Transcript - Heritage Grants Approved, Demolition Denied - Heritage Richmond Hill Meeting - Thursday, April 2, 2026 - 3:00 p.m.

Heritage Grants Approved, Demolition Denied - Heritage Richmond Hill Meeting - Thursday, April 2, 2026 - 3:00 p.m. - City of Richmond Hill

CL we are live streaming. Go ahead. Thank you sir. Good afternoon everybody. It is April the 2nd and this is the Heritage Richmond Hill committee meeting. I am your chair councelor Karen Silvitz and I want to welcome everybody. This meeting is an electronic meeting being held pursuant to section 238 3.3 of the municipal act 2001. Please note we have received regrets from committee member Annette if the public had the opportunity to submit written correspondence regarding agenda items by email to the clerk's office. All written correspondents received by 12:00 p.m. noon yesterday would have been included on the agenda, but none were received. The public also had the opportunity to apply to appear as an electronic delegation either by video conference or by telephone by 12:00 p.m. noon yesterday, but none were received. As chair of the committee, I will now call the meeting to order, and I ask for a motion to adopt the agenda from a member of the committee. Please just raise your hand. Thank you, Barbara Deamro. So moved. All those in favor. None opposed. That passes unanimously. Thank you. Okay. Are there any disclosures of pecuniary interest or the general nature thereof from committee members? Seeing none, we'll go to agenda item number four, which is adoption of previous minutes. As I always say, I trust everybody's read them. And we have one one item under there 4.1 minutes Heritage Richmond Hill meeting HR0226 held March 5th 2026 that the minutes of Heritage Richmond Hill meeting HR226 held March the 5th 2026 be adopted. Can I have a member of committee move this forward please? Just raise your hand. Thank you Brian Hat. So moved. Does the committee have any comments? We good? Okay. Seeing none. All those in favor? None opposed. Thank you. That passes unanimously. We have no delegations. We have two items of scheduled business. So the first one is 6.1 SRPBS26011 which is the 2026 heritage grant applications for six properties. Always a very very good thing that we deal with and um I trust that members of the committee have gone through all all of these and if I could have a member of committee move this forward for discussion I'd appreciate it. Just raise a hand. Thank you very much, Agnes Par. So moved. Now we can move all together as per Mr. Deputy Clerk. So A through G. Um Agnes, as the mover, uh do you wish to make any statements? Uh no, I'm happy with what's um written there. Thank you. You're happy to move all all of them together? Yes, I am too. I'm all in I'm in favor of that. Thank you. Anybody on committee wish to make wish to make any comments here? Steven Labboutiier go ahead sir. Um are there any sp special financial circumstances uh around the grants for the individual homeowners? How do you mean? So uh are they in financial difficulty? Do they need the money? I have a fundamental issue with giving taxpayer funds um to private home homeowners to maintain their homes. Okay. um Kunal or Pamela, whoever would like to take this and help Stephen better understand what the policy is um and um how we actually go about um uh looking at um the grants and how they should be awarded and why uh through you madam chair. Um so thank you uh to committee member Luch for um bringing this up. So um the heritage grants program has been around for um I believe over 20 years now. And so why we have uh created this because there may be an increased cost to property owners to properly maintain their heritage homes. And because the city um wants to encourage the retention of these heritage buildings, we provide these grants to the property owners to ensure that they are retained long term. Thank you. And um if I may Pamela um the money comes from which account? Um do you know Kunal? Sorry. So it's um there is a sorry I apologize. Um um so through the chair there is a um there is a funding source that has been established at the city. Um okay it is known as the community enhancement and economic vitality fund which has historically always supported this. Um I probably won't be able to speak to how that fund is funded or maybe that's beyond my purview. I'm not in finance but um that there is that's the funding source. Okay. Thank you. Um Stephen, does that answer your questions sufficiently? Do you still have some concerns? It answers my question. It doesn't really solve anything, but that's fine. You know, historically, if I can just comment, it it's these grants are very important because it not only assists the homeowner in in getting their uh renovations done, but it also helps us and helps them keep that property um uh in situ. So, you know, that that is that is the reason. And we're not the only we're not the only heritage committee who does this. I I believe all do. Um, okay. So, I see Kunal's hand up. Councelor Davidson, one moment. Uh, Kunal, go ahead. I just wanted to add to what councelor Silivet says as well. So, Stephen, if it helps um provide some additional if this additional information helps. So, we do have a terms of reference for the grants that we offer. Um, they are dedicated to just the designated properties. You have to be designated and the grants are offered only for um impacts to heritage attributes. So if something is not a recognized attribute on the property, you may not receive a grant for it. So it's not a repair and restoration of anything on the house, it is specifically for heritage attributes because that's what we're trying to conserve. That's the intent. Okay. Can I uh Stephen, go ahead. I'm not I'm not that familiar with the formalities of the, you know, through the chair, I guess. Go ahead. One of the homes is uh wants to replace its windows. Is that under one of the grants? I can't remember. You know, which one are you? Yes, it is. Yes, it is. Panel. So, they're replacing they're getting more energy efficient windows or are they getting heritage windows? I mean, it doesn't really mesh with what uh was just stated about doing only renovations to her things that impact the heritage, maybe the appearance, I suppose. But anyway, I just thought myself on the record for that. That's okay, Stephen. Thank you. Councelor Davidson, you're waving. Do you want to jump in? Yeah, I just want to say um I agree with you like it kind of makes you think, well, why am I paying for someone else's rena? But let me say in the three and a half years I've been on this committee, not once has a has has a homeowner not needed convincing to that getting their heritage property designated isn't the kiss of death and that they won't be hamstrung. And for me, when I'm replacing my windows, I'm going to maybe not even look at whether or not it's energy efficient. Depending on my financial situation, I might say, "What's the cheapest thing I can get?" and maybe getting a sash window that looks like it's a hundred years old is more expensive than what I was going to buy myself if it wasn't a heritage home. So, it encourages the look to be consistent and it might inflict extra cost on you to look a hundred years old even if you're getting a bit of a deal. Although windows cost, you know, tens of thousands of dollars, I doubt 500 or 5,000 is going to make much of a dent. But yeah, it's just to me it's a good faith also to say look at we told we're making your house heritage but that doesn't mean it can't be modern and but we still want it to look old. That that's sort of how I look at it but I completely understand your sentiment. Mhm. It's tax season. That's why. Sorry. Sorry. I was I was uh kicked off for just a few minutes. Um can everybody hear me and see me? Okay. Uh Councelor Davidson, I'm sorry. Could you could you just repeat what you what you said just minuscule? Oh, I basically said that it may you know if someone's replacing their windows in a heritage home, maybe they would get something cheaper, but a sash window that looks 100 years old is a little more expensive. So to keep the look, they're kind of pushed into buying something a little more pricey than they would have at least in the heritage part of the house. So this is just almost a goodwill gesture by the city saying we've designated your house heritage and this money goes towards keeping that heritage appearance which might cost you a little more where if you are on your own you might not do it that way. Yeah. Yeah. And and if I may add it's also I mean it's it's $5,000. It's not you know $25,000. So uh we also if I'm correct uh Pamela we also we also have to see all the invoices. Is that correct? That is correct. Yes. And then we go and assess the work to ensure that it is done appropriately. Thank you. So we have a sign off. Okay. Uh Steven um how you feeling? Where is he? Steven's disappeared. No, still here. Oh, you're there. There you are. Yeah. Sorry, Stephen. No, that's that's fine. And I I uh I can see both sides of it. And that was part of my uh thinking as well. It's such a small amount anyway. It's going to be insignificant. Why are we throwing it away? But I understand it's a little bit of an incentive to maintain the appearance of the heritage building. So, sure. Definitely. Definitely. Thank you, Stephen. Timothy. the chair. Uh I actually had uh something more opposite to what Stephen was questioning about uh looking at the repair cost of uh uh those six applications. Uh a lot of them cost quite a bit of money. Uh and I'm not sure actually 5,000 uh would actually be sufficient. In other words, uh by being designated heritage property, uh what is the threshold that may uh that will increase the cost because it's a heritage property uh in the maintenance or the repair cost. Uh so what I'm trying to say is uh is a 5,000 limit maybe a bit low in certain circumstances uh versus uh maybe some which may only require maybe a couple thousand whereas others may warrant a bit higher. So can we build in some flexibility in some of those approval and and although I know it's tax money and we all don't want to waste money on all this but butistic would it be uh okay to to be more flexible in determining the amount of subsidy in certain cases? That's my question. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Timothy. Um Pamela or Kunal um if you if you could assist here. Um it's the five the amount for each grant is $5,000. That's per policy. Yes, it is. So through the chair um to member Timothy Ch. This is again this was a council endorsed um grant program which consider considers $5,000 as a matching grant. That's the upper limit. So if something costs less money, they will get a smaller grant. So as a quick example, if you spend $10,000, you will get $5,000. If you spend $8,000, you will get 4,000. It is a matching grant. Not everyone gets 5,000 equally. However, I believe the other point you're making is it seems low. Are there other considerations to make for other um projects, bigger projects? At the time, the grant is limited to the maximum of $5,000. I do want to let the committee members know that last year a member motion was brought forward to look into the grant program to help further incentivize the program. So that is something staff is currently looking into and we will be bringing it forward to council sometime this year. Thank you Kel Timothy. Yeah, I think it's a good idea maybe to review uh the upper limit on the grant where we cases maybe warrant a bit more now that uh we do have uh uh inflation and also uh maybe uh circumstances that may warrant a bit more uh incentive to home owner to to do the repair. Uh I know if you say they want to give all free money, but uh even on the table they will get clean it up. Thank you. Thank you, Timothy. Council Davidson, you had your hand up. Do you want nothing? You're good. Okay. Any further questions or comments from members of committee? No. Okay. Councelor Thompson, I do see your hand and I was going to go to you as the uh as the owner of a heritage home. Um do you have any comments here? Yes, thank you for uh giving me the opportunity. Um, I I was just going to follow with what Timothy was saying there, and it is a it's a very tricky balance to try and follow, but in my neighborhood, I've got the Crosby House, which has the Copala at the top, and the repairs to that, I mean, the $5,000 does virtually nothing for something like that where we've deemed that that attribute is something that needs to be saved and maintained. So, you know, the types of pressures that can be put on some of the heritage home owners on a financial side. Yeah, it's a it's a tough balance. It's it's hard to say, you know, that 5,000 10,000 what what's the right thing. So, I'll be looking forward to see what recommendations come forward in that report that Canal was talking about. Thank you. That's very That's very helpful. Thank you, sir. Okay. Uh, one more call for comments. Are we good to go? Okay. So, we have a motion on the floor moved by committee member Agnes Parr. And that is agenda item 6.1. Um, the 2026 Heritage Grant applications for six properties, SRPBS 2611 A through G. And we're moving all at the same time. Committee members, all those in favor? Any opposed? Seeing Oh, Stephen, you're you're opposing. We're not unanimous. Okay. So, um uh Mr. Deputy Clerk, did you get that? Uh to to the chair, yes, I did. Thank you. Okay. Thank you very much. Thank you. Okay. My apologies. We've got three agenda items, not two. I I I totally said it wrong. So, we'll now go to um agenda item 6.2, which is SRPBS 26012, heritage permit for 10 Elizabeth Street North, the Phillips the Phillips Newbury Bowman House. And the motion is a that staff report uh SRPBS 2602 titled heritage permit for 10 Elizabeth Street North be received. B, that the heritage permit application to replace the seconds story casement windows at 10 Elizabeth Street North as described in the staff report be approved. And C, that staff be authorized and directed to do all things necessary to give effect to this resolution. So, can I have a member of committee bring this forward, please, so we can discuss? Anybody raise your hand. Thank you, Councelor Davidson. Uh, as the mover of the motion, councelor Davidson, do you have any comments? No. I'd like to receive the report and and give my thanks to staff. Thank you, ma'am. Um, any other members of committee wish to make any comments? Seeing none, Council Thompson? All good. Okay. So, we have a motion on the floor moved by Councelor Davidson. Agenda item 6.2 SRPS BB SRPBS26012 heritage permit for 10 Elizabeth Street North the Philips Newbury Bowman House. All those in favor? Any opposed? Seeing none, that carries unanimously. Thank you. And the next item is 6.3. This is very upsetting. this item. It's very upsetting. SRPBS 26016 demolition request for 11666 Young Street. The William H. Ledger House, Jefferson Post Office. A that staff report SRPBS 26016 titled demolition request for 1166 Young Street, the William H. ledge leger house, Jefferson Post Office be received and B that the request to demolish the William H. Leger House, Jefferson Post Office at 11666 Young Street be denied. Can I have a member of committee bring this forward for discussion, please? Miss Barbara Deamro, our vice chair. Thank you very much. Do you have any comments? uh through the chair reading through all the reports and looking how staff over the years have tried to get the homeowner to do some work that was necessary and we've had uh situations like this come uh before us in the past where over time often it results in uh demolition by neglect. What what can we do to make sure we don't demolish this property over time? because I'm in favor of not demolishing it and I'm in favor of what the staff has uh brought forward and um it's it's a property worth saving. So, are there any further discussions from staff that we need to know about? What you've like what more have you done? What more can we do to make sure these homeowners do what they need to do? Thank you. U Madam Chair, thank you Barb. Um Kunal, thank you. I I actually had a very very similar question as well. So, uh yeah, let's hear what you have to say, sir. Okay. So, um through the chair, um as committee members can see, there's a long history to the conversations that were had between the property owner and the city. Um at this time, the property owner has showed an interest in demolishing the building, which is why it's coming forward to the committee members. Um what we have ability to do is when we get HR's the committee's recommendation and council endor endorsement to deny the demolition request we will then continue to pursue um actions that are provided to us under the heritage act as well as the property standards by um the difference now will be that We will have a firm decision from council on the denial of the demolition request. Thank you, Canel. Barb, anything further? No, he answered my question well. Thank you, Canel. Thank you. Um, my next speaker is councelor Davidson. Thank you. Um, I thought the new provincial guidelines basically take all the declaw any municipality that wants to say no. So even if the council says no, you can't demolish it, what recourse does the city have if they just do it anyway? I'm so confused. I thought basically I know it was already designated heritage, but I I don't see how this house is going to be saved based on the pro province's willingness to not stand in the way of building progress. So if the council says no, what's next steps for the owner of the house? Good point. Uh, canal through the chair. Um, sorry, councelor Davidson, just to um confirm um the province isn't saying you can uh demolish designated property without council consent. You still require council consent to demolish a designated property. Listed properties are different because now listed properties will no longer be on they will not be on the register. There's no control mechanisms in place for that. But council does have the ability to uh deny a demolition request. That's what this is. This is not a demolition request. But then if we say no at council, what what is the next step for the owner? Is it um Oh, well, is it like going to the tribunal? What what can they do about it? Right. Um so through the chair, could they that's something to think about. Well, ideally what would happen is you would direct staff to continue conversations with them and we can still issues as we have done in the past. We can issue orders to comply through the property standards bylaw and then because there's there potentially would be council direction on this matter. We get we we have the ability to take that decision as a way to push for an order to comply. So far what's happened is historically we've issued orders to comply. They've been able to comply with some if not all of the issues as the years have gone by. Uh but they've never actually formally come in for a demolition request of this nature. So now that it's formally here, I believe in my opinion a decision will at least help facilitate a more um assertive conversation if I can say that to have with them because now they know that council and HRH's recommendation is to not demolish to not support the demolition. So there's a support from council's perspective to continue the conversation with the applicant. So just to clarify, this is the house on the Soies parking lot, right? Yes. The south side of Right. So I'm Okay. I I'm all for designating and and and denying the the permit, but really we're saying that that piece of property, unless they move that house, is almost rendered useless by council and the committee, right? What are they going to do there if they don't move the house? Okay, you're shaking your head. No. What options will they have? So through um if I can jump in. Sorry. Uh through you, Madam Chair. So this this house was originally on Young Street and as part of the development of this property into a commercial plaza, it was moved into its current location. So it was through the development of this property that the that the house was moved into this current location. what the property owner will do long term with that building is something that we are happy to have discussions with and determine how it can be um adaptively reused um so it can ensure to be like uh conserved long term um but the first step in doing that is denying the demolition and then helping um the property owner to continue having these conversations with staff. Okay, thank you. And on that note, I want to say there was a heritage property on Young Street. The um owner kind of let it go dormant and didn't really respond to the city for two years. At the 11th hour again, I know your staff went back at it and they did not come to council to complain yesterday and I just I wanted to commend you on your tenacity. I know I sent you an email, but it does feel like the the biggest resistance is people not understanding that the scope of this isn't as bad as they think. So to say yes, we're going to continue discussions. It's not it's not empty words. I've I saw it work this week. So thank you. All right, those are all my questions. Thank you, counselor. Um Stephen, I saw your hand up. Yes, there you go. Go ahead, sir. It appears that something along the lines of uh of what councelor Davidson was saying with regard to uh enforcing some sort of compliance. Um, it appears that uh for the last well since the the proper the building was moved in 2007, they've just been demolishing it through negligence. If you look at the engineering report, it's structurally unstable. The bricks are falling falling off the thing. It's uh it's really become an eyesore down there. Um I don't know, maybe it's time just to cut losses and and go with it. If you can't enforce, if you can't force the owner, who's a commercial entity to do something with the building? Um, or are we just going to leave it there to become a pile of bricks? Yes, that's that's the elephant in the room, is it not? Um, Kunal Pamela, you want to take it? The chair. Um, we conducted a peer review of the structural assessment report that was submitted as a part of the application. So we got a structural engineer to do an assessment of their structural assessment and through that it was deemed that uh the findings are not sufficient to support a demolition at this time. So again if you since you brought up the bricks this is a frame structure which means the bricks are not a structural element there are bricks that are falling apart that need to be repaired. Um so this is not at the stage where demol demolition is the only choice right and that's why we conducted a peer review of their assessment that the evidence provided does not substantiate the need to support a demo sheet. So at this point, staff is recommending the denial of the report. Cubs are not at that stage and there is still hope to salvage because that is what our purview is is to protect these properties that are designated. And there is a way to do it. And it's just a matter of getting the property owners to comply through conversation. And we've been having these conversations. And to be fair, it's not like they have done nothing. They have made efforts. They have made efforts to help comply with the with the orders that have been issued to them to prevent damage. It's just not at the scale that we'd like. We can't speak to why that is the case. There could be a number of concerns, but that is the conversation that we'd like to keep having with them, but that won't be possible if we consent to demolition today. Uh Stephen, anything further? No, I'm good. Thank you, Stephen. Timothy, go ahead sir. Uh the chair uh I still if we deny the demolition uh request which I think quite popular at this stage. Uh but what can we do actually to enforce uh the owner to take actions? uh because it seems that the owners haven't been doing too much in the past although they do complied a little bit but they have been uh let uh to deteriorate for quite a while and uh what can we actually do if the council denied it uh to really enforce the owner to uh pick up the it up um I So it cost it will cost the owner a lot of money. So if the owner doesn't want to comply uh what action can we do can we take? Thank you. Uh Kunal could could you I don't help us with the property standards bylaw and what it is we can do with enforcement. Yeah. So through the chair I think this is a bit of a two-parter. So I'm going to answer in two parts. So one is uh what ability do we have? Again under the property standards bylaw we have the ability to issue orders to comply. Um that is sort of the most um that is the first step we will always take. It forces a conversation. Uh yes we are limited in terms of we cannot force an applicant sorry a property owner to tenant the space for example we can say we can suggest it we can recommend it because that's the best way to maintain a property have it occupied. Those conversations have been had um they've even I believe they've considered it. they've not found a tenant or um I can't comment on why they haven't been able to tenant the space but we don't have that level of control. We cannot force them to ten into space. What we can do is they have to comply with the property standards bylaw and the property standards bylaw are pretty robust for heritage properties. They do ask for significant kinds of repairs to a property. So that is the method we'd have to use. That's the method we'd have to start where start with. Um the second part to your question um sorry Timothy was about um skipping my mind now. Um Timothy what was the second part of your question? So I the question is actually uh you answer the main part what can we do uh if the council deny the demolition and okay from there on uh what actions or what bylaw whatever uh that they need to comply with comply with the the order of the council. Okay. Okay. Thank you. I I do know that's through property standards by through our bylaw department that can be fined and it can go before the courts but that's another very very long process but that those are the actions that we can take as a municipality. Sorry to interrupt Timothy. Yeah. So through the chair if I can add to that we always try to amicably solve this. We don't want to go down that path. We do have since council sold has mentioned it that that is also available. you can uh lay charges under the Heritage Act. You can penalize them. Uh again, we always try to work with property owners. Um that's always our hope and that's the hope today as well. Okay, Timothy. Thank you. Okay. Thank you, sir. Um Agnes, your hand is up. Go ahead. Uh, I would like to thank the staff for their work on this for their staff report. I am also um in favor of denying the request to demolish this house. I know exactly where it is and I'm familiar with it. But I do want to ask while this is before us and it might come under property standards. um what can be done to you know about the house's security as it you like where it stands. This is probably obviously owner responsibility but you know you you read the things in in the report and there was I believe if memory serves me correctly an unhoused person living in there. I know that you know bits and pieces are you know crumbling etc etc but what about the security side of things in the interim or would that fall under the property standards and whatever you know the bylaw can do to um try to ensure that the house is kept um to some degree of safety uh chair yes um so thank you committee member part for your question there may that um uh safety to the public um is is very important and um it has been an ongoing issue with uh this building. So it is an issue with property standards that um if the property owner is um not protecting or not ensuring that um the building is secure and is allowing people to come in to the property um that is uh not in compliance with the property standards bylaw. So, uh, we could, um, through this property standards bylaw, um, tell the owner to, um, fix, uh, the fence. The fence isn't enough, then add additional measures to prevent, uh, people from entering into the building. Uh, so um, this is just, I guess, like a little um um, suggestion for anybody if they see something um, not just with this property, but with any other like a vacant property that doesn't seem to be secured, uh, please contact the city. um let us know uh because um these tend to be on a complaint basis. Uh so um the last time we were on site with um to the William H Lake House um it did appear uh secure but that may change. So if that does please please notify us and we can get our uh by law enforcement team to to go out and check it out. And the chair if I may add to that as well. So, you know, we have issued a lot of orders to comply regarding the securing the house itself and the um the property owner has been complying with that. They've done their best efforts to help secure the property to prevent these sort of breakins. Thank you, Kunal Agnes. Anything further? No, thank you for answering my question. Thank you. Thank you. Any other member of committee wishes to make a statement or comment? Seeing none, councelor Thompson, do you wish to make any comments? Yeah, I appreciate the you giving me the opportunity. Um through you, the chair, I'd like to ask staff. I mean, we recognize what the next steps say and what tools that you have for uh different uh things that you can do. But I also know that you're always trying to work and discuss with the property owners on options. And so because this property was already relocated from where it was initially, I'm having to assume that perhaps that was uh to, you know, that the location that it got to fit with whatever development they were planning at that particular time. But given that they're looking for a demolition now, it sounds like that's doesn't fit with whatever plans they want to do right now. So I guess the question is um have we have we got an indication what their actual appetite is right now? I mean, is there a possibility that if it wasn't where it is right now and it was relocated elsewhere, would that potentially um you know meet their needs moving forward? So th those are I know that's kind of a loaded question, but um and I'm not suggesting that it's got to come completely off that site like you know perhaps the Jefferson Schoolhouse will probably have to come right off of that site if we're going to have any hope of saving it. But I'm wondering what the situation might be here with the with this house. So through the chair, sorry Pamela, before you answer, I'd just like to address one comment. Councelor Thompson, it's um um all sites can redevelop regardless of having a designated property on it. The the idea really is um how creative can people be? Uh Toronto has a lot of examples where you can, you know, fuse the heritage building with a modern development and still be very successful. There's a lot of examples of that and that's what we should be aiming for in Enrichment Hill. Um, so relocating a property offsite is typically the least preferred option um because it tends to lead to the destabilization of homes. And yes, we have agreements that we sign. We ensure that the property once relocated must be structurally sound, but the reality is, you know, even when you try to move a tree, it takes the roots a while to get used to the new soil, right? So that's what this is. It's um I'm not saying it was a mistake to relocate the property. At the time it was considered appropriate and there was no reason not to support it at the time. Another relocation would probably kill the house at this point to be very honest with you. And I believe there is an opportunity even if there's a redevelopment of the entire site to encompass or embed this this unique building into that new development. Uh but to that point though um we have not received any application or concept plan for the redevelopment of the site. They have not alluded to in conversation they have maybe alluded to the re potential redevelopment of the site but we have seen nothing concrete in the form of a an actual application and Pamela you can correct me if I'm wrong on that. That's correct. Yeah no we haven't uh received any formal application. Um there have been um some discussions about potential ways forward um potential plans for the future. Uh nothing concrete. Um and there have been very different uh comments from um representatives of the owner over the years. Um some have mentioned um adaptive reusing the building for um some sort of perhaps like professional offices um uh to incorporate into a future um mixeduse residential um commercial use. Um but nothing concrete. Um and just to add um to what Canel was saying that um if council were to consider relocating um this building um one thing to worry about is what precedents would be setting by doing so. Um because usually as Canel already mentioned that relocation is the last um like the worst case scenario if there's no other choice than we relocate. In this situation, it could be argued that there aren't very many restrictions to what potentially could be this building could be used for. Um there's um in terms of like the land and the uses, um it seems like there are many potential future uses for the property. But I guess ultimately though, like the most important thing to to keep in mind right now is that um this is for future discussions that right now what we're discussing is the demolition request. Um so if we want to have these discussions um that can be happen happen later on but that um first um HR and then council will have to um decide um whether to support this demolition or not. Thank you Pamela councelor. Yeah, through the chair. I mean, it the the mere fact that they've put in a demolition request certainly well certainly indicates what their appetite is. Um, which is unfortunate because it would be, you know, it certainly be nice if if they could come up with a development that would encompass and protect the attributes that were designated. So, um, I'll leave it at that, but, uh, you know, it's, uh, I know that you'll always continue the conversations and hopefully you might be able to get something happening there. So, thank you for all you guys do. Thanks. Thank you, sir. Okay. So, my comments on this are guarded. Um, I think it's appalling what has been allowed to happen to this house. Um I've been involved in the in heritage committee Richmond Hill for almost 20 years. It start I began attending meetings in 2007 um because of the DDO and um I know that this particular house we this has come to HR many times and every time it's in further dis disarray. Uh, looking at the pictures, um, you're right, Pamela. I I don't or Kunel, I'm not sure who said it. Um, I I there's no way that this house could survive a move. Um, I think we've all we've all watched this house deteriorate before our eyes. Um, it's supposed to childhood demolition by neglect, which I think is just absolutely appalling and unfortunate. However, it's privately owned on private private land. It may be identified, but and there's always that but. So, if you go back to our very first agenda item where we were having the discussion about the $5,000 grants balance, right? It does help sometimes when we when we do give the grants to keep those um those heritage properties um in in good in good standing. Um, but unfortunately I think that um the intent in my opinion of this uh of this prop of the owner uh for this property is to is to let it just decay because that's all we've seen in the past years and again it's just very very unfortunate. Um, but I do appreciate the time and effort that our staff have put in first of all to the report and to constantly keeping this particular um uh property on our on on our radar. Um, but it's um I I don't know what more we can do. We can recommend de that the demolition permit is is denied or not. Um, I would certainly uh be in agreement of denying that demolition permit. Um, but as a number of members of committee have already said, what do we do next? So, um, perhaps we just keep on driving past it and we see it continue to deteriorate. Um, but I know that um, our staff Canal and Pamela will continue the discussions should this should this go through. um to deny the permit. The discussions will continue and our heritage staff will do everything possible to do whatever is possible to try and save what is left of this poor old house which really had a place in Richmond Hill. It has a place, but I think that um we're watching it decay and um I I don't think it's going to end right here. So unfortunate. Anyway, um Canal, uh to the CH council service, if I may, uh respond to some of the comments you've made. I know there was no question in there, but I'd just like to say one thing before a decision is taken. Uh we understand the predicament uh everyone is in. It is all the questions that were fair questions like basically it boils down to what's the point? What are we saving if if it's not worth saving? And I think that's the key. I think what we're what staff is recommending is that there is still something to save that we're not at the point of complete collapse at this point. That's what the staff report is recommending based on the information before us which is the structural assessment report from the applicant and the peer review of that structural assessment report. As staff we do not feel confident in recommending a demolition at this time. As you know committee committee members in the past we have come forward where we have recommended the recognition of demolishing a property because of other sort of factors outside people's controls fires natural hazards you know and we have supported demolition in the past we do not believe this property is at that stage at this time with the data in front of us. Thank you. Helps if that helps. That's the objective sort of um recommendations we have at this point. I appreciate that. Thank you. Um yes, exactly. Um does this house still have a place in Richmond Hill? Absolutely. Uh should this house um still still be there in in better shape? Absolutely. But like I said, it's on private property. It's privately owned and we can only do so much. So um uh I I would definitely support the recommendations and if there's no one else who on committee who wishes to make any further comments. Seeing none, we have this moved by Vice Chair Barbara Deamra. Um it is agenda item 6.3 SRPBS 26016 demolition request 41166 Young Street. um A through B that the demolition request be denied. All those in favor? Any opposed? We see one opposed. That only carries. Thank you. Okay, so that comes to our last a um agenda item. Uh but before we get there, um Mr. Deputy Clerk, can you uh confirm the next scheduled date for HRH, please? Uh sure. Uh through the chair, the next meeting of HR will be Thursday, May 7 at 3 p.m. Okay. So, keep that in your calendars and let's always let staff know if you are unable to attend uh for quorum purposes. And um other than that we can before we move to adjournment I want to wish everybody online here very oh Stephen you want to make a comment. I just wanted to uh to let you know that I will not be able to attend that meeting. Okay thank you uh so noted if anything changes please let clerks know. Um I just want to wish everybody a very happy Easter and an enjoyable long weekend. Let's all relax and have a peaceful long weekend. That's all we can hope for. And it's also the Jewish Passover at the moment. So, uh, all we can do is hope that the vibes from the humans who inhabit this planet, uh, can can move a a better a better term of peace move forward. Uh, because unfortunately, we just don't have that right now. But we're just a little committee and we can just only deal with what's in Richmond Hill. So, um, can I have a committee member move to adjourn, please? Just raise your hand. Thank you, Councelor Davidson. All those in favor? That passes unanimously. We are adjourned. Thank you everybody. Enjoy the long weekend. See you in May. Bye. Thank you staff.

Full Transcript