[0:30] Good afternoon everybody and welcome to

[0:32] today's Heritage Advisory Committee

[0:33] meeting. Today is June 11th and we're

[0:37] going to get underway here. Going to

[0:38] call this meeting to order.

[0:40] And

[0:41] we are just going to take a moment of

[0:43] reflection here just to think about the

[0:45] business at hand today.

[0:51] Okay, thank you.

[0:53] Next, is there any disclosure of

[0:55] pecuniary interest around the table

[0:58] here?

[0:59] And I don't see any, but if that ever

[1:01] does come up at some point through the

[1:02] meeting, you're welcome to just raise

[1:04] your hand and

[1:05] Fair enough,

[1:08] but you can always declare at any point

[1:09] in time during the meeting today.

[1:12] So, looking at our agenda here, number

[1:14] four is about public participation. I'm

[1:16] just going to read this for everybody

[1:17] here. Members of the public are

[1:19] encouraged to provide the committee with

[1:21] their comments and questions.

[1:23] Presentations must be prearranged with

[1:25] legislative services before the agenda

[1:27] is released. Members of the public who

[1:29] wish to make a deputation about a

[1:30] specific agenda item at the meeting must

[1:33] register in advance with legislative

[1:35] services by 4:00 p.m. on June 10th, 2026

[1:38] by contacting D. Bruce at meaford.ca or

[1:42] 519-538-1060,

[1:45] extension 1112. Presentations are

[1:47] limited to 10 minutes and deputations

[1:49] are limited to 5 minutes. And I do not

[1:52] see any presentations or deputations

[1:54] today.

[1:56] Very good.

[1:59] Next, we're going to be looking at

[2:00] approval of the minutes. I'll just read

[2:02] this out here. The minutes for March

[2:03] 11th, 2026. Recommendation we have here

[2:06] is that the minutes of the March 11th,

[2:08] 2026 meeting of the Heritage Advisory

[2:11] Committee be approved as presented. And

[2:13] I'll just need a mover and second there

[2:15] to put that on the floor, and that would

[2:16] be

[2:17] » I just have a

[2:18] » Yeah, we're going to put it on the floor

[2:19] first, David, and you'll be able to

[2:20] speak. Did you want to move that? Okay,

[2:21] moved by David. Do I have a second there

[2:23] for that? Thank you, McKay.

[2:25] Okay. Um do I need to do an all in favor

[2:27] before we put this on the table? Okay,

[2:29] it's afterwards. Okay. Thank you. Um so,

[2:31] any questions or comments with regards

[2:32] to the minutes?

[2:33] David, you can please go ahead.

[2:34] » Yeah. Um

[2:36] just pertaining to a clause seven

[2:39] I think it's seven. Uh

[2:41] just want to make sure I have the number

[2:42] right.

[2:43] Yes, items for information.

[2:46] Uh 7C

[2:48] that pertains to the bridge BR 125

[2:52] heritage value. Um

[2:55] the very last paragraph

[2:58] um has a comment where we discussed

[3:01] culvert options, uh pipe solution

[3:05] and um other

[3:08] other elements on on uh

[3:11] resolving or suggesting. I guess

[3:13] suggesting

[3:15] uh an alternate use or alternate

[3:17] solution for the bridge. Um bottom line

[3:21] that is not a heritage uh

[3:24] committee item. In my opinion, I think

[3:26] it's more of a

[3:28] uh more up to the the town and um

[3:33] up to maybe engineering. It's not a

[3:35] heritage issue, I guess, is my point.

[3:36] So, I don't I think that clause should

[3:39] be

[3:39] removed

[3:41] um and just

[3:42] Yeah, just have that one paragraph

[3:44] removed.

[3:45] » Okay. Very last paragraph.

[3:46] » All right. Thank you, David. Um I did

[3:48] have a chance to speak with uh Derek

[3:50] about this beforehand. Derek, did you

[3:51] just want to weigh in a second just

[3:52] explain to David what we can do with

[3:54] that?

[3:54] » No,

[3:54] » Can do that. That's uh quite uh

[3:56] possible. So, what we'll do is we'll

[3:57] just uh we don't need to make a motion

[3:59] or anything like that. We'll just remove

[4:00] that. And then if the group wants to

[4:02] just uh

[4:03] what we'll do is we'll update the

[4:05] minutes and then the group can just uh

[4:06] vote to be carried as amended.

[4:08] » Correct.

[4:09] » Yeah.

[4:10] Very good. Thank you for that. Uh so,

[4:11] that's good enough for you, David?

[4:12] You're okay with that? Excellent. Okay.

[4:14] Um any other questions or comments with

[4:16] regards to the uh the minutes from March

[4:18] 11th?

[4:20] » No.

[4:20] » Okay. Very good. So, um um I'm going to

[4:23] uh call it here. So, I just uh all in

[4:25] favor for um adopting the minutes with

[4:28] uh to Derek's comments as we're just

[4:30] going to make those adjustments as well.

[4:31] Uh so, all in favor?

[4:33] Okay, wonderful. And that is uh carried

[4:36] unanimously. Thank you very much for

[4:37] that.

[4:39] All right. So, now we're going to get

[4:40] into the meat and potatoes of the agenda

[4:42] today. Uh we have uh two heritage permit

[4:45] applications. So, we're going to be

[4:47] starting with 6A, which is HAC 2026-06,

[4:51] heritage permit HER01-2026,

[4:55] 36 Sykes Street South.

[4:58] And the recommendation is that the

[5:00] Heritage Advisory Committee recommend

[5:02] that the Council of the Municipality of

[5:03] Meaford approve with the following

[5:05] conditions. One, that the final

[5:07] materials and colors be to the

[5:09] satisfaction of planning staff. Two,

[5:11] that the brick facade be conserved and

[5:13] retained as proposed with new brick

[5:15] materials to be integrated with the

[5:17] original brick.

[5:18] Three, that any future signage be

[5:20] subject to applicable sign bylaw

[5:22] requirements. And four, that the works

[5:25] generally conform to the plans and

[5:26] renderings submitted with the

[5:28] application. Uh can I get a mover and

[5:30] second her to put that on the floor,

[5:31] please?

[5:33] Uh moved by John, thank you. Second by

[5:35] Will. Thank you very much.

[5:37] Okay. Uh

[5:39] um and Denise, I guess I'll toss it over

[5:40] to you and we can kick that one off.

[5:41] Thank you.

[5:45] » Thank you, Mr.

[5:47] uh Chair. So,

[5:50] hopefully everybody's pretty familiar

[5:52] with this property. It currently has

[5:54] Jake's Grab and Go um in the on the

[5:56] ground floor, and the um upstairs is

[5:59] pretty much look the same for as long as

[6:01] I can remember. So, the proposal is to

[6:05] make some modifications to the front

[6:07] facade on the upper level, and some on

[6:10] the lower level as well where the

[6:12] commercial is, and you've got some

[6:14] pictures with you in your in your in

[6:16] your uh package.

[6:19] So, one of the things that I had had

[6:22] question questions about initially was

[6:24] how the brick was being managed on the

[6:27] upper level. I think that was the the

[6:29] most concern that I had because um they

[6:32] are would be reducing the opening of the

[6:34] window area, which is was originally, I

[6:37] guess, a door. Probably um stuff got

[6:40] moved in and out of the building that

[6:41] way like it used to in the olden days.

[6:43] And so, it's been bricked up and then

[6:46] painted over for some time, and so we

[6:49] just wanted to understand better about

[6:50] how they were filling in the blank, so

[6:52] to speak, uh when they add the the

[6:54] window in because probably structurally

[6:56] there'll be some changes that have to

[6:58] happen as well. So, uh the owner, Chris,

[7:01] did uh provide some follow-up

[7:02] information, which I included in the

[7:04] report as um

[7:06] the uh the email that's attached, which

[7:09] kind of explains a little bit.

[7:11] I'm not sure if Chris if Bill can

[7:13] confirm, but Chris had been given the

[7:16] Zoom link to log in if you

[7:18] if you had any specific questions for

[7:19] the owner, he can speak to the changes

[7:22] he's proposed if you have anything

[7:23] that's not covered in this. Um

[7:26] Perfect. And so, um

[7:30] for the most part, I've laid out in the

[7:32] executive summary all of the changes.

[7:35] The windows that are currently there are

[7:38] not heritage windows. They were replaced

[7:41] already kind of

[7:42] at a time when they'd be the vinyl

[7:44] aluminum type anyways. So, because of

[7:47] that, there the windows themselves are

[7:49] not considered a heritage feature.

[7:51] Um

[7:53] I think for the most part it was the

[7:54] other aspects. The ground floor changes,

[7:58] those are already uh modern

[8:01] facades that are there. So, the facade

[8:03] has siding and has a um

[8:07] what do we call that awning? The bubble

[8:09] awning style, which is not considered a

[8:11] heritage feature. So, afterwards, it is

[8:15] not necessarily it's just replacing

[8:19] a a non-heritage

[8:21] uh facade for a

[8:23] another non-heritage facade, so to

[8:25] speak. I don't see anything myself that

[8:27] would make this incompatible with the

[8:29] district, but certainly the committee

[8:32] might have some thoughts about what they

[8:34] see there and if if um they had any

[8:36] questions about why or what the the

[8:38] vision was of the owner, I'm sure that

[8:40] Chris can probably give a little bit

[8:41] more about that. Obviously, it's a

[8:43] little easier to understand why we need

[8:45] to replace windows when they live out

[8:47] their life expectancy, especially with

[8:49] replacement windows. We find they don't

[8:50] last as long as the originals. Some of

[8:52] the original windows are

[8:54] able to last 100 years, no problem, but

[8:56] you buy a new vinyl window and you might

[8:57] get 20 to 30 years out of it or bit

[9:00] longer in this case. Um

[9:03] but the original ones tend to last a

[9:04] little longer. And then the steel door,

[9:07] sometimes doors also the same thing,

[9:09] they don't have the same life expectancy

[9:11] with with um

[9:13] with a modern door. So, they do need to

[9:14] replace them more often.

[9:16] Um

[9:17] we've put in a few conditions of what we

[9:20] suggest uh would maybe

[9:23] uh be conditions of approval if the

[9:25] committee is interested in like

[9:28] recommending approval to council with

[9:29] those conditions. We can also tweak

[9:31] those a little bit if needed. And so,

[9:34] those would include that the final

[9:35] materials and colors and everything are

[9:37] confirmed at the end when we're when we

[9:40] maybe have a little bit more

[9:41] um

[9:43] at the end when they go to apply for a

[9:45] building permit and that the brick

[9:47] facade be conserved to the extent

[9:49] possible and retained as proposed

[9:52] with new brick materials to be

[9:53] integrated and then future signage would

[9:56] be subject to the sign bylaw when they

[9:59] when they go to change any signage and

[10:01] that generally the works don't change

[10:03] significantly from today. Sometimes when

[10:05] they get designing it for their building

[10:07] permit does change just a little bit and

[10:09] so we would want them them not to

[10:11] materially change. Otherwise maybe need

[10:13] to come back for for a second review.

[10:17] » Very good. Denise, thank you for that

[10:19] and I do understand we have Chris the

[10:21] owner of the property on the line and

[10:24] Chris before we get to any questions or

[10:26] comments from the committee is there

[10:28] anything that you would like to share

[10:29] with us right now?

[10:31] » Yes.

[10:33] So I think Denise said that the opening

[10:36] of the door is already bricked in. It's

[10:39] I don't believe it's bricked in. I think

[10:41] the only thing there is right now just a

[10:43] plywood.

[10:44] I don't exactly know what's behind it

[10:47] yet but

[10:48] I know definitely it's not bricked in.

[10:50] So this is uh

[10:54] Just want to make sure that.

[10:56] I think they probably what they did

[10:58] behind

[10:59] from the inside they drywalled it. So

[11:02] there's just a drywall there and then uh

[11:05] on the outside

[11:07] I I don't know. I'm assuming they

[11:09] probably did installation yeah and then

[11:12] what and they just put this plywood on

[11:14] top of the old door.

[11:16] » Painted

[11:17] » And just painted it red at the plywood.

[11:19] Yes.

[11:20] » Okay.

[11:21] » Um so

[11:23] and what just exactly what what I would

[11:26] like to do to this door is to

[11:29] because I want to make sure those three

[11:31] arches are lined up

[11:33] the the same, so

[11:35] the mason was going to go remove the

[11:37] arch and move up four courses, so the

[11:40] two three arches are on the same level.

[11:44] And then just break up the bottom of the

[11:46] door

[11:48] approximately four to five courses and

[11:51] then

[11:52] and then then the sill and then I would

[11:54] like to replace the old sills.

[11:57] I believe they are probably

[11:59] wood sills behind the

[12:02] the metal

[12:04] flashing. So then I want to upgrade them

[12:07] to a 4-in

[12:08] limestone sills all around the building

[12:11] with the same mason.

[12:13] Um

[12:15] so yeah.

[12:16] So that's that's the plan to the top uh

[12:20] the bottom

[12:22] I was hoping maybe with time to replace

[12:24] the siding, but

[12:27] you know, that's you know, that would be

[12:29] maybe in the following year.

[12:32] And then when all this masonry work is

[12:33] done, then I would get the vendors to

[12:35] install new

[12:37] new windows all around [snorts] the

[12:39] building.

[12:41] Um

[12:43] so that's the plan.

[12:45] » And the door.

[12:46] » And the door obviously. So there's above

[12:48] the door there's the old window there.

[12:52] Um so that would be all

[12:55] the new vinyl doors and vinyl and the

[12:58] window

[12:59] all kind of

[13:01] uh we prefer all have the flashing the

[13:03] window flashing all in black.

[13:06] Um just like the neighbor did there

[13:09] beside us. He replaced the windows

[13:11] black, so we thought

[13:13] we'll match that

[13:14] instead of white.

[13:16] My mother prefers the black, so I said

[13:19] yeah, so we decided to go black with the

[13:21] windows.

[13:22] » Wise man.

[13:24] » Yes.

[13:25] But so that the biggest concern is

[13:28] moving the arch up, the 4-in, but I

[13:31] talked I spoke with the mason. The mason

[13:34] is from uh

[13:36] uh what town was um Steiner.

[13:39] He said he does this type of work. He

[13:41] did some work like this type of work in

[13:43] Callingwood on Main Street.

[13:45] So, he's familiar with that. He said he

[13:47] has a clay bricks as well if you need to

[13:50] uh

[13:51] if we need to

[13:52] uh you know, reuse some of the if he can

[13:54] salvage the ones, you know, some of them

[13:57] see so he has the clay bricks from the

[13:59] area.

[14:01] Uh and then I would get then Schultz

[14:04] uh the carpenter to uh do any necessary

[14:08] reframing on the uh just to, you know,

[14:11] so that because the framing

[14:14] of the bottom of the door, it will have

[14:17] to go up a little bit so the window can

[14:18] sit after there. So, there's just a

[14:20] little bit of framing there and then

[14:22] maybe cut the header of the door and

[14:25] then move it up so it's

[14:28] equal with the matching with the

[14:30] the other windows, the previous.

[14:32] And I guess from the left and there

[14:34] should be already a framing existing

[14:36] framing in those doors because, you

[14:38] know, the they framed the doors and so

[14:40] on.

[14:41] The the width is stays the same. I

[14:43] measure [snorts] it and it's exactly the

[14:45] same pretty much. I think it's maybe a

[14:47] quarter of an inch or a half an inch

[14:49] difference in the width of the door.

[14:52] So, we don't have to do any masonry work

[14:54] on the width. It's just need It's just

[14:56] um the the arch needs to be moved for it

[14:59] to look equal.

[15:01] Um yeah. So, that's and and that way it

[15:05] would the windows would be exactly the

[15:07] same size.

[15:08] And then it will look it will look

[15:10] properly then.

[15:13] » Excellent. Uh Chris, thank you for that

[15:15] information. That is very helpful. We

[15:16] appreciate that. And uh at this point in

[15:19] time I'm going to open turn up to

[15:20] questions and comments from the

[15:21] committee. and uh do we have any

[15:23] questions or comments from anybody?

[15:25] Uh David, please go ahead.

[15:28] » I just have a comment, and that is I

[15:30] think the from the photograph the

[15:32] proposed alterations, I think it's a

[15:34] it's a great proposal where you've got

[15:37] all the windows lined up and eliminating

[15:39] that wood panel on the exterior.

[15:42] Um so, I think it's you know, it's a

[15:44] very good plan.

[15:46] Why I have a question, and that is are

[15:48] you proposing to do this uh in

[15:51] separate stages, or are you going to do

[15:53] the

[15:54] windows on the second floor and the and

[15:57] the main floor facade at the same time?

[16:03] » Uh

[16:04] so,

[16:05] no, this is going to be in stages. So, I

[16:07] was going to get the mason come in first

[16:09] and do the brick work.

[16:12] Then I was going to get

[16:13] uh then Schultz Contracting, the

[16:15] carpenter, come in inside, reframe it.

[16:19] Then finish on the side. Then I would

[16:21] and then after he's done, then the

[16:23] vendors need to come in and remeasure

[16:27] the opening,

[16:29] and then they will install the windows.

[16:31] And and and when they do the windows,

[16:34] they would do the doors the door the

[16:36] left door on the the the entryway to the

[16:39] apartment.

[16:40] So, that's

[16:41] so, that will be a so, it'll be in three

[16:43] stages, yes? And last it will

[16:48] I'm not in a rush to do the

[16:51] siding on the on the shop. That's just

[16:55] that will be like maybe following year

[16:57] when I save up some more save up some

[16:58] more uh

[17:00] money for that.

[17:02] So,

[17:03] uh and I

[17:04] right away okay, sorry. And then when

[17:07] when the mason comes in,

[17:09] he will be doing the step as well at the

[17:11] same time the the step from the

[17:14] store

[17:15] cuz the the stairs kind of getting the

[17:17] the concrete step is getting kind of

[17:20] where where down so I asked him as well

[17:22] to uh

[17:24] do this uh do the step for me there. So

[17:26] that will be

[17:28] and stage first

[17:30] the masonry. Stage two it will be the

[17:33] carpentry from the inside.

[17:36] Uh and then we'll get the van dollars to

[17:38] do the windows and the entry door.

[17:42] And then I guess number four it will be

[17:44] the

[17:45] uh the siding on the shop.

[17:48] But that will be I probably would like

[17:50] to do that following year. And

[17:53] and with the sign

[17:55] I spoke to Jake. We're not in a rush to

[17:58] do that either. He cleaned the sign. It

[18:00] looks good again.

[18:02] They uh so maybe postpone with that. You

[18:05] know, we'll see how the budget and

[18:07] everything allows with time. But

[18:10] So I don't know if that helps.

[18:13] » That's very good. Uh Chris, thank you.

[18:14] Did you have a follow-up or anything you

[18:15] wanted to add? It's good? Okay. Um I

[18:17] just have a question uh this I guess

[18:18] would be for Denise with regards to the

[18:20] staging. Um if this heritage permit is

[18:23] approved, is there a timeline

[18:25] um or a time limit with regards to

[18:27] getting everything completed that's

[18:29] being approved?

[18:32] » Uh so

[18:34] to that question, there isn't a timeline

[18:36] that we've baked into the recommendation

[18:38] for approval.

[18:40] It could be done in stages. So if it if

[18:42] for example um right now the way it

[18:45] reads if um

[18:47] the owner doesn't complete say part of

[18:49] it because of cost constraints or

[18:52] something like that. Say maybe the the

[18:53] part four which is the the lower facade

[18:56] uh changing the

[18:57] um siding or whatever, if they didn't

[18:59] actually complete it, it wouldn't

[19:00] nullify the work that they've done

[19:03] already. Um and there may be I know that

[19:06] there is suggestion that um this owner

[19:09] would like to apply for a CIP grant in

[19:12] the future and

[19:14] that might be contingent on some of the

[19:15] works as well, right? So, if they're

[19:17] that CIP program is activated again,

[19:20] then that might help facilitate some of

[19:22] the works that at a different maybe

[19:24] takes a little longer cuz they have to

[19:25] come in for that CIP application, but um

[19:28] that would certainly be possible as

[19:29] well.

[19:30] » Okay, and that's that's great. That

[19:31] answers my question perfectly. Any

[19:33] questions from anybody else here at the

[19:34] table?

[19:36] » No.

[19:37] » Oh, can I can I just mention one one

[19:39] thing, please?

[19:40] » Yes, Chris, go ahead.

[19:41] » Oh, yeah. So, that's because we didn't I

[19:43] mean I didn't mention about, you know,

[19:46] repainting

[19:47] repainting the front wall because it's

[19:49] already has a some sort of a paint on

[19:52] it.

[19:52] Previous previous owner must have put it

[19:54] on there and it's a bit peeling and on

[19:57] top about that actually above the

[20:01] above the door. So, I did ask that Mason

[20:04] what he would recommend and he did

[20:06] recommend brick stain.

[20:09] Uh you know, after everything is

[20:10] finished, you know, when he does the

[20:12] work on the arch.

[20:13] So, that would be like the last thing I

[20:15] would like to do. I did put it put it on

[20:17] the permanent though. So, maybe like you

[20:20] know, just kind of as close as possible

[20:22] to the color of the bricks to put a

[20:24] fresh coat on there and make it all nice

[20:26] and clean after. So, that would be the

[20:28] last step. Uh so,

[20:31] yeah, okay. So, that's yeah, that would

[20:32] be the last step I wanted to do and that

[20:35] would be probably the following year.

[20:36] But, that would clean up the whole thing

[20:38] and it would look make all the same and

[20:41] that you know, then you wouldn't see any

[20:42] of the repair work or anything like

[20:44] that.

[20:45] So, I thought that would be that would

[20:47] be a good idea in the end.

[20:49] » And uh thank you for adding that, Chris.

[20:50] That's helpful. I appreciate that. Um I

[20:53] do have a a question for Denise with

[20:55] regard to the step. How do the new

[20:57] accessibility

[20:59] uh act requirements affect the the step

[21:03] in terms of accessibility for that Uh,

[21:05] for for specifically? What would that

[21:07] look like?

[21:08] » Thank you, Mr. Chair. So, this is a a

[21:11] point of confusion I've heard a lot of

[21:12] people ask about that we're not

[21:14] enforcing things or there's this those

[21:17] suggestions. So, accessibility isn't

[21:19] retroactive in this case, so it we don't

[21:22] um in when we talk about enforceability,

[21:24] that's for new construction or altered

[21:26] construction. So, if um [snorts]

[21:29] the lower level was renovating the

[21:31] entire restaurant and they were changing

[21:34] things, they may have to tackle the

[21:37] front entrance and make it an accessible

[21:39] entrance. In downtowns, though, it is

[21:42] really challenging because we often have

[21:44] a grade change between the front

[21:45] entrance and the the the the walkway.

[21:49] And because of that, many, many

[21:51] downtowns do not have full accessibility

[21:54] because of that. In this case, there

[21:56] aren't any renovations proposed to the

[21:59] restaurant that would have triggered a

[22:01] change in that step. So, just ensuring

[22:03] that that stuff's maintained in good

[22:05] condition would be all that would be

[22:06] required.

[22:07] » Excellent. Okay, that's perfect. Thank

[22:09] you for that. Uh, I just want to check

[22:11] is um last call for questions or

[22:13] comments from uh the committee here. Oh,

[22:15] yeah, Nancy, please go ahead.

[22:17] » I think [clears throat] the plan is is

[22:19] great. Um I think the improvements are

[22:22] well thought out. Um I like the idea of

[22:24] the the stain instead of the paint. Uh

[22:27] that seems to work better on on brick.

[22:29] And uh I I think it looks great.

[22:32] I have no problem I have no issues with

[22:34] this.

[22:35] » Good.

[22:35] Thank you, and I uh I tend to agree with

[22:37] you on that. I think this uh the

[22:38] proposal looks uh quite nice, and I

[22:40] think it'll be a good refresher when

[22:42] it's all done.

[22:43] Um so, I think uh we're ready to call

[22:45] the question here. So, uh all in favor

[22:47] of accepting this heritage permit?

[22:50] All right, very good. Thank you. And

[22:52] that's uh carried unanimously. Uh Chris,

[22:53] thank you very much for your time, and

[22:55] uh good luck with everything.

[22:56] » Well, thank you so much. I'm looking

[22:58] forward to uh get this done.

[23:00] » Thank you.

[23:03] All right, very good. Uh so, let's move

[23:05] on. Uh this one is uh is a big one. This

[23:07] is um

[23:09] uh HERO2-2026,

[23:12] 19-21

[23:14] Nelson Street West, SVV Holdings

[23:16] Limited. The recommendation here is that

[23:19] the Heritage Advisory Committee

[23:21] recommend that the Council of the

[23:22] Municipality of Meaford accept a

[23:24] submitted Heritage Impact Assessment or

[23:26] HIA subject to a scoped peer review

[23:30] focusing on one, elevation or sorry,

[23:32] evaluation of heritage value,

[23:34] particularly 19 Nelson Street West. Two,

[23:37] justification for demolition. And three,

[23:40] consideration of reasonable alternatives

[23:42] to demolition. And approve heritage

[23:45] permit application HERO2-2026,

[23:49] 19-27

[23:51] uh Nelson Street West, SVV Holdings

[23:53] seeking a demolition of 19 Nelson Street

[23:56] West and redevelopment of both

[23:58] properties to a mixed-use building with

[24:01] the following conditions. One, full

[24:03] photographic and measured documentation

[24:06] of 19 Nelson Street West prior to

[24:08] demolition. Two, submission and approval

[24:11] of a heritage interpretation plan

[24:13] including commemoration of the Barnhart

[24:16] and Chisholm associations. Three,

[24:18] salvage of heritage materials where

[24:20] feasible

[24:22] excuse me, to the satisfaction staff.

[24:24] Um satisfaction of staff. Four, uh final

[24:28] building materials and elevations to be

[24:30] to be to the satisfaction of planning

[24:32] staff.

[24:33] Five, that the development generally

[24:34] conform to the plans submitted with the

[24:36] application. And six, that any future

[24:39] phase two development be subject to

[24:41] additional heritage permit approval.

[24:43] So, I'll just need a mover and seconder

[24:44] to throw that on the floor, please.

[24:46] Uh we got David here for moving. Anybody

[24:49] seconds? Uh I got Nancy there. Okay,

[24:52] wonderful. And um

[24:54] uh over to you, Denise, to get this one

[24:56] going. Thank you.

[24:57] » Thank you, Mr. Chair. So, this is a

[25:00] really big project for the committee

[25:02] right now because we haven't had

[25:03] something of this scale for a while. So,

[25:05] it's exciting to review um projects that

[25:07] are a little bit more um more going on.

[25:10] I've broken this up into and so has the

[25:13] applicant into two two parts. Um the

[25:16] heritage impact study looks at the whole

[25:18] of the uh proposal, which is to um

[25:22] demolish quite a few buildings. So, it's

[25:25] three buildings and then replace them

[25:27] with a a um two street fronting uh

[25:31] commercial and and um mixed-use

[25:34] buildings. And so, at this at this

[25:36] point, we're really only looking at the

[25:37] first phase.

[25:39] And just to let you know that they have

[25:41] also submitted a site plan application

[25:43] concurrently with this application for a

[25:46] heritage permit. And we're only looking

[25:48] at phase one, but we obviously need to

[25:50] know about phase two because the sites

[25:51] will be integrated together in the

[25:53] future. So, right now, they operate as

[25:55] independent properties. I believe

[25:57] there's three properties there or four

[25:59] properties. Um

[26:01] one of them is a vacant property, which

[26:03] used to be uh the Reeds um the

[26:08] was actually a church at one time, which

[26:11] it lays out wonderfully in the HIA. And

[26:15] so, um

[26:17] that building broke burnt down or burnt

[26:19] to a point where it needed to be

[26:20] demolished sometime ago and the vacant

[26:23] lot has just been there for some time.

[26:25] And then there's also the Nel the uh 19

[26:27] Nelson Street, which is currently a

[26:29] multi-residential building.

[26:31] I wanted to highlight that that was a

[26:33] building that in the draft um heritage

[26:36] update was to be added to be listed

[26:38] included in the inventory.

[26:41] Um we had been looking at making sure

[26:43] any buildings that were missed that

[26:45] aren't in the inventory would be added

[26:47] and then determining whether or not

[26:48] they're heritage or not would be

[26:49] something that has to be done

[26:51] as part of that as well.

[26:53] The HIA uh the HIA or Heritage Impact

[26:56] Assessment um recognizes that building

[27:00] as non-heritage because of the

[27:01] alterations that have happened, which it

[27:03] also does so for the um which is the

[27:06] Morris Memorial West building

[27:09] being that it has been significantly

[27:10] altered. That Recognizing their ages are

[27:13] are quite old, but that they have had

[27:15] significant alterations.

[27:18] Because I'm not a heritage professional

[27:20] myself, although I have a lot of

[27:22] experience on this committee,

[27:24] I don't feel comfortable just accepting

[27:27] the HIA at this stage because in our

[27:29] past practice where there's a

[27:30] demolition, we've asked for a peer

[27:32] review. And so I've structured this as a

[27:35] recommendation to have a peer review

[27:38] scoped. I would say just on the aspect

[27:41] of the the tearing down of the 19 Nelson

[27:45] Street property because that is still

[27:48] has some I still kind of looks like a

[27:50] heritage building even though it's had

[27:52] alterations. And because of the

[27:53] associations that are there and some of

[27:55] the things um that the HIA raises, I

[27:58] think it might be a good candidate for a

[28:00] scoped peer review. I don't think the

[28:02] peer review needs to look at every

[28:03] aspect of the Heritage Impact Assessment

[28:06] because some of the things are to fill

[28:08] in blanks where there is no building

[28:10] right now. And looking at what they've

[28:12] proposed, it meets most of the

[28:14] requirements of her new building or all

[28:17] of the requirements for new building

[28:18] reconstruction. Um it's generally

[28:21] street-facing construction, which is

[28:23] what we like to see in a downtown area.

[28:25] And um certainly appears to fit in quite

[28:28] nicely in style with what's going on

[28:31] around it. Uh so I don't think we need

[28:33] to have that part peer reviewed, but

[28:35] just really the demolition of that one

[28:37] building. Do we agree with the HIA that

[28:40] it is in fact not a heritage building

[28:42] and doesn't have any significant

[28:43] contribution?

[28:45] Um

[28:46] that was kind of how I thought we could

[28:48] scope the HIA 2. Um it's also important

[28:52] to note that we do have the availability

[28:54] to use who we've used before, which is

[28:56] Dan Curry from MHBC Planning. He was our

[28:59] peer reviewer on some of the other uh

[29:00] peer reviews, including the downtown um

[29:04] strip kind of where um

[29:07] You McGinty's and the Refillery and all

[29:08] that. They he did that peer review for

[29:11] us.

[29:12] Um and then I just wanted to just

[29:13] highlight some of the other changes. So,

[29:15] the initial phase one would be to tear

[29:17] down the house at 19 Nelson Street and

[29:20] build that um kind of L-shaped building

[29:23] that faces the street.

[29:25] I also want to highlight that the

[29:26] applicant

[29:28] met with us for a pre-consultation a few

[29:30] years ago, and one of the

[29:31] recommendations we made was to create

[29:33] street-fronting buildings that rather

[29:35] than a plaza that's internal, which is

[29:37] what they have now on the other side, to

[29:39] create a street-fronting presence. So,

[29:42] you've got a building that's looking out

[29:43] onto the street, parking's in the rear,

[29:45] operational type things like garbage

[29:47] pickup and stuff can happen at the rear,

[29:49] and then that looks a lot more like a

[29:50] traditional um downtown building. And

[29:54] we were very pleased with what we saw

[29:56] here. It looks a lot more like what we

[29:58] were hoping for, and so we felt very

[30:00] positive about uh the application to

[30:03] date. Um the site plan does have a few

[30:06] tweaks that we will need to do related

[30:08] to the size of the lanes and things like

[30:09] that, but for the most part, we just see

[30:11] those as fairly minor in terms of

[30:13] design.

[30:15] Um

[30:15] and so, even though they're happening at

[30:18] the same time and I can't tell you all

[30:20] the details of the site plan review

[30:22] because it's more of a technical nature

[30:24] and it had we haven't given that

[30:25] feedback to the applicant yet, we it it

[30:28] do see that for the most part,

[30:30] materially, it could probably be very

[30:32] much the same building as what you're

[30:34] seeing.

[30:35] Um

[30:36] the idea is to have a mixed-use

[30:38] building, so the ground floor would be

[30:40] commercial and the upstairs would be

[30:41] residential, which is pretty typical of

[30:43] those sort of downtown buildings.

[30:46] And for the most part, we did seem to

[30:48] agree with the HIA's assessment,

[30:50] although we're not we can't peer review

[30:52] it per se. We we felt like for the most

[30:54] part it seems to be complete. It seems

[30:57] to be a very thorough report.

[30:59] Um what we would expect to to see in a a

[31:02] thorough report. Um and had lots of

[31:04] really good background information, so

[31:06] we were pleased with that as well.

[31:09] Um the materials and the design and all

[31:11] that all I think fits well within the

[31:13] heritage district. And um

[31:17] then the phase two, we have a little bit

[31:19] less information about because we don't

[31:22] have the design. We have sort of the

[31:23] footprint. And so in this

[31:25] recommendation, we're suggesting a

[31:27] second uh permit for that other phase at

[31:30] a later time. And then just for now, I

[31:32] think it really helps us with the

[31:33] understanding from a site plan and from

[31:35] the full operations perspective. How do

[31:37] these work together? What would be

[31:39] replaced? And it looks like it's a bit

[31:41] of a The way that the layout is, it's a

[31:43] bit of a mirror of this first building.

[31:46] Um

[31:47] on the on the other side, but maybe more

[31:49] commercial more internal

[31:51] uh that you can't see. And of course the

[31:53] parking would would be all internal to

[31:55] the site.

[31:56] Um the parking that's required is also

[31:58] just for the residential uses. We don't

[32:00] require parking in the C1 for zone for

[32:04] um commercial because the downtown areas

[32:06] just don't really have the ability to

[32:07] have on-site parking unless we create

[32:09] big parking lots on properties. So

[32:11] people tend to park on the on the street

[32:13] or in a municipal parking lot.

[32:16] The other thing I just wanted to note is

[32:18] if you were to look at um the

[32:21] renderings, which are beautiful, but I

[32:23] will say

[32:24] um if you look at them, you might say,

[32:27] "Well, I don't know where this is."

[32:28] because you're looking in the background

[32:29] at what I did at first and some of us

[32:31] did. We looked kind of at these pictures

[32:33] and thought, "Okay, where is this?"

[32:36] Um

[32:37] from the front, um I think we can

[32:40] understand that if you look at the front

[32:42] picture, if I go to page I don't know

[32:44] what page it would be for you. It's

[32:45] appendix one.

[32:48] So, I just want to highlight this. I

[32:49] told um

[32:50] Blake, who is representing this

[32:52] application, that I would just mention

[32:54] this. He's prepared to create some

[32:55] additional renderings if needed. But, if

[32:57] we were go to the first uh

[33:00] the first picture, which says north

[33:01] side, Nelson Street West. So, what you

[33:04] can't see to you the left side would be

[33:07] Moxie's.

[33:09] Then there's a lane in between, so which

[33:12] is there and exists. And then this

[33:14] building would be kind of where the

[33:15] house is and where the vacant lot is.

[33:17] And then, of course, apparently we have

[33:19] a brand new LCBO, which I'm excited to

[33:22] see. That's just a picture, so don't get

[33:24] too excited about it, but it would be

[33:25] nice if that happened. Um so, this

[33:28] picture is actually fairly

[33:30] understandable. But, when you go to the

[33:31] second picture, this is where I got a

[33:32] little confused. And it's just for your

[33:35] just to help understand if you were

[33:36] feeling like you flipped like where is

[33:39] this? We're at the back of the building

[33:41] now. And what you would normally see, so

[33:44] they've just kind of stuck some images

[33:46] back there, but that's not what you

[33:47] would see from this view. So, if you're

[33:49] looking at the second one, which says

[33:51] rear perspective,

[33:53] the back of the building is what you

[33:55] would see. But, when you look at the

[33:56] sides and you can see across the street

[33:59] or

[34:00] um to the right, the right there you

[34:02] would actually be looking at the back of

[34:04] the buildings that are downtown. So,

[34:05] you're looking into the alley. Right

[34:07] now, it's showing houses. It's just to

[34:09] help you kind of visualize it, but I

[34:11] think I was taking it a bit literally,

[34:13] so just to help you if you're doing the

[34:16] same as I was. Um And then across the

[34:19] street, that isn't quite what you would

[34:21] see. On the left-hand side, you would be

[34:23] seeing kind of a little bit where the

[34:26] new parking lot's going to be and where

[34:28] the Journey um

[34:31] support and the

[34:33] um

[34:34] the I was going to say the laundromat

[34:36] is. So, I don't know how much you would

[34:38] see from that view, but it would

[34:40] generally be that. So,

[34:41] um if that helps orient yourself, so

[34:43] you're just standing behind the building

[34:45] now, um a little bit where the the plaza

[34:49] kind of ends now. So, if you were in the

[34:51] parking lot of the plaza near the tech

[34:53] shop or where the the dry cleaner is and

[34:55] looking that way, that's kind of what

[34:56] you would see.

[34:58] Um, does that make sense? Is everyone

[35:00] kind of nodding their like, I get it

[35:01] now.

[35:01] Cuz maybe you could figure this out

[35:03] easier than me, but I was just like,

[35:05] where are these buildings? And I thought

[35:06] I was on the wrong street picturing

[35:08] something different. But, um otherwise,

[35:10] the renderings are quite lovely. They're

[35:12] very detailed and it really helps us to

[35:14] kind of picture what it might look like.

[35:16] And so, uh we appreciated them

[35:18] otherwise. And Blake didn't He's not

[35:20] objecting to trying to just maybe update

[35:22] them a little bit. We couldn't get it in

[35:23] time for this meeting, but um cuz I only

[35:26] gave feedback about that last week. So,

[35:29] um they're not magicians, but I mean,

[35:31] they're pretty fast, but not that fast.

[35:33] But, if we do need to um update them for

[35:36] the council report, we can do that or

[35:38] even just for the public record.

[35:40] Um, so if that's enough detail that

[35:42] people feel like they can start

[35:43] conversation, if you have any questions,

[35:45] I'm happy to answer it about the timing

[35:47] of the two files or any of that. Um,

[35:49] site plan control is a a 60-day

[35:51] turnaround, so we'll be wrapping that up

[35:53] really, really shortly.

[35:55] » Excellent. Thank you for that. That's uh

[35:57] that's wonderful information.

[35:59] Um, questions or comments from the

[36:00] committee?

[36:02] Uh, well, yeah, go ahead, sir.

[36:04] » Uh, does he plan to take uh away

[36:10] um

[36:13] where the laundry is and all

[36:17] cuz that's

[36:21] What street is that?

[36:23] Throwbridge.

[36:26] If you go in Throwbridge and you turn

[36:29] into the I call it a mall or whatever,

[36:32] um

[36:33] the church is on one side and all those

[36:37] other uh

[36:40] businesses, are they going to be torn

[36:42] down in this?

[36:45] » Uh through you, Mr. Chair. So, yes, in

[36:48] phase two, um that is the proposal. So,

[36:50] right now we're only looking at the

[36:51] first L-shaped building, but the second

[36:53] building is proposed that plaza would be

[36:56] redone.

[37:01] » Uh Nancy, please go ahead.

[37:03] » What sort of commercial activities do

[37:06] they envision going in the the um ground

[37:08] floor?

[37:12] » Through you, Mr. Chair. I don't know if

[37:14] Bill can confirm if Blake is on the

[37:15] line.

[37:18] He is. Okay, so perhaps Blake could

[37:20] answer that question. He might have a

[37:22] better understanding of like what

[37:23] they're what they're going to go for or

[37:25] or market to.

[37:26] » Okay, excellent. Uh good afternoon,

[37:28] Blake. How are you today?

[37:29] » Doing very well, thank you. Can everyone

[37:31] hear me okay?

[37:32] » Yeah, we can hear you loud and clear. Uh

[37:34] thanks for being here and um I hope you

[37:36] heard Nancy's question. She just was uh

[37:38] curious about what types of businesses

[37:40] might be occupying the uh the lower

[37:41] level units.

[37:43] » Yeah, that's no problem at all. Uh I

[37:44] don't know if my video's showing as

[37:46] well, but that's okay. I

[37:48] I I was hoping to be there in person

[37:49] today, but unfortunately scheduling

[37:51] would not allow that to happen. Uh so,

[37:53] I'll I'll answer everybody's questions

[37:55] as well as I'm able to, but uh no,

[37:57] thanks for the question, Nancy.

[37:59] Um right now the anticipation for the

[38:00] commercial uses would be a mix of I

[38:03] would say service and uh service

[38:06] adjacent uses. So, we've talked to our

[38:10] tenants and we've tried to be as

[38:11] transparent as we can with our tenants

[38:12] on all four properties uh throughout the

[38:15] duration of this project over the last

[38:16] several years.

[38:18] Um

[38:18] our goal would be to allow anyone in the

[38:21] existing structures who wants to to have

[38:24] first priority to move into the new

[38:26] structure.

[38:27] So, I guess that would be the first

[38:28] thing. Any of the existing businesses we

[38:30] would be trying to move them into the

[38:31] new building phase one prior to

[38:33] demolition of phase two.

[38:35] Um if that

[38:38] if if there are spaces remaining after

[38:40] those businesses move over, then we'd be

[38:42] looking at primarily service use.

[38:46] » Excellent. Thank you, Blake. Nancy, does

[38:48] that answer your question okay?

[38:51] » It it does. Um I'm concerned about, you

[38:54] know, the downturn in the economy and

[38:59] you know, whether the whether

[39:01] the need for

[39:02] um

[39:04] I know that downtown Meaford needs some

[39:07] rejuvenation.

[39:10] And it's it's will be good if the if the

[39:13] phase two businesses have opportunity to

[39:15] move over into into this building.

[39:18] Um

[39:19] I'm just wondering if if the need in

[39:21] Meaford is is large enough at at this

[39:25] point to um

[39:27] accommodate this

[39:29] these new um buildings.

[39:32] » Yeah, that's entirely fair. So, it would

[39:34] not be our anticipation at all to, you

[39:36] know, remove anybody from an active

[39:38] business. Um we would not be proceeding

[39:40] with the demolition of phase two until

[39:43] likely after we have the commercial

[39:46] space in phase one leased out.

[39:48] If that provides a little bit of

[39:49] comfort. And I know now we're kind of

[39:51] leaving the uh the scope of the

[39:53] heritage committee, but I I do

[39:55] definitely want to address that concern

[39:56] cuz it's something we've heard before.

[39:59] » Excellent. Thank you for that

[40:01] information, Blake. We appreciate that.

[40:03] Any other questions from the committee

[40:05] here? David, yes, sir.

[40:08] » I'm just wondering if your intent is to

[40:13] um

[40:15] All right. Maybe it's a town's intent,

[40:17] it needs to have approval for the whole

[40:19] development before demolition of any

[40:22] phase.

[40:23] Is is that the intent of of uh this

[40:26] whole development?

[40:29] » Yeah, that's No, that's a good question.

[40:31] And so I'll I'll maybe defer to Denise

[40:33] at some point here shortly cuz there's

[40:35] still a few technical details to work

[40:37] out in the background.

[40:38] Um but the way that we've approached

[40:40] this is that it's really two separate

[40:41] developments. We're providing a master

[40:43] plan to help provide context around how

[40:46] this would all play out.

[40:48] Um but we're treating it as phase one

[40:50] and phase two, two separate

[40:52] developments, entirely distinct from a

[40:54] legal and property perspective. They're

[40:56] They're separate properties.

[40:58] Um but we know that they're going to

[40:59] tie. We would like to provide both a

[41:01] pedestrian connection between Shuter and

[41:04] Nelson, but also a vehicular connection

[41:07] between Shuter and Nelson, which doesn't

[41:08] exist today.

[41:09] Um so for that reason we've provided

[41:12] phase one and phase two

[41:14] as a uh uh combined master plan. All

[41:17] we're seeking approval for today is the

[41:19] demolition of 19 Nelson

[41:21] and the development at 19 and and uh 21

[41:24] Nelson. So so just the Nelson Street

[41:26] side for today. We are still showing

[41:29] that connection between the parking

[41:30] facilities and the drive aisle for fire

[41:32] access. Um but we're not actually

[41:35] seeking approval on the Shuter side

[41:36] today. So we're not asking for

[41:38] permission to demolish the Shuter side

[41:40] or what you had referred to previously

[41:42] as the mall uh or the strip plaza. We're

[41:45] not We're not looking to demolish that

[41:46] today. We're going to keep that active.

[41:48] We don't intend to remove anybody from

[41:50] those spaces today.

[41:53] » Excellent. Blake, thank you for that. Uh

[41:55] Denise, did you want to come in on any

[41:56] anything?

[41:58] » I don't I don't know if I need to, but

[42:01] if um the question's still open and

[42:02] there's a couple details to add, I can

[42:04] absolutely add them.

[42:05] » Okay. Thank you.

[42:07] There's no Okay, any other questions

[42:09] from the committee? Um I do have a

[42:10] question with regards to the peer

[42:13] review. That seems to be one of the most

[42:14] important components to this whole

[42:16] process. Uh, so Denise, are you able to

[42:18] walk us through what is sort of our

[42:20] timeline we expect for that peer review

[42:22] to be completed? Um, and is that going

[42:25] to be coming back to the Heritage

[42:26] Committee for further review? Like, what

[42:28] what would that look like?

[42:33] » Thank you, Mr. Chair. So, the the peer

[42:35] review, I haven't reached out to anyone

[42:37] to ask about timelines yet, but once if

[42:40] that was supported through this, so for

[42:42] example, if Council if the committee

[42:45] recommends the peer review um take place

[42:48] and Council also endorses that, then we

[42:51] would start that process. My

[42:53] understanding is that um

[42:56] we have do have a vendor we can use who

[42:58] has used to, like I mentioned, um

[43:01] we have used before, but we could also

[43:03] find out what the timeline might be if

[43:06] there was no ability to get this done in

[43:08] a reasonable timeframe. We could go to a

[43:09] different vendor.

[43:11] Um, but I don't have an answer yet and

[43:13] and certainly we recognize that an

[43:15] applicant or owner is also really

[43:17] concerned about those timelines because

[43:19] this could affect the date that they get

[43:21] started on their project.

[43:23] If the committee would like to see the

[43:26] peer review results before finally

[43:29] endorsing it, we could bake that in as

[43:32] well or if they just you just wanted to

[43:34] suggest um if the peer review uh right

[43:38] you know

[43:40] accepts the findings of the HIA

[43:43] and supports it, then we don't need to

[43:44] come back. Um, and just continue on with

[43:48] the recommended uh inclusions of what it

[43:51] I basically put them in from the report.

[43:54] So, the report itself I had the

[43:56] recommendations and I've added them into

[43:58] this report as part of the the

[44:00] recommendation for approval.

[44:02] And if anything needed to change, so if

[44:04] there was a question that came up that

[44:05] one more thing needed to get added. Um,

[44:08] it's possible that if there was a

[44:09] significant change that came up through

[44:11] the peer review that we would need to

[44:13] come back to the committee or at least

[44:14] council. It's something that the

[44:16] committee could decide um, what their

[44:18] the comfort level it is.

[44:19] » Okay, excellent. That perfectly answers

[44:21] my question. That that was my concern. I

[44:22] just wanted to make sure that if there

[44:24] was any anything that came up through

[44:25] the peer review that we would have a

[44:27] chance to discuss it whether it's the

[44:28] Heritage Advisory Committee or Council.

[44:31] Um, so that's that's wonderful. Just a

[44:33] couple of comments that I have is

[44:36] through the impact assessment that was

[44:37] provided here with the report.

[44:40] It is quite evident that there is

[44:41] significant structural issues with this

[44:44] with this current building. And you

[44:46] know, while

[44:48] you know, a core key pillar for Heritage

[44:51] Conservation is to sort of preserve at

[44:53] all costs.

[44:54] But it's it's quite evident looking at

[44:56] the the impact report that

[45:00] any effort to restore this building

[45:01] would be completely cost prohibitive and

[45:03] may not even be feasible at all.

[45:06] So when we look as our

[45:08] responsibilities of the Heritage

[45:09] Advisory Committee, we always try to

[45:10] preserve heritage buildings, you know,

[45:12] whenever possible unless of course as

[45:14] it's been identified we have significant

[45:16] structural issues that really can't be

[45:18] remedied

[45:20] in any feasible manner.

[45:21] I do think that the renderings if the

[45:23] final building looks anything like the

[45:25] renderings, I think it's I think they

[45:27] look great. And I do think to Denise's

[45:29] comment that they do really complement

[45:32] the surrounding area in the Heritage

[45:34] District. And

[45:35] so that would be that would be wonderful

[45:37] to see. Okay, so I'll just last last

[45:41] opportunity for questions or comments.

[45:43] Nancy, please go ahead.

[45:45] » I'm just maybe this has already been

[45:46] answered but just to clarify parking on

[45:49] the on for this structure.

[45:52] Residential parking is behind and

[45:55] commercial

[45:57] or customer parking is that at the

[46:00] front.

[46:04] Um so through you, Mr. Chair. So,

[46:06] customer parking would be street parking

[46:09] um or in the municipal parking lots. So,

[46:11] there is a municipal parking lot across

[46:13] the street um that is in the process of

[46:15] being redone. Um I don't know if it's

[46:17] this year. I'm looking around going,

[46:19] "Does anyone know?" Maybe Maybe

[46:20] Councillor Boudreau knows. Um I think

[46:22] it's supposed to be this year or maybe

[46:24] soon. And that would also add a lot of

[46:26] add a lot of parking to this area

[46:28] because right now it's just gravel and

[46:29] not really well defined. So, the

[46:31] downtown commercial buildings don't

[46:34] require their own parking on site

[46:37] because of the nature of a downtown. So,

[46:38] they we tend to aggregate that parking

[46:40] into parking lots that the municipality

[46:42] maintains or street parking.

[46:45] » Okay. And uh Denise here um

[46:47] comment about the parking lot um a few

[46:49] council meetings ago. We just did did

[46:52] approve the um

[46:54] the the project itself. Um I don't

[46:56] recall off the top of my head when

[46:57] that'll happen, but my my if I had to

[47:00] guess, my my understanding was that it

[47:01] would be done sometime this year.

[47:03] Um so, hopefully it is. Sooner the

[47:04] better. Um but it has been approved by

[47:06] council. It was approved by the budget.

[47:08] So, um that will be happening uh

[47:10] regardless.

[47:11] Um okay. Uh less questions, comments

[47:14] from anybody here at the table?

[47:16] Okay. Uh wonderful. Um now uh

[47:19] Sorry?

[47:20] » Thank

[47:20] » Oh. Uh yeah. Uh Blake, uh any uh

[47:22] comments, my friend?

[47:24] » Yeah, sorry. I I didn't want to

[47:25] interject there, but just as an

[47:26] additional point on the parking item. Uh

[47:28] it's something that's come up

[47:29] frequently. I know that this is the

[47:31] first time that this proposal has come

[47:33] forward to the Heritage Committee, but

[47:34] just something that I wanted to flag for

[47:35] the room is that we've actually been

[47:37] discussing this site now for about 4

[47:39] years. Um and in some of the initial

[47:41] conversations with staff, uh there was

[47:43] actually a preference to push for a zero

[47:45] parking provision on this site. That is

[47:47] something that I've always been

[47:49] steadfastly against for obvious reasons.

[47:53] Um there there's a there's a real

[47:56] there's a real challenge with providing

[47:57] zero parking in almost any facility and

[47:59] I don't want to suggest even for a

[48:01] second that um

[48:02] our senior planner in the room, Denise,

[48:04] has spoken for that. That's not at all

[48:06] what I'm trying to suggest. Uh but there

[48:08] has been conversation about that zero

[48:09] parking provision in the C1 zone.

[48:11] Um that doesn't apply to residential,

[48:13] accessory residential above commercial

[48:14] spaces, but it does apply to the

[48:16] commercial spaces. So, what we're

[48:17] targeting in the ultimate condition is

[48:19] the preservation of the current parking

[48:21] facilities, right? We're not looking to

[48:23] reduce the parking on site. Uh we're

[48:24] trying to provide a similar or near

[48:27] similar parking

[48:29] uh solution on site. All of the

[48:31] residential would be provided for on

[48:33] site. There would be additional visitor

[48:35] and commercial parking on site. Then it

[48:37] would be overflow parking would be

[48:39] on-street parking for the commercial

[48:41] uses. And then we have the additional

[48:43] municipal parking facilities beyond

[48:44] that. But we're we're not looking to

[48:46] reduce the overall parking on site,

[48:48] really. We're we're trying to maintain a

[48:49] parking component on site even though

[48:51] it's in the C1 zone.

[48:54] » Very good. Thank you for uh providing

[48:55] that clarification, Blake. Uh Nancy,

[48:57] please go ahead.

[48:58] » Um my my only concern is the the

[49:00] on-street parking along that street is

[49:02] already a significant uh

[49:05] I you know, whether it's going into the

[49:07] drugstore or whatever wherever the the

[49:09] people are going, but uh

[49:11] there are the it it already is there are

[49:14] a significant number of cars always

[49:16] parked along that street. So, I I didn't

[49:19] really know about the municipal parking

[49:20] lot, so maybe I just didn't know it was

[49:23] there. So.

[49:23] » [laughter]

[49:25] » But that's good to know there's if

[49:26] they're making uh renovations to that.

[49:28] » Mhm.

[49:29] » Trust me, I've had to park there during

[49:31] uh the uh Christmas on the Bay festivals

[49:33] a few years in a row now and I hear you.

[49:35] » [laughter]

[49:37] » Denise, go ahead.

[49:40] » I was just going to follow up, Mr. Mr.

[49:42] Chair, uh

[49:43] a lot of people probably don't recognize

[49:44] that it's there because it just looks

[49:46] like a gravel

[49:47] space and or probably they don't know

[49:49] whether that's where you should go or

[49:51] not, but I I actually parked there

[49:52] myself when um the other flow overflow

[49:54] lots are or all the other lots are full.

[49:57] We expect that probably it will be

[49:59] better utilized when it's redone because

[50:01] right now it's undefined, so it's really

[50:02] hard to make people park efficiently. So

[50:05] once it's paved and has lines, it should

[50:07] work a little bit better.

[50:09] » It'll be in much better shape when

[50:10] that's all done, that's for sure.

[50:12] All right, is everybody all right ready

[50:14] if I call the question? Okay, all in

[50:16] favor of this agenda item here?

[50:19] Excellent. Okay, well that's been

[50:20] approved uh unanimously. Thank you very

[50:22] much and Blake, thank you for your time.

[50:26] » Wait.

[50:27] Thank you.

[50:29] » All right, folks. So here we go. Uh

[50:31] let's move on with that. Uh that's it

[50:33] today for heritage permit applications.

[50:35] So we are going to be moving on to item

[50:37] number seven, which is items for

[50:39] information.

[50:40] We have HAC 2026-01,

[50:43] the cultural heritage project planning

[50:45] for 2026. Recommendation is that the

[50:48] Heritage Advisory Committee receive

[50:49] report HAC 2026-01,

[50:53] cultural heritage project planning for

[50:55] 2026 for information. Uh can I get a

[50:57] mover and a seconder to put that on the

[50:59] floor, please?

[51:01] Anybody? David first, uh mover. John

[51:03] second, thank you very much.

[51:06] Okay, and uh Denise, I'll let you uh get

[51:08] started with this item if you don't

[51:09] mind, please.

[51:11] » Thank you, Mr. Chair. So this is just a

[51:13] revisit of that report that we um

[51:16] talked about already. So there were a

[51:18] few ideas of projects and um I think

[51:22] we've looked at what our workload is and

[51:24] what high types of projects we think

[51:26] that we were now halfway through the

[51:27] year could launch. And I think the most

[51:30] the easiest low-hanging fruit that we

[51:32] feel very confident that we could start

[51:34] if the committee was interested in would

[51:36] be the cultural or heritage awards

[51:39] program. So um in speaking with Jessica

[51:42] Kenyon, they um

[51:45] the the awards that we've given out for

[51:47] other things, volunteer awards, business

[51:49] awards, things like that. We believe

[51:51] that that one could be easily worked

[51:54] into our regular

[51:56] workload that we have now, and it could

[51:59] be a matter of just starting the project

[52:01] and opening up nominations,

[52:03] and the committee could make be the one

[52:05] that's making the choices or recommend

[52:07] approval of choices to council.

[52:09] We could bring something back further on

[52:12] what it might look like if we want a bit

[52:14] more detail if the committee was willing

[52:16] to recommend moving forward with

[52:18] something like that. We also think some

[52:21] of the other ones, the three that I

[52:23] made as this kind of low-hanging fruit

[52:25] even in at that time was updating doing

[52:27] some better online tools or maps. Those

[52:30] may be a longer-term project that we

[52:33] could start and maybe hope for next year

[52:36] that we would have it live, and it could

[52:37] just be a layer or a couple of layers

[52:39] that are added to existing mapping that

[52:41] we have. We have our own me for GIS

[52:43] system now, and so we would have the

[52:45] ability of working within that system.

[52:47] We wouldn't have to start over or

[52:48] anything like that. But that could be

[52:51] something that we work on over the next

[52:52] few months versus making sure it's in

[52:55] place this year versus when I look at

[52:59] something like the plaque program or the

[53:01] awards program, both of those probably

[53:03] could happen sooner rather than later.

[53:06] But especially I was thinking in

[53:08] speaking with EcDev and and our director

[53:11] as well, the Heritage Awards program

[53:13] probably could be a great candidate to

[53:15] still complete in 2026 without making

[53:18] anybody jump through hoops or backflips

[53:21] or anything like that, and um

[53:24] we'd be happy to move forward bringing

[53:25] another report next month about

[53:28] how we could launch it, and maybe even

[53:30] have it open with a communications plan

[53:32] and and a the ability to open that

[53:34] program.

[53:36] » Excellent.

[53:37] Okay. Denise, thank you for that. So,

[53:40] let's open it up to the uh committee

[53:41] here for questions or comments.

[53:44] Anybody have any contribution? Uh David,

[53:46] go ahead.

[53:47] » I just want to say I think it's a great

[53:49] idea to get the plaque and the awards

[53:51] going sooner

[53:52] than later. I mean, it's uh

[53:54] you know, with with the project on sites

[53:56] that we spoke of earlier

[53:58] where these buildings are uh are in need

[54:01] of, you know, uh of improvement. I think

[54:04] it's let's get it going now. It's

[54:07] energetic.

[54:08] » Yeah. Uh I completely agree. Uh and uh

[54:10] Denise, I have a question for you. So um

[54:13] with regards to say the heritage awards

[54:15] or the plaque program, and I'm certainly

[54:17] in favor of those, um

[54:19] who would be defining the sort of the

[54:21] categories for these? Would that be the

[54:23] responsibility of heritage to provide a

[54:25] recommendation for council's

[54:26] consideration? I'm not really sure how

[54:28] that works.

[54:31] » So thank you, Mr. Chair. The committee

[54:34] could make recommendations on that. We

[54:36] I can think of a couple things they

[54:38] could be built heritage, it could be

[54:40] adaptive reuse, it could be

[54:43] um new projects, it could be um

[54:47] you know, heritage education, it could

[54:49] be other things. So uh I'm certainly

[54:53] open to any of those ideas or we could

[54:55] just

[54:57] you know, make up as many categories as

[54:58] we want, and if nothing happens in a

[55:01] year that we feel that

[55:02] is would be subject to an award or

[55:05] um maybe it's a a slow year with permits

[55:08] or something like that, then we don't

[55:10] have to do it that year, but it would

[55:12] always be available should there be a

[55:14] bunch of projects that could um be

[55:16] recognized. And we also, because it's

[55:18] the if we launch a program like that, we

[55:20] can also go back in time and recognize

[55:23] projects that happened the last few

[55:25] years. So

[55:26] » Oh, that's great.

[55:27] » If a project was built two or three

[55:29] years ago and we didn't have this awards

[55:31] program, and the examples I was looking

[55:33] at, um it looked like other

[55:36] municipalities have done that,

[55:38] especially when the program is washed

[55:40] launched or if there's a very lean year,

[55:41] they might pick catch up another year

[55:43] and do more than one award. So,

[55:47] I think those that's all doable. Um

[55:50] it may be just a list of types that you

[55:53] would want to put forward. So, whether

[55:55] it's adaptive reuse or preservation or,

[56:00] you know, innovation or something like

[56:02] that or

[56:03] um

[56:05] could be not related to the district as

[56:07] well. So, things like heritage education

[56:11] widely. Um I know there's a bunch of

[56:13] things going on right now with other

[56:16] entities like the museum, Grey Roots

[56:18] Museum, and I think there's also a

[56:20] communities

[56:21] um talking about the hamlets and things

[56:24] like that that's happening right now

[56:26] from an education standpoint.

[56:28] Those things could also get an award,

[56:31] for example. It doesn't have to be

[56:32] district related. It could just be

[56:33] heritage in general. Um

[56:36] or someone who's done some outstanding

[56:38] res preservation work or a champion of

[56:40] heritage in the community, those sorts

[56:42] of things. So,

[56:44] » Okay. And Vera, that's very good. One

[56:46] recommendation what I would like to see

[56:49] is

[56:49] in the to your comment, adaptive reuse,

[56:51] of course. That's a big one.

[56:53] Other things that are sort of more in

[56:54] the vein of sustainability like that.

[56:57] Something to the effect of like a

[56:58] heritage like a stewardship award or

[57:00] something, you know, to recognize folks

[57:03] or businesses that take the time and an

[57:05] effort to maintain

[57:08] their existing heritage property.

[57:10] And I think that, you know, things or

[57:13] sustainable heritage award where

[57:16] we have somebody with a heritage

[57:17] property and they're taking

[57:19] sustainability initiatives to maybe make

[57:21] their building more energy efficient,

[57:23] for example, or they're just using a

[57:26] heat pumps or more, you know, innovative

[57:28] technologies.

[57:29] Being able to recognize and reward that.

[57:31] So, I think that sustainability

[57:32] component is is huge because of course

[57:35] the most sustainable building is the one

[57:36] that's already built. And that really

[57:40] that's conducive to what

[57:42] heritage conservation is all about. So,

[57:45] I really do like that. So, question if

[57:48] we do approve this

[57:51] this agenda item for information

[57:53] purposes. So, the timeline that you're

[57:55] coming just so I understand

[57:57] that would

[57:59] would council be approving this or

[58:01] requesting a report and then these items

[58:04] that are all mentioned here, you know,

[58:06] updating the mapping, the awards, the

[58:08] plaques, etc. Would those be all

[58:10] included and the report would sort of

[58:12] lay out what all those would look like?

[58:14] Maybe you can just walk us through like

[58:15] what the next steps would be after we

[58:17] approve if we approve this today.

[58:21] » Thank you, Mr. Chair. So, my thought

[58:23] would be if there was a recommendation

[58:26] to or even just like positive feedback

[58:29] on this, we could come back next meeting

[58:33] with a recommendation for a program. So,

[58:36] for example, if it is the Heritage

[58:37] Awards program, we could launch that

[58:39] this year. We could bring back maybe a

[58:41] suggested categories the community could

[58:44] pick from and then make a recommendation

[58:45] of to council to approve a Heritage

[58:48] Awards program. We have a budget set

[58:50] aside already for of a thousand dollars

[58:52] for this year. So,

[58:54] um

[58:55] that the council's already put that

[58:56] budget in place. Okay.

[58:58] » Excellent.

[58:59] Um and so are we as the committee being

[59:02] asked to identify which of these

[59:05] initiatives we want to recommend or if

[59:08] we approve it the document as is or we

[59:10] just sort of saying let's go ahead with

[59:12] all of them and see what that would look

[59:14] like

[59:16] if we were kind of mapping those things

[59:17] out.

[59:20] » So, thank you, Mr. Chair. So, I think we

[59:22] are just looking for feedback right now

[59:24] versus a direction like an actual formal

[59:27] recommendation to council or anything

[59:29] cuz I we did we just put it in the

[59:30] information section.

[59:32] And if we had a sense of what the

[59:34] committee was looking for, what they

[59:36] would like to prioritize, then staff

[59:38] were thinking we would go back and start

[59:39] putting more teeth to this.

[59:42] Um cuz right now these are just items

[59:43] for suggestion and I gave some links to

[59:46] other places to kind of look at what

[59:47] they're doing.

[59:48] Um if that

[59:51] there was a a sense of like, "Hey, yes,

[59:53] we want to do a map. That's the most

[59:55] important one or or plaque is the most

[59:57] important one or the awards or there's a

[59:59] different one that we haven't thought

[1:00:00] of." We could come back with the outline

[1:00:03] at next meeting. So, if the next I'm

[1:00:05] just wondering looking over at Derek for

[1:00:07] is the next meeting in 2 months from now

[1:00:09] or is it 2 months from July?

[1:00:11] Or is it July?

[1:00:14] Okay, so it's a month. Okay. So,

[1:00:17] um

[1:00:18] if that So, if that makes sense, we

[1:00:20] could we would just be looking for kind

[1:00:22] of the general feedback of what to maybe

[1:00:24] put together.

[1:00:25] » True.

[1:00:26] » Um I think probably at least two things

[1:00:28] could get started. Probably the words

[1:00:31] from could be could be launched before

[1:00:33] the end of the year and we could have

[1:00:34] awards versus the map may take a few

[1:00:37] more months of planning of what we want

[1:00:39] to put in, but we could still start it

[1:00:41] and um and move forward with it. We just

[1:00:44] maybe wouldn't have it all done by the

[1:00:45] end of this this particular year

[1:00:47] calendar year. It might be a 1-year

[1:00:49] project, for example.

[1:00:51] » Okay, thank you. And I hope that gives

[1:00:53] uh the committee a better understanding

[1:00:54] of what we're being asked uh for today.

[1:00:56] Um so, any questions or comments with

[1:00:58] regards to these different initiatives?

[1:01:00] Um anything anybody likes, anything they

[1:01:02] don't like? Um

[1:01:04] the staff are looking for feedback from

[1:01:05] us. So, um

[1:01:07] if anybody has anything to contribute,

[1:01:08] it'd be appreciated.

[1:01:11] Uh David, thank you.

[1:01:12] » Um I just I I did say, but I I think the

[1:01:14] plaque and the awards, I mean, that's

[1:01:16] something that can get started, what

[1:01:19] we're saying, right away. I think that's

[1:01:21] sort of a a good direction to go

[1:01:24] uh right now and then to do

[1:01:26] uh to do a mapping which would then

[1:01:29] identify hopefully some uh other

[1:01:31] properties and

[1:01:35] other heritage elements that that we can

[1:01:37] discuss on a

[1:01:38] you know, one-off basis. Um

[1:01:41] specific to property, specific to uh

[1:01:44] activities.

[1:01:45] » Mhm.

[1:01:46] » Yeah.

[1:01:46] » Excellent.

[1:01:47] » So.

[1:01:47] » Thank you.

[1:01:48] Um

[1:01:49] what with regards to some of the

[1:01:50] suggested proj- uh projects, of course,

[1:01:52] the um awards, the plaques, the um the

[1:01:55] mapping, those things are all wonderful.

[1:01:58] Something we haven't talked about that I

[1:01:59] think is important when we look at

[1:02:00] long-term heritage preservation is um

[1:02:03] updating the weaker outdated heritage

[1:02:05] designation bylaws.

[1:02:07] Um I think that's something that will

[1:02:08] help future heritage advisory committees

[1:02:10] and help uh help the overall um heritage

[1:02:13] district and heritage buildings in in

[1:02:15] the municipality. And then also um uh

[1:02:18] the project about researching properties

[1:02:21] of interest for potential listing of

[1:02:22] designation. And we don't really know um

[1:02:26] if there are um heritage

[1:02:29] eligible buildings uh that uh are not

[1:02:32] listed or recognized. And um if they do

[1:02:35] uh meet the requirements, then um they

[1:02:36] should be brought into that and

[1:02:38] celebrated and recognized um you know,

[1:02:40] for what they are and their special

[1:02:41] features. So, in addition to the

[1:02:44] projects that we could implement in

[1:02:46] short order, I think long-term those two

[1:02:49] specifically would be um in in in the

[1:02:51] best interest of the municipality for

[1:02:53] preservation um and uh documentation and

[1:02:56] things like that. So, I certainly am in

[1:02:57] favor of those.

[1:02:59] Um and uh any other questions or

[1:03:02] comments for anybody here, no?

[1:03:05] Okay, so um I think we've uh

[1:03:08] had some discussion here. Uh so, that's

[1:03:09] wonderful. And if we don't have any more

[1:03:10] questions or comments, then I'll I'll

[1:03:12] just call the question. And uh oh, is

[1:03:13] this for information? Do we have to

[1:03:14] accept this by vote, Derek? Okay. Uh so,

[1:03:16] I'm just going to call the question. All

[1:03:17] in favor?

[1:03:19] Okay, and that's accepted unanimously.

[1:03:21] Thank you very much for that, everybody.

[1:03:24] And uh let me just get back to my

[1:03:28] screen here.

[1:03:33] Okay, apologies. Here we go. Uh number

[1:03:35] eight on the agenda is committee

[1:03:36] inquiries. Uh this is an opportunity for

[1:03:39] members of the committee to ask

[1:03:41] questions that are heritage related. If

[1:03:42] there's anything on anybody's minds, um

[1:03:44] does anybody have anything they'd like

[1:03:45] to ask about?

[1:03:48] No? Okay, wonderful. So, we'll just move

[1:03:51] on then.

[1:03:52] And uh number nine here on the agenda,

[1:03:53] communications.

[1:03:55] The committee will consider

[1:03:56] correspondence received by members of

[1:03:57] the public during each meeting.

[1:03:59] To share your comments, thoughts, or

[1:04:01] concerns with members of the committee,

[1:04:02] the public can send an email to

[1:04:04] clerk@meaford.ca.

[1:04:06] When emails are received to this email

[1:04:08] address, they uh will be compiled into a

[1:04:10] correspondence list, which is then

[1:04:12] distributed to the committee members

[1:04:14] prior to each meeting. The cover sheet

[1:04:16] of this list will be included on each

[1:04:17] meeting agenda. The contents of the

[1:04:19] correspondence list are not included on

[1:04:21] the public agenda to protect the privacy

[1:04:24] and personal information of those

[1:04:25] residents who choose to send in their

[1:04:27] thoughts and comments.

[1:04:28] And what we have here on the

[1:04:29] communications list is the uh CHO 2026

[1:04:33] spring newsletter.

[1:04:34] Um does anybody have any comments or

[1:04:36] questions with regards to anything on

[1:04:38] the communications list?

[1:04:41] Okay.

[1:04:42] Wonderful.

[1:04:43] » Will there be an opportunity for

[1:04:44] additional input from the public at this

[1:04:46] point or no?

[1:04:49] » Oh, that's Blake.

[1:04:52] » Interesting. Um

[1:04:54] is Is there a point I don't think this

[1:04:56] is the part of the agenda where we don't

[1:04:57] have any public participation, so my

[1:04:58] apologies for that.

[1:05:01] Um all right, so we're going to move on

[1:05:02] to uh number 10. This is the date of the

[1:05:04] next meeting. So, we do have July 8th,

[1:05:06] 2026. And um with that said, I want to

[1:05:09] thank everybody for their time today.

[1:05:11] We'll see you July 8th, and I will

[1:05:12] conclude today's meeting. Thank you very

[1:05:14] much.

Heritage Advisory Committee - 11 Jun 2026

Transcript