[This transcript was generated automatically from audio using AI and hasn't been reviewed by a person -- it can contain mistakes, including plausible-sounding sentences that were never actually said. Treat it as a starting point, not a verbatim record.]

[24:55] Well, good morning, everyone. I'd like to call this meeting of heritage awful to order and to welcome
[25:01] everybody who's here and those who are watching us online on the town's YouTube channel. And
[25:07] we have three of our committee members who are attending virtually today and I've got them on the screen.
[25:14] Sometimes you'd disappear from the screen during the course of the meetings. So, if you want to speak,
[25:20] you know, you've got to make a lot of noise or something to catch my attention sometimes.
[25:24] Our meeting is open to the public, and we invite delegations. Anyone who wishes to delegate
[25:30] at any of our meetings, though, has to register by noon on the business they prior to
[25:35] the meeting, whether they want to attend virtually or in person. You would go to the
[25:42] town website and under genders and meetings where you can actually get a copy of the agenda
[25:48] of today's meeting if you want to follow along with it. There is also an easy way to
[25:53] register as a delegate. And then that way we can make, especially if you're remote, the necessary
[25:59] arrangements for your attendance. We have three discussion items on the agenda today and one
[26:06] information item and a reminder that we are an advisor or a committee and any advice that we may
[26:14] give to Council would be dealt with at its meeting on September 8, 630 and they have the same rules
[26:22] with respect to delegations as we do, you have to register by noon on the business day prior
[26:28] to the meeting. So, have we any regrets, Madam Secretary?
[26:33] Yes, Emma and Jason are regrets. Okay, thank you. Are there any declarations of
[26:39] pecuniary interest with respect to any matters before us today? Seeing none, good, thank you.
[26:44] The next item is the confirmation of the minutes of our last meeting. These were distributed
[26:50] has anyone any comments on these? Would Bob would you like to give me a motion? I think
[26:56] of so your hand go up. Bob has given me a motion to approve the minutes as circulated. Anyone
[27:04] opposed to that motion seen on the motion is approved? Okay, so the first discussion item in
[27:11] the agenda is 4.1 and that's a notice of intention to amend the by-law with respect to make
[27:18] girl public school, and that's crystal.
[27:24] Good morning, Mr. Chair and committee. Sorry, let me just let that.
[27:29] Okay. So today, item 4.1, I will be providing an overview of the proposed amendment to the Heritage designation by law for Maple Grove Public School at 288 Maple Grove Drive.
[27:39] The property is already designated under Part 4 of the Ontario Heritage Act.
[27:43] So today I'll be talking about the background of this designation.
[27:46] Why staff are recommending an amendment and what changes are proposed as part of that and next steps in the process?
[27:53] So the school is located on the west side of Maple Grove Drive between Devon Road and Oakville Drive
[28:00] Albian, haven't you? Sorry I wrote down a lot. It consists of two historic portions as well as some later additions
[28:07] Maple Grove School has a long history at this location beginning with the construction of the original one room school house in 1872
[28:14] It was then designated under Part 4 of the Heritage Act through Biola 1993-055.
[28:21] This existing designation recognizes the one room schoolhouse portion of the school.
[28:25] It was subsequently expanded in 1934 when a brick edition was constructed at the front.
[28:30] This edition was designed by George Molesworth, an architect who lived in Oakville and completed
[28:35] a number of commissions in the community.
[28:37] Stafford now recommending that this existing Biola be amended to recognize this 1934 edition.
[28:43] As part of the amendment, staff are also taking the opportunity to update the heritage attributes
[28:48] of the One Room Schoolhouse, this will provide a more complete and accurate description
[28:51] of the Heritage Features that we made.
[28:54] It's important to note at this point that the property owners are supportive of this proposed
[28:58] amendment and have participated in the Biola Amendment process.
[29:03] The proposed amendment would update the statement of cultural heritage value to provide more
[29:07] detail about the significance of the original 1872 schoolhouse and to recognize the architectural
[29:12] and historical significance of the Molesworth edition.
[29:15] For the 1872 schoolhouse, sorry, staff are proposing to
[29:19] describe the attributes in greater detail, and for 34
[29:22] addition, new attributes will be identified regarding its
[29:25] architectural character and historical associations.
[29:28] The legal description will also be updated through a reference plan.
[29:31] This is intended to clearly identify the two historic portions
[29:34] that are being included in the amended designation,
[29:37] and will not apply to the entire to all the other additions
[29:40] as part of the property.
[29:43] So, the proposed statement of significance, the updated statement of significance, identify
[29:48] three main areas of heritage value, the design and physical, the historical and associative
[29:53] and the contextual value.
[29:54] From a design perspective, the 1872 schoolhouse is significant as a surviving age.
[30:00] Example of the one room school houses once common throughout Ontario. The 1934 edition is an interpretation of the Jordan revival style with several tutor revival influences.
[30:10] It is also significant because of its association with Georgie Molesworth, the prominent local architect from Oakville.
[30:17] There's also historical and associate of value associated with both portions of the school house. The 1872 building is connected to the development of Ontario's public education system.
[30:26] and the changes that followed the 1871 School Law Improvement Act.
[30:31] As enrollment increased, the original One Room School House was no longer able to accommodate the needs of the community,
[30:37] eventually leading to the 1934 edition construction, and the transition away from the One Room School House model.
[30:44] Finally, Maple Grove School has been physically, historically, and visually connected to this location for more than 150 years.
[30:50] It continues to be recognized as a landmark in South East Oakville.
[30:54] So, as noted, the proposed amendment will also list the heritage attributes of each building
[30:59] at the, in the by-law itself, this clearly identifies the physical features that contribute
[31:04] to the heritage value of the property.
[31:06] So, they're just listed briefly here on the slide, but just to summarize for the one-room
[31:10] schoolhouse, the proposed attributes include the Stucco-clad exterior walls, original window
[31:15] openings on the north and south elevations, Gable and Roof and the simple design of the building.
[31:20] For the 1934 edition, we have the Redbrook exterior and foundation detailing.
[31:26] Hipped roof, the entranceway with decorative wood surround, side lights and trance some,
[31:31] the wood phasio and sofits, chimney and the vented wood cupola on the top.
[31:37] There are also several tutor revival influences as noted in the slide.
[31:41] And so here we just have briefly some photos.
[31:43] This is the Molesworth edition from Maple Grove Drive.
[31:46] there is the entrance way and the chimney from the south elevation and the one room
[31:53] schoolhouse portion at the rear and here are both of them from the south elevation.
[32:01] So, it's staff recommendation that pursuant to subsection 30.13 of the heritage of
[32:06] the Ontario Heritage Act.
[32:08] A notice of intent to amend by 1993-055B issued for the property, municipality known as
[32:15] and if Council agrees with this recommendation at their next meeting, the notice will be provided to the owner and a public 30 day objection period will follow.
[32:23] If no objections and amending bylock can then be brought forward for passage.
[32:28] And I can answer any questions anyone may have.
[32:31] Thank you, Kristen.
[32:32] Seems a nice tidying up of the situation.
[32:36] Are there any questions of the question?
[32:39] No, good. And we have no delegations indicated for this, so we're confined to the board,
[32:45] any discussion, any thoughts? Would somebody like to give me a motion to approve?
[32:52] Russ, thank you. Russ has given me a motion to accept the staff recommendation,
[32:56] any further discussion on that motion, anyone opposed to that motion? The motion is carried.
[33:01] Thank you. So the next item on our agenda is item 4.2 which has a notice of intention to
[33:13] designate metal bridge park and that's again crystal. It's me all morning, so. All right. Thank you
[33:23] Mr. Chair and Committee. So as noted, item 4.2 today is a recommendation to issue a notice
[33:29] of intention to designate the commemorative barn shade structure at Metal Ridge Park under section 29
[33:34] of the Ontario Heritage Act. The structure was created using salvage materials from the former
[33:39] Wellesman barn, which was located at 1297 Dundas Street East. The purpose of the designation
[33:44] is to conserve those surviving heritage materials, a similar designation occurred at 307 iron side
[33:50] drive, or feathers don't park at in 2021. The recommendation just to note is not to designate
[33:56] entire park it is for the to focus specifically on the salvaged wood and metal elements in the
[34:01] shade structure and I will note that the property is now under town ownership.
[34:07] So subject property as noted is that metal ridge park which is in north oakville on the north
[34:11] side of wheat boom drive east of John McCable of art and west of metal ridge drive the park was
[34:16] selected as an appropriate location for the commemorative structure as it is relatively close to
[34:21] the original location of the barn approximately 450 meters away and this is an area
[34:26] of when it was under construction, but it is now complete the perk.
[34:31] The property at 1297, Dundas Street, East had a long history of agricultural use.
[34:36] The Wellesman family owned the property from 1939 to 1946, and constructed the barn during that period.
[34:43] The barn itself incorporated both new and older materials. Some of the hand-hewn beams
[34:47] appear to have been salvaged from an earlier 19th century barn likely located on the property.
[34:52] This means that the materials now incorporated into the commemorative structure
[34:55] represent multiple periods of agricultural history.
[35:00] The current structure is a result of a conservation and commemorative process that began in 2022.
[35:05] When demolition of the original Barn and Farmhouse was proposed as part of a subdivision,
[35:09] the cultural heritage evaluation report determined that both structures had cultural heritage value.
[35:14] As part of Council's approval of the demolition, staff required that heritage materials from the barn be salvaged and stored.
[35:20] With the attention they would be eventually incorporated into a commemorative feature.
[35:23] A heritage easement agreement was put in place to ensure that salvage and reuse of those materials occurred in accordance with a conservation plan.
[35:32] The barn was dismantled in 2024, material salvaged, and the shade structure completed in 2026.
[35:38] Heritage Planning staff visited the site in July of 2026 to determine if the structure followed the easement agreement and conservation plan.
[35:46] It was determined it was in general accordance with the proposed conservation plan.
[35:50] There were some changes made during the work, but this was approved by heritage planning staff during the process.
[35:55] So this designation represents the final step in the conservation and commemorative process for the barn established through that heritage easement agreement.
[36:04] Items that were salvaged include barnboard cladding, hand-hewn beams, sawn beams, metal elements, and the easement agreement also stipulated to include a heritage plaque commemorating and interpreting the history which can be seen here on the slide.
[36:17] The barnboard cladding was restored and installed on the roof insides of the shade structure.
[36:22] Handhune and son beams were also reused, where some of the original beams were no longer structurally suitable,
[36:28] modifications were made to allow them to remain visible and conserved.
[36:31] For example, some beams were sewn into boards and used to encase steel structural posts.
[36:37] And as noted, a heritage plaque has been installed to explain the history of the barn and the materials.
[36:43] Under Ontario Regulation 906, a property must meet at least two criteria to be considered for designation.
[36:50] In this case, staff have determined the property needs two criteria.
[36:53] It has design and physical value because the materials derived from a representative example of an early 20th century bank barn,
[37:00] which itself incorporated earlier materials from a earlier barn.
[37:04] Second, it has historical and associative value because the materials have a direct association with the long history of agriculture on the farm property
[37:12] and agricultural development of Trafalgar Township.
[37:16] Here are just some slides to show what it looks like right now.
[37:20] This is from the side, both sides.
[37:23] You can see the playground in the park in the background as well.
[37:27] There's the plaque a bit zoomed out to show the structure behind it.
[37:30] The barren boards on the roof.
[37:34] So based on this evaluation, staff are recommending that notice be issued under section 29 of the Ontario Heritage Act of the intention to designate the commemorative structure at Middle Ridge Park at 360 Middle Ridge Drive.
[37:47] It council agrees with this recommendation. Notice is provided to the owner and a public 30 day objection period follows. If no objections, a by-law can then be brought forward for passage.
[37:56] So that's it for me, if anyone has questions.
[37:58] Good. Thank you, Krishna.
[38:01] Another nice item on the agenda. Any comment? Any questions of
[38:06] Krishna? Jay?
[38:10] I didn't see the metal pulley, Kristen.
[38:14] Maybe we need to do that.
[38:16] Sorry. Through you, Mr. Chair.
[38:17] Do you remember Jerry?
[38:19] It is there. I just didn't include the photo.
[38:21] I just forgot a photo, but it is there in the ceiling.
[38:23] Sorry. That's fine.
[38:25] But it is there.
[38:25] Okay. Good. Good. Okay. Any, so there's no other delegation for this matter. So we're
[38:33] confined to the board. Any discussion, Jerry?
[38:36] Oh, thank you, Mr. Chair. I think this is a lovely, successful example of an adaptive
[38:43] reuse of materials of a heritage barn. And it's nice to see that it's a, it's a commemorative
[38:49] structure and it goes on to the next generations and it's useful as a playground and as a
[38:55] structure, so I'm really happy to see this and to see it as it made it today. Thank you.
[39:00] Thank you. Thank you.
[39:02] Any further comments? So we're ready for a motion.
[39:06] Thank you, Kerry. Kerry has given me the motion to approve our take.
[39:10] Absorb the staff recommendation into our motion.
[39:13] Any further discussion on that motion?
[39:16] Anyone opposed to that motion?
[39:18] Seeing none, the motion is carried. Thank you.
[39:21] Okay, so the next item in the agenda is 4.3.
[39:23] three. This was a night time that was deferred from our last meeting and concerns the work at 65
[39:30] Thomas Street. This is Chris and again. Thank you, Mr. Chair. This is the last time you'll hear
[39:37] from here for me this morning. So item 4.3 today is an update on the Heritage Perman Application
[39:44] at 65 Thomas Street for work undertaken without prior approval. As noted, this was previously brought
[39:50] the Heritage Committee at the July 20, 2026 meeting, where it was deferred, sorry, pending further
[39:56] staff assessment on two issues. The application addresses exterior work undertaken without
[40:02] a Heritage permit, including window replacement, soft and facial alterations, new cladding,
[40:07] entranceway alterations, and hard scraping.
[40:11] So the property is in the old Oak Village CD on the
[40:14] east side of Thomas Street and the north side of William Street on a corner law.
[40:18] 65 Thomas Street is a contributing property in the HCD and is subject to the old Oakville
[40:23] HCD plan in guidelines.
[40:26] As noted, the Heritage Cerman application is for a new aluminum soft fit in fascia, replacement
[40:31] of wood windows with vinyl windows, front yard, hard scraping, brick gliding on the north
[40:36] elevation, and changes to the front entrance.
[40:39] Previously, staff issued two notices of unauthorized work in May and in June of 2026 after
[40:45] being notified work was being conducted and when work was continuing without approval.
[40:50] The owner then submitted a Heritage Perman application which staff have processed or are processing as a major heritage permit.
[40:56] At the July 28th, 2026 Heritage Oakville meeting staff recommended approval with conditions to bring the work into compliance with the HCD guidelines.
[41:05] The committee deferred the application to the August 25th meeting and asked staff for more information and assessment of the front entrance
[41:12] and front-harts-gaping alterations, particularly a parking area on the south portion of the property.
[41:18] Today's staff are providing that additional information for the committee's consideration.
[41:24] So we have seen these photos in July, but I am just sharing them again.
[41:28] There are before and after photos as well attached as appendix F.
[41:31] But here we see aluminum soft fit and fascia having been installed over wood.
[41:36] The brick cladding being done on the north elevation, which is a later addition on the property.
[41:42] The previous windows, majority of which were wood, six over six, and the newly installed vinyl to over two windows.
[41:52] And this is the entrance way which has been altered, you can see that before on the left and the current doors on the right.
[42:00] And then just some further out photos of the hard-steeping that's been done, the original or the previous driveway shown on the left,
[42:07] with the flagstone parking area on the bottom right and that is behind kind of the hedges on the
[42:13] fur right of the image on the left, if that makes sense. And then further image on the top right
[42:19] showing that driveway area with the some other hard scraping visible.
[42:30] So the retroactive heritage
[42:31] permit application covers the hard scraping completed in 2025 and the 2026 changes to the windows,
[42:37] office in fascia, cladding, and the entrance way. The application was submitted on June 22,
[42:42] 2026, and new information was brought forward in August after the committee deferral.
[42:48] Staff have assessed each item separately comparing it to its relevant sections in the plan and
[42:52] guidelines. This is documented in detail in the Attached Staff Report. Staff have assessed previous
[42:57] conditions, guideline expectations, work conducted, and how to best comply moving forward.
[43:02] Therefore, the Staff Recommendation retains compatible work while requiring modification or reversal where alterations conflict with heritage conservation objectives.
[43:14] Aside from the new assessment of the front entrance and the driveway, the previous conditions from the July meeting remain the same in order for the work to achieve compatibility with the planning guidelines.
[43:23] These relevant sections are attached as appendixi.
[43:27] To briefly summarize what staff recommended in July, I will briefly go over each item.
[43:31] So, in terms of hard-scaping, the work that was done was a new flagstone front porch installed with the same dimensions as previously.
[43:38] Newstone columns added to each to the porch and the asphalt driveway replaced with flagstone and expanded in some spots.
[43:46] Staff noted the work would have required a heritage permit because of its new materials and changes visible from the public realm.
[43:52] Staff initially found that although the driveway had been modestly expanded and new porch columns installed,
[43:57] alterations and materials were generally compatible with the HCD character.
[44:01] This will be discussed in more details today.
[44:04] In terms of the soft fit and fascia, the contractor had covered over the existing wood with aluminum.
[44:11] The guidelines note that aluminum soft fit and fascia are prohibited on heritage buildings,
[44:15] where those materials did not already exist.
[44:17] Because this property previously had wood, staff did not support this aluminum replacement,
[44:21] and recommended their removal and either restoration of the original wood or replacement of in kind with matching wood profiles where necessary.
[44:32] In terms of the brick cladding, staff visited the site when it was being installed over existing stucco on the north elevation.
[44:39] The north portion of this building is a later addition and does not form part of the original heritage structure.
[44:43] Because of this, staff do not consider the brick installation to remove to involve, sorry, the loss of original historic cladding.
[44:51] But a minor heritage permit would have been required.
[44:54] Brick is an approved material within the district and considered compatible, so staff recommended that the brick cladding be approved.
[45:00] Subject to staff review of the product information. In terms of the window replacement, staff observed that multiple windows had been replaced with vinyl windows without heritage approval. The heritage permit application identified 29 replacement windows in total.
[45:15] Of those, 18 had been existing historic wood windows and had been replaced with vinyl. The previous windows, as you have seen, included six over six wood windows and the replacements are two over two vinyl.
[45:27] This would have required a heritage permit, the old Oakville planning guidelines requires historic window features to be protected and maintained with repair preferred over replacement, and further states that where existing wood windows are replaced, those replacements should be wood.
[45:44] Aluminum clad wood windows can be considered for side and rear elevations.
[45:47] The vinyl windows are not permitted under the planning guidelines.
[45:52] Staff therefore did not support the vinyl replacement windows and recommended replacing
[45:56] the original wood windows with wood and the rest with aluminum cladwood on side and
[46:01] mere elevations.
[46:03] I will note that in the Heritage Permit application there is a document that outlines each
[46:08] window replacement provided by the applicant.
[46:11] The previously wood windows are highlighted in red in that application and this allows us
[46:16] confirm which windows in which locations on the property where originally would moving forward.
[46:24] So committee deferred the report in July so staff could reassess aspects of the driveway
[46:28] and entrance alterations.
[46:30] As noted while most of the hard-scaping is generally compatible with the district and
[46:34] property, the driveway was extended into the south portion of the lot which creates in essence
[46:39] a new friendyard parking area.
[46:41] New friendyard parking spots in the old Oakville Heritage Conservation District are not
[46:45] permitted under the guidelines.
[46:47] Therefore, staff recommend removing the flagstone that has been installed that creates this
[46:52] new parking area, restoring the area to the general previous driveway footprint and installing
[46:58] soft landscaping where it had been previously. The north portion of the driveway may remain,
[47:03] as that was previously paved.
[47:08] Staff undertook a further review of the front entrance in response
[47:11] to the committee's direction. The previous entrance consisted of a single fiberglass door with
[47:16] pain side lights. The side lights are identified on the properties inventory sheet, so staff
[47:20] recognizes that their retention would have been the preferred approach. However, additional historical
[47:25] research provided some important context and archival photographs shows that the existing entrance
[47:30] had already been altered and was not the original configuration of the house. This dark entrance
[47:36] had been a smaller entrance on the south elevation which has since been bricked in and the current
[47:40] entrance was a small side door with a different configuration. As a result, while the previous side
[47:46] sites were an identified feature, staff could not establish that they represented historic fabric.
[47:51] In terms of the new doors, the new doors use a traditional paneled form with glazing and do not
[47:56] introduce a strongly contemporary design. When we consider their arrangement materials and visibility
[48:01] from the realm, public realm, sorry, and relationship to the building, staff considers the entrance
[48:06] to be generally compatible with the heritage character of the property industry. Staff do not
[48:11] consider requiring the reconstruction of a non-historic feature to be proportionate conservation
[48:17] response.
[48:19] As part of the front entrance, there were also previously four small columns that have since
[48:23] been replaced with two larger ones, but because this protocol is also not a historic feature,
[48:27] staff do not have concerns with this replacement.
[48:30] So staff recommend approval of this new entrance, subject to final details being reviewed by
[48:35] staff if any further alterations are still required in this entrance area as part of renovations.
[48:42] So, in summary, staff recommend approval of this heritage permit, subject to the conditions noted in this slide and in the recommendation in the staff report.
[48:50] I'll just summarize them, but the key correct of actions would be to restore or replace the softened fascia and would.
[48:56] Replace the vinyl windows with the appropriate wood or aluminum cloud wood units with final details to be approved by heritage planning staff.
[49:04] Most hard-scaping may remain, but the additional southside parking area should be removed and reworked to generally match the previous driveway footprint.
[49:11] The North Elevation Brick-Cladding and New Entrance are recommended for approval by staff, subject to final review of materials and details.
[49:18] And this permit would expire two years after final counsel approval.
[49:23] So, I can also answer any questions on this item as well. Thank you.
[49:27] Okay, thank you, Chris.
[49:30] Just with respect to the windows that the,
[49:34] at sea. If you've got the 18 wood windows, we'll be removed and replaced with vinyl windows,
[49:42] we replaced with wood windows, so that's wood. And then indeed that the remaining vinyl
[49:47] replacements will be replaced with aluminum plywood, so it's clearly we're able to distinguish
[49:52] or identify which ones are wood and which ones are metal-clanned wood.
[50:00] Through you, Mr. Chair, you mean, I can identify which wood windows had been replaced?
[50:04] Which windows would be replaced with wood and which would be replaced with aluminum cloud wood?
[50:11] So that's clear from the documentation that you have on file.
[50:16] Yes, we would be able to determine which ones would be wood or aluminum cloud
[50:20] and we would have that on file as well.
[50:22] Good. Good.
[50:24] Okay. So any questions? Yes, Jenny.
[50:26] And then carry.
[50:29] Through you, Mr. Chair.
[50:30] Chris, I find this situation of this application really baffling, just wanted to ask, so the applicant, did they proceed with all these exterior renovations without permit?
[50:50] Initially, is this what we're hearing?
[50:54] Through you, Mr. Chair, to the committee member? Yes, this work, oh sorry.
[50:58] Yes, this work was done without a heritage permit and here's playing staff were made aware of work being done.
[51:05] That's when a site visit was first conducted in May and when we issued them,
[51:08] you notice it on authorized work because we do not have a heritage permit on file.
[51:12] And then after that subsequently we were informed of other work that had been done without a permit.
[51:18] Okay, so that the applicant I know would have known that their house was within the heritage five guidelines.
[51:27] When they purchased the property, it would be on title.
[51:31] All right, I would imagine.
[51:32] Yes, designations are on title.
[51:34] I can't speak to what the owner did or did, I don't know.
[51:38] Thank you.
[51:39] Thank you, Kristen.
[51:44] Mr. Chair.
[51:46] Kristen, have we confirmed that all the original wood windows were destroyed at the time of removal?
[51:54] Through you, Mr. Chair.
[51:55] To the committee member, I don't know what if they still have them or if they were destroyed.
[51:59] I know that they remove them for safety concerns, so I don't believe that they would still
[52:05] be around, but that's something we can ask them if they are attending the meeting.
[52:32] Are you there, Bob?
[52:38] We seem to have lost our online feed.
[52:46] There, how's that?
[52:48] Yes, Bob, you're back. Nice to see you. You're looking well.
[52:51] Thank you. This seems to be an egregious,
[52:57] egregious ignoring of heritage permits.
[53:07] Why do these people think they could get away with doing what they've done?
[53:18] That's a good question, Bob, but I don't think any of us here is able to answer that.
[53:24] Okay.
[53:24] you're right, it's it's it seems to be quite quite a great address. Yeah.
[53:32] Okay.
[53:32] Depress
[53:39] just
[53:42] your your Mike's not your Mike's not or just get it down towards you.
[53:46] Russ, there you go. How do we ensure enforcement of what we decide on the assumption
[53:55] that Council would agree with our recommendations? My concern is how does this get enforced?
[54:02] Mr.
[54:06] Powell, and I think Russ was asking that question or you, I don't know if you're
[54:12] able to answer it.
[54:16] Well, in terms of enforcement, we'd work with, subjuniorally for the comments that
[54:22] gave me wish to make, but we would work with both buildings and municipal enforcement
[54:27] services in terms of oversight of the work being done now pursuant to the heritage permit
[54:38] as you recommend in this council adopt.
[54:44] So, our municipal enforcement and service and building services inspectors.
[54:51] After that, if necessary, of charges have to be laid, then there will be prosecutions to the other legal action that might be necessary.
[55:01] Some of that may happen in any case as a result of preceding without a hair to confirm.
[55:07] Thank you.
[55:08] Thank you.
[55:15] Any other comments?
[55:15] Do you want to speak again?
[55:18] Sorry, just as so through you, Mr. Chair, to Mr. Perlin.
[55:23] So has a fine been contemplated for doing this work?
[55:28] We know, obviously, you were very successful recently on the Lakeshore road property in East Oakville.
[55:35] But this is a pretty egregious violation of a heritage permit and heritage property.
[55:44] Of course, I know you.
[55:46] I can speak briefly.
[55:48] I don't know Gabe or Dennis can also add onto it.
[55:51] But through you, Mr. Chair, to the committee member,
[55:55] we always prefer to and try to get the property owner to comply with the guidelines before we do anything like laying charges.
[56:04] This plain charges is what we would consider a later move, a last attempt.
[56:11] The demolition on Lakeshore Road East was quite a different scenario, I believe.
[56:18] So ideally we always get, we comply, we work together to make something ideally that the
[56:23] house is put into compliance so that it fits in with the district.
[56:26] If you just lay charges, nothing has to change on the house.
[56:28] You don't get those windows, you don't get those landscaping features.
[56:31] So, at this time, we have not, hopefully we're not contemplated laying charges.
[56:38] We would ideally move forward with compliance.
[56:41] Hopefully that answers your question.
[56:43] Okay.
[56:44] Okay.
[56:44] Thanks, Kari.
[56:45] Okay.
[56:45] Any other comments?
[56:47] We do have a delegate.
[56:50] Okay.
[56:50] Any other comments?
[56:53] I've got one.
[56:53] Thank you.
[56:55] Yeah.
[56:55] What do you think?
[56:56] I've got one.
[56:56] Pointing out.
[56:57] No hand.
[56:57] Yes.
[56:58] Yes.
[56:58] Thank you. Just wondering to staff if there were any building permits that were required
[57:05] or opened for the work that did take place?
[57:12] Through you, Mr. Chair, to the Councillor. As far as I could tell, there were no building permits
[57:17] applied for and I don't know if any would have been required for the work that was done.
[57:21] There were no new entrances made or windows made as part of this. It was all replacement
[57:26] or alterations, but I can't necessarily speak to what would have been required. That would be
[57:30] to the property owners to determine if building permits zoning were being met. But from what I could tell
[57:37] we don't have any open on it currently. Okay, so if they did then that would have triggered the heritage
[57:43] flag, right? So I mean possibly because they didn't require any permits that's that's how we
[57:49] it wasn't flag for us. Yes, if a building permit isn't required or isn't applied for, we don't get the
[58:00] any other comments? Well, we do have a delegate, a Jesse Sapione, D. F. H. Lawyers and Burlington.
[58:10] And is she there madam secretary? No, Mr. Chair, the delegate is not online.
[58:15] And is that because she hasn't contacted, responded?
[58:23] Okay? So, there is no delegate then for the applicant.
[58:29] Okay, I don't know if there's no delegate for the applicant. We can move right along and it's now confined to the board.
[58:37] We, we cannot, we deferred it last time because we had the opportunity to do so and it was right to do so because a couple of items needed further clarification.
[58:46] We don't have the opportunity to defer it again. I'm just sort of reminding everybody because we're right into the timeline this has to go to council in order to meet the timelines.
[58:54] So, you've had all the information given you over two meetings from the staff and you also
[59:00] had circulated an email from Jane Hortrick who had delegated at the last meeting and wasn't
[59:07] able to delegate today and she's asked a couple of questions and I think we've kind of covered
[59:11] that because the identification of the windows was important for her, but we already have
[59:16] a tight inventory of what would qualify for metalclad and what would qualify otherwise.
[59:23] She is generally in favor of it, but she's raised a couple of good points, which I'm sure you'll take into account as you consider it.
[59:30] So, any discussion from any of the members?
[59:35] Have we discussed this enough, Jerry?
[59:37] If you want to say something.
[59:39] Thank you, Mr. Chair.
[59:41] Again, this is an unfortunate and baffling situation that we're in,
[59:47] Especially because the community is very vocal in this area and it would be surprising
[59:52] if both the contractor and the owner would not have heard some commentary from neighbors
[59:58] about work on their...
[1:00:01] And you know, I fully support Kristen's position on replacement of proper, proper heritage features versus finding, because I think at the end of the day we'd like to see the heritage attributes retained or replaced like with like.
[1:00:24] And so, fines won't get us to our goal and objective unless the fines are more than what the replacement costs would be in which case it would be an incentive to follow the protocol and the guidelines.
[1:00:40] But yeah, this is a sad situation overall, I think. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
[1:00:45] Okay, somebody like to give me a motion.
[1:00:48] Russ, Russ has given me a motion that would essentially reflect the staff recommendation.
[1:00:53] Is there any further discussion on that motion?
[1:00:56] Is anyone opposed to that motion?
[1:00:59] So the motion is carried, so the recommendation won't go to Council for its next meeting.
[1:01:03] And if the applicants are watching, I would remind them again that this is a participated process.
[1:01:08] staff are here to help, and we will provide all the assistance that we can to the owner,
[1:01:14] to their architect or designer, and to the contractor, in order to comply with the guidelines
[1:01:19] in the best way possible to achieve the outcomes that we all should be seeking. So I would encourage
[1:01:26] them to work closely with staff to bring about a good outcome to this. Okay, so the next item on
[1:01:32] Our agenda is information items and item 5.1 is the south oakville residential zoning
[1:01:39] by law review and sort of unusually for an information item.
[1:01:45] We have a Catherine of Buckfield, Buckerfield, who's a senior planner, and she is just
[1:01:52] going to give us a little bit of a presentation on this because these amendments, which have
[1:01:59] all been enacted, but they're part of a package.
[1:02:01] one of the elements of it is how the impact the heritage districts, because we've often found
[1:02:06] clashes where zoning says this, but heritage guidelines say something else. So we're hopeful
[1:02:13] that we're going to hear how all of those sort of difficulties that we encounter from time to time
[1:02:20] have been resolved. Enemy up to you, Katherine.
[1:02:27] Good morning, Mary. I'm sorry. To begin, I apologize I have a
[1:02:32] a cold but I know we'll make it through. Good morning members of the heritage of folk
[1:02:38] advisor committee and members of the public tuning into today's meeting. I'm pleased to be here
[1:02:42] to share information about the recently adopted updates to the zoning by-law that applies to
[1:02:47] the three heritage conservation districts in the town. At the June 15th, 2026 planning and development
[1:02:52] committee meeting council adopted by-law 2026-088 which amended zoning by-law 2014-014 as amended.
[1:03:02] And OLT Order was released on Thursday, August 20th, that brings the new comprehensive
[1:03:07] Residential Zoning Biola Amendment 2026-08 into effect, retroactive to June 15th, date.
[1:03:14] The date was passed, except for the two properties in the town where it will have no
[1:03:18] effect until the appeal by the owner, which is Argo, of those two properties is heard, which is
[1:03:22] at thirty, sixty-nine, dendestrate, west, and thirty, two, seventy-eight, regional road, twenty-five.
[1:03:28] These properties are not located within an HCD in the town.
[1:03:33] As a result, all the properties within the HCDs
[1:03:36] will be subject to the updated regulations.
[1:03:40] Leading up to the changes,
[1:03:41] the comprehensive review was completed
[1:03:43] and a background report in recommendations
[1:03:45] were prepared by Natalie Netherrie planning
[1:03:48] on behalf of the town and presented to April 20th,
[1:03:51] 2026 planning development council meeting
[1:03:53] as part of the statutory public meeting.
[1:03:57] For context, zoning by-law 2014-014 applies generally to land south of Dundas, Street, and North of Highway 4, 7.
[1:04:04] Going forward, I'll be just referring to it as a zoning by-law.
[1:04:10] The focus of the review was further refined to the zoning residential low zones, where detached and semi-detached houses are permitted.
[1:04:17] These properties are also designated residential low under livable oakville.
[1:04:21] You can see these areas depicted in yellow in the map shown on the screen.
[1:04:25] The overall project goal was to clarify and simplify zoning regulations to make them easier to understand and apply, explore reducing the number of residential low zones and apply more equitable practices and improve livability.
[1:04:39] A key way that this was done was through the streamlining of zones to result in only 6 rather than 11 residential low zones.
[1:04:47] The labeling is also updated from RL to R to reduce confusion when applying these updated standards.
[1:04:54] The zero suffix zone is also being updated to now be called the zero suffix overlay.
[1:05:00] Another townwide change that affects the properties within the HCDs is a new regulation implemented
[1:05:06] for the properties, which is residential soft landscaping, which is intended to address storm water
[1:05:12] management. It is being introduced and regulated through three mechanisms. Minimum
[1:05:16] residential softlands keep strip and required yards. Minimum softlands keeping
[1:05:21] as a percentage of the total lot area and a minimum residential softlands
[1:05:25] keeping area as a percentage of the front yard and blanket yard. Through the zoning
[1:05:29] bylaw, a minimum residential softlands keeping requirement definition is
[1:05:35] introduced, which is on the screen. You can see generally vegetation, river rock,
[1:05:41] that kind of thing that you would see in that area.
[1:05:45] On the screen is a diagram that demonstrates that even on our small slots in the town
[1:05:49] a walkway along the side, the house is possible and development will still be functional
[1:05:53] while reducing negative impacts on adjacent homeowners through improved stormwater management.
[1:06:01] Now as part of the learning project staff undertook a review of the existing zoning regulations
[1:06:06] in the town's three residential heritage conservation districts, as you hear, where it's old
[1:06:10] Oakville for a second street interfogger road.
[1:06:13] Public consultation was done through an online survey in 2023 in open house in May 2025.
[1:06:22] The goal of this review was to determine if changes could be made to the existing zoning
[1:06:26] regulations to provide more clarity and simplicity and to ensure that regulations align
[1:06:31] with the plan and guidelines for each each CD.
[1:06:34] Five zoning regulations were included in the review, which was the building height, which
[1:06:37] is the distance between the established grade and the top of the dwelling.
[1:06:40] Front yard setback, the distance between the front line and the house.
[1:06:45] Interior side yard setbacks is the distance between the side line and the house.
[1:06:50] The flankage yard setbacks is the distance between a side line, beside a road and the house.
[1:06:55] Then finally, residential flare area ratio, which is really about the volume of the house.
[1:07:02] Through the review, it was determined that separate site-specific regulations through special provisions for appropriate for each of the HCDs.
[1:07:09] This resulted in updates to Special Prevision 11 for the old Oak Village CD, Special Prevision 12 for 1st and 2nd Street, and the creation is Special Prevision 450 for Trafalgar Road, each CD.
[1:07:22] The details of each of these Special Previsions can be found attached to the memo under item 5.1 to the up-to-date agenda, or by looking at by-law.
[1:07:30] 2020-608. The regulations included in the special provisions considered the broader changes proposed to all the zones across the town. Opportunities for consistency across the HCDs, as well as conformity with the Heritage Conservation District guidelines.
[1:07:48] My first example is building height.
[1:07:50] It's now more consistent across all of the HDDs with a maximum height for a sloped roof
[1:07:55] of 9 meters.
[1:07:57] Whereas for example, an old O-FIL is previously 10.5 at the midpoint, so that's kind
[1:08:02] of resolved as I think it was a very consistent issue where you have existing homes that
[1:08:06] are much lower heights and to become more consistent with our guidelines, we've implemented
[1:08:11] that across.
[1:08:14] Next is our front yard setbacks within the HV's front yards are now going to be determined by the average of each yard of budding the same road,
[1:08:22] established by the nearest dwelling on each side, plus one meter.
[1:08:26] So the intent there is to recognize existing setbacks of heritage structures,
[1:08:30] encouraging a variety of setbacks and ensure new buildings are setback farther from the previous building to minimize impact on adjacent heritage buildings.
[1:08:38] It's another way that we're aligning our guidelines to a second of have it set back and that's going to be happening at the zoning level.
[1:08:47] With our side-daird setbacks, we have a new approach where it's based off of the size of the lot.
[1:08:53] So it's the width that's going to be determining your side-daird.
[1:08:56] But it's not just the simple side-daird, but it's an aggregate.
[1:08:59] So you can have, if you have a minimum requirement of 2.4 meters on each side, you have an minimum aggregate of 7.2
[1:09:07] between the both that's going to result in a variety of side yards, not as much of that cookie cutter conformity, but it's really going to align with the character of the HCDs.
[1:09:21] Next for residential flurry, the percentage has been updated to be based on the lot area rather than just the number of stories.
[1:09:28] The intent of this is to better recognize existing building sizes and allow for buildings proportional to the lot.
[1:09:34] The area of the garage is also included in the calculation to better represent the volume of the home.
[1:09:41] One great thing with this approach is that in the first and second
[1:09:45] street, it didn't previously have an RFA requirement, and under the
[1:09:48] partial provision, it's now included to the better align with the guidelines.
[1:09:57] On this screen includes a diagram demonstrating how residential
[1:09:59] floor areas calculated based on the area of each floor. The ratio is
[1:10:04] calculated by dividing the number, that number, the calculation of
[1:10:09] all the floors by the area of the law. And as far as garages, the approach
[1:10:12] has been updated, toned wide, to regulate the width of the garage within the first three
[1:10:17] meters of the entrance rather than the area. The intent of regulating garages was to
[1:10:22] reduce the dominance and the impact of the garage on the front of the home so that we've
[1:10:26] updated our regulations to really achieve that goal. And then including it in the RFA allows
[1:10:32] us to assess and evaluate the overall massing of the home more effectively. And so now you
[1:10:38] have that previous permission for garage areas
[1:10:41] now included in your RFA requirement.
[1:10:45] And so this should allow for a bit more flexibility
[1:10:47] for residents in terms of how they want to lay out
[1:10:49] the interior, as long as the outside is appropriately designed.
[1:10:53] Again, this further aligns with our guidelines.
[1:10:58] I had my name's Catherine of my contact information
[1:11:02] on the screen if you have any questions
[1:11:04] as you navigate the updates, please feel free to reach out.
[1:11:07] And I'm very pleased to see where this landed. Thank you.
[1:11:11] Chief, thank you very much, Catherine. I mean, right off the bat, we've got the height issue.
[1:11:16] Which was one that has often caused difficulties for us. And the setbacks, too.
[1:11:23] You know, it's good to allow us to be able to have staggered, not just a straight line,
[1:11:29] and to be able to enforce that, but then zoning as well as heritage requirements.
[1:11:32] On the residential floor area you talked, you mentioned volume before. I mean, volume to me would include height.
[1:11:41] You know, there's a ten-foot ceiling or an eight-foot ceiling, but I don't think you mean volume is just simply the square, the square meter of the ground floor and of the second floor and of the third floor or whatever if it's habitable.
[1:11:54] That added together would be the residential floor area, right?
[1:11:59] Through your chair, that is correct.
[1:12:01] That's a much better element terms way of describing it, I think.
[1:12:05] As you will find that you have a lot of different regulations that combine
[1:12:10] to address the massing of a home, so you're correct.
[1:12:12] It's the combination of the height, it's the combination of the residential floor area,
[1:12:16] and things like lock coverage and setbacks that all work together for what your building is going to be.
[1:12:22] But you're correct in that assessment.
[1:12:24] That's great. That's great.
[1:12:26] I mean, any questions of casting branches, I mean, this is good stuff, and I think, from what I'm hearing and what I'm reading,
[1:12:32] the proof of the pudding will be in the eating.
[1:12:35] But it sounds as if a lot of thought has been given to make this easier for us to deal with unapply.
[1:12:42] Okay, Super Jerry.
[1:12:44] Thank you, Mr. Chair. I just wanted to say my favorite.
[1:12:46] One of these elements is that one meter set back from the existing buildings.
[1:12:51] previously we've gone towards to the existing setbacks of existing buildings and what happens
[1:12:59] is with some of these contemporary additions. The houses are more imposing than the traditional
[1:13:05] full vernacular housing. So they do stand out much more prominently than the heritage fabric.
[1:13:11] And so this is very nice to see that one meter setback from the existing. I think that's very creative.
[1:13:17] Thank you.
[1:13:19] It's great.
[1:13:20] Thank you.
[1:13:20] And I wanted to one last thing through chair is that Carolyn Vince Lightenhorse previously worked
[1:13:25] here.
[1:13:26] I had a huge hand in this and I do want to recognize her if she has the opportunity to
[1:13:31] tune in to today that she did do a lot of work leading up to this and we've had a lot of great
[1:13:36] expertise from staff that have led into this so I wanted to recognize that as well.
[1:13:41] Thank you.
[1:13:42] Yes, it was one of our dreams a lot of years ago that heritage would actually be in
[1:13:47] integrated into the planning process and integrated into building and integrated into zoning.
[1:13:54] And it's nice to see the reality of that integration, so that's great.
[1:14:00] I commend you on that.
[1:14:02] Okay, we only have to receive this.
[1:14:04] Sue has given me the motion to receive that.
[1:14:06] Nobody's opposed to that.
[1:14:07] We've received it.
[1:14:08] And thank you very much indeed for your presentation this morning.
[1:14:11] It's very helpful.
[1:14:13] Very helpful.
[1:14:13] So, the date and time of our next meeting is September 22nd.
[1:14:17] It'll be right here at the Council Chamber at 930.
[1:14:21] Motion to adjourn. That came from Kerry.
[1:14:23] Thank you very much.
[1:14:24] I don't know if you were just as fraction too slow.
[1:14:28] But no one's opposed to that motion.
[1:14:30] So, the motion is carried and the meeting is adjourned.
[1:14:33] And thank you again, everybody, for the gift of your time today.