Transcript - Heritage Committee Backs Housing Grant - 2026-04-07

Good afternoon everyone uh to our April Heritage Kitchener meeting and um I would uh like to welcome those who are watching. And uh if you wish to participate, there are ways to do so um in future meetings, you can register online using the delegation registration form at the wkitchener.ca uh delegation or via email at delegation@kitchener.ca. Um and so first of all we'll see if there are any pecunerary interests or general nature thereof from the members. Anyone with a pecunerary interest? Seeing none. Thank you. Um and now just a note on delegations. Um for those who have registered for the meeting, um the city has values and encourages participation and dialogue in a democratic process that occurs in council and committee meetings and through w written substitutions and submissions and correspondence. It's important that these interactions remain respectful towards other members of the public, staff and committee members. And in cases where dialogue is not respectful or a delegate interrupts committee members, staff or delegations, makes derogatory statements about committee members, staff or others that are disrespectful, or uses hate speech, language that is considered harmful or defamatory. The chair may interject and take necessary actions to maintain a respectful and inclusive environment for everyone which could involve the removal from the meeting. All right, our discussion items 4.1. The first one, Heritage Helping Housing Building Grant is a um proposal by the Architectural Conservancy of Ontario. And uh today with us we have Dan Schneider from the Architectural Conservancy of Ontario. He will provide a fiveminute presentation, a PowerPoint. And I just want you to note that Dan Schneider is presenting as a rep of ACO in place of KLG who was initially scheduled and put together a presentation. And I'm sure many of you know KLG uh who's been the local um architectural conservancy of Ontario rep. Um, we have no uh staff recommendation associated with this matter in particular, but Dan and K have um and are hoping the committee passes um the um resolution, the motion, which will come to you in a few minutes. So, um, I would like to now have Dan proceed with the presentation. Thanks, J. So I'm quite happy to be here today. I'm obviously not KLG with whom uh most of you will be familiar and it's great to see my old comrade if I if I can call you that Jean my old comrade in arms. Jean Hal. I am chair of ACO's policy committee. Incidentally, I'm also president of ACO's Stratford Cur, which is the one next to North Waterl. And some of you may also have heard of me because I have a fairly well-known well in certain circles a fairly wellknown heritage policy blog which is hosted by the heritage resources center at the University of Wateroo. And uh if you go to that book and I think you can find it easily. You'll see there at this point 120 articles on Ontario heritage policy and counting. So, I'm here today to talk about ACIO's proposal for a heritage helping housing building grant to ask for your support and for a recommendation from you to your city council. I believe you've had the presentation in your agenda package. We don't have a lot of time, so I will move through the slides quite quickly. But to set the stage, let me tell you what this is really about. It's about changing. It's about changing the narrative, the incorrect narrative, the somewhat insidious narrative. That heretics is bad. Is bad for ACO's position, as stated on the slide, is that we believe strong heritage protections are consistent and compatible with addressing Ontario's housing crisis. And we are requesting a new provincial grant that would demonstrate this. So there's no question that housing prices and housing affordability are a top of mind concern for the people of this province. At the same time, according to the province's own, legislation, plans, policies, statements, the preservation of our cultural heritage, including our guilt heritage, is very important to our identity and our future. Does that date mean something? I will give you permission to proceed, Dan. Thanks. I'll I'll try to speed things up. Heritage buildings, as we know, aren't always designated, but there are a heck of a lot of designated properties in this province. Over well, close to 8,000 individual properties under part four and under part five. Uh the number now approaches 30,000 properties in her heritage conservation districts. And by the way, there are now in this province well over 150 heritage conservation districts. It's a huge it's a huge achievement that that I think has gotten unrecognized. So how to reconcile these two public policy objectives, housing on the one hand, heritage conservation on the other. How can older buildings, including heritage buildings, help with the housing crisis? So slides six and seven look at the answer uh to these questions. I won't go through them uh in detail but the bottom line is that there is a very strong case that can be made that heritage properties have the potential to play an important supporting role in addressing Ontario's housing crisis. And the proposed heritage helping housing grant proposal demonstrates how to put heritage buildings to work to provide more and quicker housing. From the developer perspective, the best financial incentive to encourage heritage development is one where grants are simple to apply for and to administer and the fund is large enough to meet at least 33% of the demand. So, here's the key features of the program. I think uh in light of the time constraints I won't read these out but they are laid out on this slide. We're asking for $10 million a year which in a province this size doesn't seem like a whole lot. That tells you one thing. This program is not aimed at the big developer. It's aimed at the property owner and the small scale uh smalltime developer. So, uh just to wrap up, there's several examples in the deck. One of them from Kitner, the Mix button factory but designated property which now includes 44 supportive housing units. There's one from my uh my my town. I live in St. Mary's, Ontario, a small town. And here's a former twostory shop that uh has been converted on the upper floor to three rental units housing six people. And further to the southwest, Windsor, former Canada building that now has been converted to condo condo use with with twobedroom condos on upper floors. So to summarize, uh, ACO argues that the proposed heritage helping housing program would help to address the housing crisis in Ontario. It would be simple to administer. It would address access to capital issues that smaller developers are facing. It would of course reuse existing buildings, shortening the time to market, keep more skilled jobs in Ontario, and maintain community identity and pride in smaller towns, especially that are experiencing uh development pressures. Madame Chair, that is my presentation. I open to questions. Thank you, Dan. That gives a a great overview of what the potential for housing um exists um with our um existing building stock heritage buildings and and I think you had some very good pictures from um large factories or medium-sized factories to small shops um that can be redone and successfully So, um are there questions for Dan about um this proposal? We're looking at $10 million that in the provincial budget there would be $10 million per year. Uh it's called heritage helping housing grant proposal and um so I'd like to open it to questions from the members. Yes, councelor uh Chapman. Um that's better. Thanks. Um yeah, thank you for the presentation. I just wondered if you could tell us whether there is currently any um heritage building grant money that the province provides. No. So there at this point there's zero. Okay. Um, and I see here that grants would be capped at $100,000 per housing unit. Um, would it be how would how would it be determined who would qualify or not for for this money? The criteria would have to be carefully developed. We have gone just so far in terms of telling basically the province how they should set up this program. But we think a few things are critical. One is that the building should be designated either part four or part five or some people say it should be eligible for designation. That's just a little trick here. As we saw, there's tons and tons of designated properties. We don't necessarily have to go out to say listed properties that would be eligible for designation or just any property that might be eligible for designation. That's something that would have to be worked out in the program design stage. And do you see this money being administered by the local municipality or by the province? That that's a very good question. There's a number of ministries with their finger that would have their finger in this pie. Most obviously the Ministry of Finance, the Ministry of Finance, which basically would put up the money, the $10 million per year either through the annual budget process like the well the next budget now is the 2027 Ontario budget or through some separate uh process 10 million dollars in a province size is not an enormous amount and the Ministry of Finance may be able to find ways to provide that funding outside of the budget process, but we've been concentrating on the Ontario budget process because we understand it, because it happens once a year. uh the procedures the procedures are very clear. So, but to answer the question, the Ministry of F finance would obviously be involved front and center, the Minister of Heritage, who correctly speaking is the Minister of Citizenship and Multiculturalism. That's the minister responsible for the Ontario Heritage Act. that ministry, that minister would be involved. And of course, since we're talking about housing, you'd expect that the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing would also be involved. So there's there's three there's three uh ministries that would need to be involved in terms of who actually operates it. Um I don't think it would be finance. I think it would be what one of the two um subject area ministries, the housing ministry or the heritage ministry. We don't care. Let them work it out. I have more questions, but I'll I'll let others and I'll come back. Are there any other PE? Yes. Uh Grant. Thank you, Madam Chair. Um I had a similar question to Councelor Chapman. I was curious who would administer the program. Um but I think you've addressed that somewhat. Um do you have an idea of how much the program would cost to administer itself? Um I mean certainly I see $10 million a year. I presume that's for the grant money itself, right? So correct. Um, I would suppose that uh there would be tax dollars to administer the program otherwise, right? Do you have an idea of what those costs would be? No. No, I don't. Um the last time we had u a comparable uh grant program in this province which was 25 years ago 25 years ago wasn't focused on housing at that point because housing wasn't a big priority. But the the administration basically was kept as simple as straightforward as possible and the costs were absorbed by the ministry that that took it. Do do you have an example of what how that was administered before? Which ministry was administering programs for heritage? that that that particular uh program it was called the heritage challenge fund. It worked in a similar way to this one. Okay? Like the province would put up money but it would have to be matched. In that case it was only the public sector and not for profit sectors that could match. In this case, it's really the private sector that we want to map the funds. Sorry, what was the rest of the Yeah. No, you're good. I I have a few more questions. Um I was wondering if there are any criteria regarding um the number of units that the program would create. Uh and with that, I mean, I'll give a four example. I would worry about um you know kind of sort of single unit developments if you were you know there's a lot of Victorian homes that are designated I think particularly in the province of Ontario and a lot of people might be creating maybe one or two additional dwelling units in these houses. Are you looking like would those kind of projects be eligible or is it more sort of m bigger multi-unit developments or are units maybe not so much the consideration it's more the restoration of the heritage building? Um a strict a strict criteria of the program would be that in return for the investment housing units would have to be created new new housing units. This is not for maintaining somebody's old house. It's for creating new housing units. And in terms of numbers, um, we have no I we have no idea because the range is pretty broad. right from like the property owner with an old house who uh wants to like adapt the second floor of the house as a separate housing unit right through to like you saw that example of the building in Windsor an old uh bank building or insurance company building a multi-story building that would be converted to condos. So that that that that that would be the range a huge range. Excuse me. Again, with the administration of the program or the criteria, I guess would would there be some kind of means testing of the pe the individuals participating in this program receiving? Um because I mean that's kind of my concern. And I I don't necessarily have an issue with public money going towards heritage preservation. That's that's a lotable goal. Um and I mean there is a consideration around whether or not there's criteria for affordable units, but maybe that's another goal separately, right? But I do have an issue maybe potentially for public money going towards heritage restoration for people who don't need it, if you get what I'm saying. Right? you have a, you know, a very nice Victorian house that's designated on part 4 and they're getting public money to build an additional dwelling unit. Um, and certainly it's enhancing that heritage building. But I'm wondering if they, you know, if that is a good way to spend public money for that particular individual, but if if the ultimate objective is creating more housing units. Yeah, fairly well. Yep. Um, yeah. And you don't have an idea of how many units per year um or number of properties you'd be looking for? No. No. Okay. All right. Thank you. Would just be guessing. Are there any other questions? Councelor Chapman, you had a few. Yeah. No, I just have one more now because one of them was asked already, but um have you approached other municipalities and what was what was their response? Yes. Um ACO basically has mounted a campaign. Uh the campaign has a number of components or facets. Uh we've been meeting directly. I have been in on a meeting with Ministry of Finance officials. I've been in on a meeting with Ministry of Citizenship and Multiculturalism Officials. Uh I'm I'm sorry. Well, okay. So, based on what you just said, are they supportive of of this grant? Well, they're intrigued. Of course, it's hard to read. It's hard to read. Uh well, any any civil servant when you're going to them asking for something, uh it's kind of hard to read what they really think. And ultimately, of course, they don't make the decision. It's their political masters that make the decision. But we have not, let's just say, we have not been discouraged. We have not been discouraged by it from doing this. We tried to get it into the 2025 budget. Uh, we didn't see it there. We tried to get it into the 2026 budget this year. We didn't see it there. That budget, of course, just came out week or two ago. So, at this point, we're aiming for the 2027 budget. We're in this for the long hall. Sometimes a good idea takes time to be understood as something important, something valuable, something something of benefit to the province. So, we're we're not giving up on this. We're you could say we're in it for the long haul. We're in it for the long haul. We have had um but just back to your question, we have had uh So far, a couple of letters from municipalities to the premier with copies to those three ministers that I mentioned. Um, we'd like to see more of those. Perhaps Kitner will be one of those. Um so municipalities asking for this heritage groups like acco and there's we have other kind of a allied uh groups with us community heritage Ontario and the Ontario Association of Heritage Professionals were all kind of pushing this Um, we're getting better as the as the years go by. We're getting a bit better at uh um our strategies in terms of trying to persuade the province that this this would be a good thing. This would be a good thing. And if some of you are worried about 10 million maybe not being enough, that's quite quite possible. But once you start a program, of course, it's always a bit unpredictable. What will it what will the uptake be? What will the interest be? Like we say, we're targeting owners and smallcale developers. We've looked at the the perspective of developers. We think, well, we're meeting those things that they think are important. But until you launch a program, you don't really know for sure what the takeup will be. We think this program will be so successful that the that it won't be 10 million a year. It will be more like 25 million a year, but it will so successful, but that remains to be seen. Okay. I just have one last quick question. Um have you lobbyed any of the local um provincial members of parliament? Yes. Yeah. And are they supportive of we have met with uh MPPPS. Uh ACO of course is a provincial provincial organization. We have branches in certain places and not in other places. So it tends to be the branch the the places where we have branches where the MPPPS get lobbyed and uh again uh regardless of the party of the MPP there seems to be there seems to be interest they're encouraging us to push it forward to make to make the best case to make the kind of case that this government and perhaps more specifically this premier, this premier and his cabinet will understand will like. So we got a suggestion just recently that we should emphasize more that a program of this nature would help protect Ontario. And as the protect Ontario um theme. You're seeing a lot of that because of what's happening uh with with our trade situation and in particular in our relations with our neighbor to the south. So, um, we're we're we're pushing we're trying to press the right buttons and, um, we seem to be making progress. Thank you. Thank you, Councelor Chapman. Are there any other questions for Mr. Snider? Um, I just have one. Um, you mentioned the amount of money, Dan, uh, $10 million. Yeah. And I look at the size of projects that are waiting and could benefit. And it, as you mentioned, $10 million in my opinion is a, you know, a small amount of money. And um but looking at that um project that uh was done in St. Mary's which is an impressive project. Uh do you have any idea what the um cost of of that project was or the like the dollar? Not yeah the dollars that uh it finally ended up with. Do you have any idea on that? I I wish I did. See, uh that particular building is in fact where I live, but but it that that redevelopment was done um over 10 years ago and the owner is um the former owner is since no longer with us. And um I guess I could go to the town and say uh so the building permit for that what was it valued at? But uh I haven't taken that uh that step yet. But it just seems to me that if the project um catches fire uh that the fund would soon be eliminated. Uh, so I'll just leave it there and if you do come up with the numbers, I'd be glad to hear about it. So yes, Laura, you have a question for Dan or myself or more of a maybe a comment. Um, like in my mind, I was just interested in knowing how much it would cost, let's say, for a Victorian home and you're putting in a couple units as opposed to some of these larger projects to have a comparison. Um, some of them are 44, you gave an example of 44 support of housing units. So, having that breakdown of how much this would cost and how far that 10 million I think you we would need more. So I I think that's an excellent suggestion. Basically, you're saying that the examples that I've shown you, you'd like like more information like how much did these actually cost? And if possible, like what percentage of those costs um went to just making a how can I put this? Mo most heritage buildings that we're familiar with that we've designated, of course, the heritage features are on the outside, right? But if you're equipping them for housing units, most of the work I think by definition goes on the inside. So if we had a breakdown of some of those costs, I think that would help with our examples. Yeah, I think it would be very helpful to understand kind of the different projects that could be um included in this sort of grants and how much would per project like a larger project compared to maybe a smaller one the example in St. where it was, I think, three units. Maybe it's more, maybe it's less. It would just be interesting to know the cost breakdown. Thank you, Laura. Are there any other questions? Seeing none, thank you very much, Dan. Um, so I'll let you take a seat and I'm going to ask the staff and committee then for their input. Thank you. Um staff, uh do you have any comments that you'd like to share on this item? Any observations? Uh through the chair. Um staff has not um prepared any comments with respect to to this item. So, we don't have anything to share at this time with the committee with respect to our small um designated properties or the medium-sized properties. Um, and I'm going to skip Victoria and go to Garrett. Do you see a way in which um this type of um promotion could come in handy for creating housing? through you madam chair. So um you know when I think about the the recommendation and the proposal and reflecting on the presentation um I was thinking about our own heritage grant program and I was thinking about how that program enables certain projects to uh to pencil out. uh sometimes uh projects with the additional funding that we're able to provide through our pro our grant program. It allows uh property owners to be able to repair we using best practices their own private property and in some cases it's facilitated you know additional development including additional housing units. So uh I agree with Mr. Schneider and and uh uh the uh connection to housing I think would resonate with the provincial government and uh you know I think staff are supportive of a heritage grant program. It's not a specific ask coming from the city of Kitchener but certainly one that could be a flow through to council that uh council could debate or discuss but uh but we have no objections and we do see the value of our own grant program. Thank you very much. And um I I think we need to make sure that we understand that this is not for heritage restoration. This is for creating housing units. Um, and we see it more in the in a way that prevents demolition or um, you know, just having no respect for housing that exists and very good housing that could be reused in some way and and it that's the way it could be promoted. So, um, I would like to uh read this resolution that's prepared here. Um and then committee you can tell me whether you wish to go ahead with this resolution to council council on to the province or not. So, we have this that the city of Kitner endorsed the proposal by Architectural Conservancy of Ontario for a $10 million per year heritage helping housing HH grand proposal and that the mayor write to the premier, Minister of Citizenship and Culture, Multiculturism, and Minister of Finance to urge that the funding for the program be included in the provincial budget. Uh, and so that's a motion. Um, but I'd like to hear if there are any comments on this and if you're interested in supporting it. So, I open it. Yes, Councelor Chapman. Yeah. I mean, I I I appreciate the thought that's been put into this, but I I'd like to ask staff about um, you know, If we're going to if we're going to move forward with forward with a motion, I think the the wording of it has to be fleshed out more, you know, with where as clauses, therefore clauses, and and then the concluding ask. Um, is this something you'd be willing to work with the acco to to do that? Yes, you madam chair. Uh should the uh Heritage Kitchener support this uh uh in um in principle, we can work with the clerk to ensure that the motion meets uh the standards for council meeting? Yes, absolutely. Okay. Thank you. Is that fine with you, Councelor Chapman? Right. Thank you. So, support in principle. All right. Uh are there any other comments on this? Yes, Magda. Yeah, I was just wondering if the um the Mr. Schneider mentioned a few different ministries that would be potentially involved in this. If um I believe housing was not mentioned in the in the proposed uh motion and I I would suggest to add the the appropriate ministry. This would go into supporting in principle. we support in principle and then as councelor Chapman has asked we're going to get the motion refined for council's consideration. Thank you. Is that fin? Um yeah uh that that yeah that makes sense. I I was just mentioning that the list of ministries didn't seem to be complete. Um or it could be added to so that as part of that um editing process. Yeah. Thank you. Uh are there any other comments? Grant, did you have one? Um yeah, for sure. Maybe the motion could be put back on the screen. Thank you. Um so yeah, um I I just don't know if I have enough information. And I appreciate Garrett's comment about um potentially working with the conservancy to maybe refine this a bit more. Um currently as it stands though it says endorse the proposal and I just don't know if I have enough information to as a voting member of this committee um endorse anything. I think there's a lot more I'd want to learn about the program and I think maybe there um is a potential for staff to maybe take a review of it and come back with I don't know a summary or a comparison of some of the other things. Um, certainly the Alberta program is interesting and I'd want to learn more about that, but I just don't have that information in front of me at this time. So, until I learn more, I just simply can't support it as it's written currently. Um, okay. Any other questions, comments? Yes, Council Chapman. Well, I mean, if we were to amend it to say endorse in principle, would would that satisfy your I mean, implies that there's some hard work that needs to be put into it, right? And in order to to make it make sense. Yeah. And I want to stay within our own lane, right? Because we don't direct um staff at this committee. So, um I don't know what language if it's um I don't know how we would make a suggestion to staff, right, in this in this role. I don't know if the clerk or anyone would have an opinion on that. Uh staff, do you have a comment? Yeah, thank you, Madam Chair. I I think uh what I heard Mr. Schneider say is that this is um a motion and a recommendation to create awareness about a budget ask within the provincial budget. Uh typically what we see is when there is new funding commitments or programs announced uh especially through budget the program is announced with some of the details to follow and the details of the program administration are developed with uh stakeholders that are involved and they're also typically uh on the posting and and we could participate. So, uh, I would suggest that, uh, if if Heritage Kitchener, uh, committee was in support of, uh, the inclusion of the $10 million in the provincial budget to create this program, that's all that you would really have to indicate your support for, uh, tonight. And, and that program would be further developed if there was a budgetary inclusion within the next provincial budget to allow for this program based on uh, what I heard Mr. Schneider say and as well as the the way we see other provincial funding announcements and programs rolled out. That answers your question, Brad. Fine. Thank you. No. All right. Um, we don't get to determine how it's going to be spent. We're just asking that we that there be a fund put in there of 10 million million dollars, which is um quite minuscule in my opinion in this day and age compared to when we had the $10 million um fund years ago. Um and that was popular and it did it did encourage the small builders and developers. So uh with that I am going to uh read this motion then as it was a bit amended here that the city of Kitner endorse in principle the proposal by architectural conservancy of Ontario acco for a 10 million per year heritage helping housing HH grant proposal and the the mayor write to the premier minister of citizenship and multicultural ISM and Minister of Finance to urge that funding for the program be included in the provincial budget. And of course um Magda pointed out that um the Ministry of Housing is whatever that ministry is is missing here. But this is all inclusive. So, is there someone who would be willing to um approve this motion? Uh, Councelor Chapman. All right. Any other comments? All those in favor? Okay. Any against? One opposed. So, the motion is carried and that will go to council for approval on April 13, 2026. Our next item then, heritage permit application is for 11 Maynard Avenue. Um and Victoria Grun, our heritage planner, will provide a fiveminut presentation uh for this item. Victoria, thank you, Madam Chair. Uh, the development services department is in receipt of heritage permit application HPA 2026 uh 50006 which is seeking permission to demolish an existing detached accessory building and replace it with a new detached accessory building at the property municipally addressed as 11 Maynard Avenue. The subject property contains a circa 1895 duplex dwelling constructed in the attic gable design and is located within the civic center neighborhood uh heritage conservation district and is design and is identified excuse me as a group B property. This application is before the uh heritage committee this evening because the size of the accessory building proposed to be removed and the size of the accessory building proposed to be constructed is larger than what is permitted um for staff to process under um our delegated approval authority bylaw. So, the existing uh detached accessory building is located in the rear of the property um and is barely visible from the the public right of way um given the fence that is located across the driveway. Uh it is unknown when um this accessory building was constructed um but based on staff's research uh the fire insurance plan is showing a structure constructed sometime between 1917 and 1925. However, it's not conclusive um if the existing detached uh building is the same one or uh if this has been a replacement structure at some point. Um as seen in the photos, um I apologize that they are a bit small. Um the structure is in poor condition and is leaning to one side. Uh and it appears to be um used for storage uh not as a um car garage. Um so the applicant uh proposes to remove the existing detached accessory structure and construct a new threeseason structure um to be used as an art studio. Uh the new structure is proposed to be located in the same place as the existing um and it's roughly the same size uh although it is slightly larger. Um so the current detached building um is around 189 square feet and the new detached structure um that's proposed is around uh 216 square feet. Um the structure is proposed to be um constructed of cedar and stained uh in a sansen finish um as well as a dark um hardy board siding to to match. Uh the roof is proposed to be a black metal standing seam and the windows and doors um are proposed to be constructed of wood. Um, in reviewing the merits of the application, uh, heritage planning staff note the following. Um, the existing detached accessory building does not, uh, contribute to the heritage value of the property. Um, and the demolition of the detached accessory building will not detract from the heritage value of the property, uh, the character of the district, um, or the integrity of the Maynard Avenue streetscape. Um the design of the proposed um building is compatible with the design guidelines of the um civic center neighborhood heritage conservation district plan uh particularly with respect to the materials that are proposed um the roof profile the shape and size of the windows um etc. And the proposed building um may be partially visible um from the Mayard Avenue rightway. Um but it will not detract from the the heritage value of the property um the Maynard Avenue streetscape or the civic center neighborhood heritage conservation district as a whole. Uh so based on the review of the application um heritage planning staff recommend the following uh that pursuant to section 42 of the Ontario Heritage Act uh heritage permit application HPA 2026 uh V006 to permit the demolition and reconstruction of a detached accessory building located on the property uh addressed as 11 Maynard Avenue um be approved in accordance with the supplementary information submitted um and subject to the following following condition um which is that the final building permit drawings be reviewed and heritage clearance provided by heritage planning staff prior to the issuance of a building permit. And that concludes my presentation on this item. Thank you. Thank you, Victoria. Um we have Mr. Norm Ross here and he is here for questions uh from the committee if you have any for him. I'm assuming Mr. Rashi are the owner of the property. Yes, councelor uh Chapman. Yeah, and this could be for Mr. Ross or for staff. Um what is the um difference in the height of the current building and and the proposed building? Uh Mr. Ross, could you come to the microphone, please. And uh make sure you speak into the microphone. Thank you. So the existing uh building I think is uh no more than uh I don't have a drawing here. I think it's about uh 9 ft not even 9 ft tall and the proposed building is uh is 14t. Okay. Thank you. Any other questions? Yes, Magda. Um, I just noticed a discrepancy in the staff report um about the the description of the exterior cladding mentioned cedar and hardy board, but um as far as I could tell, there was no Hardy board shown on the drawings. And so I just wanted to clarify what whether that those two materials are being used or just the cedar siding. So the cedar was going to be used on all of the visible sides and there's a a full height fence on the one side between the neighboring property. That side there for fire purposes etc would be hardy board up to the up to the eve and that would be the only and and the back as well. invisible parts of the building. Okay. So, the the back and the abuing side the side abudding the neighboring fence would be hardy. Okay. Thank you. Any other questions? Thank you, Mr. Ross. Seeing none, then um are there any questions for staff? Seeing none, um I'm going to read the resolution that pursuant to section 42 of the Ontario Heritage Act heritage permit application HPA 2026V-006 to permit the demolition and reconstruction of a detached accessory building located at the property municipally addressed as 11 Maynard Avenue be approved in accordance with the supplementary information submitted with this application and subject to the following condition. That final building permit drawings be reviewed and heritage clearance provided by heritage planning staff prior to the issuance of a heritage I'm sorry of a building permit. Who will move this motion? I I will Thank you. Jean. Yes. I I did have a question for staff. Yes. Council Chapman. Yeah. I just wondered what um aspects of the zoning for this property are not met with what's being proposed uh through the chair. The the zoning um for the construction of this detached accessory building uh is met. The only outstanding um item that needs to be uh completed by the the property owner is uh the heritage permit um for the for the construction of the the new the new garage. So, as far as height and setback, it's all within the guidance. Correct. Thank you. Any other question? All right, Laura, you're moving the motion. Uh, any other questions? All those in favor? Carried unanimously. So, this uh will go to council for approval April 13th. Uh number 4.3 notice of intention to designate and this is 1254 Union Street DSD 2026129 Victoria Grun a heritage planner will make the presentation. Um I think there seems to be a Oh, there we go. There's All right. Um, so the the property municipally addressed as 1254 Union Street is currently listed uh and was flagged by Heritage uh planning staff through the site plan process as a property to conserve through designation. Uh based on staff's evaluation, the property meets five out of the nine criteria for designation as the property has designed physical, historical, associative, and contextual values. I apologize. There seems to be um some issues with our our slides. There we go. Apologies to the committee. It seems that things are are working now. So, I'll continue with my presentation. Um, so, as the, uh, committee may be familiar, um, the notice of intention to designate this property was originally intended to be discussed at the February Heritage Kitchener Committee meeting. um what but was deferred to the March meeting and then to this April meeting to allow for further discussions with the property owner and their heritage consultant uh regarding the identified heritage attributes. After additional review of the attributes identified in the original statement of significance, heritage planning staff have agreed to remove reference to the additions that were constructed um throughout the 2000s uh as shown in the image above. Um, so the uh portions of the the building that are shown in in blue are the additions that I'm speaking to. Um, as these features do not contribute to the cultural heritage value uh or interest of the property. Um, an updated list of heritage attributes is excuse me is attached um to the staff report and I'll have a slide um showing these attributes uh later on for um for the committee to review as well. So the design physical value of the property is attributed to it being a representative example of the industrial vernacular architectural style. Uh the image on the screen is what the building looked like um prior to um the exterior uh renovations that have occurred. Uh but these um features of the building are um still present on on the property. Um the historical associative value of the property relates to the following. Um there are direct associations with the Ontario Sugar Company. Uh direct associations with the BrideUp family um through the operations of the uh of the factory. Uh direct associations with eh Dyer um company through the design of the the building. uh direct associations um with Ron Doyle and a potential to yield information um regarding the rapid economic growth and industrial expansion um of Berlin now Kitchener. Uh the property retains contextual value even though the area surrounding the property has changed. Um the property is still physically, functionally and historically linked to its surroundings. Um given the intentional location of the former factory in relation to the Grand River and to the Grand Trunk Railway, uh the remaining buildings on site um are also still in their original locations. Um so for ease of reference um for the committee and I do apologize for the the small font. I just wanted to be able to fit everything onto one slide. Um the following slide shows the updated list of heritage attributes based on conversations with the owner's heritage consultant. Um it was mutually agreed that this uh list more accurately reflects the heritage value of the property. Um and so the the previous list of heritage um attributes uh made reference to the modern um additions that were constructed um in the 2000s. So reference to those additions um have been removed from uh this list here. And um heritage planning staff wanted to ensure that um all elevations of the um original warehouse building were captured um in this list of heritage attributes uh for the ability to review any uh potential future additions to um the original warehouse building uh to determine compatibility in terms of massing materials uh and design. Um and a heritage planning staff also wanted to ensure that the contextual value of the property um remained in the list of attributes um given the buildings are in their original location uh even though the surrounding environment has changed um as this is in staff's opinion uh an important attribute um of the property. Um so based on the evaluation of the subject property heritage planning staff recommend the following. Um that pursuant to section 29 of the Ontario Heritage Act uh the clerk be directed to publish a notice of intention to designate the property municipally addressed as 1254 Union Street as being of cultural heritage value or interest. And this concludes uh my presentation. Thank you. Thank you Victoria. Are there questions on this property for stuff? Magda, thank you. Um, so I apologize. I may have missed this, but um the because my I read the original report that we got a few months ago and I haven't read the update, but so is the um the the portico uh is is no longer part of the the attributes uh through the chair. That's correct. The the portico has been removed um from the list of attributes. Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Magda. Any other questions? Seeing none, then I will read the motion. Pursuant to section 29 of the Ontario Heritage Act, the clerk be directed to publish a notice of intention to designate the property municipally addressed as 1254 Union Street as being of cultural heritage value or interest. Are there any questions on the motion? Who would like to move this? Magda will. Thank you. Any other questions? Seeing none, all those in favor of this carried unanimously. So it will go to council for approval April 13th. 4.4 is another notice to intention to designate 8-24 King Street East DSD 2026-139. Victoria Grown Heritage Planner will provide the presentation. Thank you, Madam Chair. Um, Heritage Kitchener and Council um previously provided direction to formally initiate, excuse me, formally initiate the notice of intention to designate process for uh 8 to 24 King Street East. Um, this property is a three-story early 20th century commercial building constructed in the commercial Italian architectural style. The property is located on the north side of King Street East between Queen Street and Frederick Street in the downtown cultural uh heritage landscape as shown on uh the mapping on the slide. Um this building block also includes the properties municipally addressed as 4 King Street East, 26 King Street East, and 30 King Street East. Uh the property at 4 King Street East was previously designated in 2023 uh following exterior and interior uh alterations to rehabilitate the property. Uh the property addressed as 26 King Street East uh was reconstructed with a modern replacement um that is very different uh yet complimentary to uh the rest of this block. and the property at 30 King Street East, sorry, 30 King Street East has been demolished uh as a result um of a fire. So, the properties at uh 8 to 24 King Street East are being looked at uh collectively for the purposes of the notice of intention to designate. Um but the bylaws for each individual property um will be tailored. uh particularly um the bylaw for 24 King Street East as this building has been entirely um reconstructed uh but was done in a way to replicate uh what was there previously and our um municipal heritage register review uh has concluded that the property meets six criteria for designation including uh design physical, historical, associative and contextual values. So the design physical value relates to the building being a representative example of the commercial Italian architectural style. While each individual property um that collectively makes up this block has been altered in some way uh as shown um in the visual on the screen, uh the characteristics of the commercial Italian style uh largely remain particularly as it relates to um the the size, composition and placement of the the windows uh as well as the um the roof line of the building. The historical associative value of the property relates to uh direct associations with uh Lewis Brideup, the original owner of the building. Um and this building is commonly referred to as the um American Hotel given the use of the upper stories as a hotel. Uh and it's also uh referred to as the American block. Um and it is the oldest building uh in downtown Kitchener. The building's history helps tell the story of and contributes to an understanding of the economic development um in Kitchener. And the building is in its original location and continues to be historically, functionally, and vis visually linked to its surroundings. Um, it is also located at a prominent intersection uh in Kitchener's downtown. So, based on heritage planning staff's review of the property, the recommendation is as follows. uh that pursuant to section 29 of the Ontario Heritage Act, the clerk be directed to publish a notice of intention to designate the properties municipally addressed as 8 to24 King Street East as being of cultural heritage value or interest. This concludes my presentation. Thank you. Thank you, Victoria. Are there any questions for staff on this one? Seeing none, I will then read the motion again. Pursuant to section 29 of the Ontario Heritage Act, the clerk be directed to publish a notice of intention to designate the property municipally addressed as 8-24 King Street East as being of cultural heritage value or interest. Uh, who will move this? Thank you. Thank you. Who we got here? Preston. Preston moves. Any questions? All those in favor? Thank you. Uh unanimously. So it will go to uh council April 13th. Number 4.5. Uh we come to Bill 23, Municipal Heritage Register Review, and Victoria uh will make the presentation. Uh thank you, Madam Chair. Um unfortunately, Michelle was not able to join uh the meeting this evening, so the next three properties I'll be presenting on her behalf. Um, so 29 Shanley Street is a one and a half story late 19th century wood clapboard house constructed in the vernacular Italian architectural style with later Italian influences. The house is situated on a uh 0.15 acre parcel of land located on the south side of Shanley Street between Andrew Street and Bron Street in the Mount Hope Brideup neighborhood cultural heritage landscape um of the city of Kitchener within the region of Waterlue. Uh the principal resource that contributes to the heritage value uh is the house and the subject property meets two out of the nine criteria for determining cultural heritage value or interest. The design value relates to the architecture and primary cladding of the house. Uh the house is a unique example of the vernacular Italian architectural style and a rare example of this style um that is clad with wood clapboard siding. uh the subject property does not meet criteria two or three related to design physical value and the the property does not meet criteria four, five or six related to historical uh associative value. The contextual value uh of the property relates to the contribution that the house makes to defining the street cape streetscape um that's consistent um with the established uh character of the area including um the consistent stepbacks and a clear street edge. The house also supports the character of the uh Shanley Street streetscape and the Mount Hope bride up neighborhood cultural heritage landscape. Um and it's been concluded that the subject property uh does not meet criteria eight or nine uh related to uh contextual value. Um through the chair, would you like me to continue um with all of the properties or should we pause after uh each one before moving on to the next? I'll ask committee. Committee, are you in agreement to move through all of the items? Yes, we'll just continue on. Thank you. Great. Thank you, Madam Chair. Um, so that concludes the presentation uh for 29 Shanley Street. Um, I'll move on to the next property um, which is 285 Simeon Street. Um, this is a onestory mid-century house built in the mid-century ranch contemporary ranch architectural style. The building is situated on a 0.18 acre parcel of land located on the west side of Simeon Street between Sterling Avenue North and Weber Street East. Uh the principal resource that contributes to the heritage value is the house and it's been concluded that the property meets two out of nine criteria for determining cultural heritage value or interest. Uh the design value relates to the architecture of the house. The house is a unique example of the mid-century ranch contemporary ranch architectural style. Uh and it's been concluded that the property does not meet um criter criteria two or three related to design physical value. Uh the associative value relates to the original owner who was also the architect uh for the building and the original builder of the building. The building was originally owned and designed by William Stewart Jenkins of the architectural firm Jenson Wright. William Stewart Jenkins and Sherman Wright uh formed a partnership in 1945 and opened an office in Kitchener. They were best known for their designs of municipal arena complexes in several Ontario towns, including the Kitchener Memorial Auditorium, for the restoration uh in 1952 of Woodside, the home of William Lion Mackenzie King, and for the rebuilding of the Granite Club uh after the 1955 fire. They were also responsible for the design of many schools within the region. The building was built by Oscar Wilds, who founded Oscar Wilds General Contractor in 1927, which later became Oscar Wilds and Sons Limited. The company's first job was at the former KW Record building at Duke Street and Queen Street. Um Oscar's five sons, Arthur, Donald, Peter, Bill, and Richard, assisted with the family business, um which built houses, churches, schools, and factories. Uh and it's been concluded that the the subject property um does not meet uh criteria four or five. Um and uh it's been concluded that um this property uh does not have contextual value. So criteria 7, 8, and 9 uh are not met. Uh moving on to the next property, uh 1970 Fisher Home and Road is a late 19th century building built in the vernacular architectural style. The building is situated on a 1.68 68 acre parcel of land located on the northeast corner of Fischer Home and Road and Plains Road in the Dundee Secondary Plan of the City of Kitchener. The principal resource that contributes to the heritage value is the rural school which is used as a single detached dwelling. The property meets three of the nine criteria for determining cultural heritage value or interest. Uh so the design and physical values relate to the vernacular architectural style and the rural schoolhouse typology. The building is a rep representative example of the rural school house typology in the area. The building continues to clearly express this type uh despite alterations to the building through the 20th century. The schoolhouse typology is expressed in the simplicity of the form and massing of the structure, its modest scale, rectangular plan, um front gable roof, three bays, brick construction, uh brick details, and a date stone that reads uh school section number three, 1872, um as well as tall narrow hung windows and brickbars. Uh the historical associative values relate to the theme of education within the city of Kitchener. The property originally featured a log schoolhouse uh circa 1842 which was replaced with the existing building built by Thomas Lee of Dune in 1872. Tree planting programs were a common improvement made by communities and the row of spruce trees along Fischer Home and Road were planted by the community in 1909. The property and schoolhouse served the rural population of the surrounding area providing education to generations of local children for over 100 years. uh with the existing building serving as school section number three until 1965. The school served uh an essential role in the growing community during the 19th century. The school had its largest enrollment in 1894 with 45 students, most of whom were from Scottish families. Uh shortly before the school closed in 1965, the school provided classes for students in grades 1 to three. and the school was closed in 1965 and converted uh into a single detached dwelling. Um the former Plain Schoolhouse has contextual value for its historical and physical connections to Plains Road and to the original circa 1842 log schoolhouse. The property's triangular shaped parcel and orientation parallel to Plains Road uh is characteristic of the historical lot pattern established by the regular grid of concessions uh which are bisected by the diagonal line alignment of Plains Road. The name of the schoolhouse was linked to the property's location on Plains Road and the row of spruce trees along Fisher Home and Road um that were planted by the community in 1909 uh continue to be present on the property. Uh moving on to our next property. Um the property municipally addressed as 87 Margaret Avenue uh is located on the west side of Margaret Avenue between Wellington Street North and Brideup Street within the warehouse district cultural heritage landscape. The principal resource that contributes to the cultural heritage value of the property uh is the apartment building. And based on staff's evaluation of the property, it meets five out of the nine criteria for designation. Uh the building is a representative example of wartime vernacular u brick apartment architecture with modern Georgian revival influences. This is demonstrated by its simple symmetrical massing, a central entrance bay with subtle projection and a shallow pitched roof. Uh the building has historical associative value given its association with George uh Kutner of the the original owner and Michael Krauss uh the builder both of which um are connected to the new apostolic church. This property may contribute to an understanding of the expansion um of the new apostolic church given that um apartment construction and land development were revenue streams um for the missionary work of the church overseas. Uh, and the property has contextual value as it contributes to the low-rise character of the Margaret Avenue streetscape and is in close proximity to other properties associated with Michael Krauss and near um the new apostolic church itself uh which is located um further down the the road on Margaret Avenue. And lastly, um the the property municipally addressed as 304 Louisa Street is located on the north side of Louisa Street between Margaret Avenue and St. Ledger Street. It is adjacent to the Mount Hope Brideup neighborhood cultural heritage landscape and the principal resource that contributes to the cultural heritage value or interest of the property is the apartment building. Based on staff's evaluation of the property, it meets four out of the nine criteria for designation. Uh the property has physical value as a representative example of the structuralist architectural style. The property has historical associative value um given its association with George Crutner, a previous owner, and George Hendel, the original owner and builder uh of this building. Both of these individuals um are associated with the new apostolic church. Um and George Kutner um was also a former chairman and board president for Golden Windows um which is a prominent uh international um fenistration company which still in operation today. And the property has contextual value given the contribution that it makes to the existing uh low-rise character of the Louisa Street streetscape and its adjacency to the Mount Hope Brideup neighborhood cultural heritage landscape. The property remains in its original location and continues to operate and function as an apartment dwelling. Uh there is likely a link between this building and the other H plan apartment buildings uh constructed throughout the city by the owners and andor builders associated with the the new apostolic church. Um so based on um staff's research and review of the properties um the the following recommendation is before the committee this evening. Uh that pursuant to section um 29 of the Ontario Heritage Act the cultural heritage value or interest be recognized in designation be pursued um for the following properties. um 29 Shanley Street, 285 Simeon Street, 1970 Fisher Homeman Road, 87 Margaret Avenue, and 3054 excuse me, Louisa Street. And that concludes my presentation. Thank you. Thank you, Victoria. Uh questions of staff or any of these properties? Seeing none, uh let's go to the motion then. Pursuant to section 29 of the Ontario Heritage Act, the cultural heritage value or interest be recognized and designation be pursued for the following properties. Uh all right, I'll read what's in front of you. 29 Shanley Street, 285 Simeon Street, 1970 Fischer Halman Road, 87 Margaret Avenue, and 304 Louisa Street. Any questions? Who would like to move this group? Laura will Thank you. Any further questions? All those in favor of the motion unanimously. So this report will go to council for approval on April the 13th, 2026. All right. Uh now we have the heritage permit applications tracking sheet. Are there any questions on it? Seeing none, who would like to adjourn the meeting? A Magda would. Thank you. And I guess everybody's in favor. All right. See you in May.

Full Transcript