►
From YouTube: Built Heritage Sub-Committee - October 3, 2022
Description
Built Heritage Sub-Committee - October 3, 2022
Agenda and supporting documents available at www.ottawa.ca/agendas
A
And
I
see
that
counselor
Gower
has
joined
so
I
believe
that
we
do
have
a
quorum
so
good
morning.
Everybody
and
welcome
to
the
built
Heritage
subcommittee
meeting
of
October
3rd
2022
I'd
like
to
call
the
members
to
order
members
are
reminded
to
submit
any
motions,
visual
supports
or
Declarations
of
interest
in
writing
to
the
coordinator
at
their
earliest
opportunity.
Although
the
deadlines
have
passed
for
residents
to
register
to
speak
and
provide
written,
submissions
to
the
subcommittee,
residents
may
still
make
written
submissions
to
council.
A
Last
week
we
recognized
that
Algonquin
culture
and
presence
have
nurtured
and
continued
to
nurture
this
land.
The
city
of
Ottawa
also
honors
the
people
and
the
land
of
the
Algonquin
anishinabe
nation
and
the
City
of
Ottawa
honors,
all
First
Nations,
Inuit
and
metis
people
for
their
valuable
contributions
to
this
land.
A
C
D
D
A
Your
Quorum
chair,
thank
you
and
apologies
to
Brooklyn
40
I
had
you
listed
as
having
sent
regrets,
but
obviously
you're
here
and
it's
wonderful
that
you
are
here
and
you're
joining
us.
A
Seeing
none
are
the
minutes
of
Tuesday
August
23rd
2022,
confirmed,
confirmed,
confirmed.
Thank
you.
Given
the
number
of
items
on
the
agenda
today
will
proceed
with
a
consent
agenda.
The
first
item
on
the
consent
agenda
is
consideration
of
objection
to
notice
of
intention
to
designate
501
coal
Avenue
under
part
four
of
the
Ontario
Heritage
act.
This
item
will
be
held
for
a
presentation
of
speakers.
The
next
item
is
designation
of
95
Henderson
Avenue
under
part
four
of
the
Ontario
Heritage
act.
A
B
Cheryl
just
allow
the
speakers
to
to
to
speak
from
the
attendees.
Thank
you.
D
E
Morning
Mr
chair
John
Stewart.
Here
we
do
not
need
to.
D
A
F
Appreciate
it
I,
don't
know
if
Leslie,
Ashley
or
I
see
Mackenzie
okay,
there's
a
number
of
folks
on
oh
yeah,
so
so
I
guess.
My
first
question
is
Staff
recommended
that
there'd
be
some
level
of
preservation
of
parts
of
the
building
and
that
report
clearly
articulates
the
kind
of
the
going
back
and
forth
with
the
applicant.
Yet
the
applicant
did
trigger
the
60
days.
So
I'm
wondering
with
the
report
that's
in
front
of
us.
F
What
tools
does
the
city,
Heritage
and
City
Planning
staff
have
to
preserve
as
much
as
we
can
of
the
characters
that
are
identified
in
the
report.
F
Does
it
require
further
direction
or
or
a
direction
from
this
committee
relating
to
layers
of
protection,
because
we've
seen
a
complete
build
like
a
full
demo
in
a
full
new
building,
I
challenge
a
bit
of
the
materiality
and
the
shapes
and
the
the
the
character
that's
being
being
proposed,
so
wondering
if,
if
there's
more
teeth
from
the
Department
in
in
in
the
character,
elements
of
their
new
proposal,.
G
Three
Mr
chair,
the
Sandy
Hill
cultural
heritage,
character
area
guidelines
do
provide
sort
of
design
guidelines
for
new
construction
within
the
within
the
character
area
to
ensure
that
it
remains
compatible
with
the
character
of
the
broader
neighborhood
excuse.
My
voice
I
have
called
they're
they're,
they're,
non-binding
and
and
because
the
area
is
not
designated
under
the
Ontario
Heritage
act,
there
is
no
requirement
for
the
applicant
to
preserve
the
building
or
parts
of
the
building.
G
However,
through
the
planning
process,
staff
would
work
with
the
applicant
to
ensure
that
the
policy
that
is
Council
adopted
is
is
considered
and
followed
through
the
development
process.
F
Okay,
thank
you
last
question
for
me:
Mr
chair,
maybe
more
more
to
you,
Leslie
in
terms
of
planning
planning
efforts
next
term,
obviously
depending
on
future
councils
and
future
approvals.
But
I
know
that
we
were
through
a
number
of
reports,
including
the
R4
and
including
the
op.
F
We've
done
some
work
to
broaden
the
Heritage
window
and
and
era
and
I
I
just
want
some
reassurance,
because
I
know
the
work
needs
to
be
done,
particularly
in
some
areas
of
Sandy
Hill,
that
that
would
not
like
from
your
your
current
expert
for
your
current
understanding
that
there
wouldn't
be
changes
to
the
staff
review
of
this
of
this
property.
G
You're,
correct
counselor
that,
through
the
Air
Force
study,
we
received
a
direction
to
re-examine
the
existing
seven
hcds
that
are
east
of
king
Edward
Avenue,
as
well
as
the
remainder
of
the
cultural
heritage
character
area
to
determine
if
the
level
of
protection
on
the
Ontario
heart
attack
was
sufficient.
So
that
is
that
remains
on
the
Branch's
work
plan.
It
won't
be
completed.
It
probably
won't
start
for
at
least
another
year,
given
other
workload.
Items
I
I.
G
But
at
this
point
in
time
we
do
have
that
on
our
work
plan
and
we
do
intend
to
reevaluate
the
level
of
protection
in
Sandy
Hill,
based
on
now
about
five
or
six
years
of
the
character
area
and
seeing
buildings
be
removed
or
redeveloped,
and
we've
had
some
successes
in
in
having
them
retained
and
and
some
that
have
been
lost.
So
it
is
still
on
the
work
plan.
I,
don't
think
any
further
direction
is
needed.
A
Questions
there
and
not
at
all,
obviously
we
always
welcome
the
interventions
of
our
local
award
counselors
at
the
subcommittee
and
we're
we're
thankful
for
the
the
work
of
that
Heritage
staff
is
undertaking
to
focus
a
little
bit
more
on
on
these
elements
as
as
they
emerge.
So
is
this
item
carried?
A
A
You,
the
next
item
on
the
agenda,
is
application
for
Demolition
and
new
construction
at
14.
Crescent
Road
speakers
are
in
attendance
on
behalf
of
the
applicant.
If
the
item
carries
do
the
speakers
do
the
registered
speakers
need
to
speak.
D
Hi
Mr
chair
we're
happy
to
proceed
with
consent
if
there
are
no
questions
to
the
applicant
team
at
your
discretion,
Mr
chair.
A
Thank
you
so
seeing
no
other
additional
comments
is
this
item
carried.
A
Carried.
Thank
you.
The
next
item
is
Heritage
easement
agreement
for
50
the
driveway.
There
is
a
technical
Amendment
for
this
item.
Can
the
vice
chair?
Please
read
the
motion.
A
B
I'm
pulling
up
the
motion
in
a
moment,
chair
I,
seem
to
be
seems
to
be
a
slight
delay
in
opening
the
document.
A
Thank
you
Vice
chair
for
introducing
that
technical
motion
there.
Once
again,
our
speakers
are
in
attendance
for
this
file
on
behalf
of
the
applicant
I'd
like
to
post
the
same
question.
If
the
item
carries
do
the
registered
speakers
need
to
comment?
Okay,.
D
A
The
staff
recommendation
excellent,
thank
you,
so
is
the
motion
before
us
carried.
D
A
Carried
is
the
item
carried
as
amended
carried
carried
Gary.
Thank
you.
The
next
item
is
5.1
for
an
item
introduced
by
member
panelski,
a
direction
to
undertake
an
evaluation
of
the
Heritage
value
of
the
former
CPR
rail
bridge
over
the
Rideau
River.
There
is
a
speaker
for
this
item,
so
we
will
hold
it.
So
we
will
now
return
to
the
first
item
on
our
agenda
for
point:
one:
consideration
of
objection
to
notice
of
intention
to
designate
501
Cole
Avenue
under
part
four
of
the
Ontario
Heritage
act,
Can
staff.
K
Thank
you,
Mr,
chair
and
good
morning,
everyone
so
today
I'll
be
presenting
on
the
consideration
of
the
objection
to
the
units
of
attention
designate,
501,
Cole
Avenue
under
the
Ontario
Heritage
act
and
next
slide.
Please.
K
So
this
property
will
be
familiar
to
most
members
of
the
bill.
Heritage
subcommittee,
however,
just
as
a
refresher,
the
subject
property
is
501
coal,
Avenue
located
in
the
Allen
Park
neighborhood.
It's
located
near
the
intersection
of
coal
Avenue
and
Kenwood
Avenue
south
of
the
main
commercial
strip
in
Westborough.
So
just
on
the
left
there
you
can
see
an
aerial
view
of
the
site
and
to
the
right
are
several
views
from
just
outside
the
property
and
next
slide.
K
Please
so
I
just
want
to
quickly
review
the
events
that
have
led
to
this
report
being
in
front
of
Bill
Heritage
subcommittee.
Today,
the
subject
property
is
listed
on
the
city's
Heritage
register
as
a
non-designated
property
in
the
fall
of
2021
staff
received
a
request
to
designate
the
property
from
the
Westborough
Community
Association
once
finalized.
This
request
was
added
to
the
city's
designation
request
work
plan
in
April
of
this
year.
An
application
for
consent
discover
was
submitted
to
the
committee
of
adjustment
by
the
current
owner
to
facilitate
the
development
of
two
new
single
detached
houses.
K
A
60-day
notice
is
required
to
demolish
any
building
listed
on
the
Heritage
register
and
the
application
was
adjourned
until
the
60-day
notice
period
commenced.
The
formal
demolition
notice
was
received
on
May
9th
2022,
starting
the
60-day
notice
period
through
the
city's
Council
approved
procedures
for
listed
building
demolition
notices.
The
ward
councilor
requested
that
a
designation
report
be
brought
to
build
heritage
subcommittee
on
May
18
2022.
K
The
severance
application
was
rehearred
at
the
committee
of
adjustment
and
approved
conditionally
on
June
20th
staff
presented
a
report
to
this
subcommittee
on
the
designation
of
501
Cole
Avenue
in
this
report,
staff
recommended
that
the
property
not
be
designated
under
part
four
of
the
Ontario
Heritage
act,
but
build
Heritage
subcommittee
instead
recommended
that
the
property
would
be
designated
under
part
four
and
the
item
Rose
to
planning
committee
on
June
23rd
and
to
Council
on
July
6,
where
it
was
given
final
approval,
a
notice
of
intention
to
designate
the
property
was
issued
the
same
day
next
slide.
K
K
So
that
quickly
covers
most
of
the
details
leading
up
to
today,
but
before
we
go
any
further.
I
do
want
to
highlight
the
process
that
we're
working
under.
So
it's
clear
what
the
subcommittee
and
that
council's
responsibilities
are
so
on.
The
screen
is
an
abbreviated
graphic
illustrating
the
designation
process
under
part.
Four
of
the
Ontario
Heritage
act.
K
There's
a
lot
of
detail
on
there,
but
I'll
break
this
down
to
clarify
so
under
the
current
Ontario
Heritage
act,
there's
two
opportunities
to
challenge
the
designation,
and
today
we
are
working
with
the
first
opportunity,
which
is
referred
to
in
the
Heritage
act
as
an
objection.
So
next
slide,
please
so
after
a
notice
of
intention
to
designate
is
issued,
there's
a
30-day
period
for
any
person
to
submit
an
objection
to
the
notice.
I've
highlighted
these
steps
on
the
screen.
K
The
objection
submission
must
set
out
all
the
reasons
for
the
objection,
as
well
as
any
new
information
related
to
the
designation.
In
writing.
An
objection
essentially
brings
the
designation
back
in
front
of
council
for
a
second
review.
So
after
the
notice
of
intention
to
designate
501
coal
was
issued,
the
city
received
a
notice
of
objection
on
behalf
of
the
property
owner
within
that
30-day
period,
bringing
the
item
back
to
build
Heritage
subcommittee
and
Council,
and
next
slide
please.
K
K
So
this
stage
is
highlighted
here
on
the
screen
and
essentially
Council
has
90
days
following
the
conclusion
of
the
objection
period
to
decide
on
the
objection
bringing
us
to
a
statutory
end
date
of
November
4th
2022.,
so
build
Heritage.
Subcommittee's
role
today
is
to
pick
between
the
two
options
and
recommend
that
Council
either
withdraw
the
notice
of
intention
to
designate
or
recommend
that
they
proceed
with
the
notice
of
intentions
designate.
K
So
if
Council
decides
to
withdraw
the
note
to
withdraw
the
notice,
the
designation
is
effectively
canceled
and
will
not
proceed
further.
The
city
is
also
required
to
issue
a
notice
of
withdrawal
similar
to
the
original
notice
of
intention
to
designate
if
Council
decides
to
proceed,
the
process
continues.
Normally,
it's
important
to
note
that
if
Council
does
proceed
with
the
designation,
the
approval
of
the
designation
bylaw
is
then
open
to
appeals
to
the
Ontario,
Lands
Tribunal
and
next
slide,
please.
K
So
this
slide
just
Recaps
the
two
options
so
again
proceeding
means
that
the
designation
process
continues
and
the
designation
bylaw
is
then
open
to
Olt
appeals
after
Council
approval
and
withdrawal
ends.
The
process
essentially
and
requires
a
notice
of
withdrawal
issued
by
the
city
and
next
slide.
Please.
K
So
now,
we'll
just
address
the
objection
in
question,
so
it
was
submitted
on
behalf
of
the
property
owner
by
gallon
wlg
and
outlines
three
reasons
for
their
objection
to
the
notice
of
the
designated
first,
that
the
designation
of
the
property
is
not
justified
by
any
study
and
is
contrary
to
Heritage
stats
recommendation,
second,
that
the
property
lacks
design
or
physical
value,
despite
the
language
set
out
in
the
statement
of
cultural
heritage,
value
and
third,
that
the
property
lacks
contextual
value.
Heritage
staff's
overview
of
the
objection
is
set
out
in
the
report
brought
forward
to
bhsc.
K
Today,
staff
are
of
the
opinion
that
this
objection
received
does
not
provide
new
or
substantive
information
related
to
the
designation
of
501
coal
Avenue.
The
department
maintains
the
position
that
designation
is
not
recommended
for
the
subject
property
as
previously
recommended
and
next
slide.
Please.
K
So
this
report
contains
two
recommendations.
The
first
is
a
two-part
recommendation,
prompting
Council
to
adopt
one
of
two
motions:
A
or
B.
These
motions
correspond
with
the
recommendation
required
today
to
either
proceed
with
the
designation
or
to
withdraw
so
motion
a
directs
Council
to
adopt
a
motion
to
designate
the
property
and
directs
the
enactment
of
the
designation
by
law.
If
the
subcommittee
pros,
if
the
subcommittee
recommends
Council
proceed
with
the
designation,
this
is
the
motion
to
adopt
motion
B,
directs
Council
to
adopt
a
motion
to
withdraw
the
designation.
K
If
the
subcommittee
recommends
the
council
withdraw
the
designation,
this
is
the
motion
to
address
adopt.
So
just
to
recap,
motion
a
is.
If
you
are
intending
to
proceed
and
motion,
B
is
if
you're
intending
to
withdraw
and
next
slide
please
and
then.
Finally,
the
second
recommendation
is
procedural:
it
suspends
the
notice
requirements
of
the
procedure
bylaw
so
as
to
permit
the
report
to
proceed
to
Council
on
October
5th,
within
the
statutory
timelines
required
for
consideration
of
the
objection
and
next
slide.
Please
so.
That
concludes
my
presentation.
Thank
you
very
much.
A
L
Thank
you
very
much.
Yes,
so
I'm
speaking
on
behalf
of
the
property
owner,
but
also
I
just
want
to
say
that
I've
been
a
Heritage,
professional
and
public
historian
for
more
than
30
years,
I'm
quite
familiar
with
the
architecture
of
Ottawa.
Having
lived
here
since
1984.
and
I
worked
as
an
architectural
historian
for
Parks
Canada
for
nine
years
and
I'm,
a
former
member
of
the
former
conservation
Review
Board
of
Ontario
and
I
continue
to
do
Heritage,
Consulting,
almost
full-time
and
the
rest
of
the
time.
I
work
on
matters
related
to
indigenous
Heritage
and
history.
L
So
I
want
to
begin
by
noting
that,
at
the
previous
meeting
of
the
build
Heritage
subcommittee,
one
of
the
members
and
I
was
struck
by
this
said
that
Heritage
seems
to
be
about
taste.
Anyways
and
I
would
refute
that.
But
I
also
think
the
comment
reflected
an
uneasiness
on
the
part
of
some
board
members
for
designating
this
property
I'm
organizing
my
remarks
in
line
with
the
staff
report,
which
supports
my
analysis
of
the
architectural
merits
of
the
property.
L
The
house
was
built
by
the
pert
family
with
or
or
William
pert
the
owner
with
aspirations
to
build
something
of
value.
Perhaps,
but
they
did
not
achieve
it
either
because
they
didn't
care
enough
and
we
can
never
know
that
or
they
did
not
have
the
financing.
L
To
create
a
good
example
of
the
architectural
style
that
they
chose
and
I
draw
your
attention
to
the
lack
of
interesting
woodwork,
the
Stark,
symmetrical
organization
without
differentiation
of
the
ground
and
second
Stories,
the
diminutive
chimneys,
the
carpentry
and
the
simple
design
of
the
two-story
protocol,
and
so
I
would
agree
entirely
with
staff
that
there
is
a
lack
of
design
and
physical
value
to
Warrant.
Designation
under
this
criteria,
and
I
would
go
further.
L
and
the
lack
of
sufficient
contextual
value
is
evident
in
the
description
of
the
Heritage
attributes.
Attached
to
the
statement
of
significance.
The
only
points
are
a
generous
front
setback
and
a
green
front
lawn,
none
of
which
are
requirements
for
the
cool
subdivisions.
The
attributes
do
not
mention
its
physical
relationship
with
other
buildings,
including
its
neighbors
of
which
would
have
to
mention
about
a
dozen
at
a
minimum,
possibly
up
to
50..
L
So
I
would
say
that
it
is
a
risk
to
designate
this
building
and
I
agree
into
her
with
this
property
rather
and
I
would
just
you
know,
I
entirely
agree
with
the
city
of
ottawa's
Heritage.
Stop
in
stating
that
designations
of
these
kinds
of
buildings
and
I've
been
contacted
by
many.
Many
owners
of
properties
on
the
register
require
a
fuller
study
before
designation,
but
even
with
a
polar
study,
I
believe
that
this
building
would
not
be
recommended
for
designation
and
that's
all
I
have
to
say.
A
Thank
you
so
much
for
your
comments.
Are
there
any
questions
for
this
speaker.
A
Seeing
none
thank
you
so
much
for
your
deputation
today,
the
next
registered
speaker
is
Marie
Johan
of
novitec.
C
I
want
to
start
by
just
saying,
or
referring
back
to
the
discussion
when
this
matter
was
before
build
her
subcommittee
on
June
the
20th
one
of
the
members
at
that
time
asked
a
question
about
what
was
being
proposed
to
be
developed
on
the
property.
At
the
time
staff
were
unable
to
answer
that
question.
Although
the
information
is
provided
in
the
cultural
heritage
impact
statement
that
was
prepared
by
Ms
Harris
and
was
submitted
in
support
of
the
in
notice
of
intention
to
demolish
next
slide
place.
C
So
this
is
an
image
of
the
two
single
detached
homes
that
have
been
designed
by
Barry
hoban's
office
for
the
Redevelopment
of
the
site,
replacing
the
existing
single-family
home
with
two
modern
single-family
homes
that
are
designed
to
fit
well
in
the
streetscape
next
slide
place,
and
just
for
the
committee's
benefit.
This
is
the
site
plan
illustrating
how
the
two
fully
conforming
single-family
homes,
or
were
planned
to
be
developed
on
the
property
Mr
chair
members
of
the
committee.
C
I
just
want
to
take
a
moment
to
remind
you
of
the
advice
that
you
have
received
from
both
your
professional
planning
staff
at
the
city
of
Ottawa
and
the
expert
advice
that
you
receive
from
Julie
Harris,
both
on
June
20th
and
this
morning
in
the
staff
report
that
was
before
you
on
June
20th.
C
C
We
are
back
again
and
I
would
remind
the
committee
of
the
opinion
that
Mr
McPherson
gave
you
this
morning,
but
it's
articulated
in
the
report
before
you
this
morning,
where
staff
clearly
State
the
department
maintains
the
position
that
designation
is
not
recommended
for
the
subject
property
in
consideration
of
the
advice
from
your
professional
staff
in
consideration
of
the
advice
you've
heard
from
Ms
Harris
again
this
morning.
We
would
urge
the
subcommittee
to
adopt
recommendation
one
B
recommending
to
council
that
they
withdraw
the
notice
of
intention
to
designate.
C
A
Thank
you
for
your
comments
as
well.
Does
the
subcommittee
have
any
questions.
A
And
seeing
No
Hands
raised,
thank
you
for
your
your
submission.
The
next
registered
speaker
is
Jacob
pollawer.
H
Thank
you,
Mr,
chair
and
good
morning,
I
have
very
little
to
add
that
has
not
already
been
articulated
by
Miss
Harris
and
Mr
Chown.
But
I
would
simply
like
to
remind
the
committee
that,
as
as
we
articulated
in
our
notice
of
objection
there,
the
motion
to
designate
was
brought
without
notice.
H
It
was
brought
without
any
study
in
support
and
against
the
recommendation
of
staff
and
leaving
aside
the
issue
of
whether
any
study
is
required,
as
Mr
Chen
indicated
that
if
the
city
does
proceed
with
designation,
we
will
regrettably
end
up
at
the
Olt
on
this
and
in
such
an
event,
it
would
be
Our
intention
to
summon
the
city's
staff
as
well
and
to
examine
them
on
the
opinion
that
they've
already
provided
to
the
committee
against
designation
and
subject
to
any
questions.
A
A
Thank
you
for
your
comments,
I
suppose
not
unlike
this
process
that
allows
an
objection
of
the
proper
process
was
also
followed
in
terms
of
counselor
intervention.
So
I
just
wanted
to
point
that
out
was
there
any
other
questions
for
this
delegate.
A
M
Hello
committee,
hello
committee
members,
thank
you
for
seeing
me
here
today.
I'm
Heather
Mitchell
with
the
Westboro
Community
Association
I'm,
very
disappointed
that
we
do
have
to
be
here
again
today,
I'm
very
appreciative
to
the
the
owners
team
who
have
made
it
very
clear
to
you
today
what
their
next
steps
are
good
for
them
for
making
that
super
clear.
They
are
going
to
take
you
to
the
Ontario
land
tribunal,
so
good.
To
know
where
we
stand.
M
You
committee
members
have
already
rendered
a
decision
on
501
coal
agreeing
to
designate
this
as
Heritage
Property.
So
has
the
planning
committee
in
full
Council.
However,
as
is
they're
right,
the
owner
has
now
appealed
the
decision.
M
I
want
to
start
out
by
saying
that
the
over
20
neighbors,
who
wrote
you
letters
of
support
for
the
designation
earlier
this
summer
remain
as
engaged
and
as
active
as
ever
and
would
very
much
like
to
see
the
subjections
squashed.
However,
after
some
discussion,
instead
of
inundating
you
all
with
another
round
of
letters
and
having
several
people
appear
today,
I
had
to
tell
people-
perhaps
it's
wiser,
just
to
have
me.
M
It
was
decided
that
I
would
represent
everyone's
interest
by
making
a
presentation
on
behalf
of
the
community.
I
hope
I
will
not
let
them
down.
I
would
draw
your
attention
to
the
report
on
the
objections
where
staff
has
clearly
said.
No
new
information
has
been
presented.
The
objections
present
no
new
information.
You
have
seen
it
and
you
have
argued
it
already,
but
again,
let's
go
through
it.
The
just
designation
was
not
justified
by
any
St.
M
Any
study
staff
has
made
it
clear
that
the
Ontario
Heritage
act
does
not
require
a
designation
requires
a
study.
They
don't
Define.
What
study
means.
However,
let
me
tell
you:
there
was
considerable
study
conducted
by
us.
The
community
neighbors
researched,
the
city,
archives,
reviewed,
provincial
definitions
of
architectural
Styles
dived
into
the
history
of
nepea
and
Highland
Park
in
Westborough,
and
much
more
locals
historian
Dave
Alston
conducted
quite
a
bit
of
research
which
was
presented
to
you
all
this
summer.
M
The
community
does
not
have
the
money
to
hire
a
Heritage
consultant
or
architect
like
Ms
Harris
wish
we
did,
but
we
don't
staff
counselor
leaper
and
you
committee
members
seem
to
feel
this
was
quite
sufficient
and
you
were
able
to
have
a
good
discussion
and
render
a
decision
based
on
what
we
presented
now
to
the
staff
recommendation
issue.
Despite
meeting
one
of
the
three
criteria
which
we
did
meet
staff
chose
not
to
recommend
designation
However.
The
fact
the
committee
chose
not
to
agree
with
staff
is,
in
my
view,
irrelevant.
M
I
know
from
watching
City
activities
for
many
years
know
now.
Staff
may
recommend
or
not
recommend
a
course
of
action
or
policy,
but
you
counselors
ultimately
have
the
final
say
you
are,
after
all,
representatives
of
the
communities
that
elected
you
and
you
may
have
a
different
view
from
City
staff.
This
objection
seems
to
infer
that
staff
know
better
than
you
do
and
you
should
always
therefore
agree
with
them.
This
is
simply
not
true.
You
listen
to
the
community.
M
We
have
no
issue
with
that.
A
property
may
be
designated
under
Section
29
if
it
meets
one
or
more
of
the
criteria,
it
meets
the
criteria
of
context.
We
appreciate
that
there
are
sexier
looking
representations
of
this
architectural
style
in
Ottawa,
and
that
was
not
the
meat
of
our
argument,
so
I'm
going
to
put
that
aside
lack
of
contextual
value.
Well,
that
is
simply
incorrect.
This
building
has
great
contextual
value
to
the
community.
Our
submission
which
staff
agree
with
made
it
very
clear.
M
The
building
does
have
strong
contextual
value
and
is
important
to
the
community
just
to
go
over
the
statement
of
cultural
heritage
value.
It
contributes
to
the
area's
historic
character.
It
exemplifies
Cole's,
Vision,
one
of
buildings
that
exemplified
Cole's
vision
of
a
new
middle
class
area
with
unfussy,
modern
homes,
trees
and
lawns.
M
I'll
go
over
it
very
quickly.
If
you'll
indulge
me,
as
you
know,
it
was
built
in
1912
in
1931,
the
house
was
sold
to
Albert
Morris,
who
was
a
significant
bureaucrat
until
the
building's
annexation
to
Ottawa
in
1950.
Then
it
was
the
Mance
of
the
Highland
Park
Church,
where
for
many
years
it
was
the
Hub
of
community
activity.
In
those
days
counselors
there
was
no
community
centers.
There
were
no
shopping
malls
where
people
hung
out,
they
hung
out
at
the
Mance.
We,
the
community,
experienced
this.
M
It
was
a
significant
building
for
us
as
part
of
a
grouping
of
historic
buildings
near
the
corner
of
coal
and
Kenwood
Avenues.
The
building
is
part
of
a
neighborhood
Landmark
that
includes
the
Kabul
Cottage.
However,
the
property
indeed
by
by
itself,
is
not
a
landmark.
However,
if
we
continue
to
remove
houses
that
comprise
that
Landmark
cluster,
there
will
be
no
cluster
and
there
will
be
no
landmark
indulge
me
just
for
a
few
30
seconds
more
counselors.
M
We
note
that
Westborough
is
one
of
the
only
inner
city
neighbors
that
neighborhoods,
that
does
not
have
a
Heritage
district
and
very
little
has
been
done
to
date
to
preserve
Our
Heritage
properties.
Indeed,
staff
made
this
statement
to
you
all
this
Summer
that
they
would
work
with
the
community
to
help
identify
and
preserve
our
local
Heritage.
We've
already
begun
work
on
this
and,
on
a
side
note
I'm
a
little
puzzled
about
the
objection,
which
seems
to
say
two
things
about
his
view
towards
staff.
M
In
the
first
objection
articulated
it
says
we
should
be
following
the
advice
of
staff
that
is
not
to
designate
in
the
third
objection.
It
says
we
should
not
be
following
the
advice
of
staff.
That
is
that
the
house
has
contextual
value,
but
the
objection
says
that
it
does
not
so
I'm
a
little
confused
I,
don't
know
which
what
the
objections
are
saying.
They
seem
to
say
two
contradictory
things
about
whether
we
should
follow
staff
or
not.
M
A
Appreciate
your
comments:
are
there
any
questions
for
Miss
Mitchell.
A
A
And
I
see
that
councilor
Moffitt
has
raised
his
hand.
N
N
How
do
you
place
something?
That's
based
on
subjectivity
in
front
of
a
a
Tribunal
and
and
expect
that
you
would
get
the
same
result
depending
on
who
the
tribunal
members
are
I
mean
just
just
come
to
this
committee.
We
all
have
different
opinions,
sometimes
when
it
comes
to
Heritage
value
of
different
properties,
because
it
is
subjective,
and
there
is
no
specific
objective
criteria
when
it
comes
to
Heritage
value.
G
G
Okay,
I'll
speak
to
the
criteria
and
then,
if
mizenda
has
anything
to
add
she
can,
she
can
add
to
it.
So
the
Criterion
of
the
Heritage
act
through
906,
which
this
committee
has
heard
about
many
many
times
over
the
years,
are
the
criteria
that
would
be
looked
at
by
the
Olt
as
part
of
the
appeal.
So
the
Olt
we
haven't
had
a
Heritage
designation
go
to
the
Olt.
G
Yet
this
will
be
the
first
one,
but
the
way
it
is
intended
to
work
would
be
that
it
would
consider
whether
or
not
the
proposed
designation
meets
the
criteria
under
regulation.
G
906
of
the
Ontario
Heritage
Act
and
as
you've
heard
many
times,
the
requirement
is
to
meet
one
of
the
three
criteria,
and
so
it
is
staff's
opinion
that
this
meets
the
contextual
criteria,
as
we
recommended
in
June
I
hope
that
helps
I'm,
not
sure
the
conservation
review
board,
which
was
the
predecessor
to
the
Olt
for
designation
issues,
had
specialized
staff
who,
who
were
experts
in
Heritage
conservation
matters
and
Heritage
valuation.
N
J
Apologies.
My
question
is
procedural
I'm,
just
wondering
why
why
this
has
come
back
to
the
built
Heritage
subcommittee.
I
think
this
is
the
first
time
that
this
kind
of
an
objection
has
ended
up
back
with
us.
K
So
I
can
explain
that
and
then
maybe
I'll
pass
over
to
Christine,
if
there's
anything
else
to
add
but
three
Mr
chair.
So
this
is
a
a
new,
essentially
a
revision
to
the
Ontario
Jack
that
came
into
Force
following
Bill
108.
So
since
January
2021,
these
have
been.
This
process
has
been
within
the
Ontario
Heritage
act.
J
That's
good,
that's
good
enough.
Thank.
D
A
Thank
you,
and
obviously
that's
a
very
clear
rationale
for
why
we're
we're
here.
Look
reconsidering
this
so
I
see
that
the
ward
counselor
councilor
Libra
has
raised
his
hand.
O
Thank
you
very
much
Sharon.
Thank
you
very
much.
Colleagues,
I
I
do
need
to
emphasize
this
morning
that
there
is
no
new
information
that
is
on
the
table
here.
Staff
originally
agreed
that
it
had
the
the
this
building
had
contextual
value.
That
is
one
of
the
three
criteria
and-
and
this
committee
was
convinced
by
the
value
of
that
context,
to
the
point
where
it
decided
to
designate
even
though
Our
Heritage
staff
had
originally
determined
that
it
wasn't
sufficient
enough
to
designate
and,
of
course,
I
completely
agree
with
you.
O
O
You
know
they've
said
this:
has
contextual
value
we're
not
designating
very
many
of
these
homes
that
have
this
value
to
the
community
and
and
keeping
alive
the
memory
of
the
roots
of
Westborough
and
and
Highland
Park
and
McKellar
Park
and
I'm,
not
asking
the
committee
to
designate
every
one
of
them.
But
this
one
is
next
to
the
cobblestone
house.
O
It
creates
a
cluster
as
Ms
Mitchell
described
and
nothing
has
been
put
on
the
table
since
this
committee
originally
recommended.
We
designate
it
to
to
suggest
that
its
original
decision
was
incorrect.
The
the
language
that
is
in
the
report
before
you
today
is
extremely
clear
and
I'm.
Sorry
I
just
lost
it.
Heritage
staff
are
of
the
opinion
that
the
objection
received
does
not
provide
new
or
substantive
information
related
to
the
designation
of
501
Cole,
Avenue
I.
O
Think
it's
I
think
it's
important
for
this
committee
to
continue
down
the
path
of
of
designating
this
and
I
I
know
that
there
is
a
motion
prepare
shared
as
document
3
to
this
report.
That
would
be
a
vote
upon
which
you
could
determine
to
move
ahead
with
the
designation
and
I
am
hoping
this
morning.
Since
you're
going
to
have
to
put
one
of
those
two
motions
forward
that
somebody
will
put
put
that
motion
forward
and
keep
this
on
track,
thank
you
very
much,
chair
I.
A
Appreciate
those
comments,
counselor
leaper
and
do
any
other
members
of
the
subcommittee
have
any
other
comments
on
this
item.
A
Seeing
none,
as
noted
in
the
report
committee,
will
need
to
make
a
recommendation
to
council
to
proceed
or
or
not
with
designation
with
the
will
of
committee.
We
will
first
consider
the
motion
to
proceed
with
designation
being
document
3
in
the
report
and
I
believe
that
this
this
document
is
being
moved
by
Vice
chair,
Quinn,
foreign.
A
And
you're
still
on
mute.
J
The
motion
units
as
follows:
whereas
Council
issued
a
notice
of
intention
to
designate
501
Cole
Avenue
on
July,
7
2022,
and
whereas
the
objection
to
the
notice
of
intention
to
designate
was
received
by
the
city
clerk
on
August
4th
2022
and
whereas
the
Builder
subcommittee
has
considered
the
contents
of
the
objections
for
report,
ACS,
2022
pie,
rhu0037
and
whereas
the
build
Heritage
subcommittee
continues
to
find
that
the
building
has
cultural
heritage
value,
as
defined
in
the
statement
of
cultural
heritage
value
attached
to
the
staff
reporters
document.
J
D
A
Is
the
report,
as
amended
carried
carried
very
thank
you?
This
report
will
be
submitted
to
Ottawa
city
council
on
October
5th
2022..
Our
next
item
is
a
5.1,
the
direction
from
Member
podelski
to
undertake
an
evaluation
of
the
Heritage
value
of
a
former
CPR
rail
bridge
over
the
Rideau
River.
As
this
is
a
members
item,
there
is
no
staff
presentation.
Did
the
Mover
wish
to
briefly
introduce
the
item.
E
Yes,
thank
you.
Chair
King
I
hope
that
I
am
on
non-mute
I'm
good
thanks.
Very
briefly.
In
May
of
2022
I
came
to
my
attention
and
attention
of
others
that
the
city
infrastructure
Department
were
recommending
that
this
CPR
rail
Bridge
constructed
in
1898,
who
should
be
replaced
rather
than
rehabilitated
because
of
of
its
physical
condition.
E
Very
briefly,
the
documentation
has
kindly
been
circulated
by
staff,
including
the
2018
physical
conditions
report
that
gave
background
on
the
bridge,
analyzed
its
physical
conditions
and
had
two
options
for
proceeding
with
the
renewal
of
the
bridge.
One
was
Rehabilitation
and
the
second
was
demolitionary
replacement.
E
There
was
a
it
was.
It
appears
to
be
more
expensive
to
rehabilitate
the
bridge,
and
the
recommendation
by
the
infrastructure
staff
seemed
to
be
based
on
the
assumption
that
this
bridge
had
no
Heritage
value,
and
the
motion
that
I
have
tabled
for
the
military
subcommittee
is
to
get
the
heritage
staff
to
do
a
Heritage
assessment
of
the
bridge,
so
that
it
is
clear
that,
if
a
designated
these
City's
policy
towards
the
future
of
the
bridge
should
include
Rehabilitation
rather
than
replacement
and
and
reconstructing
a
new
bridge.
E
Just
for
the
Committees
information
in
my
career
I
have
worked
on
nine
land,
Rock
riches,
eight
of
them
in
the
Ottawa
area,
and
also
for
the
committee's
information,
not
all
of
our
historic
Bridges.
As
a
matter
of
fact,
the
majority
of
our
historic
bridges
in
Ottawa
are
not
designated.
This
includes
the
CPR
bridge
that
we're
discussing
here,
but
also
the
Cummings
Bridge,
the
Lorry
Avenue
Bridge,
the
Alexandra
Bridge,
the
Prince
of
Wales
bridge
now
known
as
the
chief
commander
Bridge,
the
the
bank
Street
Bridge,
the
Dufferin
Bridge
Bank
Street
bridge
over
the
canal.
E
So
all
of
these
bridges
that
Ottawa
make
up
ottawa's
identity
are
not
designated.
There
are
some
that
are
having
said
that
I
have
to
say.
In
my
experience,
the
city's
record
in
conserving
its
non-heritage
ridges
is
really
quite
Sterling,
the
work
that
was
done
on
the
bank
Street
Bridge
and
on
the
Pretoria
bridge
on
the
Cummings
bridge
and
so
on,
and
so
forth,
Are
all
undertaken
by
the
city,
even
though
these
Bridges
were
not
designated.
E
Having
said
that,
I
think
that
what
we
have
here,
I
think
is
this:
like
oversight
on
the
part
of
the
infrastructure.
South
and
the
proposal
to
commence
the
designation
of
it
or
to
research,
it
I
think
will
be
helpful
to
ensure
that
this
portion
of
our
Railway
Heritage
will
be
conserved
rather
than
replace.
So
that's
a
little
bit
of
background
on
it
and
I
submit
that
for
the
committee's
to
prove
and
hope
that
we
support
the
motion
to
to
designate
or
to
tremend
society
to
designate
Bridge.
Thank
you
very
much.
Well,.
A
I
do
appreciate
the
the
introduction
of
this
motion
Barry
and
we
did
receive
some
correspondence
on
on
your
item
three
items
that
came
in,
including
all
in
support
and
items
that
came
in
from
both
of
action.
Sandy
Hill,
as
well
as
the
old
Ottawa
East
Community
Association.
We
do
have
some
registered
speakers
I
see
that
a
local
Ward
counselor
counselor
Menard,
had
raised
his
hand.
There
will
be
an
opportunity
to
raise
questions
to
staff
and
comment
after
we
hear
from
our
registered
speakers,
starting
with
David
jeans.
P
P
I'd
like
to
thank
all
the
bhsc
members
for
serving
on
this
important
subcommittee,
particularly
those
who
also
serve
during
the
last
term
of
council
as
a
railway
historian,
I've
been
particularly
interested
in
this
bridge
and
others
for
more
than
20
years.
I'm
a
member
of
several
Railway
history
organizations,
including
the
Canadian
railroad,
historical
Association,
the
Bytown
Railway
society
and
the
Ottawa
Railway
history.
P
Circle
I've
also
been
a
board
member
for
over
20
years
of
both
Heritage
Ottawa
and
of
Transport
action
Canada,
which
promotes
active
Transportation,
though
I
am
speaking
as
an
individual
in
1999
I
asked
Heritage
staff
at
the
old
city
of
Ottawa
to
consider
designating
this
bridge.
At
that
time,
the
wooden
ties
of
the
original
rail
deck
were
removed
and
handrails
were
welded
to
the
tops
of
the
bridge
girders.
P
The
1898
CPR
bridge
is
one
of
the
oldest
surviving
Railway
bridges
in
Ottawa.
It
was
the
first
steel
girder
Railway
Bridge
in
Ottawa,
as
all
preceding
Bridges
had
been
trust.
Bridges,
it's
the
oldest
surviving
Railway
Bridge
over
the
Rito
Ottawa
or
gatino
Rivers
And.
When
I
say
that
I'm
talking
about
the
bridge
itself,
other
Bridges
may
have
been
older
but
have
been
replaced
over
the
years.
The
65-foot
long
plate
steel
girders,
came
from
the
Carnegie
steel
company
in
Pittsburgh
and
are
marked
with
the
Carnegie
name.
P
P
The
bridge
was
built
shortly
before
Andrew
Carnegie
sold
his
steel
interests
to
Henry
Morgan
to
create
U.S
steel
in
1901..
The
bridge
therefore
represents
the
accumulation
of
wealth
by
Andrew
Carnegie,
which
enabled
him
to
become
a
major
philanthropist,
including
paying
for
the
construction
of
the
Ottawa
Public
Library
and
the
Rosemount
Library.
P
The
bridge
was
built
to
give
the
Canadian
Pacific
Railway
access
to
Central
Station,
later
Union
Station,
and
to
allow
their
fast
trains
to
Montreal
to
compete
with
J.R
Booth's
Canada
Atlantic
Railway.
The
two
lines
operated
some
of
the
fastest
trains
in
North
America
CPR,
actually
built
a
new
class
of
high-speed
passenger
locomotives,
specifically
for
this
route
from
1902
to
1966.
P
The
bridge
was
also
part
of
the
route
of
cpr's
transcontinental
trains
between
Montreal
and
Vancouver,
including
the
famous
dome
train,
the
Canadian,
the
same
Bridge
also
permitted
the
New
York
Central
Railway
to
enter
Ottawa
from
1899
to
1957..
So
these
three
uses,
which
I've
just
described,
give
it
historic
significance.
P
It
was
the
only
one
of
three
Railway
bridges
over
the
Rideau
River
at
Herdman
to
survive,
the
closing
of
Union
Station
and
the
opening
of
The
Queensway
in
1966.
As
such,
it
has
become
a
highly
visible
Landmark,
seen
from
the
pathway
Network
and
from
The
Queensway,
with
respect
to
Adaptive
reuse
as
a
multi-use
pathway.
P
I
would
like
to
point
out
that
many
hundreds
of
kilometers
of
such
paths
in
the
national
capital
region,
including
the
trans-canada
Trail,
follow
former
Railway
corridors,
including
Bridges.
There
were
once
12
such
rail
corridors
radiating
from
Ottawa
and
gatino.
P
P
In
conclusion,
I
believe
that
it
will
need
at
least
one
and
possibly
three
of
the
designation
criteria
under
regulation
906,
based
on
the
consultant's
report.
It
can
be
made
safe
to
continue
in
use
as
a
multi-use
pathway,
but
I
believe
this
does
not
require
rebuilding
it
to
meet
highway
bridge
standards.
A
Thank
you
so
much
for
your
delegation.
Are
there
any
questions
from
committee
members
or
council
members
for
Mr
genes
seeing
none?
Thank
you
so
much
for
your
presentation
this
morning
and
the
second
registered
speaker
is
Linda
hode
from
Heritage
Ottawa.
Q
Okay,
I
managed
to
find
the
right
button.
I
have
only
a
very
brief
statement.
I'm
appearing
on
behalf
of
our
fearless
advocacy
prayer,
David
Fleming,
whom
you
see
frequently
he
has.
He
survived,
Flora,
managed
to
come
down
with
a
cold
and
passed
on
the
duty
of
responding
item
to
several
of
his
colleagues,
so
I
decided,
maybe
I
should
do
it
gently.
Q
We
are
a
fully
in
favor
of
of
motion
by
Barry
Podolski,
for
the
reasons
that
we
stated
a
letter
that
we
or
a
written
communication
we
sent
through
at
her
last
meeting
in
August,
so
I
I
won't
say
any
more
than
that.
Thank
staff
for
letting
me
come
in
late,
good
luck
and
and
as
I
say,
this
is
a
very
worthwhile
approach.
David
Pinker
court
has
outlined
all
of
Technical
and
historical
reasons
why
you
should
approve
it.
Thank
you.
A
R
Thank
you
very
much
Chair
King
and
thanks
to
member
Podolski
for
your
work
on
this
and
bringing
this
this
forward.
We're
supportive
of
the
direction
and
motion
I.
Think
I
do
have
some
questions
for
for
City
staff,
but
just
wanted
to
flag
as
well.
This
is
a
well.
This
is
a
well
used
bridge
at
the
moment.
R
It
wasn't
mentioned
in
comments,
but
it
is
well
used
between
three
different
Awards,
especially
but
by
many
other
folks,
coming
from
all
over
the
city
as
an
active
Transportation
Bridge.
So
the
the
Adaptive
reuse
of
this
bridge
has
been
well
received
by
many
in
the
community.
I
do
have
some
questions
that
I
will
ask
to
staff
so
in
terms
of
a
Heritage
review.
Just
what
would
the
timing
look
like
on
that?
How
long
would
a
Heritage
review
take.
G
R
I
just
want
to
make
sure
you
could
meet
those
timelines
if
you're,
okay
with
them
and
we
had
and
Leslie.
We
had
struck
a
meeting
with
local
counselors,
a
local
community
associations
and
advocates
for
this
bridge
several
months
ago,
and
we
had
determined
from
that
point
that
there
would
be
some
more
staff
contact
with
those
community
members.
R
So
I'm
just
wondering
in
terms
of
this
direction
and
motion
that
group
that
we
had
struck
would
that
be
integrated
in
in
this
work
or,
what's
the
what's
the
intent
of
Staff
in
terms
of
the
the
community
members,
we
had
brought
on
board
to
be
part
of
this.
This
process.
G
I,
don't
think
we've
worked
that
out
entirely
yet
generally,
when
we
do
a
Heritage
evaluation
for
something
like
a
Railway
Bridge,
we
would
probably
contact
Mr
Jeans,
who
you
just
heard
about
and
and
ask
him
for
his
expertise.
We
will
undertake
our
own
research,
of
course,
and
we
would
reach
out
to
usually
the
members
of
The,
Heritage,
Community
but
I.
Think
in
this
broader
project,
where,
where
the
counselors
had
brought
together
a
group
of
community
associations,
we
may
also
share
our
findings
with
them.
So
we
will.
G
We
will
ensure
that
it
is
that
we
are
public
along
the
way
with
this.
Okay.
G
R
In
evaluation
of
the
Heritage
value
of
the
former
CPR
rail
Bridge
for
possible
designation
and
I
think
there's
there's
obviously
very
valid
Heritage
considerations
that
require
thoughtful
reflection
and
Analysis
and
and
City
Heritage
staff
have
the
knowledge
and
expertise
to
to
conduct
this
evaluation.
So
just
a
thank
you
again
to
to
member
Podolski
and
we
look
forward
to
working
with
staff
cooperatively
on
this
into
q1
2023
of
next
year.
Thank
you.
A
Thank
you,
councilman
art,
for
both
your
questions
and
your
comments.
Are
there
any
other
questions
or
comments
to
staff
on
this
item
and
I?
A
Don't
see
any
raised
hands
I'd
also
like
to
thank
member
podelski
for
bringing
this
item
to
the
subcommittee
and
also
to
all
the
counselors,
who
are
obviously
positively
impacted
by
this
bridge,
including
councilor
Menard
I,
see
councilor,
Fleury
I
know
that
other
counselors
as
well
participated
in
a
conversation
with
Community
associations
expressing
their
concern
about
ensuring
the
examination
of
the
potential
preservation
of
this
Landmark.
So
I
appreciate
all
the
work
that
was
done.
Is
the
report
carried.
A
This
report
is
not
rising
to
planning
committee
or
Council,
but
the
recommendation
to
designate
or
not
the
for
the
CPR
rail
bridge
will
come
forward
in
2023
and
committee
will
make
res
recommendations
to
council
at
that
time.
A
A
Number
eight
is
notice
of
motions
for
consideration.
A
subsequent
meeting.
We
did
not
receive
any
notice
of
motions
inquiries,
there
are
no
increase
to
date
and
in
terms
of
other
business,
there
is
one
planning
circulation
on
the
agenda
which
was
distributed
to
members
prior
to
the
meeting.
Members
of
the
public
have
the
opportunity
to
comment
through
devops
on
ottawa.ca
and
Ontario
Heritage
act.
A
Applications
would
be
considered
at
a
later
date
of
the
planning
circulation
that
was
sent
around
referred
to
zoning
bylaw,
Amendment
and
site
plan
control
application
for
29
Russell
Avenue.
Is
there
any
other
business.
A
Seeing
none
on
adjournment
is
the
motion
carried
carried
so
we're
adjourned.
Everybody.
Thank
you,
everyone
for
your
attendance.
There
are
currently
no
other
bhsc
meetings
scheduled
for
this
term
of
council,
so
it
was
definitely
a
pleasure
serving
with
with
all
of
you,
and
hopefully
we
will
see
each
other
again,
some
of
us,
at
least
in
the
new
term.
A
And
I
also
like
to
thank
our
our
former
chair
Gower
for
all
the
contributions
that
he
made
during
during
this
term.
I
Karen,
do
you
mind
if
I
say
something
as
well?
Absolutely
I
just
want
to
thank
our
four
citizen
members
of
the
the
subcommittee
as
well.
I
am
privileged
to
serve
in
many
capacities
on
many
boards
with
other
citizen
representatives
and
the
expertise
and
contributions
of
our
four
members
has
been
fantastic.
Really,
this
term
of
office
we've
dealt
with
a
myriad
of
issues,
some
quite
controversial
and
I
find
that
their
contributions
have
really
helped
me
in
my
thinking
and
things
that
I've
ultimately
brought
to
council
when
matters
have
appeared
to
council.
I
So
to
those
who
question
whether
or
not
there's
value
and
having
citizen
participation
look
no
further
than
our
subcommittee.
It's
really
been
a
great
experience
this
term.
So
thank
you.
A
And
I
appreciate
those
comments:
councilor
Brockington
and
I
share
them
and
I'd
like
to
reflect
those
as
well.
I
also
believe
that
there's
a
great
technical
expertise
as
well.
A
As
you
know,
the
reflection
of
the
community
concerns
in
public
members
and
I
think
that
that
has
been
strongly
demonstrated
over
this
term
by
our
wonderful
public
members,
their
their
contributions
and
their
their
inputs
have
been
invaluable
to
not
only
this
subcommittee
but
I
believe
the
city
as
a
whole
in
terms
of
the
analysis
of
of
issues
around
Heritage.
So
I
really
do
appreciate
those
those
comments.
A
I
share
those
sentiments
and
I
also
want
to
relay
that
to
to
our
our
our
our
esteemed
public
members,
who
are
bringing
the
the
expertise,
the
needed
technical
expertise
to
the
subcommittee.
So
thank
you
so
much.
N
A
But
thank
you
so
much
everybody
and
we
are
adjourned,
and
it
will
be
interesting
to
see
how
Heritage
files
evolve
into
the
next
term
of
counsel.