Sound check. 1 2 3 4 5. Sound check. 1 2 3 4 5. YouTube channels. Sound check. 1 2 3 4 5 Good morning everybody and welcome to the Built Heritage Committee meeting of June 9th, 2026. I'd like to call the members to order. This hybrid meeting is being facilitated through Zoom and is being held on the traditional territory of the Algangquin Anishnab Nation, the original custodians of the unseated land in which the city of Ottawa is located. We extend our respect to all First Nations, Inuit, and Matei peoples for their valuable past and present contributions to this land. Since this meeting of this committee is being streamed live on the Ottawa City Council YouTube channel, I'd like to remind participants to please keep your microphones muted until I call upon you to speak. For those participating here in the committee room, please use the microphone in front of you and keep your computer muted. I will provide each committee member with the opportunity to ask questions or comment on each item in the order in which they raised their hand in Zoom. For panelists, the raise hand option is found at the bottom of the participants list. For those calling in, press star 9 to raise your hand. The committee coordinator and I will be watching for those cues. Members are also 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 at committee, they still can provide written uh submissions to this committee and make written submissions to council. If you have any technical difficulties, please uh ensure that you contact the committee coordinator. A reminder that if participants are having technical issues with their Zoom connection, they may call in using the backup telephone number provided by the coordinator. I have received regrets from Vice Chair Plant, uh, from Councelor Kelly, as well as member LGO. At this point, can we call the role? Councelor Kelly, Councelor Leaper, >> here. >> Councelor Troster >> here. >> Member Barnes, >> present. >> Member LGO, member Madigan >> here. Member Quinn >> present. >> Vice Chair Plant and Chair King >> here. >> You have quum, Mr. Chair. Thank you so much. Are there any declarations of interest? Seeing none, are the minutes of the Built Heritage meeting for April 14th confirmed? Confirmed. Thank you so much. Uh so I will proceed with a consent agenda this morning. Uh the first item is heritage permit for 275 Hillrest Road. Uh that will be held as there is a delegation. Uh the next item is designation of five properties designated by James Strut that will also be hold be held um as there are delegations. Uh the next item 4.3 designation of 60 Fairmont Avenue under part four of the Ontario Heritage Act. We did receive correspondence on this item from Heritage Ottawa. Uh we do have Heritage Ottawa uh registered as a delegation. Just wanted to determine uh whether the delegate would want to appear before committee if it was the will of committee to uh move this motion. Okay. So, we will hold that item. Um, the next item is McDonald Garden Park Heritage Conservation District feasibility study. Um, we have correspondence on this item uh but no delegations. Is it the will of committee to hold this item for a presentation? Seeing none, are the report recommendations carried? >> Carried. Thank you so much. Uh the next item is updates to Built Heritage Financial Incentive Programs. Uh we have received correspondence on this item, but there are no uh delegations registered. Uh is it the will of committee to hold this specific item? May I just ask a quick question? >> Sure. Uh, Councelor Troster wants to ask a quick question of staff on this item and I think if it's quick, we'll >> Yeah. No, absolutely. I just wanted So, I noticed in the report you mentioned the intention is um any of the money that was previously allocated to Centertown alone would still be held in trust for Centertown alone, but then on a go forward basis, the program would make the heritage facade improvement program available to more urban neighborhoods. Is that correct? >> That's correct, counselor. We would uh exhaust the existing budget that we have for Centertown and then presuming that there are future budget allocations to the program, it would apply to the expanded area. >> Okay. And just to be clear, it looks like only half of the allocated amount was actually applied for and spent. Correct. >> At this point, yes, but we have several more applications um in the works. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Thank you so much uh for uh that question. And I really want to thank staff for their hard work on on this update and for the direction that we're going uh with uh greater investments into our financial incentive programs. Is this item carried? Oh, sorry. Sorry. Member Borne. Sorry about that. I just wanted to ask if what level three is. Uh I know level one is a designated property. Level two is a contributing property. Uh level four is uh doesn't uh contribute in any way. What's a level three? >> Um through you, Mr. Chair. Do you mean in a heritage conservation district as outlined in the report? >> Yes. >> Um so in some of our older heritage conservation districts where uh they haven't been updated to contributing and non-contributing yet, uh categories 1, 2, and three are typically historic buildings that would qualify for the grant program. and category four are sort of those buildings that today we would call non-contributing. Um we've just included these as uh because they still exist as categorizations in some of our heritage conservation districts. >> What is category 3? In the previous uh when when many of these heritage conservation districts were designated in the 1980s and 90s uh properties were scored uh using a numerical scoring system and then that numerical scoring system was um aligned with various categories. So hypothetically and this is I'm just picking numbers out of air right now because I don't have it in front of me but if you were an 80 and above 80 to 100 you might be a category one. If you were a 60 to 80, you might be a category 2. If you were 50 to 60, you might be a category 3. Those three categories have now been grouped together with a more values-based approach that we take in heritage conservation today uh to be considered contributing to the overall cultural heritage value of a district. I I noticed the the requirement is that uh you to apply for a grant you have to be a category 1, two or three building. Uh I guess the question is is category 3 worthwhile. Uh given that there are limited funds and that that's the question. >> In staff's opinion, yes, they are worthwhile. Um I think you know the rubric that's been proposed through this report will help us evaluate you know the amount of cultural heritage val cultural heritage attributes that remain on the building the work that might be required the contributions that that work would make to the overall heritage program. So I I think you know the higher category buildings may rank higher um in the in the evaluation but all of these buildings uh staff suggest are worthwhile in conserving. Would you replace a or contribute towards replacing a deck that uh is non-contributing, you know, that that has been updated uh since >> that would be a non-eligible project. >> So, you would not contribute. >> Correct. >> Uh thank you. Uh is this item carried? carried. Thank you so much. The next item is 4.6 update to the Bank Street Heritage Conservation District adopting a new HCD plan. Uh we will hold that item for a presentation. And our final substantive uh item on our regular agenda is 4.7 designation of the Golden Triangle Heritage Conservation District under part five of the Ontario Heritage Act. uh delegations that had been registered to speak have been informed uh that this item will be deferred uh to the uh Built Heritage Committee meeting of Tuesday, July 14th, 2026. Correspondence that was received from this item will be saved uh to uh the SharePoint folder uh for uh the Built Heritage Committee meeting of Tuesday, July 14th, 2026. Uh we do have a motion to defer and I will ask uh councelor Leaper to move that motion at this time. Thank you chair. Uh whereas the report recommends the designation of the golden triangle HCD and the adoption of the golden triangle HCD plan. And whereas section 417 of the Ontario Heritage Act requires a public meeting in advance of a council passing a bylaw to adopt a heritage conservation district plan. And whereas section 4118 of the Ontario Heritage Act requires that the city provide at least 20 days uh in advance of the public meeting. And whereas notice was not received by some property owners by the expected date due to a statutory holiday. And whereas the city of Ottawa wants to ensure transparency and adequate opportunities for public input on the proposed heritage conservation district. Therefore, be it resolved that consideration of the report be deferred to the July 14th, 2026 Built Heritage Committee meeting to allow time for a new public notice to be provided to property owners within the proposed uh HCD. >> Thank you so much. Is the motion carried? >> Carried. So, this report will return to the Built Heritage Committee for its meeting of Tuesday, July 14th. So, now we uh go back to our first item that has been held uh 4.1 heritage permit for 275 Hillrest Road. Uh I'll ask staff to proceed with a presentation. Thank you. Good morning everyone. This heritage permit application is for demolition and new construction of a single detached house. The property at 275 Hillrest Road is designated under part five of the Ontario Heritage Act as part of the Rock Cliff Park Rockcliffe Park Heritage Conservation District. 275 Hillrest Road is a grade two property. We'll just wait for the slides to come up. And we are just uh working through some uh technical difficulties here. We expect to have the presentation up online momentarily. Excellent. I think we're up and uh ready to proceed. Thank you. Uh so we're we can go to the next slide when you're ready. Thanks. 275 Hillrest Road is a corner property located at the northeast intersection of Hillcrest Road and Montigue Place. This is behind Elmwood School. The property currently contains a detached house, originally a ranchstyle bungalow uh built circa 1955. It was expanded through a two-story addition back in 2014. So, the existing house, as you can see on screen, it features an integral garage and ashvalt driveway that faces out to Hillrest Road. Next slide, please. The plan on the left uh illustrates a hatched footprint. This is the footprint of the existing detached grade 2 house. Um, and then overlaid over it is the proposed footprint. So, that's the shaded area on the left and also on the right. So, the proposed dwelling is located generally in the same location as the existing building. It's been adjusted for zoning compliance. It has generous setbacks uh and actually a slightly reduced lot coverage to help preserve soft landscaping. The existing grades will be maintained. The plan on the right provides some of the landscaping approach which includes a reduction in the amount of existing hardscape. It retains and relocates uh most existing mature trees uh and adds additional cedar hedges and plantings. They'll also be removing the existing fencing in the front yard. Next slide, please. So, the proposed new house would be two stories in height at 8 1/2 m clad in a mix of non-synthetic materials including brick, wood, and fiberboard. The main elevation facing Hillrest Road is anchored around an ornamental tree connecting the building to its landscape. The upper level is set back from the ground floor. The driveway is relocated. It's now on Montigue Place where it leads to an integral threecar garage. The design for the dwelling uh is a play of lights and shadow. There's a use of contrast here to draw the eye to certain sections of the building, the lighter sections to reduce the impact of the massing. So the integral garage is appropriately cited to limit its impact on both the dwelling and on the streetscape. We can go to the next slide. Applications for demolition and new construction uh in Rockliff Park Heritage Conservation District are reviewed for consistency with the HCD's plans. HCD plan's objectives, the statement of cultural heritage value, uh, attributes, and meet the policies and guidelines of the plan, um, including demolition and relocation, additions and new construction guidelines for new buildings, as well as the plan's landscape guidance. Next slide, please. Heritage staff have determined that the proposal is compliant and consistent with the policies and guidelines of the HCD plan, the standards and guidelines, and the provincial planning statement. Uh we have no objection to the demolition of the existing dwelling given its limited cultural heritage value. And considering the new proposed house is consistent with the guidelines of the plan. Um just to touch on the existing building, uh the property received a score of 43 out of 100 and that was before there was a major renovation to the bungalow that was undertaken. Uh the renovation did further diminish the property's contributions to the historic area. Um and so the new dwelling has incorporated design elements to achieve compliance with the guidelines for new construction. It has a more modest uh height, massing, and roof line uh that are compatible with the grade one buildings in the associated streetscape. Uh and this slide's showing some of the nearby buildings uh including a few grade ones to the left and the right. We can go to the next slide. Thanks. Plans and other material related to the proposal were posted on the city's development application website uh on May 12th. Heritage Ottawa was notified. Uh we also worked with the Rockcliffe Park Residence Association. Uh they were circulated on a pre-application submission and participated with staff in a pre-application consultation with the meeting. Uh we had the meeting back on on March 18th. The community association was also invited to provide comments to the applicant uh on the formal circulation when it came in. Staff have not received further comments. Neighbors within 60 mters were notified by mail of the application. Um, and we also had a notice sign posted on the subject property since midm uh, midmay, pardon me. Next slide, please. Heritage staff recommend approving the application with several conditions to ensure proper implementation of the proposal. We also recommend delegating minor design changes to the program manager uh and issuing the heritage permit with a two-year expiry. Next slide, please. That concludes the staff presentation. Uh we're available for questions should you have any. Thank you. >> Thank you so much. Um we do have one delegation registered for this item, Rebecca Fernando of plot non of plot non-plot architects. And it seems that uh the registered delegate is not uh with us online. Seeing that the registered uh delegate is not online, are there any questions to staff on this item? Member Madigan. >> Thank you, Chair. Uh going through the report, it mentioned that the 1994 renovations were done to designs by Julian Smith. >> That's what our records show from uh the heritage survey form that there was a previous reno and then there was another rena done I believe 2014, >> right? >> And I don't know the designer of the 2014, but we would have that on file. >> Right. So I only know one Julian Smith architect who's renowned conservation architect and designer planner many different levels. Wouldn't that be considered part of like significance of the original building that there's been sort of some uh work done by him on that building? >> It it certainly does. It's something that uh we look at and take into account. I think um given the the ranch style bungalow that existed uh already I don't know that I was able to clearly identify the shifts and alterations that happened through that. Um and so I think when the changes happened in 2014 um there was uh was quite an impact on those that cultural heritage value that maybe was there previously. >> Right. Yeah. >> Uh, did you check the permit drawings to see if there's any uh, records from that document what Julian Smith did to that uh, building? >> No, I haven't seen any permits from that time period. >> Okay. Will you possibly update the report just to point out the the uh, involvement of Julian Smith considering he is a significant uh, living architect has had a dramatic impact on uh, Ottawa and other places in Canada and the world. Uh because we of interest to future researchers as well thank you. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Thank you so much uh for those questions and comments. Uh we have been able to uh connect uh to uh Miss uh Fernando. So, uh if we can take this opportunity for you to have your uh delegation, uh we uh can uh emit you and um we can uh have you have your five minutes and we just need to unmute. >> Oh, hi. Sorry. I I was online. Um I don't know how to use this interface properly. Thanks everybody. Uh, all I really wanted to say was I think that was Avery presenting the uh project and I think it was presented sensitively. I I honestly have no other comments other than it's uh just to reestablish a family and um create a generational home for them in the Rockcliffe uh neighborhood and uh I thank you very much for your time. >> Uh thank you so much uh for your uh comment and for your presence here uh this morning. Are there any questions for the delegation? Seeing none, thank you so much for appearing uh here today. Um is are there any other questions for staff? Seeing none, is this item carried? >> Carried. Thank you so much. So, this report will be submitted to council on June 24th, 2026. Our next item is designation of five properties uh designed by James Strut. Uh we will proceed with a presentation by staff. Uh good morning chair and members of committee. Um today I'm here to present on the proposed designation of five properties designed by architect James Strut under part four of the Ontario Heritage Act. Next slide please. Um, so to provide a bit of background, um, each of the subject properties were designed by Ottawa architect James Strut, uh, who I will speak to more in the next slide. Um, staff have been reviewing the city's heritage register, um, for potential candidates for designation, um, given that through the implementation of Bill 23, um, all properties listed on the register will be removed, um, on January 1st, 2027, unless they are designated before that time. Um, as part of the broader work plan to review these properties, um, staff undertook a thematic review um, of all listed properties designed by architect James Strut. Um, so staff have reviewed 12 of these properties and recommend moving forward with the designation uh, of five. Um, some of Strut's other designs are already designated under parts four or five of the Ontario Heritage Act or they are federally designated. Next slide, please. Um, so just to provide a a bit of information about the architect, uh, James Strut was a significant 20th century architect based in the Ottawa area. Um, he was born in Pemrook in 1924. Um, and he studied architecture at the University of Toronto after serving in the uh, Royal Canadian Air Force in the Second World War. Um he established a successful practice uh in Ottawa and became well known for his experimentation uh with geometry, structure and form uh and for creating buildings that were both expressive and highly functional. Um, Strut's work frequently emphasized uh bold roof forms, rectalinear and unconventional geometry, uh controlled natural light, minimal ornamentation, um thereby reflecting modernist principles while also remaining sensitive to uh site and material context. Um so he designed a number of modernist places of worship in Ottawa. um several notable residences in Ottawa and Gatau as well as institutional buildings um and multiple projects uh elsewhere um in in Canada. Um many of his designs uh date from the 1950s and60s um when Strut was at the height of his influence and uh Ottawa's suburban landscape uh was rapidly expanding. Um, in addition to his professional practice, uh, Strut taught architecture at Carlton University and served as the director at the School of Architecture in the late 1970s. Um, he also received, um, numerous professional honors. Um, so the five properties um, recommended for designation were identified as significant examples um, that illustrate the range, evolution, and lasting impact of Strut's contributions to modernist architecture in Ottawa. Next slide, please. Um so with that, the first property that we are um uh recommending for designation today uh under part four of the Ontario Heritage Act is um 1099 Mainland Avenue uh the Trinity United Church. Um the property is located uh on the east side of Matland Avenue um near the intersection of uh Matland and Garfield uh in Ottawa's Copeland Park neighborhood. The church was constructed in 1963 um as a purpose-built place of worship um serving a rapidly growing um suburban community during the postc world war period of growth um at a time when church construction was also expanding alongside that residential growth. Next slide please. Um so the property has design historical contextual value um meeting four of the nine criteria for designation. Um in terms of its design value um the church is a unique architectural expression of a modernist place of worship in Ottawa. Uh emphasizing rectalinear forms, minimal ornamentation and expressive massing. Um, a defining feature of the building is its large metal roof with decorative fins and minimal fenestration. Uh, giving it a sculptural and monumental form. Uh, natural light is introduced into the building through concealed skylights in the roof. Um, historically, um, it contains value due to its ties with the rapid growth of the United Church in Ottawa's post war suburbs, particularly in Copeland Park. And contextually, it also contains value as it functions as a landmark due to its proximity um and sighting along Mateland Avenue um near the highway 417. Uh next slide, please. Um next I will speak to 20 Qualcomm Street. Um this property is a modernist uh single detach residence. Um it is known as the Borman House named after uh the original owner. Um it was also designed by Strut and constructed circa 1968. Um it's located in Ottawa's uh Qualikum Graham Park neighborhood which is an area recognized uh for a concentration of architect designed homes. Uh next slide please. Um so the property meets four of the nine criteria for designation. Um, in terms of its design value, it is a rare and uh, highly distinctive expression of a modernist um, residential uh, building in Ottawa. Uh, it features an unusual C-shaped plan which you can see here on the slide. Uh, it was actually designed around a mature maple tree. Um, and it contains um, a clear story windows and a strong emphasis on natural light and indooroutdoor integration. Um historically um and associatively it contains value due to its uh direct linkage with um with the architect um and is considered one of his most successful residential designs um reflecting some of his uh um geometric innovations um as well as integration with uh the broader site. Um and finally, it contains contextual value um as it supports the character of the Qualcomm Graham Park neighborhood um which is an area as I mentioned known for um a high um number of architect design modernist homes um and it contributes to a cohesive grouping of similar properties. Uh next slide please. Um so thirdly I will speak to uh 3955 uh Old Richmond Road which is the Bell's Corners United Church. Um the property is located um at the intersection of Old Richmond Road and Moody Drive in Bell's Corners. Um the church was constructed uh circa 1963 to serve a rapidly growing suburban congregation during the postsecond world war period. um when United Church membership was expanding and new churches were being uh constructed across Ottawa's emerging suburbs. Uh next slide, please. Um the property has design uh historical and contextual value meeting three criteria uh for designation. Um, in terms of its design, it is a representative modernist A-frame church um with uh minimal ornamentation and a modified gable roof that departs from traditional church architecture. Um, historically, it contains value as um it reflects the expansion of suburban congregations in the post-war period and is of course associated with the work of um the architect James Strut. Um it represents uh one of a series of modernist churches he designed in Ottawa and it's uh one of his most distinctive um religious works. Next slide please. Um so next I will speak to the St. Tech Hmon Ethiopian Orthodox uh Teuedo Church at 915 Maraveville Road. Um the building was constructed in 1959 um as the St. Peter's Anglican Church. Um, but it has been used as the St. Tickle uh Hmon Ethiopian Orthodox Tagedo Church um since 2003. Um the property is located in Car um near the intersection of Marville Road and Leside Avenue. Um it is um a distinctive example of Struts uh later religious works. Uh next slide please. Um and it meets uh six of the nine criteria for designation. Um in terms of its design, it is a unique um architectural expression of a modernist church uh defined by its steeply pitched roof wall form uh made up of linked hyperbolic paraboids uh creating a continuous sculptural concrete shell um which you can see here uh on the the image on the left from shortly after it construction. Um, it also demonstrates a high degree of technical innovation, um, as an early Canadian example of this type of concrete shell construction. Um, uh, historically and associatively, it contains value due to its links with, uh, Ottawa's post-war Anglican community, um, to the architect himself and to Ottawa's Ethiopian community through its later use. Um, and finally, contextually, it contains value, um, as a, uh, prominent local landmark. Uh, next slide, please. Um so lastly I will speak to the building at 211 Cunningham Avenue um which is a single detached uh home constructed in 1955. Um the property is located in uh Alta Vista near the al intersection of Cavendish Road and Cunningham Avenue. Um it is a distinctive example of Struts residential work. Next slide please. Um so the property meets three of the nine criteria for designation. Um in terms of its design, it is a distinctive uh modernist uh residence uh featuring a hex hexagonal plan, minimal ornamentation, and an emphasis on natural light organized uh around a concrete um central fireplace. Um historically, it's associated with Dr. James A. Gibson who is a prominent Canadian academic uh founding president of Brock University um an early Carlton University uh senior faculty member. Um it also has historical uh um and associative value um due to its connection with um the architect. Uh next slide please. Um so in terms of consultation uh all owners were notified uh regarding the proposed designations. Um staff have met with the representatives of Bell's Corners United Church as well as Trinity United Church to review the designation process and provide drafts of the statements of cultural heritage value. Um the remaining odors were notified by mail on March 20th with follow-up information provided um on April 21st and later in May um with information as well on how to participate um at the committee meeting. Um staff have offered to meet with all owners to address uh questions or concerns and two owners have expressed concerns uh with the proposed designations. Uh next slide please. Um so just to conclude um so uh all five of the properties um being considered have met um at least three criteria for uh for designation. Um together they represent the breadth of um of James Strut's work um and they include both residential um and places of worship. Um designation would also improve um heritage representation um in a few uh underrepresented wards uh particularly wards 8 and 16. Um and these properties would also contribute contribute to Ottawa's modernist architectural heritage. Um so with that um thank you and I'm happy to uh take any questions. >> Uh thank you for the insightful and in-depth uh presentation as well as uh an approach that is thematic I think which is unique uh for this uh committee around a specific uh architect. Uh we did receive uh correspondents from Heritage Ottawa as well as the Ethiopian Orthodox Church and we do have a uh registered delegate uh Hunter Miguel. >> Thank you so much for joining us this morning. Good morning. Good morning, chair, committee members. Thank you for the opportunity to speak. Um, as you've seen in our written uh submission, uh, Heritage Ottawa supports uh, with a great deal of pleasure uh, the staff's approach in the proposal for designations in bundling uh, five uh, works of a very uh, distinctive uh, Ottawa architect of the later modern period. And uh we can understand the pressures uh leading to this kind of an approach but we think it's entirely suitable uh in this regard. Uh Strat of course um as staff presentation is noted um did a lot of very distinctive work in the national capital region. Uh the examples that are proposed for your consideration for designation are very appropriate examples of of his work. and the innovation that he uh adopted and developed through his practice and through the work that he did. Um and staff have also noted the um interesting approach to geometry by Mr. Strat in in the approaches to design. So we fully uh support uh this approach and we think it's uh very helpful to have a bundle if I may may describe them that way of uh designs by this by this architect brought forward for your consideration uh at this time. Uh personally, um I can't help but say that I hope uh that one of my my personal favorite uh Strat buildings uh the Canadian Nurses Association uh currently uh not in service um but located on Queen Elizabeth Drive will uh also receive uh consideration uh for protection and preservation um as opportunities present themselves. But uh thank you very much. >> Uh thank you so much for your uh comments and observations and I definitely um am in alignment full alignment about the idea of the theme uh that uh staff has uh brought forward which I think is a very innovative approach uh uh towards designation. Are there any questions for uh Mr. McGill? Seeing none, thank you so much uh for your delegation. questions to staff. Member Madigan. >> Thank you, chair. Uh, not a question, but may a comment uh to sort of highlight the significance of James Strut is that his own personal house, which is mentioned in your report in Gatnau. He's considered one of the most important modern uh residents in the world. So it points to his significance not just locally but internationally and it's something that's been continuing to develop to highlight his importance. Personally uh when I first came to Ottawa a number of his buildings are ones that always stood out to me as I drove around even before I became involved in architecture. It's buildings that stood out with you distinct character and significance. So, I'm very pleased to see these buildings being designated and also recognizing Jane Strut as as an important architect uh in Ottawa, but also nationally and internationally. Thank you. >> Uh thank you so much, Councelor Johnson. >> Uh thank you, Chair, and thank you for welcoming me to this committee. It's the first time I've had the opportunity to speak to this uh committee because we are starting to move into a mid-century designation area. So, thank you for the tour of College Ward. Three of the properties uh described in this report were uh College Ward uh loved local uh landmarks and um I I I'm just to let you know sort of where the community stands on some of these designations. Um the uh Bell's Corners United is comfortable. The uh the Strut Home in Qualcomm is is um uh has been notified as well. The one proponent um that that has some concerns is for um 4.2 item two which is uh 1099 Mateland Avenue. That's the Trinity United Church um with the large metal roof. It is an absolutely stunning building and certainly the congregation does not want to um you know undermine or dismiss the the value of this building. uh but they have expressed concerns about where they are as a congregation. They described their place right now as being a place of transition where they are working to um you know create more stability within the congregation and its finances and its community place uh as you know these third spaces evolve. um they are, you know, they've been uh connected uh with city staff frequently and are very appreciative of that relationship with uh the heritage planners. Um, but you know, in conversations with them and knowing what they offer to the local community, I think we might be seeing one of those uh circumstances whereby of course what you're considering at the table is is narrow in terms of the building's um eligibility or significance under um your criteria and what the community purpose of the building is. Um, so they are concerned right now given where they're at that a heritage designation may impu may impose future costs or restrictions or obligations that might limit their ability to carry out this work. Um, you know, they're concerned about their financial uncertainty, rising operating costs, changing demographics, and they are looking at, you know, opportunities to adapt the larger property to meet community needs. And so they are worried that these this designation creates some restrictions around that and they really want to be sure that the living community within the building is recognized as being every bit as valuable as the bricks and mortar that surround it and call it home or that they call home. So, you know, in the context of this conversation, you know, we we know that this could come up in another five years uh if it was uh um uh not uh designated today. And uh the United Church uh congregation here would be asking for the deferral of that designation because they do believe in 5 years time um they would be much better prepared to be stewards of this heritage status. Um, so they've asked that I make an appeal for flexibility around that property. Um, I know that what they do in the community, they they keep their costs extremely low or free for community groups and we have few gathering places. It's a very residential area. And I don't need to tell you that in outer urban wards, you know, our our population is growing and our recreation facilities are old and very competitive. And this church has access, you know, made their their large spaces available to uh lots of causes, you know, including uh uh young people, the elderly, LGBTQSIA plus communities and others. So, they are just asking for a deferral um if that is possible so that they can come back and do this with confidence. Um, so I'm not sure what time I'm at, chair. I have a couple questions um for staff uh just to get some assurances for the community. >> And uh was that a question directed to staff? >> Yeah, I just can't see my timer. I don't know how much time I have left in my five minutes, so I defer to you. Am I able to ask a couple questions here? >> Absolutely. >> Okay. Thank you, chair. So, um, can I just ask, so what costs and time are are typically associated with heritage alter alteration permits? What assurances can you give to the community that that doesn't slow down what they're after? >> Thank you, chair. Um, and and thank you for your question, counselor. Um, so the majority of alterations um would uh be reviewed uh under delegated authority by staff. Um typically um those um are reviewed within uh 5 to 10 business days. Um if if an alteration is uh something like um like for like maintenance um a heritage permit would be $0. Um and there's also um some flexibility as well regarding um the attributes that are included in the statement of cultural heritage value. Um um >> uh so and right now in in the draft statement of cultural heritage value um the interior of the building parking lot um and any uh additions or outuildings are not considered heritage attributes. Um so certainly we'd want to work with um the congregation if they were looking to um do um adaptive reuse or a large addition. Um just uh given the building's location on the site um it seems like there would be an opportunity to develop um in the rear um while maintaining the um the cultural heritage value of the existing building. Um which is very positive. But certainly we're we're open to working with uh the congregation um to um minimize timelines and provide as much certainty as possible. >> And is there any um uh education or support offered uh to those that are uh being designated so that they can understand how they can access those resources? >> Uh through you, Mr. Chair. uh yes on a case- by case basis as the um as the property owner is interested in that. So, we always offer to meet with owners in advance of a report coming to this committee, but we are also committed to meeting with owners on an ongoing basis. And we've done that with other church congregations over the past couple of years who have had similar concerns to uh the congregation at Trinity United. Um where we can work with them to go through their planned list of changes and alterations they want to do or they may envision in the future and talk them through what potentially the requirements are or not. Um, we can also work with them on financial incentives. Uh, the city does have a relatively new stream of our heritage property grant program that churches qualify for where up to $75,000 is available um, covering up to 75% of the work uh, that's required to the building. So, that would be eligible for any exterior work they would need to do um, to maintain their building. And then in addition, if they were to look at future redevelopment of portions of the site, they would be eligible to uh access the city's community improvement plan for Heritage. So that offers a $500,000 tax increment grant. Um and that can be stacked with other um community improvement plans such as the affordable housing uh community improvement program. >> Okay. And and for them that, you know, they they they they're nervous that if they have to fix that roof to a certain standard that they could end up, you know, either not being able to offer their community programming or become, you know, financially uh insolvent. Um is is what happens if an owner is unable to fix the key features under the designation like the roof here? We always work with property owners to find a solution that both retains the cultural heritage value of the building, but is also reasonable and realistic to what they can afford to undertake. I can honestly say that in my time here at the city, so going on almost 20 years, um we've never been in a situation where, you know, somebody has uh proposed an alternative, let's say, uh due to financial restrictions that we haven't been able to find a solution with them. So, particularly with church organizations, but also private homeowners, um you know, everything has gotten more expensive in the world today and and uh we recognize that money is not limitless and um that there are other uh priorities for church organizations, which is part of why we instituted the new stream of the Heritage Property Grant Program to recognize the costs associated with maintaining these large buildings, which often have, you know, for the 19th century ones, very decorative stone stone work or something like that for these modernist ones um you know big copper roofs or you know distinct structure. So uh I'm confident that should that situation arise we would be able to find a solution that works with the property owner. Um and at the end of the day uh those sorts of decisions can also come to council if the if if it has to. So staff don't have the ability to refuse applications under the Ontario Heritage Act through delegation of authority. Um so if there was an instance where we couldn't come to an agreement um that item would come before this committee and city council for a decision. >> Okay. Thank you for those details. I I don't have a vote today but it was important to me to you know out of the three properties that were being put forward within this uh bundle as it's been referred to. There's one uh community that is deeply concerned about the designation and the other two did not express that to me. So, I would love to have the consideration of the committee for those uh for that uh property and I appreciate your time. Thanks, Chair. >> Uh thank you so much, Member Quinn. >> Thank you, Chair. Uh and thank you to the councelor uh to councelor Johnson um for taking the time to come to us today and to share your community's concerns. Um, but uh I think I'm going to take the opportunity to say that I will be supporting the recommendation to designate this property today because I I uh uh I really do think that um the concerns that the community has expressed uh will uh the designation is not going to reflect negatively negatively to the extent that uh that they that they are concerned about. uh and and uh staff have reminded us just exactly what on the property is designated, what elements uh what part of the property is available for future development. And frankly, designation actually increases the ability of the owner to benefit from uh financial incentives that the city is making available to properties only properties designated under the Ontario Heritage Act. So believe me, we've heard I've been on this committee for a number of years and we have heard from uh representatives of congregations with similar concerns. Uh so we do not, you know, take them lightly and so uh uh but I I with confidence would send the message to your uh to that to that congregation to say that uh they shouldn't overreact to this proposal. It it uh it will not be a hindrance in my opinion. So, uh, but, uh, thank you to you and to, uh, to staff for the great presentation on the strut, uh, strut houses. And I also will say that I grew up around the corner from a strut house. One of my best friends lived in it. And I was always amazed, even as a kid, what is it about this house when you walk in the door, the way the spaces work, you know, when you're a child, you're not thinking about architecture, but just his his design sense was truly amazing. Thank you very much for your time. >> Uh, thank you so much, uh, member Quinn. Are there any other questions on this item? Member boards, >> does the tree still exist? Thank you, chair. And uh thank you. Uh great question. Unfortunately, it it did die um about 15 years ago. Um it was removed and then it was replaced with another one that's that's been growing since around 2011, I believe. >> Uhhuh. Um the 1099 Mland uh Avenue property appears to have been different than the others in terms of the consultation process. Can you I mean May 6th uh was the earliest consultation that's recorded. Was there anything prior to that? Um yeah, thank you chair. Um so we did reach out to all of the the owners at the same time. Uh we had been um corresponding via email um with the congregation uh since around late March I believe. Um we provided the uh draft documents um uh thereafter. Um but we didn't uh have a a formal meeting with uh the congregation until um that that date in in May uh May 6th. Thank you. >> Uh thank you so much. I don't see any other hands raised. Uh I just wanted to uh make a comment and also pose a question to staff. Uh but I wanted to thank uh member uh Quinn uh for uh her observations as well as councelor Johnson for appearing with us this morning and providing and relaying obviously the concerns of her residents. Uh but I think it is important to reiterate uh what member Quinn had noted uh that uh part 4 designation what it does and what it doesn't do. Uh so it does not freeze a property in time in a sense despite the fact that we're at heritage committee. It does not prohibit renovation, maintenance, or accessibility upgrades. It does create a heritage permit process. Uh but those permits are assessed collaboratively as we've heard. And I really want to thank staff for uh working uh with residents uh with places of worship on uh this uh specific application because it is important to uh work collaboratively uh with all partners. We know that fees for accessibility work uh can be waved and staff work with owners uh to find solutions all the time. Uh designation is a partnership and it's not a prohibition and that's why it's also very important that the city uh provides financial tools and incentives and I know that we had just uh recently passed some financial incentive updates at this meeting. I just wanted to note that I did bring forward a motion a little while ago concerning the creation of a frequently asked question uh section uh for heritage and the new zoning bylaw uh earlier this year. And uh that was not because there was a problem with our heritage policies or with the work being done by staff. The motion came from a recurring issue that many counselors encounter, a disconnect between what residents believe heritage designation means and what it actually means in practice. Over the years, we hear uh concerns from residents who believe designation would prevent any changes to a property. Uh while others believe designation would uh make even minor improvements prohibitively difficult or expensive. In many cases, neither perception reflects the reality of the process. What becomes clear uh is that uh there is a need for better public understanding of how heritage designation works, what protections it provides, uh what flexibility exists within the system, and the significant role heritage staff play in helping uh property owners navigate permits and approvals. That was the intent of the motion that came before the committee in April to improve communication, provide clearer information to residents and property owners, and help build confidence in the heritage process. So, I'm raising it again today because we are considering a heritage designation application and some of the concerns we are hearing reflect the same misunderstandings that led to the motion in the first place. I think it's important to reiterate that heritage designation is not intended to freeze a property in time. Heritage staff work extensively with property owners to find practical solutions, facilitate approvals, and help balance conservation objectives with the realities of maintaining and improving buildings. Uh their work is often not fully understood by the public despite being a critical part of the process. Uh so my question to staff is when committee considers the communication focused heritage motion uh when it did that in April, one of the goals was to improve public understanding of what heritage designation does and does not mean. Could staff briefly outline the resources and supports already available to property owners and residents and whether the work underway will help address some of the misconceptions? We continue to hear about designation, permits, costs and the role of heritage st that heritage staff play in guiding applica applicants uh through the process. >> Thank you, Mr. Chair. Uh yes, I think in terms of the existing resources available to property owners whose properties are being proposed for designation, um they do receive a personal letter from uh a heritage planner which outlines the proposal to designate, why why staff believe that the property should be designated and an invitation to meet to discuss the proposed designation and and try to work through some concerns. Along with that letter, uh, they receive a copy of what we call the property owners guide to designation, which includes some highlevel sort of FAQs about the heritage designation process and what it means for property owners. Um, and as it relates to the um, process from there, it really somewhat depends on the owner. We make every attempt to get in touch with the owner and meet with the owner. Um and as you can see for this report um the property owners were contacted multiple times by staff to ensure that one they knew um they understood the consequences of or the the implementation of a potential designation on their property as well as had the opportunity to get all the information they need from staff even if they disagree with us. And um that happens quite often where we have an owner that you know doesn't want their property designated but it is city staff's role to provide them with all of the information and the answers to their questions that they need. So that kind of happens on a case-by case basis. I believe that the motion that was passed by this committee in April uh and the work that will come out of that uh will help bolster those existing resources. Um, our plan right now is to create uh an expanded FAQ document that would be complimentary or potentially replace the existing property owners guide to designation. Um, I think it could get posted on the city's website in addition to being shared with individual property owners uh as time permits. Um, and then one of the other things I think the team is interested in and would like to focus a bit more on is the public education aspect uh around heritage designation. So, not necessarily just with individual owners, but with community associations and with um the broader public around what heritage designation truly is and what it means um for owners. >> Thank you so much. Well, I do appreciate uh those comments and I do appreciate the work that's being undertaken uh on uh those frequently asked questions and I continue to uh really uh keep in high regard the uh work of staff uh to work diligently uh to engage with all owners on all applications. I think it's very important and uh the collaborative element uh needs to be underlined. Um I also uh want to uh also note uh that uh like many other members uh around this table uh I'm very impressed uh with the approach that has been taken here a thematic um application uh that protects uh the work of um uh a wonderful and a great architect. Uh James Strut spent his career thinking about how buildings should serve people, how they should respond to the land, create community, and endure. And I think it's uh wonderful that we have the opportunity today to ensure that five of his finest creations are recognized, protected, and preserved. So I don't see any other hands raised. Um is this item carried? >> Carried. >> Carried. Thank you so much. This item uh will be submitted to council on June 24th, 2026. Uh the next item for consideration by the committee is uh designation of 60 Fairmont Avenue. Uh we do have a presentation from staff. Good morning. Um, so, uh, I'm here to present, uh, on the designation of 60 Fairmont Avenue under part four of the Ontario Herage Act. Um, before I start, just want to point out my colleague Emily Cuggi is here as well. uh she's one of the built heritage research coordinators uh with the city who who put together the bulk of the research and analysis for this designation. And next slide, please. So 60 Fairmont Avenue. Uh this is a property located in Hintenberg, south of Wellington Street West, uh by about a block. Uh the property contains a three-story apartment building uh constructed in 1931 uh designed in a Edwwardian class style which was very popular in Ontario in the early decades of the 20th century. Um so Fairmont Court uh defines and maintains Hintenberg's visual character in the area south of Wellington Street West um which is home to many brickclad vernacular and Eduardian classes buildings such as this. And next slide please. Um so just to point out a number of the kind of interesting design features on this building. It does feature a a central bay with a brick parapet bizoir stained glass windows um and some half timbering present within those windows as well as a central entrance with an establisher that's flanked by two uh three-story bays on the left and right hand side. And next slide please. So, Fairmont Court has historical value. Um, one for its role in Hintenberg's growth as a sort of street car suburb, the sort of the second kind of main period of growth in Hindenburg. Um, and as well as the development of that area south of Wellington Street West as a popular neighborhood for for civil servants and white collar workers kind of in the early to mid 20th century. Uh, the property is also associated with prominent local builder uh, Joseph Edward Manette. Uh, he was a very notable builder in Ottawa in this period. primarily worked on a lot of institutional and religious buildings. Um, but this is one of the residential buildings that we know he built. Um, and it is possible that he kind of informally at least worked as the designer of this building as well. Uh, and next slide please. So, this property has cultural heritage value for its design, associative and contextual values. Uh, it meets five of the nine criteria for designation under part four of the Ontario Heritage Act. And on the screen, you can just see a quick selection of of some of the notable heritage attributes. Um this list is a bit more extensive in the actual designation but um as we talked about earlier it does um speak to things like the central entrance, the recessed central bay etc. Uh and then quickly just to note in terms of consultation um we have reached out to the property owner. We provided them with three letters um starting in about April uh but we have not heard back to date um from the property owner. Uh the war counselor was also notified of this designation. Um so that concludes the presentation and thank you very much. Uh thank you so much uh for the presentation. I believe there is a delegation from Linda Hod. Good morning and thank you. I'm speaking sort of with my Hintenberg hat on, but I think there's an interesting footnote to this um designation that you might be interested in. I don't know whether you noticed if when you did land registry research that the city of Ottawa owned this building at one time. Um it turns out, I didn't know why. I kind of wondered why. And then they sold it to the NCC. Well, transferred it. I think it was a land swap because there wasn't a lot of money involved. I thought, what is this? And a friend of mine sent me a poster recently. Um it was a um save the Hintenberg Park poster. So that led me to the newspaper articles. Turns out the city um had acquired I knew the city had acquired the park from the church in 197273. But um and they apparently they decided to build an arena on the land but they needed parking. So they started buying up properties to the south of the park including 60 Fairmont and some properties on St. Francis Street. When the community got wind of this, they were pretty upset and according to the newspaper, there was quite a lot of controversy and several aldermen as they were then called um they had to change their position. So eventually the community won, the park was saved. Um they built a community center which is there now because they could do the center and retain most of the park. So 60 Fairmont was saved from demolition for a parking lot uh by the community of Hintenberg where I did not live. I did live but I wasn't didn't know anything about it at the time. So, I thought you should know that city the city has interesting little highlights and I'm I was going to pass that along to you. I can also send it to you um in uh in electronic form because the newspaper article isn't fully um laid out there but I think it's you footnote you should know about I don't know whether you have any questions because I don't think I know more about it than I have told you. Thank you. >> Wonderful. Thank you so much. That's very informative and uh a wonderful addition uh to the record. >> What year was that? >> 1973 I think the um it was 7374. I can't remember with the news. It was quite a battle that took place in 1973. uh was before the community center was built obviously because they were planning to build an arena which of course it was eventually built where the Tom Brown Arena is now but it took a while to to find a place for the arena. >> Well, thank you so much uh for uh that uh additional information. Much appreciated. We always appreciate your contributions, Linda, as well as the contributions of Heritage Ottawa, which also submitted correspondence on this file. Are there any uh questions to staff? Seeing none, um is this item carried? >> Carried. Thank you so much. So, this report will be submitted to council on June 24th, 2026. That concludes the uh regular substantive items that we had on the agenda. Are That's right. Oh, of course. That's a a large item. Uh 4.6 uh was held. Um can we have a presentation from staff? Uh good morning again uh chair and members of committee. Um I'll be presenting on the uh proposed adoption of a new plan for the Bank Street Heritage Conservation District. Next slide please Lisa. Uh so to provide a bit of background uh the district has actually been designated as an HCD since 2000. Um, at the time of its designation, an HCD plan was not required to be adopted under the Ontario Heritage Act. Um, and so staff have been using the guidelines in the supporting study that was uh created um before the plan known as the Central Area West study and plan uh to inform uh decision-m from for heritage permits. Um the Ontario Heritage Act has since been revised to require plans for H HCDs. Um and so in response to this uh and from council direction from 2024 uh staff are have been moving forward with creating um a plan for the district. Um the new plan is intended to set um clear expectations for the heritage permit process um and provide more certainty for owners and applicants. Uh next slide please. So in in terms of the cultural heritage value of the district um it reflects Ottawa as both a symbolic capital and working city uh given its location at the confluence of the parliamentary precinct and center town. Um its cultural heritage value is tied to the history of early land transactions in Btown and Ottawa. Um the RTO canal construction uh and proximity to Parliament Hill. Um it developed as a major uh commercial and transportation corridor uh which was reinforced by the street car from the 1880s until the 1950s. Um it features a cohesive collection of late 19th and early 20th century uh commercial buildings with strong craftsmanship. Uh and it also includes ties to Ottawa's early Chinese community and center town's commercial life. Uh next slide please. Um so staff reviewed um the the existing uh study that was completed uh to assess changes since the designation um including any alterations uh or demolition that occurred. Um so uh properties were reclassified as contributing or non-contributing from the previous grades one to one through four scores. Um and new survey forms were prepared for the properties. Um so this is a very small district uh and only includes uh 21 properties um and of those uh 16 um have been deemed contributing and five non-contributing. Uh no changes to the boundary uh of the district are proposed. Um, however, a small number of reclassifications occurred, uh, namely 215 Slater Street, uh, which had since been redeveloped, uh, 140 Bank Street, uh, also known as Snyder Plaza, uh, a building, uh, that existed at the time of the study has, uh, been demolished. Um and then finally 208 Slater uh which in staff's opinion had been uh significantly altered um and no longer uh met the threshold uh to be a contributing building. Um next slide please. Um so uh the work that has taken place uh forms the basis for the proposed HCD plan um and leads into this recommendation um that the built heritage committee recommend that council adopt the Bank Street HCD plan by bylaw. Next slide please. Um so the HCD plan has been uh prepared in accordance with the Ontario Heritage Act. Um, it includes a statement of objectives, uh, statement of cultural heritage value, description of heritage attributes, um, as well as policies and guidelines and a description of alterations that do not require a heritage permit. Next slide, please. Um, more specifically, the plan contains uh policies and guidelines on conservation and repair, alterations, additions, new construction, uh, demolition and relocation, public realm and landscaping, uh, and heritage interpretation. Next slide, please. So, given the small number of properties uh, within the district, uh, staff focused on targeted engagement. Um, all property owners received a mail out in February 2026, uh, with information about the project as well as how to access the draft plan. Um, property owners also received a mail out in May with information about how to access the final draft, um, and information about attending the Built Heritage Committee meeting. Um, staff met with uh, the Centertown BIA on March 10th, 2026. Um, as well as with the Centertown Community Association's Heritage Committee on April 30th. um staff undertook uh targeted outreach to the development community in the area which resulted uh in one meeting. Uh next slide please. Um the draft plan includes a highle overview of indigenous history uh based on available secondary sources and from a non-indigenous perspective. Um indigenous engagement was initiated to seek input and improve representation of indigenous history in the district. Um notification letters were sent in March 2026. Um and the Algangquins of Pikwaknagon First Nation expressed interest and engagement. Um staff met with the AOPFN in May 2026 to review the draft and discuss opportunities for continued collaboration. Um so this led to the inclusion of a heritage interpretation section in the plan. um which provides high level guidance encouraging interpretation approaches to better reflect indigenous history and presence um as well as recommendation two uh which supports further indigenousled work. Next slide please. Uh so recognizing the limitations of the plan um and and the importance of documenting the full history uh within the broader area um staff are proposing to continue engagement with indigenous communities uh following adoption of the HCD plan. Um and this direction is reflected uh in the recommendation as shown on this slide. Um, if both recommendations are passed, the next steps will be the registration of the bylaw, which would occur in uh July 2026, as well as the 30-day appeal period. Um, and so that concludes staff's presentation. Uh, happy to take any questions. Thank you. >> Uh, thank you so much. Uh, we did receive, um, correspondence from Heritage Ottawa. We have no delegations. Councelor Troster has questions to staff. >> To be clear, nothing's changing. This was already a designated area. You just had to put this together. >> Correct. Uh yeah, it's it's currently designated. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Thank you so much. I don't see any other questions on this item. Um is this item carried? >> Carried. Thank you so much. So, this report will be submitted to council on June 24th, 2026. Uh now, that was the uh final substantive item on the regular agenda. Um, we have no in camera items, notices, emotions. Are there any notices? Seeing member boards uh for what purpose? >> To discuss the acquisition of a property. >> We don't have uh any item on the agenda that focuses on that. Okay. So, I will move something for next week uh next meeting. Are there any other notices of motion? Seeing none. Yeah, we're going to get to it. Inquiries. Are there any inquiries? Seeing none. Other business. So staff are requesting that this item be added uh to today's built heritage committee agenda under other business and that it would be advanced to the June 10th, 2026 meeting of city council following consideration by the built heritage committee to ensure that the appropriate protections are in place at the earliest opportunity. Uh councelor Leaper will read in the uh motion. >> Thank you very much chair. Uh so yeah, new business. Uh this is with respect to the designation of 575 Island Park present under part four of the act. Uh whereas a demolition permit application under the Ontario building code act and an application under the demolition control bylaw have been submitted for the property at 575 Island Park Crescent. And whereas the city's official plan directs the immediate review and consideration of properties for designation that are threatened with designation demolition. And whereas staff have evaluated the property at 575 Island Park Crescent against Ontario regulation 0906 and determined that it meets four of the nine criteria and merits protection through designation under part four of the act. And whereas city council has directed uh heritage planning staff to undertake a heritage conservation district study for the area of Island Park Drive within which this property is located. Whereas advancing this report to the June 10th, 2026 meeting of council following consideration by bill heritage committee ensures the appropriate protections are in place at the earliest opportunity. Therefore, be it resolved that Built Heritage Committee wave the rules of procedure to consider the designation of 575 Island Park Drive at the June 9th, 2026 Built Heritage Committee meeting. And be it further resolved that the report rise to the June 10th, 2026 uh meeting of council for consideration. >> Thank you so much. Is the motion carried? >> Carried. Thank you so much. There is a presentation on staff on this item. And we are just working on getting that up. Okay. So, we do have the the presentation up so we can proceed. >> Okay. Great. Thank you, chair, uh, members of committee. Um, so a bit of background just to start. So, this property was listed on the city's heritage register in 2019. Um, in 2024, in response to some of the changes to the Heritage Act through Bill 23, the property was strategically removed from the register. So, today it's not currently listed and has no interim uh demolition protection. Um and this committee uh will remember this time last year um city council directed heritage planning staff to undertake a heritage conservation district study for the island park area uh within which this property is located. If we go to the next slide, um this is the location of the property at 575 Island Park Crescent. Um it's at the corner of Island Park Crescent and Geneva Street. Um, and Island Park Crescent is just one street in from Island Park Drive. Um, this property is currently owned by the government of the Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia and it has functioned as their ambassador's residence since 1993. Um, since this property is currently vacant, Global Affairs Canada has confirmed that the property does not have um, diplomatic status. Um the owner wishes to build a new uh ambassador's residence on the property and have therefore submitted um a demolition permit application under the building code. Um at this point, however, there are no designs or plans for a replacement building. Um so the owner through their agent has submitted a demolition control application to proceed uh with demolition without any plans. Um, in response to those demolition applications, as directed by the city's official plan policies to immediately consider properties threatened with demolition for designation, staff have completed our review of the property against criteria 0906. Um, and believe it meets four of the nine criteria. Uh, next slide, please. Um, so constructed in 1927, 575 Island Park Crescent is representative of the Georgian Revival style um of a Georgian revival style residence built during the interwar period in Ontario. It reflects key characteristics of the style including symmetrical front facade, uh, a central entrance decorated with classical details, brick cladding and coins, large step brick chimneys, and um, symmetrically spaced multi-pane sash windows. Um, the building has had several additions over time on its uh on its west side, but the original structure remains largely intact. If on the next slide, please. Um, as an early residence on the Island Park driveway, 575 Island Park Crescent has historical value tied to themes of suburban growth in Ottawa and development of the national capital. Um, so this, um, sort of the middle portion on the map there, it's a little small, um, but between Wellington um, Wellington West, Richmond Road to Adena Street, um, this section was developed by Hampton Park Limited. Um and they were the first developer in the area to enter into restrictive covenants with the Ottawa Improvement Commission. Um so that was the predecessor to the NCC who planned and built this this scenic driveway uh as part of their beautifification efforts to emphasize Ottawa's role as the capital. Um the development of this section in particular of the driveway played a key role in sparking uh subsequent development along the route to the north and to nearby streets. Um, this property also reflects the typical influential figures in Ottawa's history who uh resided on the driveway. That's demonstrated by the first two owners of the uh house, Daniel B. Rochester and Harold Vale, who were both prominent and successful in Ottawa's business community. Next slide. Um, so 575 Island Park Crescent has contextual value as it illustrates Ottawa's role as the national capital where diplomatic missions often strategically repurpose historic properties for their architecture and their location to enhance their visibility and influence. Um, and this is evident uh on through several properties along Island Park Drive um, but also throughout Ottawa as well. The building maintains and supports the character of the residential properties along Island Park Drive, which is a direct result of the application of restrictive covenants through the Ottawa Improvement Commission between 1921 and 1922 for 99 years. Um, these covenants required lots to have one residential building with approved designs as well as public realm features including consistent setbacks, rear laneways, and gateways that together create a cohesive appearance uh on the extent of the driveway. And that's evident in this property as well. Um 575 Island Park Crescent is also historically linked to its surroundings as an early residence located on the original path of uh of the Island Park driveway. So the driveway was re rerouted to the to the current path we know today to accommodate the widening of Highway 417 and the construction of the off-ramp. um in the implementation of the 1950s grey bear plan and reorganization of the rail and road network uh in the national capital region. Uh if we go to the next slide. So staff have been discussing the cultural heritage value of this property for well over a year. We've met um with the owner on several occasions to discuss the embassy's needs and concerns. Um a key issue being uh key issue for the owner being condition. Um the applicant provided several reports, a designated substance report and a structural engineers report uh that were shared with staff which both recommended demolition of the building. However, in review in reviewing these reports with our colleagues in building code services, um these reports identified only limited designated substances, some water damage, uh and mold as well as cosmetic and aesthetic concerns. um they did not identify major structural deficiencies and as a result with the consent of the owner uh heritage planning commissioned a second report by John Cook and Associates a heritage engineer um and their report found that the condition issues were limited to the um the Northwest editions while the original portion of the building could be retained with some remediation and repairs uh and some updates as And just to if we go to the next slide to to conclude based on the information in um the heritage engineers report heritage staff are not in in a position to support demolition in its entirety. Um we have drafted the statement of value that's attached to the report um with the understanding that the building's additions could be removed. We've also offered to work with the owner on ways to sensitively incorporate and rehabilitate the building or portions of the building into a new residence um that meets the embassy's needs. Unfortunately, I think at this point we've reached a bit of an impass. Um and so staff are recommending that council issue a notice of intention to designate under part 4 uh to recognize its cultural heritage value and prevent its demolition. Thank you. Thank you so much uh for that presentation. We did receive correspondence uh from legal counsel for the owner and we do have a delegation. Um so we have ambassador EBE of uh the Ethiopian uh embassy who is uh joining us today. Uh thank you for joining us at uh committee today and you do have five minutes for your delegation. >> Okay. Uh thank you Mr. Chair, members of the built heritage committee, uh thank you for the opportunity to address you today regarding the proposed heritage designation of the 575 island park which is serving as our residence. My embassy holds deep respect for Canada's heritage and cultural values as well as for the unique character of the island per crescent. We recognize the importance of preserving the historical identity of Otawa's neighborhood and have approached this matter with that principle in in firmly in mind. For the past 18 months, the embassy has worked closely and in good faith with the CP heritage officials to explore solutions that would b balance heritage considerations with the realities of the property. Throughout this pro this process, our objective was has has been to find a practical and responsible path forward. Unfortunately, the condition of the building presents a challenge that cannot be overlooked. The house has not received a level of maintenance and investment necessary to preserve its integrity over 30 years. I repeat this. The house has the residence has not received the level of maintenance and investment necessary to preserve its integrity over the past 30 years. As a result, it has literated significantly and now suffers from severe uh deficiencies deficiencies. Professional assessment indicate that the building is structurally unsound and presents substantial concerns regarding its long-term safety and stability. In addition, the property contains designated substance that poses serious health, environmental and safety challenges. Any effort to preserve the structure will require extensive remediation and construction creating a significant risk and cost. These realities cannot be ignored when evaluating evaluating the future of the property. When considered collectively, the structural deterioration, environmental concerns and remediation requirements render the the preservation of the existing building economically unviable. The scale of intervention necessary would require replacing a substantial portion of the structure itself. At that point, one must ask whether the proc the process would truly preserve a heritage building or merely retain a fragment of structure whose original integrity has already been lost. While we do not believe the current building can can be responsibly preserved, we remain committed to preserving the the character of the site. To that end, the embassy is prepared to construct a replacement building that closely reflects the appearance, scale, and architectural character of the existing residents. This commitment stems from our respect for the heritage values of Canada and the residents of the island park present specifically. We believe this approach offers a balanced solution, one that maintains streetscape of and historical character of the neighborhood while addressing legitimate concerns relating to safety, environmental responsibility and long-term sustainability. I would also respectfully ask the committee to consider the broader context of this application. Canada and Ethiopia have enjoyed more than 60 years of strong diplomatic relation built on friendship, cooperation, and mutual respect. Those ties are reflected in Ottawa's vibrant Ethiopian community whose members have made important contribution to the social, cultural, and economic life of the city. Ethiopian athletes have also become a cherished part of Otawa's sporting landscape, consistently excelling in the Otawa Tamarak Marathon and contributing to an event that has become a source of prayer for the city. The embassy is proud to these connections and remain committed to strengthening the bonds between our two countries and communities. We therefore respectfully ask the committee to recognize that undeni undeniable conditions of the property and the embassy's demonstrated commitment to finding a constructive solution. We have engaged in good faith for the past 18 months. We have listened to the concerns. We have proposed a meaningful compromise and we have committed our service to preserve the architectural character of this site through a carefully designed replacement building that reflects the heritage values cherished by this community. By supporting this approach the committee can help preserve the truly what truly matters the character and legacy of the neighborhood while ensuring safety sustainability and respectful outcome for all concerned. Thank you for your for your consideration and I would like to answer if there are any questions. >> Uh thank you so much for appearing today your excellency and you do have a question from councelor Leaper. >> Thank you very much chair your excellency. Thank you very much for the presentation today. It's good to meet your acquaintance. Um the city staff have described this as being a impass. Sorry, bear with me. I just uh I'm getting some feedback. There we go. Um the city staff have uh said that there are uh expert opinions that they have that some of this building can be retained and adapted and and reused and and that is what they are asking uh this committee and council uh to preserve the room for through providing the um the protection. Uh is it your assertion that there is no possibility of preserving doing an adaptive reuse of any of this uh of the structure? >> Uh thank you uh councelor. This is what we have been discussing with the with the city officials. Uh as I said due to the fact that uh you know there is a cultural difference between uh the the housing conditions in Ethiopia and in here. We don't have that strong culture tradition of continuous maintenance of buildings because in our part of the world we we have very concrete houses and we don't that doesn't usually require that continuous maintenances whereas this uh the house the one we have has as mostly of wooden structures and bodies which requires continuous maintenance. Unfortunately for since we own the property we haven't made a significant investment on this uh property so that it has deteriorated the condition of the status of the the building. This is merely unfortunate I understand. And then it it has it has rendered the the property beyond repair now. And now again we we're coming with a strong comp compromise that we are going to build a more or less a lookalike building in the in that space. Making it more economical, making it environmentally friendly and and then the level of mold that was seen in the in the building is not something that we can we can tell it in a in a short uh expressions. And structurally there are certain you know there is a proven experts who have visited independent expert engineers visited and then come up with the conclusion that this is not viable to maintain the building. So I believe maintaining her doesn't necessarily mean only keeping all the all the things at whatever expenses. It it it should be it should it should contain the values the the the beauties at the same time uh the environmental and and health concerns should be addressed in in in this building. >> Your excellency I I appreciate the reply. Thank you very much. Thank you chair. >> Uh thank you so much. I don't see any other hands raised. So, thank you so much for appearing before uh the committee this morning, your excellency. Uh we appreciate your presence here uh this morning. >> Thank you so much. >> Thank you. >> At this point, questions to staff. Councelor Leaper. >> Thank you very much, chair. So, to staff, how do you respond to the uh ambassador's assertion that the building is beyond saving? Uh thank you for the question and through you chair. Um I think you know we've done we've had a a second opinion completed as I mentioned in the presentation from a heritage engineer um who his conclusions resulted in um his opinion was that the building could be retained that at least the original portion could be retained and I think based on that that would be staff's opinion as well >> if uh this committee and and council were to support sort of the um the immediate notice of intention to designate um what are the offramps that remain uh over the course of this process as as discussions continue with the embassy? >> Thank you chair. Um, so if if the notice of intention were to be issued and council um issued that notice, there would be a 30-day objection period um which the property owner could um object through that process. So there would be an off-ramp through that um process to either withdraw or modify um the statement of value. Um so that would be um that would be the main offramp. >> If uh this committee and then subsequently tomorrow council does not designate uh there is an application for demolition um is there any way to pause that clock on the application for demolition? So there is an there is an application a formal application for um demolition control and a demolition permit application. Um we have been uh working with the owner. Uh so that application the demolition control application has been on hold. Um but I I would say that um these processes the heritage designation process is not they're not tied. Um, so that process could become active. The demolition control application could become active at any point. Um, and then the demolition permit could be granted. And with an understanding that um city heritage staff are interested in the preservation of this building um and that you are at what you've called an impass, I would suggest that it's likely that the application for a demolition permit um uh could start to proceed again post haste on the part with the embassy's um uh at the embassy's request. So I think it is important that um we we do this designation. We provide it with this uh protection so that the building isn't uh demolished in the near term. Um and there are you know it will give us some time to have negotiations and discussions um with everyone understanding what the uh what the stakes are. So I appreciate staff's work on this. I appreciate the uh the engagement that you've had with my office and with the residents uh since that application for demolition uh first came up. So um thank you and and colleagues. I I hope that you will support this uh as a way to sort of immediately provide some needed protection while we continue to discuss the future of this building which is so clearly critical to the uh the future success of what will be the Island Park Heritage Conservation District. >> Thank you so much uh for those comments. Um, councelor Leaper, I have to occur. I think that the issue before us is not whether this building needs work. It does. Um, the issue is whether the heritage case for retention is sufficient to warrant putting the demolition process uh through a proper oversight mechanism, which is a heritage permit process. Uh, based on staff's evaluation and an independent pair review by a respected heritage engineering firm, the answer is yes. Uh the 1927 original structure is structurally sound and that's our understanding from the report. Uh the problems identified are consistent with deferred maintenance, not a building that cannot be saved. So colleagues, I I do concur uh with the ward counselor with councelor Leaper uh that the city of Ottawa's official plan is unambiguous. When a property of cultural heritage values threatened with demolition, the city shall immediately consider designation. That language shall immediately consider was written for exactly this type of situation. We have a staff recommendation. We have an independent structural peer review and we have a building that has stood on Island Park for nearly a century representing some of the best urban planning ambitions of the city's early history. Issuing this notice of intention to designate is the right thing to do. It does not prevent rehabilitation. It does not prevent sensitive redevelopment. It ensures that before anything irreversible happens to this place, there is a proper process with heritage expertise at the table. I also urge committee to support this recommendation. Are there any other questions to staff or comments? Seeing none, is this item carried? >> Carried. >> Carried. Thank you so much. Uh so this report uh will be submitted to council on June 10th, 2026. And uh since this is uh uh I guess uh new business or other business, uh if you could just permit me to uh just provide a little bit of commentary uh to uh councelor Bourne's um request. Uh we know that in our province municipal council meetings and and committee meetings uh must be open to the public by default. uh but there can be closed for inc camera private considerations under specific uh limited exceptions defined in section 239 of the municipal act and these exceptions primarily safeguard personal privacy litigation strategy labor negotiations and confidential negotiations. Um, one of the key legal requirements that can be considered is property manner uh matters which you raised the uh proposed or pending acquisition or disposition of land. Uh, but it's important to note that uh as a committee or as council we do have to adhere to strict procedural rules before, during and after and in camera session. Uh there needs to be a public resolution uh before moving in camera. uh council or the committee must pass a public resolution stating they are holding a closed meeting and the general nature of the matter being considered. Um this is obviously important and I'm pleased uh that you will be having at least some discussions uh about uh how you'll go forward uh with the next uh meeting. Just thought that we should uh raise that for clarification on adjournment. >> We're adjourned. Thank you so much everybody. The next meeting >> Mr. Chair chair I had my hand up. I'm sorry. >> Oh sorry I did not see that. >> That's okay. Um just to say under other business I I I bring us back to um to a letter that we all received from um to uh from I think it was co-signed by residents of Centertown with regard to an item that came before us at our last meeting 267 Oakoner Street. Uh it was uh you know very um I thought quite a serious letter and where they uh the the authors expressed you know deep concern about the fact that their contributions to the public consultation process uh didn't seem to have penetrated uh beyond the initial submission. It didn't go to the destination it was supposed to go to uh etc. And uh I I just feel that it it raised some questions for me. Uh who organized the public consultation? Was it the owner? Was it Fotan? Was it the city? Uh what is the process uh when a uh when a member of the community formally submits uh their opinion about a proposal that is, you know, integral to their community? Who decides where it goes? uh and and I am interested in if the city could provide us at not immediately but uh within the next while some a little bit of a reassurance I think for for ourselves and also for members of the community who participate in good faith in these processes. >> Well, thank you for raising that and I'm certain uh we have great uh professional heritage staff and I'm certain that they will be able to uh answer uh your question uh directly. Um, so, uh, I I'm certain they're they're taking notes and, uh, will, uh, respond, uh, to to your question in, uh, short order. Uh, so, uh, >> thank you. I just didn't want that to slip away. That seems >> sure, absolutely. >> Okay. Thank you. >> At this point, we are adjourned. Uh, the next meeting of the Built Heritage Committee will be held on Tuesday, July 14th, 2026. Thank you so much, everybody.