Heritage Advisory Committee

0:02meeting of the Heritage Advisory Committee.

0:05Welcome committee members, staff,

0:07and invited guests who are attending this meeting today.

0:11As we gather, let us take time to reflect our privilege

0:13to live and work in wealth,

0:15a city built over rich indigenous histories.

0:19We are guests here and should reflect upon

0:21the responsibility to care for this land,

0:23the people who live here today, and the generations to come.

0:26If our actions today can move us towards reconciliation,

0:30we should take pause and make those decisions

0:32with intention and gratitude.

0:35This place we call Gualp has served as traditional lands

0:37and a place of refuge for many peoples over time,

0:40but more specifically the Adaraanque in Haudenosaunee.

0:45This land is held as a treaty lands in territory

0:48with the Mississaugas of the Credit First Nation.

0:51Gualp flies directly adjacent to the Haldeman tract

0:55and is part of a long-established traditional hunting ground

0:58for the six nations of the Grand River.

1:01Many First Nations, Inuit, and Métis people

1:04have come across Turtle Island called Gualph Home today.

1:10Committee members, are there any disclosures

1:12of pecuniary interest?

1:13If so, please raise your hand now.

1:19Okay, I don't see any hands

1:21unless you guys in the room see something I can't see.

1:26No hands in the room.

1:27Okay, thank you.

1:29And I do have, I have received regrets

1:32from Chair Sarah up today.

1:35May I kindly have members to move

1:37and second approve the minutes

1:40from the January 15th, 2026 meeting.

1:46Okay, thanks Piper.

1:52Okay, and I see Justin's hand online.

1:54Thank you Justin.

1:57Okay, so we're gonna move on to the first item that we have.

2:01Sorry, Chair Kim, can you just call the vote

2:04on the minutes?

2:08We gotta move it and a seconder and we just need-

2:10And then all in favor.

2:12So we have all hands, thank you so much.

2:14All in favor.

2:16Okay, that's carried.

2:20Okay, so now we will move on to the committee items

2:22for today.

2:24The first item is item 2.1, Heritage Advisory Committee

2:272026 designation priorities.

2:29And that will begin with a presentation from Jack.

2:36Thank you, Chair.

2:36Just compare with me and sort of through our technology.

2:41So I can share my screen.

2:53Yes.

2:55Before I begin, so we have the list of properties

2:59that members submitted.

3:02So we can go through these.

3:05What the process is gonna be to try and narrow it down

3:08for 10 is that we'll go through one property at a time

3:12and I will ask members to raise their hand

3:16if they would like it added to the short list

3:19and we'll continue going through each property

3:22until we've narrowed it down to 10.

3:27Does anybody have any questions on that process?

3:33For last month's meeting, I also made a staff report

3:37with a very preliminary assessment of each property's

3:40potential to meet the three designation criteria categories.

3:45So I hope this gives a sense for which properties

3:48may be better candidates for designation,

3:53but you're welcome to ask questions

3:55as we go through each of these properties.

3:58Justin, I see your hand is up.

4:01Yeah, thanks, Jack.

4:02Just maybe as you move through them,

4:05I don't think it's addressed within the report,

4:07but if any of those properties are within any planned

4:11or approved districts, that could also be helpful to flag

4:15as they would maybe be somewhat a property

4:18we de-prioritize on that basis

4:20that it would otherwise be protected.

4:23Yes, I will note that that's a good point,

4:27but it either if it's within the downtown,

4:30which has now passed, so it is designated

4:33or the proposed board heritage district,

4:37I'll make note of that.

4:45Jack Piper does have her hand up as well.

4:47Oh, yes, Piper.

4:50I was just gonna say it is already noted

4:52in the information report that was sent out with the agenda

4:55for the board west and some of the heritage conservation

4:58districts.

5:02I thought I might have done that, but I didn't recall.

5:11Okay, so we'll go through these one at a time.

5:16I will note with perhaps Quarks assistance

5:20who is in favor of each property.

5:24And if any members wanna comment on these properties

5:27as we go through them, you're more than welcome to do that.

5:30I'm kind of just here as a, I will just be tally

5:33and answering questions if you have any.

5:37So the first property is 10 Wolf fund crescent.

5:42Any questions or comments about this property?

5:46I put it forward because it's by the noted architect,

5:51Carl Reeder, and it's an early example

5:53of the California style house.

5:56I can't remember, but I think the owner told me

5:58it was built in 1951 or 48, I can't remember which,

6:03but it's a good example of a

6:07ranch style or California style architect design house.

6:15Any questions for Don or staff on this property

6:19or comments?

6:24Steven has a comment?

6:25More of a question if that's okay.

6:28When you say Carl Reeder, is that the itch?

6:31Yes, our good, thanks.

6:36Thank you.

6:38And also it says owner support.

6:40So do you think it would be easier to designate?

6:44Yes, yeah, we have heard in the past from this owner

6:49who is in favor of designation.

6:52The owners are really into this kind of architecture.

6:55They own the international style house

7:01that I can't off, is it Chamberlain

7:04or what's the name of that street?

7:06Evergreen?

7:07Yeah, that house, before they owned this,

7:09so they're very interested in this type of design.

7:13Okay, Justin?

7:19To Piper's point, did we reach out to

7:22or have we heard from any of the other owners

7:24or is it just 10 Wolfund

7:26where we know that the owners are supportive?

7:28Because that could also be another screening criteria.

7:30I'm just thinking out loud.

7:31Yeah, we'll be reaching out to the property owners

7:35once the committee has selected the 10 properties.

7:38I just didn't want to preemptively start outreach

7:42until we know for certain

7:44we're going to be undertaking an evaluation.

7:47Yeah, if I could just as a follow up,

7:50sorry, I cut someone off.

7:51Go ahead, Justin.

7:53Just as a follow up,

7:54just as a general thought about the exercise,

7:56I think from my point of view,

7:58I could only be supportive of likely, likelys.

8:01Like so they'd at least need to be likely in two columns.

8:04Otherwise, it's a no from me.

8:06Just as a general point of view

8:09in terms of maximizing staff's efforts

8:12and undertaking research and reporting

8:14to designate these properties,

8:16I think we'd want to have some level of certainty

8:18about their viability.

8:20So on that basis,

8:21I wouldn't be supportive of designating Wolfund.

8:25Only ones that are likely, likely in two columns.

8:28Anyways, that'll be my point of view

8:29generally as we move through this.

8:31So I thought I'd just put that out there.

8:34Yeah, I just noticed, just talking online,

8:37this has been on the heritage registry for quite a while.

8:42Yeah, yeah.

8:43And it's come up in previous years, I think as a priority

8:47or at least it's been on our radar in previous years.

8:51Has it ever been refused that you were aware

8:53of fitting for rejection by wealth heritage?

8:56Not that I'm aware of now.

8:58I don't believe it's ever come to the game

9:00for consideration.

9:05Okay, are we comfortable?

9:07I also thought it was important enough

9:09to put it in my book, so.

9:13That is a good point.

9:17Okay, and I do want to note with the staff report

9:25that notes a likely toss of board, not likely.

9:30It's a terminology I used.

9:31Unlikely,

9:34each of those categories has three criteria,

9:39three sub criteria within them.

9:40So it is possible that a property might just meet

9:46the designation requirements through design alone.

9:52Just want to make sure the committee is kind of aware

9:56of that preliminary evaluation of each property.

10:01Okay, I'm gonna call a vote now.

10:05Who would like this property shortlisted

10:08if you could raise your hand?

10:14Okay, one, two, three, four, five, two, three,

10:32the next one was 13 Shadow Drive.

10:36Perhaps Don will give you an opportunity

10:38since you submitted this to.

10:40Well, the reason I included this,

10:42it's an unusual for this area,

10:47Cubist form,

10:50mid-century modern house.

10:53I went and talked to the guy that owns it two or three times

10:56and he said it was designed by an architect,

10:59but he couldn't find it and the name was on the lease

11:02or on some documents yet, but he couldn't find them.

11:06So,

11:08it's based on its style

11:13and I'm not aware of any other building in the Gauve area

11:16that's this particular form of mid-century modern,

11:22except maybe the one on college street

11:24that I haven't seen of close, but yeah.

11:28And it's also perfectly intact.

11:31It's like stepping into 1962,

11:35except the little gnome on front, little Christmas.

11:40I think that's more recent, Stephen.

11:44Just Don, a couple of questions.

11:47Do we know the construction date?

11:52You know what, I might have at one time,

11:54but I can't remember.

11:57The reason I ask is that because this is a more recent build,

12:01it could even have a building permit on file.

12:04Oh, well, that's possible.

12:06Which probably would indicate the designer or architects.

12:10Well, my guess would be around 1958,

12:14but if I don't know, it could be earlier.

12:16It could be a little bit later,

12:17but I wouldn't think it would be much more than maybe 1963.

12:22And when you say it's in mint,

12:24what you're meaning is that there's very little change.

12:29It has all of its original exterior.

12:31Yeah, it has been changed.

12:33I mean, maybe as new garage doors,

12:36maybe not, I don't know.

12:38But the brickwork and the, you know,

12:41the casualty were, you know, sections in the windows

12:46and everything else for all the original.

12:51Any questions or comments from members?

12:57Piper?

12:59I was curious, because I know from a while ago

13:02that we saw a lot of older limestone buildings

13:05that had a similar sort of like lower level

13:08that opened out like based on the hill.

13:11I'm sorry, I'm not architecturally savvy,

13:13so I won't know the names for any of this,

13:15but I was wondering if that's common in Guelph.

13:17We're sorry?

13:19Banked?

13:20Yeah, I was wondering if that's common in...

13:22I would say a call it a rusticated ground floor.

13:25Rusticated ground floor.

13:27I like that.

13:28It goes back to the 16th century.

13:30Yeah.

13:31It's like to Palladio,

13:32but I don't think Palladio is the inspiration for this.

13:35It is relatively common in Guelph

13:37because we have so many hills.

13:39It's probably more common in Guelph than other areas,

13:43but I'm not too familiar with any other mid-century buildings

13:50that have a sorry, rusticated ground floor.

13:54I think it's just decorative.

13:55I mean, one of the ways of making contemporary

14:00or mid-century buildings more interesting

14:02without violating the no traditional rules

14:07was to just use different building textures

14:12to make it look a little more interesting.

14:16This might be a case as well,

14:18and I'm not sure if Piper is referring as well

14:20to the fact that it looks like maybe the car

14:23would drive down a slope to go in the garage.

14:27Well, you go up to the house.

14:29It's on a hill.

14:30Oh, okay, sorry.

14:31Yeah, because I think that going down to Park inside

14:36was a common design and subdivision.

14:39I wasn't looking for the sixteenth.

14:41Okay, thanks.

14:44Any other comments or questions?

14:48Okay.

14:50Who would like this one shortlisted?

14:52Please raise your hand.

14:56Three, two, one.

15:11Next is 630 Scottsdale Drive.

15:15I'll also pass it over to Don.

15:18Well, again, I picked this one in my book

15:21because the prairie style is relatively uncommon in Canada.

15:27And I visited the building,

15:30I talked to them, nobody knew when it was built.

15:34So it could be built.

15:36I mean, it's later than the prairie period.

15:39It has a lot of Frank Lloyd Wright features,

15:42the long horizontal banks of windows,

15:45the vertical brick chimney,

15:48the foundations that are meant to suggest the prairie style.

15:52And so it's unique in Guelph,

15:55and it's probably relatively rare in Canada.

16:01So I recommended that one.

16:04And I just wanted to say that I mentioned this to Jack before.

16:08I recommend in all modern buildings

16:11because I feel it's an area that's ignored

16:14has been ignored.

16:16And these are also the buildings of the future.

16:19And if they disappear now,

16:21they won't appear in the future.

16:22So I think we've done a lot of stone buildings

16:27and a lot of old heritage designated areas.

16:31But there hasn't been much done about

16:33the more modern of the 20th century buildings.

16:41Questions or comments from members?

16:52Seeing none.

16:54Who would like this property in short of this?

16:57Then please raise your hands.

17:03This time, it was in the late 20th century, are it?

17:09That's okay.

17:14Okay, next is 201 Woodland,

17:17out in the west.

17:20Back to John.

17:22This is a really good example of the internationalist style.

17:27When I had Rick called and meet him over

17:30and speak to the architectural conservancy,

17:33he wanted to use this as a guile of example

17:36of a nearly perfect international style building.

17:40And Rick Holdenby was the

17:44Dean of Architecture at Waterloo.

17:47And it is a perfectly intact building on Woodland Avenue.

17:52I don't know if anybody knows it.

17:54It's a slight departure.

17:56It's where,

17:58well, I won't give a seminar on it,

18:00but Mies van der Rohe, who was one of the originally

18:02who wanted everything exact,

18:05everything uniform, no color, no nothing.

18:08Whereas these kinds of buildings

18:10maintain the international style idea

18:14of no tradition and no history.

18:16They didn't depart from the purists

18:19by using different colored bricks and stone

18:23and that sort of thing to make the more interesting looking.

18:26Which is what the majority of international style

18:28buildings are.

18:29So this building, if it's redeveloped or lost

18:33in the city, there would be a loss

18:36to our architectural history.

18:40It's owned by Len Mar.

18:43It's the Skyjack.

18:46I don't know.

18:48You go ahead.

18:50It was built in 1953.

18:54I couldn't find an architect for it.

18:57Although I never did get around to going to the Skyjack

19:01and asking, but it also I put in the book too.

19:05And there were others of these I wouldn't put in,

19:07but I couldn't put all the examples

19:10into the national book.

19:12But this was important enough to make it in as well.

19:16I think we'd find information about this

19:18in the building.

19:18I don't know if you see it as well.

19:19Oh, okay.

19:21I should have phoned you guys when I was doing it.

19:26Any questions?

19:27There will be architectural at this time.

19:32So it needs a little bit of research.

19:35But it's possible that it's like 50-50,

19:37which means it's a great project.

19:39I think it means more research needed.

19:43Before I go into it, sir.

19:45Yeah, when I say likely, like for design criteria,

19:49at least I think staff are pretty adept at looking at a building

19:52and knowing whether or not it would meet the criteria.

19:54But for the historical criteria,

19:58you need research to really determine that.

20:01And then for contextual,

20:03you need more kind of contemplation

20:06about its surroundings.

20:07So often we'll go do an in-person visit

20:10to make that determination.

20:11Well, it's part of an industrial park.

20:13With a similar building.

20:15I think that's why it was listed as possible

20:17because it's likely it makes sense in the area.

20:24And I'm thinking only the administration

20:26noting there's a huge factory behind it,

20:29which is interesting,

20:30but I don't think it needs to be preserved.

20:36Unless there's any other questions,

20:38I will ask members if they would like this short list.

21:04Next is 325 Aramusa Road.

21:08Also submitted by Don.

21:10And again, this is the, as far as I can recall,

21:14this is the last remaining festival style

21:20mid-century modern building in the city.

21:23There was an awning on a building on Woolwich

21:26that's just been ripped off.

21:28The old police station used to be a fantastic example.

21:33And up at St. Ignatius,

21:36their auditorium area is another good example,

21:39but it's not within the world.

21:43So this is the only festival room,

21:46the only other building that is similar

21:49that I know of is the Pagani house,

21:51which is near the university, but it's a barrel bald.

21:56I don't know anything about the background of this building.

22:01I don't know who was designed by it could be Pagani.

22:05It's important just because of its rarity

22:10and because it's that piece of

22:13Ralph's architectural history.

22:17And that's why I recommended it.

22:22Also a good example, it took me forever

22:25to get a picture of it without cars in front

22:28because there were cars in front of it 24-7.

22:31And I don't know how I managed.

22:37Any questions or comments on this building?

22:43The festival style is named after the festival theater

22:46in St. Alfred.

22:49And it's considered the regency of mid-century modern

22:52because it was the one kind of fun part

22:55in which architects got to do fun things

22:58like roofs like this or barrels or that sort of thing.

23:02Otherwise, the international style

23:04is pretty much serious business.

23:08Kelly, I see your hand up.

23:13This might have been mentioned before when this came up,

23:15but I grew up around the corner from this

23:18and it's definitely an East End landmark,

23:20well, or what used to be the East End.

23:24Does anybody remember the fire that was here back in the day?

23:28Like it was probably the 70s, maybe early 80s.

23:32And I'm just wondering if that was part of the,

23:34if that came up in your research on this one

23:38or if it impacted it.

23:39Looks exactly the same as it did,

23:41but there was a big fire there.

23:44Yeah, I'm not a guelphite, so I don't know.

23:47Yeah.

23:52I'm happy to let you know some of the things

23:54I know about this building.

23:57I'm a guelphite now, but I wasn't back in the 70s.

24:01So, but I don't remember hearing about fire damage,

24:06but I have found in the research that I've done

24:08is that this building was designed

24:10and built at the same time as what's now the Zayers

24:13across Stevenson,

24:16and which was built by a Toronto firm,

24:19I think a developer essentially,

24:22as the country market fair, something like that.

24:26And this building across Stevenson was built

24:29as the auto center for that.

24:33Kelly, I hope that makes sense to you.

24:35If you go back to the 70s,

24:37then maybe you'd remember that, I don't know.

24:40Sadly, yes, I do.

24:45I was really young, so it probably was the 70s.

24:48I just, but it was always,

24:55well, we thought of it as just the tire store,

24:56but I'm sure as you say,

24:58but as I say, when it was rebuilt,

25:01I don't know if it was actually rebuilt.

25:03That was, I think, where I was going with that.

25:04It was a big to do, but it didn't,

25:09like it looked like this before and after,

25:12if that makes sense.

25:13So it could have been just in the interior damage,

25:15but yeah, I guess we're going back to the dark ages there.

25:19So there's no work.

25:20I think it would have been interior damage

25:22because a building like this, if it burned enough,

25:25and they were gonna replace it,

25:26they'd replace it with something

25:28that was considered fashionable at night.

25:32This looks pretty well intact.

25:34I don't know the whole thing.

25:39Okay, I heard.

25:42Someone mentioned that they thought of it

25:44sort of as a landmark in the area.

25:47I was wondering if there was any belief

25:48that like if you look through papers or something,

25:50that would be pointed out.

25:51Cause I know that can be criteria for designation.

25:55I think this would likely satisfy the landmark criteria,

25:59given its prominent corner location

26:01and unique architecture.

26:05I would just say growing up right around there.

26:10I just, no, I went to Ross

26:11and my parents still live down there.

26:13That was always the, like it really is one of those

26:16like turn left at the fire, at the fire,

26:20at the fire stone or whatever.

26:21So, but it's just so unique.

26:23And it is in that very high visibility.

26:26That's a big intersection.

26:27So I guess having grown up in that area to us,

26:31it always was, but whether that's how it would satisfy

26:34the criteria would be, I don't know.

26:41Any other comments or questions on 325 Aramosa?

26:49Seeing none who would like this short list.

27:11Next, we have 222 Aramosa Road.

27:15Where can you done?

27:16This is perhaps not the best photograph,

27:19but I picked this because it's mid-century modern,

27:24but it's also a neo expressionist in its design.

27:29And it's one of those buildings that people now

27:33don't appreciate, but it is a more interesting

27:37mid-century modern building than you would normally find

27:42because of the neo expressionist quality.

27:45And neo expressionism is when a building goes beyond

27:48simply being a design and offers an expression.

27:53And this is more of a,

27:58a building that offers abstract thought and design.

28:02And so that's why I picked this particular building as well.

28:07Now, some of these buildings I didn't do research on

28:10because I was just photographing.

28:13And if I didn't use them for the book,

28:15I didn't necessarily do much research on them.

28:19But this is the sort of building I see as in danger

28:22because people will just immediately

28:25get by if we'll remodel it.

28:31And I wouldn't place it around maybe 1965 to 70, somewhere.

28:35And it does strike me as a unique building in the city.

28:41I don't know, Stephen and Reed.

28:44I hesitate before using a term like unique

28:47because until you've flipped all over the city

28:50and determined that no, there is nothing else like this,

28:54but I mean, I'm willing to be convinced.

28:56Most of these I have looked, I've been all over the city

29:00except that every time I get picked up by red car,

29:02I get taken to suburbs and university and more.

29:05But for most of the areas that have historical buildings,

29:10I think I've been over them with fine tooth.

29:16You need maybe an ultimate descriptor, but Ray was really,

29:19it's not the only neo-expressionist building.

29:22St. John's Church on Victoria is a really good example as well.

29:26But let's say a rare example,

29:29because there at most would be,

29:34while those are the only two I can think of.

29:36So, it may be one of the hospital buildings.

29:43Questions from committee members?

29:49Ian Knight, who would like this property shortlisted?

30:05Next is 499 and Borough Road North over to you Don.

30:11And again, I guess, I think the only person

30:15that really sees the value of these,

30:17but this is an extremely elegant building.

30:23The bridges, the gap between mid-century modern

30:27and brutalism.

30:29And it's a particularly elegant example

30:33because it doesn't take the brutalist ethic to an extreme.

30:38But yet it maintains the uniformity and elegant proportions

30:44of an internetic most availability.

30:47I did know more about this at one time.

30:50It does have an architect who's noted in wealth.

30:56I don't know why but the word blunt, BLO-UNT comes to mind.

31:02Yeah, I think that is that an architect here?

31:06Actually, that's the company it was designed for.

31:08Designed for, okay.

31:09But it was designed by an important architect.

31:13And I think it's a very good example

31:18because we have a lot of,

31:19well, we have some international style,

31:21a lot of brutalist style,

31:23but we don't have as many of these kind of very good transitions

31:27and especially a building as nice as this.

31:30And I ask, I know, either you,

31:36and I ask, I know, either Don or Steven,

31:39what is the name of those panels between each window?

31:43Is there an architectural?

31:45I think there's a call concrete panel.

31:47Flaps.

31:49Flaps, I like that.

31:53That's the technical term.

31:55Right.

31:56Hey, Iber.

31:57Good question, Jack.

31:59I was going to ask about the panels as well,

32:02but just to find out that also you mentioned brutalists

32:04and they look very, very similar to what Don, like the McKinnon

32:06and the UC buildings on the Guelph campus.

32:11It's a good example of that.

32:14Yeah, well, they are that sort of thing, the cord concrete,

32:18but they haven't got the big massings or the, you know,

32:23the forcefulness of what the brutalist style wanted to put forward.

32:28It still has that kind of elegant uniformity

32:30of the international style.

32:36And thankful that you included this one

32:38because I was unaware of it in the city.

32:41There's another, this is the main block,

32:44but there's another one attached on the other side of that entrance.

32:49Questions or comments from members?

32:54Yeah, I'll call and vote.

32:58Who would like this one?

33:00Shortlisted.

33:15Next is 45 Victoria Road North, also submitted by Don.

33:19I'll give you.

33:22This picture doesn't capture the full scale of this complex.

33:31There is a statuette in front and another wing behind.

33:36But this is a really good example of neo-expressionism,

33:40which is when modernism goes beyond just designed to create expressions.

33:49And in this case, it would be expressions of, you know, spirituality and uplifting.

33:56I wouldn't worry too much about this building,

33:59except that they started to paint, do some white painting

34:04around the sculptures and things at the front.

34:07So I don't know what they have in mind over time.

34:10The brickwork looks to be in pretty good shape.

34:13And this is just the tower part.

34:15There is another section.

34:17It's again, and I didn't research it because I wasn't using it,

34:22but I'm sure it's been architectural design because I think I've read somewhere that it was...

34:30Yeah, I think it was by him as well.

34:35But it's a notable landmark and a very good example of its kind

34:41and a very good architecturally designed church.

34:46The Catholic Church, surprisingly, is one of the great innovators in architecture,

34:51but they're also the ones that will also pull it down in a flash.

34:57Although I don't think this is a danger.

35:00This is definitely a landmark.

35:04Do you know, is this the original religious structure on the property?

35:09I don't know.

35:10I don't think it's replacing one.

35:12It's in an area that was developing around the time that this was built,

35:16so it's probably built with a school and a whole bunch of other things.

35:22Any other questions or comments?

35:30Who would like this shortlisted?

35:35Yes.

35:50Unfortunately, this is one of the most impossible buildings for this photograph

35:57because it is a long, low, eight-frame, mid-century modern house,

36:06but it is a stunning house.

36:09And I've been to the door several times to talk to the owners

36:13who are very enthusiastic about it.

36:16And the woman keeps promising to send me the name of the architect and then member does.

36:23I wish I had a better picture of it.

36:26I try to photograph it about any time, but between the weather and the style of the house,

36:32it's very difficult.

36:34But it's, I think it's better to use the word unique,

36:39but it's a rare example of its kind in the city.

36:43And it's the sort of thing that will disappear from our architectural legacy

36:48without anyone noticing.

36:51You know, it's worrisome because these are the kind of properties

36:55that people who want to build a millennium-manageal target.

37:00I don't know.

37:01I mean, I think that whole Sherwood neighborhood should be a heritage district,

37:06but I don't know.

37:08I mean, could somebody easily get a demolition permit for this?

37:12It is listed on the registers.

37:15So, up until the end of this year,

37:19we're going to be able to get a demolition permit for the heritage act process.

37:23Yeah.

37:25Well, it must be on the heritage list for a reason that somebody has done any research on it.

37:31I think the Berger and Stokes inventory recognized it for its architectural value.

37:37Any questions or comments on 14 Sherwood?

37:43Who would like it shortlist?

37:53Okay.

37:55Next.

37:57And I think this is the last of Don's missions.

38:00We have 220 York.

38:03So I will note that this one is in the proposed ward heritage district,

38:08but it remains a proposed.

38:11Okay.

38:13Why I included this is this is one of only two streamlined modern buildings that I'm aware of in the city.

38:18And the other one being the earlier Fagani house is a St. Andrews.

38:24St. George's.

38:26Yeah.

38:28Which is not kept in very good shape.

38:30This building, other than having new window, new black windows, this is perfectly intact.

38:41This is one of these architectural styles and people say, oh, well, it's just a 20th century building.

38:48We can rip it down.

38:50But actually it's part of a movement.

38:52Part of the art deco movement that used as its inspiration, new transportation of the 20s and 30s,

39:03like ocean liners, trains, planes, new automobiles to create a streamlined effect.

39:11And this building does that by being long and horizontal with a rounded end.

39:17And it has what's called speed lines.

39:21And the top, you can see them.

39:23The speed lines are meant to give the sense of movement forward as is that kind of rounded brand.

39:32Rounded.

39:34While I don't want to call it that on or whatever it is over the edge is also acts as a speed line.

39:41And so, so also is are the rounded edges.

39:46So I think that it's a particularly important building that will always be in danger of being either pulled down or redeveloped because people won't appreciate what it is.

39:57And it was probably built around 1930, 1940 in that range.

40:02So is another one of those properties.

40:06I've probably bought ships here 100 times, but I had never registered it as a streamlined modern.

40:12So I was appreciative of you pointing it out to us.

40:16And why must have driven by it a million times when I worked at the correctional center, but I noticed it a couple of years ago as straight line water.

40:26Justin.

40:29Yeah, thanks, Jack. And my apologies, by the way, you totally did cover what was in what was out in your report. And, and I should have looked more closely.

40:37But in that regard, for 220 York, is it one that counts in the in the in the district boundary?

40:46I recall from past presentations, some count some don't just because your properties located within the boundary does not per se mean it has protection.

40:54So maybe that context would be helpful.

40:57Yeah, we're currently determining which properties are contributing or non contributing within the district. So I can't say right now, but if we do, if we research this and it is from the 20s or 30s, then it would likely be a contributing property.

41:16Yeah, and just as a follow up to that, like I think, you know, I've raised before like it seems, perhaps not like maybe unnecessary to duplicate efforts if it would already obtain protection under a different instrument.

41:30The same would apply to 200 will which when we get there, even though it looks, it looks like it's like such a star candidate, it seems like, do we want to undertake the work given the time constraints of this year, when it would otherwise have protection so I appreciate we can't make that

41:45determination yet I wouldn't be supportive of designating this property, but I just, it may be just FYI as a compromise that it ends up being a contributing one under the plan, though I understand you haven't determined that yet.

41:56So just kind of a comment, I guess.

41:58I don't the same there's many a slip between the cup and the lip. I mean, this is still the kind of building that people are keen to tear down and replace.

42:09And if it's a period of time where it's not protected.

42:14And, and, you know, who knows what or when this heritage district will occur.

42:22In architectural lost the city so that's why I'm.

42:26The reserve.

42:28I will for the committee's information we're aiming for September to be approved for the war here to just so we would get that in before.

42:39Before the impending removal of properties from.

42:43So it will be in before Trump's out.

42:49So I think that's a good point.

42:52Any, any further questions or comments.

42:57Okay, who would like this property shorts.

43:06Okay, thank you.

43:15I will invite you to tell us what prompted you to submit this property.

43:31Yeah, so I've passed by this a bunch of times and I looked it up and on the internet as well it seems like people really resonate with this in Guelph as a building that they would like to see protected.

43:42And I think it's pretty, pretty passionate about having it designated or feeling that it is like a property that adds to the community so I think it would be a popular choice, which I think might be helpful.

43:54And then the building itself it feels very 70s I know it was built for the barber glass family who were a business in Guelph and I think the 1880s to present.

44:06I think it has historical value I think it has architectural value. I just think it's a good pick.

44:14I think it would go back before the 1980s, 1980s, I think it looks like the 60s.

44:21I think you're correct I think it's in the 60s.

44:24I think it's a pretty good example. I mean it's got.

44:27I don't know if the downstairs windows are original but but it's a, you know, it has a Frank Lloyd Wright style chimney.

44:37The conservatory is unusual. The stonework is nice.

44:45And I think it's an area where it's in danger of definitely.

44:51I'm going to write this for you.

44:57Yeah, sorry to that. I said 70s but that's just my brain. I know from there's a Gail barber who commented on a page with a bunch of pictures of it who said it's her family home that it was built in 1952.

45:10Oh, yeah, that makes more sense. Although I've had some alterations since 1952 but it's still interesting.

45:21Any other questions or comments from members?

45:27Who would like this shortlisted?

45:38What do we only have? They have 10 white hope there's 20. Why don't you take all 20?

45:43We have all our voluntary properties as well.

45:49Only do that much.

45:52Okay.

45:54Next up 37 liver pool also submitted by Piper.

45:59So this is your muted Piper.

46:05Oh, do you think they lived?

46:08Sorry, I think it's Lester B. Pearson, but yeah, it was it was a man's and then obviously a former Prime Minister of Canada lived here for a short time.

46:18And I'm sure it would have historical associations beyond him as well because it was a man's with I'm not sure which church at the moment I don't have notes with me.

46:26But yeah, and I also think it's just quite pretty.

46:33No, is it in a district?

46:35It is not in a district.

46:37Oh, no.

46:49Any other questions or comments on its property?

46:55Who would like it shortlisted?

47:12Next is 200 Woolwich. I will note again that this this now does have part five designation as it is within the downtown heritage conservation district and fun fact about this church is that it has a twin in this city, almost an identical church was built.

47:30On was it Margaret Avenue in the ward paisley Memorial Church.

47:39But the paper all turn it over to you for this one.

47:45Yeah, I agree. I don't think it needs to be a priority because it does fall within one of those districts.

47:50But yeah, it was built by the same contractors the paisley Memorial, and it's currently a condo building.

47:59Justin.

48:01Yeah, just that I agree with Piper great suggestion but if it already has protection we probably shouldn't undertake the work of designated up.

48:08Okay, any other questions or comments.

48:12Any in favor of shortlisting Kelly is at a hand up or a question.

48:33This is one of mine again. I'm okay if this doesn't go to designation priorities. I thought there would be a lot more properties getting suggested so just when I was looking through.

48:41This is one I didn't find on the register it was just step on like remax and I was trying to see if properties were vulnerable so I just that was more for fun.

48:51Any any questions or comments.

48:54I went to the term black integrity being indeed in the notebook.

48:59It means alteration of original attributes like windows and doors been replaced or things like that so property that has a lot of its original materials would have a high degree of integrity.

49:13But thank you for asking that question.

49:16Is the wooden part attached to it.

49:18It is. Yeah, it looks like a later addition.

49:27Stone buildings are really a much danger in this.

49:31I mean somebody might be developed that most of it is for this addition.

49:37It is yet having having been expanded it actually might benefit the cottage because it has more for space.

49:51I'm answering questions on 69 Nottingham.

49:56Who is in favor of shortlisting 69.

50:02Nobody.

50:08Next is 11 Nottingham also.

50:13So this was associated with an electric business and well, I'm going to pronounce this wrong but Harlock Schultz.

50:20And then on the cooling inventory he mentioned that there was some sort of political confrontation that happened here around 1853.

50:29It's limestone I think it's got that lower entrance you can see the doors sort of to the bottom right of the screen I think is interesting.

50:37And then what looks like a covered up old entrance to the left. So I would be curious to learn more about it.

50:50This is near Gordon Street so near 15 Gordon.

50:54I'm not sure if it's part of the same building complex.

50:59You think it dates as far back as the 1850s.

51:03Good.

51:04It's possible.

51:07Again that's just straight from the cooling inventory no extra research there so I'm not saying that authoritatively this did happen it can just be like a heritage like misconception but wasn't it to do with.

51:19The line Mackenzie is that I think last time we were talking or George Brown or something.

51:25Okay.

51:27I mean, even like this is what I was full past time.

51:29These types of even if they're just urban legends these types of things that I really enjoy delving into the properties that have these types of stories associated with them to determine any kind of veracity so I appreciate you identifying that paper.

51:46But I don't think we should vote on maybe story.

51:53There are so many urban legends in the city.

51:56Right.

51:57It can be difficult to know which ones are more likely to be true or not.

52:02But it is the type of thing that research would help confirm or perhaps refute whether that did.

52:12Any questions or comments on 11 nottingham.

52:19Okay, who would like this shortlisted is for 40 will it's submitted by paper.

52:39Only main thing here is the style that I know of it's just I've never seen a brick pattern, any wearing Guelph that looked like that.

52:50There's no round that actually comes from there was a fairly famous writer John Ruskin in the 19th century, who felt that the marbles of the Italian Gothic were the most beautiful in the world, although it was a subjective opinion and he said that in the

53:11absence of having marbles, you should build with Holly chromatic break.

53:16And this this type of brick swept Ontario in the 1850s.

53:22And this is a very good example by 1870.

53:26John Ruskin wrote that he regretted the Frankenstein monster that he created.

53:31Because he didn't like the effect, but it's a very Ontario thing.

53:36There are other examples around around well, it's normally associated with the Gothic revival because it's supposed to be based on Italian Gothic buildings like the door chase palace.

53:50And this is a nice example it's Italian style by the windows Regency cottage and the brick brick work is very interesting.

54:01Any other questions or comments for members who would like this property shortlisted.

54:23This is three in November.

54:25Can you play.

54:27Yeah, this is a workers cottage I think is built by Sleiman.

54:31There are a couple other in the area.

54:34But this one is of higher integrity, I think.

54:38And then again, again for why is that it's quite further out where there are very few buildings designated in that area.

54:45So I think it would help support the area.

54:50Yeah, I believe there are three or four of these all in a row.

54:54And they were built by Sleiman for the workers at his brewery.

54:59They're either relatively close to the Sleiman mansion.

55:03So I feel pretty confident in saying they would be contextual criteria and likely all three categories of designation criteria.

55:15Any other questions or comments.

55:19The only comment I have is that we have many of these in the city and people weren't enthusiastic about the modern years, but a lot of them are unique.

55:30And if we lose them, that's in some cases a whole period going.

55:36I don't think people are likely to alter this house these particular houses.

55:41I think their value lies in their stone stone buildings and there there's a lot of them in Guelph.

55:48So that's my own comment.

55:50I mean, I think all these buildings are worthy of designation, including this one.

55:55But I think, you know, if again, my opinion, if we don't look at the 20th century as well, we won't have many examples from there that are available.

56:12Any other questions or comments.

56:18Who would like this property shortlisted.

56:21Hey.

56:35Last is 41 Norwich Street.

56:39This was submitted by member Slater Eddie, who is not present today.

56:46But I can offer what I know about this property. It's the former Royal Knitting Company building.

56:56You may be familiar with the Royal Knitting Company because it grew from the cottage industry that was in 60 Manahoe street, which is a designated property in the city.

57:09And this is just on the outskirts of the downtown heritage district, and it is on a property zoned for increased height.

57:18So there is kind of ambient risk to a building like this, but

57:24that's admittedly about all I know of this property. So if

57:28can the protection stop the height?

57:32It would not.

57:34Not necessarily, but it would save the building.

57:39The heritage attributes of the bill. Yes. Yeah.

57:43Any questions or comments on 41 Norwich Street.

57:57I'm just curious. I don't know much about the Royal Knitting Co and like the history and I don't know if anyone else knows anymore.

58:06It was a, they produced wool products like socks and mitts.

58:14Things of that nature. I admit I haven't done thorough research on it yet, but I know it was a relatively large employer in the late 19th and early 20th century.

58:30Any other questions or comments? Who would like this property shortlisted to? Okay.

58:50We have made it through the list now. So I'm just going to speak with Quarks and see what our current top 10 is.

59:47I'm going to go through the six.

59:54So it's the top.

59:58There's been some some.

1:00:02There are.

1:00:08They came up with a full 10.

1:00:11I will bring.

1:00:15I think that once you're good,

1:00:16once someone's bad, once, you know.

1:00:20And that's okay.

1:00:21So we're going to share on the screen the talk 10

1:00:25that the committee identified.

1:00:27And I will then, Kim, I'll turn it over to you

1:00:33if you'd like to mediate, if anybody has any suggestions

1:00:37or I'll turn it over to the committee chair

1:00:41to facilitate this discussion.

1:00:46I can't tell from the address which field you do.

1:00:52I can, you want me to run through the images?

1:00:58Okay, and I can just say that I'm done with what's green.

1:01:01That's great.

1:01:03No, that's great.

1:01:05Well, you know, that's not what I was thinking.

1:01:07No.

1:01:08I'm not.

1:01:10The working clerk's not ideal.

1:01:12The first one we received,

1:01:29I'm going to vote for 10.

1:01:30Wolfon, president, we received five votes.

1:01:35And then the next one is 325 Eremosa Road,

1:01:39which received four votes.

1:01:44499 Edinburgh Road, North.

1:01:50Right, North.

1:01:52Received four votes.

1:01:5645 Victoria Road, North.

1:01:58Received six votes.

1:02:00776 Gordon Street.

1:02:04Received seven votes.

1:02:0737 Liverpool Street.

1:02:10Received seven votes.

1:02:1311 Nottingham Street.

1:02:17Four votes.

1:02:19440 Woolwich Street.

1:02:22Received six votes.

1:02:25And three Eddon Street.

1:02:27Eden, five votes.

1:02:30And then 41 Norwich Street, East.

1:02:34Six votes.

1:02:37I'll stop sharing and you can put the list.

1:02:53Over to you, Kim.

1:02:57Okay, thanks, Jack.

1:02:59And thanks for that process.

1:03:00I think that was very thorough

1:03:02and everyone had an opportunity to provide comments

1:03:05and opinions and whatnot.

1:03:08So at this time we see our top pen here.

1:03:11Does anyone have any questions, comments, final thoughts

1:03:16about this before I move this top 10 list forward?

1:03:19And this is as previous years,

1:03:23like this list is fluid, correct, Jack?

1:03:26Yes, yes, please.

1:03:28It can still be changed or amended.

1:03:31This is just the top 10 that we identified

1:03:34through that process, but it's still up to you folks.

1:03:39Yes, correct, okay.

1:03:41So do any committee members have any questions

1:03:43or comments at this point in the process?

1:03:47Okay, I am not seeing any hands.

1:03:51Am I missing anyone in the room?

1:03:53Sorry, I just had a quick question.

1:03:55Oh, Piper, yeah.

1:03:57With that, are we preserving the number of votes

1:04:00so that we can see like the value given to each property

1:04:03or is it just gonna be that these are like

1:04:05the definitive 10 in general?

1:04:09My recommendation is that these not be ranked

1:04:13in any way staff will evaluate all of the properties.

1:04:19But again, if the committee chooses to rank them

1:04:22or prioritize them in some way, that's your prohibitive.

1:04:26I didn't think they needed to be.

1:04:27I was just confused by like the following 10

1:04:29because they usually 10 and plus, like a, but I think no.

1:04:37Do any committee members think that these should be ranked

1:04:41in any which way or are we in a grudge

1:04:43that they all be treated equally moving forward?

1:04:48So just let's go with that, I see thumbs up.

1:04:51Sorry, if it's helpful for the committee,

1:04:53I can put bullet points as opposed to,

1:04:55I think that was just for my,

1:04:58starting to yes, that that equals 10.

1:05:04Okay, so moving forward,

1:05:07yes, it's understood that staff will treat these all equally.

1:05:14Maybe we can put that in the motion.

1:05:20I think that the motion reads that no property

1:05:23will take priority on this list,

1:05:24that there is no, as long as members agree

1:05:29that that motion reads that way.

1:05:31I think for Liz's sake, the bullets will do just fine.

1:05:34Mounted here.

1:05:35I think it was the numbers that maybe made it ambiguous,

1:05:40but yeah, I think bullets are clear enough.

1:05:42Okay, perfect.

1:05:45Okay, so I'm going to read out then the recommended motion.

1:05:51I'm not going to read out all the property names,

1:05:54if that's okay with everyone, all the addresses.

1:05:56We can see that on the screen

1:05:57unless there is a member that would like me

1:05:59to read out all the addresses.

1:06:02Everyone's okay, okay.

1:06:04So the recommended motion for this item

1:06:06that the Heritage Advisory Committee recommends

1:06:09the following 10 properties to be evaluated

1:06:11for designation in 2026.

1:06:16Can I have someone to move this motion?

1:06:19Hi, I see Kelly in the seconder, Piper, thank you.

1:06:23And then all in favor.

1:06:28That's been moved.

1:06:30Thanks so much everyone.

1:06:33So now we're going to move on to the second item

1:06:36on today's agenda, which is item 2.2,

1:06:39the Ontario Reformatory Heritage Conservation District Plan,

1:06:43a draft designation report,

1:06:44and that will be a presentation from Stephen.

1:06:52I was just waiting.

1:06:57There's two of you.

1:06:59Sorry, I just had to make sure my mic wasn't going to echo.

1:07:06Thank you, Kim, for introducing the item.

1:07:09Just before we get started,

1:07:10I'd like to ask for your support

1:07:14for me actually using a few images

1:07:17that actually are directly

1:07:18from the Heritage District Plan document.

1:07:22Just, I think it may be helpful

1:07:24in illustrating the verbal presentation

1:07:26that I'm about to give.

1:07:27If that's okay with you,

1:07:29I have spoken with the clerk

1:07:30and they're fine with the information

1:07:32because these visuals are actually,

1:07:34they're already included within the attachments

1:07:37that are in the report.

1:07:41Yeah, I'm okay with, yeah, you're using those.

1:07:46Great, I will now share my screen for that purpose.

1:07:53Just let me know when you see something in front of you.

1:08:11Sorry.

1:08:22Coming to a screen near you very soon.

1:08:39Okay, you should see my first slide in front of you.

1:08:43Great.

1:08:44Yep.

1:08:46At their next meeting, which is next week,

1:08:49February the 10th,

1:08:51council will be asked to make a decision

1:08:53regarding the proposed designation

1:08:55of the Ontario Reformatory Heritage Conservation District.

1:08:59The Heritage Advisory Committee has an opportunity

1:09:02to provide any final comments

1:09:03on the proposed designation of the ORHCD.

1:09:11So, staff's recommendations to council

1:09:13are basically they go like this,

1:09:15to proceed to designate the area

1:09:17within the approved boundary

1:09:19as the ORHCD under part five of the Ontario Heritage.

1:09:25And also to adopt the associated ORHCD district plan

1:09:30and guideline as attached to the council staff report.

1:09:36And my apologies for any acronyms or short forms

1:09:39that I'm using, but it's kind of a professional hazard.

1:09:47So, staff's recommendations today

1:09:50to the Heritage Advisory Committee are on the screen here.

1:09:54And I think we'll get back to this image

1:09:57later in the presentation.

1:10:02So, the initial draft of the ORHCD plan guidelines

1:10:07was released for council and public review in common

1:10:10in November of 2024.

1:10:13And it was considered that the council planning meeting

1:10:16held November 13th and 26th in 2024.

1:10:20Meeting served as the statutory public meeting

1:10:23for the project under the provisions

1:10:25of the Ontario Heritage Act.

1:10:27So, comments and feedback from the public meeting

1:10:30in November, the Heritage Advisory Committee's workshop

1:10:34session in January of 2025.

1:10:37And from the public through the May 2025 public open house

1:10:43and online engagement, all this has been considered

1:10:46by staff and the consultant, which has informed

1:10:49the revised and final draft of the ORHCD plan

1:10:53presented in the staff report to council.

1:10:57Or being presented to council.

1:11:00So, key revisions to the final ORHCD plan

1:11:03include the following.

1:11:06The plan includes stronger language throughout,

1:11:09words like should and seek to have been replaced

1:11:12to shall where appropriate.

1:11:15Plain language summaries were added throughout

1:11:17the plan document to help readers understand the intent

1:11:21of policy and guideline heavy sections.

1:11:26And when reading the recommended policies

1:11:29in section 5.1 of the plan, it's important to understand

1:11:34that as per the approved 12th Innovation District

1:11:39secondary plan, the entire adaptive reuse area

1:11:43already permits a mix of uses, including institutional,

1:11:48educational, commercial, office, light industrial

1:11:52and open space and park in a form that respects

1:11:55the heritage attributes of the ORHCD.

1:12:01So I just wanted to point out just to remind viewers

1:12:05that the adaptive reuse area that's been identified

1:12:09in the GID secondary plan is the dark blue area.

1:12:14Sure, yes, you can see my cursor.

1:12:19I'll place my cursor on that dark blue area.

1:12:26So in the ORHCD plan, the community value

1:12:31placed on green space and recreational use has been noted.

1:12:36And in the adaptive reuse discussion presented

1:12:42in the same section 5.1, it now includes information

1:12:46on the presence of heritage attributes,

1:12:48more information about the presence of heritage attributes

1:12:51and also preferred land use designation

1:12:54from a heritage conservation perspective.

1:12:58And that is illustrated in the plan

1:13:01in what's called, what's referred to as plate number eight.

1:13:07So you'll notice that the area that was just shown

1:13:12as the dark blue adaptive reuse area,

1:13:18the heritage district plan identifies an overlay

1:13:22of a yellow area and a light green area.

1:13:31So as it states in this same section 5.1 of the plan,

1:13:35that from a heritage conservation perspective,

1:13:38the recommended land use for the adaptive reuse area A,

1:13:42which is that light green area

1:13:44in what's commonly called the front yard

1:13:47of the heritage district,

1:13:50it's the recommended land use that the plan recommends

1:13:55is open space park in a form that respects and aligns

1:13:59with the presence of landscape,

1:14:00the heritage, sorry, landscape heritage attributes

1:14:04in this portion of the HCD.

1:14:10Policy statements presented in 5.1

1:14:13and its associated guidelines still include parameters

1:14:18for development so that city staff have the ability

1:14:22to contemplate and control residential or other uses

1:14:25if a proposal of this type were to arise.

1:14:29But this land use like residential is not presented

1:14:35in the ORHCV as a land use that is as of right.

1:14:48So again, this is within the light green area

1:14:51of the adaptive reuse.

1:14:53So if the block plan for process proposed a change

1:14:57to the land uses already approved

1:14:59in the adaptive reuse area of the GID secondary plan,

1:15:04council would have to decide whether to support

1:15:06the changes through amendments to the zoning bylaw

1:15:09and the official plan.

1:15:11If that were to occur, the ORHCV would already contain

1:15:15policies that would help control the built form

1:15:18of the land for that land use change,

1:15:20or all that land use change.

1:15:23The land use or the change in land use would not occur

1:15:27because of the ORHCV plan.

1:15:29It would be a result of council changing course

1:15:32in its official plan and the GID secondary plan.

1:15:40So in order to provide time for the public

1:15:42to review the final draft of the ORHCV plan guidelines,

1:15:47the release of the final draft was announced,

1:15:50you may remember, was announced in January 15th

1:15:53at the last year to advisory committee.

1:15:56And it was made available on the project engagement page

1:16:00of Have Your Say and on the city's HCD,

1:16:04the ORHCV webpaging.

1:16:07The next steps are if council passes the proposed

1:16:11Heritage Designation bylaw for the ORHCV,

1:16:15a notice would be published

1:16:17and a 30 day appeal period would begin.

1:16:20If no notice of appeal is received

1:16:22and the bylaw would come into force the day of the following,

1:16:26the day following the last day of the appeal period.

1:16:30Now, again, something important,

1:16:33another important reminder,

1:16:36and I guess I'm reiterating this

1:16:37because I'm sure I've said this to the committee before

1:16:39and to the public.

1:16:41As far as the heritage district plan

1:16:43coming into force and effect,

1:16:45it's important to understand

1:16:46that municipal heritage designation bylaws

1:16:49and the requirement for heritage permit approvals

1:16:53under either part four or part five of the Heritage Act,

1:16:58they are not in force and effect on properties

1:17:01that's under provincial ownership.

1:17:03So the province of Ontario is currently the owner

1:17:06of 785 York Road, and that's the largest property,

1:17:10the largest of four properties within the ORHCV boundary,

1:17:14and which contains most of the existing built heritage resource.

1:17:21So I have a whole description here,

1:17:26but I'll just paraphrase my own,

1:17:28it just in the interest of time here,

1:17:30the next paragraph is about losing

1:17:34non-designated properties on the heritage register.

1:17:38So because the province of Ontario has made changes

1:17:42through bills 23 and 185,

1:17:45all listed but not designated properties

1:17:48from built heritage resources

1:17:50will be removed from the heritage register

1:17:53after January 1st of next year.

1:17:57So the part four designation

1:18:02that council has already approved for 785 York Road,

1:18:07it has a long list of heritage attributes,

1:18:11not just built heritage resources

1:18:13but cultural landscape features

1:18:16are so important to the cultural heritage value of the ORHCV.

1:18:21But however, not all the built heritage resources

1:18:24within that property were named as attributes

1:18:27in that individual property designation file.

1:18:30So at the time council directed staff

1:18:32to list additional resources as non-designated

1:18:36on the register.

1:18:38Council motion included built heritage resources

1:18:41that the province has since demolished,

1:18:43that would be the formatory wooden trestle,

1:18:46railway bridge, and also has plans to demolish

1:18:50the powerhouse, chimney stack and service tunnel

1:18:53to the powerhouse.

1:18:56So therefore, the following built heritage resources

1:19:00and cultural heritage landscape would be removed

1:19:03from the heritage register at the beginning of next year

1:19:07and have no heritage status under the heritage act.

1:19:10And that's the Chapel building, Wood kiln building,

1:19:13the Plaining Mill and Stores, the Woolen Mill building,

1:19:16and the reformatory quarry area

1:19:19which has been identified as a cultural heritage landscape

1:19:23as part of the heritage district.

1:19:26As these extant built heritage resources

1:19:29and cultural heritage landscapes have been included

1:19:31as heritage attributes of the ORHCD,

1:19:34they would be protected by the approval of the ORHCD

1:19:40by the bylaw if that would be approved by council.

1:19:50So I believe that is the end of my slides

1:19:56and I'm happy to answer any questions

1:19:58that the committee members may have.

1:20:01This slide really is the same as what the clerk would have

1:20:05as far as the staff's recommendations to the committee.

1:20:09I know I've spoken a lot of information to all of you.

1:20:14I'm hopeful it's helpful to you.

1:20:18But again, I'm happy to answer any questions

1:20:20that you might have.

1:20:22So, Sharon.

1:20:24Thank you, Stephen.

1:20:27Do any committee members have any questions

1:20:30or comments?

1:20:33I have a couple of questions.

1:20:35In the redact, it says redaptable use.

1:20:42Adaptable reuse, there we are.

1:20:44And the correctional center building sit in that.

1:20:47What exactly does that mean?

1:20:50Does it mean if somebody buys that,

1:20:52they can build other buildings around it or no?

1:20:57And they have to preserve the integrity

1:20:59of the correctional center, right?

1:21:02The idea of and the intention of protection

1:21:08under the Heritage Act.

1:21:10And it's already started with the individual designation

1:21:13bylaw for 785 Europe Ruin.

1:21:17When it comes, if and when it comes into force and effect

1:21:22in the province cells, all of the buildings

1:21:25that are identified as heritage attributes

1:21:28would be conserved through part four of the Heritage Act.

1:21:33Exterior features, but also there are even some

1:21:36interior features would be protected.

1:21:40The Heritage District also identifies

1:21:43built heritage resources and landscape features

1:21:46that would be protected.

1:21:47So, I think it's really important to understand

1:21:51the balance and the, let's see the parallel goals

1:21:56of not just the Heritage District Plan,

1:21:58but the GID secondary plan.

1:22:00The Guelph Innovation District Plan has policies already

1:22:04that are council approved that require

1:22:07that significant cultural heritage resources

1:22:11shall be conserved if development were to occur.

1:22:15So, adaptive reuse, I think I feel is an excellent way

1:22:20to accomplish that if it's done in a proper sense.

1:22:23I agree, but I'm just trying to understand

1:22:26what it means for that whole piece of property.

1:22:29Is readaptive use mean like, you know,

1:22:34making the building usable,

1:22:36but does it also include building things in front of it

1:22:40or preserving the landscape in front of it?

1:22:46It means conserving, like if I would just say this

1:22:49in an elevator, I would just say it means conserving

1:22:52those heritage attributes that have been identified

1:22:54in the individual by-law and in the Heritage District Plan.

1:22:57And the landscape is identified too.

1:23:00So, maybe an example would be a new building could be built

1:23:05within the adaptive reuse area,

1:23:07but not in front of the administrative building,

1:23:10but definitely behind it.

1:23:12Sort of in order not to contravene the reasons

1:23:16for designation, basically.

1:23:20Yeah, because that would be a difficult building

1:23:22for somebody to readapt.

1:23:28The adaptation or what's generally referred to

1:23:31is rehabilitation of a building for a new use

1:23:36in a way that still conserves its heritage attributes.

1:23:40That rehabilitation would be guided and controlled

1:23:43through the heritage permitting process

1:23:46if this were within heritage designation,

1:23:50either the individual by-law or as well,

1:23:56it could also be within the Heritage District by-law.

1:24:00So, all the dark green is already protected

1:24:03by natural resources, right?

1:24:06That the green area is the natural heritage.

1:24:09And you mentioned an area, was it the light green

1:24:13in yellow areas?

1:24:15One is proposed for park, right?

1:24:20The light green area toward the front,

1:24:23or the adaptive reuse area,

1:24:25the plan's recommendation is that its land use be

1:24:28open space and park.

1:24:30Okay, and the yellow part was,

1:24:32it's referred to, the plan refers to it

1:24:34as the HCD core area.

1:24:37And it starts at the main gate,

1:24:40goes along that main tree line driveway,

1:24:43all the way to the superintendent's house,

1:24:46the circular drive,

1:24:48right?

1:24:49Where it terminates at the administration building, right?

1:24:52That whole area is yellow because the plan

1:24:56recommends that no development be done

1:25:00or that development not be considered in that area

1:25:06if it has a negative effect on the bottom

1:25:08of that core of the district.

1:25:11Is that really part of the design

1:25:13and drive way up in the middle of the house?

1:25:18You know, there was some mention about

1:25:21future possible use for residential.

1:25:26That maybe I should just reiterate

1:25:30what I think I was reading out from my comments is that,

1:25:34or maybe clarify a bit.

1:25:36Currently, the GID secondary plan

1:25:40as part of the official plan has approved policies.

1:25:44And the area, the part of the proposed ORHCD,

1:25:50Heritage District,

1:25:51part of it is already identified for adaptive reuse.

1:25:55Right.

1:25:57Now, that adaptive,

1:25:59how it's used or re-adapted or rehabilitated,

1:26:04it starts with, from a planning perspective,

1:26:08it has to be a block plan created

1:26:12for the block plan for area of the GID secondary plan.

1:26:16No block plan has started yet for the,

1:26:20so it's, what planning services

1:26:28is interested to, or is waiting for,

1:26:32actually is that process in order to discuss

1:26:35and to come up with proposals to counsel

1:26:40as to how the land, what the best land use

1:26:43is suddenly to the redesign plan would be,

1:26:46because we haven't gotten that far yet,

1:26:48we don't know what the outcome would be.

1:26:50But the secondary plan, as I said,

1:26:54has policies that state that the built heritage,

1:26:58the cultural heritage resources shall be conserved

1:27:00through that process.

1:27:03We don't know what the land use,

1:27:08and I can look at other staff in the room too,

1:27:10but at this point, we really don't know

1:27:13what the land uses would be in particular within that,

1:27:16other than the fact that that blue area identifies

1:27:19for adaptive reuse.

1:27:21The adaptive reuse land use, the list of what's possible

1:27:26currently through the secondary plan, I did read out.

1:27:31And it includes,

1:27:37I'll just check on my notes here,

1:27:40sure it did be better.

1:27:42Yeah, currently the land uses that are allowed,

1:27:50as of right, really, are institutional uses,

1:27:55educational, commercial, office, light industrial,

1:28:00and open space park.

1:28:03So that's for that adaptive reuse area.

1:28:07That's already approved by council.

1:28:10Council would have to consider changing that

1:28:15if they want anything other than those existing uses.

1:28:21I have another question,

1:28:22but I don't want to go down around it all.

1:28:24This is not the time for this, but,

1:28:29getting something to take over a correctional center

1:28:33would be challenging.

1:28:34So, having worked there,

1:28:38and, you know, intimately aware of what it all is,

1:28:42would facadeism, not for the administration building,

1:28:46but for the prison blocks be a possibility

1:28:50if somebody was taking over a building?

1:28:53Because if immigration has already rejected it

1:28:56and the province isn't going to take it over

1:28:58for a correctional facility again,

1:29:04would that be a reasonable thing?

1:29:07Facadism for the wings?

1:29:11Or is that something that's so further down the road?

1:29:16Could that be part of re-adaptable use?

1:29:19I'm just trying to think because ideally,

1:29:22it would be nice if it could all be preserved.

1:29:25But if there's no takers for it,

1:29:27you know, I'm just wondering, you know, what could be done?

1:29:32Tim, I need to apologize.

1:29:34I'm not asking to speak through you.

1:29:37But through the chair,

1:29:38I'm happy to keep answering Don's questions

1:29:41or any other questions.

1:29:43No, Stephen, you can keep going.

1:29:46Thank you. Thanks.

1:29:49The part four or the individual property designation

1:29:55has given the city of the ability,

1:29:57and this has been supported by the province,

1:29:59by infrastructure, it's given the city the opportunity

1:30:03to list or to identify as heritage attributes

1:30:07to be protected, interior features.

1:30:10So you may remember through the HCD study

1:30:14and even the plan itself, but especially in the study,

1:30:18the cell blocks, the interiors,

1:30:21they're not, the heritage attribute

1:30:25isn't exactly everything.

1:30:27It's not as though it would freeze it like a museum.

1:30:30But it's not as if the buildings could just be hollowed out.

1:30:34It can only conserve the first 16 inches

1:30:37of the building because of it.

1:30:39Which is kind of my interpretation, usually,

1:30:42if the size or all your keeping

1:30:45would be the front or the size, maybe.

1:30:47That's never been the intention

1:30:49of the Heritage District policies that are proposed.

1:30:53And that's, I'm hopeful,

1:30:55that I'm hopeful we do get an opportunity

1:30:58to guide rehabilitation of these buildings.

1:31:03And if we did, it would be using those guidelines.

1:31:06I'm not trying to put you on the spot,

1:31:08but these are just things that I'm curious about.

1:31:11So for sure.

1:31:17Okay, thank you for your questions and comments, Dawn.

1:31:20And for answering those, Steven.

1:31:23Does anyone else, do any other committee members,

1:31:25have any other questions or comments at this time?

1:31:32Okay, I'm not seeing any hands on the screen.

1:31:34Are there any in the room?

1:31:35I can't see.

1:31:37No questions, I'm gonna get more hands.

1:31:39Okay, thank you.

1:31:41Okay, so I am gonna read out the recommended motions.

1:31:44Steven did have them up on the screen for a while,

1:31:46but I'll just all read them out again.

1:31:48And yeah, thank you, Liz.

1:31:52That the Heritage Advisory Committee advises City Council

1:31:55that the potential district identified in phase one

1:31:58of the Ontario Reformatory Heritage Conservation District

1:32:01Project Merits Designation under part five

1:32:04of the Ontario Heritage Act.

1:32:06And that the Heritage Advisory Committee advises City Council

1:32:10that the committee endorses the heritage information,

1:32:13attributes, and approach recommended

1:32:16in the Ontario Reformatory Heritage Conservation District Plan.

1:32:25So can I have a mover for that committee?

1:32:29Okay, Justin and a seconder, I see Piper

1:32:33and then all in favor.

1:32:37Okay, thanks everyone, that's been carried.

1:32:42Okay, there are no announcements on my end.

1:32:47Today, are there any staff announcements?

1:32:51Suppose there's a big update from Imogen.

1:32:59Good afternoon, everybody.

1:33:01So as has been mentioned or alluded to,

1:33:05the Downtown Guelph Heritage Conservation District

1:33:08went to council January 20th.

1:33:10It was supported unanimously by council.

1:33:14The bylaw was passed the same evening,

1:33:17which sees the designation of the district,

1:33:19but also the adoption of that connected plan

1:33:23or associated plan.

1:33:25So the notice of passing was sent out January 29th,

1:33:31which also initiates the, excuse me, the appeal process.

1:33:35So there's a 30 day appeal process,

1:33:37which means February 27th, the appeal process is,

1:33:41the appeal period is closed.

1:33:42And February 28th, we have a designating bylaw

1:33:46for the Downtown Guelph Heritage Conservation District.

1:33:50So this is mostly just an announcement,

1:33:52so you know where the project is,

1:33:53but also a big thank you to everybody.

1:33:57I think we had two workshops.

1:33:59We also had a final meeting like this one

1:34:02that you've just had for the OR for the Downtown.

1:34:05So I appreciate all of your time, your effort,

1:34:08your engagement in helping shape that plan.

1:34:11It was really well received.

1:34:15So I appreciate everybody's time.

1:34:17And yeah, thank you again.

1:34:24Awesome, great.

1:34:25Thank you so much, Imogen, for that update.

1:34:27And thank you for your time

1:34:28and all your effort on that project as well.

1:34:32Okay, so if there's no other...

1:34:34Just a couple things, Jer.

1:34:36Yeah. Sorry.

1:34:37This will be Jack.

1:34:39So I just like for everyone's information,

1:34:41I'd like to know if you may or may not be aware

1:34:44but the federal government has decided

1:34:46to remove the Canadian Register of Historic Places

1:34:49from the Parks Canada website.

1:34:52If you're not familiar with the register,

1:34:55it's a database of all historic places

1:35:00with some form of recognition across the country.

1:35:02So it's the only repository

1:35:04for like a national database of historic places.

1:35:09So it's unfortunate that that's being removed.

1:35:11It's a valuable research resource.

1:35:15Luckily, I understand some private individuals

1:35:18are stepping forward to save all that information

1:35:21and create their own websites

1:35:24that will be publicly available.

1:35:26So hopefully we won't lose all of that data

1:35:30but that it's a relatively big blow

1:35:32to heritage on the national level.

1:35:36I will tonight be at the Stone Road in Victoria

1:35:42Environmental Assessment Open House

1:35:45where we'll be presenting to the public

1:35:48on the McClones Bridge.

1:35:52No new information aside from what was shared

1:35:55with the Heritage Committee at January's meeting

1:35:59but I'll be sharing the preferred alternatives

1:36:03for the bridge with the wider public tonight

1:36:06at the Legion on Watson Road from five to seven o'clock

1:36:10in case any members are interested.

1:36:13Lastly, I'd like to acknowledge that it's Black History Month

1:36:19and I'd like to let the committee know

1:36:21that Heritage Planning staff have had some preliminary meetings

1:36:25with the Guelph Black Heritage Society

1:36:28to help us identify properties in town

1:36:32that might amplify and celebrate black history in Guelph.

1:36:36And so we're going to be pursuing

1:36:38some designation evaluations for those properties.

1:36:42So look forward to receiving those at some point in 2026.

1:36:49That's it for me, Stephen.

1:36:51Do you have any updates to share?

1:36:54Not from me.

1:36:56Okay, back to you, Chair.

1:36:59Thanks so much, Jack.

1:37:01Okay, so I'm gonna perform the motion

1:37:04to adjourn today's meeting.

1:37:06So may I please have a member to move in second

1:37:09on German of today's meeting.

1:37:11Okay, thank you, Piper.

1:37:14And Kelly, thank you for seconding and all in favor.

1:37:19Okay, great, thank you, everyone.

1:37:22So the meeting is now adjourned

1:37:24and the next meeting will be on March 5th, 2026.

1:37:29Thank you, everyone.

1:37:30Have a great day.

1:37:31Thank you.

1:37:31Take care, guys.

1:37:32See you up by.

1:37:37We hope for your down.