HomeMy WebLinkAboutHK Minutes - 2019-10-01HERITAGE KITCHENER MINUTES
OCTOBER 1, 2019 CITY OF KITCHENER
The Heritage Kitchener Committee met this date, commencing at 4:01 p.m.
Present: A. Reid - Chair
Councillors D. Chapman, J. Gazzola and C. Michaud, Ms. K. Huxted and Messrs. J. Baker,
P. Ciuciura and D. Gundrum.
Staff: G. MacNeil, Director, By-law Enforcement
L. Bensason, Coordinator, Cultural Heritage Planning
V. Grohn, Heritage Planner
D. Saunderson, Committee Administrator
1. DSD-19-227 - 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
The Committee considered Development Services Department report DSD-19-227, dated
September 17, 2019 recommending approval of Heritage Permit Applications (HPA) HPA-
2019-V-026 & HPA-2019-V-027 to permit the demolition of an existing shed and construction of
a new shed at the property municipally addressed as 6 Ellen Street West, located within the
Civic Centre Neighbourhood Heritage Conservation District (CCNHCD). Ms. V. Grohn presented
the Report, noting staff are recommending approval of the subject HPA.
In response to questions, Ms. Grohn advised the recommendation must go to Council because
demolition is being requested. She further advised she was unsure when the current property
owner purchased the property and how long the shed has been in disrepair.
Ms. A. Reid expressed some concern with the information outlined in the HPA regarding the
potential rehabilitation costs. She requested, and staff agreed, to ensure accurate
documentation was provided by homeowners when providing estimates where possible.
In response to questions regarding the age of the existing shed, Ms. Grohn advised she reviewed
the fire insurance plan and the shed was likely constructed after that was established.
Questions were raised regarding the new shed and whether it was required to follow the policies
outlined in the CCNHCD. Mr. L Bensason advised although a building permit is not required due
to the size of the new shed, the property owner will still be required to comply with the policies
of the CCNHCD, stating there is reference to the proposed materials within the staff report.
On motion by Councillor D. Chapman -
it was resolved:
That pursuant to Section 42 of the Ontario Heritage Act, Heritage Permit Application
HPA-2019-V-026 be approved, as outlined in Development Services Department report
DSD-19-227 to 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-027 be approved to 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.
2. DSD-19-228 - BY-LAW TO ENTER INTO A COVENANT UNDER THE OHA FOR THE
CONSERVATION OF A FORMER HOG AND HEN HOUSE AT 883 DOON VILLAGE ROAD
The Committee considered Development Services Department report DSD-19-228, dated
September 17, 2019 recommending the adoption of a By-law to allow the City to enter into a
heritage covenant with the owner of the lands municipally addressed as 883 Doon Village Road,
located within the Upper Doon Heritage Conservation District, for the conservation of the Hog
and Hen House. Ms. V. Grohn presented the Report and responded to questions from the
Committee.
HERITAGE KITCHENER MINUTES
OCTOBER 1, 2019 - 29 - CITY OF KITCHENER
2. DSD-19-228 - BY-LAW TO ENTER INTO A COVENANT UNDER THE OHA FOR THE
CONSERVATION OF A FORMER HOG AND HEN HOUSE AT 883 DOON VILLAGE ROAD
In response to questions, Ms. Grohn advised the agreement is intended as a security for the
relocation of the Hog and Hen House. She stated the agreement is a requirement of the
Committee of Adjustment decisions, which granted the creation of four new lots fronting onto
Bechtel Drive. She indicated once the Hog and Hen house has been relocated and the building
is inspected by a qualified Engineer, the Heritage Covenant agreement will be discharged. Ms.
Grohn further advised a further condition of the Committee of Adjustment decision is that the
property owner, following the creation of the new lots, will be required to update the Designation
By-law, which will then identify the Hog and Hen house as a heritage attribute of the property.
Questions were raised about the future maintenance of the property and protecting the dwelling
and Hog and Hen house from neglect. Mr. L. Bensason advised the property owner would be
subject to the property standards by-law, which would be no different than any other home
owner.
Ms. A. Reid questioned whether the Covenant Agreement would require the property owner to
provide a Letter of Credit as a security for the relocation of the building. In response, Ms. Grohn
confirmed that requirement, noting until the building has been inspected by a structural engineer,
the Covenant Agreement and Letter of Credit would be maintained by the City.
On motion Councillor J. Gazzola -
it was resolved:
That the draft by-law dated October 7th, 2019, attached 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.
3. DSD-19-232 - HERITAGE PERMIT APPLICATION HPA-2019-IV-023
- 307 QUEEN STREET SOUTH (BREAD AND ROSES)
- PROPOSED WINDOW REPLACEMENT
The Committee considered Development Services Department report DSD-19-232, dated
September 17, 2019 recommending approval of Heritage Permit Application (HPA) HPA-2019-
IV-023 to permit the replacement of a window on the Queen Street elevation of the property
municipally addressed as 307 Queen Street South (Bread and Roses). Ms. V. Grohn presented
Report.
Mr. S. Stager Piatkowski, Bread and Roses, addressed the Committee in support of the staff
recommendation. He stated approximately 10 years ago a number of the windows were
replaced, adding due to limited funding not all windows were replaced at that time. He further
advised the building is a not-for-profit having limited funding. He stated the condition of the
wooden windows were adversely impacting tenants as the units have electric heat and they were
previously paying more in hydro than in rent. In response to questions, Mr. Stager Piatkowski
advised the top decorative feature of the window will also be replaced to match what is currently
existing in wood. He commented the windows installed in 2009 have aged well and they are
hoping to not have to replace the windows for some time.
In response to questions, Mr. Grohn advised staff have requested a condition to review the shop
drawings prior to removing and replacing the window to ensure what is replaced is identical.
The following motion was voted on and was Carried Unanimously.
On motion by Mr. J. Baker -
it was resolved:
HERITAGE KITCHENER MINUTES
OCTOBER 1, 2019 - 30 - CITY OF KITCHENER
3. DSD-19-232 - HERITAGE PERMIT APPLICATION HPA-2019-IV-023
- 307 QUEEN STREET SOUTH (BREAD AND ROSES)
-
That pursuant to Section 33 of the Ontario Heritage Act, Heritage Permit Application
HPA-2019-IV-023, as outlined in Development Services Department report DSD-19-232
be approved to 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 and
subject to the following conditions:
i. 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,
ii. That photographs of the existing window and trim and the final shop drawings for
the window and trim be reviewed and signed off by Heritage Planning staff prior to
the issuance of a Heritage Permit and the installation of the new window and trim.
4. DSD-19-234 - NOTICE OF INTENTION TO DEMOLISH
- 40 COLLEGE STREET
The Committee was in receipt this date of Development Services Department report DSD-19-
234, dated September 30, 2019 recommending the requested Notice of Intention to Demolish
for the property municipally addressed as 40 College Street currently listed on the Municipal
Heritage Register (MHR), run its course, which would allow for a demolition permit to be issued
as early as November 22, 2019.
Mr. L. Bensason presented the Report advising the property was added to the MHR in 2013 and
was not in good condition at that time. He stated the property has a history of neglect, indicating
a Fire Marshal Inspection Order was issued in 2015, which prevented the dwelling from being
occupied. He indicated since that time, it has been subject to numerous property standards
violations and most recently in June 2019 was been issued by the By-Law
Enforcement Division to remedy the property. Mr. Bensason stated the property owner has not
and now the Director of By-
Ontario Heritage Act, Council does not approve or refuse a
rather, Council has the following options
Inten
Building Division may issue a demolition permit as early as November 22, 2019; and, Council
may issue a Notice of Intention to Designate, at which point Council would have the authority
to deny demolition. He provided a summary on the staff recommendation for the property,
indicating staff recommend allowing the notice period to run its course.
In response to questions, Ms. G. MacNeil advised the dwelling was occupied until 2015, when
the Fire Marshal Inspection Order was issued. She stated the property owners were required to
vacate at that time and the building has remained vacant since. She indicated in 2017 there
were changes to the Property Standards By-law that allowed Enforcement staff to address
vacant buildings to ensure they were secure, but staff were unsure of the condition of the interior
of the dwelling at that time.
Questions were raised regarding demolition and if the City was able to obtain a demolition permit,
who would be responsible for the expenses and what were the requirements for the condition of
the property following the demolition. Ms. MacNeil advised if the City proceeded with the
demolition, the expenses would be added to the property taxes, and the property owner would
be provided payment options. She stated if the property owner stopped paying the property
taxes, the property could be in a tax sale position. Ms. MacNeil stated as a requirement of the
demolition permit, the property must be graded and either sod/seed or gravel would need to be
installed.
HERITAGE KITCHENER MINUTES
OCTOBER 1, 2019 - 31 - CITY OF KITCHENER
4. DSD-19-234 - NOTICE OF INTENTION TO DEMOLISH
- 40 COLLEGE STREET
Mr. J. Baker questioned what the heritage status of the property would be following demolition
and what the owner would be permitted to develop if they chose to pursue that option. Mr.
Bensason advised once the property is demolished, it would be removed from the MHR. He
stated nothing would prohibit the property owner from redeveloping the site. He indicated anyone
developing the site would likely be required to complete a Heritage Impact Assessment due to
school which is designated Part IV under the Ontario Heritage Act,
to assess the impact of development on that building.
Questions were raised regarding property standards and what measures are taken to prevent
heritage dwellings from being neglected. Mr. Bensason advised Heritage Planning staff work
with Enforcement staff to inspect vacant heritage buildings to ensure the Property Standards By-
law and the Vacant Heritage Buildings By-law are being observed and whether enforcement is
required. It was noted Enforcement staff would not be permitted to inspect the interior of vacant
buildings.
In response to further questions regarding 40 College Street, Ms. MacNeil advised staff could
take the property owner to court, which has a maximum fine of $50,000. She indicated past
experience has demonstrated that there is a significant amount of work required to go to court
and generally minimum fines are laid. She further advised staff do not have a full extent of the
condition of the interior of the dwelling. They are anticipating the costs to remedy the building
may exceed $100,000.ty since approximately
2006.
Councillor D. Chapman questioned what the possible outcome would be if the Committee opted
to recommend pursuing designation. Mr. Bensason advised the Fire Marshall Order would still
be in effect and the building would remain vacant. He stated pursuing designation would not
likely see any improvements to the condition of the dwelling. He further advised there was the
hope when the building was listed on the MHR that positive steps would be taken for the
condition of the dwelling. He commented 6 years have passed and the structure has only
continued to be neglected.
Mr. J. Baker stated in his opinion, designation would also not be preserving valuable heritage in
this instance.
On motion by Mr. J. Baker -
it was resolved:
That, in accordance with Section 27(3) of the Ontario Heritage Act, the Notice of
Intention to Demolish received on September 23, 2019 regarding the property
municipally addressed as 40 College Street, be received for information and that the
notice period run its course; and that the City arrange to have 40 College Street
properly documented through photographs prior to any demolition activity, as outlined
in Development Services Department report DSD-19-234.
5. DELEGATED APPROVAL BY-LAW UPDATE DISCUSSION
The Committee considered Delegated Approval By-law Update
regarding discussions for updating the delegated
approval by-law for Heritage Permit Applications (HPA). In addition, the Committee was in
-law, dated September 22, 2014.
Mr. L. Bensason provided an overview on the process completed to date regarding a possible
update to the Delegated Approval By-law. He stated staff are considering updating the
Delegated Approval By-law as a customer service measure that could reduce the approval
timelines from 6 to 7 weeks down to 10 days. He indicated the initial Delegated Authority By-law
was approved in 2009 and limited approvals were granted to staff. He stated there have been
instances where HPAs were presented to the Heritage Committee and members at the time
believed the work was routine in nature and possibly could have been approved without
HERITAGE KITCHENER MINUTES
OCTOBER 1, 2019 - 32 - CITY OF KITCHENER
5. DELEGATED APPROVAL BY-
consulting the Committee. Mr. Bensason provided an overview on the regulations within the
Ontario Heritage Act related to which items/matters could be permitted through delegated
authority. He noted HPAs for the Upper Doon Heritage Conservation District will not change, as
the District Plan By-law is written in a way that would prohibit Delegated Authority. He provided
an overview of the current practises, including some of the feedback received from the
Committee on the process to date.
Mr. Bensason provided an overview of the potential options related to the Delegated Authority
By-law, including: do nothing and leave the existing By-law as is; revisit the By-law and amend
the criteria applicable to Part V Designated Property; or, consider an approach taken by most
other municipalities and amend the by-law to identify classes of alterations or to reflect an all-
alterations approach. He stated when the Committee was consulted in 2018, support was
expressed for an all-alterations approach as long as there were checks and balances. He
indicated there was still support expressed for using Delegated Authority if the Committee was
consulted and voted unanimously to approve an HPA. Mr. Bensason advised he circulated this
-law, stating it could be used a
potential draft for updating By-law. He indicated he highlighted areas within the By-
law that he thought were relevant and crossed out items that he believed could potentially
frustrate the process.
In response to questions, Mr. Bensason advised the Delegated Authority By-law relates
specifically to HPAs. He indicated the City pursuing a new Heritage Conservation District is
outside the discussion this date.
Councillor D. Chapman expressed concerns with updating the By-law to delegate further
Authority to staff related to HPAs. She stated in her opinion, the Committee is comprised of
subject matter experts that should be consulted for their feedback. She further advised
consulting the Committee provides a transparent public process for further community
engagement. She questioned what concerns have been identified with the existing process.
Ms. A. Reid advised in her opinion, updating the Delegated Authority By-law would improve the
process for homeowners who are actively trying to maintain their heritage property. She
indicated if more approvals were delegated, it would expedite the process. She indicated it was
her understanding the Committee would still be consulted, and if the vote was unanimous staff
would have more authority with final approvals.
Mr. Bensason advised staff could ensure that the definitions within the By-law are clearly
articulated to define what are minor versus major repairs. He indicated where there may be some
concern, staff would like to implement a check and balance system that would involve consulting
with the Chair of the Committee to assist in making a determination on whether something is
minor or major. He stated where there is a disagreement, or the application is identified as
controversial, it would always be brought forward to the Committee for consideration.
Mr. J. Baker left the meeting at this time.
Ms. Reid noted for consideration, if the Chair or member of the Committee being consulted on
an HPA and a conflict of interest within an application is identified, the By-law should articulate
a process for consulting another member of the Committee.
Councillor J. Gazzola expressed concerns with delegating additional authority to staff related to
-law may not save any time for the Committee
members. He questioned whether there were possible options for reducing application timelines
for homeowners when completing necessary, simple repairs.
Ms. Reid stated in her opinion, greater pride
in their ownership and are not the property owners that are neglecting their heritage dwellings.
She commented the proposed changes could help to make the process more efficient.
HERITAGE KITCHENER MINUTES
OCTOBER 1, 2019 - 33 - CITY OF KITCHENER
5. DELEGATED APPROVAL BY-
Ms. K. Huxted agreed
interest in their properties. She expressed concerns with newer heritage property owners that
are not aware or informed of the rules within a heritage district that are of greater concern. She
stated it would be her preference to maintain a more public process to receive the greatest
amount of feedback. She indicated if the Committee opts to approve further Delegated Authority,
consideration needs to be given to narrowing down what really is a minor versus complex
alteration.
s By-law, Number 2, suggesting if that section
was being proposed for By-law, that the be included in the paragraph.
Councillors D. Chapman and C. Michaud also expressed concerns with defining if a type of
project was highly complex. Councillor Gazzola stated in his opinion the process does not require
updating.
Ms. Reid stated in her opinion Heritage Planning staff are experts in heritage conservation and
if updates to the By-law can achieve customer service improvements, they are well qualified to
make determinations on what are minor versus major alterations.
In response to questions, Mr. Bensason advised it would be unlikely staff would be able to
identify shorter application timelines, as there is a great deal of work required to liaison with
property owners, applications and write reports in preparation for the Heritage Kitchener
committee meetings. He further advised staff have received the necessary direction to prepare
the report and explore options for consideration on ways to improve customer service for the
By-law to focus the discussion.
Councillor Michaud questioned why the list outlined in Number 2 was crossed off. Mr. Bensason
advised providing a list for minor and major alterations can be restrictive, which may create
issues in making determinations on what is actually included within a specific item. He indicated
it would be his preference to have a consultation option to speak with the Chair or another
member of the Committee to assist in determining what would be routine, to ensure proper
checks and balances. He further advised if a list was used, there are so many differences
between the individual Districts that it could be challenging to properly define an appropriate list.
Mr. P. Ciuciura agreed with Mr. Bensason and the possible challenges that may arise by
establishing a definitative list for items that could be considered minor. He stated in his opinion,
there would always be exemptions required for items inside and outside of the rules if the list
was too exact. He stated it would be his preference to leave staff with some discretion when
current process for delegated authority
appears to be working well and there seems to be less complaints regarding the process.
Councillor J. Gazzola left the meeting at this time.
Mr. Bensason advised where there have been complaints are within the Upper Doon Heritage
Conservation District. He stated the District By-law is written to prohibit Delegated Authority for
that District so timelines cannot be reduced. In response to further questions, he advised the
existing Delegated Authority By-law has been in place since 2009.
provide a summary of the applications that could have been processed through Delegated
Authority under the proposed rules.
Questions were raise regarding Site Plan and whether that should not be considered as a major
alteration. Mr. Bensason advised there are also variations for Site Plan Approval, noting a
Stamped
to a property.
HERITAGE KITCHENER MINUTES
OCTOBER 1, 2019 - 34 - CITY OF KITCHENER
6. STATUS UPDATES - HERITAGE BEST PRACTICES UPDATE AND 2019 PRIORITIES
- HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT FOLLOW-UPS
Ms. Reid noted if members have any additional feedback to forward it to Mr. Bensason via email
at leon.bensason@kitchener.ca prior to end of the week. Mr. Bensason advised staff anticipate
bringing forward a final draft for consideration at the November 5, 2019 Heritage Kitchener
meeting.
Mr. L. Bensason advised there were no status updates this date. In response to questions, Mr.
Bensason advised staff acknowledge the request to increase the information on the Heritage
Permit Tracking sheet included in the Committee agenda. He stated additional information on
the nature of each permit will be included starting in 2020.
7. ADJOURNMENT
On motion, this meeting adjourned at 5:55 p.m.
D. Saunderson
Committee Administrator