Heritage Advisory Committee

0:02meeting minutes and Garrett will speak to this item.

0:08Through you chair to the committee.

0:10Garrett is absent today so he can't be here.

0:13But Liz Barber from the clerk's office is stepping in and having to discuss this item.

0:20You all have been provided with

0:22report that I believe contains only information that I'll explain.

0:28But Garrett did a really good job at writing that out.

0:32So we're here with this report because of an error that was made on our part.

0:37So I'll just start with that.

0:40Before brief recap as to what is outlined in the report,

0:44clerk's office staff were made aware of an admission of

0:47emotion that occurred at the September 4th Heritage Advisory Committee meeting.

0:53And through the article,

0:56through an article on wealth today.

0:58So that article was linked in the report.

1:01Should you want to go have a read?

1:04Of course, after being made aware of this,

1:07city staff reviewed the meeting and confirmed that there was in fact

1:09a third motion related to item 3.1,

1:1331 or 37, 39,

1:15London Road intention to demolish a property listed on the municipal register that was

1:20not included in the draft set of minutes.

1:23The motion is outlined in full and report.

1:28Now, despite the motion being defeated,

1:31we do need to have an accurate record of that in the minutes.

1:37With that said, to ensure that accuracy set in the minutes from September 4th,

1:422024 or 2025, sorry, Heritage Advisory Committee staff.

1:49City Clerk's Office staff, pardon,

1:51are recommending that the Heritage Advisory Committee approve the update

1:54set of minutes that were included as an attachment in the report.

1:59Once those corrected minutes are approved by you, the committee,

2:05updates will be made to the records post publicly and the corrected minutes will

2:09be included on an upcoming information items agenda.

2:16I will just say as well, I was not there at the meeting,

2:20but from City Clerk's Office and being in this role,

2:25sometimes we get caught off guard with things that are happening in the meeting

2:30and we do make mistakes. We are human.

2:34So apologies from the City Clerk's Office,

2:37but we're here to correct that today.

2:40The motion is included in the report,

2:44but I am happy to answer any questions from members.

2:49If you have any questions.

2:55Thanks, Liz.

2:56Does any members have any questions?

3:01OK, I don't see any hands for any questions.

3:03So I'm just going to read out the recommended motion again

3:07that the corrected September 4th, 2025 Heritage Advisory Committee meeting

3:12minutes included as attachment one to the update to the Heritage Advisory

3:16Committee meeting minutes report dated November 6th, 2025 be approved.

3:25OK, so can I have someone to approve this motion?

3:37So I'm not seeing any hands.

3:40Oh, sorry.

3:41I'm sorry, chair member Caldwell has her hand up.

3:45OK, sorry. Sorry, Kelly.

3:47I couldn't see you there on my screen.

3:49OK, so thanks, Kelly.

3:50I see your hand and then kind of a seconder.

3:54Justin, I see your hand and then all in favor.

3:59OK, and that's been carried.

4:03We will now move on to our second item on today's agenda, item 2.2.

4:08That's 316 Grange Road Heritage Impact Assessment.

4:12And that's a presentation from Steven to start.

4:19Thanks, Kim.

4:21I'm hoping everyone can hear me OK.

4:23Yeah, yeah.

4:26This report I'm bringing to you today

4:29regards in regard to 316 Grange Road.

4:33And I'll just say that we do have Emily Elliot from MHBC,

4:39who is in attendance on this meeting.

4:44So I want to just provide a really brief overview of the material,

4:49some of the material that's included in the report that you've had a chance to review.

4:53So the owner of 316 Grange Road, which is Gemini Homes,

4:57they've applied for a site plan approval to redevelop the subject property

5:02into what's proposed as a 79 unit residential subdivision.

5:07It's semi-detached in townhouse units.

5:11The proposed development would require the demolition of all extant buildings on the property.

5:17And this includes a 20th century farm barn building,

5:20which is listed as a non designated property on the municipal register.

5:26So ARA, or otherwise known as the Rchaeological Research Associates,

5:31were retained by the developer to complete a cultural heritage resource impact assessment

5:36in advance of the proposed development.

5:39And as you saw, the CHRIA is attachment one in the report.

5:48So the purpose of this staff report is to make the advisory committee aware

5:52of the main, the high points of the assessment findings.

5:58But maybe more importantly, the staff's recommendations regarding the cultural heritage value

6:03of the barn on the subject property.

6:07As you saw in the report, the property contains,

6:14I'm not sharing my screen here, but I can if you wish,

6:17but the included several of my own photographs in the report.

6:23And so 316 Grange Road contains a single story red brick dwelling

6:29that faces Grange Road in the front of the property.

6:33That dwelling is included in the cooling inventory in the 1970s,

6:39but the building currently has no heritage status

6:42because it's not listed or designated under the Heritage Act.

6:46The barn behind the house, and I've had included several images of that,

6:52it's, as I mentioned, is listed on the Heritage Register.

6:56The barn has a side gable roof over a heavy timber upper story

7:01that was built on a board formed concrete base on the ground floor.

7:09So our ARA has assessed the property and the buildings thereon.

7:19And heritage planning staff are in agreement with the consultant's opinion

7:22that the timber frame barn has physical or design value

7:27because it's a rare type of structure in the city of Guelph.

7:31However, changes made by the Province of Ontario to the Heritage Act

7:35now make it necessary for a property to satisfy at least two,

7:40not one, but two of the nine criteria under regulation 906

7:45in order for the property to be deemed as having cultural heritage value.

7:49So it's not that the barn has no cultural heritage value.

7:53It's just that it does not have enough to satisfy the requirements

7:57of the current regulation.

8:00So as this farm building, farm barn building was likely constructed

8:04in the early 20th century, and it has not been found

8:08to have significant design, physical, historical,

8:11associative or contextual value.

8:14So in closing, I'll just read out the two recommendations

8:20that staff have made to the committee.

8:22And that is that the Heritage Advisory Committee

8:27advise City Council that the barn building at 316 Grange Road

8:32does not merit designation under part four of the Ontario Heritage Act.

8:37And second, that the Heritage Advisory Committee

8:39advises City Council that the committee supports the recommendations

8:43in the staff report titled 316 Grange Road

8:47and intention to demolish a property listed on the municipal register

8:51dated November 6th, 2025.

8:55That's all from me.

8:56I'm happy to answer any questions that you might have.

9:03Thank you, Stephen.

9:05Twenty members have questions for Stephen.

9:12I'm not seeing any hands.

9:17Oh, Justin, I see your hand.

9:20Thanks, Kim. Just a minor question.

9:23I'm just curious to know with respect to the barn board,

9:27the if there's any adaptive purpose for it in the future

9:31or that was contemplated by the applicant

9:34or if it's just going to be disposed of?

9:38I.

9:41Member Granger, you may have seen in this staff report

9:45just at the end of the executive summary that

9:48and I'll just read it out here if you don't mind.

9:50Here's planning supports the consultants recommendation

9:53that if demolition or removal of the barn is being considered,

9:57that the wood from the timber frame barn building

10:00should be considered for salvage and reuse.

10:03So the staffs already made that

10:08suggestion, which really picks up on what's already been

10:12suggested by the consultant in their HIA.

10:16But Gemini Homes is considering that,

10:19but no decisions have been made just yet as to how that might happen,

10:23either on site or off site.

10:26It's definitely part of the discussion, though.

10:35Do any other members have any questions?

10:44I'm still not seeing any hands.

10:46OK, so Stephen read out the recommended motions,

10:52but I'll read them out one by one as we vote for each one.

10:59Oh, OK, thank you, Liz.

11:02OK, so the first recommended motion that the Heritage Advisory Committee

11:07advises City Council of the barn building at 316 Green Road

11:12does not merit designation under part four of the Ontario Heritage Act.

11:18Do I have someone to move this motion?

11:26OK, I'm seeing Justin's hand and Piper.

11:29You can second that motion and all in favor. OK.

11:36That's been carried. Thank you.

11:38And the second recommended motion that the Heritage Advisory Committee

11:42envises City Council that the committee supports the recommendations

11:46in the staff report titled 316 Green Road intention to demolish

11:50a property listed on the municipal register and dated whoever 6th 2025.

12:03Piper, thanks for moving that.

12:05And kind of a seconder, Justin, thank you.

12:08All in favor. OK.

12:13Thank you. And that's been carried. OK, so we'll move on to item 2.3

12:22on today's agenda.

12:25And that is the official plan update heritage policies.

12:29And we will have a presentation from Will Turman.

12:36Thank you, chair.

12:38Let me just share my screen.

12:59Thank you very much for that introduction. So.

13:04For this presentation, this will be the second time that we're bringing.

13:09An update on this project to update the official plan to this committee.

13:14The last time we were here was in July, and I do recognize some faces.

13:17So I think at least some of you have received a version of this presentation

13:22before we had the draft policies updated at that time.

13:29But at the current stage, we have some draft documents.

13:34For this presentation, I'll try to go quickly through kind of the context

13:38and background, and then I'd like to have a bit more of a discussion,

13:44kind of ask questions, talk about some specific examples.

13:50But really, the intent here is to have a bit more of a fulsome discussion

13:54with this group to make sure that changes that we're proposing in this current draft

13:58are on the right track, or if there are things that this group would like to

14:04refocus or make a bit more of a direct impact on here.

14:12So I'll start going through the slideshow.

14:18So again, I'm William Turman.

14:19I'm a planner to policy working on the updates to the heritage policies

14:24in the official plan update, and then others contributing to this project

14:27are Lucas, who's here with me, and Brittany Manley, who's online, I believe.

14:35And as I said before, I'll kind of feel a brief overview of the purpose of this

14:41project and an overview summary of the EGWILS official plan update project as well,

14:47and a brief summary of the proposed changes to the heritage policies specifically.

14:54I'll follow that with kind of a selection of examples of some of the changes

14:59that we're considering through this draft.

15:02And I've included discussion here, but really, if there's any point where you'd

15:08like to kind of stop and interrupt and ask me, like, provide some clarification

15:12or explanation or you have discussion at any point,

15:18the intent is that this group understands and feels free to kind of,

15:23you know, ask those questions when they're relevant during this presentation.

15:30So what is the purpose of the current official plan update?

15:34So the purpose is to bring the official plan into consistency and conformity

15:38with provincial changes and to incorporate the direction of master plans

15:42and also to review and update specific policies, including cultural heritage policies.

15:47So as many of you are likely aware, there have been many changes

15:50in the provincial legislation and requirements that we have to incorporate

15:55into our official plan.

15:59And we're currently in the first phase coming right up to the very end

16:04of the first phase of this project.

16:07So we've had a statutory public meeting where we introduced the draft policies

16:12to council and we're hoping to return to council in January for a decision meeting.

16:20Following the first phase, we hope to have future phases

16:25where we update other policies related to things like implant and transportation

16:31and future phases as well, considering policies related to institutional

16:35and places of worship, commercial policies and then special policy area reviews.

16:40So this is kind of the very first phase where we're doing a very,

16:46I used the word administrative kind of technical update to ensure

16:49that we're in conformity and consistency with the provincial policies.

16:54And that's where the heritage policy update fits into as well.

16:58So again, here's some of the over high level themes for this phase.

17:01We're looking at cultural heritage policies, employment, environment,

17:06complete community, supporting growth, transportation policies and parks policies.

17:20And I'm getting into more detail here.

17:21So the purpose here is to ensure that we're in conformity and consistency

17:25with several documents for the province that have recently been updated.

17:29So the provincial planning statement was recently overhauled in 2024.

17:35And that is directly what the official plan and wealth is responding to.

17:41Or it's one of the things that the official plan has to have

17:44in regard towards in all of our policies.

17:49Recent amendments to the Planning Act as well must be incorporated into the official plan.

17:54And of importance to this group is recent amendments to the Heritage Act,

17:59making changes to the way that municipalities can, you know,

18:05implement their heritage policies.

18:09For this update, we're also considering some housekeeping changes,

18:13for example, names of provincial ministries to address updates or policy numbering updates.

18:19So kind of just cleaning up some of the policies that we do have,

18:22making sure that they're more readable,

18:24making sure that we're still making references to the correct things,

18:28if those references have changed potentially.

18:32And specifically for the heritage policies,

18:35one of our focuses here was to improve the readability of those policies.

18:39So in some cases, those policies haven't really been updated in a long time.

18:44There's been additions over time. There's been some removal.

18:46So one of the areas of interest here was to make sure that those policies

18:53can kind of stand together readable.

18:55They've got flow and they're a bit more intuitive with the accurate reader.

19:04So here's an illustration of kind of the hierarchy of planning in Ontario.

19:08So as I mentioned, at the very top is provincial law,

19:12which includes the Planning Act, the Heritage Act,

19:15which must be implemented through the Provincial Planning Statement,

19:21which is the PPS 2024.

19:24Below the planning statement is municipal official plans,

19:28which are kind of supported by and complemented by master plans

19:34and other municipal strategies and policies.

19:39And then at the very bottom is the Municipal Zoning By-law,

19:42which implements the policies of the Official Plan.

19:45So the Official Plan is a bit more high level,

19:48it's a bit more long term oriented policies to where and how municipalities grow.

19:54And the Municipal Zoning By-law is much more specific,

19:57implementing standards related to lot area setback requirements and abuses.

20:05So before I go into that, are there any questions?

20:12Is everyone still on board?

20:14Just want to stop to make sure that everyone's on the same page here.

20:18Okay. So just a quick summary of the proposed heritage updates

20:26that are included in the draft Official Plan Amendment

20:30that was included as an attachment.

20:34So the Official Plan implements the requirements of the PPS 2024 and the Heritage Act,

20:39and the changes that we're proposing in the draft

20:42ensure that consistent policy language is used.

20:46So in many cases, the PPS has defined terms that they use through their policies.

20:56We are ensuring that our defined terms aligned with those defined terms,

21:00and that we're using policies that match the intent of the PPS

21:05if not go beyond what the intent is in the PPS.

21:09Wherever possible, proposed changes use the definitions from the PPS 2024

21:14and from the Heritage Act.

21:16There is a little bit of distinction between the PPS and the Heritage Act,

21:22which can make things a little bit difficult to kind of suss out

21:27how those policies ought to be applied.

21:29So we've done some work to make sure that we're consistent

21:32to the most degree that we possibly can be.

21:35We also want to ensure that we're maximizing clarity and ensuring conformity.

21:40In some cases, ensuring that it's a bit more clear

21:46requires consolidation of reordering of some policies.

21:51In some places, the policies are repeated or provide different interpretations.

21:58So wherever possible, we try to consolidate those policies

22:02that we're not repeating policy language,

22:04and we're ensuring that where there is repetition,

22:08that there's not potential different interpretations.

22:11The example I have noted here is that in the current official plan,

22:16there are two sections for cultural heritage resource impact assessment.

22:21And then another section for the scoped CHRIA.

22:26Almost all of the policies were the same for both of those sections,

22:29so we collapsed them into one and made sure that there was a distinction

22:32between a full CHRIA and a scoped CHRIA.

22:37So hopefully that can help improve readability.

22:40This is a list of some of the terminology and the glossary definitions that we've updated.

22:49So we've introduced a new term, listed non-designated heritage property.

22:55Previously, we have considered the term candidate heritage property,

23:00but we've changed it to listed non-designated heritage properties

23:07just for clarity and to align more closely with the Heritage Act.

23:11We've removed several terms such as property, list, cultural heritage value,

23:18or interest, and mitigation or avoidance.

23:22In some cases, because these are terms that we use on a daily basis,

23:26and defining them in the official plan did not add much value in terms of interpretation.

23:33It might have led to some misinterpretation as well.

23:37We've updated several terms as well to be a little bit more concise,

23:41to be a little bit more effective in the policies in the official plan.

23:46Then we've made minor changes to terms as well,

23:48so that they are updated to align with the PPS and the Heritage Act.

23:53So in some of these cases, the updates are a bit more administrative,

23:58just to be in conformity and consistency with the provincial terms.

24:05And that's why I've marked them here as minor changes.

24:14We've also updated the term or the name for this committee from Heritage 12

24:20to its current name, Heritage Advisory Committee,

24:24so that its correct name is reflected in the policy.

24:28And all of the current policies for consultation conforms the Heritage Act.

24:39Okay, so that's all of my summary.

24:42The rest of the slides provide some examples of specific policies

24:47that we're proposing to update.

24:50And one of the attachments is the draft amendment in its entirety,

24:56which includes all of them.

24:58If you've had a chance to look through that,

25:00this is kind of an opportunity to kind of have a discussion about specific policies

25:06or some directions.

25:09But if there's no specific amendments or policies that this committee would like

25:16to discuss off the top, I've provided some examples that I'll go through

25:22and we can kind of discuss those as we go.

25:26So before I go on, does anyone have any specific policies that they would like to discuss,

25:33or can I go through the examples that I brought up here?

25:37Well, I don't know how they applied the policies because I haven't had time to look through them.

25:46At the last meeting I raised at least one,

25:50well I raised two concerns, but I can't remember the other one.

25:53But my concern is about façadeism as a solution.

25:57Because the woman that was talking about it was talking about façadeism as just something that we could do.

26:05But generally speaking, most buildings that end up as façades are like sort of the zombies of the building world.

26:13They look like they're dead from the outside.

26:15They're overshadowed by the building that's behind them.

26:19And most of the fabric of the building other than the façade is lost.

26:23So I don't think it's a wonderful thing to promote as a solution.

26:28Because it just gives the green light to, you know, let's tear down everything but the façade.

26:34So I just wanted to say that again.

26:39I can recall at the top of my head.

26:42I don't believe that we've introduced any major changes related to façade.

26:46Well, I'm just thinking back to the presentation where she showed actually a building that would have been ruined by a big building behind it as an example of how façadeism could be used.

27:01And I didn't really love the particular picture of the downtown because there's all these giant blocks.

27:11And then heritage buildings in between.

27:14And I'm not sure that that's really the feel that the city might be after it.

27:20But I'm not sure if that's really the feel that we necessarily want.

27:24So just commenting.

27:29Yeah, just for the benefit of the...

27:35And here I also have opened the draft official plan amendment.

27:41So in the impact to this meeting.

27:44This is the document that shows all of the changes that we are proposing through this draft official plan amendment.

27:51Which shows the policy number, the grant policy.

27:56And within that.

27:58Any bolded terms are what we're proposing to delete.

28:02Oh, let's do that.

28:04And then in this column are.

28:09The proposed change with any additional or new words in bold as well.

28:16So you can see in a case like this.

28:20The change is relatively minor. We've only changed heritage wealth and replaced it with heritage advisory committee.

28:26Okay, so I'll...

28:35Sorry, just to jump in, but it seems like you've replaced the term bold with strong.

28:41That seems to be a new thing.

28:45Sorry, Steven, you're a little quiet.

28:48I think you gotta put your microphone down, Steven.

28:52Sorry about that. It was just a comment that appears that the term bold in that text is changed to strong.

29:00Like when you're talking about, you know, changing vocabulary, it looks...

29:04I thought that might be important to point out to the committee that that's more of a change for accessibility standards than vocabulary from a heritage standpoint.

29:14Yes. So in the heading for the column, we use the word strong.

29:20That's just the style that we apply to the text that applies bold lettering.

29:26So strong style, that just means bold.

29:30For the benefit of the committee, the purpose of that is for screen readers can specifically pick up on strong styling as opposed to very often in documents like this you might see the use of italics.

29:42To know when a word is defined, screen readers cannot pick that up.

29:48So we use the strong styling or bold in here to denote words that are to be changed.

29:57Okay.

30:01Yes. So I'll kind of go through some of the examples and we can feel free to interrupt me as well as we go through.

30:10I don't believe... Is there a time restriction at the end of this?

30:14Okay.

30:16So we're proposing a new definition for a listed non-designated heritage property, which I've included the definition as we're proposing it here.

30:32And previously I'd introduced this one as a candidate heritage property, but again, we're going with listed non-designated heritage property to, I guess, be more in alignment with other municipalities, how they've defined it, and also how it is referred to in the Heritage Act.

30:47And the rationale and the reason why we're introducing this one is that we can easily identify this class of heritage property.

30:57So this would... And it's to align with policy language in comparison with government's municipalities.

31:03So rather than talking about heritage property that's non-designated, now there's a specific term and it needs specifically to something that's listed on the register.

31:16And that kind of addresses some of the changes in the Heritage Act as well, which requires listed non-designated heritage properties to either be designated or removed from the Heritage Register.

31:29The following four definitions we're proposing to remove.

31:42So the term property is currently defined in the official plan and it pretty much matches how we would use this word in our day-to-day use of the word.

31:56So there wasn't really much value added in terms of having this term in there, but it might make interpretation of policies that use this word a bit more difficult.

32:06The term list was also included and removed from the official plan in our proposed amendment.

32:15The reason why it was originally included appears to be to facilitate listed non-designated heritage property.

32:25But again, the word list is used in a lot of different scenarios in the official plan, so we've simplified it by having that as well.

32:39Cultural heritage value or interest is another term that kind of had multiple criteria.

32:49And those criteria refer to regulations under the Heritage Act.

32:54We've removed this term so that we can include some of those criteria within the policies themselves.

33:00And it makes applying that criteria from that regulation a little bit more straightforward.

33:09And similarly with mitigation or avoidance, we've included these ones in the policy directly and it makes sense of application a little bit more easy and straightforward.

33:20So we're updating the defined term for heritage conservation district.

33:35And like in the table that I showed earlier, on the left any words that are shown in bold are being deleted and on the right any words that are in bold are being acted.

33:48So previously this definition was a little bit misaligned with the way that heritage conservation districts work in the Heritage Act.

34:06And we're proposing to update that definition so that it reflects how the Heritage Act describes heritage conservation districts.

34:16And this will also help to align with the way that we use cultural heritage landscapes and make kind of make everything a little bit more consistent internally in the official plan.

34:29Any questions?

34:37This term we're streamlining this one as well.

34:51And we're removing some of the language at the end of the current definition.

34:56If I recall correctly, this is because built heritage resource is a defined term in the provincial policy statement.

35:04And we are reverting back to the way that it is defined in the provincial policies provincial planning statement. Sorry.

35:14I guess here we're still including cultural heritage value or interest, but we're just not defining what that is.

35:20Yeah, so cultural heritage value or interest that's referring specifically to the Heritage Act regulation.

35:27And if we had it defined as something that's not specifically those regulations, it becomes, you know, in this definition or referring to the way that we've defined it or are we referring to the regulations themselves.

35:42By removing that definition, it's much clearer from an interpretation point of view that we're referring to the regulations.

35:49I thought they had defined it as having to having to be before 1935.

35:58My understanding is that's not that might have been the case before, but that's not how it's been defined by the promise.

36:07That's what she said.

36:09That's what I was talking about the downtown heritage.

36:14This is citywide official plan policy.

36:17Oh, okay.

36:19Okay, sorry.

36:26Questions on the bottom.

36:33If you have time to look up the specifics, these are the minor definitions changes.

36:39Including archaeological assessment archaeological resources areas of archaeological potential conserve cultural heritage landscape.

36:49The reason why we're updating these ones is specifically so that we're all in alignment with the way that they're defined in the pps.

36:58In most cases, from my perspective, the changes don't really change the intent or the way that they're used in the policy document.

37:08They're simply to make sure that we're referring to the same thing that the pps is referring to.

37:15We've also updated the defined term for conserve so that it's clear that when it's used in the conserved or conservation for cultural heritage sense.

37:28That still refers back to this definition so anywhere where it is used conservation or conserved make sure that this heritage resource is conserved.

37:41That is conserved in the way that it's defined in the official plan.

37:54Next we'll be going on to some example proposed policies.

37:59And this is a policy that we're drawing directly from the pps 2024.

38:05The policy here protected heritage property including designated heritage property and heritage conservation districts which may contain those heritage resources or cultural heritage landscapes shall be conserved.

38:22So this is directly from the pps. You can see here that it uses the defined term conserved. So that's to reference the way that we've defined conserve as well.

38:33Any thoughts. I know this is pretty dry. I didn't know how to do this in a.

38:41Or I guess engaging way there's this is a pretty administrative and technical update currently you can sing it.

38:49I think I'll keep going way.

38:57Another example.

39:03For protected heritage properties.

39:06Policy related to that one. Here we're adding a clause into this existing property.

39:19Any approved accepted or adopted.

39:22Recommendations and applicable cultural heritage conservation plans are geological assessments and our cultural impact resource assessments.

39:29So in this case we're just ensuring that when those protected heritage properties are being conserved that they are being conserved according to the recommendations from the plans or assessments that have been completed on it.

39:44So really strengthening up this policy I think this is a bit of a longer policy that we're trying to.

40:02I guess consolidate to make a little bit more succinct and ensure that it's still in the same.

40:09I guess the same cadence that official plan policies are typically written in.

40:14So this one. The policy.

40:18Kind of editorialized a little bit about which types of development are valuable.

40:25And I think in our opinion.

40:28Some of that editorializing kind of devalues other ones at the same time.

40:34So we've cut it down a little bit so that it.

40:38Still talks about heritage resources in the periphery of the city.

40:45And identifies that don't want to conserve.

40:49Without prescribing value to certain types of heritage resources or the lack of value and others.

41:04So this is an example of a policy that looks like a lot has changed but this type of policy doesn't have that many teeth but it might help direct provide some support for identifying slow heritage.

41:17Features in those areas for them for people who are implementing applying these policies.

41:31No questions.

41:43And this is an example of a policy change that's in response to the heritage act changes.

41:52And it's really trying to clarify the process.

41:57Where a listed non designated heritage property.

42:02Is being applied for demolition permit.

42:05So here we're just clarifying that if council determines that the property is of sufficient cultural heritage value or interest.

42:14Council may refuse to issue a demolition permit and then they would subsequently need to provide notice of intent to designate.

42:21So.

42:23In kind of alignment with the heritage acts changes.

42:26If it's listed and non designated.

42:29The only way that it can be protected is if there's an intent to designate. We can no longer.

42:35List it without designation as a way to prevent those demolitions.

42:56Here the.

42:57Here's an example of policy that we're strengthening to really.

43:02Really point back towards the policies and the ways that.

43:06The conservation plans.

43:09Constantly protecting those areas through the.

43:12Conner heritage conservation district plans.

43:16So again, just strengthening the policy of a little bit.

43:21A little bit tighter and making sure we're referencing other.

43:26Plans or heritage.

43:28We are adopting this policy.

43:41Which I believe is straight from verbatim from the provincial planning statement.

43:45We're adopting some policies like this where we think that the provincial planning statement is.

43:50Stronger than our current policies.

43:54Which is convenient because it also makes that we can be, we can be sure that we're.

43:58In consistency with the provincial planning statement.

44:11This is a similar example where we're adopting the language of the provincial planning statement.

44:18The current policy on the left.

44:25For all intents and purposes is very similar to the language that we're proposing.

44:32However, there's a little bit more leeway and interpretation maybe a bit difficult in some cases.

44:39So we're proposing language that wants more closely with the provincial planning statement.

44:44This relates to adjacent lands.

44:49Which again is a defined term in the provincial planning statement.

44:57So we're just making sure that all of our dotting all of our eyes and crossing all of our keys to make sure that when we use a term.

45:04It reflects what is the intent of the official plan and the initial planning statement.

45:12Those are all the examples that I pulled out to kind of bring to this committee.

45:19If anyone else has any comments or questions, if you've had a chance to look at the draft official plan amendment and have any questions.

45:29Free to discuss that right now.

45:33You don't want to actually.

45:37I want one example to run through, but it was item four on that other sheet.

45:58Okay, so it's the addition of the word girl be here.

46:04How does city planning staff interpreting that as it relates to archaeological assessments because previously the Ministry of Citizenship and multiculturalism had not required an archaeologist to engage first nations during the early phases of the assessment process.

46:24Some approval authorities across the province are now mandating that that happened where as others are not.

46:31So it's a bit of a patchwork approach right now. It's creating confusion in this world. So what is the city's perspective.

46:39I can start. So to two things to keep in mind. Number one, the city is developing a terms of reference for archaeological assessments that I think will help to provide some of that additional clarity in terms of the engagement piece and in addition to how archaeological assessment the expectations for archaeological assessments in the city.

47:00Specific to engagement with indigenous governments. This is one project or one phase in particular that we've been having additional discussions on with our surrounding first nations.

47:13Partners and communities in relation to the city. So I think it's one thing that you can very much think of this as word is adopting language from the pps, but I think it's something where we need to go a little bit further.

47:25We've acknowledged that and I think to set out specific policies or guidance or guidance materials and progress to define things like what does early mean or how to best engage them through that process.

47:36So that that is a project that we will be undertaking in the future. It's it'll likely be beyond phase two of the OP amendment.

47:44So more or so around maybe the twenty twenty eight timeline, but it is very much something on our radar. So we're adopting this language now because we have the policy backing to do it right from right from the vision statement, but it is something that will define a little bit.

48:00Yeah, I think that the definition and getting to the specifics of it is really smart because we are seeing people that have done this work without engaging. And now these reports are being rejected by the municipal approval authority.

48:13And there's a lack of clarity as to what is required. And then if one is required to engage, who must be engaged?

48:20We're also quite hard for examples of reports that were previously approved. They're getting their approvals rescinded.

48:26Yeah, reports are being opened back up. So situations we want to avoid. So, you know, we're going to be looking to develop a better language.

48:36Great.

48:37Yes. And I think you have your hand up.

48:43Thanks, Jack. I question in a different vein. Just to Dawn's point more generally about adaptive reuse.

48:52I appreciate the amendments, mostly like administrative technical is promoting or regulating adaptive reuse contemplated in our official plan or that's outside of the scope of an official plan or would there be some benefit to us putting some boundaries around what that looks like as part of this instrument or that belong somewhere else, maybe.

49:13Yeah, I can give a pretty quick response. I don't have the official plan open for me, but my understanding is that there are some high level policies in the initial plan that speak to adaptive reuse.

49:30I couldn't speak to how strong those policies are and I don't believe that they were very important in our current update process.

49:43Yeah, doesn't appear in any environment.

49:47So I don't believe it's part of this current process, but maybe one of the other planners could speak to that more directly in terms of the official plan and adaptive reuse.

49:59Yeah, I can add some additional information here. So yeah, as Will said, it's generally something that is promoted in official plan policy, something that we definitely encourage development to do when they have cultural heritage and resources on their property.

50:18I think setting to your point about setting specifics on what adaptive reuse means we're setting specific principles standards like that would be outside of the scope of this particular company, but I think it is something that we can at least have on our radar is something that might give interest to this case.

50:36If that is the case.

50:43Yeah, I had a quick question about the definition for heritage conservation district.

50:51Just in the second part of that there's a wait for it to come up on the screen maybe but like in the presentation the first part.

50:59It makes sense to me but then the second section is as the properties within the heritage conservation district are listed on the heritage register.

51:07So under the heritage act, a listed property can be like in the phrase we've been using for listed non designated property.

51:15So I'm wondering if every building in a heritage conservation district has to be designated or if there are also listed non designated properties that are automatically included under that like branch of the heritage conservation district.

51:31They're all designated. Yes. So in Jack, right the answer on so I know heritage conservation district all buildings and properties are designated.

51:43And will be included on the heritage register, but perhaps that's a good point. It should say are designated and listed on the heritage register.

51:54Just to add clarity.

51:56I'll do that last.

52:00It could even be stated that it's listed as designated on the heritage register.

52:12Okay.

52:18Thank you.

52:24Sorry through you chair I'm trying to capture some comments as we go along. Is this something that we would want included in motion if so I may just want somebody to repeat that phrase so we capture it or will hear.

52:37Okay. Yeah, thanks Liz. I'm also trying to quickly capture on my end as well. But it would be helpful if we could put it up on the screen after.

52:44Because there's been I have a couple items now to include.

52:49But yes, if maybe Piper.

52:53Or Steven one every state what they have said previously.

52:58So we can capture that.

53:05Just waiting I was waiting for my mic to come back on. I think that the verb, the correct verb for this still is to list.

53:15Because it's the heritage register under the heritage act is required to.

53:23The municipality is required to list all designated properties or protected properties.

53:31Because we can still until the end of 2026 we can still list non designated properties. I think it's best to the wording for this situation would be the properties within the heritage conservation district.

53:48Are listed as designated.

53:53On the heritage register. You've already made mentioned to part 5. So I just, I didn't want to say that again. So, but I think it's that they are listed as designated on the heritage register.

54:09Thank you.

54:15I'm hoping that's what you would say to Jack.

54:18Yep, I agree.

54:30I'm looking for time.

54:32So, I mean, this committee and it wants to.

54:41Okay.

54:43Just in the interest of time. I'll just go back to the presentation or we'll talk about the next steps.

54:52So again, we're here. We're hoping to bring the revised draft official plan of admin for decision to council in January.

55:05And then.

55:07In the next year and following years will be following up with a future plan update phases. So we're working on different phases.

55:17But there's likely less involvement or less interest in the policies for the heritage sections of the official plan.

55:29But feel free to keep in touch. We'll have a have your same page where you can keep track of this project.

55:38And we'll be updating that page regularly. And if you would like, you can reach out to me or Lucas.

55:45If you have any questions or comments or you just want to stay updated.

55:49Awesome.

55:58Thank you so much. Well,

56:01Okay, so we have, are there any other questions before we get into the recommended motions?

56:09Oh, for hands here.

56:12Okay, I'm not seeing anyone's hand. So I'm going to read out the first recommended motion and then maybe we can put up the second recommended motion on the screen.

56:22Liz, if that's okay.

56:24Okay.

56:26So we have a second recommended motion that the Heritage Advisory Committee receives a report titled official plan update OPA 110 heritage policies.

56:40Oh, do I have a mover for that motion?

56:43David and a seconder.

56:50Can't see any hands. Sorry, if people are putting up their hands and member pipe room.

56:55Oh, okay. Perfect. Thank you, Piper.

56:57And then all in favor. Okay. And that's been carried.

57:05Okay. And then the second item.

57:09Begins with.

57:12Okay, perfect.

57:14Sorry for you, Tara, just added what I heard.

57:17But member Granger, I, I apologize. I missed your item and I'm not sure if we wanted included in here, but this is just a rough me typing on the spot. So feel free to edit or

57:33like, like, changed and we can, we can do that.

57:38For my part, Liz, it sounds like my suggestions mostly out of scope. So I think I'll just make the suggestion and maybe it's identified somewhere else at a different stage, but I think we've captured what we'd want included as part of this exercise.

57:51Okay. Thank you.

57:54I'm going to see your hands up.

57:57Just a typographic suggestion. Liz, the, in the second point, the properties within the heritage conservation district, I think the term heritage conservation district isn't always capitalized, but it all leave it to will to decide whether that needs to be or not.

58:16It isn't defined term.

58:19Now, so as a defined term, it will be capitalized, I believe. But yes, it is capitalized in how we answer.

58:30Sorry.

58:32Constantly, maybe we'll exchange.

58:35I will note, I just put for the first one that the term early engagement Liam, I'd be clearly defined as it relates to item four. I just forgot what section within the that column within your document. Sorry.

58:52I don't know if item four is clear enough for you will or if you want to specify it.

58:57I don't force probably good enough.

59:05I see Justin's hands up.

59:10Thanks, Kim. Just in case like if the term adaptive reuse is used in our official plan, even in some capacity, like just generally promoting it, maybe it would be helpful to define it.

59:22And that itself could give some guidelines to folks, but I don't maybe it's already defined, but it maybe it's something we want to to consider as part of this but that's as far as I would go with it. I appreciate that there this is that's not the point of this.

59:41Sorry for your chair. If that's the committee wants to add a bullet, I'm happy to draft something up to you all on that point or it would be helpful or to staff not sure looking to you if if you want that type of comments included or

59:59If it's a little committee, we can include it the term adaptive reuse is currently defined in our visual plan is defined as the alteration of build heritage resources to fit new uses or circumstances while retaining their heritage value and attributes.

1:00:19I believe that's just for a secondary plan though so it's not defined that is correct for the whole of the city.

1:00:27Except for the downtown or for the other it's for the 12 division district right GID.

1:00:35So it's defined for a small area of the city nearby the reformatory, but it's not defined elsewhere. So we could we can definitely consider moving that definitions that it can be applied.

1:00:49But it in our overall definitions of this.

1:00:57I think it's a good idea. I mean that barn you were talking about, but they just track it off to the dump it's a waste but if you put that in Facebook market place to free.

1:01:06They'll have hundreds of people wanting those barn boards so you know it's it's worth considering what happens to the, you know, the materials after I see Stevens hands up.

1:01:21I don't think adaptive reuse is a defined term within the provincial planning statement, but I'm pretty sure that this day like parks Canada standards and guidelines for historic places in Canada, it might actually have a definition but it would be good to look for the

1:01:40If it is a defined term in some of the important sources that we cite in the official plan.

1:01:51So, okay, I see Liz has added.

1:02:03This is the third comment. Do any other committee members have any other comments they were like added in this motion.

1:02:15Or any other questions or comments at this time.

1:02:20I'm not seeing any other hands.

1:02:23Correct me if I'm wrong on that everyone's really little on the screen.

1:02:27Okay, okay, perfect. So I'm going to read this recommended motion then, then we can vote on that.

1:02:35So that the heritage advisory committee provides staff and city council with the following comments on the draft official plan amendment 110.

1:02:44One, that the term early engagement be clearly defined as it relates to item four to that the following language be considered for inclusion to item 185 section 12 glossary the properties within the heritage conservation district are listed as designated on the heritage register.

1:03:04Three, consider including the definition for adaptive reuse.

1:03:11Anyone to move this motion.

1:03:14I per se your hand and a seconder.

1:03:21I see Kelly's hand sorry people in the room are really small. It's hard to make out if you're putting it in hand.

1:03:28Thanks Kelly and then all in favor. Okay, great. That's been moved.

1:03:39Thanks everyone for that item. Okay, so we'll move on to the next item, which is item 2.4 on the agenda today, which is the 2026 designation

1:03:50priorities and that's a presentation by Jack.

1:03:54Thank you chair.

1:03:56I keep this rather brief. So some members may remember that we've previously in past years, asked the committee to identify designation priorities which will then inform staff's designation work plan.

1:04:13So, image and Steven and I are going to be busy with the properties that have been volunteered for designation.

1:04:21But we also want to make sure that we're proactively designating significant properties and properties that may have risk in the city.

1:04:29So we're looking to the heritage committee to identify and other properties that we will focus on in 2026.

1:04:39The way we've done this in previous years and what we're hoping to do again is that what we'll ask each member to identify 10 properties from the heritage register that are not designated by I think the date in my report is November 21.

1:04:54And then I will compile all of those into a table that we can use for discussion at the December meeting where we can whittle that down to 10 properties that the committee wants staff to evaluate in 2026.

1:05:13Now, I know it's a rather big ask for you to look through 2000 properties and choose 10.

1:05:22But Steven, image and I are all available if you'd like to discuss this as we consider these properties on a daily basis.

1:05:32So if you'd like to just bounce an ideas office where we're certainly not looking to influence your selection of properties, but we're willing to be a sounding board or if you know if you want to talk about areas of risk in the city, or particularly strong candidates for designation.

1:05:51We are a resource for you in the staff report.

1:05:57However, I've also included in 2024 staff recommended 50 properties that would be suitable candidates for designation.

1:06:08So I provided a link to that list, as well as the heritage committees 2024 designation priorities and the link to the municipal register of cultural heritage properties.

1:06:23I will be sharing an older version of the municipal register with all of you. It's not a ODA compliance so it's not posted on the city website, but it is a very valuable resource because it includes photographs of every property, which will just make it easier for you to review property by property

1:06:43because the current register is just it's just a line with an address so you'd have to either visit it or look it up on Google Street view. So I will share that resource with with the committee this week.

1:06:58But does anybody have any questions on what we're asking here.

1:07:06I think one of the things the city has ignored is 20th century architecture and there's really good examples that I think are at risk.

1:07:19Yeah, it doesn't have to be limited to the heritage register. There's certainly good candidates for designation that have not yet been listed. Justin.

1:07:33Thanks, Jack. I'm just curious to know as well is it you mentioned there's a lot of properties 2000. Are they broken out into classes in any way or anything I could go off of to kind of better inform my choice.

1:07:44For my part, by the way, you know, I appreciate we're on a bit of a time crunch right so I think like it would be helpful for staff to give us some guidelines maybe like basically I want to designate the ones that are most important.

1:07:57And that's obviously that's really hard to do that with the way we have so many properties but maybe give me something to go off of a little bit.

1:08:04So I'm informed about what's the most important and then I can kind of make my own assessment.

1:08:09Accordingly, I don't know maybe that's not within the realm of possibility but yeah the register does note construction date and the older registered notes construction material.

1:08:22I think which can be helpful but I think that's what staff are offering kind of to have those offline discussions with members if they'd like to talk to us about what in our opinion may be significant or what may be at risk.

1:08:39But we're hesitant to provide too much guidance because we want this to be something that comes from the committee, not from staff.

1:08:55Thanks, Jack. I'm just a suggestion to Justin and all the committee members.

1:09:00It's important to review as much as you can the current heritage register, but also keep your eye on the real estate for sale signs.

1:09:11To me that that's one of the main indicators of risk for heritage properties.

1:09:29I'm not seeing any other hands.

1:09:32Oh, Piper.

1:09:33So I just had a question about how practically this will work. So would we each bring like 10 properties that we thought would be valuable to the next meeting and discuss there in an open forum or how would that work.

1:09:46Yeah, so I can send out an email following this meeting with some instructions but what I am looking for essentially is for each of you to email me a list of 10 properties.

1:09:58Oftentimes in previous years members have identified the same properties in some cases so that that can kind of help us know which ones might make it to that list final list of 10.

1:10:10But in December, I'm hoping we can go through each each property proposed by committee members and we can have a discussion about it at rank it.

1:10:20It can be a bit of a long process but I think it's it's valuable for us to discuss each property and each member can bring their different expertise to the table and staff can provide comment as well.

1:10:32Thanks Jack. Do we have any other questions.

1:10:44We're writing this process.

1:10:46So the recommended motion for this item is that the heritage advisory committee received the report titled heritage advisory committees 2026 individual designated properties.

1:11:05Do I have a mover for this motion. Kelly and Piper I saw your hand for a second.

1:11:14And all in favor.

1:11:16Okay.

1:11:20That's been moved.

1:11:23Okay, so those are all the agenda items that we have for today.

1:11:30And there are no announcements from the chair today for this meeting. So move on to adjournment.

1:11:38Oh, okay.

1:11:40Sorry, I was wondering if staff at announcements. Yeah, no Stephen. No, no staff announcements today.

1:11:47Okay. Okay. Perfect. Thank you.

1:11:50So may I please have members to move in second their German at this meeting.

1:11:58David, thank you. Kelly, thank you. All in favor.

1:12:03Perfect.

1:12:04Thank you. So that's been carried. The meeting is adjourned and the next meeting will be hosted on December 4th 2025 at 12pm.

1:12:15Thank you everyone.