Heritage Guelph

0:00Yes, that's right for the focus group for the downtown HCD.

0:07Lots of heritage meetings today.

0:11Yeah, I'll try to represent the committee.

0:18Basically, the comments that were listed, I printed them and to be sure that they'll take them into consideration, hopefully.

0:29Thanks, Joe. I'm glad you're going.

0:35Oh, yeah. You know, on it's virtual.

0:39Jill, you're attending, which is great.

0:45Oh, yeah. My pleasure.

1:31Okay, we have quorum. I believe we are still waiting on Kathy.

1:37But she's indicated she might arrive a little late.

1:43Sure. So are we good to get started then?

1:46Yep.

1:47Excellent. All right. Well, welcome everyone. I'd like to call to order the February 5th, 2024 heritage wealth meeting.

1:55And of course, welcome all committee members staff and invited guests who are attending the meeting today.

2:00I'll begin with our territorial acknowledgement.

2:03As we gather, let us take time to reflect on our privilege to live and work in wealth, a city built of a rich indigenous histories.

2:11We are guests here and we should reflect upon the responsibility to care for this land, the people who live here today, and the generations to come.

2:19If our actions today can move us towards reconciliation, we should take pause and make those decisions with intention and gratitude.

2:26This place we call wealth has served as traditional lands and a place of refuge for many peoples over time, but more specifically that the adewan drunk and the hodnoshoni.

2:36This land is held as treaty lands and territory with the mississaugas of the credit first station.

2:42Well flies directly adjacent to the Haldeman tract and is part of a long established traditional hunting ground for the 6 nations of the Grand River.

2:50Many 1st nations in U.S. and Métis peoples who have come from the cross turtle island to call Gualph home today.

2:57Thank you.

2:59And item 1.2 is the disclosure of pecuniary interest and general nature thereof. So ask the committee if there's anyone who has to who has a disclosure.

3:09And if so, raise your hand and state the nature of it.

3:12Hi, Sarah, I have pecuniary interest for item 2.1.

3:20The work that I do outside of this committee is on 1 of the properties.

3:26Perfect. So then when it's time for that session, we'll just have you turn your camera off and we'll welcome you back after 2.1.

3:33Thank you so much.

3:36Any others? I'm going to say not seeing anyone raise their hands, but it's black screen so I can't see anyone anyways.

3:46Alright, so on to item 1.3, which is the approval of the minutes. And so our recommended motion is that the minutes from the January 15, 2024 and January 29, 2024 meetings of heritage, wealth committee be approved.

3:58Is there a mover?

4:00Shout out. Thank you. And a seconder.

4:05Thank you, David. And then all in favor.

4:08Thank you, Laura. And then Miranda, you could just show us your lovely face with the hand risen if you're in favor.

4:17Thank you.

4:19Alright, so that's past. Thanks everyone. I have one item update.

4:26Before we get into the rest of the agenda. So the owners of 408 will road have asked for revision to the heritage attributes listed in the report.

4:35And so it's best to defer item 3.1 to the March meeting just so that that can be properly revised. So if the committee is in support of that deferral, the recommended motion is that heritage 12 defer item 3.1 of the heritage wealth agenda dated February 5, 2024, 408 will road heritage attributes, a designation

4:56recommendation to the March 4, 2024 heritage wealth meeting.

5:01Miranda is moving.

5:04Yes. Okay. And shout out to seconding and then all in favor.

5:13Good. Laura. Thank you. Perfect. And then moving on to item 2.1. I think this one will go quickly as well.

5:21I'm very appreciative that David has offered to be our delegate to council on February 13, 2024 to that council meeting. So we do need a motion unless anyone else wants to attend as well. You're welcome to that.

5:33So maybe I'll see if anyone else wants to attend that council meeting on behalf of heritage 12 shout out. You'd like to go as well.

5:43So I'm going to revise the motion then to David and.

5:50Can I can I have a certain clarification because it's like, you know, when you are a delegate, you know, just because it hasn't, you know, I don't have the experience. It's going to be the first time.

6:00Like, what role do we have? Like, do like, can we comment? Can we, you know, I haven't attended any, any, you know, like, can like someone, you know, like maybe Jack or.

6:13Feed me on this issue. Thank you.

6:15Yep, I'm happy to provide some clarification. So you'd be delegating on behalf of the heritage committee at council. So you'd follow Stephen or myself, depending on the item and just explain the heritage committees perspective on the, what would be the notice of objection.

6:36As what's at the February 13th meeting and so delegates are given 5 minutes to address the committee and then the council can ask questions afterwards.

6:47And Jack would both David and Joe that get 5 minutes each as individual delegates.

6:53Yeah, so they could each.

6:57They technically they could each delegate on both items or they could each choose an item and each delegate on 1 item. If that makes sense.

7:07David, you're just muted.

7:11I was under 2 minutes. I just, I went over the minutes from the board meeting from our meeting and expressed what the position was taken by year to 12.

7:24And there were a couple of questions.

7:27That's all I did. I didn't really get into the.

7:30I just explain what I position one.

7:37Honestly, for me, you know, Claire's is the one that worries me the most, you know, like because of the, you know, the moving of this property and the issue like this, you know, instead of like suggesting a scenario where the, you know, the building can stay where it is and you know, propose another alternative.

7:55You know, as you remember, like when we were.

7:58Yeah, I, I will note that this, this meeting is not to consider that it is just to consider the designation of the property. So relocation and any alterations of the property will be considered through heritage permits brought brought to the committee.

8:16This is just the the property owners have objected to the designation of 331 quare.

8:22So, so I'll be presenting staffs recommendation that we proceed with the designation and then counsel at that meeting decides to either withdraw the intention to designate or they will pass the bylaw to designate.

8:39Okay, you know, it's kind of my curiosity to attend and see how things work.

8:47So if you don't mind, you know, I love to.

8:51And then, and Joe, that maybe we can leave it to you and David to determine if who wants to have speaking roles and we can let you both of you determine what that looks like.

9:00Exactly. Thank you.

9:02Okay, so then our recommended motion is that heritage, both appoint David, Kamaletti and Joe that you delegate on behalf of the committee at the February 13, 2024 council planning meeting.

9:13So this is of objection to the intention to designate 2187 Gordon street and 331 clear road East. Is there a mover?

9:22Thank you a seconder. Thank you, Miranda, and then all in favor.

9:34I think him is close by.

9:39I don't think I can vote for this one.

9:41Oh, right. You have.

9:42Yeah.

9:43Yeah.

9:44Thanks.

9:46Perfect. All right. 2.1 was Kim not available. Perfect. Thank you. All right. So that is passed then.

9:51And now we'll go into item 2.2, which is transition of heritage wealth meetings to hybrid and Jack will speak to that.

10:00Thank you, Sarah. This should be relatively brief as well. So we, we really enjoyed the last heritage meeting that was in person at city hall. And so, so we thought instead of identifying individual meetings to be held in person.

10:17We would just.

10:18Offer each meeting in hybrid format so that members can come to city hall or they can join virtually and I've booked the.

10:27Mark McKinnon room that we were in last time I've booked that for the rest of the year.

10:32So we'll, we'll host all meetings out of that room going forward and members can choose to join in person or virtually.

10:39And you can also discuss amongst yourselves if you want to identify meetings where you all intend to go in person if there's a committee item that might be best discussed.

10:49In person, but yeah, I think this will cause less confusion. We won't be worried about which meetings are virtual or in person because they will all be both.

10:57So, if anybody has any questions, I'm happy to answer.

11:01We're not seeing any questions.

11:09Jack, so thank you for arranging that.

11:13So a recommended motion then is that heritage golf meetings be hosted in a hybrid format both virtually and in person at city hall.

11:20Can someone is that one interested in moving that one? Thank you Miranda seconder Lara put you on a seconder and then all those in favor.

11:28We just lost Kim for a second.

11:34So I can let it know if you voted in favor of having hybrid meetings.

11:41And looks frozen on my screen.

11:44Jack recommendation here.

11:50We can now.

11:52There she is. I think she's back. Kim, can you hear us? Yep. Okay.

11:56Thanks Kim.

11:59All right. So item 2.3 is advisory committees of council governance framework phase 2 with the presentation from Elizabeth barber and Dylan, if they are both present.

12:11Good afternoon. Thanks so much for having us. Hopefully everybody can hear and see me. Okay.

12:18Perfect. Thanks so much.

12:23My name is Dylan McMahon, the manager of legislative services and deputy city clerk at the city of golf. Excuse me. And I'm joined today by Liz barber who you all know she's been attending heritage golf meetings for some time now.

12:33And we also have Sam laban on the call from the golf lab joining us. I'll be giving the presentation and primarily answering questions and that type of thing.

12:42But both Liz and Sam are available to take notes to make sure we're capturing what you tell us.

12:47As well as to provide any answers to questions as needed. So what we are here to talk about today is phase 2 of the redesigning advisory committees of council project.

12:57Some of you I've met in person. Most of you will probably just know me from the many emails that you've received from me over the last year or so many related to this particular project.

13:05So we are now done phase 1 of the project council approved governance framework for advisory committees at the end of 2023.

13:12And we're here sort of at the beginning of phase 2 of the project. So I am going to give a little bit of overview on how we got here the work that's been done to date.

13:20But really what we want today's session to be about is hearing feedback from heritage golf members regarding how your committee is currently aligned with the broader cities, strategic goals, as well as what types of things we might be able to change.

13:33In order to create more alignment or to enhance the role of heritage golf. So I will share my screen here. Just give me 1 minute.

13:41Hopefully everybody can see that. Okay. Okay, perfect.

13:58So just a quick little reminder on the work that we've done to date how we got here. Like I said council approved a governance framework for advisory committees at the end of last year.

14:09You'll have received lots of emails about that it was really a collaborative process, including a working group of current advisory committee members that went into that framework.

14:17We also did a couple of information sessions for advisory committee members on the framework in more detail in January. So hopefully some of you were able to attend those sessions.

14:26We did send around a recording as well. So if you're looking for more detail on what's in the framework or how it was built that recording is a great is a great place to start.

14:35Now that that framework is approved for moving into phase 2 phase 2 is a review of all current existing advisory committees to ensure alignment with the framework.

14:46Everything is on the table here. So expansion reduction to mandates, murders, dissolution, the creation of new advisory committees. These are all possible outcomes.

14:55We're early in the process here and we've not yet put pen to paper on what those changes might be. That's the purpose of these meetings, but I do want to be upfront and let folks know that 1 of the criteria in the governance framework that council approved.

15:10Was that advisory committees in order to be successful do need to be appropriately resourced. That means, for example, obviously there's staff time and resources at the department level for whatever subject matter is relevant to the particular advisory committee.

15:22But also that my team and staff in the city clerk's office are able to provide procedural support host meetings, take minutes and that kind of thing.

15:30Councils approved resources that would enable us to have somewhere in the range of 7 to 10 advisory committees where we currently have 14.

15:38So in 1 way or another, there is a reduction in the number of advisory committees that will have as part of this project, but that doesn't necessarily mean a reduction in the amount of advice that council is receiving on advisory committees.

15:50Just as a brief example, we have some committees that only meet a couple of times a year. The governance framework talks about advisory committees that are generally able to meet monthly.

16:00So where the volume of content based on their mandate is big enough that you can meet more or less monthly. So we could be in a position where we have fewer committees that are actually meeting more regularly to provide advice to city council.

16:10And while some committees may dissolve their mandate may actually be rolled into another committee. So, like I say, all of these options are on the table, but at the end of the day, the number of advisory committees that we have is likely to shrink a little bit through this project.

16:26I've just got up on the screen now a list of the city's current 14 advisory committees.

16:32I will say that we use the term advisory committees as a as a sort of catch all.

16:36Some of these committees like committee of adjustment do have delegated authority so they aren't providing advice directly to city council in the way that heritage wealth is.

16:44But just for the sake of one easy term to refer to all of them will just use the term advisory committee of council.

16:50We've got a little asterisk next to each committee which is statutory on this list, but there's some nuance there to the question of what is statutory so heritage golf for example is not statutory in the sense that there is no piece of legislation which says every municipality must have a heritage advisory committee.

17:05But where you do decide where municipality does decide to have a heritage advisory committee. There is a significant amount of legislation outlining what the role of that heritage advisory committee would be.

17:18So there's some nuance on this list, but you've got the 5 statutory committees noted there as well.

17:24So I'll talk a little bit about phase 2 of this project and then we're going to get into some feedback from the committee.

17:34So this project is being delivered as a collaboration between the city of clerk's office and the Guelph lab. The Guelph lab itself is a collaboration between the city and the university. It's housed in the community engaged scholarship institute and the university.

17:47So it's a collaboration between you of G and the city of Guelph.

17:51Like I had mentioned earlier, we've also looked to complete this entire project as collaboratively as we can involving as many advisory committee members as we can.

18:00So to that end for phase 2 of this project, we will be meeting with each advisory committee twice. There's the 1st round of meetings. That's what we're doing right now. That'll take place in winter and sort of early spring.

18:12Then we're going to have a meeting of the chairs and vice chairs of each committee and sort of late spring early summer and then we'll be coming back to each advisory committee late summer early fall with the sort of.

18:23Not necessarily what staff are recommending, but at least a draft version of this is what we've heard through the 1st round. This is what we're thinking of doing moving forward. That'll be validated through the chairs and vice chairs come back to the committee for another round of feedback.

18:36So this is just the very 1st touch point we'll have with the committee. There will be lots more opportunities for engagement and collaboration as we go through the project.

18:44And I'll just say again, throughout this presentation for clarity, I'll probably use a couple examples of the way that mandates might change and that kind of thing. But really, we have made no specific decisions about changes to advisory committees.

18:57We're not contemplating this committee should be dissolved. This 1 should be created. What we're doing is collecting feedback from the folks who actually sit and serve and volunteer their time on our advisory committees.

19:07We're going to use that feedback to start to formulate what some of these changes might be and then bring that back to the committee. So everything at this point is on the table. Everything is fair game. And that's what we're going to be having a bit of a conversation about today.

19:21I've got on screen the 7 commitments for advisory committees. This is pulled directly from the advisory committee governance framework in the information session. I did go through all 7 of these in a little bit more detail.

19:32So I'm not going to spend as much time on that today, but I will just draw your attention to number 2. Advisory committees of council should help shape the city's strategic goals. That's largely what we're going to be focusing on today.

19:43It's how is heritage golf currently helping to shape or how is heritage golf currently aligned with the city's broader strategic goals. And just as importantly, what might we change in order to have heritage golf contribute more wholesomely or more effectively to shaping those cities strategic goals.

20:01So the first question we're talking about today is specifically which strategic goals. It does your advisory committee of council. So which strategic goals does heritage golf currently contribute to.

20:16We've got 2 high level strategic documents that I'll have up on screen. What you see right now is the city's strategic plan. There's also the city's community plan, which will come up in a few slides, which we'll be able to talk about.

20:27There are a variety of city master plans and that kind of thing, which may also be relevant to committees. So if you're aware of something that we haven't pulled up on screen where you're like, you know, maybe it's not in the strap plan, but I think there is alignment here by all means mention it.

20:40But at a high level, the strap plan we've got 4 themes foundations, city building environment, people and economy. And you've got several objectives noted in the right column.

20:51That are sort of sub objectives within those themes. And what we're hoping to hear from heritage golf today is how are you currently contributing to these goals? How are you helping shape these goals? And then on top of that, which goals could you potentially contribute to?

21:06If there was, for example, a change to your terms of reference or an expansion of your mandate or something of that nature. Is there a goal you think you're not contributing to now, but you might be well suited to contribute to in the future with a couple of changes.

21:19So with that, regarding the strap plan, I will just open it up to committee members. We're happy to answer any questions.

21:26Or if you're looking at this going, I can flag some contributions we're making right now, then by all, by all means, we're, we're happy to hear.

21:37Thanks for that Dylan and I'll note that if anyone has comments or questions, you're welcome just to unmute. You can always raise your hand and I'm happy to call on you, but you're also welcome just to unmute.

21:46And maybe I can start. I'm happy to be the first one to speak. I think under the foundations, I think number 2 jumps out that we advocate for the city and the sort of the landscape of the city and the history and heritage of the city and all that we do.

21:58So I think that one in terms of a foundational role of this committee is incredibly clear to me as well as accountability. We're very much aware of accountability and everything we do.

22:07Thank you so much. I appreciate that. And just one follow up question.

22:15So talking about advocating for a city in this context, is it advocating for the city's heritage assets specifically that you're sort of referencing there? Is that a fair?

22:24Yeah, I would say the heritage assets, but also what the future of the city looks like because I mean, we have development applications and designations that come through for sites that will potentially be under development or are going to be under development.

22:36And so we are, which I think builds into.

22:39There's one on housing, city building number 1, improve housing supply. So we work, I think, quite aggressively obviously to protect heritage, but also to improve housing supply and recognize that they aren't combative, that they support each other.

22:53And we can still protect heritage and heritage values and advocate for those aspects of the city while also lending to city building as part of it. It's not an either situation. And I'd love for others to jump in there. I think they go hand in hand for the committee.

23:08I would add understated building that growing and caring for community spaces and places along the lines of the same theme, which is that heritage and development do not have to be opposed necessarily.

23:23We will continue to advocate for all of our heritage properties and spaces while.

23:28You know, recognizing that development is going to occur, but we were we want to support development occurring in an environment where we're protecting our heritage resources for the future.

23:39Yeah, I want, I want also to add that there is, excuse me, there is a misunderstanding about the heritage wealth.

23:53Excuse me and the economic development. So here, you know, also we will we're focusing on the development of the economy of downtown and preserve the, you know, commercial aspect of it.

24:08And this respect so, you know, grow wealth economy, you know, make downtown a vibrant place and all these things are clearly reflected in the heritage conservation district.

24:20You know, study that we are now working on so, you know, this is an important role also for the advisory committee.

24:35Thank you so much. So I will be honest. So we've also got Liz and Sam here taking notes, but I want to make sure so I've flag their growth, wealth economy, make downtown a vibrant place for everybody specific reference to the heritage conservation district.

24:50We had growing care for our community spaces and places and improve housing supply mentioned there as well.

24:57And advocating for the city for city.

25:01Yes, and I've got to advocate the first point. Yes, absolutely.

25:06Are there any other aspects of the strategic plan right now where you feel like maybe heritage golf isn't currently contributing to or is contributing to it. Maybe a secondary way where there could be a bigger contribution through something like a terms of reference change or something of that nature.

25:22Is there anything on this list where you go we, we could provide value provided advice to council on topic.

25:28ABC in a way we don't right now.

25:32I think also the carrying capacity, you know, and the density of buildings, you know, like, is an important aspect like an example of, you know, this clear, you know, case where, you know, like you want to develop.

25:47You have to focus on the, you know, getting, you know, the density of the construction buildings. So the zoning bylaws as a matter of fact, this is an important issue in here where you can be an added value and see how, you know, the zoning can be, you know, affected in this respect.

26:10Okay, so that would be potentially more of a role to contribute to some of the, what I would call and I'm not a planner but what I would call sort of some of the policy planning matters.

26:21So some of the higher level policies not necessarily just the individual property by property heritage reviews is that a, is that a, did I capture that correctly.

26:32This can be but the door through is through, you know, property by property but you know once you tackle a property then this is like a, you know, a trend that can generate, you know, properties, you know, in the vicinity how to deal with them.

26:50So as a, you know, an example to follow.

26:54Excellent. Thank you.

27:00And I might just add, I think the support community well being links to the official plan, which brings us right back to planning, I think. And so I think there's just sort of linking with which out at saying if we're looking for a point on that, that list of theme or the objectives.

27:14I think that's a really good spot where we probably could do a little bit more with that sort of future visioning because we look at things in the past, but we know that everything we look at from the past is impacting the future.

27:23So I think there's there's some opportunity there.

27:25Just to continue on to Sarah's comment about number 3 support community and well being just be more aware of the needs of the current needs and whatnot of the community and maybe be able to generate innovative ideas for adaptive reuse of some of the

27:46buildings to help meet the current need of the community and as those needs change in the future.

27:52Perfect. Thank you.

27:56We've met with a couple of advisory committees and one of the things that has come up a couple times is that community well being objective there.

28:07And I wonder, I would just like to ask, do we think is supporting community well being is one example is that a primary is that a strap plan objective where heritage golf is sort of seeing that as a primary output of your work.

28:20Or is that sort of a secondary output in the sense that you know, really effective. If I'm thinking about transit, for example, really effective transit does improve community well being really effective city tourism also has a positive impact on well being.

28:35You know, really good conservation and showcase and of heritage assets can also have a positive impact on well being is it a is a more of a secondary output of effective heritage work, or is it something where you see heritage golf contributing more primarily

28:55in my opinion, you know, I allow myself to say no, it's, it's primary, you see the community is well being is very important.

29:03And, you know, it's feedback is also very important and that's why this is clearly reflected I go back to the heritage conservation district, you know, where, you know, in order to develop a heritage conservation district study, you know, the community has to participate and give

29:21some feedback and this respect. I have also to between brackets at something you know maybe, you know, like, it would be, you know, beneficial to like, kind of have a certain coordination between the advisory committee, heritage advisory

29:40committee and the planning advisory committee, you know, in this respect so they can like work, you know, meet in a way or so you know it was planning and the heritage go and hand in hand.

29:55I don't know if my comment is clear, you know, but I find it very beneficial to, you know, have kind of certain coordination between the two, one way or another, you know, thing.

30:10Yeah, no, that's a great point. So it sounds like there might be a role.

30:15Or there might be a way that more coordination or integration between the planning advisory committee and heritage golf could enable both committees to contribute a little more holistically to some of the previous strap plan objectives that we've mentioned.

30:29That's great feedback. Thank you.

30:33If there's no other comments on strap plan, I will just go to the next slide.

30:43We also have a community plan for the city in a similar layout here we've got the community plan themes on the left hand side.

30:50Sorry, that should say community plan theme objectives not future golf on the right hand column there this is all community plan.

30:57The community plan has a few more themes than the strap plan. So there's a second slide here that also displays that so I might flip flop back and forth between those slides a little bit just so folks can see them.

31:08But just another opportunity are there specific themes or sub objectives within the community plan where you say, yes heritage golf is absolutely contributing to the shaping of that strategic goal or likewise are there are there ways that things could change in order to contribute more effectively in the future.

31:35Some of them I will say, I think it's fair for us to note there's crossover. So in the strap plan obviously there's some comments about housing.

31:43We have here at the very top have housing that works for us. So we'll flag that in the back end where we've identified that in the strap plan and there's that clear alignment with the community plan.

31:51We'll note that, but by all means anything else specific.

31:55I think it's interesting because I think we could all probably say we're in each of these these call or each of these rows. I think it's easy enough to pick out things that the committee does.

32:11Could you flip to the second screen as well. Sorry.

32:14No, no problem.

32:16And I think you're right that a lot of our committees can look at this and these are, you know, these are fairly broad. So I think what we'd be looking for is you probably could align.

32:27All over the place here. What are the areas of primary alignment where you go? You know, that is an area where we seem to be very clearly aligned. That might be one way just to sort of narrow it down a little bit.

32:39I think counselor down or if you do have a question.

32:59I don't have a question. I just a comment. If you could go back to the previous slide.

33:05I think, you know, it's talks about the environment, but I think it's sort of beyond that is protecting sustain what we have.

33:15We claim what might otherwise be waste. There's a lot about that there.

33:20That I think the stewards of our resources, I get, you know, I.

33:27I guess it's not necessarily environment and all the way a lot of people think about it, but in some ways it is as well. I think the committee does that.

33:36And I think that we're claim what otherwise might be wasted.

33:40Yeah, we had talked about earlier. I think someone made a comment about adaptive reuse of heritage assets.

33:46It's a first blush to me to be in that in that ballpark. Yeah, because the stewards of our resources. I mean, heritage is a resource, right? It's an asset.

33:55And, and being good stewards of that. You know, we've had some issues about that in the last couple of years around.

34:02City owned heritage assets too. So, I mean, that's sort of becoming an important issue as well. And.

34:10And yeah, so I think, I think it's, I think that's part of it. I mean, certainly that we are community is.

34:20Is it is another good 1.

34:25I wonder who stories that stories and information belong to the people who share them.

34:31I think that's that's everything. Sorry, go on.

34:36No, that's okay. Sorry, we've got another member with their hand up that by all means I want to hear from you guys.

34:44So, I'm an anthropologist at heart and, you know, we talk a lot about place making. So this, even the 1st 1 is really jumping out to me of the we are home.

34:57In terms of love our neighborhoods and keep them strong and keep our big small city vibe as we work through the HCT stuff for downtown. You know, we've been talking a lot about the feeling.

35:10Of downtown and feeling of our city and heritage.

35:15Really speaks to that to our place making.

35:19And sort of the differentiation of.

35:22Of wealth versus other cities.

35:26And sort of pulls in that neighborhood stuff as well, because.

35:30Heritage has such an interesting perspective on how these neighborhoods have developed.

35:38And what sort of characterizes the differences in those neighborhoods in our city.

35:46Excellent. I've got those flags. Thank you.

35:50As well under we create value the leveraging our unique character.

35:55Definitely heritage wealth is part of that.

35:59And I wonder if in we create value.

36:02I look at tell our golf story better and I think that's aligned with a few of the comments I just heard too that that's probably also in there.

36:10Yeah, agreed.

36:12I think that's all tied together in that place making right so even, you know, we are home is sort of pulling together.

36:20A lot of these things though the way, you know, our values in our community.

36:26Come through in our city is really what's what's doing that what's making that place.

36:33I think you that top 1 that be a global innovation leader. I think there's some incredible examples in in wealth of reuse of historic buildings heritage properties and how they can be reutilized and it'd be interesting to think of how.

36:48The city itself can be that what innovation means that I think that that adaptive reuse and reutilizing properties and foundations and walls, whatever it may be at the end of the day. I think it shows that we are I think an innovator and a leader and I think wealth could really harness that as well.

37:04Excellent. Thank you.

37:10I know you've got a busy agenda. So before I go on, if there are no other specific comments and by all mean we can by all means we can still take specific comments.

37:19But I would just open it up once more to any sort of changes or feedback you have.

37:25We heard the 1 earlier comment for example about closer collaboration or integration with the planning advisory committee. If there are any sort of opportunities like that that you're thinking of changes to mandate terms of reference.

37:37The work of other committees how it may be aligned or not aligned with yours. Any additional feedback like that I'm happy to take right now.

37:44And then I will say by all means, obviously we've only got 1520 minutes here today to have this conversation.

37:51But I'm always available. Liz is always available. If you've got something in an hour or 2 or 2 days where you think, oh, I wish I'd said that that seems like an opportunity by all means reach out to us.

38:01We're happy to have conversations meet virtually over the phone in person, whatever works for you. So it doesn't have to be the end of it because it's just the 1st touch point and we will be back but I wanted to just open up that opportunity if there's anything that you want to say that's a little broader than maybe we've what we've got on screen by all means you're welcome to

38:19the end. Can I add something like you are asking, you know, something from us now on the on the other hand, like, is there any like a program that you are suggesting kind of like capacity building or you know, for the committee so that you know, not all of the

38:38committee probably have the same background and maybe some of them might need or like to have a chance to, you know, get exposed to some of the roles that, you know, the advisory committee has to do and etc.

38:56Is there like a, you know, quote unquote area for that in this study.

39:02So, I will say absolutely through the creation and approval of the governance framework last year, training and resources for broader training for advisory committee members was a was a key component of that.

39:17So through the budget process, we do have additional resources for training started in 2025. So we're going to do this phase to review.

39:25And then we're going to council at the end of this year changes as a result of that. And then there's a variety of other components of the framework which we will look to start rolling out in 2025 and beyond.

39:35One of those would absolutely be more training opportunities for committee members for capacity building so that might be like internal training. It might also be participation in, you know, in this case, various heritage conferences or something like that training

39:50specific to heritage training specific to roll on advisory committees or boards. All of that will be on the table and we want to do more of it, but we are going to get through this phase to review this year.

40:00ultimately bring another resource onto my team to help support that work in 2025 and forward.

40:11Okay, if there are no other comments, I'll just touch quickly on next steps. And maybe actually,

40:15I'll just ask Sam or Liz, is there anything you guys wanted to raise, anything I've missed here?

40:20Oh, is he shaking heads? Okay. So next steps, the next piece of this puzzle, obviously, we're

40:26going to meet with the remaining advisory committees over the next couple of months.

40:29And then the committee chairs and vice chairs will all be invited to a session this summer.

40:34That will take place and will include a review of all the information that we've gathered. So once

40:40we've met with the 14 advisory committees, we'll do a similar exercise to this with the city's

40:45executive team and the city's leadership team. So the staff perspective is mixed in there.

40:48And then we'll work with chairs and vice chairs on a bit of a, this is what we've heard. This seems

40:53to be the themes that are emerging. We'll work through that with chairs and vice chairs and

40:57then ultimately come back to the committee again in Q3 with some draft recommended changes that

41:02we're thinking about for advisory committees. So that's the next step. But like I say, by all means,

41:08if you have any questions about the project, any other feedback that you want to share,

41:12you can reach out to me, you can reach out to clerks at gulf.ca, you can certainly contact Liz,

41:17we're happy to help. But that I think is the end of our presentation today. So thanks so much for

41:22all the feedback. We really appreciate it. Thank you. All right, we'll move on now to item 2.4,

41:33which is 40 spring, 40 spring street notice of amendment of heritage designation bylaw 2004-17606

41:43and presentation with Stephen. Thanks Sarah. I'm just going to share my screen. I don't

41:57believe this item will take very long, but I just wanted to touch on some highlight information

42:03that may be of assistance to the committee members. So this item that we're sorry, this report

42:09is provided to heritage gulf regarding an amendment to the heritage designation bylaw for 40 spring

42:15street. And it's required as a result of the approval of a consent decision by the committee

42:21of adjustment to sever a small or 140 square meter parcel from 40 spring street to be added to the

42:30adjacent property at 32. I will just flip to the, this is schedule three from the heritage

42:40designation bylaw, which is a plan showing 40 spring street, the house itself, and its relationship to

42:50the property next door of 32. And as well, I will, if I can just get my sharing screen out of the way

43:01here, here we go. This is attachment three to the staff report, which is the, what's now the approved

43:10reference plan for 40 spring street. And where my cursor is here is indicates the small amount of

43:18land that's been approved to be added to the adjacent property. So with that, I think I will

43:29just return to the, I'm going to stop sharing actually, and just once I've read out the staff

43:39recommendation, if that's okay, Sarah. As I said, the recommendation to heritage gulf is that the

43:46committee supports the proposed amendment to the heritage designation bylaw and that heritage

43:53gulf recommends that city council give notice. Are there questions for Stephen? Yes. Hi, Stephen.

44:14A question, you know, wasn't there any request for any like study, you know, like

44:21impact assessment or any, you know, on behalf of this issue on the, like, kind of what's the

44:28reason for this, this, you know, to happen, you know, kind of is, you know, like, I'm kind of

44:34suspicious, maybe I'm not, you know, like, why, why this move now, you know, is there, you know, like, a

44:41hidden purpose behind it? Well, I doubt I'm happy to, well, Sarah, through you all this, I'll provide a

44:51response to Jaudat. This, this has been, a heritage gulf has been made aware of this proposal before

44:58the, the severance was approved by the committee. And it was staff's opinion that as the proposal

45:05doesn't involve or impact at all any of the heritage attributes that are protected by the

45:11heritage designation bylaw, that a heritage permit and, and even an impact assessment

45:17wasn't required at that time. So this, this relatively small portion of the property

45:26is, has been approved by the committee of adjustment to be added to the property next door in order to

45:33for the, the neighbor to go ahead with the construction and believe of a hot tub in that area.

45:46Thank you, Liz. Okay, you're welcome.

45:53Other questions or comments from the committee being none. I'll read out the recommended motion

46:03that heritage gulf supports the proposed amendment to heritage designation bylaw 2004-17606

46:10as presented in the staff report dated February 5, 2024 and that heritage gulf recommends that

46:16city council give notice to the proposed bylaw amendment pursuant to part four, section 29

46:20of the heritage act. Do I have someone to move that motion? Laura, thank you. David, I'll take

46:37you as a seconder if that's okay. And then all those in favor? Perfect. Thanks everyone. And then

46:50item 2.5 is 331 Clear Road East Heritage Proof and Application with Jack and we have a delegate,

46:57Emily Elliott from MHVC as well. That's right. Joey, can you let me share? Thank you.

47:13Okay, I trust everyone can see my screen. So this item is a heritage permit application for

47:22331 Clear Road East to remove the stone tail of the house,

47:29referred to in the report as the summer kitchen. So we, it shouldn't really be a surprise that

47:36we're getting this application because it was detailed in the heritage impact assessment, which

47:43concluded that the summer kitchen, you know, wasn't a culturally heritage valuable part of the

47:51house. And so they, the heritage impact assessment concluded that its removal was a neutral impact

47:56to the property. We are expediting this permit because in order for the owner to

48:06do work on the property, this has to be done before the bat roosting season in mid-March.

48:14There's an endangered bat species that may make the kitchen tail a habitat. So they're just doing

48:22that within the provincial ministry timelines allocated to them. So we, we spread this heritage

48:33permit through the process to try and abide by those timelines.

48:40In short, as I said, we, we, I knew this was coming and we negotiated with the property owner on the

48:47heritage attributes that the summer kitchen not be included. So staff have determined,

48:53determined that the removal of the summer kitchen will not negatively impact any of the

49:00heritage attributes identified in the notice of intention to designate.

49:05I just changed PDFs. Can you see this list of heritage attributes? It's very good.

49:11So, so these are the attributes we identified in the notice of intention to designate.

49:18So as, as you can see, I don't think removal of the summer kitchen will negatively impact

49:25any of these. I'll note that the masonry is not integrated. So either the summer kitchen was built

49:34before or after the main house, but they were constructed separately. So

49:39removing the summer kitchen should not damage the stone walls of the main house.

49:48I'm happy to answer any questions the committee may have on this. I know it was only added to

49:53the revised agenda, but any questions for me and we do have a delegate. So you may want to

50:03save questions for them as well. Okay. I'm not hearing any questions.

50:18I have a small question. Yes, Joe. You know, like demolishing this, this part,

50:25you know, definitely is going to be by an expert contractor who knows what he's doing, right? No,

50:32so that won't be damaging the building itself, right?

50:37That's yes, that's my understanding. And thank you for mentioning that because I forgot to mention

50:44the key thing for me was that the owner has committed to salvaging material

50:52that can be salvaged from this kitchen tail for some future use on site. Obviously,

50:58it's a little too early to determine specifically what that'll be used for.

51:03So I think, you know, this can be perceived as more a deconstruction than a demolition.

51:11I don't know if there's going to be a wrecking ball included or not, but yeah,

51:16I hope that we can retain as much of the original material as possible for later reuse in the new

51:22development. And this may be a question for the delegate, but I'd be interested to know what

51:28steps are being taken to ensure that no damage is done to the original house.

51:34I don't need the answer to that right now. It can be after the delegation, but

51:38I'm sure a contractor that is professional and experienced has been hired, but really what

51:43I'm concerned about is how do we preserve the integrity of the original property that

51:48we have issued the intention to designate for? Yes, I'll let Emily expand on that.

52:07Okay, should we move on to the delegation? Emily, if you'd like the floor.

52:14Thanks, Jack. Good afternoon, Chair. I've been members of the committee. My name is Emily Elliott.

52:19I'm a planner and partner with MHBC Planning. Just first, I'd like to thank Jack for his

52:24thorough presentation and staff report and working with us through this ongoing rezoning and

52:30now site plan approval application for 331 Clair. I think Jack covered everything fairly

52:37comprehensively in his presentation and in the report. So I'm mainly here today to express support

52:43for the recommendations and answer any questions that the committee might have. Jack covered it

52:49fairly well. The application relates only to the removal of the re-eradition,

52:53which was not identified as a heritage attribute. The main house will be relocated centrally and

52:59adaptively reused within the amenity space of the redevelopment. And we understand that that

53:05will be subject to a separate heritage permit application. With regard to the question related

53:12to ensuring that there will be no damage to the main house, as Jack mentioned,

53:19it appears that the addition was a later addition to the building and therefore will not

53:27impact the structural stability of the main house when it is removed. We have submitted a

53:32demolition permit application that is related only to the removal of the addition. So the rear

53:41wall of the building will be retained and shoring will be put in place as necessary to ensure this

53:48building remains stable and structurally sound through the demolition process. And until such

53:53time it is relocated on the property and the contractor is aware of those requirements.

54:02And I would be happy to answer any other questions that the committee might have at this point.

54:09Thanks, Emily. And so we'll open it for questions for Emily. No questions? All right. So any last

54:29questions for Jack before I read out our recommended motion? No. All right. So our recommended motion is

54:38that Heritage Guelph provides the following comments to the general manager planning and

54:41building services with respect to the heritage permit application for 331 Clair Road East.

54:46The proposed removal of the summer kitchen at 331 Clair Road East does not negatively impact the

54:51heritage attributes identified in the notice of intention to designate issue November 23, 2023.

54:57Do I have a mover? Thank you, Lara. A seconder.

55:03Shout out. Thank you. And all in favor? I think we need Miranda and David to see your lovely faces.

55:17And the vote all in favor? Perfect. Thanks, everyone. Thank you.

55:24All right. So item 3.1 we have deferred to our next meeting. So we'll move to item 3.2,

55:31which is 15 to 23 Fountain Street Cultural Heritage Evaluation Report with Jack.

55:51Okay. Thank you, Sarah. So today I'm going to be going over my cultural heritage evaluation for

55:5915 to 23 Fountain Street East, which did conclude that the property does not meet the threshold for

56:07part four designation. So I'd like to let the, I'm going to go through the criteria one at a time.

56:17And if members have any questions about any one of the criteria, I invite you to,

56:24you can just unmute and ask me as I'm going through these. But we can also have a discussion

56:29at the end. So 15 to 23 Fountain Street East is a pretty typical Victorian row house. We believe

56:40built in the last five years of the 19th century. An interesting trivial fact. It was built by the

56:49tenor Edward Johnson's uncle William Johnson, who is also the proprietor of the, the Boat House.

56:57And this was built at a time of great industrial expansion in Guelph, which necessitated a lot

57:02more working class housing than existed in the city. So I'm sure Mr. Johnson was taking

57:09advantage of that real population boom at the time. It's also important to remember that this,

57:16this area of the city, though it's hard to see today, was once a kind of industrial hub where the,

57:25where the parking lot across from the police station is now, and all the way, all the way down

57:31to Wellington Street was all industrial land. So it's likely that the inhabitants of these row

57:38houses worked at some of these industries, or if not that, then other industries nearby in the city.

57:48So as I'm going through the criteria, when I'm doing one of these evaluations, the fundamental

57:54question I ask myself is, can I defend this at the Ontario Land Tribunal? And the Ontario Heritage

58:02Toolkit instructs that designations should be defensible at the OLT. And so, so this is kind

58:10of, that's kind of what guides me when I answer each of these criteria. So I'm just going to begin

58:17to go, go through them now. Criteria one, the property has designer physical value because it

58:24is a rare, unique representative or early example of a style type expression, material,

58:30or construction method. So here the key words are rare, unique, representative, or early.

58:38So I found that this structure, it's a good example of a 19th century row house, but it has

58:47lost quite a bit of integrity in the last half century. You know, there are porches that are no

58:53longer there. None of the front doors are original. Some of the windows have been replaced.

58:58And so I think that that for me is what stops it from being a representative example of Victorian

59:03row housing. Criteria two, the property has designer physical value because it displays a

59:10high degree of craftsmanship or artistic merit. I did not find that this property contained a

59:18high degree of craftsmanship or artistic merit. It was, it may be well built, but it was like we

59:26put up relatively quickly to address housing needs and to function as an income property. I don't

59:31think its purpose was to express craftsmanship or artistic merit. Criteria three, the property

59:41demonstrates a high degree of technical or scientific achievement. Again, this property was not

59:48very advanced for the time that it was built. So I didn't perceive any high degree of technical or

59:55scientific achievement in this property. So getting onto the historic and associative values.

1:00:04Criteria four, the property has historical or associative value because it has direct

1:00:08associations with the theme, event, belief, person activity, organization, or institution.

1:00:14That is significant to the community. So obviously properties like this can tell us about

1:00:23the working class in the late 19th and early 20th century. But I didn't find any direct association,

1:00:30strong association with a theme, event, belief, person or activity, or organization. And I don't

1:00:38think that the property's ownership by William Johnson was significant enough to

1:00:46meet this criteria, especially if he lived in it, that may be different. But because it was an

1:00:51income property, I didn't think it quite met that threshold. Moving on to Criteria five,

1:01:00the property has historical or associative value because it yields or has potential to yield

1:01:05information that contributes to an understanding of a community or culture.

1:01:11Again, so I didn't find that this property individually yields to an understanding of

1:01:18a community or culture. I think this property, if it was located somewhere else, would be a really

1:01:26good addition to a heritage district. It would certainly contribute to a heritage district.

1:01:31But I don't think that individually this property tells us very much about a community or a culture.

1:01:43Criteria six, property has historical or associative value because it demonstrates,

1:01:48reflects the worker ideas of an architect, artist, builder, designer, theorist. I was not able to

1:01:54determine who the architect or builder was. So that criteria remains unchecked just because of

1:02:02that. But even if we did, it's a relatively utilitarian structure. So I don't think it would

1:02:08be, and it doesn't include any novel designs in it. So I don't think it would reflect the

1:02:14worker ideas of an architect or builder. And now we get into the contextual value.

1:02:23So I think the key thing with these next three criteria is that the neighborhoods surrounding

1:02:31this residence has undergone a tremendous amount of change over the last century.

1:02:36And so the original streetscape that would have been there in 1895 when it was constructed,

1:02:42no longer exists. And if you look at the aerial image I included in the attachment,

1:02:49it's mostly surrounded by parking lots or new businesses. So it's kind of lost a lot of its

1:02:55contextual value. Again, it would have been physically, functionally, visually, and historically

1:03:04linked to its surroundings back when that area was more industrialized. But because of that

1:03:11change over time, I don't think it meets criteria eight anymore. Criteria nine, now, you know,

1:03:19the province doesn't actually give us a definition of what a landmark is.

1:03:25I generally ask myself, you know, would people use this directionally? Would people say,

1:03:32you know, turn left at the Red Brick Row House on Fountain Street? I don't think it stands out

1:03:39in that way to be a landmark, the way that maybe 49 Metcalfe, the Pagani house, that I did say that

1:03:46it was a landmark. I think because it does stand out and it has that quality that people might

1:03:52use it directionally or say the big White House in St. George's neighborhood. I don't think

1:03:58Johnson Terrace does that. So I did not consider it a landmark. So I'm going to stop sharing my

1:04:12screen now. If anybody has any more general questions about my analysis or even, I mean,

1:04:20I welcome specific questions as well. But I think this is kind of a good case study

1:04:24for the types of properties that are more difficult to designate. I think I noted that when we were

1:04:29doing our designation prioritization exercise that often working class housing is more difficult

1:04:36to designate through part four because the criteria are harder to meet.

1:04:43But yeah, happy to discuss or answer any questions. Yeah, Jack, it's Miranda here. I

1:04:53guess when I look at some of these, I think that the property does meet. Obviously, I am not the

1:05:00expert that you are, but just reading the definition. For example, the contextual value

1:05:07criteria eight, the reference in the description there is that it's historically linked to its

1:05:12surrounding. So yes, the area has changed significantly around that row house. But

1:05:17since the description specifically references the word historically linked,

1:05:22I believe that the property meets that criteria. It was surrounded obviously by

1:05:28places that the working class worked, even though those places no longer exist today.

1:05:34And then similarly, number five, the property has historical value because it yields information

1:05:41that contributes to an understanding of a community or a culture. The property contributes to that

1:05:46understanding of working class housing in the late 19th and early 20th century or the working class

1:05:52generally at that time. And number four, the property has historical value because it has a

1:05:59direct association with a theme significant to a community. I don't know if the expansion of the

1:06:06working class in the late 19th century in Guelph is considered a theme, but to me,

1:06:12it would seem to be. Maybe there's a different definition of that that I'm not getting. And then

1:06:18last criteria one, the property has design value or physical value because it's representative of

1:06:24a style. That style in my interpretation would be working class row housing. So I guess I'm concerned

1:06:32because I obviously, I think that this property might meet these four criteria. I'm happy to

1:06:40have you tell me why, again, that it doesn't based on what I've just said, and happy to have

1:06:45comments from any other members of the committee. Sure. I think I made good enough notes to be

1:06:54able to respond to that. Just give me a second. Okay. So I'm just going to go through your points

1:07:04one at a time. Just kind of, I want to make a bit of a blanket statement here that, like, as a historian,

1:07:12I find these criteria somewhat asinine a lot of the time. And you could argue that, like,

1:07:18any property meets any number of these criteria in the city. But the frame of mind I'm in, again,

1:07:26is could I, am I confident that I could defend this at the Ontario Land Tribunal,

1:07:32you know, against a property owner's lawyers and their heritage consultants?

1:07:40And so that's the lens that I take. You know, when I, I don't want to have to,

1:07:44like, do mental gymnastics to say that it meets any number one of the criteria, I want 100% solid

1:07:50argument that it meets a criteria. So that's just kind of my blanket statement.

1:07:56For criteria one, you said it's representative. So when I, when I think of representative, I

1:08:04think this is the best example of this type or style that we have in the city. And, like,

1:08:12frankly, this property is not, there are more intact, more representative row houses elsewhere

1:08:21in the city. And in my mind, in order to be representative, it has to have retained a high

1:08:27degree of integrity over time. And because this property has lost its front porches and original

1:08:35doors, those are pretty important attributes of a building that would contribute to being a

1:08:42representative example in the city. I'm just going to go through your points here.

1:08:52So again, theme, I, like, I agree with you, you could argue that this represents the expansion

1:08:59of the working class in the city of Guelph. Again, I feel like the argument against that would be that,

1:09:07you know, 80% of properties built within the last quarter or first quarter of the 19th or 20th

1:09:16century, respectively, could, you know, represent the expansion of the working class during Guelph's

1:09:22industrialization. So that's, that's why I didn't connect it to that theme. Like, it's, there's,

1:09:32yeah, I, like, I, I have a hard time addressing these because I understand that, like, the argument

1:09:40could be made, you know, that this property is a good example of, you know, the working class

1:09:46existing in Guelph. Is it a, is it a property that I feel confident that we can commit the staff

1:09:53time and resources into defending at the Ontario Land Tribunal? I don't. And I, like, and so that,

1:10:01that's when I come to you with these cultural heritage evaluation reports,

1:10:05that's, like, the underlying message that I want to say is, like, you know, if I feel,

1:10:12if I feel confident that I can defend something at the Ontario Land Tribunal,

1:10:19that's not going to waste the staff time and resources that are going to be, you know,

1:10:24dedicated to attending a hearing and preparing for a hearing that could be directed elsewhere

1:10:29towards other designations. In a year where we staff really have to triage the time

1:10:36commitment that we make to these things. And, like, you know, I kind of felt today, like, I'm

1:10:42walking out towards the firing squad because I don't anticipate you folks are going to like,

1:10:48like this evaluation. And I, you know, I was disappointed doing the research that I wasn't

1:10:52able to find, you know, something more compelling that would allow me to bring a stronger case forward.

1:11:00I was, you know, really hoping that somebody really significant was going to be born there,

1:11:05and then I'd be able to check that box and, you know, have a stronger case to move forward

1:11:10towards designation. And as you know, in this process, we don't contact the property owners

1:11:18until after the cultural heritage evaluation report has been brought to the committee. But from my,

1:11:24like, sidewalk observation of the property, it's currently vacant and most of the windows

1:11:31are boarded up. So, you know, I, it's not really my place to guess whether a property owner is

1:11:37going to be supportive of designation. But I've developed a pretty good instinct for situations

1:11:43where they will and they won't. And I can't imagine that the owner of a vacant row house

1:11:49would be particularly thrilled to support designation in this scenario.

1:11:57So, again, that also enters into my calculus here is that, you know, will we have a supportive

1:12:02property owner? And I don't think that we will. Okay. So, I mean, for me, I think these are sort

1:12:09of different issues. So, I totally hear you when you say you have limited resources and you really

1:12:15have to pick carefully in terms of what you want to defend if, if designation is appealed in the

1:12:21future. And you have to, you know, deal with the property owner who is not not not interested or

1:12:28not accepting of designation. And also the current state of the property, you know, you may

1:12:34surmise based on looking at it that that the owner would not be supportive. But to me, those are

1:12:40different things than what we have in the in the motion and in the report. Because, you know, you

1:12:46said when you you when you look at representative, you're thinking, well, this should be this should

1:12:52be an excellent example or a very strong example or the model example. Really, the word representative

1:12:58is just sort of typical or characteristic of a certain style. And certainly, this property meets

1:13:04that definition in criteria one. And as I said, I would argue that it also meets the criteria

1:13:10in four, five and eight. But, you know, the way that the motion is worded, it certainly seems

1:13:15like we're saying this, this property does not meet the criteria. And I'm certainly not going to

1:13:19support that motion myself. If we need to reexamine our priorities, because we, because, you know,

1:13:28we're considering limited resources, or because we're seriously considering the challenges we

1:13:32might need at the OLT, then that's a different conversation for me. So just my two cents, I

1:13:38can't support the motion. David, I think, Laura, you might have something as well.

1:13:49I'm meeting myself here. Yeah, I, I really appreciate the work that you've done here, Jack. And

1:13:59I can understand, you know, going through all of this stuff and being disappointed with the

1:14:05results. And, and, you know, part of this is we go through this process for every single property.

1:14:14And sometimes there's going to be a negative result. So I don't, part of my concern here is that

1:14:20we've sort of decided as a committee what we think should happen as opposed to allowing the

1:14:28process to happen and taking the research that Jack has done. You know, I don't like the thinking that

1:14:38you're feeling uncomfortable that you're coming up against a firing squad, because that's,

1:14:42that's really not what we're here to do. We're here to evaluate. And if the evaluation doesn't

1:14:48support the feeling that we would like this to be preserved, like those are, those two are very

1:14:54different things. So just a consideration. Yeah. Thanks, Laura. And David, oh, you're just muted.

1:15:11Sorry. We had the wrong one. I think Jack, do you know, do we have any other

1:15:16similar structures that do have that have been designated in the city?

1:15:23I'm not, I'm not aware of similar structures that have been designated. I'm looking over at Steve

1:15:29and then he's wagging his head. But I made an attempt in our staff list that we brought in

1:15:39December to include as many working class properties that I thought may meet the criteria.

1:15:48But yeah, none, no, no other row houses that I'm aware of.

1:15:52Okay. So for like criteria is one and two and, or, for example, if this is the only, if we don't

1:16:01have something similar to this, I'd be a little reluctant to throw this to the side, you know,

1:16:08when there's nothing representative on it. So I'm just reluctant to completely disengage from

1:16:20something that we, that, you know, we may not come up with here. And Jack, oh, go ahead,

1:16:30Yodat. And then I can ask a question. Okay. I think we have this 328, 332 Woolwich Street,

1:16:40you know, like we, you know, the row houses, I'm not sure that I think it's kind of the same,

1:16:47but much more preserved than this one, you know, like, we can like, you know,

1:16:54take it as a prototype that we can preserve for, you know, like, if this one, you know, you find

1:17:00Jack is not really, you know, like preserved well, so that it can set a good example of,

1:17:07you know, the workers row houses, you know, example of the, you know, labor workers, etc.

1:17:13So I don't know, I think this one might, might be a good, like, alternative. Right.

1:17:21Yeah, I'm glad you brought that up, Yodat. Yes, the Chubb Terrace on Woolwich Street was included

1:17:27in the long list of 22 properties. And I can confirm that one of the students in the history

1:17:34course that we're collaborating with is currently researching that property.

1:17:45And so, sorry, that is a great property on Woolwich. I'm just curious to know if you would describe it

1:17:51as working class housing. Perhaps a little more towards the middle or upper working class, but

1:18:01I think we also have to remember what the definition of working class was in the 19th century when I,

1:18:06you know, a school janitor could afford a house for him and his six children.

1:18:13Yeah. So it's, you know, the working class isn't just, you know, ditch diggers and

1:18:20it was pretty expansive at this time. So I think it could be considered working class housing if

1:18:26on the, you know, upper end of the spectrum compared to Johnson Terrace, which was probably

1:18:31people with lower incomes. And Jack, just for clarification, if this, this doesn't stop this

1:18:41property from coming back up pending future research that anyone on the committee could do,

1:18:45right? I mean, any of us research just or because a given, I totally appreciate the staff resource

1:18:51issue for sure. And so, I appreciate Lara's point about the outcome isn't always what we want. And

1:19:00I think it helps to validate our stance of it too as a committee that we aren't just

1:19:04putting everything forward and forcing planning staff to move forward with things that we, and

1:19:09our hearts want, but maybe, I mean, Jack would have to be the one to move forward and support this.

1:19:13And we're putting him as a sort of the planner, the heritage planner. I don't like, I could just say

1:19:18firing squad, I can't remember what you said before, but then we're putting him before another

1:19:21squad, right? So I think we have to be careful and understanding at times how we want to make sure

1:19:27our committee is validated. And Tim Miranda's comment, I did just revise the motion a little bit

1:19:33to say that based on current research, it does not meet the guidelines, because I think that helps

1:19:38us recognize that it could and we don't want to eliminate it just because we don't have resources

1:19:42and we don't have the ability because I think there's value of course to that property. But I

1:19:46think it's based on our current research. It doesn't meet those criteria. And I think there's

1:19:50opportunity that additional research could be done because I think we all want it to be designated.

1:19:56But I personally don't know that I want to put finding in a

1:20:00where they're already not very supportive and then push this along to a point where it would probably be appealed because of the conversation that's publicly happening here today as well.

1:20:09I'll put off my soapbox though and let others speak Laura. Yes.

1:20:16I think.

1:20:17My understanding Jack of what you were saying about resources and stuff is that.

1:20:23Based on the current criteria.

1:20:26This is not defensible.

1:20:29So, rather than spend time on something in defensible, we would rather.

1:20:36Put this aside and and spend our time on things that are defensible and do need our time and defense, not that we are.

1:20:47Not pursuing this because of a lack of resources necessarily, but that it is not defensible and it would be flushing our time down.

1:20:59Is how I understood it.

1:21:01Yes, that was more eloquent than how I put it, but that's essentially what I'm trying to say.

1:21:07I just, I understand because of my work in, in archaeology that, you know, there's a set of of requirements and you have to be able to defend to that set of requirements.

1:21:21Sometimes it just doesn't work out the way we thought it might and we really should reserve some of those things.

1:21:29Thanks guys.

1:21:31Are there other comments or questions from anyone and I can read out the motion that I revised.

1:21:43I have just a great question for Jack. Thank you for the room switch on this. I'm going with Sarah. Everyone has said.

1:21:54I know earlier in the year talk about having a bigger diverse group of types of homes.

1:22:02Yeah, or designation and whatnot. With this working class, so are you nervous.

1:22:08I'll work like future working class homes that go up for designation will be top or give me all the criteria because this one example, just starting us off that maybe once in the future will also have the same issue.

1:22:22Yeah, without, without being able to.

1:22:27It is just, it's harder with working class properties to meet that design and historical criteria, especially in, and then the contextual criteria, which you'd usually rely on, you know, that requires a limited amount of change in the general vicinity of a property.

1:22:46So, like, I'm hoping this can be a demonstration of how working class properties can be more difficult to designate under part 4.

1:22:57But we are just about to start the word West heritage district study, which is, you know, probably going to be anywhere between 100 and 300 working class residences designated.

1:23:10I think that's what I tell myself in the back of my head.

1:23:14When I'm talking and turning at night is that that's how we can protect and commemorate working class typologies in our built heritage, because it's, it's much more.

1:23:30It's easier to do with part five than it is with part four.

1:23:38Yeah, excuse me. Yeah. Yeah, Jack, as I understood, you know, like you mentioned that the building is already also a damaged, you know, like it has been abused, you know, some of the attributes have been, you know, like eliminated.

1:23:55And do you like elaborate a little bit more on that because this one also can convince us more, you know, like to go ahead with, you know, eliminating this building from being designated. Thank you.

1:24:08Yeah, so the photograph from cooling that I included in the report shows that when the property was first built it.

1:24:16The first entryway had a porch, which surprised me because upon like first analysis when I was walking by I didn't see any signs that there had been porches attached to the facade but yeah, the porches have been completely removed now.

1:24:33And that photograph was from 1974, I think. And all the original front doors have been replaced with what look like vinyl units.

1:24:45The windows appear to be original but it's hard to see behind the storm windows that are attached in the screens so I can't say for certain one way or the other.

1:24:58Yeah, aside from the red brick elevation facade.

1:25:05Many other features, especially I think the loss of those front porches is really what what fails to make this a representative example perhaps if it retained its front porches it would have more relation to how it looked when it was actually constructed.

1:25:27But yes, it's undergone a significant amount of change in the last century and a bit.

1:25:34We see that elsewhere too in other cities with, you know, the gentrification of that working class level housing it like you said it's hard to get away from it and I think, again, we need to remember what we are trying to preserve here right it's to these criteria.

1:25:59We want to our own criteria and using the criteria as they currently stand we will likely be able to preserve this type of housing in the ward.

1:26:13But also keeping this in mind when we think about our own mandates and what makes wealth important in, you know, adjusting some of our thinking on some of this so yeah, thank you, Jack.

1:26:26Thank you.

1:26:28So, I hope you don't toss and turn too much I completely understand that feeling really.

1:26:33So, really, I think in the, in the motion there are two motions.

1:26:38First paragraph comments provided by heritage, 12 members on the 1523 fountain street east.

1:26:44Cultural heritage valuation report be provided to staff and council for their consideration. So, I would like to move that that becomes a separate motion.

1:26:54Because I certainly have no issue with the the comments up to this point being provided to staff and council for consideration.

1:27:02The second part of the motion, I believe, is the part that Sarah revised.

1:27:08Again, I cannot vote in favor of saying that the property doesn't meet the provincial criteria because.

1:27:17Based on everything we've discussed, I think some elements do apart from all the difficulty we would have going forward. I completely recognize.

1:27:26That there are some properties that we over time and historically have had to abandon for one reason or another, even though they may have heritage value.

1:27:36The way that that paragraph paragraph 2 is written is problematic for me. So, I would like to separate those 2 paragraphs.

1:27:44And move that we vote on the 1st motion, which is that the comments provided by heritage 12 members on the 1523 fountain street, east cultural heritage evaluation report be provided to staff and council.

1:27:58For their consideration and if someone wants to move a different motion.

1:28:01For the 2nd paragraph, then we can consider that separately.

1:28:06Okay, so with Miranda moving that 1st motion then that commit that the comments provided by heritage 12 members on the 1523 fountain street, east cultural heritage evaluation report.

1:28:16We provided to staff and council for their consideration. Do I have a 2nd or for that?

1:28:20So just the 1st part of the original motion.

1:28:26Thank you, and all in favor of just that 1st part.

1:28:31And Kim, thank you.

1:28:39Okay, so for the 2nd motion as Miranda noted, Kathy, did you have a question or a comment?

1:28:45I just have a question about the 2nd part about.

1:28:49Whether heritage golf just it's about a process so.

1:28:53My guess is then if the committee decided that it was.

1:28:59Worthy and wanted to pursue designation.

1:29:03They would have to tell council that and explain why they believe that some somewhere there would have to be some kind of written opinion or.

1:29:12A delegate would have to come to council from heritage golf.

1:29:15And talk about the reasons why they believe that when this came.

1:29:20That's my understanding and then if council agreed with heritage, well.

1:29:25We would then need to.

1:29:29Hire an outside heritage consultant.

1:29:33At any kind of meeting that's I just want to be clear in my mind sort of.

1:29:39That's the process we would be going through right Jack is that.

1:29:43My, my understanding is that if the committee disagrees with staff's assessment, we would hire a consultant to prepare.

1:29:532nd opinion.

1:29:56Okay, so, so the committee would hire a consultant before it went to council.

1:30:01Or after council made a decision.

1:30:07I believe it would be before we did we did this with 239 Elizabeth street. If you recall.

1:30:15No, but it was it was some time ago. Yeah.

1:30:20Okay, okay. I was just curious.

1:30:24Another question on process Jack.

1:30:27Once a once the cultural heritage evaluation report is prepared.

1:30:32Does planning 100% of the time take take it to council?

1:30:37Or is it at planning's option?

1:30:41For example, if planning had decided to abandon this.

1:30:47Property due to the other reasons we discussed such as the current condition of the property and.

1:30:55The feeling of defending this at the old being too difficult.

1:31:00Do you ever prepare a report like this and not take it further?

1:31:08I'm just trying to make sure I understand your question.

1:31:14So we would.

1:31:18So you're asking what what happens if like say if the committee agrees.

1:31:26With my evaluation.

1:31:29I think if you do, so this was a priority property for us, I think if.

1:31:33Yes. And so every priority property, even if you disagree, you still bring it to us, right? Yeah.

1:31:39That's the process. So if Jack's doing research on other properties that aren't a priority for the committee.

1:31:44And in your research, you deem that it doesn't have the value. It wouldn't come to the committee regardless because it's outside of the purview of the committee's priorities.

1:31:52Right.

1:31:53That's that was the. Okay. Yes, but we'll bring any, any property that is listed as a priority. We bring that to the committee. And once we get through the committee with the cultural heritage evaluation report.

1:32:06And the designation recommendation, we then.

1:32:10Bring that to council.

1:32:13So, if the committee decided not.

1:32:18You know, remove this as one of our priorities.

1:32:21Does the report still have to go to council or could it be set aside?

1:32:26Yeah, no, it wouldn't.

1:32:29It wouldn't go to council at this time. It would be set aside.

1:32:33And as, as was mentioned, like when we bring these to the committee, I.

1:32:40I'd like wholeheartedly welcome additional research that any members would like to contribute that could could help us meet that threshold for any of the criteria. That's, you know, an open invite when we come to the committee with these things.

1:32:58Can I ask a quick reminder question as well in process? Do we need all in favor for a vote to be carried or is it majority?

1:33:04It's majority.

1:33:06Other questions or comments.

1:33:15I think this is a tough one. I'll be the 1st. I'll speak maybe a bit that I think this is tough because it's playing in a whole very gray area for us on.

1:33:25Planner recommendation in doing this, the ability of the committee in some ways our hearts obviously and something that does have. I think the challenge is it feels dismissive that it has no heritage value and not doing this.

1:33:36But I think we're talking about a designation and making sure it meets these criteria and moving that aspect forward. And so I'll read the motion that with the revised motion that I did and it sits there with no movers or seconders. That's totally fine.

1:33:49But the motion that I revise is that heritage, well, that buys city council that based on current research 1523 fountain street east is not meet the provincial criteria for determining cultural heritage value or interest as outlined in rag 9 0 6.

1:34:05So, Sarah, just, you know, thanks for.

1:34:10For redrafting that I have the same issue with the wording in that I do think that this property meets some of the criteria. And so couldn't vote in favor of that.

1:34:22I guess my question for the committee is.

1:34:25And I could put a motion forward. You know, maybe we consider setting this aside for the time being.

1:34:33I'm not sure how to word that other than to propose that we vote to set the culture or set the matter aside for the time being.

1:34:45And not bring it forward to council.

1:34:50At this point, I don't know.

1:34:53I see Laura has her hand up there.

1:34:55Can you maybe explain for us for me for.

1:35:03The criteria where you don't agree with the.

1:35:08With the report Miranda, or is that something you want to look into more in depth?

1:35:14No, I don't need to look into it more in depth. I've already.

1:35:17Okay, criteria 1, 4, 5 and 8. So I went through it earlier in the call.

1:35:23I just, you know, sorry, it's moving. There's a lot going on today. It's moving very quickly. If you could read just because we are sort of at a stop here.

1:35:32Yeah, sure. Let me just.

1:35:34One criteria 1. Yeah. So, criteria 1.

1:35:39The property has design value or physical value because it is representative of a style.

1:35:45So, in this case, style being working class row housing.

1:35:49So, to me, this property checks the box.

1:35:52It is representative because it's working class row housing, not because like my part of my consideration here is, you know, that it has been so.

1:36:02Changed that doesn't.

1:36:05So, so it doesn't necessarily.

1:36:10Represent that any longer.

1:36:13I don't. Okay. Sorry. Yeah.

1:36:16I don't think anyone would argue that this property is working class row housing.

1:36:22I don't see how it could be interpreted.

1:36:27Any, any other way? Yes, the porches have been altered.

1:36:31The doors have been altered, but when you look at that stretch, I think there's a photograph in the report. But certainly, if you're familiar with fountain street.

1:36:39You can see that is working class row housing, regardless of the fact that the, the porches have been removed or the doors have been changed. So that criteria 1 to me is clearly met.

1:36:51It is representative. It is typical. It is characteristic. That's the definition of representative. So, number 4.

1:36:58The property has historical value because it has direct association with a theme that is significant to a community.

1:37:05In this interpretation, and as Jack pointed out, the theme is the expansion of the working class in late 19th century, early, early 20th century golf.

1:37:16And then 5.

1:37:18The property has historical value because it yields information that contributes to an understanding of a community or a culture.

1:37:26This property communicates or contributes.

1:37:29Apologies. This property contributes to understanding of the working class.

1:37:33And housing.

1:37:35Of the working class in late 19th and early early 20th century golf.

1:37:40And then last 8 under contextual value.

1:37:44Property has contextual value because it is historically linked to its surroundings.

1:37:48Now, the area around that row house has significantly changed. In fact, that's 1 of the reasons that we initially flagged this property.

1:37:57For designation is because we were concerned with the amount of change that we had seen around it. Other buildings being demolished parking lots and so on.

1:38:08This was sort of a good representative representation of some of the other properties that used to be there, including row houses.

1:38:16But, you know, the fact that the area surrounding them has changed doesn't really affect the word historically because.

1:38:25The way that the criteria is worded, it says specifically has a historic link.

1:38:30To surrounding so yes, the, the factories and so on may have been taken down.

1:38:36But that row house did have the historical link to surrounding. So those are my arguments on as to why I cannot say I could not vote in favor of emotion that said the criteria has not been met.

1:38:49To my mind, the criteria has been met. I'm open, of course.

1:38:54To a discussion about whether or not it's worth pursuing for all the reasons that track is mentioned, but certainly the criteria in my view has been met. Hopefully that's that helps.

1:39:05I appreciate it.

1:39:07So, 2 comments maybe the 1st motion was there on the floor to be moved and seconded before this conversation happens. I'll leave that 1 now.

1:39:15I guess Miranda is the concern then that you don't want this to be brought to council that we don't see the value and if that's the case would simply motion that says that 1523 fountain street east.

1:39:28Be retained on heritage wealth priority list and return to the committee pending additional research.

1:39:33Would that sort of appease the committee because it doesn't dismiss it because we all agree there's heritage value. I think our differences right now is.

1:39:41Whether we think it meets enough to go forward or.

1:39:45To meet those the things that are outlined and so if we move the motion I just noted, it doesn't remove it from anything. It doesn't go before council. It removes that piece too. And I could be off on procedure here and somebody should maybe correct me if it has to go to council right now.

1:40:00We're sort of in a wait situation.

1:40:03But the 2nd motion that 1523 found street easy retained on heritage wealth priority list and return to the committee pending additional research.

1:40:12Gives more time and doesn't dismiss it or send it to council to say it doesn't meet anything or doesn't meet enough because it meets some for sure.

1:40:20I'm fine with that sir I think it does. It certainly resolved my concerns.

1:40:27And obviously, I any other member of the committee that's listening feel free to jump in with that. I guess my only question would be who is doing the additional research.

1:40:36I don't know if for the research and or discussion.

1:40:40Adding those words might help and maybe we have some further discussion amongst ourselves at a future meeting.

1:40:47After thinking about this a little further. I don't know.

1:40:53I think it's fair to say jacks, but a lot of research into it already don't want you to speak on your behalf jack by any means, but I know it's it's a lot of the work. And so I think.

1:41:02The goal maybe then is to shift to a different priority property where.

1:41:06There may be more things available and to to preserve the resources of city staff at least right now I think and work through the other properties.

1:41:14Because it still remains on our top list of 2024 and I agree it can easily be brought up on an agenda item at a later meetings that we don't forget about it as well.

1:41:22And then maybe later, one of our meetings later this spring there might be resources or maybe a student who's available to do more research or who had time and did more research.

1:41:32If that feels proper appropriate to committee to members of the committee and I'm totally open to other discussion or other options.

1:41:40I don't know that we can say who's doing the research, though. I don't know that that's a fair thing to sort of.

1:41:44Yeah, no, I just, I think what you've said is something I can support. It's just, I just don't want to create a more work for for jack or his team unnecessarily and.

1:41:58But yeah, I think returning this to to us or setting aside this.

1:42:04This issue of designating this property for the time being is is fine with me and at least avoids us having to.

1:42:11Vote on the issue as to whether or not it meets the criteria because that that was my primary concern is that I think it does.

1:42:18And I don't want to influence the committee at all, but it's almost quarter to 2 and I know myself and Kim both have hard outs at 2, which speaks to the passion this committee, which is fantastic. So, Kathy, I'll turn it to you.

1:42:29The clear here is so staff have recommended that it not be designated net. So, I just want to check with Jack that having more time or having somebody else looking at it.

1:42:43I don't think it's going to change staff's opinion. Is that my understanding, Jack?

1:42:50Yeah, and unless unless we find out John Diefenbaker was born there or.

1:42:56Yeah, yeah, that's the type of research, but yeah, there's.

1:43:01And until until I know that, then I will still recommend that we don't.

1:43:06Yeah, I'm just a little, I think we have to do yes or no. And I think if, if it's going to go forward, then.

1:43:15The committee is going to have to find somebody who will find who like, if we're going to send it back.

1:43:22You could, it could be for consideration at a future time, but I don't think it's going to change staff's opinion. I don't think that.

1:43:30I don't think that hope should be there.

1:43:34They've given the professional opinion now and it's up to the committee now to make a decision.

1:43:39I don't know that delaying that is is probably the West way to go. I think you should decide whether you want to move forward with a different heritage person and who will designate who will come up with those things or maybe they will recommend the same thing.

1:43:57Or send it on to council like this.

1:44:00That's my concern.

1:44:02Yeah, I think my concern just sort of building off what Kathy just said is I don't know that I feel comfortable hiring a consultant who could very possibly have the exact same outcome as Jack and it sounds reasonable that it would probably be the same.

1:44:14Not knowing obviously, but I do suspect it might be the same research.

1:44:19And then just, yeah, and I just want to add, I think I'm disappointed too, because it was one of the ones I brought forward as, as wanting to have it looked at and, and, you know, I'm going to be very sad, you know, because I suspect this will be demolished, but, you know, any anybody other heritage consultant is going to have to be prepared to defend this at the well team as well.

1:44:40So.

1:44:42I sort of understand where it's coming from. I think it's got some history there and, but I don't, but we have to be able to defend it. And that's, that's my concern of not being able to defend it. We do have a few other examples.

1:45:02There is the one somebody mentioned a Woolwich. There's also one.

1:45:05I think it's Neaver Ontario Street. It's not doesn't look exactly like this, but it's they're all connected row houses as well. So it's not a complete loss of these. And I agree. This has been completely changed since, you know.

1:45:18The porch is on the front that looked nice. And I've always just thought it was a great restoration project, but I don't think that's ever going to happen given what's happened to it.

1:45:28Then maybe the motion could be that heritage, well, if I city council at 15 to 23 Fountain Street East is no longer on our list of priority properties for designation.

1:45:39I would just add there, sorry, but council never approved your priority list. So I don't know that.

1:45:50You know, it makes a difference to council.

1:45:52Okay.

1:45:53You don't want council weighing in. I'll tell you just that might backfire. You don't want council weighing in on your priority list.

1:45:59No, okay. True enough.

1:46:02And is it possible to go forward with just the 1st motion, which we've already passed?

1:46:08Which is that our comments be provided and staff can recommend or not recommend at their.

1:46:14You know, Jack has already said nothing that we say at this point is going to change their recommendation that the property not be designated. So.

1:46:22Is it not possible Jack that we just go ahead with the 1st paragraph for the motion that that we've already passed, which is just that our comments be provided to staff and council.

1:46:31And that's that I think we have to vote though, regardless, because the report's been brought to us. Don't we? And so regardless.

1:46:39So, Jack, could you go forward if we vote? If we don't pass this is hypothetical. If the motion isn't passed, would you still go to council with the report?

1:46:47If coming council has no way.

1:46:50So, our preference is to have closure on this at this stage, just so that we can.

1:46:57You know, pivot to other priorities. And I just, this is the recommendation you see on the agenda is just staffs recommended motion. You're obviously.

1:47:08Welcome to edit it in any way you see fit, but we would appreciate.

1:47:13Closure on this address this property.

1:47:18But there would be no, I just want to be clear and make sure I understand there would, there is nothing to prevent planning staff from going forward to council and saying.

1:47:28You know, we, we do not agree that 15 to 23 fountain street should be designated.

1:47:33And.

1:47:34You know, you don't need a vote or anything from heritage wealth in order to do that. Is that correct?

1:47:44We would have to consult you before we bring any.

1:47:48Yes, recommendation either way to council. Okay, should be a motion. Yes, there should be a motion.

1:47:54Okay, you could have a motion at no, I'm guessing Jack could they not have a motion of no action.

1:48:01On this item at this, you know, at given the amount of work that might have to be done. Is that possible?

1:48:07Could we maybe just go through that 1st motion and just see if there is a mover and a seconder and a vote before we maybe go back and forth and see this.

1:48:14Okay, we actually voted on that 1st or had a mover and there could be if there's movers and secateurs and enough votes and I think it moves forward.

1:48:21So I'm going to read the motion with the adjustment that I put in there from the 1 that Jack had originally, I think, dropped it for us and we'll go through the process and then we can see alternatives if we need to.

1:48:31So that heritage, golf, advise city council that based on current research 15 to 23 found in street east does not meet the provincial criteria for determining cultural heritage value or interest as outlined in Oreg 906.

1:48:44Is there a mover for that motion?

1:48:46There as media muted, but I'm going to assume that's yes, you'll move it.

1:48:56Is there a seconder for the motion?

1:48:58I'm not allowed to second things right, Jack is chair.

1:49:08Can I I can okay you cannot sorry.

1:49:12Okay, sorry, David, were you.

1:49:14What are you trying to for your seconding? Okay, and all those in favor.

1:49:23And all those opposed.

1:49:27So then it technically carries.

1:49:29Because we have majority.

1:49:32Yes.

1:49:33So we have some difficult ones and.

1:49:39So the reality, I guess of these properties and again, thanks to everyone for the conversations. I think it's helpful. I think it's really, really good to have the conversation and how collegial it's been.

1:49:49Because it is tough and it's hard not to not to take things for say, I feel so warm now.

1:49:54All right, let's move on and the interest of time for sure we have 108 Queen Street cultural heritage evaluation report presentation by Steven.

1:50:02Thanks Sarah.

1:50:07I'm just going to share my ask for permission to share my screen here.

1:50:12It's the question. Good.

1:50:32So, with this item, I.

1:50:36The report is presented for review and comment by heritage wealth to assist staff in the confirmation of cultural heritage value for the John Mitchell farmhouse at 108 Queen Street.

1:50:49I want to specify.

1:50:51Right at the beginning that the property owners of 108 Queen Street, then you'll see a picture of that shortly.

1:50:58And it's indicated on this property location is indicated on the screen in front of you.

1:51:03The property owners have been contacted by heritage planning staff, making them aware of the research that's being conducted and is currently being conducted.

1:51:12To confirm the cultural heritage value of the John Mitchell farmhouse.

1:51:17The owners have indicated to heritage planning staff that they do not support any recommendation by staff or heritage wealth that council publish its intention to designate the property under the Ontario Heritage Act.

1:51:32Just going to move very quickly through some of the.

1:51:35I think the high points of my report.

1:51:38I want to point out as this as I've illustrated in the report that the original two story house is indicated at the front of the yellow box around the house.

1:51:50And that what I believe is the original single story tale behind that.

1:51:55This is a photograph that I've taken from the street zoomed from the street recently.

1:52:04And I just wanted to touch on the draft what is currently and still the draft statement of significance for this property.

1:52:15The, this building the, the.

1:52:19John Mitchell, the Mitchell farmhouse.

1:52:22I just hesitate because there's been previous buildings called the Mitchell farmhouses in Guelph so I just want to be sure that people are understanding that the John Mitchell farmhouse at one way, one way Queen street was a part was a part of an important farm stood in the township of Guelph,

1:52:41which is now within the city of Guelph.

1:52:44And this farmhouse, or this house today is worthy of designation under part four of the heritage act, because it meets four of the nine prescribed criteria.

1:52:56I'm just going to read this touch on how that those criteria met.

1:53:02The design physical value is met because the building exhibits.

1:53:09It's an early example of Georgian architectural style from the 1830s in a rural residential building design in the former township of Guelph.

1:53:19And it's an excellent representation of timber frame rural residential construction method.

1:53:33The property, the building on the property has historical and associative value and meets criteria for because it is has a significant historical association with the Mitchell family.

1:53:45One of Guelph's earliest and most successful settler families. So between 1831 and 18. I'm sorry between 1831 and 1955, three generations of the Mitchell family lived in the house on the Aramasa Hill.

1:54:01And they affectionately referred to the place as quote the old homestead and quote.

1:54:09The contextual value was met in two of the criteria criteria seven is met because the building is important in in its location and important in defining and maintaining and supporting the architectural character and agricultural history of the Queen Street and Aramasa Road area.

1:54:30The subject property meets criteria eight because the John Mitchell farmhouse provides evidence of the rural landscape prior to the expansion of the city in the second half of the 19th century in Guelph.

1:54:43Like many Georgian farmhouses the house was originally situated at the crest of a hill with a picturesque view overlooking the speed river and the town of Guelph.

1:54:54I'm going to leave it there, especially in thinking of time constraints, Sarah. So I'll just stop sharing and we could, we, you may want to lead the committee back to staff's recommendation from the agenda.

1:55:12Sure. So I'll really quickly ask if there's questions or comments for Stephen.

1:55:17Based on his evaluation report.

1:55:19None. So the recommended motion is that the comments provided by heritage Guelph members on the 108 Queen Street cultural heritage evaluation report be provided to staff and counsel for their consideration.

1:55:33Is there a mover for that motion? Thank you. And a seconder.

1:55:40Thank you, Lara. And then all those in favor.

1:55:47Just waiting on rent. Perfect. Thank you.

1:55:51And last, I think big agenda item, if we can call it that is staff and chair announcements. And so, Jack, are you speaking to the downtown heritage conservation district study open house or was I just noting it?

1:56:06Yeah, I just wanted to note it and it's on the agenda so people can see what time it is. But yes, February 20th at 430 to 630. There will be another downtown heritage district.

1:56:19Public open house at city hall in the mark McKinnon room. So it would be great to see all of you there. I, the whole heritage team will be there and the consultants as well. So it's a good opportunity to meet in person and also interact with the public.

1:56:32But that's, that's all for me for staff updates.

1:56:35No other announcements. Stephen. No, no.

1:56:39Excellent. And so I'll just take a note maybe before we adjourn then that the next meeting will be hybrid. So if anyone wants to attend as of the March meeting, they are welcome to do it in person.

1:56:48Or online. So do I have someone to move adjournment then for today?

1:56:53Thank you to Kim and Laura. I'll take you as a seconder if that's okay.

1:56:59All those in favor.

1:57:01I can't remember to vote on this and I don't know if it's for that's okay. Perfect.

1:57:09Excellent. We'll see everyone next month. Thank you.

1:57:12Thank you, everybody.