← Back to summary
Full Transcript
Prince Arthur Alteration Sparks Debate - Toronto Preservation Board - March 30, 2026
Toronto · March 31, 2026
Good morning, Katarina. Can we test your audio, please? Hi. Thank you. Good morning everybody. My name is Julia Ray and I am the chair of the Toronto Preservation Board. The clerk has confirmed that we have quorum. So I will now call meeting 42 of the Toronto Preservation Board to order. Welcome everyone. This is a hybrid meeting with some members, staff and public attending in person and others connecting by video conference over the WebEx platform or calling in. This meeting is also being livereamed online at youtube.com/toronto city councsil live. Because we are meeting in person and remotely, we ask for your patience with any delays and technical issues. If you are registered to speak at today's meeting, please listen for me to call your name. I will call speakers in the order they appear on the list. The list of speakers can be viewed online by visiting the Toronto Preservation Board at toronto.ca/counsel and clicking the speakers box for today's meeting. I would like to request that staff and invited participants as well as all observers joining remotely keep their video turned off unless they need to speak or answer questions. This will make it easier for me as chair to see the members as we debate and vote on the agenda items. Members, for quorum purposes and participation in the meeting, it is important for you to keep your cameras on. I also ask that your microphones are muted unless you wish to question staff or speak to an item. To ensure we have an efficient meeting with board members having an equal opportunity to ask questions or speak on an item, I will run the timer for five minutes. Members will have up to five minutes each to ask questions of staff and speak on an item. As a reminder, motions need to be moved at the beginning of a member speaking time. Please submit and approve your motions by email. Staff are available at htpb toronto.ca to help with motions. If members wish to speak to an item, please raise your hand or unmute your mic and I will create a speakers list. When voting on an item or a motion, I ask members to raise your hand to indicate your vote. If there is a recorded vote, you will be asked to state if you are in favor or opposed. Members, the city clerk has provided all agenda materials on toronto.ca/counsel. So although we may be meeting in different locations today, the preservation board would like to acknowledge that the land we are meeting on is the traditional territory of many nations including the missagas of the credit, the Anesnab, the Chippoa, the Hneson, and the Wendat peoples and it is now home to many diverse First Nations Inoit and Matei peoples. We also acknowledge that Toronto is covered by Treaty 13 with the Missosagas of the Credit. Are there any declarations of interest under the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act? If you do have an interest, please raise your hand or unmute your mic and indicate the item number and the nature of the interest. Are there any? Yes. Thank you. Um item PB 42.3. Uh the firm I work for has been engaged as the heritage consultant for this project. Thank you very much. May I have a motion to confirm the minutes from our meeting on March 12th, 2026? Jeff. Thank you very much. All those in favor, please. Perfect. Now that motion is carried and now we'll do the agenda review. Our first item is PB 171 East Liberty Street inclusion on the Heritage Register. There is no presentation for this item. However, the uh heritage planning staff are available to answer questions from the board if they have them. Would anybody like to hold this item? Seeing none, I have a staff report with recommendations before me. Julia. Yes, Madam Chair. I I do have my hand raised to hold it. I can't see you, Adam. I I can see that on the screen now. It seems that the WebEx display on your side is showing a lot of uh people who are not currently on camera. Maybe the view could be changed to the members who are um on camera. But you're not on camera. I am on camera. Your camera is off. My camera's on. I can't see you. I'm Wendy here. Okay. Just All right. So, we will hold the item. Maybe something, you know, turn it off and on, but Wendy, I can I've turned it off and on. Yeah. Jeff and Matthew, can you see me? I can't see you. You You come on and then you come off again. It's very Are you on gallery display? Are you on Are you on gallery display? Yeah, you you're not seen. You are. Yes, you are seen and then you're gone. Adam, who's Matthew? I see Matthew Gregor on camera. I don't see anything. Okay. So I think I think we've clarified I I see uh some people have gallery view on um perhaps and there's a lot large number of people who have joined by phone and WebEx with their camera off. Absolutely. And we're going to rectify that on our end so that I just sort of see the members and those are behind me. But I think there's a secondary issue with your camera, Adam. But let's let's do it one step at a time. Everybody, we're pausing for a second here. All right. So, we have back up our gallery view. I think Adam, there is something challenged with your camera. Um, we will hold the item. Perhaps you want to reboot your Oh, there you are. Hello. All right. So, we've held PB 42.1 and moving on now. 42.2 8 Prince Earther Avenue alterations to a designated heritage property under section 42 of the Ontario Heritage Act and approval. We do have a speaker on this item. Um, can I confirm with the speaker that you are here to answer questions or do you have a presentation? Good morning, Madam Chair. I'm only here to answer questions. Thank you very much. Now, we do have a presentation from heritage planning staff available if the board would like to hear it. Would anybody like to hold this item? I would like to hold it, Madam Chair. All right. It's so held. And then moving on to PB 42.3 55 Lakeshore Boulevard East, alterations to a designated heritage property and authority to amend a heritage easement agreement. We have um speakers registered on this item. Can I confirm that they're here to just answer questions or is there a presentation? Good morning. Here to just answer questions. Perfect. Would anybody like to hold this item? Seeing none, Mitchell, can you please leave the room for a few moments? So, I have a staff report with recommendations before me. Would anybody like to move the recommendations in the report? Paul, thank you very much. I'll ask that you raise your hands in favor and I'll call out your name because it's a recorded vote. So, all those in favor, please. Karash, Peter, Julia, Paul, Wendy, Adam, Matthew, Jeff, Katarina, Mitch, Adam. All those opposed? None. Motion carries. Thank you very much. And we'll bring Mitch Mitchell back in and we'll move back to PB 42.1. Hello Clint. So while there's no presentation on this item, um we'll move into questions of staff. Um thank you madam chair. May may I ask my question? You may ask your question. This this may be a a high level question but relevant to um many properties in Liberty Village and elsewhere in the city of Toronto. Um this is a former munitions and weapons manufacturing factory that's been adaptively reused uh or adaptively reused for commercial purposes. It's been renovated over time. Uh during heritage planning research on munitions related uh factory complexes which we've seen a few listing and designation reports in the past. Do you examine UXO uh research or reports at all from the Ministry of Defense for National Defense? Yep. Just give it a second, Adam. Yep. Thank you. Adam, it's Mary. Can I just clarify your question from my understanding and for staff's understanding? Do you do you mean the records that we consult when we do our research? Yes. Or have any contact with the the Ministry of National Defense around the former uh weapons manufacturing facilities. they they generally um go through and clear these to make sure there's not UXO on the site and it seems relevant if this is a historical document coming through or heritage listing or designation. Um I believe when we did our research the understanding of the property was understood enough in order to determine the importance of the criteria. Um but we don't always go to the original federal agencies. Um it's really not um necessary in this instance. Okay. Thank you. Are there any other questions? Seeing none, I have a staff report with recommendations before us. Would anybody like to move the recommendations in the report? I will. All those in favor, please. Everybody's hand is up. Motion carries. Thank you very much. All right. Moving on now to PB 42.2,8 Prince Arthur Avenue. And we welcome Colin. Okay. Okay. Um, good morning. Uh, my name is Colin Pang. I'm a heritage planner with the city and I'm going to be presenting item uh PB 42.2 uh alterations to uh property known as 8 Prince Arthur Avenue under section 42 of the Ontario Heritage Act. Uh this report recommends city council approve the proposed alterations to the existing heritage building located on the subject property. Next slide. Eight Prince Arthur Avenue is located on the north side of Prince Arthur Avenue between Bedford Road and Avenue Road which is located on the boundaries of uh east the East Annex Heritage Conservation District. The property was assigned a C rating which means that properties which retain much of the original character and are vital of reminders of the community's past. Next slide. site contains a three-story building with stucco cladding constructed circa 1886 with a non-original three-story rear edition. On the screen are just different elevations of the building of the property. Next slide. The development proposal uh proposes a new three-story addition on top of the existing three-story rear edition uh on the subject property of the building. The rear uh the resulting rear edition would be 25 meters in height and the building is proposed to be retained in situ with minor alterations made to the exterior and the roof. The new addition would be six stories in height which is three stories higher than the existing heritage building. The footprint of the additional three floors is uh proposed to follow that of the rear edition of the existing building will but will extend southerntherly onto the heritage building by approximately 3.2 m and would require the removal of a portion of the roof existing dormer on the east elevation and an non-original arched window on the front of the narrow recessed side wing. Next slide. The East Annex HCD plan guideline states that additions to heritage buildings within the district should generally be located at the rear and should be lower than the height of the roof ridge of the existing heritage building. Clay brick should be used as a predominant exterior material and publicly uh visible facades. The enlarge rear edition does not comply with the guidelines in the uh east annex HCD plan which uh says that it the addition should be lower than the height of the roof ridge of the existing building. Therefore, permission is required under section 42 of the OA to make alterations to the property within the district. Next slide. So, the proposed massing for the new rear edition is designed in a contemporary style to be distinguishable from the architectural style of the existing heritage building, and it's similar to the approved uh projects elsewhere on Prince Arthur Avenue. The proposed addition would be visible from the street, but it is set back over 8 meters from the front of the heritage building and over 20 meters from the street. Therefore, the new addition will be set behind the existing roof ridge and it's proposed to be clad in compatible materials which would later be confirmed as part of any conser uh as part of the conservation plan. And the heritage building will therefore remain visibly prominent within the public realm and the new addition is not considered to overpower the existing building. Next slide. Again, uh the building materials show glazing for the upper stories and brick uh um for the base. Um alterations to the street facade are limited on the front and the intent is to retain the current uh appearance rather than to take undertake restoration of the original appearance. These will be required and reviewed as part of the conservation plan. Next slide. Oh okay. Uh the conservation strategy will fully retain the uh building in situ existing building with minor alterations proposed to the exterior and the roof and there will be some alterations made to the landscaping to the front yard. Uh the existing mature tree will be retained and Heritage Planning are supportive of the proposed new construction and alterations to the property. Um, and it is considered uh consistent with the guidelines of the HCD plan. And that concludes my presentation. Thank you very much. I see your hand there, Adam. We're going to move into questions of our speaker first um because Ahmad um is here. Hello. All right. Questions for our speaker. Yes, Mitch. And then Adam, I'm assuming that is it a detached or semi- detached home? I mean, uh, a residence originally in the 19th century. I'm assuming it was red brick and that the stucco cladding was added sometime in the 20th century. Would that be right? And was there any discussion about if it was red brick indeed to u restore it to its uh original look on the outside? Um good morning Mitch. So it is a single family detach. It's not a semi- detached. Um and with regards to the uh red brick there is it would have been originally red brick. There is a portion in the uh front entrance where you can see um damaged red brick. Um so we know this was the material and we don't know exactly when the stuckco was applied but we're guessing based on archival photos that we found was somewhere after the 1970s based again based on the photos we saw we found. Um there we don't recommend removing the stuckco and restoring the brick because very likely the stuckco was applied as a result of um damaged brick likely because of sand blasting in the past. So a way to cover this damage. Um so if we remove the stuckco we'd be faced with um you know uh uh intense uh brick restoration maybe even uh resulting to full brick um replacement which would not necessarily conserve existing materials. So for this reason uh we decided to preserve the appearance as opposed to restoring the appearance. Thank you very much. So it's more of a cost cost-saving measure uh costsaving but also conservation practice because we uh preservation is also acceptable under the standards and guidelines. And in this particular case, if we are removing the stuckco and we'd have to repair the brick based on our, you know, experience in in projects like these and the existing red brick that was found in an opening, um it would likely result in a 100% brick replacement and that would you know have an impact on the integrity of the building. So for this reason, preservation was was a favored approach here and we've also consulted with the um Annex Residence Association and they've also agreed with that approach. Thanks, Adam. You had a question. Yes, thank you. Um, thank you, Madam Chair. And, uh, I had a similar question to, um, to what my colleague Mitch had asked, but, um, how how extensive of an investigation was there in terms of the brick um, the underlying brick? Was it just one section that was examined or was it uh more broader additional areas within the building? Good morning, Adam. So, when we did our our condition assessment on the building and it was shown on the HIA that the ex uh existing opening that was done was near the entrance. So, it showed a pretty good um overview of the brick and this was near the entrance. So, the brick was heavily spaldled. Um, and that gives us a good indication um, for what we could find on the rest of the building. You also saw an example of how the Stuckco was applied directly onto the brick. Um, so there was no necessarily bond uh, there was no bond breaker or uh, separation between the brick and the stuckco. So this is sufficient for us to determine that um, if we do remove the stuckco, it would result in heavily damaged brick. So for that reason we decided to preserve and not do additional investigations because they were not deemed necessary and indeed when we when we proposed that to the ARRA um and then we said you know we potentially also could do restoration they said no don't do that preservation is the right approach here. So we've also consulted with the community and they've agreed with that approach and that complies with the standards and guidelines as well. Are there other questions for our speaker? Yes, Paul. Thank you. Um, I'm interested in the the replacement of the sloped roof on the the small ground floor uh portion of the building with a a flat roof. I'm just wondering, is that a return to a uh um design from a previous era or is that a just a contemporary replacement of a of a non-traditional element with another nontraditional element? Uh, thanks for the question. That's a good one. So, um, this entrance has been added over the years. It's actually, um, kind of an enclosed porticore if you'd like. Um, it was never there in the at the in the original building. So, the proposal here was to, um, to to some degree rehabilitate that entrance to maintain that form, but to bring it to a slope, sorry, a flat roof rather, to a to a slope roof. Um, we could have kept the slope roof if we wanted to. It would have preserved that appearance. Uh but regardless that um that entrance addition is not original. So um because we wanted to maintain that portico, it's you know it creates you know an additional enclosure outside of the building that protects the occupants before going inside the actual building. Um the changing to the flat roof was also acceptable and it also is um much better design integration with the rest of the building. If you look at the bays on the building, all the roofs are flat. So, we wanted to maintain that consistency in the flat roofs for the um and carried that on for the entrance as well. Terrific. Thank you. Welcome. Are there other questions for our speaker? I've got Mitch and then Adam again. Uh just a question. I know it's not so much about the public realm, but are there any um significant interior heritage attributes or was the building gutted over the years terms of oak trim, Wayne Scotting, fireplace or any any unique uh stained glass windows in the interior? Um thanks for the question Mitch. The um so the interiors have been gutted over the years when it was changed from residential to office. Um we when we have been inside and we found that there is stained glass on the exterior windows. Um by the way the stained glass on the transoms are being retained as part of this project. Um but everything else has been uh stripped down. There there is a standard staircase. Um that is that is of of interest. It's there's nothing specifically of historic value. Um from what we found it was pretty typical that you of features that you would find in buildings of this um of this age. Um, but also because it's in an HCD, interiors are not um um I I have to say this, interiors are not protected under the um the uh the Heritage Conservation District. Adam, you had another question. Thank you, Madam Chair. I have two questions. Um two follow-up questions. Um, just regarding the stained glass, are you referring to interior transoms or the transoms on the bay and front elevation windows as well? I refer to the transoms on the um windows on the front elevation. So, they are on the bay. Correct. And you were saying those actually and they're to be preserved. Correct. Okay. Thank you. And um my my second question if I may, Madam Chair, um has have you investigated whether there is a potential earlier structure underneath part of this building given the massing especially the side dormer. We're seeing some flat roof massing um and what may be an Italian element. I'm sorry structure earlier structure. I'm Has there been any investigation into the earlier history of this site? Well, we have found photographs. Um, the earliest photograph we found was from 71, which gives us a pretty good idea of what the building looked like before the um the entrance edition was made. So, we don't believe there's been further significant exterior alterations. There has been some interior alterations done over the years when it was rehabilitated from um residential to office of course but that's the extent of um what we were able to find. Okay. Thank you. Would you be able sorry would you be able to share some of those photos easily or if not don't worry about it but uh it's in the heritage impact assessment. So, I'm not sure if I'm I can share my I haven't had a presentation made, but it's it is in the heritage impact assessment, which I believe should be accessible to the board. It is on um page 13 of the report. There's a link to the application center, and then that will that will give um give you access to the HIA as well. Are there other questions for our speaker? Thanks. Seeing none, thank you very much for joining us today. And we'll move into questions of staff. Adam, Madam Chair, I may have a motion. You may or you do. And this is we're ask do you want to ask your questions of staff and then and then you would move this at the beginning and if you have wording you need to send it into clerks now. Um otherwise I'm sending I'm sending it to them right now, Madam Chair. Okay. Do you have a question for staff? Um, certainly. Yes. Thank you. Um, I I do have two questions of staff actually. Okay. Um, what are the policies? Thank you, man. What are the policies with the East Annex Heritage Conservation District around removal of Stuckco on buildings like this? And how do they compare to modern HDs? I know the HCD is 31 years old or 32 years old at this point. Um, and I'm just surprised to hear that the uh the stuckco is going to be remaining on a building uh especially a Gothic revival building like this and uh is caused further damage in the future graphs uh through the chair. Adam, I would have to double check specifically. Most of the East Annex Heritage Conservation District guidelines are related to streetscape. Uh, and each individual street and area um has its own set of uh guidance for how to respond to the historic context and uh but whether or not there's reference to Stuckco, we'd have to check and get back to you. I don't know. You have a second question, Adam? Uh it's it's a comment. Um or rather we'll save it for comments. We'll save it for comments. Yes. Yeah. Are there other questions of staff? I see Madam Chair, I I will ask us a question. Okay. Um and it may lead to a further comment as well, but um 8 Prince Avenue is known as the G. Alexander Lesley House. It's uh is this the Lesley that Lesleyville is named after? if staff have that research available. And the the follow-up question is, are staff aware that this was the longtime residence of Henry Spratu, prominent probably the most prominent uh Gothic revival architect in Canadian history. Through the chair and Gothic Revival buildings don't have Stuckco on them. In reviewing this application, uh we would be looking to the East Annex Heritage Conservation District and any information that was provided there. Uh we do not do individual research on the individual properties. We have a district plan to guide our review. Are there other questions? This is what SR up in heritage. Thank you. Are there other questions of staff? Seeing none, we're going to move into discussion amongst ourselves. Adam, you've sent in words. Are you going to proceed? I'm going to just give everybody we're going to just take a hopefully two minutes just to get everything sorted on our end. So, hold tight. Clerks, that should be in your mailbox now. And um I've sent it to Mary as well. Thank you. Adam, I'm sorry. I haven't remove uh received anything yet. Neither is the clerk. We've received clerks have received it, Adam. We're just sort of working on it. The hope is always um to to my colleagues that if you are sending in a motion is to word it as a motion so that clerks can then just put it into the format that's appropriate. Um, and then again, I if by any chance you can do it even prior to the meeting, it just sort of smooths things out, but I recognize that things happen on the fly a little bit. Thank you. and end noted. I'd also just like to note based on the previous comment everyone, the HIA is not accessible on the application information center right now. It's missing from the documents. If they could be readded, it'd be greatly appreciated. Sorry. Give us a second, Adam, because we're trying to do a few things at the same time. Not to worry. Thank you. So, Adam, I'm I've been I've been given I' I've seen the motion. It's not admissible um because the investigation has occurred. the scheme and the proposal is before us. Um whether you agree with the approach or not, that remains to be determined. Um but you're asking the way that it's it it it's worded just it all of that work has already been done and as a consequence of that work, this has been the recommendation put before and this is the recommendation that we're voting on. So the motion would is is a bit redundant that way. Okay. I I do have a follow-up question around a potential motion then. Um it would be rather it's possible to request further investigation. I'm not at all satisfied with how just one section of the masonry was looked at by the door and the entire masonry structure was determined to be in a poor state of repair especially as this was the longtime residence of Henry Spraw most prominent architect Gothic revival architect in Canadian history. It but it's the same answer. So you want but we still have before us. You might not be satisfied with what was done but we have before us a recommendation based upon an investigation and we had our speaker sort of speak to the lengths that they went to. So we don't want to sort of move backwards. You don't have to agree with it. That's certainly your prerogative and it's logged in comments and it's also within your purview to include a communication, right? you can you can write in that communication can sort of a both give the extra history that you have provided as well as you know the concern and so that would be there as well um that would be another way forward and to ensure that your opinion is also logged even just outside of this meeting but it's also written down but at this point the motion doesn't can't go forward madam chair the um applicant has referenced a document with their findings in it which is not publicly accessible. It's nowhere on the application information center. Uh the uh this assessment that they've done and they're asking us to make a decision on this but the HIA is not accessible. It is not on the AIC right now. I'm going to reference Mary to answer the question Adam uh through the chair. The thing I want to emphasize here is that this is an application to alter under section 42 of the Ontario Heritage Act. And section 42 is specifically related to conservation districts. And um the measure of whether or not um staff or or anybody what the basis of our analysis is whether or not it supports the objectives of the district plan. the individual properties are not uh cited as things that need individual special attention. Attention is is certainly made by the heritage consultants. Um but this is not a part four property. So, I appreciate your concern for the specifics of this property, but from a legislative framework, which is what we work with uh in heritage planning, um how someone does or does not treat this particular element in the east annex HCD um is not a consideration. Uh thank you, Mary. That unfortunately did not answer my question about where the HIA is located. I do appreciate the legislative clarification, but HAS are still done for part five properties and HCBS and that document is nowhere available on the AIC and we're being asked to make a decision around the findings that were just referenced in that document that the staff are linking to. But the document is not publicly available. It is not anywhere on the website that I can see lots of ones for 10 and 14 Prince Arthur the neighboring site 8 Prince Arthur only links to a committee of adjustment file. There is no nothing on that link right now that has any HIA available uh through the chair. Maybe I'm wondering perhaps we should defer this to the next meeting in order to allow for people the opportunity to read the document that has been referenced um and we're being asked to make decisions on a do a reference document that we do not have access to um through the chair. I think um we can have a discussion offline about the availability of HASS. Most of them are available on the AIC. I'm not aware of whether or not this one is or isn't. I believed it was. Um be that as it may, the board when it receives the agenda is entirely within its rights, like any other um resident to ask for the background material. Um, and I would um submit that the item is before the board and if the board wishes to um provide advice to council that they should uh defer this particular application because you are you wouldn't be deferring deferring in this body does not defer it from moving forward. Um it would have to go to community council. they would have to accept whether or not they thought it was necessary to defer it. Um and then it would come back here. So in the I can say we'll talk about the issue of availability of HASS um and it's something that is available by any resident to ask us to provide. It's a matter of um um we can release that without any you know FOI or anything. there was no intention to withhold it from the board. Um but I I leave it at the chair's uh pleasure to decide how to move forward on this. Adam, do you have other questions or comments? Um thank you, Mary, and thank you, Madam Chair. Again, I'm just deeply um frustrated and unsatisfied with the fact that this reference document is not readily available. Uh especially as we are being asked to vote on a application before us to alter this property. The framework of which would be that EMAT has mentioned around this masonry element which is in the document that is not currently available online and should be publicly accessible for any application in the HCB. it. We shouldn't have to go back and forth to locate the document. Um, and it's just very very frustrating to to hear this and I would encourage if there's any way to move this to the next meeting to allow for time to review that fundamental document. You know, the East Annex district is a hugely significant HCD in Toronto. It's one of the earlier HCDs as well. And this is a historically significant house. I'm surprised it has a part C classification, but this was both the G Alexander Lesley House, but then the longtime resident of Sprat, who is a very very prominent Canadian architect, a very prominent architect in Adam, I'm sorry to interrupt, but Ahmad has um offered to share his screen with the HIA. So, we're going to bring that up. We're going to move backwards a little bit in the in the sake of continuing moving along because I'm um very alive that we might defer, but that doesn't stop where this is going. And I think I think we want to not do that. So, back to Ahmad. Thank you. Um hopefully this can solve this. Um I think I Okay, share. Give me a second. Okay. Can you see this? So this is the earliest photo we were able to find from 1971 and even at that time actually the the stuckco was shown but as you can see the entrance has been altered. Now with regards to the question about the brick um give me a second here. There. So, this photograph here shows the entrance within that addition uh along the outside and it shows the brick all around the entrance here. This is a closeup here. You can see it's completely spalled and you can see the stuckco directly applied to the brick. So, if we try to make an opening of that stock anywhere else, we can highly believe that this is going to be um what we're going to find. Does that help answer your question? Um, thank you, manager and Emad. Um, I I still I do have some follow-up questions based on on those observations there. Sure. I'm going to just uh let Mitch ask his question. Um, and then we'll we'll move back. Mitch Emmed. Um, not to belabor the point about Stuckle versus brick. I mean, Toronto is a brick a red brick city. we get that and it would be gorgeous to see that restored back to its red brick in my mind. But uh I know Prince Arthur is a real mixed bag. There's like an Uno pre as we know that gorgeous uh high-rise and then next door is Stuckco. That was probably meant to be Stuckco number 10. It looks a little bit older. And then there's a 1950s five-story apartment house beside 10. If I had my wish in my ways, you know, uh the magic wand, it would be great to see it red brick. But um you're saying around the entrance it's quite degraded and that was a graphic photo. But isn't it true that sort of salt over time will degrade like a lower entrance way compared with says story brick around windows or around eaves? So would you find that it would it be a would it be a shock to you if you uncovered it and it was actually in better shape than you thought? But obviously around an entrance way that takes a lot of wear and tear and salt during winter time it might degrade faster of course but think yes that's true but the the photograph that you saw was not near the base it was actually quite at um like few a few feet above the base so I don't think this was damaged due to salt. I think it was damaged due to removing the stuckle to be able to do some framing all around. Um so I don't think I mean definitely the salt has caused some deterioration but this is repairable and it doesn't really require um you know another kind of method for that but based on what we found on the photograph and how the stuckco was applied on top of the brick we can assume I think it's a safe it is a safe assumption to make that this strategy would have been applied everywhere else um so for that reason we use that exploratory or that existing opening to to to inform what we will find everywhere else. And again, I just I'd like to also remind the board, we we've had consultations with the Annex Residence Association and they've also said they've agreed with that approach. It's preservation. Um it conserves um existing materials. It's minimal intervention. This is acceptable under the standards and guidelines. So I Yeah. So this is this is a strategy that's that's appropriate and adequate for this particular site given the condition we're finding ourselves in. We have been in situations when when we did exploratory openings, we found that the brick was um was salvageable and repairable. In these conditions, yes, we did recommend repair. In this particular case, we're not taking that approach. Other questions of Ahmad Adam? Um thank you, Madam Chair. Um again some deep dissatisfaction with the the stuckco remaining on on the building there especially with um now noting that uh the exploratory area was an interiorly accessible area on an entryway alteration. Is it possible damage was caused during the construction of that entryway to the brick? And that's what you're seeing the damage of rather than and would it perhaps be beneficial to do exploration of the brick on a more exterior element as as Mitch recommended secular windows uh things of that note. I mean I don't have a crystal ball to know what happened in the 90s when some of that work was done or whenever alterations were done but when you look at how the stuckco was applied on the brick based on that photograph you see it was applied directly on the brick. So if you remove the stucco, which is which is very likely cement based, when you remove stucco that is cement based that is directly onto the brick, it will damage the brick. There I there's there's nothing else we can say really. And that resulted very likely to what you what we found on the photograph of all the the brick being spalled. Other Mitch Um, going a bit higher up. Um, ID, is that a slate roof or ashphalt? And was there any discussion about bringing it back to slate if it was one slate? I don't know if that's significant or not for the public real. Oh, yes. Yes, it is. Uh, it is slate at the moment and the intent is to keep the slate. So, either we repair it or or replace with new slate. um we we'd have to do more deeper investigations to look at the the the various conditions, but from what we found um yeah it is slate and we want to keep the slate material um as much as possible. Thanks. Are there other questions? Adam, thank you Madam Chair. Are the chimneys to be retained? I know there's some rather ornate Victorian era chimneys. The front chimney um is being retained. Um there has been other chimneys that have been removed over time, especially the ones at the rear. Um those chimneys are not uh being brought back. No. Okay. Yes, Adam. Thank you, Madam Chair. Can you speak about the the fenestration and window restoration plan? I note the especially the arched window on the top on the third floor. It originally um had what appears to be three segments. often uh in the building of this era from the mid to late 1880s early 1890s when you have a large arch window it's not stained glass which doesn't seem to be those uh separated had decorative ornate woodworking in them are there plans to bring back a historic fistration uh design um window design it's not intended uh I think the window you're talking about is the the arched one uh the main bay uh the right now it's a fully glazed um no lights no mountains the the the conservation approach is preservation. It's not restoration. So, we're keeping the windows as uh the windows as is. We're not restoring back to that appearance. And again, this is a an approach that's acceptable under the standards and guidelines. Are there other questions? Adam. Thank you, Madam Chair. Um, can you speak about the plans to um retain the stained glass in a bit more detail? Are they I note they're currently behind modern windows. Are those going to be brought more to the uh publicly visible realm or rather will they be made more prominently visible? They're very hard to see right now and what other window related alterations will there be placements things like that? Well, we we work very well with staff on this application and they're recommending a conservation plan to be prepared. So this is this is information that's going to be available under that plan. Uh we have various options. We can you know restore them, keep and repair them as is. We can add an interior sal sash to to provide that that that double glazing. We'll have to detail it carefully. Um I don't think we want to put an exterior sal an exterior storm sash because it may impact the appearance. But again, we have to to weigh these options as part of the conservation plan. So unless you have some some some advice to give right now, I'm taking notes. I I would encourage May I make a comment, Madam Chair? Yes. I would encourage um examination of historic window designs in the area um as it greatly alters the appearance of this building even with the stuckle on it. uh especially that arched window at the top that you would never have a glazing that large in a house from this era. Um and it really does drastically alter the appearance and having those stained glass windows made more prominently visible would be quite wonderful as well. Thank you very much. We will look at that and consider that. Are there other questions? Seeing none. Okay. Yes, Mitch. Hi, M. Sorry. Um, I'm just looking at some of the Google images, you know, from 2021. The street street images looks awful with all those cars parked right up to the uh the home and of course you're going to rectify that, but I'm just wondering if you could speak to us about your plans for maybe a sympathetic landscaping, soft, hard landscaping, or is that part of your plan? So this is specifically a landscape uh plan that's I believe is also required um or recommended uh condition of approval for for later on. Um what's proposed right now is to remove the hardcape replace with permeable paving to introduce a bit of soft scaping as well. Um and to and to provide vegetable uh sorry vegetable uh vegetative hedges on the sides of the the building as well. Um cars are still going to be parked on the the property. Maybe not to the same extent as the the free-for-all that's that's given right now. Uh uh bicycle parking is also going to be provided um to help you know reduce the amount of parking. But I think the biggest change is the permeable paving that's going to you know soften the the appearance on the front. I'm wondering if you can re recommend maybe um planting some native species, pollinators, something that is more up to date than we're it's definitely some some um some recommendations or some comments we can bring bring up to the landscaper or the landscaping consultant who's going to be working on this. But uh I believe in the HD plan they have some guidelines for landscaping. So, so we'll follow that as much as we can. Are there other questions for Ahmad? Seeing none, thank you very much, Ahmad. Thank you very much for pulling that up. That was that was I think a very fruitful discussion. We're moving back into questions of staff. Are there any? Seeing none, moving into discussion amongst ourselves. Adam and then Paul. Adam, you're muted. Thank you, Madam Chair. Um I it is uh it's frustrating to to see that the stucco is remaining on um a building especially this building as it was the longtime home of Henry Spratu who is probably Toronto's most prominent Gothic revival architect of the late 19th and early 20th century. He designed heartthouse a number of really quite prominent buildings in the city of Toronto. Um, so I am hopeful perhaps in the future there may be an opportunity to have that stucco removed in a more intensive masonry restoration of this building. Also, um, perhaps there's poly chromatic brick work underneath the the stucco. It'd be wonderful to have a greater investigation of that. Um, especially in Yorkville in the annex, we do have hyper local materials from the 19th century. The Yorkville bricks work just around the corner where the yellow bricks in the area came from. So uh it would be again just just given the history of this specific house and this prominence and its connection to such a prominent Canadian and Toronto architect of of this style. I think perhaps uh in the future maybe there would be a project that would allow justice to be done to his legacy and those of the Gothic Revival houses. And I I thank Emad for um all his diligence in answering our questions today and those of staff as well. Thank you Paul. Thank you. Um I I just like to get back to the the forest a little instead of the trees. This this was an application first and foremost to add additional floors at the rear of the building. um in the context of of that work, um the uh proponents have have made some what I think are constructive uh um enhancements to the uh original heritage building and I certainly commend them for doing that and I think that the um the alterations they've proposed are constructive. Um, the issue of the brick is really kind of I think getting into the trees and I certainly hope it will be remembered and maybe the owner or a future owner will continue to investigate that. But in the context of the whole application, it may be a bridge too far to be asking the owner to to take that step and restore the brick. So um I personally I'm satisfied that on on the whole the uh the application is uh is solid as it stands. Thank you Paul. I concur and that I think the fact that the annex residents association was consulted and they are as a community satisfied. I think that is something that is um of of value um when we're considering everything as well. Are there other points of discussion? Seeing none, I have a staff report with recommendations before us. Would anybody like to move the recommendations in the report? Peter. Thank you very much. All those in favor, please. All those opposed? One. The motion carries. Thank you very much. That actually concludes our agenda today. Um to my fellow members, the April agenda will probably be a little bit on the longer side because you don't get to see me for a month. So I know, don't miss me too much. Um I would encourage everybody, especially as the weather is nicer, if you are able to come and join us at city hall, please do so. The level of camaraderie and debate that we can experience in person is pretty wonderful. It doesn't mean we can't do this in a hybrid way and I support everybody's decision but it would be what I would encourage you to do. If you are able to join us, please do. Otherwise, I will see you in a month and the uh meeting is adjourned.