On the November 1 Council agenda there is a staff report presenting the recommendation from the Heritage Advisory Committee (HAC) as to how the Council should respond to a demolition permit for 342 Kettleby Rd., a property listed on the municipal heritage registry. This is a very difficult problem. As reviewed in the report one of the possible actions for Council is to give notice of an intent to designate as it meets two of the three possible heritage attributes: it’s contextual value and it’s design/physical value. Most people who visit Kettleby are charmed by the experience of being in the historic hamlet and indeed King is very proud of it. But this hamlet is having its historic assets chipped away: demolishing 342 Kettleby Rd is just one more. The argument to support demolition is that the property is in bad shape and has not been lived in for some time.
As reviewed in the report HAC identifies that if Council supports demolition the impact on the historic hamlet be mitigated by placing the site under site plan control so that a future replacement building design is reviewed by a qualified architect reporting to Director of Growth Management Services. I believe there was a similar mitigation requirement when approval was given to demolish 446 Kettleby Rd. I do not consider that particular effort to be totally successful; it could have been better. Hence I am going to ask if controls could be more defined and stricter.
Public can register with clerks@ king.ca to make a deputation and/or they can send their questions and comments in via email. Requests for deputations and emails for Council review should be sent in by Monday noon hour.
As things stand and progress, finally, we will soon be allowed to go into grave yards and kick over the stone to make room for fast food outlets or pubs. After all lets rid the present from the past and get on with what is important.
Get with it dude.
Hans Martin
Hi Debbie,
This is a continuing problem I see the Hambly House in Nobleton undergoing neglect. I think that the answer to this is that the outside of the new building as viewed from the front must have similar architecture to the previous heritage building. The brick or stone (or whatever) must be similar, the roof top must be similar, the doorway and windows must be similar. It must make people think that it is a heritage building as viewed from the front. The building can be larger at the back, where it cannot be seen.
Hi Nancy, I understand the concept you have described. To my mind that is a very reasonable compromise to my mind particularly when the valued heritage feature is streetscape. And when it is not streetscape but historical/associative value, such as someone of significance lived there, designations of buildings can often permit for extensions, additions.
I disagree with your opinions regarding 446 Kettleby Rd. They have created an absolutely beautiful addition to the village. I find it bizarre how people like the owner of 332 can be against the latter, but yet purposely let her house fall down in the hopes that
the “heritage card” won’t be played. We also took notice of the fact that the blacksmith, never was designated, just another tactic (I am sure the property owner realized what an impact that would have had when trying to sell it). I am beginning to think that your “heritage interest” takes precedence over the many other issues in the township. You sure were not helpful at all regarding the traffic calming request, we had that ridiculous meeting with the guy who had never been to Kettleby, and surprise surprise, nothing has changed. What about sidewalks????
.
Hi Nancy, A couple comments. 1. You are correct: to date no results from a late 2019 community meeting about traffic calming. As reviewed at that meeting the seemingly simple traffic calming measures such as additional speed humps were assessed as not being feasible. Stay tuned: as has I have communicated previously it is to be on the 2022 capital agenda. 2. My comment about the rebuild on 446 is that I wonder if the controls could have been better to protect the contextual value; my comment was not about the aesthetic/beauty of house. 3. Yes I do have a “heritage interest.” As you may not know I am the council representative on the Heritage Advisory Committee.