City of Kingston Report to Council Report Number 18-355

To: Mayor and Members of Council From: Lanie Hurdle, Commissioner, Community Services Resource Staff: Paige Agnew, Director, Planning, Building & Licensing Services Date of Meeting: October 2, 2018 Subject: Supplementary Report - Heritage Permit Application – 286 Johnson Street

Executive Summary:

On September 4, 2018, Council made a motion to defer its decision on the Heritage Permit, File Number P18-077-2018 (Report Number HK-18-057), which included demolition of an existing addition, construction of a new addition and alterations to 286 Johnson Street. The motion requested “that the Council vote on the application be deferred until October 2nd, 2018 so that staff can get an opinion from a specialist in architectural Heritage conservation on the proposed alterations to 286 Johnson Street”.

An opinion letter (Exhibit A) has been obtained from Lindsay Reid, OAA, CAHP, LEED, AP of Branch Architecture. The letter provides an assessment of each proposed alteration against the Old Sydenham Heritage Conservation District (HCD) Plan. Ms. Reid provides recommendations regarding the proposed siding for the new addition and for the design and materials of the replacement windows that differ from staff’s original recommendation. Staff support the opinion provided by Lindsay Reid and have, accordingly, amended their recommendation for the Heritage Permit, File Number P18-077-2018, to support either vertical wood siding or vertical simulated wood siding on the addition (subject to sufficient details of the vertical simulated wood siding being provided to staff) and to support wood or other preferred options as cited in the Old Sydenham HCD Plan for the sash windows on the original (heritage building) and vinyl casement windows on the rear additions.

286 Johnson Street is designated under Part IV of the Heritage Act through By-Law Number 8497 and amending By-Law Number 8892. The property is also designated under Part V of the Ontario Heritage Act through By-Law Number 2015-67; being the by-law used to implement the Old Sydenham HCD.

Council Meeting 22 October 2, 2018 1 Report to Council Report Number 18-338

October 2, 2018

Page 2 of 7

Recommendation:

Whereas at its September 18, 2018 meeting, Council deferred its decision on the alterations to 286 Johnson and directed staff to obtain an opinion from a specialist in architectural Heritage conservation; and

Whereas an opinion letter has been obtained from Lindsay Reid, OAA, CAHP, LEED, AP of Branch Architecture which provides recommendations regarding the proposed siding for the new addition and for the design and materials of the replacement windows that differ from staff’s original recommendation and which are supported by staff;

Therefore Be It Resolved That the recommendation contained in Report Number HK-18-057 be amended to insert the text noted in bold, and delete the text noted with strikethrough so that it reads as follows:

That the alterations to the property at 286 Johnson, be approved in accordance with the details described in the application (File Number P18-077-2018), which was deemed complete on July 19, 2018, with said alterations to include:

1. Demolition of the existing kitchen nook on the rear addition and reconstruction of a new kitchen nook on the existing foundation with either vertical wood siding or vertical simulated wood siding, vinyl casement windows and a black asphalt shingle roof; 2. The replacement of all windows on the rear (south) with a combination of white vinyl casement and sash windows elevation of the original (heritage) building and side porch with sash windows in wood or an acceptable material as specified by the Old Sydenham Heritage Conservation District (i.e. wood with painted extruded aluminum exterior, fiberglass with painted extruded aluminum exterior, vinyl with painted extruded aluminum exterior or thermally broken extruded aluminum frames with painted exterior finish); 3. The replacement of all windows on the rear additions with vinyl casement windows; 4. The replacement of the existing asphalt shingle roof on the principal dwelling and rear one-storey addition with new roof shingles in like-for-like materials and colour; and

That the approval of the alterations be subject to the following conditions:

1. A Building Permit shall be obtained for the rebuilding of the rear kitchen nook; 2. The design and material of the windows on the original (heritage) building and side porch shall be submitted to Heritage Planning staff to confirm that they comply with Section 5.3.2 of the Old Sydenham Heritage Conservation District Plan, being wood or other preferred option as cited in the Section; 3. Details pertaining to the design of the vinyl windows on the rear additions shall be submitted to Heritage Planning staff to ensure their compatibility with the existing architectural composition of the rear elevation; and

Council Meeting 22 October 2, 2018 2 Report to Council Report Number 18-338

October 2, 2018

Page 3 of 7

4. Details pertaining to the simulated vertical wood siding shall be submitted to Heritage Planning staff to assess its equivalency in quality to the preferred options in the old Sydenham Heritage Conservation District Plan (i.e. brick masonry, wood clapboard, fibre cement board with paint finish, stucco or wood shingles) and to ensure its compatibility with the existing architectural style of the rear elevation.

Council Meeting 22 October 2, 2018 3 Report to Council Report Number 18-338

October 2, 2018

Page 4 of 7

Authorizing Signatures:

Lanie Hurdle, Commissioner, Community Services

Gerard Hunt, Chief Administrative Officer

Consultation with the following Members of the Corporate Management Team:

Jim Keech, President & CEO, Utilities Kingston Not required Desirée Kennedy, Chief Financial Officer & City Treasurer Not required Denis Leger, Commissioner, Corporate & Emergency Services Not required

Council Meeting 22 October 2, 2018 4 Report to Council Report Number 18-338

October 2, 2018

Page 5 of 7

Options/Discussion:

Background The property recognized municipally as 286 Johnson Street is designated under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act through By-Law Number 8497 and amending By-Law Number 8892. The property is also designated under Part V of the Ontario Heritage Act through By-Law Number 2015-67; being the by-law used to implement the Old Sydenham HCD.

On August 15, 2018, staff presented a recommendation in Report Number HK-18-057 to Heritage Kingston to approve the demolition and alterations proposed in the Heritage Permit, File Number P18-077-2018. The application proposes:

1. Demolition of the existing kitchen nook on the rear addition and reconstruction of a new kitchen nook on the existing foundation with vertical simulated wood siding, white vinyl casement windows and a black asphalt shingle roof; 2. The replacement of all windows on the rear (south) elevation with a combination of white vinyl casement and sash windows; and 3. The replacement of the existing asphalt shingle roof on the principal dwelling and rear one-storey addition with new roof shingles in like-for-like materials and colour.

Heritage Kingston voted not to support Council’s approval of the application, which conflicted with staff’s recommendation. Consequently, the application went to Council on September 4, 2018 without the Committees’ approval. In response, Council voted to defer the decision on the application and a motion was passed “that the Council vote on the application be deferred until October 2nd, 2018 so that staff can get an opinion from a specialist in architectural Heritage conservation on the proposed alterations to 286 Johnson Street”.

Staff received a professional opinion from Lindsay Reid of Branch Architecture on Tuesday, September 18, 2018 (Exhibit A). The letter provides an assessment of each proposed alteration against the Old Sydenham HCD Plan. With regards to the siding, she recommends that the applicant use the existing siding types (brick or vertical siding) but that if the applicant wishes to use vertical simulated wood siding that staff should be provided with detailed information sufficient to assess that it is equivalent in quality, appearance and durability to the preferred options cited in Section 5.3.3 (Cladding). With regards to the proposed window alterations, Ms. Reid provides an interpretation of the language used in Section 5.3.2. She advises that the guidance provided in Section 5.3.2 is reasonable and follows widely accepted conservation standards. However, she explains that the specific identification of vinyl as an option to “avoid” indicates that this is the least desirable replacement window type and that the use of vinyl windows on the non-heritage rear additions, while not preferred, complies with Section 5.3.2. Moreover, she recommends that the windows on the heritage (original) building and side porch should be either wood windows or other accepted alternates as identified in Section 5.3.2.

Staff agree with the opinion provided and have amended the staff recommendation to address the recommendations provided in the letter. Specifically, the revised recommendation now supports two options for the siding on the new addition (i.e. vertical wood siding or vertical simulated wood siding) and have included a condition speaking to the requirement for sufficient

Council Meeting 22 October 2, 2018 5 Report to Council Report Number 18-338

October 2, 2018

Page 6 of 7 details to be provided to staff in order for them to make an assessment on its equivalency in quality, appearance and durability in relation to the preferred options cited in Section 5.3.2 of the District Plan. Furthermore, the revised recommendation supports the use of wood or other preferred options as cited in Section 5.3.2 for the sash windows on the original (heritage) building and the use of vinyl casements on the rear additions. Two conditions have been included that require details be provided to staff to ensure that the windows on the original building comply with Section 5.3.2 and to ensure that the vinyl windows are compatible with the existing architectural composition of the rear elevation. The professional opinion letter attached as Exhibit A is intended to assist Council in making a decision on the revised recommendation of staff.

Conclusion Staff recommend approval of the application (File Number P18-077-2018), subject to the revised recommendation in this report.

Existing Policy/By-Law:

Standards and Guidelines for the Conservation of Historic Places in Canada (Parks Canada)

Ontario Heritage Act, R.S.O. 1990, C. O.18. (Province of Ontario)

Old Sydenham Heritage Conservation District Plan

Notice Provisions:

Not applicable

Accessibility Considerations:

Not applicable

Financial Considerations:

Not applicable

Contacts:

Paige Agnew, Director, Planning, Building & Licensing Services 613-546-4291 extension 3252

Laura MacCormick, Deputy Director, Planning Division 613-546-4291 extension 3223

Greg Newman, Manager, Policy Planning 613-546-4291 extension 3289

Alex Rowse-Thompson, Planner, Heritage 613-546-4291 extension 3251

Council Meeting 22 October 2, 2018 6 Report to Council Report Number 18-338

October 2, 2018

Page 7 of 7

Other City of Kingston Staff Consulted:

Not applicable

Exhibits Attached:

Exhibit A Opinion Letter – Provided by Lindsay Reid, Branch Architecture

Exhibit B Curriculum Vitae – Lindsay Reid

Council Meeting 22 October 2, 2018 7 Exhibit A

September 18, 2018

Alexandra Rowse-Thompson Planner, Heritage Planning, Building & Licensing City of Kingston 1211 John Counter Boulevard, 216 Ontario Street Kingston, ON K7L 2Z3 Email: [email protected]

RE: 286 JOHNSON STREET, PROPOSE ALTERATIONS (P18-077-2018) HERITAGE PERMIT REVIEW LETTER

Dear Ms. Rowse-Thompson,

The purpose of this letter is to provide the City of Kingston (City) with an opinion on the proposed alterations at 286 Johnson Street with specific regard to the City’s heritage planning framework and heritage best practice in Canada.

The following documents were reviewed as part of this process: Applicant Materials - Drawings • Site Plan - Sunroom reconstruction by Marques Homes (date: June 27, 2018). • Existing - Sunroom reconstruction by Marques Homes (date: June 27, 2018). This draw- ings sheet includes: South (rear) Elevation; Partial nook floor plan; East (nook) Elevation; and West (nook) Elevation. Project Background Materials • City of Kingston Report to Heritage Kingston, Report Number HK-18-057. • Part IV Designation: By-Law No. 8497 and amending By-Law No. 8892. • Old Sydenham Heritage Conservation District Plan dated March, 2015. • Property Inventory Evaluation - 272-274-278-280-282-286 John Street Wesley Terrace. Additional Reference Materials • Parks Canada Standards and Guidelines for the Conservation of Historic Places in Canada. • Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport, Ontario Heritage Tool Kit.

This review did not include a site review. Photos of the rear elevation were provided by staff.

Page 1

Council Meeting 22 October 2, 2018 8 Exhibit A

Heritage Planning Framework The property at 286 Johnson Street, historically referred to as Wesley Terrace, is designated under Part IV and Part V of the Ontario Heritage Act (the ‘Act’). The Part IV Reasons for Designation for Wesley Terrace (and including 286 Johnson Street) identifies cultural heritage significance related to the property’s historic association with William Anglin (1836- 1886) and architectural/design value as “an excellent example of a quality row on a good residential street. It is mainly unaltered.” In the property description, the masonry row is described in detail and specifically identifies unique aspects of 286 Johnson Street (the sixth unit) - the one-storey side porch and the long two-storey brick wing at the rear. The kitchen nook is not included in this description. The 286 Johnson Street property also forms part of the Old Sydenham Heritage Areas Heritage Conservation District (Sub-Area 3: Beyond Bagot) and is protected under Part V of the Ontario Heritage Act under By-Law No. 2015-67. The HCD Property Inventory Evaluation sheet for subject property indicates an ‘S’ (significant) rating. The HCD Study evaluation found the property to have ‘excellent’ design value, ‘very good and good contextual’ historical/associative value and ‘excellent’ contextual value related to how it contributes to the character of its surroundings. The rationale for its inclusion in the District read: This particularly fine, classically inspired mid 19th century brick terrace occupies a key urban location directly across from the Roman Catholic Cathedral. Its modest scale and relatively austere classical architecture seems in dialogue with the towering Gothic spire and pinnacles of St. Mary’s. This contrast provides one of the most satisfying architectural experiences in the City.1 The Act allows for a property to receive both types of protection, and advises that when there is an application to alter the property or demolish/remove buildings/structures on the property, the application is subject to the direction given in the Part V District Plan.2 3 Under the Ontario Heritage Act, an application to alter a Part V designated heritage property requires Council approval (Section 42) unless otherwise encompassed within a municipal delegation by-law.

Application The Heritage Permit application drawings by Marques Homes include for alterations to the rear (south) elevation and kitchen nook addition: • The provision of new asphalt roof shingles at the main house, at the one-storey rear addition and at the proposed kitchen nook. The roofing work also includes for: new flashing at the skylight; and the retention of the existing aluminum rain-gear (soffit, fascia, eaves troughs) at the rear

1 Old Sydenham Heritage Area Heritage Conservation District Study, Exhibit ‘A’ pg. 11. 2 Ontario Heritage Act Section 41, Property designated under Part IV (2) A property that is designat- ed under Part IV may subsequently be included in an area designated as a heritage conservation district un- der this Part, and a property that is included in an area designated as a heritage conservation district under this Part may subsequently be designated under Part IV. 2002, c. 18, Sched. F, s. 2 (24). 3 Ontario Heritage Act Section 41 Same (2.3) Subject to subsection (2.4), a property that is designated by a municipality under section 29 and is included in an area designated as a heritage conservation district under this Part for which a heritage conservation district plan has been adopted under section 41.1 is subject to this Part and to the plan with respect to any alterations of the property or demolition or removal of build- ings or structures on the property, and is not subject to section 30 or to sections 33 to 34.4. 2005, c. 6. s. 30 (1). Page 2

Council Meeting 22 October 2, 2018 9 Exhibit A

elevation. • The removal and reconstruction of the kitchen nook on the existing foundation and floor. The small addition is proposed to be clad in simulated vertical wood siding, display white vinyl thermal casement windows, and roofed with asphalt shingles and aluminum rain-gear. The existing side door is to be reinstalled. • The replacement of the existing windows at the rear elevation of the main house, side portico, two-storey brick addition and one-storey brick addition with new vinyl windows (casement or double hung as noted on the drawing).

Review of application drawings by Marques Homes Old Sydenham Heritage Area Heritage Conservation District Plan (‘District Plan’) The District Plan identifies the goals and objectives of the District with an overall aim to conserve the area’s material and non-material resources and “conserve, enhance and appreciate the heritage attributes of the Old Sydenham HCD.”4 The District Plan provides goals specific to Heritage Buildings (Section 2.5.2) which serve to “conserve and enhance the existing built heritage resources and protect them from inappropriate changes or demolition.”5

The District Plan contains Conservation and Development Policies, including the following overall policy objectives for the conservation and development in the District:

• To provide the necessary research and evaluation to justify the creation and maintenance of the district; • To encourage the conservation of existing cultural heritage resources; • To conserve and enhance streetscapes so as to maintain the character of the district; • To provide policies, guidelines and associated regulatory procedures that will serve to guide change in ways that conserve and enhance the heritage attributes of the district; and • To promote an increased awareness of heritage value in the district.

The Plan provides further policy direction related to: the District; heritage buildings; landscapes/ streetscapes; and regulatory process, community and economic benefit. Specific to this application, is Section 2.6.2 Heritage Buildings, item a (underlined for emphasis):

All alterations and conservation work requiring an application for alteration, as defined in the District Plan, shall be undertaken in accordance with the policies and guidelines of this Plan. Maintenance and minor alterations, as defined in the District Plan, shall have regard for the policies and guidelines of the District Plan. The District Guidelines are intended to provide ‘best advice’ when considering change within the District and are based on widely accepted heritage guidelines and charters. The following discussion considers the proposed alterations within the framework of the District Guidelines - Conservation and Building Alterations and Additions sections.

4 Old Sydenham Heritage Area Heritage Conservation District Plan, pg. 14. 5 Ibid. Page 3

Council Meeting 22 October 2, 2018 10 Exhibit A

Roofing material Section 4.3.1 Roofs (Conservation) encourages owners to provide new roofing to match original, however, where the original roofing has been replaced asphalt shingles, new replacements in premium quality for maximum life expectancy (30 years+) of grey, brown and black colours is acceptable. With respect to rain-gear, the drawings indicate that new painted aluminum soffit, fascia and eavestrough are to be provided at the new kitchen nook only, and that all other existing are to be retained as is. I find the proposed changes to the roof comply align with the District Plan and recommend approval of these alterations. Removal and reconstruction of the kitchen nook The proposed approach to reconstructing the kitchen nook on the existing foundation is an acceptable alteration given that: it is not original; is not a heritage attribute; and is located at the rear of the house. The design follows the form of the existing nook, offers a similar solid-to-void ratio to the house, and mimics the patterning of the adjacent casement windows. The addition complies with the guidance given in Section 5.2.2 of the District Plan. 6 In terms of the proposed cladding, Section 5.3.3 of the District Plan identifies the following cladding types as acceptable: brick masonry; stone masonry; wood clapboard; fibre cement board with paint finish; stucco; wood shingles. It also advises that cladding on a new addition be distinct from the cladding on the existing building. In this case, given the variety of cladding on the building (brick and stone house, painted wood side porch, brick addition and vertical wood siding at the one-storey addition and kitchen nook) I suggest that the applicant choose from the existing adjacent cladding types of the building - either vertical wood siding or brick - and avoid introducing a new cladding type thereby improving the visual compatability of the addition with the existing heritage building. This option complies with the District Guidelines on approved cladding materials (listed above) and heritage best practice. If the applicant wants to proceed with an alternate cladding, I recommend that a condition of the approval be that they provide detailed information on the simulated vertical cladding sufficient for Staff to assess that it is equivalent in quality, appearance and durability to the preferred options in the District Guidelines (brick masonry; stone masonry; wood clapboard; fibre cement board with paint finish; stucco; wood shingles). Window replacements Section 4.2.5 Windows and Doors (Conservation) and Section 5.3.2 (Alterations and Additions) were reviewed in evaluating the proposed replacements. The conservation guidelines do not apply here as all the subject windows appear to be of modern construction. In this case the existing windows are: modern painted sash at the rear of the main house and sideporch; modern painted casement at the two-storey addition and kitchen nook; and modern synthetic (likely vinyl) casements at the one-storey addition.

6 Of note, successful additions to heritage buildings are often designed in response to the architecture of the existing building. In this case, the design would be improved if the patterning and placement of the windows was more closely aligned with or responded to the vertical and horizontal patterns of the building.

Page 4

Council Meeting 22 October 2, 2018 11 Exhibit A

The direction given in Section 5.3.2 provides a hierarchy of preference when considering replacement windows, in summary:

• The preferred approach is to provide new replacement windows that match existing heritage contributing windows as closely as possible in their design, materiality and construction. • An acceptable approach is to provide new windows that match the style, size and proportion of the original windows, and that are of the following modern window constructions: wood with painted extruded aluminum exterior; fibreglass with painted extruded aluminum exterior; vinyl with painted extruded aluminum exterior; thermally broken extruded aluminum frames with painted exterior finish. • Avoid use of white vinyl windows.

The guidance above is reasonable and follows widely accepted conservation standards including Kingston’s Policy on Window Renovation in Heritage Buildings and the Parks Canada Standards And Guidelines for the Conservation of Historic Properties.7 The District Guidelines encourage the practice of repair rather than replace, state a preference to match existing and offer acceptable modern alternatives. The specific identification of vinyl as an option toavoid indicates that this is the least desirable replacement window type for use within the District.

Based on the District Guidelines for heritage buildings, I recommend the following conditions of the approval:

• At the heritage building (main house and side porch), the replacement windows be either wood windows or accepted alternate windows (wood with painted extruded aluminum exterior; fibreglass with painted extruded aluminum exterior; vinyl with painted extruded aluminum exterior; thermally broken extruded aluminum frames with painted exterior finish). As the existing windows here are replacements, the style, size and proportion of the new replacements may be based the predominant window patterning on their row, either the original 6-over-6 sash or common 1-over-1 sash. • At the non-heritage additions to the building (rear additions), the provision of replacement vinyl windows (while not preferred) complies with the District Guidelines given that the windows are not visible from the street and located in the non-heritage additions. • The applicant provide Staff with details and information pertaining to the design of the above noted windows to ensure they are compatible with the heritage building and architectural composition of the rear elevation.

Summary Comments

In terms of assessing the application as a whole, Section 5.1 of the Design Guidelines provides five key questions when considering alterations and/or additions within the District:

• In what ways will the proposed alteration affect the overall character of the streetscape of the Old Sydenham Heritage Conservation District? 7 With respect to replacement windows or window elements, the Standards and Guidelines specifically advises against replacements that do not convey the same appearance. Page 5

Council Meeting 22 October 2, 2018 12 Exhibit A

• Is it possible to find ways to shape an alteration to maximize the extent to whichit enhances the heritage character of the district? • What will be the impact of the proposed alteration on the property’s heritage attributes? • Is it possible to find ways to shape the proposed alterations to minimize that impact? • If the proposed intervention was commonly applied to other properties would the cumulative impact be in keeping with the overall character of the Old Sydenham Heritage Conservation District?

Evaluating the application through the lens of these questions presents an interesting and important perspective in terms of the overall well-being of the District. The proposed alterations (revised as per the above conditions) should have no immediate impact on the character of the streetscape or the existing heritage attributes of the main house. The provision of vinyl windows and simulated wood siding is acceptable here because it applies to the non-heritage rear additions. Future proposals to undertake similar alterations should continue to be considered by Staff on a case-by-case basis to ensure they comply with the spirit and intent of the District Plan.

As described above, it is my opinion that the proposed alterations for 286 Johnson Street require further information from the applicant regarding the exterior cladding of the kitchen nook and replacement windows. In general, the District Plan would benefit from clear direction from Staff, Heritage Kingston and Council on the when vinyl replacement windows are considered appropriate within the District.

Sincerely,

Lindsay Reid OAA, CAHP, LEED

Principal, Branch Architecture

Page 6

Council Meeting 22 October 2, 2018 13 Exhibit B

LINDSAY REID B.ARCH OAA CAHP LEED AP

Lindsay Reid is a licensed architect with extensive experience in the field of heritage conservation. Lindsay has a special interest in the conservation of our cultural institutions as well as the protection and appreciation of modern era and vernacular rural heritage. In this area she has worked on many significant national and provincial historic sites including the Distillery District NHS, Ruthven Park NHS, the MacDonald Block and the Royal Ontario Museum.

Lindsay’s range of experience includes: all stages of cultural heritage landscape, building and site analysis; heritage evaluation and planning; government approvals; community consultation; design; contract documents; field review and project administration for restoration and rehabilitation projects. In addition, her municipal heritage planning background honed her project management, negotiation and public consultation skills, and resulted in a comprehensive understanding of heritage and planning policy in Ontario. Today, Lindsay provides heritage planning and restoration advise to several municipalities on an ongoing basis.

Lindsay is an engaged member of her local community and is meaningfully involved with the Baxter Arts Centre and the HUB Child and Family Centre. She has also undertaken local pro-bono work to support the Picton Splash Pad, Regent Theatre, Shire Hall and PEC Awesome Foundation.

PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE

2017- Principal, Branch Architecture Heritage Architectural & Planning Consulting: Harbour Lofts – Picton 22/24 University Ave West, Habitat for Humanity – Cobourg Benson Park Peer Review – Picton Bay House (Jeanne Minhinnick’s House) Restoration – South Bay Macaulay House Museum – Picton (sub-consultant to ERA) The Royal Hotel Rehabilitation- Picton (with GPAIA & ERA) Bailey Broom Factory Rehabilitation - Kingston (with RAW Design & ERA) Transport Canada Cultural Heritage Evaluations – Pickering (sub-consultant to ERA) Cultural Heritage Evaluations, City of Kingston – Kingston (sub-consultant to ERA) Huck Glove Factory Redevelopment – Kitchener (with mccallum Sather Architects) 120 Huron Street Redevelopment – Guelph (with mccallum Sather Architects) Picton Carnegie Library Addition – Picton (with Brian Clark Architect) 22/24 University Ave West Residential Redevelopment – Cobourg (with Habitat for Humanity) General heritage consulting, City of Pickering, Prince Edward County and City of Peterborough 2010-2017 Associate, E.R.A. Architects Inc. Redevelopment & Adaptive Re-use Projects: Maritime Museum (former FHBRO Property) – Kingston Booth St. Block, CNC (FHBRO Property) - Ottawa Macdonald Block - Grange Park – Toronto Council Meeting 22 October 2, 2018 14 Exhibit B

Oakville Arena – Oakville Brewery at 43 Arthur Street – Guelph Latvian House at 491 College Street West - Toronto 333 King Street East – Toronto 10225 - Richmond Hill Grace Church – Toronto Fraser Drive Residential Development - Batawa

Heritage Restoration Projects: Royal Ontario Museum – Toronto Auchmar Manor - Hamilton Wellington Museum - Wellington Renwood House - Cobourg Picton Court House – Picton Rose House Museum - Waupoos

Adaptive Reuse Studies and Plans: Hamilton Centre GO Station, – Hamilton Gormley GO Station, Metrolinx - Richmond Hill West Donlands Culvert, Metrolinx - Toronto St. Helen’s Complex Heritage Planning Assessment, Queen’s University (FHBRO Property) - Kingston Brodie House Adaptive Re-use Feasibility Study - Richmond Hill Brantwood School Rehabilitation – Oakville St. Paul’s Presbyterian Church Adaptive Re-use Feasibility Study – Peterborough Sir James Whitney and W. Ross MacDonald Accessibility Audit – Belleville and Brantford

Heritage Planning Projects: The Avenues Heritage Conservation District - Peterborough Village of Bolton Heritage Conservation District – Town of Caledon 223 Princess Street Redevelopment, Peer Review – Kingston Queen’s University Stuart Street Properties Heritage Assessment - Kingston Main Street Heritage Conservation District – Picton Crescent Street Neighbourhood Cultural Heritage Assessment - Peterborough Cataraqui Cemetery Heritage Designation, Peer Review - Kingston Market Square Heritage Conservation District Plan Update – Kingston Deloro Mine - Marmora North and South Rosedale Heritage Conservation District Reviews – Toronto Heritage Analysis & Permit Review, multiple sites – City of Pickering and Prince Edward County 2009-2010 Heritage Planner, City of Toronto Responsible for: managing heritage redevelopment applications; stewarding multiple Heritage Conservation Districts (HCDs); and collaborating on new municipal heritage policies and planning guidelines.

Council Meeting 22 October 2, 2018 15 Exhibit B

2002-2009 Project Architect / Associate, E.R.A. Architects Inc. Redevelopment & Adaptive Re-use Projects: Transformation AGO – Toronto Renaissance ROM – Toronto Evergreen Brick Works – Toronto Bridgepoint Health at the Don Jail – Toronto Artscape Wychwood Art Barns – Toronto The Distillery District National Historic Site – Toronto 51 Division Police Headquarters – Toronto St. Martin-in-the-Fields Church – Toronto University of Toronto School of Economics - Toronto

Heritage Restoration Projects: Ruthven Park National Historic Site – Cayuga Massey Mausoleum, Mount Pleasant Cemetery – Toronto Spruce Court Cooperative – Toronto Regal Road School Portico – Toronto Jackman Humanities Building, Soldiers’ Tower and Convocation Hall – University of Toronto Eglinton St. George’s United Church – Toronto Dundas Street United Church - London

2000-2002 Intern Architect, Taylor Hazell Architects Ltd. Osgoode Hall and the Law Society of Upper Canada – Toronto Robert A. Gordon Learning Centre, Humber College Lakeshore Campus – Toronto Trainshed – Toronto Jesse Ashbridge House, Ontario Heritage Trust – Toronto

2000-2002 Co-owner, Delicia Art Haus Gallery

ACADEMIC & PROFESSIONAL QUALIFICATIONS 2018 Architectural Conservancy of Ontario 2017 OMB Expert Witness, Village of Bolton Heritage Conservation District 2014 OMB Expert Witness, Picton Main Street Heritage Conservation District 2009 Ontario Association of Architects (OAA) – registered architect 2009 OPPI Negotiation Course 2006 Canadian Association of Heritage Professionals (CAHP) – Planning and Building Specialist 2004 LEED accredited Professional 2001 Architectural Preservation and Conservation Certificate Course, Ryerson University 1999 Bachelor of Architecture with High Distinction, School of Architecture, Carleton University

Council Meeting 22 October 2, 2018 16 Exhibit B

VOLUNTEER ACTIVITIES 2015 - The HUB Child and Family Centre, Board Member 2015 - 2017 Baxter Arts Centre, Transition Coordinator and Advisory Committee Member 2014 - 2015 PEC Awesome Foundation, Trustee 2011 CAHP, Board Member, Education & Research 2008 University of Toronto Faculty of Architecture, Landscape and Design, guest critic 2001 - 2008 Toronto Society of Architects, Executive Member at Large, Vice Chair (2006) and Treasurer (2005) 2001 - 2004 Carleton University School of Architecture, guest critic

LECTURES AND PUBLISHED WORK 2017 Location, Location, Relocation - Moving Heritage Resources in the Age of Ecological Bias, Heritage Conservation Symposium, Carleton University Heritage Designation and Restoration 101, Prince Edward Historical Society 2016 Heritage Conservation Districts, Prince Edward Historical Society, Picton BIA and Wellington BIA 2014 Prince Edward County – First Houses in the Rural Landscape, Acorn, Fall 2014 Edition 2009 Green Roof Construction, City of Toronto Learning Summit

Council Meeting 22 October 2, 2018 17