►
From YouTube: Built Heritage Sub-Committee meeting – May 14, 2015
Description
Built Heritage Sub-Committee meeting – May 14, 2015 – Audio Stream
Agenda and background materials can be found at http://www.ottawa.ca/agendas.
A
C
Okay
good
morning,
everybody
and
welcome
to
this
our
fifth
meeting
already
of
our
2015
built
heritage
subcommittee
and
on
our
agenda.
Today
we
have
a
number
of
substantive
items
to
discuss,
but
before
we
get
there
any
declarations
of
interest,
no
seeing
none
then
moving
to
confirmation
to
minutes.
So
we
have
the
minutes
from
the
ninth
April.
C
2015
meeting
are
those
Kay
right,
okay,
so
turning
to
the
substantive
portion
of
the
agenda,
we
have
three
items
to
discuss
and
then
one
item
under
other
business
moving
through
the
agenda
I
think
we
have
speakers
for
our
second
item
and
none
for
a
third.
So
what
we'll
do
is
on
item
one?
The
bill
hazard
subcommittee
terms
of
reference.
What
this
got
deferred
from
an
earlier
meeting
and
I
just
want
to
explain
the
change
that
was
made
as
a
result
of
our
facilitated
session.
Members
will
recall
that
we
had
quite
a
good
discussion.
C
Given
that
that's
usually
an
in-house
of
right
zoning
opportunity
and
variances
from
that
go
to
the
committee
of
adjustment,
so
we've
asked
staff
to
consider
the
future
of
the
Heritage
overlay
as
part
of
our
follow-up
from
the
facilitated
session
and
as
a
result,
we
felt
that
we
couldn't,
at
this
stage
include
any
kind
of
accountability
for
the
Heritage
overlay
as
part
of
our
terms
of
reference.
Until
such
time
is,
we've
looked
at
that
and
amended
if
we
so
choose
our
approach
to
it.
C
So
the
revised
terms
of
reference
which
you've
seen
in
in
document
1
under
this
item
is
the
same
as
the
original
terms
of
reference,
but
for
the
removal
of
reference
to
the
Heritage
overlay.
So
that's
the
only
change
that
was
made
from
the
original
terms
of
reference
which
we
were
considering
approving
earlier
in
the
year.
So
with
that,
any
questions
on
this
item
before
we
go
to
the
vote.
A
B
C
Under
other
business,
MS
coops
is
going
to
give
us
an
update
on
how
staff
is
going
to
respond
to
the
various
recommendations
that
came
out
of
the
chairs
report
from
the
facilitated
session,
and
she
would
give
us
an
indication
at
that
stage.
At
one
point,
we
can
expect
to
get
some
staff
advice
or
recommendations
on
the
whole
issue
of
how
to
modernize
the
overlay.
If
we,
if
that
comes
before
midterm
governance
review,
we
can
always
incorporate
whatever
changes
we
would
like
to
by
practice
and
then
formalize
those
changes
during
the
midterm
governance.
C
Okay,
no
other
questions
or
comments
on
that.
So
can
we
terms
of
reference
and
are
they
Carrie?
Okay?
Sorry,
it's
the
recommendation.
We
actually
don't
approve
our
in
terms
of
reference,
but
they
will
go
to
planning
committee
as
as
the
recommendations
are
set
up.
Okay,
great,
so
we'll
move
then
to
item
two
on
our
agenda,
which
is
the
sandy
heritage
study.
I.
C
Think
for
those
of
you
who
have
been
around
longer
than
I
have
you'll
recognize
this
file,
because
this
is
been
around
for
a
while
regional
study
took
place
between
2008
and
2010
and
was
actually
funded
by
a
legal
settlement
relating
to
the
demolition
of
two
heritage
buildings.
So
there
was
a
certain
amount
of
sweet
sweet
justice
for
the
fact
that
heritage
did
benefit
from
the
destruction
of
heritage
and
the
consultant
team
submitted
its
study
to
the
city
in
2010
and
I.
Think
we're
going
to
start
this
item
with
a
presentation.
D
D
This
is
the
study
area
for
Sandy
Hill
that
was
established
in
2006
and
2007
as
part
of
the
terms
of
reference
for
the
Sandy
Hill
Heritage
study.
So
the
black
dotted
line
illustrates
the
area
that
was
subject
to
a
building
by
building
inventory.
You'll
see
the
colored
lines
here
here
here
here
and
here
illustrate
the
boundaries
of
the
existing
five
heritage
conservation
districts
in
Sandy
Hill.
These
districts
were
designated
in
1982
and
were
some
of
the
earliest
districts
in
Ontario
and
the
first
districts
designated
in
the
City
of
Ottawa.
D
All
the
other
colors
on
the
map
are
a
result
of
the
building
by
building
inventory
that
was
undertaken
as
part
of
this
project.
Over
800
buildings
were
inventoried
and
evaluated
with,
and
then
categories
a
sign,
so
red
is
category.
One
blue
is
category.
Two
green
is
category
three
and
white
or
sort
of
that
beige
color
is
category
four.
D
So,
as
I
said,
and
as
the
chair
mentioned,
this
was
this
study
was
funded
through
a
settlement
of
two
hundred
fifty
thousand
dollars
received
by
the
city
in
2004
as
a
result
of
the
demolition
of
some
properties
in
the
Nicholas
Waller
triangle.
One
hundred
fifty
thousand
of
that
was
to
be
used
to
undertake
a
study
of
Sandy
Hill.
D
The
study
was
initiated
in
2007
and
had
three
main
goals
was
to
evaluate
the
840
pre-1950
you'll
notice.
In
the
report
it
says
after
1950
that
was
a
typo
buildings
in
the
study
area,
adopt
Heritage,
Conservation
District
plans
for
the
existing
HDDs.
So
that's
the
five
that
were
designated
in
1982
that
had
no
statement
of
cultural
heritage,
value
or
guidelines
associated
with
them
and
consider
options
worth
protecting
the
Heritage
character
of
the
remainder
of
the
study
area.
D
D
As
you
will
see,
there
is
a
small
difference
between
this
map
and
the
previous
map,
in
that
the
properties
along
King
Edward
between
Laurier
and
Somerset,
have
been
removed
from
the
proposed
cultural
heritage,
character
area,
as
these
properties
are
associated
with
the
University
of
Ottawa's
campus,
our
plan
and
various
zoning
and
Official
Plan
policies
that
have
been
put
in
place
over
the
last
number
of
years.
The
the
remaining
buildings
and
Strathcona
Park
are
included
in
the
Heritage
character
area.
D
We
have
received
the
question
number
a
number
of
times
as
to
why
we're
not
recommending
the
designation
of
an
HCD
for
the
remaining
area
within
this
black
boundary,
and
there
are
a
few
reasons
for
that.
One
is
that
the
consultants
report
did
not
recommend
the
creation
of
an
additional
HDD.
In
fact,
it
states
that
excuse
me,
the
area
consists
of
a
mosaic
of
many
areas
of
varying
levels
of
harridan
interest.
D
It
says
there
are
designated
areas
of
high
heritage
value,
undesignated
areas
of
comparable
heritage
value
is
of
distinct,
but
more
modest
areas,
value
and
areas
of
little
or
no
heritage
value.
So,
as
you
can
see,
it's
not
a
homogeneous
area
that
would
want
designation
as
an
entire
district.
So
for
that
reason
the
work
to
date
has
not
demonstrated
that
a
new
HCD
is
warranted
here
and
instead
we're
proposing
the
establishment
of
a
cultural
heritage,
character
area.
D
That
being
said,
that
does
not
preclude
the
creation
of
a
large
HCD
or,
as
you'll,
see
later,
several
other
HDDs
in
this
area
in
the
future.
So
what
is
a
cultural
heritage,
character
area?
The
Official
Plan
provides
the
direction
that
the
city
may
recognize
all
the
residential
neighborhoods
as
cultural
heritage,
characters
where
designation
may
not
be
appropriate,
may
or
may
not
be
appropriate.
Sorry,
and
in
these
areas
the
city
will
prepare
design
guidelines
to
reflect
the
identified
cultural
heritage
features.
D
D
Document
3
includes
the
proposed
guidelines
and
Harwich
character
statement
for
this
area
and
they're
intended
to
be
used
by
staff
and
applicants,
in
conjunction
with
other
municipal
and
provincial
planning
policy
and
bylaws.
So,
if
adopted
by
City
Council
the
cultural
heritage,
character,
area
guidelines
would
function
similar
to
urban
design,
guidelines
and
other
municipal
and
provincial
planning
policy,
so
they'll
be
used
by
heritage
staff
through
the
building
permit
process,
they'd
be
used
by
land,
land
use
planning
staff
through
the
development
review
process
and
and
then
by
applicants.
D
D
Third,
to
guide
new
development
that
is
appropriate
to
the
character
of
Sandhill
and
finally,
to
celebrate
the
history
of
the
neighborhood,
so
recommendation
three
is
to
adopt
the
Heritage
Conservation
District
plans
attached
as
document
four
through
eight
for
the
five
existing
heritage
conservation
districts
in
Sandy
Hill,
so
I
showed
you
those
on
the
map
earlier
I'm
just
going
to
go
quickly
through
them,
one
by
one.
So
the
first
is
the
King
Edward
Heritage
Conservation
District.
D
D
D
The
will
broad
Laurier
HCD
includes
a
variety
of
quite
large
properties
in
the
Heritage
in
Sandy
Hill,
some
of
the
former
villa
estates
developed
in
the
late
19th
century.
As
you
can
see,
this
district
has
a
high
concentration
of
category
one
buildings
and
the
daily
Avenue
heritage
district,
which
runs
generally
along
Daly
Avenue,
with
some
varying
boundaries
along
the
way
from
King
Edward
all
the
way
to
Coburg
Street
and
also
includes
a
high
concentration
of
buildings
that
are
designated
under
part
4
of
the
Act.
D
So
those
buildings
would
have
been
designated
prior
to
the
designation
of
the
district
and
then
finally,
the
Sweetland
Avenue
Heritage
Conservation
District,
which
is
a
small
district
south
of
low
Avenue
between
Laurier
and
Osgood,
and
consists
of
quite
a
different
character.
I
would
say,
then
than
the
districts
to
the
north,
and
you
may
remember
one
of
the
properties
in
this
district,
one
out
of
architectural
conservation
award
this
year,
31
Sweetland
the
little
green
house
that
was
dramatically
restored,
so
the
Ontario
Heritage
Act
prescribes
the
contest
contents
of
an
HCD
plan
in
Section
41.1.
D
D
So
the
proposed
plans
that
are
attached
as
documents
to
the
report
meet
the
requirements
of
the
Ontario
Heritage
Act,
as
sandy
Hill
has
a
very
similar
history.
There
are
minor
differences
between
the
plans
in
terms
of
reflecting
the
individual
character
of
each
district,
but
generally
the
history
is
similar
and
the
cultural
heritage
value
is
similar,
but
the
attributes
have
some
small
differences,
and
some
of
the
guidelines
have
small
differences
when
it
comes
to,
for
instance,
a
long
Sweetland
Avenue.
D
The
setbacks
are
quite
smaller,
quite
quite
closer
to
the
street,
then
along
in
the
will
broad
Laurier
HCD,
for
instance,
and
if
approved
by
council.
The
HCD
plans
would
then
be
brought
forward
as
municipal
bylaws
to
a
future
council
meeting,
and
that
process
is
appealable
to
the
OMB
by
any
member
any
property
owner
within
the
Heritage
Conservation
districts.
D
Recommendation
4
is
the
Heritage
Register.
So,
as
I
mentioned
earlier,
over
800
buildings
were
evaluated
through
the
Sandy
Hill
Heritage
study
of
those
that
are
not
already
designated
under
part,
4
or
part
5.
The
department
is
recommending
the
addition
of
332
buildings
to
the
City
of
Ottawa
Heritage
Register,
and
this
is
the
under
Section
27
of
the
Heritage
Act,
and
if
listed
property
owners
must
provide
the
city
with
60
days
notice
prior
to
the
demolition
of
the
building.
So
we
saw
this
as
an
additional
tool
to
help
support
the
cultural
heritage,
character
area.
D
As
a
general
rule,
almost
all
of
the
category
1
2
&
3
buildings
that
were
located
within
the
cultural
heritage
character
area
were
recommended
for
addition
to
the
register
in
March
of
this
year,
I
conducted
site
visits
and
analysis
of
all
of
those
properties
and
and
only
ones
that
had
been
demolished,
heavily
altered
or
had
very
low.
Architectural
integrity
were
excluded
from
from
this
recommendation,
this
map
shows
you
where
they
are
so,
as
you
can
see,
the
big
white
areas
obviously
are
the
existing
districts.
D
D
Recommendation
5,
the
consultants
study
recommends
some
future
designations,
so
there
are
four
properties
recommended
for
part.
Four
designation
at
Col,
st.
Pierre,
the
former
Ecole
st.
Pierre
I,
should
say
at
3:53
Friel
at
Col,
Franco
Jeunesse
at
119
Osgood
and
two
houses
located
at
55
Russell
and
323
chapel.
In
addition,
four
areas
are
recommended
to
be
study,
a
studied
as
potential
new
age
CDs,
and
there
is
$60,000
remaining
in
the
project
budget
to
be
used
to
undertake
phase
2
of
this
project.
D
So
staff
are
recommending
that
these
designations
be
explored
as
part
of
phase
2
and
you'll
see
in
the
financial
comment
in
staff
report
that
this
budget
is
set
with
a
2016
completion
date.
So
we
will
not
be
coming
back
to
you
in
another
10
years
with
with
these
HDDs,
if
if
they
are
determined
to
be
considered
appropriate
for
designation,
so
the
areas
in
pink
are
the
areas
that
are
considered
potential
age,
CDs
and
you'll.
D
It's
difficult
to
see
on
this
map,
but
they've
got
sort
of
a
yellow
star
on
them,
so
here's
one
nineteen
Osgood
353
Friel
55
Russ,
so
that
no
sorry
323,
Chapel
and
55
Russell
is
here
in
terms
of
consultation.
There
were
several
public
meetings
held
since
2008.
The
most
recent
meeting
was
held
at
on
June
26
2014.
D
When
we
held
an
open
house
where
the
draft
documents
were
presented
for
information
and
comment
and
the
draft
documents
that
are
now
the
final
documents
that
are
in
front
of
the
committee
today
are
generally
the
same
as
what
was
presented
last
June,
because
the
overall
feedback
was
quite
positive
and
we
received
very
few
comments
in
terms
of
changes
or
recommended
changes
to
the
project.
That's
all
I
had
to
say.
If
there's
any
questions,
I'm
happy
to
answer
them.
C
Three
or
four
you
mentioned
in
terms
of
the
cultural
heritage
code
that
I
think
the
line
was.
It
was
intended
to
be
used
by
staff
as
well
as
applicants
and
I'm
just
wondering
if
you
could
give
us
an
example
of
in
what
circumstances
staff
would
be
using
the
guidelines.
So,
if
you
imagine
an
applicant
who
say
wants
to
demolish
a
building
in
the
character
which,
in
the
cultural
heritage,
character
that
is
not
designated
and
not
on
the
register,
so
they
would
have
an
as
of
right
ability
to
demolish
the
house
and
build
something
new.
C
D
The
in
the
scenario
that
you've
just
laid
out
if
it
was
only
a
building
permit
that
was
required,
for
instance,
it
would
be
heritage
staff
who
would
become
involved
in
the
file,
so
the
building
permit.
All
of
these
properties
will
be
flagged
in
our
electronic
system
as
being
located
within
the
cultural
heritage
character
area,
which
will
mean
that
any
building
permit
that
is
applied
for
within
this
area
would
automatically
be
referred
to
the
heritage
section
for
a
review.
So
in
the
instance
where
it's
a
building,
that's
not
on
the
register
and
they
could
demolish
it.
D
You
know,
within
a
ten
day,
building
permit
sort
of
thing
and
they're
replacing
it
with
a
new
single-family
house,
for
instance,
that
requires
no
other
planning
applications.
We
would
try
to
work
with
the
property
owner
to
ensure
that
the
design
of
the
new
building
meets
the
guidelines
that
are
within
the
Sandy
Hill
cultural
heritage,
character
area.
D
Think
that's
partially,
because
there
are
a
lot
of
property
owners
there,
who
really
value
the
historic
character
of
the
neighborhood
and
do
their
best
to
retain
their
buildings.
And
so
one
of
the
main
goals
of
this
is
to
provide
those
property
owners
with
advice
and
assistance
in
making
the
right
decisions
for
their
historic
properties.
Okay,.
E
You
I
notice
that
one
of
the
comments
you
make
is
is
that
you
have
eliminated
or
suggested
the
elimination
of
the
properties
that
belong
to
the
University
of
Ottawa
and
King
Edward
Avenue,
and
when
I
look
at
the
list
of
goals
for
the
these
properties,
it
would
seem
to
me
those
goals
would
be
shared
by
the
University
of
Ottawa.
So
I
wondered
if
those
that
those
properties
had
been
included
were
not
eliminated,
the
university
would
still
be
able
to
demolish.
They'd
still
be
able
to
develop
they.
E
F
Wanted
to
go
back
to
the
questions
here,
you
were
asking
about
the
the
guidelines.
I
just
don't
know
how
effective
the
guidelines
Nestle
are.
If
somebody
wants
to
do
something
that
doesn't
meet
the
guideline,
you
say
they
have
to
and
there's
a
stalemate.
Does
that
then
go
to
the
OMB
and
if
so,
what
I
think
I've
seen
in
a
number
of
cases,
the
guidelines,
the
OMB,
doesn't
give
a
lot
of
credence
to
the
guideline.
So
is
this
more
a
way
of
trying
to
encourage,
as
opposed
to
mandating.
D
Through
you,
mr.
chair
this,
wouldn't
it
would
not
go
to
the
OMB,
because
it's
not
you
know,
I
mean
a
Planning
Act
application
that
had
an
appeal
might
go
to
the
OMB,
and
this
might
be
an
applicable
policy
in
that
overall
framework
of
policy,
but
a
dispute,
for
instance
on
a
building
permit
where
we
say
you
should
do
X
and
they
say
no,
we
don't
want
to
there.
There
isn't
any
recourse,
so
they
are
guidelines.
D
They
are
meant
to
be
municipal
policy,
but
it
this
this
project
is
a
bit
of
a
test
case
in
terms
of
how
it's
going
to
work,
which
is
why,
at
the
beginning,
I
said
that
if,
in
five
years
we
do
a
review
of
this-
and
we
determined
that
this
has
not
been
successful.
It
doesn't
preclude
us
from
establishing
an
HCD
here
in
the
future
that
would
would
regulate
it.
I
think.
F
That
would
be
the
case
if
there
was
just
building
for
a,
but
in
some
cases
we're
going
to
have
site
plans
in
here
and
site
plans
are
appealable
to
the
OMB.
So
how
would
you
go
about
that?
If
there's
a
dispute
on
the
guidelines
they're
not
meeting
them,
have
it
seemed
to
me
I,
remember
one
case
in
particular
in
Westborough
when
they
said
that
the
guidelines
were
not
enforceable
or
something
of
that
nature.
That's
just
years
back
again.
F
D
F
C
Know
I
I
think
what's
important
to
state
I
mean
I.
You
know
what
this
the
idea
of
a
cultural
heritage
character
area
is
a
is
a
type
of
tooth.
It's
not
a
sharper
tooth
as
a
Heritage
Conservation
District,
because
it
doesn't
fall
under
the
Ontario
Heritage
Act.
Its
guidelines
and
I.
Think
it's
true
that
at
the
end
of
the
day,
we
have
to
expect
that
if
a
property
owner
or
an
applicant
wanted
to
do,
X
and
X
was
permitted
under
the
zoning
rules.
C
F
Why
I
understand,
but
once
in
the
planning
act,
they're
saying
enough
and
the
official
plan
will
be
these
policies,
so
that
is
a
bylaw
as
oh
and
but
I
have
heard
of
some
case
where
we
didn't
have
the
teeth,
the
maybe
thanks
staff
could
say.
If
there's
some
wording
we
can
use
maybe
soon
the
Official
Plan
we
have
to
do
it.
Mister.
A
Jerry
as
Miss
Collins
alluded
to,
certainly
in
a
Official
Plan
policy
or
zoning
bylaw
carry
more
statutory
weight,
but
council
approved
guidelines
do
carry
weight
at
the
board,
but
they
not
to
the
same
level
as
only
by
law
or
an
official
plan
policy.
So
staff
do
their
best
to
to
implement
and
achieve
all
council
approved
guidelines,
but
your
crack.
They
do
not
carry
the
same
weight
before
the
Ontario
Municipal
Board.
Thank.
C
What
I
propose
is
we
have
two
speakers
on
our
speaker's
list.
We
could
move
to
our
public
delegations
and
then,
if
we
have
further
questions
for
staff
after
hearing
from
the
delegations,
we'll
certainly
have
the
ability
to
pose
those.
So
with
that
I'd
like
to
invite
mr.
Chad
Rowland's
up
to
the
microphone
representing
action,
Sandy
Hill.
G
Name
is
James
about.
Thank
you
counselor
for
giving
me
this
opportunity
visible
action.
Sandy
Hill
submitted
a
letter.
Yesterday,
apologies
for
the
delay
and
submitting
it
I
hope
you
all
received
it
just
to
reiterate
a
few
points
from
that
letter.
Action
Sandy
Hill
supports
the
creation
of
the
Sandy
Hill
cultural
heritage,
character
area,
but
we
do
remain
concerns
that
it's,
maybe
not
sufficient.
We've
just
heard
some
questions
that
indicate
that
there
may
not
be
enough
teeth
to
it
to
actually
achieve
the
goal
of
preserving
our
significant
built
heritage
in
this
area.
G
So
for
that
reason
we
think
that
designation
into
part
5
for
more
of
this
area,
if
not
the
whole
area,
would
have
been
much
more
effective
in
preserving
it.
We
understand
that
there
are
reasons
for
not
having
done
that.
One
that
we
were
advised
of
was
that
there
is
the
possibility,
then,
of
dispute
or
appeal
of
the
existing
areas,
and
of
course
we
don't
want
to
risk
those
areas,
but
we
think
that
that
should
be
studied
further.
How
we
could
do
that.
G
We're
opposed,
though,
very
much
to
the
change
of
the
boundaries
for
the
area.
The
university's
properties
on
King
Edward's
south
of
Laurier
were
very
specifically
included
for
the
in
the
study
area,
so
only
about
30
buildings
there
affected
and
the
study
itself
identified,
I
think
nine
of
those
buildings
as
group
two
and
18
as
group
three.
So
there
are
in
fact
you
know.
G
There
is
in
fact
some
heritage
value
to
those
buildings
into
that
area
and
to
suggest
that,
because
council
direction
in
other
areas
approves
of
redevelopment
of
that
area
that
there's
no
need
to
preserve
the
heritage
of
that
area,
sort
of
contrary,
I
think
that
redevelopment
of
the
area
and
heritage
preservation
can
be
done
together
effectively,
and
certainly
it's
done
in
many
other
areas.
In
fact,
it's
often
used
in
other
cities
as
an
economic
driver
for
redevelopment
that
you're,
preserving
a
heritage
area,
and
certainly
if
a
major
public
institution,
like
our
universities,
can't
do
that.
G
How
can
we
expect
anybody
to
do
it?
The
proposed
guidelines
for
the
cultural
heritage,
character
area
and
for
the
district's,
the
plans
for
the
districts
are
good
and
we
feel
that
they're
suitable.
We
have
the
same
concern:
we've
just
heard
there
from
at
least
one
counselor.
How
are
those
actually
enforced?
G
What
teeth
do
they
have,
and
we
question
also
why
and
there's
a
specific
phrase
in
the
study
that
says
that
preparation
of
objectives
which
conservation
management
must
achieve
for
the
study
area
as
a
whole
should
be
identified,
but
those
aren't
in
that
cultural
heritage,
character
area
so
guidelines.
So
we're
wondering
why
we
certainly
support
the
addition
of
all
the
group,
one
two
and
three
buildings
to
the
Heritage
Register,
as
that
at
least
gives
some
strength
on
demolition
control.
G
So
we
would
like
to
see
further
action
sooner
and
then
this
the
last
thing
there's
a
number
of
other
measures
that
were
talked
about
in
the
study
that
that
really
haven't
been
addressed
and
that
we're
hoping
that
council
will
give
direction
to
staff
to
address.
There
was
talk
of
the
creation
of
heritage.
Overlay
is
the
use
of
cultural
heritage
impact
assessments,
increasing
property
standards
enforcement,
that's
a
really
key
one
for
Sandy
Hill.
G
That's
often
the
problem
frankly,
financial
incentives
for
heritage,
bill
extension
of
demolition
control
and
establishing
protocol
to
strength
and
heritage
conservation
opportunities
for
diplomatic
missions.
These
are
all
things
that
were
talked
about
in
the
study
and
they're
lacking
from
this
proposal
and
we'd
like
to
to
see
something
happen
in
these
regards.
G
So
we
just
encourage
council
also
to
look
at
ways
to
inform
property
owners
within
heritage
conservation
districts
of
that
fact
that
they're
in
those
districts
and
of
their
obligations
to
develop
ways
to
enforce
all
the
aspects
of
these
guidelines
and
plans,
because
we
see
often
that
city
guidelines
are
not
enforced
and,
of
course,
finally,
as
we've
talked
about
before
here,
we
really
want
to
see
council
find
ways
to
incentivize
heritage
preservation
as
an
economic
driver.
Thank
you
thank.
C
C
H
Good
morning,
mr.
chair
and
members
of
the
committee,
it
says
it's
quite
an
honor
to
be
here
to
speak
with
you
about
the
Sandy
Hill
cultural
heritage.
Study.
I,
just
firstly
wanted
to
say
that
we
were
very
pleased
to
be
part
of
part
of
the
consultation
process
for
the
study
and
we
really
applaud
the
the
efforts
of
the
city
to
to
put
together
this.
This
great
study,
yesterday
afternoon,
we
submitted
our
consultants.
H
Urban
strategies
of
Toronto
submitted
a
letter
with
a
with
a
cover
letter
from
the
University,
just
just
to
highlight
a
couple
of
differences
that
we
saw
in
the
in
the
mapping
and
and
those
those
changes
have
already
been
highlighted
by
by
city
planning
staff
this
morning.
So
just
wanted
to
make
sure
that
that
we
brought
those
to
the
attention
of
the
committee
and
and
that
they
could
be
and
that
they
could
be
addressed.
H
So
as
you've
as
you've
heard
and
as
you
know,
the
University
of
Ottawa
has
been
working
very
diligently
over
the
last
over
the
last
10
years
or
more
to
develop
a
vision
for
for
King
Edward
Avenue
as
part
of
our
campus
master
plan
and
so
to
to
get
to
make
sure
that
that
vision
is
realized.
We
have
been
trying
to
get
the
the
planning
framework
in
place.
H
The
basis
of
the
the
letter
that
we
submitted
is
simply
to
to
acknowledge
that
the
cultural
heritage
boundary
should
be
consistent
across
all
of
the
all
of
the
maps
in
the
in
the
study,
and
there
are
a
couple
of
things
on
documents,
9
and
10,
that
that
we
felt
needed
to
be
altered.
So
one
is
is
simply
that
there
are
some
properties
along
King
Edward
that
are
shown
in
on
the
map
and
and
those
just
for
confusion
to
avoid
confusion.
Those
should
be
its
document.
H
Nine,
just
those
properties
in
purple
should
be
taken
off
the
map
so
that
they
are
outside
of
the
cultural
heritage,
character
area
and
and
similarly
on
document
ten,
if
the
cultural
heritage
area
boundary
is,
is
shown
as
on
document
2.
That
is
going
down
the
the
middle
of
the
the
block
between
Henderson
and
and
King
Edward.
H
We
are
also
looking
to
the
future
and
an
understanding
that
that
that
we
have
some
other
resources,
such
as
one
ninety
lawyer.
That's
the
the
building
right
on
the
corner
of
the
development
office,
which
is
nice
old,
building
and
and
along
Henderson
Avenue
as
well,
where
we
own
a
number
of
residential
properties
and
are
actively
developing
some
principles
and
concepts
for
how
to
revitalize
those
those
properties.
So
that's
all
part
of
our
and
we
just
want
to
be
sure
that
the
the
city
documents
reflect
what's
been
agreed.
C
E
You
very
much
and
thank
you
for
your
great
presentation
and
I've
been
in
Sandy
Hill
for
a
very,
very
long
time
and
I
think
some
of
the
things
you're
doing
now
are
wonderful
and
you're
certainly
to
be
congratulated
for
some
of
your
efforts.
However,
that
wasn't
always
the
case.
I
know.
In
the
past
there
were
some
less
acceptable
things
that
happened,
and
but
it
leads
to
my
question,
which
is
there's
a
group
of
properties.
E
It
would
seem
to
me
that
these
goals
would
not
be
inconsistent
with
the
goals
of
the
University
and
therefore,
would
there
be
a
problem
that
those
properties,
long
King
ed,
would
be
left
in.
It
would
still
allow
you
to
do
your
proposed
developments.
It
would
just
mean
that
they
would
be
subject
to
this.
E
H
So
mr.
chair
I
would
just
say
that
that
that
the
university,
through
its
consultants,
urban
strategies
have
been
working
to
to
achieve
a
balance
and
a
harmony
along
with
the
campus
master
planning
exercise
and
that
that
King
Edward
is
really
seen
as
a
opportunity
for
us
to
to
revitalize
that
Street
and
to
add
important
new
facilities
for
the
for
the
university,
including
housing
and
and
more
academic
buildings.
And
and
that
sort
of
thing.
H
E
But
if
I
may,
the
question
is:
is
that
this
does
not
stop
you
the
inclusion
of
these,
given
the
goals,
the
fact
that
you'd
still
be
allowed
to
demolish
the
properties?
This
does
not
preclude
development
from
happening.
So
that
was
my
question
to
you,
since
it
doesn't
preclude
and
the
community
would
like
to
see
it
included.
Is
there
a
problem
with
including
these
properties
in
the
district.
H
C
C
C
So
the
issue
really
at
the
heart
of
this
conversation
that
member
Smallwood
has
opened
up
is
we
have
to
acknowledge
that
staff
are
advising
that
those
property
be
removed.
I
think
we've
heard
from
miss
Collins
that
the
rationale
is
that
these
properties
are
subject
to
a
University
of
Ottawa
master
plan
and
so
I
think.
The
question
for
the
committee
is:
is
inclusion
in
the
University
of
Ottawa
master
plan
sufficient
grounds
in
your
minds
to
exclude
those
properties
from
the
cultural
heritage
character
area,
or
are
you
convinced
more
by
the
rationale
mr.
Cole?
Mr.
C
Rawlins
has
has
raised
that?
If
there
are
buildings
of
heritage
value
in
that
area,
why
should
they
be
excluded?
Simply
because
there
are
read
development
plans
and
are
we
at
risk
I
guess
as
a
question
that
I
would
ask
of
demanding
different
standards
and
introducing
different
criteria
in
this
case
than
we
have
in
previous
cases?
I'll.
Take,
for
example,
the
issue
of
the
Broadview
school,
where
we,
as
a
committee,
decided
that
development
plans
and
economic
factors
were
not
relevant
in
terms
of
consideration
of
heritage.
C
I
think
the
act
is
fairly
clear
on
that,
so
I
do
think.
Member
Smallwood
has
initiated
a
very
valid
question
that
I
would
welcome
views
on
in
terms
of
whether
we
think
that
the
staff
recommendation
is
correct
or
or
whether
we
think
that,
for
the
reasons
outlined,
those
properties
on
King,
out
of
which
should
be
included
in
the
character
area.
So
I'd
welcome
other
thoughts
or
reactions
to
that
point.
A
A
C
A
University
Rijn.
We
would
have
to
review
that
to
respond
to
your
question
counselor
just
to
ensure,
however,
what
I'm
hearing
so
far
is
that
the
goals
do
align
in
terms
of
what
our
heritage
district
guidelines
are
in
reference
to
what
the
university
is
trying
to
achieve
so
I
believe
staff
as
a
result
has
felt
comfortable
in
making
that
change,
but
certainly
it's
a
valid
valid
discussion
and
we
could
take
further
review
of
both
documents
to
ensure
and
provide
you
with
a
response.
I.
F
Think
you've
been
what
company
knew
that
the
second
thing
is:
is
there
any
legal
obligation
for
them
to
follow
their
own
master
plan?
We
have
any
it
has
been.
Is
it
going
to
be
incorporated
in
the
city
or
anything
because
things
have
changed?
Maybe
I
don't
think
I've
been
changed
now,
but,
let's
say
in
five
years:
it
could.
Mr.
A
C
C
I
guess
owning
amendments
would
be
required
in
future.
I
think
what
what
we
heard
from
Miss
Collins
is,
would
should
there
be
an
application
from
the
university
to
amend
the
zoning
in
a
particular
property
along
that
planning
staff,
as
part
of
the
departmental
view,
would
take
a
look
at
the
guidelines
and
I
heard
that
those
guidelines
would
inform
the
departmental
view
on
say
a
position
on
those.
A
F
C
F
C
B
Today,
councillor
Wilkinson
is
saying
the
plan.
The
university
plan
is,
you
have
seen
it
today
doesn't
contravene
anything
that
the
guidelines
would.
Should
the
guidelines
be
in
place
to
me
it's
an
opportunity
for
the
university.
If
the
guidelines
remain,
as
recommended
by
the
study,
as
opposed
to
the
cultural
heritage
character
area,
it
will
give
the
opportunity
to
the
city
to
work
with
the
university.
I
also
feel
that
you
alluded
to
sort
of
precedent
setting
situations
here
today
that
these
guidelines
should
also
apply
to
large
institutions
in
the
city
as
well
to
individual.
B
I
You
know.
Other
items
were
a
question
of
collaboration
as
an
example
of
good
collaboration
between
the
Sand,
Hill,
neighborhood
and
University
of
Ottawa
University
of
Ottawa
offered
land
along
Nicholas
Street
in
order
to
allow
the
bus
transit
way
to
be
located
in
that
location.
Now
the
LRT
as
opposed
to
King
Edward
Avenue,
which
was
the
region's
first
intent.
So
there
was
examples
over
the
decades
of
different
kinds
of
relationship
between
the
community
and
the
university
fast
forward
to
today.
I
think
that
the
overall
approach
that
are
is
in
the
staff
report
staff
recommendations.
I
I
It
is
a
aggressive
plan.
It
actually
has
some
very
fine
concepts
for
the
King
Edward
Avenue
to
make
it
University
Avenue,
and
so
the
debate
that
we
have
in
front
of
us
here
now
about
whether
or
not
we
should
still
maintain
the
boundary
of
the
heritage,
character
area
and
also
the
suggestion
which
is
on
the
map.
That
was
provided,
that
the
one
of
the
heritage
conservation
districts
actually
go
right
up
to
King
and
revenue.
What
we
have
here
is
a
mixed
messages.
I
For
instance,
there
is
a
proposal
that
a
Cole
Frank
Ocean
s
is
designated
under
part
four
of
the
Heritage
Act,
that's
the
one
on
on
Oscar
Street.
Yet
it's
only
evaluated
as
a
as
a
category
three,
for
goodness
sake.
What
are
we
doing?
We're
saying
that
other
buildings
that
are
category
one
are
not
worthy
of
destination.
I
This
one
is
shown
as
category
three
since
we
don't
have
all
the
surveying
evaluation
sheets
in
the
public
domain
on
the
website,
people
are
going
to
be
quite
confused
about
the
what
is
deserving
of
of
designation
under
part
4
and
what
isn't
I
think
that
there
are
other
examples
in
the
mapping
and
I
would
point
us
to
the
st.
George's
co-op
building
which,
by
the
way,
was
an
info
project
that
we,
the
architects
for
and
that
one,
a
city,
auto
heritage
conservation
award.
I
The
new
building
that
we
had
designed
in
the
80s
is
identified
on
the
map
as
partly
category
two
and
partly
category
three.
This
is
brand
new
building.
How
could
it
be
in
two
different
categories
and
are
they?
You
know
what
was
the
thinking
behind
it
and
there
are
others
throughout
the
map
and
I
think
that
one
of
the
objectives
that
we
should
have
is
to
be
able
to
demonstrate
that
the
scholarship
that
has
been
undertaken
to
evaluate
these
buildings
and
the
technical
exercise
in
mapping
accurately
needs
to
really
be
unblemished
and
I.
I
Think
that
the
these
inconsistencies
that
are
here
are
worrisome
in
that
it
may
create
a
lot
of
work
for
staff,
a
lot
of
work
for
this
committee
and
a
lot
of
work
for
the
public
to
try
to
sort
out
what
is
the
heritage
values
of
each
of
the
buildings?
Why
is
it
mapped
the
way
it
is,
and
so,
in
this
part
of
the
discussion
I
generally
support.
J
Mr.
Chairman
I,
just
interject
with
a
the
map,
is
illustrative.
It
is
not
it's
not
a
legal
document
and
I
have
the
the
Heritage
survey
form
for
ecole
Frank
Ocean
Essendon
is
a
category
one
building,
so
I
think
the
real
question
here
is
to
again
verify
the
map
and
bring
the
map
up
to
date,
and,
of
course
when
and
if
the
Ecole
Frank
Ocean
s
comes
for
the
consideration
of
the
committee,
regardless
of
whether
it's
what
is
status
was
at
any
time.
J
It
is
up
to
the
committee
and
council
to
recommend
designation,
regardless
of
whether
it
was
a
category
one
or
three
elbow.
It
was
reassessed
as
a
three
and
in
the
question
of
the
public
accessibility
of
the
hairs.
Your
survey
forms
that
we,
you
know,
working
to
update
the
city's
website,
but
the
the
documents
are
public
and
we're
at
public
meetings
and
could
be
freely
distributed
to
any
member
of
any
committee
in
the
community
upon
request.
J
E
Don't
see
the
point
in
deferring
the
issued
the
discussion
of
the
boundaries,
it
seems
to
me
that
we
understand
from
the
University
of
Ottawa.
They
want
to
be
good
residents
of
Sandy,
Hill
and
I
think
they
should
be
treated
as
all
other
good
residents
of
Sandy,
Hill
and
conformed.
We
have
heard
from
them
that
this
won't
stop
them
from
doing
what
they
wish
to
do.
It
just
means
that
they
go
through
the
same
process.
E
C
D
D
That's
a
difficult
question:
it
wasn't
just
the
master
planning
exercise
that
that
prompted
us
to
remove
it.
It
was
through
consultation
with
the
university
and
various
council
decisions
that
have
been
made
over
the
last
five
to
six
years
on
zoning
and
Official
Plan
policies
in
this
area.
So
there
were
a
number
of
reasons
that
it
was
removed.
So.
C
So
I'll
say
that
again,
member
Smallwood
is
getting
ready
to
table
an
amendment
to
recommendation
two
of
our
list
of
recommendations,
so
sorry
recognition,
one
which
would
be
approved.
The
creation
of
the
Sandy
Hill
cultural
heritage,
calculator
for
the
areas
shown
in
document
two
I
guess
it
would
be
comma,
as
amended
and
in
document
to
the
borderline
along
King
Edward
would
mirror
that
of
document
one.
C
So
we
could
even
say
we
could
even
say
for
the
area
shown
in
document
if
that
makes
things
easier,
because
I
think
that
is
the
only
difference
in
the
study
area
versus
the
proposed
Sandy
Hill
cultural
heritage,
character
area.
So
if
that
makes
life
easier,
I'm
looking
at
our
legal
staff,
we
could
simply
say
for
the
area
shown
in
document
1
instead
of
document
2.
Is
that
correct?
Yes,.
E
C
So
I
think
the
order
is
first,
we
would
vote
on
the
motion
from
from
the
vice-chair
to
defer
recommendation
1,
which
is
the
approving
the
creation
of
the
semi
whole
cultural
heritage,
character
area.
And
if
that
is
true,
then
we
would
strike
recommendation
1
from
the
report
that
we're
approving
today.
So
yes,.
I
C
You
would
actually
have
us
approve
the
creation
of
the
recommended
Sandy
Hill
cultural
heritage,
character
area
for
the
other,
showing
document
2.
And
then
you
want
to
have
language
saying
with
an
understanding
that
the
committee
would
consider
the
area
of
the
disputed
area
we'll
have
to
figure
out
a
way
of
saying
that
at
a
future
meeting.
Yes,.
C
C
If
I
may,
mr.,
it
may
be
easier
if
you
want
I
mean,
as
opposed
to
approving
this
piecemeal,
just
to
defer
or
strike
recommendation
one
from
the
report.
If
that's
your
motion,
I
do
weigh
that
approving
it
as
is,
and
then
reviewing
it
next
meeting
and
then
maybe
adding
another
section
is
going
to
have
an
element
of
confusion
to
the
discussion
which
may
not
be
helpful
but
I'm
in
your
hands.
Well,
I
would
like
to.
I
Get
the
provide
some
text
I
think
that
it's
the
objective
would
be
to
seek
clarity
and
to
take
that
area
which
is
in
dispute
and
either
refer
that
back
to
staff
to
bring
back
again
whether
or
not
the
it
comes
through
small
words
motion
which
is
to
include
it
all
in
or
the
staff
report,
which
is
to
exclude
that
portion.
I'm,
not
question
from
a
procedural
perspective.
I
B
Mr.
chair
I
believe
what
I'm
hearing
the
voice
the
vice-chair
say
is
that
he
would
like
to
refer
the
portion
that
involves
the
king,
the
King
Edward
Street
and
the
University
of
Ottawa
back
to
staff
for
reconsideration
and
then
have
it
come
back
before
this.
This
committee,
or
planning
committee
with
their
determination
is
that
is
that
what
I'm
hearing
mr.
chair
that's.
B
C
C
A
F
Just
a
case
of
whether
or
not
we
are
giving
any
direction
to
staff,
please
senator
staff
staff
has
already
said
to
keep
that
out.
So
it's
kind
of
hard
to
get
them
to
give
a
different
recommendation.
If
we
think
that
if
we
would
prefer
to
have
it
in,
we
should
give
them
that
kind
of
a
direction
began.
It
I
think
I
should
come
back
to
this
committee
because
we're
the
ones
that
are
making
the
recommendation
to
Planning
Committee.
For
that
one.
F
Them
to
look
at
it
with
a
new
lens
than
they
did
before,
but
they're
going
to
do
the
same
thing,
it's
kind
of
useless
to
send
it
to
them.
That's
going
to
come
back
and
say
we
already
said
it
should
be
out.
Then
it's
going
to
come
back
saying
it
should
be
out
to
staff,
doesn't
usually
change
their
mind
and
that's
there's
some.
C
I
C
Again,
just
to
repeat
for
those
who
are
having
this
discussion
and
apologies
for
the
confusion
and
the
technical
nature
of
it.
So
now,
paragraph
1
of
the
series
of
recommendations,
member
Smallwood,
is
proposing
an
amendment
so
that
approval
at
the
creation
of
the
Sandy
Hook
cultural
heritage,
character
area
for
the
area
is
shown
in
document
1,
not
document
to
which
just
for
for
clarity
document
1
is
the
original
study
area,
which
includes
the
aspects
of
King
Edward
which
I
outlined
earlier.
I
If
I
might
I
don't
want
to
dissent
on
this,
because
I
think
that
the
case
that
was
made
in
the
staff
report
for
deleting
us
from
the
character
area
was
not
really
strong
enough
for
persuasive
enough
I
think
that
in
terms
of
the
the
heritage
policy
and
the
other
guidelines
in
it,
I
think
it
deserves
to
be
in
as
the
consultant's
report
virtually
had
so
I
will.
Yes,
ok.
C
Okay,
thank
you
again.
Apologies
for
the
confusion.
Thank
you
to
staff.
I.
Do
think
it's
important
to
note
that
this
was
actually
I
think
a
wonderful
contribution,
as
is
not
withstanding
a
little
bit
of
discussion.
We
had
at
the
end,
I
think
this
is
great
news
for
Iran
great
news
for
Sandy
Hill
and
I
thank
staff
for
working
hard
on
this
and
bringing
this
before
us
this
morning.
Thank
you
very
much.
C
Okay.
That
brings
us
to
item
three,
which
is
the
application
to
alter
131
winter
place,
which
is
part
of
the
park
Heritage
Conservation
District.
So
the
specific
recommendation
before
us
is
to
approve
the
application
to
alter
131
as
per
the
drawings
which
you've
seen
in
the
document
to
delegate
authority
from
on
order
changes
to
planning
both
management
and
to
issue
the
Heritage
permit
with
a
two-year
expiry
date.
There
is
no
presentation
on
this
item
that
if
members
have
any
questions,
I
know
that
staff
would
be
happy
to
answer
them.
C
I
E
E
Wanted
to
make
a
comment
that
had
been
made
in
the
report
and
I
wasn't
sure
if
everybody
understood
the
the
the
reasons.
The
two
comments
were
made
about
the
the
use
of
true
divided
lights
and
proposed
new
windows
and
also
the
idea
that
shutters
when
they're
installed
should
actually
be
as
if
they
were
operable
and
I.
Wasn't
sure
if
everybody,
if
the
committee
understood
those
comments
or
not
and
I
was
happy
if
there
were
any
that
didn't
to
explain
them.
Thank
you
well,
good.
C
Thank
you
for
the
offer.
Okay.
So
that
concludes
the
substantive
items.
We
do
have
just
a
few
other
things
to
deal
with
before
we
adjourn,
which
is
that,
are
there
any
inquiries?
Firstly,
no
I
see
none
okay
under
other
business,
as
I
mentioned
at
the
last
meeting,
staff
had
offered
to
provide
us
with
a
variable
update
in
terms
of
the
chairs
report
following
the
facilitated
session.
C
So,
as
you
recall,
we
had
listed
a
number
of
items
on
which
we
felt
we
would
benefit
from
staff's
further
advice
and
work
in
terms
of
some
of
the
questions
and
comments
we
posed
at
the
facilitated
session
and
miss
Coutts
is
now
prepared
to
give
us
a
bit
of
a
sense
of
when
the
department
feels
it
can
get
back
to
the
subcommittee.
In
answer
to
the
questions
and
comments
posed
from
that
report,
that's
good
Thank.
J
You,
mr.
chair,
so
what
I
did
is
I
have
I
went
through
the
recommendations
that
were
passed
by
committee
last
week.
Our
last
meeting
there
were
seven
one
of
them.
We've
already
discussed
today,
the
Heritage
overlay,
so
that
will
be
for
the
next
term
of
council.
The
other
can
the
other
recommendations.
Sorry.
C
C
J
J
Sorry
about
that
confusing,
so
the
other
recommendations
were
regarding
options
for
a
process
whereby,
whereby
the
built
heritage
subcommittee
can
be
notified
of
OPA
s
and
zoning
bylaw
amendments,
the
notification
could
start
immediately.
I
could
get
the
Committee
on
technical
circulations.
The
thing
that
will
take
time
with
relation
to
this
is
what
is.
J
We
have
to
look
at
how
the
committee
wants
to
deal
with
these
once
they've
been
circulated,
so
I
anticipate
that
that
is
something
that
we
can
look
at
a
method
maybe
have
a
smaller
discussion
with
members
of
the
committee
to
see
what
they
would
like
to
do
and
that
can
be
done.
I
think
within
the
balance
of
2015,
the
other
that
also
asks
about
the
Heritage
Register
again
that
the
Heritage
Register
and
it's
updating
is
is
top
priority
on
our
work
plan.
It's
also.
J
There
are
also
various
in
incentive
or
initiatives
associated
with
it
that
continues.
We
are
summer.
Student
has
started
some
basic
work
on
it
so
and
then
the
major
question
they
had
a
piece
of
work
out
of
this
is
the.
What
does
it
mean
when
we've
done
the
review
and
we
have
a
larger
register?
And
that
would-
and
there
was
discussion
about
looking
into
what
to
other
municipalities
such
as
Markham
was
mentioned.
J
I
talked
to
this
to
the
Opie
team,
about
about
the
mechanisms
for
this
and
the
certainly
I
think
within
2015
or
the
beginning
of
2016.
That
is
a
report
that
we
could
bring
to
to
committee
to
to
look
at
using
the
Official
Plan
as
a
tool
to
strengthen
what
the
committee
can
do
in
terms
of
in
terms
of
commenting
on
interventions
to
buildings
on
the
Heritage
Register.
J
They
was,
or
we've
dealt
with,
the
Heritage
overlay
cultural
heritage
impact
statements
right
now,
cultural
heritage
impact
statements
when
there's
development
that
doesn't
it
won't
be
coming
to
built
heritage
subcommittee,
for
example,
the
one
at
Queen
Elizabeth,
driveway
and
Fifth
Avenue
right
now.
It
has
a
cultural
heritage
impact
statement
because
it's
adjacent
to
the
Rideau
Canal,
but
there
is
no
there's
no
mechanism
to
bring
that
that
development
to
planning
committee
ever
to
built
heritage
subcommittee.
J
Can
you
know
they're
on
DevOps
can
arrange
with
the
chair
that
every
Turner
that
are
the
with
assistant
that
every
time
one
of
these
comes
in
that
you're
not
going
to
see,
we
send
you
an
email
and
direct
you
to
DevOps
or
I
could
begin
to
get
ask
me
now,
as
for
two
copies,
if
we
ask
for
nine
copies,
we
could
all
have
one.
So
that's
very
simple
and
it's
all
I
need
this
direction
from
the
committee
as
to
how
they
want
to
see
these
cultural
heritage
impact
statements.
C
What
may
be
on
that
point?
There
was
specific
language
in
the
recommendation
that
these
items
and
the
idea
and
I
mean
I
guess.
Staff
could
tell
us
whether
this
is
plausible,
that
the
address
or
the
application
could
simply
be
listed
as
an
information
item,
and
that
would
then
trigger
members
if
they
wish
to
them
go
into
DevOps.
They
would
know
to
because
it
would
be
listed
right.
Is
that
sometimes.
J
J
C
J
B
J
It
would
explain
why
they
were
not.
They
didn't
Oh,
906,
right
and
I
have
to
I
have
to
advise
the
council
or
the
committee
through
you,
mr.
chair,
that
this
doesn't
happen
very
often,
you
know
that
there
will
be
one
or
two
a
year
on.
They
say,
especially
now
that
we
have
the
new
application
form.
We
expect
to
have
fewer
frivolous
devil,
designation
applications,
great.
J
Start
with
the
cultural
heritage
impact
statements,
we'll
get
them
that
you
want
we'll
work
out
a
system,
I'll
work
it
out
with
the
assistant
there'll,
be
two
reports
forthcoming,
one
about
how
what
that
will
outline
a
method
that
you
will
look
at
the
zoning
bylaw
amendments
and
Opie's,
and
we
will
develop
through
develop
tools
that
to
strengthen
what
it
means
to
be
on
the
register
through
a
report
to
committee.
Thank.
J
Receiving
them,
I
just
have
to
ask
the
people
who
do
the
technical
circulations
to
put
the
built
heritage
subcommittee
back
on
that
list,
because
it
back
and
like
a
cat
was
on
for
years,
and
so,
when
someone
submits
their
forty,
two
copies
went
for
a
development
application,
one
of
those
technical
circulations
that
when
we
do
our
42
copies,
one
of
those
technical
circulations
will
come
to
the
committee.
But
we.
What
we
have
yet
to
determine
is
how
the
committee
wants
to
deal
with
those
and
that
will
be
forthcoming
when.
I
J
Intention
is
that
through
you,
mr.
chair,
that
we
will,
we
have
not
yet
determined
what
that
will
of
what
how
built
heritage
subcommittee
will
deal
with
that.
And
that
is
why
we'll
come
back.
As
I
said,
with
a
report
or
with
after
consultation
with
the
committee
to
see
how
the
committee
wants
to
deal
with
those.
Mr.
C
Becker,
just
to
clarify
we
had
asked
us
to
report
back.
This
is
not
the
reporting
back.
This
is
just
stating
that
within
this
calendar
year,
miss
Coutts
and
our
colleagues
will
be
able
to
come
back
with
some
options.
Okay,
no
other
questions
or
comments,
then
we
can
move
to
adjournment
adjourned
right.
Thank
you
very
much.
Our
next
meeting
is
Thursday.
The
11th
of
June.