Heritage Guelph

0:14It's Miranda here. Can you hear me okay?

0:18You're good.

0:42I think we have everyone.

0:45Sarah, if you'd like to start.

0:48Excellent. Thanks Jack. Right at 12 p.m. Exactly. Perfect timing.

0:54All right. Well, hello everyone. I'll call to order the September 11th meeting of Heritage 12th welcoming all committee members, staff and any guests that are attending.

1:04I'll start with our territorial acknowledgement and note that as we gather, we are reminded that wealth is situated on treaty land that is steeped in rich indigenous history and home to many First Nations, Inuit and Métis people today.

1:17As a city, we have a responsibility for the stewardship of the land on which we live and work.

1:22Today, we acknowledge the Mississaugas of the Credit First Nation of the Anishinaabek peoples on whose traditional territory we are meeting.

1:29And before we get into the approval of the minutes, I'll just ask if anyone has any disclosure of the culinary interest and the general nature thereof.

1:38And I see David Waverman your hand went up first.

1:41Yes, I will not be able to speak to or vote on 2187 Corden Street.

1:48And Kim, I think you're on that one too, right?

1:54Yeah, I'm also with David. I will not be able to speak or vote on 2187 Corden.

2:00Perfect. When we get to that one, I'll just have both of you turn your mics off and your cameras off and we'll move forward without either of you then.

2:10Thank you.

2:11Thank you.

2:12Could I just do a bit of a point of order on those? My understanding is that just to make sure people do it in the registry that the.

2:20I don't know whether Jack can talk about that. We also have to give the reasons why you have a disclosure of pecuniary interest as well.

2:28But there's a registry online where every council member, it'll be the same for committee members have to log when they declare a conflict.

2:38I'll circulate the form via email.

2:41I have filled out the form.

2:44Yeah, thank you.

2:46Hi, all it's every it's Liz from the clerk's office. Yes. Counselor Downer is correct. David and Kim, if you can just explain to the committee just briefly what you do have a conflict of interest with this item.

3:02That's just part of procedure. Thank you.

3:04I guess we should just be free ourselves.

3:10Even at the same reason we were involved with the direct employment by the client or the own property owners of that property to prepare the initial.

3:22The initial cultural heritage resource impact assessment and evaluation reports.

3:30So, I was also involved with David way remain for consulting work outside of this for the preparation of those reports as well.

3:42Excellent. Thank you, Kim and David and I guess we'll have David fill out that form that Kim's already filled out then.

3:48And thank you for the fact on the procedure.

3:52Okay, thank you.

3:55All right, so our first sort of formal agenda item then is approval of the minutes from August 14th. So, if I could have someone move for their approval.

4:06And shout out. Thank you. I see your hand up and a seconder.

4:09Kim, perfect. And then all those in favor and anyone without their camera on will have to put their camera on for this part.

4:16Laura, if you're with us, if you could, there you go. Perfect. Thank you.

4:27Excellent. All right, so our moving along then we have committee items. So we have the Ontario reformatory stone wall, which is a presentation of sorts from counselor downer.

4:38Yeah, so I don't have a real presentation. I just requested that staff put this on the agenda because I thought it would be.

4:46Good for heritage, Guelph choose request that council ask that the reform that infrastructure Ontario repair the wall. Now, I don't know whether Jack or Stephen can give us any kind of an update, but.

5:03My understanding is that they believe it was erosion, but many people who frequent their reformatory lands claim that that wall was there one day and gone and.

5:13And I dismantled the next. So I don't know if you have any updates on that Jack or.

5:19Stephen on what your thoughts are, but you know, I can't move this motion, but I can propose that somebody on the committee does move the motion.

5:28If they would be willing to.

5:36Councillor Downer, I just want to comment that I have made infrastructure Ontario aware of the city's concerns or at least heritage planning concerns and I have visited the site myself.

5:51But I haven't heard any, any official response back from infrastructure Ontario that would.

5:59Would support one way or the other, whether this was simply due to erosion or if it was assisted in any way.

6:10Okay, so that was just.

6:12Just not just, but that was a press story then that I guess they must have gotten quotes. Okay. I wasn't sure that that was official or not. So thanks for that clarity.

6:20Can I ask which or where is the wall on the site that we're talking about?

6:26It's when you enter at the main gate off York road. If you follow the pathway.

6:34Towards the main building it's before you get to the bridge. So there's the initial bridge over Clyde Creek.

6:41And as you continue down the pathway, you eventually come to a second bridge before that second bridge on the left hand side. There's an opening into the front field that has always been there.

6:52And unfortunately on either side of the sort of stone pillars that are on either side of that opening.

6:59The wall has been dismantled. I'm there all the time.

7:04I can tell you with certainty that those stones did not fall down.

7:11Sorry, I'm not an expert, but I, it's, this isn't a matter of a few stones. It's significant damage. Yeah.

7:18So to Kathy's comment, there is a motion that's proposed that was included in the agenda. If someone would like to move it. It's that heritage golf recommends that city council request infrastructure Ontario.

7:31To repair the stone wall at the Ontario reformatory and I see right as your hand up to move it. Yes, it is.

7:37Okay. And a seconder. I've got David Weaverman and then all in favour.

7:43Thank you. Thank you.

7:48And just there we go. Perfect. So it's carried then. Yeah, this will come to a council meeting in October. I believe.

7:57Thank you. Thank you.

8:00All right. And moving along, I think into a fairly full agenda today, we have our first designation update, which is 49 met cap street heritage attributes and designation recommendation with a presentation from Jack.

8:15Sarah.

8:17So, for this first designation update.

8:21I actually heard back from the property owner just this morning for the first time.

8:27And they'd like to discuss the designation and I'm optimistic that we can get their support.

8:34So I'm going to ask the committee to defer this item until October's meeting.

8:41Just so that I can have these discussions with the property owner.

8:45I'm here to bringing a staff report to the committee. I have a proposed motion.

8:53I'll share my screen.

8:59Everybody see this.

9:05And this will need to be moved and seconded. If the committee is comfortable with that.

9:13So, can you raise your hand up to move the motion? Yes. Okay, perfect. So, Joe that has moved the motion that heritage 12 defer item 3.1 of the heritage wealth agenda dated September 11, 20, 23 49 met cap street heritage attributes and designation recommendation.

9:28To the October 10th, 2023 heritage 12 meeting moved by Joe dad. And is there a seconder?

9:35I see Cameron's on my screen with his hand up. Perfect. And Jack, do you mind stopping share so that I can do vote perfect.

9:42So, all in favor.

9:44Excellent. Perfect. Thanks everyone.

9:52We will move along to our second item then, which is 211 Silver Creek Parkway South heritage attributes designation recommendation also with Jack.

10:04Just give me a moment please to pull up my slides.

10:22So, I hope everyone had an opportunity to read the staff report. As you may remember from the previous time that this came to the committee, this is actually Victoria's file, but she's on vacation. She's actually in Paris today.

10:38I'll be managing the discussion for the heritage attributes for 211 Silver Creek and Steven is here as well to answer any questions the committee may have.

10:52So, the heritage attributes we've identified are all exterior stone walls.

10:59All extant exterior stone trim features all existing roof lines and the irregular original irregular footprint.

11:07All original door and window openings all extant original window sash elements slate roof cladding all existing chimneys and all extant stained glass windows.

11:20So, if you're happy to answer any questions or hear any comments that the committee may have on the heritage attributes for the Sleeman property.

11:35So, look for the camera and stand is up camera and go for it.

11:38Yeah, just one comment I have is, is there a need to be a little bit more descriptive in these attributes like it's a fairly complicated building just just things like all extant exterior would trim features and all original doors and windows is there an indication of like which ones are original and which ones

11:54are not or is there value in being a little bit more descriptive in these attributes.

12:01Maybe get Steven to chime in here but these, I think, when we say all you know it's kind of a blanket description for and you know, if you as you can see in this image here like the window openings on the motel edition are not original, but any of

12:23the windows and doors within the Victorian building.

12:27Those would be considered original.

12:30Steven, do you have anything to add.

12:34Sorry, go ahead.

12:37I think that opening with the extant original building form indicates that it's the heritage attributes are limited to the original building the 1890.

12:52Queen and style residents.

12:55So the attributes that follow after that are relate only to that portion of the building.

13:05If I'm not camera I'm not sure if that answers your question from from Jack and myself, but.

13:15Yeah, I think so. I think I was just questioning yeah if if someone were if it was designated and later on somebody wanted to change something basically anything on the original building would be put under heritage review and not be it would be able to change it basically.

13:30Yeah, I think the more descriptive heritage attributes for some designations are because, say some window openings may not be significant so we would specify which ones are but with with this building, just about everything is significant which is why we have such a broad and

13:50kind of extensive list of heritage attributes that covers everything instead of specific attributes like specific windows.

14:00Okay, fair enough that that's that's helpful. Thanks. And then I second question. I think we talked about it last meeting any, any interior features that were identified that might want to be included. I think there was talk of fireplaces or things like that.

14:14Yeah, so we haven't been able to do an interior site visit. So we can't confirm the existence of any interior features.

14:24I think our views that getting this building designated is more important than waiting for the opportunity to designate the interior.

14:36So, like, my, my approach to heritage attributes, especially for interior features, I'll generally only list interior features if they're in public spaces, like, you know, the entrance to a city hall or church interior,

14:56or residential interiors like this. I'm a little bit hesitant to list interior attributes without owner support. And as far as I'm aware, Victoria has not made contact with the owners of this property yet.

15:10Okay.

15:12Is the goal to get some contact with them before?

15:16Yeah, it's not for lack of trying. We are, we are trying to get in contact with them.

15:22Okay.

15:24Thanks.

15:27Is it, is it helpful if I stop sharing my screen? Yeah.

15:31You can see everybody.

15:35Are there other questions for Jack on this one?

15:43And seeing anyone else turn. Thank you for the no, dude. I'm not seeing anyone else turn their cameras on. I will need it though. I have the motion moves forward. So there's a recommended motion that heritage.

15:56Sorry, I've moved it on my screen that heritage, well, supports the heritage attributes identified for 211 Silver Creek Parkway South as outlined in the staff report dated September 11, 20, 23, and that heritage wealth recommends that city council give notice to its intention to designate

16:12211 Silver Creek Parkway South pursuant to part 4 section 29 of the Ontario heritage act.

16:18So, if I have someone to move that motion or motions.

16:22Thank you, Laura and a seconder.

16:28And thank you, David. So all those in favor.

16:37Perfect. That's everyone. Excellent. Thank you.

16:42And so for our next one, then I will ask him and David to turn off their microphones and their cameras as we get into. Thank you.

16:50So, I'll move on to our next one, which is 2187 Gordon streets.

16:55Cultural heritage evaluation report heritage attributes and designation recommendation with a presentation from Steven.

17:08Thank you, Sarah.

17:10Just to begin with, I wanted to call everyone's attention. You've probably seen it already, but on our agenda, the revised agenda, we do have a delegation registered and that's Jennifer meter.

17:24I'm not certain of Ms meter's intention, but Sarah, feel free to, to, to offer the ability for the delegate to speak.

17:38Just to provide a bit of an introduction.

17:43And I will be putting several, several slides up in, in on the screen just momentarily.

17:50But I wanted to first of all, thank heritage, wealth members for the research and work, which at hard work actually in research and the contributions that you make to what's what often turned out to be quite complicated or at least complex.

18:13Heritage research that goes into creating designation reports. I want to make sure that the committee members are aware that we're very appreciative of, of research that is done voluntarily by heritage golf members.

18:29It's, these reports are off are at times sort of a compilation of, of the work that's been done information that's been found by, by staff by heritage research assistants. So it's something that that staff wanted to make sure that the committee members were aware that we're quite appreciative of.

18:50Now, I will share my screen because I'd like to talk basically to.

19:01Sorry, Sarah, I'm just going to make sure I've got the right screen on my.

19:07And all right, just to Sarah, let me know if when you can see what's on my screen appearing on your screen.

19:26We're good, I can see it.

19:28Okay, good. I just wanted to make sure we're at full screen here. All right. So 2187 Gordon Street contains what's known historically as the kid barn.

19:43A barn that has two parts that's clear in the description, but also what's known now as the Blair House or Blair farmhouse.

19:52Staff has put together a cultural heritage valuation report. And but because of this decision to move ahead or to expedite staffs recommendation to the committee but also to counsel in October, a list of suggested heritage attributes has been included in the, in the staff report.

20:15So this just to be sure this this isn't the customary. We normally come forward first with a C H E R report. In this case, we're doing both at once in order to expedite.

20:32So, I would like to just go straight to the information that's been provided here, which really is a comes right from the staff report and talk first about how the kid barn and the Blair farmhouse, how the two buildings on their own and together exhibit cultural heritage value.

20:58And the ways that they satisfy any of the three, the three sections of cultural be the criteria, sorry, the nine criteria that make up cultural heritage value.

21:14So the kid barn at 2187 Gordon Street meets criteria one, because it does exhibit design or physical value.

21:23This is a early and rare example of a stone slot bank barn and built. It was built by 1842.

21:34The stone slot bank barn was constructed using local fieldstone with slots in the walls. And the building is now the only one of its kind within Guelph.

21:44The Blair farmhouse also meets criteria one as it is a early and rare example of a material or construction method. And that is the use of formed concrete for wall construction in a rural residential building.

22:04I would like to think that the committee members have had a chance to read through this rather lengthy report. So I wanted to be to touch on the idea that the barn, the stone slot barn, at least the stone portion of it toward the rear is is rare but also unique within Guelph.

22:26The kid barn also meets criteria two because it exhibits design or physical value. It's as a high degree of craftsmanship that's rare rarely preserved.

22:37The constructors utilize local materials, including fieldstone and immediate vicinity.

22:45And the implementation of slots for ventilation was at that time a practical and highly efficient method of maintaining structural integrity of the barn.

22:57Moving on to historical and associative value. The kid barn does meet criteria four as it's linked with the kid family who occupied the property from the mid to late 19th century.

23:15James kid settled in the township was lunch in 1830 and contributed to the agricultural community at that time.

23:24Agriculture was integral to the local economy during this time and the kid and Blair families were active within Wellington County's agricultural trade.

23:35The Blair farmhouse has cultural heritage value in that it meets criteria four.

23:42It is connected to the Blair family who were early settlers of the Puss lunch area and the Blair family had farms on both sides of Gordon Street in this location.

23:54They immigrated from Scotland in the 1870s and the family was well known for their extensive orchards.

24:01Moving on to contextual value. The kid barn meets criteria seven as it's important in defining, maintaining and supporting the character of the area.

24:17Kid barn and Blair farmhouse and the Blair farmhouse both support the agricultural landscape of the area.

24:28So the property maintains and defines the surrounding use as it was used over the past two centuries.

24:39So the kid barn is physically visually and historically connected with the adjacent mid 19th century farm property at 2162 Gordon Street, which is identified as the Marco Longo farm.

25:00The Marco Longo farm is a protected cultural heritage landscape. The kid barn was built in the kid barn was built into the bank and retains its function in the specific location of the barn in the landscape.

25:15The property is associated with the Blair family and represents a rural agricultural grouping along Gordon Street.

25:22John Blair farmhouse at 2187 Gordon Street as cultural as contextual value is it's historically linked to its surroundings.

25:34James Blair, who's a Scottish immigrant to Puss lunch Township bought the farm across the road from the kid across the road from the kid farm in the 1870s.

25:45Blair's son William G Blair purchased the subject property in 1906 and his brother John Blair built the farm concrete house about 1907.

25:59John and his wife Mina lived in the farmhouse for more than 50 years.

26:05So the kid barn and the Blair farmhouse at 2187 Gordon Street, they meet criteria nine because they are landmarks along the Gordon Street as people move north further into city limits.

26:20The 2187 Gordon Street has been visible along Gordon Street for decades and the position of the barn and farmhouse in comparison to Gordon Street provides a clear view of the property from the roadway.

26:34I'd like to move on to the heritage attributes themselves and Sarah I'm happy to entertain questions but it might be best just to work through these points first and then move to that, whether we move to questions or to to a delegate.

26:53I think you're good to keep going Steven and then we can ask them after you done.

27:03Okay, so that heritage attributes are divided into into sections that reflect the barns the barn as having two sections and then the house separate from that.

27:15So in the stone slot bank barn, the attributes would include the three door openings on the south or the lower wall and the upper door on the south wall.

27:27The original form of the bank barn with an end gable roofline and a single story north wall and a two story south wall.

27:39The location and orientation of the stone bank barn is significant and should be an attribute to maintain the building is being built across a slope.

27:51The exterior and interior of all extant stone walls of the slot bank barn are recommended as heritage attributes and all original slot ventilation openings and window and door openings seen in exterior and interior extant stone walls.

28:10Those include the West Gable wall, the East Gable interior wall and the two story south wall.

28:18That East Gable wall is actually contained within the entire barn as it was made an interior wall when the Eastern Edition was created.

28:31So moving on to the heavy timber bank barn addition, which is on the east side of the barn closer the side that faces Gordon Street.

28:41The attributes should include the original form of the heavy timber bank barn addition with its gable roofline and single story north wall and the two story south wall.

28:54The attributes include location and orientation of the heavy timber bank barn addition to maintain the building is being built into the slope.

29:03The vertically oriented exterior wood board cladding should be an attribute and the extant or surviving or existing cutouts in vertical boards of the upper north and south gable walls that create the shape of a Florian cross.

29:25The original heavy timber framing members including pole rafters and hand-hewn posts and beams and original joinery are recommended as heritage attributes.

29:36The tape pointed stone wall exterior of the lower level is also seen as an attribute.

29:44The imbrication or pattern created by the pressed metal sheets cladding the roof is also indicated or recommended as an attribute.

29:58Finally for the heritage attributes recommended for the Blair farmhouse staff recommends that the original two story form of the house with its hip roof and L plan.

30:09And also the exterior walls constructed and formed in place concrete which are covered with a render that's in sized with a pattern that mimics ashlar stone.

30:19So I've essentially read through the material that you have seen which is really a synopsis of what's contained within the staff report.

30:33And Sarah I'm at your.

30:39You feel free to take it to the next next section.

30:45Perfect. Would you like me to leave the images on or take that off?

30:48I think we all have access to them and it's easier. I think if you don't share screens that we can see everyone. Thank you. So I'll open it up to questions to Steven or comments. If those are helpful.

31:03Cameron go ahead.

31:06First thing I wanted to bring up I guess so there was an attachment to the agenda of some correspondents from Brian scarrett. I was no other comments and feedback on the staff report and other information in there.

31:16I just want to confirm that those comments will be received by staff and any updates made to the documentation is needed. Or do we have to formally move that that correspondence be considered? I just want to make sure that it'll be under consideration.

31:31Sarah through you Sarah staff as we've received the same correspondence from Brian and the his suggestions are being considered now and that these are this is important information that will consider as we put together the staff report for council.

31:52Okay, I just want to understand story cam. I don't know if you want to know.

31:57Go ahead.

31:59So I've read Brian's notes in terms of, you know, just in some cases a typo here and there widow is misspelled that sort of thing.

32:09And then some other details on the date of construction and so on.

32:13And I think we would all agree that it's important that the report be as accurate as possible before anything is submitted to council just in case there's some opposition to designation down the road.

32:27So, I guess what we want to understand cam. I think this is the question you asked in order to make sure that those items are reviewed and included in the report to council is a motion required by heritage walk.

32:53Because if so, I would like to make that motion.

32:56Through you Sarah I don't believe it's a requirement.

33:01Although as I've as I've just suggested it is information that's being considered by staff in our preparations.

33:09Okay, I may work on a motion anyway, but we can continue with questions while I do that.

33:15It definitely can be included in in heritage goals comments on this topic. So.

33:23Okay.

33:24Are there other questions for Stephen.

33:30A couple of things.

33:35There was a stand tech report.

33:38Culture heritage evaluation report a few years ago in 2019. And there's a few other structures on the property which are identified there's a stone ruin foundation on the property and also another building I think it's called the drive shed of the outbuilding as well.

33:53I don't see those discussed in the staff report.

33:57You know, whether or not they should be heritage attributes or not, I think they should be at least described in the background information.

34:05For for context of the site.

34:07So I guess my question is why yeah, why weren't those 2 other structures described in staff report.

34:21The Cameron the the report that you're referring to was actually provided without prejudice. So it's not information that actually staff could include in this in the information being provided to the committee or to council.

34:43As information coming for that particular report.

34:47Okay. Okay, but either way, there's knowledge of those 2 structures are on this on the property.

34:51Correct.

34:55The shed as for the shed itself it is something that's obviously quite close to the to the bank barn.

35:03But it wasn't seen it wasn't included as something that that merits designation by staffs recommendation.

35:13Okay.

35:19I mean, should at least be discussed in the description of the site and things like that that those are on the property.

35:25Or is it not important?

35:26There, there is a map that's included in the illustrations where the attachment 1 and that the detail map that that zooms in basically to the subject barn in the house.

35:41It that shed building is within that range so that that could be identified at least as where where it sits within that context.

35:50Yeah, I think it should be at least identified. Yeah.

35:55Cameron, do you have any other questions or comments?

36:131 thing on the attributes.

36:17For the.

36:19The house building the farmhouse building.

36:22The foundation isn't listed as an attribute. I don't think.

36:28I think the reading the report.

36:30The foundation is possibly older than the house above grade.

36:34I'm wondering if it's if the foundation should be specifically listed as an attribute as well.

36:39It's a stone that I think foundation.

36:44Cameron, that's that's a good question. The, the foundation itself is described in the report.

36:58Staff will can take that under your suggestion and consider that in our discussions before the council report is.

37:09Is presented to council.

37:11Okay, thank you.

37:16Are there other questions for Steven.

37:24From other committee members.

37:26Or Cameron, of course, if you have other questions, you're welcome to ask them, not cutting you off by any means.

37:31I don't have a question, but could I put a motion forward on including the information sent by Brian scarrett.

37:46To be voted on.

37:48Yep.

37:53Okay, so the question is,

37:56this is my proposed motion.

37:58Sorry, there, Miranda, this is Liz from the clerk's office. If we can just hear from the delegation before we take any vote.

38:05Yeah.

38:13Last question for me.

38:15Before we get to the delegation.

38:18The, the farmhouse being constructed of precast concrete.

38:22I think it's described in staff report as being like a rare and early example, which is correct. I'm not sure the staff report really highlights sort of why or how significant that is.

38:30Somewhat of a concrete nerd coming from engineering, but anyway, an example of a cast of place concrete house from 1907 is exceptionally rare. I don't think there would be any other ones in Ontario that I know of.

38:42So wondering if the report might need to speak to that a little more.

38:45Just how rare it really is for that time period.

38:48It's through you, Sarah, the report does indicate that it is early and and for that reason it's it's rare.

39:01It's, it's would be quite a study to try to understand or to locate other examples of it.

39:12But I think I think that we do have it described.

39:17Described in the report and we'll look for any opportunity to to maybe ameliorate that before this goes to council.

39:27Yeah.

39:29Sounds good. Thanks.

39:33And so to our delegation, then if there are no other questions for Steven.

39:41Jennifer, excellent. We will pass it to you.

39:46Check. Can you hear me okay?

39:48You're good.

39:52All right, great.

39:54As as indicated, my name is Jennifer meter. I'm legal counsel to number company.

40:00to 75950 Ontario Inc, which is the owner of the property,

40:06municipally known as 2187 Gordon Street.

40:09And Madam Chair, through you,

40:11I'm here to request that this matter be deferred

40:15to allow for consultation with my client.

40:18We understand that the city has been

40:20contemplating designation of this property since 2011.

40:27That's 12 years without any action.

40:30Yet, since my client purchased the property in 2019,

40:35no one from the city's heritage department

40:37has reached out to my client to discuss the importance

40:41of maintaining the structures on the property

40:43from the city's perspective,

40:45or the prospect of designating the property

40:47under the Ontario Heritage Act.

40:51And now the barn structure has partially collapsed

40:55and my client has been issued in order to comply

40:57with the city's property standards bylaw,

40:59which I should note does not speak

41:01to heritage conservation.

41:04A structural engineer has also reviewed

41:07the condition of the barn.

41:09He has advised my client that it would be unsafe

41:13to repair the barn.

41:15Given the condition of the barn,

41:17there is risk of further collapse

41:19and physical harm to workers if a repair was sought.

41:24And my client is not prepared to take on

41:26that potential liability, nor should it be asked to.

41:30We also have some concerns with heritage staff attending

41:33on the property on July 27th, 2023.

41:36Without express permission from my client,

41:38but we will be following up on those concerns

41:40through the appropriate channels.

41:44And it's also important to note that through the new

41:47Claire Maltby secondary plan, which remains under appeal,

41:51the city has designated the property

41:53for high density residential uses

41:56in the location of the existing structures.

42:00Therefore, a balanced approach is required

42:03that would allow for the implementation

42:05of the city's own planning vision for the lands

42:08with pragmatic considerations

42:10of the potential cultural heritage value

42:12and how that value should be conserved.

42:15Given these circumstances, it would be prudent

42:17for discussions to occur among heritage staff,

42:20my client and my client's heritage consultant

42:23to discuss the appropriate means

42:26of conserving any cultural heritage resources

42:28on the property.

42:29As you know, such means can include commemoration,

42:32reuse of materials in the future redevelopment of the site

42:34and many other creative solutions.

42:37So therefore, as I said, Madam Chair,

42:39we believe the designation is processes premature

42:43and the matter should be deferred to allow

42:45for long overdue consultation with the property owner.

42:48Subject to any questions, those are my submissions

42:50and thank you for your time.

42:53Thank you.

42:54And I'll note to heritage 12th,

42:56any members that you are permitted to ask questions

42:58only at Jennifer, it's not discussion or commentary.

43:02So if there are any questions from anyone,

43:04you're welcome to ask.

43:08And I believe it's questions like clarification questions.

43:19Would you not see anyone unmute or raise their hand?

43:25Yeah.

43:26Yes.

43:28I have a small question concerning the engineer,

43:32the report of the engineer who said that it's not safe

43:36to restore the building and et cetera, et cetera.

43:40Is this like, you know, like, it's very sensitive

43:45an issue like this to come up and be raised,

43:48you know, usually there are scaffoldings

43:51that can be used and there are, you know,

43:54safety factors that also can be used

43:56so that, you know, like the building will not collapse

44:00and the restoration process.

44:04So I wonder if this engineer has a detailed report

44:09in which he specified exactly what are the high risks

44:14that are, you know, gonna take place

44:18in case someone tries to restore the building.

44:21Okay.

44:23Is this report available for review?

44:27Thank you.

44:31Through you, Madam Chair, the report,

44:34a draft report has been prepared

44:37and is in the process of being finalized.

44:40We have not had a significant sufficient time

44:43to bring it forward to this committee meeting.

44:48It will be considered through the property standards process

44:53which is underway.

44:55And as I said, there's an appeal

44:57and a hearing scheduled for this Wednesday.

44:59So there is a report prepared by the engineer.

45:03It is not yet final, but will be in the coming days.

45:14Cameron, go ahead.

45:16Sort of further to that.

45:18I think you said your client brought the property in 2019.

45:21So I'm wondering if they were aware of the condition

45:23of that wall at that point

45:24and why an engineer report was not done at that point

45:28and rather waiting until it collapsed at them.

45:30Not sure if that's too far of a question to ask,

45:32but just wanted to ask that

45:34if they were aware of the condition

45:36when they purchased the property.

45:40Through you, Madam Chair, I don't know if they're aware

45:43of the structural condition of that wall in 2019.

45:48And I don't know if they commissioned,

45:49it is to my knowledge, they did not commission

45:51an engineer report at the time of purchase.

45:55And I remind you that the time of purchase,

45:57the property to this day was not designated.

46:01It is not a designated property

46:03and there's no obligation on my client's part

46:05to preserve, to conserve structures

46:09at the time of the purchase of the property in 2019

46:12up until now.

46:17Laura.

46:22Oh, you're still, you're just muted, sorry.

46:26Thanks.

46:27No, just curious, you know,

46:28I understand that it wasn't designated,

46:30it is not designated.

46:32Was your client aware of it being

46:35on the listed register for the city

46:37and the associated property standards requirements

46:42that applied at all properties in Guel?

46:47Through you, Madam Chair, yes,

46:49my client was aware of the listing of the property

46:51and is obviously aware of the property standards bylaw

46:55and is working through that process

46:57with through the appropriate people

47:00on the property standards process.

47:02And this is, it's not directly relevant

47:05for purposes of this committee,

47:07but the property standards bylaw regulates the maintenance

47:11and or clearing of properties

47:14in order to comply with the requirements under that,

47:16that bylaw and the Ontario Building Code,

47:19it is not mandatory to repair structures

47:24under that process demolition is also an option.

47:28But again, we are working through that process,

47:31which is ongoing and an appeal has been launched.

47:38Yep, Laura, you can keep asking.

47:39And then we'll go to Kathy.

47:40Thanks, I just had a follow up to that

47:43in terms of the listed.

47:45You just keep suggesting that they didn't

47:49or that the property isn't designated,

47:51but given that it's listed

47:53and given that there have been reports on the property,

47:57including the importance of that barn,

48:01I'm just curious as to why your client didn't think

48:06that it was important to maintain it.

48:12So your manager, I'm not sure that I am in a position

48:14to answer that question.

48:15And again, any reference to reports,

48:18I don't know of any public reports being on the record,

48:23except for the one that was issued

48:25over the past few days, previous days.

48:29Yeah, and I'll just note that the goal's not

48:31to debate any of these pieces, but just, okay.

48:34So you can keep asking another question, Laura.

48:36Yeah, no, I was just gonna point to the Blair-Maltby study

48:40that you pointed out, is all that that is one public document

48:45that does include this property.

48:47That's all, thank you.

48:48Okay, thank you.

48:49And Kathy.

48:53Thank you.

48:55Through you, Chair.

48:56So I'm a little confused that you didn't know.

49:00So you bought the property in 2019, or Maltby did.

49:04Okay, who, Madame Homes, is that,

49:06or is it a number company, right?

49:09So the Blair-Maltby secondary plan started in 2017.

49:16This was throughout that process,

49:19this barn was identified as a heritage asset.

49:25I believe that's part of your appeal to the OLT,

49:28but I'll leave that.

49:30So I'm trying to understand how you're claiming

49:36that you didn't know that,

49:38even though it wasn't designated,

49:40but that it was going down that road,

49:43and that nobody's asked you anything.

49:48So we were in the middle,

49:50like I don't recall you coming to city council,

49:53but maybe you did, maybe it's just my recollection.

49:58Madame Homes coming and saying they disagreed with this,

50:03at that time, a heritage designation on heritage assets

50:08around in this Maltby secondary plan,

50:10but there may have been a letter, I may be wrong.

50:13That was a couple of years ago,

50:15but certainly we were well into the process in 2019.

50:22Through you, Madame Chair, I appreciate the comments.

50:26I would note that I did not indicate

50:28that my client was unaware.

50:30I did not say that, that was those,

50:32that way I just want to be clear.

50:33I said that at the time of purchase in 2019,

50:36my client was aware that it was listed

50:39and that no one had come from staff to speak to my client

50:44about the designation process or its interests

50:47in having my client maintain or conserve

50:51any structures on the property.

50:52Those conversations were never had.

50:54In terms of the Claire Maltby secondary plan process,

50:57yes, my client has appealed that is an appellant

51:00to that document.

51:03And part of their appeal is in relation

51:05to how the policies treat this property

51:09from a cultural heritage perspective.

51:11And I don't want to get into the details

51:13because that's under appeal and in mediation,

51:16but the point of that concern,

51:19which we did alert the staff to

51:21and counsel to through submissions,

51:24is that it's inappropriate to indirectly attempt

51:28to conserve or maintain what the city believes

51:33to be cultural heritage resources

51:35through the secondary plan process.

51:37That is a matter that should be left

51:39to the Ontario Heritage Act,

51:42which is within your jurisdiction,

51:45Madam Chair and members of committee.

51:46Which is why we're here today, right?

51:51Is that why we're here today, right?

51:53That's why we're discussing this today.

51:57Which is why I agree.

51:58That's why I'm here today.

52:00So that's your saying this is the proper venue

52:02and that's why we're here today.

52:04Okay, so you agree with that.

52:07So that's part of your appeal.

52:09So we're here today.

52:12So yeah, so you were waiting for us,

52:15even though you knew you were waiting for the city,

52:21I don't even know if the city knew

52:22that it had changed hands, but I mean, who knows, right?

52:25You were waiting for the city to approach you,

52:28even though you knew that it was a heritage interest.

52:32And you didn't participate in any of the open houses

52:35or any of the, I know you've appealed now,

52:38but you didn't participate in any of the public engagement

52:42with the Clear Maltry Secondary Plan.

52:46Through you Madam Chair, my plan participated

52:47in every opportunity given to it,

52:49through that process leading up to the passing

52:51of the Clear Maltry Secondary Plan,

52:55which again, I reiterate is a separate process

52:59from the one that you have jurisdiction over here.

53:04And I would also know my client had no obligation

53:06to reach out to the city about designation.

53:09It's the city that initiates that process

53:12under the Ontario Heritage Act.

53:13Right.

53:14This city, you understand, have been contemplating

53:17that for 12 years.

53:19We learned that recently through the media.

53:21And so that is why we're asking for a deferral

53:26in order for consultation to occur.

53:29Now that we understand the city's intention

53:32to move forward with the designation of this property.

53:35So you understand that through the media,

53:37but you were involved in the Clear Maltry Secondary Plan

53:39where it was clear the city had intention

53:41to designate this property,

53:43because it was identified as a cultural heritage asset.

53:47So that's what I'm hearing you say.

53:49And so you knew that, that that was our intention,

53:53even though they hadn't directly told you,

53:55it was part of that public process,

53:57that that was clearly the intention.

53:59And you're in agreement that today we're here

54:02under the Heritage Act as a committee to do that process,

54:07which you think is the proper process

54:09instead of the secondary plan.

54:10So okay, so we're in agreement.

54:16I have a question myself.

54:17I'm curious what this consultation looks like

54:20that you're suggesting your client would like

54:22to engage with the city on.

54:26Thank you, Madam Chair.

54:28The consultation would look at, as I said,

54:31a balanced approach.

54:32We would hope to consider how the cultural heritage resources

54:36on the property can be conserved,

54:40not necessarily through a repair of any structures

54:43on the property, but through other means,

54:45as I indicated, conclude commemoration,

54:48reuse of materials and so forth.

54:50And that would consider that conservation approach

54:55in the context of the planning vision

54:58that the city also has for this site.

55:01To come up with an agreeable approach

55:04to conserving any cultural heritage resources

55:08that would also allow for the residential uses

55:11to be developed as contemplated by the secondary.

55:17Okay.

55:19Thank you for that.

55:20Are there other questions for Jennifer?

55:22And then I may open it up

55:23if there are other questions for Steven

55:25that potentially have arisen.

55:27So first, if there's any more questions for Jennifer.

55:33Lara?

55:34I just had a lot of bell around.

55:35Can I just really be here here

55:37and what we're being asked then by Jennifer

55:41and their client, we're being asked to differ

55:46this decision until the client and the city

55:52have had a chance to discuss a potential alternative process.

55:57Is that what we're being asked to do?

56:03Through you, Madam Chair.

56:04Yes, we are requesting a deferral

56:06to allow for consultation to discuss

56:09the appropriate means of conserving

56:12any cultural heritage resources on the property

56:15in balance with the overall planning intention

56:19for the site to be developed with residential uses.

56:23And Lara, to your question,

56:25if folks felt the deferral was appropriate,

56:27someone could propose a motion to defer,

56:29which would then be voted on by the committee.

56:40Are there any other questions for our delegate, Jennifer?

56:48Not seeing any.

56:49Thank you, Jennifer.

56:51Thank you.

56:52And then I'll suggest again,

56:53if there are any other questions for Stephen,

56:56I'll open the floor to that as well.

56:58Kathy?

57:03So Stephen, I just wanna hear your response to the deferral.

57:06So my understanding is, the Heritage Committee,

57:09if they feel that this is worthy of designation,

57:12that would be the recommendation,

57:17that would be the expertise of the committee

57:19to make that recommendation.

57:21And then if the owners of enemy homes

57:27wants to come to council,

57:29that's where a deferral for direction to staff

57:34to do further consultation should probably come from.

57:37I'm just thinking of process here

57:39and what that order might be.

57:47Kathy or a counselor downer, thanks for that question.

57:52Staff is not against deferral.

57:56At this point, if it's suggested for heritage

58:02at the stage of Heritage Gwelf's consultation,

58:05but as you've said, it's possible that the property owner

58:10could request a furl when this goes to council as well.

58:18I'm a little concerned because it's before the OLT

58:20and it sounds like it was in mediation,

58:23that I don't know how a parallel consultation

58:27outside of that process can go,

58:30you know, maybe these aren't camera issues,

58:33but how could that can go on with staff

58:36outside of that process?

58:45It's something that staff would need to discuss this internally

58:51to see how this might actually occur

58:56with the appeals going on.

58:58So I don't have a direct answer to that question right now.

59:02Yeah, so that would be it.

59:04It's just a concern that there would be then consultation

59:07going on with heritage staff.

59:10And then there's this other process going on,

59:13which is a much more legal process.

59:16But that Mademois Holmes doesn't believe

59:21have a role in heritage designations anyway

59:29from what we heard.

59:30So I'm just a little confused about how

59:36the deferral would work, like really.

59:38I mean, for us to, first of all,

59:41I don't know that the committee can direct staff

59:44to do that kind of consultation

59:46outside of an OOT mediation process.

59:48So I'm just a little murky here, I'm a little concerned.

59:55Councillor Downer, Melissa Eldanate is in the meeting

1:00:00and wishes to respond as well.

1:00:13Good afternoon.

1:00:14I just thought I'd come in and provide some assistance

1:00:17with this request for the deferral.

1:00:19So as the delegate mentioned,

1:00:21there are, it's two separate processes.

1:00:23So the appeal to the Claremont B. Secondary Plan

1:00:26is separate from this designation.

1:00:30What I would suggest is the deferral

1:00:32that they're requesting today.

1:00:35We could put some timelines to it to bring back

1:00:37and the consultation that they're asking for,

1:00:41in my opinion, would be centered on

1:00:45what are the heritage attributes for a designation,

1:00:48which is separate from any issues before the OLT

1:00:52related to land use or cultural heritage conservation.

1:00:57And we're strictly on that matter

1:01:00in terms of the designation,

1:01:01is it appropriate for this property to be designated?

1:01:04Does it meet the criteria

1:01:06and what are the attributes to be protected

1:01:08through a designation bylaw?

1:01:11Future means for conservation would be discussed

1:01:15at the time of an application on the property,

1:01:17whether a designation bylaw was in place or not,

1:01:20depending on status under the Ontario Heritage Act

1:01:24at that time.

1:01:25So I hope that's helpful,

1:01:26but if there's any questions about that,

1:01:29I'd be happy to answer them.

1:01:30But again, staff is supportive of a deferral at this time,

1:01:34but I would suggest that we set a timeline to it.

1:01:37If I could just make a comment through you, Chair.

1:01:43We have apparently,

1:01:44or wealth has been considering

1:01:46designating this property since 2011.

1:01:48We all can see the value of this property.

1:01:51The house is very rare,

1:01:55the stone slot barn very rare.

1:01:58I know there's one on the way to Allora.

1:02:00I think there used to be one,

1:02:02a little closer to wealth that was torn down

1:02:04when they used car lot purchased the property.

1:02:08And to delay further at this point,

1:02:12seems to me to just be encouraging

1:02:15more degradation of that property.

1:02:19Heritage Guelph is not responsible

1:02:21for considering balance with the developer's needs

1:02:26or wants or anything else.

1:02:27We have considered designating this property for a long time.

1:02:31I see no reason to defer at this point.

1:02:35We can make our motion,

1:02:38vote on our motion,

1:02:39have our position put on the record.

1:02:42If staff chooses not to act on that motion,

1:02:46that's up to staff,

1:02:47but at least Heritage Guelph

1:02:48will have made our position clear.

1:02:50And so for me at least,

1:02:52I would not suggest that we defer this any further.

1:02:57And that's it for me.

1:03:00I just want to jump in and say,

1:03:01I totally agree with Miranda there.

1:03:04The opinion we provide as a committee,

1:03:07it does not really matter

1:03:08if there's additional consultation needs to be done.

1:03:10It's really our opinion at this point

1:03:12based on what was presented to us.

1:03:13So I don't think we need to defer our motions

1:03:16or our votes or anything like that.

1:03:20Kathy?

1:03:21I would add to that.

1:03:22I think there's consultation can happen

1:03:26right up until this comes to council

1:03:28and then it continues to on.

1:03:30But if Heritage Guelph thinks these are the attributes

1:03:33that you want projected,

1:03:35then I see that as valuable.

1:03:38I mean, those negotiations can happen right up until council

1:03:43and council can listen to the delegation again

1:03:47and make an assessment at this time.

1:03:51But I think Heritage Guelph's role

1:03:54is to sort of make a recommendation

1:03:57on the value of the heritage attributes at this point.

1:04:01That's my sense and that's just me.

1:04:03I was a counselor, but that's my sense.

1:04:06I think I certainly agree with what I've just heard.

1:04:13Are there other questions or comments?

1:04:15Or Stephen, did you want to say anything else?

1:04:21Sarah, I have no further comments at this point.

1:04:24Thank you.

1:04:27So if I may, there are three parts

1:04:30to the recommended motion that were provided in the agenda.

1:04:33And Miranda, I know you had a comment

1:04:35regarding the correspondence.

1:04:36I did, I've adjusted and I'll read it to the committee

1:04:39to see if this sort of satisfies

1:04:41I think Cameron and Miranda's comments

1:04:42about the correspondence.

1:04:44The first part of the motion,

1:04:47what reads now on my screen is that the comments

1:04:49provided by Heritage Guelph members

1:04:50and correspondence received by Brian Scarrett

1:04:53on the 2187 Gordon Street Cultural Heritage Evaluation Report

1:04:57be provided to staff and council for their consideration.

1:05:01So that's the only motion I've changed

1:05:04and added wording to.

1:05:05And I'll continue to read the other two

1:05:06and then I'll see if anyone wants to move all of this as one.

1:05:10That Heritage Guelph supports the heritage attributes

1:05:12identified for 2187 Gordon Street

1:05:15as outlined in the staff report

1:05:17dated September 11th, 2023.

1:05:19And that Heritage Guelph recommends that city council

1:05:22give notice of its intention to designate 2187 Gordon Street

1:05:26pursuant to part four, section 29

1:05:28of the Ontario Heritage Act.

1:05:31So we can pick this apart and move pieces

1:05:34or we can do it all as one.

1:05:36So I'll ask if there's anyone who'd like to move

1:05:38those three pieces as one motion now.

1:05:46Cameron's moving, sure.

1:05:48Is there a seconder on those?

1:05:53And I'll need folks to put their screen on so I can see.

1:06:00Open to modifying it too if we need to.

1:06:02Miranda, I'm not sure.

1:06:08Sarah, would you mind just reading the first piece again

1:06:11that you rewrote?

1:06:12Sure, yeah.

1:06:13That's the first motion, yeah.

1:06:14So that the comments provided by Heritage Guelph members

1:06:17and correspondence received by Brian Scarrett

1:06:20on the 2187 Gordon Street Cultural Heritage Evaluation Report

1:06:24be provided to staff and council for their consideration.

1:06:27So the only thing I added was that that correspondence

1:06:29be included.

1:06:37Okay.

1:06:46For me, the motion that I was gonna suggest

1:06:51as the first piece was that Heritage Guelph recommends

1:06:55that staff report on the property at 2187 Brock Road

1:06:58be amended prior to being presented to council

1:07:00to include the information and corrections noted

1:07:03by Brian Scarrett in his letter to Heritage Guelph

1:07:05as well as any other updates in order to strengthen

1:07:08the designation.

1:07:12And I'm not sure if there's any impact

1:07:15to providing the comments from Brian Scarrett

1:07:20separately from the report.

1:07:22I guess my concern is that the report be as accurate

1:07:24as possible before it goes forward.

1:07:29Just to make sure that knowing, you know,

1:07:32having heard everything we just heard

1:07:33that we may face some opposition down the road

1:07:35to the designation.

1:07:36So that is why I suggested we amend the report.

1:07:46Is there any other thought on that

1:07:50from the rest of the committee?

1:07:54Kathy?

1:07:58I guess I'd have concern around

1:08:04suggesting that the report needs corrections

1:08:09or additions when staff haven't really had time to,

1:08:14then we're saying that everything Brian has said

1:08:16is correct and it may be.

1:08:19But we need to be fair to staff to give them time

1:08:22to incorporate parts of that that they see

1:08:25as relevant or important or if it is a correction,

1:08:29but they need time to do that.

1:08:32So I just, to say, Carl Glanchill,

1:08:35well, that's just, you know,

1:08:36everything that Brian says has to be included,

1:08:41I think is problematic actually.

1:08:43Okay.

1:08:44I think that it needs to go to staff

1:08:46for consideration for inclusion

1:08:48into the final report that goes to council.

1:08:51I think that's good and I'm sure that they will

1:08:54like consider it and include what they,

1:08:58what is, you know, what's valid.

1:09:01So that would be my preference,

1:09:04but I'm not voting on it,

1:09:05but I just think that Carl Glanchill,

1:09:08they all just include everything.

1:09:12I'm just, I'm worried about,

1:09:15that is any kind of precedent for anything, right?

1:09:17So you need to be fair to staff

1:09:19to give them time to do that.

1:09:20So for me, it would be consideration of those.

1:09:25Okay, is there enough?

1:09:27I guess I'm okay to move it all as one

1:09:32based on your change, Sarah.

1:09:38So to the first part.

1:09:40Sure. So I'll read it out again

1:09:41and then we'll go through the process of mover,

1:09:43seconder and if we get that far of vote.

1:09:46So with the change I made then for the first part,

1:09:49that the comments are by the heritage,

1:09:51Guelph members and correspondence received

1:09:53by Brian Scarrett on the 21 87 Gordon street

1:09:56cultural heritage evaluation report

1:09:58be provided to staff and council for their consideration.

1:10:01That heritage Guelph supports the heritage attributes

1:10:04identified for 21 87 Gordon street

1:10:06as outlined in the staff report data,

1:10:08September 11th, 2023.

1:10:10And that heritage Guelph recommends

1:10:12that city council give notice of its intention

1:10:14to designate 21 87 Gordon street pursuant to part four,

1:10:18section 29 of the Ontario Heritage Act.

1:10:21So is there a mover for the entire motion?

1:10:25Cameron, and is there a seconder Miranda?

1:10:29And then so I'll need everyone to who is allowed to vote

1:10:31to put their camera back on.

1:10:35So I think it's just Jouda and Laura and myself.

1:10:40Excuse me, I have a problem with my camera, I think,

1:10:44because I'm overseas, but yes, I vote.

1:10:49If you know, even if you don't see me,

1:10:52I don't think you can see me, right?

1:10:54Can you see me?

1:10:55No, so Jouda, are you voting in favor?

1:10:58In favor, right?

1:10:59It's not a deferral, right?

1:11:02It's in favor of the, moving it to the council, right?

1:11:07Yes, it's in favor of that we are supporting

1:11:11of the heritage attributes that are listed,

1:11:14that our comments are being provided to staff

1:11:16and council for the consideration.

1:11:17And we are recommending that city council give notice

1:11:20of the intention to designate.

1:11:23Yes, I'm in, I'm in, call me in please.

1:11:26Thank you.

1:11:27Thank you, Jouda.

1:11:28So that has passed.

1:11:30Thank you to everyone.

1:11:32And I'll say that Kim and David, you're welcome to

1:11:36at least show your faces again

1:11:37and turn your mic back on at appropriate times

1:11:40as we move into the next part of our meeting today.

1:11:43So thank you.

1:11:47Okay, so continuing along then,

1:11:49we have 12 Eremosa Road,

1:11:51cultural heritage evaluation report

1:11:53with another presentation from.

1:11:54I'm good with that.

1:11:59Perfect, to you, Stephen.

1:12:03I'm sorry, Sarah, I'm just looking for the material

1:12:07that I would be using to illustrate.

1:12:09Just bear with me for a second here.

1:12:13Take your time.

1:12:14I think you've got, you were three on the agenda today,

1:12:16so I'm sure there's a lot going on.

1:12:46Almost there.

1:13:12Okay, Sarah, if you could just confirm

1:13:14that you can see number 12 Eremosa Road on your screen.

1:13:18Yep, we're good.

1:13:19Great.

1:13:20Okay.

1:13:22So it's a pleasure to present kind of a synopsis

1:13:28of this information that really is

1:13:31the cultural heritage evaluation report,

1:13:34which contains our staff's recommendation

1:13:37as a statement of significance for 12 Eremosa Road.

1:13:42And the property is presented in the photograph

1:13:45that I've taken on the screen.

1:13:47And just to be sure everyone knows,

1:13:50we're talking about a corner building.

1:13:52I may refer to it, the large two-story building

1:13:55as the red brick corner building,

1:13:59but also just on the left of this image

1:14:02is also a red brick building, the coach house,

1:14:06but it's been painted black.

1:14:08So I may refer to the stable building

1:14:13as that building itself.

1:14:17I'd like to just read through the statement of significance

1:14:20and draw to your attention any particular highlights.

1:14:26The two original buildings on this property

1:14:29are representative of late 19th century

1:14:32commercial and residential Romanesque

1:14:35revival architecture.

1:14:38Both buildings have high physical integrity

1:14:41and that they've retained most of their original

1:14:43architectural design features in red brick and limestone

1:14:47and they display a high degree of craftsmanship.

1:14:51So 12 Eremosa has direct associations with a theme

1:14:56and that's of historical mixed use

1:14:59involving local corner stores with housing above.

1:15:04The property is important in defining and maintaining

1:15:07and supporting the architectural character

1:15:10of the Eremosa road and Arthur Street North Streetscapes.

1:15:15And because its two buildings maintain

1:15:18their original configuration,

1:15:21they are functionally, visually and historically linked.

1:15:24The proximity of the corner store doors

1:15:27and windows to the street gives it visual prominence

1:15:33at the intersection of these historic streetscapes.

1:15:36And finally, the building's distinctive form,

1:15:41the corner location, the elaborate red brick

1:15:44and limestone construction makes it a landmark

1:15:47within the historic Eremosa Hill streetscape.

1:15:52Now, just to reiterate, this is a report from staff

1:15:56that suggests, that makes recommendations

1:15:58as to the cultural heritage evaluation of the property.

1:16:02So no heritage attributes are identified at this time.

1:16:07But I'd be happy to answer any questions

1:16:11that the committee may have about this evaluation report.

1:16:19Thanks, Stephen.

1:16:21Any questions regarding the report?

1:16:27Cameron?

1:16:29Yeah, thanks.

1:16:30Just a question for you, Stephen.

1:16:31Have you reached out to the owner yet

1:16:32and have they been sort of supporter of designation?

1:16:38So Cameron, because this is the evaluation report

1:16:44like essentially the first of two stages

1:16:47before the preparation of recommendation

1:16:52of heritage attributes comes to Heritage Guelph,

1:16:54the owners would be contacted and made aware

1:16:57of staff's recommendations and the scheduling

1:17:01of the presentation of the next report to the committee.

1:17:06And in doing so, that would make the owners

1:17:08well aware of a possible path that this may go on

1:17:12toward council if it goes in that direction.

1:17:16Great, thanks.

1:17:21Other questions?

1:17:29All right, seeing no one move to unmute or raise their hand,

1:17:33I'll present the motion that's in front of us

1:17:35and looking for a mover and a seconder.

1:17:37So that the comments provided by Heritage Guelph members

1:17:39on the 12 Eremosa Road,

1:17:41Cultural Heritage Evaluation Report

1:17:43be provided to staff and council for their consideration.

1:17:46Is there someone who will move that?

1:17:48Thank you, Miranda and a seconder, Kim.

1:17:52And then all those in favor, perfect.

1:17:58And is Joudat still with us or have we,

1:18:04we seem to have lost him?

1:18:07One of the challenges overseas,

1:18:08but I believe that has carried in his absence.

1:18:17Joudat, maybe back.

1:18:17We need to read you.

1:18:19I'm with you.

1:18:21Okay.

1:18:22Sorry, sorry, sorry.

1:18:23Oh, we've got you a few times on my screen at least.

1:18:26Joudat, were you present for the motion?

1:18:29Okay, and are you in favor?

1:18:32Yes, yes.

1:18:33Okay.

1:18:34Thank you.

1:18:37All right, we will move on then to our last presentation,

1:18:42which is 220 Gordon Street Cultural Heritage Evaluation Report

1:18:46also with Steven.

1:18:51Thanks, Sarah.

1:18:52And just loading this up, the related images.

1:18:56Just bear with me for a second.

1:19:19Okay.

1:19:20If you see number 220 Gordon Street in front of you,

1:19:24I can begin my description.

1:19:27You're good.

1:19:29Good.

1:19:30So, again, I'm happy to provide this evaluation

1:19:37or the result of staff's evaluation of 220 Gordon Street.

1:19:42It's a property that's quite prominent

1:19:43and most people are past it many days of the week

1:19:48on their way up the college hill.

1:19:53The statement of significance that staff recommends

1:19:57is basically as you've read and is

1:20:00as follows.

1:20:02That 220 Gordon Street is a representative example

1:20:06of limestone construction from the mid 19th century.

1:20:09It has a 1875 addition that has a corner entrance door

1:20:14with a rare rounded two-story limestone corner.

1:20:19So criteria four under the regulation is met

1:20:24as the property has direct associations

1:20:27with the theme of historical mixed use.

1:20:30Involving local corner stores with housing above.

1:20:34This is interesting.

1:20:35I find it fascinating to be presenting

1:20:38two very similar properties in today's meeting.

1:20:43It's in the property at 220 Gordon Street is important

1:20:46in defining and maintaining

1:20:48and supporting the architectural character of the area.

1:20:52This segment of Gordon Street streetscape

1:20:54is an important historic element,

1:20:57which is adjacent to the Brooklyn and College Hill

1:21:01Heritage Conservation District.

1:21:05The stone building is visually

1:21:07and historically linked to its surroundings.

1:21:10The closed proximity of the corner store door

1:21:13and well corner store doors and flanking windows

1:21:19to the street gives it visual prominence

1:21:21at this intersection within the historic

1:21:24Gordon Street streetscape.

1:21:26And finally the building's distinctive form

1:21:29and specifically its limestone construction

1:21:32makes it a landmark within the historic Gordon Street

1:21:35and College Hill streetscape.

1:21:39So I will be happy to answer any questions

1:21:43that the committee may have.

1:21:47Thanks, Stephen.

1:21:51Any questions, Cameron?

1:21:58Yeah, quick question for me.

1:21:59Thanks, Stephen for providing figure six,

1:22:01which shows the different years of construction.

1:22:03It really helps understand this building

1:22:04is kind of a complex building.

1:22:07Question about the roof line

1:22:09of the original 1800s portions.

1:22:11Do you know if that's similar

1:22:13to what it was originally like

1:22:15or was it sort of changed when that third floor

1:22:18was added on?

1:22:19Just wondering about attributes going forward

1:22:22with the roof be part of it or not?

1:22:34Sarah, I'm happy to respond to Cameron's question.

1:22:39Would it be, and if it's helpful,

1:22:40maybe I could put the picture, the photo back on the screen

1:22:43by sharing the screen.

1:22:52Okay, Cameron, can you see the photo?

1:22:55Yeah, yeah.

1:22:57Now, as you've learned through the,

1:23:00or as we all learned through the research

1:23:02and then the report itself that staffs presented,

1:23:07the earliest part of the stone building,

1:23:11if you can see my cursor, it's basically within here.

1:23:16And as the report states,

1:23:18there is what looks like a firewall.

1:23:20It's essentially the extension in a parapet

1:23:25of the stone wall.

1:23:26What used to be the northernmost wall of this building.

1:23:31And it's, although I have no documentary evidence,

1:23:37my opinion would be that this building

1:23:40would have been a gable roof building

1:23:43with a typical gable end that you see there.

1:23:49It's not, I think there's so little left of the,

1:23:56I haven't been inside the building to inspect the attic

1:24:00or any of the framing, that sort of thing.

1:24:02But I don't think that's really necessary.

1:24:04I think with all the changes that have happened

1:24:07since the 1920s and onward with this building

1:24:09to create the third story, really,

1:24:14I think it's safe to assume that there would likely

1:24:17be very little of that of the older two-story building

1:24:20within that.

1:24:22The only part in my recommendations

1:24:25and in the staff report, I think it's fairly clear

1:24:27that what is extant or surviving really is

1:24:32is the change to the 1875 edition

1:24:36that's near the corner or in the corner part of the building.

1:24:40So that curved hip roof corner

1:24:44and the hip roof dharma that were added,

1:24:48those wouldn't, they may not have been part

1:24:53of the 1875 edition other than the rounded roof,

1:24:59but it's, I think the main attributes

1:25:03that are presented or suggested here

1:25:06deal more so with the stone walls

1:25:09as opposed to the roof lines.

1:25:13Yeah, fair enough, that makes sense.

1:25:14Thanks for going through that.

1:25:16It's an interesting building.

1:25:19It is.

1:25:23Are there other questions for Stephen?

1:25:29I'm not seeing any hands or anyone on mute.

1:25:32So our recommended motion then is that the comments

1:25:35provided by Heritage Guelph members

1:25:36on the 220 Gordon Street Cultural Heritage Evaluation Report

1:25:40be provided to staff and council for their consideration.

1:25:43Is there a mover?

1:25:45Xiaojie, perfect, and a seconder.

1:25:48Thank you, David.

1:25:50And all those in favor?

1:25:55Excellent, that's all of us, perfect.

1:25:57Thank you, everyone.

1:25:57And thank you, Stephen and Jack, for those presentations.

1:26:01I'll note that there are no staff announcements today,

1:26:04so we'll skip right to adjournment.

1:26:07So if someone could move adjournment for us,

1:26:13we can stay on this call all day together.

1:26:15Thank you, Kim.

1:26:17And a seconder, Cameron, was that your hand up for that?

1:26:20Or we'll go with Laura, that's perfect.

1:26:21And then all in favor?

1:26:25Excellent.

1:26:26Thanks, everyone, and I guess we'll be seeing each other

1:26:28next week.

1:26:31Thanks, everyone.

1:26:32Bye, everybody.

1:26:33Bye.

1:26:34Thank you.