Heritage Guelph

0:00I'll also note that Miranda Corman is joining via phone. So for.

0:06Uh, votes, you'll need to have a verbal confirmation from Miranda.

0:14Excellent. Thanks, Jack. I think it's 12 or 1 minute after 12. So I think we can get started.

0:21Uh, so hello everyone and welcome to our April 11th meeting.

0:25I'd like to call the meeting to order before we get into anything. I'll start with our territorial acknowledgement and.

0:33Maybe in future meetings, we can take turns doing it. So it's not me reading the same acknowledgement every single month, but happy to suggestions.

0:40So, as we gather, we are reminded that wealth is situated on treaty land that is steeped in rich indigenous history and home to many 1st nations in U.

0:48It and may tea people today as a city. We have a responsibility for stewardship of the land on which we live and work today. We acknowledge the Mississauga's of the credit 1st nation of the Anishinaabic peoples on whose traditional territory we are meeting.

1:03So, thank you to everyone for that. Before we start anything, we'll get into the disclosure of the culinary interest in general nature thereof. So if anyone has anything to disclose, please raise your hand.

1:21Seeing nothing.

1:24All right, we'll keep going and I don't believe Jack. We had any regrets for today, but I know we have a full agenda and potential to run longer and a few folks, including myself that have to leave at various points.

1:34So, I know that I need to be to leave at 210. And so, if we go past that time, we'll be passing responsibilities of chairing the meeting to Kim if we have to go beyond that point in our meeting today.

1:47So, we'll move forward then to the approval of the minutes for March 13th. So, can I have someone move approving those minutes? Thank you, and a seconder.

2:01Thank you, Cameron and all in favor raise your hand. Miranda just need verbal confirmation from you. Just noting that we're just unmuting her right now. Perfect.

2:26It's on her end. So she'll have to unmute herself. Miranda, if you can hear me. And if you're driving, please be careful.

2:37Yep. Can you hear me Jack? Yeah, we can hear you. Okay, sorry. I was using the mute button on my phone and I didn't realize I had to do something different.

3:04I, yes, I voted paper.

3:07Excellent. Thank you. So, we'll get into the agenda for today and I will note that there's been a slight shift in the order of things.

3:15So, we do do some timing limitations. We're going to start with the 785 York road Ontario, formatory powerhouse and chimney cultural heritage resource impact assessment from Miranda and David to start. And then after that, we'll go through our typical list of items that we have in the agenda.

3:31So a little shift due to some timing constraints, but with that, I believe I'll pass it to Miranda and David.

3:37Good afternoon, everybody. My, my name is Dave Addison and I'm here representing infrastructure Ontario along with my colleague Miranda Brunton. So, first of all, thanks for having us.

3:56We're here a little bit on short notice and we were here basically to present a proposal for the 75 growth growth correctional in terms of a proposal to this point in the powerhouse and chimney.

4:13And the service tunnel leading to both buildings. I believe Miranda is prepared to present. I don't know if she has her eye, her, her audio with some bit of issue, a few issues. Just a second ago.

4:27Can everybody hear me okay.

4:29Yep. Great. So I don't know if she's, if you just bear with me for one second, I'll see if she's available.

4:37Okay, otherwise. Okay, so I think we're having, I think we're in it's having technical difficulties so I can, I can go ahead with our relatively short PowerPoint presentation.

5:06If you can just bear with me, I will look to share my screen.

5:10Oh, okay. I think Miranda and maybe back on.

5:15Hi everyone. So sorry. My name is Miranda Brunton. I'm having technical difficulties. I'm one of the heritage managers here.

5:24I am not going to risk it with my video because I was just able to get on with audio so hopefully we'll be able to hear all of your questions going forward.

5:35So actually Dave, could I ask you to share the presentation.

5:40Sure. Yeah, just let me see if I can get hold of some.

5:46All right, please let me know if this is showing up. So we're not really used to by that's we're kind of new at that. So hopefully this four works out.

5:53So I am sharing how is that.

5:56Yeah, we can see it. Perfect. Okay, thanks guys.

5:59Perfect. So welcome everyone. Thank you to the heritage planners and the heritage committee for having us.

6:07The opportunity to come out to speak to you about what we're here for. So to start off this property. I'm sure everyone here needs no true introduction as your well aware but well correctional located at 785 York Road.

6:20And what we're going to be talking about today is the powerhouse associated to me and service tunnels.

6:27So next slide please.

6:31So, sorry. Apologies bear with me here.

6:43There we go. Thanks everyone. And this is why we're heritage people and not tech people will help muddle our way through this. So as we know here's the location of the wealth correctional we see in the right hand side and today we're going to be talking about the powerhouse which was constructed.

7:11It was built around 1910 to 11 with a couple additions in 1916 and further 1934 that you may itself which is just located just outside but attached to the powerhouse was initially built 1916 1934 and was lowered in the late 1990s and early 2000s.

7:32And the service tunnel itself the above ground portion which we're talking about was built between 1914 and 1915. You probably know it's the property itself is owned by the Ministry of Infrastructure and managed by infrastructure in Ontario.

7:47So here's the site was decommissioned in 2001 and it was slowly exited and by 2014 the Minister of Community and Safety correctional service had completely left the site so currently right now it's pretty much everything is just sort of left as it is we do have monitoring throughout on a daily basis.

8:09So just a quick review of the heritage status.

8:13Probably know the property itself was identified as a provincial heritage property of provincial significance and 2008. And we also have associated documentation such as the strategic conservation plan that was originally completed in 2009 and updated in 2019.

8:30And so just to stress the powerhouse associate Jimmy in the service tunnel, we're not actually identified as contributing heritage structures.

8:38So looking over to the municipal side as a person's property are designated under part four of the interior here's action 2021 and various buildings that were not initially included as part of the designation were listed on the register in June of 2022.

8:54So we're coming to the powerhouse and Jimmy and the service tunnels. So we're coming to you with a proposal to demolish the powerhouse, which includes the chimney and service channels to remediate soil and groundwater and eliminate the existing hazards and sites.

9:11So what we do have currently is a documentation contamination that exists underneath the powerhouse presently, as well as kind of some of the area. The building itself is currently vacant with no identified future program use.

9:26And the cost to remediate the soil with the buildings left in place we've looked at it and it's approximately three times the cost so it is really quite pricey to do it that way.

9:35So the goal to demolish the building as well as remediate soil is to allow for future productive use of site, leaving it a place does provide a risk to adjacent heritage buildings that the contamination could go underneath them, and possibly eventually into the water sources.

9:53Taking a look over a history of previous remediation processes we haven't just sort of started doing this this is something that we've sort of started back in the early 1990s.

10:03So the underground fuel storage tanks, which were used to power the powerhouse over the years were actually removed and that's when we sort of started to see the first underground soil and contamination identified.

10:15We didn't solve a groundwater pump and test treatment.

10:19And that ran from 1996 to 2006, as well as we started up again in 2010. Unfortunately, we discovered that this was actually not successful and the, the PhDs continue to impact the groundwater.

10:32In 2011 2012, we did do some building conditions assessments to understand the structural stability and what needed to be done to fix and moving forward, we did in 2019 do some focus remediation, so as the north of the powerhouse as we can see in the picture to the right.

10:50And during this time, it was noted that some of the waters that were kind of coming out from underneath the building that you can see to the right.

11:00What has strong orders of PhDs or fuel, as we know it runs.

11:06So, reaping forward, the PhD impacts remain there.

11:11And they're quite substantially underneath the building initially when they saw the initial sort of possibility of coming up from underneath the building we did ask the question to our environmental team to better define where it is.

11:23For example, they were kind of hoping that it was just a little bit on the building and would take a little bit of remediation to do that but as you can see from the PhD survey done in November 2021, it is substantially more on the building, and also to that this is a bit of a snapshot of the study at that time and

11:42since this time, the hydrocarbon contamination have migrated some more, not by much necessarily but they will continue to move throughout.

11:52So, the legislative requirements for the actual soil removal, we do need a bunch of extra space to ensure the health and safety of our folks who are going to remove it.

12:02So, taking a little bit closer look at some of the requirements of going this so first of all, contaminations.

12:09And the HVs that are underneath there are not very good for us, they're carcinogenic as well and they're also in the air so basically you can breathe it in. Currently, you cannot work a full day in the building without being exposed to these and kind of breathing in these

12:26vapors that are quite dangerous health and particularly if you're exposed for a long period of time.

12:33So in terms of looking at what we need to do to excavate the soils, so the soils would be excavated down to bedrock or to sort of where it's clear and that's about four meters or so.

12:44And once we're sort of at that area of doing that we also have to ensure that the trench will be safe for us so you can kind of see in that little blue box of a picture that area is slope going down into that so we have to ensure that there's

12:58a lot of depth to what's sloping for this. We believe that there's fairly good soil in this area so it would just be a bit of one to one ratio for sloping and that's to ensure that the walls don't collapse in on our folks that are doing the excavations.

13:12As well, ongoing testing will be happening as we go and remediate the soil. So for example, although we have this image here where we show the orange area, and that's our current target area for where we think the contamination is.

13:26So if this testing goes on will likely need to push it back and some pieces fairly significantly to ensure that we've remediated all of the soil in the area, and this will prevent further spread, and also further spread that could possibly go underneath the adjacent identified heritage structures.

13:43So we'll go to the next slide.

13:47So part of the process that we're going as per Procertrugia Conservation Plan, although the buildings themselves are necessarily identified as provincially significant we do recognize that they're locally significant so we wanted to put together this HIA to evaluate some of the

14:03process, look at what we're doing and look at different options. As part of this HIA, we will do community engagement, which is why we're reaching out to you lovely folks and we'll also require ministers consent to allow us to demolish the building.

14:18So part of the HIA that we had reviewed a couple possibilities, couple of the impacts that are putting up together some suggested mitigation measures for this and our draft HIA was completed in early 2023.

14:32Next slide please.

14:36So, when we're looking at some of the overall impacts of the proposed demolition, there are some positive impacts. So for example, remediation of the soil will prevent further spread of everything, reduces provincial liability and social health risks, and allows for kind of future productive use of the site with taking this out

14:55and we won't have to worry about it, we won't have to worry about impacts to other heritage buildings that are currently standing and don't have contaminations underneath them.

15:04Negative impacts of course. Yes, we do recognize that the demolition would require the loss of this heritage resource, and that, you know, yes, there could be some issues in terms of vibrations from the demolition to associated adjacent heritage points.

15:19Next slide please.

15:24So, we did go through this. We didn't jump to demolition first we did go over a couple of ideas of what we're going to do. So we did consider the do nothing approach, but that's really not going to work for us considering that these contaminations are dangerous and we do want to clean them up.

15:40So we considered relocating the powerhouse unfortunately based on some of our structural assessments, given the sport, the poor structural condition, and there's no projected use of it, the cost of the relic relocation wasn't necessarily feasible for our needs.

15:55We did look at the possibility of pertaining the structures as we went through and actually mitigated this so basically it would be kind of underpinning the building and scraping everything out to the best that we can.

16:07The problem with this is there's a whole bunch of uncertainty about the structural integrity building it's available to do this, the actual area the vibrations associated with the end of pending, even if we were to remediate put it back in place, because these contaminants are

16:23actually in the building so we're not exactly sure how long the building would have to off gas for for it to actually be usable kind of on a regular daily basis and really be something that can be chromatically beneficial for the whole area.

16:39So we also looked at the possibility of partially retentive chimney in place which would be great because of the chimney being there it's a it's a taller part of the building so it's something you can see it's something that provides a future opportunity for

16:58relic relocation and and such things going forward. Some of the inverse impacts is what we're not exactly. We know that we have to remove the soil from underneath it so we're not exactly sure if this chimney itself will actually survive this.

17:12And then we also considered possibly retaining maybe a little bit of wall and a little bit of the chimney but once again we have some of the same some of the same issues with that where we do have to remediate the soil underneath it so we're not exactly sure

17:32the stability of the soil underneath and how long it could be there it also might cause a bit of an issue going forwards for kind of adaptive reuse opportunities.

17:43So going through kind of our wide variety of options the preferred and option for IO at this moment is to remove to demolish the chimney.

17:53So going through kind of our wide variety of options the preferred option for IO at this moment is to remove to demolish the heritage resources and kind of go forward with a commemoration approved so in some of the mitigation measures that we're looking for is the development of interpretation to communication plan which we work closely with our consultants and then of course we'd reach out to the folks here again to get their input on the plan as well.

18:25Prior to demolition because we are unfortunately losing resource we would do a lot of documentation to identify as best we can so we do have a record going forward. We'd also develop a salvage plan to address and identify materials for salvage and retention this could also flow into a commemoration plan where we could retain some items that could be built into something along that line.

18:50And we would also because we want to be conscious of the surrounding heritage structures is to develop a detailed monitoring strategy.

18:59Biosstructural engineer to ensure that the projections of the adjacent heritage structures we know that there could be some vibrations and we also want to make sure that there's kind of clear boundaries of no go zones and safety zones for the associated heritage buildings in the area.

19:14Because as much as we want to make sure that we mitigate the soils underneath we want to ensure that we are protecting the adjacent heritage as best as possible.

19:23So, that is our presentation we are happy to have any questions that you might have.

19:29Thank you Miranda and David for that presentation so open the floor to anyone who has any questions or comments.

19:41And I think it's not Cameron's hand up first then Michael and then shout out.

19:45Sure. Thanks. Thanks for the presentation just questions, a couple questions from me.

19:51I just wanted to confirm the timeline here so between 2010 and 2019 seems like nothing was done at the building for remediation or anything like that.

20:02Is that correct.

20:03So 2010 to 2019, they're not under the building, but sort of around it there was also different works on the sites elsewhere as part of it because the there's a lot of contamination through the site just due to the nature of its operations and what they were doing.

20:22So the focus was elsewhere on the site. And this was kind of part of going forward as they did continuing testing.

20:31Okay.

20:33And then another question I have is you mentioned the costs are estimated 3 times more for.

20:41Excavation and removal versus demolition of the building. What are the order of magnitude costs you're talking about there is it.

20:47Million dollars versus 3 million or what's kind of the range of costs we're talking about.

20:52If you can share that.

21:00Yeah, I can I can type in there. I don't have the exact figures on me, but it is in.

21:06It's very high. It's in the upper hundreds of thousands.

21:10So not quite the millions as far as I know, but it's is a quite substantial amount, which is approaching a million.

21:18But just a little bit short of that for the excavation and removal remediation option.

21:28Exactly.

21:30It's to retain the structures in place and to remediate the soil and the groundwater below the structures so you'd have to underpin it.

21:37And then remediate the soils, remove the soils underneath the structure. So that is where the highest cost would come from essentially to the demolition and then remediation.

21:51That would be the cost that is 3 times less than underpinning and maintaining the structures while removing the soils.

22:01Okay. Okay. Thanks.

22:04And then let's last question kind of calm and I wanted to share the, the SCP plan.

22:10What's the full and the strategic conservation plan from 2019. I think I believe reading it. It mentions that demolition should be basically the last resort.

22:19And it doesn't really mention anything in there about subject to this, you know, cost feasibility or anything like that. I just want to confirm that that.

22:26You know, you'd be going through all possible avenues to avoid demolition. Right.

22:30Sure. Yeah, like Miranda had mentioned in the presentation.

22:34Demolition should really be a last resort, especially for building up has been identified by the city of well as or the province.

22:46But in this case, the city as a heritage resource and there is something in the conservation plan that refers to.

22:57Demolition of heritage buildings, whether they're identified by the province or the or the municipality for health and safety and environmental reasons.

23:07So that's kind of like the 1 of the main considerations for a demolition of the building of this type.

23:14It's for the health and safety and environmental purposes, which is basically what we're looking at here with the continuation of the soil and groundwater.

23:24Right. Okay. Okay. That's it for me. A lot of people ask questions.

23:31Is it my turn? Can I speak?

23:43Go ahead and we'll have Michael.

23:45Okay. Well, thank you very much for this lovely presentation.

23:50I have a, you know, like a specific question. I'm worried what will happen with the land after, you know, demolition, because this land might have a, you know, an impact on the surrounding cultural heritage buildings.

24:03So, you know, could you please like give us some information on the future of this land? Thank you.

24:14So we don't know like the future future of the land. The purpose of what we're doing now is to kind of ensure future use of the land, whatever that may be under provincial ownership, we're just kind of entering the care, but

24:29anything going forward, we're not sure what the course will be. So for example, we're setting up and so elements throughout the strategic conservation plan that, you know, if it's to be sold in the future, if it's to be redeveloped, that we have elements that will be there.

24:44So additional kind of heritage protections or heritage studies assessed with that.

24:49So the importance of what we're doing right now is even if the future of it is not known now, we're sort of preparing it the best that we can to mitigate the environmental issues that could have impacts both on the environmental health and safety of the property as well as the adjacent heritage resources.

25:11Thank you. Thank you very much.

25:20So I just had a specific question about, I guess it was slide 32 in the presentation and about the soil remediation activities slide.

25:36Just out of curiosity, if I'm understanding the diagram correctly, I don't know if it may be helpful to bring it back up if somebody could.

25:56I think you're just on mute there.

25:59Yeah. There we go. Sorry about that.

26:07Yeah, just trying to share my screen. Thanks.

26:11I was trying to have sharing my screen.

26:15I apologize for asking.

26:17No, no, that's okay.

26:19I think was it this.

26:21Can you can you see that okay.

26:24It's coming.

26:25Okay.

26:30While we're waiting, I just looked up the numbers in terms of the costs for demolition versus retain the structure and remediating and it actually is in the millions.

26:41I just got the figure. So I think it's around over just around 2 million for the demo and closer to 5 over 5 for retaining and remediating.

26:52So I was wrong about the thousands. It's actually quite a bit higher than that.

27:00So, I can you can you see my screen now is that I can. Yeah, thank you.

27:05Um, this slide. Yeah, this one's perfect. So, if I'm understanding the floor plan correctly here, the chimney is actually in the bottom right of the floor plan. Is that correct?

27:16That's.

27:17And so the phase 2 remedial excavation.

27:21Was not actually planned to go underneath the chimney itself.

27:28Is that correct with the orange area?

27:31No, that's incorrect. So the orange area that we're seeing here is snapshot of testing that was done in.

27:38November of 2021.

27:40Um, it's also, I mean, straight lines because it's projection. So this is looking at where it was there.

27:47Uh, based on the testing. So that's kind of like a target area where we think it is.

27:53For that, it's likely spread for now. It's everything else. But we were talking about the kind of the requirements for the health and safety. We can't just like kind of go down there and pull it out.

28:04And that's sloping. So we're going to have to go out, you know, many, many meters. And as well as we test.

28:11As the, as the soil room goes along. So for example, this was the shot snapshot in 2021. We'll have to go and we will test and test and test as we go.

28:22So, we have to ensure the contaminate is fully remedy. Plus we have to go.

28:27At least kind of 4 meters out to ensure that we have the appropriate slope for it.

28:33So, so, that's.

28:35Oh, sorry, Marin. So, so I guess then the, the sloping aside, had the contamination been confirmed underneath the chimney itself.

28:49And there were some slight slopes and everything that are required for an expiration, but was, was contamination confirmed under the chimney.

28:57I'm just wondering if, you know, there was an option to, you know, shore around that if it's contamination hadn't been found directly below the chimney in an attempt to save it as at least the 1st kind of measure.

29:13So, because of 2021, the measurements that they have here at it hadn't reached the chimney at this time, but of course it's been a couple years so it could just spread out for it.

29:23And as, as the testing goes, even to sort of short up, depending on what that means that would be an actual complication as well as an extra cost associated with it.

29:33And depending to the stability of the soils around it. So we did actually consider like the retention of the chimney is part of that and the cost associated with it.

29:44Plus the risks of health and safety risks of going there, as well as the stability risk to the chimney itself.

29:51That could be extra problematic that's all going in like we could, it was a possibility sort of kind of to go through that but we can't necessarily guarantee that.

30:02And so we could just sort of shore it up in that way or that putting it back it will ensure stability or that even some some of the elements, even some of the repair work that the chimney might require to be stable.

30:14If it would result in something that structurally sound after the fact.

30:19Okay, thank you.

30:26You go ahead.

30:31So me.

30:32Okay, I just want to know.

30:35What are your thoughts on the process of the presentation today because my understanding.

30:41And so can motions be made or recommendations I understand that because the province owns this as it says in the report that, you know, they can.

30:56You know, and the it's saying that their proposal is that they're going to do a complete demolition and remediation of the soil.

31:04Is this just for information or can heritage Guelph make a recommendation that or that they request or it's their preference that it not be that that not be the case is so what I just sort of got to get clarity around the process here and what heritage Guelph can and cannot do.

31:25Yeah, that's understanding that we perfectly well understand that is potentially owned.

31:31Okay, sure.

31:33Oh, sorry. I was going to jump in and just say that this was a question I asked as well.

31:37And just to note that there's no, we don't have legislative power. The city doesn't have legislative power to influence the decision, but the committee can pass the motion if they wish to.

31:46Okay, so if the, if the committee wishes to do something other than the demolition, there can be a motion for that. So that's okay.

31:55That's what I wanted to get clarity around the other thing too. So.

32:00Was there a previous conservation plan done for this in the round 2018. I'm not sure who would have.

32:09Do you mean the strategic conservation plan.

32:12Yes. I think that's it.

32:14So yes, that was I drafted and completed in 2019 and then it was approved by the deputy minister of the Ministry of tourism culture and support at the time.

32:26So has that been shared with heritage well for has the recommendations from that been complied with to this date for this property for this.

32:36Part of the property.

32:38Sure. Yeah, as part of us coming to you and putting together this age is in compliance with the strategic conservation plan.

32:45And part of the work coming to her to well to sort of review this contributes to our community engagement for part of it. So getting your feedback and understanding going forward.

32:58This is not the official demolition permit that I owe does work with the city wealth and would put in an official building permit as part of that we're sort of coming here so preemptively to let you know what we're doing what we're going our plans for in terms of

33:12these mitigations and kind of the setup for it.

33:16Okay, so just so you said 2 things here so I'm just Miranda so I just help me understand 1 thing you said you brought it here for our information for presentation.

33:26But you've also said that you're looking for our feedback. Is that so is it.

33:32So has your mind been made up or are you looking for feedback? Like, I guess that's what I want to know because it sounds like you're walking a fine line between telling us this is what you've assessed and what you're going to do.

33:45And then also you've just now said that you're looking for feedback so.

33:52So, I'm just sort of, I just don't want to give us any false hopes and in also that if it's helpful for the heritage well to make a recommendation to your preference.

34:05Would that be helpful.

34:08Great question so part of it too is like, yeah, so there's been analysis and there's an identified approach that I oh, but like to do and that is the demolition of the powerhouse and we're to support the remediation of the soil, but we are open and interested to hearing the committee's

34:26feedback on that, you know, if that's something you're interested in, if you're interested in any of the mitigation measures that we've identified to help doing this. This all kind of contributes to our final decision and also understanding of what the thoughts are of the committee.

34:42Okay, thanks. And just 1 question. Does this go to council at all? Will it go to council for information as well or on an information sheet or to a council meeting? I'm just curious.

34:53So, I'll have to default that to the heritage planners, but once the demolition permit comes in that that will work its way through the regular stream. Okay.

35:02Thanks.

35:06Hi, Kathy. Council receives the minutes of heritage 12 meetings. So, if you passed a motion council would receive it that way. If that makes sense.

35:28Go ahead, Cameron.

35:30Yeah, I just want to ask another follow up question. The heritage impact assessment has it been finalized and if so, can we get a copy of the full report for review?

35:40I think it's just a summary of it in this presentation.

35:43Hi, Cameron. No, the has not been completed at the point in time. This is part of the process of coming and speaking to the heritage committee to sort of include some of that feedback.

35:55Okay, thank you.

36:06So, I'll just open it up if there are any other questions or comments. Any of the committee members want to make or if there was a motion someone wanted to put forth 1 quick question.

36:17If we go with the remedies, if there's 5 billion dollars is spent on the on the restoring the structure, how long is that good for it? Is that 10 years?

36:27How long was that last? Yeah, the figures.

36:33I'm not an expert in the figures, but they are subject to change as well. But that that's just to kind of give a ballpark of kind of the relative difference between the costs.

36:42Just to sort of give it an illustration of the kind of differential that we're looking at.

36:48So, I don't know exactly how long, of course, you know, with finance, financials inflation, there's also all sorts of considerations that may impact costs and likely they'll probably, there's a potential that they could go up.

37:02So, that was kind of like a ballpark figure. Just to kind of illustrate the difference, but they could end up going up. I just, I don't know for sure with any amount of precision.

37:15Okay, but if we spend the 5, 5, 5 million or whatever it is, how is there a guarantee on how long the restorative work would be good for?

37:27How many years or? Well, part of the issue too, which could even increase the costs are further capital repairs, you know, 5, 10 years, 15 years on the road. So there would be those additional costs to also take into account.

37:43So likely the differential over time would be even more than that between those two options.

37:51So, because there is obviously ongoing maintenance costs that we would have to look at.

37:57So we should say too, in terms of the remediation work, David, that you're talking about. So the purpose of us going through it would be to go in and to take it out and to sort of make the area as safe as possible.

38:09We should also do with the decommission of the powerhouse. We've also removed the sources, the contamination. So for example, you know, historically, they use coal. So there'd be coal storage on the area.

38:21And after that, you know, they went to natural gas and like having gas on the property and so on and so forth. So with the efforts throughout, so removing coal, removing the kind of storage of the natural gas and so forth.

38:34That removes the actual source of it. So the idea is that we would remediate it for permanent future use as much as possible. And because there's no more sources of contamination in the site.

38:46You know, that that would kind of clear it for kind of healthy use going forward.

38:52Thank you.

38:56Questions or comments from the committee seeing no one putting their hand up or unmuting. So I'll just say thank you to Miranda and David for the presentation and information. And I guess we look forward to hearing what comes next and how other opportunities we can provide feedback.

39:25So thank you to vote the view.

39:27Thanks very much for having us.

39:32All right, so we will go back to our original agenda now. So we have a presentation and leave it's time. Mia, Tyler on the Gwelf Private Tree by law review and please correct me if that was not correct.

39:46Hi everyone, it's to Mia.

39:50Thanks for having us today. So, um, I've got Margot or six.

39:58She's our consultant.

40:00and Margot is going to share on her.

40:05Margot, are you here?

40:07Hi, I'm here, but it's now frozen.

40:15We can hear you, Margot.

40:25You can. Okay. Thank you for confirming.

40:27All right. Well, let's see if you can see my screen.

40:29Let's try this.

40:30Yes. Can I get an audio that you can see the presentation?

40:48Not yet.

40:51All right. Maybe I'll retry.

41:06Okay. Let's try a different wave, Sherry.

41:12How's that?

41:18That works.

41:20Excellent. Okay. Great.

41:22I know you guys have a packed agenda, so thank you for having us here today,

41:29and I will just dive right in.

41:31So this is about Guelph's Private Tree Protection Bylaw Update.

41:37So we'll start with a slide here on why the bylaw needs updating.

41:42So Guelph's Private Tree Protection Bylaw was last updated in 2010,

41:47and since that time, the city has shifted towards greater intensification,

41:53both in the remaining green fields and in the existing built-up areas.

41:58There is certainly an enhanced concern, increased concern about climate change,

42:03and the ability of trees to help adapt to some of those changes.

42:08There have also been a number of policies, regulations, and guidelines related to the bylaw

42:13that have been updated since that time, including the new official plan,

42:18policies for the natural heritage system, the first heritage conservation district,

42:23which with, I'm sure you are all very familiar, and the city's tree technical manual.

42:29And last but not least, it is a best practice and was recommended in the city's urban forest management plan

42:35that the bylaw be periodically reviewed and updated.

42:39So in terms of the process for this project, it was initiated in late fall of 2022.

42:50Research in terms of the legislative context for the bylaw, precedents and other municipalities,

42:59and a variety of other aspects were reviewed and researched as part of this work.

43:05And then we shifted to a phase one engagement of which this meeting is a part.

43:11And so as part of that engagement, we have established, identified a number of focus groups,

43:18which we met with, there are two public information sessions, the second one, the virtual one is this evening.

43:26There have also been a couple of pop-ups, as well as a town hall, which was held just last week.

43:35So a number of engagement opportunities. And this is the last week of engagement.

43:40After this process, we're going to be shifting to identifying options for different tree bylaws.

43:47So really this phase of the engagement is our listening phase.

43:50We're looking to hear from people about their perspectives, what they think about the current bylaw,

43:55opportunities for updates that could be made to it, and certainly from this group related to in particular heritage trees.

44:03And after that, we're going to be identifying several options based on the research and the feedback that we receive.

44:11Then there will be another round of engagement. We'll be coming back to this group, as well as the range of other organizations and individuals that we had engaged previously,

44:21to get perspectives on what they think about the various options that we've identified.

44:27Then after that, we will come back and draft an updated bylaw and consultation with city staff, and then ultimately present it to council towards the end of 2024.

44:39So just a few high level facts about trees and gulf. The city's current canopy cover is 23%.

44:47And relevant to this bylaw is more than half of that canopy cover is on private lands.

44:52And so private landowners have an important role to play in helping to sustain and enhance the city's canopy cover.

45:00Also, many of the trees and gulf are relatively small. The city's canopy cover is diverse in some areas.

45:06It's quite a high level of canopy cover in other areas. It's lower, as you can see from this map.

45:12But overall, more than 70% of the trees are about 15 centimeters diameter or less.

45:18And about 90% of the trees across the city are 30 centimeters diameter or less.

45:24So relatively, you know, young and or small for trees.

45:32So what are some of the critical functions of a private tree bylaw?

45:37The city of the gulf values the numerous contributions trees make to the health of the community and the private tree bylaw is really one of the tools.

45:46There are multiple others that the city is to protect and enhance its canopy cover.

45:52And the bylaw does this in a variety of ways. Does this by creating opportunities to reach out and educate people about trees,

46:00potentially to deter, prevent unnecessary tree removals. A bylaw can ensure that tree removals are done properly.

46:07So in accordance with the applicable regulations, it can also facilitate tracking of tree removals and replacements.

46:15And then finally, a private tree bylaw provides a legal basis for securing tree replacements.

46:21So when trees are approved for removal, it provides a mechanism to ensure that either trees are replaced on site, replanted.

46:29And or that financial compensation is obtained so that the city can plant trees elsewhere to ensure the canopy is sustained.

46:38So in terms of the current private tree bylaw, it regulates trees that are at least 10 centimeters diameter or greater.

46:46And it regulates them on privately on lots that are at least 0.2 hectares.

46:51And a number of people have commented in our engagement. What exactly does that look like.

46:56And so the analogy we've provided is it's about the size of a hockey rink.

47:00You can see in the picture here, the top of exhibition arena. And so you can see it is about that that orange triangle is about the same size.

47:09So that is the side of 0.2 hectares.

47:12So in terms of what's regulated by the bylaw, we've done some analysis.

47:21And it is a tree bylaw. So I just want to be clear that the bylaw regulates the trees, not the lands themselves.

47:28But in terms of what is regulated currently with the bylaw, about 45% of the land in the city is regulated and about half or 50% of the city's current canopy cover.

47:41So that's what the current size thresholds that are established.

47:46What's unregulated on private lands is about 21% of the land in the city. And that contains about 19% of the city's canopy cover.

47:56So that's shown here in the graphs and the two blues.

48:01And then on the left hand side of these circles, it shows what's unregulated and then what's not applicable. So the purple sections are primarily public lands.

48:13And so an example of those would be the correctional facility, for example, owned by the province.

48:18And so the trees on lands owned by the province cannot be regulated under the private tree bylaw because of the way it's structured.

48:26Similarly, the city's own lands are not regulated. The city has its own policies and practices that apply to those lands.

48:35So in terms of how the current bylaw works, most typical residents might not be familiar with this because the typical residential lots of the city are not currently regulated.

48:48And so basically what it means is a permit's required for damage or removal of trees that are, again, as I said, at least 10 centimeters diameter on privately owned lots of at least 0.2 hectares.

49:00So there are a series of exemptions in the bylaw. I'm not going to go through them all. We can discuss them if you have any questions.

49:06But an example is trees that are deemed high risk or dead, for example, can be removed without a permit.

49:13There are a number of processes that are related to the bylaw. So for example, a designated bylaw office bylaw inspector issues the permit and may issue it with or without conditions or may also deny a permit in some cases.

49:28Although generally that's not the city's practice, the bylaw is implemented as a regulatory tool and not a prohibition tool.

49:36Permits are to be posted for at least five days prior to the works in a visible location.

49:42Permits generally have an expiry period of about 90 days unless an extension is applied for granted. And there is an appeal process that's incorporated in the current bylaw.

49:56In terms of what the bylaw also can and can't do. So a designated bylaw inspector from the city may in relation to a permit enter the lands for an inspection, sorry, order the discontinuation of a permit violation and also recover the costs for remedial actions.

50:13As well as require, as I mentioned previously, replacements under compensation.

50:20A designated bylaw inspector from the city as well as a bylaw officer might also press charges for bylaw violations. And if convicted the violator might be subject to fines.

50:32So in terms of a bigger picture in the city, again, as most of you are probably aware, the private tree bylaw is certainly not the only mechanism.

50:42It works with a variety of other tools, plans, policies that are in place in the city of Guelph. So at the highest level, there's the strategic strategic plan which is being updated, which identifies increasing Guelph's tree canopy cover as one of its key actions.

51:00There's the official plan, which as I've mentioned has a suite of both natural heritage system and urban forest policies associated with it.

51:09There is the Brooklyn and College Hill Heritage Conservation District, which I will talk about more detail in the following slide.

51:18Then there's also the urban forest management plan, which is a 20 year plan for the trees across the city and related documents. So the urban forest study report, which was completed in 2019, which assessed the canopy cover and the status of trees in the city, among other things, as well as a more recent urban forest management plan update report.

51:39And so these really guide the priorities in terms of maintaining and managing and planting trees in the city.

51:46And then finally, there's the tree technical manual, which is a very important document that really has the specifics about tree protection, tree replacement, and guidelines also related to compensation for trees.

52:00So in terms of how trees are addressed for the Brooklyn Hill Heritage Conservation District, again, I suspect many of you were probably involved in helping to develop some of these guidelines.

52:13And so right now, the guidance and the bylaw state that damage or destruction of any trees greater than 20 centimeters diameter. So this is a little bit bigger than the current private tree bylaw.

52:29That is within this conservation district that is located within a front yard or an exterior yard, and that is considered to have conservation value is regulated under the heritage bylaw and requires a permit from the Heritage Committee for removal.

52:50And the permit itself, as again, probably most of you know, can include conditions for replacement trees.

53:00So how does this compare to the current bylaw? Well, the current bylaw proceeds the heritage conservation district so it's not specifically mentioned in the bylaw or referenced.

53:10But it does speak to heritage tree. There's a definition for heritage tree that requires again review and updating.

53:20It also allows for issuance of permits in terms of deciding it specifies that whether or not when an inspector decides whether or not to issue a permit that considering whether or not a regulated tree is a heritage tree that's a specific consideration and can be a basis for issuing and or denying a permit.

53:39And so really what we'd like to hear from the committee today is certainly any questions or comments, but specifically in relation to heritage trees, how perhaps you think the current bylaw could or should be updated as we move forward.

53:58So I will stop sharing and open it up.

54:04Thanks Margo for that information. Are there any questions or comments from committee members? Cameron and then Kathy.

54:24Quick question for me. So you mentioned heritage trees, but I guess what, how does the, how does the current bylaw work for a heritage property with just trees on the property? Like, is there any.

54:38Restrictions there based on the property, but not the tree being a heritage tree.

54:43Do you know what I mean? So the current bylaw only applies to properties in the heritage district that are point 2 hectares and above and there are a few, but it's not the majority of them.

54:53So it does not regulate most of the trees and the conservation district. So it's really the heritage bylaw regulations. I guess if that's the proper term that apply.

55:03Okay.

55:07And then 2nd question, I got pruning or maintaining trees with a bylaw cover that or is it strictly sort of for significant damages or removal?

55:15Right. So that does not require a permit. So pruning again in accordance with good arboreal practices. So as long as the trees and being injured or damage then that those works are permitted.

55:28But again, the bylaw doesn't even apply to properties that are smaller than point 2 hectares.

55:35Right. Okay. Thank you.

55:43Thank you. So, I mean, this is the 3rd time I've seen this presentation, but I'll let heritage growth know what my thoughts have been on this just.

55:53From a heritage perspective, so I live in the college Brooklyn heritage district and I, and right now.

56:02The only sort of protection or regulation is once.

56:06Trees in the front yard or side yards, but I would having lived here, I would say many of the heritage trees.

56:15In backyards are very visible from the street. Like I have a large oak in my backyard that's 2 to 3 times out of my house. It's massive.

56:24And that's true in the neighborhood that the trees are very visible from the street that are in the backyard and should have the same.

56:31What would be easier, I think, is just to create a tree protection bylaw that protects or regulates trees. It doesn't mean they can't be cut down.

56:43They have to go through a process on all properties under half an acre like we do on over and have a certain centimeter.

56:52Issue around that around what the size of it is. So, you know, rather than have it just in the heritage districts just in the front yard. If you had the bylaw change.

57:02So it's everything under half an acre or then you would be protecting those trees in those heritage districts anyway.

57:11So those are the, that's the feedback that I've already given around that issue. So just for your consideration.

57:27Any other questions or comments?

57:35I just wonder why you are limiting, you know, the trees protection to a certain area in the lot. Now, suppose you have a small lot, you know, and this tree loses its, its, you know, value and can be exposed to, you know, being cut or abused or whatever.

57:55Just a question, you know, how they ended up specifying a certain area through which you know trees are protected and then other than that, they can be exposed to, you know, being cut or whatever.

58:10You know, just curiosity.

58:16So, one of the key reasons for the deciding on the larger lot size for regulating as being a threshold was in 2010, the focus was really on lots that were considered more vulnerable to development.

58:30So to prevent sort of, you know, clear cutting in advance of something coming in for a development application.

58:36So this time there was some discussion debate about doing, you know, all private loss irrespective of size, you know, trees say 20 or 30 centimeters diameter, but that would have been a much more cost intensive in terms of needing tree by law officers, etc.

58:54And so it was ultimately decided that at that time the priority was on the larger lots. But this is again why we're reconsidering it now.

59:09Thank you very much.

59:18Last call for discussion on this workshop topic on this topic.

59:28No, all right, well thank you to Tim, you and Margot Margo sorry for that presentation today.

59:34We'll move on to our next item in the agenda, which is a carry over item from our last meeting.

59:42And I will jump in and just say that the report associated with this agenda is the same one as our last meeting.

59:52I have taken a couple of questions and I'll just say that I think that's a good point.

59:58I'm sorry, I can't speak about that property or the other reports.

1:00:06And I will jump in and just say that the report associated with this agenda is the same one as our last meeting.

1:00:14I have taken note of Councillor Downer's request for additional materials to be included in the report.

1:00:24Just because it is a deferred item, I wasn't able to upload a new report. So, please be rest assured that any comments or requests will be included and my report to council will reflect those.

1:00:40Just wanted to be clear.

1:00:42And that holds true Victoria for any questions or comments or changes that are requested today as well.

1:00:49Yes. Excellent.

1:00:53David, I think you unmuted yourself. So, I'm going to guess maybe you have a question or comment.

1:01:04Yes, you sorry sorry. Sorry. No, I don't have a comment or question.

1:01:11No, sorry. The other David, I apologize.

1:01:14Um, right. The last time you told us that there was, um, you didn't have any feedback from the owner of the property.

1:01:23There was an article in a Guelph today in November from the owner of the property.

1:01:28I think I think his name saying that he wasn't aware of it, but he was in favor.

1:01:34And then sort of sort of implying that, you know, what you do about nothing, you're putting too much.

1:01:40Detail on it or you'll make him work harder than he should.

1:01:45Was there, um, did I understand that last time that you didn't have any feedback from the owner?

1:01:51Um, that was sort of his position in November.

1:01:55Yes. So that feedback was made it in a Guelph today article. So we, that feedback wasn't, um.

1:02:03Between myself directly with the owner. So, since then, I have not had, I've not been successful in, um.

1:02:13Engaging the owner to, um.

1:02:16See the interior of the property or to discuss the designation. So that's still a hope that.

1:02:23I can make that contact. But as of right now, I haven't been able to, um.

1:02:31Discuss the designation with them. It is great. Obviously in the.

1:02:36Autocull your mentioning they did seem in favor of designation, which is good.

1:02:40And I'm hopeful that we can.

1:02:45Discuss the heritage attributes and hopefully.

1:02:50Ultimately have a friendly designation as a result.

1:02:53Any guidelines for.

1:02:57People like, you know, when you're in that situation, you know, that if you're not getting anything from the owner.

1:03:03Um, you know, in proceeding.

1:03:08Um, so obviously we would prefer to.

1:03:14Engage directly with the owner so we can review the heritage reports.

1:03:21With them and then the.

1:03:24Uh, heritage attributes and also like what that means for them forward if designation does.

1:03:31Is approved by council on a bylaw is put in place.

1:03:35Now, um.

1:03:38We as I said, that's the preferred method. We.

1:03:44It council can still move forward with the intention to designate without the owner.

1:03:50Being part of that process, however.

1:03:55We just want to make sure that we don't get an objection because, you know, that just means that we're kind of having a breakdown and communication.

1:04:04With the owner and heritage staff, so we can move forward without an owner's.

1:04:12Inclusion that is not our preference. We much prefer to obviously have that discussion.

1:04:18Just so that we can kind of be on 1 page and then we don't have to kind of.

1:04:25Work together after the fact when potentially an objection is raised.

1:04:29Is there is a 30 day period of objections.

1:04:33After annoyed is issued.

1:04:37Well, question, do you think you're getting the run around from the owner here?

1:04:42Not not trying to be.

1:04:44I think that I don't know the owner personally, so I can't really comment on.

1:04:51His schedule, so I think maybe.

1:04:56There's just a miscommunication or even.

1:05:01He may not be that worried about it. Obviously, he said that he was favorable and a recent article. So until I hear differently, hopefully he's just a.

1:05:12Quite least supportive and.

1:05:15You know, it will be happy when this goes to council.

1:05:20We'll see what happens again. I think I mentioned last time. I'm hoping that as you know, this.

1:05:27Process moves forward, we can have that discussion with the owner.

1:05:32Before it gets to council, or obviously they are welcome to delegate at council as well. So we'll probably.

1:05:40Hopefully have their opinions in that forum too. So we'll see.

1:05:46Thank you. Yes, Kathy.

1:05:51Thank you. Can you tell on the heritage attributes?

1:05:58What is the difference between all exterior stone walls?

1:06:04And outward facing stone walls?

1:06:07That is a good.

1:06:10A good question. So, Stephen has.

1:06:13Broke that with me internally and he just thinks.

1:06:18And I agree with him that the those attributes are a little bit broad. So.

1:06:22What I'm thinking in terms of revisions moving towards the council report is obviously keep the attribute of all exterior stone walls.

1:06:31But change the outward facing to be more specific in terms of openings. So the doorways.

1:06:38The windows the existing openings.

1:06:43Be protected so those can't be impacted in any way.

1:06:48So that is that is a good catch.

1:06:53So that's what we're thinking and moving forwards with.

1:06:55Okay. Okay.

1:07:00That's fine. Thank you. Good.

1:07:03Cameron.

1:07:05Thanks. So, yeah, I was looking through the notice of intent to designate draft document. I just wanted to note that we didn't have access to the full versions of the land abstracts or the.

1:07:15Some of the maps that are referenced in that document. But I was able to get access to those and I have sort of a number of questions about.

1:07:24Clarifying dates and names and chain of custody and stuff like that. I'm just wondering, is it possible for me to sort of.

1:07:29Email list of questions, clarification to Victoria? I don't know if it makes sense to go through them kind of 1 by 1. It's a lot of for.

1:07:35Looking back for the documents in this course this meeting, is it okay if I send you an email list of some sort of date clarification after this meeting?

1:07:42Of course, yeah, definitely if.

1:07:45Yeah, if you have.

1:07:48I guess not maybe more clerical comments. Yeah, definitely if that's easier for you and probably need to to make sure I get everything that you're mentioning. I'm definitely open to sending me an email and I'll make sure that all of the requests are reviewed and.

1:08:06That they're included in the reports council. So, yeah, if that's easiest, I'm definitely open to that.

1:08:12Okay, thanks. Yeah, that'd be great. And then I guess in terms of the, you're working on revising the draft document now.

1:08:18Based on our feedback, can we see a copy of the final document before it goes to.

1:08:22To council can it be sent to us or.

1:08:25Yeah, I don't see that being an issue. I think the draft will is due. Sorry. I'm just thinking of when it has to be due.

1:08:35To make the agenda. Let me just sorry. 1 second. I have to check.

1:08:44My personal calendar in terms of timeline. Okay, so I think it will be due.

1:08:58In like 2 weeks internally, just so we can hit our.

1:09:04Our appropriate review schedule. So.

1:09:10I can definitely circulate that report, but I think.

1:09:14Just with the knowledge that that will be the final report. So, if you do have comments or requests.

1:09:21And obviously, if you think of them after this meeting, if you could please email them to me because the next.

1:09:27Version will be the final version, if that makes sense, just so we can hit those timelines. Yeah. Yeah. It would just be nice to see it before it goes to council. So we have a record of what.

1:09:37What was included Victoria, can I just step in here for a second?

1:09:43So it's Donna from the clerk's office before the report goes forward to council. If there's any comments or information that the committee wants to include.

1:09:53You would need to be making it as fired of a formal motion into this, into the committee right now into the meeting right at this moment.

1:09:59So you couldn't produce the report, have the committee have a look at it and provide their comments.

1:10:04This is the opportunity for the committee to provide those comments.

1:10:09Okay, sorry, I stand corrected. Kathy.

1:10:17This is a problematic process issue.

1:10:22With respect to the clerk's office, because the recommendation is for a motion from heritage Guelph.

1:10:30To give notice of its intent, you know, recommends that city council give notice of its intention to designate.

1:10:36And then the wording and in accordance with the statement of significance provided with them with item 2.4 the heritage Guelph agenda.

1:10:46So we're not, we don't have the final form to approve.

1:10:52And so I'm seeing this a bit with some other advisory groups where the committees aren't getting the final draft and the final form. And so I'm seeing that here that our suggestions will be taken.

1:11:07Now, I'm hearing that we need a motion. So do I need a motion for everything that I sent an email in about.

1:11:17And so this is problematic. So what's going to happen at city council is going to say, did heritage growth actually, you know, I can, I know who's going to ask.

1:11:28It's not me, but I mean, they're going to say did heritage growth or see the final product and approve it. And it just creates.

1:11:37Some of those issues. So I just, I just wanted to start to consider.

1:11:41What's how like the motion that you've given us and that we don't have the final.

1:11:48We don't have the final statement because it's going to be amended.

1:11:52Jack, you're on me. Thank you, Kathy. If I can just jump in.

1:11:58It's staff's intention that any changes made to this report are only in response to suggestions made by heritage Guelph.

1:12:06Like, I think any substantive changes to the researcher heritage attributes would prompt us to come back to the committee.

1:12:14But the inclusion of additional research and things like that by the suggestion of the committee will be the only real difference is between the report that's shared with the committee and the report that goes to council.

1:12:26Well, I asked for a photo to be included. Do I need to make it though Victoria says that will be done. Do I need a motion for that? That's not an attribute. It's just that I thought that it was important.

1:12:42But that in the background material. So I'm just, you know, we don't have the final report. We don't have the final document in front of us.

1:12:51And, you know, I'm fine. You can go ahead and do it this way.

1:12:57But there's going to be, you know, there could be concerns at the end of the day. And again, it's going to council is going to hear that the committee did not get the final document. That's all. I'm just pointing this out. You do whatever you want.

1:13:13And I'll finish right here.

1:13:15So, maybe I can clarify a few points for committee revisions. And so we're talking about the email that Kathy sent earlier this week with some fantastic points about the women in particular and equity and the importance of including that information.

1:13:30The photograph as well that Kathy's referring to dates and some sort of provisions to some incorrect information potential that Cameron's alluding to that will be sent via email. And maybe the best for transparency that can be an email to the entire committee so that everyone is aware of.

1:13:45What those pieces are and then with the outside of that, are there any other revisions that committee members would like from the report that was initially shared March 13th and was deferred to this meeting.

1:13:58And if there aren't, maybe our motion could read something about that an updated report that the final report includes the items as discussed in the April 11th meeting.

1:14:10Does that sound reasonable to committee members?

1:14:17Kathy, yeah, I think that that's an improvement. If you're not going to get the final report, then I think that the additions that were discussed in the committee would work.

1:14:29So, I'm just looking at the motion that's before the committee and trying to figure out the best place to sort of note that the revisions as discussed by committee members.

1:14:43Yeah, I'll be quick.

1:14:45Well, there will there be a method of us to find out which comments were, I don't want to say approved, but accepted by the city to add it or change in the report. So if Cameron goes and sends his comments via email, how will we know which ones were accepted changed?

1:15:07Is there a way of knowing that?

1:15:09So, maybe a question to Victoria, is it possible pending Cameron's email just to include sort of a reply all to committee of the changes that have been added?

1:15:18And if they are sort of clerical edits that need to be made, it sounds like I suspect all would be changed as long as they're factual. If we're talking about factual corrections that need to be done, I suspect all would be made. Does that sound appropriate, Victoria?

1:15:35Yes, I believe so. Definitely. Well, if Cameron can send the email doesn't have to be just to me, it can be to all of us. So we're all aware of the requests.

1:15:48And then I can respond back obviously when the requests have been revised and that they're included or addressed in the report to council.

1:16:00Thank you.

1:16:08So, I'll read the motion that I just tweaked. I just added a little bit to the end of it. So the current motion is that heritage 12 recommends that city council give notice of its intention to designate 49 Norfolk Street.

1:16:21Pursuant to part 4 section 29 of the Ontario Heritage Act in accordance with the statement of significance provided with item 2.4 of the heritage 12 agenda dated March 13, 2023.

1:16:32And including all revisions noted by committee members at the April 11, 2023 meeting.

1:16:40And if folks are happy with that, I would need someone to move it.

1:16:46Thank you, David and someone to second it.

1:16:48And then sorry, sorry, I had a little, little late there, then all in favor.

1:16:55We've lost Miranda. So I'm going to Miranda noted that she had to leave at 1 o'clock. So she is no longer in the meeting.

1:17:11And we're still with quorum. So then that motion has passed.

1:17:15So, thank you everyone. So our next agenda item is 47 Alice street staff report on intention to designate and this will have a presentation by Victoria.

1:17:29Sorry, Sarah guys, add something to that last.

1:17:32I'm just wondering for the process question, would a designation working group help with that process in any regard? I know we talked about a working group before.

1:17:42I just in terms of sharing commentary and stuff like that. I'm just wondering if it might be another reason to again, pursue possibly a designation working group.

1:17:52Just just my thought so someone new to this sort of chairing rule. I'm not sure. Can we discuss something like that now? Or is that something to add to the agenda for the May meeting? Is that an appropriate place for that sort of discussion?

1:18:12I can jump in for that for you, Jack. Okay. So discussing any types of working groups or anything will require discussion at committee. In addition to referring to the.

1:18:22The ACOC, I think it's the meeting procedures policy having a look at that as well, because it may require a terms of reference and details as to exactly how the working group is going to work.

1:18:39So, sort of a short answer is maybe we can add that to the agenda for the May meeting to have a discussion around that and what that would potentially look like and an interest from committee members.

1:18:51Yeah, sounds good. Thanks. It was just just a thought ahead. I know we talked about it a couple of meetings ago. So.

1:18:55Yeah, formalizing that would be would be helpful for discussion. Sure. Thank you, Cameron. Thanks.

1:19:03All right, Victoria over to you.

1:19:10Okay, let me just bring up my rotation.

1:19:27Oh, sorry. One second. Okay. Can everyone see my presentation? Okay. Awesome.

1:19:39Okay, so today I'm talking about 47 Alice Street, which is the Blair shoe shop, which I just noticed is not just spelled correctly, but we'll change that.

1:19:51So we're talking about the results of the background research, the statement of Stimicans, the heritage attributes, and then we'll go into a little bit about the history of this property because it's.

1:20:00property actually has been brought to Heritage Club in the past and actually the Conservation

1:20:05Review Board. So this has been part of corporate memory for a while. So we're kind of just

1:20:13crossing the finish line if you want to say that in terms of the property. So the Blair

1:20:20shoe shop is located on Alice Street on the south side between Duke and Huron streets.

1:20:27It is approximately 45 by 101 feet and that is around just over 4500 square feet or 424 meters

1:20:37square. The boundary of the property is legally described as lot 40 and part of lot 39.

1:20:47The property parcel for 47 Alice was part of Lance's first purchase from the Canada company

1:20:55in December of 1835 by Samuel Crawford. Crawford purchased around 23 acres of land consisting of

1:21:04lot two in the first range of Division F in the Township of Guelph. Crawford then sold around 10

1:21:11acres of land to Henry Huggard Oliver in February of 1838. Those lands fell into the property of

1:21:19his estate because he subsequently passed away in 1853 and you can see that Mrs. Oliver in 1862

1:21:28owns this lot of land that 47 Alice Street would become. Here we have plan 244 from 1846 and

1:21:44Alice Street encompasses this really skinny lot of lot 40 and then the western half of lot

1:21:5139 as well. The Oliver estate sold the lots 39 and 40 actually separately to William Perne

1:22:04and Fred Chadwick. However the ownership of these lots were then consolidated under Michael

1:22:11Dweignan. I'm not sure if that's correct we'll go with it. He then him and his wife who I will look

1:22:19into her name subsequently sold lot 40 and the western part of lot 39 to John Kinnerd in 1911

1:22:29and then Kinnerd and his wife again we'll look for that name later sold this property to Vincenzo

1:22:35Valeriette which brings us up to the shoe shop. So in 1924 Vincenzo acquired the property and

1:22:47later that same year he took out a thousand dollar mortgage on the property which is most likely

1:22:53to finance the building of the residence and the business. Now you can see here you have the

1:23:02residence which is set back a little bit from the street which mirrors the other homes on the

1:23:08street and then you have the small shoe shop which is flush with the right of way. So this is the

1:23:17fire insurance plan for 1929. So as I said between 1924 when Vincenzo acquired the property to 1929

1:23:25he was able to build his residence and business. Both both buildings were constructed of brick

1:23:34and the shop was shown to have electricity. As I said before the house was built set back from

1:23:42the street while the business was accessible via the sidewalk because it was flush to the street.

1:23:52Now thankfully we were in contact with a descendant of Vincenzo his granddaughter specifically so she

1:24:00very generously donated a few family photos of the property and and the family. I'm also going

1:24:07to read an excerpts from when she sent us these photos. So Vincenzo Valeriette was a shoemaker

1:24:16and 47 Alice Street was the location of his business. Like many other Italian men in the

1:24:22neighborhood he built the building out of economic necessity. During an era when Italian immigrants

1:24:28were generally excluded from mainstream society and economy men like my grandfather made their

1:24:33living serving families and their communities. Buildings around the neighborhood like this

1:24:41shoe shop are a testament to the way new Italian settlers and Guelph established ways

1:24:46of being self-sufficient and serving their community. They are unique in that they allowed the owner to

1:24:51work in close proximity to the family which was vitally important to the local Italian community

1:24:56of that era. Now the photo on the left shows the Valeriette family so in the door window you see

1:25:04Maria and then in the shop window you can see Vincenzo working away and then in front are his

1:25:13are they're sorry three children. Now I'm not sure about the boys but I'm pretty sure the little girl

1:25:19is Victoria great name and the other two are I think Joe and Dominic but I can't be sure.

1:25:29On the right obviously you have the family a little bit grown up so you have Joe the furthest left

1:25:37then Victoria and then Dominic and then Tony and this picture was taken in around 1938.

1:25:45Again you can see the shoe shop decal on the on the window both in the left photo and the right

1:25:54showing the consistency and the sorry the photo on the left is probably from the later 1920s so

1:26:02right about round when they built the business. These photos are from actually the Cooley

1:26:10so they were taken in the 70s and it shows obviously what the building looked the buildings

1:26:19looked like around 50 years ago. So the house on the left is a one-story late Edwardian Ontario

1:26:27cottage with a hip roof and it is situated along the southwest side of the property and again as

1:26:34I said it has a small step back from the street. The front facade has two large sash windows and

1:26:41they flank a central front door. The shoe shop is the picture on the right and it's located on the

1:26:49northern corner of the property and obviously is flush with the streets. The front facade has an

1:26:56original single hung sash display window on the left and a modern half glass door on the right.

1:27:02The window has one small upper pane and one large lower pane. Both buildings were constructed of

1:27:08red press brick played in a stretcher bond on a concrete foundation with rough faced cast stone

1:27:14cells and lentils and then we have some more updated photos of the property which show that

1:27:25they still maintain the the general built form. You can still see those original openings there

1:27:33along with these stone lentils and the red bricks still displayed pretty proudly as well as the

1:27:41lines of the roofs. So moving forward with the statement of significance,

1:27:52under we're obviously switching to 569-22 which doesn't necessarily roll off the tongue

1:27:58but there are nine criteria under this new regulation that we look to satisfy apart for

1:28:05designation and to determine cultural heritage value or interest. So we're looking to have two

1:28:11out of the nine to qualify for individual designation and we are making the case that it

1:28:20satisfies four of the nine because it does display all parts of all three so designer,

1:28:28physical, historical, or associative and contextual. So kind of moving through these

1:28:36criteria so the shoe shop meets criteria in one of 569-22 because it is a rare and represented

1:28:44example of a building type i.e. a representative example. The configuration of the property with

1:28:50a family occupied dwelling detached from a family operated business is now a rare

1:28:57feature of St. Patrick's Ward. The buildings on the subject property incorporate 1920s period

1:29:05materials and construction techniques that survive with good historical integrity.

1:29:14Moving on to historical slash associative value, we believe that two criteria of this section of

1:29:22569-22 are met in that the property has direct associations with the theme that is significant

1:29:29to the Guelph community and it yields information that contributes to an understanding of a

1:29:34community or culture. So specifically the 47 Alice Street contributes to an understanding of the

1:29:41interwar period of immigration to Guelph notably of the Italian population in St. Patrick's Ward.

1:29:47It was a cultural practice to establish a place of business near to a family's place of residence

1:29:54and the Alice Street property is a good example of this practice. The property is

1:30:00representative of an important period in history of St. Patrick's Ward and in the development of Guelph.

1:30:08Also the shoe shop was run by Benchenzo until his death in the early 1970s. Now lastly,

1:30:16contextual value. So the shoe shop does meet criterion six because it is an important,

1:30:28it is important sorry in defining, maintaining and supporting the character of the area. So

1:30:34the dwelling and shop retain their original configuration and orientation to Alice Street

1:30:40specifically that the residence is set back from the street and the business is flush with the street

1:30:49and the shop continues to be an anomaly on the streetscape and is visually distinct as the closest

1:30:55structure to the street. Alice Street today has largely the same residential and smaller scale

1:31:01industry built form that it did in its initial period of development and the close proximity

1:31:07of the shop to the street gives it visual prominence in the streetscape. So moving on to the

1:31:15heritage attributes, we're kind of focused on the built form here specifically for Alice Street

1:31:25and also its configuration within the property. So the identified heritage attributes are all

1:31:32original window and door openings and hip roof lined as seen from Alice Street of the front

1:31:40elevation of the residence and then also the original window and door openings and open gable

1:31:47roof line as seen from Alice Street and from front and west elevations of the shoe shop specifically.

1:31:57Also we're looking to designate the original wood window frames and sashes on the front and west

1:32:04side of the shoe shop and then specifically the placement of the buildings because I've

1:32:10mentioned multiple times the setback of the home and then the fact that the shoe shop is flush

1:32:17with the street is very important in its history as a property and then its contribution to the

1:32:22streetcape as well. And then finally I did want to kind of go into the history of the house and

1:32:33then finally I did want to kind of go into the history of the property as I mentioned in the

1:32:37beginning. This has been on heritage planning's radar for a while in terms of that in 2008 so we're

1:32:45going back over 10 years almost 15 years. The city of golf did issue a notice of intention to

1:32:53designate the property. Now the owner at the time did object to this designation so the file was then

1:33:02heard at the conservation review board so the OLT of the day and they did hear the

1:33:14case and they also had a recommendation which I've included on this slide and essentially

1:33:20they recommended that 47 Alice Street did have sufficient cultural heritage value to be

1:33:27designated individually. Now in the aftermath of this hearing

1:33:34in communication with the owner at the time heritage staff did not and the city did not pursue

1:33:40designation just because of the objection and through for the communication with the owner.

1:33:49The property is under new ownership now and heritage planning staff have been

1:33:55in contact with the owner to discuss designation and the implications of that designation to hopefully

1:34:03be able to move forward with a friendly designation overall but again I just wanted to

1:34:10provide that context because I'm sure not no one was here then except Stephen.

1:34:16So that was the beginning of his career here. So in terms of next steps we're looking to

1:34:27have this staff report to council shortly in May and then hopefully if council reaffirms

1:34:36their commitment to designation of this property a NOID will be issued and again there'll be that

1:34:42same 30-day period for objections. If no objections are heard then the city can move forward with a

1:34:49designation bylaw and that's it in terms of my presentation so let me stop sharing

1:35:02and obviously open the floor for questions. Are there any questions or comments for Victoria

1:35:13on the site? Yes Stephen. Victoria is just a comment but on the slide where you show the

1:35:21heritage attributes I want to thank you for including the fourth bullet which is the setback

1:35:28and the alignment of the building with the rest of the streetscape. I find very often when we look

1:35:33at heritage attributes we're really focused on the architecture and then sometimes landscaping

1:35:41makes into it but I've always thought there is this gap of urban design and the planning of a

1:35:47heritage resource so I just want to thank you for including that. That's it. Thank you. I also have

1:36:00to give a lot of credit to Stephen because he was the original author of this staff report back in

1:36:0808 and really all I did was update. I'm just highlighting Stephen's expertise on this file.

1:36:20I want to give him credit where credit's due. Other questions or comments? Yes. Go ahead.

1:36:30Victoria it sounds like the Valyria family was involved in pretty together this report. Is that

1:36:38cool? So yeah in back in 08 Gayle did provide some comments and also as you saw some family photos.

1:36:49A few of them now are actually in the Glawf Museums archive so they are publicly accessible if you're

1:36:56interested. So as part of the CRB process a lot of input was given on both sides so Gayle was

1:37:11kindly enough to provide those photos and provide her comments on kind of growing up there and as

1:37:21as you know there have been other sources produced by you know descendants of the Valyria family.

1:37:28The Valyria family and Glawf are multiple branches. They were very active in the Italian community

1:37:36and in the community of Glawf as a whole so they're a great resource in terms of understanding

1:37:45the what was used what sorry what the buildings were used for and how the family contributed

1:37:50to the community as a whole. I'm sure if it is to drive the as ready input from the president owners

1:37:57to the the application. So we did have a meeting uh Stephen, Jack and I last week with the president

1:38:05owners going over the same heritage attributes and then kind of going over what would be involved if

1:38:12the property were to be designated in terms of what their responsibilities are if they would

1:38:18like to make any impacts to the heritage attributes like what would need a heritage permit what doesn't

1:38:24need a heritage permit and you know as I said most of the heritage attributes we've identified are

1:38:36mostly focused on the built form and the placement of the buildings so and I think

1:38:43we were pretty clear that this is really to save the property and the buildings from demolition

1:38:50so and we're pretty flexible obviously if something has to be replaced you know that can

1:38:56that's a conversation we can have so I think on the whole that was a very positive interaction

1:39:02and we're hoping to maintain that positive relationship with present day owners yes.

1:39:07Thank you. Kamri? Just a kind of a process question for me um because this building was already

1:39:1615 years ago went to council and approved for to proceed with designation um and even went through

1:39:22the appeal and the hearing and everything uh does it need to go to council again is there like a

1:39:26time limit uh I'm assuming it does that's what we're doing it? Yeah exactly it does need to go to

1:39:32council again because we didn't pursue designation back after the the CRB hearing so um that's why

1:39:43we're hoping like this will be a fairly smooth process just because we do have past council

1:39:49and heritage wealth support as well as obviously the support from the CRB so um and as I said like

1:39:56many of the attributes I didn't make huge changes here where the property hasn't been you know severely

1:40:03impacted even since the original notice has gone out so um we're hoping that with the

1:40:12support of the current owner and then obviously with heritage wealth support that council will

1:40:18kind of see this as a a no-brainer to move forward with designation but yeah we did have

1:40:24to go through the process again just because it had been so long okay in general is there like a

1:40:29specified timeframe with how long it can lapse or not really is it defined anywhere just just

1:40:35around knowledge? That's a good question I'm not sure actually maybe if you don't mind Victoria if

1:40:42I just chime in this is based on advice from our legal services at city just you know to to go through

1:40:49this again um to just to reaffirm more than anything yeah okay and then I guess sorry last

1:40:57question for me would be are there any other properties like this in the city that that have

1:41:01been approved to go forward designation you know years ago and that haven't actually been designated

1:41:05yet? Just not not that I'm aware of and I guess I can say now that it's been identified that I've

1:41:14been around here so long I can speak for the corporate memory of heritage planning I don't

1:41:21I don't think so Cameron. Okay great thanks. I just have one quick comment to make I think this is a

1:41:29really interesting site because it's a really active community pantry in the neighborhood I walk by it

1:41:33almost every day and it's really actively used by the members of the community so I think it's

1:41:39fantastic that there will be a potential designation moving forward for a site that is just

1:41:43used by so many many different people in this neighborhood so side note for me

1:41:48if there's no other questions or comments from anyone I'll I'll read the recommended

1:41:54motion and then look for someone to move it so our motion is that heritage gulf recommends that

1:41:59city council give notice of its intention to designate 47 Alice Street pursuant to part four

1:42:05section 29 of the Ontario Heritage Act in accordance with the statement of significance

1:42:09provided with item 3.3 of the heritage gulf agenda dated April 11th 2023 looking for a mover

1:42:20I saw Cameron and Jouda do you want to be our seconder yes okay and all in favour

1:42:29Laura just looking for you to show us as well

1:42:33perfect exciting all past then and we will move on to our next agenda item which is 20 city view drive

1:42:41cultural heritage resource impact assessment with a presentation by Stephen

1:42:49hey thanks very much Sarah I'm gonna see I think everyone can see that now so

1:43:00hey I'm uh I'm here I'm to speak about 20 city view drive which is a property that's listed on

1:43:12the register I'm also joined today by one of the authors of MHBC's cultural heritage resource

1:43:18impact assessment and that's Nick Bogart Nick's here for as an attendee and if there are questions

1:43:25that come up from the our best addressed by the consultant and maybe we can bring them on but

1:43:32I'll just move through the presentation as has been provided to the committee members

1:43:38so the outline I'll talk a bit about kind of a summary of the situation that this property is in

1:43:44now I'll talk about the heritage status of the buildings on the property and I'll reiterate

1:43:51what you've already been reviewing as my staff's conclusion and the recommendation so an application

1:44:01of intention to demolish the barn at 20 city view drive north has been received from Carson

1:44:07Reed Homes and this is part of their current draft plan of subdivision 23t 120502 known as

1:44:16I believe it's the city view subdivision this is for 20 and 37 city view drive north the barn

1:44:26on this property is listed as a non-designated built heritage resource on the municipal register

1:44:33of cultural heritage properties and as you can see in this in the slide you can see the record itself

1:44:40for the for the barn in order to for the intention to demolish application application to be deemed

1:44:48complete a satisfactory cultural heritage resource impact assessment was required to be received by

1:44:54heritage planning staff and the completed ch ria is now before heritage wealth for their comments

1:45:02your comments I should say and regarding a recommendation to remove the barn from the

1:45:07heritage register so I'll move on to talk just really briefly essentially outlining what's in

1:45:16in my staff report about the heritage status of the buildings on the property there are three

1:45:23buildings on the property as you saw in the previous slide but only the barn has heritage status as it

1:45:29is listed on as non-designated on the municipal register of cultural heritage properties neither

1:45:35the small shed actually I'm just going to flip back to this image just for a sec just want to

1:45:42make sure everyone's understanding the placement of each of these three buildings when the photograph

1:45:48I took from city view drive and the barn in question is the building toward the back the small

1:45:55smaller shed is in the foreground and to the left is the the farmhouse building

1:46:01so neither the small shed nor the existing dwelling on the property have any heritage status

1:46:07as they have not been listed on the city's heritage register as the property is now subject to a

1:46:13draft plan of subdivision as a prescribed event under the Ontario Heritage Act there is no or

1:46:20under the Heritage Act there is no legislative authority to protect the dwelling or the shed

1:46:26or the shed with the provisions of the Ontario Heritage Act so here's a little closer image of

1:46:35the barn itself which you'll notice that it's clad in a corrugated metal and the roof is as well

1:46:45the base of the barn is cast in place concrete and I'll talk a bit about the interior next

1:46:54you can see you've been able to see while it was circulated the form you can see the forming

1:47:03of the concrete on the main floor if you go inside to look at the outside and interior walls

1:47:08you would also notice the heavy timber members or beams that clearly were set on top of a

1:47:18board concrete base it's my opinion that these these large beams would have would have been

1:47:25salvaged there's indicators on the the material themselves that they were salvaged from a previous

1:47:29building likely a barn and the image to the right I think is quite telling when you get up to the

1:47:36main floor of the barn through steps that are just in in front of you or in along the wall

1:47:44you'll see that all the framing is modern and without to it's which really would indicate to

1:47:52me in a construction date of at least the mid mid 20th century possibly later similar cladding is

1:48:02on the outside of the shed with this corrugated metal and it was on the site visit I was able

1:48:09to peek through the doorway which is only able to be slightly opened so that's why this my photograph

1:48:17isn't the best of photos but it does show again this modern framing that was used to construct the

1:48:24building the dwelling is seen what would have been the front of the building is the the left on the

1:48:37photo on the left and the view that's seen from city view is the image on the right so the conclusion

1:48:49and recommendation is as follows here's planning staff concur with the findings of the cultural

1:48:54heritage resource impact assessment provided by MHC on behalf of the owner in that the subject

1:49:01barn building does not have sufficient cultural heritage value to merit protection under the

1:49:05entire heritage act staff also have no objection to the removal of the property known as 20 city

1:49:13view drive north from the municipal register of register of cultural heritage properties

1:49:20and with that I'm happy to answer any questions if there are any from the committee members

1:49:32the as I had mentioned earlier Nick Bogart from MHBC is is present if questions are best

1:49:39I've sent to the consultant I'm going to stop sharing and

1:49:49I think you have your hand up perfect just for curiosity was this a an agricultural farm

1:50:03was it having any agricultural function before so that you know this land will be preserved as a

1:50:10you know like prime land fertile land you know etc or it's just like you know because

1:50:18you know you'll be losing a farm quote unquote other than cultural heritage you know like

1:50:25just a simple question you know from myself I'm happy to respond jawed at the the plan of subdivision

1:50:35is changing what was historically agricultural use to residential use and and there is no problem

1:50:50about that so that you know like the planners find that okay to you know like lose a agricultural

1:50:58land for like built up you know houses you know this is this is what's being considered by development

1:51:09planning and planning services in general is the the appropriateness I suppose of the draft

1:51:18plan of subdivision so these are those are our questions or a discussion that really doesn't

1:51:23involve wouldn't be involving cultural heritage value as much as previous land use thank you

1:51:40Cameron yeah just a question about the original construction data I guess maybe even the original

1:51:46barn is there any land abstracts or like fire insurance plans available that can sort of pinpoint

1:51:51that I don't I didn't see them in the in the report I just because I don't see a data of construction

1:51:59either on the the listed information or in the report okay I can start off to respond to your

1:52:07question Cameron and and nick feel free to jump in if you like I in the research that I had done

1:52:15in order to prepare for the recommendation to Harris Goualf and ultimately to counsel

1:52:22I did do some background research this this area of the city is actually a historically

1:52:27agricultural land so it's not within the city area that the fire insurance plans would have taken

1:52:33into account unfortunately I wish every square inch of Ontario was within some fire plan

1:52:40somewhere buried in an archive or to be found in an archive but what I did find and MHBC was also

1:52:50finding similar information that in the land the land title abstract there the lands were

1:52:58owned for some time by the power family as farmers on on the land there wasn't MHBC's report does show

1:53:12one or two historical maps basically the maps that you would see from the historical atlases

1:53:18either 1877 and I think 1906 there is indication I believe in 1906 of the location of a of a

1:53:27residence but it's not typical for these historic county maps to indicate farm buildings other than

1:53:34a residence like a farmhouse so I nick feel free to jump in if you like but I'm I couldn't really

1:53:42see any evidence that might lead us to offering some sort of data construction for the barn

1:53:48it's really just based on empirically on the the materials and sort of mix of materials that were

1:53:52found thanks Stephen yeah that was a good overview and the you're correct that the date

1:54:00we found in the historic atlas there was 1906 there was a structure shown and it kind of seems

1:54:05like it's the location of where the house was and then the the buildings don't really show up it's

1:54:11it's hard to tell from the historic air photos just based on resolution but it looks like by 1950s

1:54:17that there was the house in the barn orientation there on the property we had that in our report

1:54:22one of the resources but I agree it'd be great if everything was covered with fire insurance plans

1:54:28because they're so useful okay so I mean is it a fair assumption to assume that there was some

1:54:36sort of a barn there in 1906 just if it was an agricultural site for the house it probably had

1:54:40a barn as well but we can't confirm whether or not it's the same barn or in the same spot I guess

1:54:46is the problem that's correct the only thing we we get a hint of is there looks like there was some

1:54:51rubble used in part of the foundation but it's it's not not known if that's where there was a

1:54:58building previously or if it was just material that was used when they were pouring the concrete

1:55:02that they used as part of the base for the barn so that's but all the clues we get

1:55:09okay thanks yeah that's it for me other questions or comments on this property

1:55:27so we have a motion recommended motion um that heritage gulf advises city council that they have

1:55:33no objection to the removal of the property known as 20 city view drive north from the municipal

1:55:37register of cultural heritage properties do I have someone to move that motion

1:55:50david thank you and a seconder I see larry's hand and all in favor opposed cameron so it still passes

1:56:11with one opposed I'm assuming jack is that correct yes okay so the motion has passed thank you

1:56:20before we go into our last committee item I do need a motion to extend our meeting

1:56:26past two o'clock to continue going so if someone could move that heritage gulf's meeting continues

1:56:32past two p.m thank you jodad and a seconder kim thank you and then I'll apologize thanks guys

1:56:43marise thank you all in favor excellent okay so we're going to continue into our our last item

1:56:54I do have to leave it to you ten as well so Kim I may just pass chairing responsibilities over to

1:56:58you now if that's okay then I'll just quietly take off into the background in about 10 minutes

1:57:04but I can introduce our our last item and then pass it over to Kim so our last committee item is

1:57:1065 del high street conservation plan with a presentation by deb westman and vg architects

1:57:19sorry um three chair I'd just like to highlight that I have a hard stop at 230 as well so I'm not

1:57:28sure if that affects core I'm at that point or not we will try to get through in advance of 230 I

1:57:37think because we should be okay I think at that point fingers crossed from jack there so let's

1:57:42get going then we'll pass it over to our our for our last topic okay thanks Sarah it's Steven

1:57:49obviously here um we we do have deb westman who is the author from the author of the conservation

1:57:56plan for 65 del high street deb is an architect with venting group architects and again deb has

1:58:05joined in order to be available for questions if if there are any for the the authors themselves

1:58:13I'm I'd like to just highlight a few things that are included in the staff report information that

1:58:19was circulated to the committee and I'm going to start with the summary itself that the the

1:58:26conservation plan for the proposed adaptive reuse of the former isolation hospital at 65 del high

1:58:32street has been prepared by venting groups or plus vg architects for the county of wellington

1:58:40and um heritage planning staff is uh sorry it's been prepared for the county of wellington it's

1:58:48part of a complete application submission for site plan approval and heritage planning staff are

1:58:55satisfied that the heritage conservation plan would ensure that the heritage attributes and

1:58:59cultural heritage value of the built heritage resource will be properly conserved in the proposed

1:59:04development um and it's aligned with the proposed designation heritage designation of the property

1:59:12now the committee members will remember that uh in march uh heritage guelph recommended that at their

1:59:18march meeting that council published its intention to designate 65 del high streets the isolation

1:59:25hospital under part four of the heritage act and i just want to mention that council will be

1:59:31considering that recommendation at their april 18th meeting so that's coming up shortly but

1:59:37back to the conservation plan itself in march i'm sorry in may of 2021 heritage guelph reviewed

1:59:47the cultural heritage impact assessment produced for wellington county by venting group architects

1:59:53and supported the idea that a conservation plan be um uh created for

2:00:0065 Delhi Street.

2:00:08So you'll see just in the text here

2:00:10that at the May 10th meeting,

2:00:12they supported the creation of a conservation plan.

2:00:16The committee was quite congratulatory of the county

2:00:20for the redevelopment and kind of rehabilitation

2:00:23of the building.

2:00:25And at that time Heritage Guelph had had some comments

2:00:29and wanted to make sure that egress routes

2:00:33and especially what was proposed at that time,

2:00:36an accessibility ramp that would be done in a sympathetic way.

2:00:42So what's happened since is that the conservation plan

2:00:46has been created and the final has been

2:00:52received by Heritage Planning staff.

2:00:53So it's now in front of Heritage Guelph for comments.

2:00:57And the comments that Heritage Guelph may want to make today

2:01:01would be provided to the general manager of planning

2:01:06and also to the applicant for consideration

2:01:09in the current site plan approval process.

2:01:13So I just wanted to reiterate the conclusion

2:01:17that Heritage Planning staff is happy

2:01:20with the conservation plan as submitted

2:01:23and as presented today in the April 11th meeting

2:01:27of the committee.

2:01:28And what I can do now and if Deb Westman is available,

2:01:36is not, okay, well, what I can do is

2:01:41I'm happy to field any questions

2:01:43that the committee might have about the,

2:01:47not just staff's recommendations,

2:01:49but also the drawings of the proposed redevelopment

2:01:54that are contained in the conservation plan.

2:02:11Does anyone have any questions?

2:02:17Kim, I can put the drawings up if you like.

2:02:20I have them sort of on another screen of mine,

2:02:23but if it's not necessary, then I'm happy not to.

2:02:28Okay, let's see if anyone has questions first.

2:02:30I can only see six of you guys on my screen at a time.

2:02:34So I'm going, I'm sliding through

2:02:36to see if anyone has their hand up.

2:02:37So if you do have your hand up, please just speak, I guess.

2:02:43I was like, I can't see you.

2:02:47Okay, I don't think anyone has any questions or comments

2:02:53at this time.

2:02:57I'm just going through every one one last time.

2:03:00Okay, I do not see any hands.

2:03:04Okay, so I'm just gonna read out the motion then.

2:03:08We can go from there.

2:03:10So the motion that Heritage Wells comments

2:03:13on the conservation plan for 65 Dalhite Street

2:03:17be provided to the general manager of planning

2:03:20and building services and to the applicant

2:03:22for consideration in the site plan approval process.

2:03:26I got a good one.

2:03:30Okay, so if we're all good,

2:03:33can I please have a mover and a seconder

2:03:35for the proposed motion?

2:03:39Okay, I see David Weaverman's hand up.

2:03:43Do I have a seconder?

2:03:52I see Michael's hands.

2:03:56Okay, so are all in favor for the motion?

2:04:07See everyone's hands.

2:04:13Okay, I believe I saw everyone's hand, Jack.

2:04:15Please correct me if I am wrong.

2:04:17You're correct.

2:04:20Okay, so you moved through that one pretty quickly then.

2:04:25So may I please have members to move

2:04:28and second the adjournment of this meeting?

2:04:38I see David's hand and Judat's hand.

2:04:42Thank you.

2:04:44And then are all in favor of the adjournment of this meeting.

2:04:47Please raise your hand.

2:04:51Okay, I got a nod from Jack.

2:04:53So I believe that's all clear.

2:04:55Okay, so I just like to make note

2:04:57that the next meeting will be hosted on May 8th, 2023

2:05:01at 12 p.m.

2:05:03Awesome, okay, thanks everyone.

2:05:07Thank you.

2:05:09Thanks everyone.

2:05:09Thanks everyone.