{"id":699,"date":"2026-09-21T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2026-09-21T00:00:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/vulpin.capital\/blog\/zoning-and-permit-risk-analysis-a-governance-framework-for-asset-survivability\/"},"modified":"2026-09-21T00:47:11","modified_gmt":"2026-09-21T00:47:11","slug":"zoning-and-permit-risk-analysis-a-governance-framework-for-asset-survivability","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/vulpin.capital\/blog\/zoning-and-permit-risk-analysis-a-governance-framework-for-asset-survivability\/","title":{"rendered":"Zoning and Permit Risk Analysis: A Governance Framework for Asset Survivability"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>Canada ranks 35th out of 38 OECD countries in construction permitting efficiency. This isn&#8217;t just a bureaucratic delay; it&#8217;s a structural threat to your capital. Navigating a <strong>zoning and permit risk analysis<\/strong> in this environment requires more than optimism; it requires a rejection of the frantic energy of traditional markets. In high-cost metropolitan regions, regulatory friction can cost up to C$5,576 per unit every single month. We understand that unpredictable municipal timelines and hidden restrictive covenants aren&#8217;t just inconveniences. They are binary risks that can compromise the survivability of a real asset.<\/p>\n<p>You&#8217;ve likely watched carry costs drain project margins while waiting for a signature that never arrives. It&#8217;s a frantic way to manage capital that we explicitly reject. This article provides the blueprint to transform regulatory uncertainty into a disciplined governance process. You&#8217;ll learn how to treat municipal constraints as fixed engineering variables rather than negotiable hurdles. We&#8217;ll outline a repeatable framework for vetting projects and verifying viability before you commit to land acquisition or construction. This is about structural permanence, not speculative hope.<\/p>\n<div class=\"key-takeaways\">\n<h2 id=\"key-takeaways\">Key Takeaways<\/h2>\n<ul>\n<li>Recognize zoning and permits as binary constraints rather than administrative variables to ensure the long-term survivability of your real assets.<\/li>\n<li>Implement a rigorous <strong>zoning and permit risk analysis<\/strong> that scrutinizes municipal official plans and conservation authority jurisdictions to eliminate hidden regulatory friction.<\/li>\n<li>Utilize the VULPIN Check to establish a condition-driven deployment model that rejects the frantic energy of speculative flipping in favour of disciplined verification.<\/li>\n<li>Bridge the gap between regulatory approval and physical execution with PCMNow Project Management to maintain absolute control over construction-cost reality.<\/li>\n<li>Adopt a governance-first framework that prioritizes tangible verification and structural permanence over the excitement of speculative market trends.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/div>\n<div class=\"table-of-contents\" role=\"navigation\" aria-label=\"Table of Contents\">\n<h2 id=\"table-of-contents\">Table of Contents<\/h2>\n<ul>\n<li><a href=\"#beyond-administrative-hurdles-understanding-zoning-and-permit-risk-as-binary-constraints\">Beyond Administrative Hurdles: Understanding Zoning and Permit Risk as Binary Constraints<\/a><\/li>\n<li><a href=\"#the-vulpin-check-integrating-regulatory-verification-into-asset-deployment\">The VULPIN Check: Integrating Regulatory Verification into Asset Deployment<\/a><\/li>\n<li><a href=\"#strategic-components-of-a-canadian-zoning-and-permit-risk-analysis\">Strategic Components of a Canadian Zoning and Permit Risk Analysis<\/a><\/li>\n<li><a href=\"#mitigating-regulatory-friction-from-speculation-to-condition-driven-execution\">Mitigating Regulatory Friction: From Speculation to Condition-Driven Execution<\/a><\/li>\n<li><a href=\"#executing-with-pcmnow-disciplined-governance-for-national-projects\">Executing with PCMNow: Disciplined Governance for National Projects<\/a><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/div>\n<h2 id=\"beyond-administrative-hurdles-understanding-zoning-and-permit-risk-as-binary-constraints\">Beyond Administrative Hurdles: Understanding Zoning and Permit Risk as Binary Constraints<\/h2>\n<p>Zoning is a structural barrier. It dictates where capital can breathe and where it suffocates. Most market participants view permits as administrative paperwork; we view them as binary constraints. A project is either viable or legally impossible. There is no middle ground. If a site lacks the correct <a href=\"https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Zoning\">land-use zoning classifications<\/a>, the asset cannot survive. A rigorous <strong>zoning and permit risk analysis<\/strong> is the only way to separate physical reality from digital abstraction.<\/p>\n<p>We distinguish between the speculator&#8217;s hope and the operator&#8217;s verification. Speculators buy land based on the &#8220;hope&#8221; of a future variance or a sympathetic municipal council. They gamble on whims. Operators prioritize tangible verification. They don&#8217;t deploy capital until the regulatory path is documented and cleared. This disciplined approach is the foundation of asset survivability. Without it, you aren&#8217;t investing; you&#8217;re speculating on the frantic energy of municipal politics.<\/p>\n<h3>The Cost of Regulatory Friction<\/h3>\n<p>Regulatory inefficiency has a concrete price tag that scales with time. National development approval timelines average 11.2 to 11.6 months, but these figures often mask the volatility of high-density markets. Delays impose carrying and inflationary costs that can reach thousands of dollars per residential unit every single month. These aren&#8217;t just numbers on a spreadsheet. They are the leading cause of project failure. When timelines stretch from months into years, the financial drain compromises the entire <a href=\"https:\/\/vulpin.capital\/blog\/the-construction-project-governance-framework-a-manual-for-asset-survivability\/\">construction project governance framework<\/a>. We don&#8217;t accept these delays as &#8220;part of the process.&#8221; We treat them as a failure of pre-acquisition diligence.<\/p>\n<h3>Zoning as a Condition-Driven Asset Metric<\/h3>\n<p>VULPIN rejects projects that rely on speculative rezoning. Our methodology requires a shift from market trends to underlying regulatory conditions. We look for &#8220;proof of project viability&#8221; before a single dollar is committed. This means verifying water and wastewater servicing capacity under the new &#8220;use it or lose it&#8221; infrastructure policies. If the municipality can legally withdraw your servicing allocation, the project isn&#8217;t viable. We establish a threshold for proof that ignores marketing jargon. We only value what can be verified through provincial statutes and municipal bylaws. This stoic focus on conditions ensures that our assets are built on the integrity of the structure rather than the excitement of the market.<\/p>\n<h2 id=\"the-vulpin-check-integrating-regulatory-verification-into-asset-deployment\">The VULPIN Check: Integrating Regulatory Verification into Asset Deployment<\/h2>\n<p>Real asset deployment is not a matter of intuition. It is a matter of verification. We utilize <a href=\"https:\/\/vulpin.capital\/blog\/the-vulpin-check-a-governance-standard-for-real-asset-deployment\/\">The VULPIN Check<\/a> to strip away the emotional attachment that often leads to unviable land acquisitions. This is a rigorous, condition-driven filter. It requires predefined proof of regulatory compliance before a single dollar is committed. If a site cannot meet our internal benchmarks for a <strong>zoning and permit risk analysis<\/strong>, we do not engage. We do not negotiate with reality.<\/p>\n<p>This framework demands objective validation. We don&#8217;t rely on the optimistic projections of developers or the subjective opinions of hired consultants. Instead, we use third-party audits to stress-test every permit assumption. This process uncovers hidden restrictive covenants and verifies that municipal servicing capacity actually exists. We look to established standards, such as those found in <a href=\"https:\/\/www.ontario.ca\/document\/citizens-guide-land-use-planning\/zoning-bylaws\">Ontario&#8217;s guide to zoning bylaws<\/a>, to anchor our requirements in statutory fact. If the data is missing, the project is dead. This is the only way to ensure the integrity of the capital stack.<\/p>\n<h3>Rules-Governed Operations for Real Assets<\/h3>\n<p>The Fox operating system governs our decision-making. It replaces human error with mechanical logic. We operate on a system of objective standards that dictate exactly when capital can move. This includes a strict stop-go mechanism based on permit milestones. We don&#8217;t advance because we feel good about a project. We advance because the regulatory conditions have been met. This stoic adherence to process protects the asset from the frantic pace of the outside world. If you value this level of <a href=\"https:\/\/vulpin.capital\">disciplined asset governance<\/a>, you understand why we prioritize structure over speed.<\/p>\n<h3>Governance vs. Market Speculation<\/h3>\n<p>We reject the speculative flipping mentality. It is a pursuit of quick wins that ignores long-term survivability. Disciplined real estate investing requires absolute regulatory clarity. The VULPIN Check acts as a shield against municipal volatility. While others react to every policy shift, we rely on a documented methodology that prioritizes asset integrity. We don&#8217;t chase trends. We build systems that endure. By grounding our deployment in a sovereign philosophy of control, we ensure that our assets survive long after the speculators have exited the market.<\/p>\n<h2 id=\"strategic-components-of-a-canadian-zoning-and-permit-risk-analysis\">Strategic Components of a Canadian Zoning and Permit Risk Analysis<\/h2>\n<p>A <strong>zoning and permit risk analysis<\/strong> is an engineering exercise in constraint mapping. It requires a cold, technical assessment of municipal official plans and zoning bylaws. These documents define the legal boundaries of what can exist on a parcel of land. We don&#8217;t view them as suggestions. We view them as the primary <a href=\"https:\/\/www.law.cornell.edu\/wex\/zoning\">legal mechanisms of zoning<\/a> that dictate asset survivability. Beyond the bylaws, we must account for environmental constraints and conservation authority jurisdictions. These bodies operate with significant autonomy in Canada. They can veto a project based on watershed protection or soil stability long before a building permit is even considered.<\/p>\n<p>Site Plan Approval (SPA) represents the next layer of friction. National development approval timelines average 11.2 to 11.6 months, but technical requirements can extend this indefinitely if the initial submission is flawed. We also scrutinize title records for restrictive covenants or heritage designations. These are often hidden killers. They can limit density or mandate specific materials that compromise the financial integrity of the build. We identify these variables early to prevent resource deployment on unviable sites.<\/p>\n<h3>Navigating the Planning Act and Provincial Policy<\/h3>\n<p>Understanding the hierarchy of planning authority is essential for long-term stability. Provincial policy statements set the broad direction, but municipal councils execute the details. We prioritize &#8220;as-of-right&#8221; development where the existing zoning already matches our intent. Discretionary approvals, such as zoning bylaw amendments or minor variances, introduce human variables we prefer to avoid. If a project requires a political decision to proceed, it likely fails our internal governance standards. We demand certainty over speculation.<\/p>\n<h3>Technical Due Diligence and Site Constraints<\/h3>\n<p>Real asset viability depends on physical infrastructure. We integrate civil engineering reports into our risk model to verify servicing capacity. Water, sewer, and hydro allocations are no longer guaranteed. Under new &#8220;use it or lose it&#8221; policies, municipalities can reallocate capacity from stalled projects to shovel-ready applications. This adds a layer of operational risk to technical compliance. Building code compliance also impacts the capital stack. Stricter standards for <a href=\"https:\/\/vulpin.capital\/blog\/net-zero-home-construction-costs-in-canada-a-governance-first-reality-check\/\">net-zero home construction costs in Canada<\/a> must be accounted for during the permit phase. We don&#8217;t improvise on-site. We solve these technical hurdles during the analysis phase to ensure a fixed-cost, manufacturing-style workflow.<\/p>\n<p><!-- autoseo-infographic --><\/p>\n<div class=\"autoseo-infographic-container\"><img fetchpriority=\"high\" decoding=\"async\" width=\"1200\" height=\"1842\" src=\"https:\/\/vulpin.capital\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/09\/getautoseocom_1789951625_YiXPuOWv.jpg\" class=\"autoseo-infographic-image skip-lazy no-lazy\" alt=\"Zoning and Permit Risk Analysis: A Governance Framework for Asset Survivability\" loading=\"eager\" data-no-lazy=\"1\" data-skip-lazy=\"1\" \/><\/div>\n<p><!-- \/autoseo-infographic --><\/p>\n<h2 id=\"mitigating-regulatory-friction-from-speculation-to-condition-driven-execution\">Mitigating Regulatory Friction: From Speculation to Condition-Driven Execution<\/h2>\n<p>Mitigation is not an attempt to avoid municipal friction. It is a process of pricing it. We develop mitigation plans that assume delays will occur. If a standard <strong>zoning and permit risk analysis<\/strong> indicates a ten-month approval window, our financial model accounts for fifteen. This buffer is not a guess; it is a calculated response to the reality of Canadian municipal timelines. We prioritize construction-cost reality over optimistic projections. Permit-heavy projects require a fixed-cost mentality to prevent carry costs from eroding the capital stack. We don&#8217;t hope for speed. We prepare for duration.<\/p>\n<p>We utilize The Fox to track condition-driven triggers for capital deployment. This internal operating system functions like a mechanical governor. It ensures that funds are only released when specific regulatory milestones are achieved. We also structure land purchase agreements with strict permit contingencies. We don&#8217;t buy land. We buy the right to develop it once the municipality provides the necessary clearances. This approach shifts the risk back to the seller and ensures we aren&#8217;t left holding unviable assets. If you are ready to <a href=\"https:\/\/vulpin.capital\">implement a sovereign governance model<\/a> for your assets, you must start with these structural safeguards.<\/p>\n<h3>Condition-Driven Acquisition Strategies<\/h3>\n<p>A <a href=\"https:\/\/vulpin.capital\/blog\/condition-driven-asset-acquisition-strategy-a-stoic-approach-to-real-assets\/\">condition-driven asset acquisition strategy<\/a> is the only path to long-term survivability. We set hard exit points before the first deposit is paid. If a permit milestone isn&#8217;t met by a specific date, we walk away. We explicitly reject the sunk cost fallacy. Money spent on due diligence is a fee for verification, not a reason to proceed with a flawed project. This stoic detachment allows us to maintain the integrity of our portfolio while others are trapped in endless regulatory negotiations.<\/p>\n<h3>Stakeholder Management and Public Risk<\/h3>\n<p>Community opposition and political interference are tangible risks. They aren&#8217;t just social variables. They are structural bottlenecks. We use an Owner&#8217;s Rep to navigate the municipal bureaucracy with technical precision. This role isn&#8217;t about lobbying. It is about ensuring that every submission meets the highest engineering standards to minimize grounds for refusal. We also build a buffer for unforeseen discoveries. Heritage overlays or environmental findings can halt a project instantly. Our governance framework treats these not as surprises, but as known variables that must be cleared during the pre-construction phase. We don&#8217;t improvise in the face of public risk. We engineer it out of the process.<\/p>\n<h2 id=\"executing-with-pcmnow-disciplined-governance-for-national-projects\">Executing with PCMNow: Disciplined Governance for National Projects<\/h2>\n<p>The completion of a <strong>zoning and permit risk analysis<\/strong> is not the conclusion of the governance process. It is the beginning of physical execution. We utilize <a href=\"https:\/\/vulpin.capital\/blog\/pcmnow-project-management-the-uncompromising-standard-for-construction-execution-in-2026\/\">PCMNow Project Management<\/a> to bridge the gap between regulatory theory and tangible assembly. This transition requires a disciplined hand. We don&#8217;t allow site-level improvisation to override the constraints identified during the initial verification phase. If the permit mandates specific engineering loads or utility draws, those become immutable laws for the build. The Fox operating system remains the absolute source of truth, tracking every milestone against the original risk model to ensure structural integrity remains intact.<\/p>\n<p>Disciplined execution is the only mechanism for <a href=\"https:\/\/vulpin.capital\/blog\/managing-construction-project-cost-overruns-a-governance-first-framework\/\">managing construction project cost overruns<\/a>. In a Canadian market where development charges can exceed C$82,600 per unit for low-rise homes, there is no margin for error. We treat construction as a manufacturing workflow rather than a series of creative decisions. This rejection of the cost-plus model in favour of transparent, schedule-locked delivery is what separates an operator from a manager. Governance is the ultimate competitive advantage. It allows us to operate on a different time scale than the rest of the world, prioritizing long-term stability over the frantic energy of the marketplace.<\/p>\n<h3>Bridging the Gap Between Permit and Build<\/h3>\n<p>Permit conditions are the blueprints for the execution plan. We integrate these conditions into the manufacturing schedule to prevent friction during the build. When municipal requirements shift mid-design, PCMNow provides the necessary reality check. We don&#8217;t hope for consistency from municipal staff. We maintain a standard of administrative oversight that accounts for these shifts without compromising the capital stack. This is the VULPIN standard for project management. It is a system designed to resist external urgency and prioritize the integrity of the structure above all else.<\/p>\n<h3>Asset Survivability as the Final Goal<\/h3>\n<p>Our objective is the creation of long-term generational assets. Sustainable housing requires a foundation of regulatory certainty that the speculative market cannot provide. Through FoxyHome, we deliver structures designed for permanence and efficiency. We don&#8217;t build for the next quarter. We build for the next century. This level of autonomy is only possible through a governance-first methodology that treats every project as a matter of principle. The choice is clear. You can gamble on market trends, or you can deploy capital with discipline. We choose discipline.<\/p>\n<h2 id=\"securing-asset-integrity-through-sovereign-governance\">Securing Asset Integrity Through Sovereign Governance<\/h2>\n<p>Real asset viability is not a product of market timing; it is a result of technical verification. We&#8217;ve established that a rigorous <strong>zoning and permit risk analysis<\/strong> is the only mechanism to separate structural reality from speculative hope. By treating municipal constraints as binary gates, you protect your capital from the frantic energy of traditional markets. The VULPIN Check ensures that no resource is deployed without predefined proof of regulatory compliance.<\/p>\n<p>Transitioning from permit to build requires the uncompromising standard of PCMNow Project Management. This system maintains the integrity of the original risk model throughout the construction lifecycle. We don&#8217;t accept the standard industry model of improvisation; we prioritize a stoic, condition-driven approach that ensures long-term asset survivability. This is the foundation of a governance-first framework that values permanence over quick wins.<\/p>\n<p>If you&#8217;re ready to move beyond the excitement of speculation, <strong><a href=\"https:\/\/vulpin.capital\/\">Contact VULPIN Capital to implement a governance-first risk framework for your next project.<\/a><\/strong> We build systems that endure.<\/p>\n<h2 id=\"frequently-asked-questions\">Frequently Asked Questions<\/h2>\n<h3>What is the difference between a zoning bylaw and an official plan?<\/h3>\n<p>An official plan is a high-level policy document that outlines a municipality&#8217;s long-term growth strategy, while a zoning bylaw is the legal tool that implements those policies through specific land-use controls. The official plan sets the vision; the bylaw sets the law. Navigating the hierarchy between these two is a critical component of any <strong>zoning and permit risk analysis<\/strong>. Understanding this relationship ensures that your project aligns with both current regulations and future municipal objectives.<\/p>\n<h3>How can a zoning and permit risk analysis prevent project failure?<\/h3>\n<p>A <strong>zoning and permit risk analysis<\/strong> prevents failure by identifying binary constraints before capital is at risk. It exposes structural barriers such as restricted servicing capacity or heritage overlays that can halt a project indefinitely. By treating these variables as engineering constraints rather than administrative hurdles, we eliminate the speculative hope that often leads to insolvency. This process ensures that every asset is grounded in physical and legal reality before deployment begins.<\/p>\n<h3>What are the most common hidden risks in Canadian municipal permits?<\/h3>\n<p>Hidden risks often include restrictive covenants, heritage designations, and conservation authority jurisdictions that don&#8217;t appear on standard zoning maps. Additionally, &#8220;use it or lose it&#8221; infrastructure policies can lead to the sudden reallocation of water or wastewater capacity. These factors can turn a seemingly viable site into a legally impossible build. A disciplined governance model identifies these encumbrances during the pre-acquisition phase to prevent resource deployment on unviable parcels.<\/p>\n<h3>How long does a typical site plan approval process take in Canada?<\/h3>\n<p>National development approval timelines average between 11.2 and 11.6 months, though major metropolitan regions often see significantly longer delays. In some high-friction areas, the process can extend beyond 20 months. These timelines impose substantial carry costs, often ranging from C$2,673 to C$5,576 per unit every month. We don&#8217;t accept these delays as unpredictable; we build them into our financial models as fixed temporal variables to ensure asset survivability.<\/p>\n<h3>Does the VULPIN Check include environmental risk assessments?<\/h3>\n<p>Yes, the VULPIN Check integrates environmental and conservation authority verification as a core requirement for project viability. We evaluate sites for soil stability, flood plain constraints, and watershed protections that could veto development. This is not a cursory review; it&#8217;s a technical audit that must be cleared before capital is committed. We prioritize the integrity of the structure and the land, ensuring that environmental conditions don&#8217;t become late-stage project killers.<\/p>\n<h3>What happens if a zoning application is denied after capital is committed?<\/h3>\n<p>Our governance framework is designed to prevent this scenario through condition-driven land purchase agreements. We don&#8217;t commit full capital until permit contingencies are met. If an application is denied, our &#8220;stop-go&#8221; mechanism triggers an immediate exit to avoid the sunk cost fallacy. We reject the frantic urge to negotiate with unviable municipal positions. Instead, we rely on predefined proof of viability to protect the capital stack from political or administrative volatility.<\/p>\n<h3>Can PCMNow assist with existing projects that are stalled in the permit phase?<\/h3>\n<p>PCMNow Project Management can be deployed to rescue stalled projects by implementing a disciplined execution framework. We strip away the cost-plus mentality and replace it with a manufacturing-style workflow that focuses on construction-cost reality. By auditing the current permit status and engineering submissions, we identify the specific bottlenecks causing the delay. Our goal is to bridge the gap between regulatory theory and physical assembly, restoring the project&#8217;s path to long-term survivability.<\/p>\n<h3>How does &#8216;The Fox&#8217; operating system track regulatory milestones?<\/h3>\n<p>&#8216;The Fox&#8217; functions as a mechanical governor for asset management, tracking regulatory milestones as binary triggers for capital movement. It provides a centralized source of truth that removes subjective human error from the decision-making process. Every permit approval and technical clearance is documented within the system to ensure compliance with our internal governance standards. This allows us to maintain autonomous control over the project lifecycle, prioritizing structural permanence over the excitement of market trends.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Canada ranks 35th out of 38 OECD countries in construction permitting efficiency. This isn&#8217;t just a bureaucratic delay; it&#8217;s a structural threat to&#8230;<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":700,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[263],"tags":[48,9,6,331,330,17,332,329],"class_list":["post-699","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-housing-missing-middle","tag-asset-governance","tag-canadian-real-estate","tag-construction-management","tag-municipal-planning","tag-permit-approval","tag-real-estate-development","tag-risk-analysis","tag-zoning-risk","autoseo"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/vulpin.capital\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/699","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/vulpin.capital\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/vulpin.capital\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/vulpin.capital\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/vulpin.capital\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=699"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/vulpin.capital\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/699\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":702,"href":"https:\/\/vulpin.capital\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/699\/revisions\/702"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/vulpin.capital\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/700"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/vulpin.capital\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=699"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/vulpin.capital\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=699"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/vulpin.capital\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=699"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}