[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.