Transcript: Heritage Committee Approves Tower Amid Losses - Comité du patrimoine bâti – le 14 avril 2026 | Summary 624

Heritage Committee Approves Tower Amid Losses - Comité du patrimoine bâti – le 14 avril 2026

testing. Hello everybody. We will start in one minute. Test one, two. Good morning everybody and welcome to the Built Heritage Committee meeting of April 14th, 2026. I'd like to call the members to order. This hybrid meeting is being facilitated through Zoom and is being held on the traditional territory of the Algangquin Anesab nation, the original custodians of the unseated land in which the city of Ottawa is located. We extend our respect to all First Nations, Inuit, and Matei peoples for their valuable past and present contributions to this land. Since this meeting of uh this committee is being streamed live on the Ottawa City Council YouTube channel, I'd like to remind participants to please keep your microphones muted until I call upon you to speak. For those participating here in the committee room, please use the microphone in front of you and keep your computer muted. I will provide each committee member with the opportunity to ask questions or comment on each item in the order in which they 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 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 to provide written submissions to this committee, uh they still can make written submissions to council. If you have technical difficulty signing into the meeting, please contact the uh committee coordinator. A reminder that if participants are having uh technical issues, they can always use the backup telephone number provided by the coordinator. We did receive regrets from member Madigan. I'll ask the committee coordinator to call the role. Councelor Kelly present. Councelor Leaper. Good morning. Councelor Trustster here. Member Bournes, member LGO, present. Member Madigan, member Quinn, Vice Chair Plant. Hello. And Chair King here. You have quarter, Mr. Chair. Thank you so much. Declarations of interest. Are there any declarations of interest to be declared? Seeing none, confirmation of minutes. Are the minutes of the Built Heritage Committee meeting of March 10th confirmed? Confirmed. Thank you. Um, so we have registered speakers for all of the substantive business on our agenda. So we will begin the meeting uh with uh considering the heritage permit uh for 267 Okconor Street. Thank you, chair. Um, this is a heritage permit application for 267 Connor Street, which is located in the Centertown Heritage Conservation District, an HCD. It's designated under part five of the Ontario Heritage Act. Next slide. Uh the property is located on the east side of Okconor Street between McLaren and Gilmore. The site's currently occupied by a six-story office building constructed around 1958, which is a non-contributing building in the HCD. The demolition of the existing building was approved in May 2024. The remainder of the site is a surface parking lot. There's two contributing buildings directly to the east and to the south is 330 Gilmore, the former Ottawa Board of Education building. That building is currently vacant and is on the heritage watch list. Excuse me. Uh, next slide. The proposed development is to construct two landmark buildings. The tower to the north is 27 stories and the tower to the south is 25 stories. The development includes 513 residential units, commercial uses at grade along Okconor, four levels of underground parking, and an outdoor space which will operate as a privately owned public space which is known as a POPS. Next slide. Some background on the planning framework. Like I mentioned, uh these are considered landmark buildings which permit building heights of up to 27 stories subject to specific criteria which is established in the secondary plan for the area. It is also also contemplated in the HCD plan. Staff have determined that this proposal meets those criteria. As part of the application, the applicant followed the council approved public engagement strategy. The proposal also requires an official plan amendment and zoning bylaw amendment. The proposal has undergone three sessions with the special design review panel uh which was comprised of expert design professionals. It is the fourth iteration of the proposal and the design has undergone significant revision. The application is also subject to site plan control and as part of site plan control there will be a requirement for an additional session with the city's urban design review panel. Next slide. Heritage staff have determined that the proposal meets the centertown HCD plan for the following reasons. The four-story podiums which are clad in red brick reflect the material pallet and the historic scale of the HCD. It provides an appropriate transition using setbacks and stepbacks to the contributing buildings to the east. The facades have been articulated as you can see in the image here using vertical divisions with through the window patterns and balconies along McLaren and Gilmore Street to reflect the residential character of those east west streets in center town. Uh the proposal balances um compatible design with contemporary expression. The lower floors relate to the historic context while the more contemporary upper stories are defined by the distinct change in materials from masonry to glazing and the articulated tower breaks on the fourth and ninth story. The proposal incorporates design elements that are seen in the neighboring properties such as arched windows and defined cornice lines. Next slide. The proposed landscape plan meets the heritage uh conservation district plan as well. It proposes a central open space with new plantings, wood benches, raised planters, and curved concrete walls. There will be a cross-sight access of in the form of a public pathway that connects McLaren and Gilmore Street. New street tree plantings are propo are proposed. So, uh next slide. So the staff recommendation is to approve the heritage permits subject to conditions which I'll talk about in a minute. Uh delegate authority for minor design changes to heritage planning staff and issue the permit with a six-year expiry date which is a bit longer than normal and that's due to the complexity of the project as well as the additional planning approvals required. Next slide please. The conditions of approval um are uh the approval of the associated planning act applications, the submission of an engineering memo outlining construction protections for nearby heritage properties, uh the applicant working with the heritage planning staff to explore conservation of the relief sculpture on the existing building and shown in the photo here. Approval of the final materials by heritage staff and submission of the building permit drawings in advance of submission. Next slide. So, in conclusion, staff are recommending approval of the application. It meets the Centertown HD plan and has been designed to be compatible with the neighboring buildings. It replaces a non-contributing building and surface parking lot with a mixeduse development and it achieves heritage conservation and intensification goals. Thank you. Uh, thank you so much for the presentation. We did receive correspondence on this file from Centertown Community Association as well as the Heritage Advocacy Committee for Heritage Ottawa. We do have a numbers a number of delegations uh starting with Irwin Dreon and I think we are just promoting him now online And we're just awaiting promotion and um uh once Mr. Dreon is uh is uh promoted you'll just need to unmute. Uh good morning. Yeah, I am a participant but I don't see myself on screen yet. Um, we can hear you and uh um if you can um put yourself or turn on your video and we've reset the clock so you can begin. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you chair and members of committee. Uh I have uh one comment and one request. Uh the comment is that the special design review panel repeatedly requested of the applicant to consider the heritage context of the proposed development, specifically how the towers would relate to the former OB complex at 330 Gilmore Street. The applicant has never responded to this request. On the contrary, it has assumed the complex away by taking it as a given that an eightstory building would take its place. Such a building was approved in December 2008, but nothing further has happened there since except further deterioration of the complex. I'm disappointed that the heritage staff report makes no mention of this failure to respond to a request from the special design review panel. My request to you is about the modern Madonna which uh the staff presentation just mentioned. It's a relief sculpture on the upper story of the northwest corner of the doctor's building, the building that is to be demolished. And I refer you to page 19 of the staff report for a close-up picture. The conditions of approval state only that the applicant is to work with heritage planning staff to quote explore the feasibility of conserving the relief structure end quote. Surely the city can do better than that. It could require that the sculpture be preserved and be integrated in the new development and I request that this committee do so. Thank you very much. Thank you so much for your delegation. Are there any questions for Mr. Drees? Yes. Uh you have a question from councelor Leaper. Thanks Win and uh I'm going to give that careful consideration over the next few minutes. Um, I'm just curious. Do you know what that relief sculpture represents? It looks like it represents a nurse or someone is it's called a modern Madonna. So, someone in the in the healthcare uh sector uh taking care of an of another individual. It's it's not uh it's it's sort of a a very modern stylized uh picture. So, uh that's all I know and I understand that staff has uh looked into uh the source of it and um it seems uh they haven't come up with anything yet and I haven't seen anything and unfortunately Robert's might is no longer with us. Undoubtedly, you would be able to to uh to tell us what what the origin of this of this sculpture is, but it it is there and and from all the looks of it from way up high, it um it looks very much worth preserving. It's it's very striking. I was looking at that um when I was reading through the report. Thank you very much. Thanks, Jar. Thank you so much. Uh seeing no other questions, uh thank you Mr. for appearing before us today. Uh our next uh delegation is Martin Barklay. Thank you for joining us this morning. And you just need to press the button and then you'll have five minutes. Is that better? Excellent. Okay. Hi. Um, I'm Martin Barklay. I'm the vice president of the Centertown Community Association and the co-chair of the planning committee. Um, I've sat through a number of iterations of this building over the past number of years. Um, I think the main reason I'm here today is to talk about this being a heritage designation and specifically the city's use of the word iconic. Um, in order for this building to qualify in the heritage area that it's in, it needs to be iconic. There is no definition anywhere in the documents as to what constitutes iconic. So, the developer has self-desated itself as iconic. Um, this is a problem. It's a problem for a number of reasons. They've gone through a number of different ways of looking at this building. But at every turn in the community consultation process, they've used this iconic status to say that other planning rules do not apply because it is iconic. If we don't have a definition for this, and this is one of the first of the buildings to be built under this um heritage designation, we run the risk of simply saying iconic is iconic does. And I think that's I think that's a a problem for the city, it's a problem definitely for the neighborhood. I also note that where the uh considerations of iconic and it needing to meet other uh conditions of this, there is a leadership in uh energy efficiency and green initiatives. Nothing in this building has met any of those. They have only met the minimum threshold of meeting the planning requirements. They're not showing leadership. There is no green roof. There are no solar panels. There are no they are not using higher level more energy efficient material for the construction. They are merely meeting the construction code. I guess I'm here today to say we could do better. There are it isn't uh only that there are two buildings on a site that was originally considered for one. The original pro presentation was for a single tower. The Urban Development Institute recommended that. Um, we're now at a stage where we have two very large buildings on the same lot and a a builder that is not imaginative and certainly not particularly sensitive to um the energy efficient and self- sustaining nature and they need to build a neighborhood that is consistent with the heritage around it. We have other examples across the street um also on a runner where a setback has been used more effectively without a a massive um form on the bottom. The final thing that I'd say is that this this builder um has used this iconic and status as landmark to excuse many of the things that they might have done for either soft uh soft green space, use of trees, um public access simply by saying since it's iconic, none of these things apply. They've increased the percentage that is open to the public from 30 to 40 after a series of letters and a number of uh presentations. But I still feel this building falls short of what could be done. There is no green initiative. There is no green status in this building. It merely meets the legal requirements of construction. Thank you. Uh thank you for your comments. We do have a question from councelor Troster. Hi Martin, thanks so much for being here. Yeah, I've also seen multiple iterations of this building in the last four years. I will say I do think the community had a big impact on increasing that outdoor public space. There was an iteration of this plan where the public space was actually like an enclosed indoor room and that made no sense to me. So, you know, good job in that regard. So, is it your contention that if a building in a heritage zone is going to is going to apply for the kind of height that they're asking for that the architecture should be more more of a landmark? That's I think it's more of the architecture than the height. My understanding is that the Ontario Municipal Board has already ruled on um height designations and that it meets the criteria under that. So, I think you know being opposed to that is kind of counterproductive. Okay. So, I I'm I'm more concerned about the energy efficiency, the green aspect, and the heritage aspect in terms of fitting in with the buildings that surround it. Yeah, I mean, it still is a lot of change for that area. It will be the tallest building in the surrounding area, and Centertown's already taking a lot of density. Um, and I agree with you. I think the landmark status is really nebulous. We've seen this with other buildings where I mean it's very subjective and I'm not sure who ultimately makes that final call. Um but the urban design review panel certainly helps nudge the building in a in a different direction. So anyway, I really appreciate your feedback. I know this is a tough one and I've I've heard a lot about this property and we'll probably hear a lot about it tomorrow planning committee too. So thank you. Thank you. Thank you so much uh for your contribution this morning. I see no other questions. Uh so uh we will move to our next uh delegate uh delegation who is Hunter McIll. Good morning Jerry. Thank you very much. Good morning committee members. Uh thank you for letting us um slide in uh with a rather late notification to you to request your time. Uh you will have received I hope uh correspondence from Heritage Ottawa who touches on a a range of the issues that you are dealing with this morning. Um uh our uh concern as you might well expect is very much with the uh the preservation of the u principles uh of the uh heritage character district in which this uh uh proposal is is cited. Um, we've mentioned a number of the factors of particular concern to us. Uh, largely from a uh a design and planning standpoint, uh, we think that the Centertown Citizens Association in their uh, submission to you have raised a number of very important points. So, we won't go over them. We happen to feel that they're all very pertinent to your considerations. of particular interest uh to us uh among other issues is the proposal to include a pops privately owned public space in the design. Um we haven't seen many if more than perhaps a bare handful of these types of approaches to design. Uh our view is that this perhaps could be treated and I believe that the special uh design review panel also touched on this uh that this uh particular element of the design could have been handled in a much more uh sensitive and thoughtful and appropriate way. Um, speaking personally, I had an opportunity to look at pops in several uh uh North American cities, particularly San Francisco. This is not to my uh perspective a particularly inviting pops and the fact uh that it is situated between two very tall towers suggests that in fact that there are a number of important factors which have really got to be taken into consideration. Not the least of which would be the wind effect which we know is a factor of tall towers. We also suggest that the uh um that the committee give consideration to factors associated with upkeep access um uh in the treatment and the presentation to the public of of the pops. Um the uh other uh element of of concern to Heritage onway is the overall size of the building. It's crowding of the uh of the site. It it's very close to the to the uh lot the setback requested is uh very minimal and that does not appeal if one looks at the other structures on the uh on the same street. uh and nearby uh there are much more uh appropriate examples of appropriate setback and height and so on. As the previous speaker mentioned, there is also the significant concern uh of the precedent setting nature of uh of approval for this. And finally, uh Mr. chair and committee members. Um surely um a building is not a landmark building or an iconic building just be just because the proponent uh deems it to be. So I don't think that that's really a particularly useful uh approach and recognizing as um as was suggested a moment or two ago uh in a lot of cases uh decisions of that nature as to what is landmark iconic are extremely difficult. uh but they should go beyond just the uh label the designation that is given by the by the organization which uh which uh is requesting your your authority and your approval to go ahead. Um, in conclusion, if the committee is interested in thinking about uh an interesting example, in my personal view, a very appropriate example of landmark building, it just needs to go one block to the east and examine the Public Service Alliance of Canada headquarters building uh which dates back uh to 1968 uh and which is has stood the test of time and is a very striking example. of good planning and good architecture. Thank you very much. Thank you so much, Councelor Truster. Thank you, Hunter. I used to work in that building, so I can tell you it's also very cool from the inside. Thank you for your uh contribution. Um, what do you think of the podium on this building, though? Because I it actually reminded me of the PSAC building, the use of the brick and some of the the size of the windows. No, it's I see your face. I I will respond. I maybe the minutes wouldn't catch facial gestures. Okay. Um no uh it's very difficult to understand the purpose of of of the podium except to perhaps offer um a gesture in the direction of um different materials for that section of the building. But it does not uh to a nonspecialist like me, it doesn't appear to really offer uh anything. Okay. Yeah. I always find when we discuss the actual design and architecture of a building, it is very subjective, but I I really appreciate your feedback and I appreciate your concerns. Thanks so much. Thank you. Thank you so much uh for your delegation. I don't see any further questions. So, thank you so much. Uh our next uh delegate is Kyle Casda on behalf of the development team and I see other members of the team are also joining you as well. uh because we do have John Stewart uh Timothy Bead and Patrick Bison also uh registered on behalf of the uh applicant team. Thank you so much for joining us and you have five minutes. Thank you. We do have a presentation prepared but uh if the committee would prefer we can just answer questions. I feel like Ann's presentation quite well covered what we're proposing. Absolutely. Okay, then if anyone has any questions, please go ahead. Councelor Leaper, thank you very much. I'm sorry. I'm trying to uh find an report here. Let me pull it up. Um, so one of the conditions uh for the approval is that u the applicant is working with the heritage planning staff to explore the feasibility of conserving the relief sculpture on the upper story of the existing building. Um I I have significant sympathy for where Irwin is coming. This shouldn't be a a consideration. Is there anything stopping you from conserving the relief structure? Yes, thank you for the question. Yes. Um so I think there's two components to this. The first is the uh historical significance of that sculpture. There's not a lot of information available as to its origins. So it's it's not necessarily a defining component of the building or necessarily of extreme significance to the area. Um having said that we do have we do realize its its relevance to the historic use of the building and what it would have been in the 50s and 60s when this building um was first constructed and later uh expanded. So that's part of the reason why we're considering its feasibility uh of retention. The other is we have not investigated whether or not it could be removed from the building which would be something we would undertake uh during site plan or prior to demolition of the building. Um during site plan we would also consider where in the landscape plan or elsewhere in the community we could locate the structure uh which is is why we've determined to work together uh at site plan on its conservation. Would you have any strong objection if we were to modify that condition C to be amended to read uh the applicant conserving the relief structure in a manner satisfactory to heritage planning staff? I think that's appropriate. Yes. Okay. Thank you. Thank you so much. And I do know that you have a a presentation. So if you want to proceed with that, we can uh put the PowerPoint back uh on the screen. Okay. We'll do so. Thank you. Um, perfect. So, of course, proceed. Thank you. Uh, good morning and thank you very much. Um the um the development at 267 Oconor Street represents a a wellconceived reuse of the property uh with buildings that provide visual paracity at ground level and a generous public accessible site. Uh next slide please. This is a an appropriate uh location for a uh landmark building uh that will enhance the identity of center town, contribute to a meaningful to the public realm, and address the city's growing uh need for housing. Next slide, please. Uh with regard to the demolition of uh the the building, uh the property is um as part of the uh Centertown Heritage Conservation District was considered uh a non-contributing resource and a demolition per permit was issued in uh 2024. Um just picking up on the the mother and child uh modernist uh element. Um I don't think anybody's had a really good ability to get up and have a good look at the site. It's stainless steel. It's um uh finishes, but it will depend to the extent to which it uh uh its condition. So I think it's uh I think a positive that we were able to do this and it'll take a bit of time before there's an answer for it. Um next slide please. The the new development incorporates key heritage attributes found within the district, including setbacks, a facade cadence reminiscent of a former lot divisions, highquality materials and finishes, a vintage uh specific color palette, and the reintroduct introduction of street trees along alongside of public amenity spaces. Um the uh the focus in terms of grounding it within the um the area has been addressing the um the the podium and the details of the podium and I think some of the comments that came out earlier uh the efforts have been put forward uh to to uh capture some of that in terms of materials and color palette in terms of uh context. Next slide please. The project addresses the public realm interfaces with the surrounding building stock and introduces uh uh needed green space in the area. The cross-sight access and location of the pops nestled between the two towers and fronting onto Okconor creates a sunny inviting open space. uh center will center town and this part of center town will benefit from the uh from the uh um the treatment. The main pedestrian next slide, sorry. Uh the main pedestrian areas are linked uh with a connection to the sidewalks for transparency. Commercial scale uh glazing is provided on the ground floor. Midblock public access between McLaren and Gilmore opens the site up and loading services and utilities are screened from from views. Access to the residences from the side streets helps to reestablish the hierarchy of east and west streets. This is one of the um interesting is the the east and west streets are they're in terms of uh relating to Okconor they're they're more residential in scale and part of this effort was to to recapture or retain that uh that character. The two buildings uh next slide please. The two buildings are point towers with distinctive bases, middles, and tops organized to be viewed all around. The placement on the site is appropriate given the lot orientation. Next slide. Uh the the masonary podiums ground the proposed development and reference back to the original lots materials and color palette and provide context to the neighboring properties. The brick podiums and defining datim lines help to reference existing buildings. Uh, next slide please. The tower forms are offset from one another reducing the overlapping of views. The treatment of the upper floors uh is uh simple consisting of grid that is animated by adjusting the thickness of panels and peers. Materials and finishes for the body of the building are intended to be light. The distinct uh basket weave of the north tower adds interest with the tops creating an architectural treatment on the skyline. Thank you. Thank you so much uh for the presentation. Are there any questions? Uh councelor Leaper, just one uh to satisfy my own curiosity. On page eight of the report, uh it speaks about the design elements and notes that the proposal incorporates red brick masonry repetitive arches interspersed with a regular spaced orthogonal fenestration pattern. So I think orthogonal frag fenestration would be a great album name, but yeah, what is what is orthogonal fenestration? Sorry, I that's okay. Uh me Patrick. Uh thank you. Uh I think the orthogonal fenestration just speaks to the rhythm of fenestration that you would normally see in the low-rise red brick homes uh that characterize the neighborhood. So we were trying to recreate that that smaller window pattern in the podium. Sorry, I'm trying to relate the word orthogonal to that. I know non non-archched not arched square or rectangle. Yes, exactly. Yeah. Thank you. This this committee is often fascinating. Thank you. Thank you so much. Uh I don't see any other hands. Oh uh member Quinn. Uh thank you chair. Um I don't know if this uh this these questions have to be specifically for for John or can we anybody there? uh or yeah the entire uh um okay I just would like to come back to um the the the podium excuse me uh I have a question about the window designs the the c all the windows seem to be sort of set back uh with with uh I don't know if we can bring up um the uh the slide that shows what what I'm talking about. Is that possible? Uh I think we will try to pull up the uh the presentation for you. Yeah, they seem to be uh you know there's a each window is quite deeply set back which is in my in in my uh understanding of center town uh architecture I I don't see how that relates to anything in the surrounding um uh context. Uh I so I I just was wondering how that uh has been interpreted to be um to be sensitive to and you know speaking to the uh the buildings that have been identified in particular in the report as examples of how what this podium is relating to. Uh yes, thank you very much. So are you aware you know what I'm talking about here? You look at the columns separating the windows. um the you know the pattern the fenestration pattern uh both in terms of the arched windows and the uh and the square and rectangular windows what's the rationale for that so I'm I'm speaking on behalf of our partners also which is un studio out of Amsterdam but I think the intent to uh have some recess to the uh the the apertures the windows was to give additional character to the facade of the building I think there's the level of um latitude that we were looking at to express the building uh in a slightly more contemporary fashion while keeping some of the heritage language of the red masonry of the neighborhood. So uh the pushing back of the windows is really a I'll call it an architectural expression rather than an adherence to the uh local uh architectural language of the um the heritage district. Uh okay, thank you. Um but uh in in a way it's actually I find a distraction. It it's it detracts it from what's going on around around. And similarly the series of arched uh windows at the ground level. There's just there's too many there too many windows. They're too big uh for it to really relate to uh to what it's trying to achieve. If you if if we read the um uh the Commonwealth report uh which is you know the justification for the design and how it does relate to the heritage conservation district uh buildings in the surrounding area immediate area uh this uh this treatment actually um it doesn't do it uh in my opinion and I've done a fair amount of this uh I think it uh it it went in the wrong direction. Uh so um I'm surprised I very I was very surprised to see it. And similarly the series of arched uh access points in the main level sort of reminded me um of sort of a a 1970s mini mall or something. Um, so, uh, I I have to say it was it was really I was geared up for something really interesting and I have to share with you that that I find this disappointing and that there were there's opportunity to do something more that does in fact relate to the conservation district and we're hearing from the community and they want to see that. Um, that's important uh for the consistency of their uh of their area. So, um, anyway, there's some some feedback and I I don't know if it's, uh, too late to go and and and do anything to to address those concerns. And we've heard about them this morning. I was not visible on the screen, but I was, uh, participating in the meeting. Uh, so I did hear all of the um, uh, witness all of the presentations so far. So uh uh yeah I'm just a little surprised to to well your explanation is is not uh satisfactory and uh in my view so thank you but anyway I don't know if it's too late but be nice to see something done there. So thank you for the feedback. Um this has been an an iterative process balancing two different planning documents which uh depending on you know the subjective opinion of the reader could be seen as conflicting. We have the center town uh landmark building policies which reach for iconic architecture and then we have the center town HCD plan which pulls the architecture more to relate and complement the existing bill form. So this is this is what we've um resolved as being a balance between these policies. Uh and it's also underwent the review of uh three different special design review panel uh sessions uh which which have provided recommendations uh and those recommendations were incorporated into the current design. So I think it's this is really what we've struck as a balance between uh many policies. But we we hear your feedback and we appreciate it. Thank you. Thank you. You also have uh questions uh from councelor Troster. Hi there. Thanks for being here. So, you've heard from the community they don't think the building meets the landmark policy. I invite you to just say in a few words why you think it does. Thank you. Um Tim, I see you're online, so maybe maybe I'll start and if you have anything to add, you can jump in. Definitely. It's our opinion that it meets the landmark building policy uh as a result of the extensive public consultation that we've undertaken. Uh this consultation process was approved by council back in 2020 and it's included over 40 touch points with various stakeholders. Uh we've undertaken three pretty significant uh variations of the design to get to this proposal and we have the support of the special design review panel and city staff uh both for having completed the consultation process and ending up with the design that is felt to meet the landmark policies. Uh there's some fairly objective requirements under the policy as well which you'll you'll see tomorrow in the planning and housing committee. Um, but in terms of how the current application meets the landmark policy in a a built heritage perspective, I think the completion and adoption of recommendations under the the consultation process demonstrates that. Thank you. And I think member LGO had her hand up. Not sure. Okay. Uh, no questions from member LGO. Uh, I don't see any other questions for you. So, thank you so much uh for your presentation and for your delegation uh this morning. Uh we uh now move uh to questions uh for staff. But before we do, I believe that councelor Leaper had an amending motion to the report. I do. Thank you, chair. Uh so with respect to uh Mr. Gre's uh intervention. Uh I'd like to move whereas the report recommendation that approval be conditioned upon the applicant working with heritage planning staff to explore the feasibility of conserving the relief structure on or sculpture on the upper story of the existing building and whereas the relief sculpture is worthy of conservation as a heritage and cultural asset. Therefore, be it resolved that the recommended condition C be amended to read the applicant conserving the relief sculpture in a manner satisfactory to heritage planning staff. Thanks, chair. Thank you so much. Uh, now questions to staff. Uh, councelor Truster. Hi. Thanks. I know this is this file has been a very long time coming. There have been many iterations. The concept of a landmark building and iconic architecture is very subjective. Uh and it's a policy that really only exists in certain I believe in the downtown transact if I'm not mistaken. Um yeah, correct is that's correct. In the secondary plan for this area, right? Um, and the landmark policy allows exceptions to some other policies, including heritage considerations. So, I'm just wondering from your perspective, what do you think? I mean, what factors did you take into account in in determining that you thought this building applied to the landmark policy through you, chair? Thank you, councelor Traser. I think I think the way we looked at it is iconic architecture is sort of it's the goal and the way the policy is set up to establish that is through a rigorous architectural review process. So like we've heard the proposal went through many iterations. It went to the special design review panel three times and that panel was composed of um Canadian and international design experts and the proposal for the most part has responded to the key recommendations in its most recent iteration of that design review panel. They also used a local architect but partnered with an international architect from Amsterdam and they responded to um staff concerns and comments as well. They listen to feedback from heritage planning, urban design, development review staff. So in our opinion, it has gotten there. In the application that's in front of you today, we looked at it from a heritage lens. So we looked at it for compatibility with the district and balancing that contemporary architecture at the same time. So on the slide that you saw and in my report in my report rather where I go through the points of why we think it meets it it's sort of the key ones are that the height is contemplated both in the secondary plan and HCD it's a de demolition of a non-contributing building but they're going to submit a demolition plan that um speaks to sort of salvage and muse material and then it's those design sensitivities in terms of transition uh the design elements that were incorporated the podium height and scale. And so those were the elements that we thought from our perspective brought into that um to meet those landmark policies. Thank you so much. Uh councelor Leaper, thank you very much, Chair. Um I feel like I'm back in 2020 a bit with the Misrai building uh where it was required to have landmark status. uh the Ontario Municipal Board um uh told us and defined partially defined I guess landmark status as a wow factor. Um I don't know if I don't know if that um OM decision uh was helpful at all in advancing our understanding of what landmark architecture is uh or is it just going to be very subjective each and every time? Through you chair. Uh, that's a good question, Councelor Leaper. And I think the one thing to keep in mind is it's a wow factor also in a heritage conservation district. So, it's the balance of the two that really has to get sort of struck here. So, we look at it from podium height, pedestrian level, public realm experience, and then that contemporary expression up above. But you're correct. There's no definition of of a a wow factor in any planning document that I've seen. But we I think looking at the most recent recommendations from the SDRP and from feedback from staff, we do feel like they've really addressed a lot of those key components in their design. Okay. Thank you, member Leau. Yes. I I'd just like to add a comment that I actually um I I I like this design. And I think it strikes a good balance, a contemporary balance with the podium um using the red brick. Um and I I think, you know, it's it's hard. Everyone's got different opinions when it comes to contemporary interventions. Um and there are certainly things that everyone would change with every design, but I I actually I I think that this works and I think you guys did a good job of of of finding that balance between all those different uh different elements. So, thank you. Uh, thank you for those comments. Are there any other questions? Seeing none, I just wanted to make a few comments. Um, I note that heritage staff who were initially unable to support earlier versions of this proposal over many years are now recommending approval. That shift is meaningful. It reflects genuine uh uh design responsiveness uh by the applicant over five years of interation. Uh staff have been clear however that the approval is conditional. Uh the five conditions in document 9 are not minor formalities. They include material selection approval, engineering protection for surrounding heritage buildings and the question of the sculpture. And I obviously uh would encourage members to probe uh these conditions carefully after careful review of the heritage impact assessment, the staff report and the 5-year design record before us. Uh you know, I believe that the application uh is uh attempting to be uh more thoughtful. It's trying to uh ensure uh that uh the heritage planning process uh works through the HCD framework. uh the way it's designed uh to uh be supported. Uh the proposal obviously is not without tension and I think we're we're hearing that today about the subjective nature of design and uh we have to acknowledge that no landmark building in a heritage district can uh be uh without any tension. Uh but the design has uh definitely evolved substantially in response to legitimate heritage concerns and heritage staff have concluded that it now meets the applicable policies and guidelines. Uh for that reason I do support the recommendations to approve uh with the five conditions as proposed. Uh I am also encouraged uh by uh the motion brought to committee around the relief sculpture by uh councelor Leaper uh to uh strengthen conditions uh that have the merit uh that that require the strengthening. Uh and I think that particularly uh does uh include uh the sculpture. Uh finally I want to be clear that uh approval of this heritage permit is the beginning of a process not the end. uh a site plan control application will follow and the urban design review panel will have another opportunity to review the uh refined design and uh we know that uh many will be watching people around this table with interest and of course uh the ward counselor um will be uh watching the project closely through every stage and continuing to consult with the community at every stage. Uh so I do want to thank Heritage staff, the applicant team and most importantly the community uh who participated in this uh process uh for their diligence and their commitment uh to uh providing maximal input into uh this application. So we have two items before us. Uh the motion presented by councelor Leaper on relief uh on the relief sculpture. Uh is that uh motion carried? Carried. carried. Sorry. Uh, member Bores. Mr. Chair, I wanted to make a couple of comments on the uh the report as as amended. Um, I I think really that heritage staff have wasted their time in looking at this application. They the properties on McLaren, the property on Gilmore, the property uh across the street being the uh public uh school board, the iconic property uh across the street uh across Okconor uh at Gilmore. None of which have influenced or are reflected in this design in any way other than the material. And the material is not a heritage issue. It's a uh it's a development issue. It's a center town issue. It would have been something that came up in the uh development of the uh the community association position. Community Association of course approved of the development of uh iconic buildings uh for basically because they managed to get the 35 ft height limit uh east of Elgen and therefore went along with the uh iconic buildings. This does kind of fit into the iconic building category. You know, it's got a little bit of a twist and a little bit of an angle to it. And uh but the heritage like there's no reason why this building is before us. There's no amendment that uh relates to the the building except I guess uh councelor Leaper's uh uh recommendation related to the old building uh that we should keep a piece of it. But this is and you'll see later as as you consider my amendment uh that this adds no value being in a heritage zone and it adds no value to the staff time that was spent on working with it. It adds no value to the uh development team that they were in a heritage uh zone and it adds no value to the community association which considered it at a planning committee meeting as as much as a heritage committee meeting but generally you know it was it was a planning issue not a heritage issue so I don't see any reason to object to this uh particular application. Uh however, I do want to just indicate that it is a perfect example of why I move the motion that uh will come up shortly. Uh thank you for uh those uh comments. Of course, uh there are opinions and there are facts and the fact is that we're dealing uh with a a heritage permit uh for 267 Okconor Street that's uh before us uh under the Ontario Heritage Act uh which is within of course the the jurisdiction of uh this uh municipal council. Um member LGO. Yes. I'd like to just respond to member Borren. I I think I I it's hard for me to to hear um what you are saying coming from someone who works in conservation and knowing how hard these people work to to protect our our cultural resources in this city. And I think it it's just extremely disrespectful to you to be belittling their work to this level. Um, so I would encourage you to educate yourself as to what it means to be a heritage charact uh a heritage conservation district. Also, what it means to get designation. Um, perhaps go into an architectural office and see what kind of work people are doing because it's it's far more complex than you make it seem. And these people are highly educated and they they work hard. They work hard for a good reason. and they're here to to help us have a rich a rich city full of multiple layers of stories and and I personally strongly value this and I'm I'm I'm proud I'm proud of the work that this city does and um I would just I I would really encourage you to to open your eyes to to this as well. Appreciate the comments. Uh I believe that the uh motion uh for the relief sculpture uh had uh passed on consent. Uh the next uh item is the main report uh recorded vote please. Uh committee coordinator member Quinn. Uh no. Councelor Kelly. Yes. Councilor Troster. No. Member LGO. No. Councelor Leaper. Yes. Member Bournes. Vice Chair Plant. No. And Chair King. Yes. Four Yay. Four nays. So based on our rules, the U motion fails on division. Does it refer to council decision uh committee tomorrow as well? So this item uh goes still goes to planning committee um uh for consideration. Sorry, I I think I misunderstood this motion. I thought it was the motion for this basically to be abolished like the the No. Okay. I I I would like this to continue to go forward as as presented. So, so uh at the will of uh committee, can we reconsider member LGO's vote? Yes. I would like this to move forward. Yes. I would not like uh Brian Bourne's uh I I thought he was presenting a new motion. So, member Warren's uh uh motion is associated uh with uh another item uh that agenda. Uh this is just dealing specifically uh with uh this uh this heritage permit. Okay. Yes, I would like to proceed. Uh so uh you've uh changed your vote uh with the will of the committee. Uh five five yays, three nays. Five uh yays, three nays. So, uh, the report will be submitted, uh, to council on April 22nd, 2026. We move on to the next item, heritage permit for 237 Clemo Avenue. Uh, we'll, uh, receive a presentation from staff. That was fun. Good morning. Uh, yep. So, this is the presentation for the heritage permit at 237 Clmo Avenue. And next slide, please. Just wait for the French slide slide do you want? And if we could go back one on the English please. Thank you. Uh so this property is located at 237 Clemo Avenue uh within the Clemo Monlin Driveway and Lynen Terrace Heritage Conservation District. Uh we're located midblock between Lion and Percy on the north side of Clemo Avenue. Uh and this property uh contains a two-story house built around 1960 uh which is identified in the HCD plant as a non-contributing property. And next slide please. Uh so this proposal is for demolition of the existing property or the existing house and replacement with a new single detached house. Uh you can see on the screen here uh proposed elevations of the front and one of the sides. Uh and next slide please as well. Uh so as you can see it's a two-story design uh cloud predominantly in red brick with a stone veneer at the base foundation level. And next slide please. Uh so here you can see a elevation or a rendering of the proposed design in the context of Clemo Avenue. Uh so you can see the landscape design is relatively simple and keeps uh the sort of predominant characteristics of the district and the existing lot. Um in addition to the sighting and overall scale of the proposed building being very compatible and similar to that of the surrounding properties. Uh and next slide please. Uh just quickly here you can see a setback analysis which was uh provided by the applicant uh just providing a overview of the proposed footprint of the proposed house uh in the context of its neighbors uh within the HCD. So you can see that the actual proposed footprint is very similar and compatible with the district itself. And next slide please. Uh in addition here is the proposed landscape plan. So, as I mentioned, this retains the existing um shared driveway between 237 Cleo and its neighbor to the east. Uh in addition to the kind of very characteristic uh simple lawn uh which is predominant throughout this district. And next slide, please. So, in terms of the relevant parts of the Clem Monlin HCD plan, um we're looking at section 5, 8, and 9 uh here. So uh first of all regarding demolition and relocation um so as I mentioned this proposal is an example of a non-contributing property uh under section 5 uh there are very limited numbers of non-contributing properties within this heritage conservation district um but uh in instances where a proposal for demolition uh is proposed on a non-combing property it can be considered by heritage staff um provided that the new proposed uh development is compatible with the character of the HCD. Uh when looking at the character of the HCD, we look predominantly to section 8 of the heritage conservation district plan um which provides policies and guidelines for new construction. Um so the proposal meets the relevant policies and guidelines of section 8. Uh it's highly compatible with the surrounding HCD through its sighting, its footprint, uh its scale, and the materials used throughout the uh the building. Uh and then finally, section 9 speaks to landscaping, streetscape, and public realm within the Heritage Conservation District. Um so as shown on screen, the landscape plan uh really retains a lot of the existing front yard of the existing house um and matches the characteristics that are predominant throughout the Heritage Conservation District and retaining that um existing shared driveway and the kind of uh lawn which carries through across the front yards of Clemo Avenue. And next slide, please. Uh in terms of consultation uh for this proposal, uh Council Manard, Heritage Ottawa, and the Gleeb Community Association were notified of the application. Uh notice was sent out to neighbors within 60 mters of the property and a notice sign was also installed on the property. Um we did have a pre-conult meeting with the applicant and a representative of the Glee Community Association who provided feedback in addition to staff feedback. uh and through the the written or the mailed notice and the uh posted sign we did not re receive any negative feedback on this uh proposal from neighbors. Uh material was also posted online on dev apps as well. And next slide please. Um so staff are recommending approval of this application. Um so approving the demolition and new construction uh in addition to delegating minor design changes to the program manager and issuing the permit with a 2-year expiry date which are both standard um for these types of applications. And next slide please. And then in addition to our standard conditions uh we are recommending one additional condition uh which is just to uh for the applicant to work with staff to undertake some minor design revisions um just to improve the sort of compatibility and distinguishability of the new proposal from surrounding contributing buildings in the HCD. So the idea here is to just tweak it a little bit to better meet some of the charact some of the guidelines of section 8 um and also kind of address the uh intent of standard 11 of the standards and guidelines for the conservation of uh historic places in Canada which speaks to um speaks to um highlighting and promoting the distinguishability of new work in heritage heritage character heritage uh context. Uh and that is it for my presentation today. happy to answer any questions and thank you very much. Thank you so much for the presentation. We did receive correspondents from Heritage Ottawa on this item and we do have two registered uh delegations uh starting with Janie D. Roier Good morning. Welcome to the committee and you have five minutes. Good morning. Thank you for having us. I'm Jenny de Ros. This is my spouse foster worthy applicants. We are just uh wanting to be available for questions should there be any. Thank you. So not uh speaking specifically to the item just uh making yourself available for questions. Correct. Okay. Thank you. Um, are there any questions uh for uh the two uh delegates? Seeing none, thank you so much for being here. We we appreciate it. Questions for staff and I see uh no hands raised. Oh. Oh, sorry, Brian. What uh what had you in mind uh in terms of changes to the design? Uh so through the chair we've left it open just so that we can work with the applicant. We discussed this condition with the applicant prior um just to give them some flexibility to kind of think about what might be appropriate. Um some suggestions we've made include the addition of potentially a date stone. Um some tweaks to maybe the window treatment or railing treatment just to simplify them or make them more contemporary. But uh I think the HCD plan itself gives a lot of leeway to make that compatibility um appropriate. So, uh, we've left it open-ended at this time, uh, just so that the applicant has some flexibility there. Thank you. Uh, so is this item carried? Carried. Carried. Thank you so much. So, this report will be submitted to council on the April 22nd, 2026. Uh, our next item is heritage considerations for Confederation Heights. There is no presentation for this. Oh, there is. Okay. Uh so uh we do have a presentation and we do have uh two speakers uh on on this item. Good morning. Thank you, chair. Um, so we do have a presentation ready. Um, but I'm at the will of the committee if if you would like me to go through it. Um, the the registered speakers are also uh the owners of the property. So, they're available for questions. Um, so is it the will of committee to uh have this presentation go forward? Okay. So, um I guess we have indication that there is question for for delegation. So, uh I'm sure everybody has uh reviewed uh the file. So we might dispense of the uh of the presentation and uh just uh move uh forward with um uh delegations um as they are representatives of the Canada Lands Company and that would be uh Katherine Katherine Constantine as well as Michaela and I think that uh Miss Constantine has been promoted. So, uh, councelor Leaper, if you do have Oh, no. Oh, you have questions for staff. Okay. Um, so questions for the delegation. Seeing no hands raised, uh, thank you so much, uh, for taking the time this morning. I'm sure you're going to continue to, uh, follow this, uh, this agenda item. Uh, questions for staff. Councelor Leaper. Thank you very much. Um, okay. So, I'm just interested in the mechanics of the heritage um easement agreement with the owner of the property um of the Sir Charles Tupper building. Can you just take me through what a heritage easement means? Is that a particular concept? Like what does it give us the power to do? Just mechanical question. Yeah, thank you. Thank you for the question. Great question. Um so, we don't we don't often bring easements forward to this committee. uh but it is another tool uh available to uh municipalities under the Ontario Heritage Act. Uh it's under section 37 of the Heritage Act and it um works similarly to an individual designation to recognize places of cultural heritage value and protect them into the future. Um, but the way it works is that it's a contract, an agreement between the city and the owner um that we would need to negotiate the different terms and um details of. Um it it would be registered on title just like an individual designation. Um but in this case it allows for some ability to uh negotiate those terms um alongside a development proposal which um I think in this case for the Sir Charles Tupper building um you know we're working quite closely with CLC on this um to towards a shared understanding of of the cultural heritage value but um they need some more time basically to investigate uh retention options and uh reuse and So this provides some flexibility to do that more time for those conversations. Okay. So we would have an easement over their property uh requiring for example the retention of certain heritage elements or things like that. Yeah, that's right. I think um it would it would include similar uh components like a statement of value outline the attributes that we would be looking for um conservation of you know potentially some conservation design guidelines um that we would work to or principles that we could look at including um that would inform future development there. Okay. And why would we go down an ement path versus um a designation path or a part four path? Yeah. So I think um thanks for the question. It really comes down to that flexibility piece. Um there's new uh restrictions under the Heritage Act for a part four in terms of timing and bringing forward bylaws um listing on the register in advance. And so this easement allows for those conversations to still happen with um without you know needing to to keep those those uh timeline pieces in mind. Okay. Thank you for that. Thank you so much. Are there any other questions for staff? Seeing none, is this item carried? Carried. Carried. Thank you so much. So, this report will be submitted to council on April 22nd, 2026. Uh, our next item is Ontario Heritage Act changes implementation update. Uh, there is a a presentation on uh this item from staff. Good morning, Mr. Chair. It's not often I get almost what an hour and a half into the meeting and I've said nothing. So, but you don't get off without hearing from me today. Uh, so here I am going to provide us provide the committee today with an update on all of our work post bill 23. So, you've all heard Bill 23 a thousand times by now. Um, but this was the major changes that came into effect for the Ontario Heritage Act on January 1st, uh, 2023. Uh, next slide, please. Uh, so this somewhat complicated timeline. Um, I won't go through it in detail. Um, and I cannot take credit for the graphic design. Uh, my younger, much more adept staff are, uh, responsible for this with my slight amendments. Um so just to give you a sense so bill 23 came into effect January 1st 2023. Over the period of the last two and a half almost three years um staff have been working to figure out how to best implement this. Um, we brought forward a major report in June of 2023 that kind of gave an overview of the approach which included um removal of some strategic removal of some properties uh from the register, an HCD work plan, uh a an approach for how we were going to triage the 4,600 properties that we had on our register. Um and then and we and then in sort of the beginning of 2024, we started through that strategic removals uh approach, which was our kind of made in Ottawa approach to the heritage register. Unfortunately, um in June in uh sorry, June of 2024, uh that little loophole that we were exploiting got closed um through a further amendment of the Ontario Heritage Act. So, we stopped removing properties from the register at that point in time. Uh so where we are now is this report where we are looking at how we move forward to January 1st 2027 which is that looming deadline of when we have to remove the remaining properties from the city's heritage register and they will lose any interim control or interim demolition control that they have. Um next slide please. So just to give you a sense of what the future state is. Um, all remaining properties are removed from the register on January 2nd, well, January 1st, 2027. Uh, this includes properties that may end up being designated in the future under part four and part five of the heritage act for the city. We expect that this will be approximately 2500 properties by the end of the year uh of the 4600 that we did have listed on our heritage register. So once that register is effectively empty, which it will be as of uh the beginning of next year, the only properties that we can list on that register are properties that have never been listed before, and that is for the next 5 years. So anything that is currently listed will not be able to be relisted until 2032, assuming that the legislation stays the same way, the way it is today. Um we anticipate as a result of that there will be few listings. Um, we may have uh strategic listings like if there's a federal property that's being disposed of that was never listed before. So, for instance, committee may remember the property that you just approved for designation 1500 Bronson. Um, that one we just listed on the Heritage Register a couple of months ago in order to allow for the designation to occur uh because there were planning applications. So just to be very clear, there will be very significant limitations on designation going forward um when there is a development application. So that includes a zoning bylaw amendment, an official plan amendment or a plan of subdivision. Uh next slide please. So just to give you two kind of scenarios to see how it works. Uh so scenario one is a formerly listed property. So this is as of next year. If we have a property that today is listed and it comes off the register on January 1st, 2027, this is the and this is the next um step. We must either issue a notice of intention to designate prior to a planning application being deemed complete or we are restricted from designating the property forever. So even if the applicant agrees, the owner agrees, there are significant restrictions in the act that mean that we cannot we cannot wait. So in the past and and we still get this question from developers from time to time who are amendable to designation but would like to not have to deal with the heritage permit process or whatever and we would wait and designate it after the development was done. Um we can't do that anymore. We have to kind of rush. Uh so the risk is obviously an expedited process, less time to work with owners. It's reactionary, lots of potential conflict, is going to require ad hoc meetings of this committee if that's the road road we go down. Um scenario two is a little simpler, but still a bit challenging. So that's a property that's never been listed before. Again, there's not going to be a lot of these. Uh but the city must list the property on the heritage register prior to the prescribed event. So the prescribed event is the deeming complete of the planning act application in order to preserve the city's ability to designate once that planning application occurs. So these are only as it relates to planning applications. If there's no planning applications, we can continue to proceed as we have been proceeding. We can designate properties with or without owner support, but if there are development applications, we will be severely restricted in our ability to do so. Um so we may have to look at other tools like heritage easement agreements. So those are not subject to the same restrictions as uh as individual designations uh under the Ontario Heritage Act. Next slide please. So that gives you kind of the future state and the big risks. Uh the report recommendations are to receive an update which I'll give you sort of a bit of number crunching on the heritage register review. approve the creation of the new City of Ottawa heritage inventory. Uh provide direction in advance to remove those remaining properties as of the end of the year. Um just acknowledging the election cycle and and the bit of time crunch there may be with meetings at the end of the year and approve updates to our and receive updates for the HCD work plan um going forward. Next slide please. So the heritage register review. Uh so the first recommendation of the report is to receive this update. Uh when bill 23 came into effect, as I mentioned, there were approximately 4,600 properties listed in Ottawa. We had the largest heritage register in the province as a result of a very comprehensive citywide heritage inventory that was completed between 2016 and 2020. Um BHC and council approved an approach to reviewing the properties on the list in spring of 2023 which included a two-pronged approach of individual designation and a renewed focus on heritage conservation districts. Um this slide provides a highle summary of the work completed to date and future areas of focus identified by staff. So in terms of part four individual designations, 833 properties of that 4600 were identified as potential candidates. Um staff have brought forward 71 designations uh in that 3-year period uh which represents approximately 25% increase in the overall number of designated properties in the city uh since the program began in the late 1970s. So a significant amount of work in a in a short time period with the support of this committee and will of long meetings. Um an additional 95 properties are in progress for potential designation. Approximately 80 properties have been reviewed and determined to not meet the criteria and we are not proceeding with designate designation. Excuse me. Um there are more detailed numbers in the staff report. I'll I'm going to go into a little bit more but uh if you look at table one and two in the staff report you can get a full breakdown of how things have been screened. Uh future areas of focus that we are going to work on is the rural area in consultation with the ward counselors and chair of ARAC uh wards 15 and 17. So these being seen as the kind of underrepresented urban wards in terms of the large number of historic buildings and the relatively lower number of designations compared to wards 12, 13, and 14. Uh and then modernism. So you just saw a property um the former CBC building uh and we will be looking to do uh more work on modernism uh going forward as it's a big gap in the program. Next slide please. So just to give you I'm not going to go through this in detail but just to give you a sense we have taken the 4600 and we've kind of screened them into a number of buckets. So 1,600 approximately were removed as part of those strategic dellistings. Um there were 833 that were identified for potential part 4. That's the ones I was just talking about. We've had a bunch of demolition, well not a bunch, but 16 demolitions or notices of intent to demolish. Um approximately 820 of these properties are located in future HCD study areas. So they will hopefully or some of them at least will be designated under part five of the heritage act going forward. And then we have another an additional 30 um that are in HCD feasibility assessment areas which leaves us with 1300 properties to review by the end of the year. Um that will not be in terms of reviewing them and bringing them forward to this committee but it will be screening them to determine what the approach is for them. So, we will be saying, "Okay, we think these ones should be designated. These ones are just going to come off and we don't care about them anymore." Um, so we have that's that's what's left of the 4,600 to sort of continue to sort through by the end of the year. Um, please don't add up the numbers. I'm a planner, not a mathematician. Um, next slide, please. So recommendation two of this report uh is to create a new heritage inventory. So this new heritage inventory will not have any status under the heritage act. It's basically going back to the way we did things before we had a heritage register which was called the heritage reference list at the time. It's basically a monitoring tool. So the heritage register today uh fulfills kind of three functions monitoring recognition and demolition control. And it's our uh contention and recommendation to council that a new heritage inventory that still does two of these three things is an appropriate tool to recognize these places of importance. Just because the province has said through the Ontario Heritage Act um that we have to remove these properties from our register, it does not mean that they no longer have significance to the community. Um, and so we think that, you know, a large portion of what we do is about celebration and recognition of important places. It's not just about controlling demolition. And so staff are recommending the creation of a new tool uh which will be publicly accessible um on the city's website and and in various ways uh to share the information we have. We have a lot of data on a lot of these properties. Um, and to alert property owners of the city's potential interest in their property as a heritage uh, property rather than sort of springing it on people at the last second. Next slide, please. So, we we are still kind of working out the details of this, but we're thinking it will include properties in the f following categories. So, future HCD study areas, we would include the properties within those areas. high significance candidates for designation. So that would be things that we think should be designated under part four of the heritage act. Federal heritage properties um we are seeing our federal counterparts disposing of um properties uh as of late and having them flagged is is helpful for us um to consider designation or listing of those properties at that time and then any other properties that might be worthy of monitoring and recognition. Uh the recommended timeline for this is that staff will develop the tool over the remainder of 2026 once we've sorted through those remaining 1300 properties. And then we would return to BHC in Q2 of next year with the initial list and a terms of reference for how properties will be added and removed, what's included, that sort of thing for approval of committee and council. Next slide, please. Uh recommendation three of the report is uh an administrative recommendation, but basically to recommend that Build Heritage Committee recommend that council uh remove the remaining properties listed under section 27 of the Heritage Act from the register as of January 1st. Um or a date as prescribed for the purpose of section 27 of the Heritage Act, whichever comes later. I say this because um the date has been extended once already. We are not hearing any indication that it will be extended again, but I know there are several municipalities around the province who have been seeking that extension from the provincial government. So, we've just put this caveat in in the instance that the deadline does get extended, we're able to leave the properties on the register um beyond January 1st, 2027. Next slide, please. So, recommendation four is about the HCD work plan. So, as I said, we've taken a two-pronged approach to the review of the heritage register, and it's been a renewed focus on designation both under part four and part five. Um, all the HCD feasibility assessments that were directed in 2024 are now complete. The final one is anticipated to come forward to this committee next month. Um, and so we are now ready to provide a bit of an update on what we envision as the next steps for HCD work plan going forward. We are also recommending through this report a new feasibility assessment area for Chinatown. Um this was identified through the H Bank Street HCD plan update. Um the Centertown West boundary discussion which I'm going to talk about a little bit later and through the register review which had a focus on program diversification and telling u more diverse stories uh of our city. Next slide please. So this slide uh provides the staff recommendation recommended prioritization of upcoming HCD studies based on current council direction uh threat and other factors. I recognize that this appears to be very long time horizon with uh some start the last study not starting until 2033. Um but HCD studies are significant pieces of work um that require dedicated staff resources and uh significant community consultation. It's important for us to be transparent about the anticipated time horizon for the projects to ensure that community members and council are aware. Uh this work plan is based on existing staff resources and workload. Uh so of course that could change depending on how things play out over the next several years. Um further details on kind of work plan beyond 2020 would or sorry beyond 2026 would be brought forward as part of future term of council work plans. So at this point this is just for information. Um we have direction to begin the Centertown West and the Beaverbrook um HCD studies this year. Those will be getting underway in the next month or two. Um and we will be bringing forward the Bank Street HCD plan and the Golden Triangle HCD uh to this committee before the summer break. Uh so we have two big ones that are kind of wrapping up and then two more large ones that are starting and then the next uh the next batch will follow on uh as as resources permit. Uh next slide please. So the Centertown West HCD boundary um this has been added on because we do need committee and council endorsement uh for the study area boundary as part of um as part of the study process. So committee approved an initial study for this area in 2024. Since that time, the comm the center town, the CCA has been engaged in a very uh in-depth consultation with its members, including a lot of walking tours, block byblock. Councelor Troster will tell you about coming out in her pajamas. Um uh block by block in this area to determine the community values for this uh potential heritage conservation district study. In February of this year, uh the community association submitted a request to staff um with the area that's sort of shown in orange on this slide as their proposed HCD study area. Um we reviewed it uh we went out and walked it ourselves again and uh had discussions with the CCA. We went and met with the CCA and we are now proposing a slightly amended boundary which the CCA is in support of which is outlined in black. So we have removed recommended removal of a couple of the blocks that they have recommended um to include because we don't think that there's enough uh heritage fabric there to merit uh inclusion in the study area. So it's the last two blocks um at the north end and then sorry the northwest end and also the the block of Lisgger between Lion and Kent uh at the northeast corner. So staff are recommending this as the study area boundary for the study that will commence um in uh the next couple of months. Uh and we just are seeking council endorsement for this boundary. Next slide please. So, just uh to sort of wrap up um the recommendations are to receive the the receive for information, excuse me, the update on the review of the city's heritage register, approve the creation of the new City of Ottawa heritage inventory, remove the remaining properties from the heritage register effective January 1st, and receive the updates to the HCD work plan um going forward. And I'm happy to answer any questions the committee might have. I know it's a bit of a dense um presentation and report. Uh thank you so much uh number one for the uh report itself, the presentation that you've provided, but also for the hard work uh that's been undertaken to uh deal uh with the reports and the impending changes and the ongoing changes uh from from the provincial government. We understand the pressures that creates on our small and mightyh heritage staff and we appreciate the the work that's being undertaken. Uh but uh we do have a delegation on this item. But before we hear from the delegation, there are a couple of motions that have been drafted uh for this item and I will ask uh Vice Chair Plant uh to read those out uh once we get them on the screen. Happy to do so. Whereas the city's official plan enables the designation of groups of buildings and areas in of the city as heritage conservation district under part five of the Ontario Heritage Act. Whereas heritage conservation districts should include significant groupings of historical buildings. Therefore, be it resolved that the build heritage committee recommend council approve that staff be directed to consider the following when establishing HCD boundaries. Exclusion of significant groups of non-heritage properties. Not requiring the inclusion of both sides of the street within an HCD where properties across the street do not meet the qualifications of heritage zone. That's it. Thanks. And then uh there is uh the uh my motion as well. Great. So we'll just wait for that to come up on the screen. Whereas the city of Ottawa has adopted a new comprehensive zoning bylaw which will guide land use built, farm and development across the city. Whereas heritage conservation district are governed and approved by HCD plans under part five of the Ontario Heritage Act which provide direction on heritage sensitive form and character. And whereas residents and stakeholders have raised questions regarding how HCD plans will continue to apply and interact with the new zoning bylaw, particularly following the removal of a former heritage overlay. And whereas clear, accessible, and consistent information is essential to support transparency, public understanding, and confidence in the development review process within HCDs. Therefore, be it resolved that Built Heritage Committee recommend council approve that staff be directed to prepare and publish a heritage and zoning bylaw FAQ resource. And be it further resolved that the FAQ include at minimum an explanation of how HCD plans continue to govern heritage sensitive form and character and how they operate alongside zoning provisions, a description of the internal review process staff follow when development applications are submitted within HCDs, and clear information on what residents can expect in terms of notification, transparency, and opportunities for public input. And be it further resolved that staff circulate a copy of the final document to the built heritage committee as part of the implement implementation of the new zoning bylaw. Merci. Thank you so much. Uh vice chair and uh we do have a delegation on this item. Uh Jack Hannah from the center town community association. Thank you for joining us this moment of this morning and you have uh five minutes. Okay. So, I am the chair of the heritage committee of the Centertown Community Association. I want to speak to item 5A, an updated boundary of the Centertown West HD study area. The CCA strongly supports staff's proposal for tenative for this tenative HCD boundary. We are not alone. You have in hand letters of support for the staff recommendation from the Historical Society of Ottawa and Heritage Ottawa. We believe the proposed HCD will be far more than just a collection of the grandest Victorian red brick houses. This HCD also will tell the story of a community that goes back to the early days of Ottawa and continues right up to the present time. This HCD will contain a great diversity of types of heritage housing. Besides the Victorian red brick houses, there are workingclass front gable cottages, a great variety of row houses and many heritage apartment buildings. This community al this community always has been very diverse and that was made possible by the diversity of housing stock. This variety of heritage housing is very much in evidence today and because of that because of the diversity of housing types still very much in use right now. The community today is home to a great diversity of people. The heritage streetscapes, so very intact and well-kept, are much more than just beautiful or interesting artifacts from the past. This built heritage is the foundation that enables and defines the community character of today, just as it has throughout the past 130 years. The Centertown Community Association strongly supports the proposal before you. Thank you very much. Thank you so much for your delegation. Uh, I see you have uh questions from councelor Troster. Hi Jack. I just wanted to thank you for all your hard work on this. Um, I've lived in Centertown for 16 years and uh the I live in the in the west part of Centertown that you're considering that's being considered for designation and for a study. Uh, I would say my house is definitely was built in the 80s. is non-contributing. But, uh, we love the, um, diversity of buildings, the character, the not, you know, the the it's Centertown is not a cookie cutter neighborhood, and that's a heritage that we're trying to preserve. So, and even with the infill cup um, that's been happening, the character still remains. Um, and finding that balance between new development and heritage properties, I think, is the essential center town question. So, I want to thank you for the work you're doing. Very supportive of it. Um, that's really it. Oh, I just wondered if you had any comments on um, member Bournes's motion. I I believe there is a a part of the motion is to say that um, both sides of the street should not be required to be in an HCD. There is no such requirement at this time. Okay. Thank you. And then the issue of designating of areas that have non contributing buildings. I mean, this is pretty standard with any heritage area, but I just was wondering I know we discussed this at length at a previous meeting, but I'm just wondering about your feedback. Um, well, I'm a bit confused by that. I know that that in developing our proposal, um, we worked very closely with city staff. We kept them very close. I mean, we've been working on this for half a decade and we kept uh, Leslie Collins, Mackenzie Kim very close. We wanted to know what they thought about all of our thinking. We asked their advice. We asked them to come present to us and talk to us about various aspects of heritage districts. And every every time we had an idea, we ran it past them. I think we went to them five times saying, "What what is your opinion? Your your professional opinion of adding this area in the district or that area or this street or that street and we always worked very closely with them and it was very fruitful for us. Um, we think we have a very strong proposal. We want a really good strong heritage district and we think we got it. Thank you very much for everything. Uh thank you so much uh for your delegation. I don't see any other raised hands. Uh we do have Linder Linda Hod from uh Heritage Ottawa also uh registered to delegate. Thank you for joining us. You have five minutes. Thank you. Good morning. Nice to see you all. Um I wanted to add Heritage Ottawa's thanks to the staff for the uh work they have done um over the past number of years under considerable pressure um and for this very thorough report which outlines what they have done and what we're facing in the future. And and that's really why I'm here. It's pretty terrifying when you read um what we're losing. Uh we're gaining an inventory which we certainly endorse and we'll uh be happy to work with staff on on implementing. Um I'm particularly interested in the public access to the inventory via the various um what do we call them online resources that that that were mentioned in the report. I I'm a big fan as as you may know of Geo Ottawa. Apparently, I'm the only one who uses Geo Ottawa in the whole at least for heritage um in the city of Ottawa. But I will not back down. In fact, I think there's new information available recently. Somebody's been working on it. Um the other reason I wanted to to speak to you is the fact that um the responsibility for um watching out for heritage buildings is going to have to be spread more widely since the staff are not going to be able don't have the tools like the register that they have had in the past. And I um suggest in my in the comments that we submitted that Heritage Ottawa is prepared to work with staff um and to work on spreading the word throughout the community of the dangers that we now face. I think it's very important. Uh we will probably have to contact staff and figure out um how is this information going to be pushed out there. uh will be relying also on the members of the built heritage committee and councilors um as well who are concerned about heritage in their communities. I don't think uh I was a bit surprised at how drastic the situation is and I'm fairly well informed. So I think there are a lot of people out there who are going to find this very shocking and we do need to I think people are supportive of of Heritage. I think we need to work with the communities uh with other organizations to try to um rally support and indicate to people how they can best preserve the heritage in their communities. Thank you, Councelor Truster. Thank you for being here, for being such an incredible guardian of our heritage. I'm going to ask you a question. I'm going to ask staff because staff were operating with a loophole that's now been closed. So, they removed a whole bunch of properties from the list that apparently cannot be readded now. Correct. I see Lesie nodding her head. Are there ones that you're concerned about that were removed in, you know, I I'm just I'm concerned about the situation that we removed them thinking we can add them back and now there there's no chance to add them back. Do do you just make sure you uh have your They will go on the inventory, I assume, which at least um means that they're there is a list that people can look. It's not the same, but information about what buildings the city has has picked on or has has established value and to have access to the information that they've already gathered and there's a lot of it. Um, I mean, I have used Geo Ottawa to check on Hintenberg properties. Uh it's very helpful and and it's a good start to um a request for designation or um other means of of you know preserving and protecting our heritage, but it's it's it's definitely not not what we've been used to. No, it's it's pretty wild. It's a pretty wild change in uh in in policy as we're seeing from this provincial government on many different files. So, I want to thank you for your work and I also want to thank my community association because um they were able to come forward with a list of priority properties that they wanted to see designated and that really helped staff with their work. So, you know, to to maybe ignite the power of community associations to to be really watching and communicating with staff to on on priority properties, I I think could be a good strategy. But again, it's relying on volunteers to do this work, and I'm very thankful that you do it, and it's really a shame that you need to. So, thank you so much. Thank you. Thank you so much uh for your delegation. I just also wanted to echo councelor Troster's comments in terms of the contributions of Heritage Ottawa and uh a number of volunteers uh throughout the city uh focused on heritage issues. uh your your inputs are important and they're impactful and they do uh really translate to policy changes at the city. We appreciate that. We also appreciate the commentary uh that that's necessary about the impact of the change. So uh we appreciate that work. Uh we we always want to acknowledge that work that's being done because it's being done uh by volunteers and and we appreciate your your efforts on an ongoing basis. So so thank you so much uh for your delegation. Um, at this time, seeing no other delegations, comments and questions to staff, councelor Truster. Hi. Okay, so I'm going to ask you the same question, and you'll have to clarify this if I'm not understanding it well. So, you removed a whole bunch of properties from the registry thinking we can just add them back in at some point. Do you have regrets about any that you've removed? Are those a lost cause forever? Can you never designate them again? What's just a little fuzzy to me. Uh thank you for the question. It's probably fuzzy because it is a bit complicated. Um so the properties that were removed from the register were part of a strategy whereby we felt we had found a way within the heritage act that we could strategically add properties back on as needed. There was never any intention to blanket add everything back to the register. we were trying to sort of move towards that compliance and the idea that the province had about timelited registration as a um tool as a sort of stepping stone to designation. So I don't think that there's necessarily regret because all of those properties would be coming off the pro the register at the end of this year anyway. So you know there there's no we just took them off early. Have there been a couple that have been lost? probably, but nothing major. We've been lucky. We've got what, 8 months to go, but um yeah, they would have all come off at the end of this year anyway. So, we will be in that position for all 4600 as of January. Okay. So, is it like a use it to lose it thing right now? Like if you remove them, we can they can never be designated again. Uh no. So, only if there's no plan if there's a planning application. Correct. We have to either designate before the planning application occurs or we're we can never designate forever. If there's no planning applications, we can continue to proceed as normal. Thank you for the clarification. Of course, it's clear as mud when the legislation is coming at us really fast. So, thank you, Councelor Leaper. Thank you very much, Chair. Um, so I've got two different questions. The first of which uh I think I'll ask about member Bournes's uh motion. It seems relatively actually innocuous in the language. Staff be directed to consider the following when establishing HCD boundaries and you're familiar with the two bullets there. Is this a particularly significant departure from your usual MO? Uh no. I would say that this is something that we already do. Um the goal of creating heritage conservation district study areas is um to create areas with the highest concentration of historic buildings. The one thing I will say is and it would depend on what the intention of the motion is. Um there has been discussion in the past over creating kind of holes in the middle of an HCD. So if you think about it as like an overlay, thinking of it like a piece of Swiss cheese, um that is not something staff would support uh because part of the goal of a heritage conservation district is to manage change. So if a building is demolished, you know, there is there are impacts of a new building on the site and its design. So in terms of limiting the scope of an HCD to the highest concentration of historic buildings, absolutely that is something we are already doing. If the intention is to create kind of a Swiss cheese approach, um that is not something that uh staff would support. But do you consider that this motion would require you to pursue that Swiss cheese approach? You would still have the flexibility. We can certainly implement the the motion as written. Okay. Uh and I'll noodle that over the next minute or two. Uh the second uh question uh the Island Park Drive uh Heritage Conservation District is seventh in line I think uh if I count these up properly in terms of priority. When realistically um could members of the community expect that that HCD would get underway? Um on the slide I have predicted it as uh 2033 as the start time. that's based on existing workload, staff resources, etc. Um, and the HCD work plan sort of as it's written has been sort of prioritized in order to provide transparency to the community because I know communities are very eager to get these projects done. Um, but also to kind of prioritize where we see the highest level of threat um, and sort of the importance of of the area. So, we've got, you know, Beaverwork and Centertown West have been on the books for many years. So, those ones are ready to go. Um, after that, we've suggested that Sandy Hill, which is something that has a very hodgepodge kind of um set of heritage rules and different kinds of designations needs to be relooked at in the absence of the heritage overlay and in the changes to the, you know, removal of the listing process. There are many, many listed properties. That's a very big project. That's, you know, there's probably a thousand properties within that area uh that need to be reviewed. And then the RTO canal um area, which is, you know, a priority of the official plan as a RTO canal special district. Um and then the remainder have been prioritized based on when they were received. If uh if members of the community wanted to see that accelerated, I'm just trying to figure out what the paths are to acceleration. Um it would be open at some point for a counselor to like the opportunity is here today uh for me to move a motion to say nope prioritize this one instead and I I would either have or I would not the support of my colleagues uh around this table. Um and I presume there would be an opportunity at the beginning of the next term of council uh to try to rep prioritize these as well. Um there is the potential that heritage staff could get some kind of an infusion of resources to allow you to work more quickly. Um or we wait. What about the uh the community uh research function? Like I know you've had some very productive uh collaborations with members of the community who have tried to do a lot of the groundwork for you. Is there an opportunity for community members to contribute more of the research, more of the um the the the policy muscle on this to try to get this accelerated? I think that's something we could explore, but I think at the end of the day, we, you know, the city staff have to be able to make a professional recommendation to council on this from a planning perspective, from a heritage planning perspective, and we need to be the ones who can stand up at the OOLT and vouch for the research and vouch for the boundaries and those recommendations. So yes, the input of the community in terms of the background work, the leg work that has been done, for instance, for Island Park is extremely valuable, but at some point in time, um, I have to assign someone from my team to lead the project. And with all of the other kind of competing priorities right now, this is our best guess of timelines, as you mentioned, that could be rep prioritized by a number of things. It could be through a future term of council work plan um which is why this is just provided kind of for information at this point um through resources. You know there is an opportunity potentially to do some of this work through consultant dollars although we have had better success honestly at doing them internally over the last number of years. Um, and then I think the other potential thing to reassess would be if there's a big spate of demolitions or you know there's there's a change in the risk factor. So this is based on sort of how we see things today. There's lots of things that could change that over time. Okay. It's um I know the news will be disappointing to some of the advocates for that Island Park um uh HCD. Uh it is what it is. All right. Thank you. Member Borance, thanks very much. Um, I understand why the Centertown uh heritage area couldn't be re-examined, you know, given the the provincial approach to heritage conservation. And so adjusting the boundaries of that was uh was problematic. If we look at future ones, when we look at uh developments that have, you know, been developed in the 70s, 80s, 90s, uh, and they're, you know, individually owned, uh, by condominium corporations and so on. Why would we include those in uh, a heritage zone? And what might we how might we uh treat the applications? The Ontario Heritage Toolkit is published by the province of Ontario, the Ministry of Culture. Um and it talks about what the goal what what a heritage conservation district is and why you would do it and how you establish boundaries. And so the boundaries are established for a heritage conservation district through that rigorous study. So the boundary that we have in front of the committee today for Centertown West is a boundary for the study. It wouldn't necessarily be the same boundary that would come forward for an HCD down the road. Um but the main reason to to go specifically to your question, the the toolkit says, you know, a heritage district may be comprised of a concentration of historic buildings, but it may also include more contemporary buildings. And those buildings, you know, we would assess them through the study process, determine what their value is. If they have no value, they may be assigned as non-contributing. But we know that buildings get demolished. We know that sites get redeveloped. We know that there's fires. We know that, you know, for various reasons, things change, and that's good. We want things to change. The goal of an HCD is to manage that change to ensure that the concentration of historic buildings that give an area its special character despite maybe a 1970s apartment building that maybe isn't part of that story that that character is maintained to the best of our ability. Um and so they would be treated I would say more loosely in terms of demolition um if somebody were to propose demolition or alteration. But we include guidance for property owners and for committee and council to look to um in ensuring that any changes to the properties are compatible with the overall established defined council approved character um and heritage attributes of the district. So that's why these things are approved um by council in terms of what is the character. We've we define the character in an HCD and if a property doesn't meet the character then maybe it can be demolished but what goes in its place could detrimentally affect the kind of established um character that council has. What if somebody just wanted to paint the uh the woodwork on we don't regulate paint color and uh windows. I mean, it it's hard to speak to a hypothetical heritage conservation district plan. Um, we have to study the area and and determine what because every plan has different policies. In some plans, yes, we do regulate windows even in non-contributing buildings. Um, simply because, you know, in a low-rise residential neighborhood, the window choices could impact the character of the neighborhood. in a more uh urban neighborhood, I'd say like center town, um we have excluded things like windows from non-contributing buildings in terms of its regulations. So, it really is it's it's highly dependent on the proposed district. Thank you. Thank you so much. Are there any other comments or questions? Um, seeing none, I'd like to exercise my own prerogative as chair to speak uh to uh both motions that are before us uh before we proceed to a vote. Uh I must say I have significant concerns about the uh Bor's member that uh is before us and uh I will uh definitely put that on record. Uh, I want to acknowledge the intent behind member Borne's motion ensuring that the heritage conservation district's reflect genuine heritage value is a goal I believe we all share. However, I can't support this motion as written and I really do want to explain why. Um, the motion's framing that HCDs should include only significant groupings of historic buildings in my estimation and I think we heard that also from staff misunderstands the fundamental purpose of heritage conservation district designation under part five of the Ontario Heritage Act. HCDs are not simply collections of individual significant buildings. They protect the character of a place, the streetscape, the rhythm of development, the spatial relationships between properties. A non-heritage building within a district boundary may be entirely unremarkable on its own and yet contribute critically to the scale, massing, and continuity of a heritage area. Excluding it doesn't simplify the district, it undermines it. I'm particularly troubled by the second uh bullet uh which would allow staff to exclude the opposite sides of a street from HCD where those properties don't individually meet heritage qualifications. Streets are experienced as a whole. A heritage uh streetscape doesn't exist only on one sidewalk. Uh the visual relationship between both sides of a street, sight lines, massing and the sense of enclosure is central to why we designate areas in the first place. Allowing asymmetric boundaries as a matter of policy would set a troubling precedent and could leave heritage areas visually exposed to incompatible development on the opposing frontage. The provision could also be exploited. Properties on the wrong side of a boundary become immediately more attractive for intensification and not necessarily in ways sensitive to the adjacent heritage area. The Heritage Act uh changes of course are still being implemented as we heard uh and staff are actively working through the implications of provincial amendments that have significantly altered the heritage designation landscape across Ontario. Uh directing staff to embed uh these boundary criteria into their methodology before that implementation work is complete, before public uh engagement is complete and before we understand those full implications. uh in my estimation puts the cart before the horse. It's also very important to uh understand uh the the impacts of uh present uh consultation exercises that have been undertaken. And I think we heard about a certain uh ward counselor who even jumped out in her pajamas to uh listen to uh constituents and to work with the heritage community. Yes. I was taking out my compost and Jack, Hannah, and a group of volunteers were outside my driveway. It was it was lovely actually, but they have now seen me in my pajamas. But but obviously there is an ongoing uh approach. Uh there is a methodology and uh it's important uh that we ensure uh that uh there is continued uh public engagement um through the process. I'd also raise a broader equity concern. Heritage conservation districts in lower in older, lower income or mixeduse neighborhoods often contain properties in varying states of integrity. Uh some historic, some not. A policy that allows significant exclusions based on a narrow definition of heritage qualification risks systematically disadvantaging uh the designation of districts and communities that don't have the pristine heritage streetscapes of wealthier neighborhoods. uh heritage conservation should be an inclusive tool and this motion as written uh could make it less so. Uh what we are being asked to do here is preemptively constrain staff's professional judgment on district boundaries before the broader implementation process has concluded and to do so in a way that prioritizes exclusion over the contextual holistic approach that has always been the strength of part five designations. Uh I would uh urge members to uh defeat that specific motion and to allow staff to complete their implementation work uh before we began narrowing uh the methodology. In terms of uh my motion, I also wanted to uh provide uh some brief uh comments with the indulgence of the committee. Um since it's not uh typical for chairs to uh move uh motions, but uh I wish to do so in my capacity as a member. Uh, I'm bringing uh my motion forward today because residents and heritage stakeholders in Ottawa deserve clear, accessible answers, especially as we navigate a significant transition in our planning framework. As members of this committee know, the city recently adopted a new comprehensive zoning bylaw uh with a tremendous uh amount of uh heavy lifting from uh the planning and housing committee. Uh so definitely want to give uh kudos to our our colleague uh councelor Leaper for all that work and uh with it came important changes to how uh heritage areas are governed including the removal of the former heritage overlay. Heritage conservation districts remain governed by uh their approved HCD plans under part five of the Ontario Heritage Act. That hasn't changed. But what has changed is the broader planning context uh those plans now operate within. And that's created understandable confusion. I've heard uh from residents and stakeholders in my ward and beyond who are asking, "What does this mean for their neighborhood, how will heritage rules interact with the new zoning? Who do I call if a development application comes forward uh near a designated heritage property?" Uh these are reasonable questions and right now it's too hard to find a single clear place to get those answers. Uh this motion asks staff to do something targeted and practical. Prepare and publish a heritage and the new zoning bylaw uh FAQ resource on the website. At minimum, the FAQ would address three things. How HCD plans continue to govern heritage sensitive form and and character and how they operate alongside the new zoning provisions. uh the internal review processes staff follow when development applications are submitted within HCDS and what residents can expect in terms of notification, transparency and opportunities uh for public input. And finally, the motion asks uh that once complete, staff circulate that document back to uh this committee uh so that we can see it, evaluate it, and ensure it's doing a good job. Heritage districts uh work best when people understand the rules and trust uh the process. Transparency isn't a luxury. It's foundational to public confidence in heritage conservation. Uh I believe this is a lowcost high value step. We're not asking for a policy overhaul. We're asking for a plain language document that helps residents understand how the system works. And that's a reasonable expectation and it's one uh I hope that this committee can help deliver. So I will be asking uh committee support on uh the motion that I am uh recommending. Uh I believe there are two uh items uh before us. Uh the motion uh from member Bournes um recorded vote please. Member Quinn. No. Councelor Kelly. No. Councelor Truster, no. Member LGO, no. Councelor Leaper, no. Member Bournes, yes. Vice Chair Plant, no. And Chair King, no. Seven nays one. Yay. And then uh on the King motion, uh does that require a recorded vote or car? Carried. Carried. Thank you so much. So, this item uh as amended uh will uh be submitted to council on April 22nd uh 2026. Okay. No, we need to vote on the Oh, sorry. And yes, sorry about that. We do need to vote on the report as amended. Period. Thank you so much. So, the report will be submitted to council on April 22nd, 2026. Um, there are no in camera items. Are there any notices of motion? Seeing none, are there any inquiries? Seeing none, is there any other business? Seeing none, we are adjourned. Uh, the next meeting of the Built Heritage Committee will be held on Tuesday, May 12th, 2026. Thank you so much, everybody. Thank you, chair and staff.

Full Transcript