Heritage Advisory Committee

0:05Okay, yeah, so hello everyone.

0:08Thanks for inviting us here to the Heritage Advisory Committee.

0:12My name is William Turman,

0:15I'm a planner one and we're here to just give

0:18a little bit of information on a current project that we're working on to

0:22update the City of Wells official plan.

0:28I'll just do some quick introductions and all that.

0:32My teammates here introduce themselves.

0:34So I'm William Turman, I'm a planner one policy and I'm

0:38spearheading the cultural heritage policy section.

0:41I'm going to let my colleagues introduce themselves here.

0:44And the most policy planner, I also work in on this project.

0:49Louis Spalmi, I'm a project manager policy planning and leading

0:53the official plan updates.

0:55I can pass it back to Emily back there.

0:57Hello, I think I'm sitting in an awkward spot for the camera.

0:59I have all the Irvine, I'm the manager of policy planning,

1:04I'm working with William, Brittany and Lucas.

1:06But why don't I shift over so that you don't have a voice from the crowd.

1:11Thank you.

1:15Yeah, so generally this is the team that's in charge of the official plan update project.

1:22And before I kind of get into the presentation,

1:25I just want to get an overview of what we'll be talking about.

1:28So first of all, we'll talk about the purpose of the project.

1:31And then what we'll be talking about and why we're bringing it to this group here today.

1:36We'll be giving a pretty high level overview of planning in Ontario

1:39since this is a very more administrative sort of project

1:45to update the official plan.

1:47We thought it would be pretty useful to kind of give an overview on that.

1:51We'll be going through recent changes to the provincial legislation,

1:54the regulations and the policy that are essentially requiring the City of Guelph

1:59to update the official plan.

2:02We'll talk about the project itself to update the official plan.

2:05We'll also give a brief summary of proposed changes

2:08that we're currently considering towards the heritage policies in particular.

2:13And then if there's a need for discussion, we'll have that.

2:17And we'll talk about where this project is going to next.

2:21So what is the purpose of the official plan update

2:24and why are we bringing it to this group here today?

2:27So the purpose of the update is to bring the official plan into consistency

2:32and conformity with provincial changes that have taken effect in recent years.

2:38In addition, we also want to incorporate the direction of master plans

2:41that have been updated and revised since the official plan was last updated or reviewed.

2:48And then we also want to take this opportunity to review and update specific policies,

2:53specifically the cultural heritage policies.

2:56So the reason why we're bringing this to you today is because we this is a really great checkpoint

3:02to kind of check in with this Heritage Advisory Committee,

3:05inform this committee that this project is underway.

3:10And we are currently at pretty preliminary stages of this project.

3:15So there will be many further opportunities in the future to continue to engage with this committee.

3:22Quick timelines show that we are indeed at the very beginning stages of phase one,

3:29where we're doing some virtual and in-person information sessions.

3:33In October, we hope to have a draft that will be published available for review.

3:38And we'll have a statutory public meeting.

3:41November, we'll also have it published online.

3:44And in January, we hope to have this, the draft changes to the official plan

3:49brought to council for an official plan amendment.

3:55And again, this is the first phase of a larger process to update the official plan.

4:01Future phases in phase two will consider more specific topics like employment,

4:06transportation in 2026 to include amendments related to the transportation master plan.

4:13And then even beyond that into 2027, we expect there to be other updates

4:18to other specific policy areas as well.

4:21And apologies, I'm going through this relatively quickly.

4:23I'm trying to give a really high level overview, but if you guys have any questions

4:28or you want me to stop, I know that this can be pretty dense policy material.

4:32So if you have any questions, you want to clarification, feel free to raise your hand.

4:36We'll try and make sure that everyone's on the same page.

4:41Yeah, so some of the themes that we're looking at as part of this first phase,

4:47there's a broad range of themes, including cultural heritage,

4:50employment, environment, complete community, supporting growth, transportation and parks.

4:56So we're looking at a lot of different themes as part of this as part of this first phase,

5:01one of them being cultural heritage.

5:06Well, let's take a moment.

5:07We'll give a pretty high level overview of how planning in Ontario works.

5:12So it's a pretty strong hierarchy in terms of how policy gets written and enforced.

5:19At the highest level, you have provincial law and legislation,

5:22which includes legislation like the Planning Act, the Heritage Act, among others.

5:28And then the Planning Act enables other policy documents from the province,

5:33such as the Provincial Planning Statement.

5:36The Provincial Planning Statement provides direction on how municipalities

5:41do land use planning, essentially.

5:44And that has to be implemented through municipal official plans.

5:48So you can see that on the hierarchy here.

5:53The municipal official plan implements master plans,

5:56such as the Transportation Master Plan, Park Master Plan.

6:01And it also gives a really high level quality direction for land use planning

6:05in the municipality.

6:07At the very specific level is the municipal zoning bylaw,

6:10which implements the official plan and it gives very specific directions.

6:13So a zoning bylaw would give maximum setback requirements of five meters,

6:19whereas a municipal official plan might give more direction.

6:21That's a bit more objective based in goals and targets.

6:26They might say setbacks must be such that there's an attractive streetscape.

6:35The Planning Act itself sets out a land use planning system led by provincial policy

6:41and provides for a fair planning process.

6:44It integrates matters of provincial interest and municipal planning decisions.

6:48And it recognizes the decision making authority and accountability

6:51of municipal councils and planning.

6:53And key in this is that the Planning Act requires municipalities

6:59to have official plans to regulate land usage.

7:03So the official plan is a requirement of the Planning Act.

7:10The Provincial Planning Statement, which again is below the Planning Act,

7:13it's a land use guidance and policy document that provides policy direction

7:16on matters of provincial interest related to land use planning and development.

7:21It provides guidance for housing, infrastructure, natural heritage,

7:25cultural heritage, agriculture, among other things.

7:30And again, all municipal land use planning must be consistent

7:34with the PPS 2024.

7:36So there are policies and regulations within the Planning Act as well

7:41that requires those official plans to be regularly updated to be consistent

7:46with the PPS as well as the planning legislation.

7:49So that's part of the justification, rationale for our current update process.

7:57So what is an official plan?

7:59It's a legal document required by the Planning Act.

8:03It sets the vision for the future of the city.

8:06And it implements and it provides policies that describe how land

8:10in your community should be used, such as directing where new housing

8:15and industry and offices and shops will be located within the city

8:19and what services like roads, water mains, sewers, parks and schools

8:24will be needed and where they will be located.

8:28Another really important part is when and in what order the city will grow.

8:31So the official plan is based on a 25 year planning horizon

8:37so that we're planning far into the future and that we'll have the infrastructure

8:40that will need for the population and jobs that we plan to have in that timeframe.

8:50And again, why do we need an official plan?

8:52It ensures that that growth is conducted in an orderly manner,

8:55that it's coordinated and it meets the community's needs.

8:58It also helps the community understand how the land may be used and in the future.

9:03And it provides a framework for creating municipal zoning bylaws to set regulations

9:07and standards such as the size of lots, types of permitted buildings

9:11or building parking or markets.

9:15And importantly here is that decisions, land use decisions in the city of Guelph

9:20must follow the official plan, must follow the policies of the official plan.

9:27OK, so there have been a number of recent changes to provincial legislation,

9:32regulation and policies, which are a key consideration for this current update.

9:37So here's a brief timeline of all of the changes that have been implemented

9:41within the city of Guelph's master plans and other policies and strategies,

9:46as well as changing the province to the planning half in the PPS.

9:51So starting in January, 2022, there's been an update to the transportation master plan.

9:58In April, there was the parks plan that was approved by the city council

10:02and in July, 2022, official plan amendment 80 was adopted by city council,

10:06which was the last comprehensive update to the official plan.

10:12In November, 22, Bill 23 from the province amended the planning act

10:19and the Ontario Heritage Act, which we'll come back to later in this slideshow.

10:25But those are pretty significant changes that we're considering.

10:29The province approved official plan amendment 80 with some modifications

10:35in April, 2023 and in October of that year,

10:38Parks and Reparation Master Plan was approved.

10:40And then this past October, the provincial planning statement,

10:442024 comes into force.

10:47And the provincial planning statement, sometimes we'll refer to that as the PPS,

10:52but it essentially repealed and replaced in the previous version.

10:58Of the PPS.

11:01So we've got to ensure that our official plan is consistent with this new PPS.

11:08And the PPS 2024 also consolidates the policies of the provincial planning policy statement,

11:152020, which is the previous document and the growth plan for the greater Golden Horseshoe.

11:20And as it relates to cultural heritage policies,

11:25changes, there's a lot of nuance in understanding how those changes

11:29will affect the official plan policy.

11:31So we can, I've brought in an example here.

11:35Sometimes it's a change in the way that the language is used or specific defined terms.

11:42So the example is, instead of saying significant,

11:45the language that they use is protected heritage policy,

11:48which may contain built heritage resources.

11:53And we might get into this a bit later,

11:56but one of the key concerns that we have in updating cultural heritage policies

12:00have been to make sure that those terms that we're using reflect what the PPS,

12:05what the heritage act uses,

12:07but also to make sure that when we're reading this, we understand what it means

12:12so that there's no confusion and interpretation as well.

12:17The Ontario Heritage Act is the legislation that sets out the authority

12:22and process to protect cultural heritage properties.

12:25And under Bill 23, the More Homes Built Faster Act,

12:30which received royal assent in November of 2022.

12:35The most significant change there is that it changes the way that the heritage register works.

12:39So not, is this committee familiar with the changes that were introduced through that bill?

12:46OK, so I won't try to get too in depth, but I do have some slides on it.

12:51Yeah, so the current framework of the framework that the city is currently using

12:57that was enabled by the previous version of the Heritage Act.

13:02There are two tiers of property on the heritage register.

13:05There's designated heritage properties and there are listed,

13:08but not designated heritage properties.

13:12And the city maintains a really large inventory of listed properties on the register,

13:17which provides flexibility to designate those properties

13:20if development is proposed for that property.

13:23Since the Heritage Act requires that if it's listed,

13:27the proponent has to provide a notice to council before it can be demolished or redeveloped.

13:33And the reason that this approach works is that listed properties can remain listed indefinitely.

13:40Unless someone requests to remove those properties from the list,

13:44or the city removes those properties from the list, listed properties can stay there.

13:50Under the new framework, all of the changes from bill 23,

13:54properties that are not designated must be removed from the heritage property after two years.

14:01And if a property is removed from the heritage register,

14:04it cannot be re-listed for the following five years.

14:08And what this means is that if there is an accident,

14:13this means that if there is an application to develop or demolish a property,

14:17it may be designated only if it is listed on the heritage register.

14:21So all of the heritage listed properties right now,

14:25once they're removed from the left register, then there will be fewer protections.

14:30And it also means that going forward,

14:34there will have to be a little bit more consideration in terms of which properties are chosen for being listed on the register.

14:44This is just a quick image.

14:46You can see that there's properties that are listed and designated.

14:51But this is the municipal registered cultural heritage properties.

14:55And I just wanted to show an example of kind of the how many properties in downtown Guelph are listed,

15:02compared to how many are designated.

15:05And that this is a topic that we should really be taking into consideration in terms of how our policies

15:13consider these things.

15:16Some of these streets in downtown, almost every property is listed rather than designated.

15:24So we're updating the official plan policies.

15:30And again, what's the purpose?

15:31We're doing this to make sure that we're in conformity with the provincial planning statement,

15:35recent amendments to the Planning Act, and recent amendments to the Interior Heritage Act.

15:39We're also doing some housekeeping changes.

15:42For example, we're updating the names of the provincial ministries, address updates,

15:47or policy numbering updates.

15:49We're including direction from master plans.

15:52And one of the central features of this review for cultural heritage properties

15:56is that we're improving the readability of these cultural heritage policies,

16:00making them a little bit more up to date, a little bit more easy to interpret.

16:09Now we'll talk a little bit about what we're proposing and how we're proposing to

16:14change the cultural heritage policy section.

16:18Really high level, I guess, preliminary view of that

16:25is to inform you we're still developing these.

16:28We haven't published all these changes, so there's still subject to a bit of change.

16:31But this is a really great opportunity if you have any questions or thoughts.

16:36This has the most to do with the Heritage Advisory Committee.

16:42So one of the central themes for the update to this section was to update the terminology and

16:47definitions. And one of the difficult aspects of kind of reconciling these terms is that the

16:54PPS 2024 and the Ontario Heritage Act use different and sometimes overlapping words,

17:01which may or may not be specifically defined.

17:03So the example that I showed earlier where the PPS 2024 changed it from significant

17:09to protected heritage properties, both of those terms are defined to mean very specific things.

17:16And sometimes the PPS might define a term like significant, which isn't defined in the Heritage

17:21Act. So we have to be really careful about how we're writing our policy and how we use those terms.

17:27In order to make our job a little bit easier, wherever possible we're proposing changes

17:32that will use the definitions from the PPS 2024 and the Ontario Heritage Act.

17:38So a lot of the changes that we're introducing are strictly to be consistent with provincial

17:43direction. And the intent here is to maximize clarity and ensure conformity. If we're using

17:48slightly different defined terms, it's a little bit more difficult to understand if we're implementing

17:55the province's intent or if we're doing something slightly different, especially if the words are

18:01the same. So a few examples here of proposed terminology updates. So some words that were

18:11updating included the built heritage resource, candidate heritage property, heritage conservation

18:17district, protected heritage property. And these are terms that we're updating to reflect the PPS.

18:25And in the case of candidate heritage property to reflect the new reality from bill 23 in terms

18:32of how listed properties work. And candidate heritage property, I've actually included the

18:41proposed definition that we're using there. Currently in the official plan,

18:48non-designated heritage properties that are listed are referenced in a few different ways that

18:52sometimes is inconsistent and a little bit confusing. It could be listed or listed non-designated

18:58or even just listed. So here just to make sure that we're being extremely clear in terms of what

19:04we mean, we're introducing this term candidate heritage property, which we're intending to reflect

19:11the way that listed properties will behave on the register from now on. So the intent is that

19:17if it's going onto the list, then it's a candidate for designation at some point.

19:25I think it would be a bit detrimental if we were to kind of take the scattergun approach and just

19:30list a whole bunch of properties because then there'd have to be off the list for five years.

19:35And that might make it more difficult for us to protect the ones that we want to prioritize.

19:39We're removing a few defined terms such as property, list, cultural heritage value or interest

19:49and mitigation or avoidance. Simply because some of these terms are understood the way that we would

19:57normally use them in everyday language and kind of having those defined separately might make it

20:05more confusing. And in some cases like cultural heritage value or interest, those terms are used

20:13in different ways within the heritage act and the PPS. Cultural heritage value or interest is

20:20the name of the specific regulation that's used in the heritage act,

20:22but it's not specifically defined. So we wanted to make sure that the interpretation was as clear

20:28as possible even when the interpretation of the legislation isn't necessarily there. We wanted

20:32to make it so that it wasn't rooted in the official plan. Here's just an example of the updates of

20:41the bill's heritage resource, the definition of bill's heritage resource. The current definition

20:46is on the left and the proposed definition is on the right. In this case, the proposed definition

20:52reflects the PPS definition. And ultimately, the change that we're proposing here is to remove

21:00a few lines of text from the end of it. There's not huge changes in terms of the implementation,

21:09but in this case, we thought it would be best to keep it consistent with the PPS 2024.

21:20Another area of change that we're proposing here is to consolidate all the requirements to consult

21:25the Heritage Advisory Committee into one policy. So currently, the requirements to consult with

21:34this committee are spread throughout the policies within the cultural heritage section. So they're

21:39not really consolidated. If you're looking for the Heritage Advisory Committee policy section,

21:45you might not be able to find specifically where you're supposed to consult this group. So we're

21:50proposing to put that all into one place, and it allows to conform with the requirements of the

21:54Ontario Heritage Act in the terms of reference for this committee, which I've included a screenshot

22:00there. And here's the text of that proposed policy. I'm not going to go through it all right this

22:10moment. It should be in the agenda as well. But just to show you that we're making sure that the

22:17Heritage Advisory Committee is consulted at at least 13 different instances that are both

22:24legislated by the Heritage Act and required in the terms of reference for this committee.

22:34To achieve a bit more readability and intuitive policy writing, we are consolidating and reordering

22:40some policies. We found that some policies are repeated in multiple places in the section.

22:47So we're reordering and consolidating those policies where they're possible to reduce

22:53potential burdensome conditions. For example, there's currently two sections for

22:58cultural heritage resource impact assessment in the scope of CHRIA. So we just put those two

23:04into one section, so that it's clear that they're very similar. Finally, we're strengthening somewhat

23:13the policies for heritage trees, specifically clarifying that heritage trees can be the sole

23:20heritage attribute that contributes to a mark for designation under the Heritage Act.

23:26I've been currently in the policies a little bit

23:28ambiguous about that, so we're just making sure that I'm clear.

23:35So we'll have a bit of a moment now for any comments or questions if there are any.

23:41We do plan to publish the specific proposed policy changes in the fall, and we can follow up with

23:49this committee at that time. But I leave the floor open for any questions or comments.

23:54I'm not completely clear what happens once the bill 23 legislation comes into effect.

24:05Does that mean every non-designated property on the list is wiped off the list,

24:12or does the list continue in some form?

24:14Yeah, so bill 23, those changes that we're talking about included a transition period

24:25during which municipalities cannot be their official plans to, I guess, address those changes.

24:30So I might not have the specifics on this one, but I believe that that transition period is until

24:362027? January 1st. It's been postponed. On January 1st, 2027, all non-designated properties will be

24:46removed, so they'll have no status. So can they then be put on five years later?

24:55Yes, and that's, I guess, silly thing to forget.

25:00We don't have to the red path up and down. We still have to change it.

25:05If they're removed, we can still designate them. We just can't listen.

25:08Well, that's good. I thought it was the end of the designation process too.

25:13So in addition to that, I mean, municipalities used to play a little game through zoning, and that

25:22was we love heritage, and then they'd own everything, you know, multiple housing and all, so they'd

25:28get ripped down. Can the city do the reverse now under the new legislations? Because one of

25:35the ways the city can do it is to try and protect them, you know, indirectly through zoning,

25:43as I've been talking about, or is that possible with the Premier's, you know,

25:50intentions through Bill 23? Do you know what I mean? I think I know what you mean. Do you mean,

25:56for example, removing the possibility for what is now a single detached house to become

26:04two units or three units? Yeah, or an apartment building or whatever, would indirectly

26:11help preserve the building as is. Yeah, so also through Bill 23, legislation was also passed

26:18to allow up to three units on a residential lot in the city. So at least for all units

26:26throughout the city, up to three units is allowed. And just recently, actually, we went through zoning

26:31by law amendment process to allow up to four, and certain circumstances provided,

26:36certain zoning regulations are met. But that's not something in particular, I think, that we'd be

26:41looking at through this process. And you know, the Premier would have a way around it.

26:50What if it's a major historic site that's threatened? Is there any recourse? Or?

26:56I think it depends on the protections for the heritage site. So if it's a designated property,

27:01then there are requirements to protect the heritage attributes that are identified in that

27:07designation law. And I was thinking of the non-designated ones. If it's not designated,

27:17and we're aware of some risks, we're likely working on it right now. But even if we get wind,

27:25of some risk to a property, we'll likely have time to get it through the Committee into Council.

27:34It's challenging if a demolition permit is applied for a non-designated property,

27:40once they've all been removed, we have 10 days to consider that permit. And then we have to

27:45approve it. So if the stars aligned, and we could somehow get that through the Heritage

27:52Committee into Council within those 10 days, that would be a possible way of preventing

27:59demolition of a non-listed, non-designated property. But that would present a lot of

28:06difficulties. So it's not a likely scenario. So that's why staff are always doing threat

28:12assessments and risk assessments to properties now, because we have to be so proactive with our

28:16designation program. Does the legislation also say if a community objects or tries to protect it,

28:25the province can step in and just say no, it gets pulled down?

28:31Certain circumstances, ministerial zoning orders. Yeah, I think there's a lot of change right now

28:39at provincial level regarding specific legislation that I think we're not certain how it's all

28:48going to shake out. I think it depends on how it develops. Yeah, sometimes it's hard to say

28:56where we're going. Ross, you're looking at it. I do see a hand up on the screen.

29:04Thank you, Madam Chair. I've got two questions for staff. The first one relates to the planning

29:11piece. So on its own, the provincial planning statement update, the 2024 version, doesn't

29:19have an impact on our ability to complete our work on a heritage side. Could you just speak to

29:26how the PPS on its own impacts the heritage piece? I understand Bill 23 is most of the changes

29:32originate from Bill 23, but then I see some references to the provincial planning statement,

29:37and I'm just curious to know, practically speaking, how those changes impact our work,

29:42if at all, or if they're just administrative in nature, like some of the other changes that are

29:46proposed. So that's my first question. Is that related to the work of the Heritage Advisory

29:51Committee? Yes, and just at large the city's work of designating properties. Like, are there

29:58limitations within the PPS that change the way we would have proceeded with designations or

30:02things along those lines? Or is the PPS change mostly administrative, like changes to definitions,

30:08like what was described for the official plan piece? I'm just curious to know,

30:13like I know that Bill 23 changed the way we do heritage, so to speak, quite a lot. And then what

30:18about this provincial planning statement of 2024? Did it have changes that we should be aware of also?

30:23Yes, so my understanding is that the Heritage Act governs a lot of the process for how properties

30:32are designated and protected, and then the PPS 2024 is more specifically focused on the land

30:39use planning side. So the policies of the PPS, they do provide direction on protecting cultural

30:48heritage resources. But my understanding of that is that it's mostly directing towards the

30:54Heritage Act or other tools or even local municipalities to implement how they want to do

31:00that. So in one of the previous slides, you might have the agenda. The policies of the PPS state

31:08that protected heritage properties must be shall be conserved. And the way that conserved is defined,

31:17lots of definitions, that essentially means that it shall be conserved through the Heritage Act or

31:23provincial heritage protections or a national in some ways. So it's a little bit parallel to the

31:32processes of the designation, but it does provide direction and strengthens some of those process.

31:38But more particularly, it's providing the direction to land use planning and development.

31:45Yeah, that's very helpful. And if I may just one more question, I know a consolidation for sections of

31:50Cultural Heritage Resource Impact Assessment, C-H-R-I-A, versus scoped ones. I expect C-H-R-I-A

31:58are evaluation reports or studies, and that could be clarified as well. That would be helpful for me.

32:04But I'm just wanting to verification that the way we've consolidated them,

32:10consolidated them rather, doesn't preclude scoped C-H-R-I-A's from being required.

32:18Like I'm curious to know if there's extra onus on prospective designes to obtain a more detailed

32:29study as a result of the consolidation, something like that. Or if it's basically the same or just

32:33combining two sections, that would be helpful. And as well, just what is the C-H-R-I-A versus an

32:39evaluation report? I could speak to the way that we've approached the consolidation. So in this

32:46specific example, those two policy sections repeated verbatim word for word specific policy direction.

32:56And we saw great things to make sure that we were maintaining the current intent of those

33:01policies so that if a scoped C-H-R-I-A can be required by staff, we'll still be able to

33:08require that. We just put those policies word for word the same in the same place

33:14and tried to make sure that the language flows a little bit nicer.

33:20That answered the question. I think there was another part to that question that was more

33:23related to heritage. Evaluation. So an impact assessment is generally considering

33:31the impact that a proposed project will have on a heritage resource. So that could be

33:38to a listed or designated property. In the event that it was for a listed property, that's when

33:44we would want an evaluation report included as part of a heritage impact assessment to know whether

33:50or not it meets the current area for designation, if that helps clarify.

33:56It does. Thanks, Jack. I think I understand it well enough. Basically, the impact assessment

34:01someone's making a planning act application and as part of that, you've required an impact

34:05assessment and you identify maybe something of heritage significance and then further down the

34:09line, they still need to make an evaluation or do a study that is considered. Yes, yeah, that's right.

34:15Yeah. Okay. Thanks for that. A question as well. I understand the reason for deleting the term

34:24cultural heritage value, but it comes up in the new proposed definition for built heritage resource.

34:29And I'm curious, I mean, we would understand in this room right given the work we're doing,

34:33but if the OP is really for the public as well, is there any value to having a definition still

34:39in there for what cultural heritage value actually is, especially for using that term in a proposed

34:43definition? So you're saying that the definition for culture. So you've noted that you're deleting

34:49the term, yeah, cultural heritage value, but then in the new definition for built heritage resource,

34:55it's used in there. So I'm just curious if there's risk that the general public who doesn't

35:00necessarily have a background in heritage in general would read that and not actually know what

35:05cultural heritage value is or interest because it actually uses that whole phrase. So this particular

35:12term we've thought about a lot. It's a little bit difficult to kind of deal with because it does

35:20specifically refer to the criteria that are identified in the regulations. It's a very specific

35:26thing. But the way that it's used in a lot of places, you know, in the policies and the PPS even,

35:34it doesn't specifically reference those criteria. So if, you know, someone who's not a cultural

35:40heritage specialist or a planner reads some of those things, they'll say, oh, cultural heritage

35:45value or interest, you know, this building that I've seen down the street that's old, I think it

35:50has cultural heritage value or interest. If we were to define it according to the criteria,

35:56then we wouldn't be able to say that it has cultural heritage value or interest because it has not been

36:00evaluated. So by keeping that term not defined in that way to reference the regulations specifically,

36:08we're believing that a bit more open so that people can read this and say, oh, I understand what

36:12cultural heritage value or interest is. That allows to, you know, consider more properties

36:19rather than just the ones that have been evaluated by the specific criteria. So hopefully that we're

36:25hitting the right kind of level on where we're going with this. But yeah, good question. Is it

36:30a little bit, is it fiddly, especially when the definitions are used in other terms and

36:36other legislation as well? So there's potential that the fadeness there could provide benefit. So

36:41essentially it's too defined, too restricted, then. It's that flexibility. Precisely.

36:46One thing I would add is in the world of consulting archaeology, frequently the A.E.

36:51consultancy reports end with a determination of cultural heritage value or interest of

36:56whatever archaeological resources identified. So in this case, are we just hoping we substitute

37:02out that wording for just significance and then we say, unless you conserve significant

37:07archaeological resources, because I think a lot of reports will still come in citing that

37:12very specific wording. So I think what are thinking currently is that those specific

37:20archaeological reports will be written by professionals who understand the language

37:25that they're using. Whereas this one, you know, the interpretation should be clear for the people

37:33who are reading it. And I think with the official plan, the intent is that it's read by more people

37:37than just be professional archaeologists who are writing these reports. Yeah, I think that was

37:47our intent there. Does that answer your question? Yeah, I think so. I guess just,

37:52yeah, I'm just wondering how the term significant and cultural heritage value or an interest sort of

37:58will be transposed over each other in the new wording. Yeah, and that's another concern because

38:05the term significant is also defined specifically in the PPS. Yeah. And we want to make sure that

38:10we're using that term where we can. So I'm not certain if archaeological studies would be using

38:19significant in the same way that PPS uses it. That might be something that we can look further into

38:26if you think that's important. But it may be. Ultimately, I think we're getting to the same

38:31place. Yeah, just some of these specific words, but that's just something I want to play. Yeah,

38:35even specifically for archaeology, like one of the definitions that we're taking a look at is

38:40areas of archaeological potential, which how we're proposing to define

38:44areas with the likelihood to contain archaeological resources as evaluated using the processes and

38:50criteria that are established under the Ontario Heritage Act. So as well as saying previously,

38:55a lot of our definitions again, go back to what is set out in those and that specific specialist or

39:01establishing the criteria. Yeah, Justin. Thank you, Madam Chair. Just one more for staff

39:10that I intended to ask originally, but it's relating to the tree protections. I'm just wanting

39:15some clarification on that. I understand the city has a tree protection bylaw and permit program.

39:20Does that overlap with the designation of a tree as a heritage attribute? And as well,

39:26is this part of the city like, it's probably due to my being new to the committee, but does the

39:32city already have designated trees as heritage attributes? Is that part of our work plan

39:36upcoming that we intend to designate trees as heritage attributes? And just sort of what is

39:40the source of this? Did it come along if you could give me some context for the inclusion of this,

39:46or was it already part of the official plan and just being strengthened? I think that may be it,

39:50but that's basically the question. Yeah, the policies were already in the official plan

39:57related to heritage trees. As far as I understand, there isn't a specific designated heritage tree

40:06in the city of wealth, but this is a policy that was there already to identify. The city does have

40:12three protection bylaws, and my understanding of them is that it would be more of a complementary,

40:18kind of separate policy requirement compared to heritage tree designation. But what we've done

40:26with the heritage trees is just to make sure that should this committee or should council or the

40:32city identify any tree or trees that deserve heritage recognition, that could be identified

40:40on a property, a heritage property, as one of the attributes that's worth protecting. So

40:46potentially on a current or one of the properties that we were looking at today in the consensus

40:51agenda, maybe the tree itself is one of the specific heritage attributes that ought to be protected.

40:59The updated language that we're introducing or proposing makes it very clear that

41:03we can identify those trees to be protected as well. And even if the building itself doesn't have any

41:09significance, the tree can also be designated, the property itself can be designated to protect

41:16that tree for heritage reasons.

41:24Hey, David, it's Jordan. This is welcome, David. We're just on item 3.1, just asking any questions

41:30or providing any feedback on the proposed official plan update as they relate to heritage policies.

41:34Not to put you on the spot by any means, but just letting you know where we are right now in the agenda.

41:44Yeah, don't ask.

41:45Just about the concept of significance, if you look at heritage conservation as an idea to

41:54allow traditional neighborhoods to evolve, there are buildings within those neighborhoods or

42:00communities that are not in the landmark sense, but contribute to the environment just by their presence.

42:11And their absence could be a detriment to the environment. And I'm just thinking of one example,

42:19which is that building beside atmosphere that the City Council wants to put a 14-story building on.

42:29It's way out of scale for the neighborhood. And the building itself is not particularly

42:33significant. I mean, it's a kind of an international-style looking thing. But it's going to impact

42:39all of the rest of the street. So how do you capture that when you're talking about significant?

42:47Because it may not be culturally significant.

42:50It may be ridiculous to the neighborhood or the environment.

42:57Yeah, good question. So in the official plan, the term, the definition that we have for significance

43:05comes directly from the PPS, from the provincial planning statement. And the way that it's worded

43:12currently is in regards to cultural heritage and archaeology resources that have been determined

43:17to add cultural heritage value or interest. That's that term I mean. And the process and criteria

43:23for determining cultural heritage value or interest are established by the province and the

43:26utility of the Amperium Heritage Act. So in this case, for something to be significant, it would

43:32have been evaluated and determined according to the Heritage Act. You know, those criteria for what

43:38constitutes heritage value or interest. So in this very specific sense of significance,

43:46that's what we're referring to in these policies. And that's one of the tricks with

43:53planning and policy is that if it's defined in one way,

43:59then we use it in everyday planning for this as well.

44:02Sorry, David, this is Garrett here from the clerk's office. We can hear you. You're unmuting

44:08yourself. I'm sorry.

44:09You're making a mistake.

44:12She's being facetious.

44:20Okay, so what we'll do, David, is I believe an email was sent. We'll mute you for now while you

44:26work with that and turn it back over to her. Sorry.

44:29It says you're muted, I'm not sure.

44:37If I can just add to that question specifically about the building across the street. So we

44:44did request a cultural heritage impact assessment as part of that application and it made design

44:53recommendations for the new building that would make it more in keeping with the streetscape. So

45:03with regards to instances like that where we're not talking about a building so much as we are a

45:08landscape, the HCD policies have a role to play in keeping it served as opposed to just one specific

45:20heritage resource.

45:21Because years ago they were trying to move away from this idea of only landmarks count

45:27and environments are important and so on.

45:29Okay.

45:32Another change for, I guess maybe it's not a change but one of the policies of the PPS and

45:37the official plan is the valuations also have to consider adjacent lands. So if it's a property next

45:43door to a heritage property they have to consider the heritage attributes next door.

45:49I want to tell her what's good here.

45:53That's 1250 so I don't want to take up all your time.

45:56So good. Are there other, I see we've lost David again but are there other

46:03questions or comments from the committee?

46:07And I appreciate that there's there will be more time for consultation because we're really

46:10only at the starting point of consultation which is it's always nice. You did have a few other

46:16slides I think. Did you, was there anything in there that you wanted to go back to for next steps?

46:21No, I'll just wrap up this slideshow.

46:26Really kind of high level stuff.

46:30We are still at the beginning. We will hope to present the draft changes to City Council in the

46:38fall so we'll be publishing those and if this committee would like we can come back with those

46:44draft changes to receive more feedback from this group. In late 2025 we'll be doing additional

46:52consultation and we'll be soliciting some comments on the draft changes and then we'll be

46:57bringing the draft changes to City Council in January for a final position. And if you'd like

47:02more information you can contact myself or Lucas from MoMami to keep in touch. And you can also

47:10follow along the project on your own time at the have your save age listed here and again reach out

47:18to us if you have any comments or if you want to you know keep in touch with the project. Yes,

47:24that's all. I think you're extracted a motion or is drafting a motion for us?

47:34Yes, sorry. So it's really up to the committee on how you guys want to move forward with this.

47:39There's potential motions on providing feedback today if you have specific feedback that you

47:43would like to provide to staff. There could be a simple motion just to receive the information

47:48from staff or if you would like to formalize the bringing back of the draft recommendations as

47:53you noted we could formalize that in a motion so that it does return to you for comments prior

47:58to going to Council. I would look to staff for an appropriate time on that return. Do you have a date

48:04that would work? It would probably be either the November meeting. This committee would probably

48:11be the best. So if you want to facilitate that we should make sure we capture that correctly.

48:17So what we've done previously when there hasn't I think a lot of discussion today was question-based

48:21so the cultural heritage value one I think there was potential that that could have gone into we

48:25advise whatever for it but I think there's more questions and information based so I don't think

48:30we necessarily have any solid advice to provide but I think if Garrett could read out the suggested

48:36motion of bringing it back to us that we can provide comments before things formalize fully

48:43and late fall I think that would be helpful and open to community members or to suggest

48:47other options for very flexible on this committee. And just get some information

48:52so that we can review it. Yes yeah that would be that would be part of that. Yeah so if that's the

48:58right of the committee we'd like to go the motion would read that the official plan update heritage

49:02policies dated July 3rd 2025 be received and that staff bring the draft changes to the November

49:09Heritage Advisory Committee meeting to allow for comments. You know we should read from your eyes

49:17and move on second. Perfect so someone wants to move that motion. Move that one. Yeah thank you

49:22and a seconder. Thank you Dustin all in favor guessing well we probably don't have David without

49:33both because he still can't hear us. Yes I would I would capture that minutes. Okay perfect thank you.

49:39All right thank you very much for the presentation. Okay thank you very much.

49:45Here I know you have to be out by one o'clock not a problem with the hot forum

49:50and we're going to move on to the heritage planning part of designation work plan

49:542025. After the room is hearing help your back costs. There's a wait for this.

50:01And you know the guard. I always leave the wait. Okay so I'm not going to make much of a

50:15presentation my intention was primarily just to get this report in front of the committee so that you

50:20have an idea of what staff are going to be working on over the remaining months of 2025.

50:30The key thing to note in the work plan as outlined is that all of these properties were

50:36volunteered after our call for voluntary designations in February so that's what we've been working on

50:43the last couple months primarily has been researching these properties and so we're

50:48going to start bringing those reports to the committee in September. And so with because

50:57these are voluntary properties we're really working very closely with the property owners and so

51:04after we've evaluated the property and determined whether or not it meets the criteria

51:08we will go back to the property owners and ask them if they want to continue to proceed with

51:13the designation prior to bringing it to the committee. So the work plan as outlined may

51:19change depending on the direction that property owners would like to take the designation.

51:25Additionally staff may bring other properties not included in the work plan forward if there's a

51:33perception of risk specifically. So do view it with some fluidity and but it provides a roadmap

51:42of what you can expect for our Part 4 designation work plan for the rest of the year. Does anybody

51:52have any questions on the work plan as outlined? Just a quick question Jack is it possible that

51:59committee members can also suggest properties as part of that if there is risk as well? Yes yeah

52:04anytime you're aware of a property that may be at risk you can email me and let me know what the

52:10property is and what the perceived risk may be. Justin? Thank you Madam Chair just one quick one

52:19I appreciate the prioritizations based on risk as well as the voluntary piece these are all

52:24folks who are cooperative of their properties being designated. Is it the case that as part of

52:29eventually as part of work planning that will include designations or proposed designations

52:38that are not voluntary and where does that fall into prioritization? Is it that we're starting

52:45with ones we basically know have the cooperation of property owners and then maybe later on will be

52:50confronted with those other kinds of designations that's the only question for Jack there.

52:57Yeah so the first half of this year has been staff have been focusing on proactive designations so

53:07we've been lucky that with many of those properties we have had the cooperation of

53:11property owners but that's not always the case and so we were able to

53:20have several notices of intention to designate by-laws pass for properties that staff perceive to be

53:27of significance and deserving of designation as well as some that we had some concern for risk

53:36about but it was always the intention of staff to shift focus from those proactive

53:43designations in the first half of the year to now start working on the voluntary designations

53:49and I should say that since bill 23 was passed our first concern was risk and that's what we

53:56spent most of 2023 and 2024 working on were properties that we perceived to be high risk and so

54:06I am less and less aware of any properties out there that I am in and we concerned for

54:14but again heritage planning staff welcome from both the committee and members of the public

54:20any concern for any heritage property that may be at risk in the city.

54:27Is that in the city? Is it in or out? I have to double check that.

54:35I think they announced they're tearing it down last week. I did hear that.

54:44Questions or comments from anyone on Jack's presentation?

54:52What about conservation districts? Are they on the horizon still or no?

54:57Oh yeah so we're currently so that's kind of what's going on in the background right now is

55:02we're working on three heritage district heritage conservation districts all in

55:08very slightly different stages of the process but we're anticipating the planning guidelines for

55:14the downtown reformatory in this fall. Right. So that's also part of the work plan is yeah

55:25slowly moving forward these heritage district projects and I should know that at the June

55:33what was it June 10th council planning meeting city council

55:40prove the ward west heritage district to proceed to the second phase so we're now working on the

55:45planning guideline for the ward west as well. So that will be able to ward off a lot of the

55:50negative aspects that build upon 23. Yeah that's a blanket designation for those areas and it also

55:58the planning guideline provides a lot of clarity for development in that area so I think they're

56:04really useful tools because it provides clarity for both property owners and residents but also

56:10developers who are working in the area. So no one else put up hands online or chat in the room.

56:23The next item is just chair announcements. I have none I don't know Jack or Steven

56:26if they've ignored you online today if there are any announcements from either of you.

56:32Steven has. Yeah I do hello everybody thanks Sarah I'm what I'm going to do just to get started

56:43I have three images that I wanted to share on the screen so let me know if you see a map that shows

56:50the area part of the Ontario reformatory heritage district area do you see that Sarah?

56:58Yes we do. Okay good if you can see my cursor the I'm pointing to the highlighted property is

57:08property owned by the province of Ontario it's a portion of 785 York Road and what I wanted to

57:16read out an update on was the current situation with the Ontario reformatory

57:22trestle wooden trestle bridge a former railway bridge which is located right here where my cursor

57:30is. If you were to stand on on the provincially owned land here just beside the Cargill property

57:37on the east side of the Aramasa River you'd see something like this image so that's the

57:44wooden trestle bridge as it is today this is a photo I took in June later in June and on if you

57:53walked to the sorry if you walked not over the bridge but if you got to the west side of the

58:00river and looked from the riverbank here up to the bridge you would see this image

58:06and just for clarity the sign or signage that's on top of the of the bridge here it says bridge

58:15unsafe keep off so I'm just going to read out the information that I can share with the committee

58:23for your information so infrastructure Ontario has notified the city of Guelph that the trestle

58:29bridge located on the former reformatory lands will be removed removal of the trestle bridge

58:36is being expedited based on professional structural engineering recommendations which

58:41suggest the bridge is unsafe and poses a risk to life safety the government of Ontario is not

58:48required to apply for demolition permit from the city of Guelph or and a permit is not required by

58:54the Grand River Conservation Authority as the province is exempt from the Conservation Authorities

58:59Act while the OR trestle bridge has been listed on the city's municipal register of cultural

59:07heritage properties and has been identified as a heritage attribute within the Ontario reformatory

59:13heritage conservation district boundary the property the property on which the bridge is located is

59:21owned by the government of Ontario and is therefore not subject to the Ontario Heritage Act

59:27infrastructure Ontario and the government of Ontario is not planning any proactive communications

59:33regarding the demolition of the bridge there are no plans for onsite signage regarding the removal

59:39and finally all media inquiries are to be directed to a web address which is media at

59:49infrastructureontario.ca so that's that's the update i'm not sure if staff announcements

1:00:00allow questions or answers that sort of thing but that's the information i wanted to convey to

1:00:06the committee yeah we can ask questions we just can't have discussion amongst ourselves

1:00:10remember that from the past so if there are any questions for Stephen

1:00:14welcome to to ask them sorry my thoughts i can't put into a into a question so i won't

1:00:28speak anything well i would just say does anybody think it's worth saving

1:00:40sorry through you uh sarah or the chair is don is that a question to staff or to the committee

1:00:50okay anyone who wants to answer he's allowed to have discussion though so it would be questions

1:00:55to staff technically there can be a back and forth it's just yeah um right there's no real

1:01:00end-run to get this no motion right but conversation can happen right uh well to to to

1:01:07to give you my answer to i think the the the practical answer to your question don it was in

1:01:13one of the bullets that i read out and that's the fact that the city has already listed the

1:01:19trestle bridge on the heritage register because it has cultural heritage value or interest

1:01:24actually has defined and it's also been included in the heritage or the heritage conservation

1:01:33district boundary as an attribute of the Ontario Reformatory Heritage District so the city

1:01:41had for for quite some time has recognized the cultural heritage value of this built heritage

1:01:45resource and uh it's and has stated numerous times that it's well worth and and merits protection

1:01:56under the Ontario Heritage Act what the information that's been given today reiterates is the fact that

1:02:03the government of Ontario is not is exempt from uh it's it's not subject to the Ontario Heritage

1:02:11Act what's the bridge's history i worked at the correctional centre and i never recall

1:02:21having seen it or heard of it um well it's uh this the image doesn't show the whole history but

1:02:32essentially when the reformatory uh the Guelph Reformatory was first constructed

1:02:40the land was purchased and the buildings were contemplated and being built supplies

1:02:46were brought in on a railway spur that if you see my cursor here there was a spur created that

1:02:53went across the river and brought supplies in and out to the reformatory lands from the main line

1:03:01so the stone quarry located in this area would would transport stone either to building sites on

1:03:10the reformatory or transport stone out of the site so the the the reformatory wouldn't trestle

1:03:18railway bridge was an important part of of transportation and materials for the development

1:03:23of the Ontario Reformatory since about 1910 when it was constructed is that the back of where the

1:03:34trades um uh trades trading area is i can't tell what's what on the map that cluster of buildings

1:03:45is that the trades this this is property owned by cargill protein which uh is not part of the uh

1:03:55reformatory heritage district the reformatory uh building building groups are actually not

1:04:03on this image it's it's further north from here is cargo is it better beef it was yeah better

1:04:12okay now i know where it became cargill well that's why i never saw it because um better beef was in the

1:04:19way right it's it's a structure that the public can see uh from the informal uh walking trails

1:04:28that are on both sides of the river but the bridge has been closed for some time and it's been uh

1:04:36there's been signage here for for a long time uh warding people off of actually crossing it

1:04:45the paper coming in as well online yeah thank you sorry so you mentioned that the reason why

1:04:53they want to demolish it is that there's a proposed risk like or a perceived risk to human life maybe

1:04:58it's a trick of perspective but the water doesn't look particularly deep it does look relatively

1:05:04rickety and there is a sign so they're not attempting to put more signage up they're not

1:05:09trying to block it off the goal is to demolish it through the chair i'll just reiterate what

1:05:19what the update had said is that the uh the government of Ontario has decided that it

1:05:26must be removed uh because of unsafe conditions and the risks that it posed to life safety i

1:05:36guess building on what piper said there is another way to access the bridge which is through the water

1:05:41canoe which is how i accessed it and uh the province wasn't far off the determination that it was

1:05:48unsafe at least from my judgment but uh that's just another uh a third avenue that you could

1:05:55access this bridge i i just like to note too that um i believe it was in our wastewater management

1:06:05master plan um noted that the bridge is causing erosion to the river as well as the

1:06:14timbers are directly inserted into the riverbed as you can see in this image and they're

1:06:19coated in creosote so it's not it's not environmentally okay to remain as is i wish

1:06:28i wish other options were explored but uh yeah there are many perspectives to consider

1:06:42other questions comments about this and i see what i don't know you about their announcements or

1:06:47this was this was my only the only announcement coming from me sarah

1:06:54yeah because you've got an announcement yeah i'll i'll just note that we don't typically schedule

1:06:59meeting in august so that the next meeting will be scheduled the first thursday of september

1:07:08right well then the only other work we have to do is a motion to adjourn when someone like to move that

1:07:15thank you justin second girl thank you kelly that's okay and all in favor

1:07:20and noting that david probably still can't hear us okay so we'll see you all in some way in september

1:07:28great thanks everyone first thursday so it's a number