(Today’s Northumberland file photo)
By Cecilia Nasmith/Today’s Northumberland
Cobourg’s Heritage Advisory Committee is not the Heritage Deciding Committee.
That was the message Wednesday when council’s Public Works, Planning and Development Standing Committee received a report from Planner I Emma Hughes on the replacement of 12 third-storey windows at the building located at 2 King St./239 Division St.
Hughes noted that this is a big project, and the builder wants to use vinyl windows – which are in use on the first and second floors.
“There was a lot of back-and-forth in terms of comparison to other restoration projects and window replacements,” Hughes said, characterizing large window replacement projects as “non-minor alterations.
“We were not in agreeance in terms of materials for the window replacements.
“I had met with the applicants after this meeting, on Aug. 13, and suggested perhaps wooden materials be used for the restoration. The applicant is firm on the use of vinyl windows.”
Committee member Miriam Mutton applauded the owners of the building for taking on the project and even developing some residential units.
Mutton pointed out that the Heritage Advisory Committee had not yet made a recommendation on this matter. She asked committee Chair Brian Darling about this, as he is a member of the committee.
“I must have been away on vacation when this was discussed,” Darling said.
“The Heritage Advisory Committee is an advisory committee to council, and there should really be no overriding by delegated authority,” Mutton stated.
“I think it is very important council hears from its advisory committees what some of the concerns are. I would like to be able to provide the opportunity for the advisory committee to tell us what their concerns are.
“If they want the modern efficiency, I am concerned about the overall impact on a very important street corner,” she said of the location at the northwest corner of King and Division streets.
“I would encourage both the owner and staff and also the committee to look at other options.”
“I think the committee’s name is really important – it’s the advisory committee, not the deciding committee, and what we are hearing is that the committee didn’t make a decision. Our staff did,” committee member Lucas Cleveland said.
Cleveland warned of the hazards of delaying development projects for lack of a decision.
“The decision has been presented to us by our professional staff to move forward,” he said.
Darling said he agreed with this assessment.
