►
From YouTube: Kingston, Ontario - Heritage Kingston - October 21, 2020
Description
Heritage Kingston meeting from October 21, 2020. For full meeting agenda, visit https://bit.ly/3dVUGJK
B
Okay,
thank
you
james,
so
call
to
order
the
october
21st
meeting
of
heritage
kingston.
You
have
an
agenda
by
the
way
we
have
one.
Two
three
six
members
presents.
We
have
notices
of
absentees
from
three,
so
we
will
be
expecting
councillor
dougherty
and
william
heinemann.
At
some
point
you
have
an
agenda.
Do
we
have
any
additions
to
that
agenda?
We
have
a
delegation
which
was
noted
in
an
email
yesterday
and
we
have
a
piece
of
correspondence
on
item
12,
which
is
to
do
with
seven
george
street.
Anything
further.
B
B
B
B
Disclosures
of
peculiar
interest
on
any
of
the
items
that
are
presently
on
the
agenda,
and
my
comment
always
is
as
discussion
goes
along.
If
we
find,
if
you
find
that,
in
fact,
there
is
a
conflict,
please
announce
it
immediately
good
morning
kelly,
we
are
william.
We
have
just
started
and
counselor
doggerty
welcome
to
you,
so
we
now
have
all
those
whom
we
expect
to
be
present,
so
any
peculiar
interest
to
be
declared.
C
B
D
E
C
B
F
Just
go
to
the
first
slide,
please,
okay!
So
thank
you
for
this
morning
this
opportunity
to
talk
to
you
about
the
windows,
app
directory,
just
a
quick
summary
that
we,
I
think,
I
think,
you've
actually
you're
missing
one
slide
this
one,
one
that
what
no
there
should
be
one
more
image:
okay,
we'll
call
it
that
one
so
we're
in
agreement
with
the
staff
recommendation
regarding
restoring
the
four
larger
decorative
windows
and
we're
painting
in
a
similar
color
and
to
replace
the
30
remaining
windows.
F
We
also
agree
with
the
four
conditions
outlined
in
the
staff
report,
so
the
rationale
is
34
building
34
windows
are
in
the
building,
and
the
owner
undertook
several
studies
and
recommended
replacement
due
to
noise
abatement
presence
of
lead
and
poor
condition
of
the
units,
but
over
the
past
month
is
our
compromised.
Solution
has
been
developed
and
it's
agreeable
to
the
owner.
So
next
slide.
F
Please
so
what
we're
talking
about
is
the
four
larger
decorative
arched
windows
that
we
would
be
retaining
and
restoring
three
are
visible
to
the
public
and
one
is
within
the
enclosed
veranda
and
is
in
the
best
condition
being
protected
from
the
weather.
So
I
think
you
can
see
three
of
the
four
in
these
two
pictures
next
slide.
Please.
F
Sullivan
construction
will
be
undertaking
the
retrofit
of
the
windows,
which
involves
scraping,
repairing
and
painting
in
a
similar
color
as
currently
on
the
windows.
We
would
also
be
looking
at
installing
a
storm
window
on
the
inside,
so
that
the
window
would
cease
to
be
operable
from
the
inside
next
slide.
F
So,
as
you
can
see
in
the
example
of
the
typical
window
taken
out
of
its
opening,
they
are
simple:
sash
windows
and
the
windows
are,
in
varying
conditions,
levels
of
condition
and
many
have
been
altered.
We
received
several
reports
and
opinions
on
the
condition
of
these
windows,
so
opinions
were
that
they
were
in
poor
condition.
F
Our
intent
with
the
window
replacement
is
to
improve
thermal
and
sound
protection.
We
agree
with
the
compromise
to
retain
and
restore
the
four
most
significant
windows
and
to
replace
the
remaining
windows.
We
feel
this
compromise
does
both
to
protect
the
cultural
heritage,
value
of
the
building
and
to
modernize
the
building
to
achieve
industry
standards
for
thermal
and
sound
protection.
F
So
what
you
see
in
the
picture
showing
the
existing
and
replacement
windows
together,
so
we're
proposing
replacing
30
of
the
34
windows
with
the
purchased
new
vinyl
windows
replacement
windows
are
very
good,
are
very
good
quality
and
a
profile
matching
very
close
to
the
existing
window
frames
and
overall
to
appearance
are
much
more
elegant
than
the
current
arrangement.
Our
original
storm
windows,
existing
windows
being
replaced
will
not
be
disposed
off
at
a
landfill
cycle
will
be
offered
to
various
architectural
salvage
companies
to
be
repurposed.
G
I
think
the
one
thing
I
would
like
to
say
is
that
these
windows
were
purchased
before
a
complete
understanding
of
the
windows
policy
was
had
by
the
client
at
the
time,
because
the
windows
weren't
included
in
the
bottom
of
the
original
file,
they
felt
that
they
could
replace
the
windows.
They
didn't
think
it's
going
to
be
an
issue.
It
wasn't
done
out
of
honestly.
It
was.
A
H
G
I
believe
that
in
the
case
we
showed
that
is
not
this
precise
movement
of
going
in
that
occasion
that
the
one
the
window
that
opening
doesn't
have
that,
but
just
the
way
the
windows
were
delivered.
We
showed
the
closest
window,
but
it's
not
the
exact
one
going
in
that
window.
The
other
windows
aren't
six
two
over
six
and
that
when
we
show
the
new
one
that's
going
in
a
different
opening,
I
believe
the
one
that's
going
does
have
that
additional
mountain
guard.
F
F
H
F
B
B
I
So
what
we're
we're
looking
at
here
is
actually
the
first
acquisition
that
has
come
through
across
our
table
and
certainly
before,
heritage
kingston,
since
we
passed
the
new
collections
management
plan
back
in
the
late
winter,
so
it's
exciting
for
us
to
be
able
to
present
these
particular
objects.
These
lovely
drawings
of
city
hall's
dome,
but
at
the
same
time
it
gives
us
a
bit
of
an
opportunity
to
review
how
this
acquisition
process
works.
I
I
So
the
focus
is
very
much
on
objects,
as
they
relate
to
the
history
of
the
community,
which
is
kingston.
What
is
different
in
the
new
management
plan
is
a
streaming
process.
We've
created
four
collections
categories,
primary
secondary
working
and
general
heritage
assets
which
help
us
to
to
define
what
different
objects
mean
to
to
the
collection
and
and
to
the
broader
interpretation
that
we're
doing
with
these
objects.
I
It
helps
us
to
to
organize
ourselves
better
and
also
to
assess
the
collection
as
pieces
are
coming
in,
certainly,
but
also
as
we
define
what
we've
got
and
look
at
potential
d
accessions
down
the
road
next
slide,
please
so
just
in
brief
overview.
What
do
I
mean
by
those
four
categories?
Primary
is
the
top
drawer,
if
you
will
of
of
objects
within
the
collection,
so
these
are
accessioned
and
cataloged
items
at
the
you
know
the
highest
level
of
historic
value.
Certainly
they
fit
the
mandate
the
most
closely.
I
The
mandate
that
we've
just
looked
at.
They
are
pieces
which
have
the
greatest
historical
heritage,
integrity
of
connected
with
an
individual
site
or
an
existing
collection
or
museum,
and
the
example
that
I'm
showing
there
is,
is
one
of
our
beautiful
mayor's
portraits
at
city
hall,
near
creighton
by
william
sawyer.
Clearly,
that's
connected
with
the
history
of
city
hall.
Clearly
it's
it's
connected
with
municipal
government
and
the
history
of
governance
in
in
kingston
next
slide.
Please.
I
I
Now
now
we
move
into
the
next
two
categories
are
a
little
different
from
primary
and
secondary
working
collection
and
and
general
heritage
assets
we'll
discuss
in
a
second.
These
are
pieces
which
are
of
value
from
a
day-to-day
working
point
of
view
to
the
work
of
cultural
heritage
and
cultural
services,
but
are
not
necessarily
pieces
which
meet
the
criteria
of
primary
and
secondary
working
collection.
Specifically,
is
is
really
our
educational
collection
or
our
interpretive
collection,
so
it
can
be
used
in
exhibitions
for
for
interpretive
purposes
hands-on.
I
These
are
pieces
which
are
not
accessioned
and
cared
for
in
the
same
way
as
primary
and
secondary
they're
inventoried.
We
keep
track
of
them,
of
course,
but
they're
considered
consumables.
So
if
they're
used
in
education
programs
over
time
and
they
eventually
break
or
wear
out,
we
can
let
them
go
without
a
formal,
de-accession,
a
removals
process.
We
wouldn't
come
through
heritage,
kingston
and
ultimately,
council.
The
the
primary
and
secondary,
of
course,
are
approved
by
council
when
we're
bringing
them
in
next
slide.
Please.
I
I
When
they
are
worn
out
they
they
can
be.
Let
go
they're
non-accessioned
all
right
next
slide,
please
so
how?
What
is
different
with
the
acquisitions
process?
From
previously
with
the
new
collections
management
policy
is
our
weighted
criteria
assessment.
So
every
object
that
is
offered
to
us
goes
through
a
series
of
questions
that
to
see
how
it
fits
the
criteria
of
what
we
feel
fits
one
of
those
four
streams
in
in
terms
of
coming
into
the
civic
collection.
I
I
How
does
it
fit
the
criteria
of
primary
secondary
general
heritage
assets
or
working
collection?
What
is
its
condition
and
then,
of
course,
by
association?
What
what
costs
would
it
be
to
look
after
this
piece
either
just
to
look
after
it
or
does
it
need
restoration
conservation
work?
What
are
the
anticipated
uses
for
an
object?
In
other
words,
is
it?
Is
it
going
to
be
for
educational
purposes?
Is
it
for
research
purposes
for
exhibition
all
those
kinds
of
things?
I
What
are
its
storage
requirements
and
again,
what
are
the
associated
costs
for
storing
that
piece?
Do
we
have
duplicates?
Is
this
item
just
duplicating
an
object
which
already
exists
in
the
collection
and
then,
ultimately,
what
is
the
staff
recommendation
coming
out
of
the
weighted
criteria,
the
scoring
system
that
chart
you
see
and
also
comments
we
get
from
the
heritage
assets
working
group
next
slide.
Please.
I
Now,
here
we
are
to
the
objects
at
hand.
These
are
pieces
which,
which
came
to
us
a
couple
of
months
ago,
have
been
offered
to
us.
I
should
say
a
couple
of
months
ago
and
they're
exciting,
because
they
they
so
directly
relate
to
the
mandate
of
the
civic
collection
and,
most
specifically,
the
the
work
that
we're
doing
here
at
city
hall.
I
The
three
they're
two
groups
of
objects-
the
first
group
that
we
are
recommending
for
the
primary
collection,
are
three
original
pen
and
ink
drawings
of
the
dome
of
city
hall,
the
done
by
architects,
power
and
sun,
and
which
include
an
elevation
cross-section
and
plan.
We
believe
they're
undated,
but
we
do
believe
that
they
date
to
about
1908,
which
is
is
just
the
time
after
the
fire
that
destroyed
the
dome
in
1908
next
slide.
Please.
I
So
remembering
what
we
just
talked
about
a
second
ago
about
the
assessment
process,
I
take
these.
This
particular
object
as
an
example
of
that
process.
The
collection
classification
that's
recommended
is
primary
because
of
its
direct
connection,
certainly
with
with
city
hall
and
its
interpretive
history.
Why
do
we
wish
to
inquire
it
acquire
it
because
of
our
interpretive,
its
interpretive
value
for
city
hall,
history
and
certainly
its
direct
connection
with
the
national
historic
site?
I
These
objects
help
to
tell
us
the
story
about
that
fire
of
1908
and
and
the
process
whereby
it
was
restored
to
what
we
have
today
and
it's
connected
with
power
and
son,
one
of
kingston's
leading
architects
that
was
commissioned
to
to
repair
and
restore
the
dome
after
that
fire,
and
we
certainly
have
no
other
drawings
of
this
nature
in
the
collection
here
in
kingston,
certainly
not
in
the
civic
collection,
so
of
great
value.
That
way
next
slide.
I
I
Now
this
is
the
second
category
of
objects
that
I
was
discussing.
The
donation
included
a
series
of
objects.
The
three
drawings
that
we're
recommending
for
the
primary
collection
is
is
the
one
these
other
objects
we
are.
They
have
value,
but
we
believe
that
they
have
a
greater
connection
with
our
general
heritage
assets
category
so
remembering
that
these
are
objects
which
would
not
go
into
the
civic
collection
specifically,
but
would
be
looked
after
inventoried
and
used
largely
for
their
their
interpretive
and
and
research
value.
I
The
objects
that
that
have
been
offered
in
this
group
include
a
photograph.
It's
a
it's.
A
copy
of
an
original
drawing
of
the
city
hall,
dome
circa
1908,
the
original,
which
is
at
library
in
archives,
canada,
in
ottawa.
It's
a
beautiful
piece
comes
a
lovely
frame,
but
it
would
be
a
it's
not
an
original
piece,
so
we
can't
consider
it
for
the
primary
collection,
but
it
certainly
would
fit
the
heritage
resource
center.
As
an
interpretive
piece
could
be
used
in
exhibitions,
it
could
be
used
different
ways.
I
I
And
so
as
I've
discussed,
these
are
would
be
recommended
for
the
general
heritage
assets
so
that
they
are
not
part
of
the
civic
collection.
They
can
be
de-accessioned
or
transferred
or
moved
wherever,
if,
if
that's
required
down
the
road,
the
reason
to
collect
them
as
I've
discussed
their
value
for
research
and
interpretation
of
city
hall
and
the
broader
heritage,
architectural
heritage
of
kingston
and
and
would
most
suitably
be
housed
at
the
heritage
resource
center,
and
I
believe
that
is
my
last
slide.
Thank
you.
J
Just
a
really
quick
question,
and
through
your
chair
thanks
paul
for
the
presentation
that
was
really
interesting
because
it
was
a
slideshow.
It
was
kind
of
hard
to
tell
the
size
of
the
pictures,
but
they
look
pretty
large,
so
the
drawings.
So
I
wonder
if
you
could
just
share
with
us
kind
of
what
actual
size
of
them.
I
Through
you,
mr
chair
they're,
about
24
by
30,
the
actual
frame
drawing
so
that
they
they
have
frames
on
them
and
mats,
which
of
course,
we
will
remove
when
they
come
in
for
preservation
purposes,
but
they're
they're,
a
nice
size
they've
actually
been
hanging
on
the
donor's
wall
for
many
years.
He
he
and
his
father
emptied
the
offices
or
went
through
their
their
archival
drawings
decades
ago,
and
so
these
pieces
ended
up
in
his
living
room.
B
C
C
B
B
K
K
Welcome
grace,
thank
you.
My
name
is
james
barr,
I'm
a
planner
with
the
city
and
I'm
here
today
to
present
on
heritage,
permit
application,
p18085
2020
for
the
lens
located
at
484
albert
street
and
620
princess
street
to
adapt
the
land
for
new
uses
historically
used
as
a
church,
mance
and
sunday
school.
K
Perfect
thanks
james,
so
the
lands
are
located
at
the
southwest
corner
of
albert
street
and
princess
street.
The
site
used
to
be
two
separate
parcels,
but
have
now
merged
under
common
ownership.
Next
slide,
please
both
sites
were
designated
under
part.
Four
of
the
ontario
heritage
heritage
act
in
2017
for
their
architectural,
cultural
and
associative
value.
K
K
Voucher
hall,
which
is
the
two-story
addition
on
the
southern
end
of
it,
was
constructed
on
the
south
side
of
the
church
and
continues
the
style
of
the
church
across
its
facade.
Behind
the
church
is
an
addition
that
contains
the
sunday
school
620
princess
street
was
developed
as
the
mance
for
the
congregation.
K
K
The
lands
are
located
within
the
williamsville
main
street
corridor,
which
is
the
city's
primary
intensification
corridor.
The
policies
for
this
area
balance
new
development
with
existing
heritage
features
and
the
characteristics
of
the
surrounding
neighborhood.
Specifically,
the
official
plan
seeks
to
protect,
enhance
support
and
adaptively
reuse,
cultural
heritage
resources,
while
encouraging
compatible
and
complementary
infill
development
next
slide.
Please.
K
K
Number
three
voucher
hall
is
proposed
to
be
demolished
and
a
new
six-story
building
constructed
in
its
place
to
house
the
48
transitional
and
supportive
housing
units,
as
well
as
a
dining
hall
space
kitchen
and
shipping
loading
facilities
for
the
site
number
four.
The
mance
facing
princess
street
is
proposed
to
be
demolished
in
order
to
construct
a
new
two-story
building
that
will
house
a
retail
cafe
and
youth
skills
training
center
next
slide.
Please.
K
This
is
an
aerial
image
of
the
property
looking
southwest
from
the
intersection
of
alberta
and
princess
street.
Here
you
can
see
the
new
six
story,
building
proposed
where
vatra
hall
currently
stands
and
the
church
restored
and
maintained
in
place.
A
new
parquet
is
proposed
at
the
corner
of
princess
street
and
albert
and
then
to
the
right
of
that
is
the
new
two-story
retail
cafe
in
youth
skills
training
center
next
slide.
Please.
K
The
taller
portion
is
also
set
back
from
the
front
wall
highlighting
the
feature.
This
helps
to
ground
the
tower
with
a
strong
podium
and
ties
together.
Both
the
new
and
older
building
in
front
of
the
building
as
well
will
be
new
ramping
and
stairs
to
provide
an
accessible
entrance
to
both
the
church
sanctuary
space,
as
well
as
the
transitional
and
supportive
housing.
K
K
K
K
K
K
Well,
this
may
be
one
of
the
last
edwardian
houses
on
princess
street
in
williamsville.
There
are
numerous
examples
of
edwardian
style
houses
in
the
neighborhood
to
the
south.
These
four
images
are
from
albert
and
nelson
street,
just
south
of
princess
street.
These
are
a
small
example
of
the
type
of
edwardian
houses
that
were
present
in
this
neighborhood.
K
K
The
next
four
slides
are
just
to
give
you
an
idea
of
what
this
site
looks
like
from
an
aerial
perspective,
with
some
of
the
surrounding
context.
So
here
we're
currently
looking
south
from
princess
street,
which
is
on
the
southern
side
and
albert
street,
is
to
the
left-hand
side.
So
you
can
see
the
church
in
vancouver
hall,
with
the
new
story
building
in
behind
and
the
two-story
retail
cafe
located
in
the
bottom
right
hand.
Corner
of
this
photo
next
slide.
Please.
K
K
K
K
And
here
we
are
looking
east,
so
looking
down
princess
street
towards
downtown,
you
can
see
the
two-story
retail
cafe
and
skills
training
center
and
its
attachment
to
the
main
church,
creating
that
private
space
in
behind,
which
is
the
utilities
being
brought
in
for
the
site,
but
is
also
a
dedicated
pedestrian
entrance
for
the
one
roof
services
and
would
provide
a
bit
of
private
amenity
space
in
the
evening
times
for
residents
of
this
building,
where
they
would
have
their
own
space.
So
next
slide.
K
K
K
K
We're
satisfied
with
this
change
because
it
still
holds
a
trigger
for
the
next
stage
of
development
and
that
the
removal
can
only
occur
once
the
actuals.
For
the
site
have
been
approved,
so
that
would
be
the
servicing
for
the
site,
locations
of
the
building,
landscaping
and
the
materiality
for
the
buildings.
K
B
J
Thank
you,
and
through
you,
mr
chair
and
james
thanks
for
the
presentation,
you
had
lots
of
really
good
visuals
that
helped
helps
us
make
a
decision.
The
one
visual
that
I
really
could
have
used
is
maybe
a
streetscape
how
there
are
a
lot
of
changes.
It's
part
of
the
williamsville
corridor,
and-
and
so
I
just
wonder,
because
what
we're
looking
at
is
a
small
you
know
old
church
with
this
big
building
beside
it,
but
I
think,
having
a
full
picture
of
part
of
princess
street
mentality.
K
Sure,
thank
you
and
through
you,
mr
chair,
some
of
the
earlier
images
I
had
in
the
presentation
showed
the
streetscape
when
I
was
specifically
speaking
about
the
six
story.
Addition
building,
as
well
as
the
retail
skills
cafe
they're,
also
included,
as
exhibit
d
in
the
report,
so
exhibit
d
that
would
be
pages
41
and
onward.
So
42
and
43
of
the
reports,
which
is
exhibit
d,
contains
some
streetscape
shots
for
the
property.
So
what
this
would
look
like
from
the
street.
K
Williamsville,
as
we
all
know,
is
undergoing
significant
change.
There
are
a
number
of
approvals
through
this
area
for
new
buildings,
ranging
from
five
stories
to
10
stories.
Directly
kitty
corner
to
this
site
is
a
property
known
as
575
princess
street,
which
has
an
approval
for
a
10
story.
Building
it's
currently
going
through
its
final
legs
of
sight,
plan
control,
and
so
I
believe
some
construction
activity
has
started
on
site
for
its
underground
parking.
K
So
we
will
see
new
development
there
in
the
short
term,
on
the
same
block
of
this
just
at
nelson
and
princess
there's,
a
new
five-story
mid-rise
building,
that's
gone
up
under
construction.
Now
are
several
10-story
buildings
at
652
princess
street
as
well
as
333
university,
and
we
are
seeing
more
urbanizing
change
in
this
corridor.
K
M
Yeah
hello,
can
you
hear
me?
Yes,
certainly
ken
good
morning,
everyone
thanks
james
for
that
presentation
and
I'm
very
excited
about
this
development
as
well,
and
it's
it's
going
to
be
a
tremendous
addition
to
our
city
and
to
the
area,
and
I'm
sorry,
if
I
missed
it,
do
we
do.
We
is
this
a
time
to
see
any
of
the
inside
layout
drawings,
or
is
that
just
right
now,
it's
just
we're
only
concerned
about
another
planning
department,
not
so
much
heritage.
K
Perfect
and
thank
you
and
through
you,
mr
chair,
exhibit
d
of
the
report-
does
contain
some
of
the
internal
layouts
for
the
buildings
after
the
elevation.
Drawings
are
some
floor
plans,
so
you
can
take
a
look
through
those.
What
the
applicant
has
proposed
currently
as
way
of
this
proposal
is
48
transitional
and
supportive
housing
units
contained
in
that
six
story.
Building.
They
do
still
require
additional
approvals.
K
So
there
is
an
official
plan
amendment
and
zoning
bylaw
amendment
application,
which
I
believe
is
pending,
that
we
should
see
come
in
shortly
and
then,
after
that,
would
be
a
site
plan,
control
approval.
So,
through
the
zoning
bylaw
amendment,
we
would
establish
the
minimums
and
maximums
for
the
site.
M
Yeah,
okay,
fantastic.
I
think
we
shall
be
very
excited
about
this
project.
I
I've
been
sort
of
on
the
sidelines
watching
it
and
been
involved
with
a
little
bit
of,
but
I
just
think
that
there's
so
many
positive
things
going
on
here
and
just
glad
that
we
can
be
part
of
it
as
a
heritage
committee
and
and
give
it
all
the
support
we
can
and
there's.
So
many
great
people
are
involved.
So
it's
great
thanks.
H
K
For
you,
mr
chair,
I
I
can
tell
you
that
phase
one
is
currently
underway,
so
that
is
the
the
one
roof
services
they're
currently
being
renovated
in
that
back
building
to
move
on
to
the
site,
but
we
do
have
pierre
klein
here
today
with
home
base
housing.
So
I
would
ask
the
chair
of
the
committee
to
search
sorry,
the
chair
of
the
committee
to
unmute
him,
and
then
he
can
give
everyone
an
idea
for
the
timeline
of
this
project.
Okay,.
B
K
N
Thank
you
very
much
and
thank
you
for
our
opportunity
to
to
speak
to
the
committee
in
terms
of
timelines.
We
are
under
extreme
pressure
by
the
province
and
the
funding
and
the
look
that
they
have
provided
us
to
move
very
quickly
on
this
project,
and
so
in
terms
of
timelines.
It
would
be
our
expectation
that
we
would
need
to
demolish
the
mass
by
the
end
of
the
year
and
then
be
able
to
buy
the
by
march.
N
B
B
Okay,
thank
you,
yeah.
That
last
statement
really
worries
me
that
we're
suddenly
being
pushed
into
a
two-month
timeline,
because
I
can
approve
all
of
this.
I
think
it's
a
wonderful
project
except
for
the
demolition
of
the
memphis,
and
I
think
that
that
it's
fine
saying
there
are
other
houses
around
and
the
next
time
one
of
these
comes
up
to
the
committee.
The
same
argument
will
be
made:
there's
another
one
around
there's
another
one
around
and
suddenly
we're
down
to
the
last
one.
B
B
Thirdly,
I'm
really
concerned
by
the
pocket.
I
don't
know
how
many
of
you
move
up
and
down
princess
I
live
in
the
area
and
princess
street
is
a
pretty
messy
dirty
street.
That
parquet,
I
suspect,
will
become
a
mess
very
very
quickly
and
to
me
that
is
the
space
where
the
building
that
is
meant
to
go
on
where
the
menses
should
be
put
a
single
story,
building
running
along
the
front
and
into
use
the
men's
that
I
really
believe
I
cannot
vote
to
to
demolish
the
events
as
simple
as
that.
L
C
C
K
K
This
is
one
of
our
primary
intensification
corridors
in
the
city,
which
is
seeing
the
type
of
growth
that
the
policy
has
anticipated,
which
is
reinvesting
in
the
neighborhood
and
bringing
forward
both
new
commercial
uses,
as
well
as
new
residential
uses
for
this
area,
and
part
of
that
is
the
change
in
amenity.
That's
supposed
to
be
provided
in
the
area,
and
that
is
a
series
of
parquets
which
staff
have
been
negotiating
as
part
of
new
developments
through
this
area.
So
I
believe,
there's
about
three
developments,
not
including
this
one
which
are
going
to
be
providing
park.
K
Cats
which
are
urban
areas
of
respite
for
people
traveling
through
the
corridor
and
we'll
continue
to
add
to
the
revitalization
of
main
streets
through
this
part
of
the
area.
Additionally,
the
parquet
is
required
because
that
northern
facing
wall
of
the
church
is
actually
a
designated
heritage
attribute
and
its
view
escape
from
main
street.
In
this
case,
princess
street
needs
to
be
preserved.
K
So
locating
a
building
in
front
of
the
church
along
princess
street
would
actually
be
counter
to
the
designation
encounter
to
the
policies
that
are
in
place
in
the
standards
and
guidelines
for
the
conservation
of
historic
places.
So
staff
see
the
parquette
as
a
huge
benefit
to
this
development
as
well
as
the
corridor,
and
I'm
going
to
turn
this
over
to
pierre
to
see
if
he
has
anything
further
to
add.
But
I
believe
andrea,
gomo
manager
of
policy
planning
has
also
raised
her
hand.
O
Sorry,
pierre,
do
you
mind
if
I
just
say
one
quick
thing
and
then
switch
it
over
thanks
james?
That
was
a
that
was
a
great
response.
I
just
wanted
to
add
one
more
consideration
for
this
location
through
you,
mr
chair.
The
the
bus.
Stop
that
exists
on
the
corner
here,
which
is
kind
of
in
front
of
the
proposed
parquet,
is
actually
the
the
busiest
bus
stop
in
the
whole
city
according
to
our
partners
at
kingston
transit.
N
N
The
entire
design
of
this
project
was
to
frame
the
church
so
that
we
highlight
the
heritage
value
of
the
architecture
of
in
the
history
of
that
that
facility,
and
so
I
am
I
I
would
be
not
not
in
favor
of
of
of
putting
a
building
in
front
of
of
that
that
asset
further.
If
the,
if
you
allow
me
to
be
frank,
if
we
cannot
demolish
the
church,
the
project
fails
and
we
sorry
the
man
the
church,
I
meant
the
mans.
N
E
P
C
B
Q
C
N
Well,
thank
you.
We
were
informed
in
an
email
by
james,
the
planner,
that
we
had
five
minutes
and
there's
comments
from
our
consultant,
our
heritage
consultant
and
architect
as
well,
but
I
will
take
this
opportunity
right
now.
I
won't
go
over
everything
we've
already
discussed.
This
is
a
historic
moment
for
kingston.
N
Demolishment
is
absolutely
necessary.
We
need
to
acquire.
We
need
to
do
that
by
the
end
of
the
year.
I'm
not
quite
sure
that
leaving
part
of
of
the
condition
number
three
in
place
is
going
to
be
able
to
allow
us
to
do
that,
and
we
haven't
had
enough
discussion.
I
guess
with
planning
on
the
portion
that
they
want
to
keep
to
see
whether
or
not
that
that
would
hinder
us
by
the
end
of
the
year.
N
P
Thank
you,
pierre.
Actually,
I've
covered
the
points
that
I
was
going
to
talk
about
in
my
part
of
the
presentation,
which
is
our
review
of
the
possibility
of
adaptive,
reuse
and
the
needs
of
the
phasing
and
the
need
to
demolish
the
mass.
As
a
result,
only
thing
I
will
mention
is
that
the
the
original
church
would
also
be
kept
in
operation
throughout
the
project.
P
R
Hello,
don
lux
speaking,
I'm
very
impressed
with
the
discussion
about
the
the
various
benefits
of
this
project,
and
I
I
can
only
agree
and
aren't
part
of
my
recommendation.
Not
very,
and
I
hate
recommending
demolition,
but
part
of
my
agreement
to
demolition
is
that
the
benefits
outweigh
any
of
the
negatives.
R
What
this
project
is
providing
for
the
community
is
very
important,
and
I
I
think
that
the
the
discussion
about
the
preservation
and
or
reuse
we
went
through
that
at
length
about
the
possibility,
the
accessibility,
this
the
size
of
the
space
and
it
simply
doesn't
work.
It
wouldn't
work,
and
so
I
can
only
say
I
you
know
with
with
a
bit
of
regret.
I
think
I
I
can
support,
as
I
have
in
my
report,
the
demolition
of
the
mance
as
a
way
to
make
this
project
happen.
Thank
you.
B
B
S
Morning,
committee
members,
thank
you
for
the
opportunity
to
speak
to
you
today
and
I
do
hope
everyone
can
hear
me.
I
I
won't
reiterate
the
many
things
that
we've
heard
this
morning.
It
it.
It
won't,
come
as
any
surprise
to
you
that
our
board
discussed
this
matter
at
our
board
meeting
last
evening,
and
we
are
thoroughly
dismayed
that
the
mance
is
planned
to
be
demolished.
S
It
is
one
of
the
there
are
not
very
many
properties
that
are
designated
along
princess
street
and
this
one
was
only
designated.
I
believe
the
biology
went
through
in
early
2018
and
we
do
recognize
that
the
church
has
interior
designations
and
it
is
going
to
be
retained.
But
as
as
don
lu
laut
has
just
said,
you
know
everyone
hates
to
see
a
demolition
of
a
heritage
building,
so
I
will
leave
it
at
that
and
it's
it's
it's
it's
a
great
project.
S
B
T
Thank
you,
peter
and
good
morning
to
everyone.
I'm
up
here.
I
certainly
have
to
agree
with
you
in
reference
to
the
demolition
of
the
mans.
It's
certainly
not
a
great
decision
for
a
heritage
committee
to
recommend
the
demolition
of
a
historic
building,
and
in
any
other
case
I
would
probably
agree
with
you
that.
T
T
T
L
Yes
well,
as
we
all
know,
this
is
a
challenging
situation.
We're
in
first
let
me
say
the
obvious
that
I
think
it's
a
wonderful
project
and
I'm
very
impressed
with
almost
all
of
it.
I
note
that
the
applicants,
I
believe,
responded
to
our
earlier
comments
that
the
new
tall
building
should
not
be
too
bright,
and
I
think
it's
going
to
be
somewhat
muted,
stone,
color,
which
sounds
fine
one.
L
Getting
on
to
the
main
problem
of
the
mounts
as
heritage
committee,
it's
extremely
difficult
for
us
to
approve
the
the
demolition
of
a
designated
building,
and
when
this
came
to
the
committee
as
a
pre-consultation
back
in
april,
I
think
it
was.
I
made
that
point
and
I
said
that
I
didn't
think
the
committee
should
support
demolition
without
a
good
deal
more
evidence
and
documentation
that
we
had
the
heritage
impact
statement
says
nothing
about
the
qualities
of
the
design
of
the
glass.
L
L
You
know
again,
we
don't
have
a
lot
of
information,
but
it
sounded
to
me
is
that,
as
if
city
staff
were
telling
the
applicants
that
you
must
have
a
utilities
corridor
in
in
the
location
of
the
mats,
why
not
behind
vacher
hall
up
that
alley
behind
the
building?
You
know,
I
think
we
we
don't.
You
know,
I
think,
we're
not
being
in
a
legitimate
position
judgment
on
on
the
mounts
and
I
think
it
should
be
removed
from
the
current
recommendations.
L
I
know
timeline
is
tight,
but
there's
a
we
could
have
another
meeting
in
another
month.
So
I
don't
know
I
I
understand
what
the
applicants
are
saying
and
I
simply
have
to
regret
the
the
way
that
it's
come
to
the
community,
and
for
that
reason
I
think
I
will
just
to
put
some
meat
on
the
bone
so
to
speak.
I
think
I
will
recommend
a
revision
to
remove.
P
L
B
B
M
Yeah,
thank
you,
mr
chair.
Just
I
want
to
just
echo
kelly's
words
and
his
comments
to
this
project.
I
guess
there
always
is
a
time
where
we
have
to
trust
what
we've
been
given
the
information.
I
know
I'm
still
fairly
new
to
this
committee
and
I
recognize
the
difficulty
of
this
decision.
I
I
I
empathize
with
it,
and
I
think
I
think
I
can
read
in
this
that
there's
all
the
considerations
are
being
given
to
everything
that
we
can
do
to
to
value
the
heritage
of
that
location.
M
So,
incredibly,
behind
the
scenes
for
for
this-
and
this
is
a
great
project-
and
there
are
so
many
synergies
happening
now,
and
I
just
hope
that
this
committee
can
recognize
that
and
give
it
the
the
push
the
support
it
needs
and
to
accomplish
the
incredible
work
that
it
will
be
doing
for
generations
to
come.
So
I'm
hopeful
that
we
can
support
this.
Thank
you.
B
J
It
wasn't
popping
up
thanks
yeah,
I
mean
this.
Is
it's
really
incredibly
sad
to
hear
that
it
was
only
designated?
The
mance
was
only
designated
in
2018
and
there's.
Certainly,
I
think
we
all
can
feel
the
frustrations
that
are
real
and
totally
understandable,
but
the
needs
are
so
great.
It
wasn't
until
I
actually
saw
the
integrated
hub
and
spoke
with
the
staff
there
that
I
recognized
what
drugs
is
doing
to
our
community
and
how
much
our
youth
really
need
this.
E
C
C
B
U
U
U
U
U
As
I
noted,
it
was
designated
in
1981
under
part
four
of
the
heritage
act.
The
limited
statement
in
the
bylaw
is
there
before
you.
It's
a
power
and
sun
building
brick
row
built
in
the
1870s
next
slide.
Please,
the
application
that
we're
looking
at
today
is
under
section
33
of
the
heritage
act.
It
relates
to
the
rear
portion
of
this
building,
which
is
this
picture
before
you.
U
U
The
current
gable
dormer
was
lengthened
to
accommodate
a
door
some
years
ago.
The
picture
on
the
left
is
the
front
elevation
and
the
picture
on
the
right
is
the
rear,
so
you
can
see
the
rear
fire
escape
and
an
existing
door
on
the
third
story.
Next
slide,
please,
the
applicant
wishes
to
retain
the
use
of
the
door
fire
escape,
but
convert
the
dormer
to
a
shed
dormer.
In
order
to
provide
additional
habitable
space
on
the
upper
floor,
the
new
dormer
will
be
no
taller
than
the
ridge
of
the
existing
roof.
U
So
again,
the
front
elevation
on
the
left,
which
has
not
changed
and
the
new
dormer
on
the
right
is
the
rear
elevation.
You
can
see
the
new
dorm
on
the
right
shed
armor
the
owner
is
currently
in
the
process
of
renovating
this
existing
four
unit
dwelling.
There
are
significant
interior
alterations
currently
underway
on
the
property.
There
are
no
interior
heritage
attributes
noted
in
this
designated
bylaw.
Therefore,
no
interior,
the
interior
alterations,
are
not
subject
to
heritage
approval.
U
The
applicant
is
also
undertaking
several
minor
repairs
to
the
existing
front
door.
Transom
the
wood
porch,
the
applicant,
is
also
repairing
restoring
the
original
wood
trim
and
brick
molds
and
replicating
the
wood
in
wood,
the
sashes
of
the
windows
themselves,
which
were
damaged
beyond
repair
and
concealed
by
aluminum
storms.
For
many
years.
These
alterations
are
again
not
part
of
today's
application.
They
were
approved
through
the
delegate
authority
to
the
director
planning.
U
So
the
applicant
has
indicated
that
they'd
like
to
provide
more
functional
space
on
the
upper
floor
and
without
impact
in
the
main
front
elevation
of
the
building,
the
new
large
rear
dormer
is
proposed
on
the
west
pitch
of
the
roof.
The
dorm
road
is
to
be
clad
in
a
dark,
horizontal
siding
and
have
a
shallow
pitch
shed
roof
with
asphalt.
Shingles
the
existing
door
accessing
the
rear
firescape
will
remain
a
condition
of
heritage.
U
The
standard
11
of
the
standards
and
guidelines
from
parks,
canada,
directs
that
new
to
make
new
works
physically
and
visibly
compatible
with
and
subordinate
to
and
distinguishable
from
the
heritage
place
unquote,
and
while
the
proposed
armor
is
large
when
considered
as
part
of
the
seven
unit
row,
the
dormer
is
a
subordinate
feature
to
the
grandeur
of
this
two
and
a
half
story.
Brick
terrace,
the
new
shed
dormer
will
clearly
be
distinguishable
as
a
new
intervention.
U
However,
by
locating
the
dormer
on
the
rear,
elevation
and
below
the
height
of
the
ridge
line
of
the
roof,
the
new
dormer
will
have
no
impact
on
the
primary
front.
Facade
elevation
of
the
building
when
considered
with
the
other
cultural
heritage,
attributes
of
the
property
of
this
brick
terrace
as
a
whole,
including
the
brick
and
stone
construction.
U
The
addition
of
this
dormer
on
this
secondary
rear
facade
has
a
minimal
impact
to
the
heritage
value
of
the
overall
resource
and
on
balance,
the
conservation
efforts
undertaken
by
the
applicants,
such
as
the
accurate
replication
of
the
original
wind
windows
to
adapt
and
reuse.
This
resource
provides
that
the
installation
of
a
large
rio
dormer
is
considered
acceptable
in
order
to
conserve
the
overall
cultural
heritage
value
of
the
property.
Therefore,
our
staff
support
the
conditional
approval
of
this
application.
U
We
note
that
the
existing
four
units
are
recognized
as
a
permitted,
non-conforming
use
and
the
bylaw
in
this
area
does
not
permit
expansion
or
alterations
that
increase
the
volume
of
the
structure
for
a
permitted
non-conforming
use.
So
the
applicants
will
need
to
either
maintain
the
existing
floor
area
on
the
third
floor
or
seek
permission
through
a
minor
variance
application
and
all
necessary
planning
act.
Approvals
are
required
as
a
condition
of
this
approval.
U
C
U
I
believe
the
approval
for
the
windows
was
to
match
the
existing
pattern.
I
I
seems
to
me
there
was
a
varying
ages,
mr
chair,
at
burying
styles
of
windows
in
this
building.
So
I
I
don't
have
that
specific
answer,
as
I
mentioned,
that
was
part
of
a
previous
approval
and
I'm
happy
to
provide
that
information
to
member
taylor
outside
of
this
process
through
an
email.
H
H
I
also
would
like
to
some
clarification
on
the
dormer
in
one
place
was
below
the
height
of
the
ridgeline
and
in
the
executive
summary
it
says
no
taller
than
the
existing
ridge,
the
drawings,
if
I'm
interpreting
them
correctly,
a19
and
a19a
seem
to
indicate
that
it
is
the
re.
The
dormer
is
at
the
ridge
line,
and
it
also
seems
to
interface
with
the
chimney.
So
I'd
like
a
comment
on
that.
H
Finally,
I
want
to
say
that
vinyl
siding
would
not
be
appropriate,
so
I
would
not
support
that
and
it
would
be
helpful
if
the
applicant
included
information
on
rain
gear
as
well,
because
that's
going
to
be
if
we
approve
a
dormer
of
that
size,
rain
gear
is
pretty
important
as
well.
So
perhaps
someone
could
answer
my
questions.
Thank
you.
D
U
I
will
certainly
provide
the
the
information
on
the
windows
following
this
meeting,
as,
as
I
understand
because
of
the
nature
of
of
the
space
they
need
to
get
this
shed,
roof
will
be
to
the
ridgeline.
It
won't
be
visible
beyond
it,
but
it'll
be,
I
believe,
matching
the
ridge
line
and
then
sloping
down
towards
the
towards
the
rear,
the
interface
with
the
chimney.
I
don't
think
the
chimney
is
to
be
altered,
but
I
imagine
they'll
be
flashing
around
there
and
and
the
last
question.
U
This
edge
that'd,
be
simple
and,
and
certainly
we'll
be
following
up
with
the
with
the
applicant
to
to
get
specifics
on
that
and
then
finally,
the
cladding
we
have
recommended
a
hardy
board
side,
and
I
believe
the
the
applicant
isn't
is
is
fine
with
that,
and
we
will
be
evaluating
that
too,
as
a
condition
of
approval,
and
I
believe
mr
purvis
is
on
on
the
call
mr
chair,
if
he
maybe
would
like
to
add
any
more
specifics
to
these.
As
he's
the
the
designer
for
this
project.
V
V
So
yeah,
so
a
little
bit
of
this
I've
been
relying
on
ryan's,
obviously,
expertise.
So
that's
why
the
hardy
board
and
the
siding
conditions,
and
things
like
that-
you
know,
obviously,
I'm
not
the
heritage
expert,
but
we
are
doing
everything
within
our
power
to
try
and
at
least
replicate
what
was
originally
there
all
right.
So
as
far
as
the
windows
and
the
muttons
and
things
like
that,
because
we
are
building
these
windows
from
scratch
and
any
work
to
a
door,
it's
all
from
scratch.
V
So
basically
it's
a
tenor
and
mortise
joints.
We
the
muttons,
go
on
the
exterior
the
windows,
so
they
are
at
an
additional
cosmetic
feature.
So
I
know
on
that.
The
elevation
we
did
have.
I
didn't
have
exactly
what
the
muttons
were,
but
I
do
have
a
record
of
what
they
were
and
we
are
putting
them
back
to
the
what
they
were.
Okay
and-
and
you
know
to
just
comment
on
the
overall-
you
know
condition
of
that
strip.
V
You
know
those
seven,
you,
those
seven,
the
row,
houses
they're
in
extremely
rough
shape,
both
interior,
like
the
interior
of
that
you
know
it
was
going
to
start
to
fall
down
if
it
wasn't
repaired,
and
sometimes
I
wonder
you
know
if
we,
if
we
intend
to
restore
heritage
or
at
least
try
and
maintain
our
heritage,
you
know
it's
funny.
Sometimes
it's
going
to
be
too
late.
If
we
don't
worry
about
the
inside,
because
basically
people
like
to
use
the
excuse.
Well,
you
know
it
it's
unsalvageable
right.
B
C
B
So
I
look
them
for
a
mover
and
a
seconder
to
approve
the
motion
and
the
sex
conditions.
98
clergy
mover.
Oh
sorry,
william,
I
didn't
see
your
hand
there
very
good.
Thank
you
and
a
seconder
jeremy.
Congratulations
on
your
new
addition.
By
the
way,
jeremy.
We
had
an
extra
member
here
at
the
meeting.
I
noticed
moved
them
by
mr
heinemann
second
device
and
not
mr
singhange.
There
have
been
no
changes,
so
it's
the
recommendation
and
the
six
conditions.
B
L
The
comments
on
dash
from
the
committee
were
pretty
negative.
I'm
kind
of
disappointed
that
staff
recommendation
is
to
approve
the
this
particular
dormer
is
highly
visible
from
brock
street.
It's
in
the
past,
we've
for,
for
one
reason
or
another,
approved
large
dormers
that
were
invisible
from
the
street.
But
that's
not
the
case
here
and
the
you
know.
L
The
the
reason
for
a
big
dormer
is
to
give
more
space
to
the
residents
and
to
the
unit,
and
the
same
could
be
said
for
all
the
units
along
the
row
and
if
we
permit
ever
increasing
dormers,
then
we
might
as
well
say,
let's
turn
the
hole
back
roof
into
shed
dormers,
and
that
is
really
not
appropriate.
I
mean
these
buildings
are
very
fine
heritage
buildings
and
they
should
not
be
allowed
to.
L
Proliferate
all
kinds
and
styles
of
dormers.
That
being
said
again,
if
you
read
our
comments,
we're
not
opposing
dormers,
but
they
should
be
reasonable
and
there
used
to
be
a
city
policy
or
at
least
understanding
about
dormers.
They
they
should
be
set
back
from
the
eaves.
They
should
be
set
below
the
ridge.
L
They
should
preferably
be
gable
and
not
shed,
and
they
should
not
be
large
compared
with
the
overall
roof.
So
my
recommendation,
which
I
I
think
I
put
in
dash-
was
that
I'm
prepared
to
approve
a
dormer
even
in
a
shed
warmer
if
it
is
not
the
largest
dormer
on
this
row
of
houses,
okay
and
if
it
is
set
back
from
the
eve,
so
we
can
the
original
roof
lines
are
preserved.
B
H
I
am
concerned
that
it
will
be,
you
know,
set
a
precedent
for
the
size
of
dormers
on
the
back
of
this
whole
row
of
seven
townhouses,
and
I
think
we
just
need
to
be
really
careful
about
approving
something
that
is
going
to
then
continue
along
that
row,
which
is
highly
visible
from
brock
street,
and
it
is
a
very
fine
building
as
well.
So
I
do
have
concerns
about
the
size
of
the
dormer
and
I'm
just
thinking
about
whether
or
not
I'm
going
to
support
this.
B
B
B
B
A
B
L
W
Okay,
so
committee
members
by
now,
I
think,
you're
all
pretty
familiar
with
this
property
and
this
project.
It's
come
in
front
of
the
committee
a
number
of
times
in
the
past
few
months,
so
I'm
going
to
try
my
best
to
be
brief
in
my
presentation
today,
but
I
am
here
to
present
the
final
staff
recommendation
related
to
window
replacements
at
15,
mcdonald's
avenue
next
slide.
W
W
W
The
property
contains
a
two
and
a
half
story:
red
brick,
building
with
limestone
details
and
the
building
was
constructed.
Circa
1894
it
served
as
the
rectory
for
the
adjacent
church
of
the
good
thief
until
its
closure
in
about
2013.,
the
property
is
designated
under
part
4
of
the
ontario
heritage
act,
an
application
for
alteration
under
section
33
of
the
act
has
been
submitted
to
request
permission,
to
restore
four
more
prominent
wooden
windows
on
the
property
and
to
replace
the
remaining
30
windows
with
replica
vinyl
windows.
As
we
heard
in
the
delegation
today.
W
Other
proposed
aspects
of
the
project
that
were
heard
by
the
committee
already
have
been
addressed
through
a
prior
council
approval
for
the
new
addition
and
a
large
enlarged
openings
and
through
an
approvals,
a
process
carried
out
under
staff's
delegated
authority
which
is
granted
by
the
city's
procedural
bylaw
for
heritage.
So
this
leaves
the
windows
the
matter
that
we're
hearing
today
as
the
only
outstanding
item
of
the
project
that
is
requiring
committee,
consultation
and
council
approval
next
slide.
Please.
W
So
the
window
matter
was
discussed
at
the
september
meeting
of
heritage
kingston.
The
item
was
presented
at
a
time
for
information
and
no
recommendation
or
decision
was
made.
Since
september
staff
have
been
working
with
the
applicant
to
come
to
a
solution
that
conserves
the
heritage
value
of
the
property,
while
also
understanding
the
financial
investment
that
has
been
made
by
the
owner
and
then
their
need
to
have
this
window
matter
resolved
before
snowfall,
based
on
discussions
with
staff
and
some
committee
members
who
were
able
to
attend
a
recent
site
visit.
W
W
They
will
then
be
replacing
the
remaining
30
windows
with
the
purchase
replica,
vinyl
windows,
the
retained
windows
will
have
the
interior
hardware
removed
for
cleaning
and
the
windows
will
be
stripped.
Sanded
painted
primed
and
painted
painting
will
be
in
the
same
or
similar
color
to
existing
sorry,
just
one
second,
I
just
turned
off
my
monitor
somehow
there
technical
difficulties
of
the
home
office,
okay,
we're
back
on
so
the
four
windows
contain
a
single
pane,
lower
sash
and
are
arched
above
with
multiple
pins
and
decorative
muntin
bars.
W
W
So
as
as
evident
through
the
policy
review
outline
and
staff
report,
I
won't
kind
of
go
into
all
of
that
detail
for
you
today,
but
it
is
contained
in
that
report.
The
replacement
of
original
wood
windows
with
new
vinyl
windows
is
not
typically
a
preferred
option
from
a
cultural
heritage
conservation
perspective
staff
would
typically
recommend
that
original
windows
be
repaired
and
retained
wherever
possible,
in
accordance
with
the
window
policy.
W
In
this
case,
the
custom
vinyl
replacement
windows
had
been
purchased
and
received
by
the
owner
and
ahead
of
heritage
approvals,
and
this
was
based
on
their
understanding
of
the
policy
framework.
At
that
time.
The
report
in
front
of
you
today
provides
clarification
about
how
the
heritage
act
and
the
window
policy
applies
in
this
particular
case.
As
the
applicant
commented
through
their
delegation,
the
framework
is
not
incredibly
clear
for
property
owners
and,
as
such,
staff
will
be
working
towards
revisions
to
this
policy
to
be
presented
to
the
committee
in
the
near
future.
W
Ms
gummel
is
on
the
call
today,
so
any
questions
about
this
she'll
be
happy
to
answer
for
you.
So
in
this
particular
case,
the
replacement
windows
have
been
reviewed
by
the
architect
agent
and
by
heritage
staff,
who
have
confirmed
that
their
design
and
quality
is
far
superior
to
that
typically
seen
in
vinyl
windows.
The
proposed
approach
ensures
that
the
larger,
more
unique
original
windows
are
retained.
W
The
restoration
of
these
windows
with
the
introduction
of
interior
storms
to
provide
the
required
thermal
and
sound
insulation
aligns
with
cultural
heritage
conservation,
best
practices
as
a
condition
of
the
recommended
approval.
The
applicants
must
also
ensure
that
the
removed
windows
are
provided
to
an
architectural
salvage
company
in
ontario
to
allow
for
their
reuse,
and
this
condition
stemmed
out
of
comments
made
by
the
committee
members
at
the
site
visit.
W
The
project
also
contributes
to
a
number
of
the
city's
broader
planning
goals,
including
the
provision
of
additional
rental
housing
options
into
the
housing
market,
the
intensification
of
these
natural
service
lands
and
the
adaptive
reuse
of
an
existing
heritage
building.
So
that's
all
I
have
for
you
today
we're
happy
to
answer
any
questions.
As
you
know,
we
also
have
the
applicants
on
the
line
and
they're
happy
to
field
any
questions
as
well.
B
H
B
G
G
G
H
Oh,
I'm
really
con,
I'm
sorry,
I'm
confused
as
well.
So
what
I
I
want
to
know
is
so
I'm
here's
where
I'm
coming
from
I'm
wondering
if
it
might
be
prudent
to
maintain
all
the
windows
restore
all
of
the
windows
on
the
main
floor,
plus
any
of
the
more
ornate
ones
on
the
second
floor,
to
preserve
that
facade
of
the
historic
building.
H
G
G
D
B
Seeing
any
at
all,
so
I'm
looking
for
a
motion
as
printed
a
recommendation
with
three
parts
to
it
and
four
conditions.
Looking
for
a
mover
kelly
heinemann.
Thank
you
very
much.
Looking
for
secondary
jeremy.
Thank
you
very
much.
You
have
the
motion
on
the
floor.
Further
discussion
from
committee
members
on
the
motion
as
printed
on
page
six
of
the
agenda
and
not
changed
at
all.
B
B
B
C
B
Y
B
B
A
L
D
A
We
assume
that
you
had
a
point
of
order,
as
maybe
your
video
was
breaking
or
perhaps
you
were
trying
to
alert
the
chair,
but
we've
called
it
five
minute
recess.
So
I
think
there's
about
two
and
a
half
minutes
left
in
the
recess,
so
your
system
appears
to
be
working
and
then
once
the
chair
returns,
we
can
proceed.
A
B
C
C
C
C
C
B
L
L
B
B
D
C
B
B
L
B
B
A
A
B
B
And
I
see
two
again
so
that
is
carried
so
we
go
back
then,
and
I
presume
we
now
assume
that
the
vault
has
not
taken
place.
We
get
our
old
pieces
of
paper
up.
I'm
gonna
have
to
get
myself
reordered
here
and
we
are.
Where
do
we
go
now
into
continued
discussion
on
15
mcdonald's
and
I
presume
don
that
you'd
like
to
speak.
L
Yes,
if
I
could
the
first
you
know
there
have
been
some
considerable
presentations
and
I'd
just
like
to
make
some
general
comments.
Certainly,
certainly
we
all
feel
some
sympathy
for
the
applicants
they're
under
some
financial
and
time
pressures,
but
nevertheless
we
we
want
to
have
the
best
outcome.
First
of
all,
I
should
say
that
comments
that
we've
been
hearing
from
some
people,
that
the
windows
are
in
poor
condition
and
that
there
are
issues
with
thermal
and
acoustic
performance
are
really
a
bit
of
red
herrings.
L
We
are
not
talking
well
andrew
scheinemann
and
other
people
have
seen
these
windows
have
said.
They
are
in
good
condition.
They
need
paint,
they
need
putty,
but
they're,
basically
sound
with
very
very
few
exceptions,
and
the
alternatives
to
the
existing
windows
would
be
certainly
have
two
panes
of
glass
and
air
space
between.
So
the
thermal
and
acoustic
performance
will
be
essentially
the
same,
so
those
are
not
issues.
L
So
we,
the
recommendation,
is
a
kind
of
compromise
where
four
windows
will
be
repaired
and
30
will
be
replaced
and
what
I'm
going
to
suggest
is
again
a
pro
a
compromise,
but
I
think,
perhaps
a
more
appropriate
one
from
the
heritage
point
of
view,
which
will
be
that
the
all
the
first
and
second
story-
windows
of
the
king
and
mcdonald
street
facades
will
be
repaired
and
restored
and
all
the
other
windows
will
be
replaced.
That's
roughly
half
and
half
half
restored
and
half
replaced
and
to
me
that
seems
a
fair
compromise.
B
Do,
okay,
that
the
recommendations
for
approval
be
revised
to
read
the
restoration
of
the
first
and
second
story:
windows
on
the
king
of
mcdonald's
street
facades,
the
replacement
of
remaining
windows
with
vinyl
units
replicating
the
existing
patterns
and
all
windows
to
have
the
same
color
and
that
of
the
conditions,
condition
one
stays
condition
two
will
say
to
revise
to
remove
the
four.
So
it
reads
of
the
windows
to
be
restored,
three
remains,
as
is,
and
four
we
remove
30.
So
it
re
reads:
the
removed
wooden
windows
shall
be
salvaged.
B
L
I've
already
said
most
of
what
I
need
to
say.
You
know
this
is
an
important
building.
The
original
windows
are
in
good
condition.
We
simply
should
not
be
letting
them
be
replaced,
and
you
know
I
could
say
a
little
bit
more
that
if
they
are
restored,
repainted,
repotted
or
whatever
well,
probably
not
repotting,
the
depends
on
how
they're
done,
but
they
will
last
forever
with
reasonable
maintenance.
L
L
H
Yes
and
I'm
just
going
to
refer
to
the
policy
on
window
renovations
and
heritage
buildings,
most
period
windows
can
be
repaired
and
therefore
should
only
be
replaced
as
a
last
option.
Replacement
of
a
period
window
on
a
protected
heritage
property
will
only
be
considered
when
the
period
window
is
so
deteriorated
that
even
if
it
was
repaired,
very
little
original
material
would
remain.
H
M
B
L
I
make
another,
could
I
make
another
comment?
I
know
the
applicants
are
concerned
about
getting
this
work
done
before
winter
and
that
the
availability
of
expert
window
people
maybe
very
limited,
and
I
certainly
know
it
can
take
many
months
to
get
people
to
do
things.
But
when
I,
when
I
visited
the
site,
I
talked
to
a
couple
of
the
workers
or
applicants
there
and
I
did
indicate
or
suggest
how
they
could
be
renovated,
and
I
think
that
work
can
be
done
with
any
competent
carpenter
with
guidance.
L
A
B
A
James
james,
I
I
won't
force
your
hand.
However,
in
the
past
there
has
been
a
past
practice
for
a
chair
to
comment
on
the
amendments
from
sort
of
a
feasibility
standpoint.
So
I
will
leave
that
with
you
in
response
to
the
statement
from
the
counselor.
But
I
appreciate
that
you
are
in
deliberations
and.
B
Yeah,
no
thank
you
for
mentioning
that
yeah.
No
in
my
comment
would
be
that
this
does
allow
them
to
to
go
ahead
a
lot
of
the
way
of
their
planning
and,
as
mr
taylor
said,
I
was
with
him
when
we
did
that
site
visit,
that
the
work
on
the
other
windows
is
not
an
impossible
job.
It
isn't
as
though
new
materials
have
to
be
ordered
or
anything,
and
it
can
be
started
just
as
soon
as
council
approves
this
motion.
I
don't
think
it
will
hold
things
up
in
terms
of
work,
particularly.
B
The
three
recommendations
so
that
it's
the
first
floor,
no
for
yes,
the
first
and
second
floor
of
the
facades
facing
king
street
and
mcdonald
street,
which
would
be
restored
and
the
replacement
of
the
other
two
sides
and
the
conditions
would
change
by
deleting
the
four
in
item
two
and
30
in
item
4..
Is
that
correct
on
okay?
Thank
you
so
calling
for
revolt,
those
in
favor
of
that
amendment.
B
B
B
U
So
this
application
is
on
the
southwest
corner
of
king
street
east
and
simcoe
street
and
includes
two
separately
conveyable
parcels.
It's
immediately
across
the
street
from
city
park,
the
property
was
severed
in
2016
and
created
two
separate
holdings,
while
the
application
is
interaction
of
a
building
that
crosses
the
property
line.
We're
wrapping
this
into
one
motion,
one
presentation.
U
U
U
U
The
part
four
bylaw
remains
with
both
parcels
and
the
of
course
the
district
covers
the
entire
area.
So
I
won't
read
three
of
these,
but
the
designation
bylaw
from
the
mid
80s
speaks
primarily
to
the
mansion
which
the
stone
building
by
power
and
sun
near
king
street
and
the
hcd
does.
Property
inventory
includes
a
description
of
the
stone
coach
house,
which
is
the
40
simcoe
dwelling,
and
it's
rated
as
significant.
Excuse
me
significant
in
the
district
plan.
U
So
the
application
before
us
today
is
the
erection
under
approval
and
direction
under
section
42
of
the
heritage
act,
it
has
been
submitted
to
gain
approval
for
a
two-story
detached
garage
with
a
shared
party
wall
along
the
shared
block
lines
between
these
two
lots.
The
total
building
footprint
is
approximately
217
square
meters.
Can
we
go
to
the
next
slide?
Please?
This
is
the
location
proposed
location?
U
The
next
slide
is
the
site
plan
and
you
can
see
the
proposed
two-star
dwelling
or
a
detroit
garage
with
an
approximately
five
meter
by
six
meter,
single-story
conservatory
on
the
north
end
facing
king
street.
That's
the
next
slide.
Please
there's
a
couple
of
pictures
of
the
existing
condition
showing
where
the
the
building
is
proposed
to
go
along
this,
the
south
west
corner
of
the
property
next
slide,
please.
U
U
To
in
a
shed
roof
style
that
matches
the
dwelling
at
46
simcoe,
the
new
windows
are
metal,
clad
wooden
sash
windows,
the
garage
door,
which
is
three
in
total
one
for
each
drilling
unit
on
the
properties
and
our
stained.
Wood
with
a
row
of
windows
along
the
top,
the
conservant
conservatory
will
include
metal
windows
and
framing
on
a
limestone
base.
U
U
Colors
are
to
match
with
those
on
the
renovated
dwelling
at
simcoe
street,
and
no
new
residential
units
are
proposed
in
this
garage.
So
these
plans
were
presented
to
heritage
kingston
about
a
year
ago,
last
october
and
the
the
applications
were
initially
circulated
in
december
of
last
year.
The
applicants
requested
additional
time
to
consider
the
comments
they
received
and
resubmission
was
received.
U
Following
the
applicant's
consideration
of
the
comet,
provided
they
through
the
initial
circulation,
the
plans
submitted
have
been
revised
and
they
no
longer
include
any
changes
to
the
noted
heritage
building
at
81
king
street.
So
if
we
go
to
the
next
slide,
you
can
see
a
close-up
of
the
interaction
between
the
two
buildings
you
can
see
on
the
right
side.
The
grayed
out
portion
is
the
upper
floor
of
the
proposed
garage
and
to
the
right
is
the
the
existing
stone
former
stable
on
the
neighbors
property.
U
U
The
content
plans
still
show
the
proposed
development
with
zero
setback
from
the
lot
lines,
which
does
not
raise
concerns
from
a
cultural
heritage
perspective
but
which
does
not
meet
the
minimum
performance
standards
in
the
zoning
bylaw.
Locating
the
building
at
zero
setback
would
require
approval
under
the
hair
planning
act
and
and
are
assured
especially
and
are
not
assured,
especially
since
the
proposed
proposal
prevents
technical
challenges
to
ongoing
maintenance
and
access
details
regarding
proper
management
of
the
roof.
Drainage
will
be
addressed
at
building
permit
stage.
U
So
this
was
reviewed
under
the
district
plan
and
the
policies
therein
section
6-2
of
the
district
plan,
notes
that
new
buildings
are
not
required
to
replicate
heritage
styles,
but
should
enhance
the
heritage
character
of
the
district
flat.
Roofs
may
be
considered
in
stone
masonry
and
wood.
Siding
is
acceptable.
U
Section
622
of
the
plan
also
directs
that
one
to
look
to
the
proportions
of
neighboring
buildings
to
help
influence
the
scale
of
the
new
builds.
The
massive
proposed
is
similar
to
the
massing
of
the
accessory
buildings
on
the
adjacent
property,
with
respect
to
the
height
of
the
building.
Section
624
of
the
district
plan
states
that
new
construction
should
not
exceed
the
ridgeline
of
the
joining
buildings.
U
The
height
of
the
new
garage
will
be
less
than
the
adjacent
buildings
at
81
king
and
significantly
less
than
the
landmark
heritage
building
at
85
king.
The
new
garage
will
be
slightly
taller
than
the
dwelling
at
46
simcoe.
However,
it
is
set
behind
the
heritage
building
as
viewed
from
simcoe
street
and
thereby
have
little
impact
on
the
heritage
value
of
this
resource
and
meets
this.
The
intent
of
this
policy
go
to
the
next
rendering,
please
section.
Seven
five
of
the
district
plan
provides
guidance
on
landscaping,
features
on
private
property.
U
This
section
speaks
specifically
to
heritage
impacts
and
conservation
of
remnant
walls
from
former
carriage
houses
and
outbuildings,
which
are
prevalent
throughout
the
district.
It
directs
that
new
construction
adjacent
to
these
walls
shall
be
set
back.
But,
interestingly,
the
hcd
plan
does
not
include
specific,
similar
guidance
for
maintenance
of
buildings
or
other
types
of
walls.
U
The
new
garages
are
not
proposed
to
be
affixed
to
these
walls,
nor
are
they
to
be
reliant
on
them
for
structural
purposes.
As
a
result,
the
stonewalls
are
not
expected
to
be
physically
impacted
by
the
new
new
construction
and
will
be
available
for
continued
maintenance,
thus
conserving
these
valued
resources
in
the
district.
U
The
so
the
proposed
garages
are
to
be
located
away
from
both
king
and
simcoe
streets
are
designed
to
minimize
their
impacts
on
the
character
of
the
district
and
flanking
landmark
heritage
buildings
by
the
use
of
glass
conservatory,
which
softens
the
massing
facing
king
street
and
a
natural
cladding
pallet,
the
wooden
stone,
the
massing
of
the
new
garage
while
substantial,
is
in
keeping
with
the
massing
of
other
buildings
in
this
area.
Thus,
meeting
the
intent
of
the
district
plan,
so
in
terms
of
our
circulation,
a
building
permit
will
be
required
from
our
land
use
team.
U
It's
noted
that
the
two
separate
properties
are
treated
as
one
for
zoning
purposes
and
an
application
for
zoning
amendment
has
been
submitted
in
order
to
address
a
number
of
performance
standards
in
the
zoning
bylaw,
including
building
height,
lock
coverage
and
setbacks
from
the
rear
and
side
yard
a
consent.
Application
may
also
be
required
to
change
the
existing
access
and
parking
easements
as
they
relate
between
85
and
a
king
and
46
simcoe,
and
a
new
site
plan.
Control
application
will
also
be
required.
U
U
However,
the
applicants
have
advised
they
they
wish
to
proceed
with
this
with
heritage
approval.
First
staff
are
recommending
the
committee
consider
whether
a
revised
proposal
to
meet
the
required
side
yard
setbacks
would
impact
any
of
the
heritage.
Considerations
noted
that
the
current
application,
since
this
proposal
may
not
receive
approval
under
the
herit
under
the
planning
act,
a
condition
has
been
included
in
our
recommendation
that
allows
approval
of
this
revision
by
the
director
planning.
U
Should
the
planning
act
application
not
be
approved,
we
did
receive
a
number
of
public
comments
as
as
part
of
this
application,
I
won't
go
through
each
one
of
the
submissions
they
are
attached
in
your
agenda
and
on
dash.
Many
of
the
authors
of
these
letters
I
believe,
are,
are
present
today
and
may
want
to
speak.
U
U
We
wish
to
note
that
the
subject
heritage
act
application
is
required
to
ensure
that
the
proposed
new
construction,
the
garage
garages,
conforms
to
the
policies
of
the
old
sydney
district
plan
and
does
not
impact
the
cultural
heritage.
Value
of
this
important
part
of
the
city,
land
use
compatibility
matters
such
as
performance
standards
like
setbacks,
vehicle
turning
radius
and
permitted
uses
are
the
subject
of
the
associated
zoning
bylaw
amendment
application
and
site
plan
control
application.
U
U
Responding
members
primarily
noted
concerns
related
to
the
height
of
the
of
the
garage
and
intensity
of
the
new
lighting,
which
were
addressed
in
our
analysis.
So
in
conclusion,
mr
chair,
maybe
we
can
skip
to
the
last
slide
with
our
recommendation.
Staff
support
this
application
and
staff
also
recommend
that
approval
be
granted.
U
B
B
D
D
It
is
understood
by
the
owner
that
planning
approval
has
to
be
gained
and
we
have
a
planner
involved
in
that.
I
also
have
with
me
today.
I
should
mention
mark
tau
and
roberto
alberto,
who
are
both
consultants
for
I'm
working
on
mr
sorenson,
the
owner's
behalf,
and
so,
if
questions
need
to
be
asked
them
they
can
they
can
answer
them
the
the
issue.
I
think
that
ryan
did
a
a
very
good
job,
describing
the
background
information
on
the
development.
D
I
think
he
correctly
described
the
complexity
and
extent
of
the
work.
There
have
been
a
number
of
opportunities,
we've
had
to
respond
back
and
forth
early
when
this
was
in
the
concept
stage
seems
years.
It
was
years
ago
where
we
discussed
the
initial
concepts
with
heritage
planners
as
to
what
we're
and
and
city
planners
as
to
what
our
intentions
were
and,
and
so
we
we
have
been
careful
to
to
be
upfront
with
what
what
we
were
looking
to
achieve
in
in
this
development.
D
D
Issue
seems
to
stem
primarily
with
maintenance
or
of
fabric
building
fabric.
Now
it
doesn't
mean
that
the
that
the
configuration
of
the
buildings
that
we
show
on
this
property
are
not
consistent
with
sydney
ward.
They
are.
They
are
not
consistent
with
the
city
bylaw,
which
is
far
more
modern
than
when
buildings
were
developed
in
this
area.
But
there
are
many
buildings
in
the
immediate
area
of
this
property
that
are
on
the
property
line
or
very
close.
The
property
line
and
and
spaces
around
buildings
are
often
quite
tight
it.
D
There
have
been
some
discussions
and
some
with
staff
of
the
possibility
of
moving
the
wall
of
the
garage
from
the
property
line
to
the
line
of
the
concrete
wall
that
is
close
to
within
about
a
foot
of
the
boundary,
the
western
boundary
of
the
property.
This
would
move
it
slightly
off
the
property
line,
but
any
more
than
that
would
begin
to
severely
inhibit
the
use
of
the
garages
as
garages
and
because
the
spaces
get
quite
more
confined
in
the
courtyard.
That's
created
most
of
the
windows
view
into
the
courtyard.
D
There
are
no
windows
on
the
property
line
that
or
even
close
the
property
line
that
view
on
directly
onto
an
adjacent
property
and
in
this
particular
development
it
is
concealed
visibly
from
most
adjacent
properties.
It
only
peaks
out
slightly
to
the
property
on
81
83,
king
of
the
conservatory
and
and
if
one
stands
quite
far
back
further
down
the
rear
gardens
of
simcoe
street
properties.
We
will
begin
to
see
where
the
upper
level
of
the
garage
has
has
been
recessed
back
and
you'll.
D
D
And
he
has
spent
upwards
of
the
million
dollars
quite
a
bit
over
a
million
dollars
to
achieve
maintenance.
That's
pointing
that's
rebuilding
porches
that
that's
re-roofing
re-slate
roofing.
He
is
very
concerned
about
maintenance,
and-
and
so
this
is,
this
is
something
that
is
always
on
our
minds
and
the
historic
fabric.
That's
on
the
perimeter
of
this
property
is
going
to
be
left
exposed
to
continue
that
maintenance.
D
Well,
okay,
so
I
would
say
that
that
the
maintenance
portion
we
have
allowed
ample
maintenance
or
fabric
between
the
properties,
as
is
identified
by
the
space.
That's
that's
remaining
for
maintenance
of
the
walls
at
8183
king.
They
have
carried
on
there
and
we've
permitted
in
our
detail
more
than
that
for
the
remaining
maintenance
to
take
place.
Z
My
objection
on
this
matter
is:
it's
not
personal
and
it's
nothing
more
than
me
wanting
to
protect
the
heritage
and
financial
value
of
my
home.
As
I'm
sure
many
of
you
are
going
to
recall,
heritage,
kingston,
very
collaboratively,
co-authored
our
heritage
works
and,
in
doing
so
granted
us
permission
fully
supported.
The
construction
of
our
carriage
house
is
an
extension
of
our
heritage
home.
Z
X
Z
September
15
2020
email
that
I
received
from
andre
shimon
who's
been
our
heritage.
Preservation
consultant
in
all
of
our
works,
wrote
to
me
on
this
matter
where
he
stated
that
there
does
have
to
be
a
way
for
owners
to
maintain
their
property,
and
if
setback
is
not
in
effect,
then
they
would
have
to
have
an
agreement
between
neighbors,
and
this
is
certainly
not
the
case
in
our
with
our
neighbor
we've.
W
Z
L
Z
How
will
he
build
his
new
structure
without
damaging
our
existing
heritage
buildings
and
those
that
attach
to
them?
Clearly,
this
application
isn't
good
heritage
stewardship.
It's
one
thing
to
inherit:
144
year
old
problem,
it's
quite
another
to
create
one.
Today
I
compliment
heritage
staff
on
how
they've
handled
this
matter.
It's.
Q
Z
I
was
happy
to
read
that
staff
shares
my
concern
that
this
could
present
challenges
for
ongoing
maintenance
and
repair
and
future
land
use
compatibility.
Given
my
most
current
experience,
this
is
certainly
be
the
case
at
the
onset
of
this
process.
I
noted
that
chairman
goer,
mr
taylor
and
ms
mcfarland
have
in
writing,
expressed
concerns
about
the
lack
of
setback,
and
I
contend.
The
setback
remains
an
issue
as
a
committee.
I
strongly
urge
you
to
consider
not
supporting
this
development
without
setback.
Z
AA
AA
AA
AA
X
Hi
everyone,
my
name,
is
alex
adams,
I'm
a
consultant
for
the
neighbors
adjacent
to
a1
king.
First
of
all,
thank
you
everyone
for
your
stamina
on
this.
It's
been
quite
a
long
morning
and
we're
going
into
the
afternoon
now.
I
just
want
to
build
on
some
of
the
comments
that
dr
derbyshire
has
made,
and
I
previously
submitted
correspondence
on
this
both
last
year
and
earlier
on
this
summer.
So
I'm
not
going
to
go
into
everything.
X
But
just
my
main
comment
really
is
that
I
just
think
the
approval
of
the
permit
in
its
current
form,
is
premature
without
knowing
the
full
extent
of
what
the
kind
of
what
the
other
land
use
issues
are,
and
I
fully
understand
their
two
separate
processes.
But
I
also
in
my
opinion
they
do
go
concurrently
as
well.
X
To
a
certain
extent,
I
mean
such
significant
reduction
in
in
a
setback
and
just
based
on
the
concepts
as
well
lack
of
landscaping
on
46,
simcoe,
etc,
and
how
the
how
the
site
will
function
as
well,
and
I
get
that
the
heritage
is
separate
and
I'm
not
here
to
comment
on
the
design
of
it
at
all.
But
the
fact
that
it
is
located
on
the
property
line
without
understanding
the
rationale
as
to
why
I
think
does
have
a
heritage.
X
Y
C
C
T
J
Yeah,
I
think
there
you
go,
we
could
have
went
back
and
forth
for
a
second
there.
Thank
you
through
you,
mr
chair.
I
just
wonder
if
I
could
get
some.
First
of
all,
I
agree
with
mr
heinemann
I'll
try
I'll
focus
on
the
heritage
aspect
and,
of
course
there
are
two
very
stunning
buildings,
the
two
properties
that
were
kind
of
the
one,
the
applicant,
as
well
as
the
neighbor
they're,
both
very
stunning
buildings
on
king
street.
J
So
it's
the
key
view
that
I'd
like
to
get
a
little
bit
more
clarity
on,
particularly
so
you
have
the
conservatory
or
the
on
the
at
the
front
on
king
street.
I
wonder
if
I,
if
we
could
try
to
imagine
what
the
wall
facing
the
neighbor
would
look
like
attached
to
the
conservatory
and
they
also
the
of
their
in
the
in
our
in
the
report
as
well
as
on
the
screen.
J
D
Ryan
the
view
from
kingston
they,
the
conservatory,
was-
was
installed
on
the
king
street
end
in
order
to
bring
the
form
to
grade.
So
it
was
less
of
a
blunt
or
face
towards
king,
even
though
it's
quite
set
back
the
western
side
of
that
conservatory
will
be
stoned
and
then
it's
intended
to
be
stone.
It's
intended
to
be
stone
on
the
83
king
street
side
as
well,
so
they
won't
be
looking
into
the
conservatory
they'll
be
looking
at
stone.
D
N
M
Yeah.
Thank
you,
mr
chair.
This
is
a
hard
decision,
a
lot
going
on
here.
I
didn't
know
all
this,
but
I
I'm
inclined
to
support
this.
This
application
and
I
do
recognize
the
the
complications,
but
I
appreciate
what
mr
heinemann
says
as
well,
and
I
think
I
think
it
probably
should
move
forward.
Thank.
C
B
L
L
Just
a
comment
ab
and
I
realize
it's
not
our
jurisdiction
about
setbacks.
But
to
me
the
there
is
possibly
a
point
in
the
old
days.
The
setback
requirement
was
not
in
existence
and
so
buildings
were
built
up
to
the
property
line
and
nowadays
that's
not
allowed,
of
course,
but
I
think
there
could
be
a
distinction
if
we're
talking
about
an
exception
or
when
would
an
exception
be
appropriate.
L
In
the
case
of
an
outbuilding,
then
it
seems
to
be
not
unreasonable
to
allow
it
to
be
built
up
to
the
property
line
where
that
property
line
is
defined
by
a
wall
in
the
case
of
a
residential
building,
then
obviously
you
do
need
a
setback,
so
you
have
access
to
the
walls
and
for
repairs
and
so
on.
So
there
is
a
difference
in
my
mind
between
the
setback
issue
between
the
81
king
side
and
the
85
king
side.
Thank.
B
E
Oh
sorry,
I
was,
I
did
it
first,
jane
first,
no,
okay
dawn
like
I
don't.
I
understand
where
mark
and
julia
are
coming
from
with
the
setback,
because
it
is
well
on
their
side.
It's
a
garage
with
some
sort
of
livable
space.
Above
it's
the
same
sort
of
building,
really
I
mean
with
one
it's
attached
to
the
house,
but
the
other
isn't.
So
I
can
understand
why
they're
upset
that
they
had
to
abide
by
these
bylaws,
I
think,
from
a
heritage
template.
E
B
H
B
B
O
In
terms
of
the
the
the
view
from
king
street,
I
would
just
note
that
that
it
is
the
it's
set
back
from
king,
so
we
don't
expect
there
to
be
like
a
conflict
with
views
of
the
existing
buildings.
We
do
think
that
that
it
works
in
fairly
well,
and
I,
if
you're
looking
for
more
detail
than
that,
we're
happy
to
to
provide
a
little
more
background
on
that
too.
Thanks.
B
Okay,
thank
you
andreas.
So
what
present
then
we're
assuming
we
can
go
back
to
the
full
screen
now
james,
so
I
can
see
everybody
please
thanks
we're
assuming,
then
that
we
are
looking
at
only
the
heritage
aspect
of
things
here.
Other
final
comments,
just
working
out
where
we
are
on
this
making
your
final
comments.
B
B
B
B
Q
Q
So,
as
we
can
see
here
on
this
map
that
didn't
render
as
well
as
I
wanted
to,
but
that's
the
life,
so
this
is
on
the
edge
of
berryfield,
so
it's
coming
right
off
of
that
highway
and
then
it's
one
of
the
first
houses
on
the
main
entrances
to
berryfield
and,
as
you
can
see
on
the
right,
these
are
both
houses.
Taken
are
both
pictures
taken
from
google
street
view
of
the
house
as
it
existed
roughly
two
years
ago.
Q
Q
So
I'm
just
going
to
be
reading
a
bit
off
the
slide
here
as
well
summarizing
certain
aspects
of
the
report.
So
in
this
case
seven
george
street
is
designated
and
it
is
actually
designated
under
part
five
of
the
ontario
heritage
act.
So
it
was
constructed
by
local
builders,
william
and
frederick
allen.
One
and
a
half
story.
Q
So
when
looking
at
that,
the
garage
is
not
mentioned
at
all
in
terms
of
the
heritage
attributes
for
the
property
itself,
so
it
is
not
mentioned
in
the
heritage,
conservation,
district,
property
evaluation
and
the
garage
is
not
considered
a
heritage
building.
However,
as
we
all
know,
changes
to
properties
that
are
designated
even
accessory
buildings
like
a
garage
can
have
an
impact
on
the
character
of
the
property
itself
and
the
neighborhood
around
it.
So
that
was
the
lens
that
was
used
when
evaluating
the
appropriateness
of
the
alterations.
Q
Q
Q
They
will
be
adding
new
windows
to
match
the
existing
historically
accurate
main
house,
but
the
colors
are
yet
to
be
determined
and
a
new,
french
and
stable
inspired
doors
are
also
proposed
to
be
put
in,
and
a
new
wood
siding
and
fresh
coat
of
paint
instead
of
staining
color
also
to
be
determined,
and
then
there
will
be
a
change
in
roof
drainage,
which
is
actually
regarding
that
letter
that
was
sent
in
as
an
addendum
to
the
report
itself.
Talking
about
neighborhood
support
next
slide.
Q
Q
Okay,
so
the
goal
of
this
revitalization
process
is
to
turn
this
garage
into
a
fully
insulated,
heated
and
finished
ceramic
studio.
That
would
be
a
small
workshop
and
have
a
storage
loft
above
the
garage
is
a
non-heritage
building,
but
as
mentioned
earlier,
it
could
affect
the
district
character.
A
new
foundation
requires
replacement
due
to
it
being
cracked.
The
location
will
be
the
same
as
it
is
currently
sitting
there.
Q
This
increased
type
will
not
frustrate,
quote,
unquote,
significant
views.
This
includes
the
church,
and
this
includes
the
staging
grounds
where
military
practices
were
done.
Historically
speaking,
the
new
roof
slope
will
be
done
to
reflect
the
main
gable
of
the
house
and
was
chosen
to
remedy
the
existing
contemporary
suburban
appearance
and
to
minimize
shadow
impacts
on
neighboring
properties
that
could
reor
that
could
result
from
a
reorientation
of
the
building
itself
and
the
existing
asphalt
shingle
roof
is
in
good
condition,
so
it
will
be
remaining
next
slide.
Q
B
Q
Right,
so
this
is
a
little
bit
more
information,
specifically
looking
at
the
windows
doors.
There
will
be
pictures
following
in
just
a
moment
from
the
site
visit
itself,
so
the
new
windows
and
doors
are
going
to
be
proposed
for
this
property.
Again,
colors
will
be
determined
and
the
colors
that
are
being
determined
are
subject
to
heritage
staff
approval.
So
when
the
colors
are
actually
chosen,
conditions
have
been
added
to
the
report
that
will
actually
have
to
confirm
that
is
suitable
for
the
building
itself
in
the
district
as
a
whole.
Q
Q
The
doors
on
the
the
doors
for
the
main
garage
entrance
will
be
replaced
with
stable
doors
with
half
glass,
as
in
seen
in
the
rendering
right
above
there,
and
this
is
to
be
consistent
with
other
berry
field
garage
doors.
So
all
windows-
minus
the
one
that
has
a
slight
half
circle
on
the
near
the
peak
of
the
roof-
will
be
vertical
and
rectangular
dimensions,
which
represents
the
generally
accepted
windows
for
the
berryfield
conservation
district,
and
the
rounded
window
was
chosen
to
emulate
a
window
on
the
principal
heritage.
Building
on
the
property
next
slide.
Q
Q
All
right,
so
this
is
this
discussion
partially
deals
like
almost
exclusively
with
the
drainage
issue.
That's
existing
on
the
property
today
as
we
speak,
so
this
is
proposed
to
improve
the
existing
drainage
situation
by
adding
a
roof.
Each
drop
eastrough
and
the
projection
onto
the
neighboring
property
will
be
at
the
discretion
of
the
neighbors
and,
as
you
can
see,
with
that
letter
that
was
provided
as
an
addendum.
The
neighbor
is
supportive
of
changes
to
the
garage.
Q
An
alternative,
though,
if
there
are
issues
with
the
neighbors
is
that
they
will
be
adding
a
hidden
gutter
built
behind
the
fascia
to
avert
a
fascia
apologize
to
divert
water
from
seven
george
street's
patio,
and
there
will
there
be
due
to
the
fact
that
is
being
set
back
from
the
front
building
itself,
and
that
is
not
as
prominent
of
the
building
surrounding
it.
This
likely
this
potential
visual
disruption
would
likely
be
minimal.
Q
The
property
itself
is
a
archaeological
archaeologically,
sensitive
area
and,
as
the
garage
is
replacing
its
foundation,
there
is,
of
course,
potential
to
disrupt
the
existing
soil,
since
the
garage
is
proposed
to
go
into
the
same
exact
location.
At
this
time.
An
assessment
is
not
required,
however.
Q
A
condition
has
been
added
to
the
report,
noting
that
if
the
proposed
foundation
exceeds
the
existing
area
and
archaeological
assessment
of
the
entire
property,
not
just
the
garage
will
be
required
at
city,
heritage
staff,
discretion
and
the
reason
that
we're
saying
the
entire
property
is
because
for
berryfield,
when
one
part
of
the
property
is
assessed,
they've
been
assessing
the
entire
property,
so
that
we
would
want
to
be
consistent
with
our
past
approaches
here.
If
that
was
required
next
slide,
please.
Q
All
right,
so
the
main
fence
alterations
that
are
being
anticipated
are
to
replace
sections
of
the
fence
for
a
more
unified
look,
and
this
would
be
in
particular.
If
you
look
at
the
bottom
right
picture
there,
where
it
shows
a,
it
shows
the
white
fence,
and
then
it
shows
like
a
it,
looks
like
cut
normal
cut
wood.
That's
not
painted.
Q
That
would
be
the
part
of
the
fence
that
they
are
trying
to
replace
and
add
for
accessibility,
be
slightly
widened,
and
then
it
would
be
made
to
look
very
similar
to
the
existing
fences
there
and
improve
an
existing
non-visual,
consistent
fence
per
se.
And
then,
if
you're,
looking
at
the
bottom
left
picture
there,
they
wanted
to
add
an
additional
fence
area
to
that
to
increase
their
privacy,
and
it
would
also
be
hiding
the
gravel
roadway.
That
would
also
be
there
too.
Q
So
all
fences
are
proposed
to
be
within
one
meter
in
height,
which
is
the
district's
requirement.
The
existing
hedges
there
are
to
remain,
as
they
help
properly
define
the
property
itself.
In
addition
to
the
fences
there
and
the
gate
near
the
northern
portion
of
the
property.
That
is
not
the
driveway,
as
I
mentioned
earlier,
is
to
increase
accessibility
and
we've
already
talked
about
defense
southeast.
Q
That
will
be
increasing
privacy
and
of
note,
despite
these
fences,
technically
projecting
onto
city
property,
the
fence
addition
on
the
bottom
left
image
is
proposed
because
it
will
be
in
line
with
the
other
existing
fence
that
is
currently
still
on
city
property
and
believe
it
or
not.
That
is
actually
one
of
the
heritage.
Attributes
of
the
property
is
that
there
are
certain
aspects
of
the
property
that
are
on
cityland
and
next
slide.
Please.
Q
Q
Q
Q
It
also
talks
about
the
requirement
to
apply
for
an
encroachment
permit
for
the
fence,
that's
on
city
property,
so
we
have
a
record
of
it
and
another
big
one,
of
course,
is
that
we
want
to
be
the
city
wants
to
the
city.
Heritage
staff
needs
to
be
provided
with
the
proposed
colors
in
those
three
major
sections,
because
those
have
not
been
decided
upon
at
this
time
for
approval,
and
so
those
are
the
major
highlights
in
terms
of
the
recommended
conditions,
and
with
that
in
mind,
I
will
leave
it
to
everyone
else.
B
Good,
thank
you
very
much,
philip.
Thank
you
james.
Can
you
members,
please
confirm
your
dash
comments.
Any
concerns
with
those
and
seeing
nobody,
members
of
the
public,
making
comments
and
asked
questions.
I
remind
you
already
have
the
letter
from
the
neighbor
approving
of
the
work
that's
being
done.
Do
we
have.
B
Excellent
to
remind
you
that
this
is
a
part
five,
so
the
motion
will
be
moved
seconded
and
cannot
be
amended
or
deferred.
Looking
for
a
mover
for
seven
george
street
jeremy
was
first-hand
councillor.
Dockety
was
a
second-hand
discussion
and
seeing
none,
if
you
can
vote
by
waving
those
in
favor,
oh
very
good
and
those
opposed
there
will
be
nobody,
because
all
the
hands
were
up
that
is
carried.
B
U
B
T
B
So
the
next
meeting
november
18
need
a
mover
and
a
second
for
adjournment.
If
you
wish
to
adjourn,
oh
look
at
that
councillor
zuckerty
and
kelly
heinemann
in
favor
of
adjourning
opposed.
Thank
you
all
so
so
much
that's
12
51
and
three
and
a
half
hours.
That's
the
longest!
We've
ever
done
on
the
zoom
and
my
eyes
are
starting
to
get
crossed
they're.
Making
some
of
yours
are
as
well,
but
thank
you,
and
especially
thank
you,
elizabeth
and
james.
For
for
your
help
and
ryan
and
all
of
your
staff
take
care.