Sound check. Testing. One, two, three, four, five. Good morning everybody. We will start in one minute. Okay. Well, we are just waiting for member Quinn to uh join the call and when she does uh we will uh proceed. And we're still waiting for member Quinn when she joins. Uh we'll proceed. Okay, I'm in. Sorry. Very sorry about that. Wow, that's never happened to me before. Can you hear me? >> We can. Uh, it's great that you joined us, member Quinn. >> Okay. Sorry. Yeah, some little technical glitch on my end. I apologize for that delay. >> No problem. Uh, we'll begin. And so good morning and welcome to the Built Heritage Committee meeting of November 5th, 2026. I'd like to call the members to order. Uh this hybrid meeting is being facilitated through Zoom and is being held on the traditional territori 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. Uh since this meeting of uh this committee is being streamed live on the Ottawa City Council YouTube channel, I would 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 raise 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 rem reminded to submit any motions, visual supports, or declarations of interest in writing to the coordinator at their earliest opportunity. Although the deadlines have passed for residents to register to speak and provide written submissions to this committee, residents can still make written submissions to council. If you have any technical difficulties signing into the meeting, please contact the committee coordinator. A reminder that if participants are having technical issues, uh they uh can also call in at this time. Uh we did receive regrets from member Bors and member LGO as well as councelor Leaper who will not be in in attendance today as advised. Uh we can proceed uh with the role. Councelor Kelly >> present. >> Councelor Troster >> here. >> Member Madigan >> here. >> Member Quinn >> present. >> Voice plunt >> here. Sha >> and chair king you have corner. Mr. Chair >> here. Thank you so much. Declarations of interests. Are there any uh declarations of interest? Seeing none, confirmation of minutes uh for uh the meeting of Tuesday, September 15th, 2026. Are those meeting minutes confirmed? >> Confirmed. >> Confirmed. Thank you so much. So this morning, I will proceed uh with a consent agenda for uh the uh subsidive items on uh our agenda this morning. Uh the first item is designation of 936 March Road under part four of the Ontario Heritage Act. We will hold that item as there are delegations. Uh the next item is designation of 26 Castlefrank Road under part four of the Ontario Heritage Act. Uh there are no registered speakers. Uh though we did receive correspondence from Heritage Ottawa. Uh is it the will of committee uh to hold this item or to uh approve it? So I see uh nobody wanting to hold uh the item. So is uh this item carried? >> Carries. >> Thank you. So this item will be submitted to council on November 12th, 2026. Uh the next item is designation of 10 cedro court under part four of the Ontario Heritage Act. Uh there are no registered speakers. We did receive uh correspondents uh from Heritage Ottawa. Is uh there any intention uh from members to hold this item? >> Absolutely. We do have um councelor Gower here uh the ward counselor for Sitzville. And if you do want to take this opportunity, councelor Gower, to say a few words, you're you're definitely welcome to do so. >> Um, just very briefly, I want to thank Heritage staff for uh initiating the review of of this particular building um and reflecting over eight years just how um how much more confident I am that the significant heritage buildings in the Stitzville and surrounding area are protected. Uh the Bradley Craig farm, for example, nearby uh was a high-risisk property eight years ago. It's now uh in great shape. The owners have been taking care of it, and we should in the next few years uh know what the adaptive use will be for that property. We did lose Flewell and Jones House to a fire last year. Uh but we have recently in this meeting uh the Harton House and the last meeting another nearby harton house that uh uh received designation and nearby the castle Frank item that was just passed by committee was part of the oldurn township as well. So I just want to thank staff for their attention to properties in the Stitzville Goldburn Canada area. Thank you. >> Uh thank you so much counselor and I'd be remiss if I didn't acknowledge uh your your presence here. this might be uh well it will be your last uh meeting as a city councelor in in uh that capacity uh but I had said to you that of course I imagine um if you're in the city you will be uh at some point uh in this room uh taking part I know that uh you have uh been a strong advocate uh for heritage in Sitzville um also a former chair of uh this uh this committee and uh we want to acknowledge all the incredible work uh that you do uh as a heritage advocate um in in terms of uh even the the rich material that you provide on your on your blog about heritage properties. Uh we are very thankful that you've been very enthusiastic about uh heritage, its conservation and its preservation uh during your time on on council and and we salute you for it. So thank you so much uh for being here and uh commenting uh on uh this item. Um, is this item carried? >> Carried. >> Carried. >> Thank you so much. So, this report will be submitted to council on November 12th, 2026. Uh, our next item is designation of 622 Queen Elizabeth Driveway under part four of the Ontario Heritage Act. Uh, we do not have registered speakers. We did receive correspondence uh from Heritage Ottawa on this item. Is uh there any intention uh from members to hold this item? Seeing none, is this item carried? >> Carried. >> Great. >> Carried. >> Thank you so much. So, uh this report will be submitted to council on November 12th, 2026. Designation of 354,487 and 511 Reto Street under part four of the Ontario Heritage Act. Uh there are registered uh speakers so we will hold that item and uh delegation of authority updates. Uh there is uh uh a registered speaker for that item. So we will hold that as well. Uh so we will go to uh back to uh item 4.1 uh that has been held designation of 936 March Road and I will invite uh councelor Troster in lie of uh vice chair plant to introduce uh a technical motion to this item. >> Thank you chair. Whereas report ACS2026-PDB-RU-D0049 recommends a designation of 936 March Road under part 4 of the Ontario Heritage Act. And whereas staff met with the property owner and their representatives on November 2nd, 2026 to discuss the proposed designation. And whereas as a result of that meeting, staff would like to provide additional clarity on the elements of the property that are not considered heritage attributes. Therefore, be it resolved that the statement of cultural heritage value attached as document five to the report be replaced with the revised statement of cultural heritage value. And I'm not going to read the whole statement. >> And the statement uh the revised statement was attached uh for for review. Uh we'll now proceed with a presentation from staff. >> Thanks, Jared. Today, Taylor and I are presenting on staff's recommendation to designate three, sorry, 936 March Road under part four of the Ontario Heritage Act. Um, and the property has cultural heritage value for its design, associative, and contextual values, and it meets four of the nine criteria under the Ontario Heritage Act. Next slide, please. So the property is located on the east side of March Road, less than a kilometer from the intersection of March Road and Klondike Road, the center of the former South March Village, which the area is still referred to as today. The residential building is deeply set back from March Road and is located near a water course and a grove of trees. The lands were formerly used for agricultural purpose and a new to subdivision is at the rear. And the image on the left shows the proximity to other Heritage Register listed buildings and part fours in the South March area including St. John's Anglican Church, March House, and the former town hall. Next slide, please. The property has cultural heritage value as one of the few remaining brick Ontario cottages in the former March township. The building was constructed circa 1871 and the rear edition was built by 1895 creating the shell shape of the farmhouse. It's the first brick structure on the property after the log house was burnt um on the property between the late 1860s and 19 1870. Apologies. Um sources suggest that South March wasn't significantly impacted by the great fire of 1870. However large parts of M March Township were and given the context of the data construction, it is possible that they may be associated. The property is cultural heritage value for demonstrating the early settlement patterns of South March in the 1820s. The first colonial settles settlers arrived in the area uh in 1819 were British military officers who settled along the Ottawa River and the following year March Township was surveyed. March Corner's Village, which was later renamed South March for the post office, emerged as an industrial and agricultural hub, serving as a halfway point between Btown and the Auto Valley lumber camps. And by the mid 19th century, it became predominantly agricultural. The Young Husband family exemplify this theme, immigrating from England to South March in 1828 and one of the prominent families in March and Tbolton Townships. Uh John Young husband senior was the first school teacher in March Township in 1837 and also served as town clerk and his son John Jr. and grandson George Henry were farmers and own the property until the 18 sorry 1960s. The direct and extended family were highly involved community members including at St. John's Anglican and the Orange Lodge for several generations. South March's rural agricultural setting can also be read by farmsteads and historic buildings such as 936 March Road by its location off main roads and near water courses with regular and deep setbacks and set within wooden areas and uh which often obstruct views of the building. And finally, the building supports the rural vernacular character of the former village of South March. The village was a thriving agricultural community from the mid-9th century into the 1930s. The historic built character of the area consists of a range of simple vernacular and classically inspired forms and retains farmhouses and institutional buildings from the late sorry mid to late 19th century into the early 20th century. Next slide please. Um so the heritage attributes that demonstrate the typology of the Ontario cottage include um its L-shaped footprint, the one and a half story massing, side gable uh central gable on the front facade and central entrance flanked by windows and red brick cladding with diiochromatic brick work. Uh so these are high level attributes that focus on the form, massing materials and fenestration which characterize the Ontario cottage. And the yellow portions outlined on the photos here um are not heritage attributes and are not part of the designation and they represent more contemporary alterations that have occurred within the past 40 years. Next slide please. Thank you Christie. So I'm just going to briefly summarize the consultation that has occurred throughout this process. So staff initially reached out to the property owner by email in May and again in July, September and October. Um on September 1st, we met with the property owner on site. Um we reviewed the designation process and the proposed attributes and at that time the property owner requested additional time to review um the documents. We granted that and then are now here today to propose the designation. Only last week did we hear from the property owner again where they requested another meeting to discuss uh the heritage designation with their consultant. We met with the representatives just this last Monday and listened to their opposition. They are also here today, I believe, to provide a delegation. Um, at the meeting on Monday, there was confusion as to what was excluded versus included in the designation. And so, to respond to this, there's the motion here today to provide added clarity to the statement. After the review and those discussions on Monday, staff continue to recommend designation as it still meets four of the nine criteria. Thank you. Thank you for the uh presentation. Uh we do have uh two registered delegations today. Uh John Stewart is the first uh delegation uh from Commonwealth uh historic resource management. Thank you for joining us. You have uh five minutes. >> Thank you very much. Good morning. Um Commonwealth was hired by Medcaf realy uh to review the share and provide uh comment. The review discussed uh the the context, the site location, current conditions, and followed by a discussion of the house and how it has been altered. The response addresses each of the four positive criteria and concludes that the extents of alterations and conditions of the house does not uh support the building's designation. In terms of the chronology of alterations, uh the existing farmhouse 1871 was destruct constructed using the foundation of the demolished two-story log building. Uh it the uh the um new farmhouse was actually built directly on the original foundation using the sills and and support structure. Um in the 1960s uh the farmhouse uh was abandoned um and purchased uh in an estate sale from the original owners in 1974 by Medcaf realy between 1960 and 1984. of the house remained abandoned and was being used by the fire department as a training site resulting in interior being vandalized, extensive deterioration of the exterior exterior, collapsed roof, brick veneer falling off, no windows, and an unstable uh foundation. In 1984, uh Tony Fuller um undertook the renovation as a summer project. uh he was a 20-year-old uh uh student. Uh uh currently the house is uh remains uh with the family parts of the um sorry in in 2024. that currently the house uh is part of a major March Road redevelopment and master plan including the completion of the subdivision to the east in 26 and uh the ongo ongoing work which will take place in the 22 acres at the front of the house uh off of March Road. Um the review considers the four um criteria. Criteria one, um, the designation addresses only the building footprint as it appears in 1895. It did not include the the tail or the farmyard. The house has been abandoned, had been abandoned for 20 years and was in very poor condition. Loss of brick veneer, no windows, collapsed roof, extensively. Can you go to the next slide, please? Extensive renovations. Um in 1984 a large portion of the brick veneer replaced and loss of heritage attributes are not discussed. Um along with the structural changes the building foundations were not addressed resulting in ongoing loss of veneer from the shifting and deteriorated foundation and water infiltration at the sills in all of the windows and doors. Um the highlight there is is it shows the the the um south facade of the building and basically um the uh the city acknowledged the the new construction which is the uh the one closest to the uh back of the building. But what you have are these vertical uh um removals and not removals but loss and deterioration. So in fact what you're looking at is uh these vertical panels going all the way on each at each window as a result of the demolition and the destruction that occurred with the windows. You had uh at that time they replaced the uh steel headers and replace the um the sills uh the wooden sills with a brick setting on edge. Again it creates a problem because the water infiltration. So since then there's been a problem that way. Next slide please. Uh in terms of uh the design uh value and the physical value, the sheriff fails to reference portion of the building structural history, the 20 years the building was abandoned, its use as a training site for firemen and the uh activity of subsequent owners uh the rehabilitation uh nor the significance of the role of the Fuller family has played in the city of Ottawa. Um the the uh north elevation the city has acknowledged the uh chimney uh um but what you have now is next to the chimney these large vertical panels that are completely replaced. So in fact what you're looking at is a is um a a building that has lost its chimneys. It's lost its uh um original materials. their use of they brought in um salvage brick from Cohen and Cohen. Um the other factor that is a today an issue is the um Virginia creeper that is covering completely covers the south facad and wraps around the front of the building. This is a monster um climbing vine. It's literally got a trunk the size of a tree. And what's happened is that the tentacles on the supporting it have destroyed the brick on that the uh the uh southern facade. Um the other problem is the water infiltration as a result of it. Um the the lower the there's no basement but it floods every year. They've come in and they've raised the graves around the the property. Um and but unfortunately nobody has done anything with the uh with the foundations itself and so you have this water movement back and forth uh um continuously and as a result of that and the combination that your brick is falling off and it's there is a program they have a program annually that they're rebuilding the brick and replacing the brick all along the base of the building. Um next slide please. Uh in terms of the criteria, the the share addresses the young husband family's connection to the pioneer life in the area. It fails to address the 20th century uh history, the structural changes, the ongoing deficiencies, and most important the the role of the Fuller family has played in Ottawa. Criteria seven and eight. Both criteria address a rural context without addressing the dramatic shift changes to the cultural landscape. Uh residential subdivision encroaches on the entire eastern boundary. A designated no build zone visually uh separates the farmhouse um and cannot be uh and the farmhouse itself can't be seen from the road. We talk about context but in fact there is no context. Visually there's no context. And as this uh area develops um there will be physically the the reference to this building and it relationship to uh the March village is is uh void. Um given the subject property structural conditions the multiple alteration is a number of better examples throughout the city. It is the author's view that the property does not merit designation. It would be our suggestion that the city does not designate 936 March Road. Thank you very much. >> Thank you for your uh comments. Are there any questions uh for Mr. Stewart? Seeing none, thank you so much for your delegation. Uh the next uh delegate is Roberto Alberto. Thank you so much for joining us. Uh you have five minutes. >> Thank you, Mr. Chair. Good morning. We're Roberto Alberto, a partner at Dentons and Legal Council for Metcafe Realy Corporation, the owner of 936 March Road. Uh we did meet with staff uh this week uh and they'd met with our client previously as they'd mentioned. There was a little bit of a suggestion that we didn't respond until October 27th. Just want to note that an updated share report was provided on October 15th. So, our client was able to turn around a response within 12 days, which I think was good. Um, this committee doesn't see me that often because when we engage with staff, we have a really high level of finding solutions. So, this is one of the rare ones where uh we have a fundamental disagreement. Um, our client objects to the issuance of a notice of intention to designate under part four. Um, in terms of the the fundamental disagreement, uh, I think the question relates to the evidence relating to the modifications of the building. I think if everybody looks at the pictures from the 1800s, if we still had that iteration of the building, I think there would be uh, agreement here. But when there's such fundamental changes as detailed by Mr. Stewart, um, that's where we're in a different situation. I think this notice of intention is about 40 years too late. and that what remains is nothing more than a nominal uh attachment to the heritage attributes. Mr. Stewart's report is informed both by his professional observations, but also by discussions with the owners of the property, including Mr. Fuller, who did the reconstruction while a college student at uh St. Lawrence College when he when he was just 20 years old. Um the reality is and if if necessary uh and again uh it's it's uncommon where we end up at the Ontario Land Tribunal on on heritage matters, but the evidence relating to the 1871 farmhouse um and the nexus of what is there today to what was there then will establish that it is drastically different. And I think Mr. Stewart walked through it in some helpful detail today as to as to why that is. Uh if that's correct, then the designation is really protecting no more than form um rectangles where the windows are. It's it's not really meaningfully preserving important heritage feel features. And so again, it's our our view and our submission and we believe the evidence establishes that the building has essentially been replaced. Uh the 1980s rebuild does not have contextual value historically linked to its surroundings. The farm no longer operates and much of that land has been approved for a plan of subdivision. There's limited original brick cladding as the brick work has been altered and continues to be altered uh and has been for several decades and the building's not even visible from March Road as it's screened by trees. Um staff hasn't provided uh evidence in response to these points. the uh statement of cultural heritage fe u um that that was provided uh we only received it this morning. Um we don't have any objection arising from that. I think it it's reflecting some refinement and I think it's part of the positive conversation that we tend to have with staff as a best practice. We'd love to receive it earlier. Um but the the bottom line is this committee will either accept that this property has been fundamentally altered and if they do and we suggest that Mr. Stewart's report and the pictures and uh is compelling that that is the case, then this committee should reject uh staff's recommendation to issue a notice of intention to designate uh 936 March Road. Uh thank you. Those are my submissions. >> Uh thank you for your comments and also for your submission. Are there any questions uh from membersh uh delegation? Seeing none, thank you so much uh for your delegation uh this morning. Uh we will now move uh to questions for staff. Councelor Troster. Thank you so much, Chair. I'm just wondering if you could address the delegations and the discrepancy between their assertion that the building should not be designated and staff's um recommendation that it be designated. >> Thank you. Um and through you chair. Um so the delegation spoke to some alterations to the buildings. Uh we are aware of those alterations and we did the best we could in acknowledging those changes in the share. So on page I believe 23 and 24 of the report we have a paragraph that speaks to the alterations acknowledging that the windows have been replaced the roof was redone sills have been altered. Um and that chimney in the one picture has been rebuilt. Um we were aware of that when we made um the recommendation to designate this property. Um I think given the age of the building, this is over a 150y old building. Um changes have happened over those years and the changes that have happened are consistent with what we see. Um and so I don't believe that the building has been completely rebuilt from some of the images that even John shared on the screen. Um that's consistent with sort of removing windows, rebuilding the brick sills around them. Um the area that the extension that was added to the building um is excluded from the designation and we've made that clear in the statement of cultural heritage value as well. Um and so therefore we still believe that it merits designation. It still meets criteria one. Um and that's how we've assessed that integrity. Um, we do acknowledge that the Fuller family did do restoration work on the building in the 80s. Um, and that work is consistent with the standards and guidelines for historic places in Canada in terms of inkind replacement. So they replace replaced red brick with red brick. They maintain those openings and so therefore it still is representative of the Ontario cottage. Thank you. Thank you. >> Uh, thank you so much member Madigan. >> Thank you chair. Uh you raised a point about the renovations done in 1984 by Fuller um met the standards and guidelines which my perception was as well. There were there was an effort to use recycled brick that match the original brick but also like a standard guidelines also uh acknowledges later accretions that have of significance. And I think uh the report that was done afterwards uh by Commonwealth points that Fuller an important family in the Ottawa Valley and for the architecture in here uh that's a new piece of information that was in your report that adds I guess to the significance of this building then and as an example of people taking care of their buildings and trying to maintain the heritage. Would that be correct? um through you chair. If I understand the question properly, um you might be suggesting that we add additional um reference to the Fuller family in the cultural heritage and evaluation report. Is is that my correct understanding? That's part of it, but part of it is that it was raised uh by Commonwealth and their research uh pointing to Fuller being an important family uh to the Ottawa area and the renovations that he did, you know, adds to the value of the building. Uh and in standards and guidelines, later additions can also have value uh when you evaluate the building. >> I would say that I agree. I think the work that the Fuller family did in the 80s is is significant and and good best practices in terms of heritage conservation. Um, and we did our best to recognize that. Uh, if we could do better, I'm sure we could um revise the cultural heritage evaluation report to acknowledge that family and their contributions to the area because I would agree with uh your statement that that is significant. >> Thank you. >> Uh, thank you. Um, are there any other questions uh for members? I did have one uh for staff and it might be uh reiterating uh the uh answer that was provided to councelor Troster. uh but given the age of the building, how does staff assess architectural integrity and have the alterations uh to the building impacted its heritage significance >> through you chair. So similar to my last uh response I guess this building is over 150 years. So um it's expected that change has happened. We acknowledge those changes. We feel that the changes are are minor and in keeping with the the heritage value of the building. Um so we don't feel that the changes are so significant that um they they change our opinion on if this merits designation. Um Kirsty here did a lot of comprehensive research um reviewing historic documents in terms of understanding the building and its change over time. Um we also looked at some of those historic photos which you saw on the screen and comparing that to today's condition. Um it's relatively unchanged um and still is representative of that Ontario college cottage sorry in terms of the the fenistration massing and form. So um that's that's how we do um assess the integrity. >> And uh my last question really uh deals uh with um demolition by neglect. Does demolition by neglect uh contribute uh to uh your assessments of uh heritage significance? >> Uh through you, Mr. Chair. I mean, certainly demolition by neglect can impact the integrity of uh a property in terms of its heritage value. Um, but there are many instances where a property can be appropriately rehabilitated according to the standards and guidelines. And I think that's what we that's our opinion in this uh instance is that the alterations that have occurred have been appropriate um and in and consistent with kind of best practice. >> Uh thank you for those answers. Uh I see that there's supplemental uh questions uh from member Madigan. >> Thank you chair. Uh was the house occupied when you reviewed it? Is it still occupied? >> Through you chair. Yes. It's staff understanding that the building is occupied today. >> And I think there was mention that they are doing ongoing maintenance to the house. Like my my first impression looking at the photos in the report is the house is fairly So, it's not in danger of falling down or uh as you would see with sort of some of the serious uh demolish my neglect examples that we've seen in the past here >> through you chair. I would agree with that statement. >> Thank you. >> Thank you, member Clinton. Uh it's not really a question so much as uh a comment. Uh and I think that um I'd like to say that I will be supporting the designation this morning. I really do not see any evidence in the what was presented to us today to demonstrate that a complete rebuild of this house. Far from it. In fact, uh and as uh staff have mentioned, a house of this age comes they come before us frequently and inevitably there have been a degree of alterations over time and uh this should not take away from the integrity of the house as I believe the staff report has demonstrated and in terms of context uh increasingly as our city grows and expands we are going to see places like this with in rural settings where new suburban development is making its way out toward those those properties. All the more reason in my view to in fact uh uh designate and attempt to preserve them. Um I not far from where I live, there's a great example of of chap the Chapman Mill house that at one point um the Mento group was wanted to demolish as they expanded the Chapman Mill subdivision and thankfully they reviewed that those considerations and instead opted to preserve and integrate it into the site and it just it's a contribution and the people who moved there have a piece of history about the area that they live in right in front of them. So, uh I'm very pleased to support the designation. >> Appreciate those comments. Member Quinn, um are there any more questions or comments? Seeing none, um I just wanted to uh contribute also a few comments as well. Uh we know that the Ontario cottage uh was once the typical uh house in this province and uh what makes this one matter is that so few brick examples survive uh throughout the province and also in the former March township. Uh I also want to be clear about what designation does and does not do. Uh designation does not freeze a property in time. Um, as uh member Quinn uh had uh just noted, it does not touch the interior. It does not prevent additions, new uses or even development of the wider lot. What it does ensure is that changes affecting the specific heritage features we identify the brick cottage itself and its settings are reviewed with heritage in mind. Uh we also always uh want uh to remind owners uh of designated properties that they can apply for city heritage grants and staff uh are h happy to work on uh specific permits or uh if there are any uh specific changes in terms of adaptive reuse. Uh so uh I would agree uh with uh council with member Quinn's assessment and uh at this time um seeing that there are no other comments or or questions uh I'd like to uh continue to move forward uh with uh the report recommendations uh that the Built Heritage Committee recommend that council issue a notice of intention to designate 936 March Road under part four of the Ontario Heritage Act according to uh the statement of cultural heritage value attached as uh document five. Is the technical motion carried? >> Carried. >> Carried. >> Uh thank you. And is the report carried as amended? >> Carried. >> Carried. >> Thank you. So this report will be submitted to council on November 12th, 2026. Our next item is designation 354,487 and 511 RTO street under part 4 of the Ontario Heritage Act. Uh we will have a presentation from staff. Good morning, Chair King, Vice Chair Plant, and Built Heritage Committee members. Today, I'm presenting on Heritage Staff's recommendation to designate three properties on RTO Street under part four of the Ontario Heritage Act. Next slide, please. The three subject properties are 354, 487, and 511 RTO Street. They are all located on RTO street east of King Edward Avenue between Nelson and Coberg streets. This portion of RTO street is defined by it by its early and mixed character formed by successes successive phases of development from the 19th century to the present. Through their low-rise massing, red brick construction, shallow setbacks, and commercial and residential forms. Each of the subject properties has contextual value for supporting and maintaining RTO streets early and mixed character. Next slide, please. As a reminder, in 2024, council carried the recommendation to designate five properties on RTO Street, west of King Edward Avenue for their cultural heritage value as examples of early commercial and mixeduse buildings constructed between the 1870s and the 1920s. Together with the properties being recommended for designation today, the properties provide a comprehensive representation of RTO street's rich history as an early main street in Ottawa and conclude Heritage Staff's study of RTO street. Next slide, please. RTO Street, located in Lowertown, has functioned as an important main street in Ottawa since the 19th century. While the portion of RTO west of King Edward was characterized by early commercial buildings, RTO Street east of King Edward Avenue was historically characterized by large residential development until the end of the 19th century. Oh, sorry. >> And uh yeah, we might wait. Uh we're just having a little bit of technical difficulties, so uh we want to see if we can uh get the presentation back. >> Sure. Okay, >> thank you. By the by the early 19 by early 20th century, purpose-built commercial buildings were becoming more common and many earlier residences were being converted to mixeduse or commercial space. As examples of early residential and commercial buildings, today's subject properties represent this historical evolution of RTO street east of King Edward. Next slide, please. The building at 354 RTO is a representative example of an early 20th century main street commercial building with elements of the Italian8 style. The building was constructed in 1911 by Aaron and Mela Drazzen, prominent members of Ottawa's early Jewish community during a period of significant Jewish immigration and settlement in Lowertown. The property remained closely associated with Jewish businesses for several decades, including the smoke bar kosher delicatessan from the 1940s to 1965. As such, the property contributes to an understanding of Ottawa's Jewish community during the 20th century. Next slide, please. The building at 487 RTO street is located at the corner of Rita RTO and Augusta streets. It has design value as a rare example of a 20th century residential building on RTO street with elements of the Eduardian classes style and a notable parapet. The building was constructed between 1907 and 1908 as the residence of prominent businessman and franophhone civic leader Andrew Charbano. Charbano was involved in one of the most significant acts of civil resistance in the Franco Ontarian history in regard to regulation 17, the battle of the Hapkins at a cole gig in 1916. During this event, franophhone parents occupied a cold gig and used household items including hatpins to prevent officials from removing French speak French-speaking teachers. Charbano as the school board commission's only franophhone member attempted to negotiate with the parents but was rejected and forced to resign. The building has associative value for its direct connection with Charbano who lived at this building until his resignation and eventual departure from Ottawa after the battle. Next slide, please. Finally, the property at 511 RTO Street was constructed between 1871 and 1872 and is one of the earliest remaining buildings on Rito Street. It is a representative example of the Georgian architectural style with its symmetrical facade, sidegabled roof, and two chimneys. The building is directly associated with William Willins, a prominent 19th century Ottawa businessman, who was also the alderman for St. George Ward, and the chairman of Ottawa's board of health. He played an integral role in preventing the 1885 Montreal smallpox epidemic from reaching Ottawa. Willins lived in this building for several decades. The property's association with Willins is reflective of the prominent residents that occupied substantial homes along Rito Street during the 19th century. Next slide, please. Staff sent three letters to each property owner notifying them of the recommendations of the report and the meeting information, including information about the meeting's date change. Staff also notified the Lowertown Community Association and Heritage Ottawa about the recommendations. Each of the subject properties meets three of the nine criteria for designation and staff are recommending that council issue notices of intention to designate for each property. Thank you. >> Uh thank you so much uh for that uh presentation. Uh we did receive um correspondence uh from the property manager as well as Heritage Ottawa on this item. And we do have uh three registered delegations uh starting uh with uh Ben Harrison and we're just confirming whether he's online or not. Hi, good morning. >> Ah, excellent. Uh, thank you uh for joining us uh this morning and uh you have uh five minutes. >> Yes, thanks for having me. Um yeah, so I won't take too much time. Um as I understand most of the questions and concerns we have can be worked out with Lauren um after this meeting. Um but um as to uh 511 Reto um we have been uh treating it you know as a heritage property somewhat already. Um when we've had brick work done we brought in uh heritage specific contractors. Um we did some work on the front entrance last year and um you know did refinishing rather than replacing. Um, so we certainly respect the history and it was great to um to learn all the stuff that we got from uh from the staff um uh regarding the history of the building. Um our main concern question would be that uh it does operate as a condominium uh with six individual owners. Um so we would be curious as to you know if there are any implications in that regard and if it's um if it becomes a problem to redesate in the future either as commercial or um just a traditional residential property not a condominium. Um beyond that um I understand that uh you said the heritage designation applies only to mainly the exterior and doesn't prevent additions and such. Um uh our main question would be if the heritage grants do apply to interior repairs as we do have it's a very high upkeep building at uh at this time. Um, you know, we have Heritage Plumbing, Heritage Heating, and, um, so if grants are accessible for that, we would certainly be interested. Um, so that's all I have for now. Uh, I gather we'll, uh, we'll follow up more with Lauren in the future. But, uh, that's all for now. Thank you. >> Thank you so much, uh, for your comments. Uh, I don't see any, uh, questions uh, for you from members of committee. Uh, so our next delegation is Dan Suzanne. Hi, I'm going to be presenting uh on behalf of the owner. Um the owner will be speaking actually on my behalf right now. He's actually online uh Mr. Alle. So I'm going to transfer my turn to him as well. >> Okay. Thank you. And uh maybe we can uh then just proceed uh with uh the owner then. >> Hello. U can uh can you hear me? >> Uh we can. >> Okay. Very good. Good morning. This is Mr. Elm. I'm the owner of the building 484 Rio Street. Uh I was made aware this week, earlier this week that we were up for the designation of heritage uh building. Um we have some objections to that uh to the effect that the building is in extremely poor shape. Uh there's many many uh issues on the inside and outside on the facade as well. Uh we've been as I told some of the members yesterday, we've been in in talks with some developers, you know, to do a much bigger project because we own both buildings, one next to the other. And this would significantly uh impede on our our project. uh it would increase the cost significantly which right now we we can't really afford to to have this burden and u uh if if we're forced to keep the facade the the whole project would be in jeopardy. Uh there's simply no way to integrate unless we have a huge uh subsidy to do so because we would have to gut the entire inside which would not be compatible with any kind of a modern construction. Uh whether it's retail retail space on the ground floor or uh condo or apartment uh upstairs or low-inccome housing as well that we're looking at. And therefore u we strongly object to have this design designation. It would just kill our our project. Right now we know we have about zoning of six stories. We're trying to get uh a higher zoning to to do a nicer project. But um at this point you know five or six floor zoning. the budget would not allow to to integrate this facade and you know completely change the dynamics of our project. >> Thank you for your comments. I don't see any uh questions uh for you. So uh thank you for your delegation uh this morning. Uh we will now move uh to uh questions to staff. Councelor Truster. >> Thanks. I know there were some questions about the interior of the building uh or of the various buildings. My understanding is the designations are just the exterior, right? So no interior work should be required >> through you chair. That is correct. The designation only pertains to the exterior elements. >> Okay. Thank you. >> And are there any other questions? Um I did have one uh just uh to address um uh what the uh property owner and manager group had asked around uh grants and uh their potential applications to the interior. So, I'm just wondering if uh staff can clarify uh whether there are any city grants that are available in the context of um heritage restoration uh that would assist in terms of uh interior design >> through you Mr. Chair. The heritage grant program for building restoration um really is related to the heritage attributes of the building. So, it would not be eligible for things like plumbing etc. However, there are instances where structural work might be eligible because that holds up the heritage attributes of the building. Um, so we're certainly open to discussing with um the property owners uh what projects they might have that could be eligible through the program and uh newly designated properties are um a higher priority uh in the evaluation of applications um under the under the Heritage Property Grant Program. I appreciate uh that uh that insight, that answer, as well as uh um you know, the commitment of uh heritage planning staff to uh always work with uh the the property owner around plans uh future plans that they might have uh that uh would uh uh really work towards adaptive uh reuse. I know there's been a tremendous amount of work this term on that and I appreciate uh staff's openness to uh work with property owners uh on uh that front. Uh seeing that there are no other um hands up in terms of questions uh to staff or comments. Is this item carried? >> Carried. >> Carried. >> Carried. Thank you so much. So this item uh will be submitted to council on November 12th, 2026. Our last substantive item uh concerns uh delegation of authority updates. Uh we do have a delegation. So uh if we can entertain a brief uh presentation, it would be appreciated. Good morning, Mr. Chair, members of committee. This report is related to um some updates to proposed delegation of authority under the Ontario Heritage Act. Um it's a quite simple report, so this will be a relatively uh short presentation. Next slide, please. Just to provide you with some background, the Ontario Heritage Act uh as you know uh is the framework that we work under and it provides council the ability to delegate its authority related to certain types of applications for properties that are designated under parts four and part five of the heritage act. It's primarily related to applications to alter rather than applications for new construction or applications um for demolition. In July 2015, city council first approved um the delegation of authority for applications made under the Ontario Heritage Act. Since that time and has been tweaked over the years um through various reports of this committee and bylaw amendments uh at council um and the authority may be delegated only after consultation with this committee. So that's why this report is here today. Typically, these types of delegations would be incorporated into updates to the delegation of authority bylaw that happen with the term of council. Um, but we have to we have to consult with this committee in advance of making those updates. Uh, next slide please. So just to focus here, the the real key change here is that we are proposing an expansion of the delegation uh for additions to designated heritage buildings. And right now uh as you see on the slide, the delegation allows for staff to approve additions up to 30% of the gross floor area of an existing building or 50% where a new housing unit is being added. We are proposing now instead to uh expand the delegation in some cases to be related to the height of the building a height of the addition. So up to low rise in height being four stories as defined by the official plan. Um, this delegation is intended to better re better align with recent amendments to the threshold for site plan control, recent delegation of minor zoning bylaw amendments, and really to provide increased efficiency for applicants um to reduce the number of reports that have to come to this committee and council and to hopefully um contribute to speeding up the process of getting new housing built that includes um designated heritage properties. Next slide please. There are other some other minor amendments proposed to the delegation. Administrative updates to correct job titles. Uh reorganization of the sections and an inclusion of a formal delegation for the administration of the heritage property grant program and heritage facade improvement program which have been uh administered by the branch for many many years um but were not included in the delegation of authority bylaw. Uh next slide please. And in conclusion, so as I said, the proposed expansion of authority for additions is intended to increase efficiency for applicants, particularly related to new housing developments. And if approved, it will be incorporated into the updated delegation of authority bylaw. Um there is no additional delegation related to designation. In fact, it's not permitted. Um as well as demolition or new construction and heritage conservation districts. And that concludes my presentation. Uh thank you so much uh for the presentation. We did receive correspondence on this item from Heritage Ottawa and we do have a delegation uh Linda Hode of uh Heritage Ottawa. >> Thank you for joining us. You have five minutes. >> Thank you. Good morning. Nice to be here. Um, yes, Heritage Ottawa has some concerns as expressed in the uh comments I sent you. I'd first like to draw your attention to the very last paragraph. The need for clarification because I think there's um there well the section of the demolition by control or sorry I'm getting my delegation and demolition mixed up. They are both top of mind these days. the delegation of authority bylaw. I think it's probably been amended since this was originally written because the clause didn't match up. I can't remember what um um what you uh the anyway the very last sentence I think if you check you'll see that the reference is not to the existing delegation of authority bylaw which I had to look up because it's something I don't think I've ever read before. um and it was very boring. So um that's fairly straightforward and I'm sure you can check that out. The um question of the whole question of delegation of authority um I gave you the example of of um 320 Chapel Street which um Miss Collins has assured me is 13% of the u gross floor area. Um, I'm not good at math, but I think what really struck me, um, it was well and and our advocacy committee was the blank addition. Um, the fact that and and thinking in terms of not only the heritage building itself, um, but what the community is faced with when they're faced with the zoning bylaw and this is what they will be seeing in the in the application. So there's a considerable concern of in the community I guess at large about the whole question of delegation of authority not necessarily just for heritage um and the fact in this case and I'm not sure about other cases a authority delegation is until the you know it's is the heritage staff will review the addition in this case at the building permit stage of course there's no consultation with anybody I'm not even sure the counselor gets anything when it gets to building permit stage. So it is a concern. Um the um a file that has not yet reached you but has been discussed in the community is the sisters of the visitation monastery. It's a minor zoning bylaw amendment um with some heritage aspects uh attached and it was we were given 14 days to comment on the application for the minor zoning bylaw amendment thanks I believe to Doug Ford um and the whole file has been obviously uh put on hold presumably we guess because there's been some discussion with the applicant uh with respect to the heritage aspects of his application. So, we await um results from that. And I guess personally, I'd just like to say as someone who has been involved or has been consulted um since the late 1970s in various forums, I find um that this the push to delegation, which I understand is not coming necessarily from the staff um of at least not the heritage staff. Um there are a lot of factors at play but it is very disappointing to think that um well it's disappointing to be asked to be consulted when the amount of consultation or the amount of impact of input to a consultation is so limited and it has become more and more and more limited. So that is I guess one of the reasons why Heritage Ottawa decided to intervene in this particular instance. Thank you. >> Thank you so much uh for your comments. Are there any questions to the delegate? Seeing none, thank you so much. Questions for staff and I don't Oh, member Quinn. Thank you, chair. Excuse me. Um, yeah, just uh looking just to comment a question for clarity from um Miss Collins. Uh as uh she pointed out uh the um before final decisions are decided to move over to delegated authority, the um approval to do so would come to us here at Built Heritage Committee. And I'm just wondering would that aspect uh remain in place >> uh through you Mr. Chair. Sorry member Quinn just to clarify this is the consultation on the delegation of authority. So if this committee and council approves what's recommended in this report um then applications that meet the requirements that are outlined in in the document that's attached to the report. So for part four, it is additions up to lowrise where it doesn't adversely impact the heritage attributes of the property. And for part five, it would be additions up to lowrise where it meets the policies and guidelines of the relevant heritage conservation district plan. So if it doesn't meet those two requirements, it would have to come to this committee and council. So if we had an addition to a property that you know we in staff's opinion did have an adverse impact uh we would bring it forward to this committee for consideration. Um and then I would also say that the existing process involves circulation to the ward counselor um as part of the delegation of authority and the ward counselor is is able to um circulate to the community if they wish or provide feedback to staff and we frequently have conversations with counselors about these types of files prior to the issuance of the permit. And then in the very, you know, uh, unusual instance, I'm not sure it's actually ever happened, um, that authority can be lifted by the counselor. Okay. Thank you very much for that clarity. Uh, and, um, uh, and so it would be incumbent upon the counselor to notify the community then >> if that was desired. >> Right. And the counselor has was it five business days to respond in once they receive that notification from you from staff. >> Yes. Correct. So typically if a counselor has questions or comments um they reach out to us within that five business days and then we can have that the discussion doesn't have to occur within the five business days. Um but if we don't hear from anybody, we proceed to issuance um of the permit after the five business days has elapsed. Um I will say that you know you'll see in I think it was in the report that this would result over the last 5 years this will result in about five fewer reports annually. Um but you know we issue approximately 100 permits under delegated authority every year. any additional ones would be included in the reporting that comes annually to this committee um on the use of the delegation of authority as well. >> Okay. All right. Thank you very much. I appreciate it. >> Uh thank you so much uh for that uh clarifying question. Member Quinn. Um I also uh had a uh specific uh question as well. As we look to streamline the approval uh processes in terms of uh planning applications, how will staff ensure uh that the expanded delegated authority continues to protect the heritage attributes of designated properties? Um we have worked very closely with our colleagues um in development review over the past number of years and our policy colleagues um to ensure that heritage is a strong consideration within the planning process as it is supposed to be. Um and we work very closely together to align um application processes around whether somebody needs a heritage permit and a planning application. Um that's part of the efficiency piece is trying to align timing and make things faster for applicants. Uh but it's very clear in the proposed delegation of authority that if something doesn't meet the guidelines of a heritage conservation district plan or it's not clear, it will come forward to this committee. Um staff doesn't have the ability under this delegation to refuse applications. So that's the other aspect is that if there are concerns um on staff's part about the conservation of a heritage resource, it would come forward to this committee as well. >> I appreciate uh that answer and the uh consideration of the heritage attributes in terms and in alignment uh with uh planning uh uh uh applications, development applications that come forward. Um and uh we also uh appreciate uh the the idea of the uh safeguard in terms of uh review uh by the ward counselors. Um, I can attest, and I'm sure um my colleague next to me can attest that we get uh many uh um requests from staff to uh review uh specific applications and we take them uh very seriously and uh we respond uh in uh proper time uh to inquiries that come in. So, we appreciate uh those safeguards. Are there any other questions on this item? Seeing none, um are the report uh recommendations for this item carried? >> Carried. >> Great. >> Carried. Uh thank you so much. So this report will be submitted to council on November 12th, 2026. Uh there are no inc camera items uh for this meeting. Um we did uh circulate as information previously distributed two items on this agenda uh that included uh demolition of the accessory structure at 166 Hiron Avenue North as well as uh designation uh refusals listings for uh fall of 2026. Notices of motion. Are there any uh new notices of motion? Seeing none inquiries. Are there any inquiries? Seeing none other business and I don't >> I would just like to thank councelor King for chairing this committee for the last four years. That is the other business. >> Ditto. >> Thanks chair. Same. >> Thank you so much. And uh I I want to say it's been a uh pleasure and a privilege uh serving uh as chair of this committee over this term. Uh I appreciate all the inputs from from all members uh both elected and especially from public members uh who have taken a tremendous amount of their time uh have uh really uh applied their talent and expertise in uh a very meaningful way in terms of analyzing uh the different reports that uh come uh to uh this committee. We are uh so gratified uh and uh really honored that uh you take the time uh to provide such value to the city. So uh I more importantly appreciate uh the members uh who uh participate especially uh the public members as I said who uh really uh bring uh their their expertise uh to the table. >> Thank you. So on on adjournment, >> we're adjourned. Uh, of course, the the date of the next meeting is to be determined. Thank you everybody. >> Have a good day. >> All right. Ready to commit.