LAURIE WEIR
Smiths Falls council’s committee of the whole waded through a lively debate May 12 as it reviewed the latest batch of applications under the town’s Community Improvement Plan (CIP).
The 2025 spring intake saw nine requests totalling more than $200,000, but council and staff agreed only eight would proceed—with several facing stiff criticism, deferrals, tweaks, or denial.
The applications, covering properties throughout the downtown core, were presented by planning clerk Marie Elmsley for approval. Councillors, however, brought their own sharp pencils and didn’t hold back.
Coun. Chris McGuire noted of the Big Brothers Big Sisters application for 18 William St. E. “There’s an opportunity to save the taxpayer money tonight,” he said.
The project, which proposes sandblasting paint from a brick façade, restoring the brickwork, and adding a timber-framed canopy, was flagged by McGuire as both a positive step and a potential headache.
“Sandblasting is one of the most destructive things you can do to masonry,” he cautioned. “We’ve all seen bricks downtown peeling after being painted and blasted.”
Despite his concerns, council approved $14,068 in funding, with McGuire suggesting additional information be gathered to ensure no unintended damage occurs.
Debate over maintenance vs. improvement
The issue of what constitutes eligible improvement versus regular maintenance became a lightning rod throughout the meeting.
The most divisive discussion focused on 8-12 Main St. W., where the applicant replaced wind-damaged decorative flashing with simpler modern flashing, which had already been installed before council approval.
McGuire led the charge against funding it, calling it “a hard no.”
“This was a heritage attribute that fell off in a storm and has now been replaced with the cheapest material you can get,” he said. “It doesn’t meet the downtown design guidelines or anything we’re working on for heritage conservation.”
Despite some reluctance, council voted to deny the application.
Similarly, 12 Maple St., also known as Artisan Village, was shut down after applying for $41,810 toward roof repairs. The project was already de-prioritized by staff because the property had received previous CIP grants in 2023 and 2024.
“It’s just maintenance,” McGuire said bluntly. “There’s nothing ornamental or environmental about this.”
Stucco becomes the villain
Several councillors voiced concerns over the increasing use of stucco downtown, which McGuire called “a material that continually fails.”
The project at 2-6 Beckwith St. S., which proposed stucco patching alongside removing a failing awning and adding gooseneck lighting, drew a mix of support and frustration.
McGuire objected to the stucco portion, stating, “If we’re subsidizing low-quality materials that are failing constantly, we’re just continuing the problem.”
Despite his objections, council ultimately approved $7,560 for the application, arguing that the repairs would otherwise require significantly more work to remove and replace the existing stucco.
At 30-48 Beckwith St. N., another property seeking funding for wall repairs using stucco also faced McGuire’s opposition. The $10,000 ask was rejected outright by council. “The bar isn’t met for me on this one,” he said. “The building already needs more extensive work.”
Despite McGuire’s opposition to this request, council majority passed it, noting the funding would leverage a further $18,000 in enhancements to the building.
A complicated deferral
The largest and most complicated application—11 William St. W.—was deferred pending additional information. The applicant had requested more than $88,000 for accessibility upgrades, interior and exterior renovations, energy-efficient windows, and a new heritage porch.
Council balked at the proposal.
“I don’t understand the motivation to spend that kind of money to create one accessible residential unit in a tiny commercial space,” said Mayor Shawn Pankow.
McGuire also flagged concerns over heritage destruction: “We’ve had much worse porches in town fixed up. What’s proposed here is modern, cheap, and not sympathetic to the property.”
Council agreed the proposal needed more floorplans and specific detail before considering funding.
