who is attending online, I would remind them that if they go to the town website, they can quickly and fairly easily these days with the navigational tools that are there, uh, access the agenda and reports that we'll be using for our meeting today so that they can follow on with all the all the stuff we're dealing with. Um, delegations are are permitted provided they have registered with the clerk's department by noon on the business day prior to the meeting. Again, on the website, there's a fairly simple process for registering as a delegate, and you would have to follow that in order to delegate at the meeting. And we do have one registered delegate in in person at our meeting today. Um, I would remind everybody once again that we are an advisory committee, which means that any recommendations that we might make uh go to council. They go to the planning and no, it's the actual council meeting at its meeting on June the 1st at 6:30 p.m. and council will in fact dispose of any recommendations that we make. I remind delegates about their need to register if they wish to speak at that meeting. So, do we have any regrets, Madame Secretary? >> Yes, Councelor Mcnes, Councelor Longo, and Susan Hopson. >> Thank you. and three of our members are attending virtually. Um, so I'm I'm hoping I'll be able to to spot if you want to speak, but you know what to do to make a lot of noise to get my attention. Um, okay. Are there any declarations of pecunary interest with respect to any matter before the committee today? Nope. Seeing none, we'll move on. The next item is the confirmation of the minutes of our last meeting. These have been circulated. Are there any comments on these? Nope. Jerry, thank you. Jerry has given me a motion to approve the minutes as circulated. Is there anyone opposed to that motion? Seeing none, the minutes are approved. Okay, we're on to item number four, a discussion item, which is actually an application by the town with respect to 194 uh Front Street Rightway. And and Kristen is going to start us off on that. All right. Thank you, Mr. Chair and committee. Today, I am speaking to the heritage permit application submitted by the Town of Oakville Transportation and Engineering Department for work proposed in the municipal right of way in the old Oakville Heritage Conservation District. So, this map highlights uh the property where the right-of-way work is happening and the north portion of it. Uh this is 194 Front Street in between George Street and Thomas Street in the old Oakville district. uh it's just highlighted here to better situate us in the district itself and where this work will be being done is just the northern portion of it. So a bit of background on this application. The area again is of proposed work is in the town's right of way because it is in the old Oakville uh district. It is designated part five under the Ontario Heritage Act. The subject area is located directly in front of a newly constructed non-contributing residence at 194 Front Street. The existing wood retaining wall in the right of way was previously obscured by ground cover and its condition has only recently been fully identified. The property owner previously contacted transportation and engineering staff regarding the condition of the wall within this right ofway. It was then determined to be in poor condition and a safety hazard due to its proximity to the roadway and should be removed. In consultation with parks and open space and roads and work staff, uh it was decided that regrading would be required once the wall is removed and five trees would also need to be removed as part of this because the work is likely to injure the treere's root systems and affect their survival potential. So as part of this larger project, uh the town's transportation and engineering department has submitted this heritage permit application on behalf of the town of Oakville. And it just consists here I've just listed the four parts. The removal of the existing wood retaining wall in the municipal right ofway, the removal of five trees, the regrading of this area to reflect the adjacent lands to the west, and replanting within this area with the appropriate number of trees and species as determined by town parks and open space staff in consultation with heritage planning staff. So, just some photos to give us some context here. We can see the retaining wall in its proximity to the road and some of the trees there behind it and the condition of the wall. And here are some close-ups of that as well. And again, this was previously covered so it was obscured. And this slide here shows us a survey that just uh the applicant submitted that shows the existence of the retaining wall as the diagonal lines. what part of the the highlighted part of the right of way that will be cleared, graded, and then sawed and the five trees suggested for removal as those five X's. And here's a photo with those five trees circled by parks and open space staff. Um, and it there are several other trees suggested to be proposed to be retained as well. They're not all coming down. Uh, and so tree protection measures would be put in place for those during the work. Staff from transportation and engineering, roads and works, planning and development, parks and open space, and fire services have reviewed other options in response to the owner's uh earlier request to retain the existing trees and knowing that these trees contribute to the district's tree canopy. Uh two of the other options looked at are to remove the retaining wall and regrade the slope to retain those trees. So if the wall was removed and the trees were kept, the slope would need to extend further into the roadway to provide sufficient soil volume and root coverage. And transportation and engineering and fire services staff advised that a reduction in this roadway width is not supported due to emergency access and operational needs. And another option to reconstruct the wall where it is in order to keep those trees was looked at as well. Um, but this is not supported due to safety and concerns about the proximity of this wall to the roadway. Uh, and while reconstruction could potentially assist with keeping these trees, those safety concerns in the municipal property would remain. So, this project when the heritage permit application came in was assessed against public realm objectives in the Old Oakville Heritage Conservation District plan and guidelines. And again, there are several components to this project. Um and because it is being done in the district, it does require the heritage permit particularly for that tree removal and replacement. Uh the mature tree canopy is recognized as a heritage attribute of the district. And while maintaining the existing trees is an objective of the plan and guidelines and the preferred option, the deteriorated retaining wall must be removed due to safety concerns. and the applicant has demonstrated that these five existing trees cannot be retained due to the extent of anticipated root disturbance associated with wall removal and regrading. So then the town has suggest has said that they will undertake replanting to uh mitigate this removal and to maintain overall canopy coverage within the district and have said they will work with the homeowner and heritage planning staff in order to plant the appropriate trees again based on the old Oakville Heritage Conservation District plan and guidelines. Knowing other option other options to try and retain the trees were considered. The proposed approach does support the long-term preservation of tree canopy overall while maintaining the right of way safety safety sorry. So staff does agree that the removal of the wall and associated tree removals are required to address safety operational and infrastructure constraints in the municipal right of way in this location with the proposed replanting in accordance with the planning guidelines. So therefore, staff recommend that this permit application for the removal of the wall and five trees, regrading and replanting of trees as attached in appendix C to the report be approved subject to the final details on the tree replanting uh which will be implemented by parks and open space staff in consultation with heritage planning staff and that this heritage permit expire two years from the date of final approval by council. So uh that's it for me and I can answer any questions anyone may have. Thanks. >> Thank you, Kristen. Um clearly your comments and your your input to us is is sort of heritage focused and the applicant this time is the town. Um will there be somebody from the applicant um available to speak to the committee about the the reasons why all this is happening? >> Do you Mr. Chair? Yes, we have Vince Blosser here. >> Okay, that's good. Good. So are there any questions of of Kristen in the heritage context? Because we've been told that the applicant will themselves be able to perhaps questions regarding on the the reasons for this application. Yes, Bob. The wall as it exists now has been there for 50 years and there'd be no problems with traffic on Front Street. I don't believe that front street would ever have to take overloaded or wide load loads. Anytime I go down there, um the traffic is traveling at about 15 to 20 m uh kil kilometers an hour. Uh it's a tourist attraction. taking those five trees out would severely um upset the uh uh cultural heritage streetscape. Uh perhaps somebody can answer why we can't still have 15.2 mters as a safe road allowance given the sort of traffic that Front Street sees day by day by day. Um, Bob, with respect, I think that a question best asked of the applicant rather than of Kristen. Um, and the applicant, I'm sure, will be uh happy to answer that very question when it's their turn to present. >> I'm sorry, I didn't realize we were going to present. >> Yeah. Yeah. Okay. Okay. So, any other questions of Kristen? No. Good. Okay. May we hear now from a representative of the applicant? hearing department. >> I'm not hearing this. There it's on now. It's okay. The sound is now on. >> Good morning, uh, Vince Blosser. Oh, yeah. I can hear it's working. Vince Blosser with the town of Oakville Transportation Engineering Department. Good morning, Mr. Chair and the committee. >> I'm sorry again to stop you there. It's very quiet. I can hardly hear anything that you're saying. I know your mic is supposed to be on, but you're a tall guy. Maybe you're outside it its range. >> Okay. Okay. There. I trust that's better. Uh, chair, Mr. Chair. Okay. Um, sorry, the gentleman's question, Mr. Glaclin, was about the road width. Correct. >> So the current road width is 5.7 meters for the pavement surface and the fire department has noted in the heritage report that they are comfortable with that width but they would not want to see the road reduced in any way to make it narrower than the current 5.7 m to support the traffic on Front Street. >> So what is it currently with the retaining wall in place? >> 5.7 m. It is 5.7 >> 5.7 m. >> Okay. Okay. >> Okay. >> And that is adequate for them to uh have a fire truck uh tend front street and deploy outriggers for stability of the of the vehicle should they tend to an emergency at that location. >> Yeah. And >> so the >> um Bob, would you want to pick up on that? uh 15.7 meter roadway >> and save all those trees. >> We had looked at we had looked at that. Uh the trees are on a bit of an elevated platform. The the boulevard area is higher than the road surface. It's a sort of a a planter, if you will. The lumber retaining wall that's at the road edge was hidden by ivy. So, it was not known to us that there was a retaining wall there. It was just uh something that was sort of green and wasn't really identified. It was brought to our attention last fall that there was a retaining wall behind the IV and uh the property owners of 194 Front Street had asked if we could replace it. So, we looked at it at that time. We met engineering staff met with roads and works and uh parks operations staff to sort of review what can we do here. We realize the proximity of the wall to the road surface is a concern. It's it's not safe for the road to have something of that abrupt of a feature that close to the road edge. It would be ideally retaining walls are set back significantly from the driving surface. So when we looked at it, we realized the best approach is to remove the wall for the safety of the road and the function of the traffic on the road. Could a retaining wall be introduced further back? Well, no. There are significant trees there. So, uh, if we remove the wall, ideally we'd like to grade the slope. So, it would be similar to the frontage to the west, which is 176 Front Street. And they have sort of a natural slope that's sorted, and then there is a a fence back near the property line of the rightway in front of 176. So we envision the this right away to be similar to that where it would be graded with a slope and in doing so unfortunately it would expose the roots of the five trees that are there which are two deciduous and three coniferous. So the unfortunate circumstances are we're asking for permission to remove the trees and plant new trees after we regrade the slope appropriately. So, I guess I'm hearing you say that if you were to try and rebuild the wall, it would bring about the loss of more trees than regrading wood. >> Um, no, sorry. >> If you were to rebuild the retaining wall, doing that would bring about the loss of more trees than would be lost by regrading. If if we were to rebuild the retaining wall, we would like to do it safely away from the driving edge of the road, which would be where the current trees are. So, we would the the the outcome would be the same. Uh whether we remove the tree or remove the wall and regrade the slope, that would amount to the loss of the five trees. Alternatively, if we rebuilt the wall safely away from the road, it would also equal the loss of those same trees because the trees are very close to the road edge, unfortunately. >> Yeah. Okay. Bob, >> but the road is still sufficient for any traffic. Why are you so so concerned about a uh what is it 3-foot retaining wall being on the edge of that uh 15.7 m. >> Yeah, that that through you, Mr. Chair. Uh that is the concern is the having a retaining wall right at the edge of the road surface being any anything more than say a 6-in barrier curb is a concern as you know with most of our rural or urban standard roads in Oakville we have many of them they have a concrete curb which is 6 in or 15 cm high that is something that one expects to be on the edge of a road but anything that protrudes higher than that at the driving edge would definitely be a concern so u I'm not aware of any incences happening on Front Street at on 94, but certainly it's something that we now that we're aware of it, we want to mitigate that concern going forward. >> Okay. Um Okay. I've got Journey, I've got Jason, and then I've got Russ. >> Uh thank you, Mr. Chair. Um I think um Bob has made a valid concern and that is I read the uh fire department's um letter and it said that their um preferred width is 6 m and that currently it's 5.7 and it will be it will remain as 5.7. Um, I think that the space between that uh existing retaining wall and the house is much less than what we see at 176 Front Street down the road. Like it's for uh this house is further is closer to the street, so there's less uh space. Um perhaps I think what may help is if um if there would be an understanding of what that landscaping piece would look like. Would it be a bare lawn? Would it have because it's such a small distance, would it have some vertical trees that are um appropriate for that area and that space that might mitigate a concern uh that Bob has raised? And I guess the other thing he raised is that the wall has been there for 50 years and no incidents have occurred that he can recall um to to um understand why the wall can't be replaced with same So >> through you, Mr. Chair, um yes, we did discuss with the roads and work staff and uh the idea of rebuilding the wall in its current location, and that's something that we can't support. We are concerned for the function of the traffic. It's a one-way street. It is a much narrower street than most streets in Oakville as it's only got a 5.7 meter wide pavement surface. Most roads are usually around 8 to 8 1/2 mters of pavement surface and carry two-way traffic. Uh this one is one of the smallest roads out of our roughly 1,600 streets in Oakville. Uh that's why it's been reduced to oneway traffic. But nevertheless, we wouldn't want to see a vertical uh impediment addressed right at the driving edge. uh which is what that retaining wall would amount to and it would be a hazard to motorists whether it's made of lumber or it's made of concrete or other types of material. It would be a hazard to the public which is what we can't support and thank you uh through you Mr. Chair again. Um could we have an understanding visually of what that landscaping material would look like the proposed >> Oh uh sure sure uh through you Mr. here. Uh Kristen, can you pull up the uh a photo of the 176 Front Street? >> Uh Google Street View, maybe. Um I I have it here on my phone. The 176, which is a little um hedge right at the house and then lawn. >> No, it's a white picket fence at the property line, right? and a gentle slope to the road that's got saw on it with sod. >> Okay. So, it's just gentle saw. >> It would Yeah, it would be uh through you, Mr. Chair. It would be a a slope rising up to meet the current grade, which is a couple of feet higher, and it would have be a gentle slope with with sod and then the trees uh our parks and open space staff would select appropriate deciduous trees to go near the property line on top of that slope. >> Okay. So there will be deciduous trees. >> Yes. >> And perhaps some older trees rather than young trees. >> I would have to defer to our parks and open staff, open space staff to uh select the appropriate species. I think they would do it in consultation with the adjoining property owner. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Okay. Thank you, Jenny. Jason. >> Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um, it's a bit of a conundrum, isn't it? We've got here. I'm looking I went for a walk along the street to check the slope and some of that slope is is probably not as much gentle as as quite steep, particularly at the uh or the the further as you go um west along along Front Street. So, I'm just wondering if I appreciate that the town has engineering standards that they need to work with, but by your own sort of explanation, you indicated this is a unique street of the downtown um heritage core. As a result, could we consider perhaps a unique approach to dealing with it rather than just an engineering standard or or or the the requirements to I think you're talking about matching what's what's along the street there. I can see your your thoughts. Um, but maybe we just need to be a little bit more unique in our approach and uh you know the concern of of traffic and cars. I understand the town wants to limit its liability and not have problems. What was the concern um that the town was really worried about? I don't know. I'm sure risk team have looked at it and said, "Oh, we can't have that for this reason." Just seems a shame to be losing these these these large trees. That's that's all that's that would be my only comment. We can work around it and with what we what we have and to retain them then that would all be for the positive. I'm just concerned maybe is setting a precedent with the town's removing trees. Um um anyway just made that point. If we can work around it that would be that would be my preference. Thank you. >> Okay. Thank you Jason. Russ >> switch on your mic. for us. >> Uh I think it would have been better if uh you'd brought a schematic of the uh replacement that you are proposing. You know, the trees that you I guess some other department is going to have to decide upon. Um and we're not you're not talking about removing all of the existing trees. You're only talking about removing five of them, right? So, some of the trees will remain >> uh through you, Mr. Chair. I believe there's one tree to the uh western edge of 194 Front Street, which is a large deciduous tree, and the species escapes me. Um I maybe defer to my colleague Kristen. Do is it is it an elm? It's there's three right there to the west edge. >> I think it was a Sorry, I'll defer to Kristen. >> Sorry. Uh I can speak to that. I think uh through you, Mr. Chair. I believe the large tree being retained on the west is a Siberian elm. I believe that's what our parks and open space staff said. Uh and then I believe there are several other trees uh maybe one or two that are to be retained as well. >> So the picture shows a large sort of clump of trees. Mhm. >> Is that clump going to be removed or is it going to remain? I mean, you look at the schematic you or the the picture on page 29. I can't really envisage what stays and what goes. >> Kristen, are you able to pull up the first picture? So I think I do have a slide that shows five trees circled. >> It does show on page 30. Uh Russ >> page 30. >> Flip another page. >> Yeah, the circled trees I don't believe are in the report, but they are in the presentation here. Um >> I can see five red crosses. >> This one here. I don't have that in my >> Yeah, the slide in front of you should have the circled trees now. >> Oh, there they are. There they are. >> Sorry. Yeah, they weren't circled in the staff. >> Those are the ones are going to go. >> The others are going to remain, right? >> Yeah, these ones here. >> Um, that's fine. So, those the ones circled are going to disappear and the others will remain. Well, I don't know. I just think it would have been better if you'd provided us with some sort of picture of what uh what it looks like when when you're finished. >> Through you, Mr. Chair. Uh the image up there at the top, starting from the left is a deciduous tree, which I believe is the black walnut. And then as you move to the right, the first tree with a circle uh is a a white spruce. The next one is another white spruce. And the next one is another white spruce. And then the fifth tree, which is kind of hard to see with all the evergreen foliage, but it is a uh Norway maple, I think. Yeah, Norway maple. And then there's a large elm. You can see sort of very to the very edge or the right the slope when we're what we anticipate will be done is what you can see in the right edge of the photo where it's a natural sort of grass sloping up to meet the bottom of the white picket fence. That's what we envision >> and we envision that across the front here up to roughly the temporary uh temporary fencing that you see in the photo to the left. >> That would be the slope. It would be solded and then we anticipate seeing some uh deciduous trees replaced u at the top of the hill or the top of the slope. >> Okay. >> If that helps. >> That helps. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Okay. So, I think that picture um is very helpful because what I'm hearing is that you're trying to introduce that same kind of gentle slope grading down to the road as we see uh with the grass that's there at the white pickup fence uh to the road, but widening the road so that it's as wide as it is at that grass where it meets the road. That's your 5.7 that you're needing as a minimum. Whereas we can see the retaining wall currently encroaches on that. And understand the driver for this whole thing is you can't you can't have that. That's that's against all regulations and code and exposes everybody to liabilities and so on. But what you what what we're talking about is how how you deal with that situation and still maintain the heritage attributes that we like to see down in this area with respect to the the tree canopy and and and the planting and the slopes and so on. So, um I don't know if there's still going to be an intrusion though, it looks to me with the retention of those trees to the west because they're further into the roadway. Is that still 5.7 m at that point? >> It it it >> through you, Mr. Chair. Uh the large elm that's at the I guess the edge of the photo is set back significantly from the road edge. The front street itself is a 12 m wide roadway or it's quite narrow 12 m that is not a standard town road, but it is, you know, something of heritage from 1847. Uh the makeup of the road is roughly a 5.7 meter ashvalt driving surface which is half of the road parcel and then the other half the road parcel are roughly two 3 m boulevards on either side. So we have a boulevard on the north side being grass and we have this boulevard on the south side which is roughly 3 m. Um ideally it would be the grass that we see on the photo to the very edge of the right. That large elm that's there is set back almost at the property edge I believe. So it is it is roughly two and a half meters from the edge of the road. And because the grade there is somewhat tied in with the grass area to the west we do we don't expect those tree roots to be exposed as we remove the wall. >> Okay. >> So we think that tree is safe there. The other tree is the sycamore. Sorry I don't know where that one is. My apologies. So, so the bulk of these trees would go and that would give you and then your gentle slope. And again, just to recap your answer, um, whilst at the edge of the roadway, one might expect a curb, if one erects a solid wall there of one, two, whatever number of meters, um, that creates a hazard and that's a hazard that's not tolerable. Okay? So, it could be set further back, but if it was set further back, it's still going to lose the trees. >> Correct. >> And as far as Russ, I think as far as the uh the type of trees put in, I think the the normal delegation process that we have is in the heritage staff, working with parks and probably working with the homeowner would would make the decisions with respect to the the actual plantings that would take place. We they haven't decided that yet. Obviously, the ground would have to be looked at and tested and so on and before the specific type of tree was decided on. Okay. Thank you. Is there anybody else wanting to ask a question of the applicant? Ju just a just a comment to support what Jason was saying. This is the unique district, the unique area of uh of um Oakville. You've already said the the street is not uh the normal street that uh one would expect uh complying with all roadway requirements. So why not have the retaining wall rebuilt carefully? Maybe it could be uh a little lower. I I don't know. We I I can't really tell here whether it could be slightly lower and still and still protect the uh the tree roots. But I I would certainly urge you to uh to look at that as a as a a possibility rather than just strictly applying the the the norms for the rest of Oakville. >> Okay. Yeah, I hear your comment, Bob. I hear that. Okay. Any other questions of the applicant? >> Nope. >> Yeah, I have quick one. >> Jason's got his again. Jason, sorry. >> Yeah, just just I just wanted to say thank you. I'm a lot clearer now having had that little final screen that we can see. But just wanted to one final question to the applicant for you, Mr. Chair. Is there a curve going to be going in or is it just going to be identical to the to the property at the west? through you, Mr. Chair. Sorry, I didn't hear the full question. Could you repeat that? >> Well, yes, sorry. Will a curb be installed or is it just going to be a replication of the the situation to the to the west? >> Uh through you, Mr. Chair. Uh this road currently is what we consider to be an urban road, sorry, a rural road, which is uh something that doesn't have curbs or storm sewer drainage underneath. It's a rural road that you might see in the country with ditches, that sort of thing. So, we anticipate not to have a curb here, just to have a natural slope of the grass meeting the edge of the pavement. And um sometimes we add a little bit of granular material to the edge of the road as a stone makeup, which at the end of this, I would envision perhaps as the grass meets into the the pavement, we would probably put 6 in of stone in or something. So, in the end, the makeup would be probably 6 mters including the stone, which would appease the fire department uh for their their needs. >> Okay. Good. Thank you. >> Thank you. Thank you. So, any other questions? I'm looking to see not from Emma or or Kerry. Nope. Nope. Okay. Thank you very much. Thank you very much. >> Thank you. >> Now, we do have a a delegate. Uh Mr. Cockwell. Um is it Mr. or or both? >> I sorry. >> Two for the price of one. >> Just just just pause a moment. Um is is that height that height's going to be okay for you? Well, I didn't know that that thing lifted. Um, but >> I think I'm okay. Thank you. >> You're okay. And we've got two of you. Now, I remind all delegates that there's a 10-minute >> time limit on delegations. And because there two of you, you don't get 20. >> That's okay. >> But that's okay. We're pretty flexible in time. I will start the timer just to keep us going, but that's only a guide. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> We Good morning, everybody. We're so glad to be here finally because as you can see we're living behind a mud puddle and I think it reflects very badly on us and our our contractor because people are being think we've run out of money to finish. We'd hope not to have to take up your time this morning, but with regards to the right of way, the town report indicates that there's retaining in the on the right of way and the fire department bond want the rem to be removed and the town staff recommend the mature trees be removed and that the area where the trees are removed be embanked similar to the embankment at 176 Front Street. When providing the advice to town council, the committee may want to consider the following. not to inbank the right of way, thus providing an easier maintenance if grass is planted. We see instead of the gentle slope, a wall and then flat grass, similar to what is in in place in the house across the road from us. The embanking will provide more space, not embanking, sorry, will provide more space for winter snow. And the last thing we need to still do is address the additional area of the right of way that must be addressed by the staff. It hasn't been addressed yet. That goes from where the trees and places are, where our front steps used to be to the rest of the property. We don't know what's going to happen there. And we need to get our landscaping done. We can't do anything till we have the levels. Can I just add let let me just add to that in we talked about the three meters and that's what we referring to the the right away 3 m runs from the property 176 which is imbanked all the way to George Street Park town hasn't addressed this and I don't know if they are able to address it today at this meeting but I think that should be addressed as well it's in the heritage district. Secondly, in the 3 m with an embankment, I don't know how you're going to plant five trees on an embankment. So, I would suggest when advising council, the advisory committee considers that. So, we are just advising from the standpoint of you what you may want to consider when you advise to the council. And I hear you correctly that it's June 1st. It's on the council meeting. We're pleased to hear that because we would like a decision to be made as soon as possible. Any questions? >> Thank you for your delegation. Um, yes. Any questions? Yes, Jay. >> Thank you, Mr. Chair through you. Um, thank you for your for your comments and thoughts. I just wanted to clarify or have clarified. So, um is it my understanding that you are suggesting the um existence of the existing non-conforming uh aspect of the retaining wall to retain the trees? >> It would have been our preference. No, at this stage I think the town has come to the conclusion and what their recommendation is it's town property and if town wants to do that you have to consider what you wish to advise council. >> Okay. But um what what my question is is what was your as a homeowner that um fronts that boulevard space? What was your um tendency leaning? Was it because my understanding is that you are leaning towards the retaining the existing nonconforming use of that little retaining wall and having it rebuilt as is to maintain the existing trees. Is that my is that a correct understanding? >> It's not correct. >> Okay. >> Is that sufficient or you wish an explanation why? >> Well, because um right now >> I'm comfortable that the retaining wall >> be removed >> has to be removed. >> Okay. Well, if you just look at the condition of it, it has to be removed. >> Yes. >> The question then is, you know, >> within that three foot 3 m of roadway, >> what should take place? What will the Heritage Oakful Advisory Committee recommend take place? Certainly from a tree tree canopy standpoint, right? And from your snow clearance is a question if you're going to do bank >> and maintenance >> because what has been presented by the town is that all the five trees will be removed and there will be no trees from the road to the house. It will just be lawn. >> No, that's not what the town has recommended. The re town has recommended that five trees be replaced. >> But I don't know how you replace five trees on an embankment. >> Okay, >> valid. Fair. Thank you. Thank you for the clarification. >> Any other questions of the delegate? >> Nope. Thank you very much both of you for coming. >> Our only we got we got one question. >> Sorry. Does Jason Jason you have a question or not? >> Oh, it's Carrie. Carrie. >> Uh, sorry, Mr. Chair. >> Sorry. Three, Mr. Chair. Um, so as the homeowner, what is your preference? What would you ideally like to see? >> Well, it's town property, right? I It's up to the town to make the this advisory committee to consider what has been said at this meeting and advise the town and yeah, we look forward to being at the June 1st meeting. >> Okay. >> Thank you. >> Thanks. Okay. Thank you. Thank you both. Um, don't go away. Just just no no please sit but um we'll continue now. Um okay we've we've heard a lot today and I must admit um I thought this was perhaps more straightforward than it appeared until it got here and I'm conscious of the fact that our our particular focus is heritage and that there are drivers here that are not our uh within our remitt. I mean we can't tell the fire department how much width it needs. We can't tell the engineering department what what it needs to do even if it is a heritage district and perhaps they should look at it differently because of its unique character. Uh they have standards they have liabilities to face if if things go wrong. So their their input is clear. We do have a concern about how the streetscape is going to look after all this is done. A lot of work and money is being spent by the homeowners to build uh a replacement for the home that was there and and we worked with them on that to make sure that it would be a good contributor to the to the district. And and this last piece of the puzzle um is is quite important to them because it's the setting for their home. It's quite important for the streetscape because it retains the trees and so on. So, keeping that hat on mind in mind, I I'm I'm just wondering why having the road allowance to what would have been a notional curb and then going a little bit beyond that to where it would be reasonable to have a retaining wall. In other words, there does seem to be scope to perhaps have a retaining wall that is far enough away from the road allowance that it won't cause a hazard uh because it would be on the edge of the property owner's property and it would be within the 5.7 5.9 that the fire department wants. So that question hasn't been answered for me and I can understand what the homeowner is saying. If you do have that retaining wall, you keep the depth of soil so that which would be retained by that wall so that you can plant trees. If you're going to create a steep embankment, it's hard to see what kind of trees you could put in there. So that's I'm I just say these things and I'm hoping that what I'm doing is catching what the members are saying. Um and and Russ, do you want to >> comment? Yeah, >> trees that can or cannot be planted there. I would suggest u or recommend that the town come forward with a schematic or a plan to show what it looks like afterwards in their opinions and we can comment on it. >> Yeah, I think that that that's that's fair and and we could do that. Normally what we've done in the past for a lot of details is we delegate that to staff. They hear what we're saying and uh I if I was to do anything to suggest anything the staff recommendation um be approved subject to the final details of the tree planting including species and so on. That's that's fine for them to do because they have the heritage view and the arborists will have the professional tree view. But I wonder if we can't introduce into that including the possibility of an appropriate retaining wall. just including that as a possibility because I think my feeling my sense with the committee is that our recommendation to council is saying as you go forward with the final details of implementation um the inclusion of a retaining wall at an appropriate setback from the road allowance so that it doesn't cause the hazards which replacing it in its current location would do. it would replicate a hazard, a hazard not perceived before, but once it's seen, you have to deal with it. Um, so it it so I would like to perhaps consider putting that kind of into the mix for the final discussion process between the heritage staff who act on our behalf and the arborist and the the the road engineers. Um, that's just a thought. Jason, is your hand back up again? Yes, it is. I'd be happy to hear from you. >> Thank you. Thank you. I think it's been really good to hear both sides of of this conversation. Um, I'm kind of erring with the thoughts that how do you plant the trees in the in the slope? The slope would match if we were to match. Can we just a just a question. Can we put the five trees somewhere else? Do they have to go here? If we replace the trees look a little bit raggedy anyway along there, the ones that we're moving perhaps if we we replace them with five trees appropriately cited in an appropriate location on this property somewhere. Is that is that up for debate or is that too left field? >> I think the five trees would be on the town property. >> Right, Jason? the five trees would be and that's that's where that's where the the five trees currently are. Um so these are the only ones that we would have any input >> any input on >> with respect to >> but I think it goes back to the conversation I and I I know that street well. There are no trees in the in in in the bank anywhere along that road. I I I've not seen them. Um again I'm to my original point where was more of a comment than it was a question when I first spoke was it's the uniqueness of this. We're trying to do something a little bit different to deal with in the situation that precedes any committees or anything that happened when these were planted 50 plus years ago. So I'm just trying to be a little bit more practical. You know me, I like a practical solution to things and you know is the town just applying its standards and not thinking of it practically and and that's more of a comic than a question just for debate. >> Thank you. Thank you. Okay. So, we have a a recommendation um from the town which is that we recommend to council that we approve their application to do the work. Um and I think that we we do have to do that because the work has to be done. Um the manner in which the work is done is what concerns us and what concerns heritage and what we're trying to advise council on. And the manner in which it's done um would refer to the types of trees that are used and the location of their planting so as to maintain the heritage attributes of that particular district and that part of it. and that would um enhance uh the the streetscape. Um perhaps the the homeowner will have other drivers because it's it's in front of their house and that's quite right too and I don't I don't blame them for that. But it does and I don't want to I don't want to preempt the arborists as to the type of tree which would be appropriate to to plant on a on a on a on a slope because I'm sure that can be done. Trees do grow on slopes. But I don't want to drop out of the discussion of the actual implementation, the possibility of some form of retaining wall in order to to to to bolster the opportunity to plant the proper trees, the right trees, the ones that would uh enhance the neighborhood whilst at the same time um not causing additional or the continuation of any hazard uh to the operation of that roadway. way either for regular vehicle traffic or heavy vehicle traffic or emergency traffic. So that's I'm again I as I say I just say these things I'm I'm am I picking up the sense of of what of what the committee is saying to me. Um, if that were the case, we would ask Kristen to sort of add into this recommendation that she's given us subject to the final details of tree planting, including tree species, um, and the possibility of the retention of some form of retaining wall, >> putting it into that so that it goes into the mix so that you're hearing that you're not tying your hands. you you you're going to be dealing with this and once and it's only once they start to do the digging that they're going to know what they're dealing with and whether or not they can they can actually do that. But I think the feeling of the committee is some form of of of of embankment protection there is is appropriate because if you look at the house to the west um it it has paving and everything all in front of it the way it's set back. I mean yes there's slope but that's on the garden side. It's not right in front of the house. Uh so the challenges there are different. This is right in front of the house. Um so I'm I'm Krishna. Are you want you wanting to help me with that? >> Uh do you Mr. Chair? Uh I think I think yes, it can be added. I would I just wanted to note uh or reiterate that Mr. Blosser earlier today did indicate that if a retaining wall was built further back, those trees would still have to come out because of where they are. >> I I think we accept that. We accept that those trees have to come out. What we're talking about is the ability to put in appropriate trees that would enhance the neighborhood and be better looking than before >> and to allow the people who are going to do that the flexibility to have some kind of retaining wall if that would help them achieve that objective. >> Okay, I understand. Thank you. >> So that's just me talking. I now want to hear I want to hear everybody else talk. What >> um Mr. Chair, I can put up the wording um on the screen if everyone wants to see. Yes. >> So, while it's going up, George, do you want to >> Yeah. I just wanted to my recollection is having lived there for empty years is that that retaining wall was installed initially to protect the trees. They were on that bit of a slope. Um it's on town property. Uh and it's there aren't any other retaining walls along that street. They're all sloped down. There's no curbs. It's a town. It's like a country lane really as we discussed in our in our initial designation of the area way back in ' 82. And it seems to me if you if the if it's on town property and the only reason it's there is to protect the trees, the trees are coming out, there's no retain there's no need for retaining wall. And to the west of the Dick Stewart's old property that's now been rebuilt uh is the slope uh it seems to me and then it carries on through into the park the end of the end of King Street at least of George Street that it it maintains that symmetry if you will all the way along and there's uh there's no need for retaining wall especially that close to the street. I I understand what the town is saying too but that's my thought there. >> Yeah. Okay, George. Thanks. I'm I'm sorry we can't get into debate with delegates. Um Journey, did you have a comment? >> Thank you, Mr. Chair. I guess this is confined to the board now. >> Yeah. Okay. Um I think it would make matters a lot easier for us on the board if we did have a visual if we had uh a sketch of what what it would look like. I think we've heard that from a number of people uh already this morning and it would um mitigate many of our concerns to see what is proposed um what what are the you know trees that are replacing the new trees that are replacing the ones that are being removed as I read in the report it says that the trees will be replaced um and what it looks like uh right now uh the the current consciousness is to see ivy growing on the ground which is dissimilar ilar to the west and to the east where they just have the lawn. Um the the other possibility that Drew uh spoke of was a retaining wall that's uh closer to the house and further away from the street. Um retaining walls can be hidden. So it could just be a structural uh retaining wall like a foundation element that could retain the earth so that if something else was planted uh it wouldn't erode away onto the um surface of the road and the roots would have to go down rather than across. So then the the type of tree is important and I think we just need a visual from the town uh as to what is being proposed. I'm sure you have it. We just haven't seen it and uh it would it would uh do a lot to come to a consensus. I think everybody agrees that these trees have to come out because of the retaining wall. No, Bob doesn't agree. Okay. Well, all right. But again, if we have a visual, then it'll be easier to to make a decision either way. Thank you, >> George. >> Right. And again, if the retaining wall has to come out, so therefore, the retaining wall comes out. You look at the properties east and west along there and look at the other side of the street, I'm sure they'll come up be a come up with a plan that will satisfy the town on on a a bit of a slope. And I think that the recommendation should number four should be in consultation with the homeowners. uh >> town staff determined by the town parks and open space staff in consultation and in discussion with the owners. >> I think discussion would would happen anyway >> in discussion >> but we can't >> not depended upon in discussion. >> Yeah. Yeah. I think that would be a step a step too far >> in terms of our our ability to to to to mandate anything. Um, >> yeah, we're not >> The thing is if we if we if we do get to see the full plan that is being proposed, that's going to be not next week. Okay. So, that would mean we'd be saying to council, please defer this application until your next meeting. And that just stops the clock and the homeowners are naturally anxious to finish that part of their house and their project. If we have the same level of confidence in the staff process that we have used in the past, then we would allow them having heard all of the things that we're saying today to use their best judgment from a heritage perspective with the input from uh the arborist from parks and open space with the input from the engineering people and we're not saying there should be are retaining wall George but we're saying as Jerry is suggesting if there's some form of soil retention um element introduced that would facilitate the the the planting of the trees it's a bit different than what it is for the west because the trees are right up on the top of the embankment for the west they're a long way away from the road they're not on the the grassy slope they're behind the tree the the fence and if you go the other way it's flat it's you're down into the little parkquette and down into the the the the the house. Um, so so >> I I'm trying to balance so many things here. We want to move this along quickly, but we want to move it on >> correctly. We want to do it and do it right. >> Um, my suggestion is in the form of the the draft motion you're looking at now. Bob, what do you want to say? >> I I can't um support the uh recommendation. I believe that the negative influence on the cultural heritage streetscape is too great and that with some imaginative engineering they could be retained with a replacement of the retaining wall in its current uh location. >> And could I could I speak to that? can't like sorry just it's debate now isn't it? And make the point again, the five trees, could they not go in the parket where it's probably more suitable to put five trees as town property? Does it have to go here? >> And then we kind of remove this whole debate about retaining walls, slopes. It just we could match the George said match the vista of the street as it goes east west and you put the five trees in the parket. So, I'm saying that could be an option >> that that would not not to replace the trees being removed. That's all that would do. >> Um, we can't direct the town to put >> No, no, no. This is No, this was just a debate. We're just debating it now. I'm not I'm just saying it's like is there no trying to move it forward. That's all. It's like last thing we want to do is is just debate. The best time to do work is is now, isn't it? Landscaping and such and move that forward. You heard that from the homeowners. want to move forward. We're just delaying it. >> Okay. >> Um, Mr. Chair, may I propose that the your recommended additional wording be um be moved as a an amendment and then we can >> No. >> No. Okay. >> No. Because we don't have a motion. The staff recommendation is not a motion. It's just a recommendation. It does provide, however, the the the structure around which we can build our own motion. So, we don't have a motion on the floor yet. This this is just a draft of a motion and I can't make it because I'm the chair. So, to get it on the table, >> Russ will make it. So, Russ had made the motion that we're looking at on the screen and it's essentially saying, Bob, that project has to go through. I think the motion is suggesting that the committee accepts that uh engineering standards, emergency vehicles, all the rest of it. this has been an anomaly. Once it's identified and and seen to be an anomaly, it has to be addressed. You you can't leave it. You can't say that, okay, it's a pretty bridge. We don't want to take it down, but no, it's structurally unsound, but we'll just leave it there until it falls. So, you you can't once you know something, you have to act on on the knowledge that you have. So, I think we're at that point where we're saying it has to be done. What we're concerned, this is heritage now. What we're concerned is that what is done is done well. And in the in the in the in the motion that Russ has made, we're using our standard format. We're looking to the heritage staff to guide this process through. There will be consultations with the homeowner. There will be input from parks and open spaces and from engineering and probably from the emergency departments and they will come up with um this the solution to this problem. um we could defer that whole thing and just say go ahead and do all of that and then bring back your plan to this and that's September or October and this is an election year when the whole council schedule just gets a little bit wobbly and I don't want to leave the homeowners in the position where nothing gets resolved uh quickly and uh because I think if we recommended that to council this whole thing get denied council would have to not accept our recommendation. because they would be unable to to to go against the staff. >> Yeah, George. >> In fact, just just repeat again because if the top five trees are coming out, there's no there's no requirement for retention of a retaining wall, let alone the possibility of thinking putting one back in. There are other ways to ameliate any plantings. So, I I I I have to vote against that motion. >> I hear you, George. But the intention is to replace those five trees. >> Yes. But not the only ra the only reason that the retention wall is there and I know I was there >> because of the trees, >> right? >> And it's spilling onto the roads. They put a retention wall. You take those trees out, you replant with other trees that are more appropriate for uh for that area >> without a retention wall. >> Without a retention. >> That may well be the outcome. >> Well, that's but the motion now talks about retention with possibility of retention. the possibility the possibility in order to facilitate the selection of the appropriate trees to deal with the situation they find themselves in. Not to tie their hands that says >> but to allow them a little bit more freedom. >> That's not what the motion says though. >> It says including the possibility of not the >> but the rest of the language is not included in there you just add added >> on the screen push it up again Lisa. It says including the possibility. It doesn't say you will have a retaining wall. >> No, no. I I realize that, but why would you need a retaining wall? The trees are coming out, which caused the retaining wall to be installed in the first place by the then owners, >> in which case they could not be replaced as is >> because if the retaining wall comes out, these trees cannot stay there. >> Those trees are not going to stay there anyhow. >> So if you want new trees. >> If you want to replace them, you have to replace them appropriately. >> That's right. >> On the sloping ground. >> Yes. >> Without the retaining wall. >> But if you've not got enough space to get it in, you're sloping it right down to the hard surface of the road. Then you wouldn't get any tree. >> I don't I don't see that that's up that's for us to decide. >> Thank you, Mr. Chair. I think the uh George I think your concern is uh taken care of by the wording of the possibility of a retention of retention of a retaining wall or maybe we should say and the possibility of incorporating >> a retention retaining wall rather than Yeah. And then and then we say that's up to the town to decide. >> In keeping with the heritage property >> in keeping with the heritage landscape principles in our um designations. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. >> Which which heritage staff will do, Jerry? >> Yep. >> Heritage staff will do that. And George, the whole thrust of the report here is to remove the retaining wall and not to have another one. >> That's that's the way that's the way it's been presented to us. All we're pushing back a little bit on is saying, "Yeah, yeah, we agree with that." But, you know, to get the right trees in there to deal with that landscaping, you might need to have almost a higher curb. It's way back from the road. It's not going to be on the roadside. Anyway, that's that's I'm not I'm with I'm not moving the motion. Um, that's I'm with George on that. Okay. So, is there any more discussion on that? Did everybody understand what we're trying to do here? >> Um, >> just just for >> you, Mr. Chair. Sorry, just I'm with George. It's like if we take out the trees, we don't need a retaining wall and therefore trees can't go back in unless you put a retaining wall in, but the town won't doesn't want a retaining wall because of the reasons I've explained. It's going to be a slope. So, it it's kind of it's it's not working. >> Yeah. No, I hear you just they've said they don't want to replacing replace the retaining wall where it is, but they did say you could have it further back, >> but then that it wouldn't work then with the streetscape. It would not match heading west. It would look odd. >> Okay, Johnny. >> Um I think what um the wording would have to change to and the possibility of incorporating a retaining wall rather than incorporating the retention of retaining. So um if you if you can imagine there's a sloped area and then there's the street and in the middle of that sloped area hidden to view is a structural retain retaining element or wall much like a foundation that is not seen. So from from a visual perspective you never see that you you don't have to see a retaining wall. It's something that is a structural element in order to um retain the earth so that the tree roots can be stabilized and and grow down. And again, I'm not an expert in landscaping by any means, but I think we should leave that to the to the professionals and just um allow an opportunity for flexibility if they feel that by putting trees there, they need some retention and it's not visible to the eye and it's away from the street. So it's not where it is right now at 5.7 meters, but it would be, you know, more than six meters. Then we're not tying their hands by saying, you know, this sloped area can't grow anything but a a 3-ft bush. But if they can plant trees and they need some structural reinforcement underground for the root system, we're giving them the possibility that they can do that. But it's not visible and it's not certainly at 5.7 m. Okay. Thank you, Jerry. Right. I think everybody's had had the chance to speak on that. >> Let me just say again, you don't I don't need you don't need the possibility of incorporating a retaining wall. If that's what the town decides is a way to do it without an a wall but is underground as Jerry's described, then that's what they'll do. And I just want to say um Drew, I don't agree with your analogy of the bridge falling down. That's not what I was proposing at all. I recognize that that retaining wall has has done its day and it has to be replaced. It's just that I would hope that heritage in the heritage district would trump um bureaucracy and allow common sense perhaps to allow us to retain our cultural heritage streetscape in place. >> I I hear you. I hear you. Okay. We've been around everywhere and the the draft motion well the motion that that Russ has given us uh is essentially the the staff recommendation uh with us inserting something about the possibility of the retention of a train retaining wall. Inserting that because the report itself calls about talks about no retaining wall. We're just reintroducing the possibility that you might have one. you might actually need one in order to achieve the objectives that you're talking about in the sloping of and the planting of appropriate trees and we're delegating to staff um the final approval of that. Um so that that is the motion. It has been uh moved. I'm going to call the question now. So I want to know who is opposed to that motion. I see one. I see two. I see two. The motion is carried. So, thank you very much everybody. It's it it it this looked like an easy one, but it's a special part of the town and and if we'd had more time, we'd had more time than then we could have perhaps uh satisfied more concerns. But the timing is what the timing is. And I thank everybody for their open and honest discussion around this matter. So our next order of businesses information items and there are none. The date and time of our next meeting is June the 23rd 2026 right here in the council chamber. And uh somebody will give me a motion to adjurnn. I think Jason has just done that and nobody will be opposed to that motion. So we are now adjourned and I thank everybody as usual for the gift of the time today. Uh thank you those who were watching and thank you for the applicants for their patience.