Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutDTS-08-096 - Addendum To Dts 08-038 (A By-Law To Amend Chapter 665 [Property Standards] With Respect To Designated Heritage Property'J ..~. T ~~R Ks ~ Development& Technical Services Report To: Development & Technical Services Committee Date of Meeting: June 16, 2008 Submitted By: Shayne Turner, Director of By-law Enforcement (741-2753} Jeff INillmer, Director of Planning X741-2325} Prepared By: Shayne Turner, Director of By-law Enforcement (741-2753} Leon Bensason, Coordinator, Cultural Heritage Planning X741-2306} Ward(s) Involved: All Date of Report: May 28, 2008 Report No.: DTS-08-096 Subject: ADDENDUM TO DTS 08-038 (A BY-LAW TO AMEND CHAPTER fi65 PROPERTY STANDARDS] WITH RESPECT TO DESIGNATED HERITAGE PROPERTY RECOMMENDATIONS: 1. That a by-law be enacted to amend Chapter 665 Property Standards} of the City of Kitchener Municipal Code, with respect to regulations specific to the maintenance of vacant designated heritage property, as outlined in Staff Report DTS 08-096. 2. That in accordance with enforcement option 3 of DTS Report 08-096, City Staff be directed to take proactive measures to identify "vacant heritage property" as defined in Chapter 665 of The City of Kitchener Municipal Code and undertake inspections of and any necessary enforcement with such property to ensure compliance with Chapter 665. 3. That City staff be directed to conduct an evaluation by May 2009 of the properties located within the Victoria Park Heritage Conservation District to identify properties that are of very high cultural heritage value as defined in Chapter 665 of The City of Kitchener Municipal Code; and that Council consider the recommendation of Heritage Planning staff, the Heritage Kitchener Committee and any comments that may be provided by the property owner in determining which properties within the Victoria Park Heritage Conservation District are of very high cultural heritage value. 4. That City Staff be directed to conduct a review of the City's heritage incentive and assistance programs, to in part examine opportunities to provide financial assistance and support to property owners to assist with conservation efforts, including the maintenance and repair of designated heritage property in compliance with the Proper#y Standards By-law; and that a report be brought to the attention of Heritage Kitchener Committee and City Council in 2009, for consideration in advance of budget deliberations for 2010. BACKGROUND: Staff report DTS 08-038 dated March 1, 2008 recommended that a by-law be enacted to amend Chapter 665 (Property Standards} to prescribe minimum standards for the maintenance of designated heritage property. The report was scheduled to be considered at the Development and Technical Services Committee meeting of March 31, 2008 but was referred by the Committee to the Development and Technical Services Committee meeting of May 12, 2008 to provide an opportunity for staff to hold a public information meeting with affected property owners. That public information meeting was held on April 17, 2008. On May 12, 2008 the Development & Technical Services Committee approved to further defer and refer consideration of the recommendation made in DTS 08-038 to a future meeting of the Development and Technical Services Committee, in order to provide staff more time review the comments made by affected property owners. Having reviewed the comments made by property owners, staff have re-evaluated the issue of using the property standards by-law to address the maintenance of designated heritage property, and have prepared this addendum to DTS 08-038 for Council's consideration. REPORT: In April 2005, the Ontario legislature passed the most comprehensive amendments to the Ontario Heritage Act (Bill 60} since the Act was introduced in 1915. The amendments include provisions which provide municipalities with new powers to make by-laws prescribing .minimum s#andards for the maintenance of the heritage attributes of properties designated under the Ontario Heritage Act. The property standards provisions related to these buildings can require that identified heritage attributes be maintained in a manner that conserves the character and integrity of such attributes, and therefore the heritage value of the property. The City of Kitchener has an in#erest in ensuring that the heritage features of a designated heritage property are maintained. The lack of minimal maintenance may lead to a loss of the heritage features that make each heritage property unique. This concern is heightened where designated heritage properties contain vacant building with minimal utilities (e.g. heatlhydro}. On September 1l, 2001 City Council approved the Heritage Kitchener recommendation endorsing the process for amending Chapter 665 to incorporate maintenance standards in the Property Standards By-law for designated heritage properties. The general purpose of such a by-law would serve to ensure property owners maintain the heritage attributes of their designated property so as to prevent deterioration and damage beyond repair, which could lead to the eventual loss of the heritage attribute. DTS 08-038 and Draft B -law .~~.~. Staff Report DTS 08-038 (see Appendix `B'} included a draft by-law that proposed amending the City's Property Standards By-law to apply minimum property standards to the heritage attributes of the following class of heritage properties; • all Part IV (or individually} designated properties; 2 • Part V designated properties (located within Heritage Conservation Districts} identified as being of very high cultural heritage value neither referred to as Group `A' Property in a Heritage Conservation District Study or Plan, or as otherwise identified by a City Heritage Planner). In situations where the heritage attributes of a property are not readily identified in a designating by-law or in a HCD Study or Plan, the draft by-law provided the City's Heritage Planners with the authority to identify the heritage attributes of such property. The draft by-law also proposed to apply additional property standards measures to qualifying heritage properties that are vacant for a period of more than 90 days, requiring that such properties be boarded up to prevent entry; that the exterior be maintained to prevent moisture penetration and damage from the elements; that appropriate utilities be connected to maintain and monitior proper heating to prevent the negative effects associated with freeze-thaw cycles; that appropriate ventilation be provided to prevent damage to heritage attribu#es caused by humidity; and that appropriate security lighting be installed to deter vandals. The staff report proposed that these provisions be enforced on apro-active basis through the systematic inspection of all qualifying heritage properties, to be conducted by the City's Property Standards Officers with the assistance of Heritage Planning staff. Where the inspection identified a need to repair designated heritage attributes, an Order would be issued under the normal provisions, administration, enforcement and appeal processes of the Building Code Act. Pro ert owner Res onse The communication and public consultation process associated with efforts to establish heritage property standards included an information report mailed in October 2007 to 101 affected property owners. This initial mail out generated three written replies from property owners; one in favour of the proposed by-law and two opposed. Upon receiving notice that some property owners in the Upper Doon Heritage Conservation District may not have received a copy of the October 2001 mailing, Staff were directed to host a public information meeting. Notice of the April 1l, 2008 public information meeting was advertised in the April 11, 2008 edition of The Record. In addition, an information letter and copy of Staff Report DTS 08-038 was mailed out to all affected property owners, including an additional 45 property owners whose property may become affected by the proposed by-law should an appeal against the by-law designating the Civic Centre Heritage Conservation District be dismissed by the Ontario Municipal Board. The April 17, 2008 public information meeting was attended by 15 property owners, most of whom expressed some concern or opposition to the City's proposal. Several property owners submitted written comments in advance of and following the public information meeting. A summary of the questions and answers and comments made at the public information meeting is attached as Appendix `C' to this report. In general, the concerns expressed by property owners include the following: • That the requirements included in the draft by-law are too stringent or excessive (e.g. requiring heat, ventilation and security lighting for vacant buildings}. • That the 90 day period that establishes if a building is vacant seems arbitrary and too short; and that it may be unreasonable in some circumstances (e.g. snowbirds), or could invite vandalism as the requirement to board up windows and doors could clearly advertise that the building is unoccupied. Further, it is counter-intuitive as boarding up 3 the vacant building does not preserve the visual appeal of the property or neighbourhood, and could lead to neighbourhood blight. • That the draft by-law gives heritage and by-law enforcement staff too much discretionary authority. The by-law is too vague and does not adequately describe what the minimum standard is for the maintenance of heritage attributes. • That the right of appeal to the property standards committee is inadequate and does not provide property owners with sufficient protection against abuse. • That the city needs to provide property owners with incentives such as more substantial grants to assist with the cost of maintaining designated heritage property, rather than approach maintenance through punitive means (enforcement}. More realistic funding and an open schedule would make grants more effective. • That financial aid should be put in place before any heritage property standards by-law takes effect, given costs for maintenance will be greatest at the initial identification of deficiencies. • That property standards should apply equally to all property owners. Designated heritage property owners should not be singled out. • That the proposed change does not address the issue of property standards and maintenance in a constructive manner. A more consultative approach in partnership with property owners is preferred. • That the existing property standards by-law already gives Council sufficient power to enforce essential building maintenance. • That clearer guidance be provided so property owners are aware of the heritage attributes of their property before any action is taken by the City with respect to property standards. • That the City should provide property owners with various resources to assist with maintenance including help sourcing suitable building materials and access to accredited trades with experience. • That given heritage designation is of benefit to all (visitors and other residents}, property owners should not bear the burden and cast of maintenance alone. Efforts need to be expended to achieve a balance so that costs associated with maintenance can be shared all. • That the draft by-law is too broad, and should be scoped to target only those properties that are most vulnerable. • That the by-law could impact property and re-sale values due to the extra discretionary upkeep requirements, and can place financial hardship on property owners who do not have the means to conduct the repairs to a certain heritage standard. Staff continue to believe there is merit in establishing a standard for the maintenance of the heritage attributes of designated heritage property. However, in weighing the interest to establish heritage property standards with the comments made by property owners, staff have identified three issues for Council's consideration. The first is a property standards by-law that is more narrow in scope compared with the draft by-law included in DTS 08-038; such that it would only apply to vacant designated heritage property. The second is a request for direction with regard to the enforcement of property standards for designated heritage property; and whether 4 Council wishes to maintain the status quo of enforcement based on responding to complaints, or whether Council wishes to enforce property standards based on apro-active series of inspections. The third and final issue is one of accompanying the property standards by-law with a program or programs aimed at assisting and supporting property owners in meeting their obligation to maintain and repair designated heritage property. Scoaina the Proposed Property Standards By-law The by-law drafted by City s#aff as part of DTS 08-038 was prepared to be comprehensive and apply equally to all designated property identified as being of high cultural heritage value {Part IV and Group `A' or equivalent Part V designated property}. The intent was to use the provisions in the Heritage Act to the fullest extent and require that identified heritage attributes be repaired and maintained to protect and prevent the deterioration of said attributes. Staff concur with comments received by property owners that the majority of occupied designated heritage properties and heritage attributes benefit from the pride of ownership that most property owners bring to their property and are well maintained. Staff also acknowledge that the designated properties at highest risk of falling into disrepair are typically those that are unoccupied, vacant or otherwise abandoned. The provisions under the Ontario Heritage Act prescribe that minimum maintenance standards can apply to the "heritage attributes" of designated property. In the case of occupied buildings, features often identified as heritage attributes are also typically features whose maintenance can be addressed through the City's existing property standards by-law passed under the Building Code Act. This includes maintaining and repairing roofs, brick masonry, windows and foundations for example. While the existing property standards by-law may not have the authority to enforce good heritage conservation practice; such practice could be enforced through the heritage permit application process under the Ontario Heritage Act. Therefore, it could be said that the City's existing property standards by-law provides the City with an ability to address the repair and maintenance of features deemed to contribute to the cultural heritage value of inhabited designated property. While not as comprehensive as an amending by-law that would apply authority over "heritage attributes", it is staff's opinion that the existing property standards by-law together with the protection afforded under heritage designation, can provide the City with sufficient authority to address the repair and maintenance of designated heritage properties that are inhabited. Where the existing property standards by-law has significant limitations, is in addressing the repair and maintenance of designated heritage properties containing buildings that are vacant. Currently, the City's .property standards enforcement process does not require repairs to be carried out inside or outside an unused building, except as necessary to remedy an unsafe condition. In most cases, owners of vacant buildings are only required to secure the building to prevent access {e.g. boarding up windows and doors}. Given this limitation, and given that vacant or abandoned buildings are often at greater risk of vandalism or deterioration through neglect; it is the opinion of City staff that the by-law to be enacted to amend Chapter 665 (Property Standards} should apply specifically to vacant buildings located on designated heritage property. The provisions of the by-law applicable to vacant heritage property would be the similar to those identified in the previous draft by-law attached to DTS 08-038, save for changes being made to address concerns expressed by property owners regarding the discretion of City staff in regard 5 to the identification of qualifying heritage attributes and heritage property as follows (please reference the revised draft by-law attached as Appendix `A' for specific details}: • With regard to the identification of "heritage attributes"; where documents do not specifically list the property's features of cultural heritage value or interest, such features, attributes or properties shall be determined by Council upon consideration.of the recommendation of a Herita a Planner and an comments #hat ma be rovided b the property owner.. • With regard to the identification of qualifying heritage property; where a Heritage Conservation District Study or Plan does not identify property of very high cultural heritage value, such property shall be determined by Council upon consideration of-the recommendation of a Heritage Planner and an comments that may be provided by the property owner. As noted in DTS 08-038, given the Victoria Park Heritage Conservation District Plan is the City's only heritage district plan that does not distinguish properties as Group `A' property or as being of very high cultural heritage value; City staff will need to conduct an evaluation of the properties located within that heritage district to identify properties that are of very high cultural heritage value as defined in the amending by-law. The evaluation wi11 involve property owner consultation and the final determination as to which properties are of very high cultural heritage value shall be made by City Council upon consideration of the recommendation of Heritage Planning Staff, Heritage Kitchener and any comments that may be provided by the property owner. While some property owners are of the opinion that the property standards provisions proposed to be applied to vacant designated heritage properties are too stringent (e.g. maintain sufficient heat} or are not conducive to preserving the visual appeal of the building and neighbourhood ~e.g. boarding up windows and doors}; staff remain of the opinion that these provisions should continue to apply. These provisions are meant to address issues that are often unique to vacant buildings and are related to both safety and structure. It should be noted that the by-law does contain provision for the Enforcement Officer to exempt a property owner from complying with certain requirements or to take alternative measures for the protection of the heritage attributes, where a designated heritage property is not intended to remain vacant for more than 6 months. Properties that remain vacant for more than 6 months are more susceptible to damage caused by fluctuating temperatures and changes in climate. Enforcement While the City's existing property standards by-law and Council's passage of a by-law applying minimum standards for the repair and maintenance of vacant heritage buildings, would give the City the ability to address the maintenance and repair of designated heritage property; there remains a question of how such by-laws should be enforced. Currently, enforcement of property standards is addressed through responding to formal complaints received by the Enforcement Division. The previous draft by-law attached to DTS 08-038 proposed apro-active enforcement strategy that would see property enforcement officers inspecting designated heritage properties with the b assistance of Heritage Planning staff) to ensure compliance with the by-law. Should the inspection identify that there is a need to repair and maintain specific features, an Order would be issued in compliance with the provisions, administration, enforcement and appeal processes of the Building Code Act (though it should be noted that the draft by-law provides opportunity for the Officer to use discretion in providing exemptions to owners of property not intended to remain vacant for a period exceeding 6 months}. Comments received from several property owners suggested that such an enforcement strategy would reinforce a feeling that designated property owners are being penalized for owning designated property. Suggestions received include that the enforcement of property standards should be applied equally among all properties, and that designated properties should not be #argeted. Should Council decide to use the City's existing property standards by-law to address the maintenance of inhabited designated heritage property, and pass a by-law applying minimum standards for the repair and maintenance of heritage attributes of vacant buildings on designated heritage property; Staff would suggest there are three options Council may wish to consider with regard to enforcement: 1. Maintain Status Quo Enforce the provision of the property standards by-law for inhabited and vacant designated heritage property on a complaint basis. This is how the City currently enforces the property standards by-law. 2. Pro-Active Inspection of All Desi Hated Heritage Pro ert Take proactive measures to inspect all heritage property as defined in Chapter 665 of The City of Kitchener Municipal Code and any necessary enforcement with such property to ensure compliance with Chapter 665, 3. Pro-Active Ins ection of Onl Vacant Desi Hated Herita a Pro ert Take proactive measures to identify "vacant heritage property" as defined in Chapter 665 of The City of Kitchener Municipal Code and undertake inspections of and any necessary enforcement with such property to ensure compliance with Chapter 665. Staff is recommending Option No. 3 above as it provides an approach that will serve to pro- actively address the repair and maintenance of those designated heritage properties that are most vulnerable and at risk to disrepair through neglect. This would not preclude the City's ability to continue to enforce property standards for any property by responding to formal complaints received. Providin Assistance and Su ort to Desi Hated Pro ert Owners It is clear in the comments made at the public information meeting and in the correspondence received from designated heritage property owners, that there is an expectation that the City should be providing greater assistance and support to property owners to assist with their conservation efforts. Currently, the City has two financial incentive programs in place and associated with heritage conservation. 7 The Designated Heritage Property Grant Program was established in 2002 and provides funds to assist with authentic restoration efforts. The program offers monies to pay for half the cost of restoration work up to a maximum of $3000 per property per year. Funding for the grant program is included in the capital budget. The program has proven to be popular with funds in the account typically being spent every year and the amount of property owner investment increasing year over year. This year X2008} $18,000 was made available for distribution and the City is expecting to use all the monies in funding seven restoration projects. Annual funding in the current 10 year capital forecast ranges from $23,000 to a $45,000, To be eligible, a property must be designated under Part IV or V of the Ontario Heritage Act. There are approximately 750 designated properties in the City with another 325 properties proposed to be designated as part of the Civic Centre Heritage Conservation District, subject to an appeal to the Ontario Municipal Board. The Heritage Tax Refund Program was established in 2003 and provides a maximum refund of 40% of the taxes for municipal and school purposes levied on eligible property. To be eligible, properties must be designated under Part IV or V of the Ontario Heritage Act and be subject to a heritage conservation easement agreement or a heritage preservation and maintenance agreement. Further, properties in the multi-residential, commercial and industrial property classes are limited to a maximum of 10 refunds. Funding for the grant program is included in the capital budget, with annual funds being limited to ma#ch the total amount that can be granted to all eligible properties in any given year. Currently, only 5 properties in the City meet the eligibility criteria and $10,000 is made available annually to pay for heritage tax refunds for these properties. The program has not proven to be popular given the eligibility criteria has mandated in the Municipal Act} requires that in addition to designation, the owner enter into a heritage easement agreement or preservation and maintenance agreement. City staff agree that well maintained heritage properties enrich our quality of life and give communities their unique character. Restoring heritage properties has proven to be a catalyst for revitalizing neighbourhoods and drawing residents, businesses and visitors to the community. While heritage properties provide benefit and enjoyment to the whole community, most of these properties are in private ownership. Though normal maintenance and upkeep are the responsibility of every property owner, staff acknowledge that some heritage properties may require more intensive care and custom work that can be more costly than one would encounter with newer ornon-historic buildings. Staff is planning on reviewing the status of the City's existing heritage incentive programs in the next year. Dur review wi11 examine the effectiveness of the City's current programs; survey other municipalities regarding their financial assistance programs; and canvas designated property owners with regard to their observations, opinions, needs and expectations. A report will be prepared and will make recommendations with regard to amending the City's existing heritage programs and possibly adding new ones. Staff expect to initiate this study in 2008 and prepare a report for Heritage Kitchener Committee and Council review in 2009, to be considered prior to budget deliberations for 2010. While the suggestion has been made by some property owners that greater financial assistance should be put in place before a heritage property standards by-law takes effect, Staff believe that Council should not delay in proceeding with this proposed by-law amendment. The proposed by-law will po#entially impact fewer property owners given the recommendation is to narrow the scope the by-law to apply only to vacant designated heritage property. Further, a review of the City's heritage programs and recommendations regarding financial incentives is not expected to be complete until Spring 2009. Any significant delay in implementing the provisions of the by-law, may put vacant designated properties which are already vulnerable, at further risk. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: None identified at this time. COMMUNICATIONS: Staff have communicated directly with all affected property owners, and have hosted a public information meeting which was advertised in The Record. A copy of this staff report has been mailed out to those who made submissions and to those who attended the public information meeting. CONCLUSION: City staff have considered the comments made by designated property owners, and have responded by making several changes to the proposed by-law to amend Chapter 665 Property Standards}, compared with an earlier draft attached to DTS 08-038. It is now recommended that the by-law would apply minimum standards for the repair and maintenance of the heritage attributes of vacant designated heritage property. Staff are of the opinion that the existing property standards by-law provides the City with sufficient authority to address the maintenance or repair of features that are typically also of cultural heritage value or interest of inhabited buildings. 9 ayne urner Director of By-taw Enforcement illmer, MCIP, RPP irector of Planning a Bensa ,MCIP, RPP, CAHP Coordinator, Cultural Heritage Planning Attachments Appendix `A': Draft By-law Amending Chapter 665 (Property Standards} dated May 28, 200$ Appendix `B': DTS 08-038 (including previous draft by-law) Appendix `C': Summary of QuestionslAnswers and Comments made at the April ~ 1, 2008 Public Information Meeting. ~o APPENDIX'A' BY-i.a,W NUMBER MAY 28, 2008 DRAFT OF THE CORPORATION OFTHE CITYOF KITCHENER Being a by-law to amend Chapter 665 of The City of Kitchener Municipal Code with respect to Property Standards for Maintenance and Occupancy.} WHEREAS it is deemed expedient to amend Chapter 665 of The City of Kitchener Municipal Code as adopted by By-law 88-100; NOW THEREFORE the Council of the Corporation of the City of Kitchener enacts as follows: 1. Article 1 of Chapter 101 of The City of Kitchener Municipal Code is hereby amended by adding the following definitions in alphabetical order thereto and renumbering the sections as required; "City" shall mean The Corporation of the City of Kitchener unless the context requires otherwise. "Council" shall mean the Council of the City. "heritage attributes" shall include all features of a heritage property that are of significant cultural heritage value or interest as set out; (a) in the City of Kitchener's designating by-law or documentation supporting such by-law for property designated under Part IV of the Onfario Herifage Acf; (b} in a Minister's order made pursuant to Part IV of the Onfario Herifage Act; ~c) in the City of Kitchener's designating by-law or Heritage Conservation District Study or Plan for property designated under Part V of the Onfario Herifage Acf; or (d} by Council upon consideration of the recommendation of a Heritage Planner and any comments that may be provided by the property owner, where the documents referred to in clauses a, b, and c above do not specifically list the heritage property's features, attributes, or properties of significant cultural heritage value ar interest. "Heritage Planner" shall mean the Coordinator, Cultural Heritage Planning or a Heritage Planner of the City of Kitchener. 2 "heritage property" shall mean any property in the City of Kitchener that (a} has been designated under section 29 or 34.5 of the Ontario Heritage Act; or (b} is a property of very high cultural heritage value or interest and is situated in a heritage conservation district designated under Section 41 of the Ontario Heritage Act. "Ontario Heritage Act' shall mean the Ontario Heritage Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.O.18 as amended." "property of very high cultural heritage value or interest" shall include: (a} heritage property referred to as a Graup `A' building or structure in either a heritage conservation district study or plan; and (b} heritage property located within a heritage conservation district and determined by Council upon consideration of the recommendation of a Heritage Planner and any comments that may be provided by the property owner to be: a particularly fine example of an architectural style, exhibiting unique qualities or details that make it a landmark, of an age that contributes to its heritage value, associated with a significant known historic event or person, or contributing to the streetscape because it is part of an unusual sequence, grouping, or situated in a unique location. "vacant heritage property" shall mean any building or structure located on heritage property that is or appears to be vacant, partially vacant, or unoccupied for more than ninety (90}days." 2. Article 34 of Chapter 665 of The City of Kitchener Municipal Code is hereby deleted in its entirety and the following is substituted therefor: "Section 34.1 All work performed in accordance with the requirements of this Article must comply with all other relevant by-laws and legislation including the Ontario Heritage Act. Written consent from Council of the City of Kitchener or its delegate shall be required before any work impacting the heritage attributes of a property is perrormed, even when such work is ordered or required by the provisions of this by-law. Section 34.2 3 Every owner and occupant of vacant heritage property shall, in addition to complying with the other requirements of this Chapter, maintain and repair the heritage property as necessary to protect and prevent deterioration of its heritage attributes. Section 34.3 In addition to meeting all other requirements of this Chapter, every owner of vacant heritage property shall ensure that the following measures are taken with respect to that building or structure: (a) that in order to minimize the potential of deterioration of heritage attributes, the building or structure shall be boarded up to prevent the entrance of unauthorized persons, damage from natural elements, or the infestation of pests. The boarding shall comply with the following requirements: i} all boards used in the boarding shall be installed from the exterior and shall be properly fitted in a watertight manner to fit within the side jambs, head jamb and the exterior bottom sill of the door or window so that any exterior trim remains uncovered by the boarding; ii) alf boards shall be at least 12.1mm (0.5 in.) weatherproofed sheet plywood secured with nails or screws at least 50 millimetres (2 inches} in length and spaced not more than 150 millimetres (6 inches} on centre; iii} all boards shall be painted or otherwise treated so that the colour blends with the exterior of the building or structure; and iv} all boards shall be installed and maintained in good repair; (b} The exterior shall be maintained in order to prevent moisture penetration and damage from the elements that may have an adverse impact on the heritage attributes; (c} appropriate utilities serving the building shall be connected and used to provide, maintain, and monitor proper heating to facilitate conservation of the heritage attributes through the prevention of negative effects associated with freeze-thaw cycles; (d) appropriate ventilation shall be provided to prevent damage to the heritage attributes that may be caused by humidity; and (e) in order to deter vandals and thus protect the building or structure containing heritage attributes from vandalism or the setting of fires, appropriate security lighting must be installed and maintained on the exterior of the building or structure. 4 Section 34.4 UVhere an owner satisfies an Officer that a vacant heritage property is not intended to remain vacant for a period exceeding six (6} months, the Officer may, in hislher sole discretion, exempt an owner from complying with any of the requirements of this Article or allow the owner to take alternative measures for the protection of the heritage attributes in place of any of the requirements of this Article. Section 34.5 UVhere an Officer has granted an exemption or has approved alternative measures for compliance with this Article such exemption or approval may be withdrawn at any time upon ten (10} days' notice to the owner if an Officer is of the opinion that the vacant heritage property is likely to remain vacant for a longer period than originally anticipated or if, in the sole discretion of an Officer, the heritage attributes are not being adequately protected by the measures being taken." 3. Section 665.2.1 of The City of Kitchener Municipal Code is hereby amended by deleting the words "Article 35" and substituting the words "Article 33" therefor. 4. Section 665.4.3 of The City of Kitchener Municipal Code is hereby amended by adding the words "Heritage Planner" after the words "BuildinglPlumbing Inspector" thereto. 5. Section 665.21.3 of The City of Kitchener Municipal Code is hereby amended by deleting the words "Article 34" and substituting the words "Chapter 694 -Vacant Buildings -Secured" therefor. 6. Section 665.23.5 of The City of Kitchener Municipal Code is hereby amended by deleting the words "Article 34" and substituting the words "chapter 694 -Vacant Buildings- Secured" therefor. PASSED at the Council Chambers in the City of Kitchener this day of , A.D. 2008. Mayor Clerk J APPENDIX `B' HENER . ~ . K~T~ Development & Technical Services Report To: Development and Technical Services Committee Date of Meeting: March 31, 2008 Submitted By: Rob Browning, General Manager DTS (141-2599) Prepared By: Shayne Turner, Director of By-law Enforcement (141-2153) Leon Bensason, Coordinator, Cultural Heritage Planning (741-2306} Ward(s~ Involved: All Date of Report: March 1, 2008 Report No.: DTS-O8-038 Subject: A BY-LAVV TO AMEND CHAPTER 665 (PROPERTY STANDARDS} WITH RESPECT TO DESIGNATED HERITAGE PROPERTY RECOMMENDATION: That a by-law be enacted to amend Chapter 665 (Property Standards} of the City of Kitchener Municipal Code, with respect to regulations specific to the maintenance of designated heritage property, as outlined in Report #DTS-08-038. BACKGROUND: In 2005, the Ontario Heritage Act was amended to allow municipalities to include provisions in their property standards by-laws that would prescribe minimum standards for the maintenance of designated heritage property. Property that does not comply with the by-law may be required to be repaired to ensure that the character and integrity of the designated heritage attributes are maintained. Currently, Chapter 665 (Property Standards) can be used to address maintenance issues with a designated heritage building. However, the means to address such issues are the same as for non-designated buildings. As such, a Property Standards Order can order the removal, replacement andlor repairs of various aspects of a building or property, but the Order is very limited in terms of dictating how the work is to be undertaken, or what materials are to be removed. These limitations are even greater in situations where a property is vacant or abandoned, regardless of the cultural heritage value or status of the property. Council, at its September 17, 2001, meeting endorsed the Heritage Kitchener recommendation to support the incorporation of maintenance standards for designated heritage properties (copy attached). REPORT: The new provisions in the Ontario Heritage Act allow municipalities to develop standards, within their existing Property Standards By-laws, for a distinct class of buildings; those which are designated by by-law, pursuant to the Act. Thus, the property standards provisions related to these buildings can require that identified heritage attributes, as defined in the designating by- law, must be maintained in a manner that conserves the character and integrity of such attributes, and therefore the heritage value of the property. In short, with the passage of this by- law, staff would have an enhanced ability to stipulate which features of the building are to be repaired, the manner in which the repairs must be undertaken, which material to use, etc.. It should be noted that these new provisions only apply to the "heritage attributes" of the subject building, as prescribed in the designating by-law for Part IV (individually} designated properties, and Part V (Heritage Conservation District) designated properties identified as being of very high cultural heritage value, sometimes referred to as Group "A' buildings in Heritage Conservation District (HCD) Studies or Plans. In some cases, particularly early designations, Part IV designating by-laws may not specifically list individual heritage attributes or features, but would make general reference to the exterior of a building, facades or elevations. In these circumstances, the list of heritage features and attributes shall be identified by a Heritage Planner of the City of Kitchener. Similarly, where Heritage Conservation District Studies or Plans do not specifically identify property of very high cultural heritage value, such property, and the heritage attributes of such Part V designated property, shall be determined by a Heritage Planner of the City of Kitchener. Staff estimate that to date, the following number of designated heritage properties would be subject this by-law: Part IV: l5 Part V: Upper Doon HCD (16), St. Mary's HCD: (10} Unlike Upper Doon and St Mary's, the Victoria Park HCD Study and Plan does not specifically rank or otherwise identify properties of very high cultural heritage value. Such assessment and identification shall be undertaken by Heritage Planning staff. As of the date of this report, the appeal period for the passage of the by-law designating the Civic Centre HCD has not yet passed. Should the by-law pass without appeal, or be approved by the Ontario Municipal Baard if appealed, the estimated number of properties subject to these heritage property standards would be 45. Any item on a designated building that requires repairs, and is not identified as a heritage attribute in the designating by-law, or otherwise identified as a heritage attribute by a Heritage Planner of the City of Kitchener, would not be subject to property standards identified for heritage property, and would be dealt with under the normal provisions of the Property Standards By-law. it is the City's intent to implement a process of systematically inspecting subject designated heritage properties to ensure compliance with the intent of the legislation. This approach may take the form of Property Standards Officers inspecting all buildings with the assistance of 2 Heritage Planning staff within a 2-3 year cycle. Should the inspection identify that there is a need to repair and maintain the designated heritage attributes, an Order will be issued. Each Order issued, will require that the property owner submit an application to Heritage Planning Staff who will work with the Property Standards Officers to ensure the intended work meets the intent of the legislation and follows appropriate heritage conservation practice. Such work may or may not also require the submission of a Heritage Permit Application under the Ontario Heritage Act. Once an Order is issued, it is subject to the normal provisions of the Building Code Act, which is the legislation that dictates the administration and enforcement processes for property standards. As such, the issuing officer has discretion to provide the appropriate timelines on each Order as may be deemed by the individual circumstances. Also, the property owner has the avenue of appeal to the Property Standards Committee if they choose to challenge the Order or its timelines. As part of the communication and public consultation process for this initiative, Heritage Planning Staff notified all Part IV and Part V designated property owners in January 2407 that the City was undertaking a review of the Property Standards By-law relative to designated heritage property. Subsequently, in October 2001, a direct mailing was sent to those property owners thought to be directly subject to the new provisions, being owners of Part IV designated Property and select owners of Part V designated property located within the Upper Doon and St. Mary's HCDs. The mailing described in greater detail the City's intent, included a copy of the draft by-law, and invited property owners to make comment. A copy of that direct mailing is attached. As a result of the direct mailing, which was sent to the owners of 101 designated properties, 3 responses were received. One was in support of the proposed by-law and 2 expressed concerns. The concerns expressed included: 1. The proposed by-law gives staff too much discretionary authority without recourse by the owner, such as arbitration. 2. The by-law could require owners of designated buildings which are vacant, to provide services such as heat and ventilation if the designated attributes are at risk of deterioration as a result of the freezelthaw cycle. 3. Requirements to secure a vacant building by boarding it if it remains vacant for more than 90 days, is too stringent. Staff have reviewed and considered the comments received and made adjustments to the by- law to address some of the concerns. Staff note that the property standards enforcement process, as dictated by provincial legislation, provides an avenue of appeal. As such, property owners do have an avenue of "arbitration" if they choose to avail themselves of that opportunity. Designated heritage properties which are vacant or abandoned, are particularly susceptible to damage caused by a lack of ongoing maintenance and repair, vandalism, and damage caused by freeze thaw cycles when utilities required to provide an appropriate amount of heat are shut off or disconnected. In this regard, Staff believe that the provisions in the by-law with respect to vacant buildings are appropriate tools to have available. The proposed by-law has been adjusted to make provision for the Property Standards Officer to make certain exemptions or 3 +. ~' i4 r r~ i \.,, allow the owner to take alternative measures to achieve compliance based on individual circumstances and issues present at the time; such as providing services to a vacant building or boarding it after a certain amount of time {i.e. 94 days}, FINANCIAL IMPI~ICATI~3NS: None identified at this time. COMMUNICATIQNS: No corporate communications were required. However, staff communicated directly with all identified owners of affected buildings, as outlined earlier in this report. In addition, a draft copy of this staff report was mailed out to those three property owners who responded to the Qctober 201 letter from the City. CONCLUSION: The proposed amendments to Chapter 665 {Property Standards} will apply to select properties which City Council, through the designation process, has identified as being of particular cultural heritage value and significance. Uvhile it is staff's belief that the majority of affected designated buildings are in relatively good condition, these amendments will be a useful and appropriate tool to address ins#ances where the repair of designated heritage attributes are required; and will help to avoid instances where heritage attributes become irreparably damaged, and designated heritage property are lost by neglect. ~ . Shayne urner Director of By-law Enforcement Encl. Bens sa on, MCIP, RPP, CAHP rdinator,Cultural Heritage Planning 4 DRAFT BY-LAW NUMBER OF THE CORPORATION CAF THE CITY OF KITCHEIVER Being a by-law to amend Ghapter 665 of- The City of Kitchener Municipa! Code with respect to Property Standards for Maintenance and t?ccupancy.} UIIHEREAS it .is deemed expedient to amend Chapter 565 of The City of Kitchener Municipal Code as adopted by By-law 88-1 D0; N~UV THEREFORE the Council of the Corporation of the City of Kitchener enacts asfollows: 1. wArticle 1 of Chapter 1a1 of The City of Kitchener Municipal Code is hereby amended b addin the followin definitions :in alphabetical order thereto and Y g g renumbering the sections as required: "heritage attributes" shall include ail features of a heritage property that are of significant cultural heritage value or interest ~as set out: (a) in .the City of Kitchener's designating by-law or documentation supporting such b -law for property designated under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act; Y (b) in a Minister's order made pursuant to Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act; or ~c} in the City of Kitchener's designating by-law or Heritage Conservation District Study or Plan for property designated under Part V of the Ontario Heritage Act. Where the documents referred to in clauses a, b, and c above do not specifically list the herita a property's features of significant cultural heritage value or 9 . interest, such features, attributes or properties shall be as determined by a Heritage Planner. : . ... "Herita a Planner" shall mean the Coordinator, Cultural Heri#age Planning or a g Heritage Planner of the City of Kitchener. "heritage property" shall -mean any property in the City of Kitchener, whether vacant or inhabited, that ~a} has been designated under section 29 or 34.5 of the Ontario Heritage Act; or 2 (b) is a property of very high cultural heritage value or interest and is situated in a heritage conservation district designated under Section 4~ of the Onfario Heri#age Acf. "anfario Herifage Acf' shall mean the Qnfario ~lerifage Acf, R.S.0.19~9D, c.4.18 as amended." "property of very high cultural heritage value or interest" shall include, (a) property referred to as a group `A' building or structure in either a heritage conservation district study or plan; and fib) property located within a heritage conservation district and identified by a Heritage Planner as being a particularly fine example of an architectural st le, Y exhibiting unique qualities or details that make-it a landmark, of an age that contributes to its heritage value, associated with a significant known historic event or person, or contributing to the streetscape because it is part of an unusual sequence, grouping, or situated in a unique location. 2: Article 34 of Chapter 6G5 of The City of Kitchener Municipal Code is hereby deleted in its entirety and the following is substituted therefor: "Section 34,1 All work performed in accordance with the requirements of this Article must comply with all other relevant by-laws and legislation including ~ the Qnfario Herifage Acf. V1lritten consent from Council of the City of Kitchener or its delegate shall be required before any work impacting the heritage attributes of a property is performed, even when such work is ordered or required by the provisions of this by-law. Section 34.2 Every owner and occupant with the other requirement property as necessary to attributes. Section 34.3 of heritage property shall, in addition to complying s of this by-law, maintain and repair the heritage protect and prevent deterioration of its heritage In addition to meeting the requirements of section 3;~4~'. where a building or structure containing heritage attributes located on a herita a propert is vacant, g Y partially vacant or unoccupied for a period of more than ninety X90) days, every owner shall ensure that the following measures, are taken with respect to that building or structure: 3 (a} that in order to minimize the potential of deterioration of heritage attributes, the building or structure shall be boarded up to prevent the entrance of unauthorized persons, damage from natural elements, or the infestation of pests. The boarding shall comply with the following requirements: i} all boards used in the boarding shall be installed from the exterior and shall be properly fitted in a watertight manner ~to fit within the side jambs, head jamb and the exterior bottom sill of the door or window so that any exterior trim remains uncovered by the boarding; ii} all boards shall be at least ~2.7mm (0.5 in.} weatherproofed sheet plywood secured with nails or screws a~t least 5o millimetres (2 inches} in length and spaced not more than 15o m~il~limetres (~:.inches} on centre; iii} all boards shall be painted or otherwise treated so that the colour blends with the exterior of the building or structure; and iv} all boards shall be installed and maintained in good repair; (b} The exterior shall be maintained in order to prevent moisture penetration and damage from the elements that may have an adverse impact on the heritage attributes; . (c} appropriate utilities serving the building shall be connected and used to provide, maintain, and monitor proper heating to facilitate conservation of the heritage attributes through the prevention of negative effects associated with freeze-thaw cycles; ~d} appropriate ventilation shall be provided to prevent damage to the heritage attributes that .may be caused by humidity; and (e} in order to deter vandals and thus protect the building or structure containing heritage attributes from vandalism or the setting of fires, appropriate security lighting must be installed and maintained on the exterior of the building or structure. Section 34.4 vUhere an owner satisfies an Officer that a heritage property is not intended to ~~emain vacant for a period exceeding six (fi} months, the Officer may, in hislher sole discretion, exempt an owner from com lying with any of the requirements of p this Article or allow the o~ner to take alternative measures for the protection of the heritage attributes in place of any of the requirements of this Article. 4 Section 34.5 UIlhere an Officer has granted an exemption or has approved alternative measures for compliance with this Arkicle~ such exemption or approval may be withdrawn at any time upon ten ~10~ days' notice to the owner if an Officer is of the opinion that the heritage property is likely to remain vacant for a longer period than originally anticipated or if, in the sole discretion of an Officer, the heritage attributes are not being adequately protected by the measures being taken." 3. Section 665.2.1 of The City of Kitchener Municipal Code is hereby amended by deleting the words "Article 35"and substituting the words "Article 33" therefar. 4, Section 665.4.3 of The City of Kitchener Municipal Gode is hereby amended by adding the words "Heritage Planner" after the words "BuildinglPlumbing Inspector" thereto, 5. Section 665.21.3 of The City of Kitchener Municipal Code is hereby amended by deleting the words "Article 34" and substituting the words "By^law Number 2008- `i' c, being a b -law to re uire vacant buildin s~ ;and buildin s lama ed b fire to ~..... Y q 9 g g Y be secured against unauthorized entry" therefor. ~ ~~ fi. Section 665.23.5 of The City of Kitchener Municipal~Gode is.hereby amended by deleting the words "Article 34" and substituting the words "By-law Number 2008- .~ ...~~, bein a b -law to re uire vacant buildin s and buildin s lama ed b fire to ~~ 9 Y q g g g Y be secured against unauthorized entry" therefor. PASSED at the Council Chambers in the City of Kitchener~this day of , A,D. 2008. Mayor Clerk . ~ w ~ , . ~ : City of Kitchener City Hail, 20n King St. West T~~~~R ~ ~ . . . ~ ~ ~ P.O. Box 1118 Corporare~5~rvi~~s Kitchener,, ON NzG 4Gl Date: . ~ ~ September ~~8, 2007. . ~ .. ~. To: ~ ~ S. Turner, Director of Enforcement ~ ~~ . ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ . from: C. Goodeve,Committee Administrator . ~ , ~ . ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ . ~ . ~.. olution:~ Ontario Herita a Act Amendments - PropertyStandards for Subject. Councli des g . .~ .Maintenance and Occupancy ~Ch~pter 6fi5~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ , ~ ~ . ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ .~ • ~ ~~ ~•~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ' ~ ~ ' ~~ 'n held on' Morida ~ ~ Se tember.~17, 2047 passed . . This is to~ advise that City Council at its regular meets .g yf : p ... . . the foiiowing resolution.: ~ ~ ~~ ~, ~ ~ ~. ~ ~ ~~ : ~ ~ :~~~ ~ ~~~ ~~~ ~.~ ~. ~ ~ .. ~...: . ~~ ~i , . ~~ ~ . , ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ .~ ' ~ ~ ~ ter.~665 . Pro eat Standards for ~ Maintenance . That the proposed ,process for amending Chap ... .~ p ~ y : ... . ' ch. ner's Munici al Code , in accordance. with Sections 35.3 and 45. ~... of ... ..and ~C~ccupancy~. of Kit a ... .. p , . . ' ~ ' ~ ~ intenance ~~ standards .for ~. designated ~ heritage, ~ . the Ontario Heritage Act . to incorporate ma ... .. .. ; , ro ~ ~erties ~oe endorsed:" ... ~ . ~ . ~ ~ ~ :..~ ~~.: ; ~ ~ ; .. . ~ . ~ ~ ...' . ... ; . ... ~. f ~:~-~~ ~ .p~~ .t _ ~~. .. ~~. `~ . ; October 1 1, 2007 Dear Designated Heritage Property Owner, REVEL ~P1 ~IENT & TECHNICAL SER VICES DEPAR T11?'ENT PLANNING ~IVtS~'QN Leon Bensason, MCIP, RPP, CARP Senior Heritage Planner City Hall, P.O. Box 1118 . 2Q0 King Street west Kitchener, Ontario Canada, NZG 4G7 PHDNE; (519) 74 ~ -23 06 FA~C; (519) 741 ~2b24 TDDITYY: (519) 741-23 85 EMAIL:1ean,bensason@kitchener.ca Re; Proposed Amendment to the City of Kitchener Property Standards By-law Addressing the Maintenance of Designated Heritage Property City of Kitchener staff are currently reviewing the issue of amending Chapter 66S (Property Standards), of the City's Municipal Cade, (the City's Property Standards By-law) to include provisions relating to the maintenance of designated heritage properties. In ZOOS, the Ontario Heritage Act was amended to allow municipalities to include provisions in their property standards by-laws that would prescribe minimum standards for the maintenance of desi Hated herit e g ag property. Property that does not compiy with the by-law may be required to be repaired to ensure that the character and integrity of the designated heritage attributes are maintained. Reference to this initiative was made previously in a letter mailed to all designated heritage property owners dated January 2b, 2007 regarding the 2007 Designated Heritage Property Grant Program. The purpose of this mailing is to ensure that you are advised of. the potential change to the Property Standards By-law, and to provide you with an opportunity to comment~on the proposed amendment, Attached is a summary paper whicl~ outlines the proposed amendment to the City's Property Standards By-law. zf you wish to respond to this proposed amendment, please provide written comments to.Leon Bensason, Senior Heritage Planner no later than November ti, 2007 either by mail or a-mail (see letterhead for contact information). At this point, it is anticipated that a report on this matter will be presented to Committee and Council in late November 2007, If you wish to receive a copy of the staff report and be advised of the details of the Committee and Council meetings, please indicate so in your comments. Yours truly, y~ ~' ~- ,, r''' ' ~ ,' - i ' \ r .jJr~i-'~ k :~ Leon Bensason Senior Heritage Planner Shayne T er Director of By-law Enforcement APPENDIX `C' Heritage Property Standards By-law Public Information Meeting April 1l, 2008 Attendance: 15 members of the public & 3 City staff (Leon Bensason, Shayne Turner, Michelle UVade) Questions and Answers: Q. The buildings that fall under the proposed by-law amendment are old and thus require materials and skills that are specialized. These materials and skills are expensive and the owner may not be able to afford to do the work. How will the City address this issue? A. Shayne provided an outline of the by-law process and emphasized the steps to achieve compliance. Officers seek voluntary compliance through negotiation with the property owner, if voluntary compliance is not achieved then the Officer has the ability to consider recouping the cost of completing the necessary work via the property taxes. Leon noted that work may require a Heritage Permit and the applicant could choose to propose an alternative building material that is less costly to the applicant but maintains the integrity of the building. Q. Items such as slate roofs and stain glass windows are irreplaceable. An order to repair these features may push the owner into bankruptcy. Will the City foot the bill? Q. With respect to heritage homes, what makes the City decide to inspect the property? A. The property standards by-law allows the City to enforce the maintenance of buildings. This can be achieved through proactive or reactive enforcement. The staff report has suggested one option for proactive enforcement that would involve a systematic inspection of approximately 100 properties over 2-3 years. Q. If repairs are required, can the owner make use of the grant program to complete the work? How will the March 31 St deadline work with the property standards by-law? A. The current framework for the grant program applies to proposed work that entails a level of authentic restoration, Staff is re-examining the grant program to consider providing the ability to use the grant program for work that is in keeping with good conservation practice. Changes to the grant program are subject to staff, Heritage Kitchener, Council and budget considerations. Q. Financial assistance is required to assist property owners to offset the cost of repairs. Is the City considering the provision of financial assistance programs to property owners prior to implementation of the proposed by-law? A. No. But the City is aware of the interest from property owners to provide financial assistance through mechanisms such as a modified grant program. Q. Can the City consider providing tax breaks to assist property owners? A. Provincial legislation limits the types of financial mechanisms that a municipality can put in place. The City currently has a tax rebate program for properties that are designated under the Act and have a heritage conservation easement. Council direction is required to pursue alternate financial assistance opportunities. Q. Who will inspect the properties? A. A property standards officer will undertake inspections with the advice and guidance of the Heritage Planner. Q. How will inspection be done? A. Property Standards Officer will ratify property owner in advance of inspection in order to determine an agreed upon date for the inspection. The Officer will consult with the Heritage Planner to understand the heritage attributes that need to be inspected. The Officer may request the Heritage Planner to attend the inspection. Q. How will the property owner know what is significant? A. The property owner will be notified in advance of the inspection and provided with the information regarding the heritage attributes that will be inspected. Q. How will the City address properties that have been designated solely for historic reasons? A. The Property Standards Officer and the Heritage Planner will review the designating by-law to determine the reasons for designation including the heritage attributes. If the building was designated only for its historic merit then the by-law may not be applicable. However, properties and associated designating by-laws will need to be considered on a case by case basis. Q. Please explain why appeals will be heard by the Property Standards Committee when #hat Committee does not have any heritage knowledge. Why is the appeal not heard by Heritage Kitchener? A. The tools provided under the legislation only allow appeals to be heard by a Property Standards Committee. Q. How do you consider a building to be vacant? A. The by-law proposes that any building that is unoccupied for 90 days (3 months} is considered to be vacant. The by-law allows for some level of discretion to extend this period. Q. What will the by-law achieve when `slum' buildings located adjacent to a `Group A' building are not faced with the same restrictions? Q. What will be the impact to the resale value of a heritage property? A. The objective of the by-law is to ensure that the buildings are maintained, which will ultimately increase the value of the property. Q. Will the implementation of this by-law be retro-active? A. No. Q. What will happen if people buy a derelict building with the intent to restore? examples: 69 Biehn Dr., Red Lion Inn, Pinnacle Dr., Homer Watson birthplace, Governor House and Jail, 108 Queen St. N., Working Centre block, Victoria Public School, Shantz House, Bread & Roses). C;nmmPntS~ ^ Just because a building has a crack in the wall does not mean that the building will fall down. The buildings have stood for 100+ years. ^ Council should be willing to spend $ to assist property owners. ^ Securi#y lights will not be sufficient to ward off vandalism. Propose that alarm systems be required. ^ Boarding up buildings will only further promote vandalism. ^ Boarding up buildings does not make sense if we want to maintain the visual integrity of the building and surrounding area. ^ Council should consider purchasing vacant buildings to restore and resell rather than impose by-law restrictions on all. ^ Council should focus the by-law on vacant buildings and provide financial assistance to other heritage property owners to encourage conservation. ^ Concerned about tight timelines and the insufficient time provided for the public to participate and provide comments to staff. Suggest that staff request Council to provide one additional month to allow feedback from the public. ^ Concerned about the Civic Centre HCD and whether the property owners understand the implications of the proposed by-law. ^ Heritage property owners need access to knowledge, resources and financial incentives (e.g. grant funding, pool of qualified contractors, guidance regarding acceptable alternative materials, guidance regarding alterations, etc.} ^ The grant program maximum of $3000 is not sufficient. ^ The proposed by-law is a negative approach to conservation. If Council is interested in conservation this is not the way to do it. Conservation should be positive and incentives should include financial assistance that does not have a lot of complicated application forms and that does not limit the available funding. $3000 is not enough. The by-law will discourage people from considering designation. ^ The proposed by-law is punishing the property owner. ^ owners want to fix houses but need grants to assist. ^ Concerned about the use of the term `deem' and `discretion.' These terms provide City staff too much discretion. Believes knowledge is subjective. ^ Suggest that staff develop specific guidelines prior to implementation of the by-law so that property owners understand the specific heritage attributes for each individual property. ^ Need to focus on good will of people who take on the effort of rejuvenating properties. ^ Authentic restoration is difficult when pictures are not readily available. ^ Request that report be sent to every heritage property owner via a letter with a website link to an electronic copy of the report.