Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2025-11-18 Clarington Heritage Committee Minutes If this information is required in an alternate format, please contact the Accessibility Coordinator at 905-623-3379 ext. 2131. Date: Tuesday, November 18, 2025 Time: 7:00pm In-Person: Municipal Administrative Centre, 40 Temperance St, Bowmanville, ON L1C 3A6, Room 1A Online: Via Microsoft Teams Members Present: Peter Vogel, Steve Conway, Victor Suppan, Ron Sproule, Laura Tiel-Convery (Museum), Joseph Dalrymple, Ron Hooper, Ron Sproule, Heather Graham, Councillor Sami Elhajjeh Regrets: Sitara Welch, Olivia Mar, Brian Jose (NVDHS), Jason Moore (ACO) Staff Present: Sarah Allin, Alicia da Silva – Planning & Infrastructure Services Jennifer Stycuk, Tim Welsh – Community Services Glen Macfarlane – Economic Development Guests: Asya Bidordinova, Andrea Sinclair – Stakeholder engagement plan for Clarington’s Community Improvement Plan (CIP) update Ian Franklin, Philip Evans – 1738 Bloor Street (SPA2025- 0026, ZBA2024/-0016/SC2024-0006) Maple Grove United Church – Melissa Whitefield, Rick McEachern 1. Call to Order The Chair called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. 2. Land Acknowledgement Statement P. Vogel led the meeting with the Land Acknowledgement Statement . 3. Declaration of Interest Page 2 There were no disclosures of interest stated at this meeting. 4.Adoption of Minutes Moved by: R. Hooper Seconded by: J. Dalrymple That the minutes for the October 21, 2025 meeting be approved, with the following amendment: -Clarification of spelling of the Orr House (3 Ontario Street, Bowmanville) -Addition of supplemental information on the property as provided by the Committee. 25.62 Carried. 5.Delegations a)Stakeholder engagement plan for Clarington’s Community Improvement Plan (CIP) update – Glen Macfarlane (Economic Development, Municipality of Clarington), Asya Bidordinova (Sierra Planning and Management), Andrea Sinclair (MHBC Planning) G. Macfarlane introduced the Community Improvement Plan (CIP) Update project and explained that the project team is seeking feedback from the Committee. The purpose of the delegation is to introduce the project and gather preliminary input. As the Municipality’s consultants on the project, A. Sinclair and A. Bidordinova provided a high-level presentation outlining the purpose of the project. The updated CIP will include opportunities for façade improvements and enhancements to commercial buildings with heritage attributes. Questions from the project team were included in the presentation slides, which were circulated to the Committee prior to the meeting. The Committee was asked to review these questions and provide responses at a future meeti ng. The project team requested guidance on certain building materials and window openings to help inform heritage guidelines and general heritage considerations for communities within Clarington. The goal is to ensure that when property owners request funding, their proposed work aligns with the Municipality’s objectives for downtown areas, particularly regarding heritage features. The team clarified that the intent is to create one consolidated CIP that can also apply to areas outside of downtowns. The updated CIP would include industrial areas to attract investment, support additional dwelling units, and expand CIP Page 3 boundaries to cover more areas of Clarington, while offering a suite of programs tailored to specific sub-areas. The Heritage Committee asked about the composition of the new CIP Liaison Groups and whether it would include existing CIP Liaison members. The project team explained that the CIP Committee/liaison group will likely look different than currently, but the format of group meetings and members are still to be determined. Regardless of the format, heritage input will be sought, and the potential for a dedicated heritage liaison was discussed. The Committee inquired about the Municipality’s ability to fund expanded programs. The project team noted that many programs do not require upfront costs and that the new CIP will offer a range of funding options. Moved by: S. Elhajjeh Seconded by: Consensus. Motion that the Committee receive the information with thanks. 25.63 Carried. b) 1738 Bloor Street (SPA2025-0026, ZBA2024-0016/SC2024-0006) – Ian Franklin, Philip Evans (KLM Planning Partners) I. Franklin provided a presentation regarding 1738 Bloor Street (The Lower Alsworth House). The presentation outlined key issues, including the structure’s location on the only north-south road, a high groundwater table, high-density designation, and the planned widening of Bloor Street. The developer had originally proposed relocating the structure to the neighbourhood park, but the application suggested this was not supported by Staff due to ongoing maintenance costs. The developer is now recommending a Commemoration Plan, which is being developed and may include a plaque, reuse of salvaged materials, and naming a street or park. The consultant requested approval for demolition, subject to salvage and commemoration measures. The Committee emphasized the heritage significance of Bloor Street and Courtice Road near Ebenezer Church and expressed a strong desire to conserve the building. The Committee questioned whether relocating the structure on the property and selling it as a private residence had been considered. I. Franklin explained this option was not explored, as much of the land is designated for higher-density housing. The Committee discussed moving the structure to the northeast corner of the property to maintain its association with other Courtice heritage properties. Page 4 Members stressed that one of the property’s heritage criteria is contextual significance, which would be lost if moved too far. The Committee requested more consideration of relocation before considering demolition, noting concern over heritage loss in Courtice, where few historic structures remain. I. Franklin clarified that the Heritage Impact Assessment prepared by LHC in 2023 confirmed the structure could hold up to being relocated elsewhere on the property. c) Heritage Application Permit (File No. HPA2025-008 REV) for 2656 Concession Road 4 – Jennifer Stycuk, Tim Welsh (Community Services, Municipality of Clarington), Chris Price (MVW Construction & Engineering Inc.) C. Price from MVM Construction & Engineering Inc. provided a presentation of a heritage demolition advisory report prepared by his group. Demolition is proposed only for the one storey brick and wood sections at the rear of the building. An archaeological assessment is ongoing and will be shared with the Committee when available. Lead and asbestos have been identified within the structure but can be removed and mitigated. The importance of properly handling the demolition to protect heritage attributes from vibration was discussed. C. Price explained the method to systematically remove the rear portion of the building. There is also a plan to salvage brick from the demolished section for future repairs to the original building. The Committee asked if the foundation of the rear section would be removed; C. Price confirmed it would be removed entirely to facilitate development. He also explained that the chimney on the rear section is not attached to the main portion of the building and is far enough away to allow safe deconstruction without affecting the retained structure. The Committee asked if it has been confirmed that the brick section of the structure is indeed an addition. C. Price provided his professional explanation that it is, noting the brick bond pattern changes on the back section, with a vertical cut to receive bricks, and that the addition only has a floating floor without a basement, unlike the original structure. The Committee discussed that while it is most likely an addition, the construction date is unknown and may still be similar in age to the original structure. The possibility of using salvaged brick to replace frost-damaged brick near the eavestrough was also discussed. Committee members expressed satisfaction that the varying brick patterns were noted. The Committee is seeking more information on the age of the addition and emphasized that demolition of the rear section should require a permit. d) Maple Grove United Church – Melissa Whitefield Page 5 M. Whitefield stated the purpose of the delegation as sharing community concerns and suggestions to better protect heritage, particularly Maple Grove . She noted her opinion that Heritage Committee meetings are not easily found online or on social media. An overview of some of Maple Grove’s history was provided. M. Whitefield provided her opinion that the property meets criteria for designation under Section 29 of the Ontario Heritage Act. Chair P. Vogel asked for new information, as the information thus far had been provided to the Committee through delegations at September’s meeting. M. Whitefield expressed her concern that interior features have been removed, such as the pews. She noted unanswered emails to Staff and Council and requested prioritization of Maple Grove’s designation, asking if an inspection had occurred and if owners were informed of heritage-related restrictions. M. Whitefield stressed the importance of public education and suggested improving the Heritage Property webpage and public notifications. She referenced sections of the OHA and the urgency related to Bill 23 timelines, requesting an emergency designation for Maple Grove Church. A Committee member asked why emergency designation was needed; M. Whitefield explained the new owners appear to be planning major renovations, and the community wants the building preserved. The Committee noted the building has already undergone extensive renovations over the years. Staff confirmed there have been no applications for heritage designation from the previous or current owners of the property. S. Elhajjeh noted Staff had communicated with delegates and referenced an email from Staff indicating delegates received a written update. M. Whitefield clarified the email was unrelated and reiterated concerns about lack of communication on designation timing. Chair P. Vogel reminded delegates to provide new information due to the lengthy agenda. e) Maple Grove United Church – Rick McEachern R. McEachern raised concerns about the lack of communication and follow-up on heritage designation requests. He stated he had appeared before the Committee six times over the past few years regarding multiple requests for heritage designation consideration, including Maple Grove United Church. R. Hooper asked if the delegation’s purpose was to discuss Maple Grove and encouraged the delegate to stay on topic. McEachern continued, noting he had not been informed of any investigation into his six requests. He highlighted the urgency of designating Maple Grove at the September 16th meeting, citing Bill Page 6 23, and expressed disappointment that no feedback has been received since. McEachern described this as disheartening and noted he represents over 3,000 members of the Vintage Bowmanville social media group. Chair P. Vogel asked R. McEachern to provide new information about Maple Grove, explaining that no new historical details had been shared and that the Committee is already reviewing previously provided information. McEachern expressed disappointment in P. Vogel’s comments. P. Vogel reiterated the need for new information and assured delegation of the Committee’s concern for heritage properties. P. Vogel noted the concern and adjourned the delegation, stating the Committee has information on Maple Grove and the evaluation subcommittee is reviewing it, and that delegations should not be used to complain. The delegation was interjected by M. Whitefield , expressing concern about limited leverage to protect heritage buildings due to planning applications. P. Vogel expressed disappointment at being criticized by delegates. M. Whitefield commented that hearing from the public is beneficial, as the Committee likely does not see the public often. The Committee expressed offense at that statement, noting the Committee is made up of volunteers and reject ed the implication that meetings are private. M. Whitefield apologized and asked how often the public attends meetings; members confirmed the public attends every meeting. P. Vogel adjourned the delegation and the discussion. 6. Business Arising from Previous Minutes a) Heritage Application Permit (File No. HPA2025-008 REV) for 2656 Concession Road 4 More information regarding the additions of the building, including historical evidence as to when they were built, is requested by the Committee prior to providing a Motion. The project team explained the desire to have the heritage permit addressed in the winter in order to move forward with a structural condition assessment and determining stabilization requirements. The Committee discussed the possibility of the requested information being received virtually prior to the next in-person discussion on the matter. Staff confirmed the 1995 Designation By-law is still in effect, and the HIA can be used to evaluate the proposed changes to the structure. Committee members requested the HIA be amended to address the age of the building. Moved by: V. Suppan Seconded by: S. Conway Page 7 That the heritage permit (HPA2025-008) be evaluated against the original 1995 By-law, which includes the original list of attributes; That the HIA produced by ARA eliminating the interior attributes is not supported . 25.64 Carried. The Committee discussed that there is no Motion regarding its recommendation on the heritage permit at this time. 7. New Committee Business a) Property evaluation for consideration: i) 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 Veterans Avenue; 36, 38 Second Street; 49, 51, 53, 55 Lambs Lane. A report was brought to Council in 2022 recommending adding the properties to the Municipal Register. The properties were brought forward as a group . 3 Veterans Avenue was not added to the Register at the time as the property owner objected to the property being added to the Register. Staff explained that ARA produced a Cultural Heritage Evaluation report for each individual property. Each property was identified to meet two criteria and be recommended for designation by ARA. Staff acknowledged the area has characteristics that could make it a heritage conservation district in the future. The Committee commented that the evaluation report discusses that the Veterans Act initiated the building of these properties , however in this case the Municipality provided money from its trust fund to build the houses, which is the first time the town had acted as a builder. The Committee would like this detail to be considered in the final evaluation. The Committee commented that the report missed the significance of the long backyards. As there was little food after the war and residents grew much of their own food, the long backyards were provided to combat food shortages. The Committee discussed the potential to install a sign or plaque on public land, with the potential to achieve this in the future if the area is considered for designation as a heritage district. An example of a commemorative plaque was provided for Conrad the Racoon in Toronto, which includes information on his history and a QR code. A Committee member noted the possibility of working with local high school students on acquiring information for a QR code, noting a recent local project for QR codes on Veterans banners. Page 8 Moved by: J. Dalrymple Seconded by: R. Hooper Move to recommend that the properties, known as 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 Veterans Avenue; 36, 38 Second Street; and 49, 51, 53, 55 Lambs Lane, be considered by Council for designation under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act , subject to following being included in the Statement of Significance: - Reference to the Municipal Council's role in the historical value of the homes; - The long backyards providing space for gardens. 25.65 Carried. b) 1738 Bloor Street (Planning Act Files: SPA2025-0026, ZBA2024- 0016/SC2024-0006) A Committee member asked for clarification as to why Staff have not supported the relocation of the listed dwelling to the future neighbourhood park. Chair P. Vogel suggested this is likely due to ongoing costs of maintenance. Committee members stated that they would like to request the building be relocated rather than demolished. The Committee discussed that properties with heritage value within the Southeast Courtice Secondary Plan area were outlined within the Secondary Plan document, and developers should be aware of the requirements and policy direction to conserve heritage resources. Moved by: V. Suppan Seconded by: S. Conway That the property at 1738 Bloor Street, Courtice be considered by Council for designation under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act . 25.66 Carried. c) December Heritage Committee meeting Moved by: J. Dalrymple Seconded by: R. Hooper That the Clarington Heritage Committee hold a meeting on December 16 th, 2025. Page 9 25.67 Carried. d) Newcastle Village and District Historical Society membership renewal Moved by: S. Conway Seconded by: V. Suppan That the membership of the Newcastle Village and District Historical Society be renewed. 25.68 Carried. The Committee provided congratulations to member R. Hooper for Hooper’s Jewelers Ltd.’s 80 year anniversary. 8. Project Reports a. Subcommittee reports i. Municipal Inventory/Register: 1. Maple Grove United Church: V. Suppan provided an update on the subcommittee evaluation of Maple Grove United Church (2197 Maple Grove Road, Bowmanville). One noted concern relates to the pews. Newspaper clippings indicate they were purchased new for the Church by Mrs. Power, who also funded a stained-glass window. The original 1871 pews have been lost. V. Suppan clarified the Church was dedicated December 30, 1871, not 1872, as often stated. Articles suggest the current pews may have come from the Royal Theatre, but this is unconfirmed. The Theatre opened in 1913 and replaced its seats in 1938 with chairs from Preston, Ontario (now Cambridge). Without photos, the origin of the pews cannot be verified, but subcommittee research has found they are not original to the Church. V. Suppan noted that little remains of the original building due to modifications, and given the research to date, from an architectural standpoint it does not meet the criteria for designation. The subcommittee is continuing its review. A notable feature that has been identified so far on the property is a tree dedicated to a Sunday school teacher. Using the ranking system, the subcommittee did not find the property to have sufficient cultural heritage value/interest to meet the requirements to be Page 10 recommended for designation, however the subcommittee is continuing its evaluation. V. Suppan explained that properties must meet specific standards for designation. The evaluation is still in its early stages and will continue into the new year. 2. 72 Scugog Street: The Committee discussed that the property should be placed on the Merit list. Moved by: V. Suppan Seconded by: R. Hooper That 72 Scugog Street, Bowmanville be added to the Heritage Merit list on Clarington’s Cultural Heritage Resources List. 25.69 Carried. 3. Webpage Update: Committee would like to see Candidate properties to be added to the Municipal Register webpage. Staff to follow up with an update. ii. Public Outreach/Education: 1. National Heritage Trust Conference to be held in Waterloo in November 2026. 2. Foster Creek signage: Some progress has been made on signage content, to come back to December meeting. V. Suppan to meet with A. Micu, Manager of Parks at the Municipality of Clarington. The Committee discussed means of acquiring input from First Nations. 3. S. Conway reached out to a contact regarding the Conrad the Racoon plaque in Toronto regarding how they work the QR code. A temporary version was installed to track engagement with the QR code. The permanent plaque does not have a QR code. Long-term maintenance of the QR code link would be required. 9. Reports from other committees: Page 11 a. Jury Lands Foundation: To meet in the evening of November 19th. Jury Lands was given permission to have an assessment done of the Cafeteria Building at Camp 30 including the interior. The necessary inspection has taken place, and they are awaiting a report to see the cost of stabilization. Kaitlin Corporation made an offer to the Municipality to resolve outstanding litigation regarding outstanding litigation regarding the demolition of the Triple Dorm, and Council has considered that proposal in camera, no information on deliberation. The Committee discussed events which transpired earlier in the evening, expressing that future delegates should be coming to talk about the item on the agenda and not berate volunteers on the Committee. Committee members discussed that the community should be educated more on heritage processes and responsibilities of various levels of government and the limited reach of the Committee. 10. Adjournment Moved by: S. Conway That the meeting adjourn at 10:08 p.m. The next meeting of the Clarington Heritage Committee is scheduled to be held on Tuesday December 16, 2025, commencing at 7 p.m.