
in
your
chairs
report
a
few
months
ago,
just
in
terms
of
looking
at
some
of
the
work
that's
been
completed
by
this
committee
in
the
time
since
the
mandate
has
changed
and
in
reference
to
what
was
accomplished
in
previous
years
of
the
committee,
so
I
can
present
some
information
related
to
built
heritage.
Specifically,
dr.
F
Jennifer
can
speak
to
some
some
information
related
to
cultural
heritage,
but
in
reviewing
it
preparing
for
this
meeting
in
the
last
couple
of
years,
we've
done
more
work
related
to
part
four
designations
and
listings
of
property
than
was
previously
done
in
four
or
five
years
of
the
committee.
So
in
2017
so
far
we
did
16
part
four
designations.
We
have
nine
more
that
are
currently
in
progress
and
13
other
properties
that
were
listed
in
2016.
We
did
five
part
four
designations,
136
listings
and
we
finished
the
update
to
the
berry
field.
F
Conservation
District
plan
I
mean
this
compares
with
numbers
in
2012-2013,
where
we
did
one
part
for
listening
to
part
four
Sting's
and
a
designation
in
2013,
as
well
as
some
some
work
in
terms
of
certainly
the
the
Sydenham
Conservation
District
plans.
So
on
the
designation
front,
we've
certainly
done
a
tremendous
amount
of
work
in
the
last
couple
years,
more
than
has
previously
been
done
by
this
committee
and
we've
also
processes.
F
At
the
same
time,
where
we're
nearing
a
hundred
alteration
permits
by
this
committee,
we
did
100
in
2016
and
we
did
some
some
comparable
numbers
related
to
alterations
in
the
previous
years,
but
again
on
the
actual
protection
under
part.
Four
and
part
five
designations.
There's
been
tremendous
work.
That's
been
done
in
the
last
couple
years,
pacifically
by
this
committee.
F
B
A
F
Thank
you,
and
through
you
and
and
the
clerk
can
also
follow
up
if
any
John
has
any
other
comments,
but
we
did
do
extensive
research
going
through
looking
at
the
legislative
requirements
and
where
each
body
being
the
committee
and
council
should
be
making
decisions
and,
as
far
as
staffs,
concern
we're
doing
everything
if
not
succeeding
what
the
expectations
are.
Excuse
me
in
terms
of
the
Ontario
Heritage,
a
heritage,
legislation
and
related
to
protecting
all
of
the
city's
interests
related
to
heritage
and
also
advancing
significant
work
on
its
cultural
heritage
as
well.
A
H
G
Going
to
go
ahead
with
in
the
context
of
the
original
motion,
although
perhaps
the
details
aren't
the
main
thing
at
the
moment.
So
first
of
all,
I
think
the
motion
is
is
meant
to
recognize
that
the
committee
is
not
working
and
it's
an
attempt
to
prevent
it
from
failing
completely
I
know.
Many
of
us
have
been
unhappy
and
considered
resignation
and,
and
there
have
been
problems
with
quorum
and
so
on.
So
there
is
a
I
think
a
practical
problem
to
deal
with.
So
let
me
know,
I
could
speak
at
great
length.
G
G
There
are
some
hope
that
changes
might
happen
in
response
to
people
at
the
committee
saying
or
pointing
out
things
that
they
were
concerned
with,
but
they
have
not
happened.
There
has
been
no
change,
no
improvement
in
the
procedures
that
relate
certainly
to
build
heritage,
which
is
the
main,
has
been
the
main
activity.
So
what
are
the
problems?
G
The
problems
are
not
the
people
I
think
this
committee
has
very
good
people,
I
think
our
heritage
staff
are
very
good
people
and
connect.
Oh
what
has
already
been
said.
The
city
has
been
very
good
at
designating
many
more
properties.
They've
they've
invested
a
lot
of
time.
Staff,
energy
and
resources
into
increasing
the
number
of
designated
properties
in
the
city.
G
They've
established
the
heritage,
the
resource
center,
which
is
an
excellent
thing,
they've
set
working
groups
in
my
impression,
is
that
these
working
groups
are
all
working
very
well.
So
there's
a
lot
of
positives
that
have
happened
in
the
last
year
or
so,
but
I
think
the
to
me.
The
important
point
is
that
designating
properties
is
not
enough.
They
have
to
be
protected,
that's
a
separate
matter
and
that's
where
improvements
have
to
be
made
and
that's
where
the
problems
still
exists.
G
G
So
they're,
really
not
very
not
enough
of
us
to
to
really
be
effective.
This
shows
up,
particularly
in
use
of
the
program
in
itself,
looks
good,
but
there's
only
two
or
three
responses
from
members
of
the
committee:
that's
not
a
good
sign.
Another
symptom,
if
you
like,
is
site
visits
from
time
to
time.
There
are
site
visits
to
various
properties,
typically
one
or
two,
sometimes
three
people
go
to
site
visits,
so
this
is
really
a
pretty
direct
indication
that
there's
a
Mis
balance
between
the
met
of
the
structure
of
the
committee
and
its
function.
A
That's
been
five
minutes
and
I
will
allow
multiple
rounds,
but
maybe
I'll
give
you
30
more
seconds
on
this
round
and
then
well.
As
the
debate
goes,
I
want
to
be
fair
and
at
the
last
meeting,
I
allowed
ten
minutes
from
the
first
member
of
the
public,
and
then
everybody
else
spoke
ten
minutes
and
it
went
really
long.
So
we're
gonna
go
round
by
round
five
minutes
each
but
I'll
give
you
30
more
seconds.
Well,.
G
A
B
She'll,
thank
you.
This
has
been
a
very
interesting
motion,
so
the
first
thing
that
I
did
was
think
about
committees
that
have
been
new
and
one
of
them
is
the
arts.
Advisory
Committee
and
I
can
remember
when
it
was
first
formed
when
the
city
agreed
that
there
was
arts
heritage
and
culture
and
museums
within
the
City
of
Kingston,
because
in
2010
there
wasn't
within
the
structure
of
the
city
of
Kingston,
and
we
had
a
huge
culture
plan
created.
B
That
said,
you
know
one
of
the
items
was
Kingston
Municipal
Heritage
Committee
can
be
more
effective
by
allowing
trained
heritage
staff
to
address
details
of
heritage
projects,
while
it
attends
to
broader
heritage
concerns,
while
it
should
consider
heritage
expertise
in
making
decisions,
the
committee
itself
should
not
function
as
a
panel
of
heritage
experts,
and
that
is
what
I
took
to
heart.
With
the
change
and
mandate
of
this
committee
and
one
of
the
items
in
the
mandate
was,
the
composition
of
the
committee
is
accordingly
heritage.
B
Kingston's
membership
should
possess
a
diversity
of
skills,
experience
and
qualifications,
including
it
didn't
say,
expertise.
It
said
experience.
The
municipal
heritage
committee
item
in
the
culture
plan
did
say
expertise,
so
we
could
have
an
argument
over
words
which
I
think
we
might
before
this
morning
is
over,
but
it
does
call
from
the
city
for
experience.
We
didn't
ask
for
heritage
experts.
We
used
to
have
a
committee
that
did
have
people
full
of
heritage
experience
we've
never
had,
except
when
mr.
zelner
was
here
someone
on
the
committee
who
had
degrees
in
heritage
built
heritage.
B
We
have
not
had
someone
with
university
degrees.
We've
had
people
with
great
experience,
which
is
the
city
has
had
for
many
many
years,
which
is
wonderful.
We
now
have
a
committee
that
has
people
with
experience
some
with
great
expertise
in
the
subjects
that
we
have
asked
as
council
to
be
included
in
this
committee,
because
this
council
has
said
they're,
important
and
I
think
you
know
that
I've
said
a
few
of
these
things
before
and
I've
said
them
more.
It's
coming
well
with
this
motion.
B
In
my
opinion,
it's
here
we
have
had
push
back
for
the
last
year
about
this
change
in
mandate,
but
we
have
had
a
direction
of
council
that
includes
these
two
councillors.
To
say
we
will
include
museums
and
we
will
include
now
cultural
landscapes.
We
will
include
the
stories
of
Kingston
and,
as
a
counselor
I
feel
I
must
apologize
that
instead
of
pushing
hard,
I've
sort
of
sat
back
and
and
now
I'm
pushing
back
because
to
me
this.
B
This
motion
basically
says
there
are
some
members
of
this
committee
that
want
the
built
heritage
to
be
looked
at
harder
that
they
want
to
in
a
way
go
back
to
when
you
could
sit
and
discuss
applications
with
the
applicant.
Even
that
Gervin
has
said
in
his
his
item
that
he
has
found
that
it's
easier
to
work
with
staff
under
part
five
designations
as
a
contractor
designer
agent,
it's
easier
for
me
to
deal
with
staff
directly
on
part
five
Mac
has
even
said
as
a
person
who
works
in
heritage.
B
This
is
working
much
better
for
him,
so
the
push
on
this
motion
is
to
go,
in
my
opinion,
backward
that
even
Mac
would
say
no
to
and
my
opinion
as
a
councillor
is.
We
have
to
move
forward
the
way
the
Arts
Advisory
Committee
did
and
use
the
culture
plan
the
way
it's
supposed
to
be
used,
which
is
to
incorporate
our
culture
museums,
heritage
stories.
The
way
they're
supposed
to
be
no
more
complaining
about
the
agenda,
no
more
complaining
about
having
cultural
heritage
up
high
we've
got
to
move
forward.
B
The
way
council
has
told
us
to
do
this
motion.
I,
don't
believe.
Does
that
at
all
the
review
I
understand
why
some
people
think
it
would
because
they're
thinking
this
motion
would
say:
let's
talk
about
cultural
heritage
and
let's
talk
about
landscapes
in
museums.
It
doesn't
it
says:
let's
talk
about
built
heritage
because
we're
not
happy-
and
that's
a
big
part
of
this-
that
I'm
hearing
not
happy.
A
A
E
Fully
support
and
agree
with
what
Liz
just
said
for
a
few
different
reasons.
First,
just
from
a
generic
evaluation
point
of
view,
you
know
it
doesn't
matter
what
you
do
build
a
house
cook
us
do
whatever
after
you've
done
it
first
time
just
go
back,
look
at
how
is
it
working?
How
is
it
not
working
in
a
general
sense,
look
at
the
objectives
period,
however,
as
so
that
part
I,
think
just
to
go
through
that
that
process
of
you
know
how's
it
going
so
far.
E
You
know,
expand
and
and
engage
the
community
like
I
expected
those
types
of
conversations
to
happen
and
I
thought
everybody
comes
with
their
experience,
or
you
know
knowledge
in
particular
areas,
and
we
have
you
know,
lots
of
good
experience.
I
agree.
We
got
great
people
here,
but
I
also
felt
like
I
was
walking
into
a
landmine,
so
not
having
a
previous
experience
on
a
city
committee
other
than
the
museums
and
collection
which
operated
a
totally
different
way.
E
I
felt
like
I,
was
walking
into
a
battle
over
just
how
much
discussion
there
would
be
getting
down
to
nitty-gritty,
consequently
had
become
very
disillusioned
and
I
feel
like
I
spent.
All
my
time
discussing
whether
or
not
this
this
piece
of
metal
is
gonna,
be
seen
from
the
road
or
not.
To
me
like
to
me,
I
feel
like
I
should
be
talking
about,
is
every
part
of
our
community
engaged
in
heritage
and
I,
don't
feel
like
that's
really
happening
so
that
that
concerns
me,
and
certainly
that's
where
an
evaluation
of
the
objectives
you
know
are.
E
D
That
times
things
are
not
working,
we
do
have
long
meetings.
I
understand
that
I
agree
with
that.
I
also
understand
that
it's
always
good
to
look
at
what
we've
done
over
the
past
year
and
are
we
doing
it
correctly,
but
I?
Think.
As
you
mentioned,
we
are
citizens.
We
are
a
citizen
committee
and
we
follow
direction
from
Council.
Council
has
given
us
a
mandate,
so
this
motion
to
me
should
read
for
us
to
review
how
we're
doing
things
are
we
doing
it
within
the
city's
mandate?
D
That's
been
given
to
us
not
to
ask
to
change
the
mandate,
but
to
actually
are
we
doing
it
in
the
proper
way
that
the
City
Council
has
instructed
us
as
a
someone
that's
been
on
both
heritage
Kingston
and
the
municipal
Heritage
Committee
before
I've
learned
so
much
about
Belt
heritage,
I've
learned
so
much
from
the
experts.
You
know
Don
Mack
and
the
other
ones,
and
you
know
I've
asked
what
some
people
call
silly
questions,
but
I've
also
been
reminded
that
as
a
citizen.
D
I
can't
see
us
changing
the
mandate.
We
have
what
we've
been
given
by
instructed
by
the
City
Council
and
for
me
to
review
the
whole
mandate.
I,
don't
think
works,
I
think
it's.
What
we
need
to
do
is
review,
how
we're
doing
it
to
match
the
mandate.
I'm
also
always
reminded
that
without
the
story
behind
that
stone
or
piece
of
wood,
it's
just
a
piece
of
wood,
so
built
heritage
needs.
Culture
needs
that
stories
I.
D
Also
I
just
want
to
try
to
be
polite
here,
but
I
do
take
offense
to
one
of
them,
whereas,
whereas
this
khmer
community
members
have
the
interest
or
only
a
minority
of
committee,
members
have
the
interest
or
the
expertise
to
deal
with
built
heritage.
While
we
may
not
have
the
expertise
to
do
a
built
area
teach.
We
asked
we
put
on
this
committee
because
we're
interested
in
this.
So
I
do
believe
that
we
all
of
us
do
have
the
interest
in
build
tera
touch.
D
A
I
Thank
you.
I
seconded
this
motion
because
I
believe
that
there
is
no
sin
and
there
is
no
disrespect
and
there
is
no
disregard
for
procedures,
all
of
which,
in
some
ways
have
been
implied,
but
I
think
to
be
inherent
in
this
motion.
I
think
that
there
is
no
reason
not
to
say
to
believe
that,
after
a
year
of
a
certain
amount
of
frustration
and
learning,
both
of
them,
that
there
is
that
there
is
value
in
opening
the
window.
I
We
are
not
proposing
as
a
committee,
that
we
do
this
work
or
that
we
provide
this
evaluation
or
that
we
in
any
sense
control
this.
But
I
think
that
it
has
been
a
difficult
year
for
a
variety
of
reasons
which
don't
have
to
be
elaborated
upon,
and
the
notion
that
there
is
nothing
to
learn
by
having
an
at
arm's
length.
Our
body
take
a
look
at
the
experience
and
see
if
there
are
things
which
can
be
learned
can
be
adjusted
whatever
they
might
be,
and
what
this
motion
does
is
just.
I
It
seems
to
me
that
they
might
be
in
any
of
a
variety
of
ranges,
but
to
support
this
motion.
I
think
is
to
support
the
idea
that
we
should
learn
something
from
a
somewhat
difficult
and
frustrating
and
also,
of
course,
productive.
As
has
been
pointed
out
here
and
I,
think
that
informs
the
the
public
and
it
informs
us
and
we
might
learn
from
it.
I
We
might
be
instructed
and
educated
by
it
in
a
way
that
we
are
not
educated,
instructed
simply
by
you
know
a
kind
of
Fiat
and
so
I
support
this,
not
because
I
want
to
impose
some
kind
of
legislature
apparatus
on
anybody,
but
because
I
think
there's
something
to
be
learned
and
and
I
think
we
need
to
learn
it
and
I
think
it
would
be
helpful.
Thank
you.
C
B
A
A
So
now,
I'm
speaking
as
a
committee
member
and
a
member
of
the
community,
so
I
have
a
couple
points,
but
we'll
start
with
the
the
very
biggest
one
so
to
not
lose
the
forest
for
the
for
the
trees.
Let's
step
back
for
a
moment
and
just
try
to
imagine
what
this
all
means
to
the
average
citizen
and
let's
narrow
it
down
to
this
for
my
purposes,
the
citizens
that
live
in
my
in
my
neighborhood
citizens
would
live
in
my
neighborhood
if
they
haven't
chosen
specifically
to
live
there
because
of
the
heritage.
A
That's
there
they're
at
least
very
accepting
of
the
heritage
at
the
old
buildings
that
are
in
my
neighborhood.
I
live
in
the
old
Sydenham
neighborhood,
and
so
so
there
is
going
to
be
a
passage
of
time.
There
is
the
building.
I
live
in,
for
example,
was
built
in
1850.
So
that's
a
hundred
and
sixty-seven
years
that
that
building
has
stood
there
and
if
each
and
it's
been
tenants
recently,
but
it
had
has
had
owners
in
the
past
as
well,
owners
might
have
been
there
for
20
to
30
years.
Tenants
may
be
two
to
five
years.
A
If
you,
if
you
do
the
math,
you
realized
that
it
there's
been
probably
over
a
hundred
people.
I've
lived
in
the
house
that
I
live
in,
so
for
the
first
thing
that
you
have
to
acknowledge
is
that,
whether
you
own
a
heritage,
building
or
you're,
just
walking
by
it
and
appreciating
it
or
you're
on
a
walking
tour
or
something
like
that,
it
will
impact
your
life
and
the
ownership
of
it
actually
doesn't
represent
control.
A
It
represents
respect,
so
you
wouldn't
probably
own
a
heritage
building
unless
you
understood
what
you
we're
taking
on
and
if
you
did,
you
might
not
own
it
for
very
long.
So
what
is
that?
And
then
these
are
the
applicants.
These
are
the
applicants
that
come
to
our
committee,
they're
people
that
have
taken
on
the
burden
of
owning
a
heritage
building
and
the
city
doesn't
subsidize
the
work
that
is
required.
What
we
do
actually
is
reverse.
We
require
an
extra
level
of
permitting
right.
A
So
you
need
a
heritage
perm
which
cost
money
in
time,
and
it
can.
It
can
be
quite
time-consuming,
depending
on
the
situation
and
the
intricacy
of
the
work.
So,
from
the
point
of
view
of
someone
who
has
taken
on
this
burden,
we
are
not
actually
helping
them,
protect
the
asset
very
much
at
all
and
the
more
we
make
it
difficult
for
them
in
the
process,
the
less
we're
helping
them
and
the
less
people
are
going
to
come
forward.
So
I
would
say
the
average
the
most
common
attitude
to
heritage
is
it's
great
I
love
it.
A
It's
good
for
tourism,
I
like
looking
at
it
as
long
as
I.
Don't
have
to
deal
with
it.
That's
what
the
average
citizen
is
saying.
Okay,
now
we're
different,
we
volunteered
to
help
protect
the
heritage,
and
for
that
reason
we
have
to
work
together.
So
this
conversation
is
absolutely
valid,
because
if
we,
if
we're
spinning
our
wheels
and
getting
nothing
done,
people
talking
about
quitting,
that's
not
productive.
We
that
needs
to
be
fixed,
absolutely
I
would
just
say:
I'll
wrap
up
my
segment
by
saying
I
agree
with
the
previous
speakers.
A
I
think
we
do
have
consensus
in
the
room
that
a
review
is
necessary.
I
think
that
the
motion
goes
too
far
in
in
suggesting
what
the
problem
is
and
I
don't
think
we
have
consensus
on
what
the
problem
is,
but
I
think
the
review
is
definitely
necessary
and,
as
we
do
that
review,
if
we
can't
relate
it
to
the
average
citizen
and
if
it
doesn't
increase
the
likelihood
of
folks
wanting
to
take
on
heritage
buildings
with
their
own
money,
then
we're
not
actually
protecting
heritage.
A
J
K
I
do
agree
with
the
previous
speaker.
I
think
there
is
a
lot
of
confusion
over
or
between
the
mandate
and
the
capacity
of
committee
members
to
actually
feel
useful
in
the
process
and
and
I
think
also
about
the
the
point
about
how
we
can
be
useful
to
folks
who
actually
have
designated
buildings
and
want
to
make
some
changes
to
them
and
in
that
regard,
I
really
feel
that
we
are
not
using
the
capabilities
of
the
committee
to
actually
assist
them
in
moving
forward
with
their
with
their
projects
in
terms
of
advice
and
I.
K
K
And
you
know,
although
there
were
many
problems
with
that,
one
of
the
really
useful
things
about
the
committee
was
my
capacity
as
a
person
who
lived
in
the
village
to
go
and
ask
for
advice
when
I
was
embarked
or
hoping
to
be
embarked
on
a
project
and
I
think
that
there
we've
lost
that
and
but
I
think
that
you
know
that
frustrates
me.
I
think
it
frustrates
other
people
on
the
committee.
A
You
so
before
we
go
to
a
second
round.
Maybe
I've
made
the
point
of
the
very
beginning,
the
heritage
planners
and
the
planning
department
that
review
the
applications
and
all
the
reports
flow
through
them
very
integral
part
of
the
process.
So
maybe
we
could
hear
from
the
Planning
Department
before
we
go
to
next
round
about
the
current
state
of
affairs
and
you
need
for
review
and
perhaps
you
know
any
other
comments
they
might
have.
F
Thank
you,
and
through
you,
mr.
chair
from
I,
think
from
the
staff
perspective,
we've
been
quite
excited,
as
I
was
indicating
before
about
the
amount
of
work
that's
been
achieved
in
the
last
couple
of
years.
The
excitement
that
has
grown
citywide
with
respect
to
knowledge
and
understanding
of
the
importance
of
heritage,
both
built
and
cultural
heritage
in
the
city
and
the
uptake
that
we
see
not
only
in
the
permits,
but
the
grant
application
program.
F
F
We
also
have
some
really
exciting
work
that
some
of
that
feedback
has
come
directly
through
the
public
process
in
this
through
this
committee
related
to
the
importance
of
cultural
heritage
landscapes
and
that
work
is
being
wrapped
into
the
North
Kingstown
secondary
plan
as
well.
So
that
will
be
something
that
will
come
before
this
committee
and
again
provide
an
opportunity
for
the
valuable
input
of
the
people
in
this
room.
F
From
the
process
perspective,
we
do
have
tight
timelines
related
to
to
permitting,
but
Ryan
and
and
McKenzie
always
do
an
excellent
job
of
rising
to
the
occasion
and
working
with
property
owners
to
to
get
their
alteration
permits
before
this
committee
and
review.
All
the
information
set
up
site
visits
when
they're
deemed
necessary
and
try
to
involve
as
many
members
of
the
committee
that
are
available
and
working
with
the
working
groups
as
well.
So
from
our
perspective,
we've
been
quite
excited
about
the
work.
F
That's
been
done
and
feel
very
optimistic
and
energized
about
the
amount
of
commitment
in
the
city.
So
I
think
that's
a
really
positive
thing.
I
think
we
can
continue
to
provide
any
support
that
may
be
required
from
a
technical
standpoint
on
it's
something
that
even
as
staff
using
the
technology
every
day,
it
requires
patience
getting
to
use
the
system
and
to
use
it
most
efficiently.
But
I
think
we
have
a
process
where
we're
getting.
Those
comments
in
advance
and
and
and
Brian
can
comment
on
that,
specifically
as
a
person
who
receives
those.
F
But
how
invaluable
that
is
to
have
that
information
earlier
in
the
process
and
helping
them
to
prepare.
What
becomes
the
reports
and
the
recommendations
that
are
before
this
committee.
So,
from
our
perspective,
we're
very
positive
about
the
work
that
that
the
community
has
done,
and
specifically
this
committee
and
we're
proud
of
it
and
look
forward
to
another
couple
really
busy
years
with
the
agendas
that
we've
built
in
the
work
plans
that
we've
built.
A
At
the
last
meeting
we
lost
quorum
before
we
get
the
working
group
reports,
but
we
did
have
a
really
interesting
briefing
from
dr.
Campbell
that
had
multiple
questions
and
so
that's
to
me.
It
was
very.
It
was
very
exciting
subject
and-
and
there
was
a
lot
of
uptake
with
many
members
with
the
questioning,
but
we
didn't
finish
the
conversation
and
I
guess
I
guess
want
to
bring
in
Jennifer
just
it's
sort
of
where
you
see
us
going
with
the
conversations
around
culture
and
are
we
about
to
embark
on
some
interesting
conversations.
A
L
You
and
through
you,
mr.
chair
I,
sort
of
echo
the
the
feelings
expressed
by
the
Director
of
Planning
I
think
that
for
a
culture,
it's
often
a
longer
process
for
us
we
require.
You
know
one
of
the
initiatives
set
out
in
the
transition
documents
for
this
committee
at
the
new
forum
was
talking
about
educating
the
committee
so
that
it
is
prepared
to
do
the
work
that
it's
mandated
to
undertake
and
as
part
of
that
education
process.
L
Over
the
last
year,
cultural
services
have
offered
14
briefings
information
reports
included
to
this
committee
and
those
have
included
things
like
engage
for
change.
The
archeological
master
plan
for
the
city
of
Kingston,
which
will
be
up
for
review
cultural
heritage
landscapes,
which
was
the
topic
of
the
last
and
most
recent.
The
commemorations
policy
came
here.
L
With
the
intent
to
move
items
of
business
forward,
so
the
archaeological
master
plan
briefing
was
a
preparatory
step,
because
this
committee
will
receive
and
act
as
a
consultative
body
on
the
development
of
that
you
know
the
next
iteration
of
that
plan.
Likewise,
we
have
expertise
on
this
committee,
people
who
have
been
involved
in
the
past
with
things
like
the
collections
management
strategies
for
the
museums,
etc,
and
so
there's
a
lot
of
work
that
certainly
were
staffed.
You
know
this.
L
Our
staff
is
preparing
to
undertake
and
this
this
committee
is
an
integral
part
of
how
we're
going
to
be
able
to
move
that
reflect
on
it,
define
it
refine
it
and
move
it
into
Council
and
then
into
action.
So
I
think
that
it's
you
know
it's
been
a
first
year.
It's
been
a
needful
kind
of
process
in
terms
of
the
education
of
the
committee.
It's
been
educational
for
our
staff
as
well,
in
helping
to
align
our
work
and
I
I.
L
L
You
know
from
from
our
perspective
and
from
the
culture
plans,
initiatives
and
that
approved
through
council
is
somewhat
contrary
to
modern
conservation
and
heritage
practice,
not
that
we
can't
delve
into
them
as
separate
entities,
but
there
is
value
in
the
whole
and
and
that
value
in
the
whole
is
certainly
what
underlines
a
lot
of
the
work
that
we
will
be
bringing
through
the
committee
in
the
future.
Thank
you.
Thank.
M
A
N
Ahead
right,
we'll
say
something
mr.
chair
and
I
too
echo
what
my
colleagues
have
said,
and
particularly
director
Agnew's
comments
when
we,
when
I
was
pulling
together
some
of
the
numbers
that
that
Paige
mentioned
earlier,
it's
really
quite
impressive
to
look
back
over
the
last
five
years
and
see
what
what
we
have
accomplished
since,
even
since
2013
we've
updated
all
three
of
our
we've
updated
two
of
our
existing
HCD
plans,
which
is
a
humongous
accomplishment
in
themselves.
N
We've
added
Sydenham
board,
which
has
almost
five,
has
over
five
hundred
properties
in
it,
which
is
a
humungous
accomplishment,
something
that
had
started
decades
ago.
We've
added
in
the
neighborhood
of
200,
listed
properties
to
the
district
or
to
the
register
and
and
we're
constantly
adding
part
fours
to
the
district
or
to
the
register.
N
All
the
time,
and
this
year
alone,
I
think
it's
safe
to
say
we're,
probably
in
the
neighborhood
of
a
record
year
for
four
new
part.
Fours,
currently
I
think
the
numbers
were
somewhere
in
the
neighborhood
of
twenty
and
we
have
another
half
a
dozen
or
more
to
come,
and
certainly
that's
that's
something
to
be
to
be
quite
proud
of.
As
far
as
as
far
as
an
administration,
as
far
as
the
role
of
the
citizen
group
in
when
talking
to
new
potential
designation
owners,
we
reach
out
and
you've
read
it
in
the
reports.
N
We
not
only
least
ten
registered
mail,
so
we'll
make
sure
everybody
gets
it.
We
will
call
them
if
we
can
find
a
phone
wheel
eating
mailing
them
if
we
can
find
an
email
and
we've
been
known
to
McKenzie
and
I
to
actually
stop
on
their
doorstep
and
banging
on
their
door
and
talking
to
these
folks,
the
first
thing
that
they
have
concerns
with
is
the
process
that
they'll
have
to
go
through
to
make
changes.
N
If
you
want
to
change
your
roofing
or
if
you
want
to
do
some
painting
on
your
property,
you'll
be
dealing
with
McKenzie
and
I
and
and
we
we
like
to
think
we're
easy
to
get
along
with
and
and
that's
about
it.
It
takes
about
a
week
and
a
half
to
get
your
approvals
as
long
as
you.
You
follow
best
practices
and
we're
there
to
help
you
and
we're
there
to
direct
you
to
the
resource
center,
which
has
immense
the
resources
for
for
those
type
of
those
type
of
changes.
N
So
and
then,
when
we
always
talk
about
the
incentive
programs
which
which
we're
trying
to
improve
on
so
that
people
can
get
some
help
with
some
of
these
projects
and
that's
those
are
the
biggest
carrots,
the
biggest
incentives
that
we
can
give
people
and,
for
the
most
part,
they're
fairly
happy
to
hear
that
and
I.
Think
one
of
the
and
I
think
getting
advice
when
we
do
circulate
to
the
committee
through
is
a
really
powerful
tool
and
and
getting
advice
through.
A
Thank
you
a
specific
question
just
for
context,
because
it's
in
the
package,
the
Kingston
cultural
plan
803,
has
in
the
in
the
just
has
they.
It
mentions
exactly.
What's
called
for,
plan
says
about
the
municipal,
Heritage,
Committee
and
I
think
it
explains
a
lot
of
the
changes
that
came
our
way
and
I
would
like
to
co
to
address.
O
O
My
job
is
to
make
sure
it
gets
administered
and
to
bring
strategic
oversight
in
the
form
of
committees.
Responsibilities
to
to
the
operation
and
as
well
and
Ryan
touched
on
is
the
integration
of
works
across
departments
so
that
we
are
not
operating
in
silos
were
operating
in
in
a
collective,
efficient
operation.
Recognizing
that
there's
always
continuous
improvement.
O
O
So
we
need
this
step
to
be
able
to
to
make
continued
to
make
progress,
but
you
know
the
community
is.
The
community
is,
is
a
is
a
bright
light
among
municipalities.
We've
had
a
wonderful
growth
of
identity
for
heritage
properties.
We've
done
a
great
job
of
our
of
our
cultural
tourism
mandates
in
a
progressive
and
reasonable
way
and
we're
starting
to
see
some
of
the
tourism
elements
that
to
places
like
cubic
City
and
others
have.
When
you
start
to
have
vision
and
integrate
both
built
heritage
and
and
historical
aspects
into
the
culture
of
your
community.
A
Thank
you
covering
lots
of
ground
I'm,
really
happy
the
way
things
are
going
before
we
go
to
another
round
of
debate.
I
think
it
might
be
appropriate
to
hear
from
members
of
the
public
and
I
say
there's
a
couple
here:
let
them
have
their
say
before
we
go
any
further.
So
if
you
did,
if
you
did
come
to
speak
on
topic,
please
come
forward
and
then
we'll
have
another
round
of
debate.
M
It's
what
I'm
sitting
back
here
I've
been
an
observer
for
a
long
time
and
I
just
get
the
sense
that
the
city
is
really
defensive
on
this
and
is
not
really
willing
to
sit
down
and
look
and
see
how
it
could
may
be
made
to
function.
Better
I
found
this
committee
from
observing
standpoint
and
I
have
a
fair
bit
of
experience
in
this
almost
dysfunctional,
and
that
is
so
I
think
there
may
be
some
solutions
and
I'm
sitting
here
and
thinking.
M
One
I
hear:
there's
it's
quite
wonderful
what
the
working
committees
are
doing
and
they
didn't
exist
for
a
long
time
and
they
are
developing
and
I
have
the
privilege
of
serving
on
the
heritage,
properties,
research
or
working
group
and
I
have
said
a
couple
of
times.
This
is
one
of
the
best
committees.
I
have
served
on
it's
productive.
We
work
hard
and
we
have
Ryan
guiding
us
in
this,
and
it
is
really
excellent
and
so
I
thought.
M
Interest
really
so,
and
many
of
the
volunteers,
of
course,
are
working
and
they're
taking
time
off
work
to
come
here,
and
so,
if
meeting
is
goes
on,
then
that's
problematic
and
as
far
as
the
business
about
the
review
I
heard
from
the
city
clerk
and
from
councillors,
shell,
both
that
we
there
will
be
review,
in
fact
I
believe
and
I
was
at
council.
Oh
it's
not
in
the
minutes
that
a
review
in
a
year
was
what
was
sort
of
part
of
this,
and
it's
it's
good
to
review
things
and
I.
M
Just
can't
imagine
the
committee
going
on
this
way,
because
I
know,
for
instance,
that
to
try
and
get
an
architect
to
serve
on
this
committee.
They
won't
they
just
do
not
want
to,
and
so
that's
back
from
quite
a
while
ago.
It's
not
something
that's
new
with
this,
this
new
committee
and
so
you're
going
to
get
people
who
don't
really
understand
or
care
or
have
the
knowledge
to
deal
with
the
built
heritage,
and
someone
suggested
well
if
it's
a
little
detail
about
something.
M
M
There
is
something
to
me
that
says
our
heritage
is
valuable
in
and
of
itself,
and
if
there
are
people
and
I
moved
into
Sydenham
district
in
1963,
and
it
was
a
slum.
If
there
are
people
who
are
willing
to
invest
privately
in
into
restoring
and
keeping
our
heritage,
then
they
should
be
encouraged
and
they
should
do
it
properly,
but
I
see
a
lot
of
times.
This
is
just
an
example.
M
Dude
dealing
with
rotten
wood
again
and
I
know
that
may
not
sound
interesting
to
for
culture
and
so
on,
but
it
is
important
and
I
think
that
the
best
combination
is
the
professional
staff
working
with
people
who
have
that
experience
and
knowledge
and
and
to
be
helpful,
as
as
a
team
I,
don't
find
that
it's
working
as
a
team
and
it
doesn't
need
to
have
the
committee
members
who
are
the
main
interest,
is
the
stories
and
so
on.
So
for
that
reason,
I
think
it
oh
and
just
one
other
thing.
M
I
think
the
process
in
getting
going
here
I
was
a
pub
attended.
The
transition
team
meetings,
as
a
member
of
the
public
and
I
actually
had
a
phone
call.
That
said
to
me,
they
don't
want
the
public
there.
So
could
you
please
not
come
well.
I,
said
I'm,
sorry,
there's
it
doesn't
cut.
This
meeting
does
not
come
under
the
two
or
three
things
you
can
have
a
closed
meeting
and
so
I
feel
I
have
every
right
to
be
there.
M
If
you
want
to
throw
me
out,
you
can
do
that,
but
that
gave
a
very
strange
message
to
me.
I
also
had
a
strange
message
when,
as
an
applicant
quite
recently,
here
was
my
architect.
I
was
told
I
couldn't
he
could
speak
to
it
and
I
couldn't
speak
to
it.
They
later
said:
oh,
you
can
speak
as
a
member
of
the
public,
not
as
an
applicant.
Well,
people
start
to
not
trust
the
city
and
that's
I
think
a
really
negative
thing.
So
I
would
like
to
just
leave
you
with
that.
A
G
F
G
Committee
is
no
longer
allowed
to
ask
questions
of
applicants
and
in
a
in
a
simple
way,
that
kind
of
interaction
is
not
happening.
The
public
needs
expert
help
and
you
know
we
have
good
heritage
people,
but
they
are
not
architects.
They
are
not
builders,
they
need
that
kind
of
input
as
well.
So
and
and
that's
what
we've
you
know
have
in
the
past,
I
realize.
G
Sometimes
people
have
difficulty
with
that,
but
the
average
person,
the
owner
of
a
heritage
property,
is
really
at
the
mercy
of
a
builder
that
comes
in
and
tells
them
what's
wrong
and
what
needs
to
be
done
because
most
builders
tradespeople,
don't
really
have
experience
in
heritage
work
and
they're.
The
default
is
to
tear
it
out
and
replace
it
all
because
they
know
how
to
do
that
and
they
know
it'll
be
good.
G
So
that's
what
you're
going
to
do.
So,
that's
why
you
need
to
have
this
kind
of
dialogue
between
owners
and
knowledgeable
people.
So
one
of
the
my
major
problems
in
the
last
few
years
has
been
use
of
delegated
authority.
I
was
on
the
committee.
When
the
delegated
authority
bylaw
was
discussed
and
approved,
we
approved
that
I
recommended
that
in
good
faith
for
minor
alterations,
it's
being
used
for
major
alterations
quite
against
the
advice
and
practice
of
that's
expected
under
the
Ontario
Heritage
Act
I'll.
G
Just
give
one
example:
I
could
give
many
77
79
Gor
Street
is
an
old
stone,
double
house,
that's
currently
being
renovated.
It
had
been
neglected
for
many
years
and
now
it's
undergoing
a
major
renovation,
complete
repointing,
new
windows,
new
doors,
new
roofing,
new
dormers,
new
porch,
that
is
being
approved
under
delegated
authority,
and
the
committee
heard
nothing
about
it.
Nothing
I
had
the
opportunity
to
visit
it.
The
other
day
and
I
discovered
original
six
over
six
windows,
which
were
being
planned
to
be
replaced.
G
That's
against
our
windows
policy,
so
I
mean
that's
just
one
example
of
the
necessity
to
have
a
complete
interaction
of
expert.
You
know
knowledgeable
people
with
directly
with
the
owners
and
it's
and
and
has
been
good,
but
again
we're
isolated
from
the
owners.
I
asked
a
couple
of
times:
please
can
we
use
when
we're
using
gas?
G
We
see
the
input
from
the
owner.
What
what
are
their
problems?
What
are
they
trying
to
achieve?
We
do
not
see
that
all
we
see
is
staff
comments.
You
know
it
can
be
made
to
work.
These
are
little
things
that
are
preventing
this
committee
from
functioning
well,
and
the
effect
of
it
is
that
those
of
us
who
have
who
have
this
expertise,
who
have
some
useful
things
they
can
do,
are
not
able
to
do
it.
G
So
they're
being
asked
to
come
to
this
committee
and
and
not
able
to
interact
with
the
applicants
45
seconds,
okay
and
then
look
at
the
agenda
items
that
were
on
our
last
meeting
the
agenda
items
that
we
discussed.
Some
work,
gardening
landscaping
accessible
entrance
signage.
None
of
them
are
fundamental,
they're,
all
peripheral
to
the
built
heritage
that
we
are
supposed
to
be
protecting.
So
why
should
these
people
like
Mac
and
Sherman,
come
here
to
to
spend
their
time
dealing
with
things
they're,
not
trivial,
but
they're,
not
the
important
things
they're.
G
Not
they
don't
want
to
give
up
their
valuable
time
to
deal
with
us,
so
they're
not
going
to
they're
not
going
to
come
this.
If
the
committee
persists
in
this
way,
so
I
guess
you
know
I
don't
want
to
imply
that
if
this
working
group
is
set
up
and
does
its
business,
it
might
come
back
and
say
it's
okay,
let's
just
carry
on
or
just
a
tweet
here
and
a
tweet.
G
There
doesn't
have
to
be
a
major
renovation,
but
it
needs
to
be
looked
at
and
it
needs
to
be
looked
at
by
people
who
are
involved
with
heritage
if
it's
going
to
work
in
an
efficient
way,
I
should
have
mentioned
when
we're
talking
about
these
so-called
minor
items
that
some
of
those
probably
could
be
handled
without
coming
to
the
committee.
You
know
if
we
had
our
procedures
looked
at
in
a
sensible
way.
G
A
Thank
you
so
just
refocus
as
we
go
along
here
motion
in
front
of
us.
The
part
that
it
goes
to
council
council
has
to
approve
it
for
it
to
have
any
meaning
the
be
resolved,
starting
with
a
it
resolved
that
and
all
the
way
down
to
the
end
of
the
motion
is,
is
what's
actionable,
so
maybe
we
could
look
at
that
and
try
to
decide
a
few
if
you
like
it
or
don't
like
it,
because
that's
what
we're
voting
on
and
we're
moving
towards
a
vote
now.
B
A
B
Thank
you,
yes,
I
would
like
to
get
to
it
because
we're
now
back
in
the
weeds-
and
this
is
kind
of
what
has
been
happening
for
the
last
number
of
meetings-
is
something
major.
Is
it
minor?
If
it's
minor,
it's
really
important,
you
shouldn't
ignore
it.
You
must
deal
with.
You
know
we
could
get
into
the
weeds
forever
on
built
heritage,
but
what
we
are
being
asked
to
do
is
resolve
that
heritage.
B
Kingston
recommends
city
council
direct
staff
to
undertake
a
review
of
everything
about
this
committee
says
a
review
of
the
composition,
mandating
procedures,
and
then
it
says
who
the
committee
should
be
the
review
to
include
the
following
components.
So
this
is
what
this
committee
is
suggesting
to
council
should
happen,
that
the
review
would
be
to
hold
one
or
more
open
meetings
where
members
of
the
public
and
representatives
are
invited
to
make
presentations
and
provide
input,
I
presume
to
this
review
committee.
B
So
really,
this
review
committee
would
receive
all
that
information
because
it's
already
done
and
then
so
really
its
provide
input
to
recommend
procedures
for
dealing
with
heritage,
permit
applications
for
properties
designated
under
part.
Four
in
part,
five
of
the
Ontario
Heritage
Act,
including
procedures
for
approval
under
delegated
authority.
So
that's
we
want
this
committee.
The
the
motion
says:
we
want
the
committee
to
discuss
delegated
authority,
which
we
have
a
lot
of
in
the
City
of
Kingston.
This
isn't
just
this
committee.
B
B
So
I
I
certainly
can't
recommend
this.
You
know
I
wouldn't
be
moving
in
agreement
with
this
and
yes,
when
I
talked
about
the
idea
of
a
review,
it's
more
in
in
just
what
I
said:
we're
not
following
the
culture
plan
in
this
committee,
we're
not
following
regular
procedures
in
terms
of
built
heritage,
because
we
do
wind
up
in
the
weeds
on
in
a
regular
way.
I,
don't
think
that
people
understand
and
it's
power.
B
B
The
motion,
as
written,
really
does
nothing
to
move
forward.
What
I
care
about,
which
is
that
we,
as
a
committee,
are
to
discuss
cultural
heritage
and
our
heritage
assets,
which
we
do
know
till
a
few
years
ago,
the
pomposity
Museum
McLaughlin
woodworking,
were
run
by
volunteers.
Now
we
have
professionals
running
them.
Now,
it's
our
responsibility
as
a
city
in
this
committee
to
be
part
of
that
oversight,
we're
not
dealing
with
it.
B
We
have
a
whole
commemoration
strategy
that
we
it's
going
to
be
coming
down
on
us
hard
in
a
little
while
we
need,
as
a
committee,
to
be
understanding
what
our
mandate
is
and
to
do.
Our
mandate,
I
believe
built
heritage
is
being
well
looked
after
by
a
professional
staff
if
we
were
in
the
broad
sense
doing
our
job.
In
my
opinion,
when
I
went
to
a
site
visit
at
488,
Division
Street
I'd
be
going
out
of
my
mind
right
now,
but
as
a
committee,
we
haven't
been
moving
forward
on
like
big
picture
items
which.
J
B
What
we're
supposed
to
do
so,
yes,
I,
would
like
to
arrange
as
councillors
that
we
do
what
we're
supposed
to
do,
which
is
reflect
a
broad
range
of
community
perspectives.
Broad
array
of
opportunities
and
projects
presented
to
the
to
the
public
I
think
we
do
have
to
get
a
corporate
master,
Heritage
Master's
mass
heritage
strategy,
master
plan,
but
that's
got
to
come
down
the
pipe,
but
this
as
presented
and
then
when
I,
if
I
say
this
to
Council
that
this
is
what
this
motion
is
supposed
to
do.
They'll
say:
no.
B
D
Part
of
me
lost
week
last
time
we
deferred.
This
was
hoping
to
have
conversation
with
everybody
in
the
committee
and,
unfortunately,
some
people
couldn't
make
it
and
they've
made
comments.
I
appreciate
mr.
Finley's
comment
and
and
I
think
it's
important
to
realize
that
we're
here
to
guide
the
public
as
as
Don
said
and
offer
that
guidance,
and
if
we
can't
offer
that
guidance
to
them,
we're
not
doing
it
right,
and
maybe
that's
why
we
need
this
review
earlier
on.
D
Timing
was
an
issue
Wednesday
mornings
and
everybody
has
to
go
to
work
on
Wednesday
afternoon.
You
know,
maybe
that's
where
we
look
at.
You
know
where
people
can
stay
longer
to
finish
things.
All
of
this
said
here,
I
think
the
only
things
we
can
actually
action,
because
the
City
Council
is
giving
us
a
mandate
is
to
the
number
one
is
to
ask
the
public
similar
to
what
mr.
Findlay
has
done
is
give
us
guidance.
Are
we
doing
it
right?
D
Where
can
we
you
know
improve
on
that
and
where
can
we,
as
a
committee,
better
utilize,
our
time
I
think
that's
the
only
two
portions
of
this
actions.
We
can
look
at
the
rest
is
actually
it's
almost
you're
telling
the
review
committee.
What
you
want
to
hear
them
say
come
up
with
four
write
to
me.
A
proper
review
is
to
say,
look
at
what
we're
doing
find
out
how
we
can
do
it
better
and
come
back
with
recommendations.
D
It
may
be
two
and
three
maybe
a
recommendations,
but
we
can't
tell
them
to
do
that
that
we
want
that.
I
think
that
a
review
has
to
be
more
open
so
that
it
can
come
back
to
us
and
say
you
guys
are
doing
a
great
job.
You
know
and
yeah
you
can
tweak
it
here
and
there,
but
you've
over
all
doing
a
great
job.
D
I
still
think
that
built
heritage
has
to
have
the
culture
component
and
the
culture
component
has
to
have
built
heritage.
You
can't
separate
those
two
and
and
and
it's
it's
sad-
that
some
people
in
the
built
area
just
think
that
culture
is
overtaking.
Culture
is
being
more.
But
if
you
look
at
our
agendas,
a
good
portion
of
it
is
built
heritage
and
we
do
get
that
done.
I,
don't
know
how
to
tweak
it.
I
like
to
hear
what
Don's
revised
motion,
maybe
maybe
it
would
be
what
I'm
thinking
before
I
suggest
any
other
differences.
A
Okay
on
that
last
point,
we
can
only
discuss
what's
in
front
of
us
here.
We
have
to
deal
with
this
first
I
think
we
all
received
the
revised
motion
by
email.
At
least
I
did
it's
rewritten,
but
it
contains
many
of
the
same
elements
of
this
motion,
but
it
doesn't
matter.
We
can't
speak
to
it
right
now.
A
We
can
only
speak
to
this
one
in
particular,
I
wanted
to
ask
a
question
of
legal
staff
before
we
go
any
further
regarding
a
comment
from
a
member
of
the
public,
so
miss
Finley
mentioned,
and
this
came
up
during
the
transition
discussions.
The
possibility
of
having
the
built
heritage,
such
as
the
Heritage
permit,
applications
going
to
a
working
group
first
for
the
nitty-gritty
discussion
of
the
details
of
the
application
and
how
and
how
do
and
I
understand.
Mr.
A
MacLeod
already
spoke
to
this
in
the
past,
saying
that
the
Heritage
legislation
doesn't
allow
for
that
type
of
ad
hoc
discussion,
because
it's
in
the
legal
chain,
or
something
like
that.
If
you
could
maybe
answer
the
question
about
that,
could
we
potentially
set
up
and
what
are
the
challenges
to
legal
challenges,
to
setting
up
a
working
group
that
looks
at
the
built
heritage?
Applications
like
the
Heritage
permit
applications.
P
Through
you,
mr.
chair,
as
was
mentioned
by
the
clerk
earlier
legal,
was
involved
in
the
considerable
review
of
the
legislation,
as
well
as
the
processes
that
needed
to
be
adopted
to
ensure
we
were
compliance
with
the
legislation.
So
I
would
say
that
that
review
has
put
us
to
where
we
need
to
be
in
terms
of
our
process.
P
We
did
spend
a
lot
of
time,
looking
at
clearly
understanding
the
law
looking
at
its
application,
looking
at
how
it's
been
used
and
applied,
and
the
process
that
we
came
up
with
was
consistent
with
that
and
that's
why
it
took
so
long
to
ensure
we
put
the
right
tools
in
place.
So
I
think
that
would
be
my
submission
that
we're
doing
what
we
need
to
do
in
compliance
with
the
law.
Thank.
A
G
D
Paul
I
appreciate
your
saying
we're
doing
what
we
need
to
buy
legal
book.
My
only
question
is:
are
we
doing
what
the
public
needs?
Can
we
tweak
that
to
miss
Finley,
says,
there's,
there's
some
barriers
and
and
Don's
mention
it
too.
So,
even
though
we're
doing
what
we're
legally
supposed
to
do,
are
we
able
to
look
at
it,
so
we
can
better
serve
the
public.
P
Through
you,
mr.
chair,
our
review
of
the
legislation
is
to
ensure
we're
in
compliance,
yet
there
there
may
be
many
instances
if
you
look
at
the
law
where
I
remember,
the
public
may
not
agree
with
the
interpretation
of
the
law
and
how
it
applies.
I
understand
that
can
be
challenging,
but
we
need
to
ensure
we're
in
compliance
with
the
law.
That's
that's
our
obligation
as
a
city
of
Kingston
in
terms
of
what
we
need
to
do,
and
so
that
becomes
a
very
important
part
of
our
compliance
regime.
A
Okay,
so
we
took
a
recess
and
we've
heard
on
in
the
second
round
from
Dawn
Liz
and
Paul.
I
asked
a
few
questions
as
well.
Does
anyone
else
here
have
anything
to
say
or
before
we're
getting
to
the
point
of
almost
we're
ready
to
vote
on
the
motion
so
I
see
you
remember
the
public
wants
to
speak
so
please
come
forward.
H
Thank
You
Peter
Peter,
Gulla
Kingston,
just
briefly,
I'd
like
to
become
on
a
comment
that
done
need
when
he
said
the
there
used
to
be
the
interaction
between
many
qualified
people
and
a
lot
of
these
committee
members
will
not
have
seen
that.
But
I
can
assure
you
that
applicant
came
here
with
ideas
for
the
relevance
Events
Center,
which
you
probably
know
up
on
Queen
Street
with
the
intent
of
making.
H
I'm
also
concerned
in
the
concerns
that
in
resolution
number
two
to
evaluate
the
city's
current
procedures,
claiming
that
that's
wrong,
because
I
think
you
have
to
constantly
look
at
current
procedures.
They
change
just
because
they
were
okay
in
2015,
doesn't
mean
to
say
that
necessarily
okay
now
and
we
can
take
it
as
an
example.
What
legal
has
said
that
in
2015
they
read
through
the
Heritage
Act
and
said
that
everything
that
they
recommended
was
right.
H
If
the
changes
were
right,
it
honestly
meant
that
everything
that
we
did
between
2005
and
2015
was
wrong,
because
we
were
not
correctly
following
the
Ontario
Heritage
Act,
so
I
think
current
procedures
constantly
have
to
be
looked
at
you,
you
change,
without
even
realizing
and
I'd
like
to
see
Shelley
Bailey
a
survey
of
other
municipalities
redone
to
see
what
they
are
now
doing.
So.
Thank
you
very
much.
H
A
A
G
Yes,
as
I
mentioned
I,
my
colleagues
and
I
have
been
considering
revising
the
motion,
partly
on
the
basis.
Well,
we
recognize
some
of
the
shortcomings
or
of
the
original
motion
and
we
also
want
to
respond
to
a
number
of
concerns
or
a
race
today,
I
think
we
had
a
good
discussion
today
and
you
know
I
have
a
lot
of
sympathy
with
some
of
the
points
that
were
were
raised,
but
I
think
there
is
a
consensus
that
the
committee
cannot.
G
A
G
A
So,
yes,
you
have
permission
to
withdraw
the
motion.
Thank
you.
So
that's
gone
as
far
as
another
similar
motion
goes.
I
know
Peter
and
myself
currently
can't
attend
October
3rd.
So
you
can
submit
a
new
motion
any
time,
but
if
you
submit
it
for
October,
there
may
not
be
full
uptakes
of
consider
submitting
for
November
and
then
and
and
give
give
staff
lots
of
notice
so
that
they
they
have
it
and
we
have
it
for
November
and
then
hopefully
we
can
find
consensus
to
me.
A
It's
it's
about
finding
something
that
we
all
can
live
with
and
that's
what
will
hopefully
be
looking
at
next
time.
So
with
that
there's
no
more
items
of
business,
so
I
need
a.
There
is
some
items
of
Correspondence
I'm
sure
you
all
saw
the
three
letters
from
mr.
Grove
and
mr.
Hill
and
Miss
McKenzie
nish.
Even
with
their
new
baby.
She
even
wrote
to
us
that's
three
of
the
missing
members
today.
A
So
other
than
that
I
need.
The
next
meeting
is
October
4th,
as
I
said,
I
will
not
be
here
unless
I
can
switch
my
hospital
schedule
in
November.
The
meeting
is
the
third
Wednesday
in
November,
whatever
date
that
is,
okay,
so
I
need
a
motion
to
adjourn
by
Katherine
all
those
in
favor
and
this
B
needs
to
turn.
Thank
you
very
much.