Yes. Well, good morning everyone. I'd like to call this meeting of Heritage Oakville to order and to welcome everybody who's here and those who are watching us online on the town's YouTube channel. And we have uh three of our committee members um who are attending virtually today and I've got them on the screen. Sometimes you disappear from the screen during the course of the meeting. So if you want to speak um you know you got to make a lot of noise or something to catch my attention sometimes. Um our meeting is open to the public and we invite delegations. Anyone who wishes to delegate at any of our meetings though has to register by noon on the business day prior to the meeting whether they want to attend uh virtually or in person. um you would go to the town website and under agendas and meetings where you can actually get a copy of the agenda of today's meeting if you want to follow along with it. There is also an easy way to register as a delegate. Um and then that way we can make especially if you're remote the necessary arrangements for your attendance. Um, we have three discussion items on the agenda today and one information item and a reminder that we are uh an advisory committee and any advice that we may give to council will be dealt with at its meeting on September the 8th at 6:30 and they have the same rules with respect to delegations as we do. You have to register by noon on the business day prior to the meeting. So, have we any regrets? Uh, madame secretary. >> Yes, Emma and Jason are regrets. >> Okay. Thank you. Uh, are there any declarations of pecunary interest with respect to any matters before us today? Seeing none. Good. Thank you. The next item is the confirmation of the minutes of our last meeting. Uh, these were distributed. Has anyone any comments on these? Would uh Bob, would you like to give me a motion? I think I saw your hand go up. Bob. Yep. Bob has given me a motion to approve the minutes as circulated. Um, anyone opposed to that motion. Seeing none, the motion is approved. Okay. So, the first discussion item on the agenda is 4.1 and that's a notice of intention to amend the bylaw with respect to Maple Grove Public School. And that's Kristen. >> All right. Good morning, Mr. Chair and committee. Sorry, let me just get that. Okay. Uh, so today item 4.1 I will be providing an overview of the proposed amendment to the heritage designation bylaw for Maple Grove Public School at 288 Maple Grove Drive. The property is already designated under part 4 of the Ontario Heritage Act. So today I'll be talking about the background of this designation, why staff are recommending an amendment, and what changes are proposed as part of that and next steps in the process. So, the school is located on the west side of Maple Grove Drive between Devon Road and Oak Oakville Drive. Is that Albian Avenue? Sorry, I wrote down the wrong road. It consists of two historic portions as well as some later additions. Maple Grove School has a long history at this location, beginning with the construction of the original one room schoolhouse in 1872. It was then designated under part four of the Heritage Act through bylaw 1993-055. This existing designation recognizes the one room schoolhouse portion of the school. It was subsequently expanded in 1934 when a brick addition was constructed at the front. This addition was designed by George Molsworth, an architect who lived in Oakville and completed a number of commissions in the community. Staff are now recommending that this existing bylaw be amended to recognize this 1934 edition. As part of the amendment, staff are also taking the opportunity to update the heritage attributes of the one room schoolhouse. This will provide a more complete and accurate description of the heritage features that remain. It's important to note at this point that the property owners are supportive of this proposed amendment and have participated in the bylaw amendment process. The proposed amendment would update the statement of cultural heritage value to provide more detail about the significance of the original 1872 schoolhouse and to recognize the architectural and historical significance of the Molsworth edition. for the [snorts] her 1872 schoolhouse. Sorry, staff are proposing to describe the attributes in greater detail and for the 34 edition, new attributes will be identified regarding its architectural character and historical associations. The legal description will also be updated through a reference plan. This is intended to clearly identify the two historic portions that are being included in the amended designation and will not apply to the entire uh to all the other additions as part of the property. So the proposed statement of significance uh the updated statement of significance identifies three main areas of heritage value. The design and physical, the historical and associative, and the contextual value. From a design perspective, the 1872 schoolhouse is significant as a surviving example of the one room schoolhouses once common throughout Ontario. The 1934 edition is an interpretation of the Georgian revival style with several tutor revival influences. It is also significant because of its association with George Molsworth, the prominent local architect from Oakville. There's also historical and associative value associated with both uh portions of the schoolhouse. The 1872 building is connected to the development of Ontario's public education system and the changes that followed the 1871 school law improvement act. As enrollment increased, the original one room schoolhouse was no longer able to accommodate the needs of the community, eventually leading to the 1934 edition construction and the transition away from the one room schoolhouse model. Finally, Maple Grove School has been physically, historically, and visually connected to this location for more than 150 years. It continues to be recognized as a landmark in southeast Oakville. So, as noted, the proposed amendment will also list the heritage attributes of each uh building at the in the bylaw itself. This clearly identifies the physical features that contribute to the heritage value of the property. So, they're just listed briefly here on the slide, but just to summarize for the one room schoolhouse, the proposed attributes include the stuckleclad exterior walls, original window openings on the north and south elevations, gable end roof, and the simple design of the building. For the 1934 edition, we have the red brick exterior and foundation detailing, hipped roof, the entrance way with decorative wood surround, sidelights, and transom, the wood fasia and sophets, chimney, and the vented wood cup on the top. Sorry. Uh there are also several tutor revival influences as noted in the slide. And so here we just have briefly some photos. This is the Molsworth edition from Maple Grove Drive. There is the entrance way and the chimney from the south elevation and the one room schoolhouse portion at the rear. And here are both of them uh from the south elevation. So it's staff recommendation that pursuant to subsection 30.13 of the heritage of of the Ontario Heritage Act, a notice of intention to amend bylaw 1993-055 be issued for the property municipally known as 288 Maple Grove Drive. And if council agrees with this recommendation at their next meeting, the notice will be provided to the owner and a public 30-day objection period will follow. If no objections, an amending bylaw can then be brought forward for passage. And I can answer any questions anyone may have. >> Good. Thank you, Kristen. Seems a nice tidying up of a of the situation. Are there any questions of of Chris? Nope. Good. And we have no delegations uh indicated for this. So, uh, we're confined to the board. Any discussion? Any thoughts? Would somebody like to give me a motion to approve? Russ. Thank you. Russ has given me a motion to accept the staff recommendation. Any further discussion on that motion? Anyone opposed to that motion? The motion is carried. Thank you. So, the next item on our agenda is item 4.2, two which has a notice of intention to designate Meadowbridge Park and that's again Crystal. >> It's me all morning. So, all right. Uh thank you, Mr. Chair and committee. So, as noted, item 4.2 today is a recommendation to issue a notice of intention to designate the commemorative barn shade structure at Meadow Ridge Park under section 29 of the Ontario Heritage Act. The structure was created using salvaged materials from the former Wellsman Barn which was located at 1297 Dundas Street East. The purpose of the designation is to conserve those surviving heritage materials. A similar designation occurred at 307 Ironside Drive or Featherstone Park in 2021. The recommendation uh just to note is not to designate the entire park. It is for the to focus specifically on the salvaged wood and metal elements in the shade structure. And I will note that the property is now under town ownership. So the subject property as noted is at Meadow Ridge Park which is in North Oakville on the north side of Wheatboom Drive east of John McKay Boulevard and west of Meadow Ridge Drive. The park was selected as an appropriate location for the commemorative structure as it is relatively close to the original location of the barn approximately 450 m away. And this is an aerial of when it was under construction but it is now complete the park. The property at 1297 Dundas Street East had a long history of agricultural use. The Wellsman family owned the property from 1939 to 1946 and constructed the barn during that period. The barn itself incorporated both new and older materials. Some of the handh beams appear to have been salvaged from an earlier 19th century barn likely located on the property. This means that the materials now incorporated into the commemorative structure represent multiple periods of agricultural history. The current structure is the result of a conservation and commemorative process that began in 2022. When demolition of the original barn and farmhouse was proposed as part of a subdivision, the cultural heritage evaluation report determined that both structures had cultural heritage value. As part of council's approval of the demolition, staff required that heritage materials from the barn be salvaged and stored with the attention they would be eventually incorporated into a commemorative feature. A heritage easement agreement was put in place to ensure that salvage and reuse of those materials occurred in accordance with a conservation plan. The barn was dismantled in 2024. Materials salvaged and the shade structure completed in 2026. Heritage planning staff visited the site in July of 2026 to determine if the structure followed the easement agreement and conservation plan. It was determined it was in general accordance with the proposed conservation plan. >> [snorts] >> There were some changes made during the work, but this was approved by heritage planning staff during the process. So, this designation represents the final step in the conservation and commemorative process for the barn established through that heritage easement agreement. Items that were salvaged include barnboard cladding, handh beams, saw beams, metal elements, and the easement agreement also stipulated to include a heritage plaque commemorating and interpreting the history which can be seen here on the slide. The barnboard cladding was restored and installed on the roof and sides of the shade structure. Han hune and saw beams were also reused where some of the original beams were no longer structurally suitable. Modifications were made to allow them to remain visible and conserved. For example, some beams were saw into boards and used to encase steel structural posts. And as noted, a heritage plaque has been installed to explain the history of the barn and the materials. Under Ontario regulation 906, a property must meet at least two criteria to be considered for designation. In this case, staff have determined the property meets two criteria. It has design and physical value because the materials derived from a representative example of an early 20th century bank barn which itself incorporated earlier materials from an earlier barn. Second, it has historical and associative value because the materials have a direct association with the long history of agriculture on the farm property and agricultural development of Trafalogar Township. And here are just some uh slides to show what it looks like right now. This is from the side, both sides. And you can see the playground in the park in the background as well. There's the plaque a bit zoomed out to show the structure behind it. Uh the barn boards on the roof. So based on this evaluation, staff are recommending that notice be issued under section 29 of the Ontario Heritage Act of the intention to designate the commemorative structure at Meadow Ridge Park at 3160 Meadow Ridge Drive. If council agrees with this recommendation, notice is provided to the owner and a public 30-day objection period follows. If no objections, a bylaw can then be brought forward for passage. So that's it from me. If anyone has questions, >> good. Thank you, Kristen. Another nice item on the agenda. Any uh any comment? Any questions of Kristen? Jerry. >> Um I I didn't see the metal pulley. Kristen, >> maybe we need to do a >> Sorry. Through through you, Mr. Chair, to committee member Jerry. Uh it is there. I just didn't include the photo. I just forgot a photo, but it is there in the ceiling. Yeah. Sorry. That's my mistake. But it is there. >> Okay. Good. Good. Um Okay. any so there's no other delegation for this matter so we're confined to the board any discussion Jerry >> oh thank you uh ch Mr. I think this is a lovely successful example of an adaptive reuse of materials of a heritage barn and it's nice to see that it's uh it's a commemorative structure and it goes on to the next generations and it's useful uh as a playground as a and as a shade structure. So really happy to see this and to see it designated today. Thank you. Thank you. >> Any further comments? So we're ready for a motion. Thank you Carrie. Carrie has given me the motion to uh approve or take absorb the staff recommendation into our motion. Uh any further discussion on that motion. Anyone opposed to that motion? Seeing none, the motion is carried. Thank you. Okay. So, the next item on the agenda is 4.3. This was an item that was deferred from our last meeting and concerns uh the work at 65 Thomas Street. And this is Kristen again. >> Thank you, Mr. chair. Uh this is the last time you'll hear from have to hear from me this morning. Uh so item 4.3 today is an update on the heritage permit application at 65 Thomas Street for work undertaken without prior approval. As noted, this was previously brought to the heritage committee at the July 28th, 2026 meeting where it was deser was deferred, sorry, pending further staff assessment on two issues. [snorts] The application addresses exterior work undertaken without a heritage permit, including window replacement, soften fascia alterations, new cladding, uh, entranceway alterations, and heartscaping. So, the property is in the old Oakville HCD on the east side of Thomas Street and the north side of William Street on a corner lot. 65 Thomas Street is a contributing property in the HCD and is subject to the old Oakville HCD plan and guidelines. As noted, the heritage permit application is for uh new aluminum sophet and fascia, replacement of wood windows with vinyl windows, front yard hardscaping, brick cladding on the north elevation, and changes to the front entrance. Previously, staff issued two notices of unauthorized work in May and in June of 2026 after being notified work was being conducted and when work was continuing without approval. The owner then submitted a heritage permit application which staff have processed or are processing as a major heritage permit. At the July 28th, 2026 Heritage Oakville meeting, staff recommended approval with conditions to bring the work into compliance with the HCD guidelines. The committee deferred the application to the August 25th meeting and asked staff for more information and assessment of the front entrance way and front hardscaping alterations, particularly a parking area on the south portion of the property. Today staff are providing that additional information for the committee's consideration. So we have seen these photos uh in July but I am just sharing them again. There are before and after photos as well attached as appendix F. But here we see uh aluminum sophet and fascia having been installed over wood. Uh the brick cladding being done on the north elevation which is a later addition on the property. uh the previous windows, majority of which were wood, uh six over six and the newly installed vinyl two over two windows. And this is the entrance way, which has been altered from. You can see the before on the left and the current doors on the right. And then just some further out photos of the hardscaping that's been done. The original or the previous driveway shown on the left with the flagstone parking area on the bottom right. And that is behind kind of the hedges on the far right of the image on the left if that makes sense. Uh and then a further image on the top right showing that driveway area with the some other hardscape being visible. So the retroactive heritage permit application covers the hardscaping completed in 2025 and the 2026 changes to the windows, sophets and fascia cladding and the entrance way. The application was submitted on June 22nd, 2026, and new information was brought forward in August after the committee deferral. Staff have assessed each item separately, comparing it to its relevant sections in the plan and guidelines. This is documented in detail in the attached staff report. Staff have assessed previous conditions, guideline expectations, work conducted, and how to best comply moving forward. Therefore, the staff recommendation retains compatible work while requiring modification or reversal where alterations conflict with heritage conservation objectives. Aside from the new assessment of the front entrance and the driveway, the previous conditions uh from the July meeting remain the same in order for the work to achieve compatibility with the planning guidelines. These relevant sections are attached as appendix C. To briefly summarize what staff recommended in July, I will briefly go over each item. So, in terms of hardscaping, the work that was done was a new flagstone front porch installed with the same dimensions as previously, new stone columns added to each to the porch and the ashvalt driveway replaced with flag stone and expanded in some spots. Staff noted the work would have required a heritage permit because of its new materials and changes visible from the public realm. Staff initially found that although the driveway had been modestly expanded and new porch columns installed, alterations and materials were generally compatible with the HCD character. Uh this will be discussed in more detail today. In terms of the sophet and fascia, the contractor had covered over the existing wood with aluminum. The guidelines note that aluminum sophet and fascia are prohibited on heritage buildings where those materials did not already exist. Because this property previously had wood, staff did not support this aluminum replacement and recommended their removal and either restoration of the original wood or replacement of in in kind with matching wood pro profiles where necessary. In terms of the brick cladding, uh staff visited the site when it was being installed over existing stucco on the north elevation. The north portion of this building is a later addition and does not form part of the original heritage structure. Because of this, staff did not consider the brick insulation to remove to involve sorry the loss of original historic cladding, but a minor heritage permit would have been required. Brick is an approved material within the district and considered compatible. So staff recommended that the brick cladding be approved subject to staff review of the product information. In terms of the window replacement, staff observed that multiple windows had been replaced with vinyl windows without heritage approval. The heritage permit application identified 29 replacement windows in total. Of those, 18 had been existing historic wood windows and had been replaced with vinyl. The previous windows, as you have seen, included 6 over six wood windows and the replacements are 2 over2 vinyl. Uh this would have required a heritage permit. The old Oakville planning guidelines requires historic window features to be protected and maintained with repair preferred over replacement and further states that where existing wood windows are replaced, those replacements should be wood. Aluminum clad wood windows can be considered for side and rear elevations. Vinyl windows are not permitted under the planning guidelines. Staff therefore did not support the vinyl replacement windows and recommended replacing the original wood windows with wood and the rest with aluminum clad wood on side and rear elevations. I will note that in the heritage permit application uh there is a document that outlines each window replacement uh provided by the applicant. The previously wood windows are highlighted in red in that application and this allows us to confirm which windows in which locations on the property were originally wood moving forward. So committee deferred the report in July so staff could reassess aspects of the driveway and entrance alterations. As noted, while most of the heartscaping is generally compatible with the district and property, the driveway was extended into the south portion of the lot, which creates in essence a new front yard parking area. New front yard parking spots in the old Oakville Heritage Conservation District are not permitted under the guidelines. Therefore, staff recommend removing the flag stone that has been installed that creates this new parking area, restoring the area to the general previous driveway footprint and in installing soft landscaping where it had been previously. The north portion of the driveway may remain as that was previously paved. Oops. Staff undertook a further review of the front entrance in response to the committee's direction. The previous entrance consisted of a single fiberglass door with multi-pane sidelights. The sidelights are identified on the property's inventory sheet. So staff recognizes that their retention would have been the preferred approach. However, additional historical research provided some important context and archival photograph shows that the existing entrance had already been altered and was not the original configuration of the house. The historic entrance had been a smaller entrance on the south elevation which has since been bricked in and the current entrance was a small side door with a different configuration. As a result, while the previous sidelights were an identified feature, staff could not establish that they represented historic fabric. In terms of the new doors, the new doors use a traditional panled form with glazing and do not introduce a strongly contemporary design. When we consider their arrangement, materials and visibility from the realm, public realm, sorry, in relationship to the building, staff considers the entrance to be generally compatible with the heritage character of the property and district. Staff do not consider requiring the reconstruction of a non-historic feature to be proportionate conservation response. As part of the front entrance, there were also previously four small columns that have since been replaced with two larger ones. But because this portico is also not a historic feature, staff do not have concerns with this replacement. So staff recommend approval of this new entrance subject to final details being reviewed by staff if any further alterations are still required in this entrance area as part of renovations. So in summary, staff recommend approval of this heritage permit subject to the conditions noted in this slide and in the recommendation in the staff report. I'll just summarize them, but the key corrective actions would be to restore or replace the sophet and fascia and wood. Replace the vinyl windows with the appropriate wood or aluminum cladwood units with final details to be approved by Heritage Planning staff. Most hardscaping may remain, but the additional southside parking area should be removed and reworked to generally match the previous driveway footprint. The north elevation brick cladding and new entrance are recommended for approval by staff subject to final review of materials and details. And this permit would expire two years after final council approval. So I can also answer any questions on this item as well. Thank you. >> Okay. Thank you Kristen. Um just with respect to the windows that the the uh at C you you've got the 18 wood windows will be removed and replaced with vinyl windows be replaced with wood windows. So that's wood. and then in D that the remaining vinyl replacements be replaced with aluminum clad wood. So it's clearly we're able to distinguish or identify which ones are wood and which ones are metal clad wood >> through you Mr. Chair. You mean um I can identify which wood windows had been replaced with >> which windows would be replaced with wood and which would be replaced with uh aluminum clad wood. >> Yes. Yeah. So, so that's that's clear from the documentation that you have uh on file. >> Yes, we would be able to determine which ones would be wood or aluminum clad and we would have that on file as well. >> Okay, good. Good. Good. Okay. Okay. So, any questions? Yes, Jerry. And then Carrie >> through you, Mr. Chair. Kristen, I find I find this situation of this uh application really baffling. Um just wanted to ask so uh the the applicant uh did they proceed with all these uh exterior uh renovations without permit initially? Is this what we're hearing through you Mr. Chair to the committee member? Yes, this work oh I'm sorry on uh yes this work was done without a heritage permit and heritage planning staff were made aware of work being done. That's when a site visit was first conducted in May and when we issued them a notice of unauthorized work because we did not have a heritage permit on file and then after that subsequently we were informed of other work that had been done without a permit. >> Okay. So that the applicant and owner would have known that their house uh was within the heritage 5 guidelines >> uh when they purchased the property it would be on title. All right. I would imagine that >> yes designations are on title. I can't speak to what the owner did or did not know, but >> Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Kristen. >> Through you, Mr. Chair. Uh Kristen, have we confirmed that all the original wood windows were destroyed at the time of removal? >> Uh through you, Mr. Chair, to the committee member, I don't know what if they still have them or if they were destroyed. I know that they removed them for safety concerns. So, I don't believe that they would still be around, but that's something we can ask them if they are attending the meeting. >> Bob, you're on mute, Bob. Oops. Lost everybody apart from you, Kristen. Are you there, Bob? We seem to have lost our online feed >> there. How was that? >> Yes, Bob, you're back. Nice to see you. You're looking well. >> Thank you. Uh, this seems to be an egregious egregious uh ignoring of uh of um of heritage permits. Why why why do does this think these people think that they could get away with uh doing what they done? >> That's a good question, Bob, but I don't think any of us here is able to answer that. >> Okay. >> But you're right. It it's it seems to be quite uh quite egregious. >> Yeah. >> Okay. Y Russ >> just your your mic's not your mic's not or get it down towards you Russ. There you go. How do we uh ensure enforcement of uh what we decide on the assumption that uh council would agree with our recommendations? My concern is uh how does this get enforced? >> Mr. Pin, I think um Russ was asking that question of you. I don't know if you're if you're able to answer it. Well, um, in terms of enforcement, we'd work with subjun any further comments that Gabe may wish to make, but it we would work with both buildings and municipal enforcement services uh, in terms of uh, oversight of the work being done uh, uh, now pursuant to the heritage permit as you recommend and as council adopts. So our municipal enforcement and uh service and uh building services inspectors after that if necessary uh charges have to be laid then there'll be prosecutions and other legal action that might be necessary. Some of that may happen in any case as a result of proceeding without a heritage permit. Yeah. >> Thank you. Okay. >> Thank you. Any other comments that Carrie, did you want to speak again? >> Sorry, just uh so through you, Mr. Chair. Um to Mr. Pearllin. So has a and to Kristen, has a fine been contemplated for doing this work. We know obviously you were very successful recently on the Lakeshore uh road property in East Oakville. Um but this is a pretty egregious um violation of of a heritage permit and heritage property. >> Kristen, are you okay? >> I can speak briefly. I don't know uh Gabe or Dennis can also add on to it, but uh through you, Mr. Chair, to the committee member. Um, we always prefer to and try to get the property owner to comply with the guidelines before we do anything like laying charges. Laying charges is what we would consider a a a later move, a last attempt. Um, you know, the demolition on Lakes Shore Road East was quite a different scenario, I believe. Uh, so ideally we always get we comply. we we work together to make something, you know, ideally that the house is put into compliance so that it fits in with the district. If you just lay charges, nothing has to change on the house, you don't get those wood windows, you don't get those those landscaping features. So, uh, at this time, we have not hopefully not contemplated laying charges. We would ideally move forward with compliance. Hopefully that answers your question. Okay. Okay. Thanks, Carrie. Okay. Any other comments? We do have a delegate Okay. Any other comments? >> I've got one at least. Thank you. Nobody's pointing out the yellow hand. Yes. Yes. Go ahead. >> Thank you. Uh just wondering uh to staff if there were any building permits that were required or opened for the work that did take place. >> Uh through you, Mr. Chair, to the councelor. there, as far as I could tell, there were no building permits applied for, and I don't know if any would have been required for the work that was done. There were no new um entrances made or windows made as part of this. It was all replacement or alterations, but I can't necessarily speak to what would have been required. That would be up to the property owners uh to determine if building permits, zoning were being met. Uh but from what I could tell, we don't have any open on it currently. >> Okay. So if they did then that would have triggered the heritage flag, right? Um so I mean possibly because they didn't require any permits that's that's how we it wasn't flagged for us. >> Yes. If the building permit isn't required or isn't applied for, we don't get the heritage flag. >> Got it. Thank you. >> Okay, good. Thank you. Any other comments? Well, we do have a a delegate uh Jesse Sepion, DFH Lawyers in Burlington. And is she there, Madam Secretary? >> No, Mr. Chair. The delegate is not online. >> And is that because she hasn't contacted or responded? Okay. So, there is no delegate then for the applicant. Okay. Well, if there's no delegate for the applicant, we we can move right along and it's now confined to the board. Um, we we cannot we deferred it last time because we had the opportunity to do so and it was right to do so because a couple of items needed further clarification. Um, we don't have the opportunity to defer it again. I'm just sort of reminding everybody because we're right into the timeline. This has to go to council in order to meet the timelines. So, you've had all the information given you over two meetings from the staff and you also had circulated uh an email from from Jane Hawkig who had delegated at the last meeting and wasn't able to delegate today and she's asked a couple of questions and I think we've kind of covered that because the identification of the windows was important for her but we already have a tight inventory of what would qualify for metal clad and what would qualify otherwise. um she is generally in in favor of it, but I mean she's raised a couple of good points which I'm sure you'll take into account as you consider it. So any discussion from any of the members? Um have we discussed this enough? Jerry, you want to say something? >> Uh thank you, Mr. Chair. Again, uh this is an unfortunate and baffling situation that we're in. Um especially because the community is very vocal in this area and it would be um surprising if um both the contractor and and the owner would not have heard some commentary from neighbors about work on their property. Um and uh you know I fully uh support Kristen's position on um replacement of proper proper heritage features versus finding. uh because um I think at the end of the day, we'd like to see the heritage attributes uh retained or replaced uh like with like. Um and so fines won't get us uh to our goal and objective unless the fines are more than what the replacement costs would be, in which case it would be an incentive to to follow the protocol and the guidelines. But uh yeah, this is a sad situation overall, I think. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Okay, somebody like to give me a motion. Russ has given me a motion that would essentially reflect the staff recommendation. Um, is there any further discussion on that motion? Is anyone opposed to that motion? So, the motion is carried. So, the recommendation will go to council for its next meeting. And if the applicants are are watching, I would remind them again that this is a participative process. staff are here to help and we will provide all the assistance that we can to the owner to their architect or designer and to the contractor in order to comply with the guidelines in in the best way possible to achieve the outcomes that that we all should be seeking. So I would encourage them to work closely with staff to bring about a good outcome to this. Okay. So the next item on our agenda is information items and item 5.1 is the South Oakville residential zoning bylaw review. And sort of unusually for an in an information item um we have Katherine Buckfield Buckerfield I should know that um who's a senior planner and she is just going to give us a little bit of a presentation on this because these amendments which have all been enacted but they're part of a package and one of the elements of it is how they impact the heritage districts because we've often found clashes where zoning says this but heritage guidelines line say something else. So, we're hopeful [laughter] that we're going to hear how all of those um uh sort of difficulties that we encounter from time to time have been resolved. Anyway, up to you, Katherine. >> Good morning, Mary me. Sorry, [clears throat] to begin, I apologize. I have a bit of a cold. Um but I know we'll make it through. Um, good morning members of the Heritage of Vogue Advisory Committee and members of the public tuning in to today's meeting. I'm pleased to be here to share information about the recently adopted updates to the zoning bylaw that applies to the three heritage conservation districts in the town. At the June 15th, 2026 Planning and Development Committee meeting, council adopted bylaw 202688, which amended zoning bylaw 2014014 as amended. An OOLT order was released on Thursday, August 20th that brings the new comprehensive residential zoning bylaw amendment 20206088 into effect retroactive to June 15th date the day it was passed except for the two properties in the town where it will have no effect until the appeal by the owner which is Argo of those two properties is heard which is at 3069 Dundas Street West and 3278 Regional Road 25. These properties are not located within um an HCD in the town. As a result, all the properties within the HCDs will be subject to the updated regulations. Leading up to the changes, a comprehensive review was completed and a background report and recommendations were prepared by Netherly Netherly Planning on behalf of the town and presented to April 20th, 2026 planning and development council meeting as part of the statutory public meeting. For context, zoning bylaw 2014014 applies generally to land south of Dundas Street and north of Highway 407. Going forward, I'll be just referring to it as a zoning bylaw. The focus of the review was further refined to the zoning residential low zones where detached and semi- detached houses are permitted. These properties are also designated residential low under Livable Oakville. You can see these areas depicted in yellow in the map shown on the screen. The overall project goal was to clarify and simplify zoning regulations to make them easier to understand and apply. Explore reducing the number of residential low zones and apply more echabill practices and improve livability. A key [clears throat] way that this was done was through the streamlining of zones to result in only six rather than 11 residential low zones. The labeling is also updated from RL to R to reduce confusion when applying these updated standards. The zero suffix zone is also being updated to now be called the zero suffix overlay. [clears throat] Another um townwide change that affects the properties within the HCDS is a new regulation implemented for the properties which is um residential soft landscaping which is intended to address storm water management. It is being introduced and regulated through three mechanisms. A minimum residential soft landscape strip and required yards. minimum soft landscaping as a percentage of the total lot area and a minimum residential soft landscaping area as a percentage of the front yard and flankage yard. Through the zoning bylaw amendment, a minimum residential stop soft landscaping requirement uh definition is introduced which is on the screen which you can see is generally um vegetation, river rock, that kind of thing that you would see in that area. On the screen is a diagram that demonstrates that even on our small lots in the town, a walkway along the side of the house is possible and development will still be functional while reducing negative impacts on adjacent homeowners through improved storm water management. Now, as part of the larger zoning project, staff undertook a review of the existing zoning regulations in the town's three residential heritage conservation districts. As you're aware, it's Old Oakville, 1 and 2 street, and Trafalar Road. Public consultation was done um through an online survey in 2023 and openhouse in May 2025. The goal of this review was to determine if changes could be made to the existing zoning regulations to provide more clarity and simplicity and to ensure that regulations align with the plan and guidelines for each HCD. Five zoning regulations were included in the review which was the building height which is the distance between the established grade and the top of the dwelling. Front yard setback, the distance between the front lot line and the house. Interior side yard setbacks is the distance between the side lot line and the house. The flankage yard setbacks is the distance between a side lot line beside a road in the house. Then finally, residential floor area ratio, which is really about the volume of the house. Through the review, it was determined that separate sight specific regulations through special provisions were appropriate for each of the HCDs. This resulted in updates to special provision 11 for the old Oakville HCD, special provision 12 for 1 and 2nd Street, and the creation of special provision 450 for Trafalgar Road HCD. The details of each of these special provisions can be found attached to the memo under item 5.1 of today's agenda or by looking at bylaw 202688. The regulations included in the special provisions considered the broader changes proposed to all the zones across the town, opportunities for consistency across the HCDs as well as conformity with the heritage conserv conservation district guidelines. My first example is building height. Um it's now more consistent across all of the HCDs with a maximum height for a sloped roof of 9 mters. Whereas, for example, an old Oakville was previously 10.5 at the midpoint. Um so that's kind of resolved as I think it was a very consistent issue where you have existing homes that are much lower heights and um to become more consistent with our guidelines we've implemented that across. Next is our front yard setbacks within HD's front yards are now going to be determined by the average of each yard abuing the same road established by the nearest dwelling on each side plus one meter. So the intent there is to recognize existing setbacks of heritage structures, encouraging a variety of setbacks and ensure new buildings are set back farther from the previous building to minimize impact on adjacent heritage buildings. This another way that we're aligning our guidelines tell us to kind of have have it set back and that's going to be happening at the zoning level. With our sideyard setbacks, um we have a new approach where it's based off of the size of the lot that so it's the width that's going to be determining your sideyard. But it's not just the simple sideyard, but it's an aggregate. So you can have if you have a minimum requirement of 2.4 meters on each side. You have an minimum aggregate of 7.2 between the both. It's going to result in a variety of sideyards. um not as much of that cookie cutter conformity, but it's really going to align with the character of the HCDS. Next, for residential floor area, the percentage has been updated to be based on the lot area rather than just the number of stories. The intent of this is to better recognize existing building sizes and allow for buildings proportional to the lot. The area of the garage is also included in the calculation to better represent the volume of the home. Uh, one great um thing with this approach is that in the first and second street, it didn't previously have an RFA requirement and under the special provision, it's now included to better align with the guidelines. On the screen includes a diagram demonstrating how residential floor area is calculated based on the area of each floor. The ratio is calculated by dividing the number of um that number the the calculation of all the floors by the area of the lot. And as far as garages, the approach has been updated townwide to regulate the width of the garage within the first 3 meters of the entrance rather than the area. Um the the intent of regulating garages was to reduce the dominance and the impact of the garage on the front of the home so that we've updated our regulations to really achieve that goal. and then including it in the RFA allows us to assess and evaluate the overall massing of the home more effectively. Um, and so now you have that previous permission for garage areas now included in your RFA requirement. Um, and so this should allow for a bit more flexibility for residents in terms of how they want to lay out the interior as long as the outside is appropriately uh designed. [snorts] Again, this further aligns with our our guidelines. Um, my name's Katherine. U, my contact information is on the screen. If you have any questions as you navigate the updates, please feel free to reach out and I'm I'm very pleased to see where this landed. Thank you, >> G. Thank you very much, Katherine. I mean, right off the bat, we've got the height issue, which was was one that has often caused difficulties for us >> and and the setbacks, too. Um, you know, it's it's good to allow us to be able to have staggered, not just a straight line and and to be able to enforce that within zoning as well as heritage requirements on the residential floor area. You talked you mentioned volume before. I mean, volume to me would include height. Um, you know, is a 10ft ceiling or an 8ft ceiling. But I don't think you mean volume. It's just simply the the square the square meters of the ground floor and of the second floor and of the third floor or whatever if it's habitable that added together would be the residential floor area right >> uh through your chair that is correct that's a a much better layman's terms way of describing it I think um as you will find that you have a lot of different um regulations that combine to address the massing of a home. So, you're correct. It's it's the combination of the height. It's the combination of the residential floor area and things like lock coverage and setbacks that all work together for what your building's going to be. Um, but you're correct in that assessment. >> That That's great. That's great. Any any questions of of Cathy? I mean, this is good stuff. And I think from what I'm hearing and what I'm reading, it what the proof of the the pudding will be in the eating, but it it sounds as if a lot of thought has been given to make this easier for us to deal with and apply. Okay. Super Jerry. >> Thank you, Mr. Chair. I just wanted to say my favorite um one of these elements is the one meter uh setback from the existing buildings. Previously uh we've gone towards uh to the existing setbacks of existing bu build buildings and what happens is with some of these uh contemporary additions the houses are more imposing than than the traditional vernacular housing. So they do stand out much more prominently than the heritage fabric and so this is very nice to see the one meter um setback from the existing. I think that's very creative. Thank you. >> That's great. >> Thank you. And I I wanted to one last thing through um chair is that Carolyn Vinsor previously worked here um had a huge hand in this and I do want to recognize her um if she has the opportunity to to tune in to today that she did do a lot of work um leading up to this and we've had a lot of great expertise um from staff um that have led into this. So I wanted to recognize that as well. Thank you. Yes, it's it it was one of our dreams a lot of years ago that that Heritage would actually be integrated into the planning process and integrated into building and integrated into zoning. And it's nice to see uh the the reality of that uh that integration. So that's great. I I commend you on that. Okay, we only have to receive this. Um Sue has given me the motion to receive that. Nobody's opposed to that. We've received it and thank you very much indeed for your presentation this morning. Very helpful. Very helpful. So the date and time of our next meeting is September the 22nd. It be right here at at the council chamber at 9:30. Motion to adjourn. That came from Carrie. Thank you very much, Jonathan. You were just a fraction too slow. Um but no one's opposed to that motion. So the motion the the motion is carried and the meeting is adjourned. And thank you again everybody for the gift of your time today.