← Meeting record
Toronto Preservation Board
2026-07-23 · 11 stories from 11 items · watch
development
Heritage board directs city solicitor on Liberty Street tower appeal at Ontario tribunal
The Preservation Board approved staff recommendations to guide the City Solicitor's defence of heritage denials in a nine-day Ontario Land Tribunal hearing starting November 30, 2026. The hearing will decide whether a 55-storey mixed-use tower can proceed atop heritage-listed buildings at 54-68 Fraser and 147-151 Liberty after City Council refused demolition permits.
From the floor
“Would anybody like to hold this item?”An accountability officer
“I have a staff report with recommendations before me. Would anybody like to move the recommendations in the report?”An accountability officer
Also in this item
• Ontario Land Tribunal hearing on 147 Liberty Street / 54-68 Fraser mixed-use tower begins November 30, 2026 and runs nine days, concluding before the next Council meeting. City's heritage defence will be shaped by today's confidential directions.
The journey
Decision
The board voted unanimously (9-0) to adopt staff recommendations directing the City Solicitor's position and strategy for the OLT hearing. The specific recommendations were not stated on the open record due to confidential attachments; the vote proceeded on the staff report without debate or public disclosure of the directions.
On video
Jump to this item in the meeting video
Why is this story here?
Big deal at city hallThe OLT hearing will decide whether a 55-storey development proceeds atop designated heritage properties after City Council refused demolition permits. The outcome constrains what the City can enforce on heritage protection at this site and sets precedent for future contested heritage appeals. The hearing is imminent and determinative, making this direction-setting decision hard to reverse once litigation is underway.Touches a narrow groupHeritage preservation and development policy matter broadly, but this item's effect is confined to a single site and is expressed entirely as legal strategy. No resident's week changes based on staff receiving confidential directions; the actual decision (whether the tower is built and heritage attributes demolished) happens at the OLT hearing, not here. The City Solicitor's playbook is not a public effect.
Stories are ordered by how much weight a decision carries and how directly it reaches daily life. They rise as a decision date approaches and fall as they age.
development
Stotts' Bridge demolition approved with sympathetic replacement and commemoration plan
The Toronto Preservation Board has approved demolition of Stotts' Bridge, a 1915 Warren pony truss bridge in poor to defective condition, on Twyn Rivers Drive in the Rouge River National Urban Park. The decision approves a phased replacement: a temporary bridge will be installed while a permanent sympathetically designed steel truss bridge is planned and constructed. Staff determined conservation is not feasible given the bridge's structural deterioration, and alternatives were thoroughly explored. The decision is conditional on documentation and public commemoration plans that may incorporate salvaged elements.
From the floor
“All alternatives to demolition were thoroughly explored and heritage planning staff are of the opinion that the proposed demolition is supportable as a last resort given the poor condition of the bridge.”Toronto Heritage Planning staff
“The bridge has undergone rehabilitation and unfortunately we just it's reached end of life.”Archaeological Services Inc., consultant
“It's obviously unfortunate that it ever comes to demolition, but obviously as said in the report that it's beyond the stage where anything else could be done. So demolition is just unfortunately the only acceptable choice here to make.”An accountability officer
“If there is anything that can be preserved or displayed sometimes old bridges have abutments with date stamps or maybe they have a builder's plate on them so forth. I just think that's a great idea in this case.”An accountability officer
Also in this item
• Bridge was closed to vehicular traffic in July 2024 after routine inspections identified concrete abutments with wide cracks, delamination and spalling, and moderate to severe corrosion on steel trusses; does not meet modern code requirements or load capacity for evacuation route use.
The journey
Decision
City Council approval recommended for demolition of Stotts' Bridge with conditions: (1) prior to demolition, structural elements suitable for salvage will be identified; (2) staff will secure a documentation report; (3) staff will secure a mitigation and commemoration plan including a sympathetically designed replacement bridge, interpretation plan, and documentation of the bridge prior to demolition.
On video
Jump to this item in the meeting video
Why is this story here?
Big deal at city hallThis is a decision to demolish a Part IV designated heritage structure and replace it with a permanent sympathetically designed bridge. While the item does not remove options from future councils, it is a hard-to-reverse infrastructure decision affecting a structure with direct heritage value, contextual significance to the rural landscape, and association with civil engineer Frank Barber. The decision involves new permanent infrastructure construction spanning multiple years.Touches a narrow groupThe bridge serves an evacuation route (Twyn Rivers Drive to the Pickering nuclear station) and provides the only crossing on this route between Sheppard Avenue East and the city limits. However, the structure has been closed to vehicular traffic since July 2024, and no resident's ordinary week is affected by its current state or demolition. The effect touches a bounded group (those using the evacuation route or the Rouge River National Urban Park) at one remove.
Stories are ordered by how much weight a decision carries and how directly it reaches daily life. They rise as a decision date approaches and fall as they age.
development
835-839 Yonge Street heritage alteration and demolition approved with conservation easement
The Toronto Preservation Board recommended approval for alterations and demolition of heritage attributes at the former Grand Central Market site, now owned by Canadian Tire, to permit a 41- and 49-storey mixed-use development. The recommendation includes retention of the original west and south facades, restoration of a missing architectural bay, reconstruction of the pyramidal roof, and a heritage easement agreement to ensure long-term conservation.
From the floor
“This scheme is a good conservation strategy. It retains most of all the original fabric of the former Grand Central Market building of what remains. It also restores the original storefront and window detailing with some programmatic purposes which will be introduced. In addition, the original bay on the north side will be restored as it was removed in the 1980s.”City of Toronto Heritage Planning
“It's intended to be functional. So it would be a continuation of the existing. We've got good documentation of what the appearance was and there's a lot of extent fabric on the site so we can get appropriate material and color matching so we're confident that it will have a functional use and we can also reinstate historically appropriate windows there and storefronts.”ERA Architects, heritage consultant on the project
“On our panel, our only thought about this design was that we feel that the canty levered portion is a bit looming over the original market part. Would there be any possibility to make that less abrupt?”An accountability officer
“Originally the initial submission had a much larger cantilever. This has been stepped back significantly. This is still at the zoning level so the architectural design hasn't really developed as it moves forward through the site plan process. I think there would be refinement to the material, the appearance and as much as possible reduce the visual impact of the cantilever.”ERA Architects, heritage consultant on the project
Also in this item
• The former Grand Central Market building (1935, Spanish Colonial Revival style) survives only as west and south facades after 1980s alterations; the development will reconstruct the missing north bay and pyramidal roof for the first time in over 40 years
• A heritage easement agreement will be required to ensure long-term conservation, binding future uses of the property to heritage protections
• Heritage staff required an interpretation plan to educate the public about the building's complex history as a market, Canadian Tire headquarters, and gas bar
The journey
Decision
Approved: alterations and demolition of heritage attributes under Sections 33 and 34(1)1 of the Ontario Heritage Act, and authority to enter into a heritage easement agreement. The conservation strategy retains the west and south facades of the former Grand Central Market building in-situ within the new podium; removes and reinstates the non-original pyramidal and tiled roofs in the Spanish Colonial Revival style; restores the third (northern) architectural bay that was removed in the 1980s; removes the drive aisle in two bays and reinstates storefronts based on archival documentation; and replaces second-storey windows with historically appropriate ones. New construction is stepped back 5.4 metres behind the heritage facades, with an additional 8.2-metre setback at ground level. An interpretation plan is required.
On video
Jump to this item in the meeting video
Why is this story here?
Big deal at city hallThis decision permits demolition and significant alteration of a designated heritage property in a high-profile downtown location (Yonge/Church), which requires approval under the Ontario Heritage Act. The heritage easement agreement is a permanent legal constraint on future alterations. The decision affects how a 1935 Spanish Colonial Revival building is treated in perpetuity and affects development rights on a major site.Touches a narrow groupThe item affects a specific heritage site and a single development proposal. Most Toronto residents have no direct interaction with this building. Those interested in heritage conservation, downtown design, or the Yonge-Church intersection may notice the outcome, but it does not affect daily commutes, services, or costs for a broad group this week.
Stories are ordered by how much weight a decision carries and how directly it reaches daily life. They rise as a decision date approaches and fall as they age.
development
43 Kimbark Boulevard designated under Ontario Heritage Act to preserve Arts and Crafts estate
City Council intends to formally designate the Kimbark House property, a 1910 Arts and Crafts fieldstone residence in Lawrence Park, to protect it from demolition or uncontrolled alteration under provincial heritage law. The designation meets a January 1, 2027 deadline imposed by Bill 23 amendments, after which properties on the City's Heritage Register must be designated or lose protected status. The property qualifies under four of nine heritage criteria and was previously home to businessman Frank Kimbark and defence lawyer Edward Greenspan.
Also in this item
• Bill 23 amendments require all properties on the Heritage Register as of January 1, 2023 to be formally designated by January 1, 2027 or lose protected status; 43 Kimbark is subject to this deadline.
The journey
What happens next
The property owner may oppose the formal designation when it comes back to City Council for final decision. The deadline for designation is January 1, 2027. Public hearing opportunity likely before final designation vote.
Decision
City Council stated its intention to designate 43 Kimbark Boulevard under Part IV, Section 29 of the Ontario Heritage Act, as recommended in the staff report.
On video
Jump to this item in the meeting video
Why is this story here?
Big deal at city hallDesignation is hard to reverse (requires provincial approval to remove) and affects the property owner's future use and alteration rights indefinitely. It constrains what the owner can do with the building, meeting the 'hard to reverse' test for Stakes 2. The property meets four of nine criteria and has documented heritage value spanning over a century.Touches a narrow groupThe present effect is indirect: only the owner and immediate neighbours of this one Lawrence Park property experience the change in permitted alterations. Most Toronto residents do not know this address or feel the designation today. Narrow scope to one heritage site in an affluent neighbourhood.
Stories are ordered by how much weight a decision carries and how directly it reaches daily life. They rise as a decision date approaches and fall as they age.
housing
8 Lowther Avenue rooftop addition approved despite exceeding heritage guidelines
Toronto Preservation Board approved a rooftop addition and deck on a heritage-designated property in the East Annex that exceeds the neighborhood's own guidelines for height, but staff found it acceptably obscured by setback and will not harm the district's character. The property owner defended the design as minimally visible from the street.
From the floor
“It's a fantastic dwelling with all that Romanesque charm in the annex. I see over the years there were stained glass windows in the arches of the second floor and it looks like the brick has been painted in the front facade. Is there any intention to try to bring back some of the original heritage attributes?”Spoke on the record
“The proposed roof addition, as noted, doesn't comply with the HCD guidelines. However, due to the step back of 6.48 meters to the front of the heritage property, it is minimally visible from the street.”City of Toronto heritage planner
“The setback was put in place to make sure that it would be less visible from the street as it was mentioned before, as well as the height was kept under the zoning requirements for the height as well.”Speaking for the applicant
“Unfortunately a lot of the some of that wood detailing that you see there, the craftsmanship in there is a bit rotted. We were able to keep the handrails on either side. Where we can, we are definitely keeping what we can. The stained glass windows we love and wish they were really a little bit more secure.”Speaking for the applicant
Also in this item
• The addition breaches the East Annex Heritage Conservation District's own guidelines, which explicitly state additions should be lower than the existing roof ridge. This is a variance, not a routine approval.
The journey
Decision
Approved the rooftop addition, 2.1 meters in height, set back 6.48 meters from the front street-facing edge, with a new roof deck and railing, plus rear third-floor addition, rear balconies, and new side and rear windows. The design does not comply with East Annex Heritage Conservation District guidelines stating additions should be lower than the existing roof ridge, but city heritage staff found the setback and stepped design protect the character of the heritage building and district.
On video
Jump to this item in the meeting video
Why is this story here?
ContainedA single-property heritage variance under section 42 of the Ontario Heritage Act is a genuine decision but bounded to one address. The owner can build; future councils could amend or rescind if the addition harms the district, though that would be costly politically. It does not constrain future councils from making different decisions on other properties.Touches a narrow groupThe approval affects one specific property on Lowther Avenue and only the immediate neighborhood perceives the rooftop addition (the heritage planner emphasized it is minimally visible from the street). No Toronto resident's commute, rent, street safety, or service access is touched by this single-site decision.
Stories are ordered by how much weight a decision carries and how directly it reaches daily life. They rise as a decision date approaches and fall as they age.
housing
City Council to refuse heritage permit for 87 Highland Avenue alterations
The Toronto Preservation Board recommends that City Council refuse a heritage permit for unpermitted alterations to a designated C-rated property at 87 Highland Avenue in North Rosedale, including removal of architectural details, installation of new elements, a new porch, windows, and white masonry coating. The recommendation moves to Council for final decision. Staff will work with the owners on restoration if the permit is refused.
Also in this item
• The property owner removed architectural elements including dentils, brackets, and Tudor detailing without obtaining a heritage permit, and applied white coating to masonry on the existing dwelling and new brick wall; staff determined these alterations do not comply with the North Rosedale District Plan, Parks Canada Standards and Guidelines, or the Official Plan.
The journey
Time to act
You can weigh in
Residents may depute at City Council when this item is scheduled for decision; the Preservation Board's recommendation is non-binding and Council has final authority.
Decision
Motion carried unanimously (9-0) to forward the staff recommendation to City Council to refuse the heritage permit for the alterations at 87 Highland Avenue that were undertaken without approval.
On video
Jump to this item in the meeting video
Why is this story here?
ContainedA single designated heritage property in one neighbourhood; the decision is consequential for this specific owner and property but bounded to one address. Reversible if the owner chooses to restore the property in line with heritage standards. Does not constrain future council options or change institutional authority.Touches a narrow groupThe matter affects the specific residents of this property and neighbours in North Rosedale who care about heritage conservation. The general Toronto resident does not experience this alteration or its regulation in an ordinary week. Heritage enforcement at a single address is a narrow impact.
Stories are ordered by how much weight a decision carries and how directly it reaches daily life. They rise as a decision date approaches and fall as they age.
development
6 Whitney Avenue - application to demolish garage and erect carport in North Rosedale heritage district
The Toronto Preservation Board considered whether to approve a heritage permit for a masonry wall and carport at 6 Whitney Avenue in the North Rosedale Heritage Conservation District. The wall, which was partly built without a permit before the city ordered work to cease, triggered strong neighbour opposition centered on traffic safety concerns, heritage character loss, and public realm privatization.
From the floor
“There is a very significant safety risk here to pedestrians to vehicles particularly sedans and coupes which will be anywhere from 80% or more blocked from view from vehicles because of the posts and the hedges”Advantage Forensics, Inc., on behalf of the applicant for the safety assessment
“I'm shocked by the city supporting a wall within the public realm. The area that's occupied by the wall and behind in terms of the public realm that is then therefore not visually accessible is over 300 meters squared. That's larger than the average apartment in the city of Toronto”A resident
“The Whitney wall, if approved, will radically transform rather than enhance the heritage landscape of North Rosedale. An imposing masonry wall is not appropriate for this district.”Heritage architect, principal author of the 2004 North Rosedale Heritage District study
“The McGraths are in litigation with the city. They threaten to sue the city for millions of dollars. They've sued 13 North Rosedale residents who would normally make well-thought-out submissions to this committee, but they have not done so for fear of what might happen.”A resident
“In paragraph 90 of his affidavit, Mr. McGrath in a sworn affidavit says, 'We ultimately entered into a settlement agreement with the city that specifically permits the wall.' Subject to certain relatively minor modifications. Those are Mr. McGrath's words, not mine.”A resident
2 more people spoke
“I have seen a number of near misses at that intersection with vehicles almost colliding, making turns. And since that wall has been erected, I make sure me and my children are walking on the other side of the street because I have genuine concern that cars won't be able to see us crossing.”A resident
“The yes that portion is city-owned. So any agreement will be for you know the occupation of it. However, vegetation is something that would be within the city's control. It's not a part of this permit. You don't need a permit for the rose bushes.”City of Toronto Heritage Planning
Also in this item
• Wall was constructed without a heritage permit; city issued cease-and-desist order; owner then applied for retroactive permit approval
• Forensic engineer testified wall creates visibility only 27 metres (70% below standard) for departing vehicles and 10 metres (71% below standard) for approaching sight lines at a busy intersection
• Property owner in separate litigation with 13 North Rosedale residents and the city; sworn affidavit references settlement agreement but depicts application as minor modification to previously approved wall
The journey
On video
Jump to this item in the meeting video
Why is this story here?
ContainedA single site with one property owner seeking heritage approval for a wall structure. No policy change, no budget reallocation, no shift in institutional control. The decision is bounded to this one location. Heritage approval or denial does not close doors for future councils on similar matters (though precedent concerns were raised). Stakes 1: decision is real and affects this address, but it is not hard to undo or especially wide-reaching.Touches a narrow groupThe daily-life effect is narrow: the intersection is used regularly by some Glenn Road residents (Stefania Mark with young children) and the applicant's immediate neighbours. The wall affects foot traffic and vehicle sightlines at one specific corner in North Rosedale. No resident's rent, transit commute, or broad-group safety has changed yet; the effect is limited to this address and its immediate surroundings. Salience 1.
Stories are ordered by how much weight a decision carries and how directly it reaches daily life. They rise as a decision date approaches and fall as they age.
development
302 King Street East designation recommended despite owner's late notice and request to defer
The Preservation Board recommends that the City state its intention to designate the Garibaldi House at 302 King Street East, a heritage property built circa 1858 in Corktown. The owner's counsel, appearing only days after receiving notice, requested deferral to the September meeting, citing insufficient time to assess the designation's impact on future uses; staff confirmed the heritage attributes are not locked in and can be refined before the item reaches Planning and Housing Committee in November. The board voted unanimously to recommend designation.
From the floor
“My client was only in receipt of this notice 2 days ago. In that vein, my client had written to the city to request deferral of this board's consideration, and we are here today to reiterate that request. The owner recognizes the potential heritage attributes of the property, but simply put, given the limited time in which they received the notice of intent to designate, they require more time to understand the specific attributes the city has identified for designation, whether it agrees with those attributes and how the designation contemplated may affect any future uses on the property.”Counsel to Nellia Design Inc., the registered owner of 302 King Street East
“This report was is scheduled to track to the next regular planning and housing committee meeting which is tenatively scheduled for after the municipal election. So it's scheduled for November 26th. So we have a considerable amount of time to work through any issues that the property owner may have with the designation and we're more than happy to to meet with the the property owner's solicitor and the property owner to to to have those conversations.”Heritage Planning, City of Toronto
“No, it does not lock in the heritage attributes. This board will provide its advice to council on the recommendations that are before you today. And if we have conversations with the property owner and having those conversations decide to make changes to the statement of significance, we certainly have the opportunity to do that and to bring that before the planning and housing committee and to council.”Heritage Planning, City of Toronto
“I'm very comfortable that there's a long period of time where discussion can continue on and that our mandate as a board is whether in the report before us we feel like it satisfies the test for designation. We ourselves don't have the power to designate but we can recommend that we think that there is merit to the planning report and I hope that there is continued conversation and dialogue in the months ahead with the owner so that everybody's comfortable.”A councillor
Also in this item
• The property owner received the notice of intention to designate only 2 days before the board meeting, despite the notice being dated June 30. Staff acknowledged this is a timing issue under Bill 23 designations but said the city sends three notices and has time to work with the owner.
• This is one of 18 pre-1870 Heritage Register properties the city must designate or remove by January 1, 2027 (a provincial Bill 23 deadline). The city hired heritage consultants to evaluate them citywide.
• The board confirmed that recommending designation does not lock in the heritage attributes; they can be refined in discussions with the owner before the formal Planning and Housing Committee and Council votes.
The journey
Time to act
You can weigh in
The property owner may appeal the designation to the Ontario Land Tribunal if Council ultimately designates the property. Residents who support or oppose the designation can depute at the Planning and Housing Committee meeting in November before the formal designation vote.
Decision
Motion carried unanimously (9-0) to recommend that City Council state its intention to designate 302 King Street East under Part IV, Section 29 of the Ontario Heritage Act. The statement of significance and heritage attributes are subject to refinement during discussions with the property owner before the matter reaches Planning and Housing Committee.
On video
Jump to this item in the meeting video
Why is this story here?
ContainedA heritage designation is a genuine decision but affects one property. It constrains future alterations and demolitions on that single site and is not easily reversed, meeting the test for Stakes 1. The city's mandate to comply with a provincial Bill 23 deadline by January 1, 2027 adds institutional weight but does not elevate this to Stakes 2, as the substance is a single-site heritage protection.Touches a narrow groupThe designation affects the property owner directly and anyone considering alteration or development of the building, but does not change a resident's daily experience this week. The Garibaldi House is a landmark in Corktown, but the salience for the general public is at one remove: historical protection, not present effect. The owner's concerns about redevelopment potential are real but do not land on residents' ordinary weeks now.
Stories are ordered by how much weight a decision carries and how directly it reaches daily life. They rise as a decision date approaches and fall as they age.
development
Weston Lions Arena designated as heritage property
The City Council is being asked to formally designate the Weston Lions Arena at 2125 Lawrence Avenue West as a heritage property under provincial law. The 1948-49 concrete and brick building, now city-owned, will be protected from demolition or major alteration without review. Designation requires council approval.
The journey
Decision
Motion carried to recommend designation of 2125 Lawrence Avenue West under Part IV, Section 29 of the Ontario Heritage Act.
On video
Jump to this item in the meeting video
Why is this story here?
ContainedDesignation of one city-owned building. Hard to reverse because it requires a council vote to de-designate and provincial consent, but the scope is bounded to a single property. Meets the threshold for a genuine decision that carries some institutional weight but does not close doors for future councils or change what city government is.Touches a narrow groupAffects a specific neighbourhood asset and those who use or visit the Weston Lions Arena and Lions Park. Heritage designation has real long-term implications for maintenance and alteration, but the effect is indirect: most Toronto residents will not notice this week. Only residents of or regular users of Weston and the park feel this directly now.
Stories are ordered by how much weight a decision carries and how directly it reaches daily life. They rise as a decision date approaches and fall as they age.
development
City to designate Simcoe Hall and Convocation Hall as heritage properties
City Council will state its intention to designate Simcoe Hall and Convocation Hall at the University of Toronto under the Ontario Heritage Act. The two adjoining buildings, which house the university's main administrative centre and primary ceremonial gathering space, have been on the city's heritage register since 1973 and meet provincial criteria for formal Part IV protection. Designation will guide any future changes to these Edwardian-era landmark buildings.
Also in this item
• Simcoe Hall and Convocation Hall, which function as the university's main administrative centre and primary public gathering and ceremonial space, together form a symbolic processional route for administrators and graduating students during graduation events.
• Both Heritage Planning and the Consultant are of the opinion that the properties meet 7 of the 9 Ontario Regulation 9/06 criteria prescribed for municipal designation under Part IV, Section 29 of the Ontario Heritage Act, exceeding the minimum threshold of 2 criteria.
The journey
What happens next
No further action available to residents on this item; the designation process proceeds through council to the provincial approval stage.
Decision
Motion to state the city's intention to designate 150 College Street (Simcoe Hall at 27 King's College Circle and Convocation Hall at 31 King's College Circle) under Part IV, Section 29 of the Ontario Heritage Act carried unanimously (9-0). The recommendation from the staff report was adopted.
On video
Jump to this item in the meeting video
Why is this story here?
ContainedThe designation is a decision to protect two specific university buildings under provincial heritage law. It is a genuine decision with legal consequence, but bounded to two adjoining properties at one address. Reversal would require provincial action and is not impossible, though unlikely absent changed circumstances. The decision does not constrain future councils' broader options; it narrows what can be done to these two buildings only.Touches a narrow groupThe effect is felt directly by the University of Toronto as the property owner and steward, requiring compliance with heritage protections in any future alteration or redevelopment. Most residents do not visit these buildings regularly or contemplate changes to them. The buildings are culturally significant and iconic, but designation does not change their appearance, use, or public access this week. The salience is one step removed from the ordinary resident's daily life.
Stories are ordered by how much weight a decision carries and how directly it reaches daily life. They rise as a decision date approaches and fall as they age.
development
North Rosedale heritage wall approved with reduced height and metal railing
City Council has approved a proposal to retain and complete a partially constructed masonry wall at 2 Whitney Avenue in the North Rosedale Heritage Conservation District, subject to modifications. The wall, built without a heritage permit on city land abutting a B-rated landmark property, was redesigned after an initial refusal to comply with heritage conservation standards. Staff recommend approval as the revised proposal maintains visual connections to the heritage building and meets Parks Canada guidelines.
From the floor
“The applicant's proposal has been revised from the original design which was previously refused. The existing structure is now proposed to be modified to reflect the revised design. Heritage Planning staff are of the opinion that the current proposal maintains the visual connections to the B-rated landmark building when viewed from the public realm.”City of Toronto Heritage Planning
Also in this item
• The wall was erected without a heritage permit, requiring retroactive approval under Ontario Heritage Act Section 42.
• The property is majority-owned by the City of Toronto, with the wall itself located on city land.
The journey
Decision
Application approved for retention and completion of the masonry wall with modifications: localized reduction in height of the masonry portion and introduction of a decorative metal railing, as depicted in revised application drawings.
On video
Jump to this item in the meeting video
Why is this story here?
ContainedA single heritage approval for one property in one district, reversible by future decision. The decision affects the specific masonry wall and its visual relationship to the adjacent landmark building only.Invisible to residentsNo resident experiences a change in their daily life from this decision. This is a heritage compliance matter affecting a specific private property improvement and city-owned wall abutment in North Rosedale.
Stories are ordered by how much weight a decision carries and how directly it reaches daily life. They rise as a decision date approaches and fall as they age.