►
From YouTube: Built Heritage Committee - July 11, 2023
Description
Built Heritage Committee
Meeting #: 7
Date: Tuesday, July 11, 2023
Time: 9:30 am
Location: Champlain Room, 110 Laurier Avenue West, and by electronic participation
Agenda: https://pub-ottawa.escribemeetings.com/Meeting.aspx?Id=2e3afb5c-e7f9-4d98-a88b-b6f7bb9f56d4&Agenda=Agenda&lang=English
B
D
B
Well,
good
morning,
everybody
and
welcome
to
the
built
Heritage
committee
meeting
of
July
11
2023
I'd,
like
to
call
the
members
to
order.
This
hybrid
meeting
is
being
facilitated
through
zoom
and
is
being
held
on
the
traditional
territory
of
the
Algonquin
anishinaabe
Nation,
the
original
custodians
of
the
unseated
land
in
which
the
city
of
Ottawa
is
located.
We
extend
our
respect
to
all
First
Nations
Inuit
mati
peoples
for
their
valuable
past
and
present
contributions
to
this
land.
B
Since
this
meeting
of
this
committee
is
being
streamed,
lived
on,
the
Ottawa
city
council,
YouTube
channel
I'd
like
to
remind
participants
to
please
keep
your
microphones
muted
until
I
call
upon
you
to
speak
for
those
participating
here
in
the
committee
room.
Please
use
the
microphone
in
front
of
you
and
keep
your
computer
muted
I
will
provide
each
Committee
Member
with
the
opportunity
to
ask
questions
or
comment
on
each
item
in
the
order
in
which
they
raise
their
hand
in
Zoom.
B
The
committee
coordinator
and
I
will
be
watching
for
those
cues.
Members
are
also
reminded
to
submit
any
motions,
visual
supports
or
Declarations
of
interest
in
writing
to
the
coordinator
at
their
earliest
convenience.
Although
the
deadlines
have
passed
for
residents
to
register
to
speak
and
provide
written
submissions,
they
still
can
provide
written
submissions
to
council.
B
The
report
considered
today
will
be
submitted
to
Ottawa
city
council
tomorrow
on
July
12
2023,
a
reminder
that
if
participants
are
having
technical
issues
with
their
Zoom
connection,
they
may
call
in
using
the
backup
telephone
number
provided
by
the
coordinator.
I
have
received
regrets
from
Vice
chair
plot,
counselor,
Kelly
and
member
Lego.
Could
the
committee
coordinator,
please
call
the
roll
a
reminder
to
members
to
unmute
themselves
when
they
are
called.
F
F
E
B
B
B
B
Therefore,
be
it
resolved
that
consistency
with
the
objectives
and
policies
of
the
official
plan,
Rock
Cliff
Park
Secondary
plan
and
Heritage
Conservation
District
plan
be
considered
through
the
development
of
the
new
zoning
bylaw
and
the
direction
that
I
have
concerning.
This
motion
is
to
direct
staff
to
consider
ways
of
ensuring
compliance
with
approved
landscape
plans
in
Rock
Cliff
Park
through
the
development
of
the
Ontario
Heritage
act
enforcement
strategy.
G
G
The
subject
property
is
outlined
in
red
on
this
slide.
It's
a
grade,
2
property
located
in
Ward
12
on
the
east
side
of
Cloverdale
Road.
It
is
adjacent
to
grade
one
properties,
484
Cloverdale
and
560
Hillsdale
to
the
north,
the
vacant
property
to
the
South
and
the
rock
cliff
Lawn
Tennis
Club
to
the
east.
The
property
is
2080
square
meters
in
area
and
significantly
larger
than
many
of
the
surrounding
Lots
in
the
streetscape
next
slide.
Please.
G
The
lot
has
been
vacant
since
2003
and,
as
you
can
see
in
these
existing
condition
images,
it
is
heavily
vegetated
and
there's
also
a
natural
downward
sloping
grade
towards
the
rear
or
east
elevation.
Next
slide.
Please
so
I'll
review
a
bit
of
background
on
this
Slide.
The
top
left
image
shows
the
footprint
of
the
one-story
dwelling
that
existed
on
the
property
until
it
was
demolished,
along
with
its
Southern
neighbor
in
2003..
G
G
But
given
the
outstanding
issues,
the
built
Heritage
subcommittee
at
the
time
moved
to
deferred
decision
with
the
agreement
of
the
applicant
and
then
at
the
bottom
left.
There
you'll
see
that
the
applicant
came
back
with
a
revised
proposal
in
February
2022,
which
both
built
Heritage
subcommittee
and
Council
refused
on
staff's
recommendation,
as
it
did
not
address
the
concerns
from
the
previous
iteration
in
March
2022.
G
So,
although
the
proposal
evaluated
in
this
report
is
a
new
application,
there
are
changes
between
this
proposal
in
the
previous
iteration
that
are
worth
noting.
These
include
transposing
the
North
and
the
South
elevations
so
that
the
garage
volume
Which
is
closest
to
the
street
is
located
away
from
the
neighboring
grade,
one
property
further
revising
the
volume
of
the
floating
mass
and
tucking
it
further
back
between
the
North
and
the
South
wings.
G
G
G
G
Here
we
have
a
streetscape
elevation
and
rendering
along
Cloverdale
Road.
That
demonstrates
how
the
proposed
dwelling
will
interact
with
the
neighbor
in
grade
one
property,
the
proposed
two-story
height
along
Cloverdale,
complementary
natural
material
palette,
the
siding
and
the
Landscaping
allow
for
adequate
spacing
between
the
properties
and
allow
the
neighboring
grade,
one
property
to
remain
a
focal
point
along
Cloverdale.
Road
next
slide,
please.
G
The
applicant
is
also
proposing
the
retention
of
50
of
54
existing
trees
and
the
planting
of
57
new
coniferous
and
deciduous
species,
as
well
as
a
decorative
rear
yard,
roof
and
ground
pond
next
slide.
Please
so.
Staff
are
of
the
opinion
that
this
proposal
complies
with
The,
Rock,
Cliff,
Park,
hcd
policies
and
guidelines
and
the
standards
and
guidelines
for
the
conservation
of
historic
places
in
Canada,
and
that
it
will
have
little
impact
on
the
character
of
the
hcd
and
staff's
opinion.
G
The
arrangement
of
the
proposed
volume
and
the
sighting
of
the
new
house,
as
well
as
its
extensive
Landscaping,
will
help
mitigate
impacts
related
to
the
difference
in
size
between
this
property
and
the
adjacent
grade.
One
dwellings
next
slide,
please,
in
terms
of
consultation,
the
application
submission
materials
were
posted
on
dev
apps,
The,
Rock,
Cliff,
Park
residence
Association
was
notified
of
the
application
and
has
provided
comments
against
its
approval
and
Heritage
Ottawa
and
neighbors
within
30
meters
were
also
notified
of
the
application,
as
well
as
Chair
King.
B
You
thank
you
so
much
for
that
in-depth
presentation.
We
did
receive
correspondence
on
this
item
from
Kim
ratushny,
a
resident
who's
opposed
as
well
as
Susan
Peterson
on
behalf
of
Rock
Cliff
Park
Heritage
Outreach
committee,
who
is
also
opposed.
We
do
have
a
number
of
registered
speakers.
We
have
the
application
team
and
I
believe
that
Andrew
Reeves
of
the
architect
for
blind
box
Studio
does
have
a
presentation
for
the
committee.
H
H
Yes,
I
do
so
hi.
Thank
you,
chair
and
Heritage
subcommittee.
It's
it's
a
privilege
to
be
in
front
of
you
guys
and
present
our
perspective
as
The
Architects
on
this
on
this
file.
I'll
do
my
best
to
get
through
I
tend
to
ramble,
but
I'll
I'll
stick
to
my
two
minutes
and
pass
it
on
to
John.
John
I'll
bring
the
Heritage
perspective
and
I'll
try
to
negotiate
with
you
guys
about
the
slide
transitions.
H
I
I
live
in
the
neighborhood
and
my
my
kids
go
to
rock
the
public
and
play
tennis
in
the
neighborhood.
So
it's
definitely
a
an
area.
That
is
of
no
surprise
that
this
is
a
unique
site,
a
unique
Street
and
a
unique
community,
and
it
comes
with
great
responsibility
as
an
architect
to
have
the
privilege
to
even
look
at
a
property
of
this
magnitude
and
and
such
an
established
neighborhood.
H
For
me,
my
perspective
as
the
architect
is
context
and
my
definition
of
context
is
everything
woven
properly
together.
Not
just
one
particular
item:
I
see
it
as
the
client.
Obviously,
the
site,
wind
Sun,
built
environment,
the
street,
the
community
Ottawa
at
all
as
a
whole
and
I
believe
as
an
architect.
It's
your
responsibility
to
try
to
come
up
the
best
resolve
with
all
the
pressures
that
are
impacted
on
this
site
with
this
client
and
with
his
community
next
slide.
Please.
H
We
also
have
to
deal
with
the
technical
of
City
bylaws
dealing
with
City
staff
and
I
definitely
want
to
take
a
moment
to
thank
City
staff
for
constantly
consistently
having
open
dialogue
with
us
and
drawing
a
line
where
they
felt
things
needed
to
be
drawn
and
being
very
clear
on
their
issues.
It's
been,
it's
been
a
process,
but
I
do
believe
that
the
end
result
proves
that
proper
dialogue
and
interaction
only
makes
a
design
that
much
better.
H
For
us,
we
see
rock
cliff
as
probably
the
most
unique
neighborhood
in
Ottawa,
if
not
Ontario,
as
an
example
of
buildings
built
of
their
time
an
amazing
representation
of
those
Styles
everything
from
American
Colonial
to
modernism.
To
you
know,
post-modernism
I
think
rockleaf
has
an
amazing
example
of
homes
that
can
represent
any
one
of
these
Styles,
including
art,
Massey
house,
which
reached
Heritage
designation
at
the
international
style
of
beautiful
modernist.
Building
on
stilts,
so
rock
lift
for
me
is
an
example
of
proper
design
over
time
and
design
of
its
time.
H
So
we
approached
this
site
very
much
of
that.
We
walk
the
properties.
We
walk
the
properties
with
City.
We
walk
to
properties.
Our
own,
we
took
note
of
masting
along
the
street,
the
streetscape
itself.
Yes,
our
neighboring
properties,
but
also
the
buildings
around
us
to
try
to
figure
out
how
we
can
come
up
with
the
best
solution.
Overall
next
slide,
please
obviously
I
think
we've
all
appreciated
this
site
is
complicated.
H
One
more
slide
would
be
great
I
think
we
know
the
neighborhoods.
We
know
that
massing
around
this
site
has
three
story:
buildings.
It
has
contemporary
houses,
it
has
missed
entry,
modern
houses,
it
has
garages
facing
the
street.
It's
a
quite
eclectic,
Street
and
I
personally
find
that's
why
it's
exciting.
H
The
idea
was
to
screen
as
much
as
we
can
from
all
neighboring
properties
to
create
that
forest-like
field.
We
are
not
altering
any
existing
grades
in
this
application
and
we're
trying
to
screen
this
site
from
the
tennis
club
and
future.
Maybe
homes
around
us
so
what's
happening
now,
including
our
neighboring
down
to
the
South,
is
what's
going
to
be
there,
so
we
have
to
try
to
figure
out
how
to
design
something
that
appreciates
all
aspects
and
all
inputs
and
all
pressures
onto
the
design.
H
Next
slide,
please
understand
so
for
us,
it's
about
the
public
realm
and
it's
about
walking
up
and
down
the
street.
It's
about
a
client
that
wants
to
raise
a
family
and
rock
life
is
about
a
client
that
wants
their
family
to
live
with
them
in
rock
life.
It's
about
the
experience
along
this
street
and
it's
not
a
particular
one
project.
H
It's
how
it
all
is
woven
in
and
yes,
including,
maybe
the
street,
that
next
to
the
right
of
us,
that
will
be
there
it's
about
creating
a
nice
community
and
about
creating
something
that
we
feel
Form
and
Function
Works.
Overall.
In
response
to
the
overall
versus
one
particular
item,
we
like
to
believe
this
image
shows
that
we
are
going
to
screen
the
building
with
existing
natural
landscape.
We
are
going
to
add
all
the
landscape
elements
to
help.
Keep
that
forest-like
feel
there's
going
to
be
no
change
existing
grade.
The
front
door
is
dominant.
H
H
I
Chair
King
and
members
of
the
build
heritage
committee.
Thank
you
for
the
opportunity
to
speak.
The
Heritage
assessment
was
prepared
by
Commonwealth,
based
on
the
assessment.
It
was
concluded
that
the
design
is
respectful
of
the
Rock
Cliff
Park
conservation
guidelines
and
is
generally
consistent
with
the
applicable
Parks
Canada
standards
and
guidelines,
foreign
with
the
city's
assessment,
and
concludes
that
the
plan
for
480
Cloverdale
Avenue
isn't
keeping
with
the
character-defining
attributes
of
the
district,
including
strong
landscape
of
individual
properties.
J
I
And
the
visual
flow
of
the
spaces
from
one
property
to
the
next,
by
continuous
planting,
rather
than
hard
fence
lines
and
maintaining
the
estate
qualities
and
park,
setting
envisioned
by
Kiefer
slide.
Two,
please
acknowledging
the
grade.
One
building
next
door,
the
height
and
mass
of
the
new
building,
has
been
adjusted
and
broken
up
with
a
plan
orientation
and
that
follows
the
sighting
of
the
original
demolished
property.
You
see
the
demolished
property
with
the
entrance
and
the
side
garage
and
the
building
set
back
behind
the
grade
one
building
next
door.
I
The
rich
mix
of
building
types
and
files
from
an
era
from
all
ears
is
a
defining
attribute,
as
recommended
in
the
district
plan.
The
design
of
the
new
house
is
of
its
own
time,
but
harmonizes
with
its
setting
in
its
presentation
and
generous
use
of
noble
materials,
including
Limestone,
copper
and
wood.
While
the
proposals
does
not
exhibit
the
picturesque
principles
found
in
some
parts
of
the
hcd,
it
is
certainly
within
the
vocabulary
of
modern
homes
that
existed
before
and
after
designation
and
the
guidelines
were
implemented.
I
A
number
of
these
homes
are
acknowledged
as
contributing
to
the
district's
value.
The
unobtrusive
sighting
to
the
house
on
the
street
and
the
generous
spacing
relative
to
the
neighboring
buildings
is
another.
Had
I
defined,
attribute
the
concept
of
blink
pods
capitalizes
on
the
use
on
the
site's
unique
characteristics.
We
call
ecstatic
mature,
woodlot,
significant
existing
grades,
all
of
which
are
attributes
of
rock
clip
art
DNA
next
slide.
Please,
the
home
is
large
with
a
GFA
of
759
meters
square.
I
It
takes
full
advantage
of
its
setting,
which
is
significantly
larger
than
the
surrounding
Lots
along
the
street.
The
building
site
and
Forum
are
not
an
anomaly
throat
raw
Cliff.
There
are
equivalent
scaled
homes
which
are
compatible
and
consistent
contributing
to
their
streetscapes
and
neighboring
properties.
Next
slide,
please,
the
following:
stats:
provide
the
following:
stats:
provide
a
comparison
as
part
of
the
mitigation
and
the
effort
to
respond
to
comments
from
the
city
in
the
community.
I
Over
the
course
of
the
design
mitigation
measures
have
been
Incorporated
to
reduce
the
height
the
visual
impact
of
the
building
size
along
the
north
and
increase
setbacks.
Next
slide,
please,
the
design
responds
to
a
program
set
out
by
the
owner
to
create
a
home
that
can
accommodate
three
generations
of
family.
I
B
B
K
I'm
having
trouble
but
good
morning,
my
name
is
Kim
ratushny
and
I'm.
A
lawyer
in
the
Ottawa
area.
I
am
appearing
today,
along
with
my
husband,
Kent
Manderville.
We
are
the
registered
owners
of
and
reside
at
484
Cloverdale
Road,
which
is
a
grade
one
property
in
the
associated
streetscape,
and
immediately
adjacent
to
Via
applicant's
property
at
480.
Cloverdale
both
are
grade
one
property
at
484
Cloverdale
and
the
applicant's
property
at
480.
Cloverdale
are
situated
within
the
rock
of
Park
Heritage
Conservation
District
both
are
property
at
484
Cloverdale
and
the
applicant's
property
at
480.
K
Cloverdale
are
subject
to
the
legal
requirements
imposed
by
The
Rock
Cliff
Park
Heritage
Conservation
District
plan,
as
approved
by
city
of
Ottawa
bylaw
number
2016-89,
and
brought
into
full
force
in
effect
in
2019.
Pursuant
to
the
processes
in
part
5
of
the
Ontario
Heritage
act.
We
recognize
that
our
continued
opposition
to
the
latest
proposed
construction
could
be
viewed
as
NIMBY
or
not
in
my
backyard.
However,
we
sincerely
believe
that
the
protection
of
Rockland
Park's
Heritage
Green
Space,
is
at
stake.
K
We
submit
that
a
Central
purpose
of
rock
cliff
Park's
Heritage
Conservation
District
designation,
is
to
guard
against
two
large
buildings
taking
over
rockle
of
Park's
Heritage
green
spaces.
It
is
a
fundamental
principle
of
administrative
law
that
has
a
statutory
decision
maker.
The
committee
on
behalf
of
the
city
of
Ottawa
has
no
more
discretion
to
issue
a
Heritage
permit
than
what
has
been
granted
to
you
under
the
governing
legislative
scheme.
You
do
not
have
absolute
discretion
to
make
a
decision
on
any
ground
or
for
any
reason
that
is
suggested
to
you.
K
Any
decision
you
make
must
comply
with
the
specific
constraints
imposed
by
the
governing
legislative
scheme.
Section
7.4.2,
sub
3
of
The
Rock
of
Park
Heritage
Conservation
District
plan
imposes
such
a
determinative
statutory
test
for
this
application.
Under
the
statutory
scheme
of
part
5
of
the
Ontario
Heritage
Act
excerpts
from
section
7.4.2
sub
3
of
the
plan
that
restrict
new
building
mass
and
height
in
our
Cloverdale
streetscape
read
as
follows,
and
I
quote,
construction
of
new
buildings
will
only
be
permitted
when
the
height
and
mass
of
the
new
building
are
consistent
with
the
grade.
K
One
buildings
in
the
associated
streetscape,
the
term
consistent,
is
used
and
not
compatible.
The
term
compatible
is
used
elsewhere
in
section
7.4.2
sub
3.,
the
Rockland
Park
Heritage
Conservation
District
plan
and
the
Ontario
Heritage
act
limit
the
mass
and
height
of
any
new
construction
at
480
Cloverdale.
Such
construction
must
be
consistent
with
the
mass
and
height
of
our
home
at
484
Cloverdale,
which
is
the
only
remaining
grade.
One
home
in
the
associated
streetscape,
as
defined
in
the
plan.
I
will
first
address
the
proposed
building
Mass
to
demonstrate
drastically
non-compliant
building
mass
of
the
proposed
construction.
K
We
refer
this
committee
to
the
entirety
of
our
July
8
2023
letter
to
you
and
highlight
the
enclosed
reports
that
demonstrate
that
the
proposed
building
mass
of
the
previous
application
at
480
Cloverdale
in
2022
was
3.54
times
more
massive
I'll
repeat
that
3.54
times
more
massive
than
our
adjacent
comparator
grade,
one
home.
We
have
explained
in
our
July
8th
letter
to
you
why
the
2022
building
messing
reports
continue
to
provide
evidence
of
drastically
non-compliant.
K
Building
mass
in
respect
of
this
latest
application
in
2023
I
will
now
address
the
proposed
Building
height
to
demonstrate
drastically
non-compliant
Building
height
of
the
proposed
construction.
We
refer
you
to
the
entirety
of
our
July
8
2023
letter
and
highlight
that,
unlike
much
of
the
proposed
new
building
height
at
480
Cloverdale,
our
grade
1
comparator
home,
never
at
any
point
exposes
three
full
stories
of
building
above
ground.
K
As
the
owner
of
the
grade,
one
property
expressly
referred
to
in
the
Rockland
Park
Heritage
Conservation
District
plan
adopted
by
the
city
of
Ottawa
pursuant
to
bylaw
at
2016-89
and
in
full
force,
in
effect
in
2023
following
the
statutory
processes
in
part
5
of
the
Ontario
Heritage
act.
We
are
a
party
with
standing
to
this
proceeding
in
respect
of
past
and
ongoing
proposed
construction
at
480
Cloverdale.
K
We
rely
on
all
of
our
written
and
oral
submissions
to
date
to
officials
of
the
city
of
Ottawa,
beginning
on
November
16
2021
continuing
through
to
our
written
correspondence
to
this
committee
and
City
Council
on
July
8,
2023
and
continuing
through
to
our
all
submissions
to
this
committee
today,
July
11
2023.
Should
the
committee
choose
to
Grant
the
requested
Heritage
permit
respectfully,
the
committee
would
be
acting
ultravirus.
The
committee
would
be
acting
Beyond,
its
statutory
Authority,
and
this
necessarily
would
render
such
a
decision
by
the
committee,
unreasonable
and
without
statutory
jurisdiction.
B
L
L
I
won't
take
the
full
five
minutes,
but
I
did
want
to
say
and
I
appreciate
the
Architects
words
on
this.
But
you
know
my
wife
and
I
we've
been
in
the
neighborhood,
for
you
know
it's
almost
20
years
our
kids
went
to
rpra
as
well.
We've
been
Volunteers
in
the
in
the
in
the
neighborhood
for
a
number
of
years,
and
we
feel
very
strongly
about
this
position
and
it's
a
special
place.
L
B
B
B
I
will
defer
that
question
to
staff
I'll
just
speak
first
to
the
intention
of
my
motion,
which
is
just
to
seek
a
consistency,
especially
around
areas
of
of
height
with
the
zoning
bylaw
I
know
that
we're
going
to
have
a
little
bit
more
discussion
about
that
since
we
do
have
chair
leaper
around
the
table.
As
a
member
of
this
of
this
committee
and
I'm
in
agreements
that
we
should
have.
B
G
Thank
you,
chair
to
member
Madigan.
So
when
we
were
looking
at
consistency
of
this
property,
we
looked
at
the
arrangement
of
the
volumes.
What
the
massing
shows,
not
just
with
the
property
itself,
but
also
at
the
streetscape
and
with
the
neighboring
grade,
one
property,
and
what
we
determined
was
that
the
front
yard
setback
is
consistent
with
the
neighboring
setback
and
it
allows
a
massing
that
provides
generous
spacing
between
the
neighboring
property
and
the
proposed
building.
G
There's
also
allowed
the
grade
one
property
to
remain
prominent
in
the
streetscape
in
terms
of
height.
So
yes,
the
proposed
two-story
flat
roof
is
approximately
0.06
meters
taller
than
the
neighboring
grade.
One
property
when
measured
from
the
base
of
the
ground
to
the
top
of
the
neighbor's
cable
group,
but
generally
that
two-story
height,
is
consistent
with
the
grade.
One
property
in
the
streetscape.
C
Just
a
follow-up
question
on
that:
I've
cheers
to
the
staff
member
so
with
respect
to
massing,
because
it's
been
broken
up
and
and
pulled
away
from
the
great
one
house.
That's
interpreted
then
as
being
consistent
and
not
sort
of
a
hard
calculation
that
the
massing
has
to
be
approximately
equal
to
the
massing
of
the
grade.
One
house
or
within
a
certain
percentage,
increased.
G
G
C
M
Excuse
me
sorry,
I,
would
agree,
I,
think
that's
consistent
with
our
approach
and
I.
Think
luis's
comment
about
the
idea
that
you
know
the
htd
plan
is
not
a
zoning
bylaw,
it's
not
as
specific
as
a
zoning
bylaw
that
has
you
know.
Maximum
height
is
nine
meters.
It
doesn't
talk
about
that.
It's
about
mitigating
impacts
is
about
what
is
the
visual
impact?
B
Thank
you.
Thank
you
and
I
know
that
Michelle
Heyman
has
joined
us
for
for
her
delegation.
So
what
I'm
going
to
suggest
with
the
concurrence
of
committee
is
that
we
continue
with
member
Quinn's
questions
and
she
has
her
hand
raised
to
to
just
ensure
continuity
and
then
go
back
briefly
for
another
delegation
and
then
resume
with
questions.
So
member
Quinn.
J
N
B
N
Apologize
for
the
challenges,
I
thought
I
was
I,
thought
I
was
in
the
room
and
therefore
that's.
Why
trust
me?
The
frustration
and
stress
level
was
immense.
So
thank
you
for
waiting
for
me.
I
very
much
appreciate
it.
So
I'll
start
by
saying
my
name
is
Michelle.
Heyman
and
I
am
Heritage
VP
for
the
Rock
Cliff
Park
residence
Association.
My
comments
are
related
not
only
to
the
effect
of
this
application
on
the
neighboring
grade,
one
home
on
the
associated
streetscape,
but
on
the
negative
impact
to
the
entire
Heritage
Conservation
District.
N
Please
refer
to
my
complete
submission
title
document.
14
rpra
formal
comments
stated
29
June,
29
2023.
The
question
is
not
has
the
applicant
made
changes
but
has
the
applicant
made
enough
changes
to
be
compliant
with
the
Heritage
Conservation
District
plan?
Hereafter
called
the
plan?
The
Heritage
committee
believes
they
still
have
not.
There
has
been
no
reduction
in
lot
coverage,
which
is
still
at
22
percent,
and
only
a
GFA
reduction
of
18.2
meters
squared
less
than
two
percent.
N
When
the
Rockledge
Park
Heritage
committee
provides
comments
on
an
application,
we
are
directed
as
we
are
directed
in
section
4.1
of
the
plan.
We
use
the
same
metrics
as
City
Heritage
planners
today.
I
will
focus
on
the
plan
and
the
City
of
Ottawa
zoning
bylaws
see
my
submission
for
full
analysis.
Note
that
in
a
Heritage
Conservation
District,
it
is
not
enough
to
be
compliant
with
the
zoning
bylaws.
It
is
the
more
restrictive
and
limiting
language
of
the
plan,
which
must
be
used
to
determine
if
a
Heritage
permit
can
be
issued.
N
Various
sections
of
the
plan
discuss
the
importance
of
mass
and
height
as
key
determinants
of
compliance.
Please
see
my
submission
of
particular
importance
is
section
7.2.3,
which
states
construction
of
new
buildings
will
only
be
permitted
when
the
new
building
does
not
detract
from
a
historic
landscape.
Characteristics
of
the
associated
streetscape,
the
height
and
mass
of
the
new
building
are
consistent
with
the
grade.
One
buildings
on
the
associated
streetscape
and
the
siding
and
materials
of
the
new
building
are
compatible
with
the
grade
one
buildings
in
the
associated
streetscape.
N
Some
could
argue
that
a
larger
lot
would
permit
a
larger
home,
which
is
erroneous.
It
is
imperative
to
understand
that
within
the
Heritage
Conservation
District,
the
grade
one
home
on
the
associated
streetscape
is
the
limiting
metric.
It
does
not
matter
that
the
zoning
mylaw
May
permit
a
larger
home.
The
plan
does
not
the
lot
next
door
could
be
the
size
of
Ontario
and
the
permitted
mass
of
the
house
would
still
have
to
be
consistent
with
the
grade
one
home
on
the
associated
streetscape.
N
In
this
case,
the
proposed
structure
is
3.54
times
larger
in
mass
and
than
the
grade
one
home
on
the
associated
streetscape
and
is
therefore
not
consistent
and
not
compliant
with
the
plan.
Various
sections
of
the
plan
discuss
the
importance
of
soft
and
Green
Landscaping
as
key
determinants
of
compliance.
Please
see
my
submission
for
for
greater
details,
while
many
of
the
trees
will
be
preserved.
N
The
flow
between
the
trees
to
open
space
in
the
park-like
setting
will
be
obscured
by
the
obtrusive
mass
of
the
proposed
design,
which
continues
to
negatively
impact
the
view
shed
of
484
Cloverdale.
The
tennis
Sports
Neighbors
in
the
public
realm
along
Cloverdale
and
Lansdowne
Landscaping
should
not
be
used
as
a
mitigating
measure.
It
is
a
feature
in
itself.
Mitigation
implies.
There
is
something
wrong
with
the
original
design.
N
The
zoning
bylaw
is
an
important
reference
for
the
Heritage
committee
because
of
an
application
is
not
compliant
with
zoning.
It
must
certainly
not
being
compliant
with
the
Heritage
Conservation
District
plan.
Two
key
metrics
are
at
the
maximum
limit,
including
the
gross
floor
area
and
the
FSI.
This
reason
the
Heritage
committee,
through
the
Heritage
planner,
asked
the
applicant
to
clearly
demonstrate
the
GFA
figures
for
each
of
the
floors
separately,
including
the
lower
floor.
What
is
called
a
basement
by
the
applicant?
We
have
not
received
an
answer
exception.
N
1259
requires
a
double-story
open
space,
be
counted
as
two
floors,
which
increases
the
GFA
and
FSI.
We
do
not
know
if
this
was
properly
counted.
If
not,
the
application
is
grossly
over
the
chromosphol,
GFA
and
FSI.
We
also
raise
the
issue
as
to
whether
the
basement
was
in
fact
a
basement
note
that
the
lowest
floor
is
situated
only
6.5
centimeters
the
length
of
my
pinky
below
the
measurement
to
qualify
as
a
basement.
N
Such
a
small
margin
can
easily
disappear
during
construction,
in
which
case
the
low
floor
floor
would
count
towards
the
GFA
and
FSI,
and
the
house
would
grossly
exceed
what
is
permissible.
We
asked
Heritage
staff
to
query
zoning
compliance.
The
zoning
officer
communicated
the
compliance
with
zoning
would
only
be
determined
until
a
building
permit
is
issued.
If
at
that
point
it
is
determined
not
to
be
compliant,
it
will
be
too
late
and
the
structure
will
have
received
a
Heritage
permit.
N
The
applicant
will
then
seek
a
variance
and
the
end
result
will
be
the
erosion
of
our
heritage,
Conservation
District.
A
third
and
final
area
of
concern
is
inconsistent
and
incomplete
documentation,
as
outlined
in
my
submission.
For
example,
some
of
the
elevation
drawings
included
on
dev
apps
are
old
and
no
longer
imply
the
comparative
height
analysis,
including
the
grade.
One
house
does
not
allow
for
a
determination
of
the
actual
height
of
the
grade,
one
home
since
the
above
sea
level
measurement
is
given,
but
no
base
measurement
is
given.
N
How
is
the
public
or
the
city
expected
to
make
a
decision
based
on
incomplete
and
inconsistent
information?
In
conclusion,
you
are
being
asked
to
approved
an
application
that
has
various
inconsistencies,
is
lacking
key
information
with
the
strong
possibility
of
not
complying
with
zoning
and,
most
importantly,
not
being
compliant
with
various
sections
of
the
Heritage
Conservation
District
plan.
Is
this
reasonable?
We
submit
that
it
is
not
and
respectfully
requested
this
application
should
be
denied.
N
The
spell
application
is
one
of
many
examples
of
how
the
Green
Space
is
supposedly
protected
on
the
statutes
of
the
plan
are
being
rapidly
eroded
by
Massive
developments
that
are
not
in
keeping
with
the
objectives
of
the
plan.
Approving
this
application
would
set
an
erroneous
precedence
that
would
permit
future
development,
that
is
in
violation
of
the
rock
of
Park
Heritage
Conservation
District
plan,
thereby
having
a
negative
effect
on
every
streetscape
in
the
Heritage
Conservation
District.
N
B
G
G
That
being
said
grade
is
calculated
through
the
zoning
bylaw,
which
defines
what
constitutes
a
basement
for
zoning
purposes,
and
the
Heritage
Conservation
District
plan
itself
in
terms
of
grading
asks
or
requires
that
the
existing
grades
be
maintained.
So
when
we
were
evaluating
this
application,
we
determined
that
the
proposed
building
does
maintain
and
works
with
the
existing
grades
on
the
site.
G
G
So
there
isn't
an
exact
number
that
we
could
provide.
There
aren't
any
specific
guidelines
or
policies
in
the
hcd
plan
that
speak
to
double
Lots,
but
what
we
do
look
at
is
the
lot
and
its
concept
context
in
its
size
in
relation
with
the
streetscape
and
in
relation
with
any
other
grade,
one
properties
along
the
streetscape
itself.
G
G
So
we
certainly
do
look
at
the
grade,
one
property
and
consider
it's
when
evaluating
applications
and
I.
Think
the
reduction
of
size
is
something
that
staff
can
consider
when
it's
warranted.
But
again
there
are
so
many
different
considerations,
including
the
existing
lot
size
that
we
consider.
Okay,.
B
G
Sure,
yeah,
so
I
think
the
style
itself
is
actually
quite
similar
to
previous
iterations
that
we've
seen
it
employs
that
General
H
shape
and
it's
not
significantly
smaller,
but
I
think
the
biggest
difference
between
this
proposal
and
the
last
is
that
that
garage
volume
is
transposed
so
that
the
longest
part
of
the
house
is
now
the
furthest
part
from
the
adjacent
grade.
One
property
and
what
that's
allowed
this
proposal
to
do
is
provide
that
continuity
in
landscape
between
the
two
properties,
and
it's
allowed
that
grade
one
property
to
remain
prominent
along
the
streetscape.
G
The
biggest
one,
I
would
say
is
the
change
in
the
massing,
so
the
arrangement
and
the
volumes,
but
there
were
other
minor
considerations,
including
some
Landscaping
changes
addition
of
additional
plantings
as
well
as
there
is
a
previously
a
rooftop
terrorist
proposed
at
the
front
and
that's
just
a
green
riff.
Now,
okay,.
G
Sure
yeah,
so
the
the
Landscaping
conditions
are
twofold.
So
we're
asking
for
a
finalized
landscape
plan
tree
information
report
as
well
as
a
sciencing
plan
and
that's
to
ensure
that
the
existing
trees,
so
the
the
50
of
54
that
are
proposed
to
be
maintained
are
protected
during
the
construction
phase
and
then
the
second
part
of
that
is
to
ensure
that
whatever
plantings
are
finalized
for
this
property
are
an
appropriate
species
and
size
in
in
review
with
our
arborist
to
ensure
that
they
do
act
as
an
appropriate
buffer
to
other
properties.
Okay,.
B
E
B
G
B
J
J
J
One
of
the
speakers
mentioned
that
the
design
that
the
the
masking
takes
up
22
percent
of
the
lot
coverage,
even
with
the
new
iteration
before
us,
but
I,
saw
in
much
of
the
documentation
with
this
file,
which
I
I
looked
at
all
of
it,
with
the
reviewing
eight
properties
around
this
one.
Only
one
other
has
a
lot
coverage
that
is
less
than
22
percent,
and
it's
the
neighboring
property
at
480..
J
B
Thank
you.
So
much
does
anybody
else
have
comments
before
we
look
at
an
amending
motion.
That's
before
us
from
counselor,
leaper
I,
don't
see
anybody
else,
but
I
do
have
a
few
comments.
Some
with
my
interest
as
being
the
counselor
for
the
area.
I
really
do
want
to
thank
staff
and
the
community
for
all
the
work
that
they've
undertaken
on
this
file.
Not
unlike
member
Quinn.
B
You
know
I
experienced
a
lot
of
discussion
and
debates
around
this
as
well,
and
we
know
that
there's
a
pretty
detailed
chronology
that
staff
has
laid
out.
We
know
that
an
initial
version
of
this
application
was
submitted
and
considered
by
the
built
Heritage
subcommittee
in
November.
2021
staff
recommended
approval
of
the
application
conditional
upon
the
massing
of
the
north
elevation
being
reconfigured
and
the
overall
length
of
the
building
being
reduced.
B
B
B
One
property
is
located
away
from
the
neighboring
grade.
One
property
revising
the
volume
of
the
floating
mass
and
relocating
it
between
the
North
and
South
Wings,
rather
than
as
extension
of
the
north
wing
and
reducing
the
total
length
of
the
building
by
3.2
meters.
Also
increasing
the
front
yard
setback
which
we
heard
during
the
presentation
in
a
subsequent
question
by
two
meters
and
the
rare
yard
set
back
by
3.3
meters.
Staff
has
determined
that
the
proposal
is
now
consistent
with
hcd
standards.
B
Reducing
the
size
of
the
house
and
flipping
it
away
from
the
north
has
created
an
extended
landscape
separating
the
neighborhood
building,
also
producing
a
less
prominent
facade,
along
with
the
north
property
line
and
a
deeper
rare
yard.
The
proposed
design
locates
substantially
more
of
the
home
on
the
southern
edge
of
the
site
to
reduce
the
impact
on
the
neighboring
designated
house.
B
Furthermore,
on
the
north
side
of
the
property,
the
proposed
home
is
set
back
over
23
meters
from
the
property
line
to
extend
that
its
front
and
Edge
is
in
line
with
the
rare
yard
of
the
adjacent
property.
This
was
done
to
help
the
existing
neighbors
maintain
the
park-like
setting
they
currently
enjoy.
B
Staff
argue
that
the
Heritage
value
of
the
district
is
conserved,
and
the
proposal
is
designed
to
maintain
most
of
the
existing
landscape
features,
including
the
extensive
tree
canopy
sloping
grade
and
dominance
of
soft
Landscaping.
The
new
proposed
building
is
cited
to
create
more
spacing
between
neighboring
properties.
B
Its
two-story
height
is
consistent
with
the
streetscape,
and
its
rare
three-story
height
will
be
buffered
with
generous
landscaping
and
setbacks.
The
largest
challenge,
which
has
been
identified
by
the
residence
Association
and
with
which
I
agree,
revolves
around
the
grading
impact,
as
we
heard
from
staff
rating,
is
calculated
through
the
zoning
bylaw,
which
defines
what
constitutes
a
basement
for
zoning
purposes.
The
only
issue
related
to
grade
in
the
hcv
plan
is
the
policy
that
requires
that
existing
grades
be
maintained.
B
Therefore,
that's
the
reason
why
under
Section
79
of
the
procedure,
bylaw
I
introduced
a
motion
that
ensures
we
seek
consistency
between
the
Rock,
Cliff,
Park,
Heritage,
Conservation
District
plan,
the
official
Plan
and
the
New
zoning
bylaw
and
I
know
that
chair
Lieber
in
his
capacity
of
chair
of
planning
committee,
is
proposing
a
motion
and
I'll.
Let
him
do
that,
but
I
have
to
say.
I
obviously
will
agree
with
with.
B
In
addition,
I'm
I'm
also
introducing
a
direction
to
staff
to
ensure
compliance
with
a
Heritage
permit,
specifically,
when
approved
landscape
plans,
make
up
a
significant
reason
to
support
a
new
building
in
a
Heritage
Conservation
District
I'm
pleased
that
this
direction
will
protect
not
only
applications
such
as
the
one
before
us,
but
all
Heritage
permits
that
accompany
specific
landscape
plans.
As
we
know,
the
landscape
holds
just
as
many
attributes
to
the
culture
and
prominence
of
a
Heritage
Conservation
District
as
the
building
or
location
itself.
B
B
D
Thanks
chair
and
chair,
King's
motion
has
passed
that
Council
ensured
consistency
with
the
objectives
and
policies
of
the
official
plan.
Rock
Cliff
Park
Secondary
plan
and
Heritage
Conservation
District
plan
be
considered
through
the
development
of
the
new
zoning
bylaw
I'm
moving.
That,
therefore,
be
it
resolved
that
the
recommendation
be
referred
to
the
planning
and
housing
committee
for
consideration
at
its
next
meeting.
D
B
J
J
Yeah,
thank
you.
No
I,
don't
have
it
so
yeah,
whereas
implications
yes,
so
the
new,
comprehensive
zoning
bylaw
is
is,
is
this
is
a
little
bit
I
guess
like
putting
the
kind
of
the
card
before
the
horse
a
little
bit
here.
Are
we
with
this
motion,
I
just
I'm,
hoping
that
councilor
Lieber
can
clarify
that,
just
because
we
don't
have
the
comprehensive
new
zoning
bylaw,
so
we're
not
what
what
are
the
implications
potentially.
D
D
The
accounts
for
Kings
amending
motion
on
this
report
that
we've
just
carried,
speaks
to
I
think
the
an
emphasis
on
consistency
with
a
bunch
of
different
rock
cliff
specific
plans
and
before
we
send
staff
away
with
a
specific
recommendation
on
on
treating
the
rock
cliff
secondary
plan
for
the
rock
of
Heritage
Conservation
District
plan
and
a
secondary
plan.
For
instance,
I.
D
Just
like
the
rest
of
the
planning
committee
to
be
able
to
weigh
in
ask
our
study
planners
what
kind
of
implications
they
expect
that
might
have
for
what
the
finals
comprehensive
zoning
bylaw
review
would
look
like
and
and
weigh
in
with
additional
direction
if
they
feel
it's
appropriate.
On
on
what
the
comprehensive
zoning
bylaws
should
look
like
for
the
properties
in
the
rockle
of
Heritage
District,
Conservation
Area.
So
that's
I,
don't
anticipate!
It
would
be
a
long
conversation.
D
But
if
I
want
to
have
members
of
the
team
who
are
doing
the
comprehensive
zoning
by
law
review
in
front
of
us
to
talk
to
them
about
what
they
think,
the
implications
would
be
and
provide
an
opportunity
for
the
committee.
That
is
doing
the
comprehensive
zoning
by
law
review
to
add
any
additional
instructions
in
color
to
two
planners
as
they
go
up
on
their
work.
B
Excellent,
thank
you
so
much
for
the
question.
Member
Quinn
so
is
counselor
leapers
motion
carried
carried.
Thank
you
so
much.
The
next
item
on
our
agenda
is
status.
Updates,
built
Heritage
committee
inquiries,
emotions
for
the
period
ending
June
23rd
2023.
There
is
no
presentation
on
this
item.
There
are
no
registered
speakers
and
no
correspondence.
B
Seeing
none
do
any
of
the
members.
Have
any
comments
on
this
item
and
I
see
no
hands
his
report
received
received?
Thank
you
so
much.
There
are
no
in-camera
items
today
in
terms
of
information
previously
distributed.
There
is
an
item
on
Heritage
impacts
of
the
proposed
provincial
planning
statement.
There's
no
presentation
on
this
item,
but
that
information
has
been
circulated
to
the
full
committee
for
its
review.
Are
there
any
notices
of
motion
seeing
none?
Are
there
any
inquiries.