HomeMy WebLinkAboutHK Agenda - 2019-10-01Heritage Kitchener
Agenda
Tuesday,October1, 2019
4:00p.m.-6:00p.m.
Office of the City Clerk
Conestoga Room
Kitchener City Hall
(Main Floor)
nd
200 King St.W. -2Floor
Kitchener ON N2G 4G7
Page 1Chair –Ms. A. ReidVice-Chair –Mr. S. Strohack
Delegations
Pursuant to Council’s Procedural By-law, delegations are permitted to address the Committee for a maximumof
five (5)minutes.
None at this time.
Discussion Items
1.DSD-19-227-Heritage Permit Applications –HPA-2019-V-026 & HPA-2019-V-027(20min)
-6 Ellen Street West
-Demolition of an Existing Shed and Construction of a New Shed
2.DSD-19-228-By-law to Enter into a Covenant under the OHA for the Conservation of(20min)
aformer Hog and Hen House at 883 Doon Village Road
3.DSD-19-232-Heritage Permit Application –HPA-2019-IV-023(20min)
- 307 Queen Street South(Bread and Roses)
- Proposed Window Replacement
4.Delegated Approval By-law Update Discussion(25 min)
5.StatusUpdates -Heritage Best Practices Update and 2019 Priorities(5min)
-Heritage Impact Assessment Follow-ups
Information Items
Heritage Permit Application Tracking Sheet
Dianna Saunderson
Committee Administrator
** Accessible formats and communication supports are available upon request. If you require assistance to
take part in a city meeting or event, please call 519-741-2345 or TTY 1-866-969-9994 **
REPORT TO: Heritage Kitchener
DATE OF MEETING: October 1, 2019
SUBMITTED BY: Brandon Sloan, Manager of Long Range & Policy Planning,
519-741-2200 ext. 7684
PREPARED BY: Victoria Grohn, Heritage Planner, 519-741-2200 ext. 7839
WARD (S) INVOLVED: Ward10
DATE OF REPORT:September 17, 2019
REPORT NO.: DSD-19-227
SUBJECT: Heritage Permit Application HPA-2019-V-026
Heritage Permit Application HPA-2019-V-027
6 Ellen Street West
Demolition of an existing shed and construction of a new shed
__________________________________________________________________________________________
RECOMMENDATION:
That pursuant to Section 42 of the Ontario Heritage Act, Heritage Permit Application HPA-2019-V-
026be approvedto permit the demolition of an existing shed on the property municipally
addressed as 6 Ellen Street West, and, further,
That pursuant to Section 42 of the Ontario Heritage Act, Heritage Permit Application HPA-2019-V-
027be approvedto permit the construction of a shed on the property municipally addressed as
6 Ellen Street West, in accordance with the plans and supplementary information submitted with
the application.
Location Map: 6 Ellen Street West
*** This information is available in accessible formats upon request. ***
Please call 519-741-2345 or TTY 1-866-969-9994for assistance.
1 - 1
BACKGROUND:
The Development Services Department is in receipt of Heritage Permit Applications HPA-2019-V-026
and HPA-2019-V-027 which are seeking permission to demolish an existing shed in order to facilitate the
construction of a new shed on the property municipally addressed as 6 Ellen Street West, located within
the Civic Centre Neighbourhood Heritage Conservation District.
REPORT:
The subject property is located on the north side of Ellen Street West between Queen Street North and
Hermie Place. The property is designated under Part V of the Ontario Heritage Act and is in theCivic
Centre Neighbourhood Heritage Conservation District (CCNHCD). The subject property is identified a
Group ‘C’ building in the CCNHCD Plan and Study.
The CCNHCD Plan describes the dwelling on the subject property as a1925, 2 storey dwelling
constructed in the Vernacular architectural style. The shed is not mentioned in the CCNHCD Plan
description.
6 Ellen Street West – Front elevation with shed
Proposed Demolition
In accordance with the Ontario Heritage Act, a heritage permit is required from the Council of a
municipality to demolish a building or structure on a designated heritage property. This includes the
demolition of an accessory structure, and Heritage Kitchener must be consulted.
1 - 2
6 Ellen Street West – Existing shed
Generally, the CCNHCD Plan’s policies and guidelines pertain to residential dwellings, and give little
guidance on accessory structures. However, the CCNHCD Plan contains five policies relating to
demolition. In general, the policies indicate: demolition of buildings is strongly discouraged; demolition
requires a Heritage Permit Application; documentation outlining appropriate reasons for demolition is
required; approved demolitions may be conditional on the submission of written and/or photographic
documentation of notable architectural feature and construction techniques; and reclamation of building
materials for reuse on site or in the neighbourhood is strongly encouraged.
Application HPA-2019-V-026 seeks permission to demolish the existing shed. The exactconstruction
date of the shed is not known. The existing shed is 10 feet by 18 feet, has a wood frame and is clad in
artificial steel siding with a corrugated metal roof. The applicant advises that the wood frame is rotting,
the foundation is sinking, the doors are falling off and will not open, and the metal is peeling, warping and
rotting through. The applicant advises that several contractors and an engineer have assessed the
structureand have stated that repairs are likely impossible and would require a significant investment to
remedy.
Proposed New Construction
Section 3.3.3 of the CCNHCD Plan provides policy direction with respect to new construction within the
CCNHCD:
a)New buildings will respect and be compatible with the heritage character of the Civic Centre
Neighbourhood through attention to height, built form, setbacks, massing, material and other
architectural elements such as doors, windows, rooflines; and
1 - 3
b)Design guidelines provided in section 6.6 of the CCNHCD Plan will be used to review and evaluate
proposals for new buildings to ensure that new development is compatible with the adjacent
context.
Generally the policies contained in section 3.3.3 of the CCNHCD Plan pertain to new residential and
commercial construction and provide little guidance on accessory structures. However, the guidelines
contained in section 6.6 of the CCNHCD can be used for the design of accessory structures within the
district.The following summarizes the relevant recommended practices and design guidelines for new
construction contained within section 6.6 of the CCNHCD Plan:
Match setback, footprint, size and massing patterns of the neighbourhood, particularly to the
immediately adjacent neighbours;
Use materials and colours that represent the texture and palette of the Civic Centre
Neighbourhood; and
Front drive garages are strongly discouraged. Garages should be located in the rear yard
whenever possible and will be subject to the design guidelines of the HCD Plan.
Application HPA-2019-V-027 seeks permission to construct a shed. The new shed is proposed to be 8
feet by 12 feet, constructed inpinewood, and clad in clap board or board and batten siding, both of which
are compatible with the CCNHCD Plan, with an asphalt shingle roof.
Heritage Planning Staff Comments
Heritage Planning staff are of the opinion that the design of the new shed, particularly relative to its height,
built form, setback and massing, is appropriate and compatible with the existing dwelling, neighbouring
properties, and streetscape.
In reviewing the merits of the applications, Heritage Planning staff note the following:
The existing dwelling is a Group ‘C’ property within the CCNHCD;
The applicant has demonstrated that the existing shed is in poor condition and would require a
significant investment to remedy;
1 - 4
The demolition of the existing shed will not detract from the character of the CCNHCD or the
integrity of the Ellen Street West streetscape;
The proposed shed addresses the CCNHCD Plan guidelines for new construction as follows:
o Match setback, footprint, size and massing patterns of the neighbourhood,
particularly to the immediately adjacent neighbours:
The proposed shed has a similar footprint, size and massing pattern of the existing
shed and other garages and sheds within the neighbourhood;
o Use materials and colours that represent the texture and palette of the Civic Centre
Neighbourhood:
Theshed is proposed to be constructed in pine wood and clad in board and batten
or clapboard siding which are materials used elsewhere in the CCNHCD and
complement, while being subordinate to, the existing dwelling; and
o Front drive garages are strongly discouraged. Garages should be located in the rear
yard whenever possible and will besubject to the design guidelines of the HCD
Plan:
The proposed shed is located at the rear of the property and considers the design
guidelines contained within the CCNHCD Plan.
In accordance with the Heritage Permit Application form, the approval of an application under the Ontario
Heritage Act shall not be a waiver of any of the provisions of any by-law of the City of Kitchener or
legislation, including but not limited to, the requirements of the Ontario Building Code and Zoning By-law.
In this regard, staff confirm that a Building Permit is required to demolish the existing shed.
ALIGNMENT WITH CITY OF KITCHENER STRATEGIC PLAN:
The recommendation of this report supports the achievement of the city’s strategic vision through the
delivery of core service.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:
N/A
COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT:
INFORM – This report has been posted to the City’s website with the agenda in advance of the Heritage
Kitchenercommittee meeting.
CONSULT – Heritage Kitchener has been consulted regarding the subject Heritage Permit Applications.
REVIEWED BY:Leon Bensason, Coordinator, Cultural Heritage Planning
ACKNOWLEDGED BY: Alain Pinard, Director of Planning
APPENDIX A: Heritage Permit Applications HPA-2019-V-026 & HPA-2019-V-027
1 - 5
1 - 6
1 - 7
1 - 8
1 - 9
1 - 10
1 - 11
REPORT TO: Heritage Kitchener
DATE OF MEETING: October 1, 2019
SUBMITTED BY: Brandon Sloan, Manager of Long Range & Policy Planning
519-741-2200 ext. 7648
PREPARED BY: Victoria Grohn, Heritage Planner, 519-741-2200 ext. 7839
WARD (S) INVOLVED: Ward 4
DATE OF REPORT:September 17, 2019
REPORT NO.: DSD-19-228
SUBJECT: By-law under Section 37(1) of the Ontario Heritage Act to enter into a
heritage covenant with the owner of the lands municipally addressed
as 883 Doon Village Road, for the conservationof a former Hog and
Hen House.
__________________________________________________________________________________
RECOMMENDATION:
th
That the draft by-law dated October 7, 2019attached to Development Services Department report
DSD-19-228, to allow the City to enter into a heritage covenant with the owner of the lands
municipally addressed as 883 Doon Village Road, for the conservation of a former Hog and Hen
House, be adopted.
Location Map: 883 Doon Village Road
*** This information is available in accessible formats upon request. ***
Please call 519-741-2345 or TTY 1-866-969-9994for assistance.
2 - 1
BACKGROUND:
In 2018,the Development Services Department received Consent Applications B2018-006 through B-
2018-009 to sever a portion of the property municipally addressed as 883 Doon Village Road in order to
facilitate the creation of 4 new lotsand 1 retained lot. The Committee of Adjustment approved the Consent
Applications, subject to conditions,on April 17, 2018. In 2019, the Development Services Department
received Change of Conditions Applications CC2019-001 through CC2019-004 in order to extend the
timeframe in whichto complete the consent conditions. The Committee of Adjustment approved the
Change of Conditions Applications, subject to conditions,on February 19, 2019. The subject propertyis
roughly 1.32 acres in size andcontains a historic dwelling, former Hog and Hen House, and a modern
garage. The property is designated under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act.
883 Doon Village Road (Front Elevation)
REPORT:
Heritage Planning staff are working collaboratively with the property owners in establishing long term
heritage conservation measures that are proposed to be implemented through the Committee of
Adjustment application process. The current location of the formerHog and Hen House is where the
proposed 4 lots are to be created. A Heritage Impact Assessment was undertaken and consideredthe
relocation of the former Hog and Hen House to the retained lot in order to facilitate the creation of the 4
new lots and maintain its existing capacity as a garage/shed.The HIA, which was discussed at the
Heritage Kitchener meeting of January 9, 2018, concluded that the preferred conservation option involves
relocating the former Hog and Hen House a short distance to the retained lot, which would result in
retaining the historical and associative relationship of the former Hog and Hen House with the dwelling.
The former Hog and Hen House was assessed by a structural engineer who is a member of the Canadian
Association of Heritage Professionals (CAHP), as well as a professional house moving company, and
was found to be in sound condition to be relocated a short distance onto the retained lot.
2 - 2
Former Hog and Hen House to be Relocated
Current and Proposed Location of former Hog and Hen House
2 - 3
In order to ensure the former Hog and Hen House is conserved in a timely manner and in accordance
with the conditions of planning approval, the City intends to accept a letter of credit from the owners as a
security for the cost of its relocation and rehabilitation including any repair, restoration or reconstruction
of the building’s heritage attributes required on account of its move to ensure its structural soundness.
The owner has agreed to provide the City with such letter of credit.
The most appropriate mechanism through which the City can receive a letter of credit for heritage
conservation purposes is through a covenant entered into with the property owners under the Ontario
Heritage Act. Section 37(1) of the Ontario Heritage Act enables municipal councils to enter into
easements or covenants for the conservation of property of cultural heritage value or interest. In
accordance with the Act, before entering into the covenant, Council shall consult with its heritage advisory
committee and then pass a by-law providing for entering into a covenant. Heritage Kitchener will be
st
consulted at the Committee meeting of October 1, 2019. Heritage Planning staff anticipate that the
proposed covenant will be temporary and that the obligation of the owners pursuant to the covenant will
end upon the successful relocation of the former Hog and Hen House and confirmation of its structural
soundness following its relocation.
CONCLUSION:
In order to secure the obligation of the owner to relocate the former Hog and Hen House located at 883
Doon Village Road, the owners of the property municipally addressed as 883 Doon Village Road have
agreed to provide the City with a letter ofcredit and enter into a heritage covenant. In accordance with
the Ontario Heritage Act, Council is required to pass a by-law providing for entering into a covenant for
conservation purposes. Accordingly, staff recommend approval of the draft by-law attached to report
DSD-19-228.
ALIGNMENT WITH CITY OF KITCHENER STRATEGIC PLAN:
The recommendation of this report supports the achievement of the city’s strategic vision through the
delivery of core service.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:
N/A
COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT:
INFORM, CONSULT AND COLLABORATE – Heritage Planning staff have consulted and collaborated
with the property owner regarding the conservation of the former Hog and Hen House and entering into
a heritage covenant. Section 37(1) of theOntario Heritage Act requires Council to consult with the
Municipal Heritage Committee (Heritage Kitchener) before passing a by-law providing for entering into a
heritage covenant. Heritage Kitchener will be consulted via circulation and consideration of this report.
2 - 4
REVIEWED BY: Leon Bensason, Coordinator, Cultural Heritage Planning
ACKNOWLEDGED BY: Alain Pinard, Director of Planning
th
APPENDIX A:
Draft by-law dated October 7, 2019to allow the City to enter into a heritage
covenant with the owner of the lands municipally addressed as 883 Doon Village
Road, for the conservation of a former Hog and Hen House.
2 - 5
BY-LAW NUMBER
OF THE
CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF KITCHENER
(Being a by-law to allow the City to enter into a heritage covenant
with the owner of the lands described as 2,
Plan 1445Block 1,and currently municipally addressed as 883
Doon Village Road, for the relocation and conservation of a small
accessory building known as the Hog and Hen House).
WHEREAS section 37(1) of the Ontario Heritage Act allows council of a municipality to
passa by-law providing for the entering into of covenants with owners of real property for the
conservation of property of cultural heritage value or interest;
AND WHEREAS there is a small accessory building locatedon land described as
Tract Part Lot 2, Plan 1445 Block 1, and currently municipally addressed as883 Doon Village
Hog and Hen
AND WHEREAS Council and the owner of the Hog and HenHouse recognize that the
Hog and HenHouse is a structure of cultural heritage value or interest;
AND WHEREAS the municipal heritage committee in Kitchener known as Heritage
Kitchener supports the entering into of a covenant with the owner of the Hog and HenHouse to
conserve the Hog and HenHouse;
AND WHEREAS Council and the owner of the Hog and HenHouse wish to conserve the
Hog and HenHouse;
NOW THEREFORE the Council of The Corporation of the City of Kitchener enacts as
follows:
1.That the Mayor and Clerk be authorized to executea heritage covenant satisfactory to the
City Solicitor with the owner of the real property on which a small accessory buildingknown
as the Hog and HenHouseis presently situated to provide for its relocation and conservation
and authorize staff to take such steps as may be necessary to register the heritage covenant
against the real property affected.
PASSED at the Council Chambers in the City of Kitchenerthisday
of, A.D. 2019.
_____________________________________
Mayor
_____________________________________
Clerk
2 - 6
REPORT TO: Heritage Kitchener
DATE OF MEETING: October 1, 2019
SUBMITTED BY: Brandon Sloan, Manager of Long Range & Policy Planning,
519-741-2200, ext. 7648
PREPARED BY: Victoria Grohn, Heritage Planner, 519-741-2200, ext. 7839
WARD (S) INVOLVED: Ward 9
DATE OF REPORT:September 17, 2019
REPORT NO.: DSD-19-232
SUBJECT: Heritage Permit Application HPA-2019-IV-023
307 Queen Street South (Bread and Roses)
Proposed Window Replacement
___________________________________________________________________________
RECOMMENDATION:
That pursuant to Section 33 of the Ontario Heritage Act, Heritage Permit Application HPA-2019-
IV-023be approvedto permit the replacement of a wood window with a vinyl window on the Queen
Street elevation of the property municipally addressed as 307 Queen Street South, in accordance
with the supplementary information submitted with the application andsubject to the following
conditions:
1.That the existing window and trim be removed and the window opening appropriately
sealed, as per the work program outlined in the proposal from Homestead Woodworks,
dated March 23, 2018; and
2.Thatphotographs of the existing window and trim andthe final shop drawings for the
window andtrim be reviewedand signed off by Heritage Planning staff prior to the
issuance of a Heritage Permit and the installation of the new windowand trim.
Location Map: 307 Queen Street South
*** This information is available in accessible formats upon request. ***
Please call 519-741-2345 or TTY 1-866-969-9994for assistance.
3 - 1
BACKGROUND:
The Development Services Department is in receipt of Heritage Permit Application HPA-2019-IV-023
which is seeking permission to replace a wood window with a vinyl window on the property municipally
addressed as 307 Queen Street South (Bread and Roses).
In June 2009, Kitchener City Council approved, with conditions, Heritage Permit Application HPA-2009-
IV-12 to replace the existing wooden windows located at 307 Queen Street South with vinyl windows, in
accordance with specifications prepared by Kleinfeldt Consultants Limited and the shop drawings
prepared by Regal Windows & Doors Systems Inc., as part of a window replacement program. The
replacement vinyl windows, approved in 2009, were designed to match the historic fenestration of the
building and match the existing wooden windows in terms of design, proportion, operation and colour.
HPA-2019-IV-023 is seeking permission to replace one of the wood-framed windows that was not
replaced as part of the 2009 window replacement programdue to limited fundingat the time.
REPORT:
The subject property is located on the northeast corner of Queen Street South and Courtland Avenue
East, and is designated under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act. The property is comprisedof a complex
of three buildings having separate construction dates.
Queen Street South Elevation – 307 Queen Street South (Bread and Roses)
The Designating By-law references the exterior façade of each elevation, including the roof lines of the
1879 and 1893 buildings, as well as the façade and roof line of the Queen Street elevation of the 1919
building.
The subject property is recognized as a significant landmark and the window openings are identified as
an architectural feature of particular interest, in addition to the polychromatic brick building fabric as
identified in the Designating By-law.
3 - 2
307 Queen Street South – Existing gable window& Proposed window mullions
The applicant is proposing to replace the existing gable window on the Queen Street elevation with a
custom vinyl window and Versatex (composite material) trim to match the existing. The applicant’s
contractoris proposing a three phase program to complete these works:
Phase 1 of the project involves the removal of the existing window and temporarily covering the window
opening with plywood. The custom vinyl window will be ordered and the trim removed in order to produce
the necessary drawings.
Phase 2 of the project involves the manufacturing of the vinyl window and the milling of the trim.
Phase 3 of the project involves the installation of the custom window and the trim.
Drawings of the proposed window and trim have not yet been produced given the difficulty of
photographing and measuring the existing window and trim as a result of its location on the building. The
applicant’s contractorhas advised that in order to prepare the necessary drawings to produce the
replacement trim, the existing trim must be removed.
To ensure the proposed custom vinyl window and trim are in keeping with the existing, Heritage Planning
staff have requested that photographs of the existing window and trim be provided, once removed from
the building. Heritage Planning staff is recommending approval of the application subject to thecondition
thatHeritage Planningstaff review and sign off onthe window and trim drawings prior to the installation
of the newwindow and trim.
In reviewing the merits of the application, Heritage Planning staff note the following:
The subject property is designated under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act and the window
openings are identified as an architectural feature of particular interest in the Designating By-law;
HPA-2007-IV-009 and HPA-2009-IV-012 approved the replacement of wooden windows with
vinyl windows;
3 - 3
The proposed new vinyl windowwith Versatex trim will bedesigned to match the existing window;
and
The general appearance of the proposed new vinyl window will match the existing wood window
in terms of design, proportion, operation and colour.
ALIGNMENT WITH CITY OF KITCHENER STRATEGIC PLAN:
The recommendation of this report supports the achievement of the city’s strategic vision through the
delivery of core service.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:
N/A
COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT:
INFORM – This report has been posted to the City’s website with the agenda in advance of the Heritage
Kitchenercommittee meeting.
CONSULT – Heritage Kitchener has been consulted regarding the subject Heritage Permit Application.
REVIEWED BY: Leon Bensason, Coordinator, Cultural Heritage Planning
ACKNOWLEDGED BY: Alain Pinard, Director of Planning
APPENDIX A: Heritage Permit Application HPA-2019-IV-023
3 - 4
3 - 5
3 - 6
3 - 7
3 - 8
3 - 9
3 - 10
3 - 11
3 - 12
Date:September 16, 2019
To:Members of Heritage Kitchener
From:Leon Bensason, Coordinator, Cultural Heritage Planning
cc:
Subject:Delegated Approval By-law Update Discussion
rd
At the end of the last Heritage Kitchener meeting held on September 3,2019
discussion took place regarding plans to bring forward a report having to do with
updating the delegated approval by-lawfor Heritage Permit applications
, in
accordance with direction from the Heritage Best Practices report of 2015.
Previous to the discussion in September, Heritage Kitchener had a more fulsome
discussion on the subject of delegated approval in May of 2018. Asthere are
several new members of Heritage Kitchener who were not part of the discussion
in 2018, staff thought it might be helpfulto recirculate the discussion paper that
was distributed inMay 2018, along with the minutes from that meeting, and to
provide a further update.
The May 2018 discussion paper is attached, along with the committee minutes.
Heritage staff consider the following points to be some of the take-aways from
the meeting and discussion which occurredin 2018:
Committee members generally agreed with the merit in updating the
delegated approval by-law, in line with considering extending approval
authority for all Heritage Permit applications (save for demolitionand
refusals)as described in the discussion paper, so long as some form of
checks and balances isin place. The committee favoured the City of
Waterloo approach of staff consulting with the Heritage Kitchener
Committee Chair before approving an application through delegated
approval.
The HK representative for the Upper Doon HCD noted that the UDHCD
Plan which was adopted by by-law, states that appl
ications shall be
brought forward to the City’s heritage committee, and questioned
whether delegated approval could apply toHeritage Permit applications
made in the Upper Doon heritage district. Councillor Ioannidis was of the
opinion all heritage districts should be subject to the same approvals
process. In this regard, heritage staff havetouched base with Legal staff
who concur with the interpretation that the Upper Doon district plan
contains wording that requires applications to be considered by the
heritage committee.
Inregard to applications considered at Heritage Kitchener, some
committee members expressed support for continuing the practice of
requiring a unanimous recommendation of approval in order to proceed
through final delegated approval.
4 - 1
Staff hope to havemore discussion on updating the delegated approval by-law
at the October HK meeting.
_______________________________
Leon Bensason, MCIP, RPP, CAHP
Coordinator, Cultural Heritage Planning
Acknowledged By: Brandon Sloan, Manager of Long Range & Policy Planning
Attachments:
- May 2018 Discussion Paperand Appendices
-Excerpt from May 2018 Heritage Kitchener Minutes
4 - 2
Heritage Best Practices Delegated Approval
Discussion Paper Heritage Kitchener May 1, 2018
Why Are We Considering a Review and Update to the Delegated Approval By-law ?
The delegation to staff of Cheritage permit applications, is
generally regarded as a customer service measure, as it reduces the timelines for granting
heritage approval (generally from 6-7 weeks down to 10 days), and provides for a more efficient
use of time and resources toward other staff, committee and Council priorities. While more than
half of all heritage permit applications received are currently processed through delegated
approval,at various times since the passage of the delegated approval by-law in 2009, there
have been instances when alteration applications in compliance with good conservation
practices, have not been able to be approved directly by staff due to limitations in the wording of
the current delegated approval by-law.
In 2015, City Council directed staff to examine heritage best practice measures in Ontario, and
to identify priority measures for implementation in Kitchener. Following discussion with Heritage
Kitchener, one such priority included establishing a heritage procedural protocol and improving
processes related to the issuance of heritage permits. This includes giving consideration to
reviewing and updating the existing delegated approval by-law to provide greater opportunity for
heritage permits to be issued through delegated approval, when appropriate to do so.
What Does the Ontario Heritage Act Say About Delegated Authority?
Changes made to the Ontario Heritage Act in 2005 enable municipal councils to delegate its
consent or approval authority for certain heritage permit applications to a municipal employee or
official. The delegated authority could apply to consenting to proposed alterations or classes of
alterations made for Part IV or Part V designated property. In accordance with the Ontario
Heritage Act, approval authority cannot be delegated for applications seeking permission to
demolish. Further, where a Municipal Heritage Committee (MHC) has been established, the
municipality must consult with its MHC before consenting to an alteration application made for
Part IV designated property. This same provision does not apply where the property is
designated under Part V. The following table illustrates the provisions of the Ontario Heritage
Act with regard to delegated authority:
Part IV Designated Part V Designated
Heritage Permit Application
DemolitionApplicationDelegated authority is Delegated authority is
notpermitted.notpermitted.
Alteration ApplicationDelegated Authority is Delegated Authority is
permitted.permitted.
Ability for staff to approve application No. Applications must Yes. Applications do
directly without needing to consult heritage be referred to heritage not have to be
committee?committee.referred to heritage
committee (but staff
may still do so).
Ability for staff to approve application after YesYes
consultation with heritage committee?
Њ
4 - 3
How Has the Current Delegated Approval By-law in Kitchener Worked in Practice?
In 2009, Kitchener City Council passed By-law 2009-089, delegating its approval authority for
alterations to designated heritage property to the Coordinator, Cultural Heritage Planning.The
existing by-law circumstances and criteria to be used when
qualifying a heritage permit alteration application to be processed through delegated approval.
The by-law addresses delegated approval for applications made for Part IV and Part V
designated property differently. It is worth noting that in addition to not applying to applications
made for demolition, delegated authority also does not apply when the recommendation is
refusal of the application.
For Part IV Designated Property
In accordance with the Ontario Heritage Act, all applications for Part IV designated property
must go to the Municipal Heritage Committee (MHC) for consideration. Under the Kitchener
delegated approval bylaw, the Coordinator, Cultural Heritage Planning has the authority to grant
final approval where Heritage Kitchener recommends approval with or without conditions that
are the same as recommended by heritage planning staff, or with or without conditions that
heritage planning staff agree to.
flowchart the delegated approval processes for Part IV designated property as per the existing
delegated approval by-law.
Staff are of the opinion that in practice, the scenario outlined in the delegated approval by-law
for Part IV designated property is working well. Staff cannot recall any instance where Heritage
Kitchener has made a recommendation of approval that has not beenthe same as the staff
recommendation or that staff have not been able to agree to. As a result, the existing delegated
approval by-law has positioned most, if not all, alteration applications made for Part IV
designated property to be approved through delegated authority, thereby saving applicants 2-3
weeks time in getting a heritage permit.
For Part V Designated Property
There are two scenarios when heritage approval may be granted through delegated authority for
Part V designated property (property located within a heritage conservation district).
Under the first scenario, the Coordinator, Cultural Heritage Planning can approve the application
directly without having to consult with Heritage Kitchener (though staff does consult with
the HCD representative on HK or the ward councillor). However the by-law establishes that an
application is to bereferred to HK where one or more of the following criteria apply.
o the application is highly complex
o there is no existing policy to address the proposed work or situation;
o there is significant sensitivity or controversy associated with the property or
proposed work;
o it does not meet with good heritage conservation practice;
o it does not meet the policies or guidelines of the respective heritage conservation
district plan;
Ћ
4 - 4
o
property of very high cultural heritage value or interest as identified by Council or
in a heritage conservation district study or plan;
o staff recommend approval of the application subject to conditions other than the
o staff are recommending refusal of the application;
o the Coordinator, Cultural Heritage Planning (or designate) is of the opinion the
application should be forwarded to the municipal heritage committee for
discussion.
The second scenario when delegated authority may apply is when the application has been
referred to Heritage Kitchener (as described above) and where the committee has made a
recommendation of approval. Under such scenario, delegated authority applies much as it does
for Part IV designated property, in that the Coordinator, Cultural Heritage Planning has the
authority to grant final approval where Heritage Kitchener recommends approval with or without
conditions that are the same as recommended by heritage planning staff, or with or without
conditions that heritage planning staff agree to.
illustrates in a flowchart the delegated approval processes for Part V designated property as per
the existing delegated approval by-law.
In general, the majority of heritage permit alteration applications received for Part V designated
property are granted approval through delegated authority, where approval is granted directly by
staff without having to consult with HK. In any given year, several alteration applications
continue to be referred to HK because they meet one or more of the criteria listed in the
delegated approval by-law. In most instances, applications are referred to HK because they are
either deemed potentially sensitive or controversial, because the application is made for a
; or because approval is subject to special (non-standard) conditions.
Looking back at2017 as an example,the following observations can be made:
Total number of heritage permit
alteration applications in 2017 16
made for Part V designated
property
Number of applications
approved by staff without 9
having to consult with HK
4 for significant new development(modern house at 32
Number of applications referred
Ahrens St. W. in CCHCD;multiple building at 64 Margaret
to HK Ave. in CCHCD;Barra Condos in VPHCD;multiple
building at 51 David St. in VPHCD)
3 for alterations(addition to 19 Roland St. in VPHCD;
rear garage/pool buildingaddition at 4 Park St. in VPHCD;
new front porch at 22 Ahrens St. W. in CCHCD)
Ќ
4 - 5
The general intent of the criteria referenced in delegated approval by-law is to
identify applications that are complex or potentially controversial and therefore deserving of
being discussed and considered at the committee level. However in practice, some of the
criteria are not clear indicators of such applications. Some alteration applications that could
otherwise be regarded as non-complex or controversial and in keeping with good conservation
practice, are being
property or because a non-standard condition of approval applies (e.g. inspection of brick
selection). The 3 alteration applications noted in the table above were referred to HK for those
same reasons, but were unanimously recommended for approval without much discussion or
debate.
How Have Other Municipalities Addressed Delegated Approval Authority?
The Ontario Heritage Act enables municipal Councils to delegate its power to consent to
alterations either with respect to all alterations or with respect to classes of alterations as
described in the by-
of other municipal bylaws suggests that municipalities have on the most part adopted one or the
other approach.
Municipalities such as Markham, Burlington, Hamilton and Caledon have adopted an all
alterations approach, whereby the by-
alterations and does not restrict such authority to only certain types or classes of alterations.
for by-law excerpts.
In contrast, municipalities such as Oakville, Kingston and Waterloo have opted to limit delegated
approval authority to certain types of alterations as specifically described or outlined in the by-
law and generally considered to be minor or that would not cause significant negative impact on
-law excerpts.
What are some options for consideration and further discussion?
1. Do Nothing and leave the existing by-law as is.
Overthe past 5 years, 65% of all heritage permit applicationshave been approved through
delegated authority (either approved by staff directly or after consultation with HK). This trend
could continue if the City opted for the status quo. However,staff are of the opinion that certain
provisions in the existing by-law may be limiting the number of applications that are being
approved by delegated authority, particularly in relation to Part V designated property.
2. Revisit the by-law and amend the criteria applicable to Part V designated property.
Staff have noted thatthere may be value in revisiting thecriteria applicable to Part V designated
propertyin the existing delegated approval by-law requiring referral of an alteration application
to HK. Criteriasuch as: ; or, is subject to conditions other
,may not be clear indicators of applications that are complex
andthat requireconsultation at the committee level. Consideration could begiven to amending
the existing by-law to address this.
Ѝ
4 - 6
3. Consider an approach taken bymostother municipalities and amend the by-law to identify
classes of alterationsor to reflect an all alterationsapproach
While some municipalities have gone the
considered routine and non-complex directly in their by-law (and therefore eligible to be
approved through delegated authority), such approachmay be restrictive,and like some of the
criteria applicable to Part V designat
number of applications that could otherwise be approved through delegated authority.
If considering amending the existing by-law, then staff believe there may be merit in simplifying
and streamlining the existing by-law to take an
approval authority. Such approach would not represent a significant departure from how
alteration applications for Part IV designated property are already being addressed, but could
serve to address some of the limitations of the existing criteria relating to applications made for
Part V designated property.While this assigns more approval authority to staff, the by-law
should be worded to still enable staff to forward analteration application to Heritage Kitchener
and Council for review or a decision.
A draft of how the by-law may be worded to reflect an all alterations approach, is provided
below.
That Council delegate to the Coordinator, Cultural Heritage Planning or his /her designate, all
power, except the power to refuse an application, for the granting of consents and approvals for
alteration applications made for Part IV and Part V designated property, including the authority
to attach terms and conditions. All decisions of the Coordinator, Cultural Heritage Planning shall
be reported to H
That the Coordinator, Cultural Heritage Planning may forward alteration applications to Heritage
Kitchener and Council for review or a decision, particularly where in the opinion of the
Coordinator, Cultural Heritage Planning, the application is highly complex, potentially
controversial, or relates to a property having a high profile in the City.
What about Heritage KitchenerCurrent Practice of Requiring a Unanimous
Recommendation of Approval?
At some point in time in 2015 or 2016, a change in process regarding the approval of Heritage
Permit Applications was introduced at Heritage Kitchener and has since been put in regular
practice. Currently, only alteration applications unanimously recommended for approval are
forwarded to the Coordinator, Cultural Heritage Planning for final approval through delegated
authority. Applications not receiving a unanimous recommendation of approval are forwarded to
Council for final consideration. This protocol has been informally adopted by Heritage Kitchener
when considering alteration applications made for both Part IV and Part V designated property,
but is not formally addressed in the existing delegated approval by-law.
Staff question the value of the current practice of requiring that committee recommendations of
approval be unanimous in order to proceed to delegated approval. Staff are not aware of any
instance where Council has not approved a recommendation of approval made by Heritage
Kitchener. The requirement for recommendations to be unanimous is not referenced in the
delegated approval bylaw; does not form part of the terms of reference for Heritage Kitchener;
Ў
4 - 7
and staff are not aware of any other committee of Council or advisory committee following such
practice.
Heritage staff believe this practice could lead to applicants being delayed issuance of final
approval through delegated authority, and suggest reviewing and reconsidering such practice.
Џ
4 - 8
Appendix ‘A’
BY-LAW NUMBER
OF THE
CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF KITCHENER
(Being a by-law to delegate certain authority of Council to consent
to permits for the alteration of property designated under Parts IV
and V of the Ontario Heritage Act)
WHEREAS section 9 of the Municipal Act, 2001,S.O. 2001, c.25, as amended,
provides that a municipality has the capacity, rights, powers and privileges of a natural
person for the purpose of exercising its authority under that or any other Act;
AND WHEREAS section 11(3) 5 of the Municipal Act, 2001provides that a
municipality may pass by-laws within the culture, parks, recreation and heritage sphere
of jurisdiction;
AND WHEREAS section 8(1) of the Municipal Act, 2001provides that the powers
of a municipality under any Actshall be interpreted broadly so as to confer broad
authority on municipalities to enable them to govern their affairs as they consider
appropriate, and to enhance their ability to respond to municipal issues;
AND WHEREAS section 23.1 of the Municipal Act, 2001provides that sections 9
and 11 of the Municipal Act, 2001authorize a municipality to delegate its powers under
the Municipal Act, 2001or any Act, subject to certain limitations;
AND WHEREAS sections 33 and 42 of the Ontario Heritage Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.
O.18 provide that Council may delegate its authority to consent to alteration of property
designated under Part IV of the OntarioHeritage Act and to grant permits for the
alteration of propertylocated in a Heritage Conservation District designated under Part
V of the Ontario Heritage Act;
AND WHEREAS pursuant to sections 33(15) and 42(16) of the Ontario Heritage
Act, Council of The Corporation of the City of Kitchener has consulted with its municipal
heritage committee, Heritage Kitchener, respecting the delegation contained within this
by-law;
NOW THEREFORE the Council of The Corporation of the City of Kitchener
enacts as follows:
1.In this by-law:
“Act” shall mean the Ontario Heritage Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. O.18;
4 - 9
“alter” means to change in anymanner and includes to restore, renovate, repair, erect,
or disturb and “alteration” and “altering” have corresponding meanings;
“City” shall mean The Corporation of the City of Kitchener;
“Coordinator” shall mean:
(a)the City’s Coordinator of Cultural Heritage Planning;
(b) in the absence or unavailability of the City’s Coordinator of Cultural Heritage
Planning shall meanthe City’s Manager of Long Range and Policy Planning;
and
(c)in the absence or unavailability of the City’s Coordinator of Cultural Heritage
Planning and Manager of Long Range and Policy Planningshall mean the
City’s Director of Planning;
“Council” shall mean the Council of the City;
“Heritage Conservation District” means a heritage conservation district established
under Part V of the Ontario Heritage Act;
“Heritage Kitchener” shall mean the City’s municipal heritage committee established
pursuant to the Act;
“heritage planning staff” shall mean the City’s Heritage Planner, Coordinator of Cultural
Heritage Planning, Manager of Long Rangeand Policy Planning, and Director of
Planning;
“Owner” shall mean means the person registered on title in the proper land registry
office as owner;
“Part IV application(s)” means an application to obtain consent for an alteration to
property designated under Part IV of the Act;
“Part V application(s)” means a heritage alteration permit application for property
located within aHeritage Conservation District;
“Property” means real property and includes all buildings and structures thereon and
includesa cultural heritage landscape;
“Standard Condition” shall mean a conditionor conditions acknowledged by resolution
of Council for use as a standard condition of approval for Part IV application or a Part V
application.
4 - 10
Delegation of consent to alterations on Part IV applications
2. Council delegates to the Coordinator all of the power that Council has
respecting the granting of consentfor Part IV applicationsincluding the
ability to attach conditions to such consent,subject to the provisions of this
by-law.
3.Upon receipt of a Part IV application, heritage planning staffshall consider
the application and mayrecommend:
(a)that the application be decided by Councilafter consultation with
Heritage Kitchener;
(b)refusal of the application;
(c)consent to the application with no conditions;
(d)consent tothe application with the Standard Condition and/or other
conditions.
4. In the circumstances set out in section 3(a) or (b), heritage planning staff
shall refer the applicationto Heritage Kitchener for recommendations and
Council shall retain decision making poweron the Part IV application.
5. In the circumstances set out in section 3(c) or (d),heritage planning staff
shall refer the Part IV application to Heritage Kitchener and:
(a)where Heritage Kitchener recommends consent tothe Part IV
application with orwithout conditions that are the same as
recommended by the heritage planning staffor with or without
conditions that are agreeable to heritage planning staff, the
Coordinator shall consent to the Part IV applicationand impose any
conditions agreed upon by heritage planning staffand Heritage
Kitchener; or
(b)where Heritage Kitchener recommends that a Part IV application be
refused, beconsented towith condition(s) that in the opinion of
heritage planning staffare excessive or insufficient, or be
consented towithout condition(s) that in the opinion of heritage
planning staffare necessary, Council shallretain decision making
poweron thePart IV application.
Delegation of granting of permits onPart V applications
6. Council delegates to the Coordinator all of the power that Council has
respecting the granting of permits on Part V applications, including the
ability to attach conditions to such permit, subject to the provisions of this
by-law.
4 - 11
7.Upon receipt of a Part V application, heritage planning staffshall consider
the application and may:
(a)refer the application to Heritage Kitchener for review and
recommendation in the circumstances set out in section 8;
(b)recommend refusal of the application;
(c) grant the permitwith no conditions;or
(d)grant the permitwith the Standard Condition and/or other
conditions.
8. Heritage planning staffshall refer Part V Applications to Heritage
Kitchener for review and recommendation in the following circumstances:
(a) the application is highly complex, including situations in which a
heritage impact assessment, conservation plan or other study is
required to be submitted;
(b)there is no existing City policy to address the proposed work or
situation;
(c) in the opinion of heritage planning staff, there is significant
sensitivity or controversy associated with the property or proposed
work;
(d)the proposed work does not meet with good heritage conservation
practice;
(e)the proposed work does not meet the policies or guidelines of the
respective Heritage Conservation District plan;
(f)the application is made for a property identified by Council or in a
heritage conservation district study or plan as a Group “A” property
or as property of very high cultural heritage value or interest;
(g)heritage planning staffrecommends granting the permit for
alteration subject to conditions other than the City’s Standard
Condition; and
(h) heritage planning staffis of the opinion that the application should
be forwarded to Heritage Kitchener for discussion.
9.In the circumstances set out in section 7(b),heritage planning staffshall
refer the application to Heritage Kitchener for review and
recommendations and Council shall retain decision making power.
Retention of Delegated Authority
10. Regardless of any authority delegated to the Coordinator under this by-
law, Council may, after notifying the Coordinator, exercise any authority
that it delegated to the Coordinator.
4 - 12
11.Notwithstanding any other provisionof this by-law, heritage planning staff
may refer any Part IV Application and any Part V applicationto Council at
any time.
Delegation of authority to request information
12.Council delegates to the Coordinator all of the power that Council has to
request such information as Council may require from the Owner
respecting a Part IV application and a Part V application.
General
13. It is hereby declared that each and every of the foregoing sections of this
by-lawis severable and that, if any provisions of this by-lawshould for any
reason be declared invalid by any Court, it is the intention and desire of
Council that each and every of the then remaining provisions hereof shall
remain in full force and effect.
14. The Clerk of the City is hereby directed to make this by-law a part of The
City of Kitchener Municipal Code by adding it to the Concordance and
arranging and numbering it so as to fit within the scheme of the Code.
PASSED at the Council Chambers in the City of Kitchener this day
of , A.D. 2009.
_____________________________________
Mayor
_____________________________________
Clerk
4 - 13
apply.
’
NOT
B
of the Municipal
application.
Staff disagree with
Delegated approval
Heritage Committee.
decision on the
Council makes a
the recommendations
Appendix ‘Authority does
from the staff
with or without
recommendation.
Municipal Heritage
the application and
conditions which are
Committee considers
different
recommends approval,
l Heritage
ecommendations
authority.
Staff agree with
of the Municipal
Coordinator of
consents to the
Cultura
Heritage Committee.
application under
the r
delegated approval
Planning (or designate)
V)
I
ers
as the
same
approval of the with or without
the
application with
Staff recommend
Municipal Heritage
the application and
conditions which are
or without conditions Committee consid
staff recommendation.
recommends approval,
authority.
Coordinator of
consents to the
Cultural Heritage
application under
delegated approval
Planning (or designate)
here Delegated Approval Authority Applies
W
s
apply.
Application is received by staff
NOT
the application and
Municipal Heritage
Delegated approval
recommends refusal.
Committee considers
Bold Box Denotes Scenario
application.
authority does
decision on the
Council makes a
Delegated Approval Authority (Part
apply.
ouncil.
NOT
to C
refusal of the
application.
and makes a
the application
decision on the
does
Staff recommendrecommendation
Council makes a
approval authority
Municipal Heritage
Committee considers
application. Delegated
4 - 14
apply.
ut
’
C
NOT
from the staff
he Municipal
application.
with or witho
recommendation.
of tdecision on the
Municipal Heritage
the application and
Council makes a
conditions which are
Staff disagree with
Committee considers
Delegated approval
different
recommends approval,
Heritage Committee.
Appendix ‘the recommendations
Authority does
s criteria
’
as the
authority.
Staff agree with
of the Municipal
Coordinator of
consents to the
Cultural Heritage
Heritage Committee.
application under
same
the recommendations
delegated approval
the application
Planning (or designate)
approval of the with or without
application with the
without conditions
Staff recommend
with the Municipal
Municipal Heritage
and
the application and
Heritage Committee
conditions which are
orCommittee considers
requiring consultation
staff recommendation.
recommends approval,
meets the City
apply.
ral Heritage
NOT
authority.
Coordinator of
consents to the
Cultu
application under
delegated approval
Planning (or designate)
mittee considers
the application and
Municipal Heritage
Delegated approval
recommends refusal.
Com
here Delegated Approval Authority Applies
authority does
W
s
Application is received by staff
s
’
application.
decision on the
Council makes a
Bold Box Denotes Scenario
l of the
conditions.
Delegated Approval Authority (Part V)
authority.
approva
one of the City
Coordinator of
Staff recommend
consents to the
conditions, or with
Cultural Heritage
application, without
application under
standard
delegated approval
Planning (or designate)
ge
apply.
NOT
to Council.
refusal of the
application.
and makes a
the application
decision on the
does
Staff recommendrecommendation
Council makes a
approval authority
Municipal Herita
Committee considers
application. Delegated
4 - 15
APPENDIX ‘D’
Ontario Heritage Act
Section 33 (Part IV) – Alteration of Property
Delegation of council’s consent
(15) The power to consent to alterations to property under this section may be
delegated by by-law by the council of a municipality to an employee or official of the
municipality if the council has established a municipal heritage committee and has
consulted with the committee prior to delegating the power. 2005, c.6, s.21(3).
Scope of delegation
(16) A by-law that delegates the council’s power to consent to alterations to a municipal
employee or official may delegate the power with respect to all alterations or with
respect to such classes of alterations as are described in the by-law.2005, c.6,
s. 21(3).
Section 42 (Part V) – Erection, Demolition etc.
Delegation
(16) The council of a municipality may delegate by by-law its power to grant permits for
the alteration of property situated in a heritage conservation district designated under
this Part to an employee or official of the municipality if the council has established a
municipal heritage committee and consulted with it before the delegation. 2005, c.6,
s. 32(6).
Same
(17) A by-law under subsection (16) may specify the alterations or classes of alterations
in respect of which power to grant permits is delegated to the employee or official of the
municipality.2005, c.6, s.32(6).
4 - 16
4 - 17
4 - 18
4 - 19
4 - 20
4 - 21
4 - 22
4 - 23
4 - 24
4 - 25
4 - 26
4 - 27
4 - 28
4 - 29
4 - 30
4 - 31
4 - 32
4 - 33
4 - 34
4 - 35
4 - 36
4 - 37
4 - 38
4 - 39
4 - 40
4 - 41
4 - 42
4 - 43
4 - 44
4 - 45
4 - 46
4 - 47
4 - 48
4 - 49
4 - 50
24-Jun-1924-Jun-19
25-Feb-1925-Feb-1925-Feb-19
Approved by Council
Dealt with under delegated approval authorityDealt with under delegated approval authorityDealt with under delegated approval authorityDealt with under delegated approval authority
Dealt with under delegated approval authorityDealt with under delegated approval authorityDealt with under delegated approval authorityDealt with under delegated approval authorityDealt
with under delegated approval authorityDealt with under delegated approval authorityDealt with under delegated approval authorityDealt with under delegated approval authorityDealt with
under delegated approval authorityDealt with under delegated approval authorityDealt with under delegated approval authorityDealt with under delegated approval authority
Dealt with under delegated approval authorityDealt with under delegated approval authorityDealt with under delegated approval authority
4-Jun-194-Jun-19
5-Feb-195-Feb-195-Feb-196-Aug-196-Aug-196-Aug-19
Considered by Heritage Kitchener
Unanimous Recommendation for ApprovalUnanimous Recommendation for ApprovalUnanimous Recommendation for ApprovalUnanimous Recommendation for Approval
To be heard at the October 1, 2019 HK meeting
Staff
Report #
DSD-19-028DSD-19-028DSD-19-028DSD-19-066DSD-19-139DSD-19-139DSD-19-156DSD-19-183DSD-19-180DSD-19-180DSD-19-203DSD-19-204
Date
1-Aug-196-Aug-19
17-Jul-1919-Jul-1925-Jul-1916-Jul-1924-Jul-19
29-Apr-1929-Apr-19
27-Jun-1927-Jun-19
19-Feb-1921-Mar-19
25-Dec-1825-Dec-1825-Dec-1812-Aug-1914-Aug-1920-Aug-1913-Sep-1923-Aug-1923-Aug-1928-Aug-1928-Aug-1910-Sep-19
Received 31-May-19
2019 HERITAGE PERMIT APPLICATIONS
21 Dill St21 Dill St
67 Rex Dr
39 Park St920 Orr Ct16 Park St
920 Orr Crt
85 David St
5 Michael St
6 Ellen St W6 Ellen St W
32 Heins Ave
37 Oregon Dr
29 Ellen St W
54 Theresa St
33 Mansion St33 Mansion St46 Lorne Cres
98 St. Clair Ave
307 Queen St S
140 Queen St N
65 Margaret Ave
242 Queen St. S.254 Queen St. S.262 Queen St. S.
30-40 Margaret Ave
Property Address
1380 Doon Village Rd1094 Doon Village Rd
Number
Application
HPA-2019-V-001HPA-2019-V-002HPA-2019-V-003HPA-2019-V-004HPA-2019-V-005HPA-2019-V-006HPA-2019-V-007HPA-2019-V-008HPA-2019-IV-009HPA-2019-V-010HPA-2019-V-011HPA-2019-V-012HPA-2019-V-013HPA-2019-V-014HP
A-2019-V-015HPA-2019-V-016HPA-2019-IV-017HPA-2019-V-018HPA-2019-V-019HPA-2019-V-020HPA-2019-V-021HPA-2019-V-022HPA-2019-IV-023HPA-2019-V-024HPA-2019-V-025HPA-2019-V-026HPA-2019-V-027HPA-2019-V-028
123456789
#
10111213141516171819202122232425262728293031323334353637383940414243
IF1 - 1