►
From YouTube: Built Heritage Sub-Committee – April 9, 2015
Description
Built Heritage Sub-Committee meeting – April 9, 2015 – Audio Stream
Agenda and background materials can be found at http://www.ottawa.ca/agendas.
A
B
B
Welcome
to
this
April
meeting
of
the
built
heritage
subcommittee,
a
meeting
which
I
suspect
will
be
relatively
short
just
in
terms
of
managing
expectations
before
we
get
into
the
formal
agenda.
I
think
it
would
be
important
to
acknowledge
the
arrival
of
two
new
members
of
the
built
heritage
subcommittee.
Family
counselor
Moffitt
has
a
new
addition
and
counselor
McKenney
has
a
grandchild
board
this
morning.
B
Okay,
so
turning
to
the
agenda
before
us,
first
first
question
is
whether
we
have
any
declarations
of
interest.
I
see
none
the
confirmation
of
minutes
from
26
March
meeting
any
comments,
questions
changes
carried:
okay,
great
okay.
We
have
two
substantive
items
before
us
this
morning.
The
first
is
the
application
to
alter
231
O'connor
Street,
which
is
a
property
within
the
center
town,
Heritage,
Conservation,
District
and
thus
under
part
5
of
the
Ontario
Heritage
Act.
If
you've
seen
the
report,
you
know
that
this
is
an
application
to
reinstate
the
red
brick
front.
B
So
it
is
a
fairly
routine
approval.
You'll
have
noticed
in
the
report
that
there
was
a
complication
in
terms
of
work
that
was
undertaken
earlier,
and
it's
important
to
note
that
whatever
we
do
this
morning
is
without
prejudice
to
any
legal
options
which
the
corporation
wishes
to
pursue,
and
on
that
note
maybe
I'll
just
ask
legal
staff.
If
there's
anything
further
that
you
want
to
say
on
that.
A
Mr.
chair
I
just
like
to
inform
the
subcommittee
that
there
are
technically
no
legal
implications
to
adopting
the
recommendation.
That's
in
the
report
how
Legal
Services
is
aware
in
the
City
of
Ottawa
is
aware
that
the
initial
work
was
done
without
a
valid
heritage
permit
under
the
Act
and
the
city
is
preserving
its
right
to
take
legal
action
against
the
owner
of
the
property
on
this
matter
under
the
act
in
the
future,
no
matter
what
is
determined
here
this
morning,
okay,.
B
B
C
Is
a
question,
but
it
has
a
preamble
to
it.
If
I
can
beg
your
indulgence,
I
don't
necessarily
have
a
problem
with
this
application,
but
my
concern
was
just
some
of
the
wording
in
the
report.
The
existing
building.
It
states
that
the
windows
are
a
mix
of
historic
and
modern
and
that
the
proposal
is
to
replace
these
some
would
be
lost,
but
I'm
assuming
replaced
on
the
other
facade.
Some
of
the
Stork
windows,
with
a
mix
of
with
us
or
with
standard,
was
simulated
headlights
and
then
the
comment
is
this
would
unify
the
appearance.
C
The
center
town,
historic
district
guidelines
number
two
states
that
the
original
features
should
be
conserved,
replace
from
you
and
replaced
under
using
the
same
material
dimensions
and
profile,
mothers-to-be
replacement.
It
should
only
be
replacement
of
badly
deteriorated
components,
there's
nothing
about
unifying
the
appearance
as
being
a
reason
for
replacing
historic
elements
and
the
standard
and
guidelines
also
mentioned
that
replacement
should
be
physically
and
visually
compatible
with.
C
So
the
reason
raising
this
is
is
that
my
concern
is:
is
that
I
would
I
mean,
perhaps
not
so
much
list
building,
but
another
building,
so
I
wouldn't
want
to
see
that
we
set
a
precedent
where
we
were
saying
that
we're
going
to
replace
historic
windows
with
new
ones
just
to
make
them
to
unify
the
appearance.
This
flies
in
opposition
to
what
both
the
standards
and
guidelines
and
sometimes
star
Conservation
District
guidelines
call
for
and
I'm
also
concerned,
because
I
think
windows
provide.
One
of
the
I
mean.
C
This
comments
or
these
comments
that
both
encourage
they
ever
seem
to
encourage
the
replacement,
was
simulated
to
divide
the
lights
and
all
facades
and
I
also
have
a
problem
with
simulated
divided
lights,
because
I
think
they
just
cheapen
the
image
of
what
a
heritage
building
is
I.
Think
people
looking
at
it
there's
a
not
everybody
has
the
same
degree
of
experience
with
Windows,
but
for
somebody
who
does
understand
Windows,
there
is
a
difference.
C
B
D
D
The
windows
in
this
building
in,
in
my
opinion,
are
not
sort
of
character,
defining
elements
in
in
any
real
way,
and
my
understanding
is
they're
in
quite
poor
condition.
I
haven't
been
able
to
access
the
site
because
it
is
under
construction
at
the
moment.
So
I
see
your
point
and
we
do
work
very
hard
on
a
daily
basis,
with
property
owners
to
convince
them
to
retain
historic
windows,
and
in
this
instance
it
wasn't.
It
wasn't
something
that
we
felt
was
a
serious
priority
for
this
building
and
in
terms
of
its
setting
a
precedent.
B
Yeah
I
have
no
objection
to
that
being
reflected
in
the
minutes
of
this
discussion.
If,
if
members
agreed
I,
don't
think,
there's
a
need
to
change
the
actual
recommendation,
but
we
can
sort
of
certainly
do
that.
Okay,
any
other
questions
or
comments
on
this
application,
questions
to
staff
or
comments
more
generally,
okay,
I
mean
I
assume
that
that
means
we're.
Okay,
with
the
report
recommendation,
so
on
the
recommendation
to
approve
the
application
to
alter
to
31
O'connor,
okay,
okay,
great
okay.
B
So
my
reflections
on
on
the
facilitated
session
is
that
it
was
very,
very
useful,
want
to
thank
staff
again
for
their
help
in
both
preparing
and
helping
to
guide
us
through
the
discussion.
What
I
try
to
do
in
the
report
was
reflect
the
five
areas
that
we
discussed
over
the
course
of
the
morning
and
I
think
it's
fair
to
say
that
the
discussion
gave
us
both
an
opportunity
to
learn
more
and
understand
in
a
clear
fashion.
B
The
various
tools
at
the
subcommittee's
disposal
and
I
think
we
did
a
reasonably
good
job
of
arriving
at
a
few
issues
which
we
thought
could
be
subject
to
further
exploration.
So
what
the
report
intends
to
do
and
I'll
just
run
run
through
it
quickly,
is
essentially
provide
guidance
to
staff
in
terms
of
some
of
the
issues
which
we
wanted
to
discuss
at
a
future
point.
B
So
the
idea
and
recommendation
2
was
simply
to
reaffirm
the
fact
that
the
current
practice
is
an
appropriate
one
and
we
and
we're
not
anticipating
any
changes
to
the
practice
of
the
heritage
staff
being
active
participants
in
the
comment
process
of
applications
for
minor
variances
for
properties
that
are
either
designated
under
part,
4
or
5.
So
that's
part
one
under
the
Heritage
Register
and
Heritage
reference
list
again
I
thought
we
had
a
good
conversation.
B
So
this
question
of,
does
the
subcommittee
want
to
consider
perhaps
through
possible
changes
to
the
Official,
Plan
or
other
other
ways
for
a
consideration
of
properties
that
are
on
the
Heritage,
Register
and
I?
Think
the
city
of
Markham
was
used
during
our
discussion
as
an
example
of
a
city
which
has
gone
down
that
that
route,
so
we
thought
it
would
be
useful
to
hear
from
staff
on
what
some
of
those
options
were,
maybe
before
I
continue
and
I
should
have
stopped.
Maybe
after
the
first
section,
are
there
any
comments
on
this?
E
E
But
if
we
had
any
comments
or
anything
on
that
it,
but
the
ward
councillor
would
be
aware
of
it,
because
we
are
notified
these
committee
of
adjustments
and
sometimes
we
wait
I
go
there
when
it's
sick
I
disagree
with
the
city
staff
and
the
committee
of
adjustment
and
the
community
is
disagrees
with
it.
I
will
support
community
offering
on
committee
of
adjustment
and
the
I
don't
know
if
you've
had
one
of
those
yet,
but
we
don't
get
them
very
often.
E
I've
got
one
right
now,
but
the
I
think
it
would
be
helpful
for
us
to
know.
You
know
the
magnitude
of
what,
if
anything,
fairly
significant
and
the
kinetic
adjustment
can
make
very
significant
changes.
They
consider
it
minor
to
add
two
storeys
to
an
apartment.
Building,
that's
not
extremely
minor
in
my
view,
so
it's
they
can
change
the
whole
character
of
a
building.
B
F
Just
to
interject
through
you,
mr.
chair,
that
the
ones
that
are
highly
significant
or
that
have
a
major
impact
on
a
heritage
buildings
will
be
coming
to
the
built
heritage
subcommittee
anyway,
because
through
the
application
too,
many
of
them
would,
through
the
application,
to
alter
under
the
Ontario
Heritage
Act.
So
just
to
remind
the
committee
that
when
there
is
an
application
under
the
Heritage
Act
that
the
that
involves
a
building,
that
would
also
have
to
go
to
the
committee
of
adjustment.
F
It
come
to
the
built
heritage
subcommittee
first,
so
built
energy
subcommittee,
planning
committee
and
council
render
their
make
their
decision
and
that
decision
it.
The
community
adjustment,
is
aware
of
that
decision,
so
the
committee
of
adjustment
is
looking
at
the
and
their
their
their
variances,
and
the
the
belief
is
is
that
if
they
see
that
the
ability
that
the
heritage
application
was
supported,
then
they
will
support
those
variances.
E
F
E
Learned
about
more
is
that
we
go
through
the
whole
process.
They
do
the
application
everything's
going
ahead.
Then
they
decide
they're
going
to
make
another
change
and
go
with
the
committee
adjustment.
That's
what
I'm
doing
with
right
now,
Council
what
council
approved
they
don't
like
so
they're
trying
to
get
it
changed
again
by
committee
of
adjustment
and
those
are
the
ones
I
think
that
could
cause
some
problems.
There
wouldn't
be
very
many
yeah.
That's.
E
B
E
E
Though
the
designations
I
one
thing
on
this
one,
that
I
was
wondering
this
step,
but
there's
no
timing
in
any
of
these
and
there's
some
rather
large
amounts
to
work
in
some
of
these.
Are
you
going
to
leave
it
up
to
staff
to
take
a
look
at
these
and
come
back
and
let
us
know
when
they
can
actually
do
it,
because
I
don't
want
to
put
it
on
it.
E
B
E
B
G
On
the
question
of
the
Heritage
Register
and
here
dis
reference,
this,
the
the
recommendation
is
to
the
staff
continue
to
examine
the
properties
on
the
Heritage
reference.
This
and
I
think
relating
to
the
question
that
councillor
Wilkinson
raised
about
work,
plan
and
schedule.
I
know
that
we
were
briefed
that
there
is
the
work
plan
for
the
planning
department
is
coming
up
shortly.
But
can
we
just
get
a
preview
of
the
level
of
effort
that
is
planned
for
this
year
on
the
Heritage
reference
list
review?
G
So
that's
one
of
the
questions
because
it
has
a
bearing
on
understanding
how,
in
the
transition
period
before
the
work
is
done,
there
are
applications
that
are
coming
through
buildings
that
are
on
the
Heritage
dresser
that
are
of
some
significance
and
risk
of
given
one
example,
and
that
is
one-eighty
Metcalf
Street
one
of
the
Metcalf
Street
is
building
designed
by
Vernon
off-key
and
is
in
for
a
rezoning
application
right
now,
which
is
quite
a
major
change
to
the
site.
There
is
a
cultural
heritage
impact
statement
that
was
required.
F
Mr.
chair,
so
you
have
two
questions,
work,
plan,
question
and
one
Amy
Metcalf
question
I'll
start
with
one
area
and
Metcalf.
We
anticipate
that
a
report
on
180
Metcalf
will
be
in
front
of
the
committee
in
June
with
regard
to
its
it's
because
it's
currently
not
designated.
They
may
well
they'll,
be
a
designation
report
being
brought
forward
in
the
June
meeting
and
then
you
know
other
question
which
I
forgotten
the
work
plan.
F
The
work
plan
is
evolving
and
we,
and
certainly
the
highest
priority
for
the
Heritage
Services
section
next
year
and
in
this
term
of
Council
is,
is
the
Heritage,
Register
and
and
so
I.
We
will
start
it.
We,
you
know
in
q2
and
I,
don't
know
we
haven't
yet
analyzed
how
long
we
think
it
will
take
to
do
and
the
work
planning
process
is
underway
and
the
term
of
council
will
be
approved,
I
think
them.
G
F
Don't
through
you
counselors,
there
is
no
draft,
I
mean
there
will
be
a
work
plan
and
it
will
go
through
the
normal
or
planning
process.
And
it's
the
PGM
work
plan
and
heritage
is
one
part
of
PGM,
and
that
is
part
of
the
planning
process
and
I
can
defer
to
dawn
on
her
wire,
because
the
whole
work
planning
process
that
were
a
piece
of
it
and
that
he
might
be
able
to
add
some
clarity
in
terms
of
timing.
Mr.
C
H
B
Took
a
shot
okay,
so
we'll
hear
back
more
about
the
work
plan
process,
our
main
meeting
any
other
comments
on
those
first,
two
sections
again:
neither
the
Heritage
Register
reference
list
or
the
planning
application
point.
Okay,
so
I'll
proceed
to
part
three,
which
was
the
discussion
we
had
on
the
Heritage
overlay.
I
thought
this
was
particularly
useful,
both
because
I
think
for
some
of
us
it
was.
It
was
great
to
get
a
clear
understanding
of
what
the
Heritage
overlay
does
and
does
not
do,
and
I
thought.
B
One
is
a
proponent,
seeks,
a
building
permit
and
is
abiding
by
Section
60
and
the
existing
zoning
bylaw,
in
which
case
there
isn't
a
hook
for
the
subcommittee
to
look
at
it,
and
second
possibility
is
that
the
proponent
is
seeking
a
minor
variants
on
a
property.
That's
the
subject
of
a
heritage
overlay
and
there
two
other,
isn't
an
obvious.
I
have
Avenue
for
us
there.
B
So
what
that
means
is
that
we
have
sort
of
an
immediate
issue
that
we
have
to
solve,
which
is
that
the
governance
report
in
some
ways
asked
us,
through
the
amended
terms
of
reference
to
consider
heritage
overlay
matters.
So
I
think
what
I
heard
from
the
facilitated
session
is.
We
should
probably
put
off
doing
that
because
we
don't
have
a
way
to
do
that
present,
but
that,
subject
to
staffs
advice
into
the
subcommittees
further
consideration
of
perhaps
a
changed
modernized
overlay
process
that
we
could
return
to
that
during
the
midterm
governance
discussion.
B
B
But
I
just
wanted
to
give
members
the
opportunity
to
comment
on
their
reaction
either
to
the
discussion
we
had
or
to
the
proposed
recommendation
that
we
asked
asked
to
look
at
the
yeah,
the
the
opportunity
for
examining
and
perhaps
modernizing
the
overlay
mechanism.
As
part
of
that
larger
discussion
of
our
amended
or
expanded
tools.
E
Timing,
again
is
an
issue
we
want
to
wait
as
long
as
the
midterm
is
is
another
question,
but
staff
do
some
that
certify
that
they've
looked
at
it
and
they
can
give
us
an
idea
of
when
and
if
they
can
actually
handle
it
at
that
point
and
then
we
they
can
put
it
into
our
own
work
plan
or
that's
two,
eight
years
next
year
or
the
year
after
I,
don't
think
they
want
to
wait
to
the
last
year
of
council,
because
that
was
something
that
may
require
some
decisions
that
will
take
time.
Flynn,
Flynn,
yeah.
B
I
mean
I
think
my
my
only
caution
is
this
is
this
is
a
fairly
substantive
piece
of
work,
essentially
we're
saying
in
conjunction
with
the
examination
of
whether
we
would
want
to
look
at
a
markham
style
consideration
of
heritage
of
properties
under
the
register.
In
light
of
anything
that
we
would
need
to
do
with
the
Official
Plan,
though,
the
overlay
would
be
one
of
the
things
that
staff
would
look
at,
they.
E
H
B
Again,
I
mean
further
to
what
I
said
earlier.
Maybe
we
can
a
staff
at
the
next
meeting
to
come
back
to
us
with
an
informal
sense
of
how
they
want
to
stage
the
various
recommendations
in
the
report
and
I
think
they
can
take
into
account
your
useful
point
of
wanting
to
make
sure
that
we're
lining
up
with
any
other
larger
Official,
Plan
amendment
or
other
processes,
yeah.
Okay,
all
right.
So
if
no
other
comments
on
that
I'll
just
turn
to
part
four,
which
was
the
cultural
heritage
impact
statements.
B
And
here
the
issue
we
discussed
was
the
desirability
for
the
committee
to
have
a
sense
when
a
cultural
heritage
impact
statement
is
triggered
in
a
case
where
we
otherwise
wouldn't
have
the
opportunity
to
look
at
or
comment
on
a
particular
application.
So
I
don't
think
we
have
the
answer
today.
But
what
what
we're
doing
is
asking
staff
to
think
about
a
procedure
that
would
allow
us
either
as
an
information
point
or
otherwise,
to
look
at
or
to
be
aware
of
applications
that
trigger
a
cultural
heritage
impact
statement.
So
that's
simply
what
that
section
says.
Mr.
B
G
I
just
want
to
draw
people's
attention
to
the
letter
that
has
come
in
from
heritage
Ottawa
today,
which
addresses
some
points
in
this
mandate.
Review
and
one
relates
to
the
cultural
heritage
impact
statements
and
it
the
Heritage
Ottawa
suggestion
is
through
the
built
heritage
subcommittee
that
it
comment.
If
the
committee
deems
appropriate
an
application
for
which
there's
a
CH
is
and
I
don't
know
if
everybody
had
a
chance
to
read
the
Heritage
Ottawa
letter
yet
because
it
came
in
late
last
night
and
I
just
picked
it
up
this
morning.
G
But
there
were
also
comments
on
the
item
relating
to
the
Heritage
Register,
which
we
already
talked
about,
but
I
think
the
boat.
The
four
bullet
points
in
the
letter
are
really
wise
counsel
and
we
should
do
things
like
ensure
that
the
city
moves
proactively
towards
getting
they
heard
as
reference
this
on
the
website,
so
that
communication
to
the
public
is
is
much
more
transparent
but
I
think.
B
We
will
make
sure
that
members
have
copies,
we
can
circulate
them
and
I
was
gonna,
make
make
reference
this
afterwards,
but
now
is
a
good
time,
so
I
think
it's.
The
important
point
just
to
note
is
we're
not
making
a
decision
about
this
particular
process
today,
but
I
think
this
is
useful
input
both
to
us
and
to
staff
as
we
contemplate
some
of
these
changes.
Sorry,
mr.
Wester.
G
B
Since
I
see
members
of
Ottawa
heritage
in
the
audience,
thank
you
very
much
for
your
contribution.
That
was
very
useful.
Okay.
So
with
that,
we
can
turn
to
the
last
substantive
point.
We
talked
about
at
the
session,
which
was
the
idea
of
asking
staff
to
consider
how
best
to
inform
us
when
requests
for
part
for
designations
do
not
meet
the
criteria.
So
you'll
recall
that
we
had
a
good
discussion
about
various
ways.
We
could
do
that
as
an
information
item.
B
Could
that
then
be
pulled
down
to
an
action
item
if
a
member
wish
to
and
so
on,
so
we're
not
going
to
make
a
decision
on
the
details
of
that,
but
I
think
there
was
an
interest
in
hearing
from
staff
on
maybe
a
few
options
for
how
to
how
to
consider
that
moving
forward.
So
that's
why
that
one
is
short
and
sweet.
Any
comments
on
that.
B
Okay,
great!
So
really
that
was
it
I
hope.
Members
found
that
the
session
useful
I
think
we
talked
about,
maybe
wanting
to
consider
something
like
that
again
over
the
course
of
the
coming
months
and
years.
If
there
is
a
particular
item
which
we
think
needs
deeper
analysis
or
attention,
and
when
staff
come
back
to
us
in
reaction
to
the
recommendations,
we
can
make
the
decision
as
to
whether
there's
a
particular
item
that
needs
more
more
thorough
consideration.
I
Just
have
a
motion
here
for
with
regards
to
the
heritage
overlay
aspect,
I
think
it
actually
might
address
some
of
the
concerns
that
councillor
Wilkinson
brought
forward
in
terms
of
timing,
just
to
refer
the
implementation
of
the
Heritage
overlay
mandates
for
built
here
so
committee
to
the
midterm
governance
review.
Obviously,
that
would
take
place
in
2016
and
would
likely
get
finalized
at
the
latest.
I
think
February
2017
is
usually
when
we
we
might
see
that
be
finalized,
so
that
would
be
good
play
time.
I
I,
don't
expect
the
official
plan
review
to
commence
in
earnest
until
about
2018,
so
that
would
plinth.
That
would
be
a
plenty
of
time
for
that
and
then,
as
part
of
that,
so
that's
a
motion
to
the
referral.
Of
course,
it
was
part
of
that
just
probably
direction
of
staff
to
amend
the
terms
of
reference
to
remove
references
to
the
Heritage
overlay
mandate
pending
the
outcome
of
the
midterm
governance
review.
B
Okay,
great,
so
why
don't
we
deal
with
the
two
issues
separately,
so
first
on
councillor
damoff
its
motion:
okay,
okay,
okay,
great
and
then
on
the
report
itself.
So
the
motion
here
is
that
the
subcommittee
approved
the
recommendations
contained
within
at
the
report
and
again
we'll
get
some
idea
from
staff
at
the
next
meeting
as
to
their
thoughts
on
potential
timelines.
For
when
this
information
we're
seeking
would
come
back
so
on
the
recommendation
carried.
I
B
G
This
campus
master
plan
has
been
in
process
for
the
last
year
year
and
a
half
and
I'm
on
the
University
of
Ottawa
campus
planning
advisory
committee,
so
I'm
quite
familiar
with
it,
and
one
of
the
things
that
I
wanted
to
inquire
is
whether
or
not
their
city,
staff,
planning
staff
or
head
of
staff
were
intending
to
invite
the
University
of
Ottawa
to
provide
a
briefing
on
the
the
master
plan
for
the
campus
to
the
built
heritage
subcommittee.
Specifically,
so
that's
my
question.
Okay,.
H
You
very
much
sorry
that
I
didn't
get
to
the
last
meeting,
and
but
I
wanted
to
be
here
because
I
know
how
hard
everybody's
worked
on
and
I
was
wanting
to.
Here
are
the
comments
with
regard
to
that
I
had
I
I
met
with
George
dark
and
he
presented
his
presentation
that
he
was
showing
at
the
University
and
in
fact,
I
spoke
with
mr.
Mizzy
and
I've
asked
him
to.
H
Let
us
know
when
he's
available,
to
make
the
presentation
to
the
planning
committee
so
I
don't
know
whether
you
would
want
it
at
both
committees,
but
I've
asked
him
with
his
availability
when
he's
already
coming
to
town
to
work
further,
because
I
thought
it
was
it's
a
significant
piece
of
work,
and
you
know
with
what
we've
been
talking
about
with
the
reviewing
the
what'd.
He
call
it
for
where
what's
what's
it
called
like
I'm
losing
my
mind,
you
know
we're
reviewing
zoning
for
what
is
it
for?
H
H
E
B
G
F
You,
mr.
chair,
the
the
University
of
Ottawa,
is
not
in
the
Sandy
Hill
a
heritage
study
area
and
can
I
I
appreciate.
Vice
Chair
Podolski's
wish
to
hear
about
the
the
the
plan,
but
mr.
Derek's
work,
but
it's
not
in
the
mandate.
You
know
that
we
currently
work
under
to
have
information
reports
like
that
come
forward
now,
of
course,
if
the
chair
and
the
Vice
want
to
invite
mr.
F
B
No
I
think
at
this
stage
I
mean
the
logical
way
forward
is
once
I'll
speak
to
chair
harder
after
this
we'll
figure
out.
If
there
is
a
date
established
for
a
presentation
to
the
planning
committee,
we
could
either
piggyback
on
that
or
if
there
was
an
opportunity.
If
he
happened
to
be
in
town
during
a
meeting
that
we
have
scheduled,
then
we
could
also
invite
him
to
come.
I.
Don't
think
this
is
an
issue
of
compelling
anyone.
B
G
B
H
I
just
was
listening
to
vice-chair
petal,
ski
and
and
given
the
fact
that
he's
on
the
the
working
group
for
the
new
Ottawa
plan,
I
was
just
wondering
whether
you
have
the
people
that
are
working
with
you
on
the
more
heritage
aspect
rather
than
mr.
dark
and
the
factories
in
Toronto
and
the
fact
that
you
know,
then
we
get
into
costs
involved
in
that
sort
of
thing.
H
That's
why
I'm
trying
to
work
with
his
schedule,
but
maybe,
if
there's
aspect
specific,
that
you
know
about
vice-chair
that
you
could
bring
up
a
presentation
and
maybe
lead
the
presentation.
You
could
work
on
that
as
well
and
I'll
still,
like
you,
know,
chair
when,
if
mr.
darken
and
he
did
offer
when
I
met
with
him,
that
he
would
make
himself
available
if
we
were
interested
by
I'm
trying
to
accommodate
it.
When
he's
here
on,
quite
frankly,
someone
else's
John.
This.
G
University
is
intentionally
carrying
on
a
major
outreach
program
to
communicate
the
vision
of
the
plan
and
they
are
trying
to
consult
as
broadly
as
possible
on
all
aspects,
whether
it's
student,
housing
or
heritage,
or
you
know,
economic
development,
their
academic
agendas,
so
I
think
it's
it's
a
useful
invitation
and
I,
don't
think
they
would
hesitate
at
all
to
piggyback
on
other
meetings.
Okay,
thank
you.
Okay,.