Good afternoon everyone. It's just past 1 p.m. I'd like to call the 14th meeting of the planning environment committee to order. Please check the city website for additional meeting detail information. The city of London is situated on the traditional lands of the Anesnabek Odn No, Lenipewok and Adawadron. We honor and respect the history, languages, and the culture of the diverse indigenous people who call this territory home. The city of London is currently home to many First Nations, Matei, and Inuit. Today, as representatives of the people of the city of London, we are grateful to have the opportunity to work and live in this territory. City of London is committed to making every effort to provide alternate formats, communications ports for meetings upon request. To make a request specific to this meeting, please contact PACPEClondon.ca or 519-661-2489 extension2425. At this m time, I'll look for any disclosures of pecunary interest. Seeing none, like to move on to consent items. I was prepared to pull 2.4 and 2.9, but uh there has been communication um from councelor Stevenson. Uh, councelor, can you just uh tell me again which items you'd like pulled? >> I'd like them all pulled, please, except 2.1 and 2.2. >> Okay. >> So, we just have to do the change of >> That's Oh, thank you. >> My apologies. I got to the consent items early. Um, there is a delegation request uh in the scheduled items from Mr. Metalier. Uh, I would like to look for a change of order so we can have him do a delegation request. Uh uh before we get to the consent items, councelor Cuddy moves that seconded by councelor Lewis. I'll look for any conversation. Okay, we'll call that vote. >> Closing the vote. The motion carries five to zero. >> Okay, Mr. Matalier. Um uh please go ahead. You have 5 minutes. >> Thank you uh members of PEC uh for for hearing from me once more. Hopefully you're not getting sick of it. Um as you know that the topic of the day today seems to be heritage and heritage designation. Um our report obviously speaks to um those items. Um so I want to give you some context. I don't actually want to go through uh you know the list of description of each and every property. Um you've got the good staff reports for that. I did want to thank staff for their work on um each of those uh heritage evaluations. I think we all recognize there's some subjectivity to heritage. Um but it is a lot of work and I think even when we disagree with um a staff recommendation and as I'll say there are a couple here we disagree with um I think we at the committee especially all recognize the amount of work that went into this on short notice from staff um and we appreciate their their research um and and the information they were able to give us. Um so again instead of going through a list of of each and every property that that we looked at um I just want to give some themes kind of the the broader context of the discussion that occurred at the committee. Um the first one and I think this was an interesting point is that these are a lot of these are decisions that we didn't particularly want to make. Um we have been put in a interesting and difficult situation by the province where for each and every one of these properties um there's one of two things that can happen. Either they lose all heritage protection on January 1st or they get a full designation. Um and so in a lot of cases the the the recommendation might have been well let's just leave it alone. seems to be working out okay now. Um but unfortunately the province has not given us that option. So we have made what is often a difficult decision and recommended um in some cases a designation in other cases um we've recommended not. The second um kind of theme of the discussion and this is something I' I've said before is the the committee doesn't go into this blind to the costs and obligations um that do come with a heritage designation. Um what we what we try to do at least this is my view is we try to look at whether there is a public benefit to designation that can supersede some of the obligations we know are there. Um and my my humble suggestion is that the the this committee and this is what we did as a committee is to look at each pro property individually on its own merits. Um there are some that we think meet that threshold. There are some that we think don't. Um we heard from a lot of property owners. We heard about concerns. Uh to give three examples. Um one of them is before you today, 1057 Waterlue. That was a property that um while it was identified as significant, we don't particularly disagree with anything in the staff report. Uh we did not recommend a designation there. um 415 baseline was the same and I think it was 40. The one on Main Street in Lambeath was also we did not recommend designating. Um, and some themes with those that we thought about were, you know, whether they are truly underrepresented heritage, whether there's something special, um, or whether, you know, in the case of 1057 Waterlue, it's it's there's there's a lot of heritage in London that looks like that that is already designated. Um, same for the property on Main Street in Lambeath. um the property at 4:15 baseline, which I think is coming up next week, um had the the the grandchildren of the original designer living in the home. Um and so one factor there was we didn't consider it particularly at risk. Um so these were things we thought about kind of individually on the merits of each property. Um, I would say the the other ones that that that did receive a designation uh recommendation tended to be properties that were um a little more special in comparison to what's already been designated in London. Things like industrial churches, um, some mid-century modern in there that we don't have a lot of designated history of. Um, and so that's the context of a report. I I appreciate your time in looking at all this. I know you've got busy election season. Um, but these are important decisions and that's that's all I implore you to do is to to look at each one on its merits and and to think hard about it because these are important decisions. Thank you. >> Thank you, Mr. Matalier. And thank you very much for the committee work on this yearong project and um um the work here done has been a little bit more than usual that has been presented to the committee. So I appreciate uh the efforts. Okay. Um, so now moving. Yep. Okay. So, I'll need a motion to receive the committee report. Councelor Cuddy, seconded by Councelor Lewis. Any discussion on that? Seeing none, we'll call the vote. Closing the vote. The motion carries 5 to zero. >> Okay. Uh we have two items 2.1 and 2.2 of the consent items that we can put together. Uh so I'll look for a motion uh on those two items and then we'll work through all the consent items. Councelor Stevenson seconded by councelor Cuddy and any discussion on 2.1 or 2.2. Okay. Let's call that move. Closing the vote. The motion carries 5 to zero. Okay. Um let's start with 2.3. And this is the Heritage Property Tax Relief Program. This was requested to be pulled uh by Councelor Stevenson. Uh there's no public participation uh portions for these items. Um, so I'll look for a committee uh to um make a motion uh or uh for discussion. Councelor Cuddi, I'll move the staff recommendation. >> Okay, that's that's been moved. Can I get a seconder, please, on that? Deputy Mayor Lewis is seconded. So we have motion moved and seconded. So I'll look for discussion on that motion. Deputy Mayor Lewis. Uh thank you chair. And so the the reason I'm I was hesitant to move it is uh obviously receiving the report for information. That's fine. Um but the implementation of it being referred to the strat plan and then the multi-year budget process. Uh the information we have in here is uh good. I do appreciate the work that went into it. Um it's not really coming with a recommendation of a structure though, and that's where I struggle because I I feel like we're leaving this really open-ended. I was actually expecting back from staff more of a tight recommendation based on the direction um that we provided uh through our last cycle um to come forward with you know one or two options for consideration in the my um I get the that there's some variation um certainly in the percentages there's a wide range of percentages being used um but that's where I'm struggling and I'm not sure if staff can comment as to why um we're getting the information, but but no particular recommendation because I think that this is going to if we choose to go forward with this really delay because I think we're going to have to go through a whole another round of structuring this in a way that makes sense for the budget. So, I'm just wondering if we can get some comment on that. >> I'll go staff. >> Thank you. and through the chair. Uh the intent of bringing um kind of an open-ended report like this to you was to then seek some some further direction if needed. I think um given the the kind of the quick turnaround and the number of designations that are on your agenda today, we were hoping to get something in in front of this uh committee and then council as well just to um facilitate some decision-m that could be informed by um some of these potential programs that exist. Um, in terms of the next steps, uh, as noted in the report, there's some further, uh, details that need to be clarified in terms of eligibility, um, and how that framework may work for a program like this. Um, it could be something that if, uh, there's further details or direction that that, um, council would like us to proceed with, we we're happy to kind of scope it down that way. >> Deputy Mayor. >> Okay. So, that's helpful because I think I want to add a clause C. Uh because I I do want to tighten this up. Um and I'm kind of doing this on the floor chair, so you're going to have to give me a a little leeway to think through this. Uh because I'm really not interested in going down the heritage conservation easement agreement. We saw what an easement agreement does with 39 carfrey. I never want to see another one of those. So, um I I would ask that a new part C be added. Uh and I think I'm going to worded as uh that civic administration be directed to include in the referral to the MYB a structure or a format. Um, and again, I'm open to staff kind of helping words smmith this uh but a structure um based on what we see in Callingwood, Ontario. And if we want to get really specific, I what I'm really looking for is preservation and maintenance agreement and a a recommendation on a budget allocation might not be the 50,000, but recommendation based on the number of heritage designations. We have a recommendation on a budget cap. Um, we can we can discuss the percentage of course uh through the MYB. Maybe people want to bump it up or down 5% or whatever, but I I think those are the two key pieces that I really want to see brought forward. And I I don't want us to get into an easement agreement discussion. So, I'm hoping I spoke slow enough for the clerk to capture that and then see if there's any feedback from staff on that language. >> Okay. The clerk is uh typing it in. We'll see. I'll let you know when it's up on each scribe and we can uh take a look at that. >> Chair, while the uh while the clerk is working on that, I'll I'll second the deputy mayor's um amendment. Thank >> Okay. Okay, it's an escribe. Um, >> yep. Go ahead. The clerk would like to comment >> uh through the chair. Um so that is been added to escribe. Um just a clarification because you did mention um based on the callingwood Ontario model and then you added preservation and maintenance agreement and a recommendation on a budget cap. So just looking for specific wording on that. Um or did you want to just keep it to the callingwood Ontario model? Deputy >> uh I was referring specifically to those two components that are the highlight of the Callingwood model. I think staff captured that they heard that intent. Uh so I'm not sure that we need to write that in specifically. I I'll defer to staff and see if they want that specific language or if the Callingwood model suffices. >> I'll go staff. >> Thank you. And through the chair, uh I think the the wording there is sufficiently clear for us to undertake uh some some kind of further detail here and appreciate the direction. Deputy mayor, is that wording suffice? Then >> that that wording uh satisfies me then. I think it's clearly >> understood. Second or is that good? Okay. So, we have that amendment on the floor. I'll look for discussion on that amendment. >> Seeing none, we'll call the vote. Closing the vote. The motion carries 5 to zero. >> I'll look for the original mover and second. Are you okay with that amendment? Moving that as amended. Okay. So, we have a motion on the floor amended. I'll look for discussion on that. Seeing none, we will call that vote. closing the vote. The motion carries 5 to zero. Okay. So, moving on to 2.4, for we have a delegation uh request. So I'd like to look for a motion to allow that delegate. Uh councelor Cuddy, second by uh councelor Stevenson. And we will call that vote. >> Closing the vote. The motion carries 5. >> Okay. Hey, if the delegate is here and would like to address the committee, please give us your name and you have 5 minutes. >> Hi there. My name is Tanya Lundy and I'm here on behalf of City Center Storage. I want to make our position very clear. I'm sorry, I'm nervous. Um, we've owned and maintained this property since 1990. For more than 35 years, we've invested in this property, maintained it, and operated our self-s storage business from this location. Our opposition for designation never be interpreted as a lack of appreciation for this building. Our history speaks for itself. We have taken care of this property for more than 35 years and we intend we intend to continue and take care of it. We have done that without a heritage designation requiring us to do so. We've invested in this property because it's ours, because our business operates here, and because we care about maintaining it. Over the last decade in particular, the financial burden associated with owning and operating this property has increased considerably. There are challenges associated with the surrounding neighborhood that have resulted in additional costs for us as the property owner. I don't want to focus on those individuals individual issues today because the remain this remains an operating business in a property that we are committed to. But the financial reality cannot be ignored. Those expenses come out of our pocket. We pay to maintain the building, secure it. We pay for repairs. We pay for improvements. We pay the unexpected expenses that come with owning and operating an older commercial building in the core of the city. That financial responsibility is on our shoulders only. And a significant part of the concern was heritage designation. When additional studies, professional advice, approvals, specialized work or other requirements are necessary as a part of part result of the designation. Those expenses ultimately fall fall on the property owner. We have carried that responsibility since 1990. We've maintained the property without designation. We've invested in the property without designation. We've continued operating our business here without designation and we continue to maintain it invest in that operating that property for years to come. We understand that the city has responsibilities to consider London's heritage, but I believe that there's also needs needs to be meaningful consideration given to the people and businesses who actually own these properties, pay for them, maintain them, and carry the financial responsibility for them year after year. We are the ones who will continue paying to maintain 203 Bath Street long after today's meeting is over. And we do not believe a heritage designation is necessary to ensure that building continues to be cared for. We're not ever going to abandon it. We're not ever going to neglect it. And we're continuing to operate our business here. We love this property. And that's why I'm here today. I respectfully ask the committee to consider our more than 35 year history with this property, the financial responsibility we already carry, the additional obligations associated with the designation, and and most importantly, the wishes of our property owner. and I'm respect respectfully asking you today not to proceed with heritage designation at our property. Thank you so much for your time. >> Thank you. Okay, I'll look for uh um I'll look to the committee for action. Councelor Stevenson. >> Thank you. I'd like to move a motion that says we receive this report and take no further action. >> I'll look for a second to counselor Cuddy seconds that motion. I'll look for comments or questions uh with regards to that item. Councelor Stevenson. >> Yeah, thank you. I just wanted to say thank you to uh the speaker for coming and speaking today. It's not easy to come before committee and council and to do the delegations and to do the written submissions and to uh go through the uncertainty that you have over the last few months and and I'm concerned by this process and and I talked about it when this happened with this uh with the night and gale property. I believe that we can't deal with heritage as a silo without it's coming through planning and economic development. And we need to understand the lens in which we operate in this city right now. The economic challenges, the addiction and homelessness crisis that is affecting some areas far more than others. There's a tremendous amount of pressure on people, on businesses, on financial statements, and I'm not going to support heritage designations with all that that entails and all of the long-term um implications on that without the property owner's approval. And when the property owners come before us like this, you know, we heard from the um the community advisory planning committee as well say that it's subjective. And I heard that one of the properties wasn't recommended because the grandchildren of the owners were still living there and so they didn't think it was at risk. And and I'm not trying to pick on that statement, but it does say, so are we saying that the other ones we believe are at risk, that we don't trust that the owners of those properties are going to maintain them with the care in which they have to date? Um that kind of subjectivity with the implications that are very real in terms of insurance, repairs, future prospects, sale of sale of property. we get to uh recognize the the rights of property owners. And so, like I said, there's going to be several coming before us here in committee, and I'm just speaking more to this one, but I'm not going to be supporting designations where I don't have something from the property owners saying that they're okay with it. The last time this came before committee, I personally spoke to every one of them, and I only supported the ones that said that they were for it. that I was able to speak to them within 48 hours says that we're able to get that level of agreement and I don't see it here. So I think there's something wrong with our process that we aren't able to get an acknowledgement from the owner to say that there's discussions happening isn't enough. I don't think people understand the implications that are involved and I don't think it's informed consent and it isn't even consent. So, like I said, I'm saying all of this in advance of several no votes here. Um, because I believe strongly about this and I don't think that we should be doing this to people without uh a full and informed consent process. I did want to just ask through you to staff when we talk about the deadline that's coming and what and what's happening. I just want you to just clarify what actually that deadline means. So, are we not able to put part 4 designations on properties after January 1st? Cuz I I didn't think that was the case. >> I'll go staff >> through the chair. Thank you for that question. So, on January 1st, what we're losing is the register of cultural heritage resources and the inclusion of all non-desated properties. We often refer to those as heritage listed properties. Uh there's no uh heritage alteration permit approval required for changes to those properties. Uh but there is a 60-day uh notice period required for any demolition request for a building or structure on a heritage listed property. So, as of January 1st, 2027, we'll be losing that public participation process and decision-making that includes consultation with the CACP, uh, public participation meeting at this committee in a decision by council either to allow that demolition to proceed or to designate that property under the Ontario Heritage Act, uh, considering the opportunity to conserve those resources that have value to the community from a cultural heritage perspective. One other limitation that's being imposed is the inability to designate properties through the planning process. Uh there have been several instances that are recently referred to as prescribed events. Um so that's a planning application for an official plan amendment, zoning bylaw bylaw amendment or a plan of subdivision. Uh and when we consider resources that were heritage listed properties uh through those planning act applications, there was an opportunity with some limitations to designate those through that decision-making process. After January 1st, 2027, we will be unable to designate properties through a planning act process. >> Councelor, >> thank you. I appreciate that. But this process of a part 4 designation could still happen at any time in the future. Isn't that correct? I'll go staff >> uh through the chair. Yes, that's correct. Unless there is an an active prescribed event, official plan amendment, zoning bylaw amendment, or a plan of subdivision application for that property. Counelor. >> Okay. Thank you. So, it's really about the demolition and these and and the other things that you mentioned this rush to do a part forward designation on all these properties. There's no expiry on this. we can take the due time and and still give part four designations to people who want them there. I feel that this is sort of um a a a rushed process where there's no real problem that exists. I'm not I'm not aware of these property owners wanting to file demolition permits on January 1st. Many of them do care for their properties well and lovingly and with commitment for, as was mentioned here, 35 years. So, for all of those reasons and the fact that there's no big rush on this. We don't lose the ability to do part fours for the people who want them and for where it would provide public benefit. Um, I support the motion that I brought forward and I hope that uh committee will support the support it. >> Thank you. I'll look for other comments, questions. Councelor Trussau, >> um, thank you. Thank you very much. I I want to start by saying that um I heard what the delegation said and I think you've made in your particular case a compelling argument to not designate this as as responsible owners. Okay. And I I just want to start by saying that's where I am with this. However, some of the things I just heard, I cannot sit here and not comment cuz I think they're wrong and I think it would be bad policy. If if I understood the counselor to say that she's not going to approve designations unless there's consent from the owner, I have to take strong strong issue with that. And if I if I misheard that, ple please correct me. I know we can't do back and forth, but I want to make sure that's what she said before I proceed. >> You just can make your comments, counselor, and we'll go from there. >> The land stays after the ownership. The ownership is fleeting in time. I don't know what the state of the ownership is going to be in 5 years. I don't know what it's going to be in 10 years. And I don't know what it's going to be in six months if some tragedy occurs. I don't know. And I do want to ask Steph, if the designation is not in place, does that mean that whoever is the current owner can can get a demolition permit? >> I'll go st uh through the chair. So, the property is presently listed on the register of cultural heritage resources. Uh so until uh January 1st, 2027, there is a a council policy and pro procedure that I mentioned uh just a few moments ago, including consultation with the CACP, public participation meeting at Planning and Environment Committee, and a decision by council. Uh if a demolition request for 203 Bath Street were to be received after January 1st, 2027, uh there would be no public process as it had lost its status on the register uh and could proceed to a a demolition permit, I believe, within 10 days of an application. >> Trust. >> Yes. Thank you. And and that's my problem. And that that that's why while while I'm sympathetic to these owners and I don't plan on really pushing this at at council, this is not one of the properties that's on my mustd designate list. I I have a few that are. I'll speak to them at the appropriate time, but I just I just think we have to take a a moderate uh approach that is not across the board. And again, every every one of these has to be uh dealt with in its own on its on its own merit. Um, may I ask a hypothetical and I don't want to seem morbid or or or anything, but >> councelor counselor, I'm just going to >> I don't know what you're going to ask. >> Well, I'm going to ask I'm just going to remind you. I want you to deal specifically with this particular item. Okay. Just >> I will I will stick to this property. >> Okay. >> I want to remove these people, but I want to speak to this property. >> Okay. If if for some unforeseen circumstances, these stewards who are are you know the demonstrably responsible stewards of this property were no longer the owners. Would would their wishes to continue their responsible stewardship be binding on a future owner? Or would the future owner be able to do as the property owner what they wish? >> I'll go staff. through the chair. Uh the mechanism in which the city has an ability to uh consider alterations to a property that is of a significant cultural heritage value is through heritage designation and the heritage alteration permit application process. Um if heritage designation was not in place, uh there are very few limitations that the municipality can impose through uh changes to a building or structure on private property. Councelor Tusso. >> Yeah, that that answers my question. And again, I don't want to spend too much time on this because again, I I I I really appreciate what the owners have said. This is this is not on my must-save list, but um I I thought it was important to respond to some of the things the counselor and in and in and respectfully I I wanted to respond to some of the things you said. >> Thank you uh councelor Cuddi. Thank you, chair, and through you. And and uh I I too want to thank um the uh the speakers for coming today. And and I could tell from the correspondence and from what you said today how much you care for the property and the buildings and and chair, you know, we all we all want more heritage in this city, but not at the peril or the or the the financial risk of property owners. We can't do that. And I'll hearken back to what councelor Stevenson said. We we can't put people at risk because they own properties and we're putting undue pressures and restrictions on them because they have to do something with these properties to meet certain standards and requirements. That's unfair. We don't we in this in this economic environment, we can't do that. And this goes back to our discussion with with the Nightgale property uh several weeks ago, maybe a month ago, where the owner was under undue pressure and stress financially and he couldn't do that. And while while I while we all appreciate the value of heritage, we also have to consider the the the importance of our taxpayers and our residents and how this is so critical for them to survive. And so, like councelor Stevenson said, you know, I I won't be supporting anything that uh that that puts at risk um many of our taxpayers and and the property owners. And so, while this is a great property, and I'm so glad you take great care of it, and I know you will continue to do that. Um I want to see uh uh you know, I I want to see other residents and sorry, other property owners um uh get the same uh treatment. Thank you, Councelor Prebalt. Uh thank you. Uh I just want to add a couple of things that I heard here. By the way, one of the things that I heard was a tragedy. If some tragedy would happen actually the other way around, I would say if uh first of all tragedy that has to be safety security point one, point two. If uh this increased cost potentially with the heritage designation, that's when the owners probably would start cutting the corners because they could repair something for x amount of dollars. under heritage it would be X plus Y. I really think these decisions that we make have a potential great economic impact economic impact for the individual who is the owner who is going to come to the point that right now and we know the economic factors that are out there and currently the owner uh could be on breaking even points or just slightly over and this could really bring them below. So there could be potentially loss of closing the business, potentially closing another business in London, employment opportunities, etc. And I really think we have to consider this as a big picture just to the owner or representatives of the owner. Uh thank you for keeping I'm very familiar with this location and uh it's a challenging location. Not the only one in London. we have more challenging locations, but the way you keep up with it and I'm on their regular basis and I also want to thank you for providing the facilities at the conditions you do for homeless organizations that meet there on everyday basis and help actually our city address these issues. So, thank you for continuing business in London and uh uh I will I'm not a voting member of this committee but will I will not be supporting it either. I do understand the heritage to January 1. I do get that point but really we we have to start looking at the big picture and economic impact that this potentially could be not because of the three months but because of 5 10 15 years ahead. So I would like us to consider that as well. Thank you chair. >> Thank you deputy mayor Lewis. >> Thank you chair. Uh so first of all I'll start by saying I will definitely be supporting councelor Stevenson's motion. Uh I will say to Tanya uh I know it's not easy to stand up there sometimes and and speak to council. I appreciate you being here today. I also appreciate the conversations that we've had back and forth uh via email uh as you've shared some of the concerns. Um and for me, I just want to speak to my own perspective on the heritage uh process and piece here because we've a lot of this although we're talking about one property right now, I think a lot of folks are are saying this is how they are generally with the heritage process. Uh you know, I've always had consistently since I joined council my own standard. I don't think and I've never thought that two out of nine on a on a heritage checklist is sufficient for designation. Uh I've always set the bar higher. I've always expected it to be at least five uh to exceed a 50% mark. Um that's one of my personal standards uh because it is subjective as we heard. I also agree with what councelor Trussau said that we assess these on a property bypropy basis and what we decide on one is not necessarily what we're going to decide on with another. they it's the merit of the the application itself. Um I do agree that uh we should be thinking about an economic lens to things as well particularly on our industrial areas. Uh but I disagree um with the counselors that that this is about a point in time. I actually think that this should be beyond a point in time. I think it should always be a consideration. um you know, if if we have to consider whether we're going to have a heritage designation or whether we're going to have an owner potentially close and and lose jobs, I'm going to side with jobs every time. So, uh for me, it is more about the subjectivity. I on this one. Uh given the number of changes that have been made to the property over the decades, um and not just by the current owners, but changes that were made before they were the current owners, uh I don't think that this uh meets to me the the standard for heritage designation. Um it's it's gone through many changes. It may go through many more changes, but the owners there today are taking good care of it. um it it does not to me visually say heritage and that's always an indicator for me too when I look at it. Do I see a heritage component there? Do I see something that stands out that's unique and and for this one I don't with the particularly with the changes that have been made over time. Uh so that's why I will be supporting uh not going ahead with the designation here. Um we may have different votes on different properties as we move forward. I do think that there are some but as was mentioned even our advisory committee has said that they don't agree with all of these and that is the the reality of this is a subjective thing. I I actually wish the province would change the process a little bit and shorten the checklist and tighten up the criteria so it's a little easier and a little less subjective. Uh but this is the process we have to work with today and I'll be supporting uh not moving ahead on this property. >> Okay. Thank you. I'll look for any other comments or questions. We have a motion moved and seconded. We will call that closing the vote. The motion carries 5 to zero. >> Thank you. Moving on to 2.5. This is regarding 30 Brmley Avenue. And I'll look to committee for direction. or questions of staff if we need to before I feel comfortable making a motion. >> Councelor Stevenson. >> Thank you. I will ask through you to staff then. It talks about um under 4.2 consultation. No response was received back in December of 2025 and the conversations between the dascese and staff are ongoing and remain collaborative. I just want to confirm through you to staff um is the dascese supportive of the designation. >> I'll go staff. uh through the chair. Since the publication of the staff report, we have received correspondence from the Dascese of Hiron and those were included on the CACP agenda uh from its meeting last week. Uh we understand the Dasis of Hiron to be opposed to heritage designation. Um staff did provide information about how they could be a delegation or provide written correspondence to this committee. Uh but we have not yet heard anything back. >> Councelor, >> thank you. I do believe CACP was September 17th and the deadline for this was the following morning at 9:00 a.m. to have a submission in. So, this is another issue is there's just not time for people to, you know, living their lives to understand what this process is to be able to speak before council on something that is so has such a dramatic impact. So, uh would you mind sharing with us what their reasons were for opposition? >> I'll go staff. uh through the chair. There is a a letter, a two-page letter. Um I'm unclear. Do you want me to read it, >> councelor? >> No. Do we have access to it >> through the chair? Yes. It was included on the added agenda for the CACP. >> Okay. Um, well, there will be time between now and council for me to look at that a little closer, but I'm willing to move a motion that says receive the report and take no action. >> I'll look for a seconder on that, councelor Cuddy. So, we have a motion moved in second. I'll look for comments on the motion. >> Councelor Po has >> councelor Pelosa, nice to have you join us. Please go ahead. >> Thank you, Mr. Chair. Uh I had joined in uh earlier just uh quiet in the background listening along. um speaking strictly on what's the floor on the floor. Um I'm just raising concerns about uh I know it's their right to do so members of committee moving motions without having read the correspondence uh that was attached in the added. I know it's a big one and a lot going on here but concerned about that. Um I'll be doing some digging behind the scenes. Uh so I'll just flag a lot of these things will be pull requests for me Mr. uh chair when we get to council as I share some of councelor Truss house's concerns while balancing those with the business community and uh realizing ownership changes and sometimes quickly and that's my main concern and I'll save comments for further on to make sure that committee can be expeditious today. >> Thank you. I'll look for other comments or questions from committee or visiting counselors. >> Uh councelor Stevenson. Yeah, I just wanted to make the point the significance of this decision and so I need to understand fully what the opposition is. Uh I'm just concerned with this process. So, it's fair what the counselor said and at the same time this is being brought to us um you know with the information only available days days before uh we're supposed to be making a decision here. So, I I'm hoping committee will support the motion before us. >> I'll look for other comments or questions. Deputy Mayor Chair, I sorry if I'm uh if I'm missing it here, but I'm looking at the added agenda. It's got the added communication from El Pero about the property tax relief program. Um, but I'm not seeing a communication from the dascese in my copy of the added agenda. >> CACP. >> Oh, CACP. Okay. That's I was looking for it as an independent correspondence. >> Yeah. So, I I do share the concern that that didn't get included as an added of its own. Um my preference uh would be rather than to refuse it to forward it to council without a recommendation um so that we have time to absorb the information because I'm not I'm not keen on seeing no until I've had a chance to really read their reasoning uh and have a chance to perhaps reach out to them and and discuss as well. Um, so that would be my preference. I understand other colleagues may not uh concur with that and we do have a motion on the floor uh to not proceed with the designation. Um, but I think rather than support that, I would just like to refer it to council without a recommendation, but we'll see with what happens with this one. >> I'll just remind uh the deputy mayor, and you know this, I know you know how the stuff works, but referral is another option. um to um we have another me uh meeting impact in December and I think there's one even before I think in October as well. So I'll just remind committee that that is another option. Councelor Stevenson. >> Thank you. I'll just say I'm not supportive of going to council with no decision because there's no opportunity for the owner to communicate publicly or to to engage publicly. I would support a referral if that's the preference of my colleague. Councelor Cotti, >> I'll second the I'll second the referral chair. >> Okay. Um, >> so we we have actually have a referral. >> Yeah, chair. I'll move the referral. >> Yes. >> Yeah. Yeah, the deputy mayor is correct. Um because it's councelor Stevenson's motion. She can't refer her own motion. So um we'll go to uh councelor Cuddy. You are moving that for seconder. Uh councelor Stevenson has seconded. So now we have a referral. Um do we want to put a date on that referral? Uh councelor Cuddy at your motion. So do you want a date? >> Can we go to December chair? >> Okay. So you're referring it to the December meeting of PAC. Is that correct? Okay. So, I'll have the the uh clerk uh write that up and and put that into um uh on screen. >> Mr. Chair, uh councelor PL, I have a question on this one. >> Councelor, go ahead. >> Uh thank you. uh just through you to staff uh as this was attached under the CACP and not as an added flagged on its own. Just looking through you to staff to see if there's any other ones that might be buried uh or correspondence just to help committee navigate >> conversations. Thank you. I'll go to staff on that. >> Through the chair would just also like to draw your attention to item 2.6 this afternoon regarding 4307 Colonel Talbert Road uh owned also by the Dasis of Hon. Uh, so if there's concerns about this one, you may wish to include that one as well. Um, and if >> Okay, we'll deal with that when we get to it. But thank you for the heads up. Appreciate. Thanks to councelor Pelosa. Is there anything else, counselor? >> No, that's perfect. Thank you, Mr. Chair. >> Thank you. Okay. So, apologies. That was moved by councelor Cuddy, seconded by Steven. >> Okay. So, that is an ecri. >> Okay. That should now be up. I need to scribe the referral. So, I'll look for um comments or questions on the referral. Councelor Stevenson. >> Thank you. I'm just going to say I'm supporting the referral out of respect of staff and the CACP and to give it us all time to give it the the due consideration that I think it deserves. But on the same hand, I'm looking at the letter here from the dascese and this is significant. Their concerns are the same things that we're hearing and churches also are having a very challenging time right now. Um, I I'll just reiterate again my concern for this process and the fact that the information isn't available publicly right in front of us with due consideration or time for the public to speak to us and to be involved. They're going to hear about this after the fact. And for us not to get this letter uh in our package here is a concern to me. But I will support the referral just out of like I said due respect but I'm I'm I'm not not pleased with this. >> Thank you. Oh, councelor Tusso. >> I should mention as the ward counselor who has not given this property a lot of thought any thought um because I haven't heard from people on this. Um, if if we refer this to December, does that allow the council to do this before January? Is there another council meeting in December? >> Yes, it does. >> Okay. Then then that I would support the I would support that at council. I think it's a good idea. Is there some way for the clerk to be able to is there is there is there a rule that would have precluded this this inclusion on this added agenda or even a late entry that would have been sent to the counselors or is this just something that just came up so late that it wasn't possible to do that? >> Uh I'll go to the clerk >> uh through the chair as mentioned um it was on the CACP added agenda not the peek added agenda. So we the peek um has has not been informed of this letter >> counselor >> much less the the much less this is not a criticism of the clerk but much less the public. Um and I I just think if if we want to avoid the situation where people hear about what we did and then come back after the fact and say how come we didn't know about this? Um it would have been good to have this on the added agenda and and I trust that all this documentation will be on the agenda uh for the next uh planning committee on the on the face of a standing committee agenda because I I think it's asking uh people who follow this unless unless you're unless you really follow the the advisory committee I think it's asking people to do a lot to also have to um go through the agendas and communications to um to advisory committees. I think that starts to get a little >> I'll go to the clerk uh for what will be included in the agenda in the December meeting of PAC. >> Um if the owner of this property wishes to submit something to the December meeting of PEC, they are able to. Um but again, they didn't submit anything to us, so we weren't unaware. That's why nothing was included. Um, and we don't include added submissions on the PEC agenda from an advisory committee unless told by the advisory committee to include something with their report. >> Counselor, >> I'll let that go. >> It's a longer discussion. >> All right. Thank you. >> Uh, councelor Stevenson. Yeah, I I'm not going to because again, uh I think staff need to make sure council's informed and if there's something that's pertinent to a decision before us, staff should be ensuring that we get it either on the added agenda or via email to all council. Um and I apologize. I wasn't paying attention to the date in the referral. Uh why are we not choosing September 29th? I don't want to be pushing this to the next term of council when we've all, I believe, studied and learned about this and we're ready to make these decisions to pass it to a new council that that maybe isn't prepared to do it right now. What can we not just move it to September 29th? Give it a little bit of time. >> Um, well, the councelor Cuddy made the motion and that's the date he put in the referral. Um, >> well, I'm not going to support December 1st. So if we can make it September 29th, I'll support that. >> So do you want to have an amendment to change it to? >> Sure. If there's a seconder answer from staff. >> Okay. Yeah, I can go if if councelor Stevenson, if you're okay with me to go to staff and and get their thought, I'll go to staff to see um if um the next meeting pack is too soon or if uh you need time to uh for the referral to get the ne whatever uh the committee is looking for. >> Thank you through the chair. Uh this really isn't a matter from a staff perspective. it really as as the clerk mentioned um at the discretion of the the property owner. But in terms of the timeline, we'll leave that to the clerk to decide. >> I'm sorry, I missed that. >> We'll we defer to the city clerk to confirm the the timeline. >> Okay. >> But from a staff perspective, uh September 29th or December 1st works for for us. >> Got it. I'll go to the clerk for her comments. Um, so the deadline to include anything on the September 29th PEC agenda was today at 9:00 a.m. Um, so we cannot include this. >> So what is the next PEC meeting uh scheduled for cl >> uh through the chair? It's scheduled for December 1st. >> Okay. Okay. So it looks like December 1st is our only alternative counselor. Um, >> well, it could be referred to the added, I suppose, like the staff have given this all to us. All we need is a little bit of time to >> consider the letter, which we didn't see prior to committee. So, it I'm fine. I'm not going to support a referral December 1st. I would rather um just make a decision. >> Okay. >> Or do it September 29th on the added. I don't know if that's possible, but I'm not going to move to December 1st. >> Okay, fair enough. Um, so we have a referral on the floor. I look for further comments or questions. We'll call that vote. >> Closing the vote. The motion carries 4 to one. >> Okay. Moving on to 2.6. This is regarding 4307 Colonel Talbot Road. Uh, I'll look to committee for action here. >> Should we do questions again first? >> Yes. >> Go ahead, counselor. >> Thank you. So again, 4.2 consultation, no response received in December 2025. um and discussions are collaborative. Do do we have an answer from them as to whether they're supportive? >> Oh, go go go ahead please. >> Uh through the chair. This is the other uh property I tried to draw your attention to also owned by the Dasis of Hiron. Uh same as the last one you just uh discussed. Uh they did provide a correspondence on the added agenda of the CACP and they are not supportive of designation. Okay, we're in the same uh the same situation as the previous one, counselor. It's both the uh the dascese uh uh communication. >> Uh thank you. I appreciate that. And I was the lone vote against the referral. So I'll leave it to my colleagues. >> Okay. So I'll go to u committee members uh look for direction here. Uh just a question from the chair to you, Mr. Metalia. You mentioned uh a property in Lambeath. Was this the property you were referring to that committee did not support a heritage designation? >> Uh no, there are two in Lambeath. >> Okay. >> This one the sub the committee did support staff. >> Okay. I just wanted to make sure we were Yes. >> clear on that. Thank you, >> Mr. Chair. I It's councelor Pelosi. I'm not committed, but I had a procedural question. >> Go ahead, please. >> Uh thank you. Uh through you to the clerk. Um, having heard councelor Stevenson's uh support of referral, if it could be done as an added for the next pack, uh, realize we need to do council first and the 9:00 a.m. deadline passed today. Procedurally, is it plausible, allowable legally to put potentially this item and maybe the one prior on the added PE versus the regular PE? >> I'll go to the clerk for that answer. uh through the chair. Unfortunately, no, because added items need to be of of emergent nature. Um and I don't believe this would qualify um unless otherwise indicated. >> Councelor, >> no, that's it. Thank you, Mr. Chair. >> Thank you for trying to find a way. I appreciate it. Uh, councelor Trusso, >> why through through the chair, I guess to the clerk, why would the fact that this council is expiring and would not have the the opportunity to to consider this matter other than at the September meeting not be considered some type of uh emergent uh uh notion? because I think once again kicking the can down to the next council is a burden on them and I think the people that are sitting around uh this panel have really given this a lot of thought and um you know who knows who will be back who knows who won't be back but I I just really uh I just I really would like to Is the procedure that strict that we couldn't consider this as an added if the council wanted to? So, I I'll go to the clerk. Um, the question is, is the fact that this term is ending uh enough of an emerent uh reason uh to include it on the added um through the chair. So, It needs to go to the October 14th council for approval. Um, so that is a reasoning why I don't believe it would be a like this report goes to the October 14th council. So I believe that is one of the reasons why it wouldn't be considered emergent. Um also um I might refer to um Miss Skolski for further um assistance with this. >> Please go ahead >> through the chair. So that is correct. This report is going to the October 14th meeting of municipal council for approval. So referring anything to a meeting prior to that date uh would not be procedurally correct because we would need council uh approval to refer it. um to any meeting. It has to be post the council meeting though. >> Okay. Thank you. All right, Deputy Mayor Lewis. >> So, I I come back to what I said on the previous file. I'm I appreciate that it there's no public participation process at council. Uh however uh when we're talking about an October council, it would give uh the property owner time to respond to us in correspondence. So my preference, again, I I I hear the council's concern, why are we, you know, kicking this down the road into December? Um I'm mindful of the fact that there is going to be 60 days without peck meetings. Um and we have 90-day statutory decisions. I think that the December 1st meeting is likely to be a fairly heavy agenda. Um, and so I'm I'm more inclined to say send it to council without a recommendation. That gives the owner of the property ample time. The ward counselors can reach out. Uh, this one happens to be in W 9, not in W 6, but uh, the ward counselors could reach out, inform uh, the property owners that they should add a communication to the council agenda for us all to review. uh and then we can make our decision as a collective group uh at the council meeting uh based on the staff report we have in front of us and based on the any additional feedback we're going to get from the property owners. So I'm going to move that this be forwarded to council without a recommendation from planning committee. >> Okay, we have a seconder and councelor Stevenson. Um and I'll look to the clerk. She is >> Do you have a clarification? Clerk, please go ahead. Apologies. So, are we are you looking to do to receive this for information? Okay. And just a clarifying question then, um, on the previous one where we did that, there was no further action be taken, but perhaps this would just be received for information and then leave it open-ended. >> Okay. Sorry, Stevenson. >> Okay, the motion is uh up in Eastcribe. It essentially is receiving it. um not explicit is the we're sending it to council with no recommendation but that's the purpose of that. Okay. Any other conversation on this item? Seeing none um then we will call the vote. Closing the vote. The motion carries 5 to zero. >> A question through the chair. Any communication received prior to council from the dascese would that be included in the added on the or be included in the council agenda? uh through the chair if that was the direction of the property owner. Absolutely. >> Okay. So, um, again, if the property owner is listening, I would encourage you to, um, contact, uh, the council and city staff, the plane, um, with either the same letter or another letter that you provide to the committee so that can be properly included in the agenda uh, that will come before council and also for the December agenda because we did push the other one uh, to the December. So, we kind of a split thing here. So I would encourage the diocese to do that. Deputy mayor, >> uh, chair, through you, uh, having gone through this process now, uh, I'm going to ask procedurally, uh, can we call for reconsideration on the previous item in the event that the colleagues may want to do the same thing now that we've established that this is how we're going to handle this one, that we could have a reconsideration on the previous referral to December and then amend it to forwarding to council just as a receive. without the take no action. We're just forwarding it and council will decide when it gets to council. So, looking for some procedural guidance on that one. uh through the chair again. >> Chair, >> thank you. Sorry. >> Please go ahead. >> Through the chair, what I would what I would recommend is to forward the committee recommendation to council. Council can then choose to vote down the recommendation and put forward the new motion if if if they so wish. Uh from the chair, do we have though the deputy mayor was inquiring about a reconsideration? Is that possible on 2.5? >> A reconsideration through the chair should have occurred immediately after dealing with the motion to be reconsidered. >> Okay. >> Um but council has the purview to vote down a staff uh committee's recommendation at its meeting on the 14th. >> I understand. Okay. Thank you for that guidance. I appreciate that. Um, okay. We are on to 2.7. Deputy mayor, did you were you looking to do some sort of Well, I guess we have to now that they're out of consent items and we're dealing with individually, we have to we have to go through the process. So, uh, we're on 2.7 and this is regarding 255 Delort Road. I'll look for, um, recommend or from action from committee members. >> Can Uh, the clerk has in Deputy Mayor. >> Well, if the clerk has informed you something, we should probably hear that first. I'm prepared to move the staff. >> Okay. Let me let me um >> tell tell you what the clerk has informed me of. Um apparently there is a uh a delegate who did not have time to get um a request in. Uh he is in the gallery. >> I'm sorry. She is in the gallery and um if the committee is willing to entertain um um then we'll do that. Councelor Stevenson uh it makes a motion to do that and Deputy Mayor Lewis seconds it and so we'll call the vote u if we should invite her to uh address the committee. >> Closing the vote. The motion carries 5 to zero. So, if the delegate would like to address the committee, um, this is your opportunity. Please give us your name and you have five minutes. >> Okay. Oops. Sorry. Hi, my name is Jose Rosenbite and I'm one of the owners of Woodhole. Um I just uh have to say that I recognize the need for the designation but at the same time I really face u huge challenges in the property in the cost of the property and I really want to ask for the tax relief for any programs that are available to help to preserve the property and I think that is all that I have to I have to say you have any questions? questions for >> Thank you. We'll we'll take that those comments uh into our discussion. >> Sure. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Okay. I'll go to committee deputy mayor. >> Okay. So, I I will move the staff recommendation on this one. >> Okay. I'll look for a seconder. Councelor Cuddy. I'll look for conversation on that. Uh Deputy Mayor. um prepared to move the recommendation on this one, chair. Uh it meets six out of the nine criteria. Um I did re re review the evaluation. I I concur that the six criteria are met. Uh for me uh with my own subjective lens, it still checks six of the nine boxes. um hearing the uh one of the owners speak and and the value of the property tax credit piece that we just passed earlier. Well, I know it will go to uh the budget process. Um you know, I'll be supportive of it there um in some form or another. And so I think we can this is one of those cases where maybe it's an and both. uh we can provide the designation uh and then after the budget process is done I'm you know I'm hopeful that the owner will be able to apply for the property tax relief that we are looking at creating a program around for heritage properties because I do recognize the cost and I do think that there is something that we can do around well I know that there is something legally under the municipal act that we can do uh with regard to property tax credits specific to heritage properties so I'm prepared to uh designate this one I do think it's a very unique property Um, and to me it does I I concur with the staff report. >> Councelor Stevenson, >> thank you. Uh, and thank you for being here to speak. It is helpful. I just wonder um uh through you chair. Do you feel that you fully understand the implications of this and that the tax relief may not be passed by a future council? Like it's proposed, but there's nothing uh there's no guarantees. >> Okay. >> Okay. Look for other comments or questions. We have a motion moved and second and we'll call the vote. Closing the vote. The motion carries 5 to zero. Okay, moving on to 2.8. This is regarding 1875 Richmond Street. I'll look to committee for direction. >> Councelor Stevenson. >> Thank you. Through you to staff. I just again 4.2 2 consultation says that uh information was provided to the representative of the estate in 2024. I'm just wondering what the most recent communication is and have any current concerns been uh brought up staff. >> Uh thank you. Thank you through the chair. We've been in correspondence with the uh representative of the estate and the estate trustees were uh invited to this meeting and shared information about uh delegation status both here and at CACP. Um as of present no concerns have been raised in particular to staff about heritage designation. Uh we have ongoing conversations about uh potential for adaptive reuse uh including the uh heritage house in an overall site redevelopment concept. Uh but as of yet no planning app planning act application has been made. >> Counselor. >> Thank you. And just to follow up is it through you to staff. Do you believe that they fully understand the implications of this and are supportive? >> I'll go staff. >> I through the chair. I hesitate to put words in their mouth of course. Um but the com they've had um in my opinion fairly detailed and informed questions about heritage designation and what that means. Um so I believe that staff have done our best job to answer any questions they have about the process. Also recognizing that it's a an estate uh which is a unique consideration in any any property matter uh not not specific to just heritage. >> Councelor, >> thank you. Yeah, I mean there is a little bit of time between now and council for me to confirm with them again. It is a fair amount of work though to go and try to reach people and confirm these things. I wish there was a way to get communication on the agenda from people when staff are working with them to say that they're supportive or what their concerns are and that was part of the process. Um I'm going to think about this one and listen to my colleagues. >> Okay, I'll go to committee. I'm looking for a motion here when we're deputy mayor. >> I'm prepared to move the staff recommendation on this one. >> Second, councelor Cuddy is seconded. Okay, so we have a motion moved and second. I'll look for conversation. Deputy mayor. >> Uh I will just share this. Um this one for me was a borderline one. Um if the uh property owner had been uh written communication in opposition, I might feel differently. But what I see here, four out of the nine close to sort of my own bar of the five. Uh but also in just subjectively looking at the property, I can see the architectural value. I know that there are some other properties that have similar architectural design in the city. But I can see why staff are recommending bringing this one forward. This one's kind of on the fence for me, but I I in reviewing the staff report and just taking a drive by the property on the weekend and just looking I that flipped me subjectively to be in support and so I'll support the staff recommendation on this one. >> Okay, I'll look for other speakers. was getting designated. >> Councelor Ple staff, I just want a clarification on this address because I'm familiar with this property as well. But my question is uh this location is just west of what's proposed for the for the school board for uh for the high school. Correct. And then if it is uh uh then of course that is the Richmond Street address which this I guess historically is Richmond Street because it's actually onto the just north of Plane Tree. So if you can just confirm to me that it is my assumption with the high school and the addresses. If you can just confirm to me that if it's correct please. Thank you. >> Go staff. Uh thank you through the chair. Uh and just to maybe take a further step back just there was some confusion at the CACP. This is not the Winder property which is uh formerly at 1927 Richmond Street. That's where the new uh Catholic high school is going to be located. This is immediately south of the proposed site for the Catholic high school. And further to that point, the rear portion of this property recently went through a consent process. So the rear portion is also being incorporated into the future Catholic high school site. So 1875 Richmond Street is right at the corner of Richmond and Plain Tree on the northwest corner of that intersection. So we're only talking about that retained portion, not the consent severed portion at the rear that's going to be part of this the high school. Does that help to answer your question? >> Council, thank you. And once again to follow up, yes, it does. things that confused me was when you said it's this this site is south of the high school and south of the high school is the plain tree and I and I thought that this location is west of the high school north of Plain Tree. >> I'll go staff uh through the chair. This the the house is located due south of the future uh Catholic high school building >> counselor. Okay, one last clarification. Is it south or north of Plain Tree? >> Staff through the chair. It is south of the high school north of Plain Tree. Counselor. >> Okay. Uh, I have no more questions, so I know what you mean, but bottom line is it is the block north of Plain Tree. That's why I want to make sure that it's north of Plain Tree. Thank you. No more questions. Council Ramen. Thank you. Uh I just wanted to share my thoughts with the the committee as well. Uh I am supportive of the designation of this property. Um it is one that I hear from residents quite often. It is uh definitely a noted historic home in the area um and a reference point for many uh as they are are in the neighborhood. Um it's so well-kept and it's uh preservation I think is a gem in the city and a gem in this part of town. uh and with the high school going in behind, I do think that this will add to the aesthetic and and part of what the consideration of the property is as well is um is has been taken into account with the severance uh to allow for the high school in behind the property wrapping around to the winter uh property as well. So really pleased to see this on the list. Thanks. >> Thank you. Look for other comments or questions. We have a motion moved and seconded and we'll call the vote. >> Closing the vote. The motion carries 5 to zero. >> Okay, moving on to 2.9. This is regarding 1057 Waterlue Street >> and there is a a delegation uh request. Uh so I will look for a motion to hear. Uh, councelor Stevenson moves that. Councelor Cuddy seconds. We'll call that vote. >> Closing the vote. The motion carries. >> So, if the delegate would like to address the committee, >> please sir, give us your name and you have five minutes. Good afternoon. My name is Ian Wallace and I'm here with my my wife Debbie and we are the uh owners of 1057 Waterloo Street. Um, my family bought that house in 1961 and I grew up there as a child and uh my parents moved out in 1986 and Debbie and I have lived there for 41 years since and since that time we have taken care of it and uh we have no plans on demolishing it or doing anything else that would be offensive to anybody. Um, we are not supportive of the designation for several reasons and I included an outline of that that's in your materials. It's just a one-page informal list and it includes uh concerns with respect to firstly that we don't believe the property is unique. It's not architecturally designed uh as as was stated previously. Um there's there's hundreds of houses like it in the city, many of which have already been designated. It's it's a very nice house. We love it there, but there's nothing significant about it. So, we don't think it checks all the boxes, firstly. Secondly, uh it's it's it's not in its original form. years before we bought it, 1961, there was a there was a wooden edition put on the back. So probably only twothirds of the house that's showing is original. So that's another consideration. Um thirdly, we're worried about the expenses associated with the property and in particular, we're worried about its insurability. I I note in my memo that we're already in a lawsuit with our insurance company over some water damage, a six-f figureure lawsuit that's that's going to discoveries that won't settle very soon. Um and and so the insurability of it is a great worry, as is the cost associated. We're both getting fairly old now and the cost associated with keeping it up at at the level without the heritage designation is is okay, but with the heritage designation, it's uh sort of unknown. So, at the end of the day, we're not supportive of it and we're we're hoping that we can be an exception to the uh application that that we we don't want to we don't want it designated. and we'd be grateful if you didn't. Thank you. Thank you. Uh, councelor Stevenson. >> Thank you. I'd like to move receipt of the staff report and take no action. >> Look for a sec. Councelor Cuddy seconds that. So, I'll look for conversation on uh that motion. >> I just wanted to thank the uh the delegate for speaking today and for the written correspondence. It's helpful uh as we make these important decisions. And uh thank you for taking care of that property. It is uh a lovely one as we drive along that street. Um looking for committee support on this. CACP also did not recommend designation. Uh and so I'm uh I I'm I'm thinking that it'll be supported here at committee to not move forward with the designation. >> Thank you. I'll look for other comments or questions on the motion. Council Cuddy. >> Thank you, Chairu. And I'd like to thank Mr. and Mrs. Wallace for coming forward today. I know your property well. I walk by it often. It's It's beautiful and I know you take great care of it and I know how much you love that property and you know this goes back chair to what we've been talking about before but what councelor Stevenson said with the first motion that we have people who love these properties and we you know whether it's economic or whatever it is we can't deny them if they choose not to be uh heritage designated we we we can't make that decision for them. I think it's truly unfair. So again, thank you, Mr. Mrs. Wallace for coming. Thank you for taking great care of your property. Thank you. >> Thank you, uh, Council Per. >> Thank you. Very brief comment based on CACP and what we heard and read from the residents. Uh, I don't know what the decision is going to be of this committee, but certainly if I were the member, I would certainly not recommend this for designation. and the points were very fairly and accurately stated in the letter and by the residents and the feedback from CACP as well. Thank you. >> Thank you. Look for councelor Trussa. >> Um just just briefly to say I I think I walk by this property more than you do because it's just it's just on the other side of Kings from where I live. I'm not close enough to it to disqualify myself, but I I I'll be I'll be supporting what everybody is saying. Thank you. Thank you for coming. >> Look for other comments or questions. We have a motion moved and seconded. We'll call the vote. >> Closing the vote. The motion carries 5 to zero. >> Thank you. Uh, we moved our scheduled item up. We have dealt with that. There are no items for direction deferred matters. So, I'll look for a motion to Oh, councelor Stevens, are you looking for adjournment? Perfect. Good. Thank you, councelor Cuddy. Uh, thank you. Um, ham vote. Thanks very much. >> I'm just wondering if it's procedurally correct for PEC to be adjourning after only an hour and a half. >> Yes. >> Well, if you have other additional business, uh, Deputy Mayor, I'm sure we would not be willing to entertain it, so I guess we're calling the vote. Motion carried.