►
Description
Heritage Kingston meeting from April 18, 2018. For the full meeting agenda visit http://bit.ly/2M9hI1h
A
Morning,
everyone
well
get
going
here.
935,
we
have
quorum
thanks
to
the
two
counselors
who
just
showed
up.
We
did
have
counsel
last
night
until
10:00
p.m.
so
that's
my
disclaimer.
First,
we
need
approval
of
the
agenda,
so
you've
got
it
in
your
package,
so
I
need
a
mover
in
a
seconder
by
Mac
second,
by
Patricia.
If
there
is
an
addendum
the
item
of
Correspondence
about
the
library,
it
should
be
on
your
desks.
So
that's
approval.
Let
that's
automatically
added
so
there
anything
else.
A
A
Okay,
so
the
minutes
are
in
the
package.
You
will
vote
to
receive
the
minutes,
all
those
in
favor
opposed
that
carries
disclosure,
pecuniary
interest,
Mac,
okay,
okay
and
you've.
Given
the
clerk,
the
disclosure
in
writing
anything
else,
okay,
presentations.
There
are
none,
no
delegations
or
briefings
business,
a
cultural
heritage,
a
B
and
C
are
empty.
This
month,
d,
cech
Ettore
business
is
never
empty.
Today
we
have
several
heritage.
Permit
applications
in
part
five
heritage
districts
so
we'll
be
following
those
rules.
A
I'll
just
remind
everyone
right
now
once
and
then
we'll
just
follow
the
rules
as
the
come
up.
So
the
first
thing
is
where
your
comments,
if
you
made
them
captured
in
the
package
in
the
written
file-
and
the
second
thing-
would
be
members
of
the
public-
and
then
members
of
the
committee
can
make
moral
statements
which
are
captured
by
the
clerk
and
then
we
vote
whether
or
not
to
support
Council's
approval,
its
council.
That's
the
approval.
We
are
in
an
advisory
role.
Okay,
so.
B
C
C
Just
built
in
1842
right
on
the
corner
of
Wellington,
it
is
rated
as
significant
in
the
Sydenham
district
plan.
Its
value
is
emphasised
by
its
local
limestone
construction.
It
was
designed
by
well-known
local
architect,
George
Brown,
who
did
this
building
as
well
as
SNR
and
a
number
of
others
in
the
city.
It
was
built
for
merchants
and
real
estate,
moguls
John,
Watkins
and
Samuel
Mickelson,
and
it's
part
of
a
prominent
building
a
street
corner
on
Sydenham
Street
near
core
Street.
C
The
application
before
you
is
enough
up
against
for
alteration
under
section
42.
It's
to
gain
approval
to
replace
this
rear
addition
on
the
building
you
can
see
in
the
picture
to
the
bottom
right
with
a
new
one-story
rear
addition.
The
rear
edition
will
be
clad
in
a
vertical
board
and
batten,
style,
Hardie
board
plank
material
in
a
dark
grey
shade
and
the
concrete
and
a
concrete
foundation
which
to
be
clad
in
limestone.
That
is
reclaimed
from
this
existing
addition,
the
proposed
fenestration
is
to
be
two
vertical
sliders,
sashes
windows
and
a
door
with
partial
glazing.
C
C
The
proposed
addition
is
clearly
distinguishable
from
the
limestone
heritage
resource
that
fronts
Gore
Street
and
Wellington
Street,
while
it
is
complementing
the
Heritage
attributes
of
this
site
by
its
use
of
limestone
and
on
the
foundation
and
matching
window
trim.
Color
on
these
wonders
with
the
rest
of
the
building,
the
proposed
addition
will
be
located
to
the
rear
of
the
property
and
be
clearly
subordinate
to
the
prominence
of
the
building
the
limestone
building
on
the
street.
We
did
circulate
this
to
the
usual
internal
departments
and
agencies.
We
received
no
significant
concerns.
C
Our
engineering
department
notes
that
the
grading
will
need
to
be
confirmed
at
building
permit
to
ensure
it's
accommodated
properly.
We
did
receive.
We
did
circulate
to
this
committee
as
well.
Your
comments
are
summarized
in
the
exhibit
and
we
were
sitting
no
significant
concerns
as
well
and
mr.
chair.
If
we
recommend
approval
of
this
alteration
as
a
summative.
A
Thank
you
so,
as
with
every
file
you
can
see
in
this
case
it's
on
page
23
of
the
package,
the
input
summary
from
us
and
if
there
were
comments,
there'd
be
an
X
in
the
first
column,
someone
that
responded
but
gave
no
comments,
has
an
accident
second
column
and
then
nope
no
response
received
in
the
third
column.
You'll
see.
If
you
made
comments,
you
could
have
chance
now
to
correct
them.
If
they
were
incorrectly
captured
and
I
see
see,
no
one
is
going
to
do
that.
So
then
we
go
to
members
of
the
public.
A
A
The
recommendation
moved
by
Katherine
seconded
by
Councillor
she'll,
so
the
recommendation
you'll
see
is
in
the
package
in
the
agenda
that
heritage
Kingston
supports
Council's
approval
the
following
the
alteration:
291
Gor
Street,
in
accordance
with
the
details
prescribed
in
the
application
deemed
complete
on
March
22nd,
set
alterations
to
include
the
removal
of
a
rear
addition
and
the
construction
of
a
new
one-story
sloped
roof
rear
edition,
and
there
is
two
conditions:
any
discussion
hi.
We
will
call
the
vote
all
those
in
favor
opposed
and
that
carries
good
luck
with
the
work.
That's
not
that's
that
file.
A
D
Alright
Thank
You
mr.
chair,
so
260
Main
Street,
is
designated
under
part
5
of
Ontario
Heritage
Act
as
part
of
the
village
of
berry,
Field
Heritage,
Conservation
District.
The
property
is
located
on
the
east
side
of
Main
Street
in
the
village.
On
a
quite
a
high
point
of
land,
the
property
contains
st.
Mark's
Anglican
Church,
a
Gothic
Revival
style
church,
which
was
designed
and
built
by
Richard
Jones
in
1843
1844.
D
It
is
the
only
church
in
the
village
in
a
landmark
structure
due
to
its
location
on
the
high
point
of
land,
it's
actually
listed
as
a
heritage
attribute
of
the
district
and
is
highly
visible
for
multiple
directions.
Additionally,
its
limestone
construction
is
one
of
the
primary
building
materials
found
in
the
district.
D
So
in
the
fall,
emergency
repairs
in
repointing
were
carried
out
on
the
tops
of
the
buttresses
on
the
north
and
south
elevations
to
seal
some
of
the
holes
up
to
prevent
water
ingress
and
further
damage
over
the
winter.
Additionally,
a
hole
in
the
upper
portion
of
the
southeast
corner
of
the
tower
was
filled.
This
heritage
complication
is
to
gain
approval
to
undertake
a
significant
amount
of
masonry
repointing
on
and
around
the
main
bell
tower,
including
a
number
of
the
buttresses.
D
However,
the
extent
of
the
repointing
can
only
be
confirmed
until
once
they
start
works
and
it
is
possible.
They
may
need
to
also
replace
some
stones,
so
I
just
want
to
show
you
there's
the
front
elevation
and
it's
anticipated
that
the
most
of
the
work
will
be
happening
on
that
southeast
corner
of
the
tower.
So.
D
In
terms
of
a
cultural
heritage,
analysis
I'm,
really,
this
is
a
landmark
structure
being
the
only
church
in
the
village,
and
it
is
quite
a
significant
attribute
of
Barry
field.
The
proposed
repair
and
repointing
work
is
required
to
conserve
the
church
over
the
long
term
and
additionally,
these
proposed
repairs
would
support
the
conservation
goals
and
objectives
that
have
been
articulated
in
the
plan,
limestone
being
one
of
the
primary
building
materials
in
the
district
and
listed
as
an
inherited
attribute
of
the
district
plan
and
given
the
cultural
heritage
value
of
limestone.
D
The
district,
combined
with
the
significance
of
limestone
in
the
wider
region
and
City,
the
conservation
of
the
church
and
bell
tower,
provides
considerable
considerable
public
benefit
all
works
art
it
was
completed
in
accordance
with
the
city's
policy
on
mason
restoration
and
best
practices
in
heritage
conservation,
including
the
standards
and
guidelines
for
the
conservation
of
Historic
Places
in
Canada.
So
when
we
go
here's
the
recommendation
that
Kingston
heritage
Kingston
supports
the
approval.
A
E
Thank
you
and
thank
you,
Alex,
we're
here
again
to
ask
for
your
permission
to
do
more
work
on
our
tower
comes
around
every
five
or
six
years
and
being
a
limestone
building.
All
the
mortar
in
between
disappears
on
us.
So
we
would
ask
your
approval
to
go
ahead
and
look
at
the
inside
of
the
tower
and
there
may
be
more
work
needed
than
what
they
see
from
the
outside
once
they
get
in
and
take
off
the
skin
of
the
of
the
tower.
E
A
F
This
this
is
quite
I,
know
that
five
or
six
years
ago
you
guys
are
here
and
you
we
had
and
his
but
doing
work
up
from
the
top
of
the
tower
I
believe
in
waterproofing.
The
top
of
that
bell
tower
and
there's
some
talk
at
that
point
of
a
of
a
bill
or
some
kind
of
a
communications
stack
be
put
up
there
to
that
I'll
get
done,
and
this
is
something
that's
beyond
that.
C
A
G
So
had
a
similar
sort
of
question,
I
know:
in
previous
years
there
were
concerns
inside
the
bell
tower
and
I
believe
it
was.
There
was
some
steel
reinforcing
to
the
tower
at
that
point,
and
it
just
occurs
to
me
that
when
they
get
inside
and
and
have
a
good
look,
there
may
be
need
for
more
more
work
than
simply
repointing
and
even
replacing.
So
my
question
to
staff
is
really:
what
role
will
they
come
back
to
the
committee?
If
they,
if
there
is
a
need
for
further
structural,
supporting
or
strengthening.
C
Oh
Thank
You
mr.
chair,
the
the
folks
at
st.
marks,
have
been
very
good
at
keeping
an
open
communication
channel
with
staff
as
far
as
they
move
along
with
these
investigations.
I
think
the
big
part
of
this
application
is
they'd
like
the
opportunity
to
fully
understand
what
they
need
to
do
as
far
as
stabilizing
this
tower.
It's
a
big
investment
for
them,
and
it's
a
it's
a
big
undertaking
to
properly
understand
this
so
I'm,
hoping
that
this
is
this.
C
A
Just
to
note
that
the
recommendation
to
Council
if
passed,
would
would
be
us
supporting
the
approval
of
alterations,
including
repair,
and/or
reconstruction
right
up
the
chimney.
I'm.
Sorry
of
the
tower
right.
It's
not
say
that.
Where
am
I
nothing
here,
repairs
in
repointing,
sorry,
so
what
Don
has
just
said
is
basically
what,
if
it
if
it's
work,
that's
not
included
in
that
wording.
A
Theoretically,
either
another
permit
would
be
required
or
the
current
permit
could
be
could
could
be
said
to
include
whatever
the
work
is
needed
from
the
examination.
I.
Don't
think
we
actually
know
in
advance
what
what
what
happens
I
think
staff
would
bring
it
back
to
us
if,
if
it's
necessary
under
the
Heritage
Act,
basically
back
I.
F
I'm
just
wondering
if
we
shouldn't
make
the
make
the
recommendation
a
little
bit
looser
so
that
if
they
do
get
in
there
and
they
find
those
issues
while
they're
all
setup,
they
could
actually
they
could
actually
do
the
structural
work.
Though
it'd
have
been
dated
to
come
back
to
the
committee.
I
think
just.
A
C
A
All
right,
that's
clear.
So
we
need
to
move
her
in
a
seconder
for
the
recommendation,
Mac
and
Dawn,
so
that
hedge
Kingston
Sports
Council's
approval
the
following
alterations
to
68
main
complete
on
March
22nd,
said
repairs
and
repointing
to
the
main
bell
tower
and
a
number
of
buttresses
subject
to
one
condition,
all
those
in
favor
opposed
and
that
carries
18
Wellington
Street.
This
is
another
part:
five
application
old
Sydenham.
D
Thank
You
mr.
chair,
so
18
Welling
Street,
is
designated
under
part
four
of
the
Ontario
Heritage
Act,
as
well
as
part
five
as
part
of
the
old
Sydenham
Heritage
Conservation
District.
The
property
is
located
on
the
northwest
corner
of
Wellington
and
lower
Union
streets
and
is
also
within
the
north
to
beg
at
sub
areas
defining
the
old
Sydenham
Heritage
Area
each
C
D
plan.
The
property
contains
a
two
and
a
half
story:
red
brick,
Victorian
dwellings
built
in
1896
and
the
subject.
D
Property
was
built
for
James,
C,
strange
and
designed
by
William,
Newlands,
obviously
a
well-known
local
architect.
The
designation
by
law
describes
this
building
as
designed
by
William
Newlands,
to
take
advantage
of
its
corner
sight.
It
is
an
excellent
example
of
Newnes
Victorian
style
with
bay
windows,
family
to
double
windows,
paneled
brickwork
and
an
interesting
roof
design.
D
It
was
also
rated
as
significant
to
the
old
Sydenham
Heritage
II
district,
so
this
heritage
approvals
to
gain
approval
to
repair
and/or
reconstruct
the
large
brick
chimney,
which
is
located
on
the
south
side
of
the
roof
line
on
the
lower
Union
Street
side.
The
full
extent
again.
The
full
extent
of
the
deterioration
is
not
known
yet
so
when
they
get
up
there
and
they
take
a
look
they'll
be
able
to
better
understand
whether
they'll
be
able
to
repair
the
chimney
as
is
or
whether
they
may
actually
need
to
take
it
right
down
to
the
roofline.
D
So,
in
terms
of
cultural
heritage
analysis,
this
southern
wall,
the
building,
including
the
chimney,
is
highly
visible
from
both
Wellington
and
Laura
Union
streets
and
the
proposed
works,
rebuild
and
or
repair
and/or
rebuild
a
brick
chimney
will
improve
its
longevity
by
stabilizing
the
feature
and
restricting
water
into
the
building.
The
red
brick
construction
of
this
building
is
a
heritage
attribute
of
the
property
and
is
also
an
important
part
of
the
cultural
heritage
of
the
district.
D
So
Section
four
point
three
point:
one
of
the
plan
includes
policies
on
the
maintenance
and
repair
of
chimneys,
and
the
plan
knows
that,
in
order
to
conserve
the
symmetry
and
architectural
detailing
of
a
building's
roof
line,
it
is
important
to
retain
existing
chimneys
rather
than
to
remove
them.
The
applicant
is
proposing
to
reuse
the
existing
bricks
as
far
as
possible
and,
if
necessary,
replace
the
unusable
bricks
with
ones
that
match
as
closely
as
possible.
A
Okay,
so
this
has
similarities
with
the
previous
file
in
the
fact
that
the
extent
of
the
work
is
not
known
in
advance.
The
recommendation
has
the
the
wording,
the
alterations,
repair,
and/or
reconstruction
of
the
southernmost
chimney
anything
not
captured
that
it
would
not
be
part
of
the
permit.
The
committee
did
have
a
chance
to
print
it.
To
do
preliminary
comments.
We
did
receive
one
preliminary
comment:
Don
is
there
a
it?
Was
it
captured
accurately?
Yes,
okay
thanks.
Members
of
the
public
now
have
a
chance
to
address
the
committee
on
this
file.
A
G
Want
to
minimum
my
comment
was
mainly
addressing
the
question
of
whether
this
will
be
a
functional
committee.
Functional
chimney,
sir
or
a
non-functional
chimney
are
partially
functional
because
see
if
it's
not
going
to
be
functional.
Annum
might
as
well
take
the
opportunity
to
cap
it
in
an
appropriate
way
or
reduce
the
number
of
flus
coming
out.
So
it
was
just
some
guidance
to
the
owner
or
applicants.
A
A
C
Thank
You
mr.
chair,
so
this
property
is
at
94
baggage
streets,
the
north
west
side
of
the
street,
near
the
intersection
with
West
Street
in
the
cinema
Ward.
The
subject
property
includes
the
southern
unit
of
a
two
and
a
half
story,
semi-detached
brick
dwelling
that
was
built,
circa
1859,
the
access
to
the
property
is
via
rear
lane,
which
is
known
as
lily
lane.
This
area.
C
This
is
the
the
view
of
the
property
enquiry
sub
properties
on
the
left
side
of
your
screen,
the
other
96
bigot
on
the
right.
So
the
property
is
designated
as
part
of
the
Sydenham
district.
Only
the
inventory
notes
it
has
a
significant
building
to
the
district,
specifically
as
it
relates
to
its
brick
construction
and
it's
part
in
forming
a
wall
row
of
brick
dwellings
along
as
part
of
baguette
street.
It
was
built
for
Patrick
Hardy,
who
was
a
dry
good
merchant
in
1859.
C
The
subject
application
before
today
has
to
do
with
the
replacing
number
of
things
so
the
replacing
of
the
asphalt
roof
on
the
building,
with
a
new
roof
of
a
similar
style
roofing.
The
inclusion
of
two
new
skylights
on
the
baguette
Street
side
and
one
skylight
in
the
rear,
as
well
as
the
removal
and
reconstruction
of
a
two-story
addition
which
you
see
on
the
screen.
The
current
addition
is
an
advanced
state
of
disrepair
and
has
purportedly
been
without
water
and
electricity
for
the
past
three
years.
C
The
applicant
has
recently
purchased
a
property
and
wishes
to
reconstruct
the
rear
edition
in
the
same
location
at
the
same
scale
and
dimensions
as
the
existing
structure.
In
order
to
refurbish
this
building
for
for
apartment
units,
no
additional
units
are
proposed.
It's
just
same
same
number.
The
reconstructed
edition
will
be
clad
in
horizontal
shiplap
type,
siding
in
a
grey
brown
tone.
The
applicant
is
indicated
at
the
existing
limestone
foundation
and
the
brick
party
wall
on
the
south
side
will
be
retaining
reused
if
possible.
C
The
proposed
fenestration
differs
slightly
from
what's
before
you.
If
the
applicants
have
agreed
to
separate
the
the
windows
into
two
vertical
sliding
sash
windows
on
the
second
unit
or
in
second
floor
and
then
one
on
the
main
floor
with
the
the
door
with
partial
glazing,
the
roofing
is
to
have
a
modest
slope
and
it'll
be
a
standing,
seam
metal
roof.
An
overview
of
this
application
was
provided
by
mr.
C
Durbin,
and
a
engineering
assessment
letter
was
provided
by
David
Oliver,
a
professional
engineer,
including
photographs,
there's
also
detail
plans
in
your
agenda
package
in
terms
of
our
review.
The
rear
addition
is
not
noted
as
an
attribute
in
the
district
plan.
It
is
not
an
individually
designated
building
and
is
likely
not
original
to
this
building
staff
recommend
as
a
condition
that
a
photographic
inventory
be
completed
of
the
interior
annex
area
of
the
structure
but
prior
to
its
removal.
C
We
also
recommend
that,
if
the
foundation
limestone
foundation
and
party
wall
can't
be
reused,
that
they
should
they
shall
the
proposed
addition
is
clearly
distinguishable
from
the
brick
heritage
resource,
while
complementing
the
heritage
structure
by
its
use
of
matching
window
trim
and
in
similar
window
configuration.
The
proposed
addition
being
located
at
the
rear
of
the
property
will
be
clearly
secondary,
subordinate
to
the
the
primary
heritage
building
on
this
property
and
will
have
no
impacts
to
the
heritage,
district
or
lily
lane
in
this
area.
C
This
structure
is
the
subject
of
a
current
work
order
by
our
proper
standards,
which
will
be
partially
completed
and
closed
with
the
removal
and
reconstruction
of
this
addition,
this
application
was
circulated
to
the
committee
through
our
program.
The
comments
are
some
rated
summarized
in
the
agenda.
What
a
couple
of
members
noted
that
they
had
concerns
over
the
removal
of
the
reach
and
reconstruction
of
this
rear
addition
and
requested
a
professional
heritage,
professional
and
a
second
engineer,
to
determine
heritage
value
of
this
and
structural
stability.
C
C
This,
according
to
the
inventory
over
the
property's
contribution
to
the
district,
is
that
brick
facade
along
Baggot,
Street
and
its
contribution
to
that
row
and
that
Street
pattern,
this
fenestration
on
the
front
as
well.
The
removal
of
the
rear
addition
in
our
opinion
will
have
a
little
impact
to
the
Heritage
character
of
the
district
and
Lee
Lane,
and
therefore
we
have
no
objection
to
the
vacation
is
before
you.
Our
recommendation
is
on
the
screen
with
a
number
of
conditions.
A
A
B
You
mr.
Dyk
to
thank
you
for
including
recommendation
three,
which
has
been
missing
from
a
number
of
these
recommendations,
and
that
is
photographing
the
work
that
has
been
done
and
it
was
noticeable,
for
instance,
in
the
last
application,
when
you
were
dealing
with
a
chimney
that
it's
very
difficult
later
on,
to
see
just
what
was
done
and
what
is
the
state
of
those
things
we
used.
This
committee
always
used
to
ask
for
any
roof
or
chimney,
work
to
be
photographed
and
the
photographs
to
be
filed
with
the
planets
and
I.
F
Much
just
I
think
everything's
pretty
relevant
said
just
that
very
clearly.
We
really
went
into
entering
this
project.
The
owner
hadn't
planned
and
turned
down
the
back
part
that
wasn't
his
preference,
but
it
was
such
bad
shape
and
after
having
the
engineer
look
at
it,
it
really
needs
to
welcome
down
and
I
think
that
you
know
we've
sort
of
bended
and
adjusted
windows
and
so
forth
to
to
match
what
some
some
desires
by
the
public
by
the
staff
and
so
forth.
So
I
hope
you'll
be.
A
H
H
It
becomes
that
is
it
public
realm
or
you
know,
or
not,
because
we
do
make
a
big
deal
about
whether
the
public
can
easily
see
something
so
I
did
have
my
concerns
and
mentioned
you
know,
maybe
getting
another
opinion
I
under
the
site
visit
but
I
understand
it's
much
worse
than
the
pictures.
The
photographs
are
that
then
the
photographs
appeared
to
show
so
I
can
go
along
with
this
tearing
it
down.
H
H
I
C
I
You
that's
good
to
know,
and
it's
not
included
actually
in
the
recommendations.
But
when
I
look
at
the
plans,
it
says
so
we're
talking
about
facing
onto
baguette,
now
rebuild
porch,
and
so
just
looking
at
the
images
I
mean
that
the
porch
and
balconies
that
are
there
right
now
were
totally
out
of
keeping
so
I'm
wondering
whether
this
actually
is
the
rebuild
of
the
porch
and
so
on,
because
it
looks
from
the
images
that
is
going
to
be
more
traditional,
porch
ins
so
on.
If
you
could
just
clarify
that.
C
The
porch
I
assume
the
members
talking
about
the
front
porch,
which
is
not
subject
to
this
application
today.
That
is
something
that
the
applicant
will
be
coming
back
with.
I
understand
is,
it
is
pretty
rough
shape,
but
they
are
looking
at
refining
those
plans
and
looking
at
the
age
and
character
of
that
building
or
that
structure
closely.
So
it
is
not
part
of
today's
application.
A
Yes,
so
just
that's
for
those
following,
so
the
the
in
the
inventory
the
porch
is
mentioned,
and
it
says
in
the
letter
from
the
agent
that
that
was
a
surprise
at
the
time
and
and
I
was
not
part
of
their
plans
to
do
anything
with
the
porch,
but
it
is
protected
in
the
plan,
so
any
alterations
to
the
porch.
Would
neither
heritage
permit
and
it's
not
part
of
this
permit,
so
there
would
be
a
separate
Harris
from
it.
G
My
own
view
is
that
it
should
not
be
dismissed
as
a
recent
addition
without
any
heritage
value.
It's
it's
quite
an
early
edition
and
I.
Think
the
you
know
the
neighboring
houses
probably
had
their
additions
put
on
at
the
same
time
and
they
sort
of
match
to
some
extent
and
I
I
believe
it
was
on.
That
edition.
Is
there
on
the
nine
1804
sorry
1905
fire
insurance
map?
So
it's
been
there
a
while
it's
it
is
a
period
structure,
and
it
would
be
a
pity
if
it
were
had
to
be
taken
down.
G
That
being
said,
there's
you
know
you
have
to
make
hard
decisions.
Sometime
and
I
have
some
reservations
about
the
engineer's
letter,
because
we've
we've
had
experience
before
you
can
get
different
opinions,
depending
on
who
you
ask
and
if,
if
the
rear,
if
the
rear
stone
foundation
is
resting
on
bedrock,
as
it
probably
is,
I
see
no
reason
why
it
couldn't
be
repaired
rather
than
taking
down
new
footings
pudding
and
all
that
sort
of
thing.
As
far
as
the
walls
are
concerned,
the
rear
wall
doesn't
look
so
bad
to
me.
G
The
the
wall
which
I
guess
is
the
south
wall
is
butts
against
a
neighboring
one.
So
it
probably
is
sound
the
one
officer
that
is
clearly
in
poor
condition,
but
we
don't
know
how
poor,
but
anyway,
in
a
sense,
I'm
satisfied
with
the
recommendation,
because
the
recommendation
says
the
applicant
shall
restore
and
incorporate
all
portions
of
the
existing
addition,
both
Foundation
and
well.
It
says
southern
party
wall
into
the
reconstructed
addition
where
possible.
A
You
to
me
what
really
jumped
out
during
the
internal
and
external
examination
was
the
rapport
condition
of
the
southern
or
the
closest
to
Lily,
Lane
I.
Guess
that
would
be
the
northern
eastern
Western
I
live
right,
there
I
should
know
which
way
is
which,
but
anyway,
yes,
the
way
that
faces
the
afternoon
Sun.
So
that
is
where
the
door
was
cut
into
the
foundation
to
give
a
basement
access
and
that
that
part
of
the
foundation
is
in
really
poor
shape.
Just
to
draw
the
committee's
attention
to
the
I
had
it
here.
It
was
page
92.
A
Yeah,
so
in
that
short
letter
and
I
agree,
more
details
always
appreciated,
but
the
short
letter
it
does
say
and
I
quote
the
structure
is
in
danger
of
collapse
and
repair
is
considered,
unsafe
and
impractical.
It
doesn't
really
go
into
any
further
detail,
but
that's
in
itself
a
worrisome
statement.
I
would
say
from
my
own
examination
the
that
part
of
the
foundation
and
the
side.
A
So
there
isn't
a
huge
heritage
asset
ups
upside
to
the
addition
as
it
stands
today
because
of
how
badly
deteriorated
it
is.
However,
I
agree
with
Don
and
the
council
shell,
that
whatever
parts
especially
of
the
foundation
and
of
the
party
wall,
can
be
retained.
It
would
be
not
just
a
shame
but
kind
of
silly
to
abandon
those
structural
assets
that
are
actually
couldn't
easily
be
used
in
the
new
in
new
construction.
But
the
question
is:
can
how
much
of
the
foundation
can
actually
be
useful?
A
It
says,
incorporate
all
portions
of
the
existing
addition
and
then
it
says
example
Foundation
or
southern
party
wall,
but
doesn't
say
exclusively
those
things
that
just
use
those
as
example.
So
really
it
is
all
portions
of
the
existing
edition
shall
be
restored
and
incorporated
if
possible,
and
that's
a
key
condition.
That's
condition
on
the
permit,
so
staff
will
be
monitoring
that
and
I'm
sure
the
high
quality
of
the
agents
experience
so
with
heritage
structures
should
come
in
handy
and
I.
Think
I
think
it's
the
right
recommendation
and
I
would
feel
comfortable
recommending
it
to
Council.
G
A
So
it's
the
same
wording
as
the
previous
files.
The
recommendation
needs
mover
and
seconder
that
heritage
Kingston
supports
Council's
approval
the
following
that
alterations:
94
Baggot
Street,
complete
March
23rd,
set
alterations
to
include
the
removal
and
reconstruction
of
a
two-story
rare
addition
and
to
replace
the
existing
asphalt
roofing
with
like
roofing,
including
new
skylights,
and
there
are
five
conditions
and
we've
already
talked
about
condition.
Number
four.
So
who
would
like
to
move
this
move
by
councillor
Schell
seconded
by
dawn?
A
C
Thank
You
mr.
chair,
this
is
a
little
different
application
that
community
doesn't
see
very
often
this.
We
have
two
financial
incentive.
Programs
in
the
city
of
the
city
runs
the
heritage
property
grant
program
which
is
a
granting
of
money
following
the
completion
of
work
for
four
designated
properties,
and
then
this
one,
which
is
the
heritage
tax
refund
program,
which
is
where
we
refund
a
portion
of
their
taxes
for
work
that
they
were
completed
in
the
previous
tax
year.
C
So
the
application
that's
before
you
today
is
this
property
at
two
sixty
nine
to
seventy
one
Queen
it's
at
the
corner
of
Queen
and
Barry.
It's
a
two-story,
mixed-use
limestone
building
built
in
eighteen,
fifty,
eight,
fifty,
nine
and
and
it's
designated
under
both
part
four
of
the
part,
four
of
the
Heritage
Act.
It
is
also
subject
to
a
heritage,
easement
agreement
under
part.
Four
of
the
act
with
the
City
of
Kingston,
which
is
a
requirement
in
order
to
be
eligible
for
tax
refund
program,
is
II.
C
They
are
required
to
have
an
easement
agreement
on
title,
which
includes
basic
property
standards,
clauses
from
middle
maintenance
and
such
so.
It's
a
requirement
of
the
Municipal
Act,
which
is
what
governs
these
tax
reform
programs.
So
that's
why
it's
a
little
different.
That's
actually
why
we
don't
see
so
many
of
these,
because
in
the
under
our
register
we
have
six
hundred
eight
hundred
designated
properties,
but
only
about
twenty
two
have
easements
on
them.
So
this
gentleman
at
Queen
Street.
This
is
his
second
or
third
tax
refund.
C
He
he
quite
appreciates
it,
and
it
also
reflects
in
his
in
the
work
on
his
building.
So
he
last
year
he
received
actually
two
years
ago
2016.
He
received
approval
to
do
some
alterations
on
this
building
under
delegated
authority.
They
were
repairing
doors,
repairing
porches
and
and
repairing
some
shutters
on
the
front
of
this
building
which
a
prominent
features
from
the
public
realm.
The
work
wasn't
complete
until
last
year,
which
means
he's
eligible
for
for
the
tax
refund
for
this
year.
So
the
way
the
program
works
is
the
the
least
of
so.
C
The
work
that
he
did
did
you
see
in
the
agenda
package
was
estimated
or
actually
cost
just
over
seventy
two
hundred
dollars.
So
the
program
is
set
up
that
you,
the
refund,
is
either
the
total
cost
of
the
work,
forty
percent
of
the
taxes
for
municipal
and
school
purposes,
or
five
thousand
dollars,
whichever
is
the
least
so
we
will
send
this
information
to
our
friends
at
the
financial
services
department
and
and
they've
come
back
to.
C
C
Excuse
me
under
the
tax
refund
program,
we
are
required
to
run
this
information
by
you
folks
for
confirmation
that
it's
an
eligible
property,
a
and
B
that
the
work
is
eligible,
and
so
our
analysis,
which
is
in
your
agenda
package,
the
property
meets
the
terms
of
the
eligibility
requirement
being
a
designated
property
and
property
of
the
subject
to
the
easement
agreement.
The
work
must
be
work
that
conserves
and
enhances
the
Heritage
character
of
the
building.
The
work
that
was
undertaken
last
year
was
to
repair
door
shutters
and
steps
the
doors
actually
they've.
C
C
A
Thank
you
and
you're
talking
about
the
original
glass.
Yes,
then,
it
reminded
me
of
my
front
window
in
the
heritage.
Building
that
I
live
in
I
often
find
myself
looking
through
that
old
glass
because
it
distorts
the
picture
and
it's
it's
sort
of
psychedelic
actually
did
look
at
City
Park
through
the
the
old
glass
in
my
front
window.
A
C
C
A
C
The
way
the
mr.
chair,
the
way
the
grant
program
was
amended.
You
can
apply
for
either,
but
you
can't
have
both
so
and
the
way
that
we've
amended
the
way
to
council
amended
the
grant
program
they're.
Actually
this
there's
actually
cap
out
at
the
same
amount
of
both
$5,000,
so
I
guess
it
depends
on
on
the
alteration
of
what
the
applicants
desire
is,
but
but
they
can
have
one
or
either
one
or
either
one.
A
G
Don't
have
any
problem
supporting
this,
but
have
to
comment
that
I
am
not
entirely
happy
again
with
the
procedures
here
were
being
asked
to
approve
work
that
we
don't
really
know
what
it
involves.
We
don't
know.
You
know
the
committee
wasn't
involved
in
the
state
of
the
previous
windows
and
the
design
of
the
new
windows
doors.
I'd
say
so
is
it
you
know
it's
it's
kind
of
not
very
relevant
for
the
committee
to
give
approval,
but
you
know
I'm
certainly
satisfied
as
far
as
I
can
tell
I
guess.
G
The
real
issue
is
that
the
approval
was
carried
out
under
delegated
authority
and
as
I've
comment
in
the
past
I
think
quite
often,
delegated
authority
is
not
being
restricted
to
minor
repairs,
but
yourself
often
used
for
rather
extensive
ones
and
I.
Think
replacements
of
heritage
doors
is,
in
my
opinion,
not
a
minor
alteration.
I
think
the
committee
should
have
been
involved.
A
But
if
it
invert
intents
us
from
actually
making
a
real
decision
when
it
comes
to
us
in
the
case
of
this
$4,000,
then
then
it's
bit
of
a
problem,
because
we're
essentially
being
put
in
put
on
the
spot
for
something
that
we
weren't
involved
with
and
that's
an
unintentional
effect
of
the
delegation
by
law.
So
I
think
the
staff
needs
to
use
some
discretion
in
cases
where
there
may
be.
You
know,
I'm
not
saying
this
file.
A
Particularity
does
include
enough
controversy
for
it
to
have
a
discussion
that
committee,
but
the
committee
is
where
the
members
of
public
get
a
chance
to
look
at
something.
We,
as
members
of
the
public
sitting
on
the
committee,
get
a
chance
to
discuss
it
and
everybody's
satisfied
that
the
oversight
was
there
when
it's
done
within
City
Hall
by
staff,
who
are
professionally
trained
and
they
usually
do
everything
by
the
book
it
it.
A
A
A
A
We
have
time
to
look
at
it,
so
we
shouldn't
rush
through
it
113
114.
So
this
is
a
group
with
you
know,
ten
or
so
members-
and
this
would
be
our
chance
as
members
of
the
committee
to
ask
questions
about.
What's
going
on
the
working
group,
because
we
oversee
the
working
group
you'll
see
the
notes
there.
A
A
H
J
You
and
through
you,
mr.
chair,
so
this
is
this-
was
sort
of
this
came
out
of
the
cultural
heritage
working
group,
as
well
as
the
properties
working
group
in
the
assets
working
group
attending
a
visit
to
KP
in
the
fall,
and
that
was
as
part
of
a
kind
of
a
partnership
if
you
will,
with
planning
and
the
properties
working
group
who
are
working
on
the
draft
bylaw
for
the
designation
of
the
site.
If
and
when
it
were,
to
transfer
hands
coming
out
of
that,
there
was
a
decision
that
there
was
a
component
of
the
site.
J
That
was
cultural
heritage
that
was
difficult
to
capture
into
a
designation
by
law,
and
so
it
was
decided
that
we
would
pursue
er
a
became
the
the
contract
that
was
awarded
to
basically
do
a
study
of
the
site
and
propose
an
interpretive
strategy,
and
this
is
only
a
high-level
planning
document.
This
is
not
down
to
the
detail
of
exactly
what
would
perhaps
happen,
but
we've
asked
er
a
we've
engaged
them
to
essentially
study
similar
processes
that
have
been
engaged
with
other
municipal.
J
You
know
miss
municipalities,
excuse
me,
including
things
like
the
dawn
jail
in
the
City
of
Toronto,
the
distillery
district
again
in
Toronto
that
had
these
interpretive
plans
associated
with
them
as
part
of
their
development
and
their
transition
as
they
were
sold
and
then
altered.
So
this
is
what
we've
asked
tra
to
provide
and
what
ara
has
said.
Not
without
you
know
we
expected
they
said
we'd
like
to
send
some
of
our
staff
back
to
Kingston
to
meet
with
some
of
those
who
met
the
first
time
talking
specifically
about
the
bylaw.
J
So
it's
an
opportunity
for
individuals
in
the
community
who
might
be
conceived
of
as
stakeholders
who
have
specific
stories
or
histories
relationships
to
that
site
and
ER
a
is
going
to
come
back
and
wants
to
host
several
meetings
with
interested
community
members
who
might
have
information
to
share.
That
would
help
to
inform
that
interpretive
plan.
H
J
Is
certainly
my
understanding
of
the
process
unless
there
was
a
transfer
into
private
ownership,
it's
only
then
that
I
understand
the
municipality
would
have
the
opportunity
to
apply
a
designation
blot
by
law
to
the
site
and
this
interpretive
strategy
or
plan.
If
there
was
to
be
a
federal
transfer
of
land,
we
could
certainly
make
that
available
to
those.
You
know
that
internal
transfer,
but
we
would
not,
as
I
understand
it,
have
kind
of
the
legal
position
to
apply
it
either
through
an
easement
or
an
accessory
comment'.
A
designation.
H
Always
the
public
money
that
the
more
we
spend
on
this
through
city
dollars.
It
may
not
actually
have
been
necessary
and
st.
Lawrence
Parks
if
it
happened,
might
say
thanks
very
much,
but
we've
done
our
own.
But
it
is
good
for
us
to
have
due
diligence
on
something
that
may
wind
up
in
private
hands
and.
J
J
So
one
of
the
things
that
er
a
has
been
asked
to
provide
is
that
sort
of
environmental
review,
of
how
municipalities
have
engaged
with
similar
heritage
conversations
or
questions
where
designation,
bylaws,
part
4
part
5,
don't
cover
these
sort
of
intangible
attributes
in
the
way
that
perhaps
we
might
desire
them
to
so.
In
this
instance,
we
felt
the
risk
was
worth
it
because
we're
if
even
if
we
were
never
able
to
apply
this
interpretation
policy,
we're
hoping
that
we
can
really
learn
some
important
precedent-setting
steps.
A
J
World
is
your
oyster
and
what
could
come
out
of
this?
What
we
expect
to
get
is
trying
to
describe
it
best
would
be
more
a
series
of
themes
and
and
histories
and
periods
of
development
of
the
site,
perhaps
groups
that
would
be
referenced
and
it
might
present
some
options
for
mechanisms
of
interpretation,
but
it
would
not
prescribe
them,
and-
and
this
is
where
it
would
become
a
more
nuanced
conversation
with
the
property
developer,
about
what
exactly
they're
going
to
do
to
satisfy
the
conditions
as
outlined
in
that
interpretive
plan.
J
But
they
may
very
well
come
back
and
say
you
know
understanding
this
portion,
this
thematic
part
of
the
site's
history,
the
developer,
could
say
we're
gonna
propose.
You
know
a
costumed
lead,
guided
tour,
focusing
on
these
elements
and
then,
as
I
understand
it,
that
that
would
be
associated,
perhaps
to
a
development
process
or
application
permitting,
etc.
J
A
A
A
Business
F
update
regarding
emergency
approvals.
There's
an
item
there
does
that
need
to
staff
need
to
address
those
four
on
that?
No,
so
that's
in
the
package,
if
you,
if
you
like,
if
you
like,
to
look
at
it
there,
it
is,
and
the
next
thing
would
be
new
motions
and
there
aren't
any
notices
of
motion
other
business,
any
other
business.
Yes,
Mac.
F
C
C
Coupled
with
that,
the
fact
that
we
have
a
list
of
about
five
hundred
listed
properties
that
could
potentially
be
part
fours
that
are
not
in
those
districts
and
a
master
plan,
a
master
list-
that's
probably
in
the
800
property
range-
has
no
protection
on
it.
So
and
then
there's
the
designated
part
for
properties
that
were
done
in
the
1970s
and
80s
that
are
really
difficult
to
administer.
C
A
Also,
I
think
as
I
understand
it.
If
there
is
legislation
from
both
like
in
the
cases
of
formerly
designated
part
for
properties
that
are
now
part
of
heritage,
districts,
they've
been
described
in
the
Heritage
District
inventories,
so
that
information
is
retained,
but
the
part
for
decimation
itself
is
kind
of
it's
subservient
to
the
part.
Five,
like
the
part,
five
legislation
takes
precedence
over
the
part.
Four,
if
both
apply
right
at
the
part,
four
is
kind
of
grandfathered
in,
but
it's
not,
it
doesn't
Trump.
The
part
five
is
that
correct.
C
The
process
under
the
Heritage
Act
currently
for
part
five
properties
for
districts
that
have
a
part
4,
probably
has
a
part
four
on
it.
The
part
five
process
does
trumpet
for
external
changes.
The
difference
with
the
part
four
designation
is
that
we
could
include
interior
attributes
which
are
not
covered
under
the
part
five
protocol,
and
it
also
gives
a
little
more
way
to
certain
attributes
of
the
of
those
properties.
C
If
there
are,
if
the
property
warrants
consideration
of
certain
attributes
that
perhaps
are
unique
or
whatever
the
part,
five
does
give
a
little
more
weight
to
that.
The
part
four
I
mean.
Excuse
me.
It
gives
a
little
more
weight
to
that.
So
there
are
some
some
benefits
to
having
a
part
4
in
apartheid,
but
for
the
most
day-to-day
operations
and
such
the
considerations
that
we
give
to
a
part
5
are
very
similar
to
those
that
we
get
to
part
four.
It's
just
a
process
for
alterations
are
a
little
different,
just
sort.
A
Just
keep
in
mind
that
the
Ontario
legislation,
the
part
5
edition-
was
an
evolution
of
the
thinking
on
heritage.
So
there
may
be
further
evolution
to
coming
from
the
province
where,
where
the
part
5
would
be,
you
know
just
one
of
the
pieces,
so
I
just
I,
don't
know
I
I
think
I
think
to
be
current.
We
have
to
start
from
the
protection
of
part
5
and
then,
if
there's
historic
day,
part
4
as
well.
Like
you
said:
we
pay
what
we
pay
closer
attention
counselor
so.
C
Marnie
I,
don't
mr.
chair
that,
certainly
when
the
developer
comes
to
actually
put
buildings
on
that
property
in
Barry
field,
they're,
certainly
gonna
be
a
heritage.
Permit
process
involved
rather
extensive
and
detailed
one
I
unless
I'm
wrong,
I,
don't
believe
the
planning
application
will
necessarily
be
coming
to
this
group
for
consultation,
but
but
certainly
when
we
look
at
when
we
look
at
the
building's
themselves
when
they
get
to
the
detailed
stage
of
what
they
look
and
the
mass
where
the
buildings
are
gonna,
be
certainly
there'll,
be
a
Heritage
Act
process.
C
G
I'll
just
who,
to
the
committee's
tension,
that
little
addendum
that
I
sent
round
because
I
think
it
has
some
interesting
comments
in
this
committee,
so
often
sees
applications
for
replacing
old
windows
with
modern
metal,
clad
insulated
windows.
We
have
a
report
relating
to
the
library,
the
Pittsburg
County
Library
Kingston
East
library,
which
includes
an
old
heritage
house
Hawthorn
cottage-
and
there
are
the
comments
in
the
report
from
the
Assessor-
is
that
the
original
historic
windows
are
in
place
in
good
condition,
need
minor
repairs.
G
It
also
goes
make
some
comments
about
some
of
the
acrylic
stucco
wall
finish
that
has
to
be
replaced
as
well.
So
we
shouldn't
as
a
committee,
we
shouldn't
lose
sites.
You
know
we
shouldn't
be,
allow
ourselves
to
be
persuaded.
That's
because
something
is
old,
it
needs
to
be
replaced
and
in
fact,
I
think.
A
good
rule
of
thumb
is
if
a
window
has
survived
120
years,
it'll
survive
forever.
If
it's
given
any
kind
of
maintenance
at
all,
we're.
A
Actually,
now
on
item
12
correspondence,
because
that's
what
Donna's
talking
about,
which
is
fine,
that's
just
fine!
Unless
there's
it
was
any
other
other
business,
we
can
go
back.
Thank
you
for
writing
that.
Thank
you
for
including
it.
We
did
have
a
discussion
last
night
and
counsel.
I'm
happy
to
say,
did
support
unanimously
the
restoration
of
the
site
and
keeping
the
library
there.
A
That
was
that
was
passed
last
night
I
actually
made
somewhere
comment
at
Council
about
just
because
it's
like
sometimes
older
buildings
actually
are
cheaper
to
maintain
buildings,
and
this
is
a
perfect
sample
of
that.
But
it's
it's
not
necessarily
the
case.
I
mean
some
older
buildings
also
require
a
lot
of
work
and
a
lot
of
expense.
It
depends
on
the
point
of
time
that
you're
intervening
right,
yeah
come
back.
Did
you
have
something
to
say
about
correspondents?
Yes,.
A
Something
to
be
learned
from
that
for
the
decisions
already
made,
but
it
does,
it
does
affect
what
we
do
here
and
the
decisions
that
we
make
when,
when
its
restoration
versus
demolition,
especially
so
thanks
for
bringing
that
to
attention.
Okay,
where
we're
finding
things.
Yes,
is
this
correspondence.