Good morning everyone. I'd like to call this meeting of the Heritage Opal Advisory Committee to order and to welcome everybody here both in person and online. I would remind people that are joining us online perhaps on the live stream meeting on oakville.ca CA or the town's YouTube channel. But if they wish to follow on with what we're doing today, the agenda for our meeting can be found at oakville.ca under town hall agendas and meetings. And there's some easy tabs to click to get hold of the agenda that we're working from today. So you can follow along as the meeting progresses. Delegations wishing to join the meeting must register by noon on the business day prior to the meeting and online there's an easy way for you to do that. Uh we have delegations already registered for today. Um, we have two discussion items and two information items today. And I just remind everybody that we are an advisory committee and any advice we give to council with respect to the applications today will go to its meeting on August the 10th at 6:30 p.m. Again, if anybody wishes to delegate at that meeting, they must register by noon on the business day prior to that meeting. Madame Secretary, do we have any regrets for today? >> Yes, Jason and Bob are regrets. >> Jason. Jason and Bob. Okay. Um I thought Bob was coming virtually. I see we've got um Emma and Jonathan virtually. So I've got you on the screen now, which means if you put up yellow hands or wave or otherwise I will see you, but sometimes you disappear. So you'll have to make other noises to get my attention. uh if you wish to speak. Okay. Do we have any declarations of pecunary interest with respect to any matter before us today? Nope. Good. Moving on. The next item is the confirmation of the minutes of our last meeting. Um these have been circulated. Are there any comments on these minutes? Is there somebody would like to give me a motion? Councelor Longo has given me a motion. Um is there any discussion on that motion? Anyone opposed to that motion? The motion is approved. Okay. Our first discussion item 4.1 is an owner initiated application to repeal the designation bylaw for 3175 Lakeshore West. And that's Kristen. Thank you. All right. Hello, Mr. Chair and committee. The purpose of today's report and presentation is to receive committee feedback and recommendation for council regarding the owner initiated repeal of the heritage designation bylaw for 3175 Lakeshore Road West. The owner has applied to repeal their part 4 heritage designation and council is required to consider the application under section 32 of the Ontario Heritage Act. committee provides uh advice to council through a recommendation in accordance with the act on whether the property continues to meet criteria for heritage designation. The subject property is located on the north side of Lakeshore Road West between Cudmore Road and West Street. The property contains a circa 1920 two-story buff brick house constructed in the Dutch colonial revival style. The property is designated part 4 through the designation bylaw 2024-093 where it met three heritage designation criteria under the Ontario Heritage Act. Two criteria are required to merit heritage designation and this bylaw is attached as appendix C. Just here are a few elevation photos to give context of the property. There are more photos in the reports attached in the appendices. So originally uh the property is part of a historic 47 acre family property which has been reduced over time uh first to around 18 acres and now to 2.6 presently and that can be seen on the left image here. In 1999 a severance was created for a separate parcel for the Cudmora Family Garden Center on the property beside the uh subject property which is highlighted in yellow and that property was sold in 2019. And in 2023, the owners of 3175 Lakeshore Road West applied for a severance to create a new residential lot through consolidation with an adjacent Victoria Street property. That is the far right image. At the time of the 2023 severance application, the property was listed on the Oakville Heritage Register. When a property is listed, staff can require a heritage impact assessment to determine how a severance may impact the heritage property. The heritage impact assessment written by the owner's heritage consultant concluded the property met three criteria under the Ontario Heritage Act and retained cultural heritage value. Sorry. As part of that severance process through the committee of adjustment, heritage planning staff advised that council should consider designation under part four of the act as a condition of consent approval. The consent application was on the committee of adjustment September 23 agenda but was deferred and reconsidered June 26th, 2024. By this time, council had passed the designation bylaw for the property through bylaw 2024-093, preemptively satisfying the heritage related condition of severance approval. Oops. Separate from the severance process, but during the same time frame, town heritage planning staff prepared a cultural heritage evaluation report for the property, which independently confirmed that it met three criteria. Based on this report's findings, a notice of intention to designate was issued and presented to the Heritage Oakville Advisory Committee and Council. No objections were received from the public or the owners during the legislated 30-day objection period following a notice of intention to designate. Council then passed the designation bylaw June 10th, 2024. At that time, a second 30-day objection period followed the passage of the bylaw, and this also concluded with no objections from the public or the property owner. The related consent and minor variance applications were approved by the town's committee of adjustment on June 26th, 2024, and the designation bylaw came into effect in July of 2024. The property owner has submitted an application to repeal the designation bylaw in April of 2026. The application states this request is primarily related to concerns regarding the sale of the property and this is attached as appendix D in the staff report. Section 32 of the Ontario Heritage Act establishes the process for owner initiated repeal applications and authorizes council to repeal a designation bylaw. In accordance with the act, the town issued public notice, notified the owner and the Ontario Heritage Trust, and provided a 30-day objection period in June of this year, where one objection was received. Following this period, council now has 90 days to make a decision on the application. The application must first be reviewed by the Heritage Oakville Advisory Committee, which again provides their recommendation to council. In the evaluation of an application to repeal a heritage designation, staff must consider the application by assessing the heritage value against Ontario Heritage Act and the Ontario Regulation 906 criteria to determine if the property has lost any of the heritage value that led to its designation. An independent consultants report was also commissioned to review and respond to the issues raised in the repeal application. Council will consider this repeal application uh at its August 10th planning and development council meeting. As part of the repeal review, staff reassessed the property and reviewed the independent heritage assessment and opinion of the designation which was done by Steven Burgess Architects or SBA. And we do have Julia Raid here today from SBA if anyone has questions for her. Through a public realm inspection, SBA observed that the heritage attributes identified in the designation bylaw remain intact and concluded that the property continues to meet the same three heritage designation criteria from its designation bylaw and continues to merit designation under the Ontario Heritage Act. The report further notes the house remains in fair condition and found no heritage related justification to support repeal of the bylaw. The report states that heritage designation does not prevent change or redevelopment, but ensures alterations are appropriately reviewed and that heritage value is independent of market value and maintenance obligations are not grounds for repealing a heritage designation. The consultant recommends that the designation bylaw remain in place and the town continue working with the owner regarding future options uh with a note for a small revision in the bylaw heritage attributes regarding the roof attribute. Staff reviewed this repeal application alongside that independent report and town designation documentation and conducted their own public realm site visit and reassessment of the property. Staff conclude that the heritage criteria and attributes identified in the 2024 designation bylaw remain substantially unchanged. No visible alterations or changes have occurred that would affect the property's cultural heritage value in the last two years. Staff are satisfied that the property continues to meet the three Ontario regulation 906 heritage criteria that supported designation two years ago. The Ontario Heritage Act establishes that properties are designated because they possess cultural heritage value as demonstrated by meeting two or more of the Ontario Regulation 906 criteria. In this case, both staff and independent review found the property continues to meet it meet the criteria, sorry, it met during designation two years ago. staff do agree uh with the proposed administrative clarification to identify the roof heritage attribute as a gamble roof more simply rather than the red metal gamble roof. Oh, I'm so sorry. Uh but this does not affect the property's heritage value or intent of designation and can be done separately through a small administrative amendment. So therefore, staff recommend that the application to repeal the heritage designation bylaw for 3175 Lakeshore Road West be denied as the subject property continues to meet at least two of the prescribed criteria under the Ontario Heritage Act and Oreg 906. It continues to retain its cultural heritage value under the Heritage Designation bylaw and it continues to have key heritage attributes that exemplify its cultural value as set out in the heritage bylaw. Thank you. Thank you, Kristen. Um, a good and complete report, I think, of the whole history of this designation and the process and all of the different considerations that led to the passing of the of the delegation of the designation bylaw. Does anyone have any questions of Kristen at this stage? you you ask if you've got a question, you ask. Gary, >> hi Kristen, thank you for that report. Uh, in the application or in the report, it talks about a small uh portion of land that had been severed, I think, at the time. So, not the garden center severance, but that small portion behind. Do you have an update on what the status of that small piece of land? Do I >> uh three Mr. Chair to uh committee member um what kind of status update are you referring to? >> I think at one point in the report it says that they weren't able to sell that lot because of an oak tree that exists on that property. Um, I know that >> it's the piece that sides on to Victoria Street. >> Yeah, the the northwest part that was part of this. Um, I know that it has been created. I'm not sure of its current status of sale. Thanks. Sorry. Thank you, >> Council McNiss. >> Yes, through you, uh, Chair. Um, we've been made aware that there's a sold sign on the property now. So, maybe just a clarification from staff and in legal. Uh we are still proceeding on a let's see there's potentially a new owner coming. We're still proceeding on a decision on this. >> Yes is the short answer to that. The application is before us. The timelines are running. Uh nobody has indicated the intent to withdraw the application. So we're just continuing uh according to the book. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Okay. Any other questions of Christ? Um, you mentioned that somebody was representing the uh the heritage review people. Does anyone have a question to ask of them? Nope. Nope. Okay, that's good too. Okay. Um, we have um two other registered delegations, one to make a presentation and one is just attending in person. Um uh the first delegation that I have intending to make a presentation is Elizabeth Naiden. Um if you would like to step up to the podium if she's here. Nope. Nope. I'm sorry madam. When I saw a lady in the in the back I thought it might have been you. Um no. So she's not here. So that means there's there's nobody then appearing uh wishing to make a presentation on behalf of the the the application. Okay, good. Fine. We can move on. Um I don't know if the other the future owner of the property is here. I don't know if if he wants to say anything or if you're just quite happy to watch the processor. If you wish to say something, please come up to the microphone. Um >> hello everyone. >> Good morning everyone. I'm Jason. Nice to meet you guys. So I will be the future owner for this house 3175. So uh why I buy this house? Because I like this style. I want to continue the you know the style but uh I can see this house a little bit old and uh for probably long time nobody live in the condition you know getting worse and worse. So, uh, you know, the the problem for this house is, you know, >> the microphone's on, but maybe we could get you a bit. It comes up. Yes, there you go. Close up to here. >> Okay. Thank you. Good. >> So, um, you know, uh, I come here. I just want to listen more opinions and how to protect the culture of the this housetop has the you know the historical house. So, I like this style. I want to continue that. I want to repair that. My plans is want to leave you know live there the rest of my life. >> Yeah. So I want to you know to um you know to make that repaired gradually you know little by little to keep the original style. So um but I'm uh I just you know um closing soon. So uh you know uh just recent uh recent days I found some you know challenge is so for the heritage house it's very difficult to get uh house insurance. So because if there's no house insurance so my mortgage you know the the lender the provider mortgage you know cannot be uh funding. So that's the issue because you know heritage house the insurance company they have a lot of questions and especially the old house. So um but however you know at this moment I I I will you know manage that. >> Okay good that's that's very helpful. So I tell you what this is good um sort of questioning for you. Let me tell you a couple of things. One about the insurance thing. Yes, insurance can be an issue. I have insurance. If you find yourself a good broker, you will get insurance for a heritage property. Um, so so that can be done. As far as any changes, the staff will be more than helpful with you to work with you on any changes you might want to make. And I can tell you that this committee approved seven changes to the property. Um and that approval continues for two years from the date that it was given. So that you already have if you wish to take that up, you already have um these approvals for for the next uh almost two years. Okay, great. So you already have that. Great. So but for the moment today, we're talking about the designation or ddesation of the property and uh it's good to see that you're here. It's good to see that you bought the property and unless you have anything to say to us with respect to the designation other than yes I I live in a part four house you you have some challenges but you have opportunities and the staff will be more than helpful in in getting you to your goal of making this a home that you wish to live in with your family. >> Okay, great. So thank you very much for this information. So um you know as you mentioned you have uh we I have two years you know uh I have been told even my agent told me you know around this about this information but uh however I don't have any some you know in writen things I'm not sure if it's >> will do that for you the bylaw is public it was passed by council and that a copy of that bylaw can be given to you or that approval passed by council will be given to you and as regards the time limit um when there are circumstances Uh I've I've never seen any reasonable request for an extension of that time limit to be refused. >> I see. I see. Because the insurance company also asking for these things. >> Good. You know, >> staff will be happy to help you with that. >> Okay. Wonderful. So, thank you very much for everyone. >> Thank you for your coming this morning. Thank you. Thank you. No, don't just leave. >> Okay. Good. So, we have no more delegations and uh so it's now confined to the board. Um, is there any discussion? Does somebody want to say anything about it, Jerry? >> Uh, thank you, Mr. Chair. Uh, two two things. One, I just wanted to let the the new owner know that we have a granting process for gradual renovations that um will give you up to $15,000 a year. Um, and the staff can share that information with you. Uh the other thing is uh the main reason for dedation was the uh difficulty in selling the property that's no longer on the table. Um so I guess we can look at this application with fresh eyes because one of the major reasons was the difficulty in selling the heritage designated property. Correct. So that's no longer on the table. So I think well how do we handle that Mr. Chair? Well, it it may have been one thing, but 99% of the report is the confirmation that the property still meets three of the elements of the Ontario regulation and should therefore continue to be designated. I think that's that's the major element of the issue today. Um, you're right in terms of the opposition to it, it's evaporated. Um, okay. Any further comment or discussion on this? Okay. So the staff has given us a a draft that would we could use as the basis of our motion. Would somebody like to give me that motion? George. George has given me the motion which is the staff recommendation. Is there any further discussion on that motion? Is there any opposition to that motion? Seeing none, the motion is carried. Thank you very much everybody. So the next item on the agenda is item 4.2 which is a with respect to the heritage permit application for 65 Thomas Street uh work undertaken without approval. Kristen, that's you again. >> Right. Thank you, Mr. Chair and committee. Uh so as noted, item 4.2 to on today's agenda concerns exterior alterations done at 65 Thomas Street without prior heritage permit approval. This permit and subsequent conditions of the permit are to confirm the alterations will be in compliance with the old Oakville Heritage Conservation District. The recommendation decided on by committee goes to council for final approval at their August 10th meeting and will inform the work plan for the property owner moving forward to complete the projects. The property is designated under part five of the Ontario Heritage Act as part of the Old Oakville Heritage Conservation District. It's located on the east side of Thomas Street and the north side of William Street on a corner lot. It is a contributing property containing a late 1800's two-story brick and stucco clad vernacular house. So, as noted, because the property is located within Old Oakville HCD, any exterior alterations affecting heritage attributes are subject to the Old Oakville HCD plan and guidelines. In 2025, the owners received heritage permit approval for a rear addition and a new entrance on the north elevation. However, the alterations being considered today were not part of that approved permit. On May 28th, 2026, staff became aware that sophet and fascia work were being undertaken without a permit and visited the property. Here are some photos taken that show that work being done where the wood sophet and fascia have been covered or replaced with black aluminum. Staff advised the owners that a heritage permit would have been required and a notice of unauthorized work was issued requesting work stop until a heritage permit was approved. Following later reports that work was continuing a week later staff conducted a second site visit on June 4th, 2026. During that visit, staff observed brick being applied over the stucco on the north elevation. And here is that pictured. A second notice of unauthorized work was posted and the work ceased. During this site visit, staff also observed that multiple wood windows appear to have been replaced with vinyl and that heartscaping had been completed without a heritage permit as well. And these are just some photos of the multi-paneed majority wood windows on the house previously. And again, those changed windows here. And staff do want to note that the previous multi-pane windows uh are not original, but they were historic and wood. So following discussions with heritage planning staff, a heritage permit application was submitted on June 22nd to address these alterations. The application includes heartscaping, soft and fascia alterations, window replacements, and brick clad installation. Staff advised that approval could include conditions requiring certain alterations be removed, restored, modified, or retained to address heritage conservation objectives. The application is being reviewed as a major heritage permit due to the scope and potential impact of the work on property and district. Staff have reviewed the completed alterations against the old Oakville HCD planning guidelines. Some alterations are supported by staff while others are recommended to be modified or reversed to achieve heritage conservation objectives. So just briefly I will go over that assessment and there is an attachment in your appendices of some before and after images as well. So, there was front yard heartscaping done, I believe in 2025, which included a new flagstone front porch matching original dimensions, new stone planter columns, and an expanded flagstone driveway, which replaced ashevault. Under the planning guidelines, there are hardscaping heritage permit exemptions, but they apply only when materials, location, and dimensions are unchanged. These alterations introduce new materials and an expanded driveway visible from the public realm. Therefore, a minor heritage permit would have been required. Flag stone is a recommended material under the planning guidelines and the porch retains its original footprint. Staff do find that in this case the the alterations are compatible with the character of the property and district and recommend approval of the hardscaping alterations. In terms of the sophet and fascia from the first site visit, staff observed the wood being covered or replaced with aluminum. Uh the the agent advised later that the original wood sophet remained beneath the aluminum and wood fasia could be reinstated. The planning guidelines encourages the repair of historic roof features and prohibits new aluminum sophet and fascia where these did not previously exist. Therefore, staff do not support these alterations and recommend the removal of the aluminum sophet and fascia and restoration or incind replacement of the original wood elements. The brick cladding was installed uh over stuckco on the north elevation and remains incomplete. The north portion of this building is a later addition. does form however part of the contributing heritage property. So that change would have also required a minor heritage permit. The plan and guidelines encourages the retention and repair of existing cladding and brick is an approved cladding material within the district. Because this portion is a later addition, staff find that the brick cladding is compatible with the property and district character and recommend approval subject to the review of final product specifications which have not yet been shared with staff. During the second site visit, staff did observe the replacement of multiple windows with vinyl windows. The heritage permit application identifies 29 window replacements uh 18 of which had originally been wood and the other amount the other windows had not been wood at the time of replacement. All new windows are vinyl. The replacement would have required a heritage permit. The plan and guidelines requires protection and maintenance of historic wood windows and prefers repair over replacement. If replacement of wood windows is required, it should be replaced with an incind material wood. In accordance with the plan and guidelines, vinyl windows are not permitted in the district for new window installations. Therefore, staff do not support the vinyl window replacements. Staff recommend replacing the 18 originally wood windows that are now vinyl back to wood windows because this was a loss of a heritage attribute. The remaining windows, which had been non-wood, staff are recommending can be replaced with aluminum cladwood on side and rear elevations. This allows for some durability while still maintaining the detail of a heritage wood window. However, final window specifications would need to be reviewed by heritage planning staff. I will also note, and I believe it's in the before and after photos, historic photographs do show early uh images of the house with four pane windows two over two as shown in um the new windows which do follow this style. So staff do support sorry the proposed 2 over2 window pane configuration. So the staff recommendation is a bit of a lengthy one but it is to uh make sure that these conditions are followed in order to get the approval of this work. So that staff recommend that heritage permit application for work undertaken without prior approval uh be approved subject to the following conditions and I'll I can just summarize them again but that the aluminum sophet and fascia be removed and the wood be restored or replaced with inkind wood. That other wood trim elements as part of that project be retained, restored and painted as necessary. That the originally 18 wood windows that are now vinyl be replaced back to wood. that the remaining windows can be replaced with aluminum cladwood on side or rear elevations. Uh but these final details would be approved by staff, that the completed heartscaping alterations be approved, and that the brick cladding underway on the north elevation be approved subject to that product information, and that the heritage permit, sorry, expires two years from date of approval by final by council. Uh so I can answer any questions. Thank you. >> Okay. Thank you, Kristen. Um, a very complete and full report as usual. Um, any questions of Kristen? No. No. Okay. Good. Good. Thank you. Now, we do have um some uh delegates showing for this item. Um there's the first one is Amy Goa and she's in Burlington and that's a virtual. Is she there, Madam Secretary? >> Good morning. >> Good morning. >> Yes. Okay. Um I presume you've been following the meeting so far. um have you any um information to share with the committee this morning? >> Um I believe that um the owner, my my boss Danielle Blaze, who's also on this call um as well as the homeowner uh Mr. Stoos do have some things that they would like to join in with. >> So is this is Danielle Daniela Blade? Is she call? >> Yes, she is. And does she wish to share information with us? >> Um, I will let her speak to that. >> Yeah, please. Uh, it seems like um Steve Stos, the homeowner, would like to speak actually. >> So, is is Miss Blair going to speak to us now? >> Um, he she said uh Mr. Stoos, Steve Stos wants to speak and he's just trying to get in to the call right now and she said that she can speak after him, but he has requested to speak first. Okay. >> Hello everyone. Can you hear me? >> Yes, we can. >> Okay, great. Well, thanks thanks for uh having us on this call. I think uh the one thing so I've been an Oakville resident since 2012 and uh uh more recently we moved into town and a lot of it had to do with uh with uh being a heritage home. Uh so really what we wanted is to be in downtown and want to say that we appreciate the committee um and we're not only trying to excuse me uphold the heritage of this home but also enrich it and uh um I understand in listening to it I I guess to give you a little bit of background I don't live here full-time uh my job is in Ottawa so I'm back and forth and I've trusted the great work of Danielle and Amy uh and their group to be able to uh continue to do what we wanted to do was conform to heritage and live in this beautiful town of Oakville. Um the one thing that I did want to state was and the what I recommended to Danielle and to Amy as we embarked on this project was this. Um, my wife Susanna was diagnosed with colon cancer uh in 2023 and uh has battled through excuse me that situation well. And the one thing I did want to do with an older home uh and recommended to the group was that anything from uh that that would be health related to be uh looked after quite carefully. I think I was a little bit offset with the asbestous that was found in and around that. And I can let Danielle speak to that, but uh really all I wanted to say was that um we're we're proud to be in a heritage home in Oakville. Uh we appreciate the committee and the work that you do to uphold the heritage. Uh and we are certainly on board with continuing to move in that direction. Uh but I did think it was appropriate to be able to share to you what uh we've dealt with here in the past from a health issue and a health scare and my family is the most important thing to me. Um and uh I can let Danielle speak to the work that has been done. Again, I had been back and forth from Ottawa to oversee it and I think that Danielle and her group has done an exceptional job. Um, and I appreciate you bringing to light some of the uh some of the things that uh that you have today. Thank you. >> Okay. Thank you. Uh, Mr. Stairs, I'm sorry to hear your information about your wife's health. I hope she's doing well now. And uh I take it from what you're saying that you are um in support of the staff recommendation and that it would be your intention through your through your uh your agents uh to complete the work as indicated in the in the staff report. >> Well well I I I would have to understand it a little bit better sir. I I you know this is my first I'm here to learn. I'm here to hear and and educate myself on sort of the process of it all. Um I think that uh again we we want to do everything that we can to be part of this going forward in in the right direction in the right manner. I don't really it's my first time sort of hearing about uh this sort of process. My first time dealing with a heritage home. >> Okay. Thank you. Any questions of the the applicant? Nope. Okay. Thank you, sir. Um, now is Daniela still wanting to speak to the committee? >> Yes. >> Okay. >> Can everybody hear me? >> Yes, we can. Is that Danielle BL? >> Yes, it is. >> Okay. Go ahead. >> Thank you for your time today. >> The only the only issues we would like to touch on as um my client, Mr. uh has stated is obviously our intent originally was to keep the wood windows but upon further inspection when we did find out that there was asbestous in the windows it was a hard stop for various reasons obviously u my client's health is first and foremost um we weren't uh planning on seeing that amount of asbestous throughout the property and all painted surfaces Um we do have documentation stating that there is asbestous in all the painted surfaces. Therefore we advise that we um do a full replacement so that there were no further issues with asbestous. In regards to the um 2025 edition that we were potentially going to see through that addition I believe had a aluminum sophets and eaves. Therefore, from a construction standpoint, I don't believe that you can tie in original wood sophets and eaves into new aluminum sophet and eaves. So therefore, they would have had to been replaced automatically throughout the premises. Those are the only um points that I'd like to make today. Okay, thank you. Um, I guess in hindsight when you made the discoveries that you made, it might have been the time to talk to staff about uh what what you had discovered and if you were going to replace the windows to just make sure that you were going to replace them appropriately and with the proper materials. and uh and that is what the recommendation before the committee today um is is seeking to uh to impose. Um so that's where we're at. You've removed the asbestos. Um so that's good, but uh the vinyl windows were not an appropriate replacement. Um and I guess you understand that now. Do you understand the district plan as it applies to the work that you're doing? >> We do understand. Um whether or not we agree with it is something different. We're not here to argue by any means, but if it's if it's vinyl windows versus wood windows, the look from the street is still the same in our opinion. Also, we did take a walk around the downtown core last week and notice that there were several heritage homes with final renders. >> The heritage guidelines are the heritage guidelines and these are the guidelines that uh you would be expected to follow. Um so that's that's the position that you're in. Are there any questions of the applicant or the representative of the applicant? Nope. So, there are no further questions. Thank you for your input. Um, there are no further delegations registered for this. Is there Oh, Jane. Sorry. I was looking at the top half of the delegation list, not at the bottom. Jane Hawkri, um, welcome. Nice to see you here today and we look forward to hearing what you have to share with us. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the Heritage Oakville Committee. I'm shorter than the last person um of the Heritage Oakville Committee. My name is Jane Jane Hawkrig and I live at 65 Navy Street just around the corner uh from 65 Thomas Street. Like 65 Thomas Street, my property is a contributing property to the district. For reference, I was a member of the Oly working group that worked closely with the town in the development of the old Oakville Heritage District plan, which sets out the guidelines for changes particularly to contributing properties. Um, and I'm here before you today with a a mixed view of the staff recommendations um that I'd like to go through. I appreciate the responsiveness of Kristen um when it was alerted that the significant changes were made made to this important contributing property. And I do have some comments at the end about process. Um when I look at the heritage uh permit application recommendations from staff, I'm completely uh supportive of um number a about the aluminum sophets and fashes and the and b the wood trim. I have a couple of questions about um C the um the the windows. I do completely agree they need to be replaced with wood windows uh because that is very there's something wrong with the Can you hear me? Um uh it be replaced with wood windows. Uh it wasn't clear in the staff report what exactly the 18 windows were and I think it's important for this committee to understand what those 18 windows where they are located on the building because of its exposure looking both west and south. It's how am I doing that? Is that okay now? Right. Okay. Um, so it's not clear what 18 windows you're approving to be wood windows and what are the ones that will be the aluminum clad. I think that's an important um, piece of information that the committee needs to understand. Um, the change to the two over two, I do recognize the historic picture. I'm assuming that they would be double hung in most cases, not casement if they want to be reflective of what would be um in those windows before. Um and and so so C and D are the two comments on that. Um and E um I do believe I I disagree with the recommendation relative to the hardscaping. Um, when you look at page uh 181 on your staff report, it gives you a picture of the before for the for the driveway. Uh, you'll see at the top picture. Uh, and then if you look at page 194 for the after, it shows to you the car that's parked in the southwest corner. They've added a parking pad to that hard landscaping, which obviously was not approved. This is not not minor in nature, nor consistent with the clear guidelines. In 5.7.1.2, too. Um, new parking areas within front yards are not permitted. And I've taken some pictures of what that parking pad looks like. I think that could be visible. So now a view that tip used to be of the home um from the southwest corner is a picture of parked cars and the district plan specifically says that new parking pads are not permitted and so as a result I would argue that part of the hardscape which is the new parking pad should not be approved and should be removed. I will note that on William Street there is a a parking an entrance for a lane way which allows for two cars also. So there's quite a bit of hardscaping there and and as a result I think that should be removed. Um and finally the report doesn't include uh an a recommendation rel related to the new front door. Again on page 181 you'll be able to see what the old front door looked like. Uh and then and then in your report on page 185 you can see the new door replacement. And so the old door which had wood panels which is what is recommended in the guidelines with side transom has now been replaced with a an open window door system. Again not in compliance with the heritage district guidelines. So my request is is that there's a number of things the staff have recommended to replace or to remove and and and redo that are in compliance with the guidelines. I'd ask that those two two additional conditions be added to this report. Uh, finally, I think it's appropriate for me to say that this is a frustrating process for neighbors, neighbors who work hard to try to comply with the Heritage District guidelines. And I will declare I am the person who called the town about this non-compliance. I had neighbors calling me saying, "What's going on?" It was very obvious aluminum faucets were being put in. When I spoke before this committee and council for the approval of the the updated heritage district plan, I talked about the fact that um this plan is terrific, I think, and it and it's very solid and provides guidance, but it's just one leg of a three-legged stool. And to me, the two other legs of the stool are people and process. From a process perspective, I don't think we really want to be encouraging that neighbors rat on neighbors. Our expectation is is that we have mechanisms in place that are firmly identify with homeowners that you know these are the guidelines and if you want to live in a heritage districts I'm sorry you need to understand them you need to follow them you need to consult with staff who are experts in this situation and not expect that you can get it through um it puts tremendous um pressure on neighbors and the second part is about people and you I believe residents and property owners are custodians. And when you move into a heritage district, there's a reason it's called a heritage district. And so I'm sorry, but it's our responsibility to know that. At the same time, there are other critical players involved. the real estate community, architects and designers who who I feel have an obligation to make sure that their clients are informed and and are given the best advice so that we don't get into these situations. It's something I feel passionately about and if there was a subcommittee of this committee that wanted to work around recommendations to town on how do we improve the people and the process part of this I'm all in because um I'm really proud of this district. I'm proud of how you guys have contributed to its evolution and I I want us to continue that way. Those are my comments. >> Thank you, Jane. I'm helpful as always and I agree when you talk about them. compliance with the district plan. I guess it was a little disturbing to hear that the um the the the designer say that she understood and had read the district plan but didn't agree with it. >> So therefore proceeded as if it didn't exist. That's what happened south of the border. It doesn't seem to be happening here though I hope. Um okay any questions of Jane people would like to ask. Um okay. Thank you very much Jane for your for your input. Um so there's no other registered delegate. Um so it's now confined to the board. So we have a we have a staff recommendation which um details that all of the work that has been done up to now that work has to be undone and that uh the replacements um which might not have been necessary because perhaps the old windows could be repaired. Those replacements must comply with the district plan which means wood in some cases means aluminum covered in other places as appropriately specified in the in the guidelines. Now the other elements with respect to the hard landscaping Jane has raised a couple of issues. Are there any comments or any discussion from any member of the board about that? Um Carrie did you have something you wanted to say to that? Uh thank you Miss Hawkrid, excuse me for your um presentation. Uh it seems very clear that if in fact there are parking pads have been installed as per her photos that and the guidelines clearly say that they aren't allowed then I think those should also be re recommended to be removed. And the one thing I was thinking about from a process perspective, at least when we purchased our heritage house, uh, your lawyer as the requirement to make you aware that you are buying a heritage property, that you were bound by the guidelines of the heritage district. Um, so from the perspective of process, I don't believe it was 12 or 13 years ago when we bought our pro um, property. I don't believe we requ uh we were presented with a copy of the guidelines at the time of purchase um or shortly thereafter, but perhaps from a process perspective um going forward that if people are buying a heritage property anywhere in Oakville that they also receive the guidelines as they exist at that time at the time of purchase so everybody is fully aware. >> Yeah. Interesting. When we bought our house 30 years ago, it was part four. The lawyer told us what that involved and we made sure we obtained a copy of the part four bylaw in our case so that we knew what those those conditions would be and what might otherwise be. >> In my case, my lawyer phoned in a panic saying, "Oh my goodness, do you know that you have these restrictions?" And we said, "Yes, we understand that we're buying a a heritage property." >> Yeah, I know. I know. I know. So the the hard stand the park the additional parking issue is is that a problem? >> And the door is the door a problem? >> Okay. >> Okay. So I need your help here, Kristen. Um what would that mean to your recommendation? because I'm sensing from the committee that whilst the bulk of what you're saying, you know, the windows that came out have now got to come out again and they've got to be replaced and so on and so on. But when we get down to the uh the the the hardscaping alterations, that would include that parking area to the south where it's shown on the photograph you got today. Uh three, Mr. Chair. So, just so I understand, is committee wanting to change the heartscaping recommendation to just to include removing the parking pad portion or what would what would your what would you like to see that recommendation look like? >> I think that's what I heard. It's the to remove that parking stand uh part. Was it there before? Item F. Yeah, item F is the one that um will be required. Kirk, are you going to help us here? >> Uh certainly. Thank you, chair. Uh and to the committee. U staff, I believe, would be prepared to take back uh this information regarding the parking pad and the door, look into it further. there's perhaps a zoning issue as well and we could we could clarify those issues and advance a second permit and bring it back to committee. We could even have a little bit further discussion with committee as in perhaps like a precon. >> So are you suggesting that we defer this application? No. >> Uh no. Uh Mr. Chair, we're suggesting that we advance the existing recommendation that is before committee today as is and that the information provided by committee staff would take back to look into further and advance a second permit at at our next opportunity dealing with these new matters that have been raised. >> So that second approval would override the approval that council might give to this one. uh through you, Mr. Chair. I believe that they they could stand alone and they could be separate these two these two permits. So, this permit does not include the parking pad and does not include the doorway that have been raised by committee today specifically. >> Yeah. So, we would take take those two matters back uh and investigate them further and and u put those sorts of details back into a second permit and bring that back to committee. >> Okay. Then so to to give that life perhaps that should be included in in the recommendation in that we have whether it's a step two or three uh that a further application will be presented with respect to the the parking and the front door. You you can give me the words. >> Sure. if >> because because I'm I'm reluctant to ask the committee to recommend to council something which appears in the context of the report to include those things. I think I would like to see those two things separated out to come back. I don't know anybody help me here particularly the counselors because you guys are more familiar with process than >> Mr. Mr. Chair, I can share my screen with the recommendation if you want to make any additions. >> Sorry. >> I can share my screen with the recommendation. And >> yes, that that would be very helpful, Madam Secretary. Y. So, you going to look at this, counselor? >> Uh, Mr. Chair, I I would uh potentially suggest adding an item three and that's the uh report back that uh Mr. Bigger recommended on certain items. Um I believe and someone someone's welcome to correct me if I'm wrong. I believe that separation of those items um would not mean that we've approved them as acceptable in item one is my understanding. >> Okay. Thank you for that. Council Longo, did you have a >> Yeah, thank you chair. Just to to add what uh councelor McNiss was saying, we can still approve A to G and have it come to council with acknowledgement of the two extra items that will come back with recommendation from staff. >> That's what I'm looking for. And that's coming up in three here. >> Y >> because it worries me that if we just let it go, we have no basis to come back to to to reopen it again. So we need to >> Yeah. It allows it to be connected. So it stays connected. Kristen, >> sorry through you, Mr. Chair. I just want to add that we can also strike item F and move forward without the hard I think that's the hardcaping one. Move forward without technically sorry technically approving it at this point and then come back with that. >> Yeah, even better. So take out F and then how how would you finish off three that staff report back to the heritage advisory committee on on hardscaping and front door. Would that do it? >> You got that, Lisa? >> So, some Yeah, sometimes you want to say and any additional matters. Um, but I think it's quite clear that it's it's those two items, but um and I don't see the door uh listed anywhere in A through G. >> No, no, but I want I want to I want to highlight it now. >> Yes. Yeah. And and I agree with um striking F. >> Right. Good. Good. Good. Good. So, how we doing folks? Carrie, there is no parking. No, no. Right. So, that's so that we we'll catch that there then. We'll catch that there. Good. Good. Good. Okay. So, there's the >> actually we have I didn't realize that I didn't realize uh Dennis Berlin was here. It would be good to hear his input from legal. Anyway, so we've we've got now a draft of our uh of our new resolution and I see a hand up for Mr. Pin. Did you wish to help us on this, sir? >> Mr. Chair, I I just want to to caution that um this is an application for a permit under the as stated under the Heritage Act. And perhaps the better approach might be to have the report go to council when this matter is considered in terms of the items that have been raised. Uh so that when the permit is finally dealt with as it needs to be by council, it is dealt with fully at that time with whatever changes uh u uh are further explored and recommended to council based on the recommendation from from this committee rather than reporting back. I am concerned that the application is in front of you and it's for all of uh for the alterations and I'm not certain that there is a way of returning once the application is dealt with by council. So you're saying that we can't approve part of the items included in the recommendation and defer approval with respect to other items that would be in the application. >> Uh not quite. I'm recommending that for example there there is the removal of F which uh if the committee supports that that would be part of the recommendation that the details as set out other than F plus a recommendation before uh I make three two and number two three and that is that staff report to to the to council uh to planning and development council on August August the 10th on hard on well if you're removing hardscaping would be on the front door and any additional items that the committee wishes staff to further look out look look at and make recommendation to council so that when council deals with the heritage permit Mr. chair. They're dealing with the permit in its entirety the permit application. >> The effect of that though would be that the committee would not be part of the approval and recommendation process with respect to these two items. If it was going to be dealt directly by council with direct staff report to council, that report would not have come at it next meeting. that report would not have come to this committee first. >> I'm not certain of of the timing. There is a time frame in which these applications have to be dealt with. Perhaps uh uh Kirk or Kristen can speak to that. Um if it has time to come back then it would be better that the matter be referred back uh if if that's what the committee is looking for uh to the committee if there is sufficient time within the time frame under the act to have the matter then go back to council. My concern is there may not be that much time and that uh uh and sec but on the other hand having it come back uh later after the application has already been dealt with uh that may not result in what the committee is uh wanting considered by council in terms of how this application gets handled. >> Okay, I hear you. We've got the 90-day decision deadline under the act is September 20th, 2026. Um, now we have the council meeting in August. Is there a committee meeting and is there a council meeting that would meet that timeline? Kirk, can you uh and and madam secretary too because you're managing these dates? >> Uh you Mr. Chair, I believe if we were to defer it and come back to the heritage committee, the timeline, the only one that would work is the August 25th heritage committee meeting, but any items from there can't get to planning and development until October 5th, >> but it would have to be there by September the 20th. >> Uh yeah. So, um there there is sorry, there is a planning and development council meeting scheduled for Tuesday, September, >> September 8th. >> Okay. And there is a heritage meeting scheduled for August. >> So if there's a September the 8th PND, then that matter could be dealt with at our next meeting and would have time to get to that meeting because we have a choice here. And the legal advice is no no you can't you can't tear up the package into bits. It needs to go to council as one one recommendation one application. So we we can either defer it completely so that it can all come back to us um and that would be driven by timelines because September the 20th is is the timeline. Um, alternatively, we do the alternative is that we approve the things that we want to approve and we leave it to staff to do a separate report to council and leave council to deal with the two items that we have had not not had the opportunity to deal with today. Um, and that would all be driven not by a sense of preference for any one thing or the other, but simply by the timelines that are imposed on us. Okay. for your chair. Could we uh get advice from Mr. Pllin just on those two paths you outlined? >> Yep. Sure. I think that's what I heard him say, but Mr. Pellin, if you would confirm my summary. >> So confirmed, Mr. Chair. >> Yep. Thank you. So, have we got a date? Have we got a timeline? Can we do it through? Mr. chair. Uh it seems like we might we would be able to hit August 25th Heritage Oakville and September 8th planning and development council. It would be tight, but I think we could do it. Oh, sorry. Yep. There >> Johnny. >> Thank you, Mr. Chair. There's a third alternative, and that is looking at items F and the front door and voting them at this committee meeting. >> I'm sorry. taking a look at the two items right now at this meeting and voting on them. >> We could deal with them now. You're saying but what would we do with the front door? We don't have a front door. If we're saying we don't approve that front door, we would need to have something that is being approved and we don't have that. and we don't want to approve that >> um sort of on the fly right here and right now. >> So I think that would be a bit tough journey. I hear you. I like the idea. I'd like to deal with it now. I want to deal with it now. Um but I think that's not going to be possible. So >> council mcnes again >> but just just want to say I agree with you. It's difficult to making up bylaws on the fly without um a staff report in front of us and a little little more legally defensible as well. Absolutely. Thank you. Thank you, councelor. Um, so what we what we can do is somebody can give me a motion to defer the application until our next meeting. Okay. Council Longo has given me that motion. And is there any further discussion on that motion? >> Uh, through through your chair, as long as we can state why we're deferring it, I think that's important. >> Yes. And that's what we're hearing from the staff that they will make those timelines and we can do that. We can do that. Um the timeline for it getting to into your package and getting into our package, these things can be played with. We've got till September the 20th. Okay. Okay. Is that the feeling of everybody on the committee? Anybody opposed to the motion that we defer this application until our next meeting? until our next meeting. Okay. Okay. No one's opposed to that. That's the motion that we have passed. Then we're going to defer this and the ball is now very much in the staff's court uh to get these items dealt with and back to our next meeting. And uh then that will go to the planning and development council meeting on what date did you say? September the 8th. So 8th of September and if we do all of that and if council doesn't decide to change it because it has its own priorities in this year uh then then if something happens we can always call a special meeting. Okay. Okay. Thank you everybody. That was good discussion and thank you for the input from all of the other people who were uh up to help us here today. Um the next item is information items. You've got the list of delegated heritage permits have been distributed to you and uh if as usual if there are any questions of staff then you should direct them to the staff after the meeting. Um the news release that we all got with respect to the demolition and the court action. It was good to see that um that uh it came out as well as as as we could expect it to come out. Um I guess that's that's what I would say to that. And um okay, so these are the information items. Um can I have a motion to accept the information items? Thank you, Jerry. No one's opposed to that. The information items are accepted. And my piece of paper has disappeared again. Oh, I found it. I found it. Um, our next committee meeting is August the 25th and we all know one item that will be on that agenda. Um, and if I can now have from George a motion to adjourn. That's not opposed. The meeting is adjourned. And thank you everyone once again for the gift of your time this morning. Uh, you've all worked very hard. Thank you very much indeed.