►
Description
Heritage Kingston meeting from - December 20, 2017. For the full meeting agenda visit https://goo.gl/NP6Xrr
A
A
B
So
we're
called
to
order
and
we
have
an
agenda.
It's
a
typical
format.
Just
point
out:
there
are
things
in
the
working
group
reports.
There's
a
couple
of
reports
there
and
there's
a
few
applications
for
heritage
permits.
There's
there's
the
report
on
the
grants,
changes
and
there's
been
no
proposed
additions
from
staff,
since
this
was
published,
is
need.
A
mover
and
a
seconder
to
get
the
agenda
on
the
floor,
moved
by
Katherine
seconded
by
Peter.
Are
there
any
proposed
changes
to
the
agenda?
Yes,
right
now,
rules.
B
B
B
B
D
For
the
property
at
488,
Division
Street,
it's
a
part
for
designated
property,
and
it's
located
on
the
west
side
of
division
between
concession
and
guy
Street.
So
one
and
a
half
story,
limestone
house
that
was
constructed
between
1860
and
1878,
and
this
application
has
been
submitted
to
request
permission
to
make
a
number
of
alterations
to
a
later
piece
of
the
addition.
D
That's
attached
to
the
rear
of
the
main
limestone
dwelling,
and
these
alterations
are
being
requested
following
the
removal
of
several
large
and
unsympathetic,
modern
additions
that
were
located
between
this
original
limestone
piece
of
the
dwelling
and
a
log
cabin
that
had
been
in
the
rear
yard.
And
these
are
to
accommodate
the
renovation
of
the
dwelling
into
two
rental
units.
D
So
it
should
be
noted
that
the
log
cabin
that
was
a
heritage
attribute
of
the
property
was
demolished
without
permission
and
in
order
to
bring
the
property
into
compliance
with
the
Ontario
Heritage
Act
for
the
alterations
that
have
begun.
The
owner
is
now
requesting
permission
for
these
alterations,
including
the
replacement
of
vinyl
siding
some
existing
vinyl
windows
with
new
vinyl
units,
as
well
as
the
construction
of
a
rear
deck
of
secondary
vestibule
and
two
doors.
D
All
at
the
rear
of
the
house
on
the
south
side
of
the
house,
the
owner
is
required
to
install
a
new
emergency
hatch
for
the
basement
unit
to
comply
with
Ontario
Building
Code,
and
they
wish
to
modify
the
existing
modern
vinyl
windows
by
raising
the
bottom
sill
and
in
filling
the
space
with
reclaimed
limestone.
This
application
also
includes
a
request
to
installed
two
small
wooden
porches
at
each
entrance
on
the
front,
facade
and
replace
the
small
portion
of
vinyl
siding
beneath
the
eaves
on
the
southern
stone
wing,
with
great
inted
lime,
stucco.
D
D
The
statement
of
cultural
heritage
value
notes
this
property
as
having
historical
and
associative
value
through
its
connection
with
John
Bryant
jr..
He
was
a
stone
dealer,
a
farmer
and
a
quarry
man
whose
career
may
have
played
a
role
in
in
the
construction
of
this
building.
The
baile
also
notes
that
the
property
has
a
rural
in
agricultural
history.
As
a
former
chicken
hatchery,
the
property
would
have
been
located
just
outside
the
Kingston
proper,
and
this
property
is
a
remaining
example
of
that
rural
character.
D
So
the
removal
of
the
unsympathetic,
modern
additions
at
the
rear
of
the
limestone
house
has
exposed
the
roofline
and
rear
facade
of
what
was
likely
a
mid
nineteen
mid
20th
century
addition.
So,
prior
to
its
removal
staff,
attended
a
site
visit
with
the
owner
and
were
able
to
document
the
property,
including
these
REO
additions.
D
The
owner
has
indicated
that
when
the
additions
were
removed
of
a
vinyl
siding
similar
to
what
is
on
the
south
side
of
the
building
was
already
in
place
on
most
of
the
rear
and
North
facade.
So
the
owner
is
requesting
permission
to
continue.
This
continue
to
replace
the
siding
with
new
beige-colored
siding.
D
These
portions
of
the
house
also
include
several
modern
window
openings
in
the
which
the
owner
has
indicated
already
exist,
and
he
he
wishes
to
replace
them
with
vinyl
units
replace
the
vinyl
units
with
new
vinyl
units,
and
so,
while
vinyl
windows
aren't
typically
recommended
for
heritage
buildings.
This
section
is
not
original
to
the
is
not
original
and
the
property
and
has
been
altered
at
several
points
in
its
history.
The
rear
facade
has
until
recently,
also
being
covered.
D
The
owner
also
wishes
to
construct
a
vestibule
at
the
rear
as
an
entranceway
to
the
basement
unit,
as
well
as
a
rear
deck.
This
entrance
will
also
not
be
visible
from
the
street
as
it
will
be
considerably
lower
than
the
rear,
and
then
the
roofline
of
the
main
dwelling,
the
entranceway,
will
be
cloud
in
a
matching
beige,
vinyl
siding
and
will
feature
black
asphalt,
shingles,
which
is
consistent
with
the
roofing
of
the
main
dwelling.
D
On
the
South
facade,
the
owners
proposing
to
provide
better
security
for
this
section
of
the
house,
they're
proposing
to
shorten
these
windows
and
replace
the
existing
narrow
windows,
as
well
as
the
emergency
hatch
staff,
have
included
a
condition
to
require
that
only
sections
where
there
are
vinyl
siding
on
the
stone
are
ready
anywhere
any
areas
where
stone
exists.
The
stone
should
be
left,
exposed
and
repaired
where
necessary.
D
D
On
the
front
facade,
the
owner
is
proposing
to
replace
an
existing
section
of
vinyl
siding
with
new
stucco
siding
to
match
the
limestone
of
the
main
dwelling
and
staff
have
recommended
the
owner
explore
a
matching
limestone
in
place
of
the
stucco.
However,
given
the
stucco
is
a
traditional
material
staff
are
supportive
that
it
will
be
compatible
with
the
limestone
in
keeping
with
the
character
of
the
dwelling.
D
The
application
also
includes
a
request
to
install
two
new
porches
on
the
front
facade.
These
porches
are
proposed
to
be
as
simple
wood
design,
with
3
steps
leading
up
to
the
door.
The
porch
of
the
main
entrance
is
proposed
to
be
symmetrical
with
two
sets
of
steps
leading
to
the
central
landing.
In
order
to
echo
the
symmetry
of
the
facade,
a
porch
has
proposed
the
secondary
entrance
with
a
small
landing
area.
D
However,
with
only
one
set
of
steps,
as
this
design
will
be
low
and
in
a
material
that's
compatible
with
the
character
of
the
building,
it
will
not
detract
from
the
Heritage
attributes
of
the
limestone
house.
Staff
have
recommended
that
the
design
for
the
railings
be
simple
with,
but
a
turn
design
and
should
have
neutral
have
a
neutral
paint
scheme.
So
it's
not
to
draw
attention
from
the
original
building
throughout
this
review
of
the
Heritage
permit.
D
The
applicant
has
indicated
that
the
railings
actually
may
not
be
required
at
all
under
the
Ontario
Building
Code,
so
they
may
consider
having
only
one
step
in
the
front
yard
and
staff
support
both
of
these
proposals,
as
the
removal
of
the
railings
will
allow
for
the
vasana.
The
building
to
be
viewed
more
clearly
from
the
street.
D
D
This
application
was
circulated
to
heritage
Kingston.
We
staff
received
a
number
of
comments
in
response
to
the
circulation.
This
application
actually
went
through
two
rounds
of
technical
circulations
following
the
first,
the
risk
confusion
about
what
was
happening
and
we
organised
a
site
visit
with
a
number
of
members
on
the
committee,
and
so,
following
that
site
visit,
we
received
two
comments
from
two
members.
D
One
member
asked
for
clarification
on
the
proposal
to
repair
the
windows
and
staff
clarified
that,
in
order
to
help
secure
the
building
a
separate
permit,
application
had
been
submitted
to
facilitate
this
work
on
the
windows
the
owner
provided
documentation
to
demonstrate.
The
windows
could
not
be
repaired
and
proposed
to
reinstate
new
wood
windows
in
the
same
six
over
six
style
that
would
have
been
in
the
house
originally
for
all
the
openings
in
the
stone
portion
of
the
house.
D
The
Heritage
permit
for
the
windows
also
reap
also
permitted
the
reinstatement
of
vinyl
windows
in
the
vinyl,
clad
portion
of
the
building
on
the
north
facade,
as
well
as
replacement
of
two
front
doors,
with
new
six
panel
doors
with
aluminum
cladding.
This
member
also
requested
further
details
on
the
railing
proposed
for
the
porches
and
expressed
concern
with
the
proposed
design
staff
have
stressed
the
importance
for
caring
and
enhancing.
They
heard
ajosh
piece
of
the
building
and
have
forwarded
a
list
of
local
contractors
who
specialized
in
heritage
buildings.
D
At
the
time
this
report
was
finalized,
the
owner
was
removing
those
railings
from
the
front
porch.
However,
if
they
were
required,
they
would
be
as
simple
wood
design
to
distinguish
them
from
the
original
building.
Staff
have
included
a
condition
of
approval
to
require
the
paint
samples,
be
provided
the
building
permit
stage
and
have
suggested
a
two-tone
gray
and
white
scheme
similar
to
the
neighboring
property.
D
D
That
the
complexity
of
this
file,
given
the
owner,
has
permanently
removed
a
heritage
attribute
without
permission.
Given
the
situation
he
suggested
moving
forward,
any
proposed
alterations
should
fully
conform
with
the
windows
policy
and
other
applicable
guidelines
for
heritage
designation
properties.
D
Staff
were
sorry.
This
member
also
suggested
that
a
strict
interpretation
of
the
windows
policy
should
be
implemented,
noting
that
the
windows
were
original
and
should
be
retained,
he
suggested
the
windows
could
be
replaced
if
a
windows
expert
could
recommend
that
and
suggested
options
for
aluminum
storms.
D
So,
in
conclusion,
staff
recommend
approval
of
this
application
subject
to
the
conditions
outlined
in
this
report,
and
there
are
several
from.
There
are
no
objections
from
a
built
heritage
perspective
and
no
concerns
were
raised
from
internal
departments.
So
this
is
a
part
four
application.
So
we're
happy
to
take
questions
at
this
time:
Thank
You
McKenzie,
so.
B
D
G
D
I
C
D
C
K
L
Just
so
that
I'm
understanding
recommendation
for
is
that
where
the
windows
are
coming
in
the
renovation
of
the
limestone
facade
on
the
South
facade
to
facilitate
shorter,
more
traditional
style
windows,
know,
then
that
does
so
I'm
trying
to
figure
out
in
the
recommendation
where
the
new
windows
on
the
east
side,
which
is
the
very
front,
are
coming
into.
The
recommendation.
D
M
D
D
B
Yes,
so
members
of
the
public-
maybe
if
you
could
just
keep
track
of
any
questions
where
we're
going
that
way
and
then
when
remember
the
public
can
have
an
opportunity
to
speak.
They
can
address
all
those
concerns.
So
just
just
yeah,
you
can
remind
maybe
remind
them
before
he
speaks
if
they
come
we'll
just
finish
with
questions
now,
if
you
have
questions
to
anyone
other
than
staff
will
just
take
make
note
of
them
and
have
them
addressed
at
a
later
time.
Yes,
Kathleen.
H
N
B
B
B
O
Thank
You
mr.
chair,
thank
you
for
the
report
and
the
presentation,
very
thorough
presentation
and
report
and
excellent
quality
engineering.
Drawings.
Wait
for
a
very
problematic
project,
so
I
think
that's
really
been
high
quality
work.
Liam
mention
was
made
of
the
log
cabin
that
was
demolished
to
the
permission
and
I'm
wondering
if
there
are
any
consequences
to
the
owner
for
doing
that.
I
said
we
can't
go
back
I'm
concerned
that
there's
some
of
these
some
practical
plumbing
issues
you're
trying
to
make
the
what
was
really
a
disaster.
Building
up
I
live
quite
near
there.
O
I
walked
by
it
and
often
curious
as
to
how
it
was
going
to
go
so
I'm,
really
supportive
of
the
work
that's
gone
on
and
it's
it's
challenging
for
sure
mention
that
there's
going
to
be
a
accommodation
in
the
basement
and
I'm
wondering
if
this
is
a
basement
or
a
sour
prosecution.
As
there
is
a
difference
there
and
there's
a
one
curious
question
in
the
report.
It
says
that
we
it
would,
it
would
have
been
classified
in
Pittsburgh
Township
before
and
I'm
wondering
if
that
should
be
Kingston
Township.
So
I
just
thought.
O
Pittsburgh
was
on
the
sort
of
the
north
and
east
of
the
main
part
of
the
city
of
Kingston,
so
just
a
small
point
just
wish
the
applicant
and
his
staff
on
the
project
all
the
best.
This
is
a
service
file
also
has
sort
of
like
a
almost
gone
/,
that's
being
reclaimed.
It
was
really
a
unless
they
told
disaster
for
a
long
time,
so
really
great
work
to
get
that
reclaimed.
Thank.
C
B
P
Through
mr.
chair
with
respect
to
the
log
cabin
the
city's
pursuing
that
mattered
through
a
legal
process,
the
other
come
and
say,
I
didn't
catch.
The
second
comment,
so
I
may
leave
that
one
to
McKenzie
just
to
respond
to
with
respect
to
the
occupancy
of
the
basement
or
cellar
that
the
occupancy
will
be
compliant
with
cantorial
ding
code
and
I.
Think
there
was
a
comment
or
question
about
where
this
sits
relative
to
former
township
boundaries.
I,
don't
know
that
that's
relevant,
but
I
believe
it
was
it's
in
the
form
of
City
of
Kingston.
B
C
Just
one
comment
to
start
with
about
the,
but
the
seller
has
to
comply,
though
BC
I
know
you
have
to
have
access
to
the
seller,
but
it
doesn't
have
to
be
in
that
side
wall.
It
could
be
in
the
floor
from
the
inside
or
it
could
be
in
the
back
of
the
house,
he's
what
I
thought.
What
I
think
the
the
owner
is
talking
about
was
was
a
wood,
clad
metal
which
is
really
a
piece
of
plywood
with
metal
on
it.
C
You
know,
and
that
doesn't
seem
very
slightly
on
the
side
of
the
wall
that
you
would
be
able
to
see.
He
certainly
could
put
the
hatch
hole
in
from
the
floor
above
yes,
I
have
access
to,
but
it
doesn't
have
to
be
in
the
outside
or
around
the
side.
So
I,
that's
one
recommendation.
I
would
make
the
windows
in
the
end.
The
show
me
this.
The
the
Diaz's
photograph
of
the
south
side.
C
So
when
you
look
at
those
windows,
they
don't
rely
on
up
with,
what's
shown
here
in
the
drawings
I
mean
the
windows
are
the
same
shape
but
they're
clearly
reframing
them,
so
if
they
can
reframe
them,
I
just
find
those
through
angular
windows
to
be
totally
inappropriate.
Why?
Wouldn't
they
just
I'm,
just
I'm
you're
thinking
to
leave
them
right
where
they
are?
We
can't
read
you
anything
about
it.
C
D
G
You
know
I
guess
the
window
situation
is
is
a
bit
unfortunate,
but
I
would
certainly
prefer
that
the
windows
in
the
stone
part
of
the
extension
should
should
match
the
front
windows
that
is
six
over
six,
because
they
they
look
appropriate.
You
can
from
the
street.
You
see
both
the
front
and
the
side
at
the
same
time.
G
B
D
Given
Thank
You
mr.
chair,
given
that
these
windows
are
already
modern
openings,
we
didn't
feel
it
was
reasonable
to
require
a
similar
style
to
the
front.
However,
we
could
include
an
option,
as
part
of
the
conditions
to
consider
for
the
applicant
to
consider
the
six
over
six
style
in
this
location
as
well.
B
G
D
I
B
A
B
Yes,
I'll
just
explain
so
if
we
pass
this
amendment,
then
it's
a
suggestion
to
consider.
Maybe
the
six
pane
like
like
this
window
here
behind
you,
six
over
six
design
the
front
end
so
that
the
front
and
back
windows
match
up
in
only
in
the
stone
portion
at
the
bottom.
It's
it's
up
its.
You
have
the
final
decision,
but
it
would
be
a
suggestion.
B
C
C
And
there
is
action,
there's
that
key
existing
window
on
the
back
of
the
house.
It
would
be,
you
know,
fairly
easy
to
it
said
on
the
plan
chosen.
The
plans
are
an
existing
window
in
the
back
that
they're
closing
up,
they
could
make
you
know
easily
making
a
hedge
hole
and
then
the
old
be
filled
in
at
limestone.
B
P
You
mr.
chair,
suggest,
in
speaking
with
the
applicant
I,
understand
that
physically
there's
not
an
ability
to
put
the
hatch
at
the
back
through
the
I
understand
the
structural
components
of
the
back
wall,
preclude
the
ability
to
put
a
hole
in
the
back
and
similarly,
to
put
that
much
to
put
the
hatch
on
the
inside.
Just
in
terms
of
the
way
the
floor
plans
been
arranged
with
respect
to
it.
P
It's
a
bedroom
and
there's
a
unit
in
in
the
basement
that
would
be
entering
into
a
separate
unit,
potentially
so
there's
a
bit
of
a
conflict
there.
If
there's
a
way,
we
can
make
the
hatch
work
where
it's
proposed.
I
think
that
would
be
the
best
option
for
the
constraints
available
to
the
property.
But
we
could
look
at
colors
and
finishing
it
that
helps.
B
C
P
Through
you,
mr.
chair
I
may,
just
in
speaking
with
the
applicant
here,
I
understand
that
if,
if
there's
a
concern
with
the
hatch
and
if
it
prevents
us
from
potentially
making
a
decision
today
or
recommendation,
he'd
be
willing
to
close
in
that
access
to
the
cellar
and
simply
not
established
the
cellar
or
the
the
basement
as
an
occupiable
space
for
the
short
term
and
then
in
the
future.
P
If
we
need
to
come
back
to
committee
to
look
at
an
alteration
to
allow
for
the
occupancy
of
the
basement,
then
we
could
do
that
through
a
separate
process.
The
I
think
the
immediate
interest
is
in
getting
the
upper
portion
suited
for
occupancy,
so
the
the
basement
can
be
cordoned
off
for
the
purposes
of
seeing
this
application
advanced.
C
Not
requite
sure
rather
would
hold
it
up.
I
mean
there's
certainly
ways
of
getting
through
it,
but
I
guess
I
also
could
live
with
something.
It
wasn't
just
a
piece
of
aluminum
covering
up
a
piece
of
plywood.
You
was
like
you
know,
board-and-batten
or
something
like
that.
There
at
least
be
relevant
to
the
area.
I
mean
the
piece
of
plywood
covered
with
metals,
just
gonna.
Look
like
crap
I'm,.
C
B
I'm
wondering
Mac
if
we
can
put
in
a
an
amendment
that
would
require
that,
like
we
need
I,
guess
we
need
to
do.
We
need
to
decide
as
a
committee
if
we're
okay,
with
the
with
there
being
a
hatch
in
the
street
facade
and
then
we
need
I
guess
the
amendment
needs
to
be
worded
in
such
a
way
that
improves
the
look
right.
So
I
don't
know
if
we
need
to
call
it
a
short
recess
that
would
be
appropriate
unless
you
have
it
right
now.
B
A
I
L
C
L
B
Just
yeah
just
to
clarify
so
staff
would
of
course
make
sure
that
any
recommendation
would
be
compliant
with
all
legislation,
including
fire
requirements
and
so
on
yeah.
So
that's
a
normal
normal
process.
Okay,
so
we
have
an
amendment
on
the
floor.
Any
debate
I
think
it's
clear
that
the
purpose
of
the
amendment
seeing
none
will
vote
on
the
amendment.
I'll
just
have
the
clerk
could
read
it
one
more
time
that.
A
B
P
Your
mr.
chair
I,
just
wonder
if
the
committee
would
entertain
maybe
another
option
tied
to
that
I'm.
Sorry,
I
didn't
catch
you
in
time
to
be
able
to
suggest
this,
but
the
proponent
is
willing
to
enclose
the
hatch
and
look
at
an
opportunity
that
would
allow
for
it
to
be
established
on
the
terior.
So
I
wonder
if
we
could
have
that
as
an
option,
provided
it
meets
the
building
code
requirements,
it
might
actually
benefit
the
building
okay.
So
we
just.
B
I
B
I
B
C
I
B
B
B
B
Q
Sorry
about
that
Thank
You
mr.
chair,
so
this
application
is
at
1:00,
King,
Street
East,
it's
located
in
McDonald
Park,
and
it's
regarding
the
Richardson
bathhouse.
The
subject.
Property
includes
a
number
of
structures
included
in
the
1896
New
Orleans
pavilion,
the
bathhouse
itself,
built
in
1919
the
1925
cross
of
sacrifice,
the
Gaskin
lion
that
was
donated
in
1909
and
the
Frances
Willard
memorial
fountain
from
1939.
The
Mirnyi
Tower
is
located
it's
in
the
middle
of
this
property.
Q
However,
it's
on
a
separate
holding
owned
by
the
federal
government,
but
today
the
specific
application
deals
with
the
Richardson
bathhouse.
The
applicants
have,
which
is
the
city
Kingston,
have
applied
for
a
number
of
restoration
and
alterations
to
this
building,
including
repointing,
repairing
and
cleaning
all
masonry,
repairs
to
wooden
features,
including
windows
and
soffits
repainting
all
painted
surfaces,
repairing
clay
roof
as
necessary
and
in
filling
the
former
canteen
and
window
on
the
western
wall
of
the
villa.
There
are
also
extensive
interior
renovations
to
this.
Q
Building
that
are
proposed
are
Terra
interior
alterations
on
this
particular
property
are
not
subject
to
Heritage
Act
approvals,
so
the
subject
property
is
designated
under
part.
Four.
It
was
designated
originally
in
1984,
the
Newland
pavilion
again
in
1984
for
the
Richardson
bathhouse.
Those
were
amended
in
2007
and
also
added
a
number
of
other
features
to
the
Heritage
attributes
list.
Q
And,
of
course,
this
property
is
in
the
old
city
heritage,
Conservation
District,
which
was
designated
night
in
2015
and,
as
I
mentioned,
the
Mirnyi
towers
is
separate,
holding
it's
a
National,
Historic
Site
and
part
of
the
World
Heritage
Site,
the
but
Richardson
bathhouse
itself
was
designed
by
Toronto
architect,
Barnard
Park
in
1918.
It
was
donated
by
the
Richardson
family
in
memory
of
George
Richardson,
who
was
killed
in
action
in
1916,
and
the
heritage
attribute
says:
building
include
the
stone
walls
and
the
bracketed
hoods
of
the
windows,
the
chimneys,
etc,
etc.
Q
The
most
significant
alteration
before
us
today
is
the
removal
and
infilling
of
the
western
canteen
window
and
door,
which
was
added
in
1970s.
The
proposal
is
to
return
this
facade
to
its
original
appearance
with
a
window
near
the
cornice
line
and
limestone
infilling.
So
I
won't
go
through
great
detail
on
the
alterations
themselves.
Manager,
Neil,
don't
Worth
is
here
for
Parks
Department
to
walk
you
through.
Some
of
those
a
little
more
detail,
we
did
circulate
this
application
to
our
internal
departments.
Building
permits
are
required.
Q
We
did
have
a
comment
from
forestry,
that
there
are
a
number
of
mature
trees
and
they're
looking
for
details
on
tree
protection,
which
will
be
done
as
part
of
this
project.
This
was
also
circulated
to
this
committee
and
we
do
receive
no
no
concerns
from
members.
So,
mr.
chair,
we
recommend
approval
of
this.
Mr.
just
to
walk
you
through
the
bigger
picture.
R
Thank
You
Ryan
for
the
committee
to
the
renovation
of
the
of
the
property
has
been
done
in
in
part
over
the
years.
In
the
last
10
years,
there's
been
interior
renovations
to
comply
with
accessibility
requirements
under
local
policies
and
changing
standards
with
provincial
accesses
for
Ontarians,
with
Disabilities
Act
and
the
Building
Code.
They
are
now
out
of
date
again
and
also
in
in
need
of
upgrades
through
lifecycle
expectancy.
The
other
issues
we're
dealing
with
in
the
building
are
some
HVAC
systems.
R
The
boiler
hasn't
functioned
in
years
and
general
wear
and
tear
on
the
building
it's
time
for
a
renovation.
So
when
looking
at
that,
we've,
we
evaluated
the
opportunities
to
renovate
the
building
and
bring
them
up
to
modern
standards
and
the
accessibility
policies
that
the
city
has
under
the
facilities.
Excels.
R
Accessibility,
design
guidelines
require
that
we
create
washrooms
and
change
rooms
that
accommodate
people
with
disabilities
and
the
prescriptive
spaces
are
very
specific
and
in
addition
to
a
male
and
a
female
side,
they
also
require,
if
it's
possible,
that
we
provide
a
washroom
for
universal
use
and
so
with
the
modifications
to
the
building,
we
were
able
to
achieve.
All
of
that,
the
the
space
that
was
formerly
used
as
a
canteen
is
required
for
the
purpose
of
accommodating
all
of
those
functions
and
I
can
speak
about
the
removal
of
the
canteen
space
and
a
subsequent
slide.
R
The
interior
vestibule
is
also
for
access
and
gathering
and
the
amount
of
expected
use
of
the
space
it's
compact
at
the
moment,
and
we
believe
that
by
improving
the
circulation
in
and
out
of
the
washrooms
and
changing
spaces
by
the
removing
of
the
privacy
wing
walls
that
extend
into
the
central
for
the
central
vestibule
that
we'll
be
able
to
create
a
sort
of
more
regular
space
that
the
public
can
gather
in
there
are
existing
interior
finishes.
That
will
make
every
effort
to
try
and
reclaim
and
resolve
äj--.
R
R
R
So
that's
the
other
issue
that
we're
facing
in
a
lot
of
our
remote
more
remote
park
sites
is
that
they're
they're,
just
not
enough
traffic
to
sustain
a
business
in
the
due
to
the
cost
and
overhead
of
running
a
small
vending
business
these
days
in
comparison
to
what
what
it
might
have
been
40
years
ago.
People
won't
have
more
costs
and
more
exposure,
and
they
they
perhaps
are
not
willing
to
work
for
for
less
that
vending
opportunity
would
continue
on
the
site,
but
again
it
would
be
off
site.
R
It
would
be
out
of
the
building
on
that,
essentially
at
in
the
location
where
the
canteen
window
currently
faces.
There's
a
large
plaza,
that's
been
developed,
so,
as
you
can
see,
the
upper
part
of
the
canteen
window
is
clearly
one
of
the
original
openings.
You
can
see
the
cut
jam
stones
or
the
coin
stones
on
the
corner
of
the
upper
opening
and
then
the
lower
masonry
work
that
was
done
essentially
interrupted.
R
R
R
So
the
waterfront
master
plan,
which
is
approved
by
City
Council,
identifies
the
use
of
public
space
along
the
waterfront
for
the
display
of
public
art.
Part
of
the
problem
on
our
waterfront
and
public
pathways
and
park
systems
is
that
all
of
the
opportunities
to
display
public
art,
with
the
exception
of
the
Tet
Center,
are
outdoors
and
that
limits
the
kind
of
public
art
you
can
install.
We
are
excited
about
the
idea
of
opening
up
the
upper
mezzanine
area
into
a
public
art
display
space.
R
It's
interesting
as
the
potters
guild
is
celebrating
their
50th
anniversary.
We
believe
in
the
next
season
or
two
and
their
first
season.
They
actually
programmed
in
that
second
floor
in
that
second
floor
space
of
the
of
the
bathhouse.
So
they
have
a
bit
of
an
emotional
tie
and
a
history
to
the
space.
R
So
the
upper
space
is
is
not
feasible
to
be
made
accessible
for
public
use
in
programming.
It
would
basically
eat
up
too
much
of
the
real
estate
in
order
to
at
folks
excessively
up
to
that
space
and
there
wouldn't
be
a
lot
of
room
left
on
the
second
story.
The
other
issue
for
us
in
this
space
is
sat
dormant
for
over
25
years.
R
So
for
for
as
part
of
making
the
decision
to
abandon
or
open
up
the
second-story,
we
had
to
weigh
that
went
to
weigh
that
potential
likelihood
that
it
is
most
likely
to
be
mothballed
in
perpetuity
and,
of
course,
that
comes
hand-in-hand
with
some
challenges
with
was
quality
of
the
interior
building
climate.
We
had
to
replace
the
upper
windows
in
2009
2010.
R
The
upper
windows
are
steel
and
we
replaced
them
because
they,
because
the
way
the
air
circulates
in
the
building,
they
were
corroding
very
badly,
so
they
were
replaced
with
like-for-like
steel,
but
but
but
they're
they're
under
stress.
Due
to
being
isolated
in
that
upper
space,
the
quality
was
based
is
quite
remarkable.
It's
it's
extremely
sunny
and
airy
and
breezy,
and
the
public
is
very
rarely
ever
seen
in
the
space
and
will
very
rarely
ever
get
to
see
the
space
again.
So
we're
trying
to
celebrate
this.
R
B
Great
very
exciting
proposal
here,
so
this
is
part
5,
so
we
go
by
the
strict
part,
5
rules
right.
So
first
of
all,
everyone
had
an
opportunity
to
make
comments
through.
So
the
first
step
is,
if
you
make
comments
with
us
and
three
of
you
did
where
your
comments
accurately
captured
and
if
not
now
is
your
chance
to
point
that
out
seeing
none.
So
then
we
go.
We
go
to
members
of
the
public
for
comments.
If
you
add
and
comments
to
the
file.
S
And
thank
you
mr.
chair,
Peter,
Gower
Kingston
got
four
comments
and,
firstly,
a
really
positive
one
on
thank
you
city
and
neil
for
for
the
work
that's
being
done
here
and
one
little
comment.
The
city
in
fact
did
put
money
towards
this
building.
At
the
start,
the
three
richardson's
all
contributed,
and
it
was
not
enough,
so
the
city
that
did
have
an
original
financial
interest
in
it
and,
secondly,
Neil
T
I'll,
ask
a
question:
I'm,
not
sure
when
it
gets
answered.
What
was
the
upstairs
originally
used
for
and
I
don't
know
if
we
know.
S
Kalbarri
in
the
report
at
the
back
here
points
out
the
wonderful
views
that
there
are,
of
course,
they
are
obscured
by
the
wonderful
mature
trees
which
the
forestry
group
is
trying
to
protect,
and
one
of
the
problems
around
this
building
is
that
it
slowly
gotten
hidden
by
more
and
more
trees
and
I.
Think
at
some
point
the
city
needs
to
have
a
talk
with
its
own
people
and
say
just
how
many
trees
should
there
be?
How
much
should
they
be
trimmed?
S
How
visible
should
the
building
be,
or
do
we
wait
for
those
trees
to
die
and
then
not
replace
them,
and
that
will
lead
to
a
further
or
a
further
argument?
The
fourth
thing
which
I
suggest
you
might
want
to
keep
in
mind
for
the
next
10
or
15
years,
veterans
from
the
Second
World
War,
are
getting
older
and
older
and
less
able
to
easily
attend
the
Remembrance
Day
ceremony
at
the
cross
of
sacrifice.
S
O
Thank
You
mr.
chair
Thank,
You
mr.
Unsworth
for
presentation
and
it's
a
truly
outstanding
historical
essay
that
has
been
prepared
to
play.
The
report
so
I
want
to
commend
that,
and
my
first
point
actually
leads
into
that.
Looking
at
the
sort
of
this
particular
building
as
part
of
the
site
in
the
immediate
area
seems
to
call
for
more
Heritage
commemoration
material
to
be
displayed,
people
understand
the
site
better
and
if
we
had
that,
maybe
we'd
see
where
people
down
there
using
it.
So
I
was
unaware
of
almost
all
of
this
until
I
read
the
report.
O
So
now
it
seems
as
if
you're
trying
to
graph
modern
uses
on
two
buildings
that
are,
you
know
nearly
100
years
old
and
that's
very
commendable.
It's
very
clever
ideas
and
I
went
through
one
of
the
earlier
sessions
on
this
I
think
was
like
last
last
month,
where
they're
talking
about
all
the
stuff
they're
gonna
do
there
and
as
well
like
with
the
shore
and
so
forth.
So
it's
all
integrated
together.
O
O
You
keep
the
building
that
you've
got,
you
do
the
best
you
can
with
it,
and
then
you
have
other
uses
that
you
can
put
into
another
building,
that's
nearby,
so
that's
just
the
practical
Frank
speaking
out
and
the
the
next
point
is
when
I
raised
before
or
at
the
other
meeting
and
I
think
it
fits
in
as
well.
At
me
as
part
of
the
previous
point,
is
you
said,
the
access
to
the
second
floor
is
problematic
right.
You
explained
all
that
I
understand
it.
O
O
A
you
know
for
the
a
transmogrification
is
rate
term,
but
you
can
expand
the
second-story
all
across
the
width
and
length
of
the
building.
I,
don't
know
if
you
have
a
structural
ability
to
do
that
with
which
building
was
built,
but
that
way
you
get
around
the
inaccessibility
and
you
create
more
space
to
do
all
the
wonderful
things
that
we
have
been
able
to
do
there
because
of
the
building
has
been
falling
apart
or
has
in
beginning
its
attention
or
just
lack
of
space
or
flaws
in
design.
B
There
any
other
members
of
the
public
that
was
to
speak
to
this
proposal,
seeing
none
we'll
go
to
mr.
Newman
for
to
start
off
staffs
response.
Just
just
keep
in
mind
that
for
the
purposes
of
this
meeting
we
are
considering
the
recommendation.
As
you
see
it's
generally,
it's
the
Heritage,
Act
related
stuff,
so
internal
use
and
and
any
suggestions
about
you
know
different
ways
of
using
the
internal
space
or
not
actually
part
of
the
recommendation.
B
P
Thank
you,
mr.
chair
and
through
you
I
look
to
my
colleague
mr.
Unsworth
mr.
lurry,
to
see
if
they
have
anything
to
add
but
I
I
think
your
comments
are
on
point
with
respect
to
the
feedback
that
relates
specifically
to
the
alterations
proposed.
We've
taken
notes
of
the
generally
I'm,
not
sure
if
mr.
Unsworth
or
mr.
Larry
want
to
speak
to
any
of
the
alterations
as
they
relate
to
the
comments.
Yeah.
R
To
the
points
that
were
asked
for
clarification,
I'm
pleased
to
say
that
we
have
been
in
consultation
with
the
Richardson
family
who
donated
the
funds
for
the
original
structure.
So
they
are
aware
of
the
improvements
that
are
being
proposed
and
are
in
strong
support
of
celebrating
the
space
and
bringing
it
back
and
improving
it.
R
There
is
specs
on
the
original
building
structure,
but
again
it's
been
very
dormant
for
many.
Many
long
years
agree
with
the
components
of
the
tree
concerns
and
the
exterior
of
the
building
and
there's
two
aged
Norway
maples
immediately
in
the
front
of
the
building
that
are
not
likely
to
last
much
longer.
R
B
M
Thank
you,
sir,
for
your
submissions.
My
question
is
in
regards
to
in
the
indigenous
urban
community.
Here
we
are
always
looking
for
spaces.
Where
we
do
ceremonies,
we
actually
are
doing
a
water
ceremony.
This
Saturday
at
the
Newlin's
pavilion.
What
I'm
sort
of
getting
at
is
any
new
builds
or
new,
renovations
and
I
know.
There's
a
smudging
policy
sort
of
stalled
at
City
right
now
going
through.
B
C
Ma'am
I
think
great
project
and
I
have
been
upstairs
inside.
There
was
I
was
asked
to
to
submit
a
just,
submit
a
proposal
for
doing
the
original
design
on
the
building
and
I.
Think
it's
really
unfortunate.
We
can't
get
up
there.
I
know
it
can't
be
made
accessible,
but
unfortunately
not
everything
can
be
made
accessible
and
I.
Think
it's
a
shame
that
the
upstairs
is
going
to
be
mothballed.
I
just
think
that's
I
was
up
there
and
it's
just
it's
stunning.
It's
beautiful!
It's
just
a
great
panoramic
view.
It
is
part
of
the
initial
design.
C
There's
probably
some
lawyers
weighing
in
and
some
liability
issues
is
my
guess.
But
you
know
not
everything
can
be
made
accessible,
but
it
doesn't
mean
it
should
be
cut
off
from
everyone
and
I
think
it's
yeah,
it's
a
great
project,
I
think
I
love
everything
you're
doing,
but
I
think
you
should
look
again
at
not
using
the
that
upper
space.
L
Thank
You
mr.
chair,
actually,
we
just
passed
the
new
accessibility
guidelines
for
the
City
of
Kingston
last
night,
and
if
we
own
it,
it
has
to
be
accessible,
it's
just
across
the
board,
but
it
was.
This
has
been
really
interesting
to
listen
because,
as
a
committee
with
the
built
heritage
component,
we
really
haven't
had
any
comments.
What
is
so
interesting
is
that
the
comments
from
the
public
are
a
hunger
for
the
stories
of
a
building
like
this
and
a
hunger
for
a
way
to
give
ideas
about
buildings
like
this,
their
use,
their
beauty.
L
You
know
comments
about
sort
of
the
glory
of
spaces
like
this
in
the
city,
and
it's
interesting
in
that.
As
a
committee,
you
know,
with
this
tension
we
have
between
built
heritage
and
the
stories
we're
really
seeing
more
and
more
how
important
the
stories
are
and
that
this
is
a
committee
where
people
want
to
bring
up
the
stories,
the
use,
the
beauty,
not
just
the
functionality
and
the
how
the
the
building
is
going
to
be
repaired.
So
that
was
just
just
a
comment:
I
agree
about
the
trees.
That's
been
an
interesting
one.
L
B
B
My
comment
is:
has
counselor
for
the
district
just
to
the
trees.
This
often
comes
up
when
trees
are
involved.
People
think
that
removing
trees
is
the
only
solution
possible
when
a
tree
is
obscuring
something
clearly
trimming
trees
is
always
preferable
if
the
trees
are
viable.
This
happened
that
they
remember
with
the
Willows
at
the
Annandale.
B
People
were
recommending
just
getting
rid
of
them
out
of
sight
out
of
mind
easy
to
deal
with
and
there's
not,
but
the
the
P
canopy
initiative
has
been
endorsed
by
council,
doubled
the
tree
canopy
by
2025,
the
jury's
still
out
whether
it's
even
possible,
so
obviously
any
kind
of
Park
trees
that
we
have.
If.
A
B
Salvageable
should
be
retained,
I'm
sure
I'm,
not
telling
the
parks
manage
or
anything
it
doesn't
already
know.
There
is
a
way
of
opening
up
space
without
complete
and
removal
just
keep
the
hand
of
mine.
My
other
comment
has
to
do
with
the
canteen
renovation.
That
is
part
of
the
application.
So
it's
interesting
because
at
the
time
that
it
was
installed,
what
we
can
see
here
in
the
in
the
story
of
the
Richardson
bathhouse
is
actually
the
way
the
priorities
change
over
time.
So
in
the
70s
there
was
great
use
at
the
site
for
bathing.
B
So
that's
that's
actually
I.
Remember
that,
because
I
was
a
child,
rich
Richardson
Beach
was
a
Beach
and
the
bath
house
was
a
bath
house
and
the
canteen
was
a
canteen
for
people
that
were
at
the
beach.
It
was
a
well
used
area,
in
contrast
to
today,
where
you,
where
it's
essentially
a
relic
or
a
ruin
that
has
you
know
an
interesting
look
to
it,
but
it's
really
I'm
telling
you
from
my
even
from
my
own
perspective
as
a
father,
my
kids
play
on
the
Gaskin
lion
they
play
in
the
Newlands
pavilion.
B
B
How
do
you
know
restore
something
at
the
modern
uses
and
then
you've
got
adapt
abuse
and
then
you've
got
this
at
the
building
used
again
and
its
prominence
will
gain
and,
along
with
it,
hopefully
with
the
rest
of
the
waterfront
development,
you
will
have
far
greater
use
at
the
site
and
traffic
and
then
the
need
for
a
canteen
again,
which
can
be
a
mobile
one.
That's
there's
nothing
wrong
with
that.
That's
actually
a
good
idea.
B
The
reason
that
the
canteen
is
there
in
the
70s
was
because
there
people
were
there
in
this
evidence
and
they're
not
there
now.
So
that's
what
this
project
really
represents.
It
represents
their
restoration
of
Richardson
beach
as
a
waterfront
destination
for
the
people
of
Kingston,
and
for
that
reason
it's
very
exciting.
The
the
the
use
of
the
of
the
building,
whatever
it
it
is
any
uses,
is
going
to
be
welcomed.
The
the
overall
approach
should
always
be
to
be
welcoming
to
get
people
back
down
there.
B
Rooms
are
part
of
that.
If
you
want
it
to
be
a
beach
again,
you
have
to
have
those
things.
The
accessibility
requirements,
unfortunately,
are
a
feature
of
21st
century
there's
nothing.
We
can
do
about
it.
It's
provincial
legislation,
often
it's
not
compatible
with
heritage.
The
most
interesting
aspects
of
a
heritage,
building
and
I
totally
agree
with
Mac
when
he
points
that
out.
B
At
second
story,
however,
opening
up
the
Secretary
to
the
first
story
so
that
you
and
I
believe
that's
what
you
were
talking
about
opening
up
so
that
it's
a
sort
of
like
the
malting
tower
at
the
TAT,
a
tall
space
where
you
can
all
the
light
comes
in
and
also
to
help
exhibit
the
interior
art
I.
Think
that's
a
good
idea
all
right!
Thank
you.
B
Other
comments
for
the
record
okay,
so
we
will
need
a
mover
and
a
seconder
for
the
recommendation.
It
is
that
heritage
Kingston
supports
Council's
approval
of
the
following
and
then
there's
five,
the
listing
of
the
of
the
of
the
work
you
with
five
points
and
then
the
conditions,
five
conditions,
it's
mostly
exterior
masonry
or
work.
B
B
D
Okay,
Thank
You
mr.
chair,
so
yes,
this
application
relates
to
the
property
at
323,
22,
King,
Street
East,
it's
located
just
across
Market
Square
on
the
west
side
of
King
between
Brock
and
Clarence,
and
it
contains
a
three-story
red
brick,
commercial
building,
constructed
in
1869.
This
property's
designated
under
part
five,
the
Heritage
Act
as
part
of
Market
Square
Conservation
District.
D
The
applicant
has
indicated
that
the
gooseneck
lighting
will
be
led
with
a
bronze
finish
and
will
be
installed
above
each
of
the
entrance
ways
above
the
brick
buff
brick
details
and
within
the
mortar
joints
as
far
as
possible.
As
per
the
masonry
policy,
the
power
will
run
from
the
base
of
the
fixtures
through
the
mortar
joints
and
into
the
building.
So
there
will
be
no
conduits
on
the
exterior
of
the
building.
D
The
proposed
wall
sign
and
master
arm
sign
are
sought
to
recognize
the
new
business
of
a
new
10
with
a
new
tenant
being
Kingston
coffeehouse.
The
wall
sign
is
proposed
to
be
located
above
the
entrance
to
322
King
East
and
approximately
the
same
location
as
the
former
tenants.
It's
not
coffee,
cosine,
with
the
gooseneck
fixture
below
the
sign,
will
be
12
feet
in
length,
12
inches
in
width
and
will
be
constructed
with
the
naturally
stained
reclaimed.
Barn
board,
with
black
colored
lettering.
They
are.
D
So
then,
this
building
known
as
the
Masonic
buildings,
have
historic
and
an
associated
value
as
examples
of
the
work
of
local
architect,
John
Power,
the
properties
associated
with
the
Masons,
as
it
was
originally
a
Masonic
Lodge,
and
this
can
be
seen
in
the
Rays
central
parapet,
with
the
stone
engraved
Masonic
buildings
and
the
property
has
contextual
value.
In
its
contribution
to
the
evolved
character
of
Market
Square
prior
to
the
construction
of
this
block,
the
property
housed
a
manchester
warehouse
which
was
demolished
in
1868
to
allow
for
the
construction
of
this
building.
D
The
Market
Square
plan
notes
important
heritage
attributes
of
the
district,
including
the
views
to
City
Hall,
the
cohesive,
consistent
two
to
four
story
scale
and
massing
of
the
commercial
buildings
that
lie
in
the
market
area,
as
well
as
the
historic
pattern
and
of
consistent
ground-floor
commercial
use.
So
this
proposal
will
not
impact
the
views
to
City
Hall
and
will
maintain
the
built
form
of
the
buildings
as
well
as
their
commercial
use,
so
there'll
be
no
negative
impacts
on
these
attributes.
D
D
This
is
the
proposed
location
of
the
sign
the
wall
sign.
The
images
that
have
been
provided
are
to
give
an
idea
of
the
reclaim
reclaimed,
barn
board
and
style
of
lettering,
and
this
is
the
location
of
the
proposed
master
on
time.
So
there's
only
one
being
proposed
I
think
there
was
some
confusion
in
the
technical
circulation
that
there
were
three
being
proposed,
but
it's
just
the
one.
D
So
this
property
is
part
of
the
commercial
block,
the
design
of
the
storefront
and
is
highly
visible
on
King
Street
and
it's
important
from
a
conservation
perspective.
So
these
this
application
has
been
reviewed
against
the
Market
Square
district
plan
and
meets
the
policies,
and
in
that
plan,
policies
and
objectives.
D
D
We
received
three
comments
with
respect
to
this
application
to
members
noted
that
it
would
be
ideal
for
the
applicant
to
consider
assigned
a
larger
signage
plan
for
the
building
in
its
entirety,
in
contrast
to
adding
signage
as
independent
parts
to
ensure
that
the
signage
didn't
create
an
imbalance
across
the
the
fairly
uniform
facade
of
the
building.
One
member
also
suggested
the
applicant
consider
either
installing
up
signboard
along
the
first
floor,
to
accommodate
signs
across
the
width,
the
entire
width
of
the
building
or
installing
three
master
arm
sign
above
each
entry.
D
D
B
O
I
I
J
So
good
morning
my
name
is
vidyut
and
I'm.
The
owner
of
Kingston
coffee
house,
Kingston
coffee
house,
has
taken
over
the
premises
or
the
coffee
shop,
which
was
formerly
known
as
coffee,
Eko
Coffee
Co
has
been
at
that
location
for
a
number
of
years
and
caters
to
a
number
of
audience
of
the
public
as
well
as
people
from
here
as
well.
There
were
a
couple
of
points
of
confusion,
largely
stemming
from
my
inadequacy
as
a
graphic
designer,
given
the
time
frame
we
had
in
order
to
submit
the
application.
J
So
obviously
we
understand
that
there
is
only
going
to
be
one
master
on
sign.
I
just
brought
this
in
to
show
what
it
would
kind
of
look
like.
So
this
one
is
basic
wood
slice
and
on
that
our
logo
has
been
etched,
but
in
the
in
the
actual
version
the
logo
would
be
hand-painted,
as
opposed
to
this
being
just
a
vinyl
thing.
It
will
hang
on
through
the
mass
ROM,
sign
a
single
master
and
sign
before
3:22,
which
has
our
promises.
J
All
the
anchoring
is
in
line
with
the
act
where
we
would
use
only
mechanical
anchors
within
the
mortar
within
the
and
not
touching
the
breaks
covered
with
lime
mortar.
The
other
thing
that
we
wanted
to
point
out
was
we
are
using
the
same
space,
which
was
used
by
the
existing
board
for
coffee
Co.
Ours
is
a
non
lighted
sign
which
also
helps
to
cover
some
of
the
previous
holes,
which
were
there
because
of
coffee
cause
board
being
a
lighted
board,
and
it
goes
right
up
there
in
the
breakworld.
J
B
Thank
you
so
the
way
the
procedure
works
is
all
members
of
the
public
had
a
chance
to
speak
and
then
and
then
staff
gets
a
chance,
and
then
members
of
the
committee
again
so
it's
sort
of
have
to
take
our
turns.
So
if
anyone
does
have
questions,
it
would
be
questions
to
staff
at
this
point,
any
other
members
of
the
public
that
wish
to
speak
now,
seeing
none
so
what's
for
anything,
yeah
I,
don't
think,
there's
any
questions
to
staff
from
the
members
of
the
public.
B
B
You
I
am
pleased
with
the
with
the
proposed
use
of
the
reclaimed
barn
board
and
there
would
slice
aye,
because
what
that
does,
in
my
opinion,
is
tastefully
has
a
contrast
to
the
brick
facade
and
in
a
way
that
is
not
incompatible
to
the
sort
of
heritage
feel
of
Market
Square.
Maybe
not
everybody
would
agree
with
me,
but
I
think
it's
a
successful
choice
of
contrast
and
so
on
event.
It
is
sort
of
consistent
with
with
the
Market
Square
feel
and
I'm
happy
to
advise
council
to
support
it.
Thank
you.
M
B
We
will
need
a
mover
and
a
seconder
for
the
recommendation,
so
that
is
that
heritage
Kingston
supports
Council's
approval
of
the
following.
There
is
the
the
work
is
actually
described
in
the
first
paragraph
so
said:
alterations
to
include
the
installation
of
three
gooseneck
lights,
one
wall
sign
and
one
masked
armed
sign
and
then
subject
to
four
conditions,
need
a
mover
in
a
seconder
move
by
Paul
seconded
by
Katherine
any
discussion
seeing
none
I'll
call
the
vote.
All
those
in
favor
aye
opposed
in
that
carries
unanimously.
B
B
Q
Ahead
well,
thank
you
mr.
chair.
So
yes,
this
is
three
more
properties
that
we're
proposing
to
add
to
the
register
as
as
designated
properties.
These
were
evaluated
through
the
2015
cultural
heritage,
property
evaluation
project,
as
well
as
the
2011
Cataraqui
village,
inventory
and
evaluation
and
they've
all
met
the
criteria
under
the
Ontario
Heritage
Act
for
properties
of
heritage
interest.
Q
So
they
include
the
Colorado
United
Church
in
cemetery
at
Road.
This
is
a
includes
a
good
example
of
a
Gothic
Revival
red
brick
church
building
with
limestone
detailing
and
foundation
the
building's
polychromatic
brick
on
the
front
facade
in
vestibule,
its
buttresses
and
its
large
multicolored
Rose
window
are
distinct
features
on
this
building.
It
was
designed
by
the
well
known,
firm
power
and
Sun
in
1881
the
grave
markers
in
the
cemetery
date
back
to
1809.
It
includes
some
of
the
early
pioneer
families
in
in
Kingston
Township,
and
it's
an
landmark
along
Siddim
Road.
Q
This
one,
the
fall
of
bylaw
is
in
your
agenda
package
staff
met
with
the
owners
on
this
property,
who
I
think
still
continue
to
have.
Some
concerns,
however,
have
confirmed
with
us
that
they
are
not
objecting
to
this
designation.
This
is
the
Pelle
farmhouse
on
Sunnyside
Road.
You
may
recall
this
property.
Q
And
finally,
this
is
the
Christ
angler
Christ
Church,
an
Anglican
cemetery
on
Sydenham
Road.
It's
an
excellent
example
of
a
Gothic
Revival
limestone
church
I
was
built
in
1869.
The
bell
tower
and
Western
Addition
were
added
in
1877
both
to
plans
by
power
and
sons.
The
Incan
cemetery
represents
the
traditional
burial
practices
of
the
mid
19th
century.
It's
a
landmark
along
Sydenham,
Road
and
again.
Staff
have
met
with
the
representatives,
the
owners
for
this
property
and
they've
confirmed
that
they
have
no
concerns
regarding
this
designation.
Q
The
draft
bylaws
before
you
have
been
vetted
through
the
Heritage
property
working
group
who
are
supportive
of
them
and
mr.
chair.
We
feel
that
these
properties
are
meet
the
prescribed
criteria
and
we
recommend
that
council
serve
a
notice
of
attention
to
designate.
Should
we
get
no
Appeals
within
the
third
day
appeal
period
that
council
proceed
with
approval
of
the
designation
by
law.
Thank
you.
Thank.
B
Recommendation
sort
of
always
looks
the
same
with
the
the
two
causes
per
property.
So
there's
six
clauses
here
and
they're
all
the
same
format
with
a
30-day
requirement
and
the
notice
of
intention
to
designate
all
the
same
language
need
a
mover
and
a
seconder
to
get
it
on
the
floor.
Well,
actually,
it
sorry
the
questions
first
for
members
of
the
committee,
yes
Peter.
F
B
So
now
we
go
to
members
of
the
public
for
comment.
It's
fairly
straightforward
recommendations.
I
need
to
move
her
in
a
seconder
move
by
Paul
seconded
by
Peter
any
discussion
on
the
proposal
to
designate
these
three
properties.
Seeing
none
we'll
call
the
vote
all
those
in
favor
opposed,
and
that
carries
thank
you.
So
now
we
have
an
interesting
item.
It's
an
update
for
the
Heritage
grants
bylaw,
and
it
includes
a
recommendation
to
approve
the
current,
a
grant,
bylaw
proposals.
D
D
The
Heritage
Grant
viola
was
originally
established
in
2005
with
a
couple
of
amendments
and
it
was
intended
to
assist
owners
of
protected
properties
financially
with
approved
conservation
projects,
and
it
helps
to
ensure
the
conservation
of
cultural
heritage
value
in
Kingston.
So
the
city
has
undertaken
a
review
of
this
bylaw
to
assess
its
effectiveness,
identify
challenges
and
opportunities,
particularly
with
respect
to
efficiency
and
an
anticipated
increase
in
the
number
of
future
grant
applications.
D
An
online
public
survey
discussion
with
the
heritage
properties
working
group
on
an
early
draft,
a
public
open
house
which
was
held
in
August
and
also
this
briefing
that
was
held
with
this
committee
in
October.
So
just
a
quick
overview
for
anybody.
In
the
room,
who's
not
familiar
the
current
program,
how
it
works,
applications
for
eligible
properties
for
eligible
work
or
are
eligible
to
receive
50%
of
the
project
cost
up
to
$2,000
applications
must
be
tied
to
a
heritage
permit
and
they
have
to
be
submitted
together.
Both
the
grant
and
the
permit
applications
must
be
submitted.
D
At
the
same
time,
applications
are
received
at
the
beginning
of
March
of
the
year
and
they're
it's
on
a
first-come,
first-served
basis
at
this
program.
All
grant
applications
are
reviewed
by
Heritage
Kingston,
even
if
the
permit
is
approved
under
staffs
delegated
authority
and
I'll.
Just
just
note
that
the
total
budget
for
this
program
for
this
year
was
36
thousand
dollars.
That's
pretty
consistent
over
the
last
four
years.
D
So
the
new
program,
there
are
four
major
proposals:
four
major
changes
that
are
proposed
in
this
new
bylaw,
so
the
first
would
be
to
increase
the
maximum
grant
amount
from
the
$2,000
to
five,
with
a
limit
for
the
use
for
certain
up
for
certain
applications
for
projects
that
that
use
out
of
proposing
modern
materials.
So
those
would
be
limited
to
$2,500.
D
The
second
change
would
be
to
allow
for
previously
approved
work
to
be
eligible,
provided
the
approval
was
given
in
the
last
12
months.
The
third
change
would
be
to
create
to
move
from
a
first-come,
first-serve
basis
to
the
creation
of
an
application
window
that
would
be
open
at
the
beginning
of
the
year
until
the
end
of
March,
for
staff
to
be
able
to
assess
all
of
the
applications
against
each
other.
D
So
you'll
notice
in
the
bio
log
that
there's
a
special
provision
for
the
2018
year,
which
extends
the
window
to
the
end
of
April,
which
is
to
address
the
timing
of
this
BioLab
moving
being
approved
at
Council
in
the
in
the
new
year,
and
the
fourth
change
would
be
to
address
situations
where
the
total
requested
amount
for
grants
exceeded
the
total
budget.
And
in
that
case,
applications
would
be
ranked
against
a
set
of
criteria.
In
order
to
for
staff
to
be
able
to
award
the
grant.
Funding
and
I'll.
D
So
I
just
want
to
go
over
a
little
bit
today.
The
key
concerns
that
we
heard
throughout
this
process
grouped
them
into
about
five
themes
which
relate
to
the
application
window,
as
well
as
the
evaluation
criteria
and
the
potential
and
those
to
sort
of
go
together
with
respect
to
moving
away
from
the
first-come,
first-serve
style
and
a
lack
of
transparency
in
using
criteria
to
evaluate
and
assess,
grant
grant
applications,
also,
the
extent
to
which
approval
should
be
delegated
to
staff
and
the
appropriateness
of
the
increase
of
the
single
grant
from
the
mm
to
the
$5,000.
D
Recognizing
how
this
could
the
overall
number
of
grants
that
are
issued
annually
and
then
finally,
the
appropriateness
of
the
type
of
work
that's
eligible
for
grant
funding.
So
the
first
theme
creating
the
application
window
and
the
evaluation
criteria
I
kind
of
want
to
go
through
those
together.
So
members
of
the
public
expressed
some
concern
with
moving
away
from
the
first-come,
first-serve
approach,
as
this
could
create
a
competition
between
owners
between
properties
and
also
that
the
current
approach
places
less
strain
on
staff
in
terms
of
transparency
and
how
those
applications
are
assessed.
D
The
intent
of
the
grant
program
is
to
provide
financial
support
for
the
conservation
of
Kingston's
resources
and
that's
based
on
the
general
tax
base.
Those
funds
come
from
the
general
tax
base,
so
the
window
for
applications
supported
by
the
criteria.
The
attention
there
is
to
ensure
that
applications
have
the
greatest
potential
to
have
the
potential
to
yield
the
greatest
public
benefit
and
those
projects
would
be
awarded
funding
over
projects
that
that
wouldn't,
to
the
same
extent,
benefit
the
public
Kingston's.
D
This
council
has
considers
continued
to
make
a
significant
commitment
to
heritage
conservation
through
the
designation
and
active
review
of
heritage
permits,
so
as
the
number
of
designated
properties
increase
so
to
the
demand
for
limited
grant
funding.
So
staff
I've
outlined
four
criteria
by
which
to
evaluate
grant
applications.
D
So
those
criteria
include
projects
that
involve
the
maximum
retention
of
heritage
attributes,
those
that
would
provide
a
high
level
of
public
benefit
or
high
level
of
contribution
to
the
public's
understanding
of
heritage
conservation
projects,
where
the
integrity
of
the
heritage
property
might
be
threatened
and
then
also
in
terms
of
strategically
and
making
sure
funding
is
distributed
across
the
city.
Applications
for
properties
which
have
never
received
funding
before.
I
D
Earlier
iterations
of
the
bylaw
included
waiting
for
this
criteria
and
members
of
the
public
who
expressed
concerned
with,
including
that
in
the
bottle
itself,
noting
that
it
could
be
rigid
and
potentially
limiting.
So
that
has
been
removed
from
this
draft.
However,
recognizing
that
the
public
would
want
to
know
how
those
those
applications
would
be
reviewed.
Staff
have
committed
to
consulting
with
the
heritage
properties
working
group
on
developing
a
publicly
accessible
procedural
document
that
would
accompany
the
bat
law.
D
So,
with
respect
to
the
delegation
of
the
program
to
staff,
there
were
some
members
of
the
public
that
were
opposed
to
to
delegating
the
program
who
thought
heritage.
Kingston
should
be
consulted
with
respect
to
grant
applications
and
thought.
The
committee
should
be
used
as
a
bit
of
a
conduit
through
which
the
book
the
broader
public,
could
be
engaged
on
how
heritage
grants
could
be
distributed.
D
So
the
the
intention
of
this
update
isn't
to
remove
the
committee's
role
in
in
providing
advice
for
the
permits
that
are
associated
with
with
grant
projects
or
how
the
or
the
transparency
for
for
how
these
these
grants
would
be
awarded.
And
so
staff
have
committed
to
also
reporting
out
the
grant
approvals
through
Council
and,
as
I
mentioned,
drafting
the
procedural
document
that
would
be
available
publicly
and
also
staff
have
felt
committed
to
bringing
the
final
scores
for
all
of
the
grant.
Applications
to
the
heritage
properties.
Working
group
for
consultation
as
well.
D
So
staff
recognize
that
this
proposed
increase.
The
five
thousand
dollars
is
a
step
in
the
right
direction,
however,
have
committed
to
reviewing
the
program
periodically
to
ensure
the
grant
program
dollars
are
being
adequately
allocated
in
a
manner
that
yields
greatest
public
benefit
in
relation
to
the
adequate
program
budget
and
then
the
last
theme
is
the
appropriateness
of
types
of
eligible
work.
D
So
this
came
up
at
the
meeting
in
October,
as
well
as
in
the
the
public
open
house
in
the
summer,
with
respect
to
types
of
work
that
would
be
eligible
for
the
grant
program.
So
section
five,
two
of
the
new
bylaw
presents
more
of
a
comprehensive
list
of
eligible
works
and
then
further
in
6.1.
The
violet
provides
examples
of
projects
that
would
not
qualify
for
funding.
D
So
these
these
sections
have
been
critically
reviewed
to
ensure
that
the
work
yields
the
greatest
public
benefit,
so
projects
visible
to
the
public
projects
which
demonstrate
a
high
standards
of
heritage
conservation
and
those
being
appropriate
for
the
attributes
and
the
resource
as
a
whole.
Additionally,
section
3.1
provides
additional
clarification
on
eligibility
for
certain
works,
which
may
not
have
the
highest
standards
for
heritage
conservation,
but
could
be
necessary
and
appropriate
for
the
resource.
So
this
section
provides
for
cases
where
an
applicant
could
demonstrate
that
all
other
sections
of
the
sections
of
the
bylaw
would
be
met.
D
D
At
the
last
at
the
staff,
briefing
in
October
suggestions
were
also
proposed
with
respect
to
the
application
window,
where
members
proposed
either
to
extend
the
window
for
applications.
If
the
requested
funds
do
not
exceed
the
budget
or
to
have
a
second
window
later
in
the
year
and
staff
considered.
D
Following
that
briefing
in
October,
some
minor
modifications
to
the
definition
section
with
respect
to
designated
property,
and
that
was
done
to
in
order
to
capture
properties
that
also
had
heritage
easements.
So
that's
just
been
strengthened
a
little
bit.
The
definition
of
landscaping
has
been
modified
to
distinguish
between
general
yard
maintenance,
and
you
know,
heritage
conservation,
areas,
landscapes
or
natural
landscape
features
that
have
been
identified
as
heritage
attributes.
D
It's
intended
to
accompany
this
bylaw
in
Section
five
to
staff
have
modified
the
provision
to
allow
for
the
conservation
of
specific
grave
markers
so
that
they
could
be
eligible
for
funding
as
well.
Section
seven
includes
some
administrative
changes,
including
the
special
provision
to
extend
the
window
into
April
for
this
for
the
next
year
in
2018.
D
So,
just
to
conclude,
the
proposed
revisions
to
the
grant
by
law
staff
wrote
the
opinion
they
strengthen
the
existing
provisions
and
support
the
city's
commitment
to
conserving
cultural
heritage
heritage
resources
and,
as
so
as
a
significant
number
of
changes,
were
proposed
to
the
original
bylaw.
It's
recommended
that
that
2005
Heritage
Grant
by
law
be
repealed
and
replaced
with
a
final
draft
of
the
Heritage
grants
bylaw
as
as
attached
as
Exhibit
A
for
Heritage
Kingston's
consideration
and
recommend
a
recommendation
to
council.
So
I'm
happy
to
answer
any
questions
at
this
time.
Thanks.
G
G
G
P
B
G
G
G
Kingston
is
a
committee
that
has
responsibility
for
reviewing
applications,
heritage
or
alteration
applications,
and
so
and
it's
sort
of
carefully
composed
with
the
nominations
committee
and
all
that,
whereas
the
working
group
is
is
a
less
well
defined
group
with,
I
guess
more
focused
responsibilities
and
who
gets
on
and
who,
who
doesn't
is,
is
really
not
very
clearly
specified
anywhere.
So
I
I
guess
I'm
surprised,
and
and
so
can
you
explain
why
you
chose
the
working
group
rather
than
heritage,
kingston.
P
3
mr.
chair
I'll
start,
and
then
perhaps
mackenzie
orion
may
wish
to
add.
The
rationale,
at
least,
as
I
can
recall,
is
twofold.
So
one
is
that
the
heritage
properties
working
group
is
made
up
of
people
with
heritage,
expertise,
and
so
part
of
the
thinking
is
that
we
will
work
with
the
working
group
to
define
the
weighting
of
criteria
to
be
used
in
the
evaluation
of
grant
submissions,
and
so
the
working
group
itself
will
have
a
direct
hand
to
play
in
setting
those
those
weightings.
P
So
that's
that's
one
thing
is
there's
expertise
at
the
working
group
to
assist
staff
and
making
sure
that
we're
comfortable
with
the
way
that
we
have
scored
submissions.
The
other
thing
is:
there's
some
additional
flexibility
in
the
way
that
we're
able
to
arrange,
meetings
and
bring
people
to
the
table
to
have
a
review
of
the
pre-scored
applications.
So
those
were
some
of
the
the
reasons
for
trying
to
leverage
the
availability
of
the
working
group.
I'm
not
sure
if
you
wanted
to
add.
B
So
the
and
just
to
point
out
as
well,
probably
inherent
to
the
to
the
suggestion,
is
that
the
working
group
does
report
to
the
committee.
So
if
we're
talking
about
policy
work
on
the
weighting
of
criteria,
so
this
is
the
intention
of
setting
up
a
policy
that
staff
the
staff
follows
a
consistent
set
of.
B
You
know
how
to
set
the
waiting's
that
discussion
at
a
working
group
would
still
come
to
the
committee
in
the
report,
and
then
the
committee
would
need
would
would
have
an
opportunity,
and
members
of
public
would
have
an
opportunity
to
comment
on
the
policy
suggestions
that
are
coming
out
of
the
working
group
like
it.
Doesn't
it
doesn't
cut
the
committee
out
of
the
loop,
it
just
puts
the
actual
work
at
the
working
group,
and
the
report
at
the
committee
in
my
understanding
is
that
correct,
I.
P
Think
that's
correct.
I
guess!
The
only
thing
I
would
add
is
the
permits
themselves.
Unless
they're
done
through
delegated
authority,
the
permits
themselves
will
be
going
through.
The
committee
and
I
know:
we've
discussed
this
before
around
the
table,
but
the
grants
themselves.
We've
tried
to
be
really
explicit
in
the
in
the
grant
bylaw
with
the
criteria
that
will
be
used
to
evaluate
the
grants
against
one
another.
We've
typically
dealt
with
them
on
a
first-come,
first-served
basis
provided
they're,
enhancing
an
attribute
to
the
property
they
you
know,
99%
of
the
time,
are
awarded
a
grant.
P
So
we've
established
what
I
believe
to
be
more
rigor
in
this
process
for
the
evaluation,
knowing
that
we're
very
actively
designating
more
and
more
properties.
So
there
will
come
a
point
when
we
don't
have
enough
money
to
to
respond
to
the
interest.
So
we've
tried
to
establish
rigor,
we're
trying
not
to
establish
unnecessary
process
recognizing
that
the
community
does
have
a
direct
opportunity
in
the
review
of
the
permits
themselves.
Oh.
M
P
Three
mr.
chair,
the
criteria
themselves
have
been
defined
and
are
found
in
the
bylaw
in
your
section,
eight.
So
the
criteria
there.
What
we
hope
to
work
with
the
working
group
on
is
establishing
waiting
for
each
of
the
criteria
and
part
of
the
reason
we
haven't
established
a
process.
Yet
is
that
we
want
to
get
the
first
round
of
submissions
in
so
that
we
can
collectively
review
them
with
the
working
group
in
establishing
an
internal
policy
for
subsequent
years
of
review.
S
Thank
thank
you
mr.
chair.
Firstly,
congratulations
on
the
depth
of
this,
especially
and
I
was
brought
to
5.2
by
McKenzie's,
going
about
grave
markers,
but
I
think
the
neat
one.
There
is
5
2
D,
which
asks
for
documentary
clear
documentary
evidence
of
missing
items
that
has
been
a
real
problem
in
the
past,
where
people
have
said:
oh
I'm
sure
they
were
there
and
I'm
concerned
about
5
to
G,
probably
in
the
wording
which
could
lead
to
problems.
S
The
last
part
of
that
says
which
are
part
of
the
original
design,
we're
talking
about
cemeteries,
and
my
understanding
is
that
when
a
cemetery
is
laid
out,
there
is
nothing
there.
So
there
can
be
no
original
design.
If
you
mean
the
mausolea
vult,
stone
walls
and
wrought
iron
fences
and
gates
on
each
plot,
then
I
suggest
you
might
want
to
to
reword
that
and
make
it
a
little
bit
clearer.
O
K
Thank
You
mr.
chair,
first
of
all,
I
want
to
say
thank
you
very
much
I.
It
was
it's
great
to
see
how
much
consultation
there
has
been
on
this
very
important
dialogue
and
also
that
the
the
fact
that
it
was
well
documented
at
the
back
of
the
report.
So
that's
much
appreciated.
As
you
know,
I'm
with
the
Frontenac
Heritage
Foundation
we
own
a
building
in
the
downtown,
and
we
have
a
concern
about
some
of
the
structural
repairs
that
might
be
done.
K
I
think
what
happens
when
you
get
a
bylaw
approved
as
you
use
it
over
time,
and
you
see
what
changes
need
to
be
made.
I
do
have
concerns
about
the
fact
that
the
authority
is
being
taken
away
from
the
committee.
I
mean
I,
like
the
fact
that
it's
being
given
to
the
Harwich
properties,
working
group
but
I,
think
what
you're
seeing
over
time
is
that
the
role
of
that
working
group
is
becoming
more
and
more,
and
in
fact
you
might.
K
The
city
might
want
to
consider
expanding
the
number
of
people
on
that
on
that
working
group,
because
when
you
look
at
this
kind
of
consultation,
that
is
I
think
really
important
and
also
consultation
regarding
designation
by
laws
like
Kingston
Penitentiary,
that
that's
upcoming.
Those
are
really
important
roles,
so
kudos
to
the
city
for
doing
that.
But
I
you
know,
do
have
some
reservations
about
taking
away
that
concern
that
that
ability
on
the
part
of
the
committee
to
provide
input
in
terms
of
the
grants
anyway.
Thank
you
and
well
done.
B
P
P
So
I
think
the
important
piece
there
says
any
conservation
work
that
repairs
for
sores
or
enhance
a
specific
heritage,
attributes
associated
with
historic
cemeteries
and
they're
features
such
as
Mozilla
of
alt,
stone
walls,
wrought
iron,
fences
and
gates,
which
are
part
of
the
original
design.
So
I
think
the
important
reference
there
is
to
the
the
words
they're
features
so
I
recognize
that
when
some
of
when
cemeteries
are
laid
out,
it
may
only
be
laid
it
with
plots
with
people's
name
next
to
it.
P
So
there's
really
not
a
tangible
design
component,
but
what
were
the
intent
of
that
is
to
refer
to
the
features
such
as
mausoleum
in
vault
stone
walls
that
have
specific
design
elements.
So
if,
if
we
think
the
interpretation
is
clear,
but
if
we
need
to
wordsmith
it
broken
to
that
to
mr.
Dixon's
comment
about,
can
the
city
apply
for
funding
I?
Think
generally,
we
wouldn't,
but
we've
made
it
abundantly
clear
in
Section,
four
point-five.
P
Designated
properties
owned
by
any
level
of
government
or
institution
which
receives
funding
from
any
level
of
government
are
not
eligible
for
funding,
so
the
city
wouldn't
wouldn't
be
eligible.
Miss
Bailey's
comments,
I,
don't
think.
There's
anything
that
requires
a
response.
I'll
leave
it
to
the
committee
to
consider
that.
B
B
B
I
B
Possibly
also
add
a
comma
after
the
word
gates:
okay,
well,
we'll
leave
it
at
that.
It's
a
since
types
capable
hands.
We
need
a
mover
in
a
seconder
for
the
recommendation,
which
is
essentially
to
pass
the
bylaw
to
recommend
that
you
can't
surpass
the
bylaw
so
she'll
seconded
by
Paul,
who
wants
to
start
discussion
Peter.
F
F
It
says
the
intention
of
this
update
is
not
to
remove
the
committee's
role
in
advising
on
the
projects
with
which
these
grants
are
to
be
associated.
Nor
is
it
to
remove
the
transparency
in
how
public
funds
are
distributed.
I've
read
this
several
times
and
except
for
that
reference
to
this
committee,
there
is
no
other
reference
in
this
document
to
the
committee
and
that
what
that
is
doing
is
clearly,
if
not
removing
at
least
putting
it
in
a
very
deep
haze,
and
why
is
that
important?
F
It's
important
because
this
committee,
we
as
a
public
body
at
this
table,
are
the
primary
guarantee
to
the
people.
We
represent
the
city,
the
citizens
of
Kingston,
that
there's
transparency
in
this
in
removing
even
further
than
has
already
been
removed.
The
risk
possibility
of
this
committee
for
the
oversight
of
heritage
issues.
F
Think
it's
damaging
to
the
ability
of
this
committee
to
do
its
function
and
I
I.
Think
that
it's
it's
unacceptable
and
I
can't
support
the
motion
unless
there
is
a
willingness
to
address
this
issue,
because
we
have
had
a
role
in
this
and
it
is
being
taken
away
from
us
and
I
see
no
other
really
viable
interpretation
of
this
document.
L
P
Three
mr.
chair,
so
yeah
I
think
it's
a
good
point.
I
think
the
cemetery
cell
plots
to
two
people,
so
there
are
plots
within
cemeteries
that
will
be
owned
by
a
lot
of
different
people.
And
if
the
owners
are
eligible
for
the
funding,
then
we
could
get
a
lot
of
applications
for
grant
dollars
to
support
the
upkeep
of
individual
applause.
L
And
I'm
presuming
I've
never
seen
one.
So
it's
really
not
that
important.
An
aspect,
I,
don't
think
I've
ever
seen,
one
come
across
the
desk
anyway.
That
was
just
my
first
and
it
was
as
we
were
discussing
it.
I
crossed
my
mind
now
during
the
earlier
discussion.
There
was
a
comment
about.
We
will,
as
a
committee,
see
the
applications
for
not
the
grant
necessarily,
but
the
work
surrounding
the
grant.
I
think
that
was
the
important
part.
L
This
has
to
do
with
the
grant
program,
not
the
application
that
originally
comes
forward
to
say,
rehabilitate
a
porch,
and
is
that
the
point
that
might
be
getting
a
little
muddy
here?
So
if
staff
could
just
explain
that
if
somebody
comes
and
they
want
to
rehabilitate
a
porch
or
some
windows,
it's
likely
going
to
come
here.
B
I'm,
just
sorry
staffers
otherwise
occupied
just
remaining
members
of
the
public
that
they're
not
really
by
procedural
rules
supposed
to
interact
directly
with
staff
during
the
committee
meeting,
there's
a
plenty
of
time
after
the
committee
meeting
to
do
so.
Sorry,
could
you
repeat
your
question
counselor
self.
Thank.
L
You
is
that
the
point
that
we
are
going
to
as
a
committee
receive
the
applications
to
do
the
work
it's
after
the
application
or
sometimes
concurrently,
because
we've
seen
somebody
wants
to
do
work
plus
they've
applied,
but
is
that
the
the
major
point
that
may
be
getting
a
little
muddied
here?
This
has
to
do
with
grant
applications.
The
actual
application
for
the
work
around
the
grant
will
still
be
seen
by
this
committee.
Could
that
just
be
clarified?
Please?
Yes,.
P
L
Okay,
thank
you
very
much
for
that
clarification.
I
think
this
is
an
excellent
document
and
especially
at
the
back
where
obviously
many
citizens
and
groups
got
involved
in
comments
and
that
all
the
responses
seemed
to
me
to
be
very
clear
and
that
in
general
there
was
great
satisfaction,
so
I'm
happy
to
support
this.
Thank
you.
H
P
I'm
just
trying
to
find
three
mr.
chair
the
the
reference
in
the
bylaw
itself
just
to
clarify
this.
So
during
the
open
house
we
had
at
the
HRC
member,
the
public
expressed
concern
that
structural
repairs
ought
to
be
contemplated
and
captured
as
eligible
work
under
the
grant
bylaw
because,
as
I
think
many
one,
many
of
you
will
assume
that
grant
or
sorry
foundation
work
can
be
very
expensive.
P
So
every
little
bit
helps
so
in
the
review
of
a
proposal
for
major
structural
repairs
to
a
property
and
again
part
of
the
benefit
of
having
these
scoring
evaluative
value.
Tip
criteria
is
that
we
can
give
weight
to
where
the
issuance
of
grant
dollar
will
provide
the
greatest
benefit
to
the
public.
So
if
you
look
at
section
8.3
of
the
bylaw,
it's
the
actual
criteria
themselves.
On
page
287.
P
So
part
of
the
benefit
in
having
these
criteria,
and
with
with
scoring
that
would
be
review
with
the
working
group
is
that
we
can
there's
a
bit
of
flexibility
in
how
you
look
at
some
of
these
unique
situations
that
perhaps
are
ought
to
be
eligible
for
grant
funding.
So
there's
not
an
outright
prohibition
against
grants
going
towards
actual
repairs.
P
B
Ok,
so
if
I
understand
your
response
foundation,
work
could
be
eligible
if,
according
to
those
four
criteria,
for
example,
criteria
see
the
the
Heritage
property
may
be
threatened.
If
the
work
is
not
undertaken,
for
example,
that
might
apply
to
a
foundation
or
any
of
the
other
criteria
if
they
apply
for
the
structural
work,
it's.
P
B
G
Guess,
as
a
follow-up,
normally
the
when
we
have
a
list
of
Heritage
attributes
for
a
stone
house,
for
instance,
the
stone
walls
is
normally
the
first
one
on
the
list
and
and
in
some
cases
we
mentioned
the
stone
foundation.
So
certainly
there's
a
good
case
to
be
made
in
in
many
cases,
but
may
not
always
be
the
case.
That
sort
of
leads
me
into
what
my
situation
is.
I
I
want
to
sort
of
follow
up
the
comments
from
particularly
Shirley
Bailey,
who,
as
everybody
has
said,
the
staff
have
done
a
wonderful
job
in
preparing
this.
G
Grants
proposal-
and
there
have
been
a
range
of
different
views
and
they've
weighed
them
all
and
come
up
with
a
kind
of
new
scheme
which
you
know
may
or
may
not
be
the
best,
but
it's
certainly
a
good
one
and
I
have
no
complaints
or
objections
to
that
whatsoever.
The
other
side
of
the
proposal
is
the
administration
and
I
have
concerns
about
that
and
going
back
to
heritage
attributes.
G
The
first
item
in
the
criteria
is
the
maximum
retention
of
heritage
attributes.
So
what
are
the
heritage
attributes
that
has
to
be
judged?
First
of
all
and
two
I
think
it's
important
that
this
whole
program
be
done
to
a
high
standard,
and
that
means
we
need
the
best
possible
advice
and
knowledge
brought
to
bear
on
an
application
for
an
alteration
and
yeah.
We
have
good
stuff,
but
we
have
good
people.
We
have
experts
around
this
table
and
on
the
earth
group
and
they
should
not
be
excluded.
G
If
we
want
to
do
what,
should
you
know
if
you
want
this
program
to
work
the
way
it
should,
we
need
the
best
advice
and
excluding
the
committee
and
excluding
members
who
are
able
to
identify
attributes.
It
is
very
important
and
that
let
me
mention
another
thing.
Many
of
the
designation
bylaws
for
our
older
and
very
important
buildings
have
no
list
of
heritage
attributes,
so
who's
going
to
decide
which
other
hair
you
know.
Where
are
the
heritage
attributes
which
attributes
are
more
important
than
others?
G
These
have
all
got
to
be
weighed
and
balanced,
and
we
need
the
best
possible
advice,
and
so
I
cannot
support
an
administrative
scheme
that
takes
this
committee
out
of
the
loop.
Now
it
may
be.
You
know
I'm
willing
to
say
that
perhaps
the
working
group
is
is
acceptable
route,
because
that
group
also
is
very
much
meant
to
be
experts
on
the
heritage
attributes,
that's
what
they're
doing
they're
preparing
designations,
and
so
they
they
have
to
balance
all
these
things.
So
I'm,
ok
with
the
working
group,
but
the
way
it's
specified
now.
G
It's
the
participation
of
the
working
group
is
I.
Think
too
vague
to
be
adequate
and
I
think
you
know
it
sounds
as
if
the
sort
of
applications
will
come
to
the
working
group
after
they've
been
sorted
for
a
preliminary
sorted
like
that
in
some
sense,
but
I
think
we
have
to
you
know
they
working
group
or
whatever
has
to
look
at
all
eligible
applications,
because
it
may
be
that
some
applications
are
simply
misguided
and
the
attributes
I
mean
they
want
to
repair
reports
and
it's
not
an
original
porch.
So
they
have
to
make
this.
G
They
have
to
be
some
sorting
done
early
on
so
III
think.
If
we're
going
to
go
through
the
working
group,
the
working
group
has
to
see
all
the
eligible
applications
has
to
be
involved
in
the
evaluation
and
has
to
make
a
recommendation
to
the
committee
or
the
director
I'm
perfectly
comfortable
with
it
not
going
to
council
I
mean
I,
think
that's
what
delegated
authority
is
is
is
where
that's
appropriate,
because
they're,
not
their
business,
is
not
to
look
at
the
into
the
nuts
and
bolts
of
these
applications.
G
So
as
it
stands,
I
can't
support
the
procedures,
the
procedures
for
the
evaluation
I'm.
If
staff
are
willing
to
accept
or
consider
amendments,
I'm
prepared
to
try
something
mana,
it's
clever.
It's
going
to
be
difficult
to
do
that
while
we're
you
know
at
this
point
in
time,
but
that's
where
I'm
going
to
state
my
position.
M
First
off
I,
like
the
clarification
that
this
committee
will
still
look
at
the
repairs
and
to
say
yes,
this
is
how
you
to
repair
the
stuff
and
approve
the
permit.
This
is
only
for
the
application
getting
the
funding.
I
do
believe
that
the
experts
are
at
the
working
group
and
they
just
come
to
us
for
a
final
review.
So
I
believe
that
committee
is
still
involved
when
we
let
the
working
group
with
the
experts
there
make
those
decisions.
M
My
only
one
is
when
we
were
talking
about
what
sells
when
what's
not
eligible,
there's
two
levels:
there's
the
five
thousand
the
2500
would
per
se.
If
someone
was
trying
to
fix
their
roof
and
it's
not
a
heritage
aspect,
would
they
still
be
able
to
apply
for
the
2500,
because
the
rest
of
the
buildings
heritage?
Can
the
staff
clarify
that.
B
M
My
question
was,
we
were
talking
about.
What's
eligible,
is,
is
roofs
or
the
base
of
the
the
place
eligible
if
it's
not
heritage,
and
it's
not
viewed
by
the
public.
But
there
is
two
levels:
there's
the
$2,500
and
the
5,000.
Would
someone
be
eligible
to
apply
for
the
$2,500,
because
the
rest
of
the
building
is
has
heritage
attributes
but
because
the
part
they're
working
on
desert
so,
for
example,
they're
working
on
a
door?
P
Three
mr.
chair,
the
distinction
between
the
eligibility
for
five
versus
2500
is
more
specific
to
the
use
of
modern
materials.
Specifically
so
I
understand
the
point
you're
making
is
if
it's
not
identified
as
an
attribute,
but
maybe
it's
somehow
complements
an
attribute.
Could
you
be
may
be
eligible
for
the
25?
P
That's
not
the
way
that
it's
been
structured
today
and
and
Dawn
had
made
the
point
earlier
that
some
of
our
bylaws
are
out
of
date
and
the
attributes
are
a
two-sentence
description
of
the
property.
So
right
now,
the
way
the
grant
bylaw
has
been
proposed
is
that
it's
very
specific
to
the
attributes,
as
identified
in
the
bylaw
and
so
again,
there's
some
opportunity
to
say
that,
although
it's
not
the
attribute
itself,
it
contributes
to
the
enhancement
of
the
attribute,
like
the
roofing
example,
because
if
the
roof
is
leaking,
the
whole
building
was
potentially
compromised.
P
So
we
look
at
the
relationship
of
the
alteration
to
a
defined
attribute.
So
there
is,
there
is
some
room
when
we
have
really
high-level
bylaws
to
make
the
case,
and
there
is
flexibility
in
this
bylaw
to
be
able
to
do
that.
But
the
distinction
that
you're
proposing
is
not
recognized
by
the
bylaw
to
be
able
to
say
that,
because
it's
not
a
specific
attribute,
maybe
you
can
make
the
case
you're
eligible
for
25.
We
just
haven't
built
that
into
this.
B
B
But
there
seems
to
be
a
sticking
point
amongst
committee
members
about
the
the
fact
that
these
grants
will
no
longer
be
up
here
on
the
committee
agenda
for
us
here
at
the
committee
and
what
does
that
represent.
So
in
a
nutshell,
I'm
kind
of
open
minded
over
solutions
as
long
as
the
solution
is
there's
conflicting
priorities.
Perhaps,
but
we
need
to
find
something.
That's
workable.
So
to
me
the
suggestion
that
using
the
heritage
properties
working
group
for
the
nuts
and
bolts
determination
of
the
waiting's,
which
has
not
the
work
that
is
not
yet
happened.
B
Well,
that
work
should
have
expert
advice
and
that
work
should
also
have
public
transparency.
So
the
problem
with
the
working
group
is
that
it,
unlike
the
committee,
it
does
not
include
members
of
the
public
in
in
the
same
setting
and
then
the
meetings
are
not
televised
and
so
on,
but
at
the
same
time
the
committee's
time
is
always
pressured
we're
all
under
time
pressure
right
now
right,
every
committee
meeting,
it's
the
same.
So
to
me
the
compromise
of
having
a
go
to
the
working
group
and
any
member
of
the
public
can
join
that
working
group.
B
That's
actually
a
plus,
because
that
means
that
if
you
have
concerns
over
the
work,
for
example,
the
way
the
things
are
waiting
if
it
waited
or
if
you
think
after
the
first
year,
you
don't
like
the
way
the
program
has
been
applied
by
staff
and
you
remember
the
public.
You
can
join
the
working
group
and
have
an
interactive
staff
in
the
in
network.
Two
of
the
exact
work.
You
know
how
the
how
the
bylaw
would
be
applied
and
how
the
decisions
actually
get
made.
That's
really
the
the
question
here
is
the
decision-making
body.
B
So
is
this
committee?
Actually,
the
decision-making
body
for
grants
currently
I
would
submit
that
we're.
Not
that
we
are
the
review
body,
we
are
that,
like
the
Senate,
where
the
sober
second
thought
body
for
the
grant
applications
and,
like
mr.
Newman
said
99%
of
the
time
the
grants
get
approved
because
really
all
we're
doing
is
we're
taking
the
box.
Is
this
heritage
worthy
and
if
we
believe
that
it
is,
then
we
approve
the
grant
it's
it's.
B
It
noted
that
it's
a
problem
when
we
get
an
application
for
it
when
the
grant
comes
to
us
and
the
approval
for
the
permits
already
been
given
under
delegated
authority.
That
might
be
an
issue,
but
that's
not
what
this
grant
probably
law
is
addressing
that.
This
is
actually
the
reverse.
That
problem
is
when,
when
delegated
authority
has
granted
a
permit
under
the
Heritage
Act
and
the
question
of
whether
heritage
jack
approve
always
has
to
go
through
the
committee,
that's
a
different
question.
This
particular
piece,
so
maybe
I'll,
just
take
a
break.
B
That's
more
flexible
for
meeting
times
like
was
said
to
me:
it's
a
workable
solution
that
at
least
was
worth
a
try
and
I
would
recommend
to
any
member
of
the
public
came
to
me
with
concerns
about
the
way
it's
changed
to
join
the
working
group
and
and
be
directly
involved
themselves,
and,
and
that
way
they
can
have
a
say
on
on
shaping
the
policy
this.
This
is
not
there's.
Work
is
not
done
yet.
This
is
the
drop
on
law.
Even
if
passed
doesn't
you
know
it
doesn't
end
there?
B
What
I
compare
to
is
this?
I
sat
on
the
arts
at
the
Arts
Council,
grant
approval
body
and
leave
councillor
Shelley.
You
have
as
well,
so
that
is
a
citizen
group
that
has
a
couple
councilors
ex
officio
and
you
deliberate.
A
set
number
of
applications
had
all
been
submitted
together,
such
as
being
proposed
here
and
you
evaluate
them
in
a
closed
session
and
in
the
end
the
grants
are
are
given.
According
to
what
the
council,
the
Arts
Council,
has
decided.
B
Devoting
the
councillors
that
are
on
that
are
not
voting
members,
but
they
participate
in
the
discussion.
So
we
could
set
up
somewhere
add
something
like
an
Arts
Council
for
a
heritage
grants
it
would
be
and
and
that's
kind
of
what
this
is,
except
that
it's,
instead
of
being
a
citizens
group
that
is
specifically
proposed
for
the
grant
program
review.
It
is
a
set
of
policies,
that's
being
written
with
the
waiting
issue
being
discussed
with
the
working
group.
Right,
so
I
would
say
an
alternative
to
that
solution
would
be
to
set
up.
B
Another
working
group
called
the
Heritage
grants
working
group
that
would
only
deal
with
grants
and
there
would
be
the
decision
body
on
the
grants
and
it
would
include
staff
members,
of
course,
for
administration,
but
the
decision-making
body
would
be
members
of
the
public.
That
may
be
preferable
from
transparency.
Point
of
view
in
public
funds
use
point
of
view,
but
it
might
not
be
that
different
from
what's
being
proposed
here.
I
would
I
would
submit
that
the
heritage
properties
working
group
might
actually
function.
B
That
way
in
this
case,
if
it
is
giving
a
set
of
logical
weightings
of
ways
to
sort
the
applications
and
that
work,
we're
not
gonna,
have
what
I
couldn't
know
what
that
looks
like
until
we
get
the
first
batch
of
applications.
So
what
no
matter
what
we
do?
We
have
to
try
something
and
I
am
willing
to
give
this
a
shot.
B
I
do
not
minimize
any
of
the
concerns.
Members
have
brought
up.
I
think
that
if,
if
Peter
is
correct,
that
transparency
goes
away
and
that
the
decision
is
taken
out
of
this
committee's
hands
completely
and
we
have
no
say
over
the
outcomes,
then
that
is
a
bad
thing.
I
agree
with
that
point
so,
but
I'm
not
convinced
that
this,
the
administration
of
the
solution
is
actually
as
dire
as
is
being
suggested
and
I'm
willing
to
give
it
a
shot,
but
I
also
would
like
it
to
be
reviewed
at
a
future
date.
B
So
that
would
be
my
final
question.
If
this
grant
by
law
passes
and
knowing
that
the
first
batch
of
applications
will
be
the
first
three
months
of
2018,
so
that
would
be
the
first
sort
of
type
of
pilot
project
of
the
four
of
the
new
bylaw.
At
what
point
would
we
get
a
report,
and
would
the
report
come
to
the
committee
and
would
there
be
opportunities
to
update
the
bylaw
at
that
time?.
P
B
P
Through
mr.
chair,
we
haven't
built
any
sort
of
review
clause
in
the
bylaw
itself.
We
also
haven't
suggested
one
as
part
of
our
recommendation.
However,
that
was
something
that
the
committee
wished
us
to
do.
I
can
sort
of
an
envision
a
an
amendment
to
the
recommendation
to
require
that
staff
come
back
to
the
committee
to
report
on
the
effectiveness
of
the
bylaw,
perhaps
a
year
after
its
implementation.
B
Guess
what
I'm
suggesting
is
that
we
build
in
a
pilot
project,
type
of
clause
that
allows
this
to
be
tested
and
and
not
necessary,
and
then
it
can
come
back
for
for
a
review.
I
know
that
the
overall
functioning
of
the
committee
is
also
under
question
and
there's
a
motion
coming
up
later
on
the
agenda
from
Dawn
about
a
review
of
the
actual
committees
work,
but
I
would
I
would
submit
that
that
we
need
to
try
something
out
this.
B
B
So
there's
an
amendment
being
proposed
that
would
add
to
the
single
recommendation
here.
The
recommendation
itself
just
says
that
the
that
it
be
recommended
to
counsel
that
the
bylaw
as
amended
be
repealed
and
replaced
with
the
draft
a
so
the
new
draft
parole.
So
this
would
be
a
second
clause.
I.
Take
it
just
read
back
what
the
second
Clause
would
look
like.
I
B
A
So
for
clarification,
the
proposed
amendment
is
to
add
two
additional
clauses
to
the
main
recommendation:
the
first
Clause
being
that
staff
come
back
after
the
2018
grant
application
year
to
give
a
report
upon
the
process
and
allow
for
a
chance
for
heritage
Kingston
to
review
and
offer
suggested
updates.
And
the
third
Clause
would
be
that
staff
be
directed
to
bring
a
report
to
the
Heritage
Kingstown
committee.
In
the
event
that
the
scoring
criteria
are
applied
in
the
review
of
grant
applications.
B
B
So
if
I
understand
it,
it
is
there's
no
guarantee
that
we'll
have.
We
will
have
enough
applications
in
the
first
year
to
require
a
scoring
criteria.
Is
that
okay?
So
so
there
may
not.
The
scoring
criteria
will
not
be
applied
if
there
are
$50,000
worth
of
grants
that
are
applied
for
right,
but
if,
if
they
are
applied,
that
means
somebody's
lost
out
and
then
that's
what
the
second
Clause
addresses.
B
So
that's
moved
by
Paul
seconded
by
Megan,
so
well,
I'll
just
start
things
off
because
I'm
I'm
thinking
about
it
basically
I'm
the
first
Clause
I'm
happy
with
that
was
my
suggestion.
That's
what
I
would
like
and
I
think
periodic
review
of
any
new
policy
is
a
good
idea
in
general
and
it
just
allows
us
to
move
forward,
not
backwards.
That's
great!
That's
all
support
the
first
one.
B
The
second
Clause
is
important
because
it
highlights
the
fact
that
the
scoring
criteria
may
not
always
be
necessary,
but
we're
hoping
that
it
is
because
it's
a
good
problem
to
have
to
have
too
many
applications,
because
that
means
you're
getting
a
lot
of
uptake
in
their
grant
program.
You
get
a
lot
of
work
done
on
heritage
buildings
so,
and
the
competition
will
actually
in
itself
should
make
heritage
preservation
happen
more
quickly
because
it
becomes
something
that
I
don't
know.
B
If
it
adds
status
or
you
can
tell
your
neighbors
about
it,
but
if
you
get
it
heritage
grant
and
they're
not
always
given,
then
you
could
say
well.
My
work
was
so
good
that
it
would
that
it
got
all
heritage
grant
right.
It
might
add
a
little
bit
of
incentive
and
and
help
spread
the
word
on
the
importance
of
heritage
preservation,
which
is
really
what
we're
trying
to
do
here
so
I'm
going
to
support
both
both
causes
of
the
amendment
I'm.
B
L
I
can
support
these
amendments.
It
doesn't
turn
it
into
a
pilot.
It
turns
it
into
something
that
needs
to
report
back,
which
makes
perfect
sense
anyway.
I
did
have
a
cheeky
response
that
you
know
if
we
get
so
many
applications,
maybe
council
should
up
the
budget
instead
of
having
to
score
everything
against,
because
they
say
we
have
a
very
heritage,
friendly
council.
B
You
anyone
else,
Paul
you've
got
the
last
word
on
your
amendment.
You
said
unless
you've
said
everything:
okay,
so
we'll
vote
on
the
amendment.
Only
all
those
in
favor
opposed
and
that
carries
now
back
to
the
full
recommendation.
So
now
has
three
clauses.
The
first
Clause
is
that
the
bylaw
be
that
the
new
draft
bylaw
replaced
the
old
2005
bylaw
and
then
the
two
clauses
we
just
passed
any
further
discussion
on
the
amended
councilor
shell.
L
L
L
The
comment
came
that
we
do
not
have
up-to-date
designations
for
some
well,
quite
a
few
buildings,
the
old
designations.
So
I
wonder:
if
staff
have
an
idea
of
how
some
of
these
updates
are
going,
you
know:
are
there
some
in
the
in
the
works
that
we
would
see
so
that
when
we
get
to
these
grant
applications,
there
isn't
so
much
confusion?
Is
there
a
response.
P
3
mr.
chair,
to
be
honest,
I
believe
most
of
our
efforts
have
been
forward
focused.
We
haven't
actually
prepared
a
strategy
to
go
back
and
look
at
some
of
these
bylaws
I.
Think
it's
something,
though,
that
we
can
look
at
and
bring
to
the
working
group,
perhaps
to
establish
a
strategy
for
for
doing
some
updates.
L
L
We
are
an
advice
group.
We
are
not
a
bunch
of
heritage
professionals,
none
of
us
have
degrees
and,
in
the
long
run,
I
as
a
councilor
rely
on
the
professional
staff
of
the
city
of
Kingston,
because
when
a
decision
is
made
there
on
the
line,
their
professionalism
is
on
the
line.
I
get
to
walk
away.
If
I've
made
a
mistake,
I'm,
ok,
unless
it's
a
conflict
but
in
general
I
rely
on
the
staff
of
the
city
of
Kingston,
because
we
don't,
in
our
committees,
ask
for
professional
heritage
experts,
professional
museum
experts
with
degrees.
L
We
ask
for
citizens
with
knowledge
to
advise
so
I.
Just
keep
that
at
the
top
of
my
mind,
all
the
time
staff
have
a
big
stake
in
this
being
done
right
that
isn't
as
big
as
me.
In
some
ways,
I
love
the
city,
but
when
it
gets
down
to
the
nitty-gritty,
I
need
staff
and
their
professionalism
and
I
rely
on
it
very
much.
Thank
you.
G
Am
comfortable
with
the
amendments,
but
I
still
can't
support
the
main
recommendation
for
the
reasons
that
have
been
mentioned.
I
don't
think
it
meets
sea
standards
that
we
should
expect
for
transparency
for
a
responsible
administration,
basically
the
Heritage
Committee
well
in
the
sort
of
preamble
to
all
this.
There
is
a
lot
of
discussion
how
there
were
some
difficult
disagreements
or
concerns
when
grant
applications
came
to
the
committee
and
the
solution
seems
to
be
don't
bring
them
to
the
committee
and
then
there
won't
be
any
embarrassment
or
any
problems.
G
That's
not
the
way
the
city
should
work.
We
think
heritage
support
is
important.
A
lot
of
people
think
our
heritage
is
important
and
we
want
the
best
standards
possible.
The
whole
principle
of
the
Heritage
Act
was
to
bring
a
committee,
the
Heritage
Committee
into
play,
and
that
committee
represents
a
community.
It
also
provides
expertise
in
historic
architecture,
historical,
the
history
of
the
city
in
building
heritage,
building,
construction,
architects,
heritage,
architects.
Those
qualities
are
generally
not
found
on
council
they're
not
found
in
most
senior
administration
levels.
It
takes
years
of
experience
it
takes
well.
G
M
I'm,
hoping
with
the
amendment
that
there
was
approved
that
we
can
move
forward
with
this,
is
it
perfect?
No,
but
that's
what
we
can
do
is
we
can
actually
review
it
in
a
in
time.
I
think
it's
a
great
start
and
I
can
approve.
I
I
can
vote
for
this
I
think
it's
a
a
lot
of
work
for
the
staff
and
I
and,
like
councilor
shell,
says
they're,
the
ones
that
are
in
line
as
well
as
City
Council.
M
B
B
B
Right
well,
we're
running
out
of
time
with
quorum.
I
know
that
if
we
lose
one
more
member,
the
meeting
is
over
so
we'll
just
keep
moving.
Here.
We've
got
the
working
group
reports,
heritage
properties,
working
group,
cultural
heritage,
working
group,
heritage,
assets,
working
group
they're
all
in
the
package.
B
F
B
Okay,
we
can't
alter
the
agenda,
but
what
we
could
do
is
just
quickly
vote
to
accept
the
working
reports
with
no
discussion,
and
that
would
save
time
if
they
don't
want
to
move
that
so
move
by
Peter,
saying
by
dawn
that
the
two
reports,
the
one
hair
drop,
is
working
group
report
and
they
want
combined
report
of
the
two
other
working
groups
be
received.
Yes,.
B
L
B
Clerk
is
saying
that
perhaps
if
we
actually,
we
could,
even
though
we
we
could
pass
them
you're
right
if
we
defer
them
to
the
next
meeting,
then
we'll
have
an
opportunity
for
comment
at
the
next
meeting.
So
there's
a
motion
on
the
floor
to
defer
the
working
group
reports
to
the
next
meeting,
January
I've,
the
rationale,
you've
sort
of
already
said
so
that
you
can
comment
the
debate
is
only
to
place
and
time.
So
what
time
are
you
suggesting
the.
B
So
that
would
be
January.
2018
I
need
a
seconder
for
the
deferral
seconded
by
Megan
any
discussion
on
time,
seeing
none,
we
will
vote
on
the
deferral
all
those
in
favor
and
that
carries
that's
deferred.
There's
an
update
regarding
an
emergency
approvals.
Raise
your
hand
if
you
have
anything
to
say
about
it
and
then
there's
two
new
motions.
G
There
can
be
brief,
we're
not
really
entitled
I
think
to
discuss
the
report
now,
but
I
think.
As
a
as
a
committee
of
the
community,
we
have
the
scope
to
bring
matters
of
importance
to
council,
and
so
this
is
just
to
ensure
that
council
addresses
this
report
and
hopefully
asks
staff
to
study
it
and
develop
a
position.
L
L
L
It
would
appear
to
me
realistically
that
we
don't
ask
our
staff
to
develop
a
city
position
that
which
would
mean
basically
a
position
that
they
are
recommending
to
council
to
take
that
that's
not
what
staff
do
that's
not
their
job,
especially
if
it's
a
political,
a
group
of
even
if
it's
a
mix
I,
don't
know
how
the
federal
government
works.
So
maybe
they're
standing
committees
are
a
mix
of
politicians
and
experts.
I
simply
don't
know
it's
a
it's
a
report
that
makes
recommendations.
L
It's
not
a
finished
report
then
so
we
would
be
basically
asking
staff
to
create
a
position
about
a
group
of
recommendations
made
by
a
group
of
politicians
and
experts
and
I
think
that's
totally
unfair
to
city
staff.
So
I'll
asks
the
I
guess
I
should
ask,
but
as
a
politician,
it
just
seems
like
a
huge
I.
Don't
even
know
if
we
can
do
it
basically
requests.
L
B
E
The
archives
world
they're,
like
the
archives
Association
of
Ontario.
We
have
a
committee,
an
advocacy
committee
where
the
community
is
invited
to
provide
commentary
on
a
working
document
such
as
this,
and
so
I
think
that
that
would
be
the
venue
for
for
asking
for
commentary,
not
necessarily
this.
The
city
stopped
at
this
point.
M
One
reason
I:
second,
this
emotion
was
in
there,
they
talk
about
indigenous
heritage
sites
and,
of
course,
that's
not
buildings
and
it's
not
anywhere
one
federal
site,
and
we
do
know
that
within
the
city
of
kingston
there
is
indigenous
sites.
So
that's
where
this
may
be
relevant
for
the
city
staff,
but
I
do
understand
politically
how
you
can't
tell
federal
how
to
do
federal
heritage
sites,
but
could
in
do
dis,
heritage
sites.
We
fall
under
this
as
a
review.
B
Thank
you.
Maybe
I'll
just
take
this
opportunity
to
ask
another
question
for
clarity.
If
this
recommendation
from
us
does
not
go
to
council
now
that
staff
knows
about
the
preserving
Canada's
future
the
foundation
for
tomorrow
report
without
any
direction
from
Council,
what
would
staff
do
if
anything
about
this
federal
report.
U
So
mr.
chair,
we
would
definitely
I
think.
What
we
would
want
to
do
is
make
sure
that
we
are
well
inform
as
to
what's
happening
and
report
that
information
back
and
also
ask
if
there
are
any
venues
for
the
public
to
to
be
involve
or
for
input
to
come
through
different
associations.
That
may
be
better
positioned
to
provide
or
have
a
bit
of
a
role
in
terms
of
advocacy.
B
Okay,
so
actually
I
think
I
think
it's
we're
very
close
I,
don't
think
we
need
to
scrap
this
or
or
get
into
a
controversial
debate
about
this,
because
there's
only
one
clause
and
it's
that
directs
that
we're
recommending
the
council
direct
staff
to
do
what
to
study
the
report.
Well,
that's
a
good
idea,
but
they've
already
said
they
would
study
it
anyway,
but
it's.
I
B
Sometimes
it's
nice
to
have
it
in
writing
and
the
problem
I
think
it's.
The
last
four
words
develop
a
city
position.
Although
the
city
position
could
be
enter
conversation
with
the
federal
government
about
the
implication
to
the
Kingston
sites,
and
that
could
be
our
position,
it
doesn't
necessarily
it
suggests
that
we
might
also
think
of
developing
a
position
that
might
be
at
odds
with
the
federal
government
which
which
some
people
would
find
very
controversial.
B
The
recommendation
might
might
be
well,
whatever
staff
comes
up
with.
After
studying
the
report
right,
I'm
just
I've,
just
I
am
NOT
gonna
make
that
amendment
but
I'm
just
saying.
If
there's
a
way
that
we
can
remove
the
suggestion
that
we're
asking
staff
to
take
a
political
stance
and
then
we
can
salvage
the
motion,
does
anyone
have
any
ideas?
L
Have
no
idea
how
many
of
this
kind
of
report
there
is
out
there.
The
report
talks
about
these
recommendations
coming
from
the
year
2007.
So
this
is
a
committee.
That's
been
studying
these
issues,
at
least
since
2007,
and
maybe
more
so,
I'm
I'm,
very
uncomfortable.
As
a
councilor
saying
to
my
fellow
councillors
that
we
direct
staff
to
study
this
report,
how
many
are
there
I
mean
it
just
if,
if
we
want
to
even
say
anything,
it
would
be
something
like
heritage.
L
Kingston
suggests
to
counsel
that
this
is
a
very
good
report
for
staff
to
look
at.
We
can't
direct
I,
don't
believe
the
City
of
Kingston
staff
to
study
a
report.
I
mean
we'd
have
to
have
a
hell
of
a
justification
for
it
and
that
it's
you
know
timely
important
move,
something
forward
and
again
it
doesn't
it's.
It's
a
report.
That's
part
of
a
package
that's
been
around
and
discussed
for
years
to
do
with
federal
buildings.
I
agree
with
mr.
L
Karle
that
a
major
item
that
we're
interested
in
as
a
committee
in
the
stories
of
Kingston
and
indigenous
sites
and
indigenous
communities
is
really
important,
but
this
study
doesn't
really
focus
on
that.
So
I
just
I
just
can't
see
that
it's
something
that
we
should
be
moving
forward
to
our
council
and
that
then
councillor,
Stroud
and
I
have
to
explain
why
we
would
be
directing
staff
on
this
one
particular
report
without
some
incredible
backup
information.
G
Yes,
I,
don't
know
the
whole
political
history
of
this,
but
in
releasing
this
report,
which
they've
prepared
very
quickly
just
in
the
last
two
three
months,
it's
a
huge
report,
so
I
assume
they
plan
to
go
somewhere
with
it
and
I
assume
in
releasing
it
they're
hoping
for
feedback
from
particularly
from
constituencies
and
and
Institute's
that
are
which
heritage
is
very
important
and
I.
Think
the
City
of
Kingston
is
one
of
those
is
a
an
important
player
in
the
Canadian
history.
T
You
and
through
you,
mr.
chair,
so
I
just
spent
a
little
bit
of
time.
Reading
the
press
releases
and
I've
just
read
the
press
release
that
was
put
out
by
the
minister
responsible
for
this
report.
So
what
it
indicates
is
that
you
know
there
are
a
lot
of
recommendations
and
a
lot
of
them
are
at
a
high
level,
but
what
the
government,
the
federal
government
is
committing
to,
is
you
know
a
process
going
forward
that
would
involve
consultation
with
different
stakeholders.
T
Municipal
governments
are
specifically
indicated,
so
there
will
be
a
process
where
the
federal
government
now
looks
at
the
recommendations
and
tries
to
determine
what
they
feel
are.
You
know
the
the
most
cogent
ways
to
move
forward
with
an
implementation
strategy,
and
it
specifically
references
that
municipal
governments
will
be
engaged
in
that
process.
So
I
think
it's
something
that
from
a
staff
perspective,
we
can
keep
an
eye
on
it,
and
certainly
you
know
bring
information
back
to
the
committee.
B
Okay,
so
what
I'm
hearing
then
dawn
is
that
staff
has
every
intention
of
studying
this
report
and
may
well
be
coming
back
to
this
committee,
with
with
an
update
once
they've
consulted
with
the
federal
government,
because
the
federal
government
is
seeking
consultation.
I
guess
leads
me
to
believe
that
maybe
the
report
raising
their
awareness
I
mean
whether
we
pass
this
or
not.
You
raise
your
awareness
about
the
report,
so
that's
good
whether
we
need
to
pass
this
on
the
council
or
not.
B
It
really
depends
on
I
think
whether
we
need
to
further
raise
awareness
at
council
about
this
report,
because
what
the
Director
of
Planning
just
said
is
that
that
you
would
staff
would
likely
have
something
to
tell
us
about
this
report
in
the
future
once
the
consultation
is
taking
place,
I
guess
yeah.
So
the
question
is
what
what
does
the
motion
really
add?.
G
B
B
B
The
membership
of
the
working
group
would
be
recommended
by
the
nominations
committee
and
would
include
a
heron
staff
member,
preferably
two
members
with
experience
built
home
heritage
from
current
or
previous
municipal
heritage
committees,
a
member
with
general
cultural
heritage
interests,
a
member
with
experience
of
civic
museums
and
collections,
and
a
member
of
the
pub
the
working
group
would
submit
recommendations
to
council
within
a
year
from
its
establishment
dawn.
It's
your
motion.
You
get
to
go
first
well,.
G
I'm,
very
sorry,
of
course,
that
we're
down
to
a
bare
bones
of
a
committee,
and
it
would
really
be
better
if
we
had
something
like
full
membership,
but
we're
here
and
we
I
think,
might
as
well
try
to
go
ahead.
So
I'll
briefly
cover
try
to
cover
the
main
issues.
I
gave
a
presentation
a
couple
meetings
ago
and
and
just
to
remind
people
of
that.
Essentially,
the
problem
is
this
committee
is
not
working
very
well,
I.
G
G
G
Recommendations
and
and
and
review
rather
staffs
review
of
applications,
and
it's
really
been
very
minimal.
Likewise,
visits
to
heritage
buildings
for
applicate,
reviewing
applications
very
important
and
very
few
people
are
coming
to
those
visits.
So
basically,
we
have
a
serious
imbalance
in
in
the
business
of
the
committee
and
the
the
recommend
and
the
structure
of
the
representation
of
the
committee.
G
The
there
are
other
concerns
about
procedures
that
members
who
are
interested
in
and
knowledgeable
about
built
heritage
are
finding
that
their
they're
not
hearing
about
many
of
the
applications.
A
lot
of
the
applications
are
being
settled
by
delegated
authority,
and
even
when
these
the
alteration
applications
are
major.
The
delegation
procedure
is
meant
for
minor
alterations
and
they're
being
applied
for
almost
anything
and
I
used
a
couple
of
examples:
77
79
Gore
speech,
an
old
stone
building
which
has
been
gutted
inside
and
out
being
reappointed
rebuilt
inside
nude,
porch
new
doors,
new
windows,
dormers,
rear
addition.
G
The
committee
has
never
heard
about
it
so
again
for
those
of
us
for
members
who
want
to
you
know
they're
on
this
committee,
because
they
want
to
help
save
and
improve
built
heritage
they're.
Just
not
having
any
involvement
and
they're
there
have
to
ask
why?
Why
do
they
come?
Why
should
they
serve
on
the
committee
for
other
other
areas
of
cultural
heritage?
There's
very
little
business
here,
and
so
these
meetings
are
not
going
to
be
of
much
interest
to
me.
G
It
would
be
great
if,
and
some
of
them
have
been
getting
more
and
more
interested
in
the
actual
business
that
comes
to
the
committee
and
that's
great
I
mean
I
I,
don't
think
the
committee
I'm
not
suggesting
nobody's
suggesting
the
committee
should
be
entirely
composed
of
built
heritage.
People,
it's
always
been,
there's
always
been
a
broad
range
of
interests,
but
it
there's.
It's
always
been
understood
that
the
main
business
of
the
committee
is
built
heritage
and
we
can.
G
All
right,
we
can't
really
proceed
otherwise,
so
it's
not
good
the
members,
it's
I,
don't
think
it's
good
for
staff,
in
that
they
are
put
under
a
lot
of
stress
to
make
decisions
which
really
should
be
coming
to
the
committee
and
one
of
the
advantages
of
committee.
You
know
if
people
come
and
say
why
do
we
have
to
do
this
and
I
don't
want
to
do
that?
And
who
are
you
to
tell
me
what
to
do?
They
could
say?
F
Thank
you
I'm
pleased
to
second
this
motion,
because
I
think
that
I
wouldn't
disagree
with
anything
that
Don
has
said
about
the
challenges
which
the
committee
faces,
but
an
experiment
was
undertaken
over
a
year
ago
of
putting
two
committees
together,
and
there
was
an
expectation
at
that
time
that
that
experiment
would
be
would
be
reviewed
and
so
I
think
that
you
know
what
is
being
proposed
is
is,
is
nothing
exceptional.
It
is.
F
It
is
that
an
experiment
be
be
evaluated
after
a
time
period
of
its
implementation,
as
was
anticipated
in
the
first
place,
and
there
are
some,
as
Donna
said,
some
important
matters
which
which
have
arisen
and
need
a
review,
but
the
review
itself
is
fundamentally
routine,
I
think
and,
and
it's
in
no
way
exceptional.
Thank
you.
B
M
As
in
our
last
motion,
we
dis
did
I'm
all
for
reviewing
to
see
how
we're
doing
and
stop
me
if
I'm
overstepping
my
bounds
here
but
I
do
take
a
point
that
it
sounds
like
the
non
built
heritage.
People
have
no
place
here
and
the
non
built
heritage,
people
don't
care
for
built
heritage.
I've
sit
on
this
community
for
a
few
years
now
and
I
look
towards
the
real
charity.
People
to
give
me
advice,
but
when
I
first
got
to
this
committee,
I
was
told.
M
I
was
a
citizen
and,
as
citizens
are
here
to
give
advice,
I'm
not
an
expert
in
built
heritage
but
as
Michelle
did
say,
more
and
more
people
are
hearing
the
stories
and
want
to
hear
the
stories
and
a
piece
of
stone
is
just
a
stone.
There's,
not
a
story
behind
it.
So
I
do
take.
You
know
sort
of
insult
if
you
want
to
say
it
that
the
non
built
heritage
people
are
not
valued
here,
I'm
for
view,
but
I'm.
Also
the
last
meeting
we
did
have
and
this
motion
come
up.
Then
it
was
removed.
M
We
don't
have
everybody
here,
and
everybody
should
have
this
voice,
because
this
is
the
committee
they
sit
on.
So
I
do
believe
that
we
should
look
at
possibly
waiting
til.
We
have
the
whole
committee
I'm,
not
ready
for
deferral,
yet
there
may
be
something
else
come
up,
but
I
think
everybody
should
have
a
voice
for
this
Thanks.
M
L
Thank
You
mr.
chair,
one
of
the
misconceptions
is
that,
as
Paul
said,
he's
been
on
this
committee
for
a
number
of
years,
because
I
think
it
was
three
years
ago
we
changed
the
committee
to
include
culture
and
heritage.
Yes,
it
had
been
a
built
heritage
committee,
but
we
started
to
expand
based
on
the
culture
plan
to
include
culture
and
heritage,
and
then,
a
year
ago
what
we
did
was
add
museums.
L
We
hadn't
understood
that
we
weren't
doing
it
correctly,
whether
or
not
that's
still
an
argument.
We
have
now
got
a
new
way
of
handling
part
five
designations
and
the
applications
for
change.
So
what
I'd
like
to
do
is
go
into
the
motion
a
little
bit
again,
I
find
it
an
odd
resolve
clause
because
it
basically
says
a
review
of
the
composition.
Well,
that's
the
membership,
the
mandate,
so
that
would
be
citizens
reviewing
the
Mandate
of
this
committee
and
procedures
and
I
know.
We've
had
these
discussions
about
part
five.
L
L
Okay,
so
that's
that
isn't
actually
what
it
says:
the
membership
of
the
working
group
would
be
correct.
Commanded
by
a
nominee
would
include
a
heritage
staff
member
and
preferably
two
members
with
experience
in
bill,
oh
sorry,
from
current
or
previous
municipal
heritage
committees.
So
it's
so
you
want
people
who
have
been
on
this
committee
or
are
on
it
now
or
were
on
it
with
built
heritage
experience.
L
I
L
G
L
So
I'll
leave
it
I'll
leave
it
at
that.
That's
how
I
feel
it's
already
directing
the
way
that
they,
this
nominations
would
find
the
committee.
Another
question
would
be
if
we
could
find
out
how
this
committee,
if
it
passed,
would
review
the
these
items.
How
would
you
how
would
the
I
would
ask
you
to
find
out
how
the
committee
would
do
their
review.
L
And
it
would
be
to
dawn
or
to
mover
in
in
what
I've
put
down
to
myself
is:
how
would
they
do
the
review
by
reading
the
minutes
by
interviewing
members
of
this
committee
and
previous
committees
by
interviewing
people
who
sit
and
observe
the
committee,
because,
basically,
the
functioning
of
this
committee
for
the
general
public?
They
have
no
idea
what
we
do.
So,
if
you
have
members
of
the
general
public
who
haven't
been
members
of
the
committee
and
it
looks
like
we
would
have
some
because
there's
only
two
proscribed
previous
members
of
the
committee.
B
B
L
It's
rather
important
question
because
it
leaves
this
whole
thing
hanging
somebody
doing
a
review
or
a
group
doing
a
review
that
we
don't
know
how
they
would
do
it,
because
another
thing
that
will
come
up
is
if
this
review
is
taken
undertaken
in
a
way
that
costs
money
council
has
to
direct
a
budget
for
it.
So
how
the
review
would
be
undertaken
would
require
a
budget
if
it
involves
any
outside
engagement.
L
If
it's
within
the
the
little
the
little
group,
then
that's
one
thing
and
by
the
end
of
it,
when
you
read
this
review,
why
couldn't
we
as
a
committee,
do
our
own
review?
Because
it's
basically
the
same
thing?
You've
got
members
of
the
committee,
the
built
heritage,
you've
got
a
staff
member
and
then
people
that
are
already
on
the
committee,
except
we're
asking
for
different
people
who
aren't
on
the
committee.
It
would
appear.
B
E
Just
like
to
know
to
what
end
is
all
of
this
work
going
to
get
us,
because
it's
clear
not
so
much
from
this
motion
as
presented,
but
the
previous
one.
There
was
very
clearly
an
agenda
and
an
opinion
that
the
two
groups,
so
the
built
heritage
and
the
the
culture
side
should
be
separated
again
and
I'm
just
wondering
after
this
group,
this
perspective
group
is
put
together
and
goes
through
their
process
and
then
reports
back
to
us
or
or
just
City
Council.
E
What,
then,
is,
is
that
even
feasible
to
go
back
to
the
way
things
were
so
I'm,
just
I
just
questioned
whether
it's
it's
appropriate
to
go
through.
All
of
that
work
only
to
to
change
like
nothing
will
change
or
nothing
can
change.
Based
on
my
understanding
is
that
to
bring
heritage
Kingston
together
took
a
profound
amount
of
work
to
begin
with.
B
L
B
You
wish
I
could
stand
up
at
this
might
because
I
really
need
to
stretch
my
legs
in
a
nutshell,
I
fully
understand
the
intent
of
the
motion,
but,
like
the
two
previous
speakers,
I
have
some
concerns
about
the
precise
way
that
it's
coming
to
us
today.
On
top
of
that,
the
can
be
really
important.
Concern
mentioned
by
Paul
that
not
everybody's
here.
B
So,
if
we
vote
on
this
today,
we
are
revolting
Aaron.
A
to
something.
That's
all
we
know
already
is
called
a
version
because
there's
been
people
spoken
on
both
sides
of
this
today.
As
chair
I,
would
you
know
I,
like
the
diversity
of
this
committee
and
I
and
I
value,
all
the
different
voices
and
I
feel
that
if
perhaps
we
from
from
it
from
a
narrow
perspective,
we
were
not
as
functional,
perhaps
as
one
might
hope,
but
that
being
said,
I
feel
like
as
chair
and
I've
been
chair.
B
Now
this
is
my
fourth
term
now
they're,
just
starting
as
chair
I
feel
like
we're
getting
somewhere
as
a
group,
because
our
debates
are
meaningful
and
different
points
of
views
are
being
expressed
and
and
if
you
watched
debates
of
other
committees
or
even
other
councils
councils
and
other
disabilities
as
well,
you
will
know
that
this
is
not
always
the
case.
In
fact,
it's
the
exception,
rather
than
the
rule
that
that
simplifies
debate
happens.
So
that
to
me
is
actually
a
huge
plus.
B
So
although
there
are
members
from
different
backgrounds
here,
we've
we're
starting
to
figure
out
how
to
talk
to
each
other
and
how
to
include
everyone's
voice
in
the
conversations
and
in
that
sense,
I
feel,
like
the
reviews.
Timing
and
suggested
by
this
motion
is
actually
premature,
not
that
it
hasn't
many
years
in
sue
formation
or
since
the
merging.
That's
that
by
the
letter
is
true,
but
it's
really
getting
to
the
chair.
B
The
committee
couldn't
possibly
function.
We've
been
set
up
to
fail
all
those
kinds
of
arguments
and
whether
whether
or
not
they're
true
is
going
to
be
really
up
to
time
to
tell
so.
Where
does
that
leave
me
on
this
motion?
Well,
first
of
all,
I'm
reluctant
to
vote
on
it
right
now
with
only
six
of
us
here.
Second
of
all,
I
feel
like,
although
I
do
support
the
idea
of
a
review
I,
don't
necessarily
think
that
right
now
is
that
time.
B
I
think
we
might
need
more
time
to
function
as
a
group,
but
so
that
we
could
have
a
meaningful
discussion,
also
I'm
a
little
uncomfortable
with
just
the
basic
fact
that
it
is
a
working
app.
A
newly
formed
working
group
is
being
proposed.
That
would
essentially
tell
council
how
to
run
its
committee,
and
this
working
group
is
a
collection
of
citizens
like
at
best
I
wear.
B
A
group
like
that
could
really
only
just
provide
some
useful,
constructive
criticism
and
I
don't
see
how
they
could
really
be
given
the
mandate
to
review
this
committees
mandate
that,
because
that's
sort
of
backwards
in
in
in
the
way
it
works,
it's
council
needs
to
review
the
band-aid
and
before
we
can
have
this
conversation
that
council
Council
needs
to
be
better
informed
about
what
we're
actually
doing,
because
just
like
counselors
I
was
saying
about
the
average
citizen,
not
knowing
what
we
do
here.
It's
the
same
with
the
average
councilor.
So
that's
the
problem.
B
So
if
this
goes
to
council
right
now,
I'm
not
sure
how,
if
I'm
able
to
even
explain
it
to
my
colleague
except
counsel,
between
Council
and
I,
it
puts
a
tremendous
pressure
on
counselor,
shell
and
I
to
try
to
make
sense
of
this
on
behalf
of
the
committee.
If
it
passes
to
Council
I'm,
not
ready
to
go
there
now,
but
it
is
a
valid
suggestion
that
we
have
a
review
and
it's
a
valid
suggestion
that
we
do
some
existential
soul-searching.
So
what
to
do
about
it?
B
Well,
we
either
vote
on
it
now
or
we
don't,
and
the
only
way
to
not
vote
on
now
is
to
defer
it
so
I
guess
I'm
going
to
move
deferral,
and
that
is
so
that
and
I've
I've
given
up
the
chair
already
so
council,
shell
you're
in
charge
of
this
I'm
gonna,
move
to
parole
and
I
will
have
some
arguments
about
time.
Once
I've
got
a
seconder
do.
B
B
Here's
my
quandary,
so
the
time
is
basically
I
would
I
would
top
my
head.
I
would
say
six
months,
but
that
brings
us
into
the
summer.
It
also
brings
us
in
the
summer
of
an
election
year,
definitely
not
a
good
time
to
talk
to
other
counselors
about
something
like
this
and
the
new
committee
will
will
be
formed
again
in
the
next
term
of
council
soon
enough,
in
fact,
in
November
or
December
of
next
year,
so
I
think
I'm
going
to
move
deferral
to
December
2018
one
year
from
now,
2018.