← Meeting record

Toronto Preservation Board

2026-07-23 · 11 stories from 11 items · watch

What we covered

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.

adoptedToronto Preservation Board · Thu, Jul 23Province decides

The journey

Thu, Jul 23 · Toronto Preservation Board · adopted

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.Felt in an ordinary weekOnce designated, anyone proposing to alter or demolish the building faces a heritage review process, and the city must maintain it to heritage standards. For Weston residents and regular park users, this is a visible constraint on what can happen to a local landmark. The effect is direct and real to that group, though the group itself is bounded to the 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.

Open This Story

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.

adoptedToronto Preservation Board · Thu, Jul 23DecidedProvince decides

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

Thu, Jul 23 · Toronto Preservation Board · adopted

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 groupEven when the designation takes effect, it touches only this one property and its owner. Any resident considering buying or living at that address would notice the heritage restriction, but that is a small specific group. The broader public notices heritage designations only through the cumulative effect of many such decisions, not individual ones.

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.

Open This Story

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.

adoptedToronto Preservation Board · Thu, Jul 23Court rulingClosed doors

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

Thu, Jul 23 · Toronto Preservation Board · adopted

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 groupIf the board's directions are adopted and the City Solicitor acts on them, the effect is still confined to litigation strategy. The salience of the *outcome* of the OLT hearing (whether the tower proceeds) will be substantial and direct once the tribunal rules, but that decision is external to this municipal act. This item's adoption does not itself change what gets built; it shapes how the City argues. A single address, even a prominent one.

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.

Open This Story

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.

adoptedToronto Preservation Board · Thu, Jul 23Province decides

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

Thu, Jul 23 · Toronto Preservation Board · adopted

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 groupOnce approved and built, the development and conserved facade will be visible to people using Yonge Street and the intersection, but the daily-life effect is visual and localized. The building itself will serve as a reminder of heritage conservation rather than altering a service, route, or cost that affects most residents directly.

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.

Open This Story

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.

adoptedToronto Preservation Board · Thu, Jul 23Ottawa decides

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

Thu, Jul 23 · Toronto Preservation Board · adopted

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 groupOnce demolition proceeds and the temporary bridge is in place, the effect on daily life remains bounded: the evacuation route reopens, but this is a specialized use case. The replacement bridge, when complete, restores function but does not change the character of use. Most Toronto residents will not experience this. Those using the park or the evacuation route notice restoration of access, but the change is a return to prior function rather than a new daily-life 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.

Open This Story

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.

adoptedToronto Preservation Board · Thu, Jul 23DecidedProvince decides

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

Thu, Jul 23 · Toronto Preservation Board · adopted

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 groupIf designation takes effect, it restricts what the University can do with these two buildings without heritage approval. Most Toronto residents and commuters will see no change in the buildings' appearance or their own access. The restriction affects the university's planning flexibility for these two properties only. One group, heritage advocates and those who value preservation of these landmarks, notices the outcome directly; the broader population experiences no change to their surroundings or daily routines.

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.

Open This Story

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.

adoptedToronto Preservation Board · Thu, Jul 23DecidedProvince decides

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

Thu, Jul 23 · Toronto Preservation Board · adopted

What happens next

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 groupIf the designation is formally adopted, the building's protected status constrains what can be done with it, affecting future development plans for that site. Residents visiting the building or the neighbourhood would see it remain subject to heritage review standards. This is real but bounded to one property and one class of action (alterations and demolitions), so it projects as 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.

Open This Story

development

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.

adoptedToronto Preservation Board · Thu, Jul 23Province decides

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

Thu, Jul 23 · Toronto Preservation Board · adopted

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 groupIf the rooftop addition is built, the effect is localized to the immediate surroundings of 8 Lowther Avenue and the appearance of one heritage building. The East Annex neighborhood and heritage advocates may notice, but the change is intentionally designed to be minimally visible from the street. No broad effect on 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.

Open This Story

development

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.

adoptedToronto Preservation Board · Thu, Jul 23DecidedProvince decides

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

Thu, Jul 23 · Toronto Preservation Board · adopted

What happens next

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 groupIf Council refuses the permit as recommended, the primary effect is on the property owner and immediate neighbours. The owner will be directed to restore the property or seek compliant alternatives. Most Toronto residents will not notice or experience this decision once in force.

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.

Open This Story

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.

adoptedToronto Preservation Board · Thu, Jul 23

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

Thu, Jul 23 · Toronto Preservation Board · adopted

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 groupIf the wall is approved and stands, the daily effect remains narrow: the corner location is a concern for people who use that specific intersection (residents on Glenn Road and Whitney Avenue, visitors to Rosedale United Church and Whitney Park). The wall does not change any resident's water bill, bus fare, or housing cost. It is a site-specific change affecting one neighbourhood corner, so projected salience stays at 1, not 2.

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.

Open This Story

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.

amendedToronto Preservation Board · Thu, Jul 23Province decides

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

Thu, Jul 23 · Toronto Preservation Board · amended

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.Touches a narrow groupOnce approved and the wall is completed as designed, residents and visitors to the North Rosedale area, particularly those using Whitney Avenue and Whitney Park, would see a completed heritage-compliant masonry wall. The effect is narrowly localized to one intersection and one visual landscape element.

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.

Open This Story

The full agenda, as filed

All 11 items in the clerk’s order. Each carries the city’s own words: the staff recommendation, what the body decided, and its status. Nothing below is written by us.

PB47.1adopted
2125 Lawrence Avenue West - Notice of Intention to Designate a Property under Part IV, Section 29 of the Ontario Heritage Act
The Toronto Preservation Board recommends that: 1. City Council state its intention to designate the property at 2125 Lawrence Avenue West under Part IV, Section 29 of the Ontario Heritage Act in accordance with the Statement of Significance for 2125 Lawrence Avenue West (Reasons for Designation) attached as Attachment 1 to the report (June 30, 2026) from the Senior Manager, Heritage Planning, Urban Design, City Planning. 2. If there are no objections to the designation, City Council authorize the City Solicitor to introduce the Bill in Council designating the property under Part IV, Section 29 of the Ontario Heritage Act.
Staff recommendation as filed
The Senior Manager, Heritage Planning, Urban Design, City Planning recommends that: 1. City Council state its intention to designate the property at 2125 Lawrence Avenue West under Part IV, Section 29 of the Ontario Heritage Act in accordance with the Statement of Significance for 2125 Lawrence Avenue West (Reasons for Designation) attached as Attachment 1 to the report (June 30, 2026) from the Senior Manager, Heritage Planning, Urban Design, City Planning. 2. If there are no objections to the designation, City Council authorize the City Solicitor to introduce the Bill in Council designating the property under Part IV, Section 29 of the Ontario Heritage Act.
PB47.2adopted
43 Kimbark Boulevard - Notice of Intention to Designate a Property under Part IV, Section 29 of the Ontario Heritage Act
The Toronto Preservation Board recommends that: 1. City Council state its intention to designate the property at 43 Kimbark Boulevard under Part IV, Section 29 of the Ontario Heritage Act in accordance with the Statement of Significance for 43 Kimbark Boulevard - Kimbark House (Reasons for Designation) attached as Attachment 1 to the report (June 30, 2026) from the Senior Manager, Heritage Planning, Urban Design, City Planning. 2. If there are no objections to the designation, City Council authorize the City Solicitor to introduce the Bill in Council designating the property under Part IV, Section 29 of the Ontario Heritage Act.
Staff recommendation as filed
The Senior Manager, Heritage Planning, Urban Design, City Planning recommends that: 1. City Council state its intention to designate the property at 43 Kimbark Boulevard under Part IV, Section 29 of the Ontario Heritage Act in accordance with the Statement of Significance for 43 Kimbark Boulevard - Kimbark House (Reasons for Designation) attached as Attachment 1 to the report (June 30, 2026) from the Senior Manager, Heritage Planning, Urban Design, City Planning. 2. If there are no objections to the designation, City Council authorize the City Solicitor to introduce the Bill in Council designating the property under Part IV, Section 29 of the Ontario Heritage Act.
PB47.3adopted
150 College Street (Simcoe Hall and Convocation Hall - 27 and 31 King's College Circle) - Notice of Intention to Designate a Property under Part IV, Section 29 of the Ontario Heritage Act
The Toronto Preservation Board recommends that: 1. City Council state its intention to designate the property at 150 College Street (Simcoe Hall - 27 King's College Circle) under Part IV, Section 29 of the Ontario Heritage Act in accordance with the Statement of Significance for 150 College Street (Simcoe Hall - 27 King's College Circle) (Reasons for Designation) attached as Attachment 1 to the report (July 8, 2026) from the Senior Manager, Heritage Planning, Urban Design, City Planning. 2. City Council state its intention to designate the property at 150 College Street (Convocation Hall - 31 King's College Circle) under Part IV, Section 29 of the Ontario Heritage Act in accordance with the Statement of Significance for 150 College Street (Convocation Hall - 31 King's College Circle) (Reasons for Designation) attached as Attachment 2 to the report (July 8, 2026) from the Senior Manager, Heritage Planning, Urban Design, City Planning. 3. If there are no objections to the designation, City Council authorize the City Solicitor to introduce the Bills in Council designating the properties under Part IV, Section 29 of the Ontario Heritage Act.
Staff recommendation as filed
The Senior Manager, Heritage Planning, Urban Design, City Planning recommends that: 1. City Council state its intention to designate the property at 150 College Street (Simcoe Hall - 27 King's College Circle) under Part IV, Section 29 of the Ontario Heritage Act in accordance with the Statement of Significance for 150 College Street (Simcoe Hall - 27 King's College Circle) (Reasons for Designation) attached as Attachment 1 to the report (July 8, 2026) from the Senior Manager, Heritage Planning, Urban Design, City Planning. 2. City Council state its intention to designate the property at 150 College Street (Convocation Hall - 31 King's College Circle) under Part IV, Section 29 of the Ontario Heritage Act in accordance with the Statement of Significance for 150 College Street (Convocation Hall - 31 King's College Circle) (Reasons for Designation) attached as Attachment 2 to the report (July 8, 2026) from the Senior Manager, Heritage Planning, Urban Design, City Planning. 3. If there are no objections to the designation, City Council authorize the City Solicitor to introduce the Bills in Council designating the properties under Part IV, Section 29 of the Ontario Heritage Act.
PB47.4adopted
302 King Street East - Notice of Intention to Designate a Property under Part IV, Section 29 of the Ontario Heritage Act
The Toronto Preservation Board recommends that: 1. City Council state its intention to designate the property at 302 King Street East under Part IV, Section 29 of the Ontario Heritage Act in accordance with the Statement of Significance for 302 King Street East (Reasons for Designation) attached as Attachment 1 to the report (June 30, 2026) from the Senior Manager, Heritage Planning, Urban Design, City Planning. 2. If there are no objections to the designation, City Council authorize the City Solicitor to introduce the Bill in Council designating the property under Part IV, Section 29 of the Ontario Heritage Act.
Staff recommendation as filed
The Senior Manager, Heritage Planning, Urban Design, City Planning recommends that: 1. City Council state its intention to designate the property at 302 King Street East under Part IV, Section 29 of the Ontario Heritage Act in accordance with the Statement of Significance for 302 King Street East (Reasons for Designation) attached as Attachment 1 to the report (June 30, 2026) from the Senior Manager, Heritage Planning, Urban Design, City Planning. 2. If there are no objections to the designation, City Council authorize the City Solicitor to introduce the Bill in Council designating the property under Part IV, Section 29 of the Ontario Heritage Act.
PB47.5adopted
8 Lowther Avenue - Alterations to a Designated Heritage Property Under Section 42 of the Ontario Heritage Act - Approval
The Toronto Preservation Board recommends that: 1. City Council approve the construction of the roof addition and alterations at the heritage property at 8 Lowther Avenue, in accordance with Section 42 of the Ontario Heritage Act, with such alterations substantially in accordance with plans and drawings prepared by Joseph Cohen, dated May 20, 2026 and on file with the Senior Manager, Heritage Planning, and to the satisfaction of the Senior Manager, Heritage Planning.
Staff recommendation as filed
The Senior Manager, Heritage Planning, Urban Design, City Planning recommends that: 1. City Council approve the construction of the roof addition and alterations at the heritage property at 8 Lowther Avenue, in accordance with Section 42 of the Ontario Heritage Act, with such alterations substantially in accordance with plans and drawings prepared by Joseph Cohen, dated May 20, 2026 and on file with the Senior Manager, Heritage Planning, and to the satisfaction of the Senior Manager, Heritage Planning.
PB47.6adopted
87 Highland Avenue - Alterations to a Designated Heritage Property in the North Rosedale Heritage Conservation District
The Toronto Preservation Board recommends that: 1. City Council refuse alterations to the designated heritage property at 87 Highland Avenue in the North Rosedale Heritage Conservation District under Part V, Section 42 of the Ontario Heritage Act, comprised of the construction of a new front porch, installation of new windows on the front and side elevations, removal of architectural elements, including the brackets, dentils and Tudor detailing on the north and east gables and their incompatible replacement, and the application of a white coating to the masonry on the two-storey house and brick wall at the front of the property, in accordance with the submission package dated October 3, 2025 submitted by Giamo + Associates Architects Inc., on file with the Senior Manager, Heritage Planning. 2. If the owner appeals City Council's decision to refuse the alterations to the heritage property at 87 Highland Avenue under Section 42 of the Ontario Heritage Act, City Council direct the City Solicitor and the appropriate City staff to attend the Ontario Land Tribunal hearing to oppose the appeal.
Staff recommendation as filed
The Senior Manager, Heritage Planning, Urban Design, City Planning recommends that: 1. City Council refuse alterations to the designated heritage property at 87 Highland Avenue in the North Rosedale Heritage Conservation District under Part V, Section 42 of the Ontario Heritage Act, comprised of the construction of a new front porch, installation of new windows on the front and side elevations, removal of architectural elements, including the brackets, dentils and Tudor detailing on the north and east gables and their incompatible replacement, and the application of a white coating to the masonry on the two-storey house and brick wall at the front of the property, in accordance with the submission package dated October 3, 2025 submitted by Giamo + Associates Architects Inc., on file with the Senior Manager, Heritage Planning. 2. If the owner appeals City Council's decision to refuse the alterations to the heritage property at 87 Highland Avenue under Section 42 of the Ontario Heritage Act, City Council direct the City Solicitor and the appropriate City staff to attend the Ontario Land Tribunal hearing to oppose the appeal.
PB47.7adopted
54 to 66 Fraser Avenue and 68 Fraser Avenue (147 Liberty Street) - Alterations to a Designated Heritage Property, Demolition of Heritage Attributes and the Demolition of a Building under Sections 33, 34(1)(1) and 34(1)(2) of the Ontario Heritage Act - Request for Directions
The Toronto Preservation Board recommends that: 1. City Council adopt the confidential instructions to staff contained in Confidential Attachment 1 to the report (July 8, 2026) from the City Solicitor. 2. City Council authorize the public release of the confidential instructions to staff contained in Confidential Attachment 1, along with the entirety of Confidential Appendix "A" and Confidential Appendix "B" to the report (July 8, 2026) from the City Solicitor, if adopted by City Council. 3. City Council direct that all other information contained in Confidential Attachment 1 to the report (July 8, 2026) from the City Solicitor is to remain confidential at the discretion of the City Solicitor, as it contains advice which is subject to solicitor-client privilege.
Staff recommendation as filed
The City Solicitor recommends that: 1. City Council adopt the confidential instructions to staff contained in Confidential Attachment 1 to the report (July 8, 2026) from the City Solicitor. 2. City Council authorize the public release of the confidential instructions to staff contained in Confidential Attachment 1, along with the entirety of Confidential Appendix "A" and Confidential Appendix "B" to the report (July 8, 2026) from the City Solicitor, if adopted by City Council. 3. City Council direct that all other information contained in Confidential Attachment 1 to the report (July 8, 2026) from the City Solicitor is to remain confidential at the discretion of the City Solicitor, as it contains advice which is subject to solicitor-client privilege.
PB47.8adopted
835-839 Yonge Street - Alterations to Designated Heritage Properties and Demolition of Heritage Attributes on Designated Heritage Properties under Sections 33 and 34(1)1 of the Ontario Heritage Act and Authority to Enter into a Heritage Easement Agreement
The Toronto Preservation Board recommends that: 1. City Council approve: a. the alterations to the designated heritage properties at 835-839 Yonge Street with conditions, under Part IV, Section 33 of the Ontario Heritage Act, to allow for the construction of the a mixed-use building with two towers of 41 and 49 storeys, with such alterations to the designated heritage properties being substantially in accordance with the Heritage Impact Assessment prepared by ERA Architects Inc., dated August 15, 2022, as revised on May 22, 2026, and on file with the Senior Manager, Heritage Planning, all subject to and in accordance with the Conservation Plan satisfactory to the Senior Manager, Heritage Planning and subject to conditions as set out below; and b. the demolition of specified heritage attributes of the designated heritage properties at 835-839 Yonge Street with conditions, under Part IV, Section 34(1)1 of the Ontario Heritage Act, to allow for the construction of a mixed-use building with two towers of 41 and 49 storeys, with such alterations to the designated heritage properties being substantially in accordance with the Heritage Impact Assessment prepared by ERA Architects Inc., dated August 15, 2022 as revised on May 22, 2026, and on file with the Senior Manager, Heritage Planning, all subject to and in accordance with the Conservation Plan satisfactory to the Senior Manager, Heritage Planning and subject to conditions as set out below. 2. City Council direct that its consent to the application to alter the designated heritage properties at 835-839 Yonge Street under Part IV, Section 33 of the Ontario Heritage, and its consent to the demolition of specified heritage attributes at the designated heritage properties at 835-839 Yonge Street under Part IV, Section 34(1)1 of the Ontario Heritage Act are also subject to the following conditions: a. that the related site-specific Zoning By-law Amendment has come into full force and effect; b. the owner shall provide a detailed Conservation Plan, prepared by a qualified heritage consultant that is substantially in accordance with the conservation strategy set out in the Heritage Impact Assessment prepared by ERA Architects Inc., dated August 15, 2022, as revised on May 22, 2026, to the satisfaction of the Senior Manager, Heritage Planning; c. the owner shall enter into a Heritage Easement Agreement with the City for the properties at 835-839 Yonge Street, in accordance with the Heritage Impact Assessment prepared by ERA Architects Inc., dated August 15, 2022, as revised on May 22, 2026, and on file with the Senior Manager, Heritage Planning, subject to and in accordance with the approved Conservation Plan required in Recommendation 2.b above, to the satisfaction of the Senior Manager, Heritage Planning, including execution and registration of such agreement to the satisfaction of the City Solicitor; and d. prior to the issuance of any permit for all or any part for the properties at 835-839 including a heritage permit or a building permit, but excluding permits for repairs and maintenance and usual and minor works for the existing heritage building as are acceptable to the Senior Manager, Heritage Planning, the owner shall: 1. have entered into a Heritage Easement Agreement with the City required in Recommendation 2.c above; 2. provide a Heritage Lighting Plan that describe how the exterior of the heritage properties will be sensitively illuminated to enhance their heritage character to the satisfaction of the Senior Manager, Heritage Planning and thereafter shall implement such a plan to the satisfaction of the Senior Manager Heritage Planning; 3. provide an Interpretation Plan for the subject properties, to the satisfaction of the Senior Manager, Heritage Planning and thereafter shall implement such plan to the satisfaction of the Senior Manager, Heritage Planning; 4. submit a Signage Plan to the satisfaction of the Senior Manager, Heritage Planning; 5. provide a detailed Landscape Plan for the subject properties, satisfactory to the Senior Manager, Heritage Planning; 6. provide building permit drawings, including notes and specifications for the conservation and protective measures keyed to the approved Conservation Plans required in Recommendation 2.b. above, including a description of materials and finishes, to be prepared by the project architect and a qualified heritage consultant to the satisfaction of the Senior Manager, Heritage Planning; and 7. provide a Letter of Credit, including provision for upwards indexing, in a form and amount and from a bank satisfactory to the Senior Manager, Heritage Planning, to secure all work included in the approved Conservation Plan and Interpretation Plan; and e. that prior to the release of the Letter of Credit required in Recommendation 2.d.7 above, the owner shall: 1. provide a letter of substantial completion prepared and signed by a qualified heritage consultant confirming that the required conservation work and the required interpretive work has been completed in accordance with the approved Conservation and Interpretation Plans and that an appropriate standard of conservation has been maintained, all to the satisfaction of the Senior Manager, Heritage Planning; and 2. provide replacement Heritage Easement Agreement photographs to the satisfaction of the Senior Manager, Heritage Planning. 3. City Council authorize the entering into of a Heritage Easement Agreement under Section 37 of the Ontario Heritage Act with the owner of the properties at 835-839 Yonge Street in a form and content satisfactory to the City Solicitor and the Chief Planner and Executive Director, City Planning. 4. City Council authorize the City Solicitor to introduce the necessary Bill in Council authorizing the entering into of a Heritage Easement Agreement for the properties at 835-839 Yonge Street. 5. City Council authorize the City Solicitor and City staff to take all necessary and reasonable actions to implement City Council's decision.
Staff recommendation as filed
The Senior Manager, Heritage Planning, Urban Design, City Planning recommends that: 1. City Council approve: a. the alterations to the designated heritage properties at 835-839 Yonge Street with conditions, under Part IV, Section 33 of the Ontario Heritage Act, to allow for the construction of the a mixed-use building with two towers of 41 and 49 storeys, with such alterations to the designated heritage properties being substantially in accordance with the Heritage Impact Assessment prepared by ERA Architects Inc., dated August 15, 2022, as revised on May 22, 2026, and on file with the Senior Manager, Heritage Planning, all subject to and in accordance with the Conservation Plan satisfactory to the Senior Manager, Heritage Planning and subject to conditions as set out below; and b. the demolition of specified heritage attributes of the designated heritage properties at 835-839 Yonge Street with conditions, under Part IV, Section 34(1)1 of the Ontario Heritage Act, to allow for the construction of a mixed-use building with two towers of 41 and 49 storeys, with such alterations to the designated heritage properties being substantially in accordance with the Heritage Impact Assessment prepared by ERA Architects Inc., dated August 15, 2022 as revised on May 22, 2026, and on file with the Senior Manager, Heritage Planning, all subject to and in accordance with the Conservation Plan satisfactory to the Senior Manager, Heritage Planning and subject to conditions as set out below. 2. City Council direct that its consent to the application to alter the designated heritage properties at 835-839 Yonge Street under Part IV, Section 33 of the Ontario Heritage, and its consent to the demolition of specified heritage attributes at the designated heritage properties at 835-839 Yonge Street under Part IV, Section 34(1)1 of the Ontario Heritage Act are also subject to the following conditions: a. that the related site-specific Zoning By-law Amendment has come into full force and effect; b. the owner shall provide a detailed Conservation Plan, prepared by a qualified heritage consultant that is substantially in accordance with the conservation strategy set out in the Heritage Impact Assessment prepared by ERA Architects Inc., dated August 15, 2022, as revised on May 22, 2026, to the satisfaction of the Senior Manager, Heritage Planning; c. the owner shall enter into a Heritage Easement Agreement with the City for the properties at 835-839 Yonge Street, in accordance with the Heritage Impact Assessment prepared by ERA Architects Inc., dated August 15, 2022, as revised on May 22, 2026, and on file with the Senior Manager, Heritage Planning, subject to and in accordance with the approved Conservation Plan required in Recommendation 2.b above, to the satisfaction of the Senior Manager, Heritage Planning, including execution and registration of such agreement to the satisfaction of the City Solicitor; and d. prior to the issuance of any permit for all or any part for the properties at 835-839 including a heritage permit or a building permit, but excluding permits for repairs and maintenance and usual and minor works for the existing heritage building as are acceptable to the Senior Manager, Heritage Planning, the owner shall: 1. have entered into a Heritage Easement Agreement with the City required in Recommendation 2.c above; 2. provide a Heritage Lighting Plan that describe how the exterior of the heritage properties will be sensitively illuminated to enhance their heritage character to the satisfaction of the Senior Manager, Heritage Planning and thereafter shall implement such a plan to the satisfaction of the Senior Manager Heritage Planning; 3. provide an Interpretation Plan for the subject properties, to the satisfaction of the Senior Manager, Heritage Planning and thereafter shall implement such plan to the satisfaction of the Senior Manager, Heritage Planning; 4. submit a Signage Plan to the satisfaction of the Senior Manager, Heritage Planning; 5. provide a detailed Landscape Plan for the subject properties, satisfactory to the Senior Manager, Heritage Planning; 6. provide building permit drawings, including notes and specifications for the conservation and protective measures keyed to the approved Conservation Plans required in Recommendation 2.b. above, including a description of materials and finishes, to be prepared by the project architect and a qualified heritage consultant to the satisfaction of the Senior Manager, Heritage Planning; and 7. provide a Letter of Credit, including provision for upwards indexing, in a form and amount and from a bank satisfactory to the Senior Manager, Heritage Planning, to secure all work included in the approved Conservation Plan and Interpretation Plan; and e. that prior to the release of the Letter of Credit required in Recommendation 2.d.7 above, the owner shall: 1. provide a letter of substantial completion prepared and signed by a qualified heritage consultant confirming that the required conservation work and the required interpretive work has been completed in accordance with the approved Conservation and Interpretation Plans and that an appropriate standard of conservation has been maintained, all to the satisfaction of the Senior Manager, Heritage Planning; and 2. provide replacement Heritage Easement Agreement photographs to the satisfaction of the Senior Manager, Heritage Planning. 3. City Council authorize the entering into of a Heritage Easement Agreement under Section 37 of the Ontario Heritage Act with the owner of the properties at 835-839 Yonge Street in a form and content satisfactory to the City Solicitor and the Chief Planner and Executive Director, City Planning. 4. City Council authorize the City Solicitor to introduce the necessary Bill in Council authorizing the entering into of a Heritage Easement Agreement for the properties at 835-839 Yonge Street. 5. City Council authorize the City Solicitor and City staff to take all necessary and reasonable actions to implement City Council's decision.
PB47.9amended
2 Whitney Avenue - Application to Erect a Structure in the North Rosedale Heritage Conservation District
The Toronto Preservation Board recommends that: 1. City Council deny the application to erect a structure on the lands adjacent to 2 Whitney Avenue in the North Rosedale Heritage Conservation District.
Staff recommendation as filed
The Senior Manager, Heritage Planning, Urban Design, City Planning recommends that: 1. City Council approve the proposal to construct a structure on lands subject to an encroachment agreement adjacent to 2 Whitney Avenue, a property within the North Rosedale Heritage Conservation District, in accordance with Section 42 of the Ontario Heritage Act, as outlined in the Applicants' Submission dated June 23, 2026, and received by Heritage Planning on July 2, 2026. 2. City Council direct that its consent to the application to construct a structure on lands subject to an encroachment agreement adjacent to 2 Whitney Avenue, in accordance with Section 42 of the Ontario Heritage Act is also subject to the following conditions: a. The owners of 2 Whitney Avenue secure all permits required for the construction of the proposed structure from all relevant City Divisions including, but not limited to, the General Manager, Transportation Services and Chief Building Official and Executive Director, Toronto Building. b. The approved works will be completed within 12 months of the issuance of all necessary City permits, with written notice provided to that effect to the Senior Manager, Heritage Planning and the General Manager, Transportation Services within five days of completion.
PB47.10adopted
6 Whitney Avenue - Application to Demolish a Structure and Erect a New Structure on a Designated Heritage Property in the North Rosedale Heritage Conservation District
The Toronto Preservation Board recommends that: 1. City Council approve the demolition of the preexisting garage structure and the application to construct a new carport at 6 Whitney Avenue, a property within the North Rosedale Heritage Conservation District, in accordance with Section 42 of the Ontario Heritage Act, with such alterations substantially in accordance with plans and drawings prepared by bsq Landscape Architects, dated June 23, 2026, and on file with the Senior Manager, Heritage Planning, and to the satisfaction of the Senior Manager, Heritage Planning, subject to the following condition: a. that the applicant obtain approval for variances to the existing Zoning-Bylaw, should any such variances be required.
Staff recommendation as filed
The Senior Manager, Heritage Planning, Urban Design, City Planning recommends that: 1. City Council approve the demolition of the preexisting garage structure and the application to construct a new carport at 6 Whitney Avenue, a property within the North Rosedale Heritage Conservation District, in accordance with Section 42 of the Ontario Heritage Act, with such alterations substantially in accordance with plans and drawings prepared by bsq Landscape Architects, dated June 23, 2026, and on file with the Senior Manager, Heritage Planning, and to the satisfaction of the Senior Manager, Heritage Planning, subject to the following condition: a. that the applicant obtain approval for variances to the existing Zoning-Bylaw, should any such variances be required.
PB47.11adopted
Stotts’ Bridge, Twyn Rivers Drive over the Rouge River - Demolition of a Designated Heritage Structure, Approval with Conditions
The Toronto Preservation Board recommends that: 1. City Council approve the application to demolish Stotts' Bridge on Twyn Rivers Drive (Structure ID 803), a Part-IV designated structure with conditions, under Part IV, Section 34(1)2 of the Ontario Heritage Act to allow for the construction of a temporary bridge until a permanent truss bridge is constructed, with such bridge to be substantially in accordance with the Preliminary General Arrangement drawing dated May 2026, prepared by Dillon Consulting (Attachment 5) and the Heritage Impact Assessment prepared by Archaeological Services Inc. dated June 17, 2026, both on file with the Senior Manager, Heritage Planning. 2. City Council direct that its consent to the application to demolish the designated Stotts' Bridge on Twyn Rivers Drive (Structure ID 803), under Part IV, Section 34(1)2 of the Ontario Heritage Act is subject to the following conditions: a. prior to the issuance of any permit related to the removal of Stotts' Bridge on Twyn Rivers Drive (Structure ID 803), including a heritage permit or a building permit, the owner shall: 1. provide full documentation of Stotts' Bridge on Twyn Rivers Drive (Structure ID 803), including two (2) printed sets of archival quality 8" x 10" colour photographs with borders in a glossy or semi-gloss finish and one (1) digital set on a flash drive in tiff format and 600 dpi resolution keyed to a location map, elevations and measured drawings, and copies of all elevations as may be available, to the satisfaction of the Senior Manager, Heritage Planning; and 2. provide a memo describing the potential to salvage structural elements during demolition, to the satisfaction of the Senior Manager, Heritage Planning; and b. prior to the issuance of any permit related to the construction of the permanent replacement structure for Stotts' Bridge on Twyn Rivers Drive, the owner shall: 1. provide detailed plans and drawings for the new Twyn Rivers Drive bridge, with descriptions of materials associated with the replacement bridge design, substantially in accordance with the Preliminary General Arrangement drawing dated May 2026, prepared by Dillon Consulting (Attachment 5) and the Heritage Impact Assessment prepared by Archaeological Services Inc. dated June 17, 2026, to be prepared by the project architect and a qualified heritage consultant to the satisfaction of the Senior Manager, Heritage Planning; and 2. provide a Commemoration Plan that includes concepts for a publicly accessible interpretive installation at the crossing that details the bridge's history and, if feasible, the use of salvaged elements of the original bridge such as portions of the steel truss within the commemoration plan, to the satisfaction of the Senior Manager, Heritage Planning; and c. upon completion of the new structure, implement the approved Commemoration Plan, to the satisfaction of the Senior Manager, Heritage Planning.
Staff recommendation as filed
The Senior Manager, Heritage Planning, Urban Design, City Planning recommends that: 1. City Council approve the application to demolish Stotts' Bridge on Twyn Rivers Drive (Structure ID 803), a Part-IV designated structure with conditions, under Part IV, Section 34(1)2 of the Ontario Heritage Act to allow for the construction of a temporary bridge until a permanent truss bridge is constructed, with such bridge to be substantially in accordance with the Preliminary General Arrangement drawing dated May 2026, prepared by Dillon Consulting (Attachment 5) and the Heritage Impact Assessment prepared by Archaeological Services Inc. dated June 17, 2026, both on file with the Senior Manager, Heritage Planning. 2. City Council direct that its consent to the application to demolish the designated Stotts' Bridge on Twyn Rivers Drive (Structure ID 803), under Part IV, Section 34(1)2 of the Ontario Heritage Act is subject to the following conditions: a. prior to the issuance of any permit related to the removal of Stotts' Bridge on Twyn Rivers Drive (Structure ID 803), including a heritage permit or a building permit, the owner shall: 1. provide full documentation of Stotts' Bridge on Twyn Rivers Drive (Structure ID 803), including two (2) printed sets of archival quality 8" x 10" colour photographs with borders in a glossy or semi-gloss finish and one (1) digital set on a flash drive in tiff format and 600 dpi resolution keyed to a location map, elevations and measured drawings, and copies of all elevations as may be available, to the satisfaction of the Senior Manager, Heritage Planning; and 2. provide a memo describing the potential to salvage structural elements during demolition, to the satisfaction of the Senior Manager, Heritage Planning; and b. prior to the issuance of any permit related to the construction of the permanent replacement structure for Stotts' Bridge on Twyn Rivers Drive, the owner shall: 1. provide detailed plans and drawings for the new Twyn Rivers Drive bridge, with descriptions of materials associated with the replacement bridge design, substantially in accordance with the Preliminary General Arrangement drawing dated May 2026, prepared by Dillon Consulting (Attachment 5) and the Heritage Impact Assessment prepared by Archaeological Services Inc. dated June 17, 2026, to be prepared by the project architect and a qualified heritage consultant to the satisfaction of the Senior Manager, Heritage Planning; and 2. provide a Commemoration Plan that includes concepts for a publicly accessible interpretive installation at the crossing that details the bridge's history and, if feasible, the use of salvaged elements of the original bridge such as portions of the steel truss within the commemoration plan, to the satisfaction of the Senior Manager, Heritage Planning; and c. upon completion of the new structure, implement the approved Commemoration Plan, to the satisfaction of the Senior Manager, Heritage Planning.