►
From YouTube: Kingston, Ontario - Heritage Kingston - July 20, 2022
Description
Heritage Kingston meeting from July 20, 2022. For full meeting agenda visit https://bit.ly/3aWZyBi
A
B
C
A
Thank
you,
mr
chair,
and
through
you
I'll
just
get
us
started
by
letting
everyone
know
who
is
in
the
meeting
with
us
this
morning.
We
do
have.
We
do
have
quorum
this
morning,
currently
absent
from
committee
members
or
councillor
doherty,
and
councillor
wusterhoff
joining
us
from
staff
for
jennifer
campbell,
director
of
heritage
services,
andrea
gammo
manager
of
heritage
planning,
ryan,
leary
senior
planner,
philip
perrell
intermediate
planner,
ian
sullivan,
is
our
meeting
host
for
today
and
I'm
elizabeth
I'm
committee
clerk
for
heritage
kingston.
D
Thank
you
very
much
so
call
the
meeting
to
order
at
9
33
start
with
the
approval
of
the
agenda.
I
notice
they
are
all
part
four,
so
we
don't
have
to
even
remember,
as
we
make
the
change
additions
to
the
agenda
and
seeing
none
on
a
mover
to
approve
the
agenda
as
printed
don
mitchell
seconded
by
jane
mcfarland.
Thank
you
further
discussion
and
seeing
none
you
have
an
agenda
the
minutes
of
june
15..
D
D
Oh
I'm
sorry,
we
will
go
back
and
vote
on
the
agenda.
Then
do
we
have
an
unamended
agenda
as
printed
those
in
favor?
You
can
raise
your
hand
or
say
yes.
Thank
you.
I
see
all
and
hear
all.
Thank
you
very
much.
So
apologies
for
that
on
to
the
minutes
are
there
corrections
to
the
printed
minutes
that
were
distributed.
D
D
E
E
Next
slide.
Please
so
we're
looking
at
today
is
an
application
under
section
33
of
the
heritage
act
to
request
approval
to
add
a
single
story,
addition
to
the
side,
rear
of
the
historic
stone
dwelling.
The
proposed
bishop
is
approximately
180
square
meters
and
located
with
its
front
wall,
in
line
with
the
rear
wall
of
the
stone
dwelling
on
the
north
side
so
difficult
to
tell,
but
you
can
see
them
on
the
image
at
the
bottom
of
your
screen,
how
far
setback
it
is.
E
One
rear
window
of
the
stone
dwelling
is
proposed
to
be
lengthened
to
accommodate
an
internal
door
between
the
house
and
the
addition.
The
plans
are
in
your
agenda
package,
prepared
by
lakeside
drafting
and
design,
as
well
as
a
written
overview,
a
really
cool
scale
model
and
and
pictures
also
all
prepared
by
the
owners.
E
The
main
dwelling
is
a
one
and
a
half
story
tall
with
a
gabled
roof
and
three
dormers
the
south
frame
facing
bath
road
and
the
south
southern
frame
edition,
which
could
possibly
be
a
remnants
of
an
earlier
dwelling
links
the
stone
dwelling
with
the
two-car
garage
edition
located
to
the
rear.
The
frame
edition
is
also
one
and
a
half
story,
but
at
a
lower
scale,
and
includes
two
new
dormers
that
were
added
to
heritage
permit
in
2019.
E
According
to
the
submission,
the
owners
are
intended
to
construct
this
barrier-free
accessible
edition,
so
they
can
allow
family
to
use
the
main
house
and
they
will
reside
in
the
new
addition.
The
owners
have
lived
and
cared
for
this
property
for
over
40
years
and,
with
the
help
of
lakeside
design,
have
designed
a
large
single
story
edition
that
reflects
the
character
of
the
main
house
and
the
southern
wing
in
its
profile,
design
and
materiality,
and
look
and
located
in
the
root
to
the
rear
of
the
property.
E
E
While
the
use
of
a
central
gable
pediment
allows
the
building
to
clear,
be
clearly
distinguishable
as
a
modern
intervention,
we
commend
the
applicants
on
their
intention
to
reflect
the
glazing,
size
and
pattern
of
the
southern
wing.
However,
the
large
multi-pane
windows
seem
unnecessary
and
drawn
to
attention
away
from
the
heritage
attributes
of
the
property.
E
E
The
responding
committee
members
suggested
two
over
two
three
over
three
or
four
over
four
glazing
patterns
for
these
windows
and
perhaps
a
two
over
two
pattern
for
the
pettiness
staff
have
included
a
condition
of
approval.
It's
actually
condition
five
and
six
in
the
proposed
recommendation.
That
requires
the
owners
to
amend
the
plans,
to
use
windows
with
a
vertical
emphasis
and
to
alter
the
ground
for
a
window
design
and
to
provide
details
to
staff
for
review
and
approval.
E
The
addition
will
have
very
little
visual
impact
and
prominence
on
this
on
the
stone
building
and
enter
and
from
either
the
southern
elevation
or
the
of
the
western
elevation
as
a
form
of
of
cost
savings.
The
owners
are
proposing
to
use
vinyl
siding
on
the
rear.
Inside
of
the
new
edition,
and
while
staff
support
the
idea
of
proposed
by
one
of
the
committee
members
that
the
siding
should
be
wood
on
all
sides,
given
the
location
of
limited
visibility
of
these
elevations,
we
have
no
objection
to
the
use
of
vinyl
on
these
elevations.
As
proposed.
E
E
So
we
did
circulate
this
application.
Building,
of
course
requires
building
permit.
They
also
asking
for
a
septic
review
to
to
ensure
its
capacity
for
the
addition.
Engineering
have
no
concerns
but
note
that
any
changes
to
grade
on
the
property
should
not
affect
neighboring
properties.
A
similar
environment
had
no
concerns.
They
state
their
usual
note
about
requiring
designated
substances
to
be
identified
on
site
prior
to
construction,
and
our
colleagues
in
planning
have
no
concerns
but
note
that
a
a
hard
surface
and
pathway
is
required
to
access
the
secondary
unit.
E
Members,
your
comments
are
summarized
and
attached,
in
exhibit
d
and
committing
in
our
analysis,
included
response
to
those
from
the
members.
So
mr
chair
next
slide
will
be
our
recommendation,
which
includes
number
of
conditions,
and
I
believe,
there's
also
a
second
slide
that
has
additional
conditions
and
we're
available
for
questions.
Thanks.
C
Yes,
I
think
the
plans
are
good
and
we
can
be
pleased
with
them.
I
still
think
their
applicants
should
consider
less
or
fewer
panes
on
the
front
windows,
as
I
think
brian
suggested.
The
most
of
them
are
six
over
six,
which
could
be
confused
with
original
windows
that
are
shown
on
the
main
house.
So
I
think
suggestion
of
four
over
four
or
two
over
two
should
be
considered,
but
it's
you
know,
I
think
it's
up
to
the
applicants.
D
And
seeing
them,
I'm
just
gonna
make
a
comment
which
I
don't
think
needs
giving
up.
The
chair
recommendation.
Eight
sorry
condition.
Eight
brings
up.
This
is
the
storage
of
stones
and
in
this
particular
case
the
applicant
has
got
lots
of
space
on
that
lot
for
the
storage
of
stones,
but
we
have
taught
this.
I've
talked
this
with
a
number
of
members
of
the
department
and
we
really
should
look
carefully
when
we
make
those
recommendations
as
to
where
people
can
store
stones
or
brickwork
or
whatever
else
we
suggest.
D
D
And
seeing
nothing
hearing,
nothing
emotion,
then,
is
a
recommendation
with
11
conditions
and
no
changes
have
been
made,
those
in
favor.
If
you
can
raise
your
hands,
please
right
all
speak.
Thank
you,
ted
those
opposed
and
that
carries
by
nine
to
zero.
So
thank
you
very
much.
Arnold.
Thank
you
very
much
and
best
wishes
with
with
your
project.
F
Hello
everyone
three,
mr
chair,
good
morning,
good
morning,
awesome
slides
are
up
so
27
princess
street
is
a
part
for
designing
a
property
that
seeks
to
add
new
signage
next
slide.
Please
27
princess
street
is
located
on
the
north
western
corner
of
the
intersection
of
ontario
and
princess
street.
As
you
can
see
in
these
two
pictures
here
next
slide.
Please.
F
F
Excuse
me:
the
property
is
designated
under
part,
5
of
ontario
heritage
act
and
it's
the
following
relevant
attributes.
The
building
is,
and
it
is
a
fine
example
of
a
large
commercial
building
on
an
important
corner.
The
wing
at
the
intersection
is
one
of
the
two
remaining
rounded
corner
commercial
buildings
in
kingston,
designed
by
george
brown
and
the
windows
have
rounded
arches
next
slide.
Please.
F
The
current
design
with
this
matte
finish
pale
color
palette,
nearly
uniform,
color
and
subtle
leaf
imprints
does
not
draw
a
lot
of
attention
and
are
a
neutral
impact
to
the
heritage
value
of
the
building.
The
proposed
decals
will
not
cover
the
most
distinctive
part
of
the
windows,
which
are
the
rounded
arch
window
panes,
with
its
six
lights
further,
they
should
not
encroach
onto
the
window
trim
and
should
be
an
easily
reversible
alteration.
F
To
conclude,
while
this
is
an
alteration
to
the
bottom
exterior
of
four
very
visible
windows
along
two
major
facades,
these
decals
are
temporary
installation
and
should
not
cause
any
permanent
damage,
while
allowing
the
business
to
advertise
its
commercial
use
next
slide.
Please-
and
here
is
the
recommendation
for
this
proposal,
not
a
super
detailed
one
with
most
of
the
standard
conditions.
D
D
G
G
So
this
this
context,
map
shows
the
location
that
we're
talking
about.
73
arlington
is
on
arlington
avenue
close
to
the
corner
of
union.
This
image
is
interesting
too,
because
it
shows
the
subject
property
on
the
left
and
then
on
the
right.
You
can
see
the
designation,
which
applies
to
the
subject
property
and
its
original
principal
dwelling,
part
of
the
property.
So
this
used
to
be
all
one
property.
G
G
This
shows
the
current
view
of
the
the
coach
house
that
we're
talking
about
this
morning,
as
well
as
the
principal
dwelling
to
the
left.
This
image
shows
really
clearly
the
relationship
between
the
two,
although
somewhat
obscured
by
vegetation.
You
can
definitely
make
out
there
that
you
have
a
large
brick,
victorian
principal
dwelling
at
77
arlington
on
the
left
and
then
the
smaller
coach
house
on
the
right,
which
is
now
73
ellington.
G
G
G
So
associated
with
the
severance
that
happened
in
2010,
there
was
a
need
to
update
the
the
understanding
of
the
cultural
heritage,
value
of
these
properties,
and
so
that
was
done,
and
essentially
what
it
says
is
that
the
the
value
remains
essentially
the
same,
but
it
has
been
somewhat
lessened
because
the
primary
value
of
this
coach
house
is
its
association
with
the
principal
dwelling
at
77
alwington.
So
by
severing
those
two
properties
that
link
is
is
also
somewhat
severed.
G
G
So
this
is
one
of
the
designation,
that's
that
includes
some
consideration
of
mature
landscaping
as
well,
and
I
guess
just
to
sum
up
importantly,
severing
this
property
really
has
diminished
its
contextual
value
in
terms
of
the
function
and
the
expectation
that
a
new
dwelling
will
be
introduced
next
slide.
Please.
G
So
this
image
shows
the
the
current
proposal
facing
arlington
avenue.
I
do
want
to
point
out
that
this
this
rendering
of
of
the
design
it
at
first
glance
can
be
a
little
bit
deceiving
just
because
it
almost
appears
that
the
garage
portion
is
is
set
back,
which
would
be
ideal,
but
in
fact,
what's
been
proposed
is
that
it's
set
just
slightly
forward,
and
the
report
for
this
goes
into
more
detail
about
sort
of
the
considerations
here.
G
But
essentially,
what
has
been
proposed
is
acceptable,
although
could
be
improved
by
moving
that
garage
portion
back
slightly,
because
it
helps
maintain
the
prominence
of
the
link
between
the
the
principal
dwelling
house
and
the
coach
house.
As
you
come
along
all
wington
avenue,
you
can
clearly
see
that
the
two
continue
to
be
related
to
one
another
and
the
view
is
a
little
bit
longer.
So
in
the
in
the
proposal.
G
G
Generally
speaking
as
as
sort
of
a
principle,
we
look
to
see
additions
onto
heritage
structures
to
be
very
much
subordinate,
but
in
this
case
a
coach
house
is
inherently
meant
to
be
a
subordinate
itself,
so
to
have
a
dwelling
attached
to
it,
one
would
expect
some
prominence
for
that
new
dwelling
next
slide.
Please.
G
And
this
shows
all
elevations
of
the
proposal.
I
think
it
this.
This
really
helps
to
see
how
the
the
garage
portion
is
coming
out
a
little
bit.
You
can
also
see
how
the
entryway
portion
in
between
the
coach
house
and
what's
proposed,
as
the
new
garage
is
recessed
slightly,
which
is
beneficial
to
help
maintain
the
form
of
that
coach
house.
G
G
So
essentially,
our
recommendations
have
acknowledged
that
we
believe
this
proposal
could
be
improved
by
making
some
adjustments,
and
these
these
recommendations
or
conditions
would
also
allow
some
of
those
adjustments
to
be
made,
but
they
also
confirm
that
what
has
been
proposed
is
acceptable,
and
that
is
the
end
of
my
presentation.
I'm
happy
to
answer
any
questions.
Thank
you.
C
C
If
I
believe
that,
if
someone
driving
up
or
wington
avenue,
you
will
not
see
the
coach
house
it'll
be
hidden
by
the
new
garage
wing
and
you
know,
surely
the
underlying
principle
of
heritage,
renovations
and
additions
is
that
you
do
not
obstruct
the
the
heritage
struck,
building
more
than
absolutely
necessary.
So
I
I'm
sorry,
I
I
have
to
disagree
with
the
the
recommendation.
H
The
staff
report
notes
that
the
statement
of
cultural
heritage
significance
identifies
the
coach
hosts
as
visually
and
historically
associated
with
the
adjacent
property
and
the
principal
dwelling
due
to
common
architectural
style
and
as
well.
The
subject
property
is
considered
to
make
an
important
contribution
to
the
character
of
its
surroundings.
H
H
The
staff
report
does
not
include
the
following
specific
information
on
neighborhood
guidelines
for
neighborhood
group
four,
which
includes
the
alwington
district,
notably
quoting
garages
should
be
visually
minimized,
located
in
the
rear
yard
or
set
back
from
the
main
front
wall
of
the
home.
In
addition,
general
heritage
considerations
from
the
central
kingston
growth
strategy
provides
guidance
as
well.
H
New
additions
to
protected
heritage
properties
should
be
subordinate
in
scale
massing
and
design
to
the
heritage
building
and
located
to
the
rear
wherever
possible.
If
a
new
addition
must
be
located
to
the
side
of
a
protected
heritage
property,
it
should
be
set
back
from
the
front
wall
of
the
heritage
building.
In
order
to
allow
the
heritage
building
to
maintain
its
prominence
on
the
property.
H
My
concern
number
two
is
protection
of
mature
trees,
although
maintaining
the
mature
trees
and
hence
mature
landscaping
on
the
south
side
of
the
lot
behind
the
new
garage
was
part
of
the
rationale
for
having
the
garage
so
far
forward.
In
the
lot,
the
staff
report
notes
that
consultation
with
forestry
the
trees
are
unlikely
to
be
able
to
survive
the
construction
of
the
dwelling
due
to
their
proximity.
H
H
H
H
H
I
I
I
used
to
live
in
coburg
and
there's
one
street
where
you
have
all
these
houses
are
from
the
19th
century,
very
historical,
and
then
you
just
have
this
modern
house
in
the
middle
of
it
and
it's
very
jarring,
and
I
think
that
this
is
what
this
is
going
to
happen
with
this
you're
going
to
go
up
the
street
and
also
bam.
There's
this
hyper-modern
house
with
a
tiny
little
coach
house,
and
it's
going
to
detract
from
the
appeal
that
kingston
has
you
know
the
limestone
city.
I
J
Thank
you,
mr
chair,
and
through
you,
I
just
have
a
question
for
staff.
I'd
like
to
talk
about
the
three
adjacent
properties
that
are
very
close
to
the
sidewalk
in
terms
of
setback.
If
I
read
correctly,
I
know
the
side
setback
on
this
project
has
a
question
mark
the
projection
of
the
new
garage
in
relation
to
how
far
forward
you're
allowed
to
come
to
the
property
line
or
to
the
sidewalk
setback,
and
also
comments
on
those
other
three
properties
might
help
context
where
that
garage
front
is
kind
of
floating.
G
B
G
Through
you,
mr
chair,
so
the
the
the
entire
proposal
is
still
set
back
from
the
property.
That
is
to
the
right.
If
you're,
looking
straight
at
the
the
proposal,
this
is
a
streetscape
where
we
see
a
huge
variety
of
setbacks
and
that's
in
part
due
to
the
various
areas
of
construction
that
happened
around
here.
So
historically,
this
neighborhood
was
associated
with
originally
portsmouth
village
and
then
the
rural
area
between
kingston
and
portsmouth,
and
so
through
the
the
the
1900s
1800s.
G
We
saw
a
lot
of
grand
houses
being
built
here
because
it
was
sort
of
the
rural
estate
associated
with
kingston
or
with
portsmouth
village.
Since
we've
had
an
amalgamated
city
that
covers
this
entire
area.
This
this
neighborhood
has
really
continued
to
fill
in,
and
so
now
we
see
a
huge
range
of
styles
and
eras
and
there
really
is
no
defined
streetscape
in
this
location.
J
G
Okay,
thank
you
through
you,
mr
chair
great
question.
We
do
have
a
little
bit
of
question
on
this
one,
whether
it
does
meet
the
as
of
right
permissions,
but
we
do
know
that
that,
in
terms
of
where
that
garage
is,
it
is
close.
The
piece
that
I'm
not
sure
about
is
is
driveway
length.
I'm
I'm
thinking
they
may
through
planning
need
to
look
for
some
relief
there
or
possibly
in
the
end,
to
meet
that
as
of
right
setback,
move
it
back
a
little
bit.
B
Hi
so
yeah,
I
guess
the
projection
as
well.
I
have
a
bit
of
a
problem
with
I'm
just
googling
the
minimum
sizes
for
a
one
car
garage,
and
I
have
here
between
12
and
16
feet
wide.
I
see
the
dimension
on
the
carriage
house
as
15,
so
I'll
be
wondering
I
know
in
the
proposal.
It
says
it's
too
small
for
like
a
modern
garage,
but
I
mean
it
seems
like
it
could
actually
work
as
one,
even
if
it
is
smallish
and
that
could
possibly
solve
some
of
the
issues
there.
B
I
do
agree
and
disagree
about
the
modern
aspect.
I
think
you
can
do
a
good
modern
edition,
but
I
think
it
yeah
it's
hard.
I
noticed,
I
think
one
of
the
things
we're
probably
noticing
is
just
like
a
lack
of
detail
in
sort
of
the
edition
itself
and
I
think
a
lot
of
ways
that
you
can
begin
to
sort
of
reference.
B
The
original
building
is
through
sort
of
a
modern
reinterpretation
of
those
details,
whether
it's
like
a
headers
or
the
garage
door
or
those
openings,
the
stuff
that
starts
to
sort
of
complement
the
existing
but
like
with
a
modern
twist
on
it.
I
think
that
would
sort
of
help
soften
these
two
sort
of
contrasting
elements.
These
are
my
comments.
D
G
Thank
you
so
much,
mr
chair,
through
you,
as
I'm
as
I'm
kind
of
continuing
to
process
some
of
the
comments.
I
just
wanted
to
mention
one
thing
in
terms
of
the
policy
context
here,
so
it
is
important
to
remember
that
this
is
very
different
from
where
we
have
a
heritage
conservation
district,
where
there
are
firm
policies
that
guide
guide
development,
in
particular
infill
development.
G
What
we
have
here
is
essentially
no
policies
guiding
new
development,
but
we
do
have
a
number
of
guidelines
that
are
applicable
and
by
their
nature,
guidelines
are
written
well,
sometimes
they're
written
with
language
like
should
you
know
it's
best
to
do
this,
and
and
what
that
does?
Is
it
sort
of
makes
it
clear
that,
while
this
is
considered
an
ideal
situation,
it's
also
not
required?
G
D
Thank
you
very
much
welcome
councillor
dougherty.
She
brought
us
up
to
ten.
We
are
on
73
elbington
by
the
week
council,
blah
blah
further
questions
comments
by
members
of
the
committee
and
seeing
non-members
to
the
public,
and
I
know
catherine
stone
was
asking
to
comment
at
one
point.
Catherine,
are
you
with
us
and
do
you
want
to
make
a
comment
at
this
point.
D
K
Okay,
good,
when
you're
looking
at
a
project
like
this,
you
forget
that
the
end
user,
the
person
who's
going
to
use
this
this
home
and
is
going
to
put
a
lot
of
funds
into
it
to
make
it
into
a
custom
home,
and
they
have
a
lot
of
things
that
they
put
forward
to
us
when
we
work
on
the
design
of
this.
So,
first
of
all
to
jennifer's
point,
the
garage
or
the
carriage
house
is
not
deep
enough
for
a
modern
car
that
was
tried
and
it
didn't
work
the
garage
projecting
forward.
K
This
was
done
specifically
to
if
you
like,
block
the
neighbor
view
somewhat.
They
do
not
take
care
of
their
home.
I
hope
they
don't
hear
this,
but
if
they
do,
maybe
they
will,
and
they
don't
want
to
see
that
and
looking
at
the
sight
lines
on
the
street.
That
is
why
we
positioned
it
where
it
was
the
the
accessory
building,
which
is
the
carriage
house.
K
If
you
look
at
the
main
house,
it
was
once
attached
to.
We
are
the
same
distance
back
with
the
garage.
The
garage
comes
forward
the
same
way
it
did
on
the
original
house,
and
it
does
not
block
your
view
when
you're
coming
up
when
you're
coming
north
on
arlington,
because
the
house
next
door
to
it
is
in
front
of
that
and
almost
hits
the
sidewalk
as
many
of
the
homes
on
that
street.
Do.
K
The
presence
of
it,
if
you
look
at
the
the
peaks
do
match
in
their
their
shape
and
the
garage
is
recessed
underneath
what
is
a
a
balcony
if
you
like
off
the
front
garage-
and
this
is
specific
to
the
client's
needs,
they
have
family
members
who
live
overseas
and
come
for
a
month
at
a
time
to
visit
family.
This
is
going
to
be
a
family
home,
and
so
this
was
to
give
them
a
respite
from
family.
K
D
D
A
D
J
Thank
you,
mr
chair,
and
through
you.
These
are.
These
are
really
tough
ones.
I
came,
I
came
very
settled
and
read
up
in
the
direction
of
jane
and
don
taylor,
but
also
my
reading.
I
do
think
it
comes
down
to
that
balance
and
I
think
when
you
do
go
down
the
street
and
you
see
the
other
the
prominence
of
how
far
forward
the
other
buildings
are
and
when
I
look
at
the
way
that
the
heritage
structure
is
pocketed
behind
the
protruding
new
garage
in
relation
to
the
existing
house,
believe
it
or
not.
J
So
I
I'm
gonna
side
with
with
experts
and
and
city
staff
that
all
of
us
have
suggested
we
prefer
it
was
further
back,
but
at
the
end
of
the
day
I
think
it's
really
close
in
the
way
it
in
the
way
that
it
kind
of
achieves
this
and
there's
lots
of
language.
Even
in
the
district
plans
about
you,
know,
infill,
surrounding
a
heritage
structure
and
how
you
get
that
separation.
J
I
think
largely
it
achieves
differentiating
the
new
from
the
old.
It
really
sets
that
heritage
structure
up
and
really
in
my
mind,
particularly
as
you're
going
north
it.
It
does
actually
put
it
back
to
the
original
structure.
The
the
real
contrast
there
to
me
and
the
forward
actually
sets
the
new
portions
of
the
building
with
the
other
three
adjacent
properties.
J
So
I'm
going
to
I'm
going
to
suggest
that
I
would
prefer
it
was
set
back
like
everyone
else,
but
I'm
prepared
to,
depending
on
what
other
people
say,
see
it
go
forward
as
it
is
now,
I'm
concerned
about
the
loss
of
the
trees
in
the
backyard,
and
I
think
there
is
that
tension
between
the
whether
or
not
that
landscape
language
is
specifically
describing
this
property.
The
two
properties
together
or
the
one
that's
been
severed.
I
think
that
to
lose
the
trees
in
the
backyard
is
a
shame.
J
D
H
H
I'm
still
concerned
about
the
protection
of
the
mature
trees.
I
think
a
different
design
might
enable
those
trees
to
remain,
and
I'm
super
concerned
about
the
alterations
to
the
kochos.
Again
we
are
taking
a
coach
house
and
basically
changing
it.
It's
one
of
the
few
existing
coaches
in
kingston.
I
think
we
need
to
preserve
that
and
have
an
appropriate
development
back
of
that
coach
house
and
attach
to
it
by
perhaps
using
one
of
the
existing
openings
already.
H
I
can't
I
still
can't
accept
this
proposal,
and
today
we
are
voting
here
to
approve
what
is
proposed,
not
what
we
think
might
be
nice
or
what
we
think
that
the
developer
and
the
applicant
will
want
will
decide
to
do.
But
what
is
actually
proposed
on
paper-
and
I
cannot
vote
for
this.
Thank
you.
Okay,.
C
Yes,
just
some
follow-up
comments,
andrea
explained
that
there
are
guidelines
which
we
all
are
aware
of
that
suggests.
The
garage
should
be
positioned
further
back,
but
they
don't
say
they
must
they
say
they
should,
and
I
think
I
see
a
problem
with
how
staff
heritage
staff
and
other
staff
perhaps
function
in
this.
They
can
talk
to
the
applicant
and
say
yeah.
C
D
L
So
I
would
just
like
to
remind
the
committee
broadly
that
certainly
staff
represent
an
opinion
on
these
matters.
We
are
not
saying
that
a
committee
cannot
have
alternate
differing
or
you
know,
subjective
interpretive
considerations,
but
I
just
do
want
to
remind
and
assure
staff
that
their
interests
and
representation
here
is
professional,
and
that
is
where
it
comes
from.
So
thank
you.
A
D
D
D
E
E
E
So
what
we're
looking
at
today
is
an
application
under
section
33
of
the
act
to
request
approval
to
alter
a
number
of
the
existing
exterior
door
and
window
openings
on
the
lake
edition.
This
is
the
south
elevation,
so
specifically
on
the
south
elevation
and,
of
course,
the
south
division
faces
the
road.
E
It
contains
a
single
steel
door
with
narrow
side
lights,
flanked
by
large
double
casing,
windows
and
one
smaller
single
case
window.
It's
proposed
to
have
a
large
central
four
panel,
glazing,
sliding
door
or
french
doors
it
flanked
by
reinstallation
of
the
existing
double
casement
windows.
Next
slide,
please
the
west
wall.
What
you're
looking
at
here
is
west
elevation
sort
of
tucked
in
behind
the
stone
church.
As
you
can
see
the
bottom
right,
it
currently
contains
a
two
panel
sliding
door
and
a
single
sash
window.
E
E
So
this
is
a
view
from
above.
This
is
a
floor
plan
sort
of
cycling,
drawing
the
owners
wish
to
install.
Finally,
this
some
acres
in
for
a
seasonal
sun,
sale,
sort
of
a
canvas
covering
it's
gonna,
be
gray,
beige,
color,
it's
to
be
above
the
southern
courtyard,
so
the
courtyard
in
the
middle
of
your
screen
is
the
one
that's
on
the
south
face
of
the
building.
Looking
at
unity,
road.
E
The
the
deck
and
patio
is
to
be
improved
approximately
to
make
the
deck
approximately
one
meter
wider
and
three
and
a
half
meters
longer
than
the
existing
covered
porch.
Currently,
the
covered
portion
of
the
porch
is
not
to
be
changed,
so
the
detailed
plans
that
we're
looking
at
are
prepared
by
our
own
jennifer
demeter
and
for
fabricate
architecture
and
are
limited
and
a
cover
letter
and
photograph
prepared
by
the
owners
and
that's
all
attached
in
their
application.
E
E
E
The
majority
of
the
works
to
the
windows,
doors,
siding
roofing
penetrations,
will
be
out
of
view
from
the
public
realm
on
elevations,
not
visible
from
unity
road
further.
These
interventions
will
only
impact
the
link
addition
and
will
have
no
physical
impact
to
the
unified
attributes
of
the
property.
The
church
of
the
hall,
the
use
of
vinyl
products
for
the
alterations
on
the
link
edition
to
replace
existing
vinyl
and
metal
products
is
appropriate
in
this
situation.
The
alterations
proposed
to
the
west
and
north
elevations
will
have
no
impact
on
the
cultural
heritage.
Value
of
the
property.
E
Currently,
the
church
appears
to
have
three
main
front
entrances
when
you,
when
you
see
it
from
the
road,
the
central,
the
church
itself,
the
central
porch
and
the
hall
entrances.
The
proposed
changes
to
the
central
porch
feature
will
give
the
central
porch
of
this
building
a
private
courtyard
appearance
and
thus
draw
one's
attention
to
the
historic
main
doors
of
the
church
and
maybe
a
lesser
degree.
The
hall
and
away
from
the
central
one
by
making
this
central
entrance
appear
more
like
a
private
space
and
clearly
distinguishable
as
a
contemporary
intervention.
E
The
culturally
significant
portions
of
the
property
will
be
highlighted
and
more
readily
identifiable
and
in
line
with
good
heritage
conservation
practices.
The
sun
sail
is
a
temporary
feature,
anchored
only
by
two
points
in
the
mortar
joints
of
the
stone
building
and
one
point
in
the
hall
building
and
removed
in
the
off
season,
similar
to
retractable,
awnings
or
freestanding
shade
structures.
The
sun
cell
will
have
only
minimal
temporary
impacts
on
the
visibility
of
of
certain
heritage,
attributes
being
the
stone
wall
and
fenestration
on
one
side
of
the
of
the
church.
Really
further.
E
F
C
D
D
D
C
I
think
this
is
quite
acceptable.
The
the
proposed
changes
really
have
no
impact
at
all
on
the
heritage
attributes
of
this
property,
and
so
I
think
that's
fine.
Normally
we
don't
feel
very
good
about
vinyl
products,
but
where
these
are
alterations
to
a
building.
That
is
to
a
part
of
the
structure
that
is
mostly
vinyl
and
so
one
might
as
well
carry
on
with
that.
So
I
don't
think
the
committee
should
have
any
problems
with
this.
I
certainly
don't.
D
D
F
Okay,
so
this
permit
for
221
queen
street
is
to
install
two
signs,
one
at
the
intersection
of
queens
and
clergy
street
east
and
one
visible
from
coburn
street
next
slide.
Please
221,
queen
street
is
located
on
the
northeastern
corner
of
the
intersection
of
queen
and
clergy
street
east
and
his
kitty
corner
to
st
andrews
presbyterian
church.
F
As
you
can
see
in
the
pictures
above
next
slide,
please,
the
property
is
a
three-story
limestone,
gothic
style
church
with
a
five-story
bell
tower,
and
at
this
point
I
wanted
to
note
that
the
applicant
or
the
home,
the
business
owner
in
this
case
is
already
installed.
Both
sides
next
slide.
Please,
the
property
is
designated
under
part
5
of
the
ontario
heritage
act
and
has
the
following
entry.
This
1920
church
replaced
in
1886
building
destroyed
by
fire.
This
pyramid
roof
tower
at
the
corner.
F
Large
gothic
window
to
the
south
and
series
of
gothic
arches
to
the
west
are
important
features
of
this
limestone
church
next
slide,
please
so.
First,
I
will
review
the
signage
at
the
intersection,
but
the
following
comments
will
also
apply
to
the
sign
facing
coburn
street,
which
will
be
covered
in
the
next
slide.
F
The
increased
visibility
of
both
secondary
entrances
so
along
queen
street
and
on
coburn
street,
which
you'll
see
in
just
a
moment
resulting
from
the
new
signage,
should
not
negatively
impact
the
prominence
of
the
main
entrance
that
faces
clergy
street
east,
as
that
entrance
has
a
has
a
very
prominent
staircase,
decorative
fenestration
and
a
grand
wooded
door,
a
pair
of
doors
and
the
new
signage
is
required
to
have
been
anchored
to
the
building
in
accordance
with
the
city's
masonry
policy
for
reversibility
and
preservation
purposes.
This
is
a
condition
of
approval.
F
L
F
F
J
Thank
you,
mr
chair,
through
you,
I
just
want
to
clarify.
So
is
this
another
one
of
one
of
these
applications
where
the
work
proceeded
and
now
people
are
looking
to
have
it
approved
and
if
and
if
so
and
I
and
I
caught
the
language
about
the
according
to
the
masonry
policy,
but
that
would
be,
to
my
mind,
an
alarming
trend
to
start
going
into
where
people
are
going
to
proceed
and
then
ask
for
permission
afterwards,
and
I
think
there
was
one
at
last
meeting.
J
F
F
Mr
chair,
that's
a
great
question.
We
have
not
looked
in
the
specifics
of
an
enforcement
case
on
this.
Yet,
however,
there
are
a
number
of
changes
to
the
building
that
we
are
exploring
and
are
aware
of
at
this
time.
So
I
can't
comment
definitively,
but
I
do
want
to
mention
that
we
are
aware
of
it
and
it's
on
our
radar.
C
L
Shared
which
is
appropriate
in
the
context
of
this
application,
but
just
adding
to
that
that
I
think
the
committee
has
seen
now
a
number
of
applications
where
we
have
had
essentially
application
after
the
fact
we're
not
immune
or
unaware
of
the
problem
that
is
being
perpetuated
here.
And
I
would
just
like
to
add
to
committee
that
we
are
always
in
discussion
about
enforcement.
L
We
often
cannot
always
share
the
details
of
those
discussions
with
committee
for
reasons
that
are
legal
in
their
route,
but
we
are
also
exploring
other
options
moving
forward
or
how
we
can
help
to
get
ahead
of
this
and
in
when
necessary,
intervene
after
the
fact
in
a
more
effective
way
in
terms
of
ensuring
that
we're
not
just
setting
up
a
system
where
people
can
request.
You
know
forgiveness
after
the
fact
so
I
did.
D
L
But
did
want
to
share
that
with
committee
that
that
is
actually
a
sign
in
some
regard
of
increasing
awareness
of
responsibility
to
heritage
homes
when
you
do
have
to
come
to
committee
and
perhaps
then
also
have,
to
put
your
hand
up
on
work
that
you
perhaps
should
have
been
at
committee
with
before.
Thank
you.
D
C
C
So
to
some
you
know,
there's
some
sympathy
for
the
applicants
in
those
cases,
but
I'd
like
to
think
that
we
could
find
a
better
mechanism
for
dealing
with
this
kind
of
emergencies,
not
an
emergency
in
terms
of
of
water
leaks
or
something
like
that.
But
it's
an
economic
emergency,
and
in
both
of
these
cases
that
I
mentioned,
I
think
the
design
could
have
been
improved
if
they
had
consulted
us-
and
you
know
I
I
just
don't
know
how
to
deal
with
this.
C
D
L
D
Discussion
on
the
motion
on
the
floor
and
seeing
london,
the
motion
is
unamended.
The
two
clauses
and
the
six
conditions
moved
by
council
docket,
he's
seconded
by
jennifer
demeter,
those
in
favor
of
the
motion.
If
you
can
raise
your
hand,
three
four,
five,
six,
seven,
eight.
Thank
you,
nine
good!
Thank
you
all
carry
and
those
opposed
which
will
be
zero,
so
it's
nine
to
zero
and
is
carried
and
philip.
We
stay
with
signage,
but
move
on
to
320
king.
F
At
320
king
street
is
to
install
two
signs:
a
mass
arm
sign
in
a
typical
wall
sign
in
the
market
square
heritage
conservation
district
next
slide.
Please
320.
King
street
east
is
part
of
the
masonic
buildings
and
is
located
mid
block
between
brockton
clarence
street
along
the
western
boundary
of
the
market
square
heritage
conservation
district,
as
you
can
see
in
the
pictures
above
next
slide.
Please
320,
quick.
My
apologies,
320
king
street
is
part
of
a
three-story
italian
influenced
brick
building
with
arched
window
openings
with
buff-colored
arches,
which
is
characteristic
of
john
power.
F
Next
slide.
Please
property
is
designed
under
part
five
of
the
ontario
heritage
act.
That's
the
following
relevant
attributes:
the
building
is
divided
into
ten
equal
bays,
with
regularly
spaced
segmental
segment,
headed
windows
and
horizontal
stone
banding
and
has
arched
window
openings
with
buff
colored,
brick
arches
and.
F
F
So
the
new
signage
is
a
neutral,
reversible
impact
that
will
not
detract
from
the
district
nor
the
existing
heritage.
Building
the
proposed
signage
is
not
on
the
prohibited.
Hcd
plan
list
does
not
result
in
excessive
signage;
it
will
not
cover
any
heritage.
Attributes
of
the
building
signage
is
appropriately
located
between
the
two
bays
corresponding
to
this
business
and
has
a
scale
of
design
that
is
generally
compatible
with
the
building
in
the
district.
F
F
So
importantly,
I
had
highlighted
the
word
quote
unquote
on
because
this
is
meant
to
say
above
to
align
with
the
rest
of
language
and
the
approval
and
that
picture
in
the
preceding
slide.
This
will
be
changed
prior
to
council
review,
as
it
is
a
typographical
error,
and
I
wanted
to
draw
your
attention
to
that
next
slide.
Please
and
finally,
I
wanted
to
highlight
that
staff
will
be
provided
with
pictures
of
signage
prior
to
installation
to
make
sure
it
is
suitable
for
the
district.
D
Hey,
thank
you,
phillip,
my
apologies
and
forgetting
to
remind
you
that
this
is
in
fact
a
part
five.
So
the
the
motion
cannot
be
amended,
but
the
typo
can
be
corrected
before
it
goes
on
the
council
members.
Your
dash
comments
have
been
correctly
recorded.
I
hope,
and
I'd
certainly
invite
all
members
to
make
comments
on
dash
if
you're
not
sure
how
to
get
in
touch
with
elizabeth,
and
she
will
take
you
through
the
process.
D
D
D
So
if
there
are
questions
on
otherwise
looking
for
a
mover
and
a
seconder
to
receive
this
report
don
mitchell
and
don
taylor,
thank
you
councillor
dougherty.
I
was
just
slow
on
you
any
questions.
This
is
an
old
one,
because
in
fact
the
review
has
now
come
to
the
committee
and
this
talks
about
it
going
to
the
committee.
So
it's
a
little
bit
beyond
seeing
them.
Then
we
have
a
motion
to
receive
it.
Those
in
favor
of
receiving
the.
C
D
D
We
have
one
other
like
it
in
town,
and
my
memory
is
that
it's
188
frontenac,
which
came
to
this.
It
must
be
designated
because
don
taylor
will
remember
it
coming
to
this
committee
years
ago
for
an
addition,
and
the
front
part
of
the
house
also
was
designed
in
the
1930s
for
accessibility,
and
I
think
they
should
be
melted.
Somehow
and
somewhere,
though,
certainly
not
as
a
probably
as
a
heritage,
building
34
clarence
street.
I
believe
that
staff
are
looking
at
that
concern.
D
Matters
anything
I've
missed
out
from
the
correspondence
anything
else.
That's
been
missed
out,
if
not
august,
the
17th,
our
next
meeting,
which
is
planned
to
be
the
last
complete
zoom
meeting
in
september.
We
should
be
moving
back
into
the
council
chambers
if
you
want
to
we'll
have
a
hybrid
meeting.