►
From YouTube: Built Heritage Sub-Committee - August 31, 2021
Description
Built Heritage Sub-Committee- August 31, 2021
Agenda and background materials can be found at http://www.ottawa.ca/agendas
A
Good
morning
everybody
and
welcome
to
built
heritage
subcommittee,
I
can
see
that
we're
still
awaiting
potentially
one
more
member
for
quorum.
So
we'll
just
continue
to
wait.
We
see
that
the
vice
chair
isn't
here,
and
there
are
some
other
members
who
aren't
here.
So
we'll
just
wait
another
minute
and
once
we
reach
quorum,
we'll
start
the
proceedings.
A
Good
morning-
and
I
just
I
just
told
everybody-
we'd
just
wait
another
minute
to
get
to
quorum.
I
think
we're
there,
but
I
see
that
the
vice
chair
has
also
come
in.
So
I
think
that
we
can
begin
so
that
we
are
orderly
and
can
go
through
our
our
our
program
relatively
quickly
so
good
morning
and
welcome
to
the
built
heritage
subcommittee
meeting
of
august
31st
2021
I'd
like
to
call
the
members
to
order
due
to
the
continuing
state
of
emergency
due
to
2019
pandemic.
A
As
noted
earlier,
this
meeting
is
being
held
through
zoom.
Those
who
do
not
need
to
participate
in
the
meeting
can
also
watch
it
live
on
the
ottawa
city
council,
youtube
channel
a
reminder
to
participants
to
please
keep
your
microphones
muted.
Until
I
call
upon
you
to
speak,
I
will
provide
each
committee,
member
with
the
opportunity
to
ask
questions
or
comment
on
each
item
in
the
order
in
which
they
raise
their
hand
in
zoom
for
panelists
the
raise
hand
option
is
found
at
the
bottom
of
the
participants
list
for
those
calling
in
press
star
9.
A
Although
the
deadlines
have
passed
for
residents
to
register
to
speak
and
provide
written
submissions
to
this
subcommittee,
residents
may
still
make
submissions
to
planning
committee
and
council.
If
you
have
technical
difficulties
signing
into
the
meeting,
you
can
contact
the
committee
coordinator
by
calling
613-580-2424.
A
A
reminder
that
if
participants
are
having
technical
issues
with
their
zoom
connection,
they
may
call
in
using
the
backup
telephone
number
provided
by
the
coordinator
today.
I
have
only
received
regrets
from
member
hassel.
Could
the
committee
coordinator,
please
call
the
role
a
reminder
to
members
to
unmute
themselves
when
they're
called.
D
E
A
A
Confirmed
so
our
first
order
of
business
pertains
to
planning
infrastructure
and
economic
development,
right-of-way
heritage
and
urban
design
services
number
one:
an
application
for
new
construction
at
406
banks
street
a
property
designated
under
part
5
of
the
ontario
heritage
act
can
staff.
Please
provide
an
overview
of
this
report.
F
Great
okay!
So
yes,
so
this
application
this
morning
is
an
application
for
new
construction
at
406,
408
bank
street.
We
go
to
the
next
slide.
It's
a
property
designated
as
part
of
the
centertown
heritage,
conservation
district
and
it's
located
on
the
west
side
of
bank
street
at
the
corner
of
florence
street
next
slide.
F
So
this
property
is
a
non-contributing
property
in
the
hcd
as
it's
currently
vacant,
the
original
building
was
destroyed
by
a
fire
in
2002
and
if
we
go
to
the
next
slide,
these
are
a
bit
of
context.
So
in
the
top
image
the
view
is
looking
south
on
bank
street.
You
can
see
some
of
the
surrounding
contributing
properties
across
across
bank
and
to
the
south
on
florence
and
then
in
the
bottom
image,
of
course,
the
property
next
door
at
390
bank,
which
received
approval
for
redevelopment
last
year
next
slide.
F
So
the
applicant
is
looking
to
construct
a
new
mixed-use
six-story
building
on
the
lot
with
residential
units
on
the
upper
floors
and
commercial
space
on
the
ground
floor.
So
this
is
the
site
plan
and,
as
you
can
see,
the
proposed
building
footprint
will
cover
the
majority
of
the
lot
set
close
to
each
of
the
lot
lines.
F
F
F
However,
the
applicant
is
working
with
forestry
staff
and
their
arborists
to
to
replant
both
of
those
next
slide.
So
these
are
the
elevations
of
the
building
on
florence
and
bank.
So,
as
you
can
see,
it's
proposed
to
be
clad
mainly
in
red
brick,
with
glazing
on
the
ground
floor
and
gray
paneling
for
the
upper
two
floors,
so
it
has
a
mix
of
balconies
with
glazed
railings
and
those
are
proposed
on
both
the
bank
and
florida
facades.
F
The
ground
floor
will
be
recessed
to
align
with
the
neighboring
property,
and
setbacks
have
also
been
introduced
up
above
the
fourth
floor
and
on
bank.
Those
step
backs
are
set
back
about
a
meter
and
a
half,
and
on
florence
it's
about
0.6
meters.
I
think
if
we
go
to
the
next
slide,
so
the
centertown
heritage
conservation
district
guidelines
provide
provide
direction
for
new
mixed-use
construction
on
bank
and
staff
have
reviewed
their
proposal
against
those
guidelines
and
are
satisfied.
F
F
Staff
have
also
reviewed
this
proposal
against
the
standards
and
guidelines
and
the
secondary
plan
in
cdp
for
centretown
to
ensure
which
provide
policies
and
guidelines
to
ensure
central
town's
cultural
heritage.
Value
is
conserved
and
staff
are
also
satisfied
that
those
that
the
proposal
is
consistent
with
those
documents
as
well.
F
If
we
go
to
the
next
slide
in
terms
of
consultation,
this
application
has
followed
heritage
for
landing,
branch's
standard
notification
procedures,
as
outlined
on
the
screen.
The
centertown
community
association
provided
comments
to
the
zoning
application,
which
have
been
incorporated
into
the
report
and
those
those
comments
included.
A
Thank
you
mckenzie
for
the
detailed
report.
We
did
receive
correspondence
from
heritage
ottawa
on
august
27th.
In
support
of
these
recommendations.
We
do
have
a
number
of
registered
speakers.
The
registered
speakers
that
we
have
to
go
first
are
on
behalf
of
the
applicant
both
from
410
and
sds
architect.
C
Good
morning
chair,
I
am
nathan
patrician,
I'm
a
planner
with
photon
and
I'm
joined
by
lisa
dalarosa
who's,
an
associate
at
foten
planning
and
design,
as
well
as
our
project,
architect,
susan
smith,
who
I
actually
cannot
see
on
the
call,
but
I
hope
that
she
has
joined
here
as
well.
We
did
register
as
speakers,
however,
do
not
have
a
presentation
and
are
more
so
here
to
ask
or
sorry
to
answer
any
questions
should
they
come
up.
Thank
you.
A
G
B
B
The
concern
I
I
share
with
the
community
and
neighbors,
of
course,
is
the
trees
and
tree
retention,
and
I
appreciate
the
replacement
plan,
but
just
can
I
I
just
wonder
if
you
could
give
more
detail
today
on
what
the
the
plan
is
to
ensure
that
the
the
trees
on
florence
are,
the
large,
mature
trees
will
be
protected
and
how
you're
going
to
go
about
doing
that?
Not
just
that
you
will,
but
just
what
the
plan
is
for
for
the
protection
during
construction.
C
C
There
are
two
mature
trees
along
bank
street
which
are
going
to
be
retained
and
protected
during
construction,
and
I
believe
the
tree
conservation
report
speaks
to
some
mitigation
measures
and
and
recommendations
for
protecting
them,
including
fences,
and
not
no
storage
or
vehicle
traffic
or
construction
activity
taking
place
within
that
treed
area.
As
for
the
trees
along
florence,
there
is,
it
is
shown
on.
C
The
landscape
plan
is
tree
number
three,
which
is
the
one
closest
to
bank
street,
which
is
a
mature
oak
tree,
which
the
critical
root
zone
does
go
below
where
the
excavation
is
is
to
be
so
that
tree
will
need
to
be
removed
and
replaced,
and
then
there
is
another
tree
just
a
little
bit
further
west
along
florence
street.
That
is
both
in
the
in
the
path
of
the
service
connection,
as
well
as
in
the
path
of
the
loading
bay
along
florence
street.
C
C
B
Okay
now
thank
you.
I
appreciate
that
and
I
appreciate
the
the
replacement
plan.
I
just
want
to
reiterate
that
it's
it's
you
know
critical
to
when
we
are
retaining
trees
in
a
construction
area,
construction
zone
that
that
we
plan,
for
you,
know
heavy
vehicular
movement,
you
know
digging
vibrations
whatever
and,
and
that
can
cause
stress
to
a
tree
and
ultimately
kill
it.
So
the
fact
that
we
have
mature
trees
on
bank
street
around
the
corner-
florence
really
is
a
miracle.
B
A
A
E
Yes,
thank
you
very
much
chair.
I
think
that
I
would
be
supporting
the
staff
recommendation
and
I
would
like
to
compliment
the
architect
for
quite
a
sensitive
treatment
and
massing
of
the
proposed
infill
development
on
this
corner.
It's
an
important
corner
and
it
helps
to
strengthen
the
continuity
of
bank
street
once
this
building
will
be
built,
and
I
think
that
probably
the
arctic
would
have
liked
to
have
had
a
larger
setback
on
the
florence
street
side.
E
For
the
fifth
and
sixth
stories
has
been
urged
by
some
neighbors,
but
I
can
understand
on
such
a
small
property
that
the
gross
floor
area
is
important
to
maintain,
and
I
just
wanted
to
say
that
I
appreciated
the
work
that
the
architect
has
done
in
order
to
create
a
building
that
has
references
to
bank
street
in
its
historic
buildings
while
being
a
modern
building.
But
more.
A
Thank
you
for
those
comments.
Remember
podesky.
Is
there
any
more
comments
from
the
committee
seeing
none?
I
would
just
like
to
concur
with
barry's
comments
that
I
think
that
the
proposal
is
sympathetic
to
the
heritage
character
of
the
area.
I
think
it's
very
important
that
there
was
some
consultation
and
some
back
and
forth
as
well
with
the
community
association
to
ensure
step
backs,
and
I
would
also
like
to
really
support
my
colleague
counselor
mckinney's
observations
around
the
focus
on
tree
retention.
A
A
F
F
In
the
top
left
view,
this
is
the
view
looking
east
down
clemo
and
the
bottom
right.
This
is
the
view
cross
view
of
the
properties
across
the
street.
So,
as
you
can
see,
the
the
district
is
is
characterized
by
its
wide
avenues,
lined
with
mature
trees
and
framed
by
deeply
set
back
houses
on
either
side.
F
F
F
We
go
to
the
next
slide.
This
is
the
front
elevation
of
the
proposal,
so
the
project
would
include
lifting
raising
the
existing
house
to
construct
a
new
stone
foundation,
adding
new
dormers
at
the
roof
level,
replacing
the
existing
windows
as
well
as
replacing
the
stucco
clotting
that
the
upper
floor
cladding
would
be
replaced
in
kind,
but
the
applicant
would
like
to
replace
the
ground
floor
clouding
with
brick
so
on.
F
The
right
is
the
elevation
for
a
new
detached
garage
which
is
to
be
located
at
the
rear
of
the
property,
and
if
we
go
to
the
next
slide,
this
is
the
site
plan.
So
in
order
to
accommodate
that
the
garage
at
the
rear,
sorry
eric
if
we
go
one
more,
the
the
application
also
includes
a
request
to
reposition
the
house
forward
on
the
lot
by
about
two
meters
and
so
the
red
area
on
the
screen.
F
That's
the
existing
footprint
of
the
house
and
the
new
areas
would
be
in
gray
if
we
go
to
the
next
slide.
This
is
just
quickly
here.
The
elevation
of
the
building
at
the
rear,
which
is
proposed
to
have
a
bit
more
of
a
contemporary
design,
particularly
in
the
windows
and
then
in
the
next
slide.
This
is
the
east
facade,
showing
a
small
addition
on
the
ground
floor
and
the
next
slide
again.
F
Although
shifting
and
lifting
contributing
houses
is
not
something,
we
would
typically
support
given,
given
that
this
approach
will
allow
the
house
to
be
conserved
and
rehabilitated
and
ensuring
the
character
defining
attributes
of
the
hcd
and
the
overall
cultural
heritage,
value
will
be
conserved.
Staff
are
supportive
in
this
case.
F
F
If
we
go
to
the
last
slide,
this
is
the
last
condition
and
that
relates
to
the
retention
of
the
existing
trees
in
the
front
yard,
which
are
important
in
maintaining
the
character
of
the
hcd.
So
the
the
applicant
is
working
with
an
arborist
and
city
forestry
staff
on
a
tree
information
report
which
would
be
required
to
be
submitted
before
the
issuance
of
a
building
permit,
and
that
is
to
have
specific
protection
measures
to
ensure
those
those
trees
can
be
maintained.
F
Several
con
pre-consultation
meetings
were
held
over
the
last
year,
despite
this
district,
not
being
part
of
the
pre-consultation
pilot,
the
applicant
has
been
quite
collaborative
with
staff
and
and
the
community,
and
so
just
quickly
to
wrap
up
and
summaries
staff
are
recommending
approval
of
the
application
subject
to
the
conditions
in
the
report
and
also
to
delegate
minor
design
changes
and
issue
the
heritage
permit
with
a
two-year
expiry
date.
Thank
you.
A
Thank
you
mikken
for
that
presentation.
I
see
that
counselor
menard
has
his
hands
raised,
but
let's
wait
for
questions
to
staff.
After
we
hear
from
our
registered
speakers,
we
did
receive
correspondence
from
david
fleming
from
heritage
ottawa
in
a
letter
dated
august
27th
in
support
of
the
recommendations.
A
I
I
I
One
more
observation,
I'll
quickly
point
out,
is,
as
we
observe
the
foundation
of
the
building-
that's
visible.
A
few
inches
above
grade
there's
a
notable
step
in
the
foundation.
It
steps
out
from
the
face
of
the
building.
Again,
it's
it's
unclear,
but
it's
it's
possible
and
conceivable
that
the
the
original
design
of
the
foundation
was
set
in
such
a
way
to
contemplate
or
or
accommodate
brick.
That
was
ultimately,
that
is
not
now
present
on
the
building,
but
there's
an
uncertainty
involved
there
next
slide.
Please.
I
The
next
theme,
I'd
like
to
discuss
is,
is
more
thematic
with
respect
to
the
influences
of
the
design,
the
original
design
itself,
the
heritage
district
plan
notes,
prairie
style
architecture
is
left,
prairie
style
is
one
of
the
design
influences
in
the
neighborhood,
obviously
heavily
influenced
by
frank,
lloyd,
wright,
and
we
see
a
strong
prevalence
of
brick
base
with
upper
floor.
Stucco
next
slide.
Please.
I
These
are
samples
of
nafki
back
one,
please
nafki,
nofki
samples
of
prairie
style
influence
architecture.
We
see
that
the
principle
or
a
key
design
feature
being
a
base
of
brick
with
a
continuous
horizontal
sill
at
the
second
floor
and
either
brick
or
stucco
above,
as
is
proposed
next
slide,
please,
by
contrast,
many
of
nafki's
stucco
only
houses,
suckoclad
houses
are
done
in
the
spanish
style.
We
see
a
couple
of
other
examples
on
cloud
and
then
others
on
on
gleebav.
I
C
A
J
I
J
B
And
personally
I
don't
I
don't
mind
the
combination,
but
I
was
just
curious
because
there
are
especially
along
climal,
there's
quite
a
few
examples
of
all
brick,
brick,
clad
structures,
and
I
guess
my
second
question
would
probably
be
for
for
mackenzie
so
we'll
get
to
that
later.
But
I
just
wondered
if,
if
staff
had
a
problem
with
the
combination
of
materials
or
the
brick
itself,.
I
In
response
to
that,
the
design
design
strategy
has
always
been
a
combination,
as
proposed,
and
the
reason
for
that,
as
I
I
was
trying
to
illustrate
with
the
with
the
samples,
is
there's
a
strong
horizontal
line
indicated
in
nafki's
original
drawings.
At
the
sill
of
the
second
floor,
which
delineates
a
a
distinction
between
below
and
upper
and
in
in
many
of
the
prairie
style
samples
we
looked
at.
I
That's
that's
typically
a
line
that
delineates
between
brick
below
as
a
as
a
stronger
base
and
stucco
above
as
an
as
an
accent
material,
and
so
that
was
picking
up
on
that
detail,
which
is
in
the
original
drawings.
It
is
present
in
the
constructed
house,
although
because
it's
all
clad
in
a
single
material,
it's
not
as
visible
that
that
is
a
feature.
That's
there
and
and
we
we
feel
it's
a
very
defining
feature
of
the
house
that
can
be
accentuated
through
this
proposal.
B
Thank
you,
mr
chair,
my
question
again
about
the
the
the
combination
I'm
just
wondering
about.
If
the
client,
you
and
the
client
have
considered
your
color
scheme,
what
color
of
brick,
if
you
were
to
move
forward
with
this
versus
the
color
of
the
stucco
part
of
perhaps
the
concern
with
the
guidelines
is
maintaining
some
some
uniformity
across
the
facade
and
I'm
just
wondering,
is
there
a
contrast,
or
is
there
an
attempt
to
blend
the
two
materials
color
using
colors?
I
Yeah,
so
the
the
concept
renderings
proposed
indicate
the
the
general
intent.
However
specific
coloration
we
haven't
got
to
the
point
of
of
finely
detailing
the
specific
coloration.
We
would
anticipate
that
being
a
continued
collaboration
between
ourselves
and
heritage
staff,
as
as
material
selection
is,
is
made
moving
forward
and
the
general
intent
is
not
to
not
to
radically
alter
the
the
presentation
of
the
house
from
a
coloration
point
of
view.
So
we
would
anticipate
the
coloration
to
be
fairly
consistent
with
what
exists.
A
H
H
Any
heritage
conservation
concerns
about
relocating
the
structure
closer
to
the
sidewalk
has,
in
our
opinion,
been
mitigated
by
the
overall
care
and
sensitivity
reflected
in
this
application
heritage.
Ottawa
is
therefore
pleased
to
support
the
staff
recommendation,
including
the
conditions
set
forth
therein.
Thank
you.
J
Thank
you
chair,
mr
fleming,
thank
you
for
your
written
and
oral
submissions
today
and
always
appreciated.
Did
you
see
the
architects
presentation
just
before
you
spoke?
Yes,
I
did
their
request
to
use
both
stucco
and
brick.
You
said
you
support
the
stucco
concept,
but
would
you
oppose
an
amendment
that
would
allow
a
stucco
and
brick
combination.
H
H
We
were
looking
at
it
more
from
the
sequence
of
how
this
should
be
done
under
the
standards
and
guidelines,
obviously
you're,
looking
at
a
stucco
repair
as
being
the
best
option.
Certainly
I
think
the
architect
made
a
case
that
brick
is
predominant
in
a
lot
of
other
buildings
in
this.
In
this
district
we
would
still
like
them
to
go
ahead
with
the
the
stucco
approach,
but,
as
I
said,
I
don't
think
it's
a
deal
breaker
if
the
subcommittee
decide
to
approve
it
with
the
brick
and
tormented.
H
Thank
you
very
much.
I
appreciate
the
opportunity.
Mr
chairman,
I
don't
have
a
lot
more
to
add
to
this.
I
I
think
that
the
idea
of-
and
I
I
I'll
just
address
the
the
stucco
and
the
brick
and
and
comment
we
have
a
situation
where,
in
the
attic,
literally
in
the
attic,
we
find
nofty
drawings
of
the
other
property
and
they've,
provided
the
inspiration
for
a
lot
of
what
we're
doing
today.
With
this
building.
H
It's
it's
a
it's
a
unique
situation
and
in
terms
of
the
in
terms
of
the
brick,
I
think
the
fact
that
there
there
was
originally
a
brick
ledge
to
support
the
brick.
The
second
part
is
that,
for
some
reason,
the
fire
insurance
map,
which
convinced
or
committed
to
the
fact
that
it
was
supposed
to
be
a
brick
building.
H
We
did
the
research
and
it
was
in
terms
of
testing
under
the
the
stucco.
There
was
no
brick
at
that
time,
which
doesn't
mean
it
hadn't
been
brick
at
one
stage
and
whether
it
was
replaced
or
what
have
you.
I
think
that
we've
taken
the
inspiration
for
the
the
renovations
based
on
the
nokia
design
and
the
design
intent,
and
I
think
in
in
some
there
is
a
a
rationale
for
for
actually
reintroducing
the
the
the
brick
or
introducing
the
brick.
H
I
think
you
have
the
new
owner
as
the
curator
of
this
property
for
the
next
hundred
years,
and
I
think
he
he
would
like
to
add
a
little
bit
of
his
own
taste
to
this,
and
the
idea
of
brick
is
is
something
that
he
is
quite
anxious
to
see
in
place.
I
think
there's
a
historic
documentation
for
the
intent
and
that
possibly
it's
something
that
the
committee
would
consider
is
a
brick
ground
floor
and
the
second
floor.
Maintaining
the
stucco
as
it
is.
Thank
you
very
much,
mr
chairman.
J
F
Thank
you,
counselor
and,
and
through
mr
chair,
it's.
This
is
certainly
a
an
issue
that
has
come
up
throughout
our
conversations
and
it's
definitely
a
challenging
one
and
I
think
what
it
really
comes
down
to
is.
You
know
how
this,
how
this
project
relates
back
to
the
standards
and
guidelines
and
the
conservation
district
plan.
F
So
this
the
standards
and
guidelines
really
speak
to
you
know,
understanding
a
building
understanding
in
a
historic
place
in
when
you're,
when
you're
moving
forward
with
any
type
of
alterations
and
as
jon
stewart
mentioned,
that
there
was
some
investigation
looking
into
the
you
know
the
construction
methods
of
this
this
building
and
it's
a
wood
frame
building
with
the
stucco
stucco
stucco
on
the
exterior
lath.
There
was
no
brick
found
as
part
of
that
investigation.
F
I
think
the
fire
insurance
plan,
certainly
that's
a
important
resource
that
we
look
to
quite
often
I'm
not
sure,
and
it
could
be
an
error
I
think
it
may
have
been
in
this
case
and
and
like
I
said,
I
think
it
really
comes
down
to
that.
You
know
all
of
the
standards
and
guidelines
together
making
sure
that
the
integrity
of
the
history
and
development
of
this
property
is
maintained
despite
these
alterations.
F
You
know,
I
think,
if
this
was
a
a
new
construction,
a
new
house
in
the
district
that
would
be
a
different
conversation.
The
brick
you
know
would
make
it
very
compatible
with
with
the
district,
as
as
the
applicant
had
mentioned,
very
common
material
in
the
in
the
hcd
and
and
and
also
you
know.
This
is
this-
is
the
first
application
in
the
in
the
new
districts,
the
first
test
of
the
new
plan.
So
I
think
it's
really
important.
You
know
the
policies
are.
J
Hey,
I
appreciate
that
so
using
my
layman's
brain
on
heritage
matters,
if
I
heard
you
correctly
using
brick
or
permitting
brick
in
this
case,
would
not
take
away
from
the
heritage
district.
It
would
not
take
away
from
the
neighborhood
given
other
comparable
houses
that
use
brick.
But
if
we
look
specifically
at
this
house
and
the
history
of
this
house,
brick
has
not
been
a
component
of
this
house,
so
it
wouldn't
be
upholding
the
heritage
history
of
this
house
is
that
if
I
stated
that
correctly.
K
I
think
it's
important
to
be
recognized
too,
that
this
conservation
district
just
came
into
force
just
recently.
I
think
this
was
a
year
and
a
half
ago,
and
we
had
been
in
discussions
with
with
mackenzie
and
others
throughout
this
time,
as
well
as
the
gca
and
came
up,
I
think,
with
a
good
plan
in
this
area.
K
So
there
there
is
quite
a
change
happening
here,
as
you
saw
the
movement
of
the
building
and
they've
been
accepting
of
that
and
in
working
in
collaboration,
I
think
there
there
is
reason
to
also
support
the
staff
recommendations,
as
you
see
it
currently
and,
and
that
is
based
on
best
practice
in
in
the
restoration
and
alteration
of
of
these
heritage
design
buildings.
So
the
issue
of
course,
that
that
proposed
replacement
of
the
of
that
test
verified
original
stucco
cladding.
K
It's
recognized,
of
course,
that
you
know
the
original
cladding
may
need
to
be
replaced
for
a
variety
of
reasons,
but
the
heritage
best
practices
are
clear
that
you
know
first
call
for
repair
in
these
situations
and
and
secondly,
if
can't
be
repaired,
then
replaced
in
kind,
and
so
I
think
the
recommendations
are
are
correct
in
this.
In
this
case
and
appreciate
the
collaboration
on
this,
I
know
we're
going
to
end
up
with
a
with
a
great
project
here.
So
thanks
very
much.
A
A
E
Yes,
thank
you
very
much
for
a
chance
to
comment
on
it.
I
have
to
say
at
the
outset
that
the
level
of
discourse
between
heritage
ottawa
and
heritage
staff
and
the
proponent,
the
architect
and
the
heritage
consultant,
is
at
a
very
high
level.
I
think
we
should
be
proud
of
this
discussion
because
it's
quite
sophisticated-
and
I
think
that
my
observations
are
this
project-
is
you
know,
a
very
sensitive
and
thoughtful
one.
I
think
that
the
remarkable
thing
is
that
it
is
was
originally
an
off
key
design
and
confession.
E
E
I
think
that
I
support
the
staff
recommendation,
with
the
exception
that
I
do
support
the
the
architect
owner
and
here
consultants
request
to
permit
brick
on
the
ground
floor
and
for
this
very
specific
reason,
is
that,
notwithstanding
the
fact
that
it
would
appear
to
violate
standards,
guidelines
for
historic
places
in
canada,
but
if
it's
treated
as
a
new
intervention
that
under
standard
11
of
compatibility,
it
is
very
compatible,
and
I
think
there
may
not
ever
be
any
proof
that
nofkey
imagined
the
base
in
in
brick
with
the
stucco
setback.
Second
floor
level.
E
I
think
that
intuitively,
I
think,
although
we
can't
channel
norfolk
forward
as
a
as
a
a
witness
to
this
committee,
I
think
that
he
would
support
it
and
consequently,
I
think
that
it
has
merit
and
it's
very
instructive
in
interpreting
the
heritage,
district
and
interpreting
ottawa's
heritage
arctic.
So
with
that,
I
would
just
reiterate
that
I
support
the
staff
report,
but
do
feel
that
if
there
are
enough
members
of
the
therapy
subcommittee
to
support
the
revision
of
article
1a
to
permit
the
bread,
I
would
encourage
my
colleagues
to
do
that.
B
Thank
you,
mr
chair.
Yes,
and,
as
I
said
before,
I
personally
don't
have
a
problem
with
the
combination
of
materials,
and
I
think
I
just
wanted
to
echo
barry's
sentiment,
and
I
think
you
know,
as
as
todd
explained,
this
is
a
very
unique
individual,
specific
situation
where
they
found
the
plans
in
the
in
the
attic
and-
and
I
think
there
is
a
lot
to
be
said
about
restoring
the
original
design
intent
rather
than
you
know,
just
just
maintaining.
What's
there,
I
also
have
a
soft
spot
for
architectural
clues,
and
you
know.
B
B
Thank
you,
mr
chair.
Just
just
procedurally
do
we
need
emotion,
yeah,
okay,
yeah
I
get.
I
think
this
is
a
bit
of
a
tough
one.
I'd
certainly
respect
where
mackenzie
kim
is
coming
from,
and
also
the
counselor
and
members
of
the
gleeve
community,
and
that
this
in
some
way,
I'm
sure
they
are
seeing
as
a
precedent
setting
a
situation
for
their
their
very
new,
newly
minted
heritage,
conservation,
district
and
well-deserved
one
at
that.
B
But
I
do
also
want
to
congratulate
all
of
the
players
involved
in
how
collaborative
this
process
has
been
and
the
effort
that
has
been
made,
and
I
think,
at
the
end
of
the
day,
the
house
that
we
will
have
on
primal
avenue
is
going
to
be
an
improvement
on
the
house.
That
is
there
now,
I
suppose
personally,
I
I
would
feel
more
comfortable
supporting
the
edition
of
brick
and
I
do
see
it
as
a
new
addition,
not
a
re-edition.
D
Yeah,
thank
you
chair.
This
is
this
is
difficult,
because
staff
clearly
prefer
the
stucco
approach.
The
community
association
prefers
the
stucco
approach
heritage
ottawa
said
it's
not
a
deal
breaker,
mr
fleming
from
heritage.
Auto
said
it's
not
a
deal
breaker
stucco
versus
brick
and
and
several
of
our
public
members
with
heritage
architecture.
Expertise
would
not
be
opposed
to
the
brick
as
well.
I
did
hear
something
earlier
about
perhaps
limiting
the
brick
to
a
first
floor.
D
F
Through
you,
mr
chair,
I
I
think
so
this
the
brick
on
the
ground
floor.
That's,
I
think,
that's
the
proposed
way
forward
from
the
applicant
and
I
think,
there's
still
significant
concerns
from
staff's
perspective,
with
even
with
the
ground
floor
being
brick,
as
I
mentioned,
just
with
you,
know,
conserving
the
integrity
of
the
existing
house.
D
D
F
Through
you,
mr
chair,
I
think
if,
if
the
first
can,
if
this
committee
wishes
to
to
see
the
brick
on
the
ground
floor,
it
would
be.
You
could
just
remove
the
first
condition,
which
would,
as
as
the
application,
the
recommendation
would
be
according
to
plans
submitted,
which
include
that
brick
on
the
ground
floor.
F
I
think
you
know
some
of
the
other
conditions
with
respect
to
material
providing
material
samples
before
the
building
permit.
That
could
cover
off
some
of
the
concerns
you
know
about
color
and
treatment
of
this
the
upper
floor,
stucco
that
could
be
that
could
be
addressed
through
the
protection
measures
plan
as
well.
J
J
B
Thank
you,
mr
chair.
I
just
wanted
to
be
clear
that
the
brick
would
not
from-
and
I
think
mckenzie
can
address
this-
that
the
brick
would
only
apply
to
the
first
story.
The
stucco
would
remain
in
the
upper
area,
and
certainly
I
like
what
you
were
saying
around
working
with
the
applicant
in
terms
of
the
exact
materials
involved
with
the
selection
of
brick
and
the
color
palette,
I
think,
is
going
to
be
really
important
in
this
combination
of
materials
working.
A
A
We
also
see
that
it
is
also
challenging
as
well
in
terms
of
re
relocation.
You
know,
since
we
don't
typically
favor
the
relocation
of
of
buildings,
but
and
typically
we
would
be
against
that,
but
repositioning
historic
contributing
buildings
are
definitely
not
a
proposal
that
staff
would
normally
consider.
A
However,
in
this
case,
we
see
that
staff
are
supportive
of
the
approach.
You
know
it
kind
of
levels,
the
houses
in
a
sense
and,
given
that
the
identified
character,
defining
attributes
of
the
heritage
conservation
district
will
ultimately
be
conserved
by
the
by
the
reallocation.
It
seems
to
be
another
acceptable,
unique
scenario.
K
Thanks
very
much
chair,
I
just
I
just
wanted
to
make
sure
we're
clear.
I
believe
that
1a
right
now
is
referring
to
the
stucco
cladding
on
all
aspects
of
the
front
of
the
building,
both
the
lower
and
the
upper
sections
and
and
that
the
concern
would
be
removing
that
it's
not
just
the
the
lower
it's
the
upper
as
well,
and
I
and
I
guess
I
would
go
further
and
just
say
that
I
think
it's
important.
K
K
So
where
replacement
is
necessary,
the
stucco
would
need
to
match
the
existing
as
closely
as
possible,
including
its
traditional
application
method
and
formula
makeup.
I
think
staff
have
outlined
various
reasons
why
it
makes
sense
to
approve
this,
as
is
in
their
recommendation,
and
of
course
the
community
has
also
indicated
that,
as
have
we-
and
I
think
the
rest
of
the
process
has
been
exemplary.
So
to
this
point
I
think
just
removing
1a
would
leave
us
at
risk
of
the
entire
building.
M
Yes,
okay,
sorry,
I
got
these
new
headphones
because
I
have
my
daughter
home
with
me,
so
I
can
take
this
one,
so
I
mean,
I
think,
the
removal
of
condition
1a
will
not
actually
result
in
the
law
in,
in
our
opinion,
in
the
loss
of
the
upper
story
stucco.
I
think
that
is
still.
It
basically
means
that
the
applicant
will
get
to
get
an
approval
for
the
plans
as
submitted
as
opposed
to
the
plans,
with
the
condition
that
has
been
proposed
by
staff
and
supported
by
staff.
M
So
we
would
be
looking
through
the
condition
that
heritage
planning
has
proposed.
Basically,
we
would
want
to
see
an
entirely
stucco
facade
as
it
is
today.
What
the
applicant
has
proposed
is
what
you
saw
in
the
plans
which
is
partially
brick.
So
if
you
remove
condition
1a,
they
will
get
permission
to
build.
M
What
is
in
the
plans
that
are
attached
to
the
staff
report,
I
think
mckenzie
has
made
it
quite
clear
that
you
know
the
rationale
for
staff's
recommendation
of
that
condition,
and
I
don't
think
we
support
you
know
the
removal
of
that
condition.
But
if
that
is
the
way
that
the
committee
goes,
then
I
don't
think
we're
at
risk
of
losing
the
remaining
stucco
on
the
building.
A
M
A
C
D
B
J
B
B
A
B
A
Married
married,
so
the
rest
of
the
report
is
carried.
This
report
is
scheduled
to
be
presented
on
council
to
council
on
september,
8th
2021..
Our
next
item
is
a
number
three
application
to
alter
65
stuart
street.
A
property
designated
under
part
4
of
the
ontario
heritage
act.
Can
staff.
Please
provide
an
overview
of
this
report.
L
L
L
The
property
is
located
within
the
sandy
hill
west
hcd.
However,
the
property
itself
is
only
designated
under
part.
Four
of
the
ontario
heritage
act
at
the
time
of
the
district
designation
designation
under
both
parts.
Four
and
five
of
the
act
were
not
permitted.
Therefore,
only
provisions
of
part
four
of
the
act
are
applicable
in
this
instance.
L
Next
slide,
the
house
known
as
jarvis
house,
was
designated
in
1981
for
its
architectural
interest.
The
house
was
built
in
1885
in
an
eclectic,
victorian
style,
featuring
wood
clapboard
with
picturesque
bargeboard,
italianate
window
framing
and
a
bay
window.
The
polygonal
veranda
was
added
in
the
early
1900s.
L
As
mentioned,
the
house
is
set
quite
far
back
from
the
street
compared
to
its
neighbors,
making
it
an
outlier
within
the
streetscape.
The
property
has
a
large
side
yard,
which
features
a
one-story
addition
due
to
the
dense
tree
cover
on
the
property.
This
is
difficult
to
see.
I've
included
an
older
image
from
the
springtime
where
you
can
see
the
house
and
the
property
better,
as
well
as
a
1979
photograph,
which
clearly
shows
the
house
and
side
editions.
L
L
L
The
left
image
shows
the
additions
that
will
be
removed.
Those
are
indicated
in
red
and
the
right
image
shows
a
new
addition
in
navy
blue
in
addition
to
a
heritage
application.
This
proposal
also
requires
approval
under
the
planning
act
for
site
plan
control,
as
well
as
a
zoning
bylaw
amendment,
while
low-rise
apartment
building
is
permitted.
Site-Specific
amendments
are
proposed
to
address
the
height
the
heritage,
overlay,
landscaping
and
yard
requirements
next
slide.
L
L
L
The
height
of
the
new
addition
will
be
slightly
taller
than
the
jarvis
house,
however,
is
set
back
approximately
half
the
depth
of
the
house.
In
order
to
allow
the
original
jarvis
house
to
dominate
to
provide
further
separation
between
old
and
new,
a
recessed
dormer
window
will
be
created
on
the
second
floor
next
slide.
L
The
additional
take
design
cues
from
the
jarvis
house
in
terms
of
window
detailing
gable,
roof
and
front
porch
wood
will
be
used
in
the
front
of
the
addition,
while
hardy
plank
will
be
used
in
the
sides
and
rear
hearty
plank
is
a
material
compatible
with
the
wood
clapboard.
Seen
on
the
existing
house
to
further
distinguish
itself,
the
addition
will
be
colored
in
gray,
while
the
clapboard
in
the
jarvis
house
is
white.
L
The
addition
will
also
be
set
back
from
the
original
house
to
allow
the
existing
house
to
dominate
to
further
accentuate
the
differentiation
between
old
and
new.
A
recessed
dormer
will
be
created
to
clearly
separate
the
mass
of
the
existing
house
from
the
new
construction.
This
will
also
help
to
break
up
the
massing
of
the
roof
next
slide.
L
The
proposal
will
maintain
the
existing
west
side
yard,
which
will
continue
to
be
used
for
access
for
the
rear
neighbors.
The
east
side
yard,
which
is
generally
open,
will
contain
the
new
addition
and
comply
with
the
required
side
yard
setback
within
the
zoning
bylaw
much
the
rear
yard
of
a
lot
will
comprise
of
the
addition.
L
L
It
is
anticipated,
however,
that
the
portion
of
the
polygonal
veranda
will
be
will
require
reconstruction
due
to
the
removal
of
the
staircase
addition
to
the
east
of
the
front.
Entrance
staff
have
therefore
included
a
recommendation
in
the
report
that
the
historic
door
be
used.
Use
the
secondary
staircase
be
used
on
the
inside
of
the
building,
while
not
original
to
the
house
is
believed
that
the
store
is
an
early
edition.
L
L
As
part
of
the
heritage
planning,
branch's
pre-consultation
pilot
program
action
sandy
hills,
heritage
committee
participated
in
the
pre-consultation
meeting
with
the
applicant
heritage
staff
and
action
sandy
hill
provide
comments
back
to
the
applicant
raising
concerns
over
height
and
massing
heritage.
Staff
have
since
worked
with
the
applicant
to
mitigate
these
concerns
and
as
such
next
slide.
Oh
sorry,
I've
missed
the
next
slide
and
again
well
there
we
go.
L
Staff,
therefore
recommend
to
approve
the
heritage,
permit
conditional
upon
salvaging
the
door,
implementing
the
conservation
measures
in
the
cultural
heritage
impact
statement
for
the
veranda
and
having
the
exterior
materials
approved
by
staff
staff
also
recommend
to
approve
the
landscape
plan,
which
will
see
a
new
walkway
to
the
side
and
the
removal
of
three
trees
in
the
side
yard.
Thank
you.
A
Thank
you
ashley
for
that
presentation.
We
did
receive
correspondence
from
david
fleming
from
heritage
ottawa,
a
letter
dated
august
27th,
which
is
opposing
the
recommendations.
We
also
did
receive
a
letter
from
a
resident
with
comments
as
well,
which
I
believe
also
opposed
to
recommendations.
We
do
have
a
number
of
registered
speakers
on
behalf
of
the
applicant.
The
first
speaker
is,
I
believe,
from
nova
tech
engineering
planners
and
in
landscape
architects.
G
Thank
you,
chair
and
members
of
committee,
so
we
we
have
a
short
presentation
that
we'll
run
through.
Certainly
this
house
is
one
of
the
older
crafted
buildings
within
the
district.
It's
surrounded
by
a
much
larger
flat,
roof,
multi-story
properties,
and
so
the
challenge
has
been
to
to
accommodate
intensification
while
still
maintaining
the
primacy
of
jarvis
house.
Next,
at
least.
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
A
B
G
B
Including
the
front
facade,
not
just
the
sides
in
the
rear,
okay.
Thank
you.
The
other
question
I
had
is
about
the
front
door.
I
understand
it's
going
to
be.
An
attempt
is
going
to
be
made
to
reuse
it
in
the
interior
of
the
building.
It
is
a
very
decorative
door.
I'm
just
wondering
what
door
is
going
to
be,
what
will
be
the
main
entrance
door?
What
is
it
going
to
look
like.
G
G
G
B
It's
not
being
moved.
Okay,
and
I
misunderstood
that
I
was,
I
thought
that
that
was
going
to
be
to
the
interior
and
then
just
looking
at
the
the
massing
on
the
property,
it's
really
filling
the
whole
property,
very
little
wiggle
room
on
the
lane
going
either
side
and
the
rear.
I'm
just
wondering
the
number
of
units.
Currently,
I
think
there
are
two
units
in
the
jarvis
house
what
what
how
many
units
are
we
going
to
have
if
this
goes
forward?
B
G
E
Yes,
thank
you
chair
robert,
a
question
that
didn't
seem
to
be
revealed
too
clearly
in
staff
report.
I
understand
the
architectural
treatment
and
the
massing
and
the
detailing
and
the
color
palette,
but
can
you
some
of
the
comments
that
were
made
by
action?
Sandy
hill
and
community
members
have
to
do
with
the
setback
from
the
rear
of
the
property,
and
I
understand
that
you
need
to
get
variances
from
the
committee
of
adjustment
on
that
issue.
E
G
To
my
to
my
knowledge,
there's
no
direct
neighbor
concerns.
I
think
our
I
mean
our
owners
on
on
the
line.
If
you
can
talk
about
the
engagement
with
adjacent
neighbors,
who
apparently
have
not
expressed
opposition
to
this,
the
existing
condition,
which
can
the
site
can
be
put
on
the
screen-
I
guess
by
eric,
but
the
we
have
a
an
odd
system
of
garages
and
laneways.
So
it's
all
all
rather
tight
and
built
up
on
page
in
the
backyard,
is
in
existing
conditions.
G
So
what
is
what
is
being
proposed
is
very
similar
to
the
current
set.
You
can
see
the
existing
rear
garage,
which
is
even
closer.
In
fact,
it
goes
over
the
property
line,
the
the
garage
shown
in
red
and
so
we're-
I
guess
addressing
that.
So
in
in
blue,
we
have
the
you
can
see
the
setbacks,
so
the
building
is
pulled
pulled
back.
The
majority
is
pulled
back
to
the
rear
yard
setback,
which
is
required.
E
G
E
G
Okay,
so
I
think
eric
or
someone
is,
is
moving
a
cursor,
so
on
on
the
west
side,
we
have
the
side,
yard
setback-
yeah,
that's
that's
the
I
guess
westerly
one
and
then
at
the
at
the
north
you
get
blue
going
across
there.
You
have
the
property
line
and
I'm
not
sure,
if
nova
tech,
some
on
the
phone
can
chime
in
on
this
too.
But
that
might
be
helpful.
A
N
N
Essentially,
as
part
of
our
analysis,
we
identified
two
main
heritage
features
or
elements
related
to
the
site
and
building
that
we
recommended
be
preserved.
The
first
one,
of
course,
is
the
unique
front
yard
setback
which
provides
a
counterpoint
to
the
otherwise
uniform
setbacks
and
provides
a
nice
sense
of
privacy
to
the
front
of
the
building,
and
the
second,
of
course,
as
previously
noted
by
rob,
is
the
appearance
of
the
street
facing
facade,
including
the
materials
and
detailing
the
wooden
barge
board,
the
leaded
glass
windows
and
the
other
original
elements
to
the
building.
N
N
We
made
a
series
of
recommendations
related
to
setbacks,
the
use
of
gaskets
materials
and
the
elimination
of
the
parapet,
which
was
also
something
that
city
staff
had
had
requested,
and
the
majority
of
these
issues
were
addressed
in
the
latest
iteration
of
the
architectural
drawings
when
we
were
developing
the
cultural
heritage
impact
statement,
as
ashley
mentioned,
this
is
a
part
four
designated
building.
However,
of
course,
we
could
not
ignore
any
potential
impacts
to
the
rest
of
the
heritage
district
in
which
it
resides.
N
N
A
H
H
I
only
say
that,
thank
you
very
much
for
hearing
our
application
and
I
would
we
have
reached
out
to
the
neighbor
during
the
early
part
of
the
development
and
then
we
have
no
objection
from
the
neighbors.
As
of
what
we
are
propose
and
should
you
have
any
questions
for
us
and
then
we
will
be
pleased
to
answer
it.
A
A
H
If
the
subcommittee
was
being
asked
to
judge
the
merits
of
the
proposal
solely
on
the
preservation
of
the
existing
building
on
its
current
footprint,
we
would
welcome
the
sensitive
approach
by
the
proponent
and
likely
recommend
support
of
the
application,
even
with
a
less
obtrusive
new
edition,
mostly
tucked
away
in
the
rear
and
with
a
minimal
encroachment
on
the
side.
We
would
support
the
removal
of
the
later
editions
and
would
welcome
an
opportunity
to
comment
on
the
substance
of
such
an
application.
H
J
L
L
at
the
time
the
ontario
heritage
act
did
not
allow
for
double
designation,
so
this
property
itself
is
technically
not
designated
under
both
parts.
However,
because
there's
no
new
plan
at
the
time
when
a
new
on
a
plan
is
an
effect
in
sandy
hill
west,
both
parts,
four
and
five
would
be
applicable
for
any
alterations
to
this
property.
J
J
L
Through
your
chair,
you
wouldn't
need
a
heritage
permit
for
alterations
to
the
property
if
it
was
interior
only
and
the
interior
was
not
designated
under
part.
Four
you'd
be
permitted
to
make
those
alterations,
but
any
exterior
alterations
would
require
a
heritage
permit
and
likely
through
approval
through
this
committee.
If
it
was
a
large-scale
alteration.
J
L
L
Yeah,
certainly,
staff
had
initially
erased
concerns
with
the
size
and
the
height
as
the
dachshund
sandy
hill.
We've
worked
with
them
with
the
applicant
on
reducing
the
mass,
especially
in
the
roof,
pushing
the
addition
farther
back
to
decrease
the
overall
appearance
and
decrease
the
actual
footprint
sizing
of
the
the
edition
and
using
other
tools
that
were
referenced
earlier,
such
as
that
gasket
that
dormer
window
helped
to
separate
the
new
and
the
old,
reducing
that
roof.
L
J
B
L
Certainly,
thank
you.
There
are
two
doors
right
now
on
the
front
of
the
jarvis
house.
One
is
the
main
entrance
to
the
house
and
the
second
one
is
a
secondary
entrance,
as
I
think
I
believe,
the
staircase
to
access
the
second
floor,
which
is
off
the
veranda
and
that
staircase
is
being
removed
as
part
of
this
project
and
therefore
the
door,
then
that,
as
access
point
will
be,
will
be
obsolete.
L
D
Yeah,
thank
you,
chair
just
a
quick
comment.
I
think
this
is
a
very
successful
proposal
in
the
design
that
they've
they're
proposing
here
just
retaining
a
heritage
building.
That's
you
know,
distinctive
and
and
maybe
not
the
best
suited
to
the
present
conditions
or
sort
of
it's
a
site
or
that
that
that
needs
to
have
some
careful
intervention
and
creativity
to
make
it
work
within
this
neighborhood,
it's
retaining
the
original
home.
D
It's
not
being
demolished.
It's
adding
10
units
in
a
way
that
breathes
some
new
life
into
this.
This
building
for
for
generations
to
come,
10
units
also
being
something
that
will
be
helpful
towards
addressing
our
housing
supply
issue
here
in
ottawa.
So
it's
also
surrounded
on
all
sides
by
three-story
apartments.
So
it's
it's
kind
of
in
a
unique
position
on
the
street
here,
so
I
am
supportive
of
what's
in
front
of
us
today.
Thank
you.
E
Yes,
sir,
thank
you
chair
in
general.
I
think
that
the
architectural
treatment
of
the
addition,
even
though
it's
significantly
larger
than
the
existing
building,
will
have
very
little
negative
impact
and
possibly
some
neutral
impact
on
the
public
realm.
I
think
that
the
color
palette
treatment
the
use
of
hearty
plank.
E
You
know
letters
co-signed
by
the
owners
of
people
on
daley
avenue
that
are
concerned
about
the
impact
to
the
natural
light
in
their
rear
yards.
So
I
think
that
in
some
respects,
although
it's
hard
to
differentiate,
it
is
a
planning
issue
of
the
positioning
of
this
new
addition
on
in
encroaching
into
the
required
rear
yard,
rather
than
a
heritage,
character
treatment.
E
And
therefore
I
find
it
troubling
and
difficult
to
to
balance
the
two.
And
that
is
it's
unfortunate,
that
we
don't
have
input
from
the
land
use
planners
about
the
impact
of
the
addition
and
whether
or
not
that
is
going
to
be
supported
from
a
planning
perspective
it
for
its
impact
on
the
reyard.
So
this
is
the
troubling
part
of
this
excellently
designed
envelope
treatment,
but
not
necessarily
massing.
That
would
satisfy
the
impact
on
the
neighbors
to
the
to
the
north.
A
Seeing
none,
I
would
have
to
agree
with
member
podelski
on
the
sense
that
there
is
definitely
a
massing
challenge
here.
In
my
estimation,
which
I
actually
feel
goes
above
and
beyond
and
does
overwhelm
the
heritage
elements
which
I
think
is
contrary
to
the
conditions
on
which
a
heritage
designation
is
based.
A
A
But
at
the
same
time
you
know
we
do
consider
elements
such
as
massing
and
in.
In
my
estimation,
I
think
that
the
massing
here
is
overwhelming
of
the
heritage
elements
and,
as
a
consequence,
I
won't
be
supporting
this
report
before
us
today.
So
I
just
wanted
to
make
my
views
clear
before
we
head
to
looking
at
this
report,
so
I
will
dissent
on
on
this
report.
A
A
The
next
item
before
us
is
a
status
update
concerning
a
built
heritage
subcommittee
inquiries,
emotions
for
the
period
ended
august,
13th
2021.
There
are
no
there's
no
presentations
from
staff
and
no
speakers
or
are
registered
to
date.
This
report
is
pretty
pro
forma.
Does
the
committee
have
any
questions
for
staff
on
this
item.